The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-06-20_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, June 20, 2011 Committee of the Whole Si vous exigez des services franrais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal, s'il vous plait contacter le bureau de la greffi&re communale a 658 -2862. 1. Call to Order 4:30 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Approval of Minutes 1.2 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c,j) 1.3 Employment Matter 10.2(4)(c,j) 1.4 Land Matter 10.2(4)(c,d) 1.5 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.6 Property Matter 10.2(4)(d) 1.7 Legal Opinion 10.2(4)(f,g) 1.8 Nominating Committee 10.2(4)(b) 1.9 Land Matter 10.2(4)(b) 1.10 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order — Prayer 6:30 p.m. Council Chamber 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of June 6, 2011 3. Adoption of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Public Information Session Drinking Water Treatment Facility (Receive for Information) 5.2 Green Municipal Funding Agreement - Canada Games Aquatic Centre (Recommendation in Report) 5.3 Little River Pipe Structure Rehabilitation at Champlain Drive (Recommendation in Report) 5.4 Tender for Traffic Signal Materials (Recommendation in Report) 5.5 Tender for Lighting Upgrade Hilton Belyea Arena (Recommendation in Report) 5.6 Highway Usage Permit Infrastructure Installation and Drainage Swale - Molson Avenue (Recommendation in Report) 2 5.7 Design and Construction Management: Prince William Street (Civic 221 to Civic 270) - Watermain, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Renewal and Street Reconstruction (Recommendation in Report) 5.8 Chesley Drive - Emergency Asphalt Repairs Request for Funding Support (Recommendation in Report) 5.9 Consulting Engineering Agreements with ADI Limited (Recommendation in Report) 5.10 2011 World's Strongest Man Competition Request (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager) 5.11 Engagement of Architectural Consultant / Peel Plaza Project - Public Plaza (Recommendation in Report) 5.12 Engineering Design and Construction Management Beach Crescent Sanitary Lift Station Upgrade, Kennebecasis Drive No. 2 Sanitary Lift Station Upgrade & Beach Crescent, Meadowbank Avenue and Kennebecasis Drive Sanitary Sewer Installations (Recommendation in Report) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 7.1 National Aboriginal Day June 21, 2011 8. Delegations/ Presentations 9. Public Hearings 10. Consideration of By -laws 10.1 Third Reading - ByLaw Amendment Respecting the Licensing of Peddlers and Hawkers 10.2(a) Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment - Sandy Point Road Area 10.2(b) Letters of Support (Some with Conditions) 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Rainbow Park Splash Pad (Councillor Snook) 11.2 Vacant and Derelict Buildings (Councillor Snook) 11.3 Publishing a Listing of Committees (Councillor Sullivan) 11.4 Economic Development Specialist for The City of Saint John (Councillor McGuire) 11.5 Morna Heights School Preservation (Councillor McGuire) 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 City Solicitor: Traffic By -Law Amendment - Champlain Street 12.2 City Solicitor: Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Building By- Law Resolution 12.3 City Manager: An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act, Bill 42 receives Royal Assent on June 10, 2011, MC2011 -161 12.4 City Manager: Marsh Creek - New Collector Sewer and 600mm Sanitary Force Main Installation, Contract 2011 -11 12.5 City Manager: Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation 12.6 City Manager: Community Solid Waste Management Service 12.7 City Manager: Solid Waste Management Service Outsource Decision 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 16. Adjournment 5 City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 20 juin 2011 Comite plenier Si vous exigez des services frangais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal, s'il vous plait contacter le bureau de la greffiere communale a 658 -2862. 1.Ouverture de la seance 16 h 30 Salle de conference du 8e 6tage, hotel de ville 1.1 Approbation du proces- verbal 1.2 Question financiere — alin6as 10.2(4)c), j) 1.3 Questions relatives a 1'emploi — alin&as 10.2(4)c), j) 1.4 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alin6as 10.2(4)c), d) 1.5 Question relative a 1'emploi — alin6a 10.2(4)j) 1.6 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alin6a 10.2(4)d) 1.7 Avis juridique — alin&as 10.2(4)f), g) 1.8 Comit& des candidatures — alin6a 10.2(4)b) 1.9 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alin6a 10.2(4)b) 1.10 Question financiere — alin6a 10.2(4)c) Seance ordinaire 1.Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere 18 h 30 Salle du conseil 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 2.1 Proc&s- verbal de la seance tenue le 6 juin 2011 3. Adoption de Pordre du jour 4. Divulgations de conflits d'int6rets 5. Questions soumises it Papprobation du conseil 5.1 Seance informative publique relative a Pinstallation de traitement de Peau potable (accepter a titre informatif) 5.2 Entente de financement municipal pour 1'environnement — Centre aquatique des Jeux du Canada (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.3 R6habilitation de la structure des conduites du r6servoir Little River au niveau de la promenade Champlain (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.4 Soumission relative au mat6riel pour feux de circulation (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.5 Soumission relative a la modernisation de Nclairage a Par6na Hilton Belyea (recommandation figurant au rapport) 0 5.6 Installation de l'infrastructure et d'une rigole de drainage dans le cadre du permis d'utilisation de 1'autoroute — Avenue Molson (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.7 Gestion de la conception et de la construction sur la rue Prince William (du num6ro de voirie 221 au num6ro de voirie 270) — Renouvellement de la conduite d'eau principale, de 1'6gout sanitaire, des 6gouts pluviaux et travaux de r6fection de la rue (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.8 Demande de soutien financier dans le cadre des travaux d'asphaltage d'urgence de la promenade Chesley (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.9 Consultation de la convention relative aux services d'ing6nierie conclue avec ADI Limited (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.10 Demande relative a l'organisation du concours de 1'homme le plus fort au monde 2011 (recommandation : transmettre au directeur g6n6ral) 5.11 Nomination d'un architecte- conseil pour le projet de la place Peel — Place publique (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.12 Services de conception technique et de gestion de la construction relativement a la modernisation de la station de relevement du croissant Beach, a la station de relevement no 2 de la promenade Kennebecasis et du croissant Beach, et aux installations des 6gouts sanitaires de 1'avenue Meadowbank et de la promenade Kennebecasis (recommandation figurant au rapport) 6. Commentaires pr6sent6s par les membres 7. Proclamation 7.1 Journ6e nationale des Autochtones le 21 juin 2011 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques 10. Etude des arret6s municipaux 10.1 Troisieme lecture de la modification de 1'arret& relatif a 1'octroi de permis aux colporteurs et aux revendeurs 10.2a) Modification propose du plan municipal visant le secteur du chemin Sandy Point 10.2b) Lettres d'appui (certaines contenant des conditions) 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Fontaine a jets douchants du parc Rainbow (conseiller Snook) 11.2 Batiments vacants et abandonn&s (conseiller Snook) 11.3 Publication d'une liste de comit6s (conseiller Sullivan) 11.4 Sp&cialiste en d6veloppement 6conomique pour The City of Saint John (conseiller McGuire) 11.5 Sauvegarde de 1'Ecole Morna Heights (conseiller McGuire) 12. Affaires municipales 6voqu6es par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Avocat municipal : Modification de 1'arr6t6 concemant la circulation visant la rue Champlain 12.2 Avocat municipal : R6solution relative a 1'Arret6 concemant les batiments et structures inesth6tiques ou dangereux dans The City of Saint John 12.3 Directeur g6n6ral : Le projet de loi 42, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalWs, a requ la sanction royale le 10 juin 2011 — Rapport no M/C 2011- 161 7 12.4 Directeur general : Installation d'un nouvel 6gout collecteur et d'une nouvelle conduite de refoulement sanitaire de 600 mm pour le ruisseau Marsh — Contrat no 2011 -11 12.5 Directeur g6n6ral : Inondations de Glen Falls et changement de lieu de r6sidence 12.6 Directeur g6n6ral : Service communautaire de gestion des d6chets solides 12.7 Directeur g6n6ral : D6cision li6e a Pimpartition du service de gestion des d6chets solides 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance g6n6rale 16. Levee de la seance 0 96 -222 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — JUNE 6, 2011 - 6:00 P.M. Present: Ivan Court, Mayor Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors Court, Farren, Higgins, McGuire, Mott, Norton, Snook, Sullivan, and Titus - and - P. Woods, 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; K. Clifford, District Fire Chief; E. Gormley, Common Clerk and J. Taylor, Assistant Common Clerk. SEANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN TENUE A L'HOTEL DE VILLE, LE 6 JUIN 2011 A 18 H Sont presents : Ivan Court, maire le maire suppleant Chase et les conseillers Court, Farren, McGuire, Mott, Norton, Snook, Sullivan, Titus et la conseillere Higgins -et - P. Woods, directeur general; J. Nugent, avocat municipal; G. Yeomans, commissaire aux finances et tresorier; P. Groody, commissaire aux Operations municipales; K. Forrest, commissaire au service Urbanisme et developpement; A. Poffenroth, commissaire adjoint aux Services d'inspection et des batiments; K. Clifford, chef du service d'incendie de district; E. Gormley, greffiere communale, et J. Taylor, greffier communal adjoint. Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Court called the meeting to order and Pastor Dustin Day offered the opening prayer. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere La seance est ouverte par le maire Court et le pasteur Dustin Day recite la priere d'ouverture. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of May 24, 2011 On motion of Councillor Snook Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on May 24`h, 2011, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 2.1 Proces- verbal de la seance tenue le 24 mai 2011 Proposition du conseiller Snook Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le proces- verbal de la seance du conseil communal tenue le 24 mai 2011 soit approuve. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 9 96 -223 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting, with the addition of item 13.1 Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointments to Committees, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuy6e par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que I'ordre du jour de la pr6sente r6union soit adopt6, moyennant I'ajout du point 13.1, Comit6 pl6nier : Recommandations de nominations pour si6ger aux comit6s. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adopt6e. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest Councillor Sullivan declared a conflict of interest with item 11.2 Morna Heights School Preservation. Councillor Higgins declared a conflict of interest with items 5.7 Engineering Services: Bleury Street / Danells Drive — Street Reconstruction and 5.8 Engineering Services: Westfield Road — Street Reconstruction. 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets Le conseiller Sullivan d6clare titre en conflit d'int6rets avec le point 11.2 Sauvegarde de I'Ecole Morna Heights. La conseillere Higgins d6clare titre en conflit d'int6rets avec le point 5.7 Services d'ing6nierie relativement a la rue Bleury /promenade Danells — Travaux de r6fection, et avec le point 5.8 Services d'ing6nierie : R6fection du chemin Westfield. 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 That the submitted report M &C 2011 -146: Contract No. 2010 -19: Harbourview Subdivision Water System Disinfection — Ocean Drive, be received for information. 5.2 That the submitted report M &C 2011 -145: Loch Lomond Watershed Clean -Up Day Update: Wednesday, June 15th, 2011, 9 AM — 3 PM Loch Lomond Community Centre, be received for information. 5.3 Refer to item 14.1. 5.4 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 129: General Specifications — Policy Revisions (Division 2, 4 & 6), Common Council adopt the submitted revised Division 2 (Instructions to Tenderers and Tendering Procedures) and the submitted revisions to the current clauses of Division 4 (Form of Tender) and Division 6 (General Administration of Contract) of The City of Saint John General Specifications. 5.5 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 130: Engineering Inspection Services 2011, Common Council authorize staff to establish a supply agreement for the provision of engineering inspection services for 2011 Capital Program projects in accordance with the hourly rates provided in said report. 5.6 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 143: Proposal for Engineering Design and Construction Management Services - Lancaster Waste Water Treatment Facility Entrance Road Alteration, the proposal for consulting services for the design and construction management of road alterations to the Lancaster Waste Water Treatment Facility be awarded to Genivar in the amount of $42,131.49 HST included. 10 96 -224 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201 VILE 6 JUIN 2011 5.7 Refer to item 14.2. 5.8 Refer to item 14.3. 5.9 Refer to item 14.4. 5.10 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 137: Proposed Public Hearing Dates, Common Council schedule the public hearings for the rezoning applications of Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc. on behalf of 651413 N.B. Ltd. and Folkins Estates Ltd. (1429 Loch Lomond Road), Genivar on behalf of 654101 N.B. Ltd. (1515 Loch Lomond Road), A. J. Mallette & Sons (1985) Ltd. (2797 Loch Lomond Road), Genivar on behalf of Barsa Ventures Ltd. (1925 Bayside Drive) and Genivar on behalf of Fundy Bay Sand & Gravel Inc. (Lands Adjacent to 460 Latimore Lake Road) for Monday, July 4, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, and refer the applications to the Planning Advisory Committee for report and recommendation. 5.11 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 139: Purchase and Sale Agreement for 111 Molson Avenue, The City of Saint John purchase 111 Molson Avenue from David Blizzard, in his capacity as Executor and Trustee under the Last Will and Testament of Joyce Blizzard, in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Purchase and Sale Agreement submitted with said report and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents in that regard. 5.12 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 144: Relocation of Electrical Room / Washroom Renovation — Carleton Community Centre, the contract for Tender number 2011- 085102T: Relocation of Electrical Room / Washroom Renovation — Carleton Community Centre be awarded to the low bidder, Castle Rock Construction, at the tendered price of $99,000 plus $9,900 (contingency allowance), totaling $108,900 plus HST. 5.13 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 132: Washroom Upgrades — Fire Station #2, Tender No. 2011- 085101 T: Washroom Upgrades — Fire Station # 2 be awarded to the low bidder, Cossey Corporation, at the tendered price of $47,200.00, plus tax. 5.14 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 119: Easement Acquisition for Municipal Storm Sewer Line 440 Rothesay Avenue — King Mazda Property, provided the owner of 440 Rothesay Avenue has laid storm sewer pipes to the satisfaction of the Chief City Engineer, The City of Saint John acquire an Easement for Municipal Services in and through the lands at civic number 440 Rothesay Avenue, as detailed on the submitted Easement Sketch, titled "King Mazda Parking Lot Expansion ", and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign any document(s) necessary to finalize this transaction. 5.15 Refer to item 14.5 5.16 That the letter dated June 2, 2011 from the Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative (BCAPI) regarding the Neighbourhood Development Stimulation Grant Program be referred to the City Manager. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that the recommendation set out for each consent agenda item respectively, with the exception of items 5.3 License to Operate a Vendor Market; 5.7 Engineering Services: Bleury Street / Danells Drive - Street Reconstruction & Molson Avenue - Storm Sewer; 5.8 Engineering Services: Westfield Road - Street Reconstruction; 5.9 Funding Request - Saint John Track Club; 5.15 License Agreements with Hargo Jet Boat Tour Inc. Fallsview Park and Red School House, which have been identified for debate, be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11 96 -225 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 5.1 Que le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -146 : Contrat no 2010 -19 relatif a la desinfection du r6seau d'aqueduc du lotissement Harbourview — promenade Ocean, soit accept6 a titre informatif. 5.2 Que le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -145: Mise a jour de la journ6e de nettoyage du bassin versant Loch Lomond le mercredi 15 juin 2011, de 9 h a 15 h, au Centre communautaire Loch Lomond., soit accept6 a titre informatif. 5.3 Voir le point 14.1. 5.4 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -129: Sp6cification generales — R6vision de la politique (sections 2, 4 et 6), le conseil communal adopte les changements proposes a la section 2 (directives relatives aux soumissionnaires et aux procedures d'appel d'offres) et les changements proposes aux clauses actuelles de la section 4 (formulaire d'un soumissionnaire) et de la section 6 (administration generale des contrats) dans le cadre des specifications generales de The City of Saint John. 5.5 Que, comme le recommande le directeur g6n6ral dans le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -130: Services d'inspection d'ingenierie 2011, le conseil communal autorise le personnel a rediger un contrat d'approvisionnement relatif aux services d'inspection d'ing6nierie visant les projets congus en vertu du programme d'immobilisations de 2011 conformement au taux horaire indique dans le rapport en question. 5.6 Que, comme le recommande le directeur g6n6ral dans le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -143 : Proposition relative aux services de conception technique et de gestion de la construction — Degradation de la voie d'acces a 1'installation de traitement des eaux us6es de Lancaster, la proposition pr6sent6e par Genivar visant les services de conception technique et de gestion de construction pour remedier a la degradation de la voie d'acces menant a ('installation de traitement des eaux us6es de Lancaster soit retenue pour la somme de 42 131,49 $ (TVH incluse). 5.7 Voir le point 14.2. 5.8 Voir le point 14.3. 5.9 Voir le point 14.4. 5.10 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -137: Date proposee pour la tenue dune audience publique, le conseil communal fixe la date de I'audience publique relativement aux demandes de rezonage soumises par Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc. au nom de 651413 N.B. Ltd. et de Folkins Estates Ltd. (1429, chemin Loch Lomond), par Genivar au nom de 654101 N.B. Ltd. (1515, chemin Loch Lomond), par A. J. Mallette & Sons (1985) Ltd. (2797, chemin Loch Lomond), par Genivar au nom de Barsa Ventures Ltd. (1925, promenade Bayside) et par Genivar au nom de Fundy Bay Sand & Gravel Inc. (terrains contigus au 460, chemin Latimore Lake) au lundi 4 juillet 2011, a 19 h, dans la salle du conseil, et qu'il transmette les demandes au Comite consultatif d'urbanisme aux fins de presentation de rapport et de recommandations. 5.11 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -139 : Convention d'achat-vente visant la propri6t6 situ6e au 111, avenue Molson, The City of Saint John acquiere aupres de David Blizzard, en sa qualite d'executeur testamentaire en vertu du testament redige par Joyce Blizzard, la propri6t6 situ6e au 111, avenue Molson, conform6ment aux modalit6s stipul6es dans la convention d'achat -vente soumise avec ledit rapport, et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer les documents contractuels necessaires a cet egard. 5.12 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -144 : Deplacement du local electrique et des toilettes du centre communautaire Carleton, le contrat no 2011- 085102T relatif au deplacement du local 6lectrique et des toilettes du centre communautaire Carleton soit accord6 au soumissionnaire le moins - disant, a savoir Castle Rock Construction, au prix offert de 99 000 $ plus 9 900 $ (fonds pour 6ventualites), soit 108 900 $ au total (TVH en sus). 12 96 -226 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 2011/LE 6 JUIN 2011 5.13 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -132: Travaux d'amelioration aux salles de bains de la caserne de pompier no 2, le contrat no 2011- 085101T relatif aux travaux d'amelioration aux salles de bains de la caserne de pompier no 2 soit accorde au soumissionnaire le moins- disant, a savoir Cossey Corporation, au prix offert de 47 200 $, taxes en sus. 5.14 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -119 : Acquisition dune servitude relative au reseau d'egout municipal visant le 440, avenue Rothesay— concession d'automobiles King Mazda, a la condition que le proprietaire de la propriete situee au 440, avenue Rothesay, ait installe des conduites d'egout pluvial a la satisfaction de I'ingenieur municipal en chef, The City of Saint John acquiere une servitude aux fins de services municipaux associee aux parcelles de terrain situees au 440, avenue Rothesay, telles qu'elles sont indiquees sur le plan de servitude intitule « Agrandissement du parc de stationnement de la concession d'automobiles King Mazda », et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer les documents necessaires pour conclure cette transaction. 5.15 Voir le point 14.5. 5.16 Que la lettre de I'organisme Initiative contre la pauvrete du secteur des affaires (ICPSA) datee du 2 juin 2011 et relative au programme de subvention d'encouragement au voisinage soit transmise au directeur general. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que la recommendation formulee relativement a chacune des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil, a 1'exclusion des points 5.3 Licence d'exploitation d'un marche de vendeurs; 5.7 Services d'ingenierie relativement a la rue Bleury/promenade Danells — Travaux de refection de I'avenue Molson et egouts pluviaux; 5.8 Services d'ingenierie : Refection du chemin Westfield; 5.9 Demande de financement — Club d'athletisme de Saint John /Saint John Track Club; 5.15 Contrats de licence conclus avec Hargo Jet Boat Tour Inc., Fallsview Park et Little Red School House, qui ont ete selectionnes aux fins de discussion, soit adoptee. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 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 7.1 Shriners International Awareness Week June 6 — 12, 2011 The Mayor proclaimed the week of June 6th — 12th, 2011 as Shriners International Awareness Week in the City of Saint John. 7. Proclamation 7.1 Semaine de sensibilisation de Shriners International du 6 au 12 juin 2011 Le maire declare que la semaine du 6 au 12 juin 2011 est la Semaine de sensibilisation de Shriners International dans The City of Saint John. (Councillor Titus withdrew from the meeting) 8. Delegations /Presentations 8.1 East Side Motivators Referring to a submitted presentation, Kimberly Williams, Catherine Claine, and Trisha Wallace- Basque, provided Council with background information on the East Side 13 96 -227 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 Motivators, a local neighbourhood group. Ms. Williams advised that the group's objectives are to improve access to recreation; increase street lighting, develop traffic calming measures, arrange youth transportation to activities, and organize neighbourhood clean up. (Le conseiller Titus quitte la seance.) 8. Delegations et presentations 8.1 Initiatives pour la valorisation du quartier est Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, Kimberly Williams, Catherine Claine et Trisha Wallace- Basque fournissent au conseil des renseignements generaux sur le groupe de voisinage local appele Initiatives pour la valorisation du quartier est. Mme Williams declare que le groupe vise a ameliorer I'acces aux loisirs, a renforcer 1'eclairage des rues, a elaborer des mesures pour I'apaisement de la circulation, a mettre en place un systeme de transport pour que les jeunes puissent se rendre a leurs activites et a organiser des operations de nettoyage de quartier. (Councillor Snook withdrew from the meeting) 8.2 Saint John Destination Marketing Organization Referring to a submitted presentation, Ross Jefferson, Director of the Saint John Destination Marketing Organization (DMO), provided background information on the DMO and he responded to questions from Council members. On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to acquire a banner, to be displayed in the Uptown area, to promote the Memorial Cup victory of the Saint John Sea Dogs. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Le conseiller Snook quitte la seance.) 