2009-01-12_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour � s�, ��
�. ,�,'}
� '��!�
,`�; '
�� . ��1 .�
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday,January 12, 2009
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
5:00 p.m. Council Chamber
Regular Meeting
1. Call to Order—Prayer
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Minutes of December 22, 2008
3. Adoption of Agenda
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 Greater Saint John Understanding the Early Years Report (Recommendation:
Receive for Information)
5.2 Letter From Eric Teed Regarding Town Crier (Recommendation: Receive for
Information)
5.3 Horst Sauerteig Follow-up Letter Regarding Brunswick Pipeline Emergency
Procedures Manual (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager)
5.4 Letter from Frank Rodgers Regarding Public Enquiry Resolution
(Recommendation: Receive for Information)
5.5 Presetation - Record of our Management/Professional Employees
(Recommendation: Receive for Information)
5.6 Land Acquisition Thorne Avenue Lift Station 4 Project Easement through
lands of HBL Rentals Inc. (Recommendation in Report)
5.7 Management Professional Non-Union Association Letter Regarding
Respectful Public Discourse (Recommendation: Receive for Information)
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation
7.1 MindCare's Mental Health Matters Week
8. Delegations / Presentations
5:15 p.m.
8.1(a) Peel Plaza Steering Committee Project Delivery Options EXecutive
Summary
8.1(b) Peel Plaza Full Report
1
9. Public Hearings
10. Consideration of By-laws
11. Submissions by Council Members
11.1 Commissions, Boards and Committees of Common Council(Councillor
Snook)
11.2 Community Consultation for Development (Councillor Snook)
11.3 Budget/Solid Waste (Councillor Titus)
12. Business Matters—Municipal Officers
12.1 Questions and Directions from Common Council Re: 2009 Operational
Budget
12.2 Budget Options: Tax Reduction
13. Committee Reports
13.1 Lord Beaverbrook Rink Re: Recent Repairs and Funding Request
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15. General Correspondence
16. Adjournment
2
� s�, ��
�. ,�,'}
� '��!�
,`�; '
�� . ��1 .�
City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 12 janvier 2009
Comite plenier
1. Ouverture de la seance
17 h Salle du conseil
Seance ordinaire
1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
2. Approbation du proces-verbal
2.1 Proces-verbal de la seance tenue le 22 decembre 2008
3. Adoption de 1'ordre du jour
4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets
5. Questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil
5.1 Rapport du projet Comprendre la petite enfance du Grand Saint John
(recommandation : accepter a titre informati fl
5.2 Lettre re�ue d'Eric Teed relative au crieur du village (recommandation :
accepter a titre informati fl
5.3 Lettre de suivi re�ue de Horst Sauerteig relative au Manuel de procedures
d'urgence de Brunswick Pipeline (recommandation : transmettre au directeur
general)
5.4 Lettre re�ue de Frank Rodgers relative a la resolution de 1'enquete publique
(recommandation : accepter a titre informati fl
5.5 Presentation du Rapport sur notre direction et nos employes professionnels
5.6 Acquisition fonciere de la station de relevement ri 4 de 1'avenue Thorne—
Servitude des terrains de HBL Rentals Inc. (recommandation figurant au rapport)
5.7 MNPU Lettre Concernant le Discours Public Respectueux
6. Commentaires presentes par les membres
7. Proclamation
7.1 Semaine des questions de sante mentale de MindCare
8. Delegations et presentations
17 h 15
8.1(a) Resume des options de livraison du projet de comite directeur pour la place
Peel
8.1b) Rapport complet sur la place Peel
3
9. Audiences publiques
10. Etude des arretes municipaux
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
11.1 Commissions, conseils et comites du conseil communal (conseiller Snook)
11.2 Consultation communautaire en vue d'un developpement (conseiller Snook)
11.3 Budget/dechets solides (conseiller Titus)
12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux
12.1 Questions et orientations du conseil communal relativement au budget de
fonctionnement de 2009
12.2 Options budgetaires : reduction d'impots
13. Rapports deposes par les comites
13.1 Arena Lord Beaverbrook relativement aux reparations recentes et a une
demande de financement
14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil
15. Correspondance generale
16. Levee de la seance
4
94-195
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
COMMON COUNCIL MEETING —THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
CITY HALL— DECEMBER 22, 2008 5:00 P.M.
present
Ivan Court, Mayor
Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors Court, Farren, Killen,
Higgins, McGuire, Mott, Snook, Sullivan, and Titus
- and -
T. Totten, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; G. Yeomans,
Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; P. Groody,
Commissioner of Municipal Operations; K. Forrest,
Commissioner of Planning and Development; A. Poffenroth,
Deputy Commissioner of Buildings and Inspection Services; A.
Beckett, Deputy City Manager; D.Cooper Police Sergeant; M.
Gillen, Deputy Fire Chief, B. Morrison, Commissioner of Leisure
Services; E. Gormley, Common Clerk and J. Taylor, Assistant
Common Clerk.
SEANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
A L'HOTEL DE VILLE, LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008 A 17 H
Sont presents :
Ivan Court, maire
le maire suppleant Chase et les conseillers Court, Farren, Killen,
Higgins, McGuire, Mott, Snook, Sullivan et Titus
et
T. Totten, directeur general; J. Nugent, avocat municipal;
G. Yeomans, commissaire aux finances et tresorier; P. Groody,
commissaire aux operations municipales; K. Forrest,
commissaire a I'urbanisme et au developpement; A. Poffenroth,
commissaire adjoint aux services d'inspection et des batiments;
A. Beckett, directeur general adjoint; D. Cooper, sergent de
police; M. Gillan, chef adjoint du service d'incendie; B. Morrison,
commissaire aux services des loisirs; ainsi que E. Gormley,
greffiere communale et J. Taylor, greffier communal adjoint.
1. Call To Order— Prayer
Mayor Court called the meeting to order.
1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
La seance est ouverte par le maire Court.
1. Recommended Appointments to Committees
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Killen
RESOLVED that item 1. Recommended
Appointments to Committees which was scheduled for Committee of the Whole closed
session be added to the Regular session of Council as item 13.6.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Assistant Pastor Jerry Chaisson of Full Gospel Assembly offered the opening prayer.
5
94-196
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
1. Nominations recommandees aux comites
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Killen
RESOLU que le point 1. Nominations
recommandees aux comites, qui devait etre presente a la reunion privee du comite
plenier soit ajoute a I'ordre du jour de la seance ordinaire du conseil sous le point 13.6.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Le pasteur Jerry Chaisson de la Full Gospel Assembly recite la priere d'ouverture.
2. Approval of Minutes
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Mott
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of
Common Council, held on December 8, 2008, be approved.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
2. Approbation du proces-verbal
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Mott
RESOLU que le proces-verbal de la reunion du
conseil communal tenue le 8 decembre 2008 soit approuve.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
3. Approval of Agenda
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be
approved with the addition of 3.1 Filing of Judgments for Costs - Pension v. John
Ferguson;13.6 Appointments to Committees, and 11.4(a) Letter from Karen Kincade
Regarding Citizens with Disabilities.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que I'ordre du jour de la presente reunion
soit adopte, moyennant I'ajout du point 3.1, Depot des jugements pour les depens—
Retraite c. John Ferguson; sous le point 13.6 Nominations aux comites; et I'ajout du
point 11.4 a) Lettre de Karen Kincade au sujet des citoyens ayant des handicaps.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
3.1 Filing of Judgments for Costs - Pension v. John Ferguson
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the letter from Mayor Court
entitled Re: Filing of Judgments for Costs - Pension v. John Ferguson be received for
information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3.1 Depot des jugements pour les depens— Retraite c. John Ferguson
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que la lettre du maire Court intitulee :
Depot des jugements pour les depens— Retraite c. John Ferguson, soit acceptee a titre
informatif.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
6
94-197
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
Deputy Mayor Chase declared a conflict of Interest with agenda item 5.7 Historic Places
Initiative Canadian Register of Historic Places.
4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets
Le maire suppleant Chase declare qu'il est en situation de conflit d'interets avec le
point 5.7, Initiative des lieux historiques relative au Repertoire canadien des lieux
historiques.
5. Consent Agenda
(Deputy Mayor Chase withdrew from the meeting)
5.1 That the report from Enterprise Saint John dated December 5, 2008 entitled 2009
Operating Funding Request be referred to budget deliberations.
5.2 That the report from Enterprise Saint John dated December 15, 2008 entitled
Saint John Trade and Convention Centre Renovation and Expansion Request be
received for information.
5.3 That the following resolution be adopted:
Whereas the 2009 budgets for The City of Saint John have not been approved;
And Whereas there are some day to day matters controlled by the general approval of
the budget;
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Manager be authorized to approve purchases
up to the value of$25,000 where provision for same is normally contained in the budget
which has not been approved;
And be it further resolved that the Treasurer be authorized to disburse funds related to
expenditures related to pre-existing contractual agreements and to commissions and
organizations which, in his opinion, would ensure the continued economic and efficient
day-to-day operations of these commissions and organizations during this period.
5.4 That Common Council approve the purchase of 7 handheld ticket writers, 7
printers, the software program and the first year of software support and maintenance for
a total cost of$55,674 plus applicable taxes.
5.5 That as recommended by the City Manager, the City enter into an agreement
with Fortis Properties Corporation for the maintenance and security of the Chipman Hill
and City Market pedways on the terms and conditions and in the form as submitted to
the City Manager's report dated December 18, 2008 addressed to Common Council in
this matter, and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the
agreement.
5.6 That Common Council authorize the extension of the agreement to draw water
from the Musquash Watershed in accordance with the submitted report entitled Renewal
of Water Supply Agreement— Musquash Watershed; and further, that the Mayor and
Common Clerk sign the appropriate documents.
5.7 That the contract for Phase 4—Awareness project for the Canadian Register of
Historic Places be awarded to Joanne Claus, Communications Consultant, for up to
$20,000.00, and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the
necessary contract documents.
5.8 That The City of Saint John reject the proposals submitted by Ellerdale
Properties Limited and Commercial Properties Limited for the property located at civic
#60 Canterbury Street, also identified as PID Number 8979, pursuant to a proposal call
issued by Common Council on September 15, 2008; and direct staff to continue
discussions with the proponents and report back to Common Council.
5.9 That Common Council authorize advertisement and set a public hearing date at
7:00 p.m. on Heritage day, February 16, 2009 in the council chamber, for consideration
of the proposed amendment to the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-Law.
�
94-198
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
5.10 That the report from the Saint John Port Authority dated December 16, 2008 be
referred to the Nominating Committee.
5.11 That Common Council approve the proposed settlement between The City of
Saint John and LHMD Adventures as contained in the submitted letter dated December
11, 2008 entitled LMHD Adventures— License Agreement— Rockwood Park, and that
the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documentation
provided by the Legal Department.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the recommendation set out for
each consent agenda item respectively be adopted.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Higgens
voting nay.
(Deputy Mayor Chase re-entered the meeting)
5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil
(Le maire suppleant Chase quitte la reunion.)
5.1 Que le rapport d'Enterprise Saint John date du 5 decembre 2008 intitule
Demande de fonds d'exploitation 2009 soit soumis aux deliberations budgetaires.
5.2 Que le rapport d'Enterprise Saint John date du 15 decembre 2008 intitule
Demande d'agrandissement et de renovation du Saint John Trade and Convention
Centre soit accepte a titre informatif.
5.3 Que la resolution suivante soit adoptee :
Attendu que les budgets de The City of Saint John pour I'annee 2009 n'ont pas ete
approuves;
Et attendu que certaines affaires quotidiennes dependent de I'approbation generale du
budget;
En consequence, il est resolu que le directeur general soit autorise a approuver les
acquisitions d'une valeur maximale de 25 000 $ lorsqu'une telle disposition existe
normalement dans le budget non approuve;
Et qu'il soit de plus resolu que le tresorier soit autorise a verser des sommes, pendant
ladite periode, pour acquitter les depenses prevues en vertu d'engagements
contractuels anterieurs, et aux commissions et aux organisations qui, a son avis, veillent
quotidiennement a leur fonctionnement economique et efficace continu.
5.4 Que le conseil communal approuve I'achat de 7 carnets de contraventions
electroniques, 7 imprimantes, le programme logiciel et la premiere annee de soutien et
de maintenance pour un cout total de 55 674 $, taxes en sus.
5.5 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general, la Ville signe une entente avec
Fortis Properties Corporation pour assurer I'entretien et la securite des reseaux
pietonniers de Chipman Hill et de City Market selon les conditions et modalites ainsi que
le modele presentes dans le rapport du directeur general date du 18 decembre 2008
adresse au conseil communal dans cette affaire, et que le maire et la greffiere
communale soient autorises a executer I'entente.
5.6 Que le conseil communal autorise la prorogation de la convention
d'approvisionnement en eau potable puisee dans le bassin versant Musquash
conformement au rapport depose intitule Reconduction de la convention
d'approvisionnement en eau relative au bassin versant Musquash; et que le maire et la
greffiere communale signent les documents pertinents.
5.7 Que le contrat relatif a la phase 4— Projet de sensibilisation pour le Repertoire
canadien des lieux historiques soit accorde a Joanne Claus, consultante en
communications, jusqu'a concurrence de 20 000 $ et que le maire et la greffiere
s
94-199
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
communale soient autorises a executer les documents contractuels necessaires.
5.8 Que The City of Saint John rejette les propositions presentees par Ellerdale
Properties Limited et Commercial Properties Limited pour le bien-fonds situe au numero
de voirie 60, rue Canterbury, aussi designe sous le NID 8979, conformement a un appel
de propositions emis par le conseil communal le 15 septembre 2008 et qu'elle ordonne
au personnel de poursuivre les discussions avec les promoteurs et de presenter un
rapport au conseil communal.
5.9 Que le conseil communal autorise la publication d'avis et fixe la date d'une
audience publique le 16 fevrier 2009, Fete du patrimoine, a 19 h dans la salle du conseil,
afin d'examiner le projet de modification de I'arrete relatif aux aires de conservation du
patrimoine de Saint John.
5.10 Que le rapport de I'Administration portuaire de Saint John date du
16 decembre 2008 soit renvoye au Comite des candidatures.
5.11 Que le conseil communal approuve le reglement propose intervenu entre
The City of Saint John et LHMD Adventures tel qu'il est decrit dans la lettre presentee le
11 decembre 2008 intitulee LMHD Adventures— Contrat de licence — Parc Rockwood, et
que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a executer les documents
necessaires fournis par le service juridique.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que les recommandations formulees
relativement a chacun des points de la section Questions soumises a I'approbation du
conseil soient adoptees.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee, Conseiller Higgins vote
contre la proposition.
(Le maire suppleant Chase est de nouveau present a la reunion.)
6. Members Comments
Council members commented on various community events.
6. Commentaires presentes par les membres
Les membres du conseil s'expriment sur diverses activites communautaires.
7. Proclamation
7. Proclamation
10. Consideration of By-laws
10.1 Public Presentation - Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment 43-51 Golden
Grove Road
A Public Presentation was given for a proposed amendment to the Municipal
Development Plan which would re-designate on Schedule 2-A of the Plan, from Low
Density Residential to Service Corridor, a parcel of land with an area of approximately
2.9 acres, located at 43-51 Golden Grove Road, also identified as being PID Numbers
55027510, 00300129, 00299008, 55173033, and 00301986.
10. Etude des arretes municipaux
10.1 Presentation publique relative au projet de modification du plan municipal
visant le 43-51, chemin Golden Grove
Une presentation publique est donnee relativement au projet de modification du plan
d'amenagement municipal visant a modifier la classification sur I'annexe 2-A du plan
d'amenagement municipal, pour la faire passer de zone residentielle de faible densite a
zone de corridor de service, une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie approximative de
2,9 hectares, situee au 43-51, chemin Golden Grove, et inscrite sous les NID 55027510,
00300129, 00299008, 55173033 et 00301986.
9
94-200
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
11. Submissions by Council Members
11.1 Senior Manager's Report on Employee Supervison and Evaluation
Practices (Councillor Sullivan)
On motion of Councillor Sullivan
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that Senior Managers (The City
Manager, Commissioner of Finance, Common Clerk, and City Solicitor) prepare a report
on the current employee supervision and evaluation practices in their departments which
are to include either an endorsement from the manager of the current system or
recommendations for the implementation of an appropriate system to ensure the
corporation is performing in an effective and efficient manner; and further, the 4 reports
may be presented separately and shall be presented to Council no later than June 1,
2009.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
11.1 Rapport du directeur principal sur les pratiques de supervision et
d'evaluation des employes (conseiller Sullivan)
Proposition du conseiller Sullivan
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que les directeurs principaux (directeur
general, commissaire aux finances, greffiere communale et avocat municipal) preparent
un rapport sur les pratiques actuelles de supervision et d'evaluation des employes dans
leurs services, lesquelles doivent comprendre un appui du directeur du systeme actuel
ou des recommandations visant la mise en oeuvre d'un systeme pertinent pour assurer
un rendement efficace et adequat de la corporation; en outre, les 4 rapports peuvent
etre presentes separement et seront remis au conseil au plus tard le 1 er juin 2009.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
8. Delegations/Presentations
Referring to a submitted presentation, Sarah Stashick, President of the Board of
Directors of the Saint John Animal Rescue League, updated Council with respect to
various services offered by the Animal Rescue League and also made a funding request
from The City of Saint John on behalf of the organization.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that Common Council suspend item
10.7 of Council's procedural by-law for this item.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the 2009 budget request from the
Saint John Animal Rescue League be referred to budget deliberations.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
8. Delegations et presentations
Faisant reference a une presentation, Sarah Stashick, presidente du conseil
d'administration de la Coalition secours animal Saint John, met le conseil au courant des
divers services offerts par la Coalition et presente une demande de financement a
The City of Saint John au nom de son organisation.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que le conseil communal suspende le
point 10.7 de I'arrete du Conseil relatif au reglement interieur.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
10
94-201
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que la demande budgetaire 2009 de la
Coalition secours animal Saint John soit soumise aux deliberations budgetaires.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
11.2 Electronic Tendering Process (Councillor Sullivan)
On motion of Councillor Sullivan
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the City Manager report to
Council on the possibility of incorporating an electronic tendering process for The City of
Saint John.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
11.2 Processus d'appel d'offres electronique (conseiller Sullivan)
Proposition du conseiller Sullivan
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que le directeur general presente
un rapport au conseil sur la possibilite d'incorporer un processus d'appel d'offres
electronique pour The City of Saint John.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
11.3 Councillor Information Requests (Councillor Sullivan)
On motion of Councillor Sullivan
Seconded by Councillor Farren
RESOLVED that City Staff will provide
information to individual Councillors upon request.
Councillor Farren remarked that in a recent open session of Council he requested that
the City Solicitor provide him with a copy of the Municipalities Act and that the
information was not provided to him. To which the City Solicitor responded that he did
not recall such a request from Councillor Farren.
The City Solicitor noted that often he will provide information to individual Councillors
that is easily accessible; however, Mr. Nugent remarked that if he is providing a legal
opinion it must be provided at the request of Council as a whole and not individual
Councillors.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that item 11.3 of the agenda,
Councillor Information Request (Councillor Sullivan), be tabled to allow for verification of
the records.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
11.3 Demande de renseignements de la part des conseillers (conseiller Sullivan)
Proposition du conseiller Sullivan
Appuyee par le conseiller Farren
RESOLU que le personnel municipal offre
sur demande de I'information a chacun des conseillers.
Le conseiller Farren fait remarquer que dans une seance ouverte recente du conseil, il a
demande que I'avocat municipal lui remette une copie de la Loi surles municipalifes et
que I'information ne lui avait pas ete fournie. L'avocat municipal lui a repondu qu'il ne se
souvenait pas d'avoir re�u une demande de la part du conseiller Farren.
L'avocat municipal indique qu'il procure souvent de I'information facilement accessible
aux conseillers a titre individuel. Cependant, M. Nugent ajoute que s'il emet un avis
juridique, il le fait a la demande du conseil dans son ensemble et non des conseillers a
titre individuel.
11
94-202
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que le point 11.3 de I'ordre du
jour, Demande de renseignements de la part des conseillers (conseiller Sullivan), soit
reporte pour permettre la verification des dossiers.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M.
9.1(a) Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment 11-25 Sewell St & 96-124 Station St
9.1(b) Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Rezoning
The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to
amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel
of land located at 11-25 Sewell Street and 96-124 Station Street having an area of
approximately 3,800 square metres, also identified as PID Numbers 00039826,
00039818, 00038612, 00039792, 55020010, 00038745, 00038752, 00038760 and
00038778, from "RM-1" Three Storey Multiple Residential and "I-1" Light Industrial to "B-
2" General Business.
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee
submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its December 16, 2008
meeting at which the Committee decided to recommend the application to re-zone
parcels of land located at 11-25 Sewell Street and 96-124 Station Street as described
above.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the re-zoning with no one
presenting.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favor of the re-zoning with Kevin
Harris stating that he was in agreement with the staff report and recommendation.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Killen
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law
to Amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel of land located at 11-25
Sewell Street and 96-124 Station Street having an area of approximately 3,800 square
metres, also identified as PID Numbers 00039826, 00039818, 00038612, 00039792,
55020010, 00038745, 00038752, 00038760 and 00038778, from "RM-1" Three Storey
Multiple Residential and "I-1" Light Industrial to "B-2" General Business, be read a first
time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning By-Law of the
City of Saint John".
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councilor Killen
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law
to Amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel of land located at 11-25
Sewell Street and 96-124 Station Street having an area of approximately 3,800 square
metres, also identified as PID Numbers 00039826, 00039818, 00038612, 00039792,
55020010, 00038745, 00038752, 00038760 and 00038778, from "RM-1" Three Storey
Multiple Residential and "I-1" Light Industrial to "B-2" General Business, be read a
second time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By-Law of
the City of Saint John".
12
94-203
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
9. Audiences publiques a 19 h
9.1a) Projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant les 11-25, rue Sewell et
les 96-124, rue Station
9.1 b) Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage
Le greffier communal adjoint indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement a la
modification de I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en vue du
rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 3 800 metres carres situee
au 11-25, rue Sewell, et au 96-124, rue Station, inscrite sous les NID 00039826,
00039818, 00038612, 00039792, 55020010, 00038745, 00038752, 00038760 et
00038778, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle d'immeubles a logements
multiples de trois etages « RM-1 » et de zone d'industrie legere « I-1 » a zone
commerciale generale « B-2 ».
Examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagne d'un exemplaire
du rapport du personnel du service d'urbanisme, etudie lors de la seance du
16 decembre 2008, a laquelle le Comite a decide de recommander I'approbation de la
demande de rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 11-25, rue Sewell, et au
96-124, rue Station, telle qu'elle est decrite ci-dessus.
Le maire invite le public a se prononcer contre le rezonage, mais personne ne prend la
parole.
Le maire invite le public a se prononcer en faveur du rezonage et Kevin Harris indique
qu'il est d'accord avec le rapport et la recommandation du personnel.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Killen
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete
modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant I'annexe A, plan de
zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain
d'une superficie d'environ 3 800 metres carres situee au 11-25, rue Sewell, et au
96-124, rue Station, inscrite sous les NID 00039826, 00039818, 00038612, 00039792,
55020010, 00038745, 00038752, 00038760 et 00038778, afin de la faire passer de zone
residentielle d'immeubles a logements multiples de trois etages « RM-1 » et de zone
d'industrie legere « I-1 » a zone commerciale generale « B-2 », fasse I'objet d'une
premiere lecture.
,4 I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Premiere lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Killen
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete
modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant I'annexe A, plan de
zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain
d'une superficie d'environ 3 800 metres carres situee au 11-25, rue Sewell, et au
96-124, rue Station, inscrite sous les NID 00039826, 00039818, 00038612, 00039792,
55020010, 00038745, 00038752, 00038760 et 00038778, afin de la faire passer de zone
residentielle d'immeubles a logements multiples de trois etages « RM-1 » et de zone
d'industrie legere « I-1 » a zone commerciale generale « B-2 », fasse I'objet d'une
deuxieme lecture.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Deuxieme lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
9.2(a) Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment 2797 Loch Lomond Rd
9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Rezoning
The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to
amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel
of land located at 2797 Loch Lomond Road, having an area of approximately 12
hectares, also identified as being a portion of PID number 00326223, from "RS-1" One
and Two Family Suburban Residential to "RR" One Family Rural Residential.
13
94-204
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee
submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its December 16, 2008
meeting at which the Committee decided to recommend the application to re-zone a
parcel of land located at 2797 Loch Lomond Road as described above.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the re-zoning with no one
presenting.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favor of the re-zoning with Gerry
Roberts, Kierstead Quigley and Roberts, and Joe Mallette each stating that they were in
agreement with the staff report and recommendation.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law
to Amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A",the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel of land located at 2797
Loch Lomond Road, having an area of approximately 12 hectares, also identified as
being a portion of PID number 00326223, from "RS-1" One and Two Family Suburban
Residential to "RR" One Family Rural Residential, be read a first time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning By-Law of the
City of Saint John".
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councilor Sullivan
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law
to Amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel of land located at 2797 Loch
Lomond Road, having an area of approximately 12 hectares, also identified as being a
portion of PID number 00326223, from "RS-1" One and Two Family Suburban
Residential to "RR" One Family Rural Residential, be read a second time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By-Law of
the City of Saint John".
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councilor McGuire
RESOLVED that;
1) Common Council assent to the proposed Land for Public Purposes dedication having
an area of approximately 1.14 hectares (2.8 acres); and
2) Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of a City/Developer
Subdivision Agreement(s) to ensure provision of the required work, including detailed
street and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
9.2a) Modification de I'Arrete de zonage relative au 2797, chemin Loch Lomond
9.2b) Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage
La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement a la
modification de I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au
rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 12 hectares situee au
2797, chemin Loch Lomond, inscrite en partie sous le NID 00326223 afin de la faire
passer de zone residentielle de banlieue — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales
« RS-1 » a zone residentielle rurale — habitations unifamiliales « RR ».
Examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagne d'un exemplaire
du rapport du personnel du service d'urbanisme, etudie lors de la seance du
16 decembre 2008, a laquelle le Comite a decide de recommander I'approbation de la
demande de rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 2797, chemin Loch Lomond,
telle qu'elle est decrite ci-dessus.
14
94-205
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
Le maire invite le public a se prononcer contre le rezonage, mais personne ne prend la
parole.
Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur appui en faveur du rezonage.
Gerry Roberts, de Kierstead Quigley et Roberts, et Joe Mallette indiquent tous les deux
qu'ils sont en accord avec le rapport et la recommandation du personnel.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete
modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de
zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain
situee au 2797, chemin Loch Lomond, d'une superficie approximative de 12 hectares,
inscrite en partie sous le NID 00326223, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle de
banlieue— habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS-1 » a zone residentielle rurale —
habitations unifamiliales « RR », fasse I'objet d'une premiere lecture.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Premiere lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete
modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de
zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain
situee au 2797, chemin Loch Lomond, d'une superficie approximative de 12 hectares,
inscrite en partie sous le NID 00326223, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle de
banlieue— habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS-1 » a zone residentielle rurale —
habitations unifamiliales « RR », fasse I'objet d'une deuxieme lecture.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Deuxieme lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que :
1) le conseil communal approuve I'affectation d'un terrain d'utilite publique propose
d'une superficie d'environ 1,14 hectare (2,8 acres) et
2) qu'il autorise la redaction et la signature de contrats de lotissement entre la Ville et le
promoteur afin de permettre I'execution des travaux requis, notamment en ce qui
concerne I'elaboration de plans de drainage detailles soumis a I'approbation de
I'ingenieur municipal en chef ou son representant.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
9.3(a) Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment 1030 Dever Rd
9.3(b) Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Rezoning
The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to
amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel
of land located at 1030 Dever Road, having an area of approximately 1.3 hectares, also
identified as PID Numbers 00398693 and 55085641, from "R-1A" One Family
Residential to "R-2" One and Two Family Residential.
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee
submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its December 16, 2008
meeting at which the Committee decided to recommend the application to re-zone a
parcel of land located at 1030 Dever Road as described above.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the re-zoning with no one
presenting.
15
94-206
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favor of the re-zoning with no
one presenting.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to
Amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning
Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel of land located at 1030 Dever
Road, having an area of approximately 1.3 hectares, also identified as PID Numbers
00398693 and 55085641, from "R-1A" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two
Family Residential, be read a first time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning By-Law of the
City of Saint John".
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councilor Sullivan
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to
Amend the Zoning By-Law of the City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning
Map of The City of Saint John, by re-zoning a parcel of land located at 1030 Dever
Road, having an area of approximately 1.3 hectares, also identified as PID Numbers
00398693 and 55085641, from "R-1A" One Family Residential to "R-2" One and Two
Family Residential, be read a second time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By-Law of
the City of Saint John".
9.3a) Projet de modification de I'arrete de zonage visant le 1030, chemin Dever
9.3b) Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage
La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement a la
modification de I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au
rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 1,3 hectare situee au
1030, chemin Dever, inscrite sous les NID 00398693 et 55085641 afin de la faire passer
de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales « R-1A » a zone residentielle—
habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R-2 ».
Examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagne d'un exemplaire
du rapport du personnel du service d'urbanisme, etudie lors de la seance du
16 decembre 2008, a laquelle le Comite a decide de recommander I'approbation de la
demande de rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 1030, chemin Dever, telle
qu'elle est decrite ci-dessus.
Le maire invite le public a se prononcer contre le rezonage, mais personne ne prend la
parole.
Le maire invite le public a exprimer son appui quant au rezonage, mais personne ne
prend la parole.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de
The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au
1030, chemin Dever, d'une superficie approximative de 1,3 hectare, inscrite sous les
NID 00398693 et 55085641, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle — habitations
unifamiliales « R-1A » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales
« R-2 », fasse I'objet d'une premiere lecture.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Premiere lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
16
94-207
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de
The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au
1030, chemin Dever, d'une superficie approximative de 1,3 hectare, inscrite sous les
NID 00398693 et 55085641, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle — habitations
unifamiliales « R-1A » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales
« R-2 », fasse I'objet d'une deuxieme lecture.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Deuxieme lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
11.4 Serving Those with Disabilities (Councillor Mott)
On motion of Councillor Mott
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the submitted letter from Karen
Kincade dated October 21, 2008 be formally referred to the Ability Advisory Board for a
full and comprehensive report on all of the various topics; and further, that upon request,
City staff provide the necessary support to the Advisory Committee; and finally, that the
City Manager include in the proposed 2009 Operating Budget, to be considered by
Council in January, an increase in the allocation of funds to the Ability Advisory
Committee in order to allow the Committee to properly carry out this task.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
11.4 Services adresses aux personnes handicapees (conseiller Mott)
Proposition du conseiller Mott
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que la lettre presentee par Karen Kincade
datee du 21 octobre 2008 soit officiellement transmise au Comite consultatif sur les
personnes handicapees du conseil afin d'obtenir un rapport complet et exhaustif sur tous
les divers sujets; et que le personnel municipal offre sur demande le soutien necessaire
au Comite consultatif et, enfin, que le directeur general inclut dans le budget
d'exploitation de 2009 propose, lequel sera etudie par le conseil en janvier, une hausse
de I'allocation des fonds au Comite consultatif sur les personnes handicapees pour que
cette tache soit correctement accomplie.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
11.5 Solid Waste Collection (Councillor Titus)
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Killen
RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to
prepare an analysis and recommendation on the contracting out of solid waste and
collection services.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Court voting
nay.
11.5 Collecte des dechets solides (conseiller Titus)
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Killen
RESOLU que le directeur general soit charge de
preparer une analyse et une recommandation sur la sous-traitance des services de
collecte des dechets solides.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Le conseiller Court vote
contre la proposition.
17
94-208
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers
12.1 Centre of Excellence Water and Wastewater Technician Program
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that Common Council endorse the
vision and realization of a two-year Water and Wastewater Technician Program, and
further reinforce the foundation of a Centre of Excellence in Water and Wastewater at
NBCC Saint John; and further, Common Council support the idea of establishing up to
five bursaries for graduates of Saint John high schools.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux
12.1 Centre d'excellence pour le programme offert aux techniciens des eaux et
des eaux usees
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que le conseil communal appuie la vision
et la realisation du programme de deux ans offert aux techniciens des eaux et des eaux
usees, qu'il encourage davantage la creation d'un Centre d'excellence pour la formation
en matiere d'eau et d'eaux usees au CCNB, campus de Saint John, et qu'il soutienne en
outre I'idee d'etablir jusqu'a cinq bourses d'etudes pour les diplomes des ecoles
secondaires de Saint John.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
12.2 Action Plan for Safe, Clean Drinking Water- Value Review
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Sullivan
RESOLVED that Common Council authorize staff
to proceed with the process for engagement of value specialist consultants for the value
engineering review of planned water system improvements—An Action Plan for Safe,
Clean Drinking Water and, further, to engage William Hargrave of Hargrave & Company
to act as an advisor and expert resource to The City of Saint John.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
12.2 Plan d'action pour la salubrite et la proprete de I'eau potable— Examen des
valeurs
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan
RESOLU que le conseil communal autorise le
personnel a entamer le processus d'embauche des consultants specialises en
amelioration de la valeur pour effectuer I'examen technique de la valeur des
ameliorations prevues au reseau d'eau — Plan d'action pour la salubrite et la proprete de
I'eau potable et qu'il embauche en outre William Hargrave de Hargrave & Company pour
agir comme conseiller et ressource experte aupres de The City of Saint John.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
12.3 Infrastructure Funding Opportunities
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the Mayor and appropriate staff
meet with government officials in Ottawa on behalf of The City of Saint John to discuss
potential infrastructure funding as outlined in the submitted report dated December 17,
2008 entitled Infrastructure Funding Opportunities.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
18
94-209
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor Killen
RESOLVED that Common Council adopt the
submitted report entitled City of Saint John Proposed Special Infrastructure Program
report as the basis for a City of Saint John request for special infrastructure funding
assistance from the Federal and/or Provincial Governments, and that a submission be
forwarded to the respective Federal and Provincial ministers under the signature of
Mayor Court, with follow-up by the Mayor and members of Common Council.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
12.3 Possibilites de financement de I'infrastructure
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que le maire et le personnel pertinent
rencontrent les fonctionnaires a Ottawa au nom de The City of Saint John afin de
discuter du financement potentiel des infrastructures tel qu'il est decrit dans le rapport
presente et date du 17 decembre 2008 intitule Possibilites de financement de
I'infrastructure.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Proposition du conseiller Farren
Appuyee par le conseiller Killen
RESOLU que le conseil communal adopte le
rapport intitule Programme special des infrastructures proposees de The City of
Saint John comme base de la demande municipale presentee aupres des
gouvernements federal ou provincial en vue d'obtenir une aide financiere speciale pour
financer les infrastructures et qu'une presentation soit acheminee aux ministres federal
et provincial respectifs portant la signature de maire Court, accompagnee d'un suivi
effectue par le maire et les membres du conseil communal.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
12.4 Vibrant Communities - Five Priority Neighbourhoods &Youth Planning
Sessions
On motion of Councillor McGuire
Seconded by Councillor Sullivan
RESOLVED that The City of Saint John support the
Vibrant Communities priority neighbourhood planning sessions with a grant in the
amount of$9,000.00 from the 2008 Neighbourhood Stimulation Grant Program.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
12.4 Communautes vivantes— Cinq quartiers prioritaires et seances de
planification pour les jeunes
Proposition du conseiller McGuire
Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan
RESOLU que The City of Saint John appuie les
seances de planification visant les communautes vivantes et les quartiers prioritaires en
accordant une subvention de 9 000 $ a partir du programme de subvention
d'encouragement au voisinage de 2008.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
13. Committee Reports
13.1 Finance Committee August 2008 Interim Financial Results
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the report entitled Finance
Committee August 2008 Interim Financial Results be received for information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
19
94-210
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
13. Rapports deposes par les comites
13.1 Bilan financier interimaire jusqu'au mois d'aout 2008— Comite des finances
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que le rapport intitule Bilan financier
interimaire jusqu'au mois d'aout 2008— Comite des finances soit accepte a titre
informatif.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
13.2 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Easement for The ONE
Change Inc. 51-59 Metcalf St.
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that Common Council assent to the
common municipal services and public utility easement as generally illustrated on the
submitted Rehabitat Inc. Subdivision tentative plan.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
13.2 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la servitude aux fins de
The ONE Change Inc. situe au 51-59, rue Metcalf
Proposition du conseiller Farren
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que le conseil communal approuve les
services municipaux communs et la servitude aux fins d'utilite publique comme I'illustre
de maniere generale le plan provisoire de lotissement presente par Rehabitat Inc.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
13.3 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending White Rocks Road
Subdivison Plan
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that:
1. Common Council assent to a subdivision plan, in general accordance with the
submitted White Rocks Road subdivision tentative plan, including any necessary
municipal services and/or public utility easements; and
2. The Planning Advisory Committee accept the following street standards for White
Rocks Road as being satisfactory:
a) 23 metre (75.5 feet) wide public street right-of-way;
b) 9.2 metre (30 feet) wide paved asphalt surface;
c) concrete curbing along both sides;
d) in-ground water, storm and sanitary systems;
e) landscaped boulevard areas; and
f) no sidewalks.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
13.3 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant I'approbation du projet de
lotissement White Rocks Road
Proposition du conseiller Farren
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que :
1. le conseil communal approuve le projet de lotissement conformement, de maniere
generale, au plan de lotissement provisoire White Rocks Road, y compris toutes les
servitudes aux fins de services municipaux et d'utilite publique;
20
94-211
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
2. le comite consultatif d'urbanisme accepte les normes suivantes en matiere de rue
pour le projet de lotissement White Rocks Road comme etant satisfaisantes :
a) droit de passage dans une rue publique de 23 metres (75,5 pieds) de largeur;
b) revetement de sol en asphalte de 9,2 metres (30 pieds) de largeur;
c) bordures de beton le long des deux cotes;
d) reseaux d'eau, d'egouts sanitaires et pluviaux souterrains;
e) secteurs de boulevard paysages;
f) aucun trottoir.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
13.4 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Eagle Subdivision Phase 1
at 1101 Grandview Ave
On motion of Councillor Killen
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that:
1. Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in
general accordance with the submitted Eagle Subdivision — Phase 1 plan illustrating a
new public street with approximately 37 serviced residential lots, as well as any
necessary municipal services and public utility easements; and
2. Common Council assent to a 1.42 hectare (3.51 acre) Land for Public Purposes
dedication, as generally illustrated on the submitted Eagle Subdivision — Phase "A" plan,
which would provide a credit of 1.29 hectares (3.19 acres)for any future phases of this
subdivision; and
3. Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more
City/Developer subdivision agreements to ensure provision of the required work and
facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City
Engineer; and
4. Common Council authorize cost sharing outside of the limits of the proposed
subdivision in accordance with Section 26 of the Subdivision By-law.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
13.4 Recommandation du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme visant la phase 1 du
lotissement Eagle situe au 1101, avenue Grandview
Proposition du conseiller Killen
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que :
1. le conseil communal approuve le ou les plans de lotissement en une ou plusieurs
phases, conformement, de maniere generale, au plan provisoire de lotissement Eagle—
phase 1 delimitant une nouvelle rue publique qui comporte environ 37 lots residentiels
viabilises, de meme que toutes les servitudes necessaires aux fins de services
municipaux et d'utilite publique;
2. le conseil communal approuve I'affectation d'un terrain de 1,42 hectare (3,51 acres)
utilise a des fins publiques, comme le montre de maniere generale le plan de la phase A
du lotissement Eagle, qui prevoit un credit de 1,29 hectare (3,19 acres) pour les phases
futures de ce lotissement;
3. le conseil communal autorise la redaction et la signature d'un ou de plusieurs contrats
de lotissement entre la Ville et le promoteur afin de permettre I'execution des travaux
requis et la mise en place des installations necessaires, y compris I'elaboration de plans
de situation et de drainage detailles soumis a I'approbation de I'ingenieur municipal en
chef;
4. le conseil communal autorise le partage des couts au-dela des limites du projet de
lotissement, conformement a I'article 26 de I'arrete de lotissement.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
21
94-212
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
13.5 Performance Management Committee Recommending Engagement of Firm
On motion of Councillor Killen
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that Common Council engage the
Accounting firm of Ernst and Young to assist council with the development and
implementation of a comprehensive Performance Management System at estimated
cost of between $40,000 and $50,000 plus expenses for the positions that are appointed
and report directly to council.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
13.5 Comite de gestion du rendement recommandant la nomination d'une
entreprise
Proposition du conseiller Killen
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que le conseil communal embauche le
cabinet comptable Ernst and Young pour aider le conseil avec I'elaboration et la mise en
oeuvre d'un systeme complet de gestion du rendement au cout estimatif variant entre
40 000 $ et 50 000 $ plus les depenses pour les titulaires de poste nommes par le
conseil et relevant directement de lui.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
13.6 Appointments to Committees
On motion of Councillor Sullivan
Seconded by Councillor Titus
RESOLVED that Council makes the following
appointments to committees:
Saint John Industrial Parks— To re-appoint William Leahy and Claude Mackinnon for
three year terms ending December 22, 2011.
Saint John Development Corp —As recommend by the Port Authority, appoint Stephen
Campbell as the Port's representative for a three year term ending December 22, 2011.
Planning Advisory Committee— To re-appoint Bernie Rogenbogen, and to appoint Sid
Lodhi and Colin Murray for three year terms ending December 31, 2011.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
13.6 Nominations pour sieger aux comites
Proposition du conseiller Sullivan
Appuyee par le conseiller Titus
RESOLU que le conseil formule les
recommandations suivantes :
Saint John Industrial Parks [pares industriels de Saint John] — la reconduction du mandat
de William Leahy et de Claude MacKinnon pour une periode trois ans se terminant le
22 decembre 2011.
Saint John Development Corp. — Comme il est recommande par I'Administration
portuaire de Saint John, la nomination de Stephen Campbell en tant que representant
du port pour un mandat de trois ans se terminant le 22 decembre 2011.
Comite consultatif d'urbanisme— Le renouvellement de la nomination de
Bernie Rogenbogen et de Sid Lodhi et la nomination de Colin Murray pour des mandats
de trios ans se terminant le 31 decembre 2011.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du
conseil
22
94-213
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
DECEMBER 22, 2008/LE 22 DECEMBRE 2008
15. General Correspondence
15. Correspondance generale
16. Adjournment
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
16. Levee de la seance
Le maire declare que la seance est levee a 20 h 35.
Mayor/maire
Common Clerk/greffiere communale
23
fami � �
�,
- . . . - . . . - . -.
Counselling•Education�Wollness
January 2, 2009
Common Clerk's Office
City Hall
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB
E2L 4L1
To His Worship Mayor Court and Councilors-
Please find attached a copy of the final report for the Greater Saint John Understanding
the Early Years (UEY) project, which wrapped up in December 2008. The UEY Initiative
was funded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
The attached UEY Community Mapping Report looks at local demographics, socio-
economics, child outcomes and community resources relating to early child development
in our community.
Other documents detailing UEY project results are available at www.familyplus.ca.
Please feel free to contact me if you should have any questions regarding the above.
SincereIy,
I �
'zv �.�n,�
Ellen Snider
Project Coordinator
Understanding the Early Years
� � �
��'�
�---',�`-r-- � �
'��� 1 � ���1 �t
Linden Place, 199 Chesley Drive, Suite 204, Saint John,NB E2K 4S9
Phone (506)634-8295 ext.222 1-800-360-3327 � Fax:(506)652-1477 � Email: uey@familyplus,ca � www.familyplus.ca
Funded by lhe Govemment oi Canada und��he Understanding the Early Years Initialive
faml o� , . ..
.��
, � �, :�
�� � ` �[1��:
- . . . - . . . - . - .
ICounselling•Education•Wellness -. : . .
Und�rst�n�in� th� E�►rly Y��rs
Gre�at�� ��int Jol�n
Ca�r��nunit�t M�ppin� Re�or�
D�cemb�r 2008
�-- . _ _ _ � . - - -
, .., . ... ..
-- -.._ _ . .._ .. . , . ..._ . _�
Understanding the Early Years • Greater Saint John
Linden Place, 199 Chesley Drive, Suite 204, Saint John, NB E2K 4S9
Phone: 506-634-8295 Fax: 506-652-1477 Email: info@familyplus.ca
Disclaimer. The views expressed in this report are fhose of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada(HRSDC), the Government of Canada, or
Family P(us/Life Solutions.
25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Greater Saint John Understanding the Early Years (UEY) project was a
successful undertaking in large part because of the passion and dedication of
those in our community who work tirelessly to improve the lives of young
children and families.
First, I would like to thank the Saint John Early Childhood Development
Coalition, who answered the call for proposals from Human Resources and
Skills Development Canada in April 2005. Family Plus/Life Solutions, under
� the guidance of then-Executive Director Muriel Jarvis, became the UEY
project's sponsoring organization. Many thanks to Muriel and to Susan Clarke,
present Executive Director at Family Plus, and also to Heather Maughan, for
your on-going support.
The Greater Saint John UEY � �- -
project could not have succeeded �
without the full cooperation of
School District 8 Administration. E �,��,,,_���w�^ •,,: : . � � --- .
Thanks in particular to Bob _ ; --- -. -:``------__ _
Johnson, who always found a way . � '""""�`' ��``=`�''"''�;`� _±�" � _ � �
to make things happen. My - �* -
.�_ = - _
sincere appreciation also goes � 's� ;;'`�'� " , - _ �
out to the principals and ' - 1 - �
kindergarten teachers in School � _ "�''�_ �' - � �` �y��' _�
District 8 who participated in the " � ;
data collection process. Your . -y �,,.Z�:_._,. �1
commitment to our children is ��`�` '" ~
inspiring!
To the co-chairs of the Saint John Early Childhood Development Coalition,
Mary Lynch and Silvia Borsic, as well as to Leslie Allan- thank you for your
collective ear and sage advice. Thanks to Bryn Robinson, UEY Researcher,
whose many talents were greatly appreciated during the final few months of
the project.
There are many others in the Greater Saint John area who willingly lent their
expertise to various aspects of our UEY project. Thank you!
Ellen Snider
UEY Greater Saint John Project Coordinator
To reference this document: Understanding the Early Years — Greater Saint
John (2008). Community Mapping Report. Saint John, New Brunswick.
i
26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... i
List of Figures ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... iv
Listof Maps ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... v
List of Appendices ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... vi
Executive Summary ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... vii
Sectron 1: Introduction
l.l Background Information ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1
1.2 Understanding the Early Years — Greater Saint John ... ... ... ... 2
1.3 Community Demographics ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 6
1.4 Socio-economic Status ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7
Section 2: Early Development Instrument(ED1) Results
2.1 What is School Readiness? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 12
2.2 Neighbourhoods in Greater Saint John ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 14
2.3 Physical Health and Well-Being Domain ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 17
2.4 Social Competence Domain ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 19
2.5 Emotional Maturity Domain ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 21
2.6 Language and Cognitive Development Domain ... ... ... ... ... ... 23
2.7 Communication Skills and General Knowledge Domain ... ... ... 25
Section 3: Early Chrldhood Resources in Greater Sarnt John
3.1 Selecting Programs and Services ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 27
3.2 Licensed Childcare and Preschool Programs ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 29
3.3 Health Services ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 31
3.4 Parks and Recreation ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 33
3.5 Education and Support Services ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 35
Section 4: Social Risk Index(SR!) in Greater Saint John
4.1 What is the Social Risk Index? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 37
4.2 Calculating the SRI ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 38
Conclusions ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 40
References ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 41
� iii
27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Timeline of UEY Greater Saint John project ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5
Fig;ure 2: Facts about Greater Saint John (CMA) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 6
Fi u� re 3: What is a percentile? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 13
Figure 4: Distribution of Physical Health and Well-being scores ... ... ... ... 17
F�ure 5: Distribution of Social Competence scores ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 19
Figure 6: Distribution of Emotional Maturity scores ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 21
Fi ug re 7: Distribution of Language and Cognitive Development scores ... ... 23
Figure 8: Distribution of Communication Skills and
General Knowledge scores ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 25
Figure 9: What is a dissemination area? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 38
I
iV
28
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1: UEY Greater Saint John site, neighbourhoods and schools ... ... ,.. 3
Map 2: Total number of residents with a university education ... ... ... ... 8
Map 3: Average total income ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 9
Map 4: Total number of lone parent families ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 10
Map 5: Total number of female lone parent families ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11
Map 6: Kindergarten population by UEY neighbourhood ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 16
Map 7: EDI scores by UEY neighbourhood: Physical Health and Well-being,
lowest 10th percentile ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 18
Map 8: EDI scores by UEY neighbourhood: Social Competence,
lowest 10th percentile ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 20
Map 9: EDI scores by UEY neighbourhood: Emotional Maturity,
lowest 10t" percentile ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 22
Map 10: EDI scores by UEY neighbourhood: Language and
Cognitive Development, lowest lOt" percentile ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 24
Map 11: EDI scores by UEY neighbourhood: Communication Skills and
General Knowledge, lowest lOt" percentile ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 26
Map 12: Location of licensed childcare services and preschools ... ... ... ... 30
Map 13: Location of health services ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 32
Map 14: Location of parks and recreation ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 34
Map 15: Location of education and support services ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 36
Map 16: Social Risk Index in Greater Saint John ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 39
V
29
i
LIST OF APPENDICES
A�pendix A: Early Development Instrument (EDI) domains
and sub-domains ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 43
Appendix B: Parent Interview and Direct Assessment of Children Survey
(PIDACS) components ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 44
Appendix C: List of early childhood resources selected for mapping... ... ... 45
Appendix D: List of inember organizations of the Saint John Early
Childhood Development Coalition ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 48
I
vi
30
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Understanding the Early Years (UEY) is a 3-year, community-based research
project funded by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. The
UEY initiative provides resources and supports to communities interested in
collecting local data on the development of children from age 0 to 5.
This UEY Greater Saint John Community Mapping Report is designed to bring
the various pieces of data together in order to give the reader a strong visual
image of the developmental strengths and challenges of young children in our
� area. The results represent a `call to action' for all those involved in ensuring
our community's children are given the best possible start in life.
A number of complementary data collection tools were employed under UEY:
the Early Development Instrument (EDI); Parent Interview and Direct
Assessment of Children Survey (PIDACS); local program and service (or
community asset) inventory; and relevant Census data from Statistics Canada.
There were 24 schools involved in the study, representing more than 800
kindergarten children in 42 classrooms across School District 8.
Early Development Instrument (EDI)
The Early Development Instrument is a population-based measure of
children's development in 5 key domains: Physical Health and Well-Being;
Social Competence; Emotional Maturity; Language and Cognitive
Development and, finally, Communication Skills and General Knowledge. The
EDI was completed by kindergarten teachers early in 2006 and captured their
impressions of students' `readiness to learn' upon school entry.
Overall, children in the Greater Saint John area scored significantly higher
than the national average on the Language and Cognitive Development
domain of the EDI. However, our children also scored significantly lower than
the national average on the remaining 4 domains. Further analysis revealed
marked differences between neighbourhoods, with areas showing varying
degrees of vulnerability and not always in a predictable fashion.
Parent Interview and Direct Assessment of Children Surve,��PIDACS)
Parents of kindergarten-age children in the Greater Saint John area were
interviewed on topics related to their child, family, neighbourhood and larger
community. The majority of these results are included in the UEY Greater
Saint John Community Research Report (release pending). However, some of
the parent interview data were included here as accompanying information to
the program and service maps contained within this report.
w, .. � ,... V��
31
Pro�rams and Services
The programs and services mapped here were those that offer universal and
direct access to children age 0 to 5 and their families in the Greater Saint
John area. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of community resources,
but rather a selection of key supports in early child development.
Most of the programs and services on offer for young children were found
within the boundaries of the City of Saint John. This is not at all unexpected,
as most of the children in the UEY Greater Saint John site live in urban
neighbourhoods. There were notably fewer resources available to families in
outlying areas such as St. Martins, Musquash, Dipper Harbour and Brown's
Flat and outreach programs to these areas were few both in number and
frequency.
Census data
Census data were used to calculate a `Social Risk Index' (SRI) for the various
dissemination areas within the UEY Greater Saint John site. The SRI is a
composite score derived from nine key socio-economic variables: family
structure; schooling; official languages; immigration; residential mobility;
family income; financial assistance; employment and home ownership.
The Social Risk Index map captured areas of high need within the City of Saint
John, some of which were expected and others which were more surprising.
Areas outside the city boundaries could not be mapped in this way, as the
Census data were not available to do so.
The purpose of the UEY Greater Saint John project, which began in November
2005, was to give our community a sense of how our young children are doing
in terms of their development. The data collected under UEY will allow our
community to make more informed decisions in the future around early
childhood policy development, resource allocation and program and service
offerings.
viii
32
SECTION 'I : INTRODUCTION
'I .'I BACKGROUND INFORMATION
There exists a substantial body of research that supports the value of
investing in early child development. From the moment of birth, a child is
beginning to form the many foundations of social, emotional, physical and
� cognitive abilities. In fact, the first 1,000 days of a child's life are witness to
rapid development in a number of critical domains (Centre on the Developing
Child, 2007):
• Physical development refers in part to the fine and gross motor skills
that allow children to complete everyday tasks and adequately explore
the world around them. Healthy physical development is essential for
the prevention of disease throughout the life span. Indeed, the rate of
obesity among children has tripled in the past 20 years (Spurgeon,
2002), underlining the importance of an early environment full of
opportunities for movement and exploration.
• Emotional and social development are rooted in the warmth, love and
support shared between a child and his parents and caregivers, other
family and friends. Based on these critical early connections, children
learn to love themselves, to empathize with others, to create and
nourish positive relationships and also to deal with stress in a healthy
way. Secure and loving attachments formed in the early years set the
stage for social and emotional benefits that will serve children well into
adulthood.
• Cognitive development refers to a wide variety of skills including the
ability to focus and maintain attention, to memorize the many concepts
required for success in school and at home and to communicate clearly
with others. Fostering cognitive growth among children is
unquestionably vital to their success in school and in life. New
Brunswick has the second-lowest average levels of literacy and
numeracy across Canada, with only 49% of people age 16 — 65
demonstrating the skills necessary to cope with life's daily demands
(Literacy Coalition of New Brunswick, 2008).
Few would disagree that children need support to mature fully in all areas of
their development: physical, emotional, social and cognitive. The many facets
of early child development are interdependent and equally important to a
child's success in school and in life (Government of New Brunswick, 2008).
1
33
��
Optimal investment in early child development benefits the child and family,
as well as the wider community. Previous research on early years investment
points to sizeable socio-economic benefits, with rates of return ranging from
$1.43 per dollar invested (Olds, Henderson, Phelps, Kitzman, & Hanks, 1993)
to as high as $17.00 per dollar invested (Schweinhart, 2005). It is not merely
cliche to say that children are the future of our local neighbourhoods, towns
and cities. It is indeed the case. We cannot afford to under-invest in the
growth and development of local children if we hope to maximize the future
success of the Greater Saint John community.
1 .2 UNDERSTANDING THE EARLY YEARS — GREATER SAINT .JOHN
The Understanding the Early Years (UEY) project is a three-year, community-
based research initiative funded by Human Resources and Skills Development
Canada. The UEY project gives communities across Canada the opportunity to
gather data in 3 areas:
• `Readiness to learn' of kindergarten children
• Family and community factors which influence early child development
• Programs and services available to children age 0 to 5 and their
families.
In order to make good decisions on behalf of our community's children, we
must first understand how well they are doing. UEY data gives communities
the knowledge needed to develop appropriate early years policies and fill in
gaps in local programs and services, all in support of families in the Greater
Saint John area. -
The Greater Saint John UEY site -
follows the boundaries of School
District 8, incorporating all of
the City of Saint John, as well as
the area west to Dipper Harbour,
north to Brown's Flat and east to �� � �
St. Martins. See Map 1 for � � � '� " Y: _ "��
details. � � ��+�`� � '��
t �<' � :r � i `j 'rC
� . '.� ,��,
. .
� � __ � _1 +�_-
z
34
f e,e.,ra /�n �
Groatsr�airt4 Joha �"'� �'
� New Brunswick,Canada �,��� Title: UEY Greater Saint John Site
r - - - - - - - ��`--
i Ii6wEx�.ems� /
� I !"�lE'�netnx�ooQs �
I
— � I
�i, � �.� I A._.
�
Ol _ 57iYfCh� _ _ �D
��„� � '\Npin:eR '
Rw�9/Sta�r.� g. _i��E6r.�n�
� �
/� �
r� � t NMAw�'nM�wbsY�OnWb+[A�a�3k'.SYdksCeWw+IQFN<k�nR�C\V[:s)NRV�'.:?J5
u�rr.neH
` Su' `,
,
w
Grand Cry
�f�Rliry
� � A �
� ta H t r-
�
�w� � uri�� IAGr�idT ('. N 0 ��,�i. ��
�' Un�-cry
:cn• �
L, �W'�i.fSt.lran ��� Wkwcod f
� G.�e.n.r nhoeu �y ;ns�,n � ,5
� #' #,r,eee+ �J H j laRO�a :
1 : � ,�
� � hd H G 54 w�. - �'� ,n a�'�ry �a�m�+�. at Mau,s
ttine � tf ` � � .
— ~�� t � � mee+cns� N H 4 C} Fi J
s. a a...ra� ���as e
� fvhl �
�
� . �1 ' > � �. �
K,,noe � O :
Stm�n •,S
syiod � �1
� .' 9 A Y U F
� f!+rti!n.�+w-sw
w
MAP 1 : UEY GREATER SAINT JOHN SITE, NEIGHBQURHOODS AND SCHOOLS
35
�
Research Methodology
UEY data was gathered using the following methods:
• Early Development fnstrument (EDI)
• Parent Interview and Direct Assessment of Children Survey(PI DACS)
• community-wide inventory of programs and services (community
assets)
• Census data from Statistics Canada
Details of the properties of the research instruments used and the resulting
data incorporated into this report are provided on the following pages.
However, it is important at this point to consider the potential limiting factors
of the UEY research methodology.
First, the EDI results represent kindergarten teachers' perceptions of their
students' development. Similarly, the parent interviews from the PIDACS data
collection represent the parents' perceptions of their own children's
characteristics and behaviours. Therefore, these data are subject to the
potential bias of each individual from whom the information was collected.
Second, the EDI results were collected on kindergarten children within School
District 8 during the 2005-2006 school year as expected. The PIDACS data,
however, were supposed to have been collected on the same cohort of
children that participated in the EDI data collection. Unfortunately,
administrative delays in the contracting of a data collection firm meant that
the PIDACS data were not collected on kindergarten children in the 2005-6
cohort, but rather on the group of children in kindergarten in 2006-7. Clearly,
this has implications for the interpretation and use of the resulting data.
Overall, it is important to keep in mind that the EDI results for Greater Saint
John represent a snapshot of the `readiness to learn' of one group of children
at a single point in time. Therefore, these results can and should be
considered baseline data for further research in early child development in the
Greater Saint John area, but not necessarily used in a `stand alone' manner.
The New Brunswick Government, through the Earlv Childhood StrategvAction
Plan- 2008-2009, has committed to administering the EDI across New
Brunswick as part of an overall early childhood development community
mapping model. This will give our communities a more solid data set to
inform decisions around policy development, funding allocation and program
selection and implementation.
4 . .
36
Purpose of the UEY Community Mapping Report
Data collected via the Early Development Instrument, Parent Interview and
Direct Assessment of Children Survey, program and service inventory and the
2001 and 2006 Census are gathered together here under the UEY Community
Mapping Report. The report is designed to give key stakeholders a visual
means of insight into the status of early child development in the Greater
Saint John area. The maps included here were produced by the Geomatics
Department of the New Brunswick Community College in Moncton, NB.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................,
: Fig. 1: Timeline of UEY Greater Saint John project
March 2007:
November February 2006: Collection of
2005: Collection of EDI PIDACS data
The UEY Greater data from 2005�6 from 2006-7
Saint John kindergarten cohort. kindergarten
project begins. cohort.
�
April 2005: Saint 2008. July—
John Early Childhood Inventory of 2�o$mber
Development communit
Coalition (ECDC) y Creation of
answers the request assets, i.e. maps and
for proposals from programs UEY
Human Resources and services Community
and Skills Mapping
Development Report.
Canada.
:...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:
5
37
� .
'I .� COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHICS — GREATER SAINT .JOHN AREA
��^-��-- � For purposes of the Understanding the Early
Years project, Greater Saint John includes the
City of Saint John proper, along with the
, � -�'; surrounding communities of Dipper Harbour,
� � �' � Grand Bay-Westfield, Brown's Flat and St.
: Martins. The boundaries of the research site
correspond to those of School District 8. The
towns of Rothesay and Quispamsis were studied
as part of the KV/Hampton/Sussex UEY project
, ,�_ which began in 2002 and concluded early in
`"'= '� 2007 and thus, are not included here.
The City of Saint John is the oldest incorporated
� ._ _- - - - � � ; -=� municipality in Canada. Its major employment
.-- _ - sectors include health care, manufacturing,
� education, information technology and
�`�-'� �--"- ��--� administrative su ort. One third of Saint John
Pp
households include children, a number comparable to that of the province of
New Brunswick. More than eight percent of Saint Johners age 20 and over do
not have a high school diploma, while another 16�"Jo have received their high
school diploma and have not gone on to further education (Enterprise Saint
John, 2007). Saint John has historically been, and remains, a city of socio-
economic extremes (Vibrant Communities, 2005, 2008).
, _ _ _ _ _ __ ,
; Fig. 2: Facts about Greater Saint John (Census Metropolifan Area)
2001 Census 2006 Census
Population: 122 678 122 389 ,
# children < 4 yrs: 6 805 6 240
' Median net income
(15 years +): $20 284 $21 852
j Unemployment rate: 9.2% 8.0%
# lone-parent families: 6 385 6 765
(18°�0 of families) (19% of families)
_. _ _ _ ....._ _. .
s _._..�
38
1.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF faREATER SAINT JOHN
The PIDACS portion of the UEY research ,,._.
methodology included interviews with �.`�; r '�
parents of kindergarten-age children. � , �*'`�_� ��
� Analysis of these results revealed that '' ` ' � '�
,i � � '� ,'� . �.
, although parents had relatively high '; ;; . >
� levels of secondary school completion ��`,! �„�!� � � � �'�
�� �
� coupled with high levels of employment, � �
� r �'
�," ,�s ;, :.
approximately 1 in 3 children were _
living in families with an annual income ��, . ,% � !�-_
of less than $30,000 per year. �, , .,�
�� ' jl
�
/.i)�
• Map 2 (p. 8) illustrates the � ��'
proportion of Greater Saint John
residents with a university ' �
education (2001 Census). � ° +-
• Map 3 (p. 9) presents the average ` �'� � ' ` T
total income of Greater Saint
John residents (2001 Census). `•'
According to Vibrant Communities Saint John, an organization working to
reduce poverty, over 60% of single-parent families in Saint John live in
poverty. Further, 30% of families live in high-poverty Census neighbourhoods
(Vibrant Communities Saint John, 2005).
• Maps 4 and 5 (p. 10 - 11) illustrate the proportion of lone parent
families and the proportion of female lone parent families, respectively.
It is important to note that data from the 2001 Census were used for mapping
purposes here. At the time the maps were being constructed, the 2006
Census data was not yet available to the community.
. �. � 7
39
� MAP Z: TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WITH A UNIVERSITY EDUCATION �ZOO'I CEN�US�
. �.��..
�u;��•�;:
_ Greater Saint)ohn -f,�•� Ce115U5 IOOZ'
New Bronswlck,tanada ,��—y'�-'" University Education
,- - - - -ti��:,,,-.� �.,
I . I �tv zec'ro�nxas � � .. .. . ., «.«
-- -.. <cs..�......�r. , . . .
.��� , � ..._... �A � — .
1
' �...�Y�1� .LLi� ' I A' ...-1_—;-�—�
f_:(4f�...�(„��„ �-f...F,' .-. _ _� . a .
i, t ..r..� /"_
i�.c�• . 1_ . --"' . �.��....., /
u. , .� 6 � �/
�, /� !
` J'
Iti �� /
�:;;�...0� !�j High 161-200
� ui-i6o
,
���
� -�`" si-izo
'��
,� ,-%~.
I r-' ai-so
;+«.,,ti., / �\
, �,.,;:, Low underao
r'� ! �' NO OATA
�,j � -.,.,v....+,.�...o.w..�...,......
r ; " �
,.; ,
��` . • , tICK�YL••- . r.�l.i. �
..x t t' �. . ' l.W,ax:d
{ ��' { wre�-s �I
�...�.�: - � t«e�� �
- 1 �''— _._- w-x.�e� _J-'. :
��'' � \ �
�`r
� � �.. ! �:L.... �•�.•r� '��Tr.Can ,StlAahhs
��., 2 / � :�.� � . ��, �` �_�� .�
_. � # t � 1•.eL•Y..1 •.��.I
�'-•�' ,.��'tJ :1.
«....... ..� y
�' � m �,..a
��, �.� a Q ��•,�•. , ,
;��
;:,�.� F +.+
i � � n y n �
_ ;.a .
n
. . cv'.i:�1.�:�t•:r=�''?`S-
40
-�- a
I 6.,,M,�y
� ����1 r
Greater Saint John '� Census 2001'
• �.:
��� New erunswick,tanada ;;,� �
� �,� � Average Total Income
�— — — — —re+T:�.,,� j
� � .FYY��'CV�hx+Cf �• /
� I � I / c.sc....n.,.�....r^�.., ..-..«...,
;�C� �_ . ._ ... . � �� _ - .
� ' .-x. I , I �_ �
�� �t�� .�,•.r'..1 , ' � _ � _ ...-�_-. -
�R•.V�.d:._.-�y,,,, _ - � - i -...��_d.__. ' •_.�.r�� �
1 . . . -- B r:-rt.e,,•.�
� ^ _ �..
��,
��, - %� �
r.�:r,�a� � Nrgh Sf+�001 ared Orer
'� I �'� 550 001-SGO 0".A
�.-"l $dD 001�SSO Ob
, _ ^ .
'�I 1r 533�Ol-S40 0�0
.f_1 j J ,\ 52J 001-530 0..^0
T u.en i
�� N,..n� �_ �OW Undet�520GOD
J, 1 `�•
� �O DATA
, � ,�I ,...snw�<.�.�nro.s�.:....en
� - I
fi �
.r ' � � f
y�- %-• r.w du�.i. � !
�; ' �.,, :if•.-.7-. i
V:�r` 1' l♦ 1.� I J
h .. r t •;t. _':���. . F�.ta;�ry•Y uwra:a � f
._ .. �. �.� 4i:t I�npw (�oc�,l ,'�
t �_ . ^ - � li�n!1.
_' w �eH,N ` ^ � "
� �ia.,. �"� *a.a��� e:n<,a:r. t�fn....,,an St►�a�ur.
,, � • � _i j 1�c.�Mt j ^ �^"
. �wo __ n -•,` \-="� `�
'__ • ; x^t � i-._.r..:� �j�
. .ncd �t..• .<
._ ... b
Fux"/
� ' fami r��;�.• ,..
Snxns • i
5[Y.x.l � �� •
{ A A y C;• (
.-a
� i
tv_r�;a.:Y;::.Sr►:••n:�wq_ .
�
MaP 3: AVERAGE TOTAL INCOME (20O'I CENSUS�
41
� MAP 4: TOTAL NUMBER OF LONE PARENT FAMILIES (ZOO'I CENSUS�
' -
� ��.�i�T�:
� Greater Salnt/ohn � ^- :. Census 2001'
New erunswick,Canada '°•�`� �
_ _ _ _ _ _ �`� Total Lone Parent Families
�- �.�...> -,� �- f
� � .:[r+i��cam;.-ds f� /
� . � I r .�d... ... .. . , ....... ....
;�—�j � �_ _ � �a _ _ .
� ' I � �_ �
�'•. �P'� �1.•`_I - � _ ..-a._. -:
�R1�7;!1/.i...j�-.�, — ' _..' 2'Jb-f". . .I.i�l ,�+�
n. . .� 6 � .. ., J�
� /�- �
I'') /�i
, ' f
� � Lobv Under 25
a:.:�.� ,
� _ -" � � 2fi-50
�'
yr.�' .,r'•:�' S1-75
'� -— 76-300
x w.na en �� �\ 1D1-125
, a.�.. High
i ; �`w
J �' ' NO DATA
� .�;+� ` � :,.•.; „nar•.�,. _ . .,....�.,......,.�;...,.,..,,..,
� T . F..:... 4� r S�f;hM'"n• ! l��f.�, 5
� t .� �"•'.. �r
I .l . -
.. I:�.!�a�:lfi�•� . 1 �,:1 1�1.N�.tl
r 11•• ; H� � �
�... ... v,� .. _ ._ � � t��:c•��, �
� .21..::v�:h t,�.._,.��1 ,-�1 �
R
-i e.. 7 rv xuu�r. #tle•*pe. ��n:.. � \ 1 Stldil.�u
t, ^ �[ _ ./ t w,...•t , _ ;�L,..�-
_ , _- Y.•'��a L J
-- - ';� f R r. ,-,�a��, `�.1
.�.
. .rr,��td i(�. +.
p...ai d
y _n
fqrril �•�
Fu�t p '4.'' 'wr �.
-'cr. CZ
� ti
'�.:...i � 1.
f R a y o f= i
r
� ' ci.��..�y-:•�.�•r�:�•h.1�.n.,
42
� �
� r_�,,
1t11'� :•'
y Greater Salnt loAn �'.�''� Census 2001'
� New Brunzwlck,Canada �.-„%„��'`�� �
_ _ _ _ � _ Female Lone Parent Families
�- ���t..-� r,
I ..� �Er+:r�tn�nrrH , �
.. . 1 � �c_...a..,_.� , -
f �' , .._ '+ - _ , a .... ..�_._.... .._m
.,_x�I I •—
� f •f l ��� i _ -''--. -=
r.�i�"�.,1'. _ _ _ _ 1 ' -!". M1�s�l.�l �
. .. . ""_ �� �v I/.�t�•.�i
_ �,
I /_ fr
��, /
�� \� � �
' � %� Under Z5
Cow
� .,:,..:� i� .
� '� _ _— 26-SO
.-`` 51-75
r
�I - 76-100
� x�_ ..:dry �' `. Nign ioi-izs
� . _.. .
F 'a.
h0 DATA
, ..-.... ,..,.,..,.... . ......
.� � r,
;- .._ �,,,.�,, ,.
' ;� ;._ , . �, . . .. ' �. �- , �
,;
i - . .r t , a `'-'" ' -
,.....� -
t:•. .,:ti . 1......�J
-� x �:t�. s '
_ ,....� r.{ �p.� . _, �.. �, �y��� ,I�I
� .. . �ci,.��� *u.y.. ... ��nt� � _-"l {I st.Rlar4u
; _/� ^V:.n I
� i � li„tn.i �` �`��..r-
f
- __ - "� # •t �C i��.F..� `�-.j
' >,.r<a �;...-...
:�
' • o
_ -• fpi'Y11 ^'" ,:�
P�s i v• t
S:ri.J � i.�
� � n r ^ }'
_ . .
o �,., .. . �.,._-M:.,�. ..
� MAP 5: T�TAL NUMBER OF FEMALE L�NE PARENT FAMILIES (ZOO'I CENSUS1
43
SECTION Z: EARLY DEVELOPMENT INSTRUMENT (EDI� RESULTS
2.'I WHAT IS SCHOOL READINESS�
The Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton,
Ontario, defines `school readiness to learn' as having two components:
• The ability of the child to "meet the task demands of school"
• The child's ability to benefit from the educational activities provided by
the school (Offord Centre, 2008).
How was 'readiness to learn' assessed?
The first phase of UEY data collection involved the assessment of school
readiness among kindergarten children in the Greater Saint John area in
2005-6. To this end, the Early Development Instrument (EDI) was used. This
survey, developed by the Offord Centre for Child Studies, contains 104 items
within 5 domains of child development. The EDI was completed by each
kindergarten teacher in School District 8 for each child in the class.
It is important to remember that the EDI is not a direct assessment tool and
is not intended to be used as an individual measure. Rather, it is a population
measure designed to give our community information on the `readiness to
learn' of the larger group of kindergarten children.
The EDI assesses readiness to learn within five domains:
• The `Physical Health and Well-being' domain is divided into three sub-
domains: physical readiness for school day; physical independence;
gross and fine motor skills.
• The `Social Competence' domain is divided into four sub-domains:
overall social competence; responsibility and respect; approaches to
learning; readiness to explore new things.
• The `Emotional Maturity' domain is divided into four sub-domains: pro-
social behaviour and helping behaviour; anxious and fearful behaviour;
aggressive behaviour; hyperactivity and inattention.
• The `Language and Cognitive Development' domain is divided into four
sub-domains: basic and advanced literacy; basic numeracy; interest in
literacy/numeracy; memory.
• The 'Communication Skills and General Knowledge' domain has no sub-
domains, and includes topics such as: ease and efficiency of
communication; proficiency in native language; ease of participation in
imaginative play and storytelling; quantity of general knowledge.
12
44
...........................................................................................................
Please see Appendix A for a detailed
description of the EDI domains, : Fig. 3: What is a percentile?
sub-domains and related tasks. : A percentile is a way of
According to the Offord Centre for Child ' comparing an individual to
Studies, children who scored in the : others in a group.
a lowest lOth ercentile on one or more
p : In our case, all of the EDI scores :
domains of the EDI were defined as ; from Greater Saint John were
`vulnerable', while children scoring : ranked against a national
between the lOt" and 25t" percentile : sample population for
were defined as `at risk'. Both the : comparison.
`vulnerable' and `atrisk' children are
considered to be `not on track' for : For example, when a local
success in school at kindergarten entry. : student scores in the lowest lOt" :
� percentile on a domain, this
On the opposite end of the spectrum are ; means that their score is equal
those children who score in the 75% ; to or better than only 10°�0 of
percentile or above on one or more : children in the national sample.
domains of the EDI. They are considered : Similarly, a student scoring in
`very ready' for school. Children scoring : the 90th percentile on a domain
between the 25th and 75t" percentiles are : has performed equal to or better :
defined as `ready' for school. Both the : than 90°�0 of the children in the
`ready' and `very ready' children are � national sample.
considered to be `on track' for school
success at kindergarten entry. ` :
;........................................................................................................:
.. .,�;�= ` -;,.-�--�. �� '.
- ..�., � �
�
_ � f;�
� - :y^
:, y
'.\ `�t_ . ' ' ��
f � �� � . r�
`�� . �S� . .t�;
. .
�. ' - �
F� ��\ . �� �{ .
�,
.� �
. 1,� "'r..._
t: S.
i-'.`" ' �;;�t,
13
45
Z'.2 NEIGHBOURHOODS IN GREATER SAINT JOHN
The Early Development Instrument (EDI) was completed by kindergarten
teachers on more than 800 students in School District 8 in February and
March 2006. Surveys on which the teacher had indicated a `special need'
were analyzed separately. These results are captured under the School
Readiness to Learn Special Needs Descriptive Data Report.
In order to protect the confidentiality of individual students, the 24 schools
were grouped into eight larger `neighbourhoods', These neighbourhoods were
created by grouping schools situated next to each other geographically.
Ideally, each neighbourhood would have a similar sample size, however, the
distribution of children within the site made this challenging to achieve.
The 24 schools with kindergarten classes within School District 8 were
grouped as follows:
Neighbourhood 1 (NH1): Tota1 = 97 kindergarten students
• Brown's Flat School, Westfield Elementary School
Grand Bay Primary School, Morna Heights School
Neighbourhood 2 (NH2): Tofal = 77 kindergarten students
• Havelock School, Seawood School, St. Patrick's School
Neighbourhood 3 (NH3): Total = 131 kindergarten students
• Lakewood Heights School, Loch Lomond School, St. Martins School
Neighbourhood 4 (NH4): Total = 69 kindergarten students
• Bayview School, Champlain Heights School
Neighbourhood 5 (NH5): Total = 88 kindergarten students
• Forest Hills School, Glen Falls School
Neighbourhood 6 (NH6): Tota1 = 86 kindergarten studenfs
• Fundy Shores School, Island View School, St. Rose School
Neighbourhood 7 (NH7): Tota1 = 50 kindergarten students
• Centennial School, M. Gerald Teed School, Millidgeville North School
Neighbourhood 8 (NH8): Total = 105 kindergarten students
• Hazen White/St. Francis School, Prince Charles School, Princess
Elizabeth School, St. John the Baptist/King Edward School
14 . _ . � _ _-_._ _. . ...
46
Group comparisons
There were a number of statistically significant results that emerged when
local group comparisons were performed on the EDI results:
• Gender differences: in all five domains of school readiness, girls scored
significantly higher than boys. This is a common phenomenon,
consistent with data collected at other sites where the EDI has been
administered.
• A�e of child: children born earlier in the year scored significantly higher
than those born later in the year in 3 of 5 domains: Social Competence,
Language and Cognitive Development, and Communication Skills and
General Knowledge.
• Kindergarten class type: children in a single-grade kindergarten class
scored significantly higher than those in a K/1 split-grade class in 2
domains: Physical Health and Well-being, and Communication Skills
and General Knowledge.
• Vulnerabilitv: 26.5°Jo of Greater Saint John area kindergarten children
were considered vulnerable on 1 of 5 EDI domains, while 14.2% were
vulnerable on at least 2 of 5 domains. These values were not statistically
significant when compared to the national averages of 25.9°�o and
12.9%, respectively.
Map 6 shows the kindergarten population in School District 8 in 2005-6, under
the UEY Greater Saint John project.
. __ ----- -- -- -__----�--�
M� �
'� _� I
� �
:�'� , ;
�
t
�' � �
��
., ; ,!. c
_ `4.` -
��i
.� �
��:�:- a
i a•,� i ,a�,•
r' y �� - ' ,1 • ` 5�,..
�:
`, �'Y_'�i__.t!�� —� - _–
. 15
47
1
1
�
� MAP s; KINDERGARTEN POPULATION BY UEY GREATER SAINT JOHN NEIGHBC}URHOOD
� n�� . �
� �/l �J.
Greater Saint John _ -�.�'
New Brunswitk,Gnada ;,�:.�'`� Kindergarten Population by UEY Neighborhood
'_ _ _ _ _lAw ka�.•r.,� �
I I J
I ' I;F'rKeCtan��oCs � /
,. _.... _ ...
f C� �.l ._._..,,�......._..___ i� 1?1
, `
� ui., � •_ �-: .:,-��! � �5 I 97 � � 1os J
� � I
p p__ ::, � �.- ... � � 77 /6
, _ ._ . . � --- �� ---- —
u.���,.,. . .. �,.� �toa�— - Sa –
�. , � . 6. �. .r,.,.., y
v } _ ,
\ E F
�f ' ' -
_ -�
/ •. 2. 3. G. 5. o. 7. B.
� I�i Heighborhood(HH) �
�. ri . �.z..�,�w+.•.,.,�..,.�.,,�.,.,.._. .....�...,.,-,x_.,�..,..._.,_..,,:.,...,..
u.i!Mi_ / i
Low SO-69
�\ � �'`�= 70�88
',r %r '��:��f. 89-105
�c.:�ae� � 'J '� 106-129
� 1'rirvey f� �
� � ` Nigh 130 and up
�� .� ..,.�..,..�.,.,: .>,,,_«.«
� ,
�(r ' :
.4' M�>•n. n � A �� ',
j' l.•.t.��..�
t` y.�rr. t...:h ���.�.i t..,J �r.,,:�,. .
�,'` . �' � * '�! I . { �t:m„��., , i�
� n....a c.a' :.vr�r :.�.�.�r �
. '1,n� . h��. . ...p.,.
- r...... ,.� . ��.. S<n,��i .
�� '. t �;:'�nr�- � . � # . ..r .
- vi.•ta �b.�•w � .
.� . .,�...,. � ;�•�in Uene,r�n X;'�_. `-t Man�x
-.i.•-a x — � f .. . , �t��..� ._
� J 11.1��n � �.
.� ,t �� t � nrcrcf-
- .�.wax rl..vu.� 3t �
Pt�n�a �
�,t �
Y fami �-.: -
«:.,;��_.
Fur� a c , �� �.
S11'Y05 � ���i
tr.l.,ci f l'
r � A V n i�
- .- r
° � •r
48
2.3 PHYS[CAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING DOMAtN
Results from the Physical Health and Well-being domain of the Early
Development Instrument (EDI) reveal the kindergarten teachers' perceptions
of students' abilities in areas such as physical preparedness for the school
day, independent and coordinated movement, and development of gross and
fine motor skills.
Approximately 25% of kindergarten children were `not on track' (not ready for
school) in this domain. In particular, gross and fine motor skills were
identified as needing attention. Overall, kindergarten children in Greater Saint
John scored significantly lower than the national average in Physical Health
and Well-being.
. ........ ..... . . ......... ...... . ...... .. .. _ _ __. . ... . .... .... ....... .. .. _ _.__ _ _ ___.
Fig. 4: Distribution of Physical Health and Well-being scores
ON TRACK NOT ON TRACK
Very ready Ready At risk Vulnerable
100�Jo - 75�/0 75a/o - 25% 25% - 10% 10%
N = 213 N = 327 N = 102 N = 74
_ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ __ ___. __ _ _ _
Map 7 shows the percentage of children in the lowest lOt" percentile by
neighbourhood on the Physical Health and Well-being domain of the EDI.
Children who are deemed vulnerable on this domain may:
• Arrive at school unprepared for the day, come to school hungry, tired or
with low energy levels
• Show a lesser degree of physical independence and coordination,
and/or may not have an established hand preference.
• Demonstrate delayed gross motor skills (walking and running) and fine
motor skills (holding a pencil or turning the pages of a book).
In two neighbourhoods - NH7 (Old North End/Millidgeville) and NH8 (North
End/South End) - approximately 20°Jo of children were considered vulnerable
in this domain. These children may demonstrate any combination of the
above characteristics of vulnerability in this domain.
1?
49
�
MAP T: EDI SCORES BY UEY NEIGHBOURHOOD:
� PHYSICAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING , LOWEST 1 O� PERCENTILE
' e,v
� �:,;�r.;~":
Greater Salnt lohn , dc'�' EDI Scores by UEY Neighborhood
New erunswick,Canada �_�.� ���' �oWest lOth Percentile, Physical Health
' '°-°`•' ' and Well-being
.
� � �' �
Jlv4rr'o•n:.:.;, :
I 1
, . . ..... . . . .. - � - � ----... . _.
� �I I'� 3CL � . ____-r1— Il --..
�:ui
' 1 1 A_ ¢�25'��.
� � �,� � � oi�C --._...-- - --
.•.c� i,_�. . _ .. ._ _ _ -_ .i .� m15% � 91 —f .5 �r �1 .__ _ --u� _.
� , p ��yr�:..,.., � �Q -- � _ '
• . a ica
sx
Oti
'f� �� 1. I. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8.
� �, lJeighbcrhoads�NNI +
i
.� n..s..�..:a,.u:.._..,.�. ,�.....::°�v_..: .- . '-` .... ..:.>c ...�.,.,...
Nvf�a.. `'� .Nr�. .
�� .� Low 0.0•4.9
i"��� 5.0-9.9
; J� ,,,:�
+ }� io.o-ia.9
',::,d�,, �� 't is.a•i9.s
� �, ,;` Nigh 20.0 and up
L '1 r.......... ..•...•....! r,) +! f
�
' t � A r
� 4to�n N�i,-,�...t. t ��
T�' �1�1'.�, . . r.fi..��Niwd �..n��i; �
..e:� � � tl.�m�ilr� '' �•
� ' /v... � �1 " �
_ r�:lx _.4�u._ ' : '�
�.� . .. � .1i1� N.:'1: '� • I
��_� t.�,�. ,� , . .' S<nv�l � .r.-�` - ___ Y 1
t � . . •� �. . -.f* ? 1
j J— .�W�'(! f �ll�f�'M ,• � �
� •��.. � r c�rt., nemvc,�r �C•rV4r y_i.Gli!495
.l�•.� } _ ' � Ntt'� L. t.I�-^�.r�� �
� il 1_'�
- - � � Z � iR.p.'.�.R -�•I
� - .._.A_s. n..,�:�� c e.��. N H . '
x
k . -
F«��, , c
~ fami ���::� " ,
i±"
�,s o� •
5:r,.ct L�'
i
� � A y Ci F .
.
'J n»'._u'I�L-,"�e_N_K�_r.l�w
50
..
2.4 SOCIAL COMPETENCE DOMAIN
Results from the Social Competence domain of the Early Development
Instrument (EDI) show the kindergarten teachers' perceptions of students'
abilities relating to responsibility and respect, readiness to learn new things
and explore the environment, as well as the notion of `overall social
competence'.
Approximately 28% of kindergarten children were `not on track' (not ready for
school) in this domain. In particular, overall social competence was identified
as requiring attention. Overall, kindergarten children in Greater Saint John
scored significantly lower than the national average in Social Competence.
_ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _
Fig. 5: Distribution of Social Compefence scores
ON TRACK NOT ON TRACK
Very ready Ready At risk Vulnerable
100% - 75�fo 75°Jo - 25°Ja 25a/o - 10% 10%
N = 140 N = 378 N = 126 N = 72
_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ;
Map 8 shows the percentage of children in the lowest lOth percentile by
neighbourhood on the Social Competence domain of the EDI. Children who
are deemed vulnerable in this domain may demonstrate some or all of the
following:
• Little or no cooperative play with other children; low self-confidence; few
social skills.
• Rare or no acceptance of responsibility for actions; inability to follow
rules or show respect for others.
• Little curiosity about the world around them; difficulty adjusting to
change in routines.
In three neighbourhoods — NH4 (East Saint John/Champlain Heights), NH5
(Glen Falls/Forest Hills) and NH6 (Upper West Side to Dipper Harbour) —
approximately 11% of children were considered vulnerable in this domain.
Two other neighbourhoods — NH7 (Old North End/Millidgeville) and NH2
(Lower West Side) showed results of 14% and 16%, respectively. In all of
these neighbourhoods, children may demonstrate some or all of the above
characteristics of vulnerability in this domain.
_ 19
51
�
� MAP 8: EDI SCORES BY UEY NEIGHBOURHOOD:
SOCIAL COMPETENCE, LOWEST 1 OT" PERCENTILE
� ti.�
� Greater Sslnt lohn �•"-�;,��''� EDI Seores by UEY Neighborhood
New Brunswlck,Caeada _�_.. ,n
,- - - - -,a�E,-,,,,, ,-' � Lowest lOth Percentile,Social Competence
� � :IEY YC{�LOiAY.fdf i
I I
� �I �A l67 .
I � 1 � �`- a�C� :1.6 _ fl< 11.5 lA
� �, � Lry'er _ . . — -�---.. .
I m IS% 9.3
� b n__ .- - - - - -` :�,.� � �� � s.� u¢r -
tba���,c i•��.�. :104G
��. .. .. p .� � � •
,' _ I, a SX _'__ __ —'
Q
' ]. 2. 3. l. S. 6- 7. B.
1'�'I , . . .. . ._peigA6orhoods{NH� '
� m..suc�taw,mn.r...n.w•a.xc=:...i.a.c<.__..,�..,�_�:..r.r....,t�.« as.�....,
i. . ,•.._:.. I ..,.n./�., . �Law 0.0•4.9
�-
f'�� 5.0•4.9
''�' _ f S.S"'.�T
t 10.0-14.9
�,�e e� � J 15.0-19.9
; r•.��w +r �\
f � High 20.0 and up
� ��` � t,; � 7 � �i� ,....A.� �.,,,, _..........,�-.. .
� J/ Mo=n> N�1:,;•��l� ��
�
/ N�t'•�. I.L.n� M.GnJ:T..d :��n��ii
tin� � �' �' '� � ENm�nlr� 1
_ ' IL.�e� i' �� � �
- 'A.. '.t:r.� � i�`�'�r :.d�u:a.. �� a
- � � M�1� w,�yt• � �• ��
(�nln.ill : . 4 .".
�� ,.' f' s��-a� ; '"" i •� ti
��. �,ro
#•._,.., , fa i� ., •� �1'. __ _ t I
h�v.. B�Mrw -' .
' • 1"� l. at P�:� " 'r�.�.��-, [I!m!'IJIV �CL-'p4�-. SI.MiqaYS
{ � IN�`t: ` l A �^'
til��.; Y Y"�J �1�•n _ �._'_v u�
�.t ` * Y �� tti.Bx�+�r ' , .,i
�'` S.�.wem x....:d �J Fj .
t.t..�4 y
C
Y �� ���j•�.�.,^:,:j i..
St��ras a
S[l.icl f t�
{ rn y c, F
..: .
o '.�.
52
Z.S EMOTIONAL MATURITY DOMAIN
Results from the Emotional Maturity domain of the Early Development
Instrument (EDI) reveal the kindergarten teachers' perceptions of students'
pro-social and helping behaviours, as well as anxious, aggressive and
�
hyperactive behaviours.
n
, Approximately 25°�0 of kindergarten children were `noton track' (not ready for
school) in this domain. In particular, prosocial and helping behaviours were
identified as requiring attention. Overall, kindergarten children in Greater
Saint John scored significantly lower than the national average in Emotional
Maturity.
. . .__ _ _ __ _. _ _ __ . _ ___ _ __ _ __ _ __ ___
Fig. 6: Distribution of Emotional Maturity scores
ON TRACK NOT ON TRACK
Very ready Ready At risk Vulnerable
100% - 75% 75�/0 -25�Jo 25% - 10% 1�%
N = 170 N = 359 N = 106 N = 70
_ _ __ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ :
Map 9 shows the percentage of children in the lowest lOth percentile by
neighbourhood on the Emotional Maturity domain of the EDI. Children who
are deemed vulnerable in this domain may demonstrate some or all of the
following:
• Little or no helping behaviour if someone is hurt or in need.
• Anxious behaviours (worry or shyness), aggressive behaviours (fighting
with others or disobedience), and/or hyperactive behaviours (fidgeting
or restlessness) at school.
In three neighbourhoods — NH1 (Morna Heights/Grand Bay-Westfield/Brown's
Flat), NH4 (East Saint John/Champlain Heights) and NH5 (Glen Falls/Forest
Hills) — the percentage of vulnerable children was between 13% and 17%.
These children may demonstrate some or all of the above characteristics of
vulnerability in this domain.
21
53
1
N MAP 8: EDI SCORES BY UEY NEIGHBOURHOOD;
N EMOTIONAL MATURITY, LOWEST 'I OTH PERCENTILE
' a.�.
� Greate►Salnt John ` ���-
New Brunswick,[anada , ��.�-�'�., EDI Stores by UEY Neighborhood
,- - - - -��4:j:.-, , Lowest lOth Percentile,Emotional Maturity
� � ve�ru,c��omzm � J _
� I �
( S� �, —
, � � 15.5 — ❑ � �
� A_ C2C� — _' ]}
, . � �ri.� I m ---- --'
��. n �--� - �- - - - - -• ..,r,.�� 015 - ---'-.�-.� — ----:.���:i.J--�:�
p.••�. . . 6 _ � �i..n � 0.l0 � - — -'- ��� �-�
•I SR — --- —
�
�a.
!�i 1. 2. 3. 3. S. 6. 7. tl.
,i Neig!�borhoad��HN� �
f . ws....vtt�.ww�.:.vui..-srw:a-.c:.a.:.•s:;,wnc..:�.z��a..aw�.� a.r.�...,
+v w.x.�..v s..s.-_..�..�s..
,,.=._.i , ,
'� f—� tow o.o.a.s
�—
% S.0•9.9
,,r �
' �-� 10.0-14.9
i �
G�inO?�ry !
.� w,�„ ; � i5.o�i9.s
� � `��.
." ,� � High 20.0 and up
� � _ ', �.....:...,.....�.•....,...,,�,..:,.
,� _ �� . '
raa.., r,,��-- .. � (
t� ' �a-e 'i�.a� �a�.�...�.-_u -, l
i ��� � � � :�.:��,i.. i�
'; t1�::•i l�T�� •� ` ��
-_ ; l��t�P:f!
C.r.. �.I {�'` .. r M.l� y..��fi ,� '� I
. t[AY� ,t r�1'�' 4
- � �.:)0•�" .. . • �-'t y
- -'r:.. �.�..vv, _-_-- F
� � .,�.. � �:s�., ei..,FC.ti ���-ui..- 5�.A�amn
�i.�.. Jt '! + �"'e'cs -,--.t-it.`^
. -' x�..� .�•-
-- j - � x �l rn-@.pnn ;i , _i
_ _.m___ u..•��.� r�•,�, ^J H w
s
�N �c � � :�;:°,�
>�7os
St.xt F l7
{ � A Y (i f'
;,
54
Z,6 LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT DOMAIN
Results from the Language and Cognitive Development domain of the Early
Development Instrument (EDI) show the kindergarten teachers' perceptions of
students' abilities in basic and advanced literacy and numeracy, and cognitive
skills such as memory.
Approximately 25°Jo of kindergarten children were `not on track' (not ready for
school) in this domain. Both interest in literacy/numeracy and numeracy itself
were identified as requiring attention. Overall, kindergarten children in Greater
Saint John scored significantly lower than the national average in Language
and Cognitive Development.
_ __ . ._ _____ _ __ _____ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _
Fig. 7: Distribution of Language and Cognitive Development scores '
ON TRACK NOT ON TRACK
Very ready Ready At risk Vulnerable
100�"/a - 750-/0 75%- 25% 25%- 10% 10%
N = 213 N = 327 N = 102 N = 74 '
__ .... .._... .... _ _. _ __ _ _ _ _ _
Map 10 shows the percentage of children in the lowest lOt" percentile by
neighbourhood on the Language and Cognitive Development domain of the
EDI. Children who are deemed vulnerable in this domain may demonstrate
some or all of the following:
• Little or no interest in books and reading, math or number games.
• Lack of basic or advanced literacy skills; problems with numeracy,
naming of shapes or telling time.
In four neighbourhoods — NH3
(Lakewood Heights to St. Martins), NH5
� (Glen Falls/Forest Hills), NH7 (Old
� �� North End/Millidgeville) and NH8 (North
�` ��` End/South End) — between 11% and
13% of kindergarten children were
�� identified as `vulnerable'. These children
�� � may demonstrate some or all of the
above characteristics of vulnerability in
this domain.
_ . 23
55
1
MAP 10: EDl SCORES BY UEY NEIGHBOURHOOD:
� LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE DEYELOPMENT, LOWEST 'I OT" PERCENTILE
� u,�..,.
� ���=� �7> � ED! Scores by UEY Neighborfiood
Greater Salntlohn - T
_ ` — — _ _ _ — New 6runswlek,Gnada �r.�,,� .��i°' �owest lOth Percentile,Language and Cognitive
� n,.cui.•x.� �'
, , / Development
I ' ;;EY ReCtomaxs " J
!
� �I 1'� , 1� �136 __ 17 ._. liq .
-- ---._.___. __ - _._.-
' � � '�— C�1S . . .
i � Lt�ct � . .m.. 7.1 �S �2 S.F UEY
'o �-- — -. ._ .- — — —e .. � —
'R,a.�, ...��..�i i �1C .
�. . B i��rJ..f..,., � .
; ' ' a __... _.— . _ _ —._ —_. ._ __ `
i
_— 0. 5!:
. ��`
3. I. I. <. 5. 6. ?_ H.
1� NeigAborhood��NN�
'i __ - - - - �
� Mrsa.srnl..r,.w:..w.zY't:lrs�C.v:.w.�-w.,c.x,.�.;.,r.a.Y.�..olsx [rw.�a...
I I ! N�M+a�a l��.vf..�....�,...
��.i�_._ / i
� _-� Low 0.0-4.9
��,,ry f� �! S.0•9.9
1 S.,Y..
� — 10.0-14.9
��o�na� /r~ 15.0•19.9
r.,,.y.i 1
� 1 � Nigh 20.0 and up
` N H , fl�! �i �......,.r�_t.•....,�.»,.-...,
' I .
�� i I` ,� (
w::... rl���;;wer< 1
���R"1• /irtf� M.{i��J:Tad `vl-niaiS
�� � � �� �' .i 1 iLmw4� �
' fLYn� 1� � -..
" �AT�te/St in'. � �`+t' t..1.�ucd � L
(..,��-:iei " w�° o
n�an, ! xnzi ,� � �
- � �w�� �PJ !^ .:, Unw•a i
. ,I�;r.;� �Ln.�rw `�r� �
��
, � !P_ I G..•ba [I.m.n.YV ��.,,'Vyr. SL M]�4v
.W., r� — / � M4.�� 1 ...�`
� • - J! fl l;'n
--- ..:� __-•+ x t � -�-s,��•• . r� r� �
- _.�__. ,,..:�.a r.�•��, . I
t
� _
y M� ,'"n
Fu'4y C
�1 1 'lJ�,T:..'.•
4��as �
3�...1 � L '
{ ? A y (: F
- - � . i r . . ..-
O
r:s �-:1�ri:�-M:K'
56
Z.T COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND GENERAL KNOWLEDGE DOMAIN
Results from the Communication Skills and General Knowledge domain of the
Early Development Instrument (EDI) reflect the kindergarten teachers'
perceptions of students' overall communication skills and general knowledge.
Approximately 34% of kindergarten children were `not on track' (not ready for
school) in this domain. In particular, overall social competence was identified
as requiring attention. Overall, kindergarten children in Greater Saint John
scored significantly lower than the national average in Communication Skills
and General Knowledge.
__ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _
' Fig. 8: Distribution of Communication Skills and General
Knowledge scores ,
ON TRACK NOT ON TRACK
Very ready Ready At risk Vulnerable
100�Jo - 75�Ja 75�Ja- 25a/o 25% - 10�/0 10%
N = 234 N = 241 N = 160 N = 81
_ _ _ __ __ _ _ __. _ _ __ _ _ _ __
Map 11 shows the percentage of children in the lowest lOt" percentile by
neighbourhood on the Communication Skills and General Knowledge domain
of the EDI. Children who are deemed vulnerable in this domain may
demonstrate some or all of the following:
• Average to poor abilities in effective communication; difficulty
understanding others.
• Difficuity participating in games involving language.
• Problems with general knowledge in various subject areas.
In three neighbourhoods — NH6 (Upper West Side to Fundy Shores), NH7 (Old
North End/Millidgeville) and NHS (North End/South End) — the percentage of
vulnerable children in this domain was between 16°�o and 20%. These children
may demonstrate some or all of the above characteristics of vulnerability in
this domain.
25
57
�
[
N MAP 11; EDI SCORES BY UEY NEIGHBOURHOOD:
Of COMMUNICATION SKILLS AND GENERAL KNOWLEDGE , LOWEST 1 OTH PERCENTILE
a .
Yv.w.
�.,.x,.�'�:
Greater SaintJoAn ..-w7,r EDI SCOfeS by UEY NelghbO�hOOd
New Brunswlck,Canada _ , ,,,�
,- - - - - - - - — Lowest lOth Percentile,Communication and
/A.;:i e I:•:.� /'
' � • f General Knowled pe
� �CY x�``toHir.QS � O
I
r r� �a
� tr,_
' vi.� � a _ �25Y __.. _ _._ 77t �� ]n 2
_� � .� m z� _
� r� �--� - � -- �� --y ,.� � � :�.7 � � � ..
t+.:i �. .i-..-� m 15k. ��� UEY -
�r.. 6 rv.�.n..� v � 5.2 ° 3.2 �������' ������� ��' �'
, . m ia� ----
-- a
� 5; �—^— — -- -- —
an
-��� 1. 2. 3. t. 5- 6. 7. B.
'� Hcigh6orhoads�HH�
�\\ �
� -� WnL[ru4+YnR�i�uuAG+Lf4uCiNr.�d.?:�i-Tti.:•:��.s-.wir ""' -..v.�....
•��yn.eaY�i/.�a�w.�.xl �wN��
tS�_..
� ='� � Louv 0.0-4.9
�-''� S.0-9.9
�'� r �,°
�
�r,��d�.w �_�
— 10.0-14.9
� ���-••, �' �. is.o•19.9
�-.,
; I ���� High 2Q.0 and up
� .� ii ,.. .,�._..,.......,. ., ., ,
� �.�,..,x , �� .x ,�
tt .��t. � •.t .� .. �. J `
' - :il.n tllt � /
_ � � 'r ' � ' � tl�m�n4e (
/f�::i� _ +
•..-.Cr•. . [�T.t lwY�oui � 1
. , {� • . n�l� * W��ryV „' I
� Yrntr.. / i�1r.'CI � LYh
.. � � �'.::L-�` ! r� I' � L:mmd� ?y
. "_�. q� �trot+. �_.^-"�_� R
.. � <r F-. � �c:.dr, [w�.�..rv �';.,,..p4r 9t.Maitl�n
.s.•,: x —"/ d Ne Cc; ` �,,,.��
':.w _- N�;•.� \ �
x .!,fi x ��S TM Fti.... {�� f i .J \'V
-' _.uu.� N�.�":a/ Pl.rt1. . �
6
n
F.rcy � � "�;?
s�sca �� W i wv �. .
�ff,..,l V ��
� �
� A )' t: �
n - _
. lt•�_.�ra•::•�•.�.�1..A 'W.
58
SECTION 3; EARLY CHILDHOOD RESOURCES
IN GREATER SAINT .J�HN
$.� SELECTING PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
The early childhood program and service offerings (or community asse�s)
included here do not represent an exhaustive listing of resources available to
children age 0 to 5 and their families in the Greater Saint John area.
Programs and services can be rather fluid in nature, evolving (or
disappearing) according to the availability of funding and the changing needs
of both the organizations that provide the program or service and the end
users- local area families with young children.
(For a more complete listing of early childhood programs and services in the
Greater Saint John area, please see the `UEY Early Childhood Services and
Resources Parents' Handbook', available on-line at www.familyplus.ca or in
printed form from Family Plus/Life Solutions at 506-634-8295.)
The following series of maps presents four categories of key programs and
services that directly engage children under the age of 5 and promote early
learning in all areas of development:
_ • licensed childcare and preschool
- programs
` • health services- hospitals, family
� physicians and after-hours
� '
_ clinics
�'��� � • parks and recreation
; , `�_
� . ,� _ opportunities
��.
�`"� - • education and support services.
r:
:�
Accompanying each of the four community resource maps are relevant
statistical data from the following sources:
• Previous research conducted by local community organizations such as
the Human Development Council, Vibrant Communities Saint John and
the Literacy Coalition of New Brunswick
• 2001 Census data from Statistics Canada
• Results from the Parent Interview and DirectAssessment of Children Survey
(PIDACS) under UEY
,...___._.,.,. 1.�� ..,. ,.._ . _...,, _ y.. 27
59
,r._.,.-...
The Parent Interview and Direct Assessment of Children Survey(PI DACS)
The second phase of UEY data collection, the Parent Interview and Direct
Assessment of Children Survey (PIDACS) consisted of two parts:
• By telephone interview, parents were encouraged to weigh in on a
variety of topics related to their kindergarten-age child: developmental
outcomes; parenting practices; family functioning; child's participation
in community activities, etc.
• The children of parents interviewed participated in a direct assessment
of their skills and abilities in three areas: receptive vocabulary, number
knowledge, and pre-literacy skilis.
Please see Appendix B for more detailed information regarding the PIDACS.
The UEY Greater Saint John PIDACS sample included 604 kindergarten
children from School District 8 during the 2006-7 school year. Five hundred
and seventy (570) children took part in the direct assessments, while 502
parents or guardians completed the telephone interview. UEY Greater Saint
John had one of the highest response rates across Canada for the PIDACS
data collection phase at 83%.
It should be noted that unlike the EDI scores, the PIDACS data does not lend
itself as readily to mapping. This is due to differences in sampling:
• The EDI sample included almost every kindergarten child in School
District 8 in 2005-6. This "Census-style" sampling ensured that the
resulting data allowed for reliable comparisons between
neighbourhoods.
• The PIDACS phase of data collection involved a smaller sample of
kindergarten children, and there was not sufficient sample size per
neighbourhood to allow for statistically robust comparisons.
In this report, relevant PIDACS data is presented alongside maps of programs
and services that support early child development.
For a complete list of the programs and services that were mapped, please
see Appendix C.
28
60
3.� LICENSED CHILDCARE AND PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS
Under the UEY Greater Saint John project, parent interviews during the
PIDACS research phase highlighted the following important issues with
respect to childcare:
• 62% of local families used some form of childcare arrangement
compared to the national average of 58 Jo.
• Approximately 15 hours per week of childcare was required, with most
families (69°Jo) using a single form of childcare.
• Most frequently, parents in Greater Saint John had their children in
someone else's home being cared for by a non-relative (18%), or in a
relative's home (13%) or in their own home being cared for by a relative
�1�%)•
Map 12 illustrates the locations of childcare centres and preschool programs
in the Greater Saint John area which are licensed by the provincial
Department of Social Development. These locations are accurate as of
November 2008. The resources selected for this particular map include only
those childcare centres that serve children under the age of five.
As the map shows, the majority of licensed childcare centers and preschool
programs are located in neighbourhoods in the uptown area of Saint John. As
expected, the majority of resources are located in areas of highest population.
According to a recent Inclusive Cities report, some of the key challenges
facing early child development in Greater Saint John include the frequent
turnover of childcare staff and the lack of affordable childcare spaces
(Hatfield, 2005). According to data from the 2006 Census and information
provided by the Department of Social Development (Carr, personal
communication), there are enough infant spaces (children age 0-2 years) to
provide childcare for only 7.5°Jo of that age group, while there are enough
preschool spaces (children age 2-5 years) to provide childcare for only 25.1 Jo
of that age group.
Clearly, there are currently too few childcare spaces available to families in
our community. The projected future growth of Greater Saint John as an
`energy hub' will bring with it new families looking for childcare options that
do not currently exist. Benefits Blueprint, among others, has underlined the
need for more childcare spaces and increased flexibility for parents within the
current childcare structure (Hardy Stevenson & Associates, Ltd., 2008).
����.--��-�� � 29
61
l
O MAP 12: LOCATION OF LICENSED CHILDCARE SERVICES AND PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS
l j
j Greater S:Int Jobn —
S.S HEALTH �ERVICES
_.�---
-- .. "� �. ,. , According to a poll conducted
, ' I in September 2006 by the
- � College of Family Physicians of
-��- Canada, approximately 17°�0 of
, ' � � ���� Canadians are without a family
.,��� physician. A Community
r Health Survey in 2007 by
1 " �
Statistics Canada revealed that
8°�0 of New Brunswick
residents (approximately
60,000 people) are without a
� � family physician.
Map 13 illustrates the locations of hospitals, family physicians' offices and
after-hours clinics in the Greater Saint John area. Also included on this map
are two provincial entities that provide direct services to young children and
families- the Department of Social Development and Public Health, under the
umbrella of their respective 'Early Childhood Initiatives' programs.
The parent interview portion of the PIDACS data collection revealed that
among kindergarten-age children in the Greater Saint John area:
• 2/o were identified as having fair or poor general health
• 16% had problems with inattention, while 13% were identified as
having low levels of positive social behaviour
• 10% had asthma, 12°Jo had allergies, and 9°Jo had some other chronic
condition.
These percentages were not statistically different from the Canadian PIDACS
average.
According to Map 13, the majority of primary care services are located in
neighbourhoods within the City of Saint John. Again, these are the areas in
which the greatest percentage of our population is located.
_ 31
63
�
� MAP 13: LOCATION OF HEALTH SERVICES
N
i -
p Greater Salnt lofin - . - � '
� New erunswlck,Canada .,�"�� Community Resources by UEY Neighbourhood
• - - - - - - . Health Servlces
r/:=F.......,I
� Q I ..uFY Hwµ�huul.:,cd. �
M�
c1 L7 �x Num6ero(resourcesbynelghbourhood
'- �c � � i
� i � � "' ' lov� None
• �' �'` - -y����' - - - -�' �' � Health Services 1-2
R1�V1,. ., .. 1. ��_ V,t�-.,.��
u:..r. •. i g� —N rl..e.,.�
Locations
,,.,: - 3•6
_ 7 8
High 9 or more �
� �..�.-.�,,.,s�K.�,s-,..�.a...:� - �...��...�..;>«..._.,.
�...Q,....-�:;,; ..._.,-, ;..z
,� � ��
� .
-�;- .,�.,
�� ,/ �
, ,� �
;� .
L � . ' � �// � A
r�r� I _ f
. �� ��j i : �
. i �
. � :�r �c:''' +� � � I . - '�\ � �I
.i ' .�.���� � J
I�� �
rr t,Y \
_ ��`i�� - yt W..,-s
� • �
B
� �' faml) r`1�� �'-� ,
F �' � �
� n r o r-
. .
O S'�r:1� l7i:�1M•MSY'��:
64
�
3.� PARKS AND RECREATION
As identified earlier under the domains of Early Development Instrument
(EDI), physical health and well-being is a key part of a healthy childhood.
Communities that offer parks, play spaces and other recreational
opportunities to young children help promote both healthy families and a
sense of connectedness within neighbourhoods.
Parents interviewed during the PIDACS phase of UEY Greater Saint John
revealed the following about their children's use of community resources:
• Parks, play spaces and trails are used by 82% of young children and
their families at least once a month
• Kindergarten children played organized sports 1.1 times per week and
unorganized sports 3.6 times per week
• Community centres and recreational centres were used at least once a
month by 33% of area kindergarten children
All of the above values were significantly lower than the Canadian PIDACS
average. However, the percentage of children in Greater Saint John who on a
monthly basis attended sports events and movies and made use of ice rinks
was higher than the Canadian PIDACS average.
Map 14 illustrates the locations of community centres and recreational
resources, including parks and play spaces in the Greater Saint John area.
Again, these resources are
primarily concentrated in
neighbourhoods within the
City of Saint John, with the � � J
fewest number of resources -' y `��'�""�� �I
�._
found in outlying areas such � .. �
as NHl (Morna Heights to � J
Brown's Flat) and NH3 , . .*�i
(Lakewood Heights to St. , - ° `
Martins). It is important to � - ^�' • , � "
note that this map does not ! 1. -_=- .�„ ~
capture the state of repair of � � � �' �� ~ � � '
•�., y. , a;U '�•_• 9� .
( '..1� . ��,�� �1��, ;,�,,�. .
these resources nor their r-� , �'�' � ';• � �r��� �^r,,•.t',�%u��
u:�.).afi`___ �.. . ,.•f.*. L<. e��.. .a _i._.
frequency of use.
33
65
� �
� MAP 14: LOCATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION RESOURCES
. ,
J� Greate�5alnt John
� NewBrunswlck,Canada N� Community Resources by UEY Neigh6ourhood
� — — — — �,.-,,-„-I Parks and Recreatfon
I y
� � �fvNr�co,rhxw, ,
.� �� I� Number ot resources 6y nelghhourhood
� , i
' � i , - -- �- I A— .
� , �, LOW �'4
(� u: . _ „i- — .
�,.: ...;. � .. Communiry Centres _
„ .� . -- loca�Park 5•10
' Parks and Reueation 11•16
High 17 or morc
/
_,n_...,,.-.��,.:.,..,.,»...,: �_,_._...���:..._.__.
. r:..�... .� � -..._....... ,
� - ' �
` : ' ,r:
4��
/�_
J
. �` `
� �. . + (
{ ,� r;
Jit • 1
ti Y t� �
ti^ �� _ �
• � �, � �
' "•RS ' '
` � y , � � `.� '1� 5 � �h� �_ _ ..•'� � 'i
i _ ,�r.�, . �6?�� � ` _ ��/L.��
� _i�1 - `� i
i - .. , .. hS .d H •, N tt . �.1 c.r,rar.�s
. ` .- P
� � � .. famd - �� s
,,
�:
� � y r, r:
ti
� �:,.,„�.�„�,..,.�-..:
66
�
�.5 EDUCATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES
The Education and Support Services category covers a wide range of
resources available to families within Greater Saint John. The Government of
New Brunswick's `Early Childhood Initiatives' program, for example, is a
group of prevention-focused health and social services available to local
families. These resources are aimed at young children from birth to school
entry and often include a parent support component.
Other services in this category which support the growth and development of
young children in our community include public libraries, museums, family
resource centers, and counseling and wellness agencies.
Parent interviews from the PIDACS portion of the UEY Greater Saint John
project revealed the following about education and support services:
• 25% of kindergarten-age children in GSJ attended book clubs and
reading programs at least once per month. This was not significantly
different from the national PIDACS average.
• 9% of children visited a family resource centre, while 8% visited an
educational centre or science centre at least once per month. Both of
these numbers fall short of the Canadian PIDACS average of 17°�0.
Map 15 illustrates the locations of educational and support services in the
Greater Saint John area.
Educational and support ' j �± '' � --•.�,
services for early child .,
. :��:'.
development appear to be ��
relatively few, especially as k _ �
one moves outside the � - ` ��
boundaries of Saint John ,��'�° �,��,r�; a
proper. The Family Resource �, �,�
.,r�,�-_
Centre, for example, is an '�! , "
organization which provides a " Y� ,_. ' ,
full range of on-site and � '
outreach programs to families �
with young children. However, - ; `
there is only one Family �
Resource �� � ��
Centre to service the
entire UEY Greater Saint John site.
4�.�� W � � .� . .�_. _�-- __1�_ . _.wA. ��. r.._ _. ....w .... 35
67
� �
� MAP 15: LOCATION OF EDUCATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES
. ;�.
� GreaterSaintlohn
New Brunswicic,Canada *o,,,�'�� Community Resources by UEY Neighbourhood
� — — — ——,�__��-,,,i Educatlan and Support
� I .f Y Y�'��;�to✓lud• �
c� �� Number of resouues b�neigh6ourhood
I_ .c � �1 ,� �
� :;..t} p i +�_ .
� �� � i
, , - - - - - - - -w .. , tow None .
�•,-, , . � • � Educatiors and Support
� ' ' Locations 1
High 2 or morc
�
:lti:.i�{\'�v3t:n._��:`�.n�f..+: t�f.:��a•.•.�t:���f.��/:._�:���...�_.��
J � /
��
� �t��•
l �;yt
�r`
�, ��
` !ti H 7 r.•/ �
`i Y�� ' �+lll
) S' � � � 5
w
� �
, , I: •i . � �
_ P�� 1' �� �M��_yM . � (
,y� .; �.
. �- , - _ _: ..
� , __ N H:_ ��• ,a N N 3 tt+wr�.
1 _
y e
F
,, N ° famd �
a � y � r-
�
..-.•.:
68
_ ,
�
SECTION 4: SOCIAL RISK INDEX IN GREATER SAINT .J�HN
4.'I WHAT IS THE SOCIAL RISK INDEX�'
The Social Risk Index (SRI) is a composite score which combines several key
socio-economic factors into a single indicator of risk. To calculate the Social
Risk Index in the eight neighbourhoods under the UEY Greater Saint John
project, nine variables were used:
• Familystructure: the number of families headed by a lone parent.
• Schooling: the number of respondents without a high school diploma.
• Otficiallanguages: the number of respondents who speak neither English
nor French.
• Immigration: the number of respondents who have immigrated to
Greater Saint John between the years of 1996 and 2001.
• Residential mobility: the number of residents who moved homes in the
year 2000.
• Low family income: the number of families who fall below the low income
cutoff point (called LICO)
• Frnancial assistance: the proportion of the population's total income that
is derived from government transfer payments.
• Employment: the proportion of the population working either part-time,
casual or not at all. Census data was not available specifically for
`unemployment per dissemination area'. Therefore, this variable
represents anything less than full-time work.
• Home ownershrp: the proportion of dwellings that are rented.
s - �,�,
.� �'' =i-�i'.,
'ti' ;,r'l;,
w` .
�;,. .s•'.r
y��; a
i;+ o
��� �;,�'':.„.
"-'�' r, C� ' 4 � `
%
.:,' �
�.'i' _ _�;"'_ �
� � �
�.. .�
- - - 37
69
� i
�
�
�
I
�' �
i� �
4.2 CALCULATING THE SOCIAL RISK INDEX
, _ __ _ _ _ _
' • Values were calculated for each o t e
Fig. 9: What is a nine socio-economic variables. These
dissemination area? numbers were then compared to
! Dissemination areas (DA) are national figures.
! the smallest geographical
' area for which Statistics • If the value for a dissemination area
' Canada provides data to was higher than the national figure,
' communities. These areas the dissemination area was assigned
; generally contain between a score of 1. This indicated that this
400 and 700 residents. particular variable was a risk factor in
Within the Greater Saint that area.
i John UEY site there are
; approximately 130 ' • If the dissemination area value was
dissemination areas. ' equal to or lower than the national
, value, the dissemination area
Calculating the Social Risk received a score of 0. This indicated
Index for each dissemination that that particular variable was not a
area within the boundaries of risk factor in that dissemination area.
the Greater Saint John UEY '
site provides an interesting • This procedure was repeated for
analysis of relative areas of every dissemination area in the
risk between Greater Saint John area for each of
neighbourhoods. One can the nine variables.
'; reasonably expect that , The total number of risk factors for
', different neighbourhoods �
' within a community will each dissemination area was
show varying degrees of calculated, and this final number
' strength and challenge, but represented the Social Risk Index
not necessarily in a value for that area.
predictable fashion. '
:_ _... . .. ... .. . .. .. __:
Based on the above calculation, the Social Risk Index results could potentially
range from a low of 0 to a high of 9. The higher the score in a dissemination
area, the higher the overall risk for that area.
• Map 16 illustrates the distribution of social risk across the Greater Saint
John dissemination areas, according to data from the 2001 Census.
38
70
I i,
f Greater Salnt lohn j 4,;cri'
� New erunswlck,Cenada �_^"� ,,,��'r' Social Risk Index
° - - - - �,�E.=.;;, `' by Census 2001 Dissemination Areas
�
, � oo,�.�„�..n., f
,
_ �� ti i" Social Risk Index Vafues and Dissertdnation Area Courrta
I I 1 � � �— 7
� _b �
� a� _ _n�l�i_ — — — �e '
�e.po�...: ".'•,."' l `'°''�•' �OU/It b t7 t5 13 B 70 iB <'4 2 —
n�..._r.�•.,..i o' —' ''" ' '
`I iv Value 0 1 2 3 . 5 6 7 6
;��i Low High
\ Nr!vu�9YJGri.;y}!•.�rJ'WL•a:.a N:•<....�.,�r.r�..e>• /
i c..s..�.,�r,
� �,..,:..,..,.�.�...•n�.,,...s..<
i� - `—..,/
� �=` _
�` i 5,���♦
i _J
%� � \
�
�
� _ A
/
�i�� /
ti''� ' � �
' � 1
.
�� � It i
.
- � � 1 �
: _,_. .
- ' _. ���� � ' .
i - _� J'�f
� s+uaK.M
�
i
�
-1 ' -'''r r?
;: 0 - i� �
f J
a p y �; F ,
n -
C��.�.v T.-i_I�r Y�+-.•N�.1
� MAP 16: SOCIAL RISK �NDEX SCORES IN GREATER SAINT JOHN
71
. �
r
�
CONCLUSIONS
Over the past three years, the Understanding the Early Years (UEY) initiative
has provided the Greater Saint John area with the resources needed to collect
baseline data on the development of children age 0 to 5 in our community.
The goal of UEY is to use this information to inform decision-making around
early child development issues and to help set the direction for the
establishment of new policies that will positively impact the lives of local
children and families.
Giving our children the best possible start in life involves not only the family
unit itself, but also anyone who calls that neighbourhood or community
`home'. The UEY Greater Saint John research results represent a `call to
action' for our entire community- municipal and provincial governments, not-
for-profit organizations, businesses, schools, parents and neighbours.
Everyone has a responsibility to ensure that our young children and their
families are supported in ways that will guarantee their success.
Our UEY project results also demonstrate that although we appear to be doing
well in supporting local families in some ways, there is always room for
improvement. There are many dedicated people who work day-in and day-out
with families and young children and there is no shortage of expertise within
our community when it comes to identifying the types of policies, programs
and services that promote health in the widest sense among our young
families.
The escalation of early child development issues to the top of every agenda is
a good first step. Only then can we, as a community, build the kind of
momentum we need to make sure that everv child has everv chance to grow
and flourish!
_ � �"��;�..
�t � �, r.
�
t�:
� ��. .i� � ���.
i ���'�- .
i
i - -
f . ,
\� t
40 . _. _ _ _ . __ . �,
72
REFERENCES
Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University. (2007). A science-based
framework for early childhood policy: Using evidence to improve outcomes in
learning, behavior, and health for vulnerable chrldren. Retrieved from the
Internet on Dec. 5t", 2008:
http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu/content/downloads/Policy_Framewo
rk.pdf.
College of Family Physicians of Canada, (2006). Media backgrounder: The
College of Family Physicians of Canada Decima research omnibus poll and
physicran survey. Retrieved from the Internet on Dec. 5th, 2008:
http://www.cfpc.ca/English/cfpc/communications/news%20releases/2006%
2011 Jo2002%20Backgrounder/default.asp?s=1.
Enterprise Saint John. (2007). Demographres overview, SaintJohn census
metropolitan area. Retrieved from the Internet on Dec. 5th, 2008:
http://www.enterprisesj.com/en/admin/data/docs/DemographicsOverviewC
MA&SJArea.pdf.
Government of New Brunswick. (2008). Early childhood strategy action plan
2008 -2009. Fredericton, NB: Department of Social Development.
Hardy Stevenson & Associates, Ltd. (2008). Energizing sustainable
communitres: Summary of Phase 1 findings. Retrieved from the Internet on Dec.
9tn 2008:
http://benefitsblueprint.org/pdfs/summary_of_phase_1_findings.pdf
Hatfield, R. (2005). Inclusive Crties (Canada —SaintJohn): Community voices,
perspectives and prioritres. Saint John, NB: Human Development Council.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). (2001). The
Parent Interviews— Direct Assessment of Children. Ottawa, ON: HRSDC.
Janus, M., & Offord, D. (1997). The Early Development Instrument: A population-
based measure for communities (EDI). Hamilton, ON: McMaster University.
Literacy Coalition of New Brunswick, Ltd. (2004). Literacy in New Brunswick:
Major hrghlights from IALSS 003 findings. Retrieved from the Internet on Dec.
5t", 2008: http://www.nb.literacy.ca/howaffec/nbpic.htm.
Offord Centre for Child Studies. (2008). School readiness to learn. Retrieved
from the Internet on Dec. 5t", 2008: http://www.offordcentre.com/readiness.
Olds, D.L., Henderson, C.R., Phelps, C., Kitzman, H., & Hanks, C. (1993).
Effect of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on government spending.
Medical Care, 31, 155 — 174.
41
73
��
i
I
Schweinhart, L.J. (2005). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through age 40:
Summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions. Retrieved from the
Internet on Dec. 5th, 2008:
http://www.highscope.org/file/Research/PerryProject/3_specialsummary%o2
Oco I%2006°�02007.pdf.
Seward, C. (2008). The Social Risk Index in Lower Hamilton, Retrieved from
the Internet on Dec. 5t", 2008:
http://www.ueyhamilton.ca/docs/HamiltonSRl.pdf.
Spurgeon, D. (2002). Childhood obesity in Canada has tripled in past 20
years. British Medical Journal, 324, 1416.
Statistics Canada. (2002). 2001 Census of Canada Community Profiles —
Saint John CMA. Catalogue number 93-F0053-XIE. Ottawa, ON: Statistics
Canada [database online].
Statistics Canada. (2007). 2006 Census of Canada Community Profiles —
Saint John CMA. Catalogue number 92-591-XWE. Ottawa, ON: Statistics
Canada [database online].
Statistics Canada. (2008). The Daily: Canadian Community Health Survey .
Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada. Retrieved from the Internet on Dec. 5t", 2008:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080618/dq080618a-eng.htm.
Vibrant Communities Saint John. (2008). Poverty and Plenty !l: A statistical
snapshot ofthe quality of life rn SaintJohn. Retrieved from the Internet on Dec.
5t", 2008:
http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/vc/SJ_PovertyPlentyl I.pdf.
Vibrant Communities Saint John. (2005). Poverty and Plenty: A statistical
snapshot of the quality of life in SaintJohn. Retrieved from the Internet on Dec.
5t'', 2008:
http://tamarackcommunity.ca/downloads/vc/SJ_povplenty_102005.pdf.
42 _...���. , ��__...___..�.k..__=--��..�._.:_.�:�-:-..�.._� --�....... . .
74
APPENDIX A: EARLY DEVELOPMENT INSTRUMENT (EDI�
D�MAINS AND SUB-DOMAINS
Assesses: Readiness to learn of kindergarten children, in the form of a
population-based measure of early childhood development.
Domains, sub-domains (and skilis�:
• Physical health and well-being: gross and frne motorskills (e.g., holding
a pencil, running), physical readiness for school day (adequate energy
levels for classroom activities), and physrcal rndependence (motor
coordination, independence in looking after own needs, daily living
skills).
• Sociaf competence: overall social competence (ability to play and work
with other children, cooperation with others), responsibility and respect
(following rules, ability to control own behaviour, knowledge of
standards of acceptable behaviour in a public place), approaches to
learning (working neatly, independently, easily adjust to changes), and
readiness to explore new thrngs (curiosity about the world, eagerness to
try new experiences).
• Emotional maturity: pro-social and helping behaviour (empathic response
to other people's feelings), anxious and fearful behaviour (worry, anxiety,
shyness), aggressive behaviour (physical/emotional anger, tantrums,
disobedience), and hyperactivity and inattentron (inability to reflect before
acting, lack of concentration).
• Language and cognitive development: basic literacy (age-appropriate
reading and writing skills), interestrn literacy/numeracyand memory
(ability to recite back specific pieces of information from memory),
advanced literacy (writing voluntarily, reading simple, complex
words/sentences), and basic numeracy (age-appropriate numeracy
skills).
• Communication skills and general knowledge (skills to communicate
needs and wants in socially appropriate ways, symbolic use of
language, story telling, age-appropriate knowledge about the life and
world around).
Two additional indicators:
• Special skills; literacy, numeracy, dance, music, etc.
• Special problems: health, learning and behaviour problems
For more information about the EDI, please visit http://www.otfordcentre.com
_.: . ,.,�., .:_., .�.�._.� . . _ ,. . , , .. ,�. ...__..� _._�. ,_� �. �,._, � . W_. 43
75
�I
APPENDIX B: PARENT INTERVIEW AND DIRECT ASSESSMENT
OF CHILDREN (PIDACS� COMPONENTS
Assesses: The influence of family and community factors in early child
development; child outcomes in literacy and numeracy,
Components:
• Parent Interview: interview with the `person most knowledgeable' about
the child, typically over the telephone. The interview has four parts:
o Introduction and Household Roster: demographics including
characteristics of dwelling and relationships between household
members.
o Child Component: questions about the child's behaviours and
health, communication, childcare and parenting
o Adult Component: questions about employment, education,
income, family functioning, safety and quality of the
neighbourhood.
o Debriefrng: asking consent to perform the direct child assessment
and to share data with HRSDC. Debriefs participant regarding
access to survey information.
• Direct Assessment of Children: three tasks, to be completed at school:
o Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised(PPVT-R): children hear a
I�, word spoken aloud, and then must point to one of four picture
sthat they feel matches the word. (Measures receptive
vocabulary.)
o The Who Am 1?: children must copy five shapes, write their names,
numbers, letters, words and a sentence. (Measures use of
symbolic representations and ability to conceptualize.)
o Number Knowledge Test: children must demonstrate an
understanding of quantity, number sequence, and simple
arithmetic. (Measures numeracy skills.)
44
76
APPENDIX C: L[ST OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES SELECTED FOR MAPPING
Map 12: Licensed Childcare and Preschools
• Angels R Wee
• Centenary Queen Square Care Centres Inc.
• Cochran's Home Away from Home Daycare
• Courtenay Avenue Daycare 2004
• Forest Hills Baptist Church Living Waters Child Development Centre
• Garderie au Bourgeonnet
• Glen View United Church Preschool
• Grand Bay Baptist Tiny Treasures Preschool
• Heather's Community Daycare
• Kids Choice Childcare Ltd.
• Lil' Darlings Daycare
• Lil' Imagination Daycare
• Little Angels Daycare
• Millidge Avenue Tot Spot
• Panda Nursery and Kindergarten
• Pleasant Moments Childcare Centre
• Portland Community Childcare
• Princess Daycare
• Rhymes & Chymes Daycare Centre
• Saint John Boys and Girls Club Daycare Centre
• Simpson Drive Early Childhood Education Centre
• Somerset Preschool Centre
• South End Daycare Inc.
• Tina's Tots Community Daycare
• West Side Co-op Preschool
• YMCA/YWCA Daycare Centre
• YMCA/YWCA Millidgeville Community Centre Childcare Program
• YMCA/YWCA West Saint John Childcare Centre
45
77
��
�
r
���,il�
Map 13: Health Services
• Atlantic Health Sciences Centre (Saint John Regional Hospital)
• Crown Street Medical Clinic
• Department of Social Development
• Early Intervention Saint John
• Family Physicians
0 2 Ballentine Road
0 243 Balmoral Court
0 215 Charlotte Street
� 0 110 Crown Street
0 661 Dever Road
0 86 Dufferin Avenue
0 221 Ellerdale Street
0 115 Hazen Street
0 28 King Street
0 14 King Square South
0 243 and 2075 Loch Lomond Road
0 10 Lloyd Street
0 1 Magazine Street
0 69 Main Street
i o 640, 747 and 1283 Manawagonish Road
0 299 Metcalf Street
0 707, 711, 719, 721 and 723 Millidge Avenue
0 227 River Valley Drive
0 68 Rothesay Avenue
0 96 Stanley Street
0 61 Union Street
0 66 Waterloo Street
0 60 Westmount Drive
• Public Health (Nutrition Services)
• St. Joseph's Community Health Centre
• St. Joseph's Hospital
• Stepping Stones, Fundy Region
• Talk With Me Early Language Services
• VON Healthy Baby & Me
• West Side Medical Clinic
�����
46
___ __ _ _
78
�
Map 14: Parks and Recreation
• Armoury
• Black Beach
• Canada Games Aquatic Centre
• Champlain Heights Park
• Cherry Brook Zoo
• Dominion Park
• Forest Glen Community Centre
• Irving Nature Park
• Jardins Public Gardens
• King's Square
• Latimore Lake Community Centre
• Little River Reservoir Beach
• Lowell Street Park
• Carleton Martello Tower
• Millidgeville Community Centre
• Milford Memorial Community Centre
• North End Community Centre
• Queen Square
• Rainbow Park
• River Valley Community Centre
• Rockwood Park
• Saint Andrew's Park
• Saint John YMCA
• Seaside Park
• Shamrock Park
• Somerset Community Centre
• South End Community Centre
• St. Peter's Park
• Tucker Park
Map 15: Education and Support Services
• Bibliotheque le Cormoran
• Saint John Regional Library: East, Main and West Branches
• Family Plus / Life Solutions
• Family Resource Centre
• First Steps Housing Project
• Lakewood Headstart Association
• New Brunswick Museum
47
79
�
�I�
APPENDIX D: LIST OF MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS OF THE
SAINT .JOHN EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT COALITION
Co-chair: Silvia Borsic, Executive Director, Family Resource Centre
(S.J.) Inc.
Co-chair: Mary Lynch, Early Childhood Social Worker, Department of Social
� Development, Province of NB.
Saint John ECDC Member Organizations:
• Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation
• Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative of Saint John
• Canadian Mental Health Association, Saint John Branch
• Department of Social Development, Province of NB
• Family Plus/Life Solutions, Inc.
• Family Resource Centre (S.J.), Inc.
• First Steps Housing, Inc.
• Human Development Council
• NB Learning Disabilities Association, Saint John Chapter
• Saint John Early Intervention, Inc.
• Saint John Learning Exchange
• Saint John YM/YWCA
• School District 8 and `Healthy Learners in School' Program
• United Way of Greater Saint John
• University of New Brunswick, Saint John campus.
• Vibrant Communities Saint John
�
�
l
48
so
I
�
II ~!
I �� ''�;�. . '
:s;�����a�y
�
J^%q� i� . ' . .
;� .
* �,..
II I f'. ��
' '�'rgi�
I � Y
II� ;�i`Y��
II'i
� �II�I -� b- �
li� '`� -
�I�� '�''�''
r : ,,,
��'� ,.�...,�
I�i ; .,, ..
r�"'�,
�'
�
A
� �
I
�
�III
II
•
J'
Eric L. Teed, O.C., C.D., Q.C.
127 Prince William Street, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 2B4
Tel: (506) 634-7324 Fax: (506) 634-7423
January 2nd, 2009
Common Council
City of Saint John
15Market Square
- Saint John, NB . .
E2L lE8
Your Worship and Councillors,
The�ayor's New Years Eve Levee in i�he Mayor's office and the Hon. Gabriel G.
Ludlow Room named after the first Mayor in Canada is much appreciated by the many
who were able to attend, particularly the children.
One matter which was discussed informally was the position of`Town Crier'
The City Charter provides (page 21 `Canada's First City) that the Common
Council or the majority , part of this shall have full power and authorization to appoint
amongst other officials, Cryers an Bell Ringers.
The City Charter(page 24) Canadian First Title provides the Mayor of the City
shall how full power to licence and appoint under his hand and seal, two or any rg eater
number of" Bell Ringers and Cryers " the Court of Session Common Criers.
There is or was a provision that any by law should be read publically three times
before becoming law and only two times can this be done on the same day. For a time,
there was re enactment of this procedure at the entrance to City Hall. Some City Hall
staff may have some recollection of this procedure.
In any event, having several Town Criers to be used at various events and times
could be useful and interesting.
Yours truly,
� �
_�2�
� ' ee
�
s2
HORST SAUERTEIG
�:� _._ ,.��„ � ���. � _._ i_ � _� ... _��,!, ,�.��:. ..,
January 5, 2009
Re.: Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. (BPLC)
Certificate GC-110, Condition 18. Emergency Procedures Manual (EPM)
To His Worship the Mayor and Councillors,
Attached please find for your information and action a copy of my letter to the National
Energy Board (NEB) on the above subject. This is a follow-up letter to my December 21,
2008 letter about BPLC's Final Draft of its Emergency Response Plan.
I would like to draw your attention to prior commitments by the BPLC concerning the
patrolling of the urban Right of Way (ROW) of the pipeline. I have been told by
members of Common Council and the City Administration that the final decision about
this patrolling rests with the NEB. I suggest that as representatives of this city's residents
Common Council should be adamant that these earlier commitments will be honoured by
informing both the NEB and the BPLC that in order to safeguard Iife, limb and property
of the residents within the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) any diminishing of those
earlier commitments is unacceptable. It was the decision by BPLC to route the pipeline
through the city, thereby causing a situation which requires its constant monitoring.
The BPLC seems to manoeuvre to have the NEB approve a change from a daily
patrolling to some weekly aerial surveillance, and to keep details of its whole monitoring
efforts secret ( see attached Media Advisory of Dec. 22/08). I suggest that if the BPLC
succeeds in convincing the NEB that security considerations make it desirable to keep
details of its patrolling- and other efforts confidential, that Comnnon Council should
request that designated persons from the public and the administrative sector be
appointed to monitor these operations which, in any case, should guaranty daily
observation of the whole urban RoW.
Respectfully,
�
Y�ll �/�/�
(H.Sauerteig)
Attached: Copy of my January 5/091etter to the NEB
Copy of page 2 of BPLC Media Advisory of Dec.22/08
83
�
�
HORST SAUERTEIG
�,� �3,.i.n ���� ��. �., .�1, � � _ � , -. ,. ��. � _ .- ��n: ,,,,. � ,,�:�� ., _.�
January 5, 2009
To the National Energy Board (NEB)
Att.: Ms. Claudine Dutil-Barry, Secretary of the Board
Re.: Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd, (BPLC)
Certificate GC-110, Condition 18. Emergency Procedures Manual (EPM)
Dear Ms. Dutil-Barry,
After having written on December 21, 2008 to the NEB on the above subject, in
particular about the unrealistic tasking of response personnel in case of an emergency in
the "Final Draft of BPLC's Emergency Response Plan" (FD), it occurred to me that the
FD also did not meet other requirements listed in your April 24, 2002 letter concerning
the "Security And Emergency Preparedness and Response Programs" for gas companies
under your jurisdiction, and that it might take some time and effort to comply with them.
I have therefore indicated in a Memo (copy attached) elements of your April 14, 2002
letter and the Proposed Regulatory Change PRC-01 which are not included in the FD.
Whereas your officials would not need this Memo to appreciate the deficiencies in the FD
and the urgency to have a proper EPM in place 60 days prior to operation,this Memo will
put on record my concern for a timely completion of this EPM which had, according to
the BPLC Commitment List, Section `A' (page 4), a target date of October 3, 2008 and
should have been completed on or before this date. My Memo will inform interested
citizens and the Common Council of the City of Saint John about the status of the not yet
publicly available FD, its shortcomings and the urgency to complete a realistic EPM.
In order not to lengthen this letter unnecessarily I took the liberty to highlight in the
Memo those fimctions in yellow which the letter allots to the Company, i.e. the BPLC,
and to highlight in red those elements listed in your Apri124, 20021etter which miss
details or are missing altogether in the FD.
Furthermore I suggest, since Security Management of a pipeline has been added to the
mandate of the NEB in 2005 by PRC 2006-01, that the monitoring of the pipeline Right
of Way (RoW) should form part of the FD. This is also required by section 48(2) of the
NEB Act which requires a company to "provide for the protection of the environment and
the safety of the public...". The BPLC in compliance with this section of the Act
committed in earlier undertakings to the daily patrolling of the urban RoW, as shown on
the attached listing of statements by the BPLC.
84
�
The proclaination of Saint John being an `Energy Hub' might be an invitation to terrorists
to attempt to sabotage the pipeline. Therefore patrolling it on a daily basis becomes
important for the safety of the residents within the 800 m Emergency Planning Zone
(EPZ) as well as for the operation of the pipeline. This has to be done professionally and
efficiently, probably by changing the timing of day- andlor night patrols in order to avoid
observable routines. These patrols would "identify activities that are likely to lead to
potential ground disturbance and any factor that has the�potential to affect the integrity of
the pipeline system" (BPLC's Response C62-HS 1.8, 2" § of August 10, 2006).
More than 15,000 Saint John residents signed a petition to route the pipeline across the
Outer Saint John Harbour (instead through the city). It was read into the record of the
November 2006 Hearing (HR#2320/21). Mr. Robin McAdam, president of BPLC stated
later during the Hearing in HR#18081 about these concerns which the residents of Saint
John have that the `BPLC....will certainly be enlploying to do everything possible to
protect the safety of residents proximate to the pipeline", and he added in HR#18083:
"We will make good on our commitments to address the concerns of the City....".
I attach a list of BPLC Statements beginning in 2006 which shows that the BPLC has
always been committed to a daily patrolling of the urban RoW by vehicle and/or on foot,
and I hereby inform the NEB as a representative of the citizens on the Saint John
Community Liaison Committee that they expect this commitment to be honoured.
In closing I would like to point out that the NEB in its Apri124, 2002 letter as well as in
its Proposed Regulatory Change PRC 2006-01 allots the responsibility to comply with the
various requirements of this letter to the `Company', i.e. the BPLC.
This allotment contradicts the NB Emergency Measures Act and the NB Regulation 84-7
which both allot several of these responsibilities to various First Responders.
Whereas the BPLC operates under the jurisdiction of the NEB it seems prudent to resolve
this probable contradiction and consider its legal aspect when allotting the responsibilities
between the BPLC and the First Responders and furthermore, to have the resulting final
arrange�nents documented in a legal form or contract, and to ha�e all these docu�nents
included in and made part of the BPLC's Emergency Response Plan.
Respectfully,
Originai Signed By
H. SAUERTEIG
(H.Sauei�teig)
Attached: Copy of marked-up Memo;
List of BPLC Statements on patrolling the urban RoW
Cc: His Worship the Mayor and Councillors of Saint John
Mr. Robin McAdam, President of BPLC, Halifax
85
MEM� re: Certificate GC-110 for the Brunswick Pipeline.
By Horst Sauerte�g
"Condition 18. Emergency Procedures Manual" reads:
"EBPC shall file with the Board, at least sixty (60) days prior to operation, an
Emergency Procedures Manual (EPM) for the project and shall notify the Board
of any modifications to the plan as they occur.
In preparing its EPM, EBPC shall refer to the Board letter dated 24 April 2002
entitled "Security and Emergency Preparedness Programs" addressed to all oil
and gas companies under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board (NEB).
WHAT DOES THIS 24 APRIL 2002 LETTER SAY?
IT HOLDS THE COMPANY (i.e. the Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd.)
RESPONSIBLE FOR RESPONDING TO ANY EMERGENCY AND FOR
DEVELOPING, MAINTAINING AND EXECUTING FOR THIS PURPOSE
AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PLAN.
FORMAL AND DOCUMENTED ARRANGEMENTS WITH FIRST
RESPONDERS ABOUT THEIR ROLE PRIOR TO AND DURING AN
EMERGENCY HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN SUCH A PLAN.
In this Memo:
Yellow highlights indicate that it is the company's responsibility for taking action, and
Red highlights indicate the item is not or not fully reflected in BPLC's Final Draft (FD).
The high incidence of red highlighting demonstrates that throughout the FD company
personnel, which is unavailable in Saint John, has been designated tasks for which in
reality First Responders will have to be used. The documented arrangements with the
various First Responders, if they exist, have not been included although this is a
requirement of the April 24, 20021etter Page 6 of 10, 3rd last §. I am prepared, should
this be found to be necessary, to justify every red highlighting.
To fully comply with Onshore Pipeline Regulations 1999 (OPR-99), Emergency
Preparedness and Response (EPR) requirements for regulated companies NEB [page 1]
should include the followii�g elements:
• EPR Program Development(Hazard Assessment)
• Emergency Procedures Manual
• Liaison Program (First Responders)
• Continuing Education Program (Public)
• Emergency Response Training
• Emergency Response Exercises
• Incident and Response Evaluation
• Emergency Response Equipment
An effective EPR should include consideration of all hazards ineluding the thread of
terrorism and criminal activities. [page 1]
86
2
Companies should have a rationale for any of the above 8 requirements not being in their
EPR program. [page 2]
NEB regulated companies must develop and maintain EPR programs to minimize the
effects of incidents and emergencies that have the potential to impact the health and
safety of the public, company employees, property and the environment. [page 1/10]
The NEB defines a program as a documented set of procedures that accomplish a
goal or goals as defined by a cvmpany's policy. The program should set out how the
procedures are linked and how each one contributes toward these goals. [page 1/10]
To meet the requirements set out in section 32 to 35 of the OPP-99 Companies must:
• ensure that all effected parties are aware of the applicable procedures
to be followed in an emergency situation and the procedures are consistent
with those in the emergency procedures manual, and
• have a continuing education program for.....the public adjacent to their
pipeline to inform them of the location of the facilities, potential
emergency situations and emergency procedures to be followed. [2/10]
Companies must ensure that all persons and parties that may be involved in responding
to an emergency are knowledgeable of company facilities,the hazard products involved
and emergency procedures to be followed in the event of an incident or emergency.
[2/10]
Definition of`Emergency' (CSA-Z731-95): "A present or imminent event that requires
prompt co-ordination of actions or special regulation of persons or property to protect the
health, safety or welfare of people or to Iimit damage to property and the environment".
[2/10]
Companies must consider all probable emergencies and have applicable procedures
in place to deal with potential effects and threads to people, property and the
environment. Causes for an emergencv include pipeline and equipment failure, human
error.....and terrorism or other criminal activities. [3/10]
Companies must consider preventing and responding to emergency situations
resulting from criminal activities. These may be related to terrorism, vandalism or other
property crime. The EPR program should also include procedures for receivin�
disseminating information to....members of the public who may be involved in
responding to an emergency or be im_pacted by an actual or threatened act of terrorism or
other criminal activities. [3/101
Companies should use the CSA-Z731-95 hazard assessment to develop their EPR
program. A formal assessment should include (partial list):
• plume dispersion or similar dispersion modeling,
e identification and documentation of worst-probable emer e� ncies
• determination of what can go wrong, where and how often,
• consideration of dangers arising from human activity, and
• measures that could reduce or eliminate the hazard. [4/10]
s7
�
�
At a minimum, an emergency procedures manual required under section 32 of OPR-99
should include information related to the following topics (partial list): [5/10]
a Emergency Preparedness and Response Policy;
• Corporate and Operational Chains of Command;
o Description of General and Site Specific Emergency Response Procedures (ERP);
• Roles and Responsibilities (e.g. checklist of duties);
• Site -Specific Emergency Information (e.g. control points);
• Lists of Persons in Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ), or separate file;
s Description and Location of Response Equipment;
• Manual Updating Procedures and Schedule;
• Manual Distribution List.
Under section 34 of the OPR-99 companies must establish and maintain liaison with
all parties and ensure that they are aware of procedures to be folIowed in an emergency
situation and that the procedures are consistent with those in the emergency procedures
manual. Prior knowled�e of roles b.�pan�personnel, First Responders and other
a�encies prior to an emer�v is critical for the safetv of all involved. [5/10]
A liaison program should include (partial list): [6/10]
• Clearly defined and measurable objectives and goals;
• Lists and rationale for agencies and individuals to be included and excluded from
the program;
• a description of the consultation process including a schedule for contacts, nature
of discussions, type of information to be provided and methods to assess the
effectiveness of the consultation process;
• records and documentation of all liaison activities; and
• action taken based on the results of the program and feedback received.
Arrangements and any formal agreements with mutual aid partners should be
identified and incorporated into emergency procedures manuals as well as into
training and education programs. [6/10]
Companies are required under section 35 of OPR-99 to develop a continuing education
program for......the public adjacent to the pipeline to inform them of:
• the location of the pipeline;
• potential emergency situations involving the pipeline; and
• safety procedures to be followed in the case of an emergency. [6/10]
Prior knowledge of the following (partial list) will facilitate an appropriate and effective
response by all parties [6/10]:
• type and location of company facilities;
• plume dispersion information and ignition guidelines (if applicable);
• emer encv procedures and practices for dealin�with an emer�ency consistent
with those specified in the emergeney response manual; and
• key roles of all personnel and agencies involved in an emergency response.
ss
4
A continuing education program should include (partial list): [7/10]
• a rationale for the methods used to distribute information as well as a documented
assessment of the success in deliverin�the safety message;
• up-to-date, readily-accessible lists of all persons potentially affected by an
emergency situation.
Information prepared and distributed should include (partial list): [7/10]
• identification of the hazards posed;
• plume dispersion information;
• methods and timin�of communication durin� an emer�encv;
• circumstances and procedures for sheltering and evacuation; and
• other emergency procedures and practices for responding to an emergency
consistent with those specified in the emergency procedures manual.
Companies, under section 46 of the OPR-99, should as an essential component of any
EPR program, provide as a minimum Emergency Response Training (partial list)[8/10]:
� provide personnel likely to be involved in�aspect of an emergency with
appropriate training prior to assigning emergency response roles;
• establish clear training requirements for each emergency response role (e.g.
incident commander, on-scene supervisor, communications officer, etc.);
• review and update training programs as required including knowledge gained
from .....simulated emergency response exercises and from actual responses to
emergencies;
� document and maintain records of all emergency preparedness and response
training for all individuals.
Simulated emergency response exercises are essential in developing, maintaining and
improving companies' EPR programs as required under section 46 of the OPR-99.
At least one simulated emergency response exercise should be held annually (e.g. table
top, site-specific drill). A full-scale exercise involving all agencies identified in
companies' liaison programs should be held at least every three years.
Detailed records of emergency response exercises should be kept.....and should be
available for examination by the NEB during audits, inspections etc.
Section 47 of the OPR-99 requires companies to develop and implement a safety
program. In order to meet this requirement, companies should possess or have access to
sufficient emergency response equipment to respond to the worst-case emergency.
If equipment resides with mutual aid partners......formal agreements should be in place
for access to the equipment by company personnel (?)