8.2 Organisme Destination Marketing de Saint John Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, Ross Jefferson, directeur de I'organisme Destination Marketing de Saint John, donne des renseignements generaux sur ce dernier et it repond aux questions des membres du conseil. Proposition du conseiller Court Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que le directeur general soit charge de trouver une banniere, laquelle est destinee a titre installee au centre -ville pour promouvoir la victoire remportee par 1'equipe de hockey Sea Dogs de Saint John a I'occasion de la Coupe Memorial. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M. 9. Audiences publiques a 19 h 10. Consideration of By -laws (Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillor Mott withdrew from the meeting) 10.1(a)Third Reading Zoning By -Law Amendment — 646 Fairville Boulevard 10.1(b)Section 39 Conditions On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -171, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John," re- zoning a parcel of land with an area of approximately 5100 square metres, located at 14 96 -228 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 2011/LE 6 JUIN 2011 646 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as PID numbers 55056832, 00034140, 00034132, 00035030, 00036525, 55061295, 55203020, a portion of PID 55210694 and a portion of Fairville Boulevard, from 1 -1" Light Industrial and "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential to "SZ -22" Special Zone #22, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -171, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the proposed development of a parcel of land having an area of approximately 5100 Square metres, located at 646 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as PID numbers 55056832, 00034140, 00034132, 00035030, 00036525, 55061295, 55203020, a portion of PID 55210694 and a portion of Fairville Boulevard be subject to the following conditions: a) The developer must pave all parking areas, loading areas, maneuvering areas and driveways with asphalt and enclose them with cast -in -place concrete curbs to protect the landscaped areas and to facilitate proper drainage; b) The developer must provide adequate site drainage facilities in accordance with a detailed drainage plan and design brief prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; c) The developer must provide a servicing plan and report, subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate, to the City detailing the requirements for water, sanitary and storm servicing and certifying that the City's infrastructure has sufficient capacity and will not be adversely impacted by the development; d) The developer must provide all utilities underground, including power and telephone from the existing overhead facilities; e) The developer must landscape all disturbed areas of the site not occupied by buildings, driveways, walkways, parking and loading areas; f) Direct street access to the site is limited to a maximum of two driveways, as generally indicated on the submitted proposal; g) The site design must include pedestrian connections into the site from the adjacent signalized intersections and appropriate crosswalk markings in the parking area. Any pedestrian walkways must be of a minimum 1.5 metre (5 foot) width; h) The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan, landscaping plan and building elevation plans, prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, walkways, loading areas, signs, exterior lighting, exterior building materials and finishes, landscaped areas (including location and types of planting materials), and other site features; i) The approved plans mentioned in conditions (b), (c) and (h) above must be attached to the application for building permit for the development, except that such plans are not required for permit applications for site preparation and / or foundation only; j) All site improvements shown on the approved site plan, landscaping plan and drainage plans, except for landscaping, must be completed prior to the issuance 15 96 -229 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 2011/LE 6 JUIN 2011 of an occupancy permit for any part of the development; and the landscaping must be completed within one year of building permit approval; k) That the developers review the requirements for easements to accommodate existing infrastructure with Saint John Energy. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -171, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John," re- zoning a parcel of land with an area of approximately 5100 square metres, located at 646 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as PID numbers 55056832, 00034140, 00034132, 00035030, 00036525, 55061295, 55203020, a portion of PID 55210694 and a portion of Fairville Boulevard, from 1 -1" Light Industrial and "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential to "SZ -22" Special Zone #22, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -171, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." 10. Etude des arretes municipaux (Le maire suppleant Chase et le conseiller Mott quittent la reunion.) 10.1a) Troisieme lecture du projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant le 646, boulevard Fairville 10.1 b) Conditions imposees par I'article 39 Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110- 171 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John v modifiant le zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 5 100 metres carres situee au 646, boulevard Fairville, egalement inscrite sous les NID 55056832, 00034140, 00034132, 00035030, 00036525, 55061295 et 55203020, et en partie sous le NID 55210694 et un trongon du boulevard Fairville, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone d'industrie legbre « 1 -1 » et de zone d'edifices a logements multiples de trois etages « RM -1 » a zone speciale no 22 « SZ -22 », fasse I'objet d'une lecture. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. L'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110 -171 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » est lu integralement. Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU qu'en vertu de I'article 39 de la Loi sur I'urbanisme, I'amenagement propose d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 646, boulevard Fairville, d'une superficie approximative de 5 100 metres carres et inscrite sous les NID 55056832, 00034140, 00034132, 00035030, 00036525, 55061295, 55203020, et en partie sous le NID PID 55210694 et un trongon du boulevard Fairville soit assujetti aux conditions suivantes : a) le promoteur doit asphalter toutes les aires de stationnement, les aires de chargement et de manoeuvre et toutes les voies d'acces et prevoir des bordures de beton coulees sur place pour proteger les espaces paysagers et faciliter le drainage; b) le promoteur doit assurer des installations de drainage adequates conformement a un plan de drainage detaille et a un enonce de conception prepares par le promoteur et sous reserve de I'approbation de I'ingenieur municipal en chef ou de son remplagant; 16 96 -230 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 2011/LE 6 JUIN 2011 c) le promoteur doit fournir a la Ville un plan et un rapport de viabilite, sous reserve de I'approbation de I'ingenieur municipal en chef ou de son representant, precisant les exigences relatives a 1'entretien des reseaux d'aqueduc, d'egouts sanitaires et pluviaux et garantissant que les reseaux de la Ville ont une capacite suffisante et que le projet d'amenagement n'aura pas de repercussions negative sur eux; d) le promoteur doit prevoir toutes les installations d'utilite publique souterraines, y compris les services d'electricite et de telephone, depuis les lignes aeriennes existantes; e) le promoteur doit prevoir I'amenagement paysager des aires perturbees du site ou it n'y a pas de batiments, de voies d'acces, d'allees pietonnieres et d'aires de stationnement ou de chargement; f) I'acces direct depuis 1'emplacement se limite a deux voies d'acces au maximum, comme le montre de maniere generale la proposition presentee; g) la conception du site doit inclure les passages pour pietons menant au site depuis les carrefours a feux adjacents et le marquage approprie des passages pour pietons dans la zone de stationnement. En outre, la largeur des passages pour pietons doit titre au moins de 1,5 metre (5 pieds); h) 1'emplacement doit titre amenage conformement aux plans de situation, d'amenagement paysager et d'elevation detailles, prepares par le promoteur et sujets a I'approbation de I'agent d'amenagement, indiquant 1'emplacement de tous les batiments, les aires de stationnement, les voles d'acces, les passages pour pietons, les aires de chargement, les enseignes, 1'eclairage exterieur, les materiaux exterieurs des batiments et la finition, les espaces paysagers (y compris 1'emplacement et le genre de plantation), et les autres caracteristiques de 1'emplacement; i) les plans approuves mentionnes aux conditions b), c) et h) ci- dessus doivent accompagner la demande d'un permis de construction relativement a I'amenagement, a 1'exception des demandes de permis qui ne visent que les travaux de preparation du terrain et de la fondation, pour lesquels lesdits plans ne sont pas exiges; j) toutes les ameliorations indiquees sur les plans de situation, d'amenagement paysager et de drainage, sauf I'amenagement paysager, doivent titre terminees avant 1'emission d'un permis d'occuper pour toute partie de I'amenagement, et I'amenagement paysager doit titre complete dans un delai d'un an a compter de la date d'approbation du permis de construction; k) les promoteurs doivent examiner les besoins en terrains pour les servitudes afin d'amenager ('infrastructure existante de Saint John Energy. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110 -171 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant le zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 5 100 metres carres situee au 646, boulevard Fairville, egalement inscrite sous les NID 55056832, 00034140, 00034132, 00035030, 00036525, 55061295 et 55203020, et en partie sous le NID 55210694 et un trongon du boulevard Fairville, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone d'industrie legere « 1 -1 » et de zone d'edifices a Iogements multiples de trois etages « RM -1 » a zone speciale no 22 « SZ -22 >), fasse ('objet d'une troisieme lecture, que ledit arrete soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit appose. 17 96 -231 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201 VLE 6 JUIN 2011 A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Troisieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110 -171 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». 10.2(a)Third Reading Zoning By -Law Amendment — 46 Westmorland Road 10.2(b)Section 39 Conditions On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -172, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John," re- zoning a parcel of land with an area of approximately 990 square metres, located at 46 Westmorland Road, also identified as PID numbers 00319657 and 55076053, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -172, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John ", was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the proposed rezoning of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 990 Square metres, located at 46 Westmorland Road, also identified as being PID numbers 00319657 and 55076053, be subject to the following conditions: a) That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposal, a detailed landscaping and off- street parking plan for the subject site be prepared by the proponent subject to the approval of the Development Officer; b) That the work shown on the landscaping and off - street parking plan be completed by the proponent within one year of the rezoning of the subject site; and c) That the use of the property be limited to a maximum of seven dwelling units. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -172, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John," re- zoning a parcel of land with an area of approximately 990 square metres, located at 46 Westmorland Road, also identified as PID numbers 00319657 and 55076053, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -172, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." 10.2a) Troisieme lecture du projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant le 46, chemin Westmorland 10.2b) Conditions imposees par I'article 39 Proposition du conseiller Court Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que 1'arr6te intitul6 « Arrete no C.P. 110- 172 modifiant I'Arr6t6 de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant le zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ de 990 metres carres, situ6e au 46, chemin Westmorland, et inscrite sous les NID 00319657 et 55076053, afin de faire 96 -232 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 2011/LE 6 JUIN 2011 passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone d'edifices a logements multiples de trois etages « RM -1 », fasse l'objet d'une lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. L'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110 -172 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » est lu integralement. Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU qu'en vertu des conditions prevues a I'article 39 de la Loi sur 1'urbanisme, le projet de rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 990 metres carres, situee au 46, chemin Westmorland et portant les NID 00319657 et 55076053, soit assujetti aux conditions suivantes : a) qu'avant qu'un permis de construction relativement au projet d'amenagement ne soit delivre, un plan detaille d'amenagement paysager et de stationnement hors rue soit prepare par le demandeur et assujetti a I'approbation de I'agent d'amenagement; b) que les travaux indiques sur le plan d'amenagement paysager et de stationnement hors rue soient executes par le demandeur dans un delai d'un an apres le rezonage du site en question; c) que ('usage de la propriete soit limite a un nombre maximal de sept logements. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110 -172 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant le zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 990 metres carres, situee au 46, chemin Westmorland, et inscrite sous les NID 00319657 et 55076053, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone d'edifices a logements multiples de trois etages « RM -1 », fasse l'objet d'une troisieme lecture, que (edit arrete soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit appose. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Troisieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110 -172 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». 10.3 Third Reading — Street Closing By -Law Amendment — Portion of Milford Road On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that they by -law entitled "By -Law Number M -23, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting the Stopping Up and Closing of Highways in The City of Saint John" regarding a portion of Milford Road, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled "By -Law Number M -23, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting the Stopping Up and Closing of Highways in The City of Saint John," was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "By -Law Number M -23, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting the Stopping Up and Closing of Highways in The City of Saint John" regarding a portion of Milford Road, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. 19 96 -233 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number M -23, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting the Stopping Up and Closing of Highways in The City of Saint John." (Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillor Mott reentered the meeting) 10.3 Troisieme lecture du projet de modification de I'Arrete concernant la fermeture de routes visant un trongon du chemin Milford Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no M -23, Arrete modifiant I'Arrete sur ('interruption de la circulation et la fermeture des routes dans The City of Saint John » relativement a un trongon du chemin Milford fasse ('objet d'une lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. L'arrete intitule « Arrete no M -23, Arrete modifiant I'Arrete sur l'interruption de la circulation et la fermeture des routes dans The City of Saint John » est lu integralement. Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller Court R1 SOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no M -23, Arrete modifiant I'Arrete sur ('interruption de la circulation et la fermeture des routes dans The City of Saint John >), relativement A un trongon du chemin Milford, fasse ('objet d'une troisieme lecture, qu'il soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit appose. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Troisieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no M -23, Arrete modifiant I'Arrete sur ('interruption de la circulation et la fermeture des routes dans The City of Saint John ». (Le maire suppleant Chase et le conseiller Mott reintegrent la seance.) 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Presentation from Saint John Airport (Deputy Mayor Chase) On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that item 11.1 Presentation from Saint John Airport (Deputy Mayor Chase) be lifted from the table. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Higgins and McGuire voting nay. On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that Common Council schedule the President of The Saint John Airport Authority to present after the PlanSJ presentation on the June 13th agenda. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Higgins and Sullivan voting nay. 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Presentation de I'aeroport de Saint John (maire suppleant Chase) Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que le point 11.1 Presentation de I'aeroport de Saint John (maire suppleant Chase) soit soumis aux fins de discussion. 20 96 -234 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 A Tissue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. La conseillere Higgins et le conseiller McGuire votent contre la proposition. Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller Norton RESOLU que le conseil communal inscrive la presentation du president de I'Administration aeroportuaire de Saint John a I'ordre du jour de la reunion du 13 juin, et ce, apres la presentation du PlanSJ. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. La conseillere Higgins et le conseiller Sullivan votent contre la proposition. (Councillor Sullivan withdrew from the meeting) 11.2 Morna Heights School Preservation (Councillor McGuire) On motion of Councillor Seconded by Councillor RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor McGuire entitled Morna Heights School Preservation, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Sullivan reentered the meeting) (Le conseiller Sullivan quitte la seance.) 11.2 Sauvegarde de Itcole Morna Heights (conseiller McGuire) Proposition du conseiller Appuyee par le conseiller RESOLU que la lettre du conseiller McGuire intitulee Sauvegarde de 1'Ecole Morna Heights soit acceptee a titre informatif. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. (Le conseiller Sullivan se joint de nouveau a la seance.) 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 City Manager: Tenders for Various Trucks On motion of Councillor Higgins Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that item 12.1 Tenders for Various Trucks, be tabled. Referring to a submitted report, Mr. Groody emphasized the need for the vehicles listed in the tender document, noting that the equipment is essential in the delivery of the City's winter management plan. D. Logan, Manager of Materials and Fleet, advised that the City has saved approximately $1 million over the last 10 years by virtue of its vehicle replacement plan and reserve fund. Mr. Logan was asked if the current snow removal vehicles which are scheduled for replacement are a safety hazard, to which he replied that the vehicles are not unsafe at this time. Referring to a question regarding the tender process, Mr. Logan advised that the City currently has a "contract A" situation, whereby it must either award the tender within 60 days or cancel it. A point of order was called by Councillor Sullivan noting that there should be no debate on a tabling motion. The Mayor advised that the question would now be called. 21 96 -235 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 Question being taken, the motion was defeated with the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, and Councillors Farren, McGuire, Mott, Norton and Sullivan voting nay. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -142: Tenders for Various Trucks, the tenders for the replacement of 6 trucks as identified in the 2011 Fleet Replacement program be awarded to the lowest compliant bidders as follows: • Tender 232004T to Centennial Buick GMC for the supply of 1 (only) 2011 Sierra 3/4 tonne 4X4 crew cab and chassis with utility body in the amount of $47,876.00 plus tax; • Tender 232005T to Downey Ford Sales for the supply of 2 (only) 2011 Ford F450 dual wheel 4X4 4 door crew cab and chassis with flat bed bodies in the amount of $64,968.00 plus tax; • Tender 232002T to Applied Pressure Inc., for the supply of 1 (only) 43,000 GVW International cab and chassis with a combination dump body, front plow and all necessary hydraulics installed in the amount of $200,072.38, plus tax; and • Tender 232003T to Applied Pressure Inc., for the supply of 2 (only) 68,000 GVW International cabs and chassis with combination dumps, front and wing plows and all necessary hydraulics installed in the amount of $256,385.38 plus tax. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Farren and Higgins voting nay. 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Directeur general : Soumissions relatives a divers camions Proposition de la conseillere Higgins Appuyee par le conseiller Court RESOLU que le point 12.1 Soumissions relatives a divers camions soit reporte. Se rapportant a un rapport depose anterieurement, M. Groody insiste sur ('importance des vehicules enumeres dans le document d'appel d'offres, et precise que sans cet equipement, la Ville ne peut pas mettre en place le plan de gestion hivernal. D. Logan, chef de I'approvisionnement et du parc automobile, declare que la Ville a economise environ 1 million de dollars ces dix dernieres annees grace au plan de remplacement des vehicules et au fonds de reserve qu'elle a mis en place. A la question qui lui est posee, a savoir si les vehicules de deneigement actuels dont le remplacement est prevu representent un risque pour la s6curite, M. Logan repond que les vehicules ne presentent pas, a I'heure actuelle, de danger. En reference a une question concernant le processus d'appel d'offres, M. Logan precise que la Ville est actuellement assujettie a un contrat A et qu'aux termes de celui -ci, elle doit attribuer le contrat dans un delai de 60 jours ou I'annuler. Le conseiller Sullivan souleve une objection et indique qu'une proposition deposee ne devrait pas faire ('objet d'un debat. Le maire precise que I'on va desormais proceder au vote. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est rejetee. Le maire, le maire suppleant et les conseillers Farren, McGuire, Mott, Norton et Sullivan votent contre la proposition. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -142 : Soumissions relatives a divers camions, le contrat visant a remplacer 6 camions tels qu'ils sont design6s dans le programme de remplacement de la flotte pour 2011, soit attribue aux soumissionnaires les moins- disants comme suit: 22 96 -236 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201 VLE 6 JUIN 2011 • Attribution du contrat no 232004T a Centennial Buick GMC pour la fourniture d'une camionnette Sierra 2011 a quatre portes de trois quart de tonne, a quatre roues motrices, munie de chassis - cabine, pour la somme de 47 876 $ (taxes en sus); • Attribution du contrat no 232005T a Downey Ford Sales pour la fourniture de deux camions- plateaux a cabine double de quatre portes, de marque Ford, modele 2011, F450, a roues jumelees et a quatre roues motrices, pour la somme de 64 968 $ (taxes en sus); • Attribution du contrat no 232002T a Applied Pressure Inc. pour la fourniture d'un carrion de marque International de 43 000 kg (PNBV) a chassis - cabine, dote d'une benne basculante, d'un chasse -neige a I'avant et de tous les accessoires hydrauliques pour la somme de 200 072,38 $ (taxes en sus); • Attribution du contrat no 232003T a Applied Pressure Inc. pour la fourniture de deux camions de marque International de 68 000 kg (PNBV), a chassis - cabine, dotes d'une benne basculante, d'un chasse -neige a I'avant et d'ailettes et de tous les accessoires hydrauliques pour la somme de 256 358,38 $ (taxes en sus). A I'issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Le conseiller Farren et la conseillere Higgins votent contre la proposition. 12.2 City Manager: Westfield Road Phase Al (Civic #1814 to Civic #1920) Street Reconstruction On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -140: Westfield Road Phase A1, Contract 2011 -6: Westfield Road Phase Al (Civic #1814 to Civic #1920) Street Reconstruction be awarded to the low tenderer, Debly Enterprises Limited, at the tendered price of $809,659.80 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.2 Directeur general : Phase Al en vue de la refection du chemin Westfield (du numero municipal 1814 au numero municipal 1920) Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport presente intitule M/C 2011 -140 : Phase Al en vue de la refection du chemin Westfield, le contrat no 2011 -6 relatif a la phase Al du projet de refection du chemin Westfield (du numero municipal 1814 au numero municipal 1920) soit accorde au soumissionnaire le moins - disant, Debly Enterprises Limited, au prix offert de 809 659,80 $, etabli a partir de quantites estimatives, et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer les documents contractuels necessaires. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.3 City Manager: Riverview Avenue SLS No. 30 & Force Main On motion of Councillor Norton Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -138: Riverview Avenue SLS No. 30 & Force Main, Contract No. 2011 -10: Riverview Avenue SLS No. 30 & Force Main be awarded to the low tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd., at the tendered price of $680,006.88 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 23 96 -237 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 12.3 Directeur general : Poste de relevage des eaux usees n° 30 et conduites de refoulement de I'avenue Riverview Proposition du conseiller Norton Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport presente intitule M/C 2011 -138: Poste de relevage des eaux usees no 30 et conduites de refoulement de I'avenue Riverview, le contrat no 2011 -10 relatif au poste de relevage des eaux usees no 30 et aux conduites de refoulement de I'avenue Riverview soit accorde au soumissionnaire le moins - disant, Galbraith Construction Ltd., au prix offert de 680 006,88 $, etabli a partir de quantites estimatives, et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer les documents contractuels necessaires. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.4 City Manager: Champlain Street West Overnight Winter Parking On motion of Councillor Norton Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -135: Champlain Street West Overnight Winter Parking, Council amend the Traffic By -Law and request the City Solicitor place in proper form and translate the following: 1) Delete Champlain Street with limits Charlotte Street West to Maple Row from Schedule R (streets exempted from the Overnight Winter Parking Restriction); and 2) Add Champlain Street with limits Maple Row to Duke Street West to Schedule R. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.4 Directeur general : Stationnement sur rue en hiver la nuit sur la rue Champlain Ouest Proposition du conseiller Norton Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -135: Stationnement sur rue en hiver la nuit sur la rue Champlain Ouest, le Conseil modifie I'Arrete relatif a la circulation comme suit, et qu'il demande a I'avocat municipal de le reformuler adequatement et de le faire traduire : 1) suppression de la rue Champlain, de la rue Charlotte Ouest au rang Maple, a I'annexe R (rues exemptees des restrictions relatives au stationnement de nuit en hiver); 2) ajout de la rue Champlain, du rang Maple a la rue Duke Ouest, a I'annexe R. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.5 City Manager: General Specifications — 2011 Technical Revisions Referring to a submitted report, the Commissioner of Municipal Operations outlined the contents of the General Specifications — 2011 Technical Revisions report. Responding to a question concerning the level of funding required to maintain the City's roads, Mr. Groody stated that the City should be investing approximately $3.5 million in asphalt resurfacing annually, noting that the current investment is $2.75 million. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that Common Council receive for information the submitted report M &C 2011 -131: General Specifications— 2011 Technical Revisions. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 24 96 -238 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201 VILE 6 JUIN 2011 12.5 Directeur general : Specifications generales relatives a 1'examen technique en 2011 Faisant reference a un rapport depose anterieurement, le commissaire aux Operations municipales donne un apergu des renseignements contenus dans le rapport sur les specifications generales relatives a 1'examen technique en 2011. En reponse a une question concernant le niveau de financement necessaire a 1'entretien des routes de la Ville, M. Groody declare que la Ville devrait consacrer environ 3,5 millions de dollars au resurfagage asphaltique chaque annee et it souligne qu'actuellement, le montant de I'investissement est de 2,75 millions de dollars. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que le conseil communal accepte a titre informatif le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -131 : Specifications generales relatives a 1'examen technique en 2011. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.6 City Manager: "2 Bags or Less" Voluntary Pilot Project On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that Common Council receive for information the submitted report M &C 2011 -128: "2 Bags or Less" Voluntary Pilot Project. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.6 Directeur general : Projet pilote de benevolat « 2 Sacs ou moins Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le conseil communal accepte a titre informatif le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -128 : Projet pilote de benevolat « 2 Sacs rflwftr.7rif-� A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.7 City Manager: Fallsview Park Proposed Amendment to the Peddlers and Hawkers By -Law Consideration was given to a submitted report from the City Manager entitled Fallsview Park Proposed Amendment to the Peddlers and Hawkers By -Law. On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting the Licensing of Peddlers and Hawkers By- Law," by amending Appendix E by adding Fallsview Park, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time by title, the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting the Licensing of Peddlers and Hawkers By- Law." On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting the Licensing of Peddlers and Hawkers By- Law," by amending Appendix E by adding Fallsview Park, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time by title, the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting the Licensing of Peddlers and Hawkers By- Law." Question being taken, the motion was carried. 25 96 -239 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 12.7 Directeur general : Modification de I'arrete relatif aux colporteurs et aux revendeurs proposee pour le secteur Fallsview Park On examine un rapport presente par le directeur general intitule Modification de I'arrete relatif aux colporteurs et aux revendeurs proposee pour le secteur Fallsview Park. Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete relatif a l'octroi de permis aux colporteurs et aux revendeurs » en modifiant I'annexe E par I'ajout du secteur Fallsview Park fasse ('objet d'une premiere lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Premiere lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete relatif a l'octroi de permis aux colporteurs et aux revendeurs ». Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete relatif a l'octroi de permis aux colporteurs et aux revendeurs » en modifiant I'annexe E par I'ajout du secteur Fallsview Park fasse ('objet d'une deuxieme lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Deuxieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete relatif a l'octroi de permis aux colporteurs et aux revendeurs v. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointments to Committees On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Mott RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on June 6, 2011, that Mark Gillan be appointed as Acting Director of Saint John Emergency Management Organization Advisory Committee. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Mott RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on June 6, 2011, Council makes the following appointments to committees: Jeux Canada Games Foundation: to re- appoint William MacMackin, Wendy Connors - Beckett, Joseph Flynn, Patrick Darrah and Richard Oland and to appoint David Roberts, each for a term from June 6, 2011 to June 6, 2014. Saint John Community Arts Board: to re- appoint David Adams, Anne Bardou, Kate Elman Wilcott and Li -Hong Xu each for a three year term from June 6, 2011 to June 6, 2014. Saint John Emergency Management Organization Advisory Committee: to appoint Mayor Court and Councillors Mott, Snook and Sullivan until the end of their current terms on Council; and Eric Marr, Murielle Provost, Danny Jardine, Gordon Dalzell, Leo Maloney, David Drinnan, Horst Sauerteig, Randy Hatfield, Carolyn Van der Veen, and Elizabeth Gormley for a term of two years from June 6, 2011 to June 6, 2013; and to appoint Mark Gillan from June 6, 2011 to June 6, 2013 or until he ceases to be Acting Director of Emergency Management Organization, whichever comes first. Enterprise Saint John: to appoint Eric Savoie for a term of three years from June 6, 2011 to June 6, 2014. Fundy Region Solid Waste Committee: to reappoint Councillor Chris Titus for a term commencing June 24, 2011 until the end of his current term on Council. 26 96 -240 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201 VILE 6 JUIN 2011 Heritage Development Board: to appoint Patrick McCaffrey for a three year term from June 6, 2011 to June 6, 2014. Saint John Free Public Library: to appoint Councillor Mel Norton for a term from June 6, 2011 until the end of his current term on council. Taxation Review Committee: to appoint Patrick McCaffrey for a one year term from June 6, 2011 to June 6, 2012. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 13.1 Comite plenier : Recommandations de nominations pour sieger aux comites Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller Mott RESOLU que, comme le recommande le comite plenier, s'etant reuni le 6 juin 2011, Mark Gillan soit nomme directeur interimaire du Comite consultatif de I'Organisme de gestion des services d'urgence de Saint John. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adopt6e. Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller Mott RESOLU que, comme le recommande le comite plenier, s'etant reuni le 6 juin 2011, le conseil approuve les nominations suivantes pour sieger aux comites : Fondation Jeux Canada Games : Renouvellement de la nomination de William MacMackin, de Wendy Connors - Beckett, de Joseph Flynn, de Patrick Darrah et de Richard Oland et nomination de David Roberts, chacun pour un mandat allant du 6 juin 2011 au 6 juin 2014. Conseil d'administration des arts de la communaute de Saint John Renouvellement de la nomination de David Adams, d'Anne Bardou, de Kate Elman Wilcott et de Li -Hong Xu, chacun pour un mandat de trois ans allant du 6 juin 2011 au 6 juin 2014. Comite consultatif de I'Organisme de gestion des services d'urgence de Saint John : Nomination du maire Court et des conseillers Mott, Snook et Sullivan jusqu'a 1'expiration de leur mandat actuel au sein du conseil et nomination d'Eric Marr, de Murielle Provost, de Danny Jardine, de Gordon Dalzell, de Leo Maloney, de David Drinnan, d'Horst Sauerteig, de Randy Hatfield, de Carolyn Van der Veen et d'Elizabeth Gormley pour un mandat de deux ans allant du 6 juin 2011 au 6 juin 2013; et renouvellement de la nomination de Mark Gillan pour un mandat allant du 6 juin 2011 au 6 juin 2013, ou jusqu'a ce qu'il cesse d'btre membre du comite d'appel, selon la premiere eventualitb. Enterprise Saint John : Nomination d'Eric Savoie pour un mandat de trois ans allant du 6 juin 2011 au 6 juin 2014. Comite de la Commission de gestion de dechets solides de Fundy : Nomination du conseiller Chris Titus, a compter du 24 juin 2011 jusqu'a la fin de son mandat au sein du conseil. Conseil d'amenagement du patrimoine : Nomination de Patrick McCaffrey pour un mandat de trois ans allant du 6 juin 2011 au 6 juin 2014. Bibliotheque publique de Saint John : Nomination du conseiller Mel Norton, a compter du 6 juin 2011 jusqu'a la fin de son mandat au sein du conseil. Comite de revision de I'impot foncier : Nomination de Patrick McCaffrey pour un mandat de un an allant du 6 juin 2011 au 6 juin 2012. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adopt6e. 27 96 -241 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201 VLE 6 JUIN 2011 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 14.1 (5.3) License to Operate a Vendor Market On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report License to Operate a Vendor Market, Common Council approve a license between The City of Saint John and the Saint John Development Corporation for the operation of a market on Loyalist Plaza as per the terms of the submitted license and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all related documents. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 14.1 (5.3) Licence d'exploitation d'un marche de vendeurs Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule Licence d'exploitation d'un marche de vendeurs, le conseil communal approuve la conclusion d'une licence entre The City of Saint John et Saint John Development Corporation pour 1'exploitation d'un marche sur la place Loyalist Plaza conformement aux modalites definies dans la licence soumise et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer tous les documents connexes. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. (Councillor Higgins withdrew from the meeting) 14.2 (5.7) Engineering Services: Bleury Street / Danells Drive - Street Reconstruction & Molson Avenue - Storm Sewer On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -134: Engineering Services: Bleury Street/ Danells Drive Street Reconstruction and Molson Avenue — Storm Sewer, Common Council approve the increase of $84,241.50 to the existing engineering services agreement 2009 - 0836 -1 with CBCL Limited as outlined in said report. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (La conseillere Higgins quitte la seance.) 14.2 (5.7) Services d'ingenierie relativement a la rue Bleury /promenade Danells — Travaux de refection de I'avenue Molson et egouts pluviaux Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -134 : Services d'ingenierie relativement a la rue Bleury /promenade Danells — Travaux de refection de I'avenue Molson et egouts pluviaux, le conseil communal approuve I'augmentation de 84 241,50 $ du montant de la convention des services d'ingenierie (n° 2009 - 0836 -1) actuelle conclue avec CBCL Limited, comme le souligne le rapport present6. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 96 -242 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 2011/LE 6 JUIN 2011 14.3 (5.8) Engineering Services: Westfield Road - Street Reconstruction On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -133: Engineering Services: Westfield Road Street Reconstruction, Common Council approve the increase of $157,149.16 to the existing engineering services agreement 2009 - 0836 -M with GENIVAR Inc. as outlined in said report. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Higgins reentered the meeting) On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the meeting time be extended beyond 10:00 p.m. as provided for in Council's Procedural By -Law. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 14.3 (5.8) Services d'ingenierie : Refection du chemin Westfield Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -133 : Services d'ingenierie : Refection du chemin Westfield, le conseil communal approuve I'augmentation de 157 149,16 $ du montant de la convention des services d'ingenierie (n° 2009 - 0836 -M) actuelle conclue avec GENIVAR Inc., comme le souligne le rapport presente. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. (La conseillere Higgins se joint de nouveau a la seance.) Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que la seance soit prolongee au -dela de 22 h en vertu des dispositions de I'arrete procedural du conseil. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 14.4 (5.9) Funding Request - Saint John Track Club On motion of Councillor Higgins Seconded by Councillor Mott RESOLVED that the submitted report entitled Funding Request — Saint John Track Club be tabled to allow for the group to seek funding from other sources. (Councillor Higgins withdrew from the meeting) Question being taken, the motion was defeated with every council member voting nay. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report Funding Request — Saint John Track Club, Common Council approve grant funding in the amount of $7,500 from the 2011 budget and allocate $15,000 in the 2012 budget for the 2012 North American, Central American and Caribbean Masters Track and Field Championships along with the Canadian Masters Athletics Association Championships to be held at the Canada Games Stadium on August 12 -19th, 2012. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 29 96 -243 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 201VLE 6 JUIN 2011 14.4 (5.9) Demande de financement — Club d'athletisme de Saint John /Saint John Track Club Proposition de la conseillbre Higgins Appuyee par le conseiller Mott RESOLU que le rapport soumis intitule Demande de financement — Club d'athletisme de Saint John /Saint John Track Club soit reporte pour permettre au groupe de rechercher d'autres sources de financement. (La conseillbre Higgins quitte la seance.) A I'issue du vote, la proposition est rejetee, tous les membres du conseil votent contre. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule Demande de financement — Club d'athletisme de Saint John /Saint John Track Club, le conseil communal approuve I'octroi d'une subvention de 7 500 $ (montant preleve sur le budget de 2011) et qu'il prenne 15 000 $ sur le budget de 2012 pour ('organisation du championnat d'Amerique du Nord, d'Amerique centrale et des Caraibes des Mai"tres /Masters (NCCWM) conjointement avec les championnats Canadian Masters Athletics qui se derouleront du 12 au 19 ao6t 2012 au stade des Jeux du Canada. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 14.5 (5.15) License Agreements with Hargo Jet Boat Tour Inc. Fallsview Park and Red School House On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report License Agreements with Hargo Jet Boat Tour Inc. Fallsview Park and Red School House, The City of Saint John grant a weekly license to Hargo Jet Boat Tour Inc. for the 2011 season for use of the "Red School House" off Water Street; and a one (1) year license agreement with an option to renew yearly up to five (5) years for the use of a portion of Fallsview Park for the jet boat operation, under the terms and conditions as contained in the submitted license agreements and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign the license agreements. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the remaining Committee of the Whole closed session agenda items from the meeting of June 6, 2011 be forwarded to the next meeting of Council on June 13, 2011. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 14.5 (5.15) Contrats de licence conclus avec Hargo Jet Boat Tour Inc., Fallsview Park et Little Red School House Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule Contrats de licence conclus avec Hargo Jet Boat Tour Inc., Fallsview Park et Little Red School House, The City of Saint John accorde un permis hebdomadaire a Hargo Jet Boat Tour Inc. pendant la saison 2011 pour ('utilisation de la « Little Red School House » donnant sur la rue Water et conclue un contrat de licence de un (1) an, avec une clause de reconduction annuelle pour une periode maximale de cinq (5) ans, pour ('utilisation d'une partie du parc Fallsview aux fins d'exploitation des bateaux a propulsion hydraulique, selon les conditions contenues dans les contrats de licence presentes, et que le maire et la greffibre communale soient autorises a signer les contrats de licence. 30 96 -244 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL JUNE 6, 2011/LE 6 JUIN 2011 A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que les autres points figurant a I'ordre du jour de la seance privee du comite plenier en date du 6 juin 2011 soient reportes a la prochaine reunion du conseil, soit le 13 juin 2011. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adopt6e. 15. General Correspondence 15. Correspondance generale 16. Adjournment The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 16. Levee de la seance Le maire declare que la seance est levee a 22 h 5. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffiere communale 31 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 - 148 June 9, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Public Information Session Drinking Water Treatment Facility PURPOSE M The t=its• of Saint Joan The purpose of this report is to inform Council of a Public Information Session that will be held in relation to the Drinking Water Treatment Facility environmental impact assessment project. BACKGROUND The approved 2011 Utility Fund Capital Programs included project funding for the Drinking Water Treatment Facility environmental impact assessment. The approved site for this new facility is near the Little River Reservoir in East Saint John next to Hickey and Latimore Lake Roads. ANALYSIS This project is an important part of the water system upgrades that are happening to provide the citizens of Saint John with Safe, Clean Drinking Water. Under Provincial and Federal regulations, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be carried out on this project before it can go ahead; the EIA process began in June 2011 and is anticipated to be completed over the coming months. This information session is the first of a number of opportunities for interested citizens to be involved in the process. A variety of information will be available at the information session including background on the project, proposed facility location, EIA process and next steps. It is a requirement under the EIA process to conduct Public Information Sessions to provide information to the public and to receive feedback from stakeholders. 32 M &C2011 -148 June 9, 2011 Page 2 Therefore, it is appropriate to hold a Public Information Session to allow local residents and others an opportunity to view the project design drawings, ask questions and give their feedback on the construction project. The City has contracted Dillon Consulting Limited to manage this project. Dillon and City staff will be on hand at the information session to discuss the project, answer questions and provide additional information. This Public Information Session is scheduled to be held at the Lakewood Heights School, located at civic # 56 Lensdale Crescent on Wednesday, June 22, 2011 from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. This report is being provided for the information of Council and to extend an invitation to any Councilors who may wish to attend the Public Information Session. The Public Information Session will be advertised and a copy of the attached notice will be delivered door to door in the project area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 33 SAINT JOHN WATER DRINKING WATER TREATMENT FACILITY The Public is invited to attend an informal information session regarding construction of the Saint John Drinking Water Treatment Facility. The proposed site for this new facility is near the Little River Reservoir in East Saint John next to Hickey and Latimore Lake Roads. This project is an important part of the water system upgrades that are happening to provide the citizens of Saint John with safe, clean drinking water. Under provincial and federal regulations, an environmental impact assessment (EIA) must be carried out on this project before it can go ahead; the EIA process began in June 2011 and is anticipated to be completed over the coming months. This information session is the first of a number of opportunities for interested citizens to be involved in the process. A variety of information will be available including background on the project, proposed facility location, EIA process and next steps. WHAT: Public Information Session DATE: June 22, 2011 PLACE: Lakewood Heights School, 56 Lensdale Crescent TIME: 4:00 pm - 8:00 pm The City has contracted Dillon Consulting Limited to manage this project. Dillon and City staff will be on hand at the information "'......... session to discuss the project, answer questions and provide additional information. For further information about this project or DILLON information session contact: Dillon Consulting Limited at 506 633 CONSULTING 5000 or the City of Saint John at (506) 658 4455. 34 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL OPEN SESSION M &C2011 -159 June 16, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT Green Municipal Funding Agreement — Canada Games Aquatic Centre City of Saim John BACKGROUND In October 2008, the City of Saint John submitted an application to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Fund (GMF) to assist with financing the energy retrofit and equipment upgrade at the Canada Games Aquatic Centre building. In order to qualify for the Green Municipal Fund, the Canada Games Aquatic Centre must achieve the following criteria: • Minimum 30% reduction in energy consumption compared to the current energy consumption The City of Saint John was pleased to receive notification that the Canada Games Aquatic Centre building meets the objectives of the FCM and that it had been approved for the following: • A grant in the amount of up to $233,356 of eligible project costs; and • A low interest loan in the amount of up to $1.5 million. The interest rate is based on Government of Canada benchmark bond rate minus 1.5 %; however the annual rate shall not be lower than 2.00% per annum. In order to access the grant and loan funding, the City must enter into an agreement with FCM. The purpose of this report is to seek authorization for the Mayor and Common Clerk to sign the agreement. 