Company equipment lists, as well as any agreements for use of third party equipment,
should be included in the emergency procedures manual or on file and be available for
examination by the NEB during audits, inspections etc. [9/10]
89
5
Proposed Regulatory Change 2006-01-Pipeline Security Management Programs
The NEB Act was amended on Apri120, 2005 to include "Securitv" within the Board's
mandate. The NEB is now amending the Onshore Pipeline Regulations, 1999 (OPR
99).These interim expectations will be considered to be in effect as of July 3 l, 2006 and
wilI remain in effect until the promulgation of the revised regulation(s).
Proposed Regulatory Change PRC 2006-01
It is the NEB's expectation that a Pipeline Security Management Program (PSMP) be
systematic, comprehensive and proactive in managing security risks. This program
should complement existing programs already developed* and should consider the risks
of the assets being protected. [pg. 1]
*see BPLC's Application of May 2006 page 51 re M&NP policies etc. for SJ Lateral.
Elements to be considered within the PSMP (partial list): [pgs. 1 and 2]
• Defines roles, responsibilities and authorities in regard to security management;
• A communication plan that supports the PSMP;
• Appropriate level of training for individuals involved in security management;
• A process of evaluating security risks to facilities and operations;
• A process to manage physical security;
• A process to control access to sensitive areas; and
• A process to monitor, track and manage security related incidents.
GENERAL OBSERVATION
The Final Draft of BPLC's Emergency Response Plan (ERP) was sent to the NEB for
approval in"Paper Form" only. It can not be accessed by the public. I attempted to get
from the BPLC a copy for a resident of Saint John who only recently had been pubiicly
recognized for her outstanding work in the community. My request was denied.
Whereas this document will form the basis for responding to any type of a pipeline
emergency, in particular in Saint John, and
whereas the funding for up-dating the capability of First Responders to respond to the
vai7ous emergencies will likely coine from Municipal taxes, and
whereas the residents of Saint John are endangered by the effects of such emergencies,
it follows that they should be given an opportunity to comment or make suggestions for
changes and/or additions to the ERP which would improve their protection of life, limb
and property. Without such public input the ERP will be at their expense and peril.
90
STATEMENTS by the BRUNSWICK PIPELINE COMPANY (BPLC) about
PATROLLING THE URBAN RIGHT of WAY (RoW) By Horst Sauerteig
August 10, 2006 in"BPLC Response C62-HS 1.8, 2°d §": ...aerial patrols in rural areas
on a regular frequency, vehicle and foot patrols in more urban areas. These programs aim
to identify ....any activity that is likely to lead to potential ground disturbance, and any
factor that has the potential to affect the integrity of the pipeline system.
October 20, 2006 in"BPLC Reply Evidence, Attachment 7, page 3 in Pipeline Patrols":
In the urban areas,these patrols will be conducted on a dailv basis by vehicle and/or on
foot.
November 2006 Hearing, Mr. Whalen in Hearing Record"HR#13486"::.... A weekly
patrol in rural areas as well as daiiy patrols, by foot and by truck, in the cit�
November 2006 Hearing, Mr. Whalen in"HR#15424": The dailv patrol that we refer to
is only for the urban section of the pipeline, so I guess, in this case, it's roughly 27 km.
November 2006 Hearing, Mr. Whalen in "HR#15426": That would be where practical. I
know currently, with a 16-inch pipeline through the City, we do a dailypatrol. It's not on
foot: it's basically a drive-by. We would intend to do the same thing for any part of the
Brunswick Pipeline that's urban, that we could practically monitor, you know, by driving.
He is silent about patrolling the pipeline which can not be observed froin a road.
November 2006 Hearing, Mr. Whalen in"HR#15428": So what I tried to describe here
is the fact that, in the rural area, we do the weekly aerial patrols and in the urban area,
recognizing the fact that there's higher likelihood of third-party activity, we ramp-up the
frequencv of these patrols. Aerial patrols several times a week over the city are no
substitute for the patrolling system in the above "BPLC Reply Evidence" of October 20,
2006. His testimony seems to be an idea not mentioned earlier or later in the Hearing.
December 1, 2006 in "BPLC Argument-in-Chief, page 21 Iines 9 to 11": ....a
circumstance which could not occur unobserved due to the dailv patrols of the pipeline
conducted by Emera Brunswick staff.
December 22, 2006 in"BPLC Reply Argument page 25, 3�d§: "These (Ms. Stoddard's)
concerns should be alleviated by Emera's Brunswick's plan to patrol the rural portion of
the pipeline at least once per week by aerial patrol and daily in the urban portion with
drive-bv and foot patrols".
March 18, 2008 in "Mr. Leadley's (BPLC) letter to the National Energy Board (NEB)":
BPLC intends to conduct dail�patrols on the urban section of the�i ep line but only where
it is practical to conduct this patrol by driving on roads adjacent to the RoW. This method
would cover 15% of the urban section of the pipeline. The patrolling of the rest (85%) is
not explained, but would be daily...with drive-by and foot patrols as explained to Ms.
Stoddard in the previous statement, the BPLC Reply Argument of December 22, 2006.
91
�•- y�'� ���� t�
h'tedia Advisory BRUNSWiC� PIPEL.II�E
Av I�r�er,i(:urn�any
December 22, 2008
Brunswick Pipeline Project Update
Page 2
Natural Gas Pipeline Surveillance Plan
A draft surveillance and tnonitoring plan has been developed for the pipeline. It is iinportant
that wc have an appropriate surveillance strategy, and we have hired independent security
eYperts to r•eview the draft plan. We will subsequently work through the sut-��eillance strategy
with the Saint John Fire and Police Chiefs. This will occur on a conCidential basis recognizing
the security implications. The surveillance program will be variable and thus not occur on a
predictaUle schedule. Tliere will be daily components.
Brunswick Pipeline wishes everyone a safe and rela�cing holiday season.
To register Cor electronic infotmation updates, please e-mail brunswickpipelin c�emera.com
�vith "Sign Up" in the subject line, or visit our website at www.brunswickpipline.com and enter
your e-mail address under `Register for Updates'.
-30-
About Brunswick Fipeltne
I3n�nsivi�k /'ipc�Ii�i� is <i 1nl��olly oumed sttbsidi�inJ of Emcra Ir�c. (EMA-TSX) cut energy coni�cniy Lased
liere i�� fll� NIC(I1t(I)1PS. WP Q1"P j)1"()11CI t0 S1l�J�)t�IT rI'1P (I(,�C.�1tI011 Of C! 11C-�i�, mid nl�ui�da>>t s�.�E���l� of cl<�un-
I�unliicy r�utural gus i►� ow�r-e�iori. fjnntsiuick f'ipelit�P iuill�Pliv�r rzat��ral gns fi-om thP pl�irirted
C'ci�trt�ort"r'�1 Liyueftc.�d Nutt�rctl Gus (LNG) receit�uig a�irl re-��clsi/`teation tPrminnJ iiPnr.S��i�tt John, N�tu
Bn�nsiuick to markets irt Carcaclu u�td ih� US nortlieast. The 14� kilorrieter�i�eline ruill exTend
ihrnu��h southu�FSt Neru Bnmstuid� to �.n interco�uzecfior�. wityt flie Muriti�nes cc�tcl No��tlieast Pipeline at
th� C'rni�i�lrc/US l�order�iear St. Sfephe.rt, New Bnu�swick. Visit Brurtswick Pi�eli�te's w�Lsite ut
www.brunswickpipeline.com.
Media Contact:
Susan Harris
Community Relations Manager
Bn.tnswick Pipeline
506 693-421�1
Cell: 50C� 654-3065
92
T
� ��i
� ',
January 6, 2009,
The Common Council of Saint John
Your Worship and Councillors.
The Common Council meeting of December 1, 2008 and its adopted resolution as a first
step towards a full public enquiry into the Pension Board/disability fiasco, reveals again
the City Solicitor in a conflict of interest as City Solicitor and as a member of the Pension
Board.
If Council is serious about a full public enquiry, the outcome of the first steps indicates a
shaky start a very important matter. While the Mayor's motion to table the first step
towards a public enquiry was defeated, the action of the Mayor and the fact that there is
no provision in the Procedural By-Law for the Mayor to make rr�otions, does not instill
confidence in his credibility to serve objectively and impartially on a Committee or
provide any other objective and required guidance from a Chairman, if and when a public
enquiry goes forward. As a statutory public enquiry falls under the quasi-judicial roIe of
Council resting on the concept of fairness, the next step taken following the Mayor's
defeated motion is astonishing and I can only assume that the City Solicitor was silent
because of his entanglement with the Pension Board. When Councilor Sullivan rightly
raised procedural concerns, the Mayor abandoned his presiding officez duties, left the
Chair, but did not leave the meeting. The minutes show the Mayor voting, presumably
from a Councillor's seat or somewhere in the Council Chamber. There are remarks in
Robert's Rules of Order about the conduct of a Chairman which says, "it should never be
forgotten, that, to control others, it is necessary to control one's sel£ An excited chairman
can scarcely fail to cause trouble in a meeting."
When the Mayor is present, Where does the Deputy Mayor get his authority to preside?
What effect does this irregularity have on the adopted motion? Who advises Council on
these questions? Surely, it should not mean the expenditure of more public funds to
outside legal counsel for advice on these basic procedural questions. As for who guides
Council through a public enquiry, it is clear that the City Solicitor is out of the picture
because the Council has already said it wants a Committee to find for Council's approval
an outside legal counsel. This is not being done through the City Solicitor as it normally
should be, because of the circumstances that has allowed the City Solicitor to stay
involved with the Pension Board. The foregoing touches part of the problem and is very
much connected to the following.
The City Solicitor's letter of December 5, 2008 and his reference and excerpts from three
outside legal opinions since becoming a member of the Pension Board in 2003, raises
this question. Who speaks for Council? Who framed these three questions? While it is
true that there is no statutory law prohibiting the City Solicitor from serving on the
Pension Board, there also is no mandatory requirement as there is for other senior
appointed officials. The reality of the situation calls for a wider examination than merely
reiying on sections 190.1 to 90.91 of the Municipalities Act.
93
A more appropriate question from the standpoint of Council, and the citizens should be,
What are the legal and financial implications to the City by allowing public policy to be
in place that permits the City Solicitor to have his regular duties and responsibilities
interfered with and compromised by outside activities unrelated to the office of City
Solicitor and the Legal Department?
As well as these foregoing questions, Mr. Nugent's letter of December 5, 2008 and his
reference to three outside legal opinions to justify his membership on the Pension Board,
calls for further comment. In the 2005 opinion from Mr. Rust D'Eyes, it is difficult to
determine what question was placed before him, but we know from Mr. Nugent that it
was a sixty page report and an excerpt from that opinion shows that Mr. D'Eyes treated
the position of City Solicitor the same as the other stahitory required positions, when in
fact it is not, but has come about through Mr. Nugent's personal decision to volunteer and
serve. Furthermore, the disclosure under the Municipalities Act has not been the main
concern. I said in my letter of November 26, 2008 that the perception of bias is being
ignored, and I see in Mr. D'Eyes opinion that he rightfully calls any attempt to make an
issue over"the fact that they are potential pensioners"is only a theoretical potential for
bias. But that concern is not the issue. Two years after this opinion was received from
Mr.D'Eyes, the City Solicitor could not advise Council because of a conflict. At that time
he attempted to make it right by putting a member of the Legal department, an employee
under his control, in as the Council's legal advisor. Neither of these options was
satisfactory and represented more than a"theoretical potential for bias." This
inappropriate way to get advice to Council, which did not come about from normal
absence like illness or vacation, only heightens the confused consequences.
The second opinion in June 2007 from Mr. Fred McElman is about a narrow question
directly related to former Councilor Ferguson, and it has little relevancy to the issues and
difficulties that keep reoccurring between the Pension Board and Council calling for legal
guidance to Council. It would be expected that Mr. McElman would not comment or
rendered an opinion on Council public policy. Mr. McElman points out that the"Act
contains no provision precluding the City Solicitor...from holding a position on the
Board of Trustees." This is true,but it does not mean that because some action is not
statutorily prohibited, that the action established is right or sound public policy for this
position. There is however information in Mr McElman's opinion that should be looked
at more carefully from the standpoint of the concern expressed here. A quote is included
from the City Solicitor's Job description which reads: "The most important is rendering
advice to Council, as it functions within the source of its legal authority." Further in his
report, Mr. McElman quotes from the Canadian Bar association Code of Professional
conduct and cites a rule that reads: "The lawyer who engages in another profession,
business or occupation concurrently with the practice of law must not allow such outside
interest to jeopardize the lawyer's professional integrity, independence or competence."
Then Mr. McElman quotes from a Supreme Court case and says, "The solicitor-client
relationship thus created is however overlaid with certain fiduciary responsibilities which
94
are imposed as a matter of law. The source of duty is not the retainer itself,but all the
circumstances creating a relationship of trust and confidence from which flows
obligations of loyalty and transparency.
The foundation of this branch of the law is the need to protect the integrity of the
administration of justice. Fiduciary responsibilities include the duty of loyalty, of which
an element is the avoidance of conflicts of interest."
According to Mr. Nugent, the third opinion from outside legal counsel, Mr. David
O'Brien in July 2007 came about in order"to provide advice on pension matters when I
(City Solicitor) am unable to do so by reason of conflict."Mr. O'Brien deals only with
the narrow interpretation of the positiva law of the Municipalities Act and states that"the
City Solicitor will not be in a conflict by virtue of the fact that he sits on the Pension
Board." But this matter needs to be looked at in a wzder context. The main concern is the
effect of being on the Pension Board, and Mr. O'Brien brings to light the crux of the
controversy and the confusion over the legitimate use of public funds by elected
representatives. Mr. O'Brien states, "When the City Solicitor feels himself to be placed in
a conflict by virtue of the possibility of diverging interests between the City of Saint John
and the Pension Board the City of Saint John may seek alternative or outside legal
counsel, which is precisely what solicitor Nugent has brought about in the present case.
This is entirely appropriate and it is the norm in situations of this type."
T am not so sure we should be so quick to say this is the"norm." What is normal is the
engagement of outside legal counsel to assist the City Solicitor when further expertise is
required related to the duties and responsibilities of the position and the requirement of
the legal department., When Council has to go directly to outside legal counsel and by-
pass the City Solicitor because of his conflicts, it is not normal.
Mr. Nugent concludes his report by trying to show that there is some precedent for his
membership on the Pension board because former City Solicitor and Common Clerk Mr.
Henry Hopkins was one of the original members in 1947. Whatever truth there is to this
fact, it needs to be looked at in a deeper way to find the real meaning. For many years
Mr. Hopkins filled both these positions but it does not follow that the position of City
Soiicitor was tied to the Pension Board by Mr. Hopkins being a member. The Pension
Act makes its mandatory for the Common Clerk to be a member and consequently Mr.
Hopkins had no choice to serve or not to serve. It is a principle of democratic government
that the duties and responsibilities of public officials are not in the individual person but
are in the offices they hold. While both positions were occupied by the same person, the
positions of Common Clerk and Solicitor remained analytically distinct. To put the City
Solicitor on the Pension Board under these circumstances is a sophistical argument used
by sophists going back to ancient times to make "the worse appear the better."
While it is true and necessary for the City Solicitor to work "cooperativeIy with the civic
administration" as spelled out in the term of reference, the position is not part of the
management team and this matter should not be lost under a management related
controversy This is not about a City Ha11 management or administrative problem and
95
there is a law in place, put there by a previous Council, to prevent the legal affairs of the
City from becoming entangled in the administrative part of local government.
This is about alI the aspects of the rule of law as it relates to local government, the justice
surrounding it and the foundation for its existence. Long before Chief Administrative
Officers or City Managers appeared on the scene, going back the very first Common
Council meeting in 1785 when King George III saw fit to place in the Charter along with
the Mayor and other representatives of the City, the position of Recorder, the City has
recognized the importance of legal guidance at its meetings. The position of Recorder
subsequently evolved into the position of City Solicitor. What is disturbing about the
present situation is that there probably has been more conflicts of interest declared by the
present City Solicitor since he went on the Pension Board five years ago than all the years
previously going back to 1785.
The City Solicitor serving on Boards, Commissions and Committees in the midst of
conflicts with the Council is wrong public policy, and has been wrong from the beginning
and will continue to be wrong. All the experts in the world cannot change the facts as
they exist or relieve Council from thinking about the problem. 'There is more for Council
to consider than receiving advice on a narrow interpretation of the Municipalities Act.
The Council deserves to know that the advice from the City Solicitor is not fettered in
any way by outside duties and obligations. Furthermore, there are instances when advice
and guidance is required at the very moment Council deliberation and debate is taking
place. Under those circumstances, it makes no sense to talk about availability of outside
legal Counsel. Another concern you should not lightly dismiss is the expenditure of
public funds to outside legal counsel unrelated to services to the City but arising directly
from the City Solicitoz's personal conflicts. The citizens are only responsible and
obligated for the expenditure of legitimate public funds. Because Councillors are in a
fiduciary relationship with the citizens when it comes public funds, Council should be
satisfied that the circumstances surrounding the expenditures are necessary, reasonable
and justifiable. If the funds are not necessary, reasonable or justifiable, Council should
not be relying on a slogan like"two sides to every story"to justify inaction and thereby
abdicate its responsibility.
As this is public policy beyond ordinary administrative matters, falling under Council's
control, Council should request the City Solicitor to remove himself from the Pension
Board forthwith. This action will at least establish a public policy that will prevent future
City Solicitors from using the time of Mr. Nugent's membership on the Pension Board, as
a historical precedent, to repeat the same wrong action again.
Yours truly,
�rank Rodgers
(source verified)
96
� �
J �
I�, � � C� I� T T � � C� T�/� I� � I�T � � �JI� C � L
� ,01
��
M&C #2009-06
The Clty of Saint John
January 7,2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
And Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION-RECORD OF YOUR MANAGEMENT/PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
Attached,please find copies of the slides that I intended to review with Council last week dealing
with the record of your manageinent and professional employees. While an awful lot has been
written about your management and professional employees, I recognize that the current Council
has no "poinz of f•eference"in considering their comments. This is equally true of many of your
new management staff and the public. It was for this reason that I thought the presentation should
be made at a meeting of Council.
The slides are of little use without a written or verbal explanation of the context in which they are
being provided.
THE CONTEXT:
Tlie current context is that while much is being said and written,the reality is that very few in this
organization are aware of the starting point froin which the record of this management team
shouId be judged.
The starting point is late 1993,the point at which I was asked to accept the position of City
Manager. My initial response to Council's offer was"no"however after three or four ineetings
during which they laid out their expectations of ine, and I of thein,we agreed to proceed.
A SUD4D'IARY OF COUNCTL'S E�PECTATION OF ME AT THE TIME��'AS AS FOLLOWS:
1) Council had experienced considerable difficulty recruiting and retaining a City
Manager. As a result,paramount in their mind,was for me to make a long term
cominitment to the position and to this community.
2) Council, for the decade before, had been overwhelmed with labour relation issues.
There had been a couple of work stoppages, a strike, and not a week had gone by
without Council having to spend hours dealing directly with one of the four
97
Report to Con�amo�z Courzcil puge 2
Subject: Prese�ztatio�7 to Coui�acil—Mana�ge»�aeist/Pr°ofessiortal Te�ini
Bargaining Units. At the same time, there was evidence that elected officials were
becoming directly involved with the "otitside negotiator s"that they had engaged to
resolve labour disputes. This was clearly the case in negotiations with the Outside
Workers in 1981 and the I�lside Workers in 1985. In both situations, Council agreed
to job security clauses without the advantage of a staffrecommendation from those
who would ultimately be responsible for adhering, inanaging and iinplementing the
Contracts.
3) CouncilIors also saw me as a "Deputy"to the former Coinmissioner of Finance and
to the City Manager. They saw me as a private person and as one said,"a worker
bee." They specifically asked if I was prepared to accept a higher profile and
represent the City in a professional and public way.
To this end, I agreed and set about accepting a number of speaking engagements with
service clubs and the Board or Trade. We also created a weekly television show with
Fundy Cable featuring many of our department heads. Following this,many of our
employees were featured in"Profiles in Leadership", a weekly feature in the local
newspaper.
The Administration was receiving very positive press. So much so that during one of
n1y appraisal reviews meeting with Council, it was suggested that perhaps I had gone
too far and it was distracting to elected officials. As a result, our efforts to publically
promote the professionalism of your administration were halted.
4) Costs had also escalated dramatically and they wanted assurances that I would take
on the task of making recommendations to them that would slow the pace of
increasing costs.
A SUMMARY OF MY EXPECTATIONS OF COMMON COUNCIL AT THE TIME V1'ERE:
1) I wanted authority and support to put together a new team at City Hall. In 1993,
Council was in a position of having appointed 25 or so individuals and it was my
view that this was far too many. My position was that over the long term, I had to
have greater decision making authority related to staff assigxunents. My expectations
of CounciI in this regard have been met and Council's direct involvement in
appointing staff positions is less than 10 today.
2) I took the position that if we were to resolve workplace labour issues, then it should
be your management employees and department heads that would have the
responsibility of negotiating contracts with the Bargaining Units. The practice at the
time was allowing everyone "off the hook". My expectations of Council in this
regard have been met. I do not recall during my tenure, where your inanagement
98
Report to Coninaorz Cou�7cil Page 3
Szibject.• Prese�itatio�i to Cor.incil—Managenzeiat/Prqfessional Teani
team has not negotiated the City's labour contracts and are now held accountable for
their contents.
3) I made it clear that in order to succeed I required the full public support of Common
Council. A prerequisite of success for anyone agreeing to accept the position of City
Manager. Paramount in our discussions at the time was my insistence on aiuival
discussions with Council to address their issues of concern before they got out of
hand. I expressed concerns to Council during each of tlu-ee or four interviews with
respect to public comments that would damage my professional and personal
reputation. I had seen, first hand,how others had been treated and I wanted no part
of it. Until 2007,iny expectations of Council regarding public support had been met
and with respect to aimual discussions or if you would like,perfornlance reviews, I
believe it is fair to say we have fallen short.
This is the context in which the first portion of the Presentation was to be made. This was to be
followed by a couple of slides indicating what has been accomplished since the Council of 2004
was elected. This Council actually identified a couple of priority issues and staff has responded
accordingly.
The next section of the presentation, which is not being submitted at the direction of Council,was
intended to provide the facts to Councillors,the public and to newer inembers of our management
team. My views on the items identified may be construed by some as persoiulel issues and as
such Council should always retain the right to discuss these matters privately if they so choose.
From the City Manager's perspective they have become all too `pLCblic". It was in this light that
I was prepared to discuss these matters in an open forum.
Finally,the last slide or two, which have also been removed at Council's direction, was to offer a
suggestion to Council given my experience with respect to what I believe this Council and its
staff require to do, at this point in time, in order to move our community and the administration
forward. Again, as I indicated, I appreciate that this slide or two from Council's perspective has
persoruiel implications and I respect Council's decision not to discuss these items publically.
Last week after publically hearing from soine that the issue is"Te�°�y Totteia"then perhaps as I
indicated to Council when we met privately in September, I am too close to the issue and as result
I will simply take direction from Council on these matters.
CONCLUSION:
Council has a lot on its plate at the moment and I see little value in making a public presentation
this evening on this matter. I will follow up directly with all your management and professional
employees. I would suggest that Council's time would be better spent on Budget Matters and
therefore seek Council support for the following recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
That this report be received and filed
99
Report tv Comn�on Coacncil page ¢
Subject.• Prese�ztatio�� to Cou�acil.—Mar genzent/P�rofessio��al Tean�a
Resp �u ly s bu�i�
` ` �
�,
� ���/�,��,
Terrertce'L. Totten, FCA
CITY MANAGER
Enclosure
100
1/9/2009
� , I • � �
�
I
FOR THE RECORD: `
A Question of Leadership.....
A Question of Performance and Results....
A Question of Fact...
__ _ _ �
WHY AM I RAISING THIS MATTER NOW?
• We,as Managers, are about to sign off on our commitments to the
Communiry,to Council,to one another.
• In doing so we are making a significant statement.
• Commitments must be"Two Way".
� Your Management employees need to have Council take a position,
one way or another, on the topic of our leadership.
• I have spoken to Council previously, only in a private setting. I
want to be transparent with respect to what T believe our
community needs at this point in its history.
• I want to set the record straight.
1
101
1/9/2009
�,L_, . , .
-- ._ . . :T �,;
Management Profile
• Number of Managers in i993 • io5
• Total number of Managers—2008 • 84 Total
• Average Age • 46
• Male . 59
• Female • �4
• 4o Hired since i998 • 23 Male and i�Female
• Hired from Private Sector • �4
• Hired from Public Sector . lp
• Hire from University . 6
• 29 Hired since 2003 • 15 Male—i4 Female
• Less than 5 years service • 34�
• Female . 2g/
WHO ARE THES� MANAGERS AND
PROFESSIONALS?
• They are the individuals recruited and/or promoted by
Common Council or the City Manager.
• They are the most talented and educated of your 800 or
so employees.
• They are the group with the�videst breadth of experience
and are responsible for mo��ing your Administration
forward.
• They are the most committed to Common Council.
• They are your next door neighbours.
• They are the group most maligned and shown the least
support.
2
102
1/9/2009
�:J..
WHY SO MANY MANAGERS AND
PROFESSTONALS?
• This is the number that Council, over the years,has succeeded in
keeping from being organized by a Trade Union for reasons of
professional standing or access to confidential information.
• Their loyalty is to Council and not to the Brotherhood.
• Most are employed primarily for their technical and professional
expertise(�lawyers, �professional accountants,5 professional
planners, a heritage planner and 25 professional engineers.
• Others,because of their access to confidential information, i.e. 4
Canadian Human Resource Professionals,your Common Clerk and
Assistant Clerk.
Cont'd
,,,_..._.�_.. _.� _. �.
_ <�.
WHY SO MANY MANAGERS AND
PROFESSIONALS........ corr�r�n
• Less than go are engaged primarily with managing people. These would
be 3 indi��iduals in the City Manager's Office,Departinent Heads and a
skelefion staff providing operational management 24/�.
• The quesfiion should be"why so few"not"why so many".
� In many Organizations many of these individuals would be unionized or
represented by an Association.
3
103
1/9/2009
-;:.�
COUNCIL'S EXPECTATIONS OF THEIR CITY
MANAGER AND OTHERS
• To improve on the state of Labour Relations (i993 onward).
• To reduce the number of Union Grievances.
• To exhibit tight control on City Expenditures(i994 to 2004)
• To make a commitment to the community.
• From 2004, to worlc on growing the tax base and to
implement Council's priorities.
Our Recoi d: Resolving Labour Disputes
��,o � _
„o
.,, —---- - -
-� — -
GO —-- -
Uw:il I h
',p — — — — —_ .Israll.v;
■Laa]C;1
10 —— —"
LM�:J�I
;o _ _—
:o — — _
tu — --------- -- —
� .-�- � , �.�-1��,- _�-.�- ���_��1__��_�-�.
l���n I5��,1 1�L:l(��:I��M�" �,1•,"6 Iq•�'L,ns to!���_w7�1'_'ooA_v01!on;_00��_<<�_i�ie ._�,]M�w
4
104
1/9/2009
Our Record: Controlling Expenditures:
�994 to 200�
jJ nt�M1�
—SaintJohn
ao�o°� —�Ioncton
—FI'P(�P11Ct011
�o uo°o
_U pU°o
1<i p�)o
O lJ�ln� . . .
-1(r o0"0
•_O 00°0
tq9a i00i ipon �n9- �003 v99n n000 rom _on: =no:; _ao.� =oo� ^_onG 2uo'
Our Recol d: Pushing Ta� Base Grovvth:
2004 Council
c,,ouo Tax Base Growtli 19qo-2009
;.;oo '
—Saiut Juhu
�.tioo —DIonctiin
—Fredericton
�;;uo
i
� �,000 ',
0
� 3.�00 �
3,000
��,gou
=.000
q, q� ary q� q�` q�' q� q^ q� qQ OJ �� Jry �� ��� �h �b �^ ��4 c�
�q �°j �q ti� ti°' '.°j tiq '+� �q �q ry� Y� ry� ^� ry� �L� h� �Y� ry� 'Y�
5
105
1/9/2009
My Record: Commitment To
Community
„ .
,_
.,�
H
G ,
i �
�, 1 1 � 1
q�� ��+� ��� ��e� a�,ro� q°'� qq�� �="`
M M1� ?� � �� 0�� �
.l`�b `q'� `y'� 3 q4 `yl yc�
� � �U` �� �
4<`` Q` �� N c\'� `,`� �c`� ���.
OUR RECORD: IMPLEMENTING 2004�2008
STAT�D COUNCIL PRIORITIES:
• Harbour Cleanup...money is in the bank,it is happening as we speak!
• Waterfront Development,Harbour Passage, Private Development,it is
happening as we speak!
• Police Justice Facility—in the detailed design stage.
• Fostering Neighbourhood Capacity,I would suggest that we are
gradually being more responsive to neighborhood issues. Council can
judge.
• A Plan for Safe Clean Drinking Water. Finalized and now subject to a
"Value Engineering Review".
� Pension Plan Deficit....A long way to go.
6
106
1/9/2009
._..:. ._ . . -.�
Our Record:
Implementing Your Priorities
i. Very early in your term.
?. A Plan for Clean Safe Water has Ueen submitted to the other levels of
Government.
3. New�Recreation Facility: A number of discussions have been held with
a possible partner,i.e.EPA.
4. An update of the Municipal Plan,Council has been apprised of the
resources required and timelines. It is a budget decision.
5. New Cultural Infrastructure: As yet not identified.
6. You have sought ad��ice from our"Ability Advisory Board"related to
the topics associated with Disabled Persons.
,�
SOME QF OUR RECOGNIZED
ACHIEVEMENTS
• Vision 2oi5. City's Plus Network...compare it to Red Deer or
Kelona.
• Career Path for Outside Workers. Nationally recognized by
Canadian Association o£Municipal Administrators.
• Energy EfFiciency Efforts. Nationally recognized by FCM and
CAMA.
• Professionalism of our Staff:
� Chief Simonds,VP of Canadian Fire Chief's Association,following
Montreal and Calgary.
� Former Chief Bodechon, recognized nationally and
internationally.
7
107
1/9/2009
Achievements, cont'd... ..
• Pat Woods, a"sought after"recognized expert in Municipal
issues and structures in the Province of N.B
• Bill Edwards, Council knows full well the work Bill has done
on Minimum Property issues in this Province.
• Paul Goody, Council must acknowledge that Harbour Cleanup
and Safe Water initiatives when finalized will in large part be
due to Paul's tenacity on these files in building public
awareness. VVeek after week, he has raised these issues.
• And quite frankly, there is much more I could say about the
efforts and accomplishments of other staff inembers.
�
CITY MANAGER'S VIEWS ...
�ALL DELETED�
• On the Topic of Performance Reviews.
• On the Topic of a 5 Year Contract for the CAO.
• On the Topic of Value for Money Reviews.
• On the Topic of Pension Reform
• On the Facts Where His Judgment has Been
Questioned.
8
108
M & C—2009 - 004
January 9, 2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Land Acquisition Thorne Ave Lift Station #4 Project—
Easement through lands of HBL Rentals Inc.
BACKGROUND:
On September 26, 2006 Common Council accepted funding from the Municipal
Rural Infrastructure Program (MRIP) for Harbour Cleanup and entered into an
agreement for the funding.
On March 26, 2007 Common Council resolved to utilize the municipality's
expropriation powers to ensure the timely acquisition of the land requirements.
On April 14, 2008 Common Council resolved that the City Manager be directed
to proceed to negotiate the acquisition by agreement, of all land interests required
in connection with the proposed Lift Station#4, associated force mains and
gravity sewers to a maximum of 125 per cent of the appraised value.
Subsequent land survey work and value appraisal work has been largely finalized.
Pursuant to Common Council's April 14, 2008 resolution, negotiations with the
various affected land owners have been initiated towards acquisition by
agreement of all land interests so required by the City of Saint John.
Staff has successfully negotiated an agreement with HBL Rentals Inc. for the
City's easement requirement in PID 00347930, subject to Common Council's
approval. A copy of the "Offer to Purchase" is attached hereto, together with a
copy of the design plan and the proposed Plan of Survey. The negotiated price
falls within the resolution adopted by Common Council on April 14, 2008. The
market value of the easement requirement was determined to be $5,392.00 by
David Babineau A.A.C.I., of deStetcher Appraisals Ltd.. The negotiated price is
$6,740.00, being 125% of the appraised value.
109
Report to Common Council Page 2
January 9, 2009
This is the fourth negotiated easement for this project that has been brought to
Common Council for its consideration and approval. Staff is optimistic that
negotiations with three of the other affected land owners can be successfully
concluded in the next few weeks, and can then be brought forward for Common
Council's consideration. Negotiations with all of the other affected land owners
continue.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That The City of Saint John accept the "Offer to Purchase" from HBL
Rentals Inc. attached to M&C 2009 - 004 to acquire a municipal services
easement in &through lands designated PID 00347930 for the sum of
$6,740.00 upon the terms and conditions contained in the said "Offer to
Purchase"; and
2. That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary
documentation.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner
Planning and Development
Terrence Totten, F.C.A.
City Manager
PW/p
110
. ,- � �
-,�— — ---r -��.._. -__...� : /,' ! .�•
• ,\ � ,. �- �O O �) � +, � 5, 1� �� / j f, �' ` l/ 1 �,•,•
F�rst t:��y, , ��''-,.t ! `� ;r , , ,r ; f � � � � � � � e
`� � � r � Q�
�� h� ��.� ''�%� � J' �� � �
�� � \ B � ld ?`5 f ! ��`r� � � f � / �•
.� •���+' .`. + i I
, `r
/�.� . . . . �� I ��
,`'�, �•�� ��., i �t'� ...� / �/ i _ `�"^ti. � � �•
s _ ✓ i f • �". � ,' �
/ ,\,�` �
� +`��'�c.,.�, ' `�``�. '� / r l / � �1\ � � � ' �� � LEGEND
�� .
� • , �.,,
/ �. ,., �'`�s � ,�. 1 � � „
• -..
.��
_ / �
r' .'y '`, �� . i''... / I y /+ • �.�.�.�,
f , `' .`` � � ,,, �``,ti � APPROX R.O.W.LIMIT6
.,� s..__ • �
/ ,
% / �`�. /'�•`�.., V f i t ..'"'^.�..� � J �, NEW FORCENWM ��a.■��u,...
I : y � --.Y .� � , ��..
. � "
�.. ." / + �I ��� �r �^.�, /� +'
_ � � � ! �
<�,.`�. :
,� ; ,�`=.,-:—`�••....�� / �+ I �� ; � � ,�
; ,- .
�
.
, . . . . `�-..
. �,
: / Ii
,,. i' ;" f ,
/ , �� /y ` ���' • . / � ,�� \ .y � � ��
�. , , , \�_ ``\ I �
�`� 1 � � / � J f� ,+ i, '.� �, ,f j �.
i � j
� ,� � . � % I 1% \� � J,r �.
d9�{ '/ -�`,� [ _ .. ;
� � �� � ��, �� �, } � �.
> , _
,, �.. O ,. , - ,
. , �. �:
, . / • ,
, � � �\.� ', �
r� , • / / , -�_�I / -�
,,, , ,, � �
, / a •; F . �
�l.;r � A �� H8L ALS ' , .�T, .
� ..
. (� � PID 347 /� ! �. �-.. �...�'�'l.
N� �
j' a ^S� "�''�� � � qR6q 32g sq m � ' I '. � ' \
4 `•� . r ��`i � � � � ��,,�^ � ••';� ,, 03 R NOV 7 NEW EASEMENT UMITS
t. r, 7 1 � ° e ��� y f�'� �?l � �„• �,�/ �/• \ 02 DR ULY OENER/kL REVISIONS
r � '- , • " 'd' M �n� � 4,,,�,r''� /,/ / � `. 01 DR ISSUED FOR REVIfW
� --�-...._.
. .
'�`=: f/ J���',�:�.�'�� , s ,• #~s � �'�r�d.' .,.»W,�.:�.�;� rs.,,�°r.,...e* •�� ��.�/.� /��• No. By Dabe Revisbn
�....� / � .� � . �
���� -:=:_ % ��� _ t_ ,� 1 �� .:;,,: � � Q,�,- �
`'�M`�```_- � � -.,",-r"'_--�----._.-..�. w ��• � �'�`"`'/ �• MUNICIPA6
��-,.�,- ���,�'_'�.�.z,�,;,�,/_ —. BAYSIDE D � �� '��.'''i.� � m ..'''— •—-—-—•—•_._._._, oPe�►r�or�s �
` ' —-_.__ NE�WEASEMENTLIMRS .�'�� � Q � 6M61M�6R1NC
. RIVE
r .� ---_ — ---
� - _ `�--�___ ------ — g ----- --- — — --` _ ..
� -- .� -------- ------- ' _
___.. -�... - • ,-
—---__�:�-�...1 `" ��.: ��
.�. ' a sn�Mr wxw
`� , •�...�...,.-..�-.�. _--- ,r
_.... m.
`� `� r � __.._ .. _...._. __..__.._. _--�,.--"--_ - . ____.�__
i - . .s--..—`---_� . — - , .�.�_ --- w--^"' � ._._. ......^''..._�-�.CiS
'�. ' '� y—' �• -� I
'�'� •` \. h`"^+...�.��-..�b-1,�,+.�.�� �� J����`—' �''J .����w�.��. •'�� ���'r.��.�..��.�.��.��'r���.r.��.��.��..�.��� �
`" ``' •`'� �``` `ih _ � �.�./ ��_ �
,� f � .....��_ � ` �"_ ,,�.�,,,_. � � %',.
••,�. '�• � F„ � ��-�n�.._ ��` � , �{ ■■■
•�' +`�� s Vi±�� �.4.r �.�• '� p �f�Fb���•
� '` v .� � �• �
�'�. 1
� `��' ��� " �• � � � PROJECT TITLE
p••� •�� �' �•��� j �'�� �
�5/ '�•�„/` �' ; BAYSIDE DRIVE-
� i' ! NEW 600mm SANITARY
, � `,.
•' �• °� /� � ` f FORCE MAIN(RED HEAD
_� � y i' �� �' ,``�' 1 x
5 � ` , = � � ROAD TO THORNE AVE.)
;/ .,� �, •�1' � � ( �
�`��''� ,"�`' /_. -_ ; � DRAWING TITIE
� ti,;'
%S%'� "�� �,/� �• �r1 ~�, ' � `""-^-_..� � EASEMENTREQUIREMENTS
�. i „ _._..___�---..'�--''_"------_..--._._ � FOR HP D 34N930 S LTD.
,� �� /� _� � -��� _`__ �,---'
J, s./ s' J/' ``c ',"�t'----- y_____ i -"_�-�-----._,�._ ,,_ ---._..._.� APPROVAL Comract No. 2008-3
/
/r �
._.��.m�,�,Ht���_�_// '��• ! �i
�5' Z �y �^""+.-.. ��8 �S
"�,.►��•�• ` j M '�2 q`�b � \ �rawn BY MJR
� � � De4e
� �
.�. '^ i�(, ,`,.\ � ncr��rnn„e
f� � , "
�
./
OFFER TO PURCHAS� MUNICIPAL SERVICES EASEMENT
Between: HBL Rentals Inc.;
and
The City of Saint John
Re: Municipal Services Easement— portion of PID 00347930
Saint John, NB
In consideration for the acquisition of a municipal services easement in, over, across and
through a 328 f square metre portion of PID 00347930, and as illustrated as '�Easement/
Servitude" on the drawing hereto attached and titles EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HBL
RENTALS LTD. PID 347930, The City of Saint John ofFers as payment and compensation, the
sum of $ 6.740.00 (plus HST if applicable).
As part of the transaction, The City of Saint John will:
➢ prepare any plan of survey required for conveyance purposes;
Y where applicable, reinstate the subject property to the same or better condition as existing
prior to construction.
➢ reimburse HBL Rentals Inc. up to $ 300.00 (HST included�, for legal fees to finalize this
conveyance.
The closing date of this transaction will be within ninety days following The City of Saint John
Common Council's approval of this transaction.
This offer is irrevocable by HBL Rentals Inc. and open for��eptance by the Common Council of
the City of Saint John until 4:OOpm local time on �January, 2009 , and upon
acceptance constitutes an agreement of purchase and sale between the parties.. �
I, , ���C�� �� a duly authorized representative of
the ownership of PID 00347930 hereby make the offer contained herein.
���� z3 0�
' nature Date
The City of Saint John
MPNU
Association
January 9, 2009
His Worship Mayor Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Respectful Public Discourse
EXecutive members of the Management Professional Non Union Association (MPNU)
employee group of the City of Saint John—the majority of your city management team—
wish to publicly express support and empathy for the City Manager, Terry Totten. At the
same time we have deep concern with the way he and "City Hall"—the organization you
head - has been portrayed for the last two years in the pages of Saint John's only local
newspaper.
Public comment and criticism is expected as a part of being in the public service. Fairness
and journalistic balance and professional respect are also expectations. In our view, the
coverage this organization has received over the last two years in the local newspaper has
been neither fair nor balanced. In our view the opinions expressed in the reports,
columns, and editorial pages of the newspaper have been harshly critical of the
organization— it's elected officials, staff and employees - and reflective of a negative
bias against the City. The majority of citizens we hear from recognize the newspapers'
bias and ask us "just what does the newspaper have against the City, or what does it stand
to gain by tearing down the City?"
Within our group is professional staff, many of whom are members of self regulating
professional associations with established codes of practice and ethics— innuendoes, half
truths, falsehoods and negative pieces, repeated regularly and based on the flimsiest or
most superficial of information or coffee room gossip, are an affront to the
professionalism required of City staff. If there are criticisms, state them boldly, with solid
supporting information and reporting. Personal attacks and simplistic explanations such
as the tax rate being highest in the Maritimes, and there are potholes in the roads,
therefore something is drastically wrong, at the expense of reporting what is happening in
the City are just wrong—and hurting the City's image locally, provincially, and
nationally.
The City of Saint John Management Professional Non-Union Association
Postal Box 6951 Station A, Saint John,NB,E2L 4S4
112
-2-
It is time we looked at this issue and addressed it directly. As a unified group, city staff
has not commented publicly to date, considering both the apolitical line we must walk in
the civil service, and the monopoly position of the local newspaper with its' obvious bias.
To argue or to debate in such a forum would seem only to make things worse; provide an
air of legitimacy to the newspaper positions and the opportunity to rehash stories, attack,
pontificate and further demean reputations of individuals, this or that employee group,the
organization, and the community. However, at this juncture, we wish to make our views
on the situation clear. We feel the local newspaper has been unfairly critical in the overall
coverage and portrayal of the City organization, its leaders, management, and employees.
We would welcome competition in this business sector.
We also wish to state we are proud to be part of this organization and the community and
to work hard on behalf of the citizens, despite the negative focus of the local paper and
the resulting impact it has on workplace morale. This community deserves better.
Respectfully Submitted,
MANAGEMENT PROFESSIONAL NON-UNION ASSOCIATION
George Buchanan, Peter Hanlon, P.Eng,
President lst Vice President
Shayne Galbraith, P.Eng, Kevin Clifford,
2°a president Treasurer
Dan LeBlanc,
Secretary
The City of Saint John Management Professional Non-Union Association
Postal Box 6951 Station A, Saint John,NB,E2L 4S4
113
i �
� a
� �
�
��;��
hl
.m
The City oP Saint John
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: MindCare and Skate to Care have been supporting
community prograins and services for 22 years helping
one in five New Brunswickers who suffer fi�oin inental
illness; and
WHEREAS: Saint Johners must all accept i-esponsibility for the stigina
and discrimination that surround mental illness — this inust
be addressed and eliminated; and
WHEREAS: Mental illness is costly; mental health is priceless; and
WHEREAS: We invite all those who care to join in our mission of
bringing peace to troubled minds.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ( (��___ C�,�,,� Mayor Ivan Court, of Saint
John do hereby proclaim the week of January 18 to Januaiy 24, 2009, as
MinclC�zr�e's Mental Hetclth Matte�s Week.
In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
Mayor of the City of Saint John.
l
�,�1�' `. �,��,
`��`S,���-��,;,•I�� �^�
�� �l 'f, ���,`�� `7
� �, t_, >
.� � �� �>
,
� , � f: . `>
� �� �
`� ;.l �
/_r -
SAINT JOHI�1 P.O.Box 1971 Saint)ohn, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John,N.-B,Canada E2L 4L1
���
114
O
��vG �
�r\, :il
Pu`r� . � ..-
The City of SaInt John
January 9, 2009
Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase
And Members of Common Council
Deputy Mayor and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Project Delivery Options - Pee1 Plaza Development
The projects in the Peel Plaza development will involve a combined investment of approxiinately
$100 inillion. One of the key objectives of the developinent is to leverage additional private
sector investments in the area.
Common Council authorized the engageinent of the Deloitte Financial Advisory group to prepare
a report on a range of infrastructure delivery models with varying degrees of private sector
involvement and to provide a recommendation approach for development.
The consultants have now completed their analysis and report and will be making a brief
presentation on their findings.
Respectfully submitted,
�
Mayor Ivan Court
Chair
Peel Plaza Steering Committee
lr -
1
SAINT JOHN P.O.Box 1971 Saint John,NB Canada E2L 4L1 I vwvw.saintjohn.ca I C.P.1971 Saint John, N.-B.Canada E2L 4L1
�`�
115
Deloitte
Financial Advisory
• •
lt o alnt o n
Analysis of project delivery options for major infrastructure investments
in the Peel Plaza redevelopment
Executive Summary
January 12, 2009
116
Contents
Background............................................................................................................................. 3
The Peel Plaza Redevelopment.......................................................................................... 3
Purposeof This Report ..................................................................................................... 4
Methodology Used to Camplete the Assignment................................................................... 4
Step 1 — Goals, Objectives and Constraints ................................................................................. 5
Step 2 - IdenCification and Assessment of Project Delivery Options................................................. 5
Step 3 — Procurement Options Analysis....................................................................................... 6
Step 4 — Risk Framework and Value for Money Analysis ................................................................ 7
Step 5 — Implementation Considerations..................................................................................... 9
Step 6 - Recommended Approach .............................................................................................10
Page 2 of 12
117
Background
The Peel Plaza Redevelopment
The Peel Plaza redevefopment ('the redevelopment') involves the redevelopment of the Uptown area
North of Union in the City of Saint John (the"City"), New Brunswick (see Figure 1). The
redevelopment involves high profile new investments by both the City and the Province of New
Brunswick.
Figure 1 - Proposed Peel Plaza Developments
i �. ._._._ � � �i� _ x�wee: ___.
' � _ � _�:�:::.�ti '�,,, . .
) _ - I
A _ - . " � _,-�� _ I
,._-.—_. — I
/� " J ...� � t �
1 � . . .. - _ __...
I _ "_ '.'._'__ _'_.'_ '._'
� .. ..� " .'..C::"�..sct'_
/! _ " _ .—._ . _ _
�,.c�_.N...�2� _ � � �I ( .
� � � . ( ,
d � � ,
/ �
���? _.. .�-- ._._ I . •
f ' �. •
� � � �
. � �. . .
� \.____��i �
��__�._�___—._".—..___ ' � .� _
._. �i'�..�`..�,,.
�7`:�'�R'3�p1� �—` �i
!�M,:.r.:_11.:!J��II� �"_"
The Province oF New Brunswick has announced plans to invest $47 million (Government of New
Brunswick, December 18, 2007} in the development of a new 129,500 sf. Court of Justice facility
("Law Courts") on the site of the former YM-YWCA (City Staff Report, March 2008).
The City is planning to invest in: (i) a new $25 million, 72,000 sf. Police Headquarters ("Police HQ");
(ii) a $17 million new multi-story parking Facility to be located on the escarpment off Carleton Street;
and (iii) a $1.7 million refurbishment of the existing Arts Centre.
Together, both levels of government are looking to invest almost $100 million in the renewal of the
Peel Plaza area.
The City is currently exploring options For procuring and developing the new Police HQ, new parking
facility and the Arts Centre refurbishment. The Province of New Brunswick has announced that it will
be procuring and developing the new Law Courts using a public-private partnership ("P3")
(Government of New Brunswick, December 18, 2007). The Province is expected to issue tender
documents for the procurement of the new Law Courts early in 2009.
The Peel Plaza redevelopment will require that both the City and the Province cooperate in the
coordination oF their investments. The City and the Province have agreed in principle to jointly invest
in a shared prisoner holding facility to be located between the new Law Courts and the proposed Police
HQ.
The City has a number of delivery options available to it for the delivery and procurement of its major
infrastructure investments in Peel Plaza. The challenge for the City is to: (i) find an optimal delivery
model(s) that will enable it to deliver a diverse set of infrastructure assets within its desired
Page 3 of 12
118
timeframes; and (ii) construct a procurement process that will generate maximum competitive tension
in the marketplace and attract high quality, experienced bidders who can deliver value for taxpayers'
dollars.
Purpose of This Report
In addition to the studies and public consultations that the City continues to undertake in support of
the Peel Plaza redevelopment, the City has retained Deloitte to provide advice and make
recommendations on the delivery model options that would be viable for the delivery of critical
infrastructure assets (police headquarters, parking facility and Arts Centre) that underpin the
redevelopment. More specifically, Deloitte, through this report, is assisting the City in:
• Identifying the goals, objectives and constraints for the development and delivery oF critical
infrastructure in Peel Plaza;
• Undertaking a business case analysis that includes:
o evaluative criteria consistent with the City's goals, objectives and constraints;
o the identification of a range of infrastructure delivery model options that includes varying
degrees of private seckor involvement;
o a risk analysis and financial evaluation of a short-list of realistic and achievable delivery
models;
o a recommended approach for developing the critical infrastructure contemplated for the
Peel Plaza redevelopment; and
o key implementation considerations.
• Mapping out next steps in moving the development of critical assets involved in the Peel Plaza
redevelopment forward.
Methodology Used to Complete the Assignment
Figure 2 presents the comprehensive methodology that was used for the preparation of this report.
Figure 2: Business Case Methodology
Step 1 Step 2 S[ep 3 Step 4 Slep S Step G
•
� � �\. r'rTl
� a..�
�Gauly artfculate Cityof •Idemificalionend •Eslablifhmarketand •Prefentationolprojectnsk •Im�lemenution •PreaeNUionof
Saim John e goals, assesament o1 en puDilc polity mnte:t fromework.inUUding considerations rolatedfo rccommended appwach
objeclives and conslreims appropnate renqe of inllumcinq procuremem Wlocstion of roles and recommmded aoproac� tor delivery ol uiticel
IorlhePeelPlaza projeUdeliverymadel optionsavailabletolheCriy rosponsibil.lieabetween wilhreapectto. municipalin(nstructurein
wdevelopment options(mdudinq olSaintJohn. pannersreaponsiblebr •Timingandmilestones: PeelPlazaretlevelopment
•TAe goals,objeMrves and TradAional and P3 delwery •Identify range ol delrvenng key •Project argani�tion end Dased on�nelysis
cormtrainlsinfortnanalysis oplions)forcrilical appropnateprocurement infres4udurepro;ect coo�nalion�hthkey conductedinSlepat
of projea delivery options municipal in(raslrutlurc to oplions etements. panners �hrough 5.
lorcmicalmunlcipal bedevelopetlorrenewed •AseessmeMOf •Prqeticashllowmodeling �Marketandslakeholdar
inhaswcW�einPeal inPeelPlaza procurementoptions and forTredEionalandother ronsuhatioasrequiredto
Plaza •Assessing mnge ol pmject idmtification of optimal pro;en dNnery. support pro;ed,and
deLverymodeloptions approach—Ihe'qualdaG�e •RiskadrystedNPV •LessonsleAmedlromcase
usinganquaMativeoplionv fiher' analys�sandcompariao�o( studiesonbettpratliees
ecreen lo identify optimal •Diecussion of innovation Tnditional and other via6le
delivery model opportunifies to funher pro;ea delivery models.
deliverongoalaana �ValuefwMoney
oEjectivesforPeelPlazs assessmerRark
redeveiopment, companson.
The results of each of the above noted steps are summarized in the sections that follow.
Page 4 of 12
119
Step 1 — Goals, Obj ectives and Constraints
Major investment decisions undertaken by government require decision-makers to balance a range of
factors and interests — factors and interests that are sometimes in alignment and at other times in
contradiction. Among these factors and interests are: (i) public and stakeholder sentiment; (ii)
economic, social, and environmental considerations; (iii) contractual relationships/obligations; and (iv)
public policy, legislative, and regulatory requirements or trends.
The Peel Plaza redevelopment is a major investment initiative and the City has articulated both public
policy and project specific goals, objectives and constraints to guide decision-making and the
implementation of major projects within the redevelopment.
The Peel Plaza redevelopment is a high profile and vital redevelopment for the City. A well considered
articulation of goals, objectives and constraints will assist in identiFying and selecting a delivery model
option(s) for the major assets involved in the Peel Plaza redevelopment and will enable the City to
optimize decision-making on the opportunities and challenges that the projects of the size and scope
of Peel Plaza redevelopment presents.
The following are the project level goals, objectives and constraints that will assist the City in better
focusing on the precise business, operational and service requirements needed to be accommodated
or achieved from the optimal delivery of its key infrastructure investment projects in the Peel Plaza
redevelopment.
Figure 3: Project Level Goals, Objectives and Constraints
PROJECT GOALS PRO]ECT OB)ECTIVES
�
.a... _ ..i �li����.��._.
_ Y7.i�.� .�.jl� � .
� r — . �_'.—f'.�
I�,. .,�;_ �,,_ � �.1�� i{ii
� 1 .�']
II, � � ` .
l�_—___
.. i�.�_ � __ —.�
These goals and objectives were used by Deloitte to inform the analysis presented in this business
case assessment of the delivery model options for the major infrastructure investments involved with
the Peel Plaza redevelopment.
Step 2 - Identification and Assessment of Project
Delivery Options
A full range of inFrastructure delivery options exist for the City's major infrastructure investments in
the Peel Plaza redevelopment. However, each asset contemplated for Peel Plaza has its own unique
characteristics that expand or narrow the range of appropriate and potentially optimal delivery
models. An appropriate range of delivery models for each of the Police HQ, parking facility and Arts
Centre was selected and an optimal delivery model for each asset identified based on a qualitative
Page 5 of 12
120
options screen (Table 1 below) that was derived from the City's goals, objectives and constraints for
Peel Plaza and from Deloitte's experience with projects of similar size and scope across Canada.
Table 1: Delivery Model Options Screen
- �
1. Degreetowhichthedeliveryoptionis AdeliverymodelconsideredforthePeelPlazaredevelopmenishouldbeconsistenlwithlheCity'sexperience
consistentwilhtheCiryofSaintJohn's andnsktolerancewithsimilarprojects.
experience and/orcomfoM1with major
infrasVucture delivery.
2. Degreetowhichthedeliveryoptionis Thefacilitiescontemplaledfordevelopmentand/orrenewalinthePeelPlazawillhavespeciflcoperational
consistentwilhtheopera6onal requirementsandconstraints.Forexample,fhenewPoliceHQwillhavespecificoperalionalrequirementsand
requirementsandlorconstraintsoffacility constraintsrelaledtosecurityandpoliceprogrammingslandards.Theviabilityofadeliveryoptioniscontlngenl
users and City. on its ability lo deliveron needed operebonal requirements and accommodale specific operalional consUaints.
3. Degreetowhichthedeliveryoptioncan AdeliverymodelconsideredforlheCiry'sinfrastructureinveslmentsinthePeelPlazaretlevelopmantshould
delivervalueformoneylhroughrisk delivervalue(ormoneythroughtheopfimizedalloca6onofprojectrelatedriskstothepartiesbestableto
Vansfer manage Ihem.
4. Theeaseandspeedwithwhichlhe AdelrverymodelconsideredforlheCitysinfrasVuctureinvestmentsinthePeelPlazaredevelopmenlshouldbe
deliveryoptioncanbeexeculed ablelomeeUheCiry'sandstakeholders'expectationsandneedswithrespecl tothetimingotlhedeliveryoflhe
completed asseLs.
------- -----. -- —
5. Degreetowhichlhedeliveryoptioncan AdeliverymodelshouldposiGontheCitylo leverage additionalsourcesoFfundinglhroughpublic-publicand
leveregeaddilionsourcesofpublicand public-privatepaMershipstotheextenithisisbeneficial.
orprivate funding and/orfinance
6. Degreetowhichthedeliverymodelcan AdeliverymodelshouldenablelheCirytoadoplbeslprecticesexperiencedinlhemarkelplaceandprovideit
deliverstaleoftheartinfrasVUClure wilhmechanismstoensurethecondi6onandperformanceofanassetoveritsfulllife-cycle.
assels thal are(iscallyand
environm entally suslainable
7. Degreetowhichlhedeliveryoptlonis TheCanadianmarketplacehasgreaterexperiencewithcerlainalternativedeliveryop6ons.TheCanadian
used and accepted in the Canadian markefs experience and track record wilh certain alternative delivery oplions should be factored into the viability
markelplace. assessment.
The Options Screen yielded the following short-list of optimal delivery models:
Table 2 —Summary of Short-listed Delivery Models
. .�. -�1�.'���� i , . . . . 9 � r��t.�'1'.l'Al��.'- �
�"_-
Police Headquarters DBP�4/FDBM These delivery models provide the most appropnale type and level of nsk transferfor lhis
(Modified Design) particular infraslruclure asseL The design thal has been developed by the Police Commission
forthis tacility can and should be incorporated into the delivery model.Under either model,
operations remain strictly within the purview of the Saint John Police Force.The issue of
private seclorfinancing is a policy issue that the Cily will need to considerand address.
— -- __ — ___ _ _.
Parking Facility DBOM/FDBOM These delivery models provide the most appropriate type and level of risk lrans(erfor this
particularinfrastructure asset. The degree of private seclor involvement under the DBOM is
most consistent with the project level and public policy goals,objectives,and consiraints.The
issue of private sectorfinancing is a policy issue thal lhe City will need lo considerand
address.
-- -- -- –
Arts Centre TraditionallD-8 The limited scope and scale of the project lead to the conclusion thal a separate TraditionalfD-
B delivery model would yield the best result.
Step 3 — Procurement Options Analysis
The Options Screen yielded a short-list of optimal delivery models. The next area to be explored is the
optimal procurement options for delivering each of these assets. The City has two primary
procurement options. The first option is to procure and transact each project independently. The
alternative course of action is to bundle some or all of these assets into one procurement and
transaction package For consideration by the market.
With respect to optimal procurement options, the report's findings included:
Optimal Procurement Approach
A bundled transaction is the optimal approach for the City to pursue for the Following three reasons:
Page 6 of 12
121
1. A bundled transaction would enable the City to reduce its procurement process timeline and
focus limited human and financial resources on one sizeable transaction by bringing both the
Police HQ and the parking facility to market simultaneously. This is important because of the
need for the City to ensure that both assets are developed within the same timeframe as the
new Law Courts project because of a number of interdependencies that exist across the
projects.
Z. A bundled transaction would enable bidders to focus on bidding on one City project as opposed
to two and would increase the likelihood of achieving critical synergies between the facilities,
particularly construction planning and coordination synergies that would mitigate development
impacts on the surrounding community. Construction synergies are essential because it is
quite likely that the City and the province will have two different constructors working within
the same site on three different assets.
3. A single bundled transaction would elicit greater response from the marketplace and would
mitigate the risk to the City of reduced competitive tension among bidders due to the
attractiveness of the additional scale, which is important because of the high level of activity
and competition for resources and investment taking place across Atlantic Canada. A bundled
transaction would also enable the City to better coordinate its procurement process with the
process to be undertaken by the province for the Law Courts project.
Innovation Opportunities
1. If the City is eager to catalyze thinking and development proposals around the ancillary lands
within the Peel Plaza area, it is recommended that the lands be included as an innovation
component of the bundled P3 transaction. Proceeding in this fashion is low risk and may: (i)
make the bundled P3 transaction more commercially viable; and (ii) position the City to
achieve a significant fiscal benefit through the sale, lease or monetized concession over the
lands. Even if proposals are not accepted by the City, the discussion with the market would
provide the City with a better sense of the level of market interest, potential value of the
lands, and the range of compiimentary development opportunities that could be further
promoted and/or explored.
Arts Centre
1. The size and scope, as well as the current stage oF planning, of the proposed Arts Centre
refurbishment makes it most sensible for the City to pursue a Traditional delivery approach
through an independent transaction. The Arts Centre could be considered for inclusion in a
bundled transaction along with the Police HQ and parking facility, however, it would likely be
incidental to the deal because of limited risk transfer opportunities.
2. Notwithstanding the relatively small deal size of the Arts Centre refurbishment, longer term
options around the expansion of the facility need to be fully considered through a
comprehensive business case analysis and stakeholder consultations. To include the facility in
a bundled transaction may limit flexibility required by the City to determine a more optimal
use of the facility in the future to achieve the broader community based vision for Peel Plaza.
In addition, the inclusion of the Arts Centre refurbishment within a bundled transaction may
impede the progress of the Police HQ and parking facility.
Step 4 — Risk Framework and Value for Money
Analysis
All major inFrastructure investments have inherent risks related to their design, construction,
operation and maintenance over their useful life. Risk is defined as"the threat or probability that an
action or event, will adversely or beneficially affect an organization's ability to achieve its objectives."
Understanding the risks involved in a planned infrastructure investment is critical to enable public
sector sponsors to make informed and appropriate decisions on how best to manage risks so that
value is delivered to taxpayers through efficient and on-budget delivery.
Page 7 oF 12
122
A key concept in infrastructure delivery is"value for money"- particularly where there is a choice For
public sector project sponsors between pursuing a Traditional delivery or P3 delivery approach. A
value for money assessment is undertaken to quantitatively compare the Traditional and P3
approaches and it involves two important steps: (i) identifying and allocating risks between the public
and private sectors; and (ii) assigning a value, or order of magnitude cost, to each risk used in the
analysis. Dollar values are ascribed to the risks based on observations of other projects and the value
is based on the cost that a project sponsor would assume if the risk became a material event.
In order to assess which delivery approach - Traditional or bundled P3 - yields greater financial value
to the City, a high level risk identification, assessment and valuation was undertaken and used to
inform a preliminary value for money (PVFM) analysis on these two options. The methodology outlined
below was used to identify, allocate, and quantify project risks related to the Police HQ and parking
facility and to execute the value for money analysis.
Figure 4- Risk and Value for Money Methodology
Step 1
Stage 2 Stage 3
�r�.,,,�� ' Step 2 Project Cost&Cash Flow Value for Money Analysis
(i�71t�u:�';�t Analysis
�i:_MT',��.,. Step 3
i f.L'�;'_
` , Step 4
� --- -.:a:�;,
� � Step 5
_i
` � Step 6
S[age 1 ��—
Risk Analysis `
���
�
Based on the available and generic information compiled by Deloitte in place of a detailed risk
quantification workshop, the PVFM results produce an indicative value of 15.6% in reduced project
costs when the project is delivered using a bundled P3 delivery model, with a potential range of 9.3%
to 18.9% established through a sensitivity analysis.
The above results compare favourably to other value For money results (listed below) achieved by
other similar availability type assets being undertaken in other Canadian jurisdictions.
Figure 5 - Comparable Projects
Summary of proJecta aolectod:
Mlnl�tryof �Con�l�ucl'qnofe�w9ovemmont0etncenlrauwq �.....,
Oov�mm�nl eFlnueo-0oelprvBuik�lAdnlnN sWelue. � �
9�rvIC��D�1� �Itp'/AvwwlrCrealiuclu�mnlerio.ca� —
CanV� • 14.7Y.
�OntMo� '
s.�ua.. •mvoi.os000.���w�or�mqo��«no.oum
Ho�Pibl imuiry.
(Ont�rlol .SevaNCUrnntlyunEe�<on�l�uclionaqxa . J—
Flfwico-oeelprvBwW�.tanmh moed . _' .. _• 182%
nt�plMrw.�Mm.vuc�waonce.a ca
Dur��m •DurheniCOinauEOleECq�nMUSOVnllpoemoaIXn. ' .
coo.ouai.a imoe�o�oai���irtyme�..,ii�o�.oi�amoswo�o� �.
courowuw couneroon�e�ocoun7uauceaenice.n.reony
w���io� aa�.noeiromaomiocoao�.mro..u„�,owum I .. �._ ita�%
ropbn
•Tha Du�IClnp vA11 fpU6B33 coWlmOms,Inivo
molammome,nvoconforoncaeonbmeniroome �
ena rnelea lu.uco•avicea. .
nnp.�hmw�Nmsbuc�uoon�mio cw �
i
�
! I
This PVFM should be used by the City together with the Full analysis completed in this business case to
determine the suitability oF delivering the major infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza
redevelopment under a bundled P3 structure.
Page 8 of 12
123
Should the City decide to proceed with a bundled P3, a detailed Value for Money assessment should be
completed based on the RFP & Project Agreement (and the associated Final Output Specifications).
The results of the detailed VFM assessment may vary From this PVFM.
Step 5 — Implementation Considerations
If the City moves forward with a bundled P3 approach to the development of the Police HQ and
parking facility, the following implementation elements will need to be considered and addressed:
Procurement Approach and Timing
The City should undertake a two-step process (beginning with an RFQ followed by an RFP) that will
enable it to: (i) quickly demonstrate its commitment to the Peel Plaza project; and (ii) engage
potential bidders in a robust, structured dialogue that will assist in further refining the optimal
approach to procuring, delivering and managing the Police HQ and parking facility. An RFQ should be
issued in the market in early February.
Figure 6 - Procurement Timelines
�����_T.� ���1G�`�7'..� ��_���'l�n��L;l�1.
� -EsleNishSubmittal Requ'vemerns �.J
-Develop RFQ end Issue I� RFO relunne0 Ey erq of FoWOry
I -ResparuePeriod O
RFOPfOCeba -ContluclCOrcplelanessReview �
I -ConductFirancelandTechni�IRev'�ews � U --
I -Identi(yQualifiedProponerrts ��. ouareep�openenl.i0anlmoeet
Dop�nn�rq ofAprA 1009
-ItlenllfyDealParematersandSubmlttal �i{'� �
Requirements
-DevelopRPPandlswa � �� RFP�ssuea•teeqlvunpalApni2WG
-ResporsePeriod �1
L�J
-Co nduc!Coiryleteness Raview �
RFP PfOC68a -Contl W Firencbl ond TecMiral Reviews
Pnfertad Propmm110eniifrod in eeAy
-IdenUfy SeleCad Bldder �wy?000
-NogotiatoFirolProjactAgreemeM �7
-FinandalCloseforBidder �� Shomieinqmuna�n
a�toe«z000
---- - - - I --- ----- --
Partner Coordination
The City should refine the role of the Peel Plaza Steering Committee to focus its efforts and decision-
making on strategic matters and establish a sub-group of the Steering Committee with responsibility
for coordinating the efforts and interests of the various partners at a project level on a day-to-day
basis.
The project level sub-group should be composed of technical, staff level representatives focused on
operationalizing coordination and cooperation with the province, on the structuring of the project,
developing and executing procurement processes and implementing communications protocols. The
sub-group should also have the responsibility for deciding matters of a technical nature (i.e., design,
legal, financial) and have discretion on which matters would need to be considered by the Steering
Committee.
Project Resourcing and Management
A project with the size and scope of the bundled P3 requires the dedication of appropriate human and
financial resources and an accountability and communication structure that will facilitate the efficient
and effective execution of both the procurement process and project delivery.
It will be important for the City to retain legal and technical advisors with experience in project finance
and public private partnerships. Retaining the right expertise will assist the City in keeping the project
on track and structuring a deal that will deliver value to taxpayers. The City has designated a project
manager whose responsibility should include ensuring the appropriate level oF coordination and
Page 9 of 12
124
communication amongst all project partners (i.e., steering committee, staff, and advisors) to deliver
the project.
Market Consultation
If the City of Saint]ohn decides to use a P3 delivery option, an immediate next step should be to
proceed to test the market's interest in delivering the Police HQ and parking facility as a bundled P3
by consulting with interested bidders. This should be done via commercially confidential meetings with
participants prior to the release of the RFP. Undertaking market consultations will be criticai to
assisting the City in: (i) reFining its P3 structure for the project; and (ii) ensuring that the value and
benefit to the City is maximized by considering acceptable bidder feedback in structuring the
transaction.
Stakeholder Engagement and Communications
The City should develop, execute and monitor both external and internal proactive stakeholder
engagement and communications plans.
As the City moves forward with the development of the Police HQ and parking facility through a
bundled P3 approach, progress should be regularly communicated on the Peel Plaza website at
http://www.cityofsaintjohn.com/peelplaza. Additional engagement and communication approaches the
City should investigate include:
o Making the Peel Plaza website more interactive to foster a dialogue with the community,
including housing information on P3s;
o Proactive meetings with key stakeholders and town hall forums with the community; and
o Leveraging the assistance and membership of community based organizations such as the
Board of Trade to educate the community on P3s, get the message out about the Peel Plaza
redevelopment and the City major investments in the area.
Internal stakeholders should receive the same level of engagement and communications focus as
external stakeholders. The engagement and communications tactics used for internal stakeholders will
likely differ in some respect to those used for external stakeholders. Ideas that the City should
consider include:
o An interactive intranet with a blog that provides timely updates to stakeholders;
o Regularly scheduled update meetings to communicate progress and obtain feedback; and
o Proactive distribution of Council reports on Peel Plaza decisions.
The City should consult with internal stakeholders to ascertain the kind of information they will
require, the frequency with which this information will need to be communicated, and the preferred
method(s) for communication and engagement, and develop an engagement and communication plan
that will deliver on these expectations.
Step 6 - Recommended Approach
A bundled P3 approach inclusive of the Police HQ and parking facility would be the most appropriate if
the City of Saint John decides to pursue the development of these infrastructure assets as P3 projects.
Therefore, it is recommended that City staff:
1. Seek Council approval to proceed with the following two step procurement process provided that
there is a satisfactory response from the market at each stage of the procurement process and
value for money can be achieved through the P3 model:
i. Prepare and issue an RFQ for the purposes of selecting a short-list of qualified bidders to
submit proposals to a project RFP.
Page 10 of 12
125
ii. Prepare and issue an RFP to Qualified Proponents that includes a Project Agreement For the
purposes of selecting a preFerred proponent to deliver the Police HQ and parking facility.
2. Report back to Council on whether to use public or private sector financing for the bundled P3
project, after further diligence and market based consultations can be completed to support
decision-making on this issue.
3. Undertake commercially confidential meetings, with the assistance of their advisors, prior to the
release of and during the RFP process to further refine the P3 approach, including capturing the
proper level of risk allocation to the private sector to ensure that value For money is achieved.
4. Seek Council approval to have the full time project manager develop a resource plan to manage
the bundled P3 transaction throughout the entire lifecycle of the project including identifying and
retaining required internal project management and external advisor services.
5. Work with key stakeholders to refine the role of the Peel Plaza Steering Committee to focus its
efforts and decision-making on strategic matters and establish a sub-group of the Steering
Committee, to be led by the project manager, with responsibility for coordinating the efforts and
interests of the various partners at a project level on a day-to-day basis. The project level sub-
group should be composed of technical, staff level representatives Focused on operationalizing
coordination and cooperation on the structuring of the project, developing and executing
procurement processes and implementing communications protocols. The sub-group should also
have the responsibility for deciding matters of a technical nature (i.e., design, legal, financial) and
have discretion on which matters would need to be considered by the Steering Committee.
6. Develop and implement proactive and effective external and internal stakeholder engagement and
communications plans that promote an open and transparent forum to facilitate the transfer of
information between stakeholders and the City.
7. Proceed with the refurbishment of the Arts Centre as a standalone traditional procurement and
that planning commence around the longer term options for the expansion of the facility, including
the development of a comprehensive business case analysis on the optimal use of the facility in
the future to achieve the broader community based vision for Peel Plaza.
8. Further explore with its advisors and the marketplace the inclusion of the assembled ancillary
lands within Peel Plaza as an innovation component of the bundled P3 transaction, with the
objective of; (i) strengthening the commercial viability of the bundled P3 transaction by advancing
private sector interest in the Peel Plaza redevelopment and increasing competitive tension for the
transaction; and (ii) achieving a significant fiscal benefit (through the sale, lease or monetized
concession over the lands} that could be used to support other municipal investment priorities
inside or outside the Peel Plaza redevelopment.
Page il of 12
126
Important Notice
ThkrtpoRKbrt�anxUusWause a/MeCityolSaint]ohn.Tharesultso(t�ISrepoRarelnlenEedtoassist[hef'tyot5alntlohn
�n making manaqemen[Eetlslons.
The esclma[eE caplWl anE operatlng budqets are EaseO on assumptlons matle which are eRacuve as of[ne Ca[e ol t�ls roport
(]anuary 12,2009).7ha Dutlqats are wmplletl hom Inbrmatbn provi0etl Dy a varlery of sources antl we�ava not avalua[atl Me
suppartlor t�e assumpNOnz orot�er in/ormatlan unAeriyinq the�ntormanon.
TTe unCertying assum pcbn may c�ange,suOSeQuen[to chls report eate,ana chanqas wlll have an Impac[on our ana�y5ls anE
ttsuhi.We take no respontlCOity/orup0atinq our anaNsls aRerMe tla[e alMk report.AdEl[lonalty,TlnGe thes!aciumptlans
reflect anHClpatetl futulB even[s,a[tual res WK may vary ho m t�¢Inlormatlon Ore58n[BE an0 these varlatlon5 m ay Ga materla I.As
such,we ao not orovi0e any oD��bns ar any oMer rorm af assurance on Me nnanclal esUmata.
� y�ORKp�
BEST c.�.ea's roo �y�'4m
�lOO> m _:. ".N
C�IPIAYI:RS FmDloyen ��i��„-
lN CA\'TnA
2 O 0 8 ,�,,,`���_ �yCANP�P
:�um�mnNACIFANS;
www.deloitte.ca
Deloitte,one of Canada's leading professional services firms, provides audit,
tax,consulting,and financial advisory services through more than 7,600 people
in 56 offices. Deloitte operates in Quebec as Samson Belair/Deloitte&Touche
s.e.n.c.r.l.The firm is dedicated to helping its clients and its people excel.
Deloitte is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein,its
member firms,and their respective subsidiaries and affiiiates.As a Swiss Verein
(association),neither Deioitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms
have any liability for each other's acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is
a separate and independent legal entity opereting under the names"Deloitte,"
"Deloitte&Touche,""Deioitte Touche Tohmatsu,"or other related names.
Services are provided by the member firms or their subsidiaries or affiliates and
not by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein.
Member of
OO Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities. Deloitte Touthe Tohlnatsu
127
Deloitte
. .
1 o aln o n
Analysis of project delivery options for major infrastructure
investments in the Peel Plaza redevelopment
January 12, 2009
_ �
� .. . .
/ � �
128
Table of contents
Section Title
Role of Deloitte
1 Project context
2 Business case analytical framework
3 Goals, objectives and constraints
4 Project delivery model assessment
5 Project procurement analysis
6 Project risk assessment framework
7 Implementation considerations
8 Recommendations
Appendices A— Overview of project delivery models
B — Peel Plaza market soundings
C — Inter-jurisdictional case studies
D — Municipal P3s in Canada
E — Global risk register
F — Financial model outputs
� 129 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza -
Role of Deloitte
• In addition to the studies and public consultations that the City of Saint John ("City") continues to undertake in support of
the Peel Plaza redevelopment, the City has retained Deloitte to provide advice and make recommendations on the
delivery model options that would be viable for the delivery of critical infrastructure assets (police headquarters, parking
facility and Arts Centre) that underpin the redevelopment. More specifically, Deloitte, through this report, is assisting the
City in:
— Identifying the goals, objectives and constraints for the development and delivery of critical infrastructure in Peel Plaza;
— Undertaking a business case analysis that includes:
— evaluative criteria consistent with the City's goals, objectives and constraints;
— the identification of a range of infrastructure delivery model options that includes varying degrees of private sector involvement;
— a risk analysis and financial evaluation of a short-list of realistic and achievable delivery models;
— a recommended approach for developing the critical infrastructure contemplated for the Peel Plaza redevelopment; and
— key implementation considerations.
— Mapping out next steps in moving the development of critical assets involved in the Peel Plaza redevelopment forward.
Important Notice
• This report is for the exclusive use of the City of Saint John. The results of this report are intended to assist the City of
Saint John in making management decisions.
• The estimated capital and operating budgets are based on assumptions made which are effective as of the date of this
report (January 12, 2009). The budgets are compiled from information provided by a variety of sources and we have not
evaluated the support for the assumptions or other information underlying the information.
• The underlying assumptions may change, subsequent to this report date, and changes will have an impact on our
analysis and results. We take no responsibility for updating our analysis after the date of this report. Additionally, since
these assumptions reflect anticipated future events, actual results may vary from the information presented and these
variations may be material. As such, we do not provide any opinions or any other form of assurance on the financial
estimates.
2 130 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
� • :
.
' .
-��'.
' . ,
. . .
. , /,
. �
.
. • . �
�./•
'� r .,'•..
'�- ' ' ,. ':.
• '/
, � .
. ;:�
� • � • � .�� , � r . f�,r�.
/ .��t
/ . , �'� � �r�',
'��� ��' � ..f:, � �.
.' ..��-
.�� ,.
• ��... ;,.;.
�;= .,�� d�:
.. �;, � ��
..y,, y . ', �
,,..
ii �� ��
:- � , .
�: �• .� �
�;
.,,�• i ;
, / �'� .,�..
1:�� � � ".
Ji.� � . .
Peel Plaza -
A marquee redevelopment
• The Peel Plaza redevelopment (`the redevelopment')
involves the redevelopment of the Uptown area North of
Union in the City of Saint John, New Brunswick (see
Figure 1).
• The redevelopment involves high profile new investments Figure 1 — Proposed Peel Plaza Developments
by both the City and the Province of New Brunswick. ���5«�
N _
— The Province of New Brunswick has announced plans to % 5��'S� _.
invest $47 million (Government of New Brunswick, �.__ _ o
December 18, 2007) in the development of a new 129,500 - � ` �
sf. Court of Justice facility ("Law Courts")on the site of the l � � ��
former YM-YWCA(City Staff Report, March 2008). `�'
������<,,,��,���
— The City is planning to invest in: (i) a new $25 million, �' �- � � �
72,000 sf. Police Headquarters ("Police HQ"); (ii) a $17 ,. . � ��
million new multi-story parking facility to be located on the � ' i� � a
escarpment off Carleton Street; and (iii) a $1.7 million � � �
� �
refurbishment of the existing Arts Centre i - - _ �,
• Together, both levels of government are looking to invest £ � 3
a l m o s t $1 0 0 m i l l i o n i n t h e r e n e w a l o f t h e P e e l P l a z a a r e a. , � ' �
� Z ��j
Un�on Suee! ,
_ �
4 132 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza redevelopment -
Big ideas
• The planned government investments in the Peel Plaza area have been the subject of considerable public engagement
and consultation. The result of these consultations (presented in Table 1 below) has been the articulation of eight clear
"Big Ideas" (City Staff Report, March 2008) that set out the public's expectations for the renewal and redevelopment of the
Peel Plaza.
Table 1 — Uptown `Big Ideas'
. • � - . .
Open Spaces New open space should be created that meet the needs of many people and connects existing infrastructure to a variety of
interesting places.
Intensity and Providing a mix of good quality housing types (affordable and market), green developments, and more services and
Diversity of Use amenities will lead to a thriving neighbourhood and community.
Parking Parking must not dominate any development. Parking should be concentrated close to transportation hub. This strategy will
ensure city streets are more pedestrian friendly.
Transportation The Uptown should build active transportation infrastructure into all future development to ensure safe and comfortable
pedestrian and bicycle environments.
Heritage The heritage buildings will act as catalysts for innovative infill, reuse and revitalization that can accommodate a variety of
different uses.
Arts and Culture The Arts Centre located in the Carnegie building is an important focal point that will strengthen the Uptown's connection to
the arts community.
Sustainability New development in the Uptown will serve as a leading example of sustainable and green design...An emphasis on
sustainable development will contribute to a strong and thriving community.
Process Creating a shared vision for the Uptown will give community members an idea of what development to say"yes" to and will
also give the community the confidence to say"no"to a sub-par development.
5 133 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
The Peel Plaza redevelopment -
Critical infrastructure investments
• The City is currently exploring options for procuring and developing the new Police HQ, new parking facility and the Arts
Centre refurbishment. The Province of New Brunswick has announced that it will be procuring and developing the new
Law Courts using a public-private partnership ("P3") (Government of New Brunswick, December 18, 2007). The Province
is expected to issue tender documents for the procurement of the new Law Courts early in 2009.
• The Peel Plaza redevelopment will require that both the City and the Province cooperate in the coordination of their
investments. The City and the Province have agreed in principle to jointly invest in a shared prisoner holding facility to be
located between the new Law Courts and the proposed Police HQ.
• The City has a number of delivery options available to it for the delivery and procurement of its major infrastructure
investments in Peel Plaza. The challenge for the City is to: (i) find an optimal delivery model(s) that will enable it to deliver
a diverse set of infrastructure assets within its desired timeframes; and (ii) construct a procurement process that will
generate maximum competitive tension in the marketplace and attract high quality, experienced bidders who can deliver
value for taxpayers dollars.
• The purpose of this report is to assist the City in identifying, evaluating and selecting optimal delivery and procurement
approaches for its major infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza redevelopment.
g 134 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza redevelopment -
Project vision
• For the City, the Peel Plaza redevelopment is to adhere to the sustainability principles and community goals set out in
"Vision 2015 — Our Saint John of the Future" (City of Saint John, November 26, 2007). Vision 2015 is "...a shared plan for
continuous improvement to make Saint John a national leader as a sustainable community" (City of Saint John, November
26, 2007, p. 3). At the heart of Vision 2015 is a recognition and commitment to the development of partnerships of
"...Community groups, institutions, businesses, volunteer agencies, individuals and government" (City of Saint John,
November 26, 2007, p. 3) to reach the City's common goals. Therefore, such partnerships should be of high importance in
selecting the optimal delivery model for the delivery of the City's major infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza
redevelopment.
Vision 2015 Sustainability Principles Vision 2015 Community Goals
• Long term vision based on pillars of sustainability:social/cultural, • Social—A strong sense of community and belonging. A diverse array of
environmental and economic. educational opportunities that promote self-sufficiency,innovation,
creativity,and life-long learning. A flexible and adaptive housing market
• Recognize and incorporate the valued and distinctive characteristics of that meets the range of needs within the community.
Saint John including its human, cultural, historical and natural attributes.
• Economic—A diverse,vibrant, resilient,and environmentally sound
• Engage the entire community of Saint John in the planning and economy that actively supports wealth creation,innovation,
implementation of sustainable solutions. entrepreneurship and individual economic well-being. Economic and
• Respect Saint John's natural ecosystems. employment opportunities that reward individuals for their service.
• Model the development of Saint John on the characteristics of natural • Environment—Recognition of the inherent responsibility of every individual
systems. and organization to embrace a shared commitment to environmental
stewardship. Public access,bicycle and pedestrian trails that connect the
• Strive to minimize Saint John's ecological footprint. entire city to the magnificent waterfronts.
• Achieve long term economic stability and social security in Saint John. • Infrastructure—Convenient,comfortable,affordable,and efficient modes of
• Foster communication among community groups and organizations to transportation to serve access and mobility. The highest standards of
emphasize sustainability as a common goal. quality in architecture,landscaping,infrastructure management and urban
• Promote sustainable production and consumption through the use of
design.
environmentally sound technologies and effective demand management. • Governance—Civic engagement and pride through responsible,
cooperative,inclusive and fiscally responsible government. Playing a
• Establish a systematic process of continual improvement, based on action leadership role with various levels of elected officials to address common
planning,accountability,transparency,and good governance. challenges and opportunities.
7 135 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza vital assets -
New police headquarters
• The City has been planning for the development of a new Figure 2 - New Policy Headquarters
Police HQ for a number of years. According to a report �15t� —
,�
prepared for the Police Commission by Nelson Wong � -- ,0�5��` �
i 5�°�.
Architects, Saint John is the only known City to "
accommodate its Police Force in a 9am to 5pm , � '
commercial building on non-continuous floor levels �J ��� 1 � �._
throughout a civic administrative complex (Nelson Wong �� ������<-��«����
Architects, 2000). The current headquarters arrangement - _ _ �. �r'.' �
was only to be temporary in nature until a new special �. , ` �' ` �
purpose facility could be built to accommodate the police , �'�� �
force. There is a recognition by the Police force, the City �. j o
and its residents that there is a need for a new Police i - - �,
Headquarters to support the delivery of modern police � - �
services in a suitable and safe operational environment. , � ; �"
_
• The nationally recommended program space - = -� �
Union Street
requirements for a police force of similar size to Saint �
John's is 65,000 sf. (Nelson Wong Architects, 2000). The �
proposed new Police Headquarters is contemplated to be Key Characteristics
a 72,000 sf. structure facing Union St. (see Figure 2). The Estimated Construction Cost: $25M
design for this facility is well progressed. Square Footage: 72,000 sf. (two stories)
• The intent is to build a secure structure that has the Operations:
appearance of an inviting commercial or office building • Consolidate four regional facilities into one new state-of-the-art
with public spaces, appropriate facades on the street facility
fronts and all required public amenities (City Staff report, • Accommodate 225 police and civilian staff
March 2008). It is desired by the City that the architecture • New facility to include publicly accessible space
of the new building should complement the style and . Shared holding facility with Law Courts
character of the surrounding neighbourhood.
g 136 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza vital assets -
Parking facility
• The proposed parking facility would be a multi-storey Figure 3 — New Parking Facilit
facility located to the West of the Stone Church between w ��5���
Sewell and Carleton Streets. The parking structure � 5"`` �
. src,°"
should be designed in a manner which is aesthetically
pleasing. It is contemplated that parking for the Law �
Courts would be provided on a contractual basis to the ��
province (City Staff report, March 25, 2008). The ��
�.,,,.,,,.,,�„e��
-- � ,'°� �
proposed location of the parking facility would enable it to '�� ■ �� � �
provide vehicle access to Sewell and Carleton Streets , �
thereby reducing the flow of traffic in the development � �
area. The reduction of traffic flow to the development ` � � e
�
area resulting from the proposed location would also allow �,
the City to avoid expanding Union Street as the �p , ' 3
development area grows in density. �� ' � �
v . �
• The Saint John Parkin Commission commissioned a - - �- ����� �'`�- � •�
g u��oq s���i ,
feasibility study regarding the incorporation of green _ �.� �
features in the proposed parking facility. The study
concluded that the parking facility could potentially Key Characteristics
achieve a Level 1 LEED Certification if certain design and Estimated Construction Value: $17M
construction considerations were made. A hypothetical Square Footage: sf. (two stories)
four storey, 600-car parking facility was used in the study.
Capacity: Approximately 500 to 600 stalls
• The parking facility could accommodate the Law Courts,
hourly parking in the area, overFlow parking for events, Operations:
and provide parking capacity for future developments in • Daily and monthly rate parking
the Uptown area.
g 137 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza vital assets —
Arts centre
• The Saint John Arts Centre ("Centre") , formerly known as Figure 4 –Arts Centre
the Aitken Bicentennial Exhibition Centre ("ABEC") is a �^�15t�
,�
multidisciplinary venue, dedicated to serving the '��5��'
. _
community through arts, educational and cultural - ,
�ti ,
programming accessible to all (Saint John's Art Centre, � �
http://www.saintjohnartscentre.com/aboutus.asp) �_
�,��,�,,,s„e
• The Centre is expected to serve as a public focal point for .�■�
the redevelopment and to reinforce the Law Courts and � �- -- Expansion �
proposed Police HQ as public facilities. The Centre is �'�' �� � g Site
currently located South of Carleton Street in the area just �
West of Peel Street. ' �
.__ _ �
�
• The proposed plan is a complete revitalization of the ,��, ' 3
Centre as part of the development of the area (City Staff , v � � �"
Report, March 2008). _ _ _ � _ � �-
u�����,
• The Board of the Arts Centre is in discussions with the - - ,
Beaverbrook Art Gallery to house the Gallery's art �
collection for part of the year in an expanded Arts Centre Key Characteristics
facility. An expansion to the Centre would be a more Estimated Construction Cost (refurbishment): $1.7M
ambitious undertaking, but offers potential social and Estimated Construction Cost (expansion): $7M
cultural benefits to the Plaza redevelopment through the Operations:
display of art collections, community cultural events and • An exhibition schedule in five galleries
other initiatives. • Workshops in Visual, Performing and Fiber Arts
• A Literary Series and education tours
• A Performing Arts Schedule in Theatre and Music
• Community, Social and Ceremonial Events
• Youth Development Programs
10 138 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza vital assets -
Law co u rts*
• The new Saint John courthouse will be about 11,655 Figure 5 — New Provincial Law Courts
square metres (129,500 square feet) in size. It will be �^«1S1i�
,�
modern and energy-efficient, with 13 courtrooms as well �=��y`
,
as office space for the Judiciary, Court Services, Public � ;,,
Prosecutions, the Barristers Society, Sheriff Services, � ,
Public Safety and Policing. � + �
��.�
f,irntr.n Strnnl
• Two new courtrooms have been included in the design by �
the provincial government in order to accommodate future �— -.- �
expansion. �' - ,' �
i �• The courthouse will be built on the former YMCA property n
on Hazen Avenue. �
� ,.
• The province is continuing its discussions with the City of a , �„ ' �
Saint John for off-site parking for courthouse staff and the , � _ ' .�
public at the planned new parking facility to be located on ---- - ,
u��o�s���,
the escarpment in the Peel Plaza area � '°"` _ .� �
• Detention facilities at the police station would also be
shared with the province and would have a secure Key Characteristics
underground corridor linked to the courthouse for the Estimated Construction Value: $47M
escorting of justice clients to court proceedings. Square Footage: 129,500 sf.
Capacity:
• 13 courtrooms plus office facilities for staff and court users
Operations:
*Source: Government of New Brunswick,"Saint John courthouse project will be public-
private partnership,"http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/news/jus/2007e1632ju.htm, Shared holdin C@��S Wlth Clt PO�IC Head uarters
December 18, 2007. � g y y a
11 139 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza vital assets -
Other opportunities (ancillary land)
• Ancillary land has been identified as the area between Figure 6 —Ancillary Land
Carleton Street to the North, Wellington Row to the East, „ � �«�5��� —
Union Street to the South, and Peel Street to the West. �S��e` -
,
• The City of Saint John has not developed a plan for the �� , i�
area in question, however, the land is a critical component � �1
in the broader redevelopment vision for Peel Plaza. The ��a�
�,,.�,<,,,��,a�,
redevelopment of the ancillary land can provide benefits to — _
the overall development area in the form of increased - ----�-- �
commercial and population density, greater design and � y%� � "
� �
commercial potential as well as enhancing and facilitating � � _
future developments in the surrounding areas. _-
'�'
• There have been expressions of interest in developing `•��;, ' < ,
social housing and other uses on the ancillary land — � � �"
developments that promise to align the broader =
� .�.�- �
redevelopment vision and key elements of the Vision 2015 ���o��.�, ,
document. -- ` � - - V
• The City is in the very early stages of planning
considerations around these lands.
�2 140 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
•
ec lon
.
Business case analytical framework
� � ; � �
; j � �
1 , ' ;
' I I
f F I � � (
I ' �
� i I �
� (
r
I I
I I
, i ; I , ' I , ,
� I ,
141
Business case analysis framework
• A comprehensive six step analytical framework was used to explore all options with respect to the delivery of the Police
HQ, parking facility and the Arts Centre refurbishment involved in Peel Plaza redevelopment. This framework is used to
arrive at the recommendations contained in this report. This analytical framework and its steps and elements are
presented and described in the figure below.
Figure 7 — Peel Plaza Business Case Analytical Framework
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
•�� \
� � ' . � � ,
• Clearly articulate ��ity of • Identification and • Establish market and • Presentation of project risk • Implementation • Presentation of
Saint John's goals assessment of an public policy context framework including considerations related to recommended approach
objectives and constraints appropnate range of influencing procurement allocation of roles and recommended approach for delivery of cntical
forthe Peel Plaza project delivery model options available to the City responsibilities between ovith respect to: municipal infrastructure in
redevelopment- options(including of Saint John. partners responsible for • Timing and milestones. Peel Plaza redevelopment
• The goals.objectives and Traditional and P3 delivery • Identify range of delivering key • Project organization and based on analysis
constraints inform analysis options)for critical appropriate procurement infrastructure project coordination with key conducted in Steps 1
of project delivery options municipal infrastructure to options. elements. partners: through 5.
for critical municipal be developed or renewed • Assessment of • Project cash flow modeling • P�larket and stakeholder
infrastructure in Peel in Peel Plaza- procurement options and forTraditional and other consultations required to
Plaza- • Assessing range of project identification of optimal project delivery- support project;and
delivery model options approach—the`qualitative • Risk adjusted NPV • Lessons leamed from case
using an qualitative options filter." analysis and companson of studies on best practices.
screen to identify optimal • Discussion of innovation Traditional and other viable
delivery model. opportunities to further project delivery models.
deliver on goals and • Value for Money
objectives for Peel Plaza assessment and
redevelopment. comparison.
14 142 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 1
. - . . .
. . .
•
ec lon
.
Peel Plaza —
Goals, objectives and constraints � � ; � �
� �
; j � �
1 , ' ;
' I I
f F I � � (
I ' �
� i I �
� (
r
I I
I I
, i ; I , ' I , ,
� I ,
143
Step 1
Goals, objectives and constraints — . - - . . .
Optimizing project decision-making " : : � '
• Major investment decisions undertaken by government
require decision-makers to balance a range of factors and Figure 8 — Decision-Making Optimization
interests —factors and interests that are sometimes in
alignment and at other times in contradiction. Among
these factors and interests are: (i) public and stakeholder
sentiment; (ii) economic, social, and environmental
considerations; (iii) contractual relationships/obligations;
and (iv) public policy, legislative, and regulatory
requirements or trends. � �
• The Peel Plaza redevelopment is a major investment
initiative and the City has articulated both public policy
and project specific goals, objectives and constraints to
guide decision-making and the implementation of major DeClslon-
projects within the redevelopment.
making optimization
• The Peel Plaza redevelopment is a high profile and vital
redevelopment for the City. A well considered articulation
of goals, objectives and constraints will assist in - -
identifying and selecting a delivery option(s)for the major � � _ _ � .
assets involved in the Peel Plaza redevelopment and will
enable the City to optimize decision-making on the
opportunities and challenges that a project of the size and
scope of Peel Plaza presents.
16 144 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 1
Public policy goals, objectives . _ . . . .
and constraints " : : � '
• Through its deliberations on the Peel Plaza redevelopment, the City and its residents have articulated a number of public
policy goals, objectives and constraints. The goals and objectives for the redevelopment are tempered by the City's
commitment to sustainable development, stakeholder expectations, fiscal constraints, and policy decisions or parameters
of the Common Council.
Constraints
PUBLIC POLICY OBJECTIVES
PUBLIC POLICY GOALS —
- - . - -
. . .- - ..
..
. � . . .
17 145 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 1
Project level goals, objectives . _ . . . .
and constraints " : : � '
• The public policy goals, objectives and constraints inform project level goals, objectives and constraints. However, project
level goals, objectives and constraints are used to better focus on the precise business, operational and service
requirements needed to be accommodated or achieved from the optimal delivery of the key infrastructure investment
projects.
� �
PROJECT GOALS PROJECT OBJECTIVES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�, � �-
a-..r —-i- ;_
,...,, , _
. ... - � : ._ - �
. � .- - . . �
, . . . . . . , ,. � �
��. .-. .-.
- � - - - -
- - . �. - - -� -
� -
� ��� � • .� ' � ' � r.
' �
�
�g 146 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 1
Goals, objectives and constraints - . _ . . . .
Defined through consultation " : : � '
• The goals, objectives and constraints presented on the previous slides were developed based on the information
presented in various City staff reports presented to the Common Council, the Peel Plaza redevelopment Public
Consultation Process & Outcomes report prepared by the Cities and Environment Unit in 2007, and the Vision 2015
document.
• These goals and objectives inform the rest of the analysis presented in this business case assessment of the delivery
model options for the major infrastructure investments involved with the Peel Plaza redevelopment.
Figure 9 — Sources for Goals, Objectives and Constraints
� J�l�
North of Union Projed '��� � �•
Public Consultation Process&Ou�comes
Report to City of Saint John Common Council
l"[s�o�"Ol�
Ot"R S.{�'1 JOH�'OF THE FLTI'2E
C[T}'OF.S.\I�'T JOH\
\ot'E�[ecx?6.'00'
CitieS& ��� !.
Environment��'�,`��/`��
�.•�UnitLL4eJl9
y..
�g 147 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Identification and
Assessment of project
delivery options
� ,
/ -
' .
-��'.
' . ,
. . .
. , /,
. �
.
. • . �
�./•
'� r .,'•..
'�- ' ' ,. ':.
• '/
, � .
, ' y�! •
� • � , � � • • � , � � I� ♦ fjr
./, � '�y�/
�' , ,', ' ��� r
'��� �'' � ..f:, ' �.
.' ..��-
.�� ,.
• ��... ;,.;.
^;= .,�_ d�:
.. '�, � ��
..y,, y . ', �
,,..
ii �� ��
:- � , .
�: �• .� �
�;
.,,�• i ;
, / �'� .,�..
.; ' � �. .
.�c /
Ji. � �. - .
Step 2
Project delivery models - . _ . . . ,
a broad range of possibilities ' :_ .� .; : ' �
• There is a spectrum of infrastructure delivery models ranging from Traditional delivery to full privatization. Most
infrastructure delivery models in Canada fall in the middle of the spectrum and stop short of full privatization.
• Moving left to right on the spectrum illustrated in the Figure below, the role of the private sector increases as risk is
transferred from the public sector sponsor of an infrastructure project.
Figure 10 — Canadian Infrastructure Delivery Spectrum
Governance/Ownership Models
' • • •
. � . . � -
� � • - •
�
y���z������zz��������zzz- z��zz���cz�z�- zszsczc�.�zzz �.szccccc�
i � � � '1
` �y
, Finance-Design-
� Design-Build- �
Traditional Design-Build Operate&Maintain Build- y Build-Own-Operate
� Operate&Maintain y
(Design-Bid-Build) � Contract Contract Contract Operate&Maintain y &Maintain
' -Transfer y
i I I y
4��.��.z-r���.��.-r���.z�.-r�ti��.z-�.���.��.-�.�.��._-----�------�----�-----------�
Project Delivery Mechanisms
2� 149 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Project delivery models - . _ . . . ,
Understanding the potential role of the ' :_ .� .; : ' �
private sector
• Infrastructure investments inherently carry risks — from project design through construction and operations — that the
public sector may or may not wish to manage on its own. Risks that the public sector does not wish to manage may be
transferred to a private sector partner through a P3 arrangement. P3s are one tool in the public sector's toolbox for
delivering and managing major infrastructure projects. The following presents some of the key characteristics of the
Traditional and P3 delivery models.
. . . . - . . . .
• The public sector procures assets, not services, from • The public sector procures assets and services core
the private sector to the vitality of the assets
• Assets are input-specified; the public sector specifies its • The public sector requirements are defined in output
requirements in input terms as part of the procurement terms as part of the procurement providing
.
Components of delivery are separated(design, bid, opportunity for innovation and risk transfer
build, operate) resulting in a less efficient service • Components of delivery are bundled(design, build,
provision finance, operation and maintenance) resulting in
Asset paid for at completion. Hold-backs and extended integrated, efficient service delivery
• warranties cover only very short period of assets useful • Payments made over life of asset and linked with
life operational performance. Revenue earned by the
• Risks typically remain with the public sector. Private private partner through a mix of direct revenues,
sector not incentivised to provide long-term quality availability payments and/or performance payments
asset • Significant levels of risk transferto the private sector
over life of contract. Risks are allocated to the party
that is best able to manage them
22 150 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Peel Plaza - . _ . . . ,
Universe of project delivery models ' :_ .� .; : ' �
• A full range of infrastructure delivery options exist for the City's major infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza
redevelopment. The full spectrum is presented below. However, each asset contemplated for Peel Plaza has its own
unique characteristics that expand or narrow the range of appropriate and potentially optimal delivery models. The
following slides consider the available range of delivery models for each of the Police HQ, parking facility and Arts Centre
and identifies an optimal delivery model for each based on qualitative options screen that is derived from the City's goals,
objectives and constraints for Peel Plaza and from Deloitte's experience with projects of similar size and scope across
Canada. (See Appendix C for case studies on how similar facilities have been delivered in otherjurisdictions).
Figure 11 — Peel Plaza Infrastructure Delivery Spectrum
Governance/Ownership Models
' � • • '
. � . . � � •
• • • •
y�����::��������������s�: �������������- -������������ �������--
� ' �
', I I I i
iy
Traditional ' Design-Build Design-Build- Design-Build- Finance-Design- y
� Build-Operate- y Build-Own-Operate
(Design-Bid-Build) i Contract Maintain Operate-Maintain Maintain �
1 y
� y
� �y
'Itititititititititititititititititititititititititititititititititi-rtititititititititititititititititi-rtititititi-rtititititit
Project Delivery Mechanisms
23 151 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Process for defining the optimal . _ . . . ,
infrastructure delivery model ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Structural Drivers
Universe of Delivery Models
I — — — — — — — — — — —
. -
�
�
�
I Partnership Structure
Infrastructure
� _ _ � _ Delivery
Options
I Screen
� Financing Approach
�
�
. I
.
� � � � � � � � � � �
24 152 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Defining the optimal infrastructure delivery . _ . . . ,
model - Structural drivers ' :_ .� .; : ' �
I. Structural Drivers
• The exact nature of the partnership structure and the degree of private sector involvement, control and/or ownership
depends on the: (i) asset type; (ii) the level of risk transfer acceptable to the public sector sponsor; and (iii) the funding
constraints on the public sector sponsor of the infrastructure project.
Infrastructure Asset Type
• With respect to infrastructure asset type, there are two specific types that largely define the range of optimal partnership
structure — availability based infrastructure and revenue generating infrastructure.
• Availability based infrastructure assets are generally those designed for the delivery of public services where few, if any,
commercial opportunities exist to generate revenues. The best examples of availability infrastructure are special purpose
facilities such as courthouses, correctional facilities and hospitals.
• Revenue generating infrastructure assets are those that are fundamentally commercial in nature with specific, identifiable
and quantifiable revenue streams that can support the capital and operating costs of the asset and also potentially deliver
a return to the government or private sector manager of the asset. Specific examples of revenue generating infrastructure
assets include toll roads, theatres, commercial/office space, among others.
• The type of infrastructure asset plays a large role in defining the universe of available infrastructure delivery models —
particularly as it relates to the degree of private sector involvement and optimal level of risk transfer.
Level of Risk Transfer
• The level of risk transfer that a public sector sponsor of an infrastructure project may wish to transfer to a private sector
partner is largely defined by: (i) project complexity; (ii) the sponsor's internal capacity to manage or mitigate project related
risks; and (iii) the commercial capacity of the project.
25 153 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Defining the optimal infrastructure delivery . _ . . . ,
model - Structural drivers ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Level of Risk transfer Cont'd...
• With respect to project complexity, a more complex project— whether that complexity is related to the size or scope of a
project or the relative infrequency with which a public sector sponsor undertakes such a project —will inherently have
more risks than a less complex project. These risks stretch from program and approval risks through to construction,
operation and lifecycle maintenance risks. The level of risk associated with a project necessitates a discussion on how
best to mitigate those risks in order to avoid increased costs and to ensure delivery of the project within the desired
timeframe.
• A prudent principle to follow when identifying and determining how to manage project related risks is to allocate risks to
the party best able to manage those risks. Certain risks are generally best managed by the public sector such as policy,
programming and approvals risks. Other risks may be better managed by the private sector, particularly in areas that fall
into the private sector partner's area of business or expertise.
• Take a public transit facility as one example for comparing the relative abilities of the public and private sector to manage
risk. In the development of a public transit facility, the procurement of vehicles is one area of responsibility that carries risk
(i.e., the risk that vehicles do not meet specifications or the risk that an economic fleet size cannot be procured and
therefore additional costs have to be incurred). A public sector entity that has operated a bus based transit operation is
likely already well positioned to manage the risks related to the procurement of buses because they do so on a regular
basis and have mastered that aspect of the business. However, in a situation where a public sector entity is looking to
develop a rail based transit system and has never done so before, it may make sense to transfer procurement risk to a
private sector partner that is experienced in operating rail based infrastructure and is frequently in the market procuring
rail vehicles. This transit related example is one that is being experienced in municipalities across North America.
2g 154 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Defining the optimal infrastructure delivery . _ . . . ,
model - Structural drivers ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Level of Risk transfer Cont'd...
• If the risks associated with a major infrastructure investment are not properly managed, risks materialize into substantial
events that lead to increased costs to a project through delays or unanticipated emergency investments to correct critical
faults.
• The allocation of risk (which in the context of this business case involves the allocation of risk between the public and
private sectors) is key to best managing risks and mitigating the likelihood of their occurrence — and in turn, mitigating
against unnecessary costs or delays. Based on Deloitte's experience with the planning, procurement, delivery and
ongoing operations of major infrastructure assets, the following table illustrates generic key risks inherent in large scale
projects and provides a discussion on which sector— public or private — is generally best able to manage each risk.
Table 2 — Generic Risks and Allocation
. .
� . .
Design/Technical Risk The risk of failures related to engineering Private sector This is a core skill of the private sector
or design. proponents.
Land Assembly Risk The risk that acquiring land will delay the Public sector The private sector may be unable to secure
overall project schedule. some land
Environmental Approval The risk that securing environmental Public sector Environmental approvals are public sector
Risk approvals will delay the overall project approvals
schedule.
Construction Risk The risk that cost escalation will occur Private sector This is a core skill of the private sector
due to faulty construction or delays. proponents.
27 155 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Defining the optimal infrastructure delivery . _ . . . ,
model - Structural drivers ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Table 2 — Generic Risks and Allocation
. - .
. . .
Operating Risk The risk that the costs of keeping the Private sector This is a core skill of the private sector
assets in good condition (e.g., proponents.
maintenance costs)vary from budget.
The risk that the operating costs of the
budget vary from the budget.
Demand Risk Deficient revenue resulting from lower Mostly public sector The private sector does not control the
that projected demand or lower required factors that control demand risk
price points.
Financial Risk Costs related to cost and availability of Mostly private sector The private sector's financiers will fully
credit. account for the risks inherent in the project
The risk that inflation will be greater than
budgeted.
The risk that the residual value of the
asset at the end of the term will be lower
than budgeted.
Environmental Risk Costs related to unforeseen Private sector This is a core skill of the private sector
environmental lawsuits or mitigation proponents.
costs to avoid potential lawsuits.
Regulatory Risk Costs related to delays in project Public sector The private sector does not have any
approvals, changed in policy or law, etc. control over these elements
28 156 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Defining the optimal infrastructure delivery . _ . . . ,
model - Structural drivers ' :_ .� .; : ' �
• It is essential for a public sector sponsor of an infrastructure project to understand what project related risks it has the
capability of managing or mitigating, and which risks that it may need a more experienced partner to manage. The
assessment and allocation of risk is another key driver in determining the universe of available infrastructure project
delivery models.
Fiscal and Market Constraints
• Another major driver in the determination of the universe of available infrastructure delivery models is the fiscal and/or
market constraints, if any, faced by a public sector sponsor of a project.
• Fiscal constraints can be both funding and/or policy in nature. Funding constraints are those necessitated by limited
availability of own source revenues, borrowing capacity, or both. Not all public sector project sponsors have large sums of
capital readily available to provide full front-end funding for an infrastructure project. Policy constraints may relate to the
recognition of full lifecycle costs of a project and the allocation of these costs to generations of project users. For example,
some public sector sponsors of infrastructure projects make a conscious policy decision to not fully fund a project at the
front end in order to ensure that the costs of a project— particularly those with long-term operating horizons (i.e., in excess
of 25 years) are paid for by both current and future generations of users. This concept is sometimes referred to as
intergenerational equity. Funding constraints —whether fiscal or policy in nature — can lead public sector project sponsors
to look for and select delivery models that spread or budget costs over a longer-term time horizon.
• Market constraints exist where: (i) there is limited or no market interest or expertise to provide for what a public sector
sponsor is seeking to procure; or (ii) there are resource and financial capacity issues that may impact market participants
interest or ability to provide a bid on the facility being procured by a public sector sponsor. Market constraints can shape
the delivery model chosen by a public sector sponsor for their infrastructure project.
29 157 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Defining the optimal infrastructure delivery . _ . . . ,
model - Partnership and financing structures ' :_ .� .; : ' �
II. Partnership Structures
• Traditional infrastructure delivery models separate the design, construction, operation and maintenance elements of a
project and undertake separate procurement processes for each of these discrete project elements. There is no overriding
partnership structure across all these discrete elements. Public sector project sponsors must be disciplined (because they
assume the risk) in ensuring a smooth transition of work product and knowledge across all the partners procured for the
various project elements.
• The most common partnership/contractual forms used for P3s are a License, Concession or Lease, where the private
partner is granted authority to design, build and maintain (and sometimes operate) an asset to the performance standards
stipulated in a Project Agreement. The Project Agreement is the document in which the terms of the contractual form
between the public and private partners are specified.
• The License, Concession or Lease expires at the termination of the contract. The term of a contract can be anywhere
from 10 to 99 years depending on the asset involved, the nature of the service or program being enabled by the asset and
the degree of risk transfer from the public to the private partner.
• With respect to ownership of the asset, typically the public partner would own the land and any improvements thereon,
under and around the project during its full lifecycle. During the term of License, Concession or Lease, rights and
obligations of the private partner and any restrictions around the projects use is specified in the Project Agreement. At
contract termination, the control of the asset typically reverts to the public partner.
30 158 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Defining the optimal infrastructure delivery . _ . . . ,
model - Partnership and financing structures ' :_ .� .; : ' �
II. Financing Structures
• Two basic financing structures exist for public infrastructure projects. The first is the traditional approach where public
sector entities finance their infrastructure investments from reserve funds or through public borrowing (i.e., bond or
debenture financing). For P3 projects, the private partner can typically finance a project with a mix of its own equity and
debt raised through financial institutions, the capital markets or private placements ("lenders"). The goal of any P3
structure is to obtain an 'investment grade' rating under a non-recourse or project financing structure - this requires the
project to 'stand on its own' under all conditions. There are three key requirements to securing an `investment grade'
rating: (i) quality and reputation of the public and private partners; (ii) the equitable transfer of risk; and (iii) the private
partner's equity contribution.
— Quality and Reputation of Partners: The foundation of any `investment grade' rating is the public and private partners' track record
of ineeting contractual obligations on past projects. This is why most P3s undergo a two step process - a Request for
Qualifications ("RFQ")followed by a Request for Proposals ("RFP") -with the RFQ being the means by which 'investment grade`
private partners are pre-screened.
— Risk Transfer: In addition to the strength of the partners, lenders will look to ensure that risk is equitably shared and transferred to
the party best able to manage each risk under the terms of the Project Agreement.
— Equity: The partnership and risk transfer elements of a project are assessed with the level of the private partner's equity
commitment to the project. Lenders will require the private partner to provide security for the financing, usually in the form of
equity to ensure that all obligations are met before any return is earned. The private partner's equity contribution is also a vote of
confidence in the project's viability.
Identifying the Optimal Delivery Model(s)
• The following slides begin to consider and fully discuss the universe of realistic and appropriate delivery models for the
assets involved in the Peel Plaza redevelopment. An evaluative framework linked to the overall goals, objectives and
constraints for the Peel Plaza redevelopment is used to determine the optimal delivery model for each asset.
31 159 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Infrastructure Delivery Options screen — . _ . . . ,
Criteria ' ' ' �
. - . . .
• A qualitative options screen (outlined in the chart below) with seven evaluative criteria has been developed in order to
triage the various delivery model options available for each of the Police HQ facility, the parking structure and the Arts
Centre.
Table 3 — Infrastructure Delivery Options Screen
. � - . . .
1. Degree to which the delivery option is A delivery model considered for the Peel Plaza redevelopment should be consistent with the City's experience
consistent with the City of Saint John's and risk tolerance with similar projects.
experience and/or comfort with major
infrastructure delivery.
2. Degree to which the delivery option is The facilities contemplated for development and/or renewal in the Peel Plaza will have specific operational
consistent with the operational requirements and constraints. For example,the new Police HQ will have specific operational requirements and
requirements and/or constraints of facility constraints related to security and police programming standards.The viability of a delivery option is contingent
users and City. on its ability to deliver on needed operational requirements and accommodate specific operational constraints.
3. Degree to which the delivery option can A delivery model considered for the City's infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza redevelopment should
deliver value for money through risk deliver value for money through the optimized allocation of project related risks to the parties best able to
transfer manage them.
4. The ease and speed with which the A delivery model considered for the City's infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza redevelopment should be
delivery option can be executed able to meet the City's and stakeholders'expectations and needs with respect to the timing of the delivery of the
completed assets.
5. Degree to which the delivery option can A delivery model should position the City to leverage additional sources of funding through public-public and
leverage addition sources of public and public-private partnerships to the extent this is beneficial.
or private funding and/or finance
6. Degree to which the delivery model can A delivery model should enable the City to adopt best practices experienced in the marketplace and provide it
deliver state of the art infrastructure with mechanisms to ensure the condition and performance of an asset over its full life-cycle.
assets that are fiscally and
environmentally sustainable
7. Degree to which the delivery option is The Canadian marketplace has greater experience with certain alternative delivery options.The Canadian
used and accepted in the Canadian market's experience and track record with certain alternative delivery options should be factored into the viability
marketplace. assessment.
32 160 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Police headquarters . _ . . . ,
. . .
. - . . .
Range of Delivery Models - Structural Drivers
Asset Type
• The Police HQ will be a special purpose building designed to facilitate the delivery of modern policing services to the
residents of Saint John. With the exception perhaps of an on-site cafeteria, few commercial opportunities exist at the site.
The security sensitivities related to this facility requires that the Police Service retain full operational control of the facility.
The secure and special purpose nature of the facility makes the Police HQ an availability type asset.
Risk Transfer
• Special purpose public facilities require great attention to the specific operational requirements of the public service user
that need to be translated and seamlessly accommodated across the design, construction and maintenance of the facility.
Key design, construction and maintenance risks can be transferred to a private sector partner if so desired by the public
sector sponsor of a project. While the design for this facility is well progressed, in addition to the Traditional delivery
option, an appropriate range of P3 options for the Police HQ includes Design-Build, Design-Build-Maintain, and Finance-
Design-Build-Maintain (see next slide). Under the P3 options, the design under development would be incorporated into
the tender documents.
• P3 options that involve the transfer of ownership/control or operations have been deemed as inappropriate because of the
security requirements related to this law enforcement asset.
Fiscal and Market Constraints
• The City does not have funding constraints that would limit its investment in the project. However, a key policy concern
that City staff identified to Deloitte is ensuring that the new Police Headquarters is well maintained over it useful life so
that it can fully support the delivery of police services to the residents of the City. Therefore, a funding related constraint is
to identify project delivery models that will ensure proper and fully funded lifecycle maintenance of the facility.
• With respect to market constraints, the results of market soundings with key infrastructure participants revealed that there
is a market of bidders who would likely be interested in this project. The one constraint that may exist relates to current
market capacity as there are a number of major infrastructure projects being developed in the Atlantic Canada market —
see slide 55.
33 161 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Police headquarters - . _ . . . ,
Range of Project Del ivery Models ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Figure 12 — Police HQ Range of Delivery Models
Governance/Ownership Models
' • • • �
� � � _ � � � •
• • • - •
�
�
�
_ �
/ \
Traditional Design-Build- Finance-Design-
(Design-Bid-Build) Design-Build Maintain Build-Maintain
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Project Delivery Mechanisms
34 162 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Police headquarters - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment ' :_ .� .; : ' �
. . .
Trad. DB DBM FDBM
1. Degree to which option is consistent with City's experience O O O O
2. Degree to which option is consistent with the operational requirements and/or • • • •
constraints of facility users and City
3. Degree to which option can deliver value for money through risk transfer O � � •
4. The ease and speed with which the delivery option can be executed O � � �
5. Degree to which option can leverage additional sources of public and/or private O � • •
funding
6. Degree to which option can deliver state of the art infrastructure assets based on O � • •
best practices that are fiscally and environmentally sustainable
7. Degree to which option is used and accepted in the Canadian marketplace • • � �
On-balance O � � �
Extent to which the indicated options are consistent with the stipulated criteria: �
Not at all To a To some Fully meets
limited extent or Option 3 and 4 Yield
extent consistent Best Result
O O � •
35 163 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Police headquarters - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment analysis ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Analysis of Options
• After careful consideration of the screening criteria, we believe that Option s 3 and 4 are best aligned with and most
adequately accommodates the project level and public policy goals, objectives, and constraints.
Criterion #1 - City's Experience
• All four delivery options have been given a low relative assessment with respect to the degree to which the option is
consistent with the City's experience because the City has had no recent experience with the construction and
maintenance of a special purpose police headquarters.
Criterion #2 - Operational Requirements and/or Constraints
• All four options are consistent with the operational requirements and/or constraints of facility users and City. Therefore,
no option scored a higher relative assessment.
Criterion #3 — Value for Money through Risk Transfer
• The DBM and FDBM delivery options best position the City to achieve value for taxpayers money because of the level of
risk transfer to the private sector. Both of these options have the private sector providing financing during the construction
period of the project which defrays certain construction period related risks to the City including contractor default risk
(because of the high level of oversight provided over the project by private financiers) and construction quality risk
(because the private sector's payment from the City is tied to achieving substantial completion, not milestone payments
during construction). Having the private sector partner provide the financing during the construction period has the added
benefit of reducing certain administrative complexities by removing the requirement for securities such as construction
bonding. An FDBM has the added benefit of making the project more affordable by having payments made over the 25 to
30 year life of the contract.
• Key lifecycle maintenance risks are also contractually transferred to the private sector partner under both the DBM and
FDBM models with the compensation to the partner tied to delivering on key performance requirements (e.g.,
maintenance of the HVAC system, LEED requirements, etc.). These types of maintenance requirements are traditionally
not the core competency of a police service and it would make sense to transfer such responsibilities to partner that is
experienced and expert in maintaining buildings. Successful risk transfer will protect the residual value off the asset by
ensuring that the private sector executes, and the City funds necessary lifecycle investments that the City assumes an
asset with further useful life at the end of the concession or lease period. Under the FDBM, the full lifecycle risk of the
36 Project is transferred to the private sector at a fixed cost. �64 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Police headquarters - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment analysis ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Criterion #3 — Value for Money through Risk Transfer Cont'd...
• It should be noted that the FDBM model has an advantage over the DBM model with respect to lifecycle maintenance
because the private sector's investment of its own risk and debt capital provides an incentive to the select the design and
materials that will optimize lifecycle costs — rational decisions that reduce costs for the private sector over the term of the
concession, which in turn reduces costs to the City.
• Value can also be delivered by a private sector partner in terms of delivering on the City's tight timeframes for delivery.
Timeframes agreed to between the City and a private sector partner would be enshrined in a contractual agreement with
penalties imposed by the City for time and/or cost overruns. The accountability that comes with financial penalties for the
on-time and on-budget construction of the facility is an incentive for the private sector partner to be efficient and to deliver
on the City's expectations.
37 165 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Police headquarters - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment analysis ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Criterion #4 — Ease and Speed of Execution
• The DBM and FDBM delivery options are likely to result in the construction of the facility within the City's desired
timeframe. This is largely related to the fact that under both of these options the private sector partner has contractual
requirements to deliver on time or face financial penalties. In addition, no payments are made to Project Co. until
substantial completion has been achieved. The prospect of financial penalties in an incentive for the private sector to
deliver within the contractually agreed to timeframe for two reasons. First, the financial penalty impacts the private
partner's return on the project. Second, the private partner obtains construction financing from a lender under both the
DBM and FDBM models and the lender deploys its own oversight team to ensure that the project will not incur financial
penalties and thereby impact the private partner's ability to repay its construction financing obligations. This level of
oversight in not usually replicated in a traditional project delivery model. In addition, under both the DBM and FBDM,
construction risk is defrayed as no payments are made until substantial completion has been reached.
Criterion #5 — Leveraging Additional Funding
• The FDBM delivery option enables the City to attract private sector risk capital to the project. While private sector capital
is traditionally more expensive than public sector financing, private equity and debt financing ensures that debt and equity
financing providers are overseeing the performance of their investment over its full lifecycle. This arrangement places
pressure on the private partner to perForm in order to avoid the imposition of contractual penalties that could jeopardize
the repayment of debt or and equity. The absence of financing from the DBM makes this option less robust than the
DBFM option, but it still ensures a relatively high level of contractual risk transfer that the private partner must deliver on in
order to receive payment for its services.
• The DBM, FDBM and DB options also position the City to seek federal funding for the project under the Building Canada
Fund because the federal government is demonstrating an interest in further leveraging its infrastructure investment
through public-private partnerships— particularly the funding that they have dedicated to the P3 Fund being administered
by P3 Canada Inc. A number of municipalities are exploring P3 options for their special purpose infrastructure facilities in
order to secure federal funding.
38 166 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Police headquarters - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment analysis ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Criterion #6 — State of the Art Infrastructure that is Fiscally and Environmentally Sustainable
• The DBM and FDBM delivery options position the City to take advantage of private sector expertise and innovations in the
development of public infrastructure projects. The expertise and innovation ideas brought to the table by the private sector
with respect to design, construction and lifecycle maintenance of the facility could have a significant impact on the overall
short and long-term costs of the project.
• The DBM and FDBM models also have the added advantage over traditional and DB delivery models of ensuring a high
level of congruence across the design, construction, operations and lifecycle maintenance of the facility. This congruence
is of particular importance because of the security requirements inherent in a Police HQ and therefore all elements need
to align to ensure the delivery of an optimal special purpose facility that will support the delivery of policing services.
Compartmentalizing and separately tendering key elements of the Police HQ project increases the risk that there will be a
lack of congruence across the project which could result in a facility that is sub-optimal for police operations.
Criterion # 7 - Use and Acceptance of Option in the Canadian Market
• More and more governments and government agencies are examining and using P3s to deliver policing and other
security assets. The RCMP building in Halifax is one such example in the Atlantic Canadian market.
Financing the Police HQ
• The basic result of the above analysis is that either the DBM or FDBM would assist the City in achieving its objectives for
the police HQ, however the FDBM is better because it solidifies the transfer of risk from the City to the private sector. The
matter of whether or not to use private sector financing is a policy question that the City must answer— and one that
should be taken after consultation with the market to seek their opinion on how the financing of the project will affect its
commercial viability. While private sector financing does facilitate a more optimal transfer of risk (because of the added
diligence and oversight brought to the table by private sector financiers), the level of risk transfer achieved using a DBM
model is substantially greater than either the traditional or DB delivery options and therefore likely to deliver value for
taxpayers' money.
39 167 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Parking facility . _ . . . ,
. . .
. - . . .
Range of Delivery Options — Structural Drivers
Infrastructure Asset Type
• The parking facility is anticipated to be an above ground multi-story structure with more 500 parking spaces. The facility
will generate revenue from hourly, daily and monthly parking fees charged to users. In the Canadian marketplace, parking
structures exist as revenue generating and availability type assets. Parking facilities are generally availability type assets
in smaller markets where there is not sufficient market demand to deliver revenues that cover capital and operating costs
and generate a return on investment. The issue of revenue or demand risk is dealt with more thoroughly below.
Risk Transfer
• A memorandum submitted to the Saint John Parking Commission on October 17, 2007 from Senior Vice President Ralph
Bond of the BA Group of Transportation Consultants identified concerns with respect to whether or not the private sector
would be interested developing the parking facility on a revenue risk (or non-availability basis). The core concerns
pertained to the unattractiveness of a parking facility to a private sector investor due to the fact that parking structures are
not typically financially self sufficient in Saint John and a perceived inability to control parking pricing. Confidential
discussions with infrastructure market participants in Atlantic Canada reinforced this point, with severa/participants stating
that the local economics for a parking facility do not support private sector investment in such a facility.
• While it is unlikely that the private sector would take on the revenue risk involved in the parking facility, the discussion with
infrastructure market participants did reveal an interest in potentially constructing, operating and maintaining the facility on
an availability basis for the City. After careful consideration of these factors, the range of options for the parking facility
includes Design-Build, Design-Build-Operate-Maintain and Finance-Design-Build-Operate-Maintain.
40 168 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Parking facility . _ . . . ,
. . .
. - . . .
Funding Constraints
• The City does not have fiscal constraints that would limit its investment in the project. A key policy concern that City staff
identified to Deloitte is ensuring that the new parking facility is well maintained over it useful life and is designed and
constructed to meet LEED 1 certification. For the lifecycle benefits of a LEED certification to be achieved, an asset must
be well maintained over its useful life, with regular maintenance investments undertaken by the owner/operator of the
asset and lifecycle repairs and replacements being executed as required. These is very little room for deferring required
investments, otherwise the value of the LEED certification is placed at risk. Therefore, a funding related constraint is to
identify project delivery models that will ensure proper lifecycle maintenance of the facility.
• With respect to market constraints, the results of market soundings with key infrastructure participants revealed that there
is a market of bidders who would likely be interested in constructing the project. Two constraints that may exist relate to:
(i) current market capacity as there are a number of major infrastructure projects being developed in the Atlantic Canada
market— see slide 56; and (ii) a limited market of bidders that would be interested in taking on commercial risk (through
ownership or contract) related to the parking facility. On the latter point, market soundings revealed concerns about the
commercial viability of a parking facility in the Saint John market.
41 169 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Parking facility - . _ . . . ,
Range of del ivery models ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Figure 13 — Parking Facility Range of Delivery Models
Governance/Ownership Models
' � • • �
. � . . � • •
• • • •
►
t
\
�
/ \
Traditional Design-Build- Finance-Design-
(Design-Bid-Build) Design-Build Operate-Maintain Build-Operate-
Maintain
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Project Delivery Mechanisms
42 170 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Parking facility — . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment ' :_ .� .; : ' �
- . . .
Trad. DB DBOM FDBOM
1. Degree to which option is consistent with City's experience • • O O
2. Degree to which option is consistent with the operational requirements and/or • • • •
constraints of facility users and City
3. Degree to which option can deliver value for money through risk transfer O O � •
4. The ease and speed with which the delivery option can be executed O � • •
5. Degree to which option can leverage additional sources of public and/or private O � • •
funding
6. Degree to which option can deliver state of the art infrastructure assets based on O � • •
best practices that are fiscally and environmentally sustainable
7. Degree to which option is used and accepted in the Canadian marketplace • • • •
On-balance � � • •
Extent to which the indicated options are consistent with the stipulated criteria:
Not at all To a To some Fully meets
limited extent or Option 3 and 4 Yield
extent consistent Best Result
O O � •
43 171 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Parking facility - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment analysis ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Analysis of Options
• After careful consideration of the screening criteria, Options 3 and 4 are best aligned with the public policy and project
level goals, objectives, and constraints articulated earlier in this report.
Criterion #1 - City's Experience
• The City has more experience with the Traditional (Option 1) and Design-Build (Option 2) delivery models which results in
a medium relative assessment for Option 3 in terms of consistency with City's experience.
Criterion #2 - Operational Requirements and/or Constraints
• All four options can provide for the operational requirements of parking facility users. No constraints are known for the
parking facility.
Criterion #3 —Value for Money through Risk Transfer
• The DBOM and FDBOM delivery options best position the City to achieve value for taxpayers money because of the level
of risk transfer to the private sector. Private sector discipline and creativity with respect to the operation of the parking
facility could generate efficiencies that reduce costs and increase net parking revenues to the City. Value can also be
delivered by a private sector partner in terms of delivering on the City's tight timeframes for delivery. Timeframes agreed
to between the City and a private sector partner would be enshrined in a contractual agreement with penalties imposed by
the City for time and/or cost overruns. An addition financial incentive exists for the private sector under both options as the
private sector does not receive payment from the City until the facility has successfully reached substantial completion.
The accountability that comes with financial penalties for the on-time and on-budget construction of the facility is an
incentive for the private sector partner to be efficient and to deliver on the City's expectations.
• Key maintenance risks, particularly those related to LEED requirements, are also contractually transferred to the private
sector partner with the compensation to the partner tied to delivering on LEED perFormance requirements. These types of
lifecycle requirements cannot necessarily be imposed by the City on itself.
44 172 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Parking facility - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment analysis ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Criterion #3 —Value for Money through Risk Transfer Cont'd...
• It should be noted that the FDBOM model has an advantage over the DBOM model with respect to lifecycle maintenance
because the private sector's investment of its own risk and debt capital provides an incentive to the select the design and
materials that will optimize lifecycle costs — rational decisions that reduce costs for the private sector over the term of the
concession, which in turn reduces costs to the City. The FDBOM provides a higher degree of certainty around the transfer
of these risks.
Criterion #4 — Ease and Speed of Execution
• The DBOM and FDBOM delivery options are likely to result in the construction of the facility within the City's desired
timeframe. This is largely related to the fact that under both of these options the private sector partner has contractual
requirements to deliver on time or face financial penalties. The prospect of financial penalties in an incentive for the
private sector to deliver within the contractually agreed to timeframe for two reasons. First, the financial penalty impacts
the private partner's return on the project. Second, the private partner obtains construction financing from a lender under
both the DBOM and FDOM models and the lender deploys its own oversight team to ensure that the project will not incur
financial penalties and thereby impact the private partner's ability to repay its construction financing obligations. This level
of oversight in not usually replicated in a traditional project delivery model.
Criterion #5 — Leveraging Additional Funding
• The FDBOM delivery option enables the City to attract private sector risk capital the parking facility project. While private
sector capital is traditionally more expensive than public sector financing, private equity and debt financing ensures that
debt and equity financing providers are overseeing the performance of their investment over its full lifecycle. This
arrangement places pressure on the private partner to perform in order to avoid the imposition of contractual penalties
that could jeopardize the repayment of debt or and equity. The absence of financing from the DBOM makes this option
less robust than the DBFOM options, but it still ensures a relatively high level of contractual risk transfer that the private
partner must deliver on in order to receive payment for its services.
• The FDBOM, DBOM and DB options also position the City to seek federal funding for the project under the Build Canada
plan because the federal government is demonstrating an interest in further leveraging its infrastructure investment
through public-private partnerships— particularly the funding that they have dedicated to the P3 Fund being administered
45 by P3 Canada Inc. 173 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Parking facility - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment analysis ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Criterion #6 — State of the Art Infrastructure that is Fiscally and Environmentally Sustainable
• The DBOM and FDBOM delivery options position the City to take advantage of private sector expertise and innovations in
the development of public infrastructure projects. The expertise and innovation ideas brought to the table by the private
sector with respect to design, construction and lifecycle maintenance of the facility could have a significant impact on the
overall short and long-term costs of the project. The DBOM and FDBOM also have the added advantage over tradition
and DB delivery models of ensuring a high level of congruence across the design, construction, operations and lifecycle
maintenance of the facility because the private partner has a long-term financial interest in the project— it is to the their
advantage, and the advantage of the City, the building is designed, constructed , operated and maintained as efficiently
as possible to keep costs in-line.
Criterion # 7 - Use and Acceptance of Option in the Canadian Market
• Given that parking facilities have been built with a variety of different delivery models in many different geographic
locations (including Saint John), all four options scored the highest relative assessment under the screening criteria of
local market experience and capacity and use and acceptance in the Canadian marketplace.
Financing the Parking Facility
• The basic result of the above analysis is that either the DBOM or FDBOM would assist the City in achieving its objectives
for the parking facility ,however the FDBOM is better because it solidifies the transfer of risk from the City to the private
sector. The matter of whether or not to use private sector financing is a policy question that the City must answer — and
one that should be taken after consultation with the market to seek their opinion on how the financing of the project will
affect its commercial viability. While private sector financing does facilitate a more optimal transfer of risk (because of the
added diligence and oversight brought to the table by private sector financiers), the level of risk transfer achieved using a
DBOM model is substantially greater than either the traditional or DB delivery options and therefore likely to deliver value
for taxpayers' money.
46 174 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Arts ce ntre
. - . .
. . .
. - . . .
Range of Delivery Options — Structural Drivers
Infrastructure Asset Type
• The Arts Centre is a key asset in the Peel Plaza development because it instills a strong sense of pride within the
community and is deeply engrained in the history of the City.
• A refurbishment of the current facility is being contemplated that is estimated to cost approximately$1.7M. The City owns
the Arts Centre building and is not currently contemplating a fundamental change in its ownership or
operation/maintenance of the facility.
Risk Transfer
• The City is not contemplating a transfer of ownership or control of the facility. In addition, the small relative value of the
refurbishment of the facility likely would not attract the interest of the private sector, or if it did, the premium the City would
have to pay to the private sector would not fully align with the risks that could conceivably be transferred. Value for money
would also likely not be realized if this project were to proceed as a P3 on its own because the costs for transaction and
other advisors would total more than the estimated construction value for the refurbishment of the asset.
• For these reasons, all alternative delivery options which include the transfer of control or operations have been deemed
as inappropriate for this particular asset.
• The range of delivery options most appropriate for this asset includes Traditional delivery and a Design-Build delivery
model.
Fiscal and Market Constraints
• There are no known fiscal or market constraints with respect to the refurbishment of this facility.
47 175 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Arts ce ntre - . _ . . . ,
Range of del ivery models ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Figure 14 —Arts Centre Range of Delivery Models
Governance/Ownership Models
' • • • �
� � � _ � � • •
• • • �
Traditional Design-Build
(Design-Bid-Build)
. I
Option 1 Option 2
Project Delivery Mechanisms
48 176 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Arts centre — . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment ' :_ .� .; : ' �
- . . .
1 2
1. Degree to which option is consistent with City's experience • •
2. Degree to which option is consistent with the operational requirements and/or constraints of facility users • •
and City
3. Degree to which option can deliver value for money through risk transfer � •
4. The ease and speed with which the delivery option can be executed • •
5. Degree to which option can leverage additional sources of public and/or private funding O O
6. Degree to which option can deliver state of the art infrastructure assets based on best practices that are � �
fiscally and environmentally sustainable
7. Degree to which option is used and accepted in the Canadian marketplace • •
On-balance � •
Extent to which the indicated options are consistent with the stipulated criteria: '
Not at all To a To some Fully meets
limited extent or Option 2 Yields Best
extent consistent R25UIt
O O � •
49 177 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Arts centre - . _ . . . ,
Options screening assessment analysis ' :_ .� .; : ' �
Analysis of Options
• The project delivery options for this facility are limited to the Traditional delivery model and Design-Build because of the
limited scope and scale of the project. The Design-Build option is marginally better against the criteria than the Traditional
delivery option because the City may be able to tap into private sector design, value engineering, and construction
innovation that better restores the Arts centre and value engineering.
• There may be an opportunity to capture private sector interest and expedite the expansion of the facility by including it in a
bundled transaction along with the Police Headquarters and parking facility. However, because discussions on the
expansion of the Centre are in the very early stages, it would be premature to approach the market. The refurbishment of
the Centre likely makes sense as a stand alone traditional procurement with consideration, when appropriate, given to
greater private sector participation in the Centre's future expansion.
• Demolition and other risks associated with a project of this type are high and may best be completed at arm's length.
50 178 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Public or private financing — . _ . . . ,
Key policy considerations � ' ' ' �
. - . . .
• As it has been noted for both the Police HQ and the parking facility, the matter of whether or not to use private sector
financing is a policy question that the City must answer. Private sector financing can be more expensive than public sector
financing. The reason for this is that the covenants on the loans and the need for equity investors to obtain a return on
their investment combine to form the basis of a 'risk premium' - that is the cost that the private partner charges to meet the
risk transfer obligations of the Project Agreement.
• In return for this 'risk premium' the benefit is that the public partner is assured that the private partner will meet its
obligations under the Project Agreement. If the private partner does not uphold its obligations, it risks default and loss of
its equity. This is the core concept upon which value for money is achieved under a P3 structure and acts like insurance.
The higher degree of oversight and rigorous performance requirements results in assets that are built on time, on budget
and maintained to a standard that is significantly greater than an asset delivered under a traditional structure (residual
value is generally greater under a P3) due to the contractual enforcement and discipline imposed by the performance
standards articulated in the Project Agreement.
• P3 structures do not always involve private sector long-term financing. The public sector can provide the long-term
financing for an infrastructure project and value is still achieved through the transfer of risk to a private sector partner.
Decisions about the use of public or private financing are related to a public sector sponsor's desired risk profile and
public policy approaches to financing major infrastructure projects.
• The table on the following page highlights a few of the policy considerations that the City should address before making a
final decision on whether or not to use private financing for the Police HQ and parking facility.
51 179 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Public or private financing — . _ . . . ,
Key policy considerations � ' ' ' �
. - . . .
Table 4— Key Public Policy Considerations for Sourcing Project Financing
- . . . - .
Optimizing risk transfer Risk transfer from a public sector sponsor to a private sector partner can be achieved using either public or private financing. However, if the
over project lifecycle private sector is required to put its own capital"at risk"through a mix of its own equity and debt, there is an additional incentive to manage and
mitigate the risks that are transferred in order to preserve this capital.Additional scrutiny is also introduced to the project where private lenders
are involved because they appoint their own quantity surveyors and other project managers to ensure that the private sector partner is
managing within budget and delivering on time—this is done to ensure no slippage in the project schedule that could place repayment of the
lender's financing at risk.Oversight similar to that imposed under a private financing arrangement could be undertaken by a public sector
sponsor of the project if appropriate financial and human resources are available to support this level of project oversight.
Operating budget Private sector financing is more expensive on a cash basis than public sector financing. If a public sector sponsor of an infrastructure project
constraints—Public has limited flexibility with respect to its operating budget, it may be more cost effective on a cash basis to pursue public as opposed to private
sponsor financing in order to reduce overall financing costs. However on a risk adjusted basis, private sector financing may still be cheaper.As noted
above, risk transfer to the private sector can still be achieved, however the level of investment(in terms of the investment of"at risk"capital)and
the associated level of oversight is not the same as where private equity and debt providers are involved.
Availability of sources of The use of public or private financing does depend on whether or not a market exists for the investment of private sector capital in a public
financing infrastructure project. If a mature market for these types of arrangements does not exist(i.e.,financing is not available, or the pricing of the
financing is not commensurate with the risk profile of the project in question), it makes sense to pursue traditional public sector financing.The
relative liquidity of the financial markets is another factor to be considered. If the markets are relatively illiquid —meaning that financing is not
being made readily available—the party best able to secure financing should be the one that provides the financing to the project.
Public sponsor's available If a public sector sponsor's ability to borrow is constrained, private sector financing would be a viable alternative to proceed with to fund a major
debt capacity infrastructure investment.
Capital investment For some public sector sponsors of major infrastructure projects,the value of the overall need for infrastructure investment(deferred
requirements maintenance plus growth investments)can exceed the sponsor's fiscal and/or debt capacity. In such cases,a strategic approach to the use of
public and private financing is required, with public financing being used for projects with a risk profile that is suited to public sector
management expertise, and private financing being reserved for larger, more complex projects where substantial value can be achieved through
risk transfer to the private sector.
• The City of Saint John has the borrowing capacity to finance the Police HQ and parking facility. However, a decision on
how to finance these projects should be made in the context of the City's overall capital plan and investment needs— and
after consultation with the market to obtain its opinion on how the financing structure affects the commercial viability of the
projects. If the City decides not to proceed with private financing, a publicly financed P3 approach should still position the
City to: (i) take advantage of private sector expertise and discipline in delivering these projects and; (ii) achieve substantial
risk transfer to the private sector.
52 180 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 2
Summary of delivery options . _ . . . ,
. . .
. - . . .
Table 5 — Optimal Delivery Model Summary
• . � • . . - . .
Police Headquarters DBM/FDBM These delivery models provide the most appropriate type and level of risk transfer for this
(Modified Design) particular infrastructure asset. The design that has been developed by the Police Commission
for this facility can and should be incorporated into the delivery model. Under either model,
operations remain strictly within the purview of the Saint John Police Force. The issue of
private sector financing is a policy issue that the City will need to consider and address.
Parking Facility DBOM/FDBOM These delivery models provide the most appropriate type and level of risk transfer for this
particular infrastructure asset. The degree of private sector involvement under the DBOM is
most consistent with the project level and public policy goals, objectives, and constraints. The
issue of private sector financing is a policy issue that the City will need to consider and
address.
Arts Centre Traditional/D-B The limited scope and scale of the project lead to the conclusion that a separate Traditional/D-
B delivery model would yield the best result.
• The Options Screen yielded a short-list of optimal delivery models. The next area to be explored is the optimal
procurement options for delivering each of these assets. The City has two primary procurement options. The first option is
to procure and transact each project independently. The alternative course of action is to bundle some or all of these
assets into one procurement and transaction package for consideration by the market. The next section of this report
analyzes these two options.
53 181 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
. . . .
•
ec lon
.
Project procurement analysis
� � ; � �
; j � �
1 , ' ;
' I I
f F I � � (
I ' �
� i I �
� (
r
I I
I I
, i ; I , ' I , ,
� I ,
182
Step 3
Project procurement options -
. . . .
Context
There are a number of current contextual factors influencing the structure of a project procurement(s). The most prominent
factors include: (i) timing sensitivities; (ii) development constraints; (iii) coordination requirements; (iv) market volatility; and
(v) innovation imperatives.
Timing Sensitivities
• The parking facility and Police HQ have very real timing sensitivities driving the need to bring both these projects to
market as soon as possible. With respect to the Police Headquarters, there is a real need to move out of current
accommodations because they are inadequate for the operational needs of the Force. In addition to the operational
drivers around the facility, the agreement between the City and the Province to fund and construct shared holding facilities
requires that the Police Headquarters project be in the market and have a construction schedule closely aligned with the
new Law Courts.
• The timeframe for the development of the Law Courts is also driving the timeframes for the new parking facility. The
parking facility needs to be operational in time to accommodate the increased traffic flow to be generated by the Law
Courts and its early delivery may also be a crucial logistical advantage in providing larger construction staging areas and
availability of safe parking for construction crews and the public in general.
Development Constraints
• Saint John appears to be on the cusp of a significant building boom for institutional and commercial facilities. The Peel
Plaza redevelopment contemplates the development of three major assets within months of each other.
• In addition, Irving is planning to make a significant investment of its own in a new World Headquarters — a multi-million
dollar project with a long time horizon for construction and one that could consume, if built, significant financial, human
and other resources in the Saint John market.
55 183 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Project procurement options -
. . . .
Context
Development Constraints Cont'd...
Figure 15 —Atlantic Canada Infrastructure Market
• The development activity in Saint John is representative of
a broader trend in Atlantic Canada. As Figure 15 shows, a �
number of significant projects are in the market, or the
pipeline, in Atlantic Canada.
• According to feedback received from the market
soundings conducted for the preparation of this report, this
activity is stimulating a high degree of competition for
private sector resources and investment, which means
that government sponsors of major infrastructure projects -
have to factor this demand for resources into the timing
and structure of their own transactions.
Fredericton Downtown
• While these planned developments are good news for the Revitalization Project Moncton Law
current and future economic vitality of the Saint John and ($70M) courts
�$soM>
the broader Atlantic Canada economies, this clustering of
development in such a small market raises concerns with SaintJohn �.,�r►
Law Courts
respect to the competition for financing, design, and �$a�nn�
construction. The competition, if too fierce, could strain SaintJohn ` Halifax RCMP
Police HQ Building
and stretch available local resources and expertise, which �$zsM> Irving World ($60M-$80M
could in turn im act ro ect costin and develo ment Headquarters SaintJohn coast
p p 1 g p Guard Site Project
timeframes. c$soM�
More than $350M of major infrastructure projects in the
market or pipeline in Atlantic Canada
56 184 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Project procurement options -
. . . .
Context
Coordination Requirements
• The timing sensitivities and very real development constraints make it absolutely critical for all partners in the Peel Plaza
redevelopment to coordinate the planning and execution of their respective infrastructure projects. The City and province
must ensure fairly close alignment of the development of the Law Courts, parking facility and Police HQ to ensure that
timeframes and budgets are met.
• For the City, the coordination requirements extend further into its own operations. City officials need to determine how
best to coordinate, plan and fund the development of the parking facility and Police HQ as each facility is a significant
public investment critical to the success of the Peel Plaza redevelopment. Understanding and deciding on an optimal
procurement structure can assist the City in managing its own internal coordination requirements.
Market Volatility
• At the time of the writing of this report, the global financial markets were in significant turmoil because of the credit crisis
which was driving significant volatility and uncertainty. All major planned investments have been affected by the financial
crisis —whether its an inability to secure financing, or where financing is available, the cost of that financing has increased
over the historically low pricing of the past five years. While it is unlikely that the Canadian market will ever again see the
kind of inexpensive credit that has been available over the recent past, money is still available, particularly for quality
public infrastructure projects from which essential services are provided.
• To successfully navigate through this tough credit market, the City of Saint John will need to be well organized in its
approach to its investments in Peel Plaza. This will require undertaking a procurement transaction that is of sufficient size
to: (i) attract market interest; and (ii) communicate stability and commitment to the project to potential partners.
57 185 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Project procurement options -
. . . .
Context
Innovation Imperatives
• The vision for Peel Plaza is broader than the development of the Police HQ, parking facility and Law Courts. The
community has expressed a strong desire for mixed use development to make the Plaza a place for the community to
live, work and play. Mixed uses could include commercial and retail spaces, cultural institutions and a blend of market and
affordable housing.
• The City could leverage the procurement for its Police Headquarters and parking facility to catalyze community and
private sector ideas and proposals for achieving the broader vision for Peel Plaza.
• Innovations could be requested and prescribed such as:
— Social housing and other mixed use development for the ancillary lands that generates value to taxpayers.
— Potential use of development density above the parking facility to generate economic rents for the City of Saint John.
58 186 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Project procurement -
. . . .
Arts centre
• As noted in the previous section of this report, the City has two principal options for procurement structuring —
independent transactions or a bundled transaction.
• Independent transactions would involve taking each asset (the Police HQ and the parking facility) to market separately.
With the timing constraints faced by the City, this could mean running two concurrent procurement processes.
• A bundled approach would involve procuring both assets through one procurement. Both options are viable and would
achieve the City's objectives. However, in light of the contextual factors discussed above, an assessment should be
undertaken to determine which approach would be better suited in moving the development of these assets forward. To
determine the optimal procurement approach, an evaluative framework (see next slide) has been developed to compare
independent and bundled transactions for the City's major infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza.
Arts Centre
• The size and scope of the proposed Arts Centre refurbishment makes it most sensible for the City to pursue a Traditional
delivery approach through an independent transaction. The Arts Centre could be considered for inclusion in a bundled
transaction along with the Police HQ and parking facility, however, it would likely be incidental to the deal because of the
limited risk transfer opportunities.
• Notwithstanding the relatively small deal size of the Arts Centre refurbishment, longer term options around the expansion
of the facility need to be fully considered through a comprehensive business case analysis and stakeholder consultations.
To include the facility in a bundled transaction may limit flexibility required by the City to determine a more optimal use of
the facility in the future to achieve the broader community based vision for the Peel Plaza redevelopment.
59 187 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Procurement options -
. . . .
Comparative evaluation criteria
. � - . .
Timing Sensitivities
Ease and speed of execution Minimizing delays and other risks associated with the tendering, approvals, and delivery of planned
infrastructure investments.
Timeframe for Law Courts Delivering the City's planned infrastructure investments in conjunction with the completion and operation of the
new provincial Law Courts.
Development Constraints
Achieving synergies Realizing economies of scale and/or scope that may be inherent in planned infrastructure investments to
reduce costs and risk of delay.