35 M &C2011 -159 -2- June 16, 2011 Analysis An agreement between the City of Saint John and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the GMF funding is attached. The energy retrofit measures, including equipment upgrades, will result in an annual energy savings of $195,000 compared to the current energy consumption. This retrofit will also replace some existing (29 years old) mechanical and electrical equipment that has reached the end of its useful life. The work on this project started in 2010 and it is expected to be completed within the next five years, subject to budget approvals. Upon signing this agreement, the City of Saint John will be able to start submitting payment claims and engineering reports for the disbursement of the loan and grant funding. Legal and Financial Implications The City of Saint John Legal and Finance departments have reviewed the agreement and have determined that the agreement in the form as attached is acceptable to them. RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends that the City enter into a Combined Loan and Grant Agreement with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the Canada Games Aquatic Centre Energy Efficiency Retrofit in the form and upon the terms and conditions as attached to M &C No. 2011 -159 and that Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the said agreement. Respectfully submitted, Amy Poffenroth, P. Eng., MBA Deputy Commissioner Buildings and Inspection Services Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager Attachment 36 GREEN MUNICIPAL FUND (GMF) Project No.: 10098 Project Title: City of Saint John Canada Games Aquatic Centre Energy Efficiency Retrofit Combined Loan and Grant Agreement 2008 Energy Projects - Municipalities Between THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN - and - FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES, .as Trustee of the Green Municipal Fund This document is not an offer to enter into a contract and, until executed by all parties, it is not a contract. ON GMF Project No.: I0098 LOAN AND GRANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the date of last signature on the signature page BETWEEN: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick (herein called the "Municipality ") -and- FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES, as Trustee of the Green Municipal Fund. (herein called "FCM ") WHERE, AS: A. the Government of Canada (herein called "GaC ") and FCM have established the Green Municipal Fund (herein called "GMF ") to assist municipalities in Canada with municipal environmental projects; B. the GoC has funded GMF, which is being administered by FCM as trustee thereof; C. New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation ( "NBMFC ") is a statutory body corporate formed by the Province of New Brunswick (the "Province ") to provide financing for New Brunswick municipalities and municipal enterprises through a central borrowing authority; D.. FCM and NBMFC have set out the steps pursuant to which FCM will provide funding to NBMFC for advance to New Brunswick municipalities, a copy of which is attached hereto as Schedule J (the "NBMFC Steps "), E. FCM's agreement to (i) provide the FCM Loan to NBMFC, and to designate the Municipality as the recipient of such funds as contemplated by the NBMFC Steps; and (ii) to provide the Municipality with the Grant, is conditional upon the Municipality's agreement that such funds will be used solely for the Project; and F. this Agreement contains the terms under which the FCM Loan will be disbursed by FCM to NBMFC, the Grant advanced by FCM to the Municipality and the proceeds thereof used by the Municipality. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: GMF 10093 PL08 Energy NS -- Last niodified November 3. 20 10 Page 2 of 54 38 ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND SCHEDULES Section 1.01 Definitions. Whenever used in this Agreement and unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms have the following meanings: "Actual Energy Consumption" means the energy consumption of the building or structure which is the subject of the Project, measured during any twelve (12) consecutive month period within three (3) years of the Project being Substantially Performed, in such manner as is acceptable to FCM. In the event the Project is a Retrofit, the Actual Energy Consumption will.be measured in a manner which is consistent with the measurement of the Current Energy Consumption. In the event the Project is a New Building, the Actual Energy Consumption may be measured through data obtained using an appropriate sampling plan or through a model verified by a third party acceptable to FCM; "Audit Report" rneans the audit report attached as fart 3 of Schedule E; "Authorizing Resolution" has the meaning provided in Section 4.01; "Business Day" means a day of the year other than a Saturday or Sunday or a statutory holiday observed in the Provinces of Ontario or New Brunswick; "Contribution" means the advance of the Grant Amount by FCM to the Municipality as provided in this Agreement; "Contribution Date" has the meaning provided in Section 2.09; "Current Energy Consumption" means, in the event that the Project is a Retrofit, the average annual current energy consumption (normalized for weather variations) of the building or structure which is the subject of the Project, as determined based upon the thirty six (36) consecutive month period which immediately precedes the undertaking of the Project, as more particularly set out in Part 1 of Schedule A; "Disbursement" means the advance by FCM to NBMFC of the FCM Loan as provided in Section 2.02; "Disbursement Date" means the date that NBMFC shall advance the NBMFC Loan to the Municipality; "Eligible Costs" has the meaning provided in Part 2 of Schedule A; "Environmental Results Report" means the environmental results report attached as Schedule H; "'Events of Default" means the events specified or referred to in Section 6.01; "FCM Loan" means the advance of funds by FCM to NBMFC for loan to the Municipality as contemplated in the NBFCM Steps; "Financial Audit" means an audit of the Municipality's Statement of Expenses set forth in Part 2 of Schedule E relating to the Project which is to be conducted at the end.of the Project. The financial audit shall be carried out by an independent public accountant acceptable to FCM in accordance with GAAP and the scope of financial audit outlined in Part 1 of Schedule E. The financial audit shall be completed and submitted with the Statement of Expenses set forth in Part 2 of Schedule E and otherwise in the form of the Audit Report set forth in Part 3 of Schedule E; GMF 10098 PLOS Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Pase 3 of 54 39 ` "GAAP" means the generally accepted accounting principles for .local governments as recommended, from time to time, by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian 'Institute of Chartered Accountants; "Grant" means the grant of funds by 1"CM to the Municipality as contemplated by this Agreement; "Grant Amount" means the amount to be advanced by FCM on account of the Grant, up to the maximum amount set forth in Section 2.07; "MNECB Standard means the Model National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (1997), as published by the National Research Council of Canada; "New Building" means that more than one half (' /x) of the building or structure which is the subject of the Project did not exist, prior to the undertaking of the Project by the Municipality, all as is more particularly set out in Part 1 of Schedule A; " NBMFC Loan" means the loan of funds by NBMFC to the Municipality as contemplated in the NBMFC Steps; "Project" [Weans the municipal environmental project described in Part 1 of Schedule A; "Project Completion Date" has the meaning provided in Section 2.03; "Project Completion Report" means the project completion report attached as Schedule G; "Project Progress Report" means the project progress report attached as Schedule F; "Request for Disbursement /Contribution" means the Request for Disbursement/Contribution attached hereto as Schedule B; "Required Minimum Environmental Benefit" means: (a) in the event that the Project is a Retrofit, that the Total Energy Savings divided by the Current Energy Consumption is equal to or greater than thirty percent (30 %) and the Project has been completed in accordance with the description thereof set out in fart 1 of Schedule A; and (b) in the event that the Project is a New Building, that the Total Energy Savings divided by the projected energy consumption of the building which is the subject of the Project determined using the MNECB Standard is equal to or greater than forty percent (40 %) and the Project has been completed in accordance with the description thereof set out in Part 1 of Schedule A; "Retrofit" means the addition of new building materials, elements and components not provided in the original building design and construction of the building or structure which is the subject of the Project, all as is more particularly set out in Part 1 of Schedule A; "Signage" means a plaque and /or other signage in compliance with the specifications outlined in Schedule I; "Statement of Expenses" means the statement of expenses attached as Part 2 to Schedule E; GN4F 10098 PI-08 Energy NN - Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 9 of 54 40 "Substantially Performed" means the Project is ready for use or is being used for the purposes intended; "Term" shall begin on the Disbursement Date and end on such date which is 240 months after the Disbursement Date; and "Total Energy Savings" means: (a) in the event that the Project is a Retrofit, the result of the Current Energy Consumption less the Actual Energy Consumption; and (b) in the event that the Project is a New Building, the result of the projected energy consumption of the building which is the subject of the Project determined using the MNECB Standard less the Actual Energy Consumption. Section 1.02 Schedules. The following annexed Schedules form pail of this Agreement: Schedule A: Part 1: Description of the Project Part 2: Description of Project Costs Part 3: Particulars of the Sources of Funding Schedule B: Form of Request for Disbursement/Contribution Schedule C: Form of Certificate of Incumbency and Authority Schedule D: Form of Legal Opinion Schedule E: Audit Requirements Part 1: Scope of Financial Audit Part 2: Form of Statement of Expenses Part 3: Form of Audit Report Schedule F: Project Progress Report Schedule G: Project Completion Report Schedule H: Environmental Results Report Schedule I: Project Signage Specifications Schedule J: NBMI`C Steps Section 1.03 Interpretation. In this Agreement: (a) the division into Sections and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and do not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement; (b) the expressions "hereof', "herein ", "hereto ", "hereunder ", "hereby" and similar expressions refer to this Agreement and not to any particular portion of this Agreement; and GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 41 Pan 5 of 54 (c) unless specified otherwise or the context otherwise requires: (i) references to any Section are references to the Section of this Agreement; (ii) "including" or "includes" means "including (or includes) but is not limited to" and shall not be construed to limit any general statement preceding it to the specific or similar items or matters immediately following it; (iii) references to any legislation, statutory instrument or regulation or-a section thereof, unless otherwise specified, is a reference to the legislation, statutory instrument, regulation or section as amended, restated and re- enacted from time to tinge; (iv) references to currency or to "$" shall 'be to lawful currency of Canada; and (v) words in the singular include the plural and vice -versa and words in one gender include all genders. (d) Where any payment to be made or obligation to be performed under this Agreement fails to be made or perforrned on a public holiday under the laws of New Brunswick or Ontario, such payment shall be made or obligation performed on the next succeeding day which is a Business Day in both provinces. ARTICLE 2 THE LOAN AND GRANT Section 2.01 Loan Purpose. FCM agrees to provide the FCM Loan to NBMFC for advance to the Municipality solely for the purpose of assisting the Municipality in the performance of the Project. The Municipality acknowledges that it is responsible for obtaining the NBMFC. Loan from NBMFC and that FCM's sole commitment hereunder is to advance the FCM Loan to NBMFC on the basis stipulated herein and in.the NBMFC Steps, including without limitation that the proceeds of the FCM Loan (less any administrative charge of NBMFC) be loaned by NBMFC to the Municipality. For certainty., FCM does not accept any responsibility or liability for ensuring NBMFC meets its commitments to New Brunswick municipalities under the NBMFC Steps or as described in this Agreement. Section 2.02 Principal_ Amount of the Loan. Subject to and i.n accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and in reliance upon the representations, .warranties and covenants of the Municipality hereinafter set forth, FCM agrees to make the FCM Loan to NBMFC iri an amount that is equal to the lesser of: (a) the sum of one million five hundred sixty one thousand six hundred ninety. two dollars ($1,561,692); or (b) sixty riine and fifty seven one hundredths percent (69.57 %) of Eligible Costs provided that, if the aggregate amount of funding received or to be received from all sources of funding, other than the Municipality, as described in Part 3 of Schedule A delivered pursuant to Section 3.0 1 Q) (all as determined and calculated by FCM) is greater than the total costs incurred by the Municipality in respect_ of the Project, as evidenced by the delivery contemplated in Section 3.01(h), then FCM may reduce the FCM Loan amount determined pursuant to this Section 2.02 to such amount as it deems appropriate, in its sole and absolute discretion. FMC further agrees to request that NBMFC advance the FMC Loan proceeds minus any administrative fee of NBMFC to the Municipality by way of the NBMFC Loan on the basis stipulated in the NBMFC Steps, and the Municipality agrees to borrow same for NBMFC. Section 2.03 Project Completion Date. The Municipality anticipates that the Project will be Substantially Performed by no later than the 30 day of December, 2013 (the "Project Completion GNIF 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Paee 6 of 54 42 Date "). As contemplated by Section 5.03 the Municipality shall inform FCM as soon as it becomes aware that the Project is not likely to be Substantially Performed by such date. . Section 2.04 Loan Expiration Date. If the Municipality fails to rneet the conditions of Disbursement set forth in Article 3, and /or fails to request the Disbursement as provided for in Section 2.05 within three (3) years from the date of this Agreement, then FCM may, at its sole and absolute discretion and on notice to the Municipality, forthwith terminate this Agreement. Section 2.05 Disbursement and Interest. At any time following the Project being Substantially Performed, the Municipality shall request the advance of the FCM Loan to NBMFC (which shall not exceed the amount determined pursuant to Section 2.02) by delivering to FCM a completed Request for Disbursement/Contribution . in the form of Schedule B. FCM shall review the Request For Disbursement /Contribution within thirty (30) days of receipt thereof, and provided that the conditions of Disbursement set forth in Article 3 were met when the Municipality submitted the Request for Disbursement/Contribution, FCM shall: (a) within such thirty (30) day period, advise the Municipality (with copy to NBMFC) that the Municipality may apply for the NBMFC Loan and confirm to the Municipality and the NBMFC: (i) the amount of the FCM Loan; and (ii) the term of the FCM Loan; (b) within such thirty (30) day period, provided always that the Municipality submits an application to NBMFC for the NBMFC Loan in accordance with the requests of NBMFC, request that NBMFC confirm the Disbursement Date to the FCM and the Municipality as soon as practicable; (c) on such date which is fifteen (15) Business Days prior to the Disbursement Date, confirm to the Municipality and NBMFC the annual interest rate applicable to the NBMFC Loan, which shall be the same as the FCM Loan, that is equal to the higher of: (i) (A) the average of the GoC ten (10) year benchmark bond yield and the long -term GoC benchmark bond yield both in effect sixteen (16) Business Days immediately preceding the Disbursement Date (which yields will be shown on the website of the Bank of Canada at www.bankofeanada.ca) minus (B) . one point fifty percent (1.50 %) per annum; and (ii) two percent (2.00 %) per annum. For greater certainty, the annual rate shall not be lower than two percent (2.00°/x) per annual (d) pay the Disbursement to NBMFC and request that NBMFC advance the proceeds thereof (less any administrative fee of NBMFC) to the Municipality on the Disbursement Date by way of the NBMFC Loan. GMF 10098 PLO Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 43 Page 7 of 54 Section 2.06 Repayment of Loans. The Municipality shall repay the NBMFC. Loan to NBMFC at the times and on the basis of the interest rate, payment terms and other terms and conditions stipulated by NBMFC. The Municipality shall have no liability or responsibility for the repayment of the FCM Loan to FCM. Section 2.07 Grant Amount. Subject to and .in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and in reliance upon the representations, warranties and covenants of the Municipality hereinafter set forth, FCM agrees to contribute towards the Eligible Costs, an amount that is equal to the lesser of; (a) the sum of two hundred thirty three thousand three hundred fifty six dollars ($233,356); or (b) ten and forty three one hundredths percent (10.43 %) of Eligible Costs; provided that, if the aggregate amount of funding received or to be received from all sources of funding, other than the Municipality, as described in Pail 3 of Schedule A delivered pursuant to Section 3.010) (all as determined and calculated by FCM) is_ re�than the total costs incurred by the Municipality in respect of the Project, as evidenced by the delivery contemplated in Section 3.01(h), then FCM may red_ uce the Grant amount determined pursuant to this Section 2.07 to such amount as it deems appropriate, in its sole and absolute discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Grant will be awarded if the Project fails to achieve the Required Minimum Environmental Benefit. Section 2.08 Grant Expiration Date. If the Municipality fails to meet the conditions of Contribution set forth in Article 3, including achieving the Required Minimum Environmental Benefit, and/or fails to request the Contribution as provided for in Section 2.09 within three (3) years front the time the Project is Substantially Performed then FCM may, at its sole and absolute discretion and on notice to the Municipality, forthwith terminate its obligation to provide the Grant pursuant to Section 2.07 of this Agreement. Section 2.09 Contribution. At any time following the Project being Substantially Performed, and provided that the FCM Loan has been disbursed in accordance with this Agreement, the Municipality shall request the advance of the Grant by way of a single Contribution .(which shall not exceed the amount determined pursuant to Section 2.07). by delivering to FCM a completed Request for Disbursement /Contribution in the form of Schedule B, at least thirty (30) days before the. date of the Contribution set out therein, which date shall be a Business Day (the "Contribution Date "). Provided that the conditions of Contribution set forth in Article 3 have been met when the Municipality submits the Request for Disbursement/Contribution, FCM shall; (a) calculate the arnount of the Grant and, therefore, the amount of the Contribution, in the manner contemplated by Section 2.07 and shall provide written notice thereof to the Municipality not less than five (5) days prior to the Contribution Date; and (b) pay the Contribution to the Municipality on the Contribution Date, GMr 1 0098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 44 Pale y 8 of 54 ARTICLE 3 CONDITIONS OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE LOAN AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRIBUTION OF THE GRANT Section 3.01 Conditions of Disbursement of the Loan. The obligation of FCM to make the Disbursement is conditional upon the following conditions being satisfied: (a) the Municipality has completed and submitted to FCM the Project Completion Report in the form of Schedule G and shall have obtained FCM approval of the report thereafter; (b) the Municipalityhas delivered to FCM a completed Request for Disbursement /Contribution in the form of Schedule B relating to the NBMFC Loan; (c) the Municipality has provided FCM with a copy of the Authorizing Resolution, which Authorizing Resolution is found satisfactory by FCM; (d) the Municipality has delivered to FCM a copy of the Certificate of Incumbency and Authority in the form of Schedule C; (e) the Municipality has delivered to FCM a legal opinion in the form of Schedule D, which is found satisfactory by FCM; (f) the Municipality has delivered to FCM confirmation that the Project substantially conforms to the Project description set out in Part l of Schedule A; (g) the Municipality has conducted and delivered to FCM the Financial Audit (and all attachments thereto), in the form of Schedule E, which is found satisfactory to FCM. All invoices and receipts. together with back -tip documentation must be kept for audit purposes; (h) the Municipality has determined and delivered to FCM, substantially in the form of Part.2 of Schedule A and certified by a person named in the Certificate of Incumbency and Authority in the form of Schedule C, the total costs of the Project for the period beginning February, 2010 and ending on the date on which the Project was Substantially Performed, being expenses which: (i) are actually and reasonably incurred; (ii) are directly related to the Project; (iii) were incurred and in an amount which is in accordance with applicable industry standards; (iv) would not otherwise have been incurred by the Municipality but for the Project; and (v) other than in -kind contributions set out under the heading "In- Kind" in the definition of Eligible Costs, be an actual cash outlay by or on behalf of the Municipality to third parties acting at arm's length that can be documented through invoices, receipts or contracts; (i) the Municipality's project manager in relation to the Project has delivered to FCM a document, in form and substance acceptable to FCM, specifying the date on which the Project was Substantially Performed and - confirming that all necessary governmental approvals, consents, authorizations and licenses that were required for the Project were obtained; (j} the Municipality lias: (i) provided details of any changes to Part 3 of Schedule A, in form and substance satisfactory to FCM; and (ii) delivered to FCM evidence in form and substance acceptable to FCM, confirming that each of the sources of funding described in Part 3 of Schedule A has contractually agreed on the conditions and amount of its funding of the Project; GMF 10093 PLOS Energy NS — Ldst modified November 3, 2010 45 Paae 9 of 54 (k) the Municipality has delivered to FCM confirmation satisfactory to FCM that the following conditions have been satisfied: No additional conditions imposed. Each of the foregoing conditions is included for the benefit of FCM and may be waived in whole or in part at FCM's sole discretion by notice to the Municipality. Section 3.42 Conditions of Contribution of the Grant. The obligation of FCM to remit the Contribution is conditional upon the following conditions being satisfied: (a) the conditions of Disburseinent set out in Section 3.01 remain completed and/or true and correct, as applicable, on and as of the Contribution Date;. (b) the Municipality has delivered to FCM a completed Request for Disburselnent/Coritribution in the form of Schedule B relating to the Grant; (c) the Municipality has delivered to FCM, and obtained FCM approval of, the Environmental Results Report in the form of Schedule H, verified by a third party acceptable to FCM;. (d) in the event that the Municipality incurs additional Eligible Costs since the submission of the initial Statement of Expenses and Audit Report referred to in Section 3.01, the Municipality shall deliver to FCM an updated Statement of Expenses confirming in a manner satisfactory to FCM, the additional Eligible Costs incurred by the Municipality in relation to the Project and confirming that the Grant will be used for the sole purpose of assisting the Municipality in the performance of the Project together with an Audit Report in the form of Part 3 of Schedule E- which is found satisfactory to FCM. All invoices and receipts together with back -up documentation must be kept for audit purposes; and (e) the Municipality has delivered to FCM confirmation satisfactory to FCM that .the following conditions have been satisfied: No additional conditions imposed. Each of the foregoing conditions is included for the benefit of FCM and may be waived in whole or in part at FCM's sole discretion by notice to the Municipality. ARTICLE 4 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Section 4.01 Representations and Warranties. The Municipality represents and warrants that: (a) it is drily established by Royal Charter, confirrned and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, and has the legal power and authority to enter into, and perform its obligations under, this Agreement and the Plan; (b) this Agreement has been duly authorized and executed by it and constitutes a valid and binding obligation of it, enforceable