Managing development impact Minimizing the disruption related to the construction of the planned infrastructure assets on the surrounding
community and businesses and providing a framework for appropriate coordination of on-site development
activities.
Local resource capacity Streamline the procurement process to maximize competitive tension among the bid community.
Coordination
Coordination among governments and Ensure alignment in procurement, development and funding agreements/arrangements to achieve Peel Plaza
agencies redevelopment vision.
Coordination of City investments Ensure that City's internal resources are efficiently and effectively aligned and utilized to mitigate project
management risks related to procurement requirements.
Market Volatility
Generating market interest Creating a project that is commercially reasonable and of sufficient scale to generate competitive tension.
Innovation
Advancing broader Peel Plaza vision Leveraging procurement process to foster innovative proposals for mixed use developments supportive of the
broader and longer-term vision for Peel Plaza.
60 188 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Procurement options -
. . . .
Comparison
• The two procurement options compared below use a relative assessment approach similar to that used in the last section
for the optimal delivery models. The greater the alignment of an option with the predefined criteria, the higher its relative
assessment.
Table 6 — Comparison of Procurement Options
. . - . - . - . - .
. .
Ease and speed of delivery The bundled approach would allow both the Police HQ and
parking facility to proceed to market at the same time using
one set of tender documents and aggregating approvals,
where possible. The bundled transaction would also reduce
O � transaction costs whereas independent transactions would
have higher transaction costs because multiple tender
documents and separate approvals would be required. A
bundled transaction would be administratively less
complicated for the City to execute than independent
transactions.
Timeframe for Law Courts The bundled transaction would enable both assets to be
procured at the same time under one transaction, thereby
O � reducing the length of time to complete the procurement
process. Coordination of asset construction would provide for
greater certainty around construction schedules, thereby
reducing risk that City facilities would not be completed in
conjunction with new Law Courts.
61 189 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Procurement options -
. . . .
Comparison
Table 6 — Comparison of Procurement Options
. . - .- . - . - .
. .
Achieving synergies Independent procurement transactions would preclude the
identification and realization of synergies across both the
Police HQ and parking facilities. A bundled transaction would
O • allow bidders to plan and propose synergies across both
projects that could reduce project costs and provide greater
level of assurance of on-time and on-budget delivery. A
bundled approach would better position the City to achieve a
cohesive theme and harmony amongst the assets being
developed in Peel Plaza. In addition, a bundled approach
would generate larger contracts with sub-contractors and
reduce fixed costs while providing the City with a higher degree
of leverage in negotiating deals.
Managing development impact A high level of coordination will be required among the parties
O � constructing the facilities in the Peel Plaza. A bundled
transaction would yield one proponent, whereas independent
transactions could yield multiple proponents that would need to
be coordinated. It would be less administratively complex for
the City to coordinate its efforts with the province if it only had
one proponent to manage as opposed to two. Also, under a
bundled transaction, the City could more clearly articulate its
expectation around coordination and hold the proponent to
these expectations in project agreements.
g2 190 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Procurement options -
. . . .
Comparison
Table 6 — Comparison of Procurement Options
. . - .- . - . - .
. .
Local resource capacity Saint John appears to be on the cusp of a significant building
boom for institutional and commercial facilities. One
transaction as opposed to two or more transactions would
likely elicit a stronger response from the bidder community
O � because they would be better positioned to identify, coordinate,
and manage the resources required to deliver. In addition, a
single transaction would likely generate greater competitive
tension amongst bidders which would be to the City's
advantage from a value and cost perspective.
Coordination among governments The Law Courts, parking facility, and Police HQ are all, to a
and agencies certain extent, dependant on each other. This requires that
governments coordinate their planning, procurement, and
O � construction activities. A bundled transaction would better
position the City to coordinate these activities with the Province
through a focused dedication of City resources and a single
bidder relationship.
63 191 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Procurement options -
. . . .
Comparison
Table 6 — Comparison of Procurement Options
. . - .- . - . - .
. .
Coordination of City investments City resources to manage a procurement are limited. A
O � bundled transaction would enable the City to marshal and
focus limited and valuable staff and financial resources on one
sizable transaction as opposed to multiple small transactions.
Generating market interest A bundled transaction would create a project of adequate size
and scope to attract bidder interest in a climate where there
O � are multiple large scale projects being planned or about to go
to market(e.g, Law Courts, and Irving World Headquarters).
Multiple independent procurement transactions could impair
the City's ability to maximize competitive tension on their
projects.
Advancing broader Peel Plaza A bundled transaction would present the City with an
vision opportunity to leverage a larger deal size to incent bidders to
make innovation proposals with respect to commercializing the
� • parking facility and expediting mixed use developments on
assembled ancillary lands. This could be done through
independent transactions, however, the larger scale of a
bundled transaction would likely attract bidders with the
experience and ability to deliver on innovation proposals the
City may wish to pursue. Thus, a larger bundled project
means there is a larger potential financial base upon which to
base innovations.
64 192 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Procurement Options -
. . . .
Optimal procurement option
The Bundling Approach The Benefits of Bundling Assets
• The two major assets of the project plus innovation • Bundling has five distinct benefits:
proposals, as shown in the diagram below, can be - Reduced Cost-from economies of scale and scope.
bundled under the various facets of the development
process. — Improved coordination — resulting in project acceleration and
the potential to reduce the complexities in developing the
• An effective bundling strategy is one that takes advantage entire Peel Plaza area and managing only one contractual
of synergies across all key elements inherent in each relationship.
project— design, construction, maintenance and — Consistency in design and architecture— providing a
operations. cohesive theme and harmony amongst the four assets in the
Figure 16 - Bundled Transaction project.
— Reduced construction footprint from startup and teardown
periods—which can mitigate business interruptions risk to
neighbouring businesses and residents and avoid
community dissatisfaction resulting from traffic congestion
' • � and associated environmental impacts.
— Increase attractiveness to potential private sector investors
—due to increased size and scope of the project as a
bundle.
. •
. . .
65 193 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Bundled transaction -
. . . .
Innovation opportunities for ancillary lands
• The community has high expectations for the development of the ancillary lands that have been assembled by the City in
support of the vision for Peel Plaza. A bundled transaction for the Police HQ and parking facility presents the City with an
opportunity to kick start the development of these lands by including the development of these lands as an innovation
component in the overall procurement. As part of the RFP for the overall project, the City could ask bidders to come
forward with ideas and concrete proposals for the development of these lands. The City would retain the right to not
accept proposals if they failed to meet the City's expectations and/or objectives for these lands.
• The City has three principal options in terms of how these lands may be included in the procurement.
Option 1 — Bundled P3 transaction with innovation
• The City would describe the bundled P3 transaction and the overall Peel Plaza redevelopment goals with reference to the
ancillary land parcels. Bidders may or may not propose a separate development of some or all of these lands, and would
be free to stipulate deal and transaction terms of their choosing. The City would then react to and evaluate the innovation
with no predetermined evaluation framework and no requirement that the City proceed with any of the proposals —
acceptance of any proposal would be at the City's full discretion.
Option 2- Bundled P3 transaction with prescribed innovation
• The City would request in the bundled P3 RFP that the bidders submit a proposal to purchase or lease some or all of the
ancillary lands. The City would stipulate: (i) objectives for the transaction; (ii) essential deal terms and constraints and
potential guidelines such as a term sheet; (iii) prohibited uses; and (iv) preferred monetization terms (payment up-front,
over time, and/or potential rent participation). The preferred proponent would detail the type of proposed development and
provide mutually advantageous deal structure suggestions, the total amount and timing of the land development and
would describe any opportunities to enhance value for the benefit of both parties.
66 194 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Bundled transaction -
. . . .
Innovation opportunities for ancillary lands
Option 3 — Defer transaction opportunity
• City would retain ancillary lands within Peel Plaza to focus on the immediate business of procuring the new Police HQ,
parking facility and Arts Centre (as an independent transaction) with potential to transact ancillary lands after these project
and the new Law Courts have been constructed. Deferring the transaction of ancillary lands would provide the City with
time to fully consider its objectives with respect to these lands, and conduct further investigations with the private and
non-profit sectors on potential development opportunities that are consistent with the vision for Peel Plaza. Additional time
and planning around these lands would also allow for newer and different thinking from the market based on the impact
that the development of the Police HQ, Law Courts and parking facility have on the Peel Plaza area.
g7 195 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Bundled transaction -
. . . .
Innovation opportunities for ancillary lands
• Including the ancillary lands in a bundled P3 transaction using either options 1 or 2 described on the previous slide has
the following advantages and disadvantages that need to be fully considered by the City.
Table 7 —Advantages and Disadvantages
. . . - � . . . . -
• Would leverage an existing procurement process to expedite • The City is still in the process of completing the land assembly
the development of the lands. in the Peel Plaza area. This may add risk to the City's
• Inclusion of the lands may stimulate further private sector negotiations for outstanding parcels or may cause caution with
interest in the Peel Plaza redevelopment and lead to greater potential bidders worried about the risks associated with the
competitive tension with respect to the overall procurement. land assembly.
• The City may be able to achieve a significant fiscal benefit • More planning and community consultation may be required
(through the sale, lease or monetized concession over the prior to bringing any proposals or requests for these land
lands) that could be used to support other municipal parcels to the market.
investment priorities inside or outside the Peel Plaza • Lack of structure around any request included in a bundled
redevelopment. transaction may negatively impact the market's ability to bring
• The City would not be obligated to accept proposals if they did forward proposals and the City's ability to evaluate those
not meet the City expectations and objectives —the City would proposals or may result in proposals that are inconsistent with
have full control and discretion over this element of the deal. the City's vision and objectives for the Peel Plaza
• Even if the process did not generate a proposal that the City redevelopment.
could adopt, the process would advance the thinking and
options around these land parcels.
gg 196 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Innovation opportunities for ancillary land -
. . . .
Recommendation
• If the City is eager to catalyze thinking and development proposals around the ancillary lands within the Peel Plaza area, it
is recommended that the lands be included as an innovation component of the bundled P3 transaction. Proceeding in this
fashion is low risk to the City and makes sense for the following reasons:
1. The inclusion of the ancillary lands may make the bundled P3 transaction more commercially viable which would stimulate further
private sector interest in the Peel Plaza redevelopment and increase the associated competitive tension.
2. The City may be able to achieve a significant fiscal benefit (through the sale, lease or monetized concession over the lands) that
could be used to support other municipal investment priorities inside or outside the Peel Plaza redevelopment.
3. Even if proposals are not accepted by the City, the discussion with the market would provide the City with a better sense of the
level of market interest, potential value of the lands, and the range of complimentary development opportunities that could be
further promoted and/or explored.
gg 197 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Procurement options -
. . . .
Summary of findings
The following are the findings of the analysis undertaken in this section of the report:
1. Optimal Procurement Approach
a. A bundled transaction is the optimal approach for the City to pursue for the following three reasons:
i. A bundled transaction would enable the City to reduce its procurement process timeline and focus limited human and financial resources
on one sizeable transaction by bringing both the Police HQ and the parking facility to market simultaneously. This is important because of
the need for the City to ensure that both assets are developed within the same timeframe as the new Law Courts project because of a
number of interdependencies that exist across the projects.
ii. A bundled transaction would enable bidders to focus on bidding on one City project as opposed to two and would increase the likelihood of
achieving critical synergies between the facilities, particularly construction planning and coordination synergies that would mitigate
development impacts on the surrounding community. Construction synergies are essential because it is quite likely that the City and the
province will have two different constructors working within the same site on three different assets.
iii. A single bundled transaction would mitigate the risk to the City of reduced competitive tension among bidders by reducing the strain on
local bidding capacity, which is important because of the high level of activity and competition for resources and investment taking place
across Atlantic Canada. A bundled transaction would also enable the City to better coordinate its procurement process with the process to
be undertaken by the province for the Law Courts project.
70 198 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 3
Procurement options -
. . . .
Summary of findings
2. Innovation Opportunities
a. If the City is eager to catalyze thinking and development proposals around the ancillary lands within the Peel Plaza area, it is
recommended that the lands be included as an innovation component of the bundled P3 transaction. Proceeding in this fashion
is low risk and may: (i) make the bundled P3 transaction more commercially viable; and (ii) position the City to achieve a
significant fiscal benefit through the sale, lease or monetized concession over the lands. Even if proposals are not accepted by
the City, the discussion with the market would provide the City with a better sense of the level of market interest, potential value
of the lands, and the range of complimentary development opportunities that could be further promoted and/or explored.
3. Arts Centre
a. The size and scope of the proposed Arts Centre refurbishment makes it most sensible for the City to pursue a Traditional delivery
approach through an independent transaction. The Arts Centre could be considered for inclusion in a bundled transaction along
with the Police HQ and parking facility, however, it would likely be incidental to the deal because of limited risk transfer
opportunities.
b. Notwithstanding the relatively small deal size of the Arts Centre refurbishment, longer term options around the expansion of the
facility need to be fully considered through a comprehensive business case analysis and stakeholder consultations. To include
the facility in a bundled transaction may limit flexibility required by the City to determine a more optimal use of the facility in the
future to achieve the broader community based vision for Peel Plaza. In addition, the inclusion of the Arts Centre refurbishment
within a bundled transaction may impede the progress of the Police HQ and parking facility.
The next section of this report focuses on quantitatively assessing the value the City could achieve from undertaking a
bundled P3 that transfers risk to a private sector partner.
7� 199 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
. .
. .
•
ec lon
Project risk assessment framework
,
i
20�
Step 4
Defining project risk
. .
. .
• All major infrastructure investments have inherent risks related to their design, construction, operation and maintenance
over their useful life. Risk is defined as "the threat or probability that an action or event, will adversely or beneficially affect
an organization's ability to achieve its objectives." Understanding the risks involved in a planned infrastructure investment
is critical to enable public sector sponsors to make informed and appropriate decisions on how best to manage risks so
that value is delivered to taxpayers through efficient and on-budget delivery.
• In the identification and consideration of project risks, public sector sponsors need to be honest about where their
strengths lie with respect to risk management— i.e., what risks does the public sector have the core competencies, skills
and capacity to manage— and what risks may require the assistance of another party to manage. This assessment, and
subsequent allocation of risk is fundamental to the concept of P3 because there is a recognition that the public and private
sectors have different expertise in managing different risk elements. Therefore, P3 transactions attempt to allocate risks to
the party— public or private — best able to manage them.
73 201 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Defining project risk
. .
. .
• If risks are optimally allocated and properly managed, value is achieved for taxpayers through the mitigation of unplanned
events and associated increased costs or disruptions to vital public services. The following table illustrates a number of
risks where, generally, the public and private sectors have differing capabilities and abilities to manage.
Table 8 - Example Risk Allocation Between Public and Private Sectors
.- .
�- . . -
Design/Technical Risk The risk of failures related to engineering Private sector This is a core skill of the private sector
or design. proponents.
Land Assembly Risk The risk that acquiring land will delay the Public sector The private sector may be unable to secure
overall project schedule. some land
The risk that securing environmental Environmental approvals are public sector
Environmental Approval Risk approvals will delay the overall project Public sector approvals
schedule.
Construction Risk The risk that cost escalation will occur due Private sector This is a core skill of the private sector
to faulty construction or delays. proponents.
74 202 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Peel Plaza - . . . . .
Purpose of risk analysis � " ' ' �
• A key concept in infrastructure delivery is "value for money" — particularly where there is a choice for public sector project
sponsors between pursuing a Traditional delivery or P3 delivery approach. A value for money assessment is undertaken
to quantitatively compare the Traditional and P3 approaches and it involves two important steps: (i) identifying and
allocating risks between the public and private sectors; and (ii) assigning a value, or order of magnitude cost, to each risk
used in the analysis. Dollar values are ascribed to the risks based on observations of other projects and the value is
based on the cost that a project sponsor would assume if the risk became a material event.
• In order to assess which delivery approach — Traditional or bundled P3 — yields greater financial value to the City, a high
level risk identification, assessment and valuation was undertaken and used to inform a preliminary value for money
analysis on these two options. The methodology outlined below was used to identify, allocate, and quantify project risks
related to the Police HQ and parking facility and to execute the value for money analysis.
Figure 17 — Risk and Value for Money Methodology
Step 1
Stage 2 Stage 3
�_ Step 2 Project Cost&Cash Flow Value for Money Analysis
- Analysis
- . Step 3
• . Step 4
� �
�� Step 5
� Step 6
Stage 1 •.
Risk Analysis �
�
75 203 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 1 , Step 1 � " ' ' �
• With respect to Step 1 of the methodology, previous sections in this report have identified three delivery options for the
Police HQ and parking facility: (i) Traditional (both projects); (ii) Design-Build-Maintain (Police HQ); and (iii) Design-Build-
Operate-Maintain (parking facility). Each delivery model has a different arrangement of project related responsibilities
between the City and the private sector. A high level illustrative assignment of responsibilities across these delivery
models is presented in the Figure below.
Figure 18 — Notional Allocation of Responsibilities
. . . . - -
_ , : , : .
. -
.�
Preliminary Design of Infrastructure
Detailed Desiqn oflnfrastructure
Fee Policies Fee Policies Fee Policies
Fee Collection and Enforcement Fee Collection and Enforcement Fee Collection and Enforcement
Proiect Intearation Proiect Intearation Project Integration
��—�.. Labour Relations Labour Relations
CustomerService CustomerService
GeneralAdmin/Insurance GeneralAdmin/Insurance
Program Operations Program Operations
SAI N'I' J(�H N Utilities and Other O eretin Ex enses Utilities and Other O eretin Ex enses
Ownership of Assets Ownership of Assets Ownership of Assets
Concession Concession Concession
•. •. •. -
- � - - - � - - - � - -
PreliminaryDesignoflnfrastructure PreliminaryDesignoflnfrastructure
Detailed Desion oflnfrastructure Detailed Desi n oflnfrastructure
- Labour Relations
- - - - CustomerService
- - - - GeneralAdmin/Insurance
Program Operations
Utilities and OtherOperating Expenses
0 Design � Construction 0 Operations � Maintenance
7g 204 OO Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 1 , Step 2 � " ' ' �
• Step 2 of the methodology is to identify and inventory risks related to the Peel Plaza redevelopment. The inventory of
risks is presented in a Global Risk Register (see Appendix E). Deloitte established an inventory of risks based on its
professional judgment and experience with projects of similar size and scale from across Canada.
• In total, more than 40 risks related to this project were identified as critical for the purposes of undertaking the value for
money analysis. A critical risk is one that has a high probability of occurrence and high impact on the project, or low
probability and high impact. The probabilities and impacts were determined based on Deloitte's professional experience
and comprehensive database of project risks.
77 205 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 2, Step 3 � " ' ' �
• Structure of the Cash Flow Model:
— It is important to consider the funding and financial matters, completed through a cash-flow analysis that has the flexibility to
assess all the Options under consideration.
• Private Sector
. . .
- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Debt
' . - . - . . • . .
Equity . - . . - . .
IRR
Costs
Capital
Maintenance &
Major Repair
Tax(N/A)
Toll Revenue . Government Funding /Debt
N/A
• . . .
Inflation 2%/year (applies to Maintenance Costs through Operations)
Escalation 4%/year (applies to Construction Costs)
Time Horizon 2-year construction and 30-year concession
Taxes No Corporate Taxes for City—private sector assumed to operate under a Limited Partner Structure
78 206 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis — . . . . .
Stage 2, Step 4 � - ' ' �
. . . . . . .
— Represent the common costs to the City before financing.
— Are common to all Options.
. .
Start of Start of
Construction Operations
i i
Construction Period Operating Period
2009 2010 2011 2012 2022 2032 2040
'I 2 3 4 '14 24 32
Construction Phase
Total Construction Costs 24,192,507 24,403,087 0 0 0 0 0
+inflation +inflation +inflation +inflation
Operating Phase � —� —� —�
Police Headquarters 0 0 219,670 224,063 273,132 332,947 390,'100
Parking Facility 0 0 314,922 321,220 391,566 477,317 559,252
Total Operating Costs 0 0 534,592 545,284 664,698 8'10,263 949,352
+inflation +inflation +inflation +inflation
Lifecycle Costs _� —� � �
Police Headquarters 0 0 18,286 18,652 858,086 1,275,071 1,750,400
Parking Facility 0 0 137,732 140,486 17'1,252 208,755 244,590
Total Lifecycle Costs 0 0 156,018 159,138 1,029,338 1,483,826 1,994,990
Pre-Financing Cost to the City 24,192,507 24,403,087 690,610 704,422 '1,694,036 2,294,090 2,944,342
*See Appendix F for Cash Flow Model Output Note:These results are a representative output.The figures may not add due to rounding
79 207 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 2, Step 4 � " ' ' �
PSC Cash Flow
. . . - . . • . .
— City borrows for all capital needed to fund construction works on an annual basis. City Debenture Rate 5.25%/year
— Payments are made to the construction contractor as work is completed. Debenture Term 32 years
— Funding for operating and maintenance is from cash (consolidate revenue).
. � .
Start of Start of
Construction Operations
�
Construction Period Operating Period
2009 2010 2011 2012 2022 2032 2040
1 2 3 4 14 24 32
Pre-Financing Cost to the City (24,192,507) (24,403,087 (690,610) (704,422) (1,694,036) (2,294,090) (2,944,342)
+inflation +inflation +inflation +inflation
Financing Cost to the City � —� —� �
Municipal Debenture 0 0 0 0 0
Debenture Amortization (1,576,769) (5,437,683) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120)
Financed Cost to the City (1,576,769) (5,437,683) (3,727,730) (3,741,542) (4,731,156) (5,331,209) (5,981,462)
PV of Lifecycle Cost to City @ 5.25%Annual Compounding=$11.9 Million
Note:These results are a representative output.The figures may not add due to rounding
gp 208 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 2, Step 4 � " ' ' �
P3 Cash Flow
. . . - . . • . . � •
— The private sector obtains Construction Financing to fund Construction Finance Facility Size $48 Million
construction of works. Construction Finance Rate 6.35%/year
— The City begins to make annual availability payments at Construction Finance Undrawn Rate 0.5%/year
satisfactory completion of construction and subject to Public Sector Debt Rate 5.25%/year
compliance with performance standards,which is funded from Debt Term 32�years
Equity IRR 12/o/year
cash (consolidated revenue).
. .
Start of Start of
Construction Operations
Construction P¢riod Operating Period
2009 20'10 20'1'I 20'12 2022 2032 2040
1 2 3 4 '14 24 32
Construction Costs
Pre-Financing Cost to the City (24,192,507) (24,403,OS7) (690,610) (704,422) (1,694,036) (2,294,090) (2,944,342)
Construction Financing Costs (1,805,262) (1,557,592) O O O O O
Subtotal 25,997,769 25,960,679 (690,6'10) (704,422) (1,694,036) (2,294,090) (2,944,342)
Financing Cost to the City
Provincial Contribution 2 250 000
Long Term Debt-Private Sector 43 74 434 O O O O O
Equity Injection-Private se�tor 5,965,0'14 +inflation +inflation +inflation
Amortization of Long Term Debt O O (3,297,828) (3,297,828�(3,297,828�(3,297,828�3,297,828)
Equity Earnings O (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791)
Financed Cost to the City (4,728,229) (4,742,049) (5,739,655) (6,339,708) (6,989,969)
PV of Lifecycle Cost to City @ 5.25%Annual Compounding=$11.9 Million
Note:These results are a representative output.The figures may not add due to rounding
g� 209 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 2, Step 5 � " ' ' �
Generic Risk Quantification
P�� Ps�
RiekCategory CostBase Prob Impact 1lontcCarlo 2iskQnanNfied(Smnple) Prob lmpact MontcCarlo BiskQuanNfied(Sample)
Pocfion of PV ��� lOth perct Typial(MOdc) 90th perct Samplc Contractor City .o lOtli perct Typiral(�lodc) 90th pc�ct Samplc Connactor City
1.0 ProjectPlan�i�gandBudget 5 3268,741 $ 12,326,537
11 Plannino I �usand.111i�t ilacticu TctalConhact $' 65,9A3,2J7 25.OD% 9.00% S.DO% 29.00% 13.19% $ 2,176,057 75.00% 9.O�q 27.00% 40.0f1% 22.70% 5 11,233,&52
L2 CliangesinGovernmentFundingPolicies iotalConhact $ 65,9N3,247 20.00% 1.00% 10.00% 15-00% 828% $ 1,092,685 20.00% 1.00% 10.00% 15.00% 828% 5 1,092,68�
7.8 Landl:scPlanning TutalConhact $ fi5,9R3,247 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 - 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0-00% $ -
1.9 Pm�ki�gPolicy 'fotalCo�kact $ 65,9N3,247 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°o 0.00% 0.00% S - 0.00% 0.00% Q00% 0-00% 0.00% $ -
3.0 Approval and Site CondiNon S 439,633 $ 643,093
32 Age�cyAppcovals(Mu�icipal,Nrovincial,Fedemla�idothe�agencies) ConstmcHo� $ 95,U15,045 200% 010% 025% 100% 051% $ 4,593 20D% 0]0% Q25% ].00% 0.51% S d.593
33 CtilityRclocations Construclion $ 45,015,048 50.00% 0.10% 015% O50% 029% $ 32,972 $ 32g72 50.00°6 0.70'Z� 025'%� 0.30% 029% S 65,94
35 Ceotcchnical CmuhucNon $ A5,015,OV8 15.OD% I.DO% 2.00% 10.00% 505% $ 170AS9 $ 170,959 1500% 1.00% 2.00% 1QOD% �.OS% S 340,978
3-6 SitePnv7ronmentalCondition Construclion $ 45,015,048 15.00% 7.00% 3.00% 6.00% 3R3% $ 231,579 15.00% 1.00% 3.00% 6.009� 3.43% S 231,i79
9.0 IufcastructureDesignandTechuologySpecification 5 198,517 $ 2,099,36
A-1 DeslgnRisk Canstmcl[o� $ 95,0]5,048 2.50% 010% 250Y 5.00% 254% $ 28,618 25D0% 0.10% 5.00% 10.00% iD�% 5 567,520
93 ChangeinDesign5pecificanon, ConstrucNon � 45,015,048 1Q00% 0.10% 4S0% 6.00% 32�% $ 146,248 75.00% 1.00% 3.00% 9.00% 257/ S 867,i82
�4.4 Stakeholde[Consultallon Co�skucHo� $ 45p]5,04R 5.00% 1.50% 4.00% 8.00% 4.64% $ 52270 $ 52270 25.00°0 2.00% 5.00°0 10.00°0 �.86% 5 659,434
4b Sah[yand5ecu�ityRequirc�ncn6 Conshuction $ 45,015,048 0.00%� 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5 - 0.00% 0.00",G 0.00%� 0.00% 0.00% $ -
q.9 Iflnf��astmctureBackbo�e Co�9tmcHo� $ 95,015,04F Q00% 0.00% 000% 000% 0.00% S - 0.00% Q00% Q00% 0.00% 0.00% $ -
5.0 PrornrementandConstruction 5 363,478 $ 5,165,229
53 SmpeChanges CmuhucNon $ 95,015,048 0.00% O.DO% ODO% D00% 000% S - Q00% Q00% Q00% 0.00% 0.00% $ -
- Constmetio�Delays CanstcucAfon $ 45,O15,048 10.001 0]0% 025% "IDO% O57% y 22,964 90D0% 7.00'%� 2.00'Y 5.00% 2.86% S 1,159,909
57 PailvreroeuildmDesig�oeQualityLevel Conshvctio� $ 95,015,04R 5.00% 0.10% 015% OSO°b D28°b $ 6,314 10U0% 0]0% 025% ].00% 0.51% S Z2.964
5.10 Co�stmctionCost Canstcuctio� $ 95,015,0?8 5.00% 0.25% O50% OJS% 050% $ 1125§ 5.00% 025% OSO% 0759� OSO% 5 ll,259
S.11 Defice�uesasWorkProgressu Conshvctio� $ 45,015,048 5.00% I.00% 2S0% 5.00°6 293% $ 65,943 ]0.00% 1.00q 2.�0% 5.00% 293°6 S 131,887
5.12 LatentDeEects(newwo�k) Co�stmctio� $ 95,0]5,048 5.00% 1.00% 3.00% 5.00% 3.00% $ 33,761 5.00% 1.00% 3.00% 5.00% 3.00% 5 67,523
5.14 acsourmAva;labiliry(Maecrials,4mcnt5tceLeee) Construetion $ 45,o1s,o4s s.00/ 025/ osa/ O7s/ 050% $ ]1,z54 5.ao/ a.zs/ a5o/ 075/ o.so/ S ll,259
5.15 LaboucAvailability Co�shucHo� $ 95,015,048 25.00q 025% 3.00% 450% 2.46% $ 277,119 25.00% 150% 3.00% 950% 3.00% 5 337,613
5.16 LEBD/Accessibility/OtherPeefaemanceRequiremen6 Conshuctio� $ 45,015,048 5.00'%� OSO%� 3.00% 5.00% 279% $ 62,h90 5.00% O50% 3.00'%� 5.00% 279% S 62,690
5]9 ConshucfionCo�hacrocDefault(Bankeuptcy,PailureroMeetObligaHo�sJ Co�shuctio� $ AS,U15,048 ].00% 3.D0% 3D0% 10.00% 629% $ 28,326 S.OD% 3.00% 5.00% 7.00% 5.00% S 112.538
5.22 SmpeCha�gesbyGovemment5ponwe-DucingConstmctian Constructio� $ 95,075,048 25.00'S� 2.00% 3.00% 70.00% SB6% $ 329,717 90.00% 025'%� 2.00'% 5.00% Z.�M1% S 1,027,977
519 Desig�iCo-0cdinallon/Completion(ChangeO�de�Risk) Conshvctio� $ 95,015,04R 90.OD°6 OSO% 1.D0% 500°0 252% $ 1p22,933 90U0% O50% 2.00% 5.00% �.65% S 1.077,732
5.25 Co�stmctio�VadatfonsDuetoByuipment5electio� Co�stcuctio� $ 95,0]5,048 50.00'% 020% 0.60% 1.00% Ob0% $ 135,0�5 90.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.0090 2.D0% S 810,271
518 TimeRisk ConshvcNon $ §5,075,04R 0.00% 0.00% O.DO% D00°6 �00% 5 - QOD% O.00q 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $ -
i29 I�FlalionRisk Ca�stmcGo� $ 45,015,04R 25.00% 1.00% 3.00% 5.00°6 3.00% $ 337,613 25.00% 1.00% 3.00% 5.00% 3.00% 5 337,613
ssi cr�rr�.r.�a�,��n��s c��,�m��n�,� � as,ou,aas o.00i o.00i o.oai o.00i 000i s - aooi a.00q o.00/ o.00°� o.oa/ $
6.0 Operations S - $ 1,138,980
6.7 �tilih'�nd�uclPricclnflallon Op $ 9,OaM1,142 0.00%� 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°6 5 - 0.00% 0.00",G 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $ -
6.ID Cueromeclnquicies Op $ 9,0"o-h,t42 Q00% 0.00% 000% 000% 0.00% S - O.OD% Q00% Q00% Q00% 0.00% $ -
6]3 Pob7ic5atisfaction Op $ 9,054,142 10.00% 2.00% 3.00% 15.00'% 8.02% $ 72,6A4 50.00% 70.00% 20.00% 35.00% 22.15% S 1,002,668
6]9 6usinessOperafians Op $ 9,O�h,142 0.00% O.DO% D.DO% D00% �00% 5 - QOD% Q00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% $ -
6]6 CnanticipatedOperatingCosts Op $ 9,034,142 10.00'S� 3.00% 5.00% 10.00% 629% $ 56,975 70.00% 5.00'%� 15.00! 25.00'Y� 15.00% S ]35,812
7.0 Mai�tenauce 5 - $ 4,7ll,206
7-1 LI[ec}°deMai�lenancePedo�mance Gp $ ll,914,037 10.00o 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% li.00% $ 178,711 75.00% 10.00"6 15.00% 25.00o 1715% 5 1,532,555
72 Ove�laokedDefects Cap $ 11,91§,0�7 15.00% 2.00% i.00% 10.000 586% $ 104,71N Sf1.00Y 2.O�q 5.00% 1Q00°6 �86% S 3§9,062
75 Litec}'�1eMaintenanceCosh Cap $ 11,91�+,0�7 25.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 1i.00% $ 496,777 75,00% 10,00°6 15,00% 20.00% 15.00% 5 1,3A0,331
7.6 Fi•sid�alValuc TutalConhact $ 11,91Il,0�7 25.00°', 5.00% 15.00% 35.00°� 1930% $ 57§,926 25.00'Y 25.00o 50.00% 75.0�% 50.00% S 1,989,257
8.0 OwnershipandConcessionManagement S - $ 230,941
8.i GovernmentSponsor'sProjatManagementTeam�apecience TutalConhact $ 65,985,247 5.00%� I.00%� 2.00% 3.00% 2.00% $ 65,983 15.00% 1.00','G 2.00'9�� 3.00% 2.00% S ]97,950
8.7 DefaultotOpeafingCo�hacroe �fotalCa�kact $ 65,983,247 5.00% 3.00% 300% 700% 5.00% $ 164,9i8 1.00% 3.00% 5.00% Z00°o �.�0% S 32,992
91 SeniorLevelGovemmentPunding TotalConl�acl $ 65,983,247 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% S - 0.00'S� 0.00'% 0.00",�� 0.00`Y� O.DO% $ -
Gn�d Total $ 4,270,370 $ 26,310,017
g,a 210 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 3, Step 5 � " ' ' �
• Monte Carlo Analysis: ...
— Total Risks Retained by City Under a PSC Option: The risk quantification data was analysed using a Monte Carlo statistical
simulation:
Retained Risks by Category Under PSC Option
< —
Risl� Retained L�nder PSC � s6o,000,000
�
i�,z� ��,s� o
�
���`�' �� �� ' ���`�' 'A' Sso,000,oao
7 a
3
G �
C
� � F S4o,aaa,000
<
o � v�
x �
J � = S3o,aaa,000
� o
�a � ' -
�
1 S�o,000,000 �
-
0 �
`" ° � ° � ° �' ° � Sio,aaa,000
Values in Millions
Value (millions) $0
Proje�tPlaooingand ApprovalandSite Infrastru�tureDesign Pro�urementand Operations Malntenance Ownershipand Total
Budget Condition andTechnology Construction Conressioo
Specification Management
• • •
� • • - • • - • •
83 211 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 3, Step 5 � " ' ' �
Retained Risks by Category Under PPP Option
<
Risk Retained Under PPP � $90�����
�
i,�i �,�� °� �
A sa,oaa,oaa
m
�,�% '1 1' , �,�% m
��� �
a 57,000,000
� � A
� Sfi,000,000
� ��� �
� = Ss,oaa,oaa
0
x 1,5 3
�
� v Sa,oaa,oaa � �
�a 1,0 , T� - �
� � S3,oao,000
i
i
p,p St,oao,000
o ,-. ri r-7 � �n � n w rn
��Jalues in r�lillions Si,000,000
Value (millions) so
Vr�jeRPlanni�gandBudget ApprovalandSite[ondifion InfrastrvnureDesignantl Procurememandfonstm�tlon Operotians Maintenanre Ovmenhipand(onrenion iotal
ie<hnologySpe�Ykatan Man�ement
r
. . .
, - . . - . . - . .
84 212 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Stage 3, Step 5 � " ' ' �
(Refer to Appendix F for details)
Note: Figures may not add due to rounding
' . • • • • • � � •
. '.��i . '.i��
Non-Financed Construction Costs $48,596 Non-Financed Construction Costs $48,596
Operating Costs $21,687 Operating Costs $21,687
Lifecycle Costs $33,446 Lifecycle Costs $33,446
Base PSC (PV) $68,347 Base Payments(PV) ' $75,437
Ancillary Procurement Costs Contract Administration Costs
Transaction Costs $200 Transaction Costs $2,000
Project Management $4,700 Project Management $2,350
Risks Retained under Traditional Delivery $26,310 Risks Retained under PPP Delivery $4,270
. . . : � i
Dollars $15,500
Percentage 15.6%
- • • � • • ' ,
85 213 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Risk and value for money analysis -
Sensitivity analysis
• A sensitivity analysis was conducted on the PVFM using a range of discount rates. The various discount rates and risk
premiums, and the resulting PVFM and PVFM Savings are shown below:
. .
.�.. �.. �.. �..
19,989 �a.s/ 16,683 �s.a/ 13,963 i3.2/ 9,760 s.2%
� 19,264 �a.si 16,079 �5.�/ 13,463 13.1% 9,426 s_2/
�
�
�
C
�� 18,625 �a.�/ 15,556 15.6% 13,038 �3.�/ 9,159 s_2/
O
L
M0
W
� 18,060 �a.si 15,101 t5.si 12,678 13.1% 8,950 a2/
U
17,560 1a.s/ 14,708 15.s/ 12,374 13.1/ 8,790 s.3/
• As shown above, the Value For Money savings in percentage terms ranges from 9.3% to 18.9%, with the base case
presented on the previous page at 15.6%. The Value For Money savings in dollar terms ranges from $8.8M to $20.OM,
with the base case being $15.6M.
• The assumptions used for the financial modeling, including this sensitivity analysis, are presented in Appendix F.
gg 214 OO Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Purpose of the Preliminary VFM � " ' ' �
• Need for Preliminary Value for Money Assessment:
— For the purposes of analysis, Deloitte completed a preliminary Value for Money Assessment ("PVFM") for the delivery of the
bundled P3 structure.
— The purpose of the PVFM is to determine if a P3 approach for the City's investments in the Peel Plaza is substantiated via
financial analysis.
— For the purposes of analysis, only the PSC and P3 Options are compared.
• Difference Between Preliminary and Detailed Value for Money Assessments:
— A Detailed Value for Money ("DVFM") assessment is typically completed once a Request for Proposal and a Project Agreement
(together the "RFP & PA") have been developed.
— A DVFM is:
— Developed from the RFP & PA to estimate a `value-threshold' that the PPP proposals must achieve; and
— Based on results from a detailed risk quantification workshop held with a team of experts, to quantify the risks based on the Final Output
Specifications associated with the RFP & PA.
— This PVFM differs from a DVFM in that it is based on:
— Available risk quantification data some of which may be preliminary in nature, in place of a detailed risk quantification workshop;
— Assumed performance specifications which may vary materially from the RFP & PA and its associated Final Output Specifications; and
— Risk quantification data compiled by Deloitte, using generic information.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • � . . - . • . . - . . - . . - .
. . . . - - . . . �
87 215 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis — . . . . .
Summary of findings � - ' ' �
• Based on the available and generic information compiled by Deloitte in place of a detailed risk quantification workshop,
the PVFM results produce an indicative value of 15.6% in reduced project costs when the project is delivered using a
bundled P3 delivery model, with a potential range of 9.3% to 18.9% established through a sensitivity analysis.
• The above results compare favourably to other value for money results (listed on the next page) achieved by other similar
availability type assets being undertaken in other Canadian jurisdictions.
• This PVFM should be used by the City together with the full analysis completed in this business case to determine the
suitability of delivering the major infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza redevelopment under a bundled P3
structure.
• Should the City decide to proceed with a bundled P3, a detailed Value for Money assessment should be completed based
on the RFP & Project Agreement (and the associated Final Output Specifications). The results of the detailed VFM
assessment may vary from this PVFM.
. - . . . • . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . �
. . . - . . . . . . -
gg 216 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 4
Risk and value for money analysis - . . . . .
Comparable projects � " ' ' �
Summary of projects selected:
. . - . .
. . . .
Ministry of • Construction of a new government data centre using �
Government a Finance-Design-Build-Maintain structure.
Services Data http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/
Centre � 14.3%
(Ontario)
Sault Area • Involves construction of a major new hospital
Hospital facility.
(Ontario) . Several currently under construction under a �� o
Finance-Design-Build-Maintain model. �8'2�0
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/
Durham • Durham Consolidated Courthouse will be a modern,
Consolidated integrated facility that will consolidate Superior
Courthouse Court and Ontario Court justice services currently
(Ontario) delivered from eight locations across the Durham � �� 11.47%
region.
• The building will house 33 courtrooms, three
motions rooms,two conference/settlement rooms � -
and related justice services.
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/
gg 217 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Implementation
considerations
� •
• � ' . • • • ' . •
�•
t
a•
>
,
�
_ 1
",
y ;�
' � � • � `.'.,,, . ,`
• •�r' •• '; `�`e'::.:�"{'��
' �� ++r/'�
: �� � �:;��''3�{
` ltfi/a^!�ry',�f
,�y� .�•.;� .�
Overview of implementation considerations
If the City moves forward with a bundled P3 approach to the development of the Police HQ and parking facility, the following
implementation elements will need to be considered and addressed:
1. Procurement Approach and Timing
— This implementation element involves decisions on the structure of the procurement approach, including tender documentation
and market timing.
2. Partner Coordination
— This implementation element involves identifying key project partners, understanding key project linkages, and establishing
project management, communications and other protocols to coordinate efforts to ensure project success.
3. Project Resourcing and Management Structure
— This implementation element involves decisions by the City on its internal project management approach to support the
procurement and execution of the overall Peel Plaza redevelopment, including project resourcing, organizational structure and
accountability relationships.
4. Market Engagement
— This implementation element involves crafting an approach to engaging the market to elicit an optimal market response and
essential feedback to refine detailed elements of the project delivery model and deal structure to ensure resultant competitive
tension and the success of the procurement and execution of the major infrastructure projects involved with the Peel Plaza
redevelopment.
5. Stakeholder Communication and Engagement
— This implementation element involves the City developing a communication and engagement plan that ensures appropriate
community and stakeholder involvement during the procurement and execution of the delivery of the City's major infrastructure
investments in the Peel Plaza redevelopment.
g� 219 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Procurement approach and timing
• The objective of the bidding process is to choose a suitable partner, on the best possible terms—a partner with the skills,
experience and resources necessary to secure the desired services in the most efficient way possible.
• In general, the more competitive and transparent the process for choosing a contractual partner, the greater the likelihood
that the best possible deal will be achieved and that the deal will be sustainable over the long-term.
• In Canada, government sponsors of major infrastructure projects are generally following a two-step procurement process.
The first step involves developing and issuing a request for qualifications (RFQ) to short list qualified proponents to
participate in step two of the process, the request for proposals (RFP) stage.
• For Peel Plaza, the City would be well served by this two-step process that would assist in accomplishing two inter-related
objectives. The first would be to enable the City to go to market quickly in order to demonstrate its commitment to the Peel
Plaza redevelopment.
• The second objective that would be achieved by this process would be to engage potential bidders in a robust, structured
dialogue on further refining an optimal approach to procuring, delivering and managing the Police HQ and parking facility.
Figure 19 on the next slide outlines this process in more detail and includes a high-level discussion of the purpose and
objectives of both steps.
• This two-step process has been efficient in the past since we have worked in parallel contributing to both processes, the
RFQ and RFP stages.
92 220 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Procurement approach and timing
. - .
. . - .
Figure 19 — Peel Plaza Procurement Approach
- - . - • � . . • Request for Proposals �
Purpose Purpose
• To establish a short-list of qualified • To select a successful proponent to
proponents to bid on the project deliver the project based on
RFP. selected delivery model and project
specifications.
Objective
• Qualify a short-list of proponents Objective
with the experience and track record • Select strongest proponent to
of delivering projects of similar size deliver project.
and complexity in the Canadian or • Use the process to further optimize
international marketplace. the deal structure.
• Undertake Commercially
Confidential Meetings (CCMs)with
bidders during the RFQ open period
to solicit feedback on the project in
order to refine project delivery
elements and enabling transaction.
93 221 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Procurement approach and timing
. - .
. . - .
• A typical procurement process takes approximately one year to complete. Undertaking the development of the RFP at the
same time as the RFQ can reduce the timeline to selecting a Preferred Proponent and commencing construction of the
facilities.
Figure 20 — General Project Procurement Timeline
. - .
. • . . -
— Establish Submittal Requirements �
— DeVelop RFQ and Issue RFQ released by end of February
— Response Period �
RFQ PrOCess — Conduct Completeness Review �
— Conduct Financial and Technical Reviews �
Qualified Proponents identified at
— Identify Qualified Proponents beginning of April 2009
— Identify Deal Parameters and Submittal �
Requirements
— DeVelop RFP and Issue RFP issued at beginning of April 2009
— Response Period 1�
��
— Conduct Completeness Review �
RFP Process
— Conduct Financial and Technical Reviews
Preferred Proponent identified in early
— Identify Selected Bidder ,luly 2009
— Negotiate Final Project Agreement �
— Financial Close for Bidder �� Shoveis in ground in
October 2009
94 222 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Procurement approach and timing —
. - .
The current economic environment � • - - ��
• The global economy is facing some of its toughest challenges in recent history. The crisis that has hit the world's financial
markets is bringing many economies to the brink of recession.
• Governments in Canada have stated that investments in public infrastructure projects will be at the core of fiscal stimulus
packages aimed at combating the local impacts of the troubled global economy. However, the crisis in world credit
markets is causing some challenges for public-private partnerships (P3s) to deliver major public infrastructure projects.
• Our point of view, informed by our discussions with government and private sector participants in Canada's infrastructure
markets, is that P3s continue to make sense for governments looking to achieve substantial risk transfer and these
partnerships can be a major driver of economic stimulus to help Canada weather the current economic storm.
• Since mid-September, Deloitte has been in the market talking to major financiers, developers, operators and government
sponsors in the Canadian infrastructure market to help our clients understand how they can navigate their projects
through the economic turmoil. The message from these discussions is consistent — a long-term focus is needed to get
through short-term challenges. These challenges included:
— Limited debt capacity— Major European banks that once provided the bulk of long-term bank financing for Canadian projects have
significantly curtailed long-term lending.
— Volatile credit spreads— Private sector and Canadian governments are both experiencing volatility in the cost of debt financing.
— Pressure on procurement processes -The volatility in the credit markets means that financiers of major infrastructure are unable
to hold their pricing for the 90 to 120 days once expected which is placing real pressure and strain on government procurement
processes.
• Working with government sponsors across Canada, Deloitte has developed successful strategies to ensure that important
infrastructure projects reach viable and sustainable financial close for the benefit, and in support, of the objectives of our
public sector sponsors.
95 223 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Procurement approach and timing —
. - .
The current economic environment � • - - ��
• While these challenges are attracting a great deal of attention, the viability of P3 projects is supported by the strong and
sound underlying fundamentals that include:
— Stable risk profile—The risk profile of major infrastructure projects has not changed. Investors still see public infrastructure
projects as lower risk investments that deliver strong and stable cash flows.
— Available Capital — Financing is still available for major public infrastructure projects, however, the methods for tapping into
available sources of capital are changing with long-term bank financing being replaced by short-term bank financings, bond
financings and private placements to large institutional investors.
— Robust Deal Pipelines —The Canadian market has experienced strong and consistent deal flow, with robust project pipelines in
place across the country. The private sector continues to invest and prepare themselves to compete and win these planned major
projects.
• Most infrastructure market participants we have interviewed believe that credit markets will begin to normalize in the
spring of 2009, which is an around the time Saint John will be in the market with its Peel Plaza projects.
gg 224 OO Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Partner coordination
. - .
. . - .
• The City has three principal partners currently engaged in
the major infrastructure investment involved in the Peel
Plaza redevelopment— the Police Commission, the Figure 21 — Coordination Model
Parking Commission and the Province of New Brunswick
(through Service New Brunswick). These partners are all
represented on the Peel Plaza Steering Committee. The � Strategic
Steering Committee has to this point been focused on a • Direction
mix of strategic and project level considerations related to �
the redevelopment of the Plaza area. Going forward, it will
be necessary to: (i) refine the role of the Steering
Committee to focus its efforts and decision-making on
strategic matters; and (ii) establish a sub-group of the �Technical Direction
Steering Committee with responsibility for coordinating the . � _ � � and Daily
efforts and interests of the various partners at a project Coordination
level on a day-to-day basis.
• The project level sub-group should be composed of • This delineation of responsibility along strategic and
technical, staff level representatives focused on project level considerations should enable the City to
operationalizing coordination and cooperation on the appropriately engage key partners in the delivery of the
structuring of the project, developing and executing project while sustaining the required level of momentum
procurement processes and implementing necessary to move the project forward. This delineation
communications protocols. The sub-group should also will likely be most critical when the City and province need
have responsibility for deciding matters of a technical to coordinate their respective procurement processes and
nature (i.e., design, legal, financial) and have discretion on construction activities in the Plaza.
which matters would need to be considered by the
Steering Committee.
97 225 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Project resourcing and management structure
. - .
. . - .
• A project with the size and scope of Peel Plaza requires Figure 22 — Project Management Structure
the dedication of appropriate human and financial
resources and an accountability and communication
structure that will facilitate the efficient and effective . .
execution of both the procurement process and project
delivery.
• A Steering committee is in place for the Peel Plaza ' • ' �
redevelopment with all key partners and stakeholders ' '
engaged in the project's development. The City has
appointed a project manager and the a next step should •
be to retain the remaining key advisors for the — ' �
assignment. As Figure 22 illustrates, there are three
essential types of advisors required to support the delivery
of the project— transaction and financial, legal and
technical —that can be sourced from internal capacity and
third party firms. Each of these advisors plays an
important role in supporting the development and
execution of the procurement process (RFQ and RFP),
supporting the City in negotiating the final project ' � '
� . .
• . .
agreement with a selected proponent and advising the
City on the performance of the preferred proponent from
the period post-financial close to the commissioning of the r——————————————————————I
infrastructure assets. I I
.�
I � � � . � I
� �. -- - '
I � I
I I
-----------------------
gg 226 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Project resourcing and management structure
. - .
. . - .
Project Manager
• The project manager's responsibilities should include delivering the project and managing members of the project team,
including external advisors and consultants. The project manager requires a good understanding of government
processes and excellent business skills for negotiating and developing the project arrangement.
Transaction and Financial Advisors
• The City has retained Deloitte as their transaction and financial advisor responsible for providing the following advice:
Table 9 — Transaction and Financial Advisory Services
. � . . � . .
• Advice on structuring procurement process, including setting out required • Advice on scoping the project;
tender documentation; • Assistance with preparation of a business case;
• Developing procurement evaluation framework; and • Assistance in sounding out the market and raising the profile of the project
• Assisting the City in evaluating responses to RFQ and RFP documents. (in conjunction with the project manager);
• Assistance in developing the reference project and any value-for-money
benchmark(s);
• Advice on carrying out risk analysis,and identification and quantification of
risk(although this can often be undertaken by procurers themselves in
conjunction with technical advisors);
• Structuring and drafting the bid documentation to ensure good quality
responses(e.g.,clarification of expected risk transfer);
• Providing detailed financial evaluation criteria;
• Assistance with reviewing bids; and
• Providing financial advice and support during negotiations with bidders to
contract signing.
gg 227 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Project resourcing and management structure
. - .
. . - .
Legal Advisors
• After assessing in-house expertise, particular areas where external legal advice may be appropriate (without duplicating
financial advice) include:
— Interpreting all transaction, financial and business terms into contract language;
— structuring the transaction and advising on the procurement approach to be taken;
— advice on contractual issues with the tender documentation, and any other project agreements;
— contract drafting; and
— other legal advice (e.g., taxation, intellectual property; corporate finance, banking, etc.).
• The City should look to retain external legal counsel with project finance and/or P3 experience.
Technical Advisors
• The technical advisors that the City may need to retain include architects, engineers, contract managers and other
technical professionals. The City will need to be clear about what technical advice is required, particularly over and above
the skills that may exist in-house or from their financial advisors. Specific technical advice may be of particular use, for
example, in the following areas:
— assisting to define output specifications for the Police HQ and parking facility;
— drafting technical aspects of tender documents;
— technical evaluation of proposals and bids, including capability of contractors;
— quality assurance during the construction phase together with arrangements for sampling contractor compliance;
— estimating the value of assets; and
— technical aspects of facilities and their lifecycle management.
100 228 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Project resourcing and management structure
. - .
. . - .
• It will be important for the City to retain advisors with experience in project finance and public private partnerships.
Retaining the right expertise will assist the City in keeping the project on track and structuring a deal that will deliver value
to taxpayers. The role of the project manager will be critical to ensuring the appropriate level of coordination and
communication amongst all project partners (i.e., steering committee, staff, and advisors) to deliver the project.
101 229 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Market engagement
. - .
. . - .
• An increasing number of municipalities across the country are exploring and/or using P3s to deliver critical municipal
infrastructure assets ranging from transit facilities to roads to special purpose facilities. Municipalities currently using or
exploring P3s include; the Region of Waterloo, the City of Winnipeg, the Region of Durham, and the City of Saskatoon.
(See Appendix C for additional information on municipal P3s).
Table 10 — Canadian Municipal P3 Projects
. . . .
� . . .
Region of Rapid Transit Initiative The Region's Rapid Transit Initiative is currently going through the Environmental
Waterloo Assessment process. The Region is fully exploring the use of public-private partnerships to
deliver the project.
Winnipeg Bridge, police station, road, The City of Winnipeg has completed business cases on the use of public-private
and water pollution control partnerships for the delivery of a number of critical infrastructure assets. The City has
centre tendered a bridge refurbishment project as a P3.
Region of Energy from Waste(EFW) The Region has tendered its EFW facility as a design-build-operate P3 and is in the process
Durham project($200M) of accepting bids from qualified private sector proponents.
Saskatoon New Police Headquarters The City of Saskatoon is exploring P3 options for the delivery of a new Police HQ facility.
($90M)
City of Toronto Expansion and Capital The proceeds from ancillary land sales to a private sector developer all delivered via a P3
Improvements—Sony Centre structure.
for the Performing Arts
• A number of the municipalities identified above undertook consultations with the market after deciding to use a P3 delivery
option. If the City of Saint John decides to use a P3 delivery approach, an immediate next step would be to proceed to
test the market's interest in delivering the major infrastructure investments in the Peel Plaza redevelopment as a P3 by
consulting with interested bidders (eg. information session).
102 230 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Market engagement
. - .
. . - .
Undertaking market consultations will be critical to assisting the City in: (i) refining its P3 structure for the project; and (ii)
timing the entry of the project into a very robust Atlantic Canadian infrastructure market.
I. Refining the P3 Structure
• As noted earlier, a number of significant P3 projects are in the market, or pipeline, in Atlantic Canada.
• According to feedback received from the market soundings conducted for the preparation of this report, this activity is
stimulating a high degree of competition for private sector resources and investment.
• The risk profile of a bundled P3 project will need to be informed by the feedback provided by market participants in order
to attract high quality bidders to the project and to generate sufficient competitive tension to deliver the best value to local
taxpayers.
II. Market Timing
• The high level of activity in the Atlantic Canada infrastructure market combined with the current liquidity challenges in the
world's financial markets requires that the City carefully structure the transaction process to: (i) provide potential bidders
with the time they will require to respond and bid on the project; and (ii) position the project to be successfully financed -
whether the borrower is the City or a private sector partner.
• With respect to the latter, Deloitte has conducted comprehensive consultations with key infrastructure market financiers,
bidders and government sponsors, and there is a general agreement that the capital markets should stabilize in the
second quarter of 2009.
103 231 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Market engagement
. - .
. . - .
Conclusion Figure 23 — Medium Term Outlook for Atlantic Canada
In summary, an increasing number of Canadian Infrastructure Investment
• municipalities are using, or exploring, P3 solutions for ' At present,the Atlantic Canada market is experiencing a high level of
infrastructure development activity.This level of activity is likely to be
major infrastructure projects and market participants are sustained based on planning underway and described below.
responding positively to those projects currently in the Nova Scotia
market. Saint John will need to craft a deal structure and • The provincial government retained Partnerships BC(PBC)to conduct
transaction process that best positions its bundled P3 in a feasibility studies on ten proposed infrastructure projects in order to examine
robust, CO�'Tlp@tItIV@ AtIaC1tIC CanaCla �"T1a1"I(@tplaC@. whether these projects are good candidates for a P3 model. PBC's study has
indicated that seven projects may be suitable for a P3 model: including
correctional facilities in Antigonish and Cumberland County,the"twinning"of
a section of Highway 104, and rehabilitation of a trunk radio system used by
first responder emergency crews. PBC is now in the process of preparing
business cases for these projects.
• The province has received$634 M in funding from the federal government for
infrastructure,with $198 M of this amount provided under the Building
Canada program for major infrastructure.
Atlantic Gateway Initiative
• Various business groups in the region have advocated for an "Atlantic
Gateway Strategy"involving the construction of new infrastructure to take
advantage of Halifax's geographic importance in the shipping industry.These
groups have published studies proposing the following projects as part of
their overall strategy: (i)construction of a new inland container terminal
nearby Halifax Airport; (ii)improvements to Halifax's ports to increase
capacity;and (iii)improvements to highway infrastructure to support trans-
shipment. In particular,the Atlantic Gateway Initiative has focused on
development of a new Burnside-Sackville expressway.
• The federal government signed an MOU with the Atlantic provinces, pledging
to develop an integrated Atlantic Gateway strategy by October of 2009
through the Atlantic Gateway Federal-Provincial Officials Committee.The
Committee's mandate includes,among other things: (i)identification of an
appropriate approach for involvement of the private sector; and (ii)supporting
and participating in the development of an Atlantic Gateway business case.
104 232 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Stakeholder engagement and communications
. - .
. . - .
• As the case studies and market soundings conducted for this • The City may wish to review and employ relevant practices
report note, effectively engaging and communicating with from Ontario and otherjurisdictions to support communications
stakeholders is critical to the success of any project. The City around the development of core infrastructure assets in Peel
should develop, execute and monitor both external and internal plaza.
stakeholder engagement and communications plans.
External Engagement and Communications Figure 24 — Peel Plaza External Stakeholders
• The City has been proactive in engaging the community on the
redevelopment of Peel Plaza and communicating the results of
all consultations and Council decisions via the Peel Plaza
website at http://www.citvofsaintiohn.com/peelplaza. This high . � _ �
level of communication and engagement should continue as -
the City moves forward with the development of the Police HQ . .
and parking facility through a bundled P3 approach. • .
• Canadian jurisdictions that are successfully using P3s to deliver � �
projects are focused on open, regular communication and /
engagement with all project partners. Engagement and
communication approaches the City should investigate include: . _ _ .
— Making the Peel Plaza website more interactive to foster a . � _
dialogue with the community, including housing information on
P3s;
— Proactive meetings with key stakeholders and town hall forums `
with the community; and I
— Leveraging the assistance and membership of community based � '� Taxpayers
organizations such as the Board of Trade to educate the Bidder
community on P3s and to get the message out about the Peel Community
Plaza redevelopment and the City`s major investments in the area.
105 233 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Stakeholder engagement and communications
. - .
. . - .
Figure 25 — Peel Plaza External Stakeholders Internal Engagement and Communications
• For the Police Commission and members of the Saint John
Police Force, the development of a new Police HQ facility is of
the highest priority and efforts will need to be made by the City,
. . in cooperation with the Commission, to communicate the
• progress of the project and to fully explain the benefits of a P3
approach in constructing and maintaining the facility.
• The engagement and communications tactics used for internal
stakeholders will likely differ in some respect to those used for
external stakeholders. Ideas that the City should consider
include:
=- •- • — An interactive intranet with a blog that provides timely
' . - � ''" updates to stakeholders;
� � — Regularly schedule update meetings to communicate
progress and obtain feedback; and
— Proactive distribution of Council reports on Peel Plaza
decisions.
� • The City should consult with internal stakeholders to ascertain
. . the kind of information they will require, the frequency with
which this information will need to be communicated, and the
preferred method(s)for communication and engagement, and
• Internal stakeholders should receive the same engagement develop an engagement and communication plan that will
and communications focus as external stakeholders. The key deliver on these expectations.
internal stakeholders for the Peel Plaza redevelopment include
the Police and Parking commissions, Common Council and ' The success of the Peel Plaza redevelopment is dependent on
bargaining agents. successful collaboration among all stakeholders.
106 234 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Implementation considerations —
. - .
Summary of findings � • - - ��
The findings of this section are:
• Procurement Approach and Timing
— The City should undertake a two-step process (beginning with an RFQ followed by an RFP) that will enable it to: (i) quickly
demonstrate its commitment to the Peel Plaza redevelopment; and (ii) engage potential bidders in a robust, structured dialogue
that will assist in further refining the optimal approach to procuring, delivering and managing the Police HQ and parking facility. An
RFQ should be issued in the market in early February..
• Partner Coordination
— The City should refine the role of the Peel Plaza Steering Committee to focus its efforts and decision-making on strategic matters
and establish a sub-group of the Steering Committee with responsibility for coordinating the efforts and interests of the various
partners at a project level on a day-to-day basis.
— The project level sub-group should be composed of technical, staff level representatives focused on operationalizing coordination
and cooperation with the province, on the structuring of the project, developing and executing procurement processes and
implementing communications protocols. The sub-group should also have the responsibility for deciding matters of a technical
nature (i.e., design, legal, financial) and have discretion on which matters would need to be considered by the Steering
Committee.
• Project Resourcing and Management
— A project with the size and scope of Peel Plaza requires the dedication of appropriate human and financial resources and an
accountability and communication structure that will facilitate the efficient and effective execution of both the procurement process
and project delivery.
— It will be important for the City to retain legal and technical advisors with experience in project finance and public private
partnerships. Retaining the right expertise will assist the City in keeping the project on track and structuring a deal that will deliver
value to taxpayers. The City has designated a project manager whose responsibility should include ensuring the appropriate level
of coordination and communication amongst all project partners to deliver the project.
107 235 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Implementation considerations —
. - .
Summary of findings � • - - ��
• Market Consultation
— If the City of Saint John decides to use a P3 delivery option, an immediate next step should be to proceed to test the market's
interest in delivering the Police HQ and parking facility as a bundled P3 by consulting with interested bidders. This should be done
via commercially confidential meetings with participants prior to the release of the RFP. Undertaking market consultations will be
critical to assisting the City in: (i) refining its P3 structure for the project; and (ii) ensuring that the value and benefit to the City is
maximized by considering acceptable bidder feedback in structuring the transaction.
• Stakeholder Engagement and Communications
— The City should develop, execute and monitor both external and internal proactive stakeholder engagement and communications
plans.
— As the City moves forward with the development of the Police HQ and parking facility through a bundled P3 approach, progress
should be regularly communicated on the Peel Plaza website at http://www.citvofsaintiohn.com/peelplaza. Additional engagement
and communication approaches the City should investigate include:
— Making the Peel Plaza website more interactive to foster a dialogue with the community, including housing information on P3s;
— Proactive meetings with key stakeholders and town hall forums with the community; and
— Leveraging the assistance and membership of community based organizations such as the Board of Trade to educate the community on
P3s, get the message out about the Peel Plaza redevelopment and the City major investments in the area.
108 236 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 5
Implementation considerations —
. - .
Summary of findings � • - - ��
• Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Cont'd...
— Internal stakeholders should receive the same level of engagement and communications focus as external stakeholders. The
engagement and communications tactics used for internal stakeholders will likely differ in some respect to those used for external
stakeholders. Ideas that the City should consider include:
— An interactive intranet with a blog that provides timely updates to stakeholders;
— Regularly scheduled update meetings to communicate progress and obtain feedback; and
— Proactive distribution of Council reports on Peel Plaza decisions.
— The City should consult with internal stakeholders to ascertain the kind of information they will require, the frequency with which
this information will need to be communicated, and the preferred method(s)for communication and engagement, and develop an
engagement and communication plan that will deliver on these expectations.
109 237 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 6
. . - .
. . . . .
•
ec lon
Recommendations
�
J
`\ / `\
��
238
Step 6
Recommendations
. . - .
. . . . .
A bundled P3 approach inclusive of the Police HQ and parking facility would be the most appropriate if the City of
Saint John decides to pursue the development of these infrastructure assets as P3 projects. Therefore, it is
recommended that City staff:
1. Seek Council approval to proceed with the following two step procurement process provided that there is a satisfactory
response from the market at each stage of the procurement process and value for money can be achieved through the
P3 model:
— Prepare and issue an RFQ for the purposes of selecting a short-list of qualified bidders to submit proposals to a project RFP.
— Prepare and issue an RFP to Qualified Proponents that includes a Project Agreement for the purposes of selecting a preferred
proponent to deliver the Police HQ and parking facility.
2. Report back to Council on whether to use public or private sector financing for the bundled P3 project, after further
diligence and market based consultations can be completed to support decision-making on this issue.
3. Undertake commercially confidential meetings, with the assistance of their advisors, prior to the release of and during the
RFP process to further refine the P3 approach, including capturing the proper level of risk allocation to the private sector
to ensure that value for money is achieved.
4. Seek Council approval to have the full time project manager develop a resource plan to manage the bundled P3
transaction throughout the entire lifecycle of the project including identifying and retaining required internal project
management and external advisor services.
5. Work with key stakeholders to refine the role of the Peel Plaza Steering Committee to focus its efforts and decision-
making on strategic matters and establish a sub-group of the Steering Committee, to be led by the project manager, with
responsibility for coordinating the efforts and interests of the various partners at a project level on a day-to-day basis. The
project level sub-group should be composed of technical, staff level representatives focused on operationalizing
coordination and cooperation on the structuring of the project, developing and executing procurement processes and
implementing communications protocols. The sub-group should also have the responsibility for deciding matters of a
technical nature (i.e., design, legal, financial) and have discretion on which matters would need to be considered by the
Steering Committee.
111 239 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Step 6
Recommendations
. . - .
. . . . .
5. Develop and implement proactive and effective external and internal stakeholder engagement and communications plans
that promote an open and transparent forum to facilitate the transfer of information between stakeholders and the City.
6. Proceed with the refurbishment of the Arts Centre as a stand alone traditional procurement and that planning commence
around the longer term options for the expansion of the facility, including the development of a comprehensive business
case analysis on the optimal use of the facility in the future to achieve the broader community based vision for Peel
Plaza.
7. Further explore with its advisors and the marketplace the inclusion of the assembled ancillary lands within Peel Plaza as
an innovation component of the bundled P3 transaction, with the objective of: (i) strengthening the commercial viability of
the bundled P3 transaction by advancing private sector interest in the Peel Plaza redevelopment and increasing
competitive tension for the transaction; and (ii) achieving a significant fiscal benefit (through the sale, lease or monetized
concession over the lands) that could be used to support other municipal investment priorities inside or outside the Peel
Plaza redevelopment.
112 240 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
•
en 1�
Overview of project delivery models
..�
;, �.
;a
��r � �,
_-� �� �_�
e � 8_;
,.
. .
241
Traditional delivery model
. . . . .
.. - -
• Owns all land and
infrastructure.
� • Undertakes all stakeholder
consultation.
• Completes Environmental
Assessment and obtains other
approvals.
� - • • • • Provides capital funding
through traditional debt
financing.
• Detailed design of infrastructure � Construction of asset under a . provides all operational
under conventional design conventional tender - bid - build
contract, including construction contract. funding.
administration services. • Provides overall project
administration / oversight
• Payment to private designer
� and contractor operator for
operations.
• Operates and maintains the
asset.
Contract with a Private Designer Contract with Private Constructor
Administration and
Management of Asset
114 242 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Design-Build-Operate & Maintain model
. . . . .
. - -
• Owns all land and
' - - infrastructure.
• Undertakes all stakeholder
consultation.
� � • Completes Environmental
� � Assessment.
• Provides capital funding
through traditional debt
� - � • • � - • financing.
• Provides all operational
• Obtains approvals (other than • Operates and maintains the funding.
• Provides overall project
� Environmental Assessment). asset. administration / oversight
• • Detailed design of • Obtains performance based
• infrastructure under a design- payments from the • Sets design / construction
build contract. Government. specifications and operational
• Obtains single payment from performance standards.
� Government at substantial • Payment to General
completion based upon Contractor at substantial
, satisfactory completion of completion based on
� construction. inspection against
• Private Sector provides specifications.
construction financing to fund • Payment to Private Operation
obligations prior to substantial based on compliance with
completion. performance standards.
Administration and
Bundled Design-Build-Operate Management of Asset
Contract with Single Consortium
�� 243 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Finance-Design-Build-Operate & Maintain model
. . . . .
.
• Owns all land and
• " infrastructure.
• Financial interests related to
the license / lease transfer
back to Governrnent at
' ' completion of the term.
• Ownership of asset reverts to
Government at termination.
� - � • • � - � • Undertakes all stakeholder
consultation.
• Obtains approvals (other • Financial interests related to • Complete Environmental
than Environmental the license / lease may be Assessment.
� Assessment). sold, during the concession • Provides all operational
• • Detailed design of period. funding to cover performance
infrastructure under a • Provides private equity and based availability payments.
design-build contract. long-term financing. • Provides overall project
� • Provides construction • Operates and maintains the
administration / oversight.
financing to fund obligations asset. • Sets design / construction
, priorto substantial • Obtains performance based specificationsand operational
� completion. availability payments from performance standards.
the Government to cover • performance based
operational, debt, tax and availability payments.
investment requirements.
Administration and
Long Term Concession or License Management of Asset
11� 244 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
•
en 1�
Peel Plaza market soundings
�
245
Peel Plaza market soundings -
Purpose and participants
• Deloitte conducted high level market soundings with stakeholders whose names were provided by the City of Saint John.
The market soundings were conducted between November 24 and December 19, 2008, via conference call. The purpose
of the market soundings was to guage private sector interest in the investing in Peel Plaza and to ascertain from all the
stakeholders interviewed what they perceived to be the key opportunities and challenges to development. All participants
were asked the following questions:
— What do you believe to be the development opportunities in Peel Plaza?
— What do you believe to be some of the key challenges to development in Peel Plaza?
— As you may know, the City is exploring the use of a public-private partnership to deliver the new Police HQ, parking facility and
the refurbishment of the Arts Centre. What is your organization's position on using a public-private partnership for these projects?
What interest would your organization/firm have in entering into a public-private partnership with the City of Saint John to develop
these assets?
• The following figure presents the firms and/or organizations that participated in the market soundings. The feedback
obtained from these discussions is presented herein without attribution. If the City decides to pursue a bundled P3
transaction, more focused market soundings with potential bidders are strongly advised.
Rob&Umberto Roca
(EECA/AECE)
Imelda Gilman
(Saint John Board of Bob Justason&Jerry
Trade) � r � Pond
(Mariner Partner5)
Ma rket Peter asimakos
Troy Northrup � � (Uptown SaintJOhn
(NOrthrupGroup) Soundings Inc.)
� y
Mike McGraw
Colin Whitcomb (RedROSe
(Hardman Group) Development)
118 246 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza market soundings -
Feedback
Buildings and Structures
• The market soundings revealed an interest in building apartments, condominiums, seniors complexes, or commercial
space above the proposed parking facility.
• The majority of the participants interviewed felt that it was important to preserve the existing heritage and cultural assets
in the development area. This could be achieved by developing and expanding behind the existing structures.
• Maintaining and expanding the existing pedway system was a common theme in all the discussions.
• Some participants suggested the implementation of a `green' development strategy.
• All participants expect the Peel Plaza redevelopment to catalyze further development in the surrounding areas.
119 247 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza market soundings -
Feedback
Public-Private Partnerships and Project Financing
• Most every participant felt that the City should explore all avenues including the implementation of a P3 model. However,
a number of participants emphasized the need for the community to be educated on P3s in order to foster understanding
and support.
• Several participants noted that P3 are not new in Atlantic Canada - referencing ongoing and completed P3 projects in
Atlantic Canada when discussing the region's P3 experience.
• Openness and transparency on project costs is important to the community. Adoption of a fiscally responsible funding
model that does not increase taxes for local residents and the business community is paramount.
• Those expressing interest in involvement with the parking facility have identified it as a "loss leader". A wide range of
financing methods were considered through the market sounding discussions with positive feedback including availability
based, private ownership, co-ownership, and long term leasing arrangements.
120 248 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza market soundings -
Feedback
Perceived Trends and Demographics
• Market soundings participants perceive the North of Union area as an area undergoing significant rejuvenation.
• Several participants were of the opinion that there are great development opportunities in the area due to its proximity with
existing amenities including restaurants, banks, and local businesses.
• It was the opinion of a few of the market sounding participants that developers are looking to invest in residential and
commercial opportunities targeted at creative occupations and the young professional class demographic.
• A number of market sounding participants believed that the pedway system is an important component of the
development because Peel Plaza is expected to be developed in a manner which allows for the community to live, work,
and play in the area.
• A number of the participants also stated that focus needs to be placed on visions of a "streetscape" and proposed cultural
district.
121 249 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Peel Plaza market soundings -
Feedback
Peel Plaza Development Challenges
• Participants identified issues and challenges with the current process for the redevelopment of Peel Plaza.
• A consistent message communicated by all participants was the need for a master development plan for the area —
particularly with respect to vision and zoning for the ancillary lands being assembled by the City. There was some
divergence in opinion on what structures within Peel Plaza are heritage and should be protected. The definition of a
heritage property was inconsistent amongst some participants.
• A number of market sounding participants highlighted the need for stakeholders to be informed of the plans and progress
of the redevelopment— particularly the progress of the new Policy HQ and parking facility. Meetings with key stakeholders
such as business, heritage and cultural groups was proposed to address a perceived lack of communication between the
City and stakeholders.
• Participants also identified challenges in properly planning the redevelopment of Peel Plaza. One participant stated the
that the City needs to have adequate resources in the planning department to deliver the project.
• With respect to participating in the design, construction operation and maintenance of City facilities in the Plaza, a number
of participants stated that developers will need to be consulted in the planning and design phase of the project because of
capacity issues within Atlantic Canada. These same participants emphasized the importance of achieving a sufficient
transaction size to make the project attractive in Atlantic Canada's robust infrastructure development environment.
�22 250 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
l
•
en 1� , � , -
� '
_.�---- : -- .
; _ _
.�,-- ,
.� �� . -
Inter-jurisdictional case studies � �
. �
\ .
� . .
. � !:is � L
��''
� '
.'��
, ,� \ ' 'n
,� a
`� �
251
J ustice faci I ities -
Some noteworthy trends
• The most popular delivery model forjustice facilities involve transferring most of the design risk to the private partner.
• Due to the public nature of the structures, stakeholder buy-in is especially critical to the success and acceptance of any
P3 structure.
• It is important to prepare staff for any cultural changes that may result from the transfer of employment to the private
partner as a result of the implementation of the project agreement.
. . . .
• Provides insight into Canadian justice PPP's;
Durham Consolidated Courthouse • One of the first justice P3s in the province of Ontario;
• A great example of a successful P3 development in this sector.
• The asset being procured is a police headquarters
Kent Police Authority, UK • Provides guidance on the appropriate measures that need to be in place for success
during the concession phase
124 252 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Durham consolidated courthouse
Description
• The Government of Ontario wanted to consolidate its Durham Region justice facilities into one 446,000 sq ft, 33
courtroom, LEED certified structure with holding facilities and public spaces.
• The deal involved a 33 month construction period and a 30 year maintenance contract. The Government will make annual
payments of CAD 19.75M for the lease of the space. Following the 30 year concession, ownership of the property will
revert back to the Government.
• Risks transferred to the private sector include risks associated with construction, completion and lifecycle costs. In
addition, the annual payments include the full cost of hard facilities management (such as utilities and waste
management), soft facilities management (such as cleaning) and lifecycle costs (such as re-flooring and replacement of
mechanical equipment).
• Soft facilities management payments will be renegotiated every 5 years in light of the market price for these services at
the time
Lessons Learned
• A partnership with appropriate leadership should be established early in the process to bring together stakeholders,
assess the risks, and build trust and consensus.
Sources: Infrastructure Journal; Deloitte Research; Infrastructure Ontario
125 253 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Kent Police Authority: Medway Police HQ
Description
• The Kent County Police Authority in the UK wanted to procure a 86,000 sq ft headquarters with office accommodation, 40
cell custody suite and specialist investigation offices to replace three buildings in order to deliver the majority of police
services from a single location.
• A P3 financing structure was used as this project is part of a larger move towards increased privatization in the UK.
• The partner consortium was granted a 30 year private financing initiative (PFI, the UK Governments term for P3's)
contract which included the provision of front counter services and two `police shops' located in adjacent town centre's. At
the end of the concession period the property will revert back to public ownership.
• A follow up report issued by the Kent Police Authority found that staff attitudes towards the project were more positive
than negative when compared to the previous accommodation.
Lessons Learned
• The building was delivered 9 months later than anticipated. However, the review report comments that the consensus of
stakeholder opinion was that value for money had been achieved through the project.
• (continued overleaf)
126 254 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Kent Police Authority: Medway Police HQ
Lessons Learned (cont'd)
• The review found that the lack of a Memorandum of Understanding between stakeholder groups involved in the project
meant that their roles and responsibilities were not sufficiently clarified. Without reference to expectations against which to
assess performance, there is an increased likelihood of issues being missed.
• Communication is critical. A lack of communication between different project stakeholders meant that staff were ill-
prepared for some of the changes that were to occur as a result of the P3. For example, some staff did not anticipate
losing access to kitchen facilities. More seriously, the ill-communicated transfer of some employees to the facilities
management company lead to feelings of disillusionment and abandonment.
• Changes in processes should be documented and justified, especially when they relate to contract provisions. The lack of
documentation formalizing and explaining changes in certain processes were viewed as unnecessary by stakeholders.
The report acknowledges that this could have been avoided if staff at the local level were better informed about contract
provisions resulting from the new facilities management arrangement.
Sources: Journal; PPP Journal; Partnerships UK; www.kentnews.co.uk; Kent Police Authority Audit and Finance Committee
Report; Reliance Security website
127 255 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Parki ng faci I ities -
Some noteworthy trends
• Parking P3's usually involve long term leases or concessions where the private partner undertakes the operations and
maintenance of the parking structure;
• When they are executed with design and build elements, they are usually bundled in with other assets — ex. hospitals,
airports etc;
• The costs of operating these facilities can decline substantially as a result of increased private involvement;
• Parking fees are generally not regulated when a long term lease/temporary privatization.
. . . .
• This is the largest parking P3's in North America and one of the most widely
publicised.
City of Chicago Parking Lease
• Offers a perspective into the way parking P3's can be utilized to benefit the
municipality's finances and its ability to meet the expectations of its population
128 256 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Chicago parking long-term lease
Description
• The City of Chicago signed a 99-year lease agreement to have a private partner operate, manage, maintain and collect
parking fees and other revenues related to a over 9,000-space parking system in downtown Chicago. This is the first
transaction of its kind in the US.
• The full amount of the rent was to be prepaid to the city, which is consistent with the city's desire to monetize its holdings
of four downtown parking garages, reduce traffic congestion, and offload the political risk of raising parking prices in the
downtown core. The transaction also allowed the city to retire debt and free up funds to repair other existing parking
structures.
• According to Parking Today magazine, the deal yielded higher profits than originally expected as a result of later-
discovered management and accounting issues in the parking facility operated by the city.
• Parking fees were not regulated as part of the concession.
Lessons Learned
• The lease of parking facilities offers municipalities an opportunity to monetize their current assets and invest proceeds
towards their core competencies.
Sources: Infrastructure Journal; Constructor magazine; Parking Today magazine; Streetsblog.org; Chicago Park District
Annual Report; the Bond Buyer Magazine
�29 257 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Arts faci I ities -
Some noteworthy trends
• There are few examples of the use of public-private partnerships in the refurbishment of arts facilities. This is largely due
to the nature of their funding structure — most rely on private donations instead of private project financing to fund facility
renewal
• Where these deals have taken place, there is usually a component within the structure — theatres, auditoriums etc — to
ensure that there is a regular flow of people through the facility that drives revenue.
. . . .
• Provides context for Canadian arts facility public-private partnerships.
City of Ottawa Shenkman Arts Centre • This P3 structure also involves ancillary land that was used to create a community
centre.
• This project was conducted as part of a larger community development initiative.
Darwin Convention Centre, Australia
• The City of Darwin is similar in character to the City of Saint John.
130 258 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
City of Ottawa: Shenkman Arts Centre
Description
• The City of Ottawa procured an 85,000 sq ft arts centre as part of a bundled transaction that also involved 19 acres of
adjacent land. The arts centre includes a 500 seat theater, 100 seat studio theater, two art galleries and
instructional/rehearsal space.
• The adjacent land was used to create a new town centre, which includes mixed use retail and office space; a hotel; two
office buildings; a 100-unit seniors home; 140-unit seniors condominium; more than 300 condominium units; and a
gymnasium and indoor pool for the local YMCA.
• This project was part of the city's plan to broaden public access to local art, revitalize public space, realize the economic
potential of the city's cultural sector and revitalize the surrounding community.
• The city was responsible for the management of rezoning applications and for providing political support. The private
partner, however, undertook commercial risk; construction risk and the land residual value risk. The commissioning of
various land and environmental studies was a shared risk.
• The city retained ownership of the arts centre and land. These were then leased to the private partner for a period of 30
years. The city also provided a guarantee to the loans taken out by the private sector to ensure that the city would not
lose its land in the event of default. Total net cost to the city was $ 27M.
Lessons Learned
• Accountability and risk transfer: the transfer of land was subject to perFormance requirements. In addition, the city ensured
that non-perFormance placed the partners profit at risk.
• Communication is critical. The city made a proactive effort to involve the local arts community in the development of this
project. This ensured that there were community `champions' that helped build political support for the project.
Sources: Infrastructure Journal; CBC News; Presentation to the World Canal Council by Rob MacKay and Sandra Stone,
City of Ottawa; Discussion with Sandra Stone, City of Ottawa, www.cultureandcommunities.ca; Report to
Corporate Services and Economic Development committee by Planning and Growth Management, City of Ottawa
131 259 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Darwin Convention Centre
Description
• The Northern Territory government in Australia wanted to procure a 1,500 seat, 43K sq ft convention centre as part of a
USD1.1 b waterfront development.
• Availability payments were made by the Government for establishment costs prior to opening. These will continue over
the following 25 years to pay for facility management and operations. Ownership of the centre will eventually revert back
to the government at the end of the concession period.
• The need to develop community infrastructure for the entire waterfront area resulted in a high upfront cost of CAD 178M.
However, this is expected to be netted out by an expected CAD 90M in property returns at the end of the concession
period when ownership of the property reverts back to the Government.
Lessons Learned
• Thoroughness is key. The success of this very large investment was predicated on thorough research conducted by the
Northern Territory Government to ascertain the demand for the convention centre, appropriate size, economic benefits
and potential models for financing.
Sources: Infrastructure Journal; Northern Territory of Australia, Territory Partnerships Policy; Australian Broadcasting
Corporation; Darwin WaterFront Development Corporation
132 260 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
•
en 1�
1: , r
Municipal P3s in Canada j�
� , 1
c
�
�
.
i
�
�,
261
Municipal projects and the P3 footprint
• There are currently some municipal P3 projects in the market but most are not very far along in the transaction process.
There is also an expectation that there will be a significant influx of municipal infrastructure projects in the short and
medium term.
• According to a report on Canadian infrastructure spending issued by CIBC World Markets in January 2008, this influx is
expected to be driven by the rising age of infrastructure assets (see below left) and the infrastructure deficit (see below
centre).
Average Age of Infrastructure Has Been Rising Since The 1970s Canadian Municipal Infrastructure Deficit Rising Rapidly Shifting Responsibility to Municipalities
age n,vears .,1.� 'P:--
I� 1C0=- ------------' — � I
----------------------- ��:-------
� ;
— �--------------- � -----
,_ ._,.... , :
nr.� -------------------------------------- —C;h' I
,i" I bx�------- --------------- -------
j% �'�-------- -- --�1'ic3t2 � 38°e
r. � ----------------------------
� � 7.,.�, 4R
� E:, r� �------- ---------------- ---
; �----------------------------- . ,. -
'
—- — �,
��.__�
'�� '�'�------------- `---- --- . —Tr^sp7ffaT;n 20°a--------
IA .��_______ _ `____ ____. _
• � ���1?�..ildSEric>r p;; I
u ' ' �qFt Qrr�
I!
liii} +.G68 I:�J3 �9IR iv93 iSHA IS4� 1598 20�] ��',1.^ �_:'L �:�� �'rJJ �'.�'i _�OCd��]P'-'ilfliiy��FEY7:'3
Source(all):Canadian Infrastructure Spending,CIBC World Markets January 2008
• There has also been a trend of downloading responsibility for infrastructure at the federal level to Canadian municipalities
over the last 40 years according to the aforementioned report by CIBC World Markets (see above right).
• Given the constrained ability to raise taxes at the municipal level and often insufficient taxable base, we expect a shortage
of funding on municipal projects. We believe that this funding gap at the municipal level is best addressed through the
use of P3 delivery models.
• As demonstrated in Appendix C, municipalities have already started adopting the P3 approach to project delivery.
134 262 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
l
•
en 1� , � , -
� '
_.�---- : -- .
; _ _
.�,-- ,
.� �� . -
Global risk register � �
. �
\ .
� . .
. � !:is � L
��''
� '
.'��
, ,� \ ' 'n
,� a
`� �
263
Global risk register
� t. -
1 ' C-a-gasi- �?�-�err�-�e�- —�ref_n�i-�si-_ic-4•e=ar-r=�:•c.t:iis.=-a��tc b�a-1-a ,rcxir:3 �-°ed=ral � �fr;
F�ndira �v ioies gc�aar�marts.
1.2 Go�aemment Fol oy Ch�naes r,oh�nae ir avr,go�wemmen:F�I oy�r protocols ahangas art=_r�ninates t�e � �1�
proa�ss.
1.3 F�blic �asis�nca tv.;n��F�tion T�e o�ol o�xill nat�,oveot t�e•a e o#1he private seato•. +� �f�
1.4 Can:r�a:Te•mi�at on fro:for T'7E 4aOti�fflf`"�'Y[��O'YSOf O'::F�f�30ti�f'Yf"'8_rrt oa•tnars:e•min�,te th�o0'Y:f�,at ,� N1�,
aa�sel prior-a ts axp r:,t o�r. not for aa use. out for pol oy,prog•a-nmi�Q�nd�or fisa:,l
p�•F�ses.
1.8 Innavakion Inno�:ations desiQnac for fa�li-r a•e not well ex=_cut=_d•�sulti�g r s�G-�F•t m�,l +� N1�,
pe•F�rmance a�a ar aa,;arsa ir-p�,ak on•ide•sh p.
1.� Inj�r�JSh`t��la'Y Constn.ot��ofthap•o.ec:res�ts nlagalaai�nsofinjurio�s��ectioniror- � �1�
n�a�b�uri�Q a�a o��,ne�s�us�rs��,fiich ircr�ases oasts.
1.- �acurity Fvl oy r,F�propriate sea�•i-y pol oies ara not ir pl.;oe-ha-res�ts n�,n un�ear�,rticul�,t o� +� �f�
of security r=aui•e�ne�ks f�r-he=a�ility.
F� -
1 o Lard'Jt�F a�rir� acwe-n--e--S�u'YSOf F 3'YS a�c o 3rn�g 3�p-o�sti Is a•e -ci �p a�_}t�s4p�c rt � NA
grow#h rana�3emen-aojaoti•wes.
1.9 Fark n�3 Pol vy �arking pa iaias a•e nat i�p ace.or:hep ao ro-s�oport Qrow#h r-ana�3emen- +� �+,J,�
oG ect,r�s.
1.'a Zani�g �orir�3 F�I oies and decsiors��a�atsuF�oort requiraa n-ens#oation. +� ��.
1.'1 F a�rir�3.P•oc�ss a�d.41 ooa-ion Irrt=r��,l�rl�nic pal�,porova s are ro-reoe,;ed ir ti�ne�,r��aalay t�e ss�a af ,! �+,J,�
F�act oes :en����s.
136 264 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
EA Prapanency, Study an;l ��:�:�rt�-�:
= ' _��.•„-marialr.}�--r'77s..- =i: i-oialo•f=aa-a er�:•:7�-;-t_, :sssaa�77=��-:.:�i�:��? as - .. _.�-? 7=::. � �.l;
��
? ' L3rdr.00_iitto� �ermara-t �r-e^7F�-a�, _, . -.. _ sr.t::- .i-.�::rat�.._- :�:1 =._ ..=t7= � �F;
':�vlli�/IS'YG[:�vCJI•edir itu7i=1•yi7i3r�=r
r�
3.2 �•3en�}F r,Fo-��:als ih1..r oiFa,, r,ge�,or a,�F•o�vals�u,tr,reapeck to par�ni;s anc o-her a4t��riz�,tic�s ce,ar�agir�,�g ,! �f F;
F•avnc ai, =eaaral�,nd othe• ofconstn.�o�o•ope•atior.
a�3�nc es}
F�
2 _ '_�-i tx�al�oato-s r,r _irf�ras�s- u- i:}�� _._,.. . ..:�•:.-. �-.i-: .. �' .-- -._ . -=.d-i- ,� NA
oe ays or adoitional aosts.
3 4 Ex st n�3 Candi-ion Irfor•natior �aports orovide��to Gia��ers a•e i��,daa�.;t=and do not s��aiart y��esorioe the ,! �JQ
existina site oa�aitia�s resul-ina i�al�,ir-s for�,d��i-ioral-ir�e�,nd aasts.
3 5 Geotechr oa J�=a•esaen geotec�niaal issues�,risa that were ro-identiFed i�a�y p•eaious ,! �JQ
reparts�es�lti�g n clai•ns for aa��i-ioral-i•ne�,n��oasts.
3.� �te En�,�i�a�m=_rrtal vordition J'Y"6��saen env ro�r-errtal issues a�ise�xhic�res4lks in ola ms=a'd�C t 6'Y3I t 171P ,! NA
�,r��aasts.
3.- P.•ahaeo ogic�,l r,rc�aeoloaioal-i�air�as res�lk n de ays and iroreasea cosks. ,! �JQ
?o Constr�c-ior'deoo•nmissia�i�g vonskn.�o��C�ecomr•issiorir�3 act wiky•es�l-s in o�nt3mi�at on of kha si-e.This ,� �J�7,
P.ct oiky Res�l-s in���ta•ninatior co�la resul-ir tempa•a•y clas�ra af-ha si-e and de ap in vo�trs�oar-olatian.
137 265 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
, .
RreliminaryD�sign of Infrastructure
. i � � F�
. deaign Risk T�e���sig�ed=acility fa Isto ael oer sarvoes�,kthereq�red lave s o=F�rfom-a�,oe ✓ �J�,
�,r��a��,li:y. oa�sed�y 3 fai u•e:a:rarslat3 the requiramarts of t�e�o�remment
.�F�onsa�irto the design,leadi�g ta add t o�al desi�3n and=aoilit�ae�aelapr-enk
costs.
�.2 F�-e�-1�=rinQe�n��t T�e d�sig�irrfrina°_5 a�reg ske�ed patenks. ,! NA
�.3 Changa in Gesa�r SoeoiFc:,t6'YS T�e�o,;ern�enk�pv'Y56�I�CJI'�5{F13'YQ�S'a1I'S�'3vlllty C�5 al'7.C3US��j L]/ ✓ NA
legisl�ti�ae,f�Qll d:Of1 0•oalicy��anges,I?3�1'7Q L6 d�jC tl0'Y�,I dasi�3r oas:s.
�.4 ��keholder vans�lka-ior .�kakahol•�er g•a�ps�k�ish ta re4 si-t�e•�esign of the=aoility c.;us ng del�,ys ir-he ,� NA
desig�F�•x�ss and ult mat=ly delapi�g 1he issue o=the oo�tr�,ot.
�.� F•o-3r�m�nina �sk 1asi�3n��aes not an:ic p�,te.a•is not f exiole ena�gh.to�,ova�nmoa�:�iut�r� ,! NQ
c�anQe=_ �Fo oirg ser,�ifl=s a�d orogramm n�3.
Detailed Design of Infrastruature
� � � � ��
._ �a=eip�:.n�S=o_ri-�� —�e �e=_ig�aa�s no:76-f]"^l[]"Il?�v]'�Ef�IllEf1-iSOfl�]f 5 JErC�m:.rv=a�c ,� NA
Requirarants sarvioe exoe�a-iors.�soeoiFaat��s.p�,r.ic�l�,riy��.it�respea-to safat}�and sea�ri-y
req�r�men-s and t��•�esign af sp�ia ourposa sF•aces.or t�ere ara fla�h�s n-ha
desig�.
.- IT Infrast•��t�re B�akbo�e T�e���sig�aoes nat ncoroa•ate I—s��par.ing i�=r�,struotura rea�i•e�ne�tsto ,! NQ
�,ahi�va G�aemrrient�porsor s op��ati�ral o��formanc�req�ir=_r-=_rrts.
138 266 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
i r� -
v.' .nc�mole.e R=?Te�ce• �FF-enae•��oo��n��caLon s irvo.--p.a-e�s��.v�res�ts n i�ar�aseo acaa.-.da a�a +� �f�
aaou�ne�tation co�la give�sense o=��cer.a rty to bi��aers that raa�ces t�eir:ole•a�ae far r sk
�,r��res�ks n higherk��aers
°.2 Te�aerir�3 Competition— _ack o=preq�al#ed or n-erest=_d sub�orrtractors resul-s in smaller th�,r expaat�� ,! �J�,
i�b--r4,a=_s n��nt�r af terders whiah •es�l-s in hi�3he•�3en=r4,l aan:•a�:t-e�de•or oes.
F.s �cope v�ang�s �Jehic e sp�ifiaatons a•e cha�rgedt�ro�ah procuremertF�rovessrasul-ing i� ,! N1�,
de ays�,r��inoreasaa oas-s t�proj�;.t.
F� -
F 4 -'s�e3-1-a '.^iaat�r�r oc�ai-icns -_s_I:s ir :lala�y= 3rd i-cr_s=sc ootit. ,� �Jl�
F 5 �OfISVJC:l4f 1?�3r5 1?I�f5lflt'7E06f'St'4G[vflSvFl?CLI��.IfCI4.•jl'Y�'h'?ti�t'YPf. fESLIItI'73�Ed]/"4"Fl� �! �1�
com�nissionira af-he fac li-y a�d�or�,ah e�r nQ peramiaroe go�,ls.
�.� Inj�n�ia�s _�3�,1 inj��c:iars��use�r�nrk an:ha F�•a.e�ttastap du•ira aonstr�c:iar. ,� N1�,
F- Failur�ta B�il��ko 1asi�3r or T��f�,oil ty is nat corstructed i�aoo�rdanta wi:h th�d�s a�doauments{or +� NA
Qu�,lity L=_�wel soeviFa�,t o��s�r��arc •eq�iremertsl.—his c��la i•nF�ai•peramiarce.safety,
I onaa':I:,.3-a.
F o Constr�c-iar Sa#aty�oli�3ato�s T�e oorst•�cton vonkra��rd�s ro-satisfiyits s:,fe-,oolia.;tia�s res�lkir��in an ,! N1�,
incress��inoide�ae of last�n,nrk days=a•site labo�r.Th s o��ld a��;.t t�e o�w�rall
sc��dule and prof tabil ty of th�proj��for khe oo�s-ruakian aan:raa-a�.
F�� Farce r.'laja�re r,aditi�na oas-s a�d�jelays�j�e ka-arce�na.e�ra risksthatras�lk n.;n ext�rsian ,! �J�7,
of time ta oor-p e-e the=a oility.
v.'a Constr�c:iar vos- vonskn..�v�oasts.;re�ighertha��stmat3a oytFl�vv'YSkNvkla'Y C6fl"f3Ck6�. ,! N1�,
°.'1 de#oiena es�,s':;ork 1a=�:ts are disoo�Mered d�•ira th�aa�s-r�atian o#1he=aoili{y whiah•es�lts i� ,! �J�,
F•o-3r=_sses =i�ancial s-rass an aon-r�c-a•�suoaon-r�a-a•s a�a nc•e4,sinQ possibil ty of•ed�oed
proFk•na•g ns�,r��'a•b�,rk•�o-ayfor-he contrac-ar,s�oaontrac-ar.
v.'2 Late�tD�featsfre�u�n,nrk� _atertdefeots n-hefacli-pa•ediscove•e��af�rs�os-a�-i�,laa•npl�ti�n. ,! �J�,
139 267 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
- �-' -----:�.i•_-i_,r =..,Mi��a-t =... . -a-t a 7c,t 3-�a lab_=_wre-_req_i-ec for-h=fac i:, •e=__i1�� n ce a�y a�c ,! NA
A.vai abil ty incre�,s��aasts.
°.'� F2eso�rca,�v�il�bility�:r�'la:�ri�,ls. v•i:ical mate•ials m�,y�ot aea•:a labla u,hen requiraa •es�lti�g n de ays and ,� NQ
Cemen-.Stee,eko.l �,a��iti�nal oas-s.
F.'v Labour A.oai aoil ty _aoou••esources are�n�,oa laol�o• ir-t=_d�h�her req�red=a•t�ef�,ail ty,rasultira +� �J�,
in ael�y a�a n�•e�sed aosts.
F.'S LE=d+P.coessbili-y,Cthe• vorrt•actorsobligationtomeetkhaLE=D.aooessbili-y. and�araihe•req�ira�errts � NQ
FarForr�ana�Raqu remen-s s�ted ir the cortrac-aocuments is nat ms-.
°.'7 �acurity af Corst•4ct on Sit=_ ��r-site sec�rity nat suff oi��:to F•r�varrt th�t a•dam�,�a ras�lkira in a•�cikia�.;l +� NQ
during vonstn.ct on cosks a�a�or de aps-art�e conkra�ors�s�boo�kr.;okors.
° '8 hJan-Pa}�mert =n�r�ie•is u�abla�Lmr��Ili�g ta mee:Franoivl ooli�3�,t a�s.resu t nQ ir iroreas�a � �1�
costs a�a��elaysb3 substa�kial vo-nF�e-ior v=khefaci ity.
F 'a �onstr�c-ior vorrt•actor 1afa�l- T��oarst•�ct�n o�ntravtorhastia be replaaed duato ae=aultrasultina i�dal�,ysto +� �1�.
�73'YIifJR'[��, -31IJf°_t�hleet -he de ive�3+�=t�e faai ity�rd addi-ion31 cosks.
Obl aakians}
F 2v Crtoa Sub-Can-raata•D�f�,�t =ssential sub-aa�-r�,ato•h.;sto ta reF�acaa���e tad�f�,�t•es�l-i�g n aelaps to ,! �J�,
�,73'YIifJR'[C�, -31IJf°_tv hleet -he de i�:ey o=t�e faci ity ard addi-ional cosks.
Obl aatians}
°21 F•�tenaaraa rdla:eri�,l 1al�ys ino�aerall sahe��ti e b��use pre-ten��ered m�te•ials a•e notF�rxur�d soar ,� NQ
eroua�r ir ihe=aoility canstruc-ior li=e-ayala.
F 2� �cope v�anQes oy�o�Memmen- T��soape o#�h+ark iso��,nQ��ty-he 3ooernr-ent Spo�sara�rn�3the oonstru�ia� ,! �J�,
�oan�ar—D4•ina v�rst•uction pe•iod.
F 2? C:,sh r',Ilow:,nca r"x'Y56JI"RS T��cash�I ov.'31'C�5 I'YCIJC?d r-he aontrac-doaumen-s ara irsuticierrt. ,! NQ
F.2� design Co- v�.;n�3eor��e•s a•e raaueste��by-ha aan-raa-a•duri�g oonstn.�o�d�eta desiQn ,! �J�,
Orc nakion'v�molekia�fv��,nge coarc natian'desan oo�np e-i�r�•��sig�gaps.
Orc�r�sk'
°.2: �anstr�c:iar Vari.itl4'75 DU�:O �sk t��,t the•e�,re�onstn.�o�saaoe�h�,r�3es�s a •es�lt af eq�ipmert sele�o� ,� NQ
EquiF�men-�elaa-ior res�l-ing i�al:,irv�s for addi-ional costs and-i�e.
F 28 ImF�aat a��oh�a�la D�e ta =auior-•ar�t saleatian aha�gas and oo�struotia�va•i�,t o�s as a resu-.could mpact ,! �J�,
EquiF•rnen- -he sch��ul�.
F 2+ Labour P.�a�i�3�ner:,l r',aareral str ke de aps-ha arraral sc�red�le ana resul-s in add t v�a oosts. ,! NQ
°trik��v';ork�tooF�agel
140 268 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
k�
- -° Ti�-a P.__� v�--o=-ion f the=aoil i�,r it �rot•:..iao,:.nJ m..ria-:acc�om :�=�ran��=c 4•in� t�ra ,! �Jl�
-.�re ne•3at aely i�nF•ac-she oaoi:al oosts�,n•�firanoir�cf-re;ac I,ty
F.2"a Inlakian Risk Ir�f ation�h�ill i�arasse.;t a r�,t3 khak is a•e�,ke•tha�kh�,k as-i°a-ed i�the oost ,� �J�,
estim�:e.
F.sv E��,�i�onmert�l vort�ol���rina �aqu r���n�,�i�a�m=_rtal cortr�ls ar=_r�-imolemertea:mairrtai�ed properly. +� �JA
Canstr�c-ior
u.s1 U-ilty�=_I�aat�n voordir�-ior b�t�,�=_�n kh=Govemmert.�p�rsor and-he�tli-y p•�videra�es not � NA
haope�ir �kimalp fas�ior res�l-ing in aelaps a�d nc•eased cosks.
F.s� Canstr�c-ior���wersiQht by�v.ne• Ski Is.capa�ty or rasau•oes.;re irs��aiart�afiich results i�aal.ays a�a q�al ty +� �J�,
a•Cw�ers �aF••eserrta-i�ae ISSLI?5 tFl3k fIC'�35E 065'5.
141 269 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
�.
Lal::t •Fel-k�:�7:
vu,l=,,.,�-e rtigrea--e-t ���:s-a-ior a=i-e =_ar,,:.a i=ce a�yao ori-:s•r�p-ea iia�i-i-iai cc ,e:.t�.a _�a��;3i-,-a ,� �f�
4,g•�mar�t car not oe•e�ah ed.
8.2 Gene•a S-rike r',aareral str ke co�d rasul-ir��is•upkia�af crikiaal serwicas. � NA
8.3 ��ccessarF2ights �sk fLabo�ra S�ooesso�ri�3hts�,re not�rra�.;a�a oroF�ry•es�lti�g n�,cla m aa�,instlhe ,! �J�,
'.a4ti�f'Yf'"�f7[.ipvf154f.
8.4 Labour�upF�y Risk �sk of losina s-aff.I:,bo4r d spuke.a�d a-kr:,�ir�3 a�d•��inira s-af s�ikablp ,! �JA
:-��ed anc'oert f e�
Utilities,Insurarce and Othe��perating Expens�s
• � F�
a.5 �L;�lity af=1eM•icity`=uoF�ly �'-�'��' n-err�F�t or�s t�e�triai-y s�oply fma�or�laokouts ar b•��h��au-s;restl-ir +� �J�,
- oF3ratian disr�F•t o�s.
a� U-il ty vomo�,ny�,n��F�al .�t li-r Ca�nF•any fees ara nok irc u•�e�in vv�kr�,vk s�r-or proj�tt�,a•eamartts'i. '� ��'
Inl�tian fFaes; �
8.- U-il ty�,r��F�el 'rioe Irfla:iar Jt li-y ana=ue or oes��i I inoraase at�,rat=_th�,t s are�,ter tha�p•o.ec-ed. '� ��
'�.o Ins�r�,rca Co,;e�aQ� +'���quate i�sur�,nca aavarage aan�atbe ob�ired.orco•:e•a�3e s mareoas-lp thar +� �f�
exp=_ate�wh oh resul-s in r�•e�sed op°_rakira aosts La t�e or�jeak.
a.� F•afessioral vnd L�gal _i��ility �����ff r-a�Ge sub.ec-ko I t aakian and vlainis of��al a=_rce khak m�,y affect ,! �JA
oF3ratians of the=�,oility.
142 270 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
Customer Ser:iae
��
.. ��_sb°er Inq�ir es 'r�F�r-r�i�ing,prooed4•es�rd F�rxess=_s a•e nat in p ace t�addr=ss i�a�i•ies. ,! NQ
S.'1 Custo�er vonoe•ns.�vo�olaints 'roF�r-rainina,prxed4•es:,rd p•aoasses a•e not in place to a��aress public � NA
cor oerns.;nd;o•oar-pl ai�ts.
a.'� Custor-er.�F•ecial Assist�,rca ��gu a-�d F•hgsioal�,r•�ser:ice irf•astr�c-�re ard F•roper krair n•3. procec�ras a�d +� NA
proaesses�,re�ot n F�lace kv s�ppor.sF�ec al n�ds o=kha p�b ic.
S '3 F�blic�atisf�a:ion Inaoil ty:a�rr�:p�G ic exoe��:ions�,r��gane•al n�,tt=_rt o�to sF�ecif vs o=the � �1�
:.oil ty��.n�relat=a =__-Y oe -=cu re^7e�-s
General Administration
��
S '� 2_is.�ess�.oeral o-s 'r�F�r proa���res, or�oesses�,r��h�r-an and-�hr��v�3ic:.l res�urces are ro-i- ,! NA
pl�,o�-o ansu•e-ha�ffio e�t man�,gamart ar�aoerat o�of tha se^:iae�faail ty,�,n��
-i�ne y�rd aovu•ate•eoor.ina of ka}�parfom-�noe r-e-r os t�khe Gavar�m�rt
Sp�nsa•a�a the ge�era pubia.
a 'F Hum�,n vaF�tal T�atqualifiad and�artraired prafessioral,maraQe•ial ana aa�rrinis-r�,tive ,! �J�,
reso��a�s tannok oe•�n.ted ana re-airad for kh=_s�•vice�faai ity.
R •R �Inankiaipatea �pera-i�g vos-s ��pera-ing cosks a•e higher khar orojeoked d�e ta rfla:ian�,n��;�•oeva�se o= ,! �J�,
inaoa�•ate esti�nates a�a 3ssumotions,inareasr�3 m4,irrt3na�ae�as-s.
143 271 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
�
•r_� r�
- ' _f:�:�y�_a hlairl=r�-oe v��i:a �ra men�roe� fary,a i7i..i-ta-a�ce 1a t7a-a,li:y is r�:parcnriao�s�7an � NQ
Fa,ior,vana� �,F�oroF�ri.;ke-a s�s-a n c�,F�tai ar resia�al�,r�,l�e af-he rac lit�.
'.2 O,;ar ooked defects ��•:erioak�d desiQn.aans:r�a-ion,and�or•na��#aa-�•ina defeots or des g�e e•ne�ts ,� �1�.
c��se�nexpaaked p•oolems 4,nd resu t i�inareas��aapit�,l exoendi-4•es.
+.s Unantiaipatea Emarv3ency =marv3e�cy mainkena�ce t�at:,ffaa-s the li=e,s:,fe-y�. mmaaiate ooe•ation o=the � NA
h1a irter anoe =�,oil ty i s req�red.
7.4 hlaja•F2�arrf a�rakian and �aqu r��ir-pro�aements.expa�sion,�,nd�,ny ot�er chang?5 rec.li'ed C'y kha +� NA
ImF�raoar-errts �3aoer�r-errt Sponsart��,t•nay laad kv r-ajor�,1-�•ations to khe#aci iky, ncl�dira its
c 4i1.mevh�riaal ana eleotric�l aomp:'YE'Y:S.
'.8 Lf=_-vyol�r.'lai�k��anc=_Casts _i=�cyc e r-ai�k���,nc=_oasts are hi�3her tha�F��o.ect=_d.—��s�b-s�s-�ms ,! NQ
identifiad for I#a�yvl�r-a n-en.�rc�waul��rea�i•e rarew�al aosts�i�3her or soo�er
-ha�esti�natec or=a I t�fa•e rane�k�al.
'.� F2esiau:,l'�fal�e 'Jal�a af=a�ility at en��of kha oa7�r:,ak��onaessia�ke•m has beer ha•mea or ,! NQ
mr`. t1
-- ..�_�r.7ol=-;�_'Te 7c a� ��F :enc s� :I�s:t°.�7-a- �- s�r co�-p a-e�,k�7 :7 r_a�.t= n 7craaaec i{:?';l i 3 lG ,! �Jl�
dovu-ne�kati�n co�la gi�,�e a s�nse o=��cert�airty-a oida8rs-hat rea�ces t�eir-a e•a�a�for risk
�,r��res�ts n hiQher te�a ers
�.0 5',�irrt3r`.131'Yk�'73'YCP `.131'Yk�'73'YCP�pe•ati�ns as r=_aui•�1. su��as,`a•exvmple,sna�h��e�ri�g, arim4,l +� NA
re�o•w:,l.
144 272 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
�
�.
°- ' J�:���-C�isc-im�:.t�-xr,o:ian —�e=eavto�swil oetaF.=n:g:i-s:i-e :o�rs-�--s-tS�o-scra=: �estiilafl'is � NA
proj�ot.
8 2 disc•ir-nato-y.4c-ior T��3aoernr-ent Spa�sor wil use its la�h��rrak n��power to reQatioaly cha�ge tFa +� �1�.
c�rt•a�a •e ati�rship with t�e�F�era-a•fF�ri�w4,ke F�art��r;.
8:s dury-a vons�t =aaeral,prowirc a or r•unicioal p�r.ne• s fo�nd to ha�,re a duty�a vons�lk�h�th � NA
:4tv-�n:.l grc_i�s svh�oh ae'aps �rojevts:�ed_le.
� F�
8 4 Go�Memanae Scruacure T��3aoernr-ent Spo�sar does�ot imple•ne�-a Qovema�ae st•ucb.�re t�at +� �J�,
s�F•por.s th�im�lemartakian af-he-acility.
8 5 Go�Memmen-�porsors Projac- T��3aoernr-enk Spo�sars �roje�r.'lanage�ner.Team doas r�-ha�:�s�ffiaient +� �J�7,
h1an�,aamartTea�nE�pe•ience exp�riano�:a�na��,aet�e��eli�weryao:iar.
8� Tran sfer af•�wnersh p T��op8ra-ar fpriv.,ke part�er;��,i I s�I a•t�a�sf��iks senr a�s ta anoth��ovr-p�,ry. +� N A
8.- defaulk o=Coer�,t ng Can:raaka• �ankrupkoy or d�fa�t of faail ky oF�era-ar i:priaake F�art�er;. ,� �J�7,
145 273 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Global risk register
� _
� f F.
"a ' aniarLave C:a•:e•r�re�: T��fedar�,l ano pra�w��ai�,l gv�wemments ao ro-p•ovde oaoi-al#�nd�nQfor-ha ,! �Jl�
F�ndira =�,oil ty.
"a 2 Tir-n�3 �sk t��,t fed�ral and;�r orovinoi�,l oaoit3l funa n�3 stn.ct�ra does�ot ali�3n with ,� �J�7,
proje�fi��,nc nQ st•L�t�ra se ected=arf�ci ity.
F� -
• • ••�.:r-nren:cpare�-31 _e�ce•s 3-=r�:svi ir�:o �raxioa=ira-vi-�for�:rcje;i. ,� NA,
=i-a�ai�g Risk
"a.� �o�Memmen-�porsoral =q�i-p �3aoer�r-errt Sponsar is ro-able,or is ur�h�ill nQ.ta prv�wi��e aquity cortr b�tion. ,! �J�,
Risk
t� -
c = =i-s�o�g �isk -weslors are �ct�r; li-g-of nti.r�=-h=f�c I:j, Jf"I-3'YC'7� �]5"5 3'� ]f011 b1 r= r�I,Q NQ
�.� In-er�st�a-�R sk Irrt=_ras-rst-�s wi I mo,;e adaersely ta-ween oo�merci�l close and-ina�aial alose o= N,Q NQ
-he=acility.
"a- Tax Cha�ges�sk T��t3z mp��c or th�aparako•fF••i�a�,t�F•artr7e•;.iks as�-s o•on t�e f�,oil ty•u II N,Q NQ
c�ange.Hi�he•�nreo�ver�,b e-axas wa�l��have ar mpact an kha se^:iae
proviaer's atertax ret�r�a�d n e:�t•e�ne c.;ses tr-ay�nd�•mi�et�efi�anc al
str�c-�re of t�e orojea-sv-ha-ik oa�ro-p•otaed in t�:,t forr-.
146 274 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
•
en 1�
Financial model
;.
,
;`
��.
�
� M,� -,M\ `
� � � Ms
@ ' � MT �
4 �
�
2�5 9 ,
� / �� �/ / i � \
PVFM -
Input assumptions
Capital Costs Police Station $24,019,052 Email from Bill Todd. Subject: "Police HQ Costing and Cash Flows" Based on 69,000 square foot facility
Parking Facility $17,305,000 Email from Pat Woods titled: "Estimated Cash Flow Requirements Based on 574 stalls
Proposed New Parking Garege Facility November 13,2008"
Arts Center $1,800,000 North of Union Action Plan Document
Infrastructure $1,700,000 North of Union Action Plan Document
Pedway/Plaza $1,000,000 North of Union Ac[ion Plan Document
Document: Saint John Police Headquarters FaciliTy Report by Nelson Based on 69,000 square foot facility
Lifecycle Costs Police Station $020 per square foot Wong Architect and DFS Architect Lifecycle Cost Schedule from 2011 to 2021 then increasing by
rate of inflation from 2022 to 2040
Parking Facility $113,213 per year Cost estimates from Mr.Ralph Bond,Parking Faciliry Consultant Repair cost estimates are: 75%of 1%of Capital costs and
inflation of 2%per year.
Operating and Maintenance Costs Police Station $3.00 per square foot Source: Canadian City Police Sta[ion cost inputs(Deloitte Database) Inflation of 2%per year beginning in 2011
Based on the average O&M cost estimates provided by Mr.Ralph Bond,
Parking Facility $296,975 per year Parking Facility Consultant and O&M cost estimates provided by Inflation of 2%per year beginning in 2011
Hardman Group during a Marke[Sounding meeting for a facility in
Halifaz,Nova Scotia.
Inflation Police Station&Parking Facility 2%per year Source: Bank of Canada Target Rate of Inflation
Escalation All Construction Projects 4%per year Source: Canadian Construction cost inputs(Deloitte Database) Escalation in 2009 and 2010
Interest Rate and Debt Terms Set-Up Fee 025% Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
Stand-By Charge 0.50% Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
Source: Recent City of Saint John Debt Issuance with Interest rate of
Base Rate 525% 475%. For conservative purposes added SObps risk premium.
Discussed and confirmed with Greg Yoman's.
Base Spread 1.10% Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
All-In-Rate 6.35% Sum Base Rate and Base Spread
Term 32 Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
Facility Size $52,000,000 Input value to ensure sufficient bridge capital funding during tw�o years of
nstruction
Debt to Equity 88:12 Goal seek based on Equity IRR of 12%.
Equity IRR 12% Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
VFM Inputs Ancillary Procurement Costs Under PSC
- Transaction Costs $200,000 Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
- Project Manager $4,700,000 Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
Contract Administration Costs Under PPP
- Transaction Costs $2,000,000 Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
- Project Management $2,350,000 Source: Comparable Canadian Capital Projects(Deloitte Database)
148 276 O Deloitte&Touche LLP and affiliated entities.
Currently Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PSC)
Construction,Lifecycle,and Operating and M aintenance Costs
Construction Period
i _ a a s
2008A 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Inflation 00% 2.0% 2.0% LO°� 20% 20%
:AverageEscalation 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Lifecycle Costs Units
Polfcestatfon (CAD$) 69,000 squarefeet 0 0 0 Q8,286) Q8,652) (133,176)
Detention center (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking (CAD$) 574 stalls 0 0 0 (137,732) Q4q486) Q43,296)
Arts Center (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Infwstmcture (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
50%Pechvay/Plaza (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
TotalLifecycleCosts (CAD$) 0 0 0 Q56,018) Q59,138) (276,472)
Construction costs
Policestation (CAD$) 0 Q2,009,526) Q2,009,526) 0 0 0
Detention facility (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking (CAD$) 0 (8,652,500) (8,652,500) 0 0 0
Arts Center (CAD$) 0 (90q000) (90q000) 0 0 0
Infwstmcture (CAD$) 0 (1,70q000) 0 0 0 0
50%ofpeclway/plaza (CAD$) 0 0 (I,000,000) 0 0 0
Toraico�sr��cr�o�cosrs (cno$) o �za,i9z,so�� �za,aoa,os�� o 0 0
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Police station (CAD$) 69,000 square feet 0 0 0 (219,670) (224,063) (228,545)
Detention center
Siaff (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opewtionandmaintenancecosts (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking (CAD$) 574 stalls 0 0 0 (314,922) (321,220) (327,645)
Arts Center (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Infwstmcture (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
50%Pechvay/Plaza (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
TotalOpewtingCosts (CAD$) 0 0 0 (534,592) (545,284) (556,190)
Project Net Cash Flow (CAD$) 0 (24,192,507) (24,403,087) (690,610) (704,422) (832,661)
PVLifecycle,Constmction,andOperatingandMaintenanceCosts $ (65,983,247)
2��
Currentty Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PSC)
Debt Schedule
Construction Period
2008A 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Provincial contribution 0 0 2,25q000 0 0 0
City of Saint John Debenture
AmountOutstandfng-Begfnnfng (CAD$) 0 24,192,507 23,885,844 45,386,418 44,732,085 44,043,399
Drawclo�ms (CAD$) 0 24,192,507 24,403,087 0 0 0
InterestRate (CAD$) 0.00% 525% 525% 525% 5.25% 525%
AnnuallnterestExpense (CAD$) 0 1,27Q107 2,535,169 2,382,787 2,348,434 2,312,278
Principal Repayment (CAD$) 0 (306,663) (2,902,514) (654,333) (688,685) (724,841)
Principaland Interest (CAD$) 0 (1,576,769) (5,437,683) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120)
AmountOutstanding-Ending (CAD$) 0 23,885,844 45,386,418 44,732,085 44,043,399 43,318,558
Total Annual Funding Obligation
Construction Period
2008A 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Annual Funding Obligation
OpewtfngandMaintenanceCosts (CAD$) 0 0 0 (534,592) (545,284) (556,190)
LifecycleCosts (CAD$) 0 0 0 Q56,018) Q59,138) (276,472)
City of Saint John Debenture-Principal Payments (CAD$) 0 (306,663) (2,902,514) (654,333) (688,685) (724,841)
City of Saint John Debenture-Interest Payments (CAD$) 0 (1,27Q107) (2,535,169) (2,382,787) (2,348,434) (2,312,278)
DSCRReserve (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Funding Obligation (CAD$) 0 (1,576,769) (5,437,683) (3,727,730) (3,741,542) (3,869,781)
PV Total Annual Funding Obligation (CAD$) $ (68,346,537)
PV of Cost Components
Borrowing Interest $27,63q224
Principal Repayment $19,748,I I 5
Opewting and Maintenance Costs $9,054,142
Lifecycle Costs $I 1,914,057
DSCR Reserve $0
Total PV of Cost Components $68,346,537
2�8
Currentty Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PSC)
Construction,Lifecycle,and Operating and M aintenance Costs
Operating Period
n � a v io ii iz ia ia is in i� ia iv
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
......... ......... ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .................. ......... ......... .................
20% 20% 2.0% LO� LO� 20� 2.0% 20� LO% 20% 20% 20% 20% 2.0%
4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Q69,799) (247,422) (302,844) (389,215) (528,283) (645,975) (743,032) (824,766) (858,086) (892,753) (928,820) (966,345) Q,005,385) Q,046,003)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 46,162) Q 49,085) Q 52,067) Q 55,108) Q 58,210) Q 61,374) Q 64,602) Q 67,894) (171,252) Q 74,677) Q 78,170) Q 81,734) (185,369) Q 89,076)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(315,961) (396,507) (454,911) (544,324) (686,493) (807,350) (907,634) (992,660) Q,029,338) Q,067,430) Q,106,991) Q,148,079) Q,19Q754) Q,235,079)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(233,116) (237,778) (242,533) (247,384) (252,332) (257,378) (262,526) (267,777) (273,132) (278,595) (284,167 . , .
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(334,198) (34q882) (347,699) (354,653) (361,746) (368,981) (376,361) (383,888) (391,566) (399,397) (407,385) (415,533) (423,843) (432,320)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(567,313) (578,660) (59q233) (602,037) (614,078) (626,360) (638,887) (651,665) (664,698) (677,992) (691,552) (705,383) (719,490 ,
(883,274) (975,166) (1,045,144) (1,146,361) (1,300,571) (1,433,710) (1,546,521) (1,644,325) (1,694,036) (1,745,422) (1,798,543) (1,853,461) (1,910,244) (1,968,959)
279
Currentty Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PSC)
Debt Schedule
Operating Period
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43,318,558 42,555,662 41,752,715 4Q907,612 4Q018,142 39,081,975 38,096,658 37,059,613 35,968,123 34,819,329 33,b1q224 32,337,641 3q998,247 29,588,535
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
525% 525% 5.25� 525� 525� 525� 5.25% 525% 525% 525% 525% 525% 525% 525%
2,274,224 2,234,172 2,192,018 2,147,650 2,IOQ952 2,051,804 2,OOQ075 1,945,630 1,888,326 1,828,015 1,764,537 1,697,726 1,627,408 1,553,398
(762,896) (802,948) (845,102) (889,470) (936,167) (985,316) Q,037,045) Q,091,490) Q,148,793) Q,209,105) Q,272,583) Q,339,394 , , , ,
(3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120)
42,555,662 41,752,715 40,907,612 40,018,142 39,081,975 38,096,658 37,059,613 35,968,123 34,819,329 33,610,224 32,337,641 30,998,247 29,588,535 28,104,814
Total Annual Funding Obligation
Operating Period
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
(567,313) (578,660) (59q233) (602,037) (614,078) (626,360) (638,887) (651,665) (664,698) (677,992) (691,552) (705,383) (719,490) (733,880)
(315,961) (396,507) (454,911) (544,324) (686,493) (807,350) (907,634) (992,660) Q,029,338) Q,067,430) Q,106,991) Q,148,079) Q,19q754) (1,235,079)
(762,896) (802,948) (845,102) (889,470) (936,167) (985,316) Q,037,045) Q,091,490) Q,148,793) Q,209,105) Q,272,583) Q,339,394) (1,409,712) (1,483,722)
(2,274,224) (2,234,172) (2,192,018) (2,147,650) (2,IOQ952) (2,051,804) (2,OOQ075) Q,945,630) Q,888,326) Q,828,015) Q,764,537) Q,697,726) Q,627,408) (1,553,398)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(3,920,394) (4,012,286) (4,082,264) (4,183,481) (4,337,691) (4,470,829) (4,583,641) (4,681,445) (4,731,156) (4,782,542) (4,835,663) (4,890,581) (4,947,364) (5,006,079)
28�
Currentty Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PSC)
Construction,Lifecycle,and Operating and M aintenance Costs
20 21 __ 23 24 __ 26 2'/ 2R 29 30 31 32
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..............._.
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 2.0% 2.0% 20% 20% 2.0%:
4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%;
Q,088,261) Q,132,227) Q,177,969) Q,225,559) Q,275,071) (1,326,584) (1,38Q178) Q,435,937) Q,493,949) (1,554,305) (1,617,099) (1,682,430) (1,75q400)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 92,857) Q 96,715) (20q649) (204,662) (208,755) (212,930) (217,189) (221,533) (225,963) (23q482) (235,092) (239,794) (244,590)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q,281,119) Q,328,941) Q,378,618) Q,43q221) Q,483,826) Q,539,514) Q,597,367) Q,657,470) Q,719,913) Q,784,787) Q,852,191) Q,922,224) Q,994,990)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(307,591) (313,743) (32q018) (326,418) (332,947) (339,605) (346,398) (353,326) (360,392) (367,600) (374,952) (382,451) (39q100)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(44q967) (449,786) (458,782) (467,957) (477,317) (486,863) (496,600) (506,532) (516,663) (526,996) (537,536) (548,287) (559,252)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(748,558) (763,529) (778,800) (794,376) (SIQ263) (826,468) (842,998) (859,858) (877,055) (894,596) (912,488) (93q738) (949,352)
(2,029,676) (2,092,470) (2,157,417) (2,224,596) (2,294,090) (2,365,983) (2,440,365) (2,517,328) (2,596,967) (2,679,383) (2,764,679) (2,852,961) (2,944,342)
281
Currently Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PSC)
Debt Schedule
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28,104,814 26,543,196 24,899,594 23,169,703 21,348,993 19,432,695 17,415,792 15,293,001 13,058,763 IQ707,228 8,232,238 5,627,311 2,885,625
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
525� 5.25% 525% 525% 525% 525% 5.25% 525% 5.25% 5.25% 5.25% 5.25% 5.25%
1,475,503 1,393,518 1,307,229 1,216,409 1,12Q822 1,02q216 914,329 802,883 685,585 562,129 432,192 295,434 151,495
(1,561,617) (1,643,602) Q,729,891) Q,82q710) Q,916,298) (2,016,903) (2,122,791) (2,234,237) (2,351,535) (2,474,990) (2,604,927) (2,741,686) (2,885,625)
(3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120) (3,037,120)
26,543,196 24,899,594 23,169,703 21,348,993 19,432,695 17,415,792 15,293,001 13,058,763 10,707,228 8,232,238 5,627,311 2,885,625 0
Total Annual Funding Obligation
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
(748,558) (763,529) (778,800) (794,376) (SIq263) (826,468) (842,998) (859,858) (877,055) (894,596) (912,488) (93q738) (949,352)
(1,281,119) (1,328,941) (1,378,618) Q,43q221) Q,483,826) Q,539,514) (1,597,367) Q,657,470) Q,719,913) Q,784,787) Q,852,191) Q,922,224) (1,994,990)
(1,561,617) (1,643,602) Q,729,891) Q,82q710) Q,916,298) (2,016,903) (2,122,791) (2,234,237) (2,351,535) (2,474,990) (2,604,927) (2,741,686) (2,885,625)
(1,475,503) (1,393,518) (1,307,229) Q,216,409) Q,12q822) Q,02q216) (914,329) (802,883) (685,585) (562,129) (432,192) (295,434) (151,495)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(5,066,796) (5,129,590) (5,194,537) (5,261,716) (5,331,209) (5,403,103) (5,477,485) (5,554,448) (5,634,087) (5,716,503) (5,801,799) (5,890,081) (5,981,462)
282
Currentty Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Operating Costs
Construction Period
i _ a a s
2008A 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
:Inflation 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
;AverageEscalation 0.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Discount Factor 0.94 0.88 0.83 OJS OJ4
Lifecycle Costs Units
Policestation (CAD$) 69,OOOsquarefeet 0 0 0 Q8,286) Q8,652) (133,176)
Detention center (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking (CAD$) 574 stalls 0 0 0 (137,732) (14Q486) Q43,296)
Arts Center (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Infwstmcture (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
50%Pechvay/Plaza (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
TotalRepairsandMaintenanceCosts (CAD$) 0 0 0 Q56,018) Q59,138) (276,472)
Construction costs
Polfcestatfon (CAD$) 0 Q2,009,526) Q2,009,526) 0 0 0
Detention facility (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking (CAD$) 0 (8,652,500) (8,652,500) 0 0 0
Arts Center (CAD$) 0 (90q000) (90q000) 0 0 0
Infwstmcture (CAD$) 0 (1,70Q000) 0 0 0 0
50%ofpeclway/plaza (CAD$) 0 0 (I,000,000) 0 0 0
Toraico�sr��cr�o�cosrs (cno$) o �za,i9z,so�� �za,aoa,os�� o 0 0
Operating and Maintenance Costs
Police station (CAD$) 69,000 square feet 0 0 0 (219,670) (224,063) (228,545)
Detention center
Siaff (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Opewtionandmafntenancecosts (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parking (CAD$) 0 0 0 (314,922) (321,220) (327,645)
Arts Center (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Infwstmcture (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
50%Pechvay/Plaza (CAD$) 0 0 0 0 0 0
TotalOpewtfngCosts (CAD$) 0 0 0 (534,592) (545,284) (556,190)
Project Net Cash Flow (CAD$) 0 (24J92,507) (24,403,087) (690,610) (704,422) (832,661)
PVLffecycle,Constmction,andOpewtfngandMafntenanceCosts $ (65,983,247)
283
Currentty Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Funding Schedule
Construction Period
Term Remaining 32 31 30 29 28
2008A 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Construction Financing-Private Sector
;Faci I i t Si ze 0 52 000 000 52 000 000 52 000 000 52 000 000 52 000 000
Y , , , , , , , , , ,
:Set-UpFees 0.00% 025% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
;Stand-ByCharge 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Bridge Financing-Private
OpeningBalance (CAD$) 52,OOq000 26,002,231 0 0 0
Drawclo�ms (CAD$) 0 24,192,507 24403,087 0 0 0
Undra�m Amount (CAD$) 0 27,807,493 1,599,144 0 0 0
Set-Up Fee (CAD$) 0 13Q000 0 0 0 0
Stancl-By Charge (CAD$) 0 139.037 7.996 0 0 0
SubtotalFinancfngCost (CAD$) 0 269,037 7,996 0 0 0
Annual Interest Expense (CAD$) 0 1.536224 1.549.596 0 0 0
TotalFinancingCost (CAD$) 0 1,805,262 1,557,592 0 0 0
ClosingBalance (CAD$) 0 25,997,769 51,958,448 0 0 0
RemainingFacilityBalance (CAD$) 0 26,002,231 41,552 0 0 0
Long Term Fi nanci ng-Pri vate Sector
;PercentaeofDebt 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00%
9
�
:PercentageofEquity 1200% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00%
;InterestRate 0.00% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635%
Provincial Contribution 0 0 2,25q000 0 0 0
AmountOutstanding-Beginning (CAD$) 0 0 0 43,743,434 43,223,315 42,67q168
Drawclo�ms (CAD$) 0 0 45,723,434 0 0 0
PrincipalRepayment (CAD$) 0 0 0 (520.119) (553,147) (588,272)
AmountOutstanding-Endfng (CAD$) 0 0 43,743,434 43,223,315 42,67q168 42,081,896
Annual Interest Expense (CAD$) 0 0 0 2,777,708 2,744,680 2,709,556
Debt Service Payments(Pnncfpal and Interest) (CAD$) 0 0 0 (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
Equity Financing
Equity Financing (CAD$) 0 0 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014
284
Currentty Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Operating Cash Flows
Construction Period
I 2 4 5
2008A 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Cash Flow During Operations
Availability Payments 0 0 0 4,728,229 4,742,041 4,870,280
LifecycleCosts 0 0 0 Q56,018) Q59,138) (276,472)
OpewtingandMafntenanceCosts 0 0 0 (534,592) (545,284) (556,190)
Debt Service Payments(Pnncfpal and Interest) 0 0 0 (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
Equity Withdwwal 22% 0 0 0 (739.791) (739.791) (739.791)
Net Cash Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equity IRR 12% 0 0 (5.965.014) 739.791 739.791 739.791
Total Annual Funding Obligation
Construction Period
I 2 4 5
2008A 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Total Annual Funding Obligation
AnnualServicePayment(OpewtingandMaintenanceCosts) 0 0 0 (534,592) (545,284) (556,190)
AnnualServicePayment(LifecycleCosts) 0 0 0 Q56,018) Q59,138) (276,472)
Annual Service Payment(Debt Servicfng Costs) 0 0 0 (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
Annual ServicePayment(Equfty Costs) 0 0 0 (739,791) (739,791) (739,791)
Total Annual Funding Obligation 0 0 0 (4,728,229) (4,742,041) (4,87q280)
PV Total Annual Funding Obligation $ (75,436,655)
PV of Cost Components
AnnualOpewtingandMaintenanceCosts $ 9,054,142
AnnualLifecycleCosts $ 11,914,057
Capex Borrowing Interest $ 28,864,634
Capex Principal Repayment $ 15,623,860
IRRPayment $ 9,979,963
Total PV of Cost Components $ 75,436,655
285
Currently Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Operating Costs
Operating Period
e � a v io ii iz ia ia is ie i� ia iv
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
2.0% 20% 20% 20% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 20% 20% 20% 20% 2.0% 2.0%
4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
4 4 4 4 � � �� �
0.69 0.65 0.61 0.57 0.5 0.51 0. 8 0. 5 OA2 0. 0 0..7 0..5 0... 0..1
Q69,799) (247,422) (302,844) (389,215) (528,283) (645,975) (743,032) (824,766) (858,086) (892,753) (928,820) (966,345) Q,005,385) Q,046,003)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 46,162) Q 49,085) Q 52,067) Q 55,108) Q 58,210) Q 61,374) (164,602) Q 67,894) Q 71,252) Q 74,677) Q 78,170) Q 81,734) (185,369) Q 89,076)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(315,961) (396,507) (454,911) (544,324) (686,493) (807,350) (907,634) (992,660) Q,029,338) Q,067,430) Q,106,991) Q,148,079) Q,19q754) (1,235,079)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(233,116) (237,778) (242,533) (247,384) (252,332) (257,378) (262,526) (267,777) (273,132) (278,595) (284,167) (289,850) (295,647) (301,560)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(334,198) (34q882) (347,699) (354,653) (361,746) (368,981) (376,361) (383,888) (391,566) (399,397) (407,385) (415,533) (423,843) (432,320)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(567,313) (578,660) (59Q233) (602,037) (614,078) (626,360) (638,887) (651,665) (664,698) (677,992) (691,552) (705,383) (719,490) (733,880)
(883,274) (975,166) (1,045,144) (1,146,361) (1,300,571) (1 433,710) (1,546,521) (1,644,325) (1,694,036) (1,745,422) (1,798,543) (1,853,461) (1,910,244) (1,968,959)
286
Currently Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Funding Schedule
Operating Period
27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 I6 IS 14
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
5
_2,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00%
12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00%
635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42,081,896 41,456,268 4Q79q914 4q083,309 39,33q772 38,53q449 37,679,305 36,774,113 35,811,441 34,787,640 33,698,828 32,54q876 31,309,394 29,999,713
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(625,627) (665,354) (707,604) (752,537) (800,324) (851,144) (905,192) (962,671) (1.023.801) (1,088,812) (1,157,952) Q,231,482) Q,309,681) Q,392,846)
41,456,268 4q79q914 4q083,309 39,33q772 38,53q449 37,679,305 36,774,113 35,811,441 34,787,640 33,698,828 32,54q876 31,309,394 29,999,713 28,606,868
2,672,200 2,632,473 2,59q223 2,545,290 2,497,504 2,446,683 2,392,636 2,335,156 2,274,027 2,209,015 2,139,876 2,066,346 1,988,147 1,904,982
(3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014
28�
Currently Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Operating Cash Flows
Operating Period
6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
4,92Q893 5,012,785 5,082,763 5,183,980 5,338,190 5,471,328 5,584,140 5,681,943 5,731,655 5,783,041 5,836,161 5,891,080 5,947,863 6,006,578
(315,961) (396,507) (454,911) (544,324) (686,493) (807,350) (907,634) (992,660) Q,029,338) Q,067,430) Q,106,991) Q,148,079) Q,19Q754) (1,235,079)
(567,313) (578,660) (59q233) (602,037) (614,078) (626,360) (638,887) (651,665) (664,698) (677,992) (691,552) (705,383) (719,490) (733,880)
(3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
(739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791) (739.791)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791
Total Annual Funding Obligation
Operating Period
6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
(567,313) (578,660) (59Q233) (602,037) (614,078) (626,360) (638,887) (651,665) (664,698) (677,992) (691,552) (705,383) (719,490) (733,880)
(315,961) (396,507) (454,911) (544,324) (686,493) (807,350) (907,634) (992,660) Q,029,338) Q,067,430) Q,106,991) Q,148,079) Q,19Q754) (1,235,079)
(3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
(739,791) (739,791) (739,791
(4,92q893) (5,012,785) (5,082,763) (5,183,980) (5,338,190) (5,471,328) (5,584,140) (5,681,943) (5,731,655) (5,783,041) (5,836,161) (5,891,080) (5,947,863) (6,006,578)
288
Currently Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Operating Costs
20 21 .. 23 24 25 26 2'/ 28 29 30 31 32
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%:
4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%;
� 4
029 027 026 024 02. 021 020 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.1
Q,088,261) Q,132,227) Q,177,969) Q,225,559) Q,275,071) Q,326,584) (1,38q178) Q,435,937) Q,493,949) Q,554,305) Q,617,099) Q,682,430) Q,75q400)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q 92,857) Q 96,715) (20q649) (204,662) (208,755) (212,930) (217,189) (221,533) (225,963) (23q482) (235,092) (239,794) (244,590)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q,281,119) Q,328,941) Q,378,618) Q,43q221) Q,483,826) Q,539,514) (1,597,367) Q,657,470) Q,719,913) Q,784,787) Q,852,191) Q,922,224) (1,994,990)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(307,591) (313,743) (32Q018) (326,418) (332,947) (339,605) (346,398) (353,326) (36Q392) (367,600) (374,952) (382,451) (39Q100)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(44q967) (449,786) (458,782) (467,957) (477,317) (486,863) (496,600) (506,532) (516,663) (526,996) (537,536) (548,287) (559,252)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(748,558) (763,529) (778,800) (794,376) (SIQ263) (826,468) (842,998) (859,858) (877,055) (894,596) (912,488) (93Q738) (949,352)
(2,029,676) (2,092,470) (2,157,417) (2,224,596) (2,294,090) (2,365,983) (2,440,365) (2,517,328) (2,596,967) (2,679,383) (2,764,679) (2,852,961) (2,944,342)
289
Currently Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Funding Schedule
I 3 I 2 I I I 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 2 I
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
5
52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 _2,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 52,OOq000 ;
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%:
0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Q00%;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00% 88.00%;
12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00%:
635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635% 635%;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
28,606,868 27,125,576 25,SSq223 23,874,834 22,093,059 2q198,140 18,182,895 16,039,681 13,76Q373 11,336,329 8,758,359 6,016,687 3,IOq919
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q,481,291) (1,575,353) (1,675,388) (1,781,776) (1,894,918) (2,015,246) (2,143,214) (2,279,308) (2,424,044) (2,577,971) (2,741,672) (2,915,768) (3,IOQ919)
27,125,576 25,SSQ223 23,874,834 22,093,059 2q198,140 18,182,895 16,039,681 13,760,373 11,336,329 8,758,359 6,016,687 3,IOq919 (0)
1,816,536 1,722,474 1,622,439 1,516,052 1,402,909 1,282,582 1,154,614 1,018,520 873,784 719,857 556,156 382,060 196,908
(3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014 5,965,014
290
Currently Running:Base Case Scenario
Major Infrastructure Investmentsin the Peel Plaza Redevelopment (PPP)
Operating Cash Flows
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
6,067,295 6,13q089 6,195,036 6,262,215 6,331,708 6,403,602 6,477,984 6,554,947 6,634,586 6,717,002 6,802,298 6,89Q580 6,981,961
(1,281,119) Q,328,941) Q,378,618) Q,43q221) (1,483,826) Q,539,514) (1,597,367) Q,657,470) Q,719,913) Q,784,787) Q,852,191) Q,922,224) (1,994,990)
(748,558) (763,529) (778,800) (794,376) (SIq263) (826,468) (842,998) (859,858) (877,055) (894,596) (912,488) (93q738) (949,352)
(3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
(739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791) (739,791)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791 739.791
Total Annual Funding Obligation
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040
(748,558) (763,529) (778,800) (794,376) (SIQ263) (826,468) (842,998) (859,858) (877,055) (894,596) (912,488) (93q738) (949,352)
Q,281,119) Q,328,941) Q,378,618) Q,43q221) Q,483,826) Q,539,514) (1,597,367) Q,657,470) Q,719,913) Q,784,787) Q,852,191) Q,922,224) (1,994,990)
(3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828) (3,297,828)
(739,791
(6,067,295) (6,13q089) (6,195,036) (6,262,215) (6,331,708) (6,403,602) (6,477,984) (6,554,947) (6,634,586) (6,717,002) (6,802,298) (6,89q580) (6,981,961)
291
Major Infrastructure Investments in the Peel Plaza Redevelopment
Preliminary VFM Analysis
- . . . . . . � . �
. :��� . :���
Non-Financed Construction Costs $48,596 Non-Financed Construction Costs $48,596
Operating Costs $21,687 Operating Costs $21,687
Lifecycle Costs $33,446 Lifecycle Costs $33,446
Base PSC (PV) $68,347 Base Payments (PV)� $75,437
Ancillary Procurement Costs Contract Administration Costs
Transaction Costs $200 Transaction Costs $2,000
Project Management $4,700 Project Management $2,350
Risks Retained under Traditional Delivery $26,310 Risks Retained under PPP Delivery $4,270
� , .. . �:• :� �
Dollars $15,500
Percentage 15.6%
292
Major Infrastructure Investments in the Peel Plaza Redevelopment
Monte Carlo Simulation Output
@�I SK Output Report for Risk Retained Under PPP
Performed By:Joseph Yun
Date:Friday,January 09,2009 1:42:07 AM
Simulation Summary Information
Risk Keta�ned Under P�P Workbook Name SainUOhn VFM Analysis_DBFOM_Version 3.xlsx
1.51 %Q= Number of Simulations 1
���-_ ' Number of Iterations 1000
l Number of Inputs 60
_. Number of Outputs 4
Sa m p I i n g Ty pe Monte Carlo
�- Simulation Start Time 1/9/091:41:48
u�..
- 1.5 Simulation Duration 00:00:11
Random # Generator MersenneTwister
F' 1.� Random Seed 2086947993
��- Summary Statistics for Risk Retained Under PPP
J.! Statistics Percentile
_ - :, . - �r �a r w m Minimum $ 755,228 5% $ 1,907,956
.s�--�n Id:�.i��nn:
�- Maximum $ 8,470,491 10% $ 2,352,230
Mean $ 4,260,976 15% $ 2,669,202
P�sk Retair.ed Linder PPP Std Dev $ 1,495,001 20% $ 3,024,696
Variance 2.23503E+12 25% $ 3,222,513
1.91 Skewness 0.281071185 30% $ 3,396,280
1, � - - Kurtosis 2.623535228 35% $ 3,587,074
Median $ 4,142,285 40% $ 3,778,011
�E Mode $ 4,254,290 45% $ 3,949,922
Left X $ 1,907,956 50% $ 4,142,285
�; Left P 5% 55% $ 4,297,336
RightX $ 6,918,434 60% $ 4,488,244
_. Right P 95% 65% $ 4,718,895
Diff X $ 5,010,478 70% $ 4,946,896
_' Diff P 90% 75% $ 5,213,316
#Errors 0 80% $ 5,565,777
,.. Filter Min Off 85% $ 5,933,549
- - �' ` - `'` = `� � �' Filter Max Off 90% $ 6,441,065
;diG.g:•iI.•,,�;..�.� .
#Filtered 0 95% $ 6,918,434
Regression and Rank Information for Risk Retained Under PPP
Risk RetainEd Under PPP
Rank Name Regr Corr
Rzcress��an Coc'f��= 1 Total Contract/Sample 0.860 0.870
'.-, _a❑rrac�ia-onk 2 Total Contract/Sample 0.465 0.462
'c•a�,=or;*.rc!,�»:r,ptF 3 Construction/Sample 0.111 0.064
-_r;tr�c[;or./�RpIE � 4 Construction/SamPle 0.084 0.041
,-:nstr,r��:c�:y�^�le �e:�s 5 Construction/Sample 0.075 0.126
,�nscruct�on J Samp�z �o.ue 6 Construction/Sample 0.064 0.040
,�nscruct�on 1 Samp�e ��oc
_ons[ruct�on;S�mp� rap_ � Construction/Sample 0.017 -0.006
L��srn�cr.�r_n,c3n,p•e r $ Construction/Sample 0.011 0.017
- � 9 Construction/Sample 0.011 0.048
�_���.-„rt�,-_ �c*mc,�e �='"-
__-_'-i,��r-.,yn�pi= .,.�_ 10 Construction/Sample 0.002 0.007
11 Construction/Sample 0.000 0.04827108
-' ° -" - ,' ' " 12 Cap Maintenance/Sample 0.000 -0.042544807
° _ _ _ - - - _ _ °
C]effi[i?nt Vali.ie 13 Construction/Sample 0.000 0.040675145
14 Op Maintenance/Sample 0.000 -0.04033654
293
Major Infrastructure Investments in the Peel Plaza Redevelopment
Monte Carlo Simulation Output
@RI SK Output Report for Risk Retained Under PSC
Performed By:Joseph Yun
Date:Friday,January 09,20091:42:08 AM
Simulation Summary Information
�sk Retained Under PSC Workbook Name Saint John VFM Analysis_DBFOM_Version 3.xlsx
"�' Numberof Slmulatlons 1
:.�� S-� Num ber of I teratlons 1000
Num ber of I nputs 60
Num ber of Ou�pu�s 4
p j Sam pling Type Monte Carlo
-{"
Slm ulatlon Start Tlm e 1/9/09 1:41:48
Slmulatlon Duratlon 00:00:11
��
' Random # Generator Mersenne Twister
__ Random Seed 2086947993
Summary Statistics for Risk Retained Under PSC
� S�a�ls�lcs Percen�lle
�. - tr u'
_ - � "'i �` �- Mlnlmum $ 6,620,329 5% $ 14,227,279
ltluti�n�till,,-�r,� Maxlmum $ 42,499,418 �0% $ 16,796,610
Mean $ 26,129,858 �5% $ 18,635,880
Sid Dev $ 6,771,896 20% $ 20,119,295
Risk Retained Under P5� Varlance 4.58586E+13 25% $ 21,633,909
1-�� �4�g' Skewness -0.208421945 30% $ 22,402,416
�.C�: 5�'�'� Kurtosls 2.641135724 35% $ 23,733,328
�� Medlan $ 26,534,700 40% $ 24,829,788
�8 Mode $ 22,179,820 45% $ 25,759,592
Left X $ 14,227,279 50% $ 26,534,700
�F Left P 5% 55% $ 27,525,161
RlghiX $ 36,936,713 60% $ 28,238,482
j,- Rlght P 95% 65% $ 28,914,746
Dlff X $ 22,709,433 70% $ 29,819,689
].� DIffP 90% 75% $ 30,844,415
#Errors 0 80% $ 32,000,675
�•� FllterMln Off 85% $ 33,306,084
4 = v� � � � � - FII�erMax Off 90% $ 34,864,305
':d��2iin�!IIIIa5 pFll�ered 0 95% $ 36,936,�13
Regression and Rank Information for Risk Retained Under PSC
RiskRet�inedUnderPSC Ra�k Name Re9, �o„
R2y�25i:CnC0�G2�'� 1 Total Contract/Sample 0.959 0.962
T�i�>;�nr.[r?� =���p:=� 2 Construction/Sample 0.106 0.079
3 Construction/Sample 0.102 0.131
��:1nciNC�Ol1;SJrl�p�:.
4 Total Contract/Sample 0.100 0.081
�.�5;*IIC�iG�1�G?TD�G 5 Construction/Sample 0.092 0.081
:3J I•�dti�:2nd�C���2n;�ls- 6 Total Contract/Sample 0.081 0.074
:�U�•1d�nLC�dTC2��dr�Dl=� C � Cap Maintenance/Sample 0.073 0.138
�� 8 Construction/Sample 0.061 0.037
:���:'uCDOn;U�r�1z� 9 Op Maintenance/Sample 0.059 0.021
���r.5tru.^..�nn'��mP'�� � 10 Construction/Sample 0.055 0.094
11 Construction/Sample 0.049 0.067
- - - 12 Cap Maintenance/Sample 0.048 0.092
� - � �� - � ` - - �� - 13 Construction/Sample 0.044 -0.007
fOPfTICI!'tl��/3�UE 14 Construction/Sample 0.033 0.000
294
Major Infrastructure Investments in the Peel Plaza Redevelopment
Monte Carlo Simulation Output
@RI SK I nput Results
Performed Bv:]oseph Yun
Date:Fridav.]arv�arv 09.2W3 1:92:11 NM
:Name :Cell :Graph :Mln :Mean �Max 5%; 95%:Errors
Category:Cap Malntenance
;CapMaintenanm/Sample ;K45 ;6.43°/a :15.19°/a ;23.79°/a :8.69°/a ;21.20°/a :0
� �
. .
......,................................................................................,............... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;CapMaintenance/Sample ;K46 a � ;-0.67% :5.64^/0 ;13.12% :1.11% ;10.69% :0
�.