against it in accordance with its terms; (c) neither the making of this Agreement nor the compliance with its terms and terms of the Project will conflict with or result in breach of any of the terms, conditions or provisions of, or constitute a default under any indenture, debenture, agreement or other instrument or arrangement to which the Municipality is a party or by which it is bound, or violate any of the terms or provisions of the Municipality's constating documents or any license, approval, consent, judgment, decree or order or any statute, rule or regulation applicable to the Municipality; GA4F 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 10 of 54 46 (d) the resolution of the Municipality authorizing the Project and this Agreement (the "Authorizing Resolution ") has been enacted and passed by the Council of the Municipality in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations at meetings at which a quorum was present; (e) no application has been made or action brought to quash, set aside or declare invalid the Resolution nor has the same been in any way repeated, altered or amended, and such Resohltion is now in frill force and effect; (f) the Municipality is not subject to any restructuring order or other similar order under any applicable statutory authority; (g) no litigation, arbitration or administrative proceedings are current or pending or have been threatened, and so far as the Municipality is aware no clairn has been made, which is likely to have a material adverse effect on its performance of the Project or its compliance with its obligations under this Agreement; (h) the Municipality owns all right, title and interest, including all intellectual property rights, in and to the Project Completion Report and the Environmental Results Report that it will submit to FCM pursuant to Article 3, prepared by or on behalf of the Municipality and has sole and exclusive rights to the use thereof. Any person involved in the preparation of such reports has executed and delivered to the Municipality a written agreement which effects the assignment to the Municipality of all right, title and interest therein, including all intellectual property rights, and provides that such person has waived all its non - assignable rights (including 'moral rights) therein; and (i) The Project Completion Report and the Environmental Results Report that it will submit to FCM pursuant to Article 3, prepared by or on behalf of the Municipality do not infringe upon any of the intellectual property rights of any other person and the Municipality has not received any charge, complaint, claim, demand, or notice alleging any interference, infringement, misappropriation or violation of the intellectual property rights of any other person, nor does the Municipality know of any valid grounds for any bona fide claims. ARTICLE 5 COVENANTS Section 5.01 Affirmative Covenants. Unless FCM shall otherwise agree in writing: (a) the Municipality covenants and agrees that it shall use the NBMFC Loan and the Grant only for the Project; (b) the Municipality covenants and agrees that it shall carry out the Project and conduct the activities thereof in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.. and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, in compliance with all applicable environmental, health and safety laws of the Province of New Brunswick and of Canada; (c) the Municipality covenants and agrees that it shall carry out the Project with due diligence and efficiency and in accordance with sound engineering, financial and business practices; maintain its accounts, management information and cost control system and books of accounts adequately to reflect truly and fairly the financial condition of the Project and to conforrn to GAAP. The Municipality covenants and agrees that it shall keep all such books and records of the GMF 10093 PL08 Encigy NIB — Last modified November 3, 2010 47 Page I of 54 Project for seven (7) years after the later of the Disbursement Date and the Contribution Date; (d) upon FCM's request with reasonable prior notice thereto, the Municipality covenants and agrees that it shall permit representatives of FCM, during its normal office hours, to visit any of the premises where the Project activities are conducted and to have access to its books of accounts and records relating to the Project and permit FCM to communicate directly with, including the receipt of information from, its external auditors regarding its accounts and operations relating to the Project; and (e) the Municipality shall own all right, title and interest, including all intellectual property rights, in and to the Project Completion Report and the Environmental Results Report that it will submit to FCM pursuant to Article 3, prepared by or on behalf of the Municipality and shall have sole and exclusive rights to the use thereof. The Municipality shall ensure that any person involved in the preparation of the reports owns all right, title and interest, including all intellectual property rights, in the materials which they prepare for the Mun icipality, has executed and delivered to the Municipality a written agreement. which effects the assignment to the Municipality of all such right, title and interest therein, including all intellectual property rights, and provides that such person has waived all its non - assignable rights (including moral rights) therein. Section 5.02 Negative Covenants. Unless FCM shall otherwise agree in writing, the Municipality shall not during the Term of this Agreement: (a) use the Nl3MFC Loan or the Grant for expenditures that are not Eligible Costs; (b) make any material change to the nature or scope of the Project or carry out the Project in a. manner which materially differs from that described in A hereof, or (c) sell, assign, transfer, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of, or contract to sell, assign, transfer, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of, any of the properties, whether movable or immovable, of the Project, whether now owned or hereafter acquired; and whether to a private sector partner of it or otherwise, except if provided for in Schedule A. Section 5.03 Ongoing-Information and Notice Requirements. The Municipality sla-, provide to FCM the following information, during the Term of this Agreement, in form and substance satisfactory to FCM: (a) prompt notice of any change to the Project Completion Date as set out in Section 2.03; (b) within 30 days of request by FCM, a completed Project Progress Report in the form of Schedule F; (c) prompt notice of any proposed change in the nature or scope of the legal .status of the Municipality; (d) prompt notice of any act or thing which does or may materially and adversely affect the Project or the ability of the Municipality to perform its obligations under this Agreement and the Project; (e) prompt notice of any litigation or administrative proceedings, together with copies of any written legal documents as FCM may request, before any court or arbitral body or other authority which GR4F 10098 . PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 12 of 54 48 miglit materially and adversely affect the Project or the ability of the Municipality to perform its obligations under this Agreement and in respect of the Project; (f) iminediate notice of the occurrence of any Event of Default relating to it specifying the nature of such Event of Default, and the steps, if any, that it is taking to remedy the same; and (g) such other information as FCM may from time to time reasonably request from it by notice to it. ARTICLE 6 EVENTS OF DEFAULT Section 6.01 Events of Default. The following events are "Events of Default": (a) default shall have occurred in the performance of any covenant, agreement or undertaking of the Municipality contained in this Agreement, and any such default shall have continued for a period of not less than fifteen (I5) days after notice thereof shall have been given to the Municipality, as applicable, by FCM; (b) any representation or warranty confirmed or made in Article 4 or in a Request for Disbursement/Contribution tinder this Agreement or in connection with the execution and implementation of this Agreement or in connection with the Project, is found to have been incorrect or misleading; (c) if control and charge over the administration of all the affairs of the Municipality are vested in any person other than the Municipality; (d) if any act or thing which, in the determination of FCM, does or may materially and adversely affect the Project or the ability of the Municipality to perform its obligations under this Agreement and the Project has occurred or may occur; (e) . the Disbursement of the FCM Load and of the Grant are not requested within the time frame contemplated in Article 2. Section 6.02 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default FCM may by notice to the Municipality terminate this Agreement. Section 6.03 Saving of Rights. No course of dealing and no delay in exercising, or omission to exercise, any right, power or remedy accruing to FCM upon any default under this Agreement shall impair any such right, power or remedy or be construed to be a waiver thereof or any acquiescence therein; nor shall the action of FCM in respect of any such default, or any acquiescence by it therein, affect or impair any right, power or remedy. of FCM in respect of any other default. ARTICLE 7 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Section 7.01 Publications and Signaae. (a) The Municipality shall recognize and state in at appropriate manner, as approved by FCM, the financial assistance offered by GMF concerning the Project and the contribution of the GoC to the GMF. GMF 10093 PLOS Energy NQ — Last niodifsed November 3, 2010 49 Page 13 of 54 (b) The Municipality shall have affixed, in content, form and manner acceptable to FCM Signagc its accordance with Schedule 1, in a conspicuous location on or about the properties of the Project acknowledging the contribution of FCM, the GMF and the GoC to the completion of the Project, and.has provided evidence thereof which is found satisfactory by FCM. (c) The Municipality shall incorporate the following language into the Project Completion Report and the Environmental Results Report that it will submit to FCM, unless it has received written notice to the contrary from FCM: © 200X, The City of Saint John. All Rights Reserved. This project.was carried out with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a Fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Notwithstanding this support, the views expressed are the personal views_ of the authors, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Government of Canada accept no responsibility for Them. (d) The Municipality grants FCM a perpetual, non - exclusive, non - transferable and royalty -free license to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, adapt, change formats, display and translate the Project Completion Report and the Environmental Results Report that it will submit to FCM pursuant to Article 3, prepared and /or delivered by or on behalf of the Municipality to FCM pursuant to this .Agreement in furtherance of the goals and objectives of the FCM and /or the GMF. Section 7.02 Communication. The Municipality shall during the Terns of this Agreement: (a) promptly inform FCM of upcoming promotional events related to the Project and allow FCM and the GoC to participate in such promotional events; (b) comply with any FCM GMF guidelines for the planning of communications and. the respective roles of the Municipality and of FCM in the coordination and implementation_ of a communications strategy relating to the Project; and (c) cooperate in providing reasonable information on the Project to other interested persons to permit the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned about the Project during the Tel-in of this Agreement and for five (5) years following termination hereof. Section 7.03 Notices and Reguests. Any notice, demand, request or other communication to be given or made under this Agreement to FCM or to the Municipality shall be in writing and may be made or given by personal delivery, by ordinary mail, by facsimile or by electronic mail, addressed as follows: To the Municipa[ity: The City of Saint John 15 Market Square P.O. Box 1971 Saint John,.NB E2L 4L1 Attention: Mr. Samir Yammine Energy Manager GMF 10099 PLOS Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 50 Paoe 14 of 54 telephone: by facsimile: by electronic mail Alternate Contact: 506 -648 -4667 506 -632 -6199 samir.yammine �r saintjohn.ca Attention: Ms. Hilary Nguyen Assistant Comptroller telephone: 506- 648 -3713 by electronic mail: Hilary.nguycn @saintjohn.ca To FCM: Federation of Canadian Municipalities '24 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario KIN 5P3 Attention: Ms. Nathalie Lapointe Project Officer- Contracts telephone: 613-907-6261 by facsimile: 613 -244 -1515 by electronic rnail: nlapointe @fcm.ca Any notice, demand, request or other communications made or given by personal delivery shall be deemed to have been made or given on the day of actual delivery thereof, and if made or given by ordinary mail, on the 3rd Business Day following the deposit thereof in the snail, and if made or given by facsimile transmission or by electronic mail, on the I" Business Day following the transmittal thereof. if the party giving any notice, demand; request or other communications knows or reasonably ought to know of any difficulties with the postal system that might affect the delivery of mail, such notice, demand, request or other communications shall not be mailed, but shall be given by personal delivery, facsimile transmission or electronic mail. Section 7.04 Release ancd Tnclemnifcation. The Municipality acknowledges and agrees that: (a) By accepting or approving anything required to be accepted or approved pursuant to this Agreement or the Project, FCM shall. not be deemed to have warranted or represented the accuracy, sufficiency, legality, effectiveness or legal effect of the same, or of any term, provision or condition thereof, and such acceptance or approval thereof shall not constitute a warranty or representation to anyone with respect thereto by FCM. (b) The Municipality releases and forever discharges FCM and its directors, officers, agents, servants and employees from any claims, demands, proceedings, losses, damages, liabilities, deficiencies, costs and expenses arising out' of or in consequence of any loss, injury or damage to the Municipality or its property in any way relating to this Agreement and /or the Project. (c) 'The. Municipality agrees to indemnify and save harmless FCM and its directors, officers, agents, servants and employees from all claims, demands, proceedings, losses, damages, liabilities, GMF 10048 PLO8 Enemy NB — Last niodified November 3, 2010 51 Pale 15 of 54 deficiencies, costs and expenses (including, without Iimitation, all legal and other professional fees and disbursements, interest, penalties and amounts paid in settleirlent) arising directly or indirectly as a consequence of such matter suffered or incurred by FCM and its directors, officers, agents, servants and employees as a result of or arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with: (i) the carrying -out of the Project; (ii) any act of, .or failure to act by, the Municipality or its directors, officers, agents, servants or employees; (iii) ally inaccuracy of any representation oe warranty contained in this Agreement or in any agreement, instrument, certificate or other document delivered pursuant hereto; (iv) any breach or non- performance by the Municipality of any covenant to be performed by it that is contained in this Agreement or in any agreement, certificate or other document delivered pursuant hereto; and (v) any breach or alleged breach by the Municipality of the intellectual property rights of any person, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, FCM shall not be Iiable for any bodily injury, death or property damage of any person or any claim against the Municipality or its directors, officers, agents, servants or employees by which FCM may be tirade or attempted to be made a party and any incidental, indirect, special or consequential damages, or any loss of use, revenue or profit to the Municipality or its directors, officers, agents, servants or ernployces arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement or the Project. (d) The Municipality shall be solely and fully responsible for the undertaking, implementation and completion of the Project or any element thereof. FCM shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever for the undertaking, implementation and completion of the Project or any element thereof. The Municipality acknowledges and agrees that it shall be responsible for all acts of its directors, officers, agents, servants and employees and that all such. acts shall be treated as acts of the Municipality for the purposes of this Agreement. Section 7.05 FC_M's Limited Liability. FCM has executed this Agreement solely in its capacity as trustee of the GMF and not in its own capacity. Accordingly, recourse with respect to any liability or obligation of FCM in connection with this Agreement shall be limited only to the property and assets of the GMF and neither FCM nor any director, officer, agent, servant or employee thereof shall have any personal liability therefor. Section 7.06 Further Assurances. The Municipality shall promptly execute and. - deliver, upon request by FCM, all such other and further documents, agreements, opinions, certificates and instruments as may be reasonably required by FCM to more fully state the obligations of either party to this Agreement or to make any recording, file any notice or obtain any consent. Section 7.07 Amendment. Any amendment of any provisiori of this Agreement, including the Schedules, must be in writing and signed by both parties. Section 7.08 Choice of Languapre. It is the express wish of the parties that this Agreement and any related documents be drawn up and executed in English. Les parties reconnaissent avoir exige que la presente convention et tour les documents connexes soient r6diges on anglais. Section 7.09 Goyerni_n_Z Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein. Section 7.10 Choice of Forum, The parties hereto agree and intend that the proper and exclusive forum for any litigation of ally disputes or controversies arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be a Court of competent jurisdiction located in the Province of Ontario, City of Ottawa. GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 52 Page 16 of �4 Section 7.11 Effectiveness. This Agreement shall continue in force until all other monies payable hereunder have been fully paid to FCM in accordance with the provisions hereof. Section 7.12 Successors and Assigns,. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, except that the Municipality may not assign or otherwise transfer all or any part of its rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of FCM. Section 7.13 Severability, hl the event that any part of a provision(s) of this Agreement is (are) held to be invalid, unenforceable, or void, such provision(s) shall, by the adjudicating body, be applied to the fullest extent possible and shall be read -down only to the extent absolutely necessary to comply with applicable law. If any provision(s) of this Agreement is (are) held to be invalid, unenforceable, or void, such provision(s) shall be severed from the rest of the Agreement. The fact that part of a provision(s) or an entire provision(s) has (have) been held to be invalid, unenforceable, or void such determination shall not affect the validity and enforceability of any other remaining provisions. Section 7.14 Waiver of Rights. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, any waiver of, or consent to depart from, the requirements of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is. iri writing and signed by the party giving it, and only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which it has been given. No failure on the part of a party to exercise, and no delay in exercising, any right Linder this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of such right. No single or partial exercise of any such right shall preclude any other or further exercise of such right or the exercise of any other right. Section 7.15 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior correspondence, agreements, negotiations, discussions and understandings, if any, written or oral. Section 7.16 Audit. FCM reserves the right, ,at its-own expense, to audit compliance by the Municipality with this Agreement at any time. Section 7.17 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two counterparts and, in such case, each such counterpart shall -be deemed an original, but both of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. GMF 10095 PL03 Energy NB -- Last modified November 3, 2010 53 Page 17 of 54 ARTICLE 8 SURVIVAL Section 8.01 Survival. The provisions of Article 7 and any other provisions hereof intended to survive termination, will survive the termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this agreement as of the date of last signature on this signature page. THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN per: Ivan Court, Mayor per: Elizabeth Gormley, Common CIerk We have authority to bind the Municipality herein. Common Council Resolution: FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES, as Trustee of the Green Municipal Fund Per: Mr. Onno Krefners, Director, National Programs I have authority to UindFCMherein date: GNfr 10098 PL08 Enroy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 54 Pa -e 18 of 54 SCHEDULE A Part 1: Description of the Project As part of its continued effort to be more financially and environmentally responsible, the City of Saint John has made a commitment to retrofit the Canada Gaines Aquatic Centre. This centre is a large recreational complex Iocated in fire central business district (CBD) of Uptown Saint John, New Brunswick and serves the 123,000 Greater Saint John area residents. The City of Saint John, one of New Brunswick's largest municipalities, has accepted the responsibility of being a leader in energy efficiency and environmental stewardship. Through various municipally adopted efficiency and conservation initiatives, the City has reduced energy consumption in municipal buildings and continues to extend such measures in renovations and new construction. As the City believes in smart investment, the timing is right to re- invest in the facility using Sustainable building strategies. The Canada Games Aquatic Centre carried out major changes to the HVAC system in 2001 that have improved the indoor air quality and reduced the energy cost. The proposed project at the centre will result in energy'savings of 40.47% compared to the current energy consumption. The annual savings of the retrofit is expected to be over $192,000 with an annual reduction in COz emissions of 500 tonnes. Furthermore, water consumption will be reduced by 13,869 cubic metres annually. The measures proposed feature technologies, solutions and strategies that are authentic and relevant to the people, geography, climate, and issues of this City. The types of technology being utilized include: • Low wattage fluorescent and LED lighting with advanced control technologies. • Significant investment in natural lighting through solar daylight tubes. • Condensing boiler and variable speed technology. • Heat pump dehumidification systems complete with heat recovery. • Air gap sealing program and interior partitions. • Solar air heating systems. • Solar water heating for domestic hot water. • Water conservation retrofit and waterless products. The City is Ieading the way in the core of Saint John as it moves forward with a district energy geo- exchange network that will extract energy from the harbour into down -town development. The technology proposed for this site will be designed for future integration with this geo- exchange network, specifically with the heat pump technology for the pool enclosures. This project will be the first building in New Brunswick to be retrofitted with a renewable solar system and solar daylight tubes and will encourage other municipalities in the region and the country to implement sustainable reasures and to encourage the development of green buildings. The new measures will be environmentally and economically beneficial to the City of Saint John as the life expectancy of the building will be increased by over 25 years with a payback of 1 I years. The retrofit will continue to build capacity within the community on sustainable practices and encourage contractors, manufactures and community business to invest . in and implement sustainable measures for future development. The project is expected to begin in early 2009 with anticipated completion in 2010. The project team has notable experience in sustainable and LEED development with several awards to their credit, and Council and the community are excited about the energy retrofit. GMF 10098 PLO8 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 55 Page 19 of 54 GMF 10098_City of Saint John_Energy Consumption Summary r� GMF 10098 AL03 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Pa 56 ie 20 of 34 For Energy Efficient Building Retrofits- C Current Energy Consumption Baseline: OR 2) For Energy Efficient New Building 18,475 Construction Energy Consumption for buildin built to MNECB 1) Retrofit - Design Energy Consumption OR 2) New Construction -. Design Energy 11,476 After Project Consumption Implementation: Energy Output from Renewable Energy Systems (if applicable) 478.2 Energy Savings 7,477 % Eneruv Reduction 40.56/. GMF 10098 AL03 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Pa 56 ie 20 of 34 SCHEDULE A Part 2: Description of Project Costs The expected eligible costs and ineligible costs for this Project are as follows: The expenditures claimed are subject to audit by FCM. The amount contributed by FCM may vary as a consequence. No expenditure incurred prior to .Tune 19, 2008 is permitted to be included as an Eligible Cost. 2. "Eligible Costs" means the following permitted expenditures for which the Municipality may use the NBMFC Loan and the Grant: The list below was developed to help provide guidance to funding recipients on eligible and ineligible costs. Should you require clarification, please don't hesitate to contact FCM. In order to be eligible for reimbursement: 1. All expenses must be listed in the Statement of Expenses and all invoices and receipts together with back -up documentation must be kept for audit purposes (examples: sub - contractor- invoices, travel expenses claims, timesheets, etc). The Municipality will keep all such invoices, receipts OMF 10098 PL03 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 21 of 54 57 Descriiit�on Amount ($) % of Total `Pro'e'ctCost Eligible Costs: Capital costs Lighting upgrade $130,935 5.8% Air gap sealing program $48,000 2.1% Condensing boilers $288,000 12.7% Upgrade the Pool AHU's to heat pump technology $1,185,600 52.4% Water conservation auresnd low flow fixtures $102,720 4.5% Solar domestic hot water heating $155,008 6.9% Solar wall heating $82,548 3.6% Retro- commissioning and expand existing systems $76,000 3.4% Services Energy Modeling and studies $20,000 0.9% Services; Administrative Casts Program of signage, case study and interactive kiosk $20,000. 