......;................................................................................;............... ........................................... .......................................... ........................................... .......................................... ........................................... .....................
;CapMaintenance/Sample ;K47 a � ;6.41°/a :14.97°/a ;23.63°/a :8.73°/a ;21.12°/a :0
.
� .
......,................................................................................,..............., .......................................... .......................................... ........................................... .......................................... ........................................... .....................
;CapMaintenanm/Sample ;R45 ; � ;5.05°/a :16.94°/a ;30.84°/a :8.79°/a ;27.22°/a :0
�..
......,................................................................................,............... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;CapMaintenance/Sample ;R46 � ;-0.69^/0 :5.78% ;13.31°/a :1.20°/o ;11.05% :0
•�
......;................................................................................;............... ........................................... .......................................... ........................................... .......................................... ........................................... .....................
;CapMaintenanm/Sample ;R47 a � ;6.30°/a :14.99°/a ;23.74°/a :8.82°/a ;21.08°/a :0
��:.
Category:Construction
:COnstruction/Sample :Kll � :-0.14% ;0.51% :1.38% ;0.03% :1.13% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................:.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/Sample :K12 � :-0.03% ;0.29% :0.64% ;0.06% :0.55% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
. �.....;..... .....;..... .....;..... .....
:COnstruction/Sample :K13 � :-1.01% ;4.91% :13.98% ;0.29% :10.92% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/Sample :K14 � :-0.44% ;3.44% :7.98% ;0.42% :6.65% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................:.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/Sample :K16 � :-1.51% ;2.63% :6.71% ;-0.33% :5.63% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/Sample :K17 :-2.38% ;3.46% :7.78% ;-0.43% :6.64% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
�
:COnstruction/Sample :K18 ' :-0.66% ;4.54% :10.42% ;0.89% :8.51% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
, � .....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
:COnstruction/Sample :K23 � :-0.14% ;0.50% :1.38% ;0.04% :1.09% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:Construction/Sample :K24 � :0.00°/a ;0.27°/a :0.68°/a ;0.07°/a :0.55°/a ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
. �.....;..... .....;..... .....;.....
:COnstruction/Sample :K25 ' :0.06% ;0.51% :0.94% ;0.18% :0.82% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/SamPle :K26 ' � •....:-0.32% .....,'2.88% .....:6.67% .....,'0.61% .....:�5.33% .....,.0.
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
. �.....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
:COnstruction/Sample :K27 ' :-0.52% ;2.98% :6.41% ;0.47% :�5.40% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
. �.....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
:COnstruction/Sample :K28 ' :0.06% ;0.51% :0.93% ;0.20% :0.82% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
. �.....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
:COnstruction/Sample :K29 ' :-1.43% ;2.44% :5.84% ;-0.29% :4.89% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
, � .....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
:COnstruction/Sample :K30 ' :-1.01% ;2.73% :6.60% ;-0.06% :5.47% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
, �.....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
:COnstruction/Sample :K31 ' :1.04% ;6.22% :12.66% ;2.29% :10.74% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/Sample :K32 • :-0.59% ;5.91% :13.20% ;1.19% :11.02% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
�
:COnstruction/Sample :K33 • :-0.55% ;2.59% :7.13% ;0.26% :5.67% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/Sample :K34 • :-0.11% ;0.59% :1.31% ;0.06% :1.08% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
�
:COnstruction/Sample :K36 • :-0.47% ;2.97% :6.36% ;0.53% :5.53% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
�
:COnstruction/Sample :Rll • :-0.11% ;0.52% :1.40% ;0.03% :1.14% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/Sample :R12 • :-0.03% ;0.29% :0.64% ;0.04% :0.54% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
, �.....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
:COnstruction/Sample :R13 �� • :-1.11% ;4.84% :13.72% ;0.38% :10.96% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:COnstruction/Sample :R14 - • :-0.67% ;3.44% :8.09% ;0.52% :6.58% ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
:Construction/Sample :R16 • :-3.46°/a ;5.17°/a :13.83°/a ;-0.80°/a :11.09°/a ;0
.
' : :•� .....i. � : : : :
295
Major Infrastructure Investments in the Peel Plaza Redevelopment
Monte Carlo Simulation Output
_C �...............
onstruction/Sample ;R17 � ;-0.29°/a :2.63°/a ;4.93°/a :0.68°/a ;4.38°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
� ....;..... .....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
;Construction/Sample ;R18 � ;-0.64°/a :5.86°/a ;13.32°/a :1.23°/a ;11.10°/a :0
•�
......;................................................................................;............... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;Construction/Sample ;R23 � ;-0.23% :2.92% ;6.64°/o :0.61% ;5.60% :0
,.
•�......,................................................................................,............... ......................................... .......................................... .......................................... .......................................... ......................................... .....................
;Construction/Sample ;R24 � ;-0.12°/a :0.51°/a ;1.40°/a :0.04°/a ;1.14°/a :0
�
......;................................................................................;..............., ........................................... .......................................... ........................................... .......................................... ........................................... .....................
;Construction/Sample ;R25 � ;0.06°/a :0.50°/a ;0.94°/a :0.19°/a ;0.81°/a :0
.�
......;................................................................................;............... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;Construction/Sample ;R26 a � ;-0.26^/0 :2.86^/0 ;6.60°/o :0.47% ;5.44% :0
:�
......,................................................................................,............... ......................................... .......................................... ........................................... .......................................... .......................................... .....................
;Construction/Sample ;R27 � ;-0.51°/a :2.99°/a ;6.47°/a :0.45°/a ;5.49°/a :0
�
;Construction/Sample ;R28 a � ;0.05°/a :0.49°/a ;0.95°/a :0.19°/a ;0.81°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;Construction/Sample ;R29 � ;0.37°/a :2.97°/a ;5.65°/a :1.19°/a ;4.78°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;Construction/Sample ;R30 � ;-0.96% :2.80°/o ;6.61% :-0.03% ;5.68% :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
�....;..... .....;..... .....;.....
;Construction/Sample ;R31 � ;1.51°/a :5.07°/a ;8.58°/a :2.60°/a ;7.51°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............«•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;Construction/Sample ;R32 ' ;-1.39°/a :2.45°/a ;7.04°/a :-0.35°/a ;5.52°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;Construction/Sample ;R33 ' ;-0.98% :2.63°/o ;6.69°/o :-0.06% ;5.53% :0
.�.
;Construction/Sample ;R34 ' ;0.29°/a :1.99°/a ;3.79°/a :0.76°/a ;3.19^/0 :0
......�................................................................................:...............;.•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;Construction/Sample ;R36 � ' ;-0.43% :3.01% ;6.42% :0.55% ;5.44% :0
Cate9ory:OpMaintenance � �.
;OpMaintenanm/Sample :K41 ' :-1.61°/a ;8.09°/a :20.69°/a ;0.76°/a :17.00°/a ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
, � .....;..... .....;..... .....i.....
;OpMaintenanm/Sample :K43 ' :0.77°/a ;6.23°/a :12.87°/a ;2.29°/a :10.71°/a ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
�
;OpMaintenanm/Sample :R41 ' :1.66°/a ;22.30°/a :44.58°/a ;7.67°/a :37.45°/a ;0
......:.................................................................................:................i.� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... .................
;OpMaintenanm/Sample :R43 :-2.76°/a ;15.05°/a :31.36°/a ;2.38°/a :27.69°/a ;0
Category:TotalContraR � �.
;TotalContract/Sample ;K6 • ;-1.36°/o :13.26°/o ;33.17% :1.96°/a ;27.44% :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
�
;TotalContract/Sample ;K7 • ;-4.86°/a :8.07°/a ;19.64°/a :-1.50°/a ;16.16°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
�
;TotalContract/Sample ;K48 • ;-4.76°/a :19.25°/a ;46.95°/a :1.85°/a ;38.82°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
�....;..... .....;..... .....;.....
;TotalContract/Sample ;K50 • ;0.21°/a :2.00^/0 ;3.71°/o :0.75% ;3.22% :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;TotalContract/Sample ;K51 - • ;1.42°/a :5.04°/a ;8.39°/a :2.66°/a ;7.52°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............«•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;TotalContract/Sample ;R6 • ;-10.50°/a :22.47°/a ;52.08°/a :-0.77°/a ;43.63°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
�.
;TotalContract/Sample ;R7 • ;-4.59% :7.86^/0 ;19.44% :-0.99% ;16.50% :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.• ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
�
;TotalContract/Sample ;R48 • ;8.29°/a :50.47°/a ;93.22°/a :20.50°/a ;81.05°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ..................
;TotalContract/Sample ;R50 � • ;0.23°/a :1.96°/a ;3.67°/a :0.80°/a ;3.18°/a :0
......;................................................................................;...............;.•� ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ....................................... ...................................... ..................
;TotalContract/Sample ;R51 ;1.47% :4.97% ;8.40% :2.52% ;7.38% :0
•�• :
296
Major Infrastructure Investments in the Peel Plaza Redevelopment
Monte Carlo Simulation Output
@RI SK Output Results
Performed By:Joseph Yun
Date:Friday,January 09,2009 1:42:16 AM
�Name �Cell iGraph ;Min :Mean iMax 5%i 95%iErrors
Range:Risk Retained Under PSC
:Risk Retained Under PSC ;T53 ;��• �� 6,620,330:$ 26,129,860;8 42,499,420;8 14,227,280;8 36,936,710:0
Range:Risk Retained Under PPP
;Risk Retained Under PPP :M53 ;$ 755,228 ;$ 4,260,976;$ 8,470,491;$ 1,907,956;$ 6,918,434;0
•�•
Range:<none>
�ProjectPlanning and Budget/PPP ;MS ;$ (376,730);$ 3,252,317;$ 7,638,471;$ 930,784 ;$ 5,931,628;0
:�•
.......:..............................................................................................;..................; . .................................................; ................................................; ................................................; ................................................; ................................................;.........................
. .....;..... ... ... ... ...
: : :• : ' ' ' ' '
:Approvaland SiteCOndition/PPP ;M10 '�• �� 9,655;8 435,708 ;8 951,906 ;8 156,329 ;8 733,450 ;0
297
�
Important Notice
This report is for the exclusive use of the City of Saint John. The results of this report are intended to assist the City of Saint John
in making management decisions.
The estimated capital and operating budgets are based on assumptions made which are effective as of the date of this report
(January 12, 2009). The budgets are compiled from information provided by a variety of sources and we have not evaluated the
support for the assumptions or other information underlying the information.
The underlying assumptions may change, subsequent to this report date, and changes will have an impact on our analysis and
results. We take no responsibility for updating our analysis after the date of this report. Additionally, since these assumptions
reflect anticipated future events, actual results may vary from the information presented and these variations may be material. As
such, we do not provide any opinions or any other form of assurance on the financial estimates.
298
January 6, 2009
The City of Saint John
His Worship Ivan Cou�t and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Commissions, Boards and Committees of Common Council
Common Council has been asked to consider implementing a new "committee system"
form of governance. As a part of this process, I have indicated that I feel this council
should first explore and make a determination whether or not our current governance
model has the capacity to achieve the desired level of efficiency, transparency and
service delivery outcomes of this municipality.
Personally, I believe we can create new efficiencies within our current structure/model.
Specifically, I would like to explore the mandates of the various Commissions, boards
and committees of Common Council which currently exist. Perhaps, greater efficiencies
can be achieved through a reduction and/or consolidation of many of these groups.
Also, we need to create clear expectations to ensure an acceptable level of interaction
between these bodies and Common Council. After all, many of these commissions,
boards and committees exist to offer advice to Council and it is imperative to ensure
there is routine communication and reporting taking place. I would also like to explore
the rationale for remuneration, where applicable.
Motion: The City Manager will bring forward a report to Council, outlining the
mandates and/or justification for the various Commissions, boards and
committees of common council and subsequently make recommendations on
how we could create greater efficiencies by reducing the number of
Commissions, boards and committees of common council through the
elimination andlor consolidation of any of these bodies and through the
establishment of clear reporting procedures.
Respectfully Submitted,
(received via e-mail)
Councillor Snook
l� -
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John,NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn,ca I C.P.1971 Saint John, N.-B.Canada E2L 4L1
--»
299
January 6, 2009
The City of Saint John
His Worship Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Community Consultation for development
Over the past several weeks I have heard individuals express a desire to see changes
made to the process that the city currently uses to engage community input in regard to
proposed development. This subject touches on issues having to do with the distance
used to determine who receives notification of the proposed development, a
current/appropriate land use plan which reflects zoning that meets the needs and
expectations of the community, and a desire by some to see mixed income
developments become the municipalities preferred model, especially in areas where
poverty already exists.
I believe we need to undertake a review of our current system of approving
development in Saint John in order to accentuate the things that are working and
explore new efficiencies, addressing some of the above mentioned concerns.
Motion: I propose that the city manager initiate a review of the current process
for approving development in Saint John and subsequently present to council
recommendations.
Respectfully Submitted,
(received via a-mail)
Councillor Snook
lr -
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B.Canada E2L 4L1
---_�
300
The Ciry of Saint)ohn
January 8, 2009
Your Worship and Members of Council:
Budqet/Solid Waste
The cost associated with solid waste is currently a portion (substantial) of the overall tax rate of
The City of Saint John. fn my opinion, the most fair, equitable, and transparent system for solid
waste is the user-pay system.
Motion: I request the support of Council to reduce the tax rate by the amount associated
with Solid Waste and replace our current system with a user-pay system. The said
system is to be implemented no later than June 15, 2009, or, if possible, sooner.
Sincerely,
(source verified)
Councillor Titus
�r _
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B.Canada E2L 4L1
��
301
�, E � � F�, T '� � � C� I� I� � I�" C � �JN � � L�
� l
o� _.....
� �o,
� .
�.
M&C #2009
The City of Saint]ohn
January 8, 2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
And Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: QUESTIONS AND/OR DIRECTIONS FROM COMMON COUNCIL
RE: 2009 OPERATING BUDGET
The purpose of this report is to respond directly to Councillor's questions that have been
forwarded to staff in the Iast few days.
QUESTION# I:
What percentage change would be required from the 2008 Budget to deliver the same
level of service in 2009. I am looking for a departinental number.
ANSWER:
The answer to this question varies from Department to Departinent and from Commission
to Commission. Included as attachments to this report is information froin the larger of
your departments. All departinent heads have been advised to be prepared to answer
verbally on Monday night.
QUESTION#Z:
If the change is greater than 4.5%, please specifically explain what is causing the increase
to be greater than that.
ANSWER:
A review of the initial submission, in which "service needs"were identified, indicate the
following departments and/or commissions exceeded the 4.5%.
302
Report to Conamon Council p�ge 2
SuUject: Questions arid/or Directio�is fi�onz Comrrzoi� Council re: 2009 Operatirzg Budget
AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY REASON ADDITIONAL AMOUNT
Council 3T Party Consultants $323,000
Communication Now a"full year plus one 307 000
,
additional staff'
Fire All based on anticipated 237,000
Arbitration of Wages
EMO One additional person plus 200,000
additional3rd party resources to
prepare Community Contingency
Plans.
Municipal Operations Most is a recommended increase 1,400,000
in the Asphalt Resurfacing
Program.
Community Plaruiing All staff and consulting costs to 490,000
make significant progress on a
new Munici al Plan.
PoIice All most a11 is attributable to 750,000
wage costs.
Transit To reflect over expenditures in 1,015,000
2008, plus a drive to increase
ridership.
Water Supply/Hydrant Calculated based on the Utility 374,000
Budget which is growing
(formula based).
Arts and Culture Initiative Simply the requests received. 355,000
Cherry Brook Zoo Request received. 175,000
Festival/Public Requests Received. 98,000
Social Development Requests received plus an 388,000
attempt to uicrease funding to
neighbourhoods.
Capital From Operatin� An effort by staff to fund more 455,000
items from current o erations
Finally, in"all other budget 872,000
lines"
Total over and above 4.5% $7,439,000
QUESTION#3:
What would be required to end the current procedure which sees fire, ambulance and
police respond to eveiy emergency call. What savings, approximately,might be
realized?
303
RepoYt to Commort Coa�ncil Page 3
Szrbject: Qitiestions ai�d/or Directions fr�ona Canmon Councdl re: 2009 Operatzng Budget
ANSVVER:
See Appendix A: Council Inquiry—Tiered Response Report.
QUESTION#4:
Would each department head calculate the percentage of their budget request dedicated to
equipinent purchase/replacement?
ANSWER:
See Appendix B: Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Program
QUESTION#5:
Please provide the detail on the Corporate Planning Caption. This had begun as a
Visioning exercise and I want to understand the details.
ANSVVER:
See Appendix C: Corporate Planning Budget Request
Attached,please find the detail with respect to the Corporate Planning Unit.
This unit was created as a result of Chartwell's Operational Review. Chartwell suggested
it had to be lead at the highest level in the Organization.
In this regard, the former Commissioner of Finance was enticed to accept this
responsibility and shortly thereafter two other professionals were transferred to the Unit.
The 2009 Budget proposes transferring two more individuals from Infonnation
Technology to this unit.
This Corporate Planning Unit has the following priority responsibilities;
• To press forward on implementing Chartwell's recommendations (Vision 2015).
• To monitor and report to Council, progress on the Integrated Community Plan.
• To establish Performance Measures for every department.
• To assist with the creation of the Corporate Plan (completed) but more
importantly, to monitor and report on progress of iinplementation.
• To provide project management skills to projects that cross departmental lines.
The creation of such a Unit focusing on the future and continuous improvement is seen as
a best practice in many communities.
304
Report to Conzrnort Coz�ncil Page 4
Sa�bject.• Questioi��s U�7d/or Directions fi-om Coni�raori Coi���cil re: 2009 Operatirig Budget
In any event, should Council not wish to fund all or a portion of this Unit, in order to
realize the cost savings, your City Manager would recoininend:
1. First, he would meet with the five employees affected.
2. Every effort would be inade to retain these individuals and re-deploy thein into
existing vacancies for the time being. Council inust appreciate these individuals
have the skills needed to help move us forward.
3. If vacancies were not available, the City Manager with the approval of Council,
would still retain these individuals and identify an equal and offsetting number of
positions to be severed.
QUESTION#6:
I would like to have the budget reduction focus shifted away from the smaller
"community/cultural" items. Provide us with details and strategy on how to reduce costs
while keeping a level of service which is reasonable.
ANS WER:
There is a report on the agenda that deals with Council Policy Positions that may help in
this regard.
QUESTION#7:
I want to see a budget with .02 to .10 cent reduction with an emphasis on cost i�eduction
not service reduction.
ANSWER:
See the separate report on the agenda.
QUESTION#�H
On this continuum, at what point does it actually start to reduce service levels and what is
the nature of the reduction.
ANSWER:
The truth is that service is affected immediately when we drive to inaintain a stable tax
rate. However, I believe with soine tweaking these reductions would prove acceptable to
Council.
305
Report to Comrnon Council Page S
Subject: Que,stions a���d/or Di�f-ectin�zs.fi°ona Co»in7�v�z Council re: 2009 Operating Budget
QUESTION#9
Council has asked for a plan to rernove waste collection froin the tax rate. This would
reduce the rate by approximately .08 cents. I would like to see this plan in adjunct to the
.02 to .10 scale.
ANSWER:
In December, the possibility of the City of Saint John removing "Waste Collection" from
its expenditure base and therefore the tax rate was raised and a report and
recommendation was requested.
The arguments in favour of doing so are relatively straight forward, i.e., User Pay and
Citizen Responsibility. No one would argue these two basic principles.
However, the City is in the "Waste Collection Business"not because it is a service to
individuals, but rather garbage not collected is a Public Health Concern. For this reason,
Municipalities this size and with the neighbourhood diversity of Saint John routinely
provide this service themselves or contract with third party haulers.
The thrust of the suggestion by Council was that this expenditure be removed from the
base. In other words, it was not a suggestion that we simply replace our forces with a
private hauler since we simply may be replacing "one cost" with "another". In fact, the
City could double its cost in the short term.
In order to reinove the expenditure froin the base, the City would be well advised to take
some steps that would ensure the private sector has "geared up" and is prepared to accept
the responsibility. A possible and extremely aggressive time table might be;
Council makes a policy decision. January/2009
Staff prepares a package containing routing maps, schedules February/2009
and service standards. This package is made available to the
Private Sector.
Submissions received: March 31 /2009
• Are you prepared to meet service standards?
• Are you prepared to accept responsibility for billing
and collecting from homeowners and tenants?
• Are you prepared to lease from the City some or all
of the Packer fleet?
• What costs would the City incur should waste be
found on public streets, in arks or not identified to a
306
Re�ort to Com�ion Council Page 6
Subject: Question.s artd/or Directions fi�om Conznzon Cou�zcil re: 2009 Operatirtg Br�dget
home or an apartment?
City Staff to review—Perhaps different routes to different April/2009
haulers.
Cit is out of the Garbage Collection business Jul 1/2009
The financial implication is that in 2009 the Operating Budget could be reduced by
(50 %) of the cost of the 13 employees and tipping fees.
The thirteen Local 18 Employees would be re-deployed in areas where additional staff
has been requested, i.e. Parks Department or placed in positions that will become vacant
in the first six months of the years.
A WORD OF CAUTION:
Staff advises me this timetable is not possible and the City would be just asking for a host
of problems if they were to proceed without doing the proper planning to allow for a
smooth transition.
QUESTION# lO
What are the net additional costs to households if waste collection is reinoved froin the
tax rate?
ANSWER:
Should be available on Monday evening.
QUESTION# I1:
What is the exact cost of employee benefits (don't give us 25% of payroll, but rather
actual dollars.) I would like this broken out across all einployee groups.
ANSWER:
The exact cost of em lo ee benefits is as follows;
Pension—Current Service 11.3%
CPP 3.4%
Employment Insurance 1.5%
Health&Dental 2.9��0
Life I�isurance 1.0%
WCB I.8%
Other(Contract Specific 2.6%
Total 24.5%
307
Report to Conanaon Cotriacil pag� �
Subject: Qt�estioras and/or Dzrectioras.fi°oni Co»zmo�t� Coa�ncil re: 2009 Ope�°ating Budget
B Em lo ee Grou includin Police Commission)
Management&Professional $1,978 121
�
Inside Workers 1,733,793
Firefighters (Local 771) 2,904,029
Police Officers (Loca161) 2,619,405
Local 18 2,555,285
All other casuals,temps, summer students, 647,221
etc.
Total $12,437,854
QUEST'ION#12:
I would like to understand why Saint John's fire service costs $7 Million dollars more
than Moncton. I would like rnore detail than simply saying it is because of Industry.
ANSWER:
See Appendix D- Budget Difference (Saint John/Moncton)
QUESTYON#13:
Can you justify having over 80 managers. I need to understand their roles and
responsibilities to justify having such a larger management team.
ANS W ER:
The City of Saint John currently has 84 positions in what has traditionally been called the
Management/Professional Group. Unfortunately, there appears to be a negative
connotation associated with the word"management". In reality, it is these 84 positions
that Council has succeeded in excluding from any "Bargaining Unit". In other words, it
is these individuals who have loyalty to Council as opposed to the Brotherhood.
These employees have been excluded from the various bargaining units based on;
1. Their access to confidential information.
2. Their standings in certain professions.
3. A recognition that should there be a work stoppage/walk out, it is these 84
positions that Council will turn to.
The composition of this group is as follows:
• Lawyers (7)
• Professional Engineers (25)
308
Repo��t to Conrn�on Cot�ncil Page 8
Strbject: Qitestiorrs and/or Di�°ections fi-o�n Cofnnr�zori Council re: 2009 Oper°ati���g Btrdget
• Professional Accounts (7)
• Professional Plannet•s (5)
• Canadian Human Resource Professionals (4)
• Others
Of these 84 positions, approximately 40 have a primary responsibility to manage people
as opposed to being primarily engaged in areas where their technical or professional
expertise is required.
Those who are involved on the "people" managing side would be in the City Manager's
Office, Department Heads, Fire Management Personnel and a skeleton crew of
Operational Managers providing management and supervision to the unionized
workforce 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
QUESTION# 14:
Can the Commissioner of Finance provide an estimate of Debt Payments fi•oin 2009 thru
to 2012?
ANSWER:
See Appendix E. Debt Service Costs—Please note that the Commissioner has significantly
reduced the size of the anticipated Capital Program. Should Council approve a larger program
then debt cost will obviously increase.
,
Resp tfully submitte
�/�.�l.i.��,,
Terrence L. Totten, FCA
CITY MANAGER
ATTACHMENTS
309
�
310
�
��°� COUNCIL INQUIRY °°° ��°
Do o� �°p _ p°�
y,�°pt7ebpO�Q� TIERED RESPONSE REPORT S��,OO1rA6OO (,�
� T �
����IiN FiRF'O ��Ht.FtRF'
Executive Summarv
The following report will respond to recent inquiries made by Council in relation to the role of the Saint
John Fire Department in providing pre-hospital care, to the citizens of Saint John, through "Tiered"
Emergency Medical Services (E.M.S. response with Ambulance New Brunswick}. Analysis of the core
issues includes a survey of 15 responding municipalities across Canada, a review of documentation
from 6 other cities and the province of Ontario, as well as, standard setting bodies. This external
analysis, is compared to the current state response model utilized in Saint John, which will serve to
dispel many myths. It is clear that the manner in which our EMS service is provided in Saint John is:
■ Resulting in a Cardiac Save Rate that is Nationally recognized;
■ Very similar to other Canadian cities;
■ Cost effective and value added to our core service — Little is saved by cutting E.M.S.
service;
■ Representing a similar percentage of our total call volume (compared to other Fire
Departments);
■ Our model is the base level service, recognized in the (NFPA) National Fire Protection
Association Standard: Many departments provide a higher level of service including
Moncton, (in EMS);
■ The Sainf John Fire Department responds to only the most serious E.M.S. responses, less
than 33% of the total responses in Saint John;
■ The resource requirement of the Saint John Fire Department is linked directly to the Fire
Protection needs of the City of Saint John and not the EMS needs of the community;
■ Consistent with other municipalities, who do not operate their City's EMS; we are not
utilizing quick response vehicles
■ The EMS service is provided to citizens by virtue of the Resolution of Council;
discontinuation of this service would, indeed require a Resolution of Council
311
Background:
There have been a significant number of inquiries around the role that the Saint John Fire Department
plays within our community, in the area of Emergency Medical Services (E.M.S.) response. Further, it
has been noted that there have been printed inaccuracies around this service, that are presenting
misconceptions to the public.
Most recently, Councillor Sullivan has requested information regarding E.M.S. response, in addition to
that provided at the open session on the 3�d of December 2008, be provided. As well, at that meeting,
Deputy Mayor Chase has inquired about the use of additional quick response vehicles, in relation to
E.M.S. response. Further Councilor Killen has requested what it would take to discontinue providing
E.M.S., to the citizens of Saint John, by the Fire Service.
Analysis:
History
In the late 1970's and early 1980's, across North America the notion of a "Tiered" E.M.S. Response
became a standard in progressive cities, where recognition was made that the pre-hospital care of
patients was critical to survivability rates. Cardiac and Trauma incidents were given precedence,
where there was documented medical evidence that citizens were saved at exponential rates. It was
recognized that the "load and go" philosophy was no longer appropriate and that the stabilization of
the patient, "in the field", increased survivability.
Efficiencies:
In Norfh America
1. The Fire Service has played an integral role in this pre-hospital care model given that the
existing fire protection needs of a community dictate the placement of stations geographically
close to citizens, thus providing very quick response times both to fires and E.M.S. calls. In fact,
in many American municipalities, it was determined that the most efficient means of delivery of
the E.M.S. response, was to have it run by the Fire Service.
2. It was also recognized that given the dangerous conditions in which firefighters work; it is critical
that Fire Departments be able to provide medical response to their own firefighters, who are
injured on scene, often within buildings, to ensure their survivability. In fact, recently, an on the
job firefighter was saved by his crew following his cardiac arrest. Today he is on the job, as a
SJFD Training Officer, 2 years after being clinically dead.
Current State Saint John Model:
The Saint John Fire Department responded to 3773 EMS calls in 2008 with Ambulance New
Brunswick. The average response time for the SJFD was 4:03, on the majority of these calls
the SJFD was at the scene, well in advance of the ANB paramedics. Ambulance New
Brunswick has set its ideal response time objective in Saint John at 9 minutes, 90% of the time.
Therefore, even if ANB is achieving their goal, the Saint John Fire Department is at the scene
2
312
on the calis over 9 minutes, on 10% calls before E.M.S. arrives. At this time ANB has not
achieved their response objectives in 90% of the responses in Saint John. (86-89%, 2008, ref.
Holmes)
The response to these calls is screened by both the Saint John Public Safety Communications
Centre and Ambulance New Brunswick dispatch in Moncton. The determination of the co-
response by the SJFD is made through the Medical Priority Dispatch Protocol. Currently in
Saint John, the SJFD responds to approximately 33% (2008) of the calls with Ambulance New
Brunswick. The calls that are responded to are those with serious potentiality around trauma,
cardiac symptoms and of extrication. Should Ambulance New Brunswick paramedics arrive at
the scene of the call first and SJFD personnel are not required, there are provisions for
cancellation of crews enroute.
Most recently the benefits of Automated External Defibrillator or A.E.D. during cardiac events
have become universally known. The Saint John Fire Department already has a program to
support A.E.D., with a unit on all apparatus and all personnel trained and certified each year. In
fact, local industry, (Moosehead Breweries), partnered with the SJFD to provide funding for the
first A.E.D. unit, with a view toward protecting their workers.
This service is provided to citizens on a frequent basis, given that we are usually with the patient
before paramedics. On an annual basis Atlantic Health Sciences has hosted a reception for the
cardiac survivors throughout the year; during this event fire crews who have saved lives through
their response are recognized. In fact, during the first full year of the A.E.D. program launch in
the Saint John Fire Department, lan Watson, Manager of E.M.S. recognized the co-responders
and program as having the "highest cardiac save rate in Canada." - That year seven citizens
who would have died were saved and returned to a sustainable quality of life.
Saint John's Cardiac Save Rate is: 12%, calculated to the higher of two national standards —to
be considered a cardiac save: you must be brought back from clinical death to actually leave
hospital. Even at this high standard our save rate at 12% surpassed the national average at
8%.
Pre-Hospital Care; Canadian Perspective:
Other Cities
Moncton
- Currently Moncton provides a similar deployment model.
- fntends to provide a deeper model with greater services, i.e. epipens, blood sugars, drug
therapy by firefighters.
- Moncton is moving to the Saint John Protocol on not responding to EMS calls at Care
Facilities where there is nursing and medical staff.
Fredericton
- Engine Company Response similar percentage of calls (58%).
3
313
Halifax
- 4 Firefighter Response units to urban EMS response.
Other Cities in Ontario (outside our survey)
Other municipalities who have examined this issue to the same relative finding include: Milton,
Chatham-Kent, Oshawa and Ottawa.
Ajax
In the execution of a tiered response agreement between Ajax and Durham Region E.M.S. the
General Government Committee agreed that:
"Amending the Tiered Response criteria to reduce the AFES response to medical emergencies
would result in a reduction of service levels to the community." (R.J. Wilson, Town of Ajax,
2008)
Toronto
- Toronto 46.30% of call volume (56,562 E.M.S. calls)
- Commissioner Barry Gutheridge provided analysis for the community services
committee on Tiered Response:
- "Due diligence on the part of community must ensure that its resources respond
appropriately to these situations. The tiered response system ensures that initial
intervention is guaranteed at a marginal expense.
On a complex medical emergency additiona! resources are often needed to effectively
provide paramedic interventions. Fire Fighters are trained in C.P.R., Advanced First Aid,
Defibrillation and administrafion of oxygen. This allows for effective and time critica!
intervention in cases where they are firsf to arrive on scene. It should be noted that this
is not a duplicate of service in any way." (Gutheridge, Community Services Commiftee,
Toronto 2000).
Canadian Survey
The Saint John Fire Department conducted a survey of 25 municipalities across Canada (See
Appendix 9). Of the 15 able to provide response in the tight timeline and similar profiles, all
provided training and response to their citizens in some form.
From the Survey and research we note the following:
• All cities provided tiered response similar to our model
• 5 of the Cities responding operated the full E.M.S. Service (usually through the Fire
Department);
• Of the services who do not run their own E.M.S. Service or transport, only one service
utilized quick response vehicles;
4
314
• 2 municipalities have Engine Companies with 5 firefighters opposed to our 4 (Saskatoon,
Calgary);
• The average percentage of all other Departments' response to EMS to total calls is
43.35%, Range 17— 80%. (Saint John Fire Department 39.9%, 2008).
Other Provinces:
In a joint white paper by the Ministry of Health, Fire Chiefs and Fire Marshal's Office of Ontario
in 2005, it was agreed that guiding principles of tiered response would mirror those of Saint
John:
1. "To ensure the timely availability of staff and resources to safely and efficiently mitigate a
life threatening public safety incident."
2. "To deploy adequately trained and equipped personnel to the scene of agreed upon life
threatening/public safety emergencies."
Standard Setfinq Bodies:
The NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) also recognizes the importance of the Fire
Service exhibiting depth in the area of Emergency Medical Response:
Standard #1710:
"5.3.2.2.1 - The minimal level of training for all firefighters that respond to emergency incidents
shall be to the First Responder/A.E.D. Level".
"5.3.3.4.2 - The Fire Department's E.M.S. for providing a first responder with A.E.D. shall be
deployed to provide for the arrival of a first responder with AED Company within a 4
minute response time to 90 percent of the incidents."
A.5.3.3.4.3 -The American Heart Association recommends the minimum required personnel for
an emergency cardiac care response. In those systems that have attained survival
rates higher than 20 percent for patients with ventricular fibrillation, response times
include, as a minimum, two ACS providers and two BLS providers. (ALS-Advanced
Life Support, BLS-Basic Life Support).
See "Guidelines 2000 for Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiac Care';
"Basic Trauma Life Support for Paramedics and Other Providers'; "Pre-Hospital Trauma Life
Support'; "Pediatric Advanced Life Supporf'; and Emergency Care and Transportation of the
Sick and Injured"
5
315
Financial Implications:
As noted by other municipalities, cross training existing firefighters by adding E.M.S. Response
to their duties, serves citizens at a high level, in life and death circumstances, while adding a
small percentage to the bottom line.
The Saint John Fire Department has conducted a full financial analysis of the costs associated
with this program the bottom line results in: $79,690 or 0.4% of the operating budget.
Expressed alternatively, the Saint John Fire Department responds to 39.9% of its calls for 0.4%
of its budget. This is truly a value added function to the Fire Protection Deployment Model.
This low allocation of EMS costing is a result of the fact that: the derivation of the fire service
deployment model consists of seven strategically placed Stations. This deployment of Stations
is based upon the primary core service to citizens and industry: fire suppression response. The
incremental EMS cost is that of extra training, fuel, supplies etc. and not the related staffing.
To be clear, the resource reauirements for the Saint John Fire Department are directiv linked to
the fire protection needs of the City of Saint John and not the EmerQencv Medical reauirements
of the communitv.
Summary:
The "Tiered Response" model that is in place in Saint John is currently at a level of efficiency
that is the recognized standard and comparable with the analysis' completed by other
municipalities, including Fredericton and Moncton. This model and its components are
constantly under review and recertification thus ensuring validity and effectiveness. This
Service has been reviewed in other Municipalities and Provinces and it has been determined
that now more than ever the response is required.
The utilization of a 4 person crew on an Engine Company serves our community needs in that,
the apparatus is prepared to respond to all types of response at all times, reflecting maximum
efficiency and safety for citizens and firefighters. The four person response is a standard in
cities of similar fire risk.
The decision to provide E.M.S. response within our community was made as a Resolution to
Council; to discontinue this service would require a Resolution of Council.
]t is clear that the E.M.S. service, provided by the Saint John Fire Department is a value added
and cost effective response, based upon the current community profile: inclusive of an aging
demographic, high poverty rates and industry related potentialities.
6
316
� SE'E4 =°/a 3Jb213At1� I � I - I- - - �
I . �ea�C _`- �sa�C l�ii�o ��_ -dH s�au�ui Nsa�C . __ _. 1 --- �-- --Isai( � - I6adiuui
' a e ;inn -- - ---
� . � I --- aW� - /N---
jzsy I I ss ---�- i000 svl I --u e uii 4 -- - -- - - - - -- Isi-
. - -- - -
--- L
� � � F - -
- -� - -- ---- _ _ ' __ � L _ . .-- -- -- �- - —I I-- � � �
� - - -. -- , _
I I i sei�i ede� -I I I
_ - - -- _ - - -- -
- I- - I-- I Is odsueaa 5Zti5 OO6i�- 3.1.9 laodsue� sanosa sa�( oul ` -1---- -I _�_ _ dN`adap aai�� _
�SOZ _ 64 ( 3� 1 b£) I (��ann se}�od us�;sapino�d)�sa�C �euoi6aa s,uyo�•;
- --- - ---= - , . __ -- - ----- -- -- --- --- -= - --
I
s
-- - - - - - I - �
.
- ----- ---- , . - - - - -
T - -- - - -
--- -- - - - ---- ' , , �- -- - - -- -- - �-
-------- --..- .- - -- - - ---•--
�9L6 ------�LL ZL9`£ + ---� --- ou; oul - -. _. isa�( �iS'uooae�seg £�
-- � - - - -
, - --- - � - - - ; ----- -- ------_-- - -- --- --- -- _ -- - -
--
: -- -- - - - -- - .... _ - - - - -
l-- ---- --- I -- - � _ou! _ - -- - - -- - oul--- - 'saX ew6a
ioz�- - --- - -- °Z -- - ioos ----- , —� -- ----�- - I -- -- -- -- - _ - .. - - - -- --�s`__ a:z�
-- - ' ` . - �� -- -� -- ---- ,. ou� I euoi6a ou. _}_ _-- - -__--- ---- --- - ---__-- �sa�t_. - e6nessissi ...
� � --- - -; -- -
- -- �- �I __ 2!) I- --- --- ---
� � -- - - --- ' - l -- -� � - - -- I_ _-- ------ - . ._ - - -- -- � NO` W 66-.
- ---
_ �b'666I __ Zb - -- -___I_ /000`Z6 I
� � - - � -- — .._
Z6Z �--. --� --- �LOOZ u!)15�4'£- ------- � ---- - - � oul-� I II ouj I sa�( NOI`We4�IJeWI
- - - -
-I - --� -- ----- �---- ; I -- -- ------ -- ---- -- — �OL-
- - - I I
� - � - �----- --- _, � , -- - -- - - - - - - -_
- ,
� -- + -- � -- - -- � - � ! . �-- --- - -- �-
I i -� - - - �s��eo�ay�ol t . . _ , .. __. l�odsue�a Suipn�oui' ; I
- ..--. I. I.
££'bZb ' SL I S66`Z)�Z£E`6 - --- ---- - - - -- sa�C �a ino�d e o sa/(' � '--- �salC---- -- - `6puq4�al�6
- _ � _ -- -- - ---- - - - � I I � _ - --. _.... ------_ --- - -;-
� �-_ _ _ _ � P. SW31 � i- i 9t/ ?--=
--_ - -
__ -- - -�--- --I - --- I I
I
- -- � - �. . - - --- -
- - - �-', - -
�tc'�zp - - -
tib'LL 68ti`6 -- oUl �- � } - - sa�S -- uo uo
I - - -�_ � -- _ -- �-- - ----- - - - i r --- _ ------ -- -I -- - --- N�'-P ZIg-
,
. � -- ,
- -- - - �48 �OS 000'9 au � I
- -- - -- -- i I - --- - --r— -
.. ....---- - �
..�. ---- -- --
--- �- --I _ --- - - -- � ou - --- --- -- Isa� �aua o i__. ._.
-
- -- -
- _
. --- � - --- - -.-.._ -
— � - -- �_ - --- - � - - - - -I - � - -- — - T ----
NO` 4 3.N L
- -- - --- - ----- �%8Z I -------- � - ---- - - -- -�.�-------- - - — -- ---
—-- --
�- -
I
--- -- -- --
�`dAW'loui OLO`E aq pinonn#I �_ -- - ---- f
- -- - = - - -- - - - -- --- --------------- --- - - --
, I �e;ol •asuodsaa;s�i�sel �
_ - - _ ..
- - � -- - - - - - - -- -- ---- - --- ---
, pai;isse��;ou sUe�`dAW 6LZ`4� I 1 - --- -
- ---- -_- - 41)I_ -- I ---- -- --- - -- ---- - -- ;
(0098 3noqe si � itiippe ue a�e a�a � '
-- -- �a - - - - - _ _ - -- - --- - - ---
-- � --
f Lb � �80/56 4�o sE)L68b6/661L�-- I ou r oul ane �a uodsa� sn�ae sa�t� gN'xe;i�eH g_
1- ._ -
d - -- - ---L-- -
uo `
OO6S 1 (I
-- 1- - � I p � �
'-- - - - - -- - • - - -- - -- - • _� -
-- !4s - — -- —r--- -- ! - — a� I -- o�� . — — li � 1 _ �
I - - � , sa,C �--- _. .
� - - �
- i- �8S - - ;69Z�1_ I I _ 8N`uo;o�aapaad g
__. — --- -
� ------ --�-- - - _ , ---
- I000`99 �OL 000'ti --_ ou� _- _ _�sa�C - - - - - -- �J----�_ sa�( ; 9tJ`�(e��nW�W�o� ti
t-- -• . --- - --- i � i • -,-� '-
- - -- - --- -- - -- --- - ' - - . �
- - - - - --- - -- aoin�aS SW3 sun�� T-- , _
'EZ8 I8ti _ - 1100Z U!):96S`6Z- - ---- -- °U - -- --- ----_. _ ._ _..�s�ai --- --- E61e�d�'�;!��-- --
� --- � _ _ _ _ ' _ _
_= ----- - �6 e,.£ -
--
- _- � - -� -- • -- � - �_ -�- � I
_ -
-- - -- ---- ---- ----- - I 8b' 1 �i --
-- - - -- - -� --- - - ' 15Z6 - _ 1 1Y d -—--- _ . - - - --- - -- -- . 3 -P I -y --J-�-�- - - i NO l i
- -
OZ IL6 ��aX sn eaedd an asn-ou ou � suoi;e;s aai �C3i�u� asno wa3s�Cs�t uno�e-sa�C a��in�oo�ef z
-- -- + - �- - - 1 __- - -- --. _ --�anosab - ___ --� -- -- -- � -;, _ . - �- -
- --�- - - -
� � �--- i.
__; __ _ : - - --
'£E �08 OOS`£ I - - --- ---- �sa�( - -- - _. _.. ;sai( ; I _ _ � sa�( - j NO`uopue�8 6
_ _ � :__ _. --1---
- --- i� - �-- � � , i ----� - � __�_ �
, � �
sw�bS I!W bS Sll`d�l`di01 Ol a3aNOdS32! OI�I S��I L.LLI�21f10A 210d 3�1n2l3S OI�I S�1C
`d321t�3Jb213A0� ,�Q % Sllt/�SW3 LllNfl 3SNOdS321�I�If1D t/3Zllilfl SL�I��H.L�.L��dO a�SI�IOdS�SL�I��QIA02Id II01C OQ A.LI�30 �3I^ldl�i
6 XIaN3ddtf 1210d321 3SNOdS32i a32l��.�JO 1210ddf1S NI�3A21f1S
�
318
T T _ � � C � C � C � � > L � � > ? > � N
m' m' m D """ w > ? O � � � � 00 � � 0000 S p
0 0 0 � � o � o p O � O O O O � � o Q o� o- o� v �j �o
000� � � p
w u, cn ,o -6 a -o ,o U -o a a °w° �m 'c m 'cv w 'a ° �D (�
N
- �
�
S
`o o 'a (�
'O J � 'O o o J �D
N `o V Z Z Z Z � '�
o N � O '� O O N N (D (D � � Z O O .p .Z7
� on °p � � 0 � � � f o, a ~ ZZC) � a
„ ° - O W " � m m m m � � D � r � N B
� � A � � Z Z Z Z m � 3 3 3 � Z Z � .p n n
� � O � � A m m m m l� � D D � f C� C1 C� c,, = �
� D O 2 v v v `� 2 m w � �
D � Cl (�n A D � � £ � A C C C C (� (l vDi C� C� � �
ZI O D O D � � 3 3 3 3 � � �^ 2 2 � ' �
c °1 � � c m Q Q 4 4 � y 'o D D D �
X
�' = A O �' D (D (D (D (D �' �' � Cn N m� O
�D., � m N N �
� � � �
�
A A. A O O O O O O O Oo O O O O N V O O � o, � � �
� � CD O
-� � O
N ^ �
� y � � � ��
Q 0 � l J � ♦!
O —1 � (ND 7 7 (�
Oc�i � � o ti (nN � -, -� -� ; aay C� r+
oo ?r ' Q 3mmmmfloQQ � -' 33 0 � `�
o � � O � N a o. Q. a � � � � � � n � � , . �,, ��n �^
A m 7 cn fl Q Q Q Q 4 �c �c fl � � O Z l V li �
�+ � o' � c � > ? � � c� c� c� n � � o o = <D -+�
? C) � � = Q 6 � � � F � < < a � f o � � m �
A 2 � p a Q n (� (� (� (�in in in in (�D (D fl Q (D A° f?°
v � f v o = � 3 3 3 3 � c�'o c�"o c°"u � � C c 3 � � � � � � �
m m � � �
� m � ° � '` �° Q Q Q o � � � f � � o � � O .
� A � � U Q � � � � Q L� O Q C C T T n � n T[� �
xk D ' fl° � O_ � 7c �c �c �c 6 Q� � vC, � O O � fD v
oog � �, � o ➢ DDDvv_ v_ v33s � � � 3 � � � L
�„ o� � � 3 0000 � � � � `° `° � � �° � O
CD
V� m m Q c c � � � �
�o fl- 3 3 m �-* �
� � � �
ti
�
0
N
N
�
� �L1 ln i/� N N N N N ���� N N 1n 1n N Ll tn tn �
N W W N N N N
p. (n t!� W N N N N N � a a Q
p. y N � Oo P W N a a a d A A d d � � V V A a a fAl1 (p
n� o o a in �o o. b� co o� b� ia ia
O O� P P P N N IJ N IJ U1
0 N O O O O� O. O� O. ln fn lh <!1 � � fn fn ln fn lh A
pP. � �O O O O O O O O O O O O � � O O O O O �o �
� B
X
— y
y W � a M EA f,n b'+ 4A M (H tP V+ M kn M W W N N � N X
N y� y� , N N N N N V �O �O �O W W _ � O
O O — � � � � (n (n U V
� O O O A � wV � O O O O O O O O W� W P P U (Wii (�ii W Q'
W
� � � O P N P P P P N V� Ut V� W CO � � � O � N �
�
N � �. .� � � �. �.�, .� �, z
� � � � � �� � � n �
A M EA � W � � O N N N N O O O O _ � W W W W W a �
O� P N N N
(,V O O (P A J O O� v �I V V (.J W _, ^
V O O N V N W U� � Cn Cn W W W W J V A A V V V � �)
O O `0 `� a � U A A O
W �O V A U V W W W W �O �O �D �0 � � W (J A A A O
V — �O O a o� a a Q O O COJi ON N N P P O O O �O y
319
Fleet Replacement
Maintenance Reserve Fund
Vehicle Usage Charges 3601 3620
Bldg. & Tech Services $ 68,025 $ 61,705
Execufive Offices $ 4,990 $ 3,326
leisure Services $ 194,307 $ 171,601
Corporate Services $ 93,387 $ 57,630
MunicipalOperations $ 1,645,653 $ 1,059,951
Planning � Development $ 5,821 $ 2,495
SJ Water $ 597,906 $ 237,176
SJEMO $ 10,433 $ 4,183
SJ Fire Dept. $ 133,971 $ 67,276
SJ Fire Dept. Apparatus $ 200,026 $ -
SJ Pqrking Commission $ 6,653 $ 6,655
Annual Tofals $ 2,961,172 $ 1,671,998
*Police not included
320
�
321
a�
� � a
� N U
U � ,_
�O p� Q
O � O
� L
� y C
O '- O
tn :� �
`� U
'� c
E .� °'
o � � o �
V � O O
-� C' fl- C CJ� �U7 �
c "� E a� �- U o c
ca � . � cn � � .
�n � � a� � � a� � °c_' 3
"a � cO c _°- �, o �� '� 'c v� cn � rn
� I "-' � � Q� � � c � tCd O O .Q � �
O � c "0 -- :�. �
,� � N O � N N C � �o- � •u� •�n �' O C
U � =' � Q. N � a? O O N �
� � O � � u> � � O c0 (O � �- � Q' d
U N N a c � � N O ° a .� � � � �
� .n �
c cn � - � � �� �n o c �c 3 V
� .�_T-' 'a � �p @ U N U (O (D t/l 'C Q
'� y- � � C f�A CO i6 v) a a- V n. O
� p N N -B � � � � N U
cB � � �p ` � c
m ia
c � � � °a o o a, a� `o o cn � n.
� y U c n. Q o
�� '� � N V � N � L O O L y (a
'o 'o .� � a Q. U U = � -
,� � rn o °' .n .� o � o
� � � �+ � � `" �a�i c 3 0 0 �i o �
m � •� .,_, v a> �' � a� o - - d o
� E � � � �° o aai 0° � cCd.� cfO.� � °' c
p � N � 'Z, Q o„ � .o 0 o p m ,o
oo S°
� � E ia o � a�i •� --°a ami a�i a�i o -�a
� � � o cnc� F- zu`.. a � � �ncn ¢
o � > -o
U � � � � o o �r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o cfl �
� O � N � T Q) M O O ti �t O O O '�7 O O O O O O O � O CD �
� U � � ��i N � O O M t.C') O N � t!� d' cN,� N �'- M � � N N u') � � (�
'V � N L T N y M � t�. a'
C O � '� •� � C)
U -� °- c�i � a m
o n- •- E
� N � � o
�
y U � � a� � OO ' O 'cY O O O O o ' o O o 0 0 0 o O N
� � U O �'�-+ O GD O O O O M O O O O O O V' O tn
� O O lf) CO O O O 'cY O O O O O O o0 O tD
� � O � � j 'a O O�O M G�D c- � O � M � M � r N N M t!') �
O N �
� � � Q- � U � .r+
d '� ,U C p) (B � N
O � � fB � Q. '6
7 � � N � p Q �
m � � � � � m
� �
_ � c � �
� a� ca � 'cB
� �
L '� � ° �
a> o � � � o
O Q' `a � >` >'
L O ;�
rn � � °- c U
o � o � a�
N � � V � +�--�
-a m N
C
C
� '� � � O .� Q �� � �
C (D �
•� a � C � .0 � C� d � � �? "O N
�i' N
� O N E - � rq c0 .� � � O � cb w
� � � � � ia � � � � � •� n a`� t° fl- �a ' S a
� N a� � � Z v H � a> - � c � '� n. � � o L E
a� o � c m ` a� � � � d � o a� �
i °- � � N � u� �n �n cfl 0° � H- a� c� � w cn � C� � � .�
o ° � -a � ? rn o� o� '�a' m � � a`� � a`� � °�' �n °�' Y o � a. � a
o � a o � �� m cv ca H ._ � m � a> � o � a�°i � °o � w o � p
� � � o �,_ �- � o � o �no � omc� oc� o �-
U 1- � Cn � .�
z
0
C ~
<
322
Q
L
N .i
"a C �
CO � C
N � '�
� � �
ca
� O �
� N �
Q � �
O.. O `p
�
� � �
.,-. C O
� � U
a�
E n� �
� � ca
� a H
� � aS
U � •�
� �
�p � U
d C C
O �
� � �
� �: �
O C O
.� a� U
� � o
� L �r
Q � �
� �C
� � C
G � �
� � �
Q C
E U `�
�
�"' � �- � N � � !� I� I� N ""' O O O O O O O N
� � OO O OO 00 = O O O O O O O
� � I� N N N � O � O O O O O �
�
� N N O [!') � O lL) O O N LC� N �p
t � � �' d' � d' M � r- N M a
H Q N � �' Q �
�
�6
�
H
W
.�
y
N
�
� N
� �
�F/ i�
� �
� �
a y
m w
�
� N U
� N
� o � � .
� c � O
� C C Q �
� � � d � � � ` .'"�
(� O � R > -C � 'C
N o � � � U T Q � fl- � Q- �° �
L
� � O � p) �C L � � 7 � �
C � � p Q- O C � i V� � (6 � � U
� i, O � � � � N y U � C CQ
.� L � d U p C E � G) � � >, � � O
a � T � � C��,6 U a U J � � C � � � �
O i � (B
4f � Q C C �-' � � � � � � � CJ� 'C � N
a � c a� � � o Q � ca � � E � � � � �
0 0 o n � � U �, Q � Q ` c—�a o o N v � �
= = v � `o `o �o °� � � :� C� � � �
o -�a o o � U � U o � U � U Z �? �? o
c� Q a i- c� f- � f-
Z
� Z
323
�
324
qo��oo COUNCIL INQUIRY: o°°.�°Oo
�o �oQ �� oQ�
°oo oo� BUDGET DIFFERENCE °�o o�°
�j. ]786
� ]186 ,�.
'''�',�ri�r����`�`� SAINT JOHN / MONCTON 9'�T/py�F�tEOy¢
Executive Summary
This report is in response to recent inquiries made by Council in relation to why it costs approximately
$7 million more to deliver Fire Service protection in Saint John than in Moncton. A review of this issue
includes: a comparison of geographic, community risk and topographical compositions of both cities
and the rationale that led to Council's adoption of the current deployment model.
An analysis of the differences revealed that the Saint John Fire Service Deployment Model contains
capacity to:
• cover 315 km2 (as opposed to Moncton being 150 km2) with a response time objective of 6
minutes, 90% of the time;
• respond to emergencies at heavy industrial facilities which are resource intensive;
• mitigate all types of hazardous materials spills or releases;
• manage a 40% rate of simultaneous emergency calls (multiple emergencies at the same
time);
• implement consistent fire scene command and control;
• implement consistent fire scene safety and accountability;
• provide basic fire coverage to both the eastern and western sections of the city in the event
bridge crossings become delayed;
• fight two basic residential structure fires at the same time (depth of response);
• facilitate water or ice rescues in the St. John and Kennebecasis Rivers (both more active
than the Petitcodiac River);
• facilitate near shore rescues in the Bay of Fundy;
• inspect 1/3 of the 6,000 places of assembly located in the City;
• respond to large scale emergencies;
• respond to incidents in non-hydrant areas of the City.
In summary, the analysis illustrates that the difference between the Saint John Fire Department
budget and the Moncton Fire Department budget is due to the Fire Service Deployment Models
adopted by the respective Municipal Councils in relation to specific response needs of citizens and
industries in their respective communities.
325
Myths and Facts
Myth: The Saint John Fire Department is the Cadillac of Fire Departments.
Fact: The answer is no. The Saint John Fire Department is challenged to satisfy a long list of
industry best practices.
Myth: Response times and response depth do not impact insurance premiums.
Fact: Based upon the current Fire Service Deployment Model of the City of Saint John, the
community was awarded a number 2 rating by the Insurance Advisory Organization, which in
turn helps local industry obtain lower premiums within their given rate table / risk portFolio.
Myth: The Fire Department is just an expenditure-based Department.
Fact: The Saint John Fire Department generates revenue for the City from the Regional Hazardous
Response Agreement; Pt. Lepreau Nuclear Power Generating Station Emergency Response
Agreement as well as through the issuance of clearance letters (i.e. during property
transactions involving local legal firms).
Myth: Most heavy industrial facilities have their own Fire Brigades and do not need the support of the
Saint John Fire Department.
Fact: The Refinery, for example, does have a Fire Brigade; however, the Saint John Fire Department
is called upon to respond to their large scale incidents. The Fire Department responded to the
Refinery 28 times during 2008, (two simultaneous incidents). As for other heavy industry such
as the lrving Pulp and Paper Mill at Reversing Falls, the Saint John Fire Department responds
to structure fires within the plant as well as wood chip fires.
Myth: Saint John Fire Department has no volunteer component.
Fact: The City of Saint John has enjoyed the support of the Saint John Salvage Corps and Fire
Police since 1898. The Fire Department regular[y calls upon members of the Corps to secure
a fire scene until the Police and/or Fire Investigators have reviewed the scene as well as to
salvage citizens' property.
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 2
326
Backqround
During recent budget deliberations, the comparison of various Municipal Department budgets arose.
More specificaliy, it was noted that the Saint John Fire Department budget is approximately $7 million
more than the Moncton Fire Department. The fundamental difference in the budget variance is linked
to the Deployment Models adopted by each community. These Deployment Models would have
evolved from each community's own unique geography, community risks and topography. To explain
why there is a $7 million difference between the two budgets, one must first understand why each
community has chosen its Deployment Model.
The purpose of this report is to illustrate why the Deployment Model for Saint John calls for seven Fire
Stations (housing 6 Engine Companies, 2 Tankers, 1 Ladder Company, 1 Quint and 1 Rescue Unit);
while Moncton has 5 Fire Stations (housing 3 Engine Companies, 2 Quints and a Rescue Unit).
Analvsis
The following section of this report will look at a comparison between Saint John and Moncton. This
section is broken down into four parts: community comparison; community risk comparison;
Deployment Model and rationale for current Deployment Model. The purpose of this approach is to
illustrate the differences between Saint John and Moncton that account for the implementation of their
selected Deployment Models.
1. Community Comparisons
Saint John and Moncton share many similarities, ranging from population to proximity to a major
highway. If both communities had the same qeoqraphv; communitv risks; and topoqraphy; both
Fire Response Deployment Models would be similar. However, not only is Saint John over twice
the area of Moncton, Saint John is divided by the St. John River. Saint John is also a community
with a number of remote neighborhoods such as Lorneville, Red Head, Treadwell Lake, Ragged
Point and Martinon, all of which are not on the City's municipal water system (for fire protection).
Besides physical differences, Saint John has a significantly large industrial base to protect.
Unlike Moncton, the majority of Saint John's industrial infrastructure is not located within an
industrial park, but scattered throughout the community. The disbursement of industry is due to
Saint John being a community comprised of the former City of Lancaster, the Parish of Simonds
and the once compact City of Saint John. This fact coupled with the historic growth and
development of industry (first around the Port, then along rail routes and then truck routes) has
made for an intertwining of industrial, commercial and residential developments.
Remote neighbourhoods coupled with a large geographical footprint, heavy industries scattered
throughout the community, as well as a city bisected by a river, make for a Deployment Model
unique to Saint John. History shows vulnerability in large scale incidents has challenged our
capacity in the past.
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 3
327
Below is a summary of the differences between the two communities.
SAINT JOHN MONCTON
Geographic Size • 315 Square Kilometres • 150 Square Kilometres
Streets and Roads . 715 Km • 450 km
• Consists of rolling hills, varying terrain
Topography- General ranging from rock face to flood plains . Generally flat with
• Large forrested areas moderate rolling hills
• Divided by the St. John River
• Divided by NB HWY 1
• Divided by the Trans
Topography- Constraints . Remote nei hbourhoods such as Red
9 Canada Highway
Head, Treadwell Lake, Ragged Point,
Martinon, and Lorneville
• Irving Pulp and Paper
• Irving Paper
• Irving Tissue
• Irving Oil Refinery
• Canaport
• Canaport LNG
• Irving Tissue Plant
• Moosehead Brewery
Notable Heavy Industry
• Emera Brunswick Pipeline • Molson Brewery
• Praxair COZ Plant
• Port of Saint John
• Courtenay Bay Power Generating Plant
• Colson Cove Power Generating Plant
• Pt. Lepreau Nuclear Power Generating
Plant
2. Community Risk Comparison
It goes without saying that both Saint John and Moncton have residential units, commercial
development, industrial parks, places of assembly, etc. and that the associated fire risks (with
these similar type developments) would be the same. Going one step fu�ther, if both communities
were of the similar size, topography, and fire risk portfolios, then both communities should have
similar Fire Deployment Models.
However, as ilfustrated above, Saint John is physically different from Moncton and that alone
impacts the deployment of resources. Saint John also has a different community risk portFolio.
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 4
328
Unlike Moncton, Saint John has a large heavy industrial sector that requires fire protection. This
sector also produces hazardous materials, as well as generates the transportation of hazardous
materials (to or from). The presence of these additional fire risks impact the scope of resources
required to balance fire risk with fire protection. Response times to these industries are critical for
safe mitigation of escalating events (i.e., chemical fire at Expansion Avenue).
Below is a summary of the fire risks not found (to any significant degree) in Moncton.
SAINT JOHN MONCTON
• Old housing stock with balloon frame • Generally a modern
construction housing stock
• Mix of residential development located in both � gulk of developments are
serviced and non-serviced areas within serviced area
Residential
• Growth in residential development in non-
serviced area.
• Dense residential development in older
sections of city
• Industry located throughout the city rather • Industry is generally
than in an industrial park (i.e., Potash located in an industrial
Terminal, Atlanfic Wall Board, Moosehead park
Brewery, Maritime Paper, Armour Transport,
to name a few) . Only natural gas
• In addition to natural gas distribution lines, • distribution lines—low
Saint John has a 16- inch and 36-inch high volume and low pressure
volume/high pressure natural gas lines that lines
Industrial Sector literally traverse the city by differing routes.
• Seaport—4`" busiest in Canada
• Airport is in Dieppe
• Airport— Fire protection support
• Large oil pipeline traversing the city Only one rail line
• Two rail lines servicing the city—creating • servicing the city(less
multiple exposures. Rail yard in Milford is in exposure areas)
close proximity of residential and health care
facilities.
• LNG plant— 1 St in Canada • Higher concentration of
• Oil Refinery with second Refinery proposed transportation and
• Pulp and Paper Mills (2) warehousing operations,
Unique Heavy Industry . Power Generation Plant(3); one being a (mainly in industrial
nuclear plant parks)
• Chemical processing plant (1)
• Sea ort; 4�h busiest in Canada
• Nuclear Medicine Facility- SJRH
Hazardous Materials • Nuclear Power Plant 40 km away
• Frequent production and transportation of
dan erous oods
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 5
329
3. Deployment Model Comparison
The above two sections addressed the physical and fire risk differences between Saint John and
Moncton. These differences led to differing Fire Service Deployment Models.
Below is a brief comparison of the Deployment Models for both Saint John and Moncton.
SAINT JOHN MONCTON
Fire Stations 7 Stations 5 Sfations
2 East- 170 km2 coverage area 2 East Central
Fire Station locations and 1 South-5.5 km2 coverage area 1 West
coverage areas 2 North-28.3 km2 coverage area
2 West-111.2 km2 coverage area 2 North West
Total covera e- 150 km2
Staffing-Firefighting 38 Firefighters per shift 21 Firefighters per shift
6 personnel completing 1,736 inspections
(2007)"" 4 personnel completing 707
Staffing-Fire Prevention
Over 6,000 places of assembly to be inspections(2007)
ins ected annuall or biannuall
3 personnel
Staffing-Training Must train to NFPA and Occupational 3 personnel
Health and Safety Standards
reflective of Service Profile
174 plus 30 casuals and 2 duty to 120 plus 40 volunteers
accommodate (Currently operating with only
Staffing- all 18 volunteers due fo
18 Salvage Corps&Fire Police recruitmeni and retention
Volunteers issues
The 18 members of the Saint John
Salvage Corps and Fire Police are called
upon to secure a fire scene until Police Called in to support full time
Use of Volunteers and/or Fire Deparlments finish their firefighters at large scale
respective investigations and/or the incidents.
structure is secured by the owner.
6 Engine Companies
1 Rescue Unit 3 Engine Companies
Staffed Equipment 2 Tankers 2 Quints (Engine/Ladder)
1 Ladder Company
1 Quint(Engine/Ladder) 1 Rescue Unif
1 Haz-Mat Response Unit
1 Decontamination Unit 1 HazMat Unit and Trailer
1 Regional Haz-Mat Response Unit 2 Tankers(wildland)
Other Equipment 1 Forestry Unit 1 LadderTruck
(Not staffed but not spare) 1 Air Supply Unit
2 Rescue Boats;one Zodiac and one 2 Boats
Boston Whaler 1 Command Bus
1 S ecial O erations Unit
Budget Difference-Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 6
330
All personnel trained to Awareness Level
48 personnel trained to Technician Level
Hazardous Materials Emergency (highest level) No functional team.
Response
Respond to all industrial hazardous
materials accidental releases with the
intent to miti ate the incident
Fires 904
Medical Calls/Rescue 2,331
Rescue(water/ice/other) 1,171
M VA 240
Hazardous Materals 389 Total 5,521 (2007)
Service Related 311 7otal 5,960 (2008)
Calls Unintentional/False Alarm 767
All other 1,247 7.95%growth rate in calls
Total 7,360(2007)
Total 9,444(2008)
28.3%growth rate in call
80 percent of the Greater
Response Objective Respond to 90%of ihe calls within 6
minutes Moncton Area in four minutes
or less,80 percent of the time.
Engine 1 —3:33 minutes avg.
Ladder 1 —5:06
Engine 2 —5:30
Tank 2 —6:29
Engine 4 —5:21
Average Response Times by Rescue 5 —4:17
Apparatus (2007) N/A
Quint 5 —4:10
Engine 6 —4:30
Engine 7 —5:45
Tank 7 — 8:37
En ine 8 —4:09
IAO Insurance Classification* 2 3
�`The IAO Insurance classification is used to determine lhe premiums lo be levied co industry based upon their risk. Indusfry in Sainf
John enjoys more favourable premiums(within their risk band)due to the higher rating of lhe Saint John Fire Department.
**As provided by the Office of the Fire Marshal
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 7
331
4. Rationale for Current Deployment Model
The current Deployment Model, as adopted by Common Council, reflects the needs of the
community as a whole, as well as our experiences from the past. There have been times in the
past where studies have been conducted in relation to the Department. The Ernst and Young
"Station Relocation Study" recommended deployment of another Rescue Unit and a Ladder Truck
in Ward 1(due to reliance on bridge crossings). The Insurance Advisory Organization (IAO)
recommended another Fire Prevention Inspector. Neither of these studies were acted upon.
Other Factors Impactinq Deplovment Model
A. Recognition of Standards
In relation to the primary standard for Fire Department deployment NFPA 1790, although aspects
of this Standard are met in Saint John, there is a large percentage of the City where the response
is in excess of 4, 6 and 8 minutes. In relation to the myth that the Saint John Fire Department is a
"Cadillac" service, this is not factual. Dozens of Departments across North America are able to
show higher compliance to NFPA 1710 (See Appendix #1 & 2). It is clear in the graphics (see
attached Schedule 2) that in each Ward only the yellow and green areas conform to NFPA 1710
(or Moncton's goal for response) while much of Saint John (as noted in orange and blue) do not.
B. Simultaneous Demand
One of the factors that must be considered in relation to the complexity of response in the Saint
John Fire Department is that of Simultaneous Demand. Often there are 2, 3 or more simultaneous
emergency calls for service. This simultaneous demand is not experienced in Moncton to the
same degree and directly results in complex management issues, as well as the requirement of
on-duty depth (staffing).
In 2008, there were over 4,000 times where apparatus was required simultaneously (at 2 or more
different emergencies):
Two Emergency Calls - 3324
Three - 824
Four - 183
Five - 44
Six - 14
Seven - 13
Eight - 18
Nine or more - 26
It was not an uncommon occurrence to have all on-duty emergency crews committed
simultaneously.
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 8
332
C. Myths about the Saint John Fire Department
i. Is the Saint John Fire Department a Cadiilac department?
The answer to this is No. The Saint John Fire Department is challenged to satisfy the below
noted best practices. If an emergency were to occur with respect to the below noted
deficiencies, the municipality would be challenged with respect to the choices it makes to
address these shortcomings.
• NFPA 301 - Code for Safety to Life from Fire on Merchant Vessels
• NFPA 303 - Fire Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatyards
• NFPA 385 -Standard for Tank Vehicles for Flammable and Combustible Liquids
• NFPA 402 - Guide for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Operations
• NFPA 422 -Guide for Aircraft AccidenUlncident Response Assessment
• NFPA 472 -Standard for Competence of Responders to Hazardous Materials/Weapons of Mass
Destruction Incidents—CBRNE
• NFPA 600 -Standard on Industrial Fire Brigades
• NFPA 801 -Standard for Fire Protection for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials
• NFPA 806- Performance Based Standard for Fire Protection for Advanced Nuclear Reactor
Electric Generating Plants Change Process
• NFPA 914 - Code for Fire Protection of Historic Structures
• NFPA 1005 -Standard for Professional Qualifications for Marine Fire Fighting for Land-Based
Fire Fighters
• NFPA 1006 -Standard for Technical Rescuer Professional Qualifications: Confined Space/ High
Angle/Trench Rescue
• NFPA 1051 -Standard for Wildland Fire Fighter Professional Qualifications
• NFPA 1142-Standard on Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting
• NFPA 1401 - Recommended Practice for Fire Service Training Reports and Records
• NFPA 1402 -Guide to Building Fire Service Training Centres
• NFPA 1403-Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions
• NFPA 1405- Guide for Land-Based Fire Fighters Who Respond to Marine Vessel Fires
• NFPA 1407-Standard for Fire Service Rapid Intervention Crews
• NFPA 1620 - Recommended Practice for Pre-Incident Planning
• NFPA 1670 - Standard on Operations and Training for Technical Search and Rescue Incidents
• NFPA 1925 -Standard on Marine Fire-Fighting Vessels
• NFPA 5000 - Building Construction and Safety Codes not satisfying the expectations from the
Office of the Fire Marshal
• NFPA 1700 -Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations,
Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire
Departments
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 9
333
ii. No Volunteer Component
The City of Saint John has enjoyed the support of the Saint John Salvage Corps and Fire
Police since 1898. In 2005, Common Council placed the management of the Salvage Corps
and Fire Police under the Fire Chief. The Fire Department regularly calls upon the 18
members of the Corps to secure fire scenes until the Police and/or Fire Investigators have
reviewed the scene. The services provided by Corps members enable Fire Department crews
to return to service sooner following the extinguishment of a fire (i.e., do not have an Engine
Company tied up while waiting for Police and/or Fire Investigators and/or property owners to
secure the damaged property).
iii. The Fire Department is just a Cost Centre
The Saint John Fire Department generates revenue for the City from the following sources:
Regional Hazardous Response Agreement $70,000 annually
Pt. Lepreau $40,000 annually
Clearance Letters $ 6,000 annually
The Fire Department has the opportunity to generate revenue from training; however, this is
dependent on new facilities.
Currently, the Federal Government is soliciting the Saint John Fire Department to undertake a
two year- $200,000 mass decontamination project.
iv. Response times and depth do not impact insurance premiums
Based upon the current deployment model of the Saint John Fire Department, the community
was awarded a number 2 rating by the Insurance Advisory Organization (fA0), which in turn
helps local industry obtain lower insurance premiums within their given rate table/ risk portfolio.
Based upon Moncton Fire's current deployment model, the IAO awarded Moncton a number 3
rating (2 being better).
v. Most heavy industrial facilities have their own Fire Brigades and do not need the
support of the Saint John Fire Department.
The Refinery, for example, does have a Fire Brigade; however, the Saint John Fire Department
is called upon to respond to their large scale incidents. The Fire Department responded to the
Refinery 28 times during 2008, (two simultaneous incidents}. As for other heavy industry such
as the Irving Pulp and Paper Mill at Reversing F'alls, the Saint John Fire Department responds
to structure fires within the plant as well as wood chip fires.
With only one to two firefighters on staff at any time, a large scale incident at the Saint John
Airport would be mitigated by the Fire Department.
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 10
334
Even with a local fire department and an on-staff Fire Brigade, NB Power has an agreement
with the City of Saint John to send the Saint John Fire Department to the Pt. Lepreau Nuclear
Power Plant for fire calls.
vi. Saint John Fire Department responds to all Medical Calls
Ambulance New Brunswick responds to over 12,000 calls a year in Saint John. The Saint John
Fire Department only responds to one third of these calls based on the acuity of the call.
Where Ambulance NB commits to respond within 9 minutes in an urban setting and 22 minutes
in a rural setting; for citizens in heart attack distress, the Fire Department can get to the scene
in half that time to administer first responder care.
Summarv
With Saint John being over twice the area of Moncton, divided by a river, containing significantly
more heavy industry, more balloon frame residential construction, denser residental
neighbourhoods, remote residential developments and fire risks scattered throughout the
community, this results in a different Deployment Model than that adopted by Moncton. From
gross budget numbers, the Deployment Model adopted by Common Council costs
approximately $7 million more than the Model adopted by Moncton.
Below is a summary of the deployment factors that contribute to the cost difference, being the
capacity to:
• cover 315 km2 (as opposed to 150 km2) with a response time objective of 6 minutes, 90% of
the time;
• respond to emergencies at heavy industrial facilities which are resource intensive;
• mitigate all types of hazardous materials spills or releases;
• manage a 40% rate of simultaneous emergency calls (multiple emergencies at the same
time);
• implement consistent fire scene command and control;
• implement consistent fire scene safety and accountability;
• provide basic fire coverage to both the eastern and western sections of the city in the event
bridge crossings become delayed;
• fight two residential sfructure fires at the same time (depth of response);
• facifitate water or ice rescues in the St. John and Kennebecasis Rivers (both more active
than the Petitcodiac River);
• facilitate near shore rescues in the Bay of Fundy;
• inspect only1/3 of the 6,000 places of assembly located in the city;
� Respond to large scale emergencies;
• Respond to incidents in non-hydrant areas of the city.
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 11
335
0����� o����o
�° ��`�Q Appendix 'I ��� �
00 0 000 000
s �o„�6 a� � N F PA 9 710 � ��6 Q�.
�Yj �vC �'t`T O�
�T��HN FRi�'O /pHn FttiF'
5.2.4.1.1
The Fire Department fire suppression resources shall be deployed to provide for the arrival of
an Engine Company within a 4-minute response time and/or the initial full alarm assignment
within an 8-minute response time to 90 percent of the incidents as established in Chapter 4.
4.1.2.1
The Fire Department shall establish the following time objectives:
1. One minute for turnout time;
2. Four minutes or less for the arrival of the first arriving Engine Company;
3. Four minutes or less for the arrival of a unit with first responder or higher level capability
at an E.M.S. incident;
4. Eight minutes or less for an advanced life support unit at an E.M.S. call.
4.1.2.2
The Fire Department shall establish a performance objective of not less than 90% for the
achievement of each response time objective.
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 12
336
�o��o o��,�r�o ,
�� ' Q Appendix 2 � Q�
s �oo„�boo� � Response Time Analysis ;°o�l,ebpO°�
�9� tiC �'�'T ��
����1�N FiRe'O ��Hi.F[RF'
SAINT JOHN FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS
WARD EQUIVALENT FIRE DEMAND ZONES
1 6 & 7
2 5 & 8
3 1
4 2 & 4
Areas that take a minimum of 8 minutes to respond to under current deployment model:
Ward 1 Ward 4 Ward 2
Lorneville Upper Golden Grove Kennebecasis Drive
(Easterly end past ferry)
Ketepec Churchland to Range Road Ashburn Lake
Morna Mispec, Red Head
Acamac Canaport, LNG
Pt. Lepreau Saint John Airport
Note: In the event of simultaneous calls in the Vliard, the next closest Station responds, increasing
the response time by 2 to 4 minutes.
Simultaneous Calls for 2008
2 Calls overlapping 3324
3 Calls overlapping 824
4 Calls overlapping 183
5 Calls overlapping 44
6 Calls overlapping 14
7 Calls overlapping 13
8 Calls overlapping 18
9 or More 26
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 13
337
' � � � � � � � �
� . �
; � � � � ��i 6�_.� �y � . .__ �,
, � �� �
�� � � � � `� ' �
� �° � ; � / � ��Z M!N �
f `'' _ � f '� / , ,,,,,,,, �"
_ , �41�IN
, , �
J � .._ -� � "�6J�lN
� ; ,,
� � ���,
,- +�� �
`� \��l�6 M1N
, �- '• , ` �� /
� � /
'.��\ .�`� �, .�
� j�% �� '� �,l-'; b �
� M1:i,�.,ih±iu �,
< �_'S � ,
_ a � , �� �� � -�� � .
o ��;�� � ; �.t �
;� ;:. � R -�oi�s'e r� sln�lieafe IS' '1���'�=iib Tiai�e�l Ti.nte
. j, '
�_� � ��ti1r�i C �� oi�� Roc�-�+�ood Park Stci! Ze�i.S lrrn (9.S nrirr) -�
.� / .. '�.1`�II' �. " J � /
Budget Difference—Saint John and Monclon-prepared January 9,2009 14
338
� � / � � � �
. 1 . � �
l�
� � �
� � ��Z�1�
,� � �
� °� . o � �4�I�N
�
' � . �6J�1N
�, �.
�:� z � .
, , s \ ` _ _ r , �.r�8�'i�(
. , .
� ���� � �
� / ' / • . 1 _ � r
� ,� � � %
, ..,� "�--' _1:;�1�9Res. ;L��rit�Be � �rd `�l�Ii�r;�
i � � �
k i
' , ,. ,i � ,.; � �_. � ^� � ',, ,�
� � ���vn�e Tir�te�aidica.te-l0 �a Icr:�lr; Tr�r�el T,i�ite ,"
' �-,� s . � � S' ` �'� ��,,, �,. �
t 1 , ;
`f` 1 =�'k��t�Il,F�di�t�b�,S 'it � ��ins Ro�rd 1�.�;j'ill!�,�9 l)l�t�i)'
�i � i�v,� r �� ( .-,
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 15
339
� � � � • I
� ' � � . . � �
� � � i - ,
P f � ,fu _��-
��° � ��
" ��Z���
'° � �<<
� `1 �rr�we J'�f l�'A
� �r 6� .
1 ' � . � � 3 �
/ 1 �����
.�� �,! %s�,,��_,; '
_ l ',J� \
�'' ' r� ��
< �� - �
' + � �' �"� ������K
P,�a y--_ _ �
''l�l" !.
� /� ` f
,
. ,
� � ° 90 R�s. L�i7it.,s Beyot��1811�i�r
� �—��� °�
Response Ti»ces•Indicate?i .�9 knz-/er�li; rni�el Time
�lla�Call Poi�rt3�S6 Red Hea o •-�'?."k�n (I6.-t�ui�r)
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 16
340
���c�������c��� . �. ���: • •
���0 f . � bl� . 4 ��
� % f �. ` s
� , � ��Ir��� �,'
� S
� ,
'� \
�,� . \ � �4��� �
� _ - � � � � � �6111rIY �
/-`�`� � \IIAI
:r- �1�8�'IN �,
,
� � .___------ - --�" i
� .� .
, °� � ? /� � l
, a .r , / �� �
� �. ' - . � _ r—
7 r�-
Respoi,tse�,T`irrres hidic �,_ , na� ' i�;�
� � _ _ � �.
lllax Call P�iitt ��Q�llo�r� `Rle ; 1�r1�� :.:,3.�r�r( ;.�,7�ti») f�___
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 17
341
' r � .
1 ' . � . �
_'..�- _� �
� 1 ; �� 1 � ;��
r' �4 f �
� � ,
5 ���°� � / ���
� � �;;.,;�; � � ='� ��Z��X
,� � � �
.� �:� �:�.,.,
� ����-.�<�.� _ '��"4�Il1N
� � �� _
- �6M1�1 �
� �
4
i ` �1"B1�IN '
,, � �
` �
,
\ �
��__ ,
Respo�cse Ti»tes Indzcate 30 �r Icr:=h b. T�rrel Tir�ie
���'� -:11`�it Cttll Point 7i.�Sarr�l Coi�e' oad�� knr (6. %mi�t)
� - - _ \\
� � —
Budget Difference—5aint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 18
342
� I � � � �
� . . �
,�,�3, ' �r�� n,: �r v.-
�� �r. :.
� ��= ��y�`= a ��Z�lIN
�, ''C ;�''��T�l�� ,
�� •�� '� "����'_ ���1�III( �
�%� ���--J
� . ::�_,,;�.� ,�i� �6�I1N
s�.:,: .
� �,. ., � � .
��' �
��.� ��, ',, � ,�� .. r I,�� ay /
, ; ; •�j' ��Y IR��
�'y. y- ;i �',� f:�;' � . I � �
Excee�li�zg 8111i�t �Ze�' ��tsE�'����' � �%��'�, _
1,62 7 Res. L��iit. ,� ;1�,. ,� L��� %� �'i� � � �
�; �/�. _ � %
Z,1�6��ssessecl .P-��v�� -�--�__ `�=' ���`:�
$2 09,2 79,D00�s.s�,s����e�i�,i i�li�e,
�� � � :t� �/
{2��1) ,�; �ri-. `�7% ;��
� d.. , J,
r� • � �+
Response Tinieslrr�lica�e ,G��,S- SS�.h�ti:l���i; Trar Tir�te
.11rx� C�rllPoi�it�`,q.lsou`Co��e�I,t::�ktii(IS.11in)
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 19
343
�I f� �' r; ��/n r � �
� ' i . �[ DOJr[ . �
t
r��� � 1�4 Rl�A
� �
7c4 RE'S.. � Illl'S BL)'OIICI S .lfllt } � ���'�
�� �' ' . f �� ��IR!!1
� ' f p
�r�� '' ' jr' � w 1�8 A1�N
' � r
� ,�4�:° � 8-5 � /l
�` ' �,�ri���.� �
' Y:[�\/'i_ ! �
C . ��?`i��`a�•� ,
` � v
, ::i�',1�LT�a\'�.�,•,���� �
l� .. � � ..r- '� ••. • 1 - .
1 /�.
���� onseTrnieshzc.r ���>�j,i�,7r,rA�ba 7'�t�a�}'el� _���`�'.� '
� ;� - .�- , �i°
Tt7l1K' �� :� ,�.�;� `�
��'� �I -�� _� �\.� � �
�1lai. C���1�,�'or�rt�8 F�ster Tlzr'�� �,a�r;Kdtcr�:��0_I:aii �
(1�.8�>u�r�' , �- ;i,: . � . . -- � _
Budget Difference—Saint John and Moncton-prepared January 9,2009 20
344
�
345
M
�
O
�
�
�
N
� .--. � .� � .--. � �
O O O O � M C~O C~O M �
O O O O CO M Cfl CO M Cfl
N d� O I� O c� M C4 CO f� �
� tN O tf') M � M � � �' O
N � tn � N c- r- �--� d�
N N � � � � � M
� � �
�-. � � �-. .-. �-.
M O O O C~O M M CM O
M O O O Cfl M M M O
�— O N O M M M N �
r' M O N o0 M c`� M O N
0 � O O M � M M O �
N r- tn tf� N N � tC')
� N `-' `-' `-' � N
r- `-� �
M O O O I� M O M
M O O O � M O M
0 �t O CO O M ('') M T-
0 0�0 O C�O � � cM M �
N � � �f) N � �—
00 M � •.� �• t—
�
Z
Z O
�
m .-. � � .,
H
� W W o 0 0 0 � � M
� "'� Cfl O Cfl O CO N M
Q � � 0 N O l�[) M � 0�0 0�0
a
� W N ao cci cfl `" " ti �ri
O � a � M � � �
w
U O >
�. o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
� o � o r- c�
� � O 0�0 0�0 � N
� C'7 O N M CO I`
O - .�
N N 'd' f� I` 00
lf) � � �-' �
f� 00 � O �
O O O � T-
� i i i i i
Q � � N N N
� 'V � � � � �
V � a--' •� •� .� .� .�
� i '+'y'' C)
�
,Q � O O O O O � C
(a (n 1 L L L L L �
,Q � � O O O O O � �
C +N+ .� .Q .Q .Q � � �+ �
� �3 a�i X a�'i a�i ai a�i a�i Q- a�
o .� � E W ZZZZZ � �
� Q- O c� O C
� O m a. F— W
346
M
�
0
N
�
�
ro
a
r� o o r� o 0
co 0 o co 0 0
N O O N O O
N O O O O O O
p f� O O M O O
N M Cfl O d� CO C�
N N N N N N
�
f� O O f� O O O
N O O N O O O
r O O O � O O O
� � �N O M N � N
N -
� O � CO N N O
M N N N v N N
�
I� O O T� O O O O
N O O N O O O O
O O O O O O N OO O
� C7 O O M O M CO O
� O � O � � � N r-
N -
CO O Ln r I� M � O
N � ('') M � � �
`.
V, Z
= Z � � °o °o � °o °o °o °o °o
O � U N O O N O O O O O
� � � p O O O O O M O I� O
Z � � N � �N O O �N o�0 O � N
Q O � � � � Cp o0 M N � d�
fn m N M v N �- r- M
d.'
� Q �
� F �
H ^
c� Vj c~o °o °o c~o 0 0 0
�y N O O N O O O
� O O O O O O O
o M O O M O O O
N o0 O O 00 O O O
� O �' � � M 00
('7 � N N N
�
R
L
�
�
L
� a
Q� N
� � �
�
� �
�' ,��, � +-' (0 � O �
� � � � V � Q
� O � � >+ � � C U N
!-- Q. .� � O � O
Q � � Q � y U � � �
U � � � U � d � � � N
� � � Q C � '� C
O � w, Q O � �
Q. C U �
p0 � S � �O � � � � L �
N � ..-. i � � V L C N (6
p� C N O � O O f0 � � p
r � Z m � U d � � O �-
347
M
w
O
M
N
m
(6
�
'[h � 00 f� o O
M � N CD ('�7 O
N I� 00 C� M O O
r � � � ln � LC')
� � � O C� N
N -
� �' � �
� � �
�
M M CO Cfl o O
M � N �M N O
r" N O C7 N O O
� O O O CO �-- Ln
N O d� d� � N
� d' LC) O
�-- � �
�
O O O � � O
O N N � N O
� M M Cfl � � O
N (+� I� O 00 M
� M C'7 O
� �
�
I� I� d' L(� � O
N � �- � C�O O
� Cfl V O � 00 O
N 00 r- O d' M
I� (� � f�
�- N
�
O ln ln M o O
O O CO � � OO
Z � �t �n rn co ao O
_ +N-I o � � dM' � c�'-
� p N f� N O �
F- V � �
Z v
� �
LL �
O N
�
.n
� p o c
V � o
� U
�
N U �
� �^, �
L
� �1-.� � 'W^ �
Q ��, � v/ �^`
U L^` � � y-J W
�L � Q Q W W
� � � � � �
�
�
�
N
�
348
�, � � � � �' �, � � � � I�� Q� I� � � �Jl'�TC� � ��
� , �
�
�. ,o,
��
� -
M&C #2009
The City of Saint)ohn
January 9, 2009
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
And Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: BUDGET OPTIONS—TAX REDUCTION
Attached, please find a spreadsheet illustrating the order of inagnitude of budget
reductions, department by department, to achieve a reduction in the tax rate from 2 cents
to 10 cents. The approach followed in preparing these spreadsheets was, as staff
understood it, requested by Council.
The Commissioner of Finance has essentially reinoved from the expenditure base, those
items on which Council has little or no control, i.e., Street-lighting, Market Square
Common Area, Hydrant Charge, Property Assessment Charge, Special Pension
Payments, etc. With the total of these items removed, i.e. approxiinately 26 million
dollars, he has then applied an across the board reduction to every other budget line to
drive the Tax Rate to the required objective.
In summary, the Coinmissioner of Finance's analysis indicates the following;
DOLLAR REDUCTIONS DOLLAR REDUCTIONS
(MILLIONS� (MILLIONS�
TARGETED TAX RATE FRODZ SERVICE NEEDS FROM THE STABLE TAX RATE
REDUCTION IDENTIFIED TO DATE OPTION
2 cents $6.2 $1.1
4 cents 7.3 2.2
6 cents 8.4 3.3
8 cents 9.5 4.4
10 cents $10.6 $5.5
349
Report Co Commor� Cou�icil Page 2
Subject: Bzrdget Options— Tax Rec�uctions
His analysis also provides this same infonnation department by department.
The following are examples of the financial significance of the expenditure reductions.
DOLLAR REDUCTIOl�'S
TAX RATE FIRE POLICE TRANSIT MUNICIPAL
OBJECTIVE COMMISSION OPER.ATIONS
Stable Rate $150,000 $220,000 $393,000 $544,000
2 cents 223,000 370,000 693,000 495,000
4 cents 440,000 602,000 737,000 737,000
6 cents 659,000 835,000 780,000 980,000
8 cents 877,000 1,067,000 823,000 1,224,000
10 cents $1,095,000 $1,300,000 $865,000 $1,466,000
Although this is an interesting numerical exercise and clearly identifies the magnitude of
the required reductions across the board, it does not give consideration to the political and
policy priorities of Council (more asphalt repairs).
As I indicated last week, municipalities do not turn on a dime. To effect the magnitude of
cost reductions proposed we are essentially talking about severing employees. As
Council is aware, there are certain limitations in some of the Collective Agreements and
there is also a requirement for"payment in lieu of notice." It is unrealistic to expect that
these savings can be achieved within the current year. It is also important to develop the
proper plans and processes to minimize the service impact of any major reduction in
personnel.
Having said this, over the long term, these financial savings and others can be realized
with a clear direction from Common Council on the related issues.
It would be extremely helpful to your City Administration to have Council, as a body,
take a position on each of the following Policy statements in order that, over the duration
of Council's term, real and sustainable progress can be made.
1. It shall be the policy of Common Council to restrict its investment in Police
Service to not more that 4% in each of the years, 2009, thru 2012, with the Police
Commission to identify service implication prior to June U 2009.
350
Report to Con�.mon Council Page 3
Subject: Budget Optio��s— Tax Redirctio�is
2. It shall be the policy of Common Council to restrict its investment in Fire
Protection to not more than 4% in each of the years 2009 thru 2012 and the Fire
Chief to identify service implications prior to June 1, 2009.
3. It shall be the policy of Coinmon Council to restrict its investment in services
provided by Municipal Operations excluding the Asphalt Resurfacing Program, to
not more that 4% in each of the years 2009 to 2012 with the Cominissioner of
Municipal Operation to identify seivice requireinents prior to June 1, 2009.
4. It shall be the policy of Common Council to increase the percentage of the annual
municipal budget being spent on Recreation and support to Neighbourhoods by
8% in each of the years 2009 to 2012.
5. It shall be the policy of Common Council to maintain in each of the years 2009 to
2012 constant predictable Budget Envelopes as approved in 2009, i.e. no further
inereasesin;
a. Arts and Culture Initiatives
b. Festivals and Public Celebrations
c. Social Development Support
6. It shall be the policy of Common Council to adequately fund initiatives to
complete an updated Municipal Plan and to improve both internal and external
Communications.
7. It shall be the policy of Common Council to set its special payment to the
Pension Plan in 2009 at$915,000 and iminediately direct the City Solicitor to
draft amendments to the Pension Plan for adoption by the Legislature in 2009 that
would;
a. Eliminate the Rule of 85 effective January 1, 2012.
b. Remove the Disability Provisions from the Plan
c. Reduce future indexing provisions from 2% to 1%
d. Change the best three year averaging provisions to a ten year averaging
provision.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the meantime, to assist Council with having to approve a 2009 Operating Budget in a
timely fashion, the following recommendation is being made to ensure staff is following
the clear direction of Common Council.
351
Report to Commo�i Cot�ncil Page 4
SttUject.• Btrdget Options— Tax Reductioris
Direct the City Manager to prepare an Operating Budget that limits total expenditure
growth to not more than 5% and consistent with the Policy Direction Decisions to be
made by Council as contained in this report.
And further, that if Council as a body wishes to provide amounts exceeding the 5% in
areas such as Community Planning, Communication, or any other areas, the City
Manager be so informed.
spec lly submi d
,i,L1.E. , C� �
Terrence L. Totten, FCA
CITY MANAGER
352
Saint John Police Force
Response to Budget Questions and Budget Reduction
Scenario Financial and Related Impacts
1. What would be required to end the The Police Force does not respond to every emergency call. The
current procedure which sees fire, determination of when the Force will respond is determined by well
ambulance and police respond to every documented Standard Operating Guidelines.
emergency call? What savings,
approximately, might be realized? For example, the Force will respond to all calls where there is a
potential for criminal related activity. This includes EMS specific calls
that involve sudden deaths, assaults, industrial accidents, etc. The
Force does not generally respond to routine medica[ assistance calls.
Standard Operating Guidelines have also been established that
outline when Police wifl respond to fire specific calls. These calls are
normally significant in nature such as a report of a structure fire,
hazardous material incident or where potential criminal activity is
involved.
The co-response model is also used for some potice related calls.
For example, a MVA with possible injuries, could result in police, fire
and EMS responding concurrently.
In general, the Police Force is a `mobile' agency— units respond from
the field. Not being part of the co-response team that responds to
specific incident types, would have little, if any impact on the cost of
policing.
1 � I' �� �>� e
353
Scenario Financiat and Related Impacts
2. What would be the impact if Police A reduction of $220,018 would result in $27,984 being
Budget of$22,035,018 was decreased reduced from Fleet Fuel budget and the balance, �192,034,
by 1% or $220,018 to $21,815,000 to would equate to ($90,000) 2.1 Police FTEs.
establish a stable tax rate?
The reduction of the budget for fuel will not impact services;
the cost of fuel is market dependant.
A direct reduction of Police FTE's is not possible due to
contract provisions. However, it is possible to manage the
overall budget for salaxies and benefits and possibly realize the
required savings of about $192,000. Specifically the Prolific
Offender Program would be eliminated. This program has been
historically funded through savings generated when an
employee retires during the year. The POP program targets
10% of offenders who live in the Priority Neighbourhoods,
particularly in the spring and summer months. Additionally
this program covers `Hot Spots' that regular members would
not otherwise have the opportunity to deal with during peak
`calls for service' times.
It would be anticipated that the elimination of this program
would negatively impact crime rates.
3. Would each department head calculate 2009 Police Budget Submission - Stable Tax Rate
the percentage of their budget request �21,815,000
which is dedicated to equipment
purchase/replacement? Fleet Purchases: $372,000 e uates to 1.7% of overall bud et
2 � I' a « c
354
Scenario Financial and Related Impacts
4. What would be the impact if Police A reduction of $370,018 would equate to (�90,000 for Wages
Budget was decreased by 2% or and Benefits)) 4.1 Police FTEs.
$370,018?
If this occurred, we would consider increasing the service life
for our operational vehicles and thus reduce our fleet
replacement budget. However, our experience suggests that
this would be somewhat of a `fool's errant' as we understand
that the resultant operating and maintenance costs will
increase proportionately.
If we were capable of doing so, we could realize the additional
savings by reducing or eliminating our Community Policing
Program that is focused on the Priority neighbourhoods (and
associated members - through attrition). The success of this
program would suggest that this will negatively impact these
neighbourhoods.
5. What would be the impact if Police A reduction of $605,740 would equate to ($90,000 for Wages
Budget was decreased by 4% or and Benefits)) 6.7 Police FTEs.
$605,740?
In addition to the adjustments noted above, we would
eliminate the Traffic Unit (again through attrition. This would
eliminate the success that has been accomplished in reducing
traffic related incidents and in conducting safety education
and programs.
3 � Pa �rc
355
Scenario Financial and Relafed Impacts
It will also increase the workload on the remaining units,
speci�cally patrol resulting in a lesser focus on non-traffic
related incidents
6. What would be the impact if Police A reduction of $840,994 would equate to ($90,000 for Wages
Budget was decreased by 6% or and Benefits)) 9.3 Police FTEs.
$840,994?
In addition to the other changes noted, we would reduce the
number of inembers (through attrition) assigned to the
Criminal Tnvestigation Unit (CID). This will reduce our capacity
to conduct effective investigations/operations in a timely
fashion and will result in increase overtime costs.
7. What would be the impact if Police A reduction of $1,075,738 wouJ.d equate to (�90,000 for
Budget was decreased by 8% or Wages and Benefits)) 12 Police FTEs.
$1,075,738?
In addition to the above, the Canine Unit would be eliminated
(through attrition) However, since the availability of this service
is a Police Act requirement, costs will be incurred to provide
this service in an alternative fashion.
8. What would be the impact if Police A reduction of$1,311,981 would equate to ($90,000 for
Budget was decreased by 10% or Wages and Benefits)) 14.6 Police FTEs.
$1,311,981?
As addition to the above, the remaining alternative is reduce
front-line of�cers with the associated service and overtime
impacts
4 � Pa �s :
356
oo��o COUNCIL INQUIRY oo�oo
o � o o � o
�o o� 2009 BUDGET BEING MORE THAN 4.5% OF 2008 �o�o�
s °���786�o 00 0�
yf �C�. yr� vab Q��.
"r�olt����° SAME SERVICE DELIVERY AS tN 2008 ''°Hr�FIR�
This Report will respond to a recent inquiry made by Council in relation to why the Saint
John Fire Department 2009 budget submission is more than 4.5 percent above the 2008
approved budget. This report will also address the inquiry made by Council in relation to
what percentage change in our 2008 budget would be required, to deliver the same level of
service in 2009. With no proposed new initiatives in 2009, both questions can be
addressed together.
In summary, the Fire Department's 2009 submission is 5.72% over the approved budget for
2008.
Waqes and Benefits
An analysis of the 2009 budget submission indicates that the primary difference between
the 2008 and 2009 budgets submissions is linked to wages and benefits; more specifically,
the anticipated wage settlement with I.A.F.F. Local 771 may exceed the projected
settlement as contemplated during the budget preparation phase last year.
For example, as part of the Fire Department's 2009 budget proposal (as drafted in the fall
of 2007), the department budgeted for a wage settlement consistent with other municipal
departments. However, with contract negotiations still ongoing with I.A.F.F. Local 771 and
in light of a more recent wage settlement, a decision was made (through consultation with
the Finance Department) to update the 2009 budget proposal, as a contingency measure in
the event that the upcoming arbitration settfement exceeds previous municipal settlements.
Management remains hopeful that the wage settlement, (as determined by a 3�d party
Arbitrator or as negotiated through the normal negotiation process), will be within the
original targeted proposal. If this is the case, then the budget requirements for the
Department will be reduced and the required budget for 2009 will be within the 4.5% range
as desired.
To be clear, the increase beyond the projected budget submission as prepared in the fall of
2008 is a contingency provision designed to negate any false economics related to the
financial needs of the Fire Department.
357
Counci) Inquiry Page 2 January 9, 2009
Goods and Services
The financial guidelines for Goods and Services in 2009 (as provided by the Finance
Department) suggested a percentage increase of 2.5%. Unfortunately however, there are
a number of Goods and Services required to operate the Fire Department which increased
by more than 2.5 % since 2008. Specific increases included: Fleet Fuel (42%); Property
Taxes (6.64%); Heating Fuel (10.81%); Mobility (18.01%) and Facility Maintenance
(18.64%). Changes were made to the budget proposal to reflect anticipated costs, not
new initiatives.
The below table summarized the percent change between the 2008 and 2009 budgets (as
prepared in 2007 and as submitted in 2008).
a a c
2008 Budget 2009 Budget as /��B�A� 2009 Budget as �� �C/A) %� (C/B)
prepared in 2007 submitted in 2008
Wages & Benefits $17,578,015 $18,465,841 5.05% $18,553,746 5.55% 0.48%
Goods &Services $1,862,404 $1,934,802 3.89% $1,999,287 7.35% 3.33%
Total $19,440,419 $20,400,642 4.94% $20,553,033 5.72% 0.75%
Given the above noted information and recognizing that no new initiatives or additional
personnel are budgeted for in 2009, one can conclude that the submitted budget for 2009 is
the required amount to sustain the Fire Department as operated in 2008.
Notwithstanding the above noted observations, Fire Department Management will continue
to evaluate and assess opportunities to reduce budget expenditures.
358
Wltat pei•centage inc��ease is reyuired if we were to deliver• tlte sa�te level of service i�z
2009 as we did in 2008?
Building and Technical Services — eliminate additional inspector requested (with
associated costs—vehicle, phone)
Increase 2.7 %
Adjusted 2009 budget $ 1,585,245
Approved 2008 budget $ 1,543,400
Facilitv Mana ement—eliminate additional technologist requested
Increase 3.3 %
Adjusted 2009 budget $ 1,011,085
Approved 2008 budget $ 978,846
Carpenter Sho�
Increase 5.2 %
Proposed 2009 budget $ 495,000
Approved 2008 budget $ 470,314
Citv Market
Increase 3.4 %
Proposed 2009 budget $ 894,000
Approved 2008 budget $ 864,307
Buildin�s and Inspection Services Department Total
Decrease*** L9 %
Adjusted 2009 budget $ 5,465,345
Approved 2008 budget $ 5,573,326
*** Due to decrease in City Hall lease
Increase 3.3% (if City Hall budget is removed)
Adjusted 2009 budget $ 3,985,330
Approved 2008 budget $ 3,856,867
359
Wltat are tlze intplications to tlze depa��tnze�it if:
• Stable tax rate?
� Various tax reductio�z sce�tarios—ie. 2 cent— 10 ce�it?
Stable Tax Rate
Building and Technical Services —decrease to request by $25,945
The department would be unable to hire an additional fulltime building inspector,
which is required to maintain an acceptable level of building inspection service,
considering the trend of increasing number of permits and required inspections
the department is experiencing. By-law enforcement efforts would remain at the
existing level of service or decline slightly as the inspectors focus on increased
pennit inspections. No new initiatives would be implemented. The department
may be able to hire an inspector for the summer months to help with increased
volume of inspections required. However, due to the difficulty finding qualified
people for temporary work, it is likely that we would not be able to attract a
qualified person with experience in the building inspection field.
Facility Management— decrease to request by $25,640
The department would be unable to hire an additional fulltime facility
management technologist which is necessary to maintain an acceptable level of
service for the maintenance and upgrading of the 90+ buildings in the facility
portfolio. The department tnay be able to fill a part-time position for the busy
construction season in the summer months. Again, it is very difficult in the
current market to attract qualified technologists, particularly for temporary work.
The capital program would not be implemented in its entirety.
Tax Reduction of 2 Cents
Building and Technical Services —decrease of$80,945
In addition to being unable to hire an additional fulltime inspector, the department
would be unable to hire an inspector for the summer months to assist with the
demands of permits and inspections. It would also be necessary to eliminate
casual clerical help in the suinmer months to assist with the clerical demands of
increased permits, activity etc. in the department and relieve increased workloads
due to vacation leaves. Turnaround times for permits, notices, requests by
citizens, builders etc. would increase. No new initiatives would be considered or
implemented, including increased by-law enforcement efforts for vacant and
derelict buildings. Service quantity will be reduced. Elimination of services is
probable.
Facility Management— decrease of$55,640
In addition to being unable to hire an additional technologist, the department
would also have to refrain from hiring a part-time position for the suznmer months
360
to assist with the capital program to upgrade the city facilities. A portion of the
required capital upgrades to facilities would be delayed as there would be
insufficient staff resources to plan, implement and manage projects. This delay in
project implementation is counterproductive and unsustainable as the condition of
facilities would deteriorate and if continued, the condition of facilities would get
to a point that they do not meet community expectations or acceptable standards.
Facility maintenance and upgrades would be limited to the existing portfolio of
City facilities. Additional projects, consulting, etc. to facilities managed by
commissions, agencies, and community groups would be eliminated.
Increased Tax Reductions up to 10 Cents
Building and Technical Services
As tax reductions are increased, staff positions and service levels will subsequently
decrease. In Building Inspection, this means fewer inspectors to carry out building
inspections and by-law enforcement. Service delivery would be reduced or some
services would be eliminated altogether. Response times for pennit applications,
inspection requests, by-law enforcement complaints, minimum standards complaints, etc.
would increase. Examples of possible service reduction or elimination:
• Elimination of electrical pennit service and inspection
• Eliinination of legal/real estate research request for property transfers
• Decrease minimum property standards enforceinent by one inspector (cutting
service in hal fl
• Reduce response times for dangerous and unsightly buildings
• Eliininate inspections for single family dwelling decks, detached garages, siding
installation, swimining pools and fences, etc.
• Eliminate hawkers and peddlers licensing, sidewalk vendor licensing
• Eliininate inspections and enforcement of sidewalk cafes
• Eliminate occupancy permits
• Eliminate gravel pit enforcement
• Reduce/eliininate various by-law enforcement efforts ie. signs, boarders in single
family dwellings, unsightly premises, dog bite investigations, illegal dumping,
mobile home parks, etc.
Facility Managenaent
For Facility Management, increased tax reductions will also result in fewer staff positions
and reduced service levels. However, given the small number of staff currently, it would
be extremely difficult to operate the division with fewer staff, unless the number of
buildings was decreased. Exainples of possible service reduction or elimination:
• Reduction in maintenance to facilities
• Pedway maintenance would decrease ie. janitorial, timely repairs, replacement of
windows, etc.
• Reduce number of facilities to reduce costs ie. Camegie Building, Reversing Falls
Restaurant, Mispec Beach canteen
• Eliminate consulting/project management and planning for agencies, boards,
commissions and coininunity groups
361
• Reduced energy management programs (counterproductive as these programs
significantly reduce operating costs)
• Response times to service calls/requests would increase, negatively impacting
operations at facilities.
• Condition of facilities may deteriorate to an unacceptable level
• Capital progran� would not be adequately implemented, due to staff shortages to
plan and manage projects. This would directly result in building deterioration.
Carpenter Shop
The Carpenter shop budget is coinprised of mostly salaries. An increase in tax reductions
would directly result in less staff, beginning with casual labourers that are hired on a
regular basis to assist the carpenters during the busy construction season. If reductions to
pennanent staff were necessary, the result would be an increase in response times for
maintenance calls to an unacceptable level and service delivery to internal departments
would be reduced or eliminated.
City Market
Reductions to the City Market budget would result in a variety o� possible scenarios,
depending on the amount of the decrease, including the following possibilities:
• decrease in maintenance carried out to the building (aging building requires a
significant an�ount of work),
• decrease or eliminate funding to the merchant's association (for advertising and
marketing purposes),
• reduction or elimination of janitorial service (would affect current staff functions
and productivity),
• reduction in hours of operation of Market due to staffing shortages, if staffing was
to be reduced.
362
Totten, Terry
From: McCarey, Frank
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 10:12 AM
To: Totten, Terry
Cc: Campbell, Chris; Allaby, Dwight; Bordage, Lionel; Campbell, Chris; Chase, Stephen; Courser,
Shelley; McCarey, Frank; Reardon, Donna; Smith, Richard; Titus, Christopher
Subject: RE: 2009 operating budget»» questions?
Terry:
In response to your request, please be advised that I would recommend the following to our Commission at the indicated
funding levels:
-Budget request: $4,693,800.00
-Reduced budget $4,450,000.00 No service changes, No new development of in city Park and Rides, Continue with
increase in Handi-Bus service of$100,000.00.
-Reduced budget $4,300,000.00 No increase for Handi Bus service, Elimination of all Sunday and Holiday service.
-Reduced budget $4,000.000.00 This represents an estimated decrease from expected 2008 actual of$150,000.00 and
would result in significant decreases in service. Some suggested senarios would be elimination of Saturday, Sunday and
Holiday service. It would also likely lead to elimination of low density routes such as Loch Lomand, Martinon, Red Head
and Latimore Lake.
It should be noted that these predictions are based on a diesel fuel cost of.95 cents per liter.
Frank
Frank McCarey
General Manager
Saint John Transit Commission
frank.mccarev(a�saintjohn.ca
_.
From: Totten, Terry
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:18 PM
To: McCarey, Frank
Cc: Titus, Christopher; Woods, Pat
Subject: 2009 operating budget»» questions?
Frank, as you might suspect I am knee deep in attempting to be able to provide options for Council if in the event,they
choose to hold the Tax rate or even drop it by 2 cents.
A daunting task I might add.
In any event I am playing with a whole lot of different scenarios, and everyone will be affected in some way.
My question to you would be:
1) To hold the rate, it may be necessary to hold Transit funding to$4.3 million
2) If we were to reduce the rate, the cap may be $4 million
�
363
Go J O� N
o c a � c o c � o
a = c ,� n 3 �
A � a m m `� � d
o -
a f 3 '^ m
m ¢ � � � G
� a
o a � ? � 3 n
0 3 � H v D
o d
p O - O R C �
�^ Iaan 2 V u
� 0 3 e «
° � � ° � ' a
m '
o � � °- ^ a
\ ,,,� m
� V
' �
� �
l/1 V� t/� N N V� V� N
�O N 4� F+ O
O �O IA ll� O
Of W O b O N O O
V N O O O {n O O O
� W N O �
� N A T - �n y A .� �
'J
p C � C �. < C 6 3 �
n n � � -
� p � � � ^
O p � � - .Z' N ^� O 3
L � O N � 0i 0 , m �
.r b
N U N � � � O
R� d m a - � �n a 2 O ? A
N £ p n O � _ 6. £ � �1
_ m � a u L1
p F V O � O Li
n '" � c � f 'c ua.
F o' � °o � v,
a F a n � 00 ° a
t _ w � e
,�, � O �n
�, A
N N 1/� N t/� U� Vf V� N V�
V N
A A N N O� N W 0
�+ m w o �u o �n
O� N G� o �pI o o O N
L V N N S GO O O S U�
L W N �O Oe J
T A A O A F A � -1 a
- n c � c n o ° � � n 3
'm � ° � c < n -
m o � � a a � »
a 'o 0 0 0 � N _
�� " ` '^ � 'm 3 � -
? � m _ v N � N a °o�
� a a � °p n O
a � a � f p � � �n
0 o m
E � F � �, - 2 d
� � � F o - � �� o
- '0 3 N N
'^ r• f s m m
m a
ti G W
rr �
J �
0 �
t/�V� V' V1 V1 N N N N th a �
O
10 N �
O�i tAn in V A O Oa O
�D l0 � �O N O O O �O
W � 1�n N O N O O O O
O �
a 3
= <
�
'm E
aq
� �
�.�
00 �
3 a �
� d G
� H
�, � �
N o
m
iu
V
O
�
N U �
N
w a
N �
W W
� N N
OI
.L
O
o.
N H
0
�
N
b
N �
V A A
b � �
W � � J
IA+ N �.�j �
�
b
O
�
364
i 19/2009
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
2009 OPERATING BUDGET
OPTIONS FQR C�UNCIL'S CONSIDERATION
2009 2009 2 Cent 4 Cent 6 Cent 8 Cent 10 Cent
2008 Service Needs Stable Tax Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate
BUDGET 4,50% Community Needs Rate Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction Reduction
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $119,166,653 $125,129,158 $132,574,756 $127,454,535 $126,342,552 $125,238,020 $124,135,722 $123,035,509 $121,947,227
LESS: NON-TAX REVENUE 9,042,268 9,089,592 9,089,592 9,089,592 9,089,592 9,089,592 9,Q89,592 9,069,592 9,089,592
110,124,385 116,039,586 123,485,164 118,364,943 117,252,960 116,i 48,428 115,046,130 113,945,917 112,657,635
UNC�NDITIONAL GRANT 19,499,823 19,499,823 19,499,823 19,499,823 19,499,823 i9,499,823 19,499,823 19,499,823 19,499,823
NET BUDGET 90,624,562 96,539,743 103,985,341 98,865,120 97,753,137 96,648,605 95,546,307 94,446,094 93,357,812
TAX DENOMINATOR $5,048,716,432 $5,507,368,788 $5,507,368,788 $5,507,368,788 $5,507,368,788 $5,507,368,788 $5,507,368,788 $5,507,368,788 $5,507,368,788
TAX RATE 1.7950 1_7529 1.8880 1.7950 1.7750 1.7550 1.7350 1.7150 1.6950
($0.04210) $0.09300
OPT10N#4
Reduce the Special Pension Payment from $3,237,000 to$1,830,000 to Match Employees
Initiate immediate changes ot the Pension Plan
Tf�is drops expenditures by$1,407,000 which equafs 2.5 cents on any other option decided upon_
365
CITY OF SNNT JOFiN
2009 OPERATING BUDGET Page 2 of 7
El(PENDITURES
2009 Dffference 2049 Requlred 2 cent Required 4 cent Requlred 6 cent f�equlred 8 cent Required 10 cent Required
2008 2008 plus 5u6mfsslons 4.S Increase Sta61e Tax Reduction Tax Rate Reductlon Tax Reductlon Tax Reductlon Tax Reductfon Tax Reductlon
DEPARTMENT NAME BUDGET 4.50% Change Needs Change Vs Needs Rate Stable Rate Reduction in a Reduction fn$ Reduction,` In$ Reductfon In� Reductlon in$
MAYOR'SOFFIC�, 220,196 230,105 9,909 220,196 0 (9,9Q9} 220,196 0 220,196 0 217,843 2,353 215,A73 4,723 2�3,108 7,Q88 210,748 9,448
COUNCIL 395,159 412,941 17,782 736,150 340,991 323,269 561,150 175,DQ0 586,150 150,000 579,887 156,263 573,578 162,572 567,281 1fi8,859 560,998 175,152
L�GISLATfVE 615,355 643,D46 27,691 956,346 340,991 313,30Q 78i,34G 175,000 806,346 150,000 797,730 158,616 789,051 167,295 700,389 175,957 771,746 184,600
CITYMANAGER 52Q,960 544,403 23,443 536,3i0 15,350 (8,D93) 534,000 2,310 530,000 6,310 524,337 1i,973 518,632 17,678 512,939 23,372 507,257 29,053
CORPORATE PLANfVING 577,652 603,646 25,994 764,6�6 '182,9fi4 156,970 75Q,OOU 10,616 730,000 30,616 722,200 38,416 714,342 4&,274 706,500 54,1i6 698,675 fi1,941
COMMUNICATIONS 250,OOa 261,250 11,250 568,557 318,557 307,307 568,557 0 568,557 0 562,482 6,075 556,362 12,195 550,254 18,303 544,159 24,398
COMMON CLERK 788,352 823,828 35,476 $79,001 90,fi49 55,173 029,001 50,DD0 86Q,000 19,001 850,81i 28,190 841,554 37,447 832,315 46,686 823,096 55,9d5
FINANCE 1,54&,829 7,616,436 69,607 1,fi97,052 150,223 80,676 1,697,052 0 1,fi47,052 50,000 7,629,45A 67,598 1,611,725 85,327 1,59A,031 103,Q2i 1,576,376 120,67fi
LEGAL 721,173 753,626 32,453 780,775 59,602 27,149 780,775 0 770,000 10,775 767,773 19,002 753,485 27,290 745,213 35,5fi2 736,959 43,816
GENERALADMINISTRATION 4,404,96& A,fiO3,189 198,223 5,222,311 Bi7,345 619,122 5,159,3H5 62,926 5,105,fi09 116,T02 5,051,057 171,254 4,99fi,100 226,211 4,941,251 281,060 4,885,522 335,789
MATERIALS MANAGEMEIVT 1,057,159 1,104,731 47,572 7,779,539 122,380 74,808 1,1fi5,000 74,539 1,135,OQQ 44,539 1,122,873 56,666 1,110,656 68,883 1,098,463 81,076 1,OB6,296 93,243
HUMAN RESOURCES 1,384,437 1,446,737 62,300 1,517,126 132,689 70,389 1,475,000 42,i26 1,445,000 72,�26 1,429,561 87,565 1,414,fl07 103,119 1,398,484 118,642 1,382,994 134,�32
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS CEN7RE 2,062,840 2,155,668 92,828 2,197,439 134,599 41,771 2,197,439 0 2,197,439 0 2,173,960 23,479 2,150,307 47,132 2,126,701 70,738 2,103,146 94,293
INFORMATlONSYSTEMSB�SUPPORT 2,018,794 2,109,640 90,846 1,979,674 (39,120) (129,966) 1,979,674 0 1,930,000 49,674 1,909,379 70,295 1,888,604 91,070 1,867,871 111,803 1,847,193 132,491
FLEETSERVICES 702,722 734,344 31,622 831,311 128,589 96,957 800,Q00 31,311 800,000 31,311 791,452 39,859 782,841 48,470 774,247 57,064 765,671 65,640
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES 7,225,952 7,551,120 325,168 7,705,089 479,137 153,969 7,617,113 87,976 7,547,439 197,650 7,427,225 277,864 7,346,415 358,674 7,265,766 439,323 7,185,290 519,799
F1RE 19,440,419 2t1,315,238 874,819 2U,553,a33 1,112,61A 237,795 20,403,033 150,000 20,330,000 223,033 20,112,782 440,251 19,893,949 659,084 19,675,550 _ 877,483 19,457,625 1,095,408
BUILDfIVG 8�1NSPEC710iV SERVIC�S 1,543,400 1,6�2,853 69,453 1,657,945 114,545 45,092 1,632,Oa0 25,945 1,577,000 SQ,945 1,560,150 97,795 1,543,175 114,770 1,526,234 131,711 1,509,330 148,615
FACILI7Y MANAGEMEN7 978,64& 1,022,894 44,048 1,075,640 96,794 52,746 7,050,000 25,640 1,020,000 55,640 1,009,1D2 6fi,538 998,i23 77,517 987,165 88,475 976,231 99,A09
CARPEIVTRY SHOP 470,314 491,47H 21,164 495,000 24,686 3,522 495,000 0 495,000 0 489,711 5,289 484,353 10,617 479,065 15,935 473,759 21,241
CITY MARKE7 864,307 9Q3,201 38,894 994,000 29,693 (9,201) 894,000 0 894,�00 0 884,448 9,552 874,825 19,775 865,221 28,779 855,638 38,362
CITY HALL BUILDING 1,716,459 1,793,700 77,241 1,480,015 (236,444) (313,685) 1,480,015 Q 1,480,015 0 1,480,015 U 1,480,615 0 1,480,015 U 7,480,015 0
SUILDINGS AND INSPECTION SERVICES 5,573,326 5,824,126 250,8d0 5,602,600 29,274 (221,526) 5,551,015 51,585 5,466,015 i36,585 5,423,426 179,174 5,380,521 222,679 5,337,700 264,900 5,294,973 307,627
EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION 232,320 242,774 10,454 4A2,713 210,393 199,939 342,000 100,713 30D,D00 142,713 296,795 145,918 293,5fi6 149,147 290,343 152,370 287,127 155,586
MUNICIPAL OPERATIOHiS
MUIVICIPALOPERATIONSADMIf�! 1,575,612 1,646,575 70,903 1,024,501 248,689 i77,986 1,824,501 0 1,824,501 0 1,805,007 19,494 i,785,368 39,133 1,7fi5,768 58,733 1,746,210 78,291
INFHASTRUCTURE MANAGEMEfVT 288,13& 30i,102 12,966 149,134 (139,UO2) (151,9fi8) 149,134 0 149,134 Q i47,541 1,593 i45,936 3,198 144,334 4,600 142,735 6,399
ENGINEERING&GROWTH 41b,810 433,47fi 18,666 438,998 24,188 5,522 438,998 0 438,990 0 434,307 4,691 429,582 9,416 424,866 74,132 42Q,1fi0 18,838
TRAFFIC ENG&SYSTEMS 1,2fi0,516 1,317,239 56,723 1,543,164 282,648 225,825 1,543,164 0 i,543,764 0 1,526,676 16,488 1,510,065 33,099 1,493,487 49,677 1,476,945 &fi,219
SNOW CONTROLSTREETS A,78A,657 4,999,967 215,310 4,467,000 (317,fi57) (532,96� 4,467,000 0 4,467,000 0 4,4i9,272 47,728 4,371,189 95,871 4,323,2(l1 143,799 4,275,317 191,fi83
SNOW CONTROL 51DEWALKS 634,448 662,990 28,550 774,189 139,741 717,191 774,189 0 774,189 0 7fi5,9i7 8,272 757,584 16,605 749,267 24,922 740,968 33,221
STORM DRAINAGE 2,125,659 2,221,314 95,655 2,680,744 555,085 459,430 2,384,OD0 296,744 2,384,000 296,744 2,358,528 322,216 2,332,866 347,878 2,307,255 373,489 2,281,700 399,044
STREET CLEAfVING 1,393,271 1,455,968 62,fi97 (�,393,277) (i,455,968} 0 D 0 6 0 0 0 a D 0
CLEANSAINTJOHN 3,624,979 3,7BH,103 1G3,124 5,482,894 1,857,975 i,694,791 5,Q$5,674 {2,180) 5,485,074 (2,18�) 5,42b,460 5fi,42fi 5,367,426 115,458 5,308,502 174,392 5,249,705 233,189
STREET SERVICES 4,703,861 4,915,535 211,fi74 5,782,073 1,078,2i2 866,538 5,532,DOQ 250,073 5,582,000 200,073 5,522,359 259,714 5,462,274 319,799 5,402,308 379,765 5,342,472 439,601
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS 20,605,949 21,742,2t7 93&,268 23,142,697 2,336,748 1,400,480 22,598,060 544,537 22,648,060 494,637 22,405,075 73fi,622 22,162,290 990,407 21,918,988 1,223,709 21,676,212 1,466,485
366
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
2009 OPERATING BUDGET Page 3 of 7
EXPENDITURES
20Q9 Difference 2009 Requlred 2 cent Requlred 4 cent Required 6 cent Requlred 8 cen[ Required 10 cent Requlred
2008 2008 pfus Submissions 4.5 Increase Stable Tax Reduction Tax Rete Reductlon Tax Reduction Tax Reduction Tax Reductlon Taz Reductfon
DEPARTMENT NAME BUDGET 4.50% Change Needs Cfiange Vs Needs Rate Stable Aate Reduction In$ Reduclloh in$ Reductlon in$ Reductlon In� Reduction ln$
COMMUNITY PLANNING 877,807 917,308 39,56i 1,407,040 529,233 489,732 1,350,fl00 57,040 1,350,000 57,040 1,350,000 57,040 1,350,000 57,040 1,350,000 57,040 4,350,000 57,04Q
REALESTATE 424,797 443,902 19,715 509,6�5 95,018 65,903 509,805 0 509,805 0 504,358 5,447 498,870 10,935 493,393 16,412 487,926 21,877
G I S 279,729 292,316 12,588 294,611 14,883 2,295 294,611 0 294,611 0 291,463 3,148 288,292 6,319 285,127 9,484 281,969 12,642
HERITAGE 224,702 234,814 10,112 231,746 7,044 (3,068) 224,702 7,044 224,702 7,044 222,301 9,445 219,882 11,864 217,4fi8 14,278 215,059 16,687
PIANNIfVG ADVISORY COMM 12,400 12,958 558 12,720 320 (238) 12,720 Q 12,720 0 12,584 136 12,447 273 12,310 41a 12,174 546
ENVIRONMENTCOMMITTEE 4,400 4,598 198 4,520 120 (78) 4,520 0 4,520 0 4,472 48 4,423 97 4,374 i46 4,326 194
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1,823,824 1,905,896 82,072 2,460,442 636,618 554,54& 2,396,358 64,084 2,396,358 64,084 2,385,i78 75,264 2,373,914 86,528 2,362,fi72 97,770 2,351,456 108,986
LEISURE SERVICES
ADMIfVISTRATION 728,075 760,838 32,763 857,335 i29,26Q 96,497 857,335 0 857,335 0 848,175 9,160 838,947 18,388 829,737 27,598 920,547 3&,788
FACILITIES 1,482,937 1,549,669 66,732 1,355,165 (127,772) (194,504) 1,355,165 0 7,355,165 0 1,340,696 14,479 1,326,099 29,066 1,311,541 43,fi24 1,297,014 58,151
AAENAS 1,121,503 1,171,971 50,468 1,170,642 49,139 {i,329) 1,170,642 0 1,170,642 0 i,158,134 12,508 1,145,533 25,109 1,132,957 37,685 1,120,4(18 50,234
LANDSCAPE 1,539,927 1,609,224 69,297 1,859,74$ 319,821 250,524 1,760,OOQ 99,748 1,7&0,000 99,748 1,741,i95 118,553 1,722,25Q i37,498 1,703,343 156,405 1,684,477 175,271
WEST DISTRICT 323,697 338,263 14,566 320,232 (3,465) {19,031) 320,232 0 320,232 0 315,8i0 3,422 313,363 6,869 309,923 10,309 306,490 13,742
CENTRAL DISTAICT 520,071 543,474 23,403 557,797 37,726 14,323 534,797 23,000 534,797 23,000 529,083 28,714 523,32fi 34,471 517,581 40,216 511,648 45,949
EASTDISTRICT 392,234 409,885 17,651 381,282 (10,952) (28,603) 381,282 0 3B1,2B2 0 377,208 4,074 373,104 8,178 369,008 12,274 364,921 i6,361
PRO KIDS 76,147 79,574 3,427 78,170 2,023 (1,404) 76,170 0 78,170 0 77,335 835 76,494 1,67fi 75,654 2,516 74,816 3,354
CONTRACTED SERVICES 140,000 145,300 6,300 140,000 0 (6,30Q) 140,000 0 140,000 0 138,504 1,496 136,997 3,003 135,493 4,507 133,992 6,008
SiJBSIDIES:FACILI7Y USAGE 183,000 191,235 8,235 222,361 39,361 31,126 i83,000 39,361 100,000 122,361 98,932 123,429 97,856 124,505 96,782 125,579 95,710 125,651
RECREATfONCOMMUNITYGROUPS 18,000 18,810 810 90,000 72,000 71,790 90,000 0 40,000 SQ,OQQ 39,573 50,427 39,142 50,858 38,712 51,288 38,263 51,717
LEISURE SERVICES 6,525,591 fi,B19,243 293,652 7,032,732 50T,141 213,489 6,670,623 762,109 6,737,623 295,109 6,665,635 367,097 6,593,111 439,621 6,520,T31 512,001 6,448,506 584,226
TOURISM 1,035,218 4,081,803 46,585 1,067,706 32,489 (14,09� 900,000 167,706 900,000 1fi7,706 896,384 i77,322 880,696 187,010 871,028 196,678 861,381 206,325
POLICECOMMISSION 20,063,949 20,966,722 902,873 22,035,018 1,971,169 1,068,29fi 21,815,000 220,018 21,665,000 370,O1B 21,433,518 601,500 21,200,315 834,703 2i1,9fi7,575 1,067,443 20,735,339 1,299,679
NON DEPARTMENTAL
SAIfVT JOHN TRANSI7 OPERA7ING 3,519,925 3,679,322 158,397 4,693,800 1,173,875 1,015,478 A,300,000 393,900 4,000,000 693,800 3,957,262 736,538 3,914,206 779,594 3,871,235 822,565 3,828,357 865,443
SAINTJOHNTFi/WSITDEB7 693,320 724,519 31,199 774,529 81,209 SO,OiO 774,529 0 774,529 0 766,253 8,276 757,916 16,fi13 749,595 24,934 741,293 33,236
MARKETSQ.-CONiMONAREAC05TS 2,078,407 2,171,935 93,528 1,992,535 (85,872) {179,400) 1,992,535 0 1,992,535 0 1,992,535 0 1,992,535 0 1,992,535 0 1,992,535 0
WATER SUPPLY 8�HYDRAN7S 1,882,000 1,966,690 84,690 �,3+Jp,fk?p 458,000 373,3i0 �,3q�1,UQ0 0 2,340,000 0 2,340,000 0 2,34f1,4�4 0 2,340,000 0 f,3-�U,�O 0
REGIONAL FACILI7IES COMM 1,577,543 1,648,532 70,989 1,496,045 (81,498) {152,487) 1,496,045 D 1,496,045 0 1,496,045 0 1,496,045 0 1,49fi,045 0 1,496,045 0
S7REE7LIGHTING 925,000 966,625 41,625 rt,Q04.f}QQ 75,000 33,375 S,p[]Q,[]pq 0 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 0 1,�D,C9fi 0 1,000,000 0 1,�3J�0 0
PFiOPERTYASSESSMEN7 1,009,743 1,055,181 45,438 1,101,474 91,731 46,293 1,101,474 0 1,101,474 0 1,1Q1,474 0 1,101,474 0 1,101,474 0 1,101,474 0
REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEfVT 437,616 457,309 19,693 447,319 9,703 (9,99a) 437,616 9,703 237,616 209,703 235,677 212,242 232,519 2i4,800 229,966 217,353 227,413 219,900
LIABILITY INSURANCE 456,750 477,304 20,554 670,000 213,250 192,696 670,000 Q 670,000 0 670,000 0 670,000 0 670,000 0 670,000 0
ARTS AND CULTURE iNITIATIVES 263,fi97 312,863 49,166 668,332 404,635 355,469 361,750 306,574 294,258 374,074 294,258 374,074 294,258 374,074 294,259 374,074 294,258 374,074
LIBRARY 378,fi0Q 395,637 i7,037 419,190 40,590 23,553 419,190 0 419,190 0 414,711 4,479 410,199 8,991 405,696 13,494 401,203 17,997
PARKING ADMIfV.SUPPORT 465,385 486,327 20,942 516,387 51,002 30,Ofi0 497,069 19,318 497,Q69 19,318 491,758 24,629 486,408 29,979 481,068 35,319 475,740 40,647
SAINTJOHNDEVCORP 196,028 204,849 8,821 190,000 (6,028} (14,849) 190,000 U i90,OQQ 0 187,970 2,030 185,325 4,075 183,884 6,116 1B1,B47 8,153
WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT 100,pOp 104,500 4,500 160,000 60,000 55,500 100,000 60,000 700,000 60,000 98,932 fi1,068 37,856 62,144 9fi,782 63,218 95,710 64,240
ANIMAL&PEST COfVTROL 137,OOQ 143,165 fi,1fi5 144,000 7,000 835 144,000 0 1A4,000 0 142,461 1,539 140,91i 3,089 139,3fi4 4,636 137,820 6,180
LORD BEAVERBROOK 136,600 142,747 6,147 140,700 4,100 (2,047) i40,700 0 140,700 0 139,197 1,503 137,682 3,018 136,171 4,529 134,663 6,037
CHERRY BROOK ZOO - - i 75,000 i 75,000 175,Ut10 i 00,000 75,000 0 175,000 0 175,000 0 175,000 0 175,000 0 175,000
S.J.HORTICULTURAL ASSOC. 58,0�0 60,610 2,610 6Q,000 2,QOQ (610) 40,000 20,000 0 60,000 6 60,000 0 60,000 0 6Q,000 0 60,000
SAINT JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD 275,000 287,375 12,375 275,OQ0 Q (12,375) 225,000 50,000 225,000 54,000 222,596 52,404 220,174 54,826 217,757 57,243 225,000 50,000
FESTIVALS/PUB�IC CELEBRATIONS 83,000 86,375 3,375 183,700 1�0,7p0 97,325 58,000 125,700 0 183,7�0 0 183,700 0 183,700 0 183,700 0 183,700
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT 462,000 472,733 10,733 B&�,872 398,872 388,139 &37,50Q 223,372 552,500 308,372 552,500 3Q8,372 552,500 308,372 552,500 308,372 552,500 308,372
fJ�N DEPARTMENTAL 15,135,614 15,843,598 707,984 18,3�8,883 3,i73,269 2,465,285 17,025,4ifi 1, �,467 ifi,174,9t6 2,133,967 16,103,029 2,205,854 16,030,609 2,278,275 15,958,330 2,350,553 15,895,864 2,413,019
C(TY OF SAINT JOHN
2009 OPERATING BUDGET Page a ol 7
EXPENOI7URES
2t109 Dffference 2009 RequEred 2 cent Required 4 cent Required 6 cent Requlred 8 cent Aequlred 10 cent Requlred
2008 2U08 plus Submisslons 4.5 Increase Stable Tax Reduction 7ax Rate Reduction Tax Reductlon Tax Reduction Tax Reductlon Tex Reductlon
DEPARTMENT NAME BUDGET 4.50% Change Needs Change Vs Needs Rete Stable Rate Reduct[on ln$ Reductfon _ In S Reductlon _ ln$ Reductlon In$ Reductlan In$
FUNDING OF TF[E GOING CONCERN PENSION LIABIUTY
FUNDING CHARGE2004,2(J05,8�2006 1,911,632 1,838,384 (73,248) 1,838,384 (73,248) 0 1,838,384 0 1,838,384 0 1,838,384 0 1,838,384 0 1,838,384 0 1,B3B,384 0
CURAENT YEAR SPECIAL PAYiNENT 3,112,619 3,237,000 124,381 3,237,000 124,381 0 3,237,000 0 3,237,OOQ 0 3,237,000 0 3,237,000 0 3,237,000 0 3,237,000 0
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE CONTAIBUTIONS (880,086} (915,000) (34,914) (915,000) (34,914) 0 {915,000) 0 (915,000) 0 (915,000) 0 (915,000) 0 (915,000) 0 (915,000) U
NEi�COST 70 CIIY SPECIA�PAYMENT 2,232,533 2,322,000 89,467 2,322,000 89,467 0 2,322,000 0 2,322,000 0 2,322,000 0 2,322,000 0 2,322,000 0 2,322,000 0
NET IMPACT PENSION FUNDING 4,144,165 4,160,384 16,219 4,166,384 16,219 0 4,160,384 0 4,160,384 0 4,160,384 0 4,160,384 0 4,160,384 0 4,160,384 0
FISCAL CHARGES
DEBTPAYMEIVTS 11,140,105 12,315,802 1,i75,697 12,315,802 1,175,697 0 12,315,802 0 i2,315,802 0 i2,3i5,802 0 12,315,802 0 12,315,802 0 12,315,802 0
CAPITAL FROM OPERATING 1,OOO,D00 1,045,000 45,000 1,5U0,000 500,000 455,OOD Q 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,SOO,OOQ
FLEET AND COMPUTER REPLACEMENT fl 0 0 (550,000) 550,000 (240,000} 240,000 (300,000) 300,000 (350,OOQ) 350,000 (400,000) 400,000 (450,OQ0) 450,000
2nd PREVIOUS YEAR DEFICIT 0 69,000 69,000 69,000 69,000 0 69,000 0 fi9,000 0 fi9,000 0 69,000 0 69,000 0 69,000 0
FISCAL CHARGES 12,140,105 13,429,802 1,289,697 13,BA4,602 1,744,697 455,000 11,834,802 2,050,000 12,14-0,802 1,740,000 12,Q84,B02 1,800,000 12,034,802 1,850,000 11,984,802 1,900,000 11,934,802 1,950,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 119,166,653 125,129,158 5,962,505 132,574,756 13,408,103 7,445,598 127,454,535 5,120,221 i26,342,552 6,232,204 125,238,020 7,336,736 124,135,722 8,439,034 123,035,509 9,539,247 121,947,227 10,627,529
�J.�O%
(5,120,221} (1,111,983) (1,1 D4,532) (1,102,298) (1,100.213} (1,089.282)
Increases beyond 4.5% (6,232,204) (7,336,736) (8,439,034) {9,539,247} (10,627,529)
COUNCIL 323,209
COMMUNICATIONS 307,307
FI RE 237,795 101,437,312 t oo,ssz,780 99,3a0,ae2 9e,29o.269 97.251,9b�
EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGAfVIZATION 199,939 1,t00.DDO t,too.000 �•ioo•aoo i.�oo,000
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS 1,400,480
COMMUNiTY PLANNING 499,732 i-oe0000�, i•�oa000`�c i-�i0000'i� i•�ZOO00%
POLICE COMMISSION 1,068,296
CITY HALL BUILDING allocaied to Police (3i 3,685} 754,611
SAINT JOHN TRANSIT OPERATING 1,015,478
WATER SUPPLY&HYDRANTS 373,310
ARTS AND CULTURE fNIT1ATIVES 355,469
CHERRY BROOK ZOO 175,000
FESTIVALS/PUBLIC CELEBRATIONS 97,325
SOCIAL DEVELOPMEN7 SUPPORT 399,139
CAPITAL FROM OPERATING 455,000
6,572,794
Net of other requests 872,804
Non-dlscretlonary expenditures:
MARKET S�.-COMMOIV AREA COS7S t,ss2,sas i,ss2,sas 1,992,535 ti,ss2,sas i,992,535
WATER SUPPLY&HYDFIANTS z,aao,000 2.340,000 2.340.000 2,3aa.000 2,3aa,000
REGIONAL FACIUTIES COMM i,a9s,oa5 i,ass,aas i,ase.oas t,a9s,oa5 i,ase,oas
STREET LIGHTING 1,000,00o i,000,000 t,00o,00o t,DDO,DOO t,000,000
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 1,101,474 1,101,474 1,161,474 1,101,474 1,101,474
LIABiLIIY INSURANCE s�a,00a 670,000 670,00o s�0,000 e7o,000
NEf IMPACT PENSION FUIVDING 4,tiso,aaa a,1ea.36a a,iso,3ea 4.76o,aea a,iso,se.a
FISCAL CHARGES t2,iaa,so2 ti2,oea.eo2 iz.oaa,eo2 ii.9aa,eo2 iy,saa,eoz
24,905,240 24,845,240 24.795.240 24,745,240 24,695,2A0
368
1/9/2009 CITY OF SAINT JOHN Page 5 of 7
2009 OPERATINC BUDGET
NON-TAX REVENUE
OPTION #1 OPTlON #2 OPTIQN #3
20Q9 2009 2009
2008 Service Stable Tax Tax Service Implications/City Manager's Notes
BUDGET Needs Rate Reduction
SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES
FIRE SERVICES
HAZMAT FUNDING 70,Od0 70,000 70,000 70,000
POINT LEPREAU 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Stand by charge
CLEARANCE LEfTERS 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
POLICE SERVICES
LODGE PRISONERS 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
ACCIDENT REPORTS 11,000 i 1,000 11,OQ0 11,OOd
TAXI LICENCES 50,000 50,000 50,000 SQ,OOd
OTHER 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000
RECREATION AND CULTURAL
SPORTSFIELDS 60,000 54,000 54,000 54,000
SENIORS PROGRAMS 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
CARLETON COMMUNITY CENTER 9,000 7,500 7,50Q 7,500
NORTH END COMMUNITY CENTER 4,500 4,000 4,000 4,000
ROCKWOOD PARK 8,000 4,300 4,300 4,300
Administration Revenue 40,000 40,000 40,000
Other(26-49) 18,OOd i 8,000 15,000 18,000
Other(26-50) 30,OOd 30,000 30,000 30,000
HURLEY ARENA 180,000 187,OOd 187,000 187,000
GORMAN ARENA 140,000 i56,000 156,000 156,000
BELYEA ARENA 134,000 14d,000 140,000 140,000
PETER MURRAY ARENA 125,000 135,OQ0 135,000 135,000
EMERGENCY DISPATCH 390,4�0 425,230 425,234 425,230
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
HOUSING OPERATIQNS 45,000 46,000 46,Od0 46,000
Saint John Transit 42,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
PENSION PLAN 200,000 200,OOQ 200,000 200,000
WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY 1,4fi4,OQ0 1,552,000 1,552,000 1,552,000
OTHER
TOURISM PARTNERSHIP 75,500 75,500 75,500 75,500 Dependant on success of efforts of Tourism �Department
OTHER TOUR�SM 3,000 0 0 0
PLANNING DEPT SERVICES 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
GIS SAL�S 25,OOU 25,000 25,000
SALE OF USED EQUIPMENT 5,OOQ 5,000 5,Od0 5,000
GARBAGE COLLECTION 5,OOQ 5,000 S,OdO 5,000
TRANSPQRTATIQN TENDERS 500 500 500 500
OTHER REVENUE FROM OWN SOURCES
369
��9�20�9 CITY OF SAINT JOHN Page 6 of 7
2009 OPERATING BUDGET
NON-TAX REVENUE
OPTION #1 OPTION #2 OPTION #3
2009 2009 2U09
2008 Service Stable Tax Tax Service Implicationsl Ci#y Manager's Notes
BUDGET Needs Rate Reduction
LICENSES AND PERMITS
BUILDING PERMITS 1,000,000 1,560,000 1,560,000 1,560,d00 Represents a decrease from 2006 actual, but still optimistic
PLUMBING PERMITS 70,000 1QO,OQO 10Q,OOQ 100,000
DEMOLITION PERMITS 5,000 5,300 5,300 5,300
MOBILE HOME PERMITS 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250
GRAVEL PIT PERMITS 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,OOa
EXCAVATION PERMITS 250 0 d
BUSINESS LICENCES 500 500 500 500
REZONINCa APPLICATIONS 20,OOQ 20,000 20,000 2d,000
OTHER 12,OOQ 12,000 12,000 12,000
GAS PIPELINE LiCENCE 16,50� 16,500 16,500 i 6,5d0
FINES AND PARKING
MAFiKET SQUARE PARKING 1,022,531 1,037,012 1,037,012 1,037,Oi 2
PARKING METERS 775,000 852,500 852,50Q 852,500
METER VIOLATIONS 210,�00 275,000 275,OOd 275,000
METER SUMMONSES 46,000 56,OQ0 56,000 56,000
TRAFFIC BY LAW FINES 250,000 285,000 285,000 285,000
TRAFFIC BY LAW SUMMONSES 30,000 35,000 35,000 35,OOd
COURT FINES 60,000 0
RENTALS
MARKET RENTALS 435,000 465,000 485,000 485,Od0
LAND AND BUILDINGS 135,000 146,500 146,500 146,500
CITY HALL 58,000 58,000 58,d00 56,000
SHORT TERM iNTEREST 250,OQ0 250,000 250,000 250,000
CONDITIONAL GRANTS FROM OTHER GOVMNTS
PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY MAINT 250,000 300,000 300,000 300,OOd
QTHER REVENUE
MISCELLANEOUS 109,839 �75,000 175,000 175,OD0
PIPELINE EASEMENT SALES 0 0 0 0
SURPLUS 2ND PREVIOUS YEAR 1,057,898 0 0 0
TQTAL NON TAX REVENUE 9,042,2fi8 9,089,592 9,069,592 9,089,592
370
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS
2009 BUDGET Pege 7 oF 7
2 Cent 10 Cent
2009 2008 plus SERVICE Stable Tax Tax Taz Service Implicatlons/Clty Maneger's Notes
BUDGET 4.5096 NEEDS Rate Reductlon Reductfon
ARTS AND CULTURE 1NITIATIVES
AA7S AND CUlTl1FE BOARO 100,000 104,500 110,000 700,000 60,000 60,000 Previous Caunal Initiative
PUEILIC ART RESERVE FUND 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Counal Pd�cy
CUL7URAL AFFAIRS OFFCE 10.3,697 108,363 t06,758 106,758 706,758 106,759 One Person Cululal Nlairs Ot(ice
COMMITMENT TO CUTURAL CAPITALS 35,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Canrrutled
NB Histon�f 17,574 5,000 2,500 2,500
SJ Thealre Company 10,000 5,000 - -
SymphonyNB 70,000 10,000 - -
Syrnphony NB Famdaum{Fr Terry-diedc} 20,000 70,000 - -
Impenal Tha�Ue(for 5 years slarting in 2008) 50,000 25.000 25,000 25.000
Synagog Small PeAarrung Ms Center(Cap1d-5256.000) 250,000 - - - Cauld be Caundl pnonly'ailtural inf�a5lnicture:il cen waii
Port Canada Sparvsa SympaSium(2070)
263.697 312,963 668.332 361.758 294.256 294.259
FESTIVALSIPUBLIC CELEBRATIONS (308,574) (fi7,500) O SGII no'Signaiurr Feslivel'bring subslan6adly lunded:w�ll have fo wait
�:aunai is�en wntn no conungency[o support tnosc na useea
LOYAlIST HERITAGE FESTNAL 3,000 3,�U� 3,000 3,000 O 0
�,nzZ Ewo e�VES FESrivqL �s,aoo 15,675 so,000 is,000 0 0
FES7IVAL de la BAIE FRANCAIS 5,000 5,000 5,000 S,D00 0 0
OTHER 60,000 62,700
Sanlors Resource Cenlre 3,000 3,000 0 0
SJ Regianel Hospilal 72,500 0 0 0
Fundy Bay Festival 10,000 S,D00 0 0
M�nAC�ro NB(Slreel Hodcey� 10,000 5,000 0 0
Pond Hocicey Group 50,000 5,000 0 O
FireWarks-New Year's Eva 7,600 5,000 0 0
FireWMCS-CenadaDay 7,600 5,000 0 U
Centenery Oueen Square Centre 18,000 O O 0
PULSE 0 0 0 0
Harbour Sletion(Remembranoe Day) 0 0 0 0
8usiness Camnmity Mli-Pwerty 0 0 0 0
flosource Centro fa Youth 2.000 2.000 0 0
Wunes's Wellness 2,000 2,000 0 0
Soint John Greek Feslival 2,000 2,000 0 0
NB Perade 1,000 t,000 0 0
Faod Feslrval 0 0 0 0
83.000 8fi,375 183.700 58,000 -
(125.700) (SB.000) 0
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT
UNBS.1 CAAITAL CAMPAIGN 200,000 200,000 200.000 200,000 200.000 200.000 Canmitted
SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER (free reni) 31,000 32,395 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 Is a wash
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL(free renl-8,000) 48,000 50,160 68,000 68,000 40,000 40,000 S BOOO.00 ls awash,Ihe balence is nocrod to sustein ihe aperauons
P.R.U.D.E (Iree renl) 22.000 22,000 22,000 22.000 22.000 22.000 Is e wa5h
ASILITYADVISORYCOMMITTEE 3,000 3,135 40,000 /0,000 3,000 3,000 ACounalArionty
SEAFARER'S MISSION 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
YOUTH CABINET 1,500 1,566
OTHER 5,000 $,225
NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELO?NIENT 150,000 156,750 175,000 175,000 125,000 125,000 A Progrem is now In pla[e and seem5 well received
Crescent VeOay Resource Cenlro 25,000 - - - W ill hava fo cane from lhe b175,000 pool
YMCA-YWCA(Rainbows Progrem) 10,000 - - - Preeedent setting
Low Incomo Housing Granls 50,000 - - - Preceden�setting
Hospiae 13,000 - - - Great org...but should we lund7
I(gy I�uslries(150.000 over S yrs stariing in 20097} so.000 so.000 so.000 ao.000 ca,v,uned
Harbour Passege Nlomlim fo Leisure Serviaes 170,000 t00,000 100,000 100,000 Wp built II,wa orm it,we besl maintain il la a higher fevel
St Jcespb's Comrnunity Centre(1 U yr lease) 0 0 0 0 This Is a 2010 issue
Resource Centre for Youth 22,g72 - - - prerBdrsl setting
Ybrent Canmmities 0 0 0 0
Ona Changa 0 0 0 0
Crime Sloppars 2,500
462,000 472.733 660.872 637.500 552.500 552.500
(223,372) (BS,000) 0
371
LORD BEAVERBROOI� RINK
536 MAIN STREET, SAINT JOHN, N.B. E2K 1J4
1 � � � _��-
; i � =1---- � �`-' '�- �- - � � ' i
- - = -!--~ i, .! � �� � .�
, Y _ �
. �- - - -
. -�...-� - - -
�.s'_
' !�
�_" '
Telephone: (506) 652-6710
December 29, 2008
Mayor Ivan Court and Common Council
City of Saint John
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John,NB E2L 4L1
Dear Sirs:
We, The Board of Trustees of The Lord Beaverbrook Rink,wish to inform Your
Worship and the members of Common Council of the situation at The Lord Beaverbrook
Rink. Even though the event has been well covered by the media,we feel that you should
be officially notified of our problems.
- As you are probably aware the Rink is approaching its forly-ninth birthday and the
pipes in the floor are part of the original refrigeration system_ Over the past five or six
years we have had to make repairs to minor leaks in order to continue operation. This
time however,the leaks were so extensive that we had to shut down the Rink,remove the
ice and repair fifteen pipes before we could resume making ice. The repairs were carried
out by E &R Services of Moncton and we also received advice and help from Samir
Yammine of Building and Inspection Services. We must emphasize that this repair is a
"Band-Aid". Therefore, we respectfully request that in your 2009 Capital Budget
deliberations you would include approximately$500,000 (best advice from Building and
Inspection Services) for the complete replaceznent of the floor including slab,pipes etc.
If this is acceptable we would,with guidance from Building and Inspection Services,
retain a consultant to put together a tender package set to close approximately April l,
2009 and work to begin as soon as the ice is removed in mid April.
Res ectfully submitted,
� `�
�---
Arthur Co eau, Chair
372