0.9% Verification; measurements, reporting and commissioning $30,000 1.3% Subtotal Eligible Costs: $208,811 94.5% Allowable In -Kind Contribution In -kind City staff project managers $125,000 5.6% Subtotal Allowable In -Kind Contributions: $125,000 5.6% Total Eligible Costs: $2,263,811 100% Ineli ible Costs: Total Ineligible Costs: $0 Total Project Costs: $2,263,811 100% The expenditures claimed are subject to audit by FCM. The amount contributed by FCM may vary as a consequence. No expenditure incurred prior to .Tune 19, 2008 is permitted to be included as an Eligible Cost. 2. "Eligible Costs" means the following permitted expenditures for which the Municipality may use the NBMFC Loan and the Grant: The list below was developed to help provide guidance to funding recipients on eligible and ineligible costs. Should you require clarification, please don't hesitate to contact FCM. In order to be eligible for reimbursement: 1. All expenses must be listed in the Statement of Expenses and all invoices and receipts together with back -up documentation must be kept for audit purposes (examples: sub - contractor- invoices, travel expenses claims, timesheets, etc). The Municipality will keep all such invoices, receipts OMF 10098 PL03 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 21 of 54 57 and back-tip documents for seven (7) years after the later of the Disbursement Date and the Contribution Date. 2. All expenses should be invoiced directly to the Municipality. Should the Municipality have invoices for expenses that were not invoiced directly to it, please contact the FCM.: Expenses that are not invoiced directly to the Municipality may not be reimbursed. 3. All expenses must be: (i) actually and reasonably incurred; (ii) directly related to the Project; (iii) incurred and be in an amount which is in accordance with applicable industry standards; (iv) a cost or expenditure that would not otherwise have been incurred by the. Municipality but for the Project; (v) other than as set out below under the heading "In- Kind ", an actual cash outlay by or on behalf of the Municipality to third patties acting at arm's length that can be documented through invoices, receipts or contracts; and (vi) have been incurred after June 19, 2008. ]Eligible Costs :Adniini Administrative costs which are directly linked to the Project and have been incurred for the Project including - supplies and materials, document translation, communication costs such as telephone long distance calls or faxes, permits, certification required for the Project, printing /photocopying by outside suppliers or acquiring of documents used exclusively in the Project.. The cost of advertising, including fees for advertising development as well as cost for presenting the project in media will be eligible to the extent of being essential in the objective of communicating the Project undertaking to the public & outside stakeholders as well as fulfilling the reauirement of public inaut on the Proiect. The cost of a financial audit if required for the cabitaI Proicet. Capital costs as defined and determined in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Costs for acquiring, developing, constructing, modernizing or leasing systems (equipment, hardware, software etc.) that are essential for the completion of the Project. Costs of construction, renovation or ]modernization of facilities and structures essential for the GA4F 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 ;..Ineligible Costs':.. . native Ordinary office supplies and expenses including business cards, paper, file folders, monthly fee for telephone Iine, etc. General overhead costs such as general utilities (electricity, -gas, water, etc.), insurance, furniture and other operating costs related to general maintenance and repairs (janitorial expenses, etc.) in relation to the Project. Administrative costs not specifically listed as eligible costs, such as non- financial audit fees and legal fees. The cost of advertising for general education or publicity that is a direct result' of on -going business activity and not a specific requiretne7t of the Project. The cost of promotional items. I} Page 22 of 54 • Eligible Costs ';,: _ , ; ,, , :. . ` : Tneli ` ible Costs -completion of the Project such as materials and installation costs. E ui ment The rental of tools and equipment is eligible if the Purchase of equipment is ineligible unless it is rental is specifically needed to undertake the less expensive than the rental. FCM pre - approval approved activity. is required for the purchase of equipment. In -kind .:` In -kind contribution of staff time by employee(s) of In -kind contribution of goods and services other the Municipality. The value of a Project's total in- than salaries 'and in -kind contributions made by kind contributions on account of salaries, fees or anyone other than the Municipality. . remuneration cannot exceed I0% of the other eligible costs. Expenses paid by anyone other than the Municipality are considered in -kind and therefore not eligible. ..: = Meetin sand Public` Gathe�in s " , ; Those reasonable costs related to meetings and Any hospitality expenses including food and discussions that are essential for the activity drinks, door prizes, alcohol, entertainment, music, including meeting costs associated with public decorations, flowers, centerpieces, etc: gatherings that serve the objective of communicating the Project to the public & outside stakeholders (room rental, show services such as rental of video equipments, tables, chairs) and collecting feedback (internet and costs related to website development). Real:Pro er and Office S ace Office space for the Project. Salaries, fees or remuneration paid to professional, technical personnel, consultants and contractors (all of whom must not be employed by the Municipality) directly involved in: • The planning, assessment, analysis, design, engineering, manufacturing, construction, monitoring and reporting of the Project • -Public education and promotion, survey and web site development and the development of other communication tools, directly related to the implementation of the Project. Transportation; Shippii Transportation costs for delivery of materials and services essential for the Project. The costs must Purchase, lease or sale of real propel Any costs associated with person(s) enrolled on the Municipality's payroll are ineligible, except for those defined under the category listed as "In- Kind ". Engineering costs for which grants or contributions are provided by or committed to be provided by any program of the Government of Canada. Assessment of the current energy consumption and modeling or simulation activities associated with determining energy consumption. Provincial Sales Tax and the Goods and Services Tax for which the Municipality is eligible for a !� tax rebate and any other costs eligible for rebates. and Courier Charges . Any transport expense that is a direct result of on- going business activity and not a specific GMF 10093 PLO$ Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 23 of 54 59 `Eligible Cos #s ' Ineligible Costs be reasonable and cannot combine or be an requirement of the Project, outcome of other activities not related to the Project. :., Travel andAccommoda #ion Travel and accommodation for external consultants Travel, accommodation and any fees associated whose expertise is required for .carrying out the with attending conferences, missions, trade shores, Project will qualify to the extent that the Travel and etc. Accommodation rates comply with Treasury Board of Canada guidelines. Any travel and. accommodation expenses associated with the Municipality 'or the Project Partner(s). GNIF 10095 PLOS Energy NB— Last modified November 3, 2010 Pam 24 of 54 60 SCHEDULE A Part 3: Particulars of the Sources of Funding The funding for the Project is planned as: :. Source Source Name Descr►ption/Notes Amount :Date Cortainiitted Municipal The City of Saint John Municipal reserves $468,763 To be confirmed Green Municipal Fund Green Municipal Fund Grant $233,356 December 18, 2008 Green Municipal Fund Loan $1,561,692 December 18, 2008 Total Project Costs $2,263,811 For each funding source listed, the Municipality must submit evidence of the intended financial contribution, as required under Article 3 of the Agreement. GMP 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last mod'sfied November 3, 2010 Page 25 of 54 61 SCHEDULE B Form of Request for Disbursement /Contribution [LETTERHEAD OF THE MUNICIPALITY] Federation of Canadian Municipalities 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario KIN 5P3 Attention: Ms. Nathalie Lapointe Project Officer - Contracts Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Green Municipal Fund — Project no. 10098 Loan and . Grant Agreement between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (as Trustee) and The City of Saint John ( "Municipality ") Request for Disbursement /Contribution I . All terms defined in the Agreement shall have the same meanings herein and all references herein to Articles, Sections and subsections are to those Articles, Sections and subsections of the Agreement. 2 3. The Municipality hereby certifies as of the Disbursement Date 'Co`irit;ItioDe that; (a) the Municipality has obtained, or has made other arrangements satisfactory to FCM for obtaining, all approvals, consents, authorizations and licences that are required under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick and of Canada in order for the Municipality to enter into and comply with this Agreement; (b) the representations and warranties confinned or made in Article 4 with respect to the Municipality shall be true on and as of the Disbursement Date CQ� uTmIFD with the same effect as though such representations and warranties have been made on and as of the Disbursement Date [otr1b ufinYeA N GMF 10098 PLOS Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Pase 26 of 54 62 I (c),, all covenants and other obligations of the Municipality to be performed or complied with as of the Disbursement Date have been performed or complied with as of the Disbursement Date NIInftlJt fi Dade (d) no act or thing does or may materially and adversely affect the Project or the ability of the Municipality to perform its obligations under the Agreement and the Project has occurred; (e) no Event of Default with respect to the Municipality has occurred and is continuing; and (f) all of the conditions of Disbursement pra T�tM€r �AXR RI.-i contained in Article 3 of the Agreement to be performed by the Municipality have been satisfied. 4. If any certification in paragraph 3 is not true and correct as of the Disbursement Date [CtSnti><brul ant afe 1 the Municipality will immediately notify FCM prior to the making of the Disbursement by FCM. Yours truly, The City of Saint John by e Ba Authorized Representative* *As named in the Municipality's last Certificate of Incumbency and Authority GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Lnst modified November 3, 2010 Me ] Page 27 of 54 SCHEDULE C Form of Certificate of Incumbency and Authority [LETTERHEAD OF THE MUNICIPALITY} jig Federation of Canadian Municipalities 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario KIN SP3 Attention: Ms, Nathalie Lapointe. Project Officer- Contracts Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Green Municipal Fund — Project no. 10098 Loan and Grant Agreement between the Federation -of Canadians Municipalities ffCM ") as Trustee and The City of Saint John ( "Municipality ") (the "Agreement ") . Certificate of Incumbency and Authority I, the J. Patrick Woods of the Municipality, with the `authority of its municipal council, hereby certify that the following are the names, offices and true specimen signatures of the persons, any one of whole is and shall continue to be (until you receive authorized written notice from the Municipality that they, or any of them, no longer continue to be) authorized: • to sign on behalf of the Municipality a Request for Disbursement/Contribution provided for in the Agreement; • to sign the certificates provided for in the Agreement; and • to take, do, sign or execute in the name of the Municipality, any other action required or permitted to be taken, done, signed or executed under the Agreement and under any other agreement to which you and the Municipality are parties: No. Name Specimen Signature Office 1. Hilary Nguyen Assistant Comptroller 2. Samir Yammine Energy Manager GMF 10093 PL08 Energy NS —Last modified November 3, 2010 Yours truly, The City of Saint John per: J. Patrick Woods, City Manager, Authorized Representative* I have authority to bind the Municipality herein me Page 23 of 54 SCHEDULED Form of Legal Opinion [LETTERHEAD OF MUNICIPALITY'S COUNSEL] tM Federation of Canadian Municipalities 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario KIN 5P3 Attention: Ms. Nathalie Lapointe Project Officer - Contracts Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Green Municipal Fund Project no. 10095 Loan and Grant Agreement between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities ( "FCM ") as Trustee and The City of Saint John ( "Municipality ") (the "Agreement ") We have acted as counsel for the Municipality in connection with the loan and the grant which you have agreed to extend to the Municipality subject to the provisions of the Agreement. In acting as such counsel, we have examined the following documents: I . the Agreement; 2. such other records and documents as we have deemed necessary or appropriate for the purposes of this opinion. . Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that: 1. The Municipality: (i) is duly established, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick, and (ii) has the power to enter into and perform. its obligations under 'the Agreement. 2. The execution, delivery and performance by the Municipality of the Agreement has been. authorized by all necessary action on the part of the Municipality. 3. The Agreement has been duly executed and delivered by the Municipality. 4. The resolution of the Municipality authorizing the Project (the "Authorizing Resolution ") has been enacted and passed by its council, in full compliance with the relevant statute(s) at a meeting at which a quorum was present. Forthwith after the passage of the. Authorizing Resolution the same was signed by the head of council and by the clerk and sealed with the municipal seat of the Municipality; GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 65 Page 29 of 54 5. The execution, delivery and performance by the Municipality of the Agreement does not and will not constitute or result in a violation or a breach of, or a default under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick and of Canada applicable therein. 6. No authorization, consent or approval of, or filing, registration or recording with, any governmental authority having jurisdiction in Province of New Brunswick is required in connection with the execution, delivery or performance by the Municipality of the Agreement, other than authorizations, consents and approvals which have been obtained or filings, registrations or recordings which have been made. 7. The Agreement cotlStitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Municipality enforceable against it in accordance with its terms. Yours truly, GMF [0098 PL03 Energy N6 — Last modified November 3, 2010 Pan 30 of 54 66 v SCHEDULE E Audit Requirements Part 1: Scope of Financial Audit The scope of the Financial Audit must involve the following: I . The Project has been completed in accordance with the description set out in Part I of Schedule A; 2. The Eligible Costs were incurred for the purposes set out in Section 2.01 of the Agreement in amounts that are reasonable and eligible for reimbursement according to the terms and conditions of the Agreement and are supported by proper documentation. In order to be eligible for reimbursement, all expenses listed in the Statement of Expenses must qualify as "Eligible Costs" as per Part 2 of Schedule A. 3. The auditors must provide adjustments as per Part 2 of this Schedule E. GMF 10098 PL08 Eneray NB -- Last modified November 3, 2010 67 Page 31 of 54 SCHEDULE E Audit Requirements Part 2: Form of Statement of Expenses Green Municipal Fund — Project no, 10098 Loan and Grant Agreement between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities ( "FCM ") as Trustee and The City of Saint John ( "Municipality ") (the "Agreement" Eligible Costs'-for the period beginning � ,�� ,200` and ending 6 � � .. �X �� 3'��,�XXXX;:,2�4 in order to be eligible for reimbursement, all expenses listed in the Statement of Expenses must qualify as "Eligible Costs" as per Part 2 of Schedule A. flN4F 10093 PLO8 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 32 of 54 [;U] Claimed amounts Adjustments Audited Amounts Administrative Advertising Audit Capital Costs (provide details): ite f pvyyir � Total Capital Costs E Ell meat Meeting and Public Gathering_ Professional Services Transportation, Shipping and Courier Charges Travel and Accommodation Sub -total Eligible Costs In -Kind (maximum 10% of other Eligible Costs) Total Eligible Costs in order to be eligible for reimbursement, all expenses listed in the Statement of Expenses must qualify as "Eligible Costs" as per Part 2 of Schedule A. flN4F 10093 PLO8 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 32 of 54 [;U] 0 SCHEDULE E Audit Requirements Part 3: Form of Audit Report [LETTERHEAD OF MUNICIPALITY'S AUDITOR] ��ddress Date Federation of Canadian'Municipalities 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario KIN 5P3 Attention: Ms. Nathalie Lapointe. Project Officer - Contracts Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Green Municipal Fund -- Project no. 10098 We have audited the statement of expenses of the Municipality relating to GMF — Project no. 10098 (tile "Statement of Expense) for E i7 ^'.month period In�t�y�re� inK� art o �f t��f�ts��e ed b' tlt�' °lyi 1>1 � a to c€�mp e P r+�lcet from 3 clay C7� ! 2 to ddL A K" CX 200 prepared in accordance with the Loan and Grant Agreement between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities ( "FCM ") as Trustee and The City of Saint John (the "Municipality ") (the "Agreement "). The Statement of Expenses is the responsibility of the management of the Municipality. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this Statement of Expenses based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance -with Canadian Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. Those standards require that We plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance.whether'the financial information is free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts in the Statement of Expenses. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the Statement of Expenses. In our opinion, the Statement of Expenses presents fairly, in all material respects, the expenses of the Munlclpalit relating to GMF Project no 10098 for the�.lnonth erlod tliietpnsr°to o P" �r�o�t�~z needed � t]��yllr��nlc�a�a�y�t� �a�n�lev�„te f?ro��ct� from �: �iaye,��Y�;��2�Q to dayof��X�XX�'20,0 in accordance with the Agreement: Yours truly, [Srnnatufe oi�lar�efe�� ccau�,ri anti GMF 10093 PLOS Ener _gy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 •• Page 33 of 54 SCHEDULE F Project Progress Report IMPORTANT: FCM will ask for such a report on a yearly basis if the Project implementation takes longer than 1 year from the date of the Agreement or if there are significant 'delays to the anticipated Project Completion Date. You are required to submit this report within 30 days of its request by FCM. Note: The Municipality may contact the GMF Project Officer for an electronic fitlable form version of this report. Please submit this report by email and include the following information: Information Required_. Response GMF number: Name of the Munici ality: Title: Name, phone number, e -mail; and address of lead contact: Date of progress report: Questions (suggested length 1 to 2 pages) 1. Please summarize the activities completed so far and indicate the activities currently in progress and scheduled, as per Schedule A milestones; 2. Have there been any significant changes or do you anticipate any significant changes to the. scope or costs? If so, please indicate how the Pro_ ject scope will change or how the changes will imp act the budget. 3. Describe any challenges (for example technical, financial, managerial) the Project has encountered and how they have been addressed. 4. If someone in another community were interested in undertaking a similar Project, what advice would you have for there, based on your experience to date? 5. If you were planning this kind of Project again, would you do anything differently, based on your experience to date? 6. When do you expect to complete the Project (month /year)? GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Pape 34 of 54 70 V SCHEDULE G Project Completion Report ,,IWORTANT: Submit this report to FCM as soon as possible after the completion of the Project. Introduction Project completion reports are intended to provide a plain - language summary of the projects funded by FCM's Green Municipal Fund' (GMF). While project completion reports fulfill a reporting requirement for FCM, the information they contain can be useful to other municipalities. As such, FCM may share these reports with those in other municipalities interested in addressing similar issues. For this reason, when writing the report, please assume a low to moderate level of technical knowledge and a preference for clear, direct and focused writing. Use simple language, and explain any•highly technical terms or acronyms that are used. Reports are expected to be between S and 15 pages in length, single- spaced, but may be longer or shorter depending upon the complexity of the Project. While there are no maximum word counts for each section, the two most pertinent sections of the report should be given more weight, namely: ■ Section 5 — Environmental benefits of the Project, and Section 7 -- Lessons learned. For simplicity, the lead municipality or municipal partner is referred to throughout as the "Municipality." Similarly, the term "project" is used to describe all types of projects, including new infrastructure, programs, and others. Note: The Municipality may contact the GMF Project Officer for an electronic fillable form version of this report. 1. Project and Community Context a. What was the objective(s) of the Project (i.e., what factors led to the Project being undertaken, and what problem(s) did the Project hope to solve)? b. How is the Project related to existing sustainability plans, practices, policies or programs within the municipality (or as adopted by the Municipality)? c. If the borrower /recipient is not a municipality,. briefly describe or profile the borrower /recipient. Describe the factors that led to the borrower's /recipient's involvement in the Project. d. Provide' a brief (three- to four- sentence) description of the community` in which the Project took place. Include such factors as population, major economic drivers, and other significant aspects that help to understand the community context (e.g. a tourism -based economy). (Note: This information can be readily obtained from the Community Profiles section of the Statistics Canada website at <www.statcan.ca>.) 2. Project Team a. identify the principal contact for the Project and provide his or her contact information (title, email, phone number, and full address). GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NB -- Last modified November 3, 2010 71 Page 35 of 54 b. Briefly describe the implementation team: who was on the team, and what was their involvement? c. If there was a Project champion, please identify that person and briefly describe how his or her input helped the Project. (Note: A Project champion is someone such as a senior manager or elected official whose support is critical to the success of the Project.) d. If members of the community were involved in the Project (e.g., through a public participation exercise), explain how and the impact of this involvement on the Project. 3. Project Implementation a. Approximately how long did it take to complete the whole Project, from the time it began (initial planning) to the time it was completed (Project completion or commissioning)? b. Describe any new technology or new approach (e.g. full -cost accounting) used in the Project. Were there any benefits or drawbacks in using this new technology or approach? If so, please describe briefly. c. Was the Project implemented as outlined in the GMF funding proposal? If there were substantial changes to the implementation plan, identify them and explain why they happened (e.g. bad weather delays, labour strife, challenges getting the new system to operate correctly, etc.). Describe the effects of any changes on the Project (e.g. higher overall costs, less time allotted for a particular stage of the Project, more staff training required, etc.). 4. Project Budget and Financial Savings a. Indicate the cost of the Project, and briefly explain in general terms how it is being financed (through municipal tax increases, via user fees, in the municipal capital budget, through a partnership arrangement, etc.). b. Are there any financial savings to the community (or Municipality) in having undertaken the Project (e.g., reduction in energy use or water use that results in lower operating costs)? If known, please describe. 5. The Environmental Benefits of the Project a: Describe, in plain language, the environmental benefits associated with the. completed Project. Note: If the benefits cannot be identified when the Project is completed and this report is submitted, the Municipality must report on the environmental benefits after the Project has been in operation, in accordance with the contractual agreement. (For mare information, see the Environmental Results Report requirements as per Schedule H.) G. The Social and Economic Benefits of the Project a. If known, describe the social benefits that have resulted from the Project thus far. If the social benefits are not yet known; briefly describe any social benefits that are anticipated to emerge from the Project. Examples of social benefits include improved health, community revitalization, heritage conservation, duality of life improvements, enhanced public safety, and so forth.' b. If known, describe the economic benefits that have resulted from the Project thus far. If the economic benefits are not yet known, briefly describe any economic benefits that are anticipated to emerge from the Project. Examples of economic benefits include financial savings expected as a result of the Project (such as reduced energy or water use leading to lower operating costs), or benefits to the community such as job retention or creation, cMr 10093 PL03 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Paee 36 of 54 72 4 employment income, increases or decreases in property taxes due to the Project, and so forth. (Note: If financial savings are already known and explained in Section 4b, they do not need to be repeated in this section, but any other economic benefits that are known should be described here.) . 7. Lessons Learned Lessons learned refer to knowledge gained from the Project that can be applied to other situations. Knowledge can be acquired through positive experiences (i.e. what worked or went well, and could serve as a model for future projects) or negative experiences (i.e. what didn't work, or went poorly, and so could try to be avoided in future projects). Lessons learned can help those in other municipalities interested in addressing similar issues in their own communities. a. Describe what the Municipality would do again in the same way (and why), if it were to launch a similar project in the future. Please consider and reflect on all aspects of the Project thus far in answering this question. b. Describe what the Municipality would do differently (and why), if it were to launch a similar project in the fixture. Please consider and reflect on all aspects of the Project thus far in answering this question. c. Describe any barriers the Municipality encountered dur'ing'the Project thus far, and how they were overcome. d. Describe any other advice the Municipality might give to other communities interested in undertaking this or a similar type of Project. e. Did the Project result in any products or materials that could be shared with other communities? (For example, a water -metering Project might have resulted in a now municipal water use by -law and/or a series of householder information brochures on ways to reduce water use.) If so, identify them in this report and include a copy when Submitting the Project Completion, Report. S. Publicity and Photos a. Briefly describe any recognition, media coverage, awards, or public. support the Project has received. b. Provide at least five photographs that depict different aspects of the completed Project. Additionaf photos are welcome. The photos must be in jpeg or tiff format, at least 300 dpi, and a minimum of two inches square (larger photographs are acceptable). GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 73 Page 37 of 54 SCHEDULE H Environmental Results Report The Environmental Results Report has two parts. Part I consists of a plain- language summary of the environmental benefits and co- benefits of the project (and the social and economic benefits, if known), as well as a description of the lessons learned from the operation of the project (as opposed to the lessons learned from the construction of the project, as submitted as part of the Project Completion Report). Part 2 consists of technical instructions on how to report the actual energy use reduction for the project. Note: The Municipality may contact the GMF Project Offleer for an electronic fiIlable form version of this report. PART 1: SUMMARY AND LESSONS LEARNED The suggested length for Part I of this report is two to three pages single- spaced. (Part I can be longer or shorter, depending upon the complexity of the project.) I. In plain language, describe the actual environmental benefits the project achieved based on its operation. If there are any environmental co- benefits (i.e., if there is more than one environmental benefit), describe the results of any co- benefits as well. 2. If known, describe any social benefits achieved by the project, based on its operation rather than the implementation of the project. 3. If known, describe any economic benefits achieved by the project, based on its operation rather than the implementation ofthe'project. 4. What lessons have been learned from the operation of the project? Please describe the lessons learned, and provide any other advice based on the operation of the project that. might assist others interested in undertaking similar projects in their own communities. S. Please comment on the ease or difficulty of measuring and reporting on _the environmental measures required in Part 2 of this report. a. Were the measures difficult or expensive to obtain (e.g., did the report take a lot of staff time or did you require outside expertise to collect the information, were you already collecting this information, did the report require special tools or software, etc.)? b. Would you report on these measures for your own purposes, if it were not .required by GMF? c. What suggestions do you have to make the environmental results reliort easier to complete by future recipients of GMF funding? PART 2: TECHNICAL REPORT The Municipality must provide, within three (3) years of the Project being Substantially Performed, an Environmental Results Report prepared or verified by a third -party consultant. GMF 10098 PL0& Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 38 of 54 74 Energy efficient Projects - Retrofits The report must include: • The Current Energy Consumption of the building or structure which is the subject of the Project (prior to the Project being undertaken); • The Actual Energy Consumption of the building or structure which is the subject of the Project (following the Project being Substantially Performed), and a breakdown thereof (if available); • The Total Energy Savings of the building or structure which is the subject of the Project; and • The percentage of the Total Energy Savings, calculated as the Total Energy Savings divided by the Current Energy Consumption, expressed as a percentage. Energy efficient Projects — New Buildings The Municipality may choose one of the two- following options. The report must include: Option A (metered) • The projected energy consumption of the building which is the subject of the Project determined using the MNECB Standard (if different from that described in Park 1 of Schedule A, provide an updated version and the reasons why it is different from the one described in Part 1 of Schedule A); • The Actual Energy Consumption of the building which is the subject of the Project based upon actual metered data obtained using an appropriate sampling plan; • The Total Energy Savings of the building which is the subject of the Project; and • The •percentage of the Total Energy Savings calculated as the Total Energy Savings divided by the projected energy consumption of the building which is the subject of the Project determined using the MNECB Standard, expressed as a percentage. Option B (model verification) • The projected energy consumption of the building which is the subject of the Project determined using the MNECB Standard (if different from that described in Part 1 of Schedule A, provide an updated version and the reasons why it is different from the one described in Part 1 of Schedule A); • The Actual Energy Consumption of the building which is the subject of the Project measured through a model and confirmation that the building was built as per the design of this model; • The Total Energy Savings of the building which is the subject of the Project; and . • The percentage of the - -Total Energy Savings, calculated as the Total Energy Savings divided by the projected energy consumption of the building which is the subject of the Project determined using the MNECB Standard, expressed as a percentage. The report format may vary by project type and jurisdiction. Recipients may use data from existing reports used to fulfill provincial or other reporting needs to prepare this Environmental Results Report. The Environmental Results Report conclusions should be based on appropriate data, sample calculations, . methodologies, etc. GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NS — Las1 modified November 3, 2010 7 rJ Page 39 of 54 . SCHEDULE I Project Signage Specifications 1. Signage during construction or implementation For field tests and capital projects, FCM requests that GMF assistance is recognized wherever other funders are recognized during the construction or implementation phase. This may include signage at construction sites or on vehicles and equipment. This should be done through use of the FCM Green Municipal Fund. logo. 2. Signage after construction or implementation For capital projects, loan and grant rpeipients must recognize GMF assistance through permanent Signage. This may take the form of an appropriately placed plaque on buildings accessible to the public, or decals or other lettering on vehicles or equipment visible to the public. The signage must be made of a durable material suitable to weather exposure. The sigtiage trust include the FCM Green Municipal Fund logo combined with the text below-The logo should be at least fifteen centimetres wide. The text twist be at least 40 -point font. This project was carried out with assistance from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Green Municipal Fuvd, an endowment created. by the Government- of Canada. 3. Use of the FCM Green Municipal Fund logo Ce projet a dtd rdalisd gr6ce au soutien financier and/ du Fonds m unicipal Vert, tine dotation &t or gouvernement du Canada a la Federation canadienne des municipalitds, High- resolution logos will be supplied by FCM staff. The logo must never be reproduced less than four centimetres wide. Colour signage is not required, but where colour is used, the official FCM Green Municipal Fund corporate colours must be applied: "FCM" text appears in: Flatbed printing: Pantone 350 Four- colour printing: C80 M24 Y69 K70 RGB colour: R40 G78 B54 HTML colour: 284E36 "Green Municipal Fund / Fonds municipal vest" text appears in: Flatbed printing: Pantone 370 Four- colour printing: C64 M5 Y100 K24 RGB colour: R91.G143 B34 HTML colour: 5B8F22 GMF 10098 PLOS Energy NB -- Last modified November 3, 2010 N101 Page 40 of 54 rcmGreen Municip,5: Fund I Fonds municipal verb: 4. Questions >=CM's Green Municipal Fund supports many types of initiatives. These guidelines may not anticipate all potential forms of recognition. To discuss specific applications of these guidelines, please contact GMF at 613- 907 -6208 or at gmf @fcm.ca. GMF 10098 PL03 Energy NIB — Last modified November 3, 2010 77 Pane 41 or 54 SCHEDULE J NBMFC Steps Note: This document is a signer] contract between FCM and NBMFC, which explains the relationship between FCM, NBMFC and New Brunswick municipalities and the responsibilities of FCM and NBMFC in this transaction. This borrowing process agreement is dated September 28`x` , 2010, and is between the FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES, a federal corporation ( "FCM'') and the NEW BRUNSWICK MUNICIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION ( "MFG "), a body corporate established . by the Neiv Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation Act, Chapter N -62 of the Revised Statutes of New Brunswick (the "Act "). FCM is the trustee of the Green Municipal Fund ( "GMF "), established by the Government of Canada to assist municipalities in Canada with municipal environmental projects. MFC provides financing for municipalities and municipal enterprises in New Brunswick through a central borrowing authority. FCM has agreed to provide GMF loans to MFC, to enable MFC to lend the funds to New Brunswick municipalities and municipal enterprises, which have been approved for GMF funding. FCM will provide GMF grants directly to New Brunswick municipalities and municipal enterprises without involving MFC. I , The parties agree as follows: 1. Application to Municipal Capital Borrowing Board ( "MCBB ") Prior to submitting an application to FCM, a New Brunswick municipality, or a New Brunswick municipal enterprise as defined in the Act (collectively the "Municipality" or "Municipalities "), shall submit an application for authorization to borrow to the MCBB. The Municipality shall indicate in its submission to the MCBB the amount it is seeking in the form of a loan and any grant it might also be requesting from FCM. The City of Saint John is exempt from MCBB approval. 2. Application to FCM Once the authorization has been received from the MCBB, the Municipality shall submit an application to FCM. The authorization by the MCBB must be included in the application submitted to FCM. 3. Letter of funding approval from FCM FCM will send MFC, for information only, a copy of the letter that FCM sends to the mayor of each Municipality that it agrees to fund. The letter will specify the amount of the loan and, if applicable, the amount of the grant. 4. Project agreement with FCM A project agreement between FCM and the Municipality (the "Agreement ") will be signed for a project that has been approved for GMF funding. The Agreement will incldde the amount, term and conditions GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 42 of 54 78 _ of the loan and, if applicable, of the grant. All documents required to be submitted with respect to the loan and, if applicable, of the grant, will also be noted in the Agreement. 5. Application to FCM by a Municipality for disbursement of the loan When the project is completed, the Municipality will submit to FCM a request for disbursement of the loan accompanied by evidence that it has satisfied all the conditions of disbursement of the loan set out in the Agreement. Within 30 days of receiving a request for disbursement of the loan, FCM will verify whether the Municipality satisfied all of the conditions of disbursement of the loan set out in the Agreement and if it has, FCM will calculate the exact amount of the loan (the "Principal Amount of the Loan "), based on the eligible costs that the Municipality incurred for the project. FCM will then send a. letter to the Municipality confirming the term and Principal Amount of the Loan. FCM will send a copy. of the letter to the Director Community Finance, Department of Local Government, Province of New Brunswick and to the Managing Director Banking and Cash Management, New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation. The sole purpose of sending a copy of the letter to MFC is to provide MFC with the amount and term of the approved loan. 6. Application by Municipality to MFC At least twice a year, MFC will contact all the Municipalities for which FCM has given a letter to MFC (in accordance with section 5) to request that these Municipalities submit their applications for financing to MFC before a date specified by MFC. 7. Notice of MFC's intent to disburse to the Municipality MFC will inform FCM in writing of the date that it will advance the Principal Amount of the Loan to the Municipality or Municipalities, as applicable (the "Disbursement Date "). For greater clarity, the Principal Amount of the Loan for each Municipality will be the same as the one contained in the letter referred to in section S. FCM will require a 30 -day notice of the Disbursement Date and will acknowledge the Disbursement Date in writing to MFC. S. Determination of interest rate by FCM (a) For three -year, five -year and ten -year loans, FCM will- determine the annual base interest rate as follows: the Government of Canada benchmark bond yield for the term of the loan as set out in the Agreement in effect sixteen (16) Business Days immediately preceding the Disbursement Date (which yields will be shown on the website of the Bank of Canada currently at www.bankofcanada.ca). For clarity, for a three -year loan, the three -year Government of Canada benchmark bond will be used, for a five -year loan, the five -year Government of.Canada benchmark bond will be used and for a ten -year loan, the ten -year Government of Canada benchmark bond will be used. FCM will then deduct one and one -half percent (1.5 %) per annum from the annual base rate to determine the effective interest rate. The minimum effective interest rate for three -year, five -year and ten -year loans will be one. and three - quarters percent (1.75 %) per annum. (b) For 20 -year loans, FCM will determine the annual base rate of interest as follows: the average of (i) the Government of Canada ten (10) year benchmark bond yield and (ii) the long -term Government of Canada benchmark bond yield both in effect sixteen (16) Business Days immediately preceding the Disbursement Date (which yields will be shown on the website of the Bank of Canada currently at www.bankofcanada.ca). FCM will then deduct one and one -half percent (1.5 %) per annum from the annual base rate to determine the effective interest rate. The minimum effective interest rate for 207 year loans is two percent (2.00 %) per annum. (c) FCM's policies for calculating interest rates may be subject to change at the discretion of FCM with a 30 -day notice to MFC. In the event that MFC considers the policies as inappropriate for determining the interest rate for a particular term for a loan, MFC will notify FCM in writing to that effect. GMF 10098 PL08 Energy NF3 — Last modified November 3, 2010 79 Page 43 of 54 (d) The effective interest rate(s) will be communicated in writing to MFC on the date the base rate(s) are posted on the Bank of Canada website. MFC will confirm in writing to FCM its acceptance or rejection of the rate(s) within one Business Day of receipt of the communication, MFC will reject the interest ratc(s) only if FCM makes an error when determining the effective interest rate(s) and will give FCM notice of such error. Upon receiving such notice; FCM will recalculate, the effective interest rate(s) and communicate them in writing to MFC. 9. Determination of the maturity schedule by MFC MFC will prepare a maturity schedule based on the effective interest rate provided by FCM, as described in section 8, and send a draft to FCM as soon as possible. MFC will send a final maturity schedule to FCM, as described in section 10. 10. Conditions of disbursement FCM shall remit the Principal Amount of the Loan on the Disbursement Date subject to MFC providing to FCM, at least two Business Days before the Disbursement Date: (a) a copy of the MFC resolution and of the Order of the Lieutenant - Governor in Council, as set out in section 16; (b) a letter indicating the Principal Amount of the Loan to be disbursed to each Municipality (the "Letter ") in the.form of Schedule A; and (c) a debenture in the amount of the Principal Amount of the Loan payable to FCM, issued by MFC and guaranteed by the Province of New Brunswick (the "Debenture ") in consideration of the funds to be received, in the forin of Schedule B. The Debenture will include the maturity schedule referred to in section 9. 11. Transfer of proceeds by FCM to MFC . Subject to all the documentation described in section 10 having been received by FCM from MFC and having been found satisfactory by FCM, on the Disbursement Date, FCM will transfer the Principal Amount of the Loan in consideration of the Debenture, to the bank account of MFC at: Name of Bank: Royal Bank of Canada Address of Bank: 504 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick E313 5GI Bank no.: 0003 Transit no.: 00884 to the credit of MFC's account no.: 122 -853 -5 and the loan reference no.:. GMF 10098 FCM will continue to transfer funds to the same bank account unless advised of an alternate bank account by MFC in writing at least five (5) Business Days in advance of a disbursement. 12. Release of funds to Municipalities On the Disbursement Date, subject to confirmation of the receipt of the correct Loan amount from FCM MFC shall transfer to each Municipality the Principal Amount of the Loan less the standard MFC administrative fee charged by MFC. MFC shall not require the Municipality to pay a higber interest rate than the interest rate that MFC will pay to FCM, as determined pursuant to section 8. MFC shall require that the interest paid by the Municipality be calculated, accrued and paid half - yearly not in advance, from the Disbursement Date, until the loan has been repaid in full. GMF 10098 PLOS Energy NB —Las I modified November 3, 2010 80 Page 44 of 54 13. Principal and interest payments by MFC to FCM (a) Payments of principal and interest due to FCM under this borrowing process agreement shall be made by MFC to FCM's credit at: Name of Bank: Royal Bank of Canada Address of Bank: 90 Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5T6 Bank no.: 003 Transit no.: 00006 to the credit of FCM's account no.: 102 -427 -2 and the Loan reference no.: GMF 10098 or as FCM may otherwise designate from time to time by notice to MFC, such notice to be given at least five Business Days before the date that a payment is due from MFC. (b) Interest at the rate determined under section 8 shall be calculated and accrued half - yearly, not in advance, from the Disbursement Date until the loan has been repaid in full as indicated in.the maturity schedule. (c) MFC shall pay FCM interest half- yearly in two equal amounts, not in advance, commencing on the date that is six months subsequent to the Disbursement Date and will continue to pay interest half - yearly, not in advance, until the loan has been repaid in full as indicated in the maturity schedule: (d) MFC shall repay FCM the loan in yearly installments as indicated in the maturity schedule, commencing on the first (151) anniversary of the Disbursement Date. (e) MFC shall transfer interest and principal payments electronically to the bank account of FCM in the manner and in the amounts set forth in the maturity schedule. MFC will continue to transfer interest and principal payments to the same bank account unless advised of an alternate bank account by FCM in writing at least five Business Days in advance of a payment: due date.. Electronic transfers will be used for interest and principal payments unless another form of payment is agreed to by MFC and FCM. (f) Where any payment to be made or obligation to be performed under this borrowing process agreement falls on a day that is not a Business Day, the payment will be made or the obligation will be performed oil the next succeeding Business Day. 14. Repayment of principal and interest by Municipalities Municipalities will make interest and principal payments on their debentures to MFC in the same manner as they do for all other debenture issues. 15. Return of Cancelled Debenture to MFC When MFC's Debenture has been repaid in full, FCM will cancel the Debenture and return it to MFC. 16. Evidence of authority to enter into the borrowing process agreement and issue MFC debentures MFC represents and warrants that is has the authority to enter into this borrowing process agreement and to issue Debentures to FCM. MFC confirms that prior to the issuance of Debentures to FCM, resolutions will be properly passed by its Board of Directors approving the issuance and sale of said Debentures. Each Debenture will be a direct, unsecured obligation of MFC that will rank equally and ratably with all GMF 10093 PL03 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 81 Paee 45 of 54 other Debentures of MFC. MFC confirms that all Debentures issued by MFC are valid and legally binding obligations of MFC and are enforceable. The principal of and interest on the Debentures is guaranteed by the Province of New Brunswick. MFC shall request that the Lieutenant- Governor in Council approve the guarantee prior to the issuance of the Debentures to FCM. 17. Interest in the event of default If MFC defaults in the payment of any sum due in the manner and in the amounts set forth in the maturity schedule, MFC- shall, until such overdue principal and /or interest amount(s) has /have been paid in full, pay to FCM interest on the Principal Amount of the Loan and /or interest thereon then outstanding at an annual rate that equals: (a) the annual rate provided for in section 8 plus (b) two percent (2.00 %) per annurn, calculated from the date of such default. Any payment received by FCM from MFC following default in the payment of any sum due for the Principal Amount of the Loan or interest thereon by MFC shall be applied, first, to the interest incurred pursuant to this section 17 in respect of such overdue principal and /or interest amount(s), secondly, in respect of the interest on the overdue Principal Amount of the Loan and, thirdly, in respect of the overdue Principal Amount of the Loan. This section does not apply if the failure by MFC to pay is beyond its reasonable control including such events as technical difficulties such that the banks are unable to transfer funds. 18. Guarantee If MFC defaults in the payments of any sum due in the manner and in the amounts set forth in the maturity schedule, FCM will contact the Minister of Finance, Province of New Brunswick to request payment of the amount owing under the guarantee unless: (a) MFC makes the payment that is due on the same Business Day that FCM notifies MFC of the late payment, if such notification is made before 4:00 pm Fredericton local time; or (b) MFC makes the payment that is due on the Business Day following the day that FCM notifies MFC of the late payment, if such notification is made after 4:00 pm Fredericton local time. This section does not apply if the failure by'MFC to pay is beyond its reasonable control including such events as technical difficulties such that the banks are unable to transfer funds. Should FCM be required to retain legal counsel to effect payment under the Debenture including the Debenture guarantee, MFC will reimburse FCM for reasonable legal costs. 19. MFC's financial commitments tinder this borrowing process agreement MFC's sole commitment is to borrow the funds from FCM and issue a Debenture(s) in respect thereof, to advance the funds to the Municipalities and to make payments of the amounts due and payable under the Debenture(s). For certainty, MFC will not be responsible or liable for ensuring that Municipalities meet their obligations or commitments to FCM. Any arrangements or agreement between a Municipality and FCM regarding, among other things, the use of funds to' be loaned by MFC to the_ Municipality are solely between FCM and the Municipality. 20. Addresses for notices Any communication required to be provided in writing may be sent by e -mail with subsequent confirmation from the recipient that the information was received. GNI F 10098 PLO3 Energy N13 — Last modified November 3, 201 O 82 Page 46 of 54 Any notices or communications to MFC should be given to the following address: New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation c/o Treasury Division, Department of Finance Province of New Brunswick 670 King St.,. P.O. Box 6000 Fredericton, New Brunswick E313 5H1 Attn: Managing Director Banking and Cash Management E -mail Address: Catherine.moshcr nb.ca Any notices or communications to FCM should be given to the following address: Federation of Canadian Municipalities 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, Ontario KIN 5P3 Attn: Finance Manager E -mail Address: i! g lien a,fcm.ca 21. Term and Termination This borrowing process agreement shall continue in force and effect for a five (5) year term from the date hereof, but may be terminated by either party upon the provision of sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party. For certainty, termination of this borrowing process agreement will not affect MFC's obligation to make payment of the amounts due and payable under all the Debentures issued by it prior to the date of termination. 22. Business Days For the purposes of this borrowing process agreement, a Business Day' is any day not falling on a week- end or on a public holiday under the laws of New Brunswick or Ontario. 23. Assignment This borrowing process agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, with the prior written consent of the other party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, FCM shall have the right to sell or transfer the Debenture or Debentures, as applicable, that it will receive from MFC, without the consent of MFC. 24. Amendment Any amendment of any provision of this borrowing process agreement, including the schedules, must be in writing and signed by both parties. GMF 10098 PLO$ Energy NB -- Last «lodiiied November 3, 2010 83 Page 47 of 54 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the }parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the date first written above. NEW BRUNSWICK MUNICIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION By: Leonard Lee -White Vice - President, New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation I have authority to bind MFC herein FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES By: Onno Kremers Director, National Programs . I have authority to hind FCM herein Gh4F 10098 PL08 Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 Page 48 of 54 8 4 Schedule A Form of letter from MFC to FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities Dear Sir: The purpose of this letter is to confirm to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (the "Federation ") that the $XX,XXX,000 being borrowed from the Federation ; by the New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation (the "Corporation ") is being loaned by the Corporation to a municipality or a number of municipalities under the following terms: Borrowing Loan Municipality MunicipLlity Amount Maturit y Date Interest. Coupon The Corporation is a body corporate established by the New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation Act, chapter N-6.2 of the Revised Statutes of New. Brunswick and is controlled by the Province of New Brunswick (the. "Province "). By borrowing the money from the Federation and lending it to the• said municipality or, if more than one, to the said respective municipalities, the Corporation is meeting its object "to provide financing for municipalities and municipal enterprises through a central borrowing authority ". The Corporation's sole commitment to the Federation is to make the above- mentioned loan(s) to the said municipality or, if more than one, to the said respective municipalities and to make interest and principal payments on the money borrowed by the Corporation from the Federation as set out in the debenture (being in the form attached as Schedule A). issued to the Federation on XXXX XX, 200X. The Province's sole commitment is to guarantee the principal and interest obligations of the Corporation as set out in the aforementioned debenture. Neither the Corporation nor the Province accepts any responsibility or liability for ensuring that the said municipality or, if more than one, the said respective municipalities meet their respective obligations and commitments to the Federation. Any arrangements and agreements between a municipality and the Federation regarding, among GMT' 10098 PLOS Energy NB — Last modified November 3, 2010 85 Pau 49 of 54 other things, the use of the fiinds to be loaned by the Corporation to the municipality, are solely between the Federation and that municipality. Attached is the original signed debenture which will be invalid until such time as the money borrowed by the Corporation from the Federation is received in the Corporations bank account. When receipt of fields is confirmed the Corporation will issue a receipt of fiends to the Federation.. Also enclosed for your information is /are a photocopy /photocopies of the debenture(s) that the aforementioned municipality or, if more than one, the said municipalities issued to the Corporation. Yours truly, Vice- president New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation Gm 17 10098 PLOS Energy NS — Last modified November 3, 2010 86 Page 50 of 54 Schedule B Form of MFC Debenture CANADA Province of New Brunswick NEW BRUNSWICK MUNICIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION FULLY REGISTERED GLOBAL SERIAL DEBENTURE THE NEW BRUNSWICK MUNICIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION (the "Corporation "), for value received, , hereby promises to hay to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX or registered assigns the sum of -------------------------------------------------- --------------- $XX,XX X,00 by annual payments on the XX clay of XXXX in each of the years 20XX to "20XX, both inclusive, in the amounts set forth in the Schedule on the reverse side hereof (the "Schedule ") in lawful money of Canada, and to pay interest thereon from the XX clay of XXXX or the previous interest payment date at the rates of interest as shown in the Schedule on tilt balance of principal remaining from time to time outstanding. The payments of principal and interest and the balance outstanding in cacl► year are shown oil the Schedule. Pay►nents of interest or of principal and interest will be made in lawful money of Canada by electronic transfer to the bank account of the debenture- bolder or by such other method as agreed to by the debenture - holder and the Corporation. The Corporation will cause to be kept at its office in the City of Fredericton in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, a debenture register or registers in which shall be entered the name and address of the holder of this debenture and particulars of the debenture held by the holder and in which transfers of this debenture may be registered. The Corporation shall not be bound to see to the execution of ,lily trust affecting the ownership of this debenture or be affected by notice of any equity that may be subsisting with respect thereof. The Corporation shall not be required to matte any transfers of this debenture for a period of fifteen (15) business clays preceding any interest payment date. The Corporation sliall not be required to make any changes in the.bank account of the holder of this debenture fora period of five business clays preceding ally interest payment (late. DATED at the City of Fredericton in the Province of New Brunswick the XX day of XXXX, 20XX. GMF 1009,4 PLO3 Energy NB — Last wodi Pied November 3, 2010 Page -)I of 54 87 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF and under the authority of a resolution of the Corporation duly Massed on the XX day of XXXX, 20XX this clebetiture is scaled Nvith the seal of the Corporation and Signed . by tiie Yresideut ar Vice - President. Date of Registration: XXXX XX, 20XX Vice - President GMI: 10095 PLUS Energy NB— 1-MI mudilicd Novuniber 3, 2010 88 Vim 52 ul'54 CANADA Province of New Brnnswicic NEW BRUNSWICK MUNICIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION $XX,XXX,000.()0 Ftilly Registered Global Serial Debenture Maturing on XXXX XX 20XX to 20XX Interest Payable XXXX XX and XXXX XX NO WRITING, IMPRESSIONS OR MARKS MUST APPEAR ON THIS DEBENTURE, OTHER THAN THAT PLACED HEREON Givil, 10094 P1.03 Energy NR — Last modified November 3, 2010 1'a�c 53 LA' 54 89 SCHEDULE A Semi—Annual Principal Interest Interevt Principal Total Orttstandin YLAR Rate KYX XY XXX. XX AXX; xx Annual xxx. xx $ $ $ Payment $ 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX 20XX CANADA Province of New Brnnswicic NEW BRUNSWICK MUNICIPAL FINANCE CORPORATION $XX,XXX,000.()0 Ftilly Registered Global Serial Debenture Maturing on XXXX XX 20XX to 20XX Interest Payable XXXX XX and XXXX XX NO WRITING, IMPRESSIONS OR MARKS MUST APPEAR ON THIS DEBENTURE, OTHER THAN THAT PLACED HEREON Givil, 10094 P1.03 Energy NR — Last modified November 3, 2010 1'a�c 53 LA' 54 89 WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION GUARANTEE BY THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK By virtue of the powers conferred by the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick and of an' Order of the Lieutenant - Governor in Council, the Province of New Br.i.tnswick hereby unconditiotIally guarantees to the registered holder of the within Debenture due and punctual payment of the principal of the within Debenture, whether at maturity or by declaration, and of the interest thereon, as and when such principal and interest shall respectively become clue and payable, according to the tetior of the said Debenture. GNIF 10003 NL03 €;nergy N13 -Last modilied November 3, 2010 By: Desigr>I.>Ited Signing, Officer Page 54 o1'54 90 M &C — 2011 -154 June 17, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Little River Pipe Structure Rehabilitation at Champlain Drive New Brunswick Department of Transportation PID 55157168 BACKGROUND: The New Brunswick Department of Transportation seeks access to City owned land (PID 55157168) in order to effect rehabilitation of twin Structural Plate Corrugated Steel Pipe structures previously constructed in PID 55157168 by the Province at the point where Little River flows under Champlain Drive. The work will be done by the Province at the Province's risk, cost & expense, and pursuant to the attached draft agreement, that has been reviewed and approved by the City Solicitor's Office and Municipal Engineering Department. The Province intends to begin the work on 30 June, 2011 and to be completed by 21 October, 2011. The Province shall make good any and all damage caused to PID 55157168. 91 Report to Common Council June 17, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: Page 2 That The City of Saint John enter into the agreement with the Province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Minister of Transportation, attached to M &C 2011 -154, and 2. That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development J. Patrick Woods, C.G.A. City Manager PW /P attachments 92 Description of Plan® Champlain Drive at UtUe River N I PI2 55157168 1 Date,., June 15, 2011 93 I ., L �"- THIS AGREEMENT made this — day of , 2011. THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its City Hall at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter the "City" OF THE FIRST PART - and - THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK as represented by The Minister of Transportation, hereinafter "Transportation" WHEREAS the City is the owner of lands designated by Service New Brunswick as PID 55157168 (the "Lands"); and WHEREAS Transportation seeks access to the Lands to effect rehabilitation of twin Structural Plate Corrugated Steel Pipe ("SPCSP") structures constructed in the Lands (the "Work"); and WHEREAS by resolution adopted at a meeting of the Common Council of the City of Saint John held , 2011 the City gives to Transportation access to the Lands to perform the Work upon such terms and conditions as are hereinafter set out; 1. Transportation, by its officers, servants, agents, contractors and workers, with such equipment as may be necessary, has a right to enter in and upon the Lands at any time provided such right is exercised with as little disturbance as possible to the City and does not unduly interfere with the City's use of the Lands at such times and upon the terms and conditions as hereinafter set out: a) the right to enter is to permit Transportation to carry out the Work with such ancillary work as may be required and for no other purpose; M Access Agreement -2. b) the Work shall be performed in accordance with the specifications attached hereto as Schedule "A"; c) -upon completion of the Work, Transportation shall undertake to restore, as far as possible, the Lands to the original condition in which it existed prior to the commencement of the Work; d) the right to enter in and upon the Lands shall commence at 12:01 a.m. local time on June 30, 2011 and shall terminate at 11:59 p.m. local time on October 21, 2011; e) entry to, in and upon the Lands to commence the Work shall require twenty-four (24) hours prior written notice to the Chief City Engineer; f) any entry by or on behalf of Transportation shall be at its risk, cost and expense and Transportation shall make good any and all damage caused to the. Lands; g) Transportation shall not exercise any access in, to and upon the Lands to commence the Work -until Transportation has delivered to the City a Certificate of Insurance issued to its Contractor naming the City as an additional insured, evidencing a policy of commercial general liability coverage on an "an occurrence" basis and containing a cross liability clause, which policy must have an inclusive limit of not less than Two Million ($2,000,000.00) Dollars. The aforesaid Certificate must provide that the coverage shall stay in force and not be amended, cancelled or allowed to lapse without thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the Chief City Engineer. The aforesaid insurance coverage must remain in full force and effect during the entire term of this Agreement; h) Transportation for itself and its authorized representatives hereby indemnifies and saves harmless the City from and against all liability arising by reason of the exercise by Transportation or by its officers, servants, agents, contractors and workers of the rights given by this Agreement; i) (i) Notice to the City shall be given to the Chief City Engineer addressed to; The City of Saint John PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L4H1 Attention: The Chief City Engineer 95 Access Agreement -3- And copied to: The Common Clerk (ii) Notice to Transportation shall be given to: NB — DOT Design Branch Attention: Assistant Director of Construction — Structures And copied to: Assistant Director of Design - Structures IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed by the properly authorized officers and their respective corporate seals affixed hereto the day and year first above written. Common ("ouncil Resolution: .2011. 10 110 f-11, I D1 M$U-Jlj� I �11 Ma Per: I have authority to bind the Crown. M � \\ �§ ) , ■ | ! |� ! |� # C? ED r ° � 97 /( \� � \K E 72; E R §i( | § 2 (\f i�a K ( �■ - r §` ° §..� {f \ \/ V.. DIN; � �� m�•® \ �( \ \ , \� | RJR ( | � | \ , I g.d W a | a .7 $$ �)§ @2 �l� •7K !c2 /( \� � \K E 72; E R §i( | § 2 (\f i�a K ( �■ - r §` ° §..� {f \ \/ V.. DIN; � �� m�•® \ �( \ \ , \� | RJR ( | � | \ , I s � ' ° f it 1 �i II a jl Ij g I I I EI i L--Il II I f it U I II II aura J II II i II II II It q II I II II I g � II II �• r7 w II II I II II I $@ I�u�° II I`I I I� II I II II II IL,Ja it i I - n 71 -- I � � I I � I M f r J 8s r r i1 m! J gr tl Tr EL LL O d oil % El �v FTT—= ce e 8� K ; c- t t e f W U. 0. ��aza J H C 6V 4 h 0.Rr C m a � �A N O J w° I I I t I f I I f i I I I I I I 1 I I k l p6 !t x W VI W�u Isa i � c 1 , 4� a jE R r $AAAA 1r � 99 100 R M O fill + ®� N ° a a CD Zd e F (F� q ima z � {iy9C! AMA Y 118 V [n m, -117 d Cq G Q g It a3 gppg wrr. d U p{ 'r & COCK ® a A ^ i fi C E � 5� g 8 100 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -160 June 15, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Tender for Traffic Signal Materials BACKGROUND M roil The t=its, of Saint John The City of Saint John traditionally calls a tender for the establishment supply agreement for traffic signal materials to guarantee delivery and pricing for a two year period. The purpose of this tender is to provide the City with new equipment to be used to replace and upgrade older units presently in service and as new installations are required. Staff of Municipal Operations updated specifications for existing equipment and added new pieces of equipment to the former supply contract. Award of each piece of equipment is made separately as different traffic signal equipment suppliers specialize in different aspects of the industry. The former supply contract was completed on May 31, 2011. This report summarizes the tender process undertaken and includes recommendations to award supply of these materials for a two year period. ANALYSIS Eight companies responded to the City's tender call by submitting bids. Two bids had to be rejected at opening, as the required Addenda was not included with their bid submission. No bids were received on items #33- Conductor Traffic Control Cable, #39 -auger in base, #47- decorative traffic light poles and #50- finials for the tops of the decorative light poles, staff will continue to seek a source of supply for these items. Staffs of Materials Management and Municipal Operations have reviewed the tenders and are recommending award to the lowest bid with the exception of Items 8, 9 -14, 26, 32 and 35. For most of the items specified an equivalent part would be acceptable. In a few cases however, as detailed below, parts quoted were not considered equivalent by staff. • The lowest bid for Item 8 only provides capability to operate a flashing amber signal and does not have the capability to control a mid -block crossing with red, amber and green vehicle signals. The second lowest bid by Electromega Ltd., which provided this capability, is recommended. • Items 9 to 13 are pedestrian activation equipment that is displayed to the public on the outside of traffic poles and therefore aesthetic consistency across the City is important. 101 Page Two Tacel Ltd. is the only bidder that suggested parts that would allow this consistency to continue and therefore their bids, which are not the lowest, are recommended. A number of the other quoted parts also did not have the required functionality such as audible signal for Low Vision pedestrians. • Econolite is the only bidder of item 14 that included the durable parts specified. Their bid, which is not the lowest, is therefore recommended. • The lowest bid for item 26 does not provide all parts required for the specification. The second lowest bid by Innovation Traffic Solutions, which does meet the specification, is therefore recommended. • The lowest bid for item 32 does not include the count -down function as per the specification. The second lowest bid by Tacel Ltd., which does meet the specification, is therefore recommended. • Electromega is the only bidder of item 35 that provided all the parts required for the kit. Their bid, which is not the lowest, is therefore recommended. A copy of the bid summary is enclosed for Council's consideration. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The total estimated cost of this supply agreement, for a two year period, and using estimated quantities based on past maintenance experience and established projects for 2011 and if awarded as recommended, will be approximately $165,275.14 plus HST for year one and $169,034.96 for year two of the supply agreement. It is understood that this is not a firm, fixed total cost, as quantities are based on previous maintenance experience and established projects for 2011 only. This is a planned expenditure and as such, funds to cover the cost are included in both the operating and capital budgets of the Municipal Operations Department. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the tender for the supply of Traffic Signal Material for a two year term be awarded to the lowest compliant bidder in each case as indicated on the enclosed summary of bids. Respectfully submitted, David Logan Purchasing Agent Patrick Woods City Manager 102 TENDER SUMMARY TRAFFIC MATERIALS - 2011- 631001T `SIN ECONOLITE FORTRAN ELECT INNOVATION TRAFFIC MALLARD TACEL LTD. TRAFFIC CANADA SYSTEMS LTD. . FORESTRY SOLUTIONS # DESCRIPTION Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 8 Phase G -Style Traffic Cabinet 1 As per Specification 9,725.00* 10,130.00* 8 Phase G -Style Traffic Cabinet w/ APS 2 As per Specification 18,125.00* 18,530.00* 8 Phase M -Style Traffic Cabinet w/ APS 3 As per Specification 18,650.00* (9,080.00* EPAC M52 Traffic Controller 4 As per Specification 3,800.00* 3,960.00* Six (6) Channel conflict monitor 5 579.17 579.17 550.00* 550.00* 925.00 925.00 707.00 740.00 Twelve (12) Channel conflict monitor 6 652.78* 652.78* 688.00 688.00 921.38 921.38 1,025.00 1,025.00 943.00 980.00 NEMA 204 Flasher 7 20.56 20.56 24.88 24.88 23.79 23.79 45.00 45.00 18.00* 19.00* `SIN TENDER SUMMARY TRAFFIC MATERIALS - 2011- 631001T 104 FORTRAN INNOVATION ECON ELECT. TRAFFIC MALLARD TACEL LTD. TRAFFIC CANAADA DA LTD. SYSTEMS FORESTRY SOLUTIONS # DESCRIPTION Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Mid Block Controller 8 1,799.00 1,799.00 2,940.00* 2,940.00* Polara APS 4 -wire Pushbuttons 9 62.50 62.50 699.00 699.00 575.00* 575.00* Polara APS Control Units 10 699.00 699.00 425.00* 425.00* Polara APS 2 -wire Pushbuttons 11 599.00 599.00 575.00* 575.00* Polara Bulldog Pushbutton 12 88.00 88.00 169.00* 169.00* 96.00 96.00 Polara Bulldog Pushbutton Housing 13 Cup 24.40 24.40 28.00* 24.00* 25.00 25.00 Spring Cushion Hangers 14 118.75* 118.75* 108.00 108.00 128.39 128.39 99.00 103.00 104 TENDER SUMMARY TRAFFIC MATERIALS - 2011- 631001T W181 j FORTRAN INNOVATION ECON ELECT. TRAFFIC MALLARD TACEL LTD. TRAFFIC CANAADA DA LTD. SYSTEMS FORESTRY SOLUTIONS # DESCRIPTION Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 19' Tapered Aluminum Traffic Pole 15 980.00* 1031.00* 22' Single Member Arm 16 540.35* 567.10* 15' Single Member Arm 17 460.10* 483.64* 3 Section Signal Heads 18 282,43* 282.43* 355.00 355.00 350.34 350.34 472.00 492.00 343.00 358.00 4 Section Signal Heads 19 305.75* 305.75* 488.00 488.00 553.53 553.53 728.00 7 >8.00 480.00 502.00 300 mm LED's Red LEDR12 50.21 50.21 45.26 45.26 38.75* 38.75* 66.00 68.00 53.00 55.00 300 mm LED's Amber LEDY12 77.78 77.78 63.46 63.46 49.31 * 49.31 * 92.00 96.00 88.00 92.00 300 mm LED's Green LEDG12 66.37 66.37 62.67 62.67 43.25* 43.25* 98.00 102.00 87.00 91.00 20 300 mm LED's left amber /green 99.75 99.75 101.00 101.0 71.81 * 71.81 * 127.00 132.00 90.00 94.00 arrow W181 j TENDER SUMMARY TRAFFIC MATERIALS - 2011- 631001T 106 FORTRAN INNOVATION ECON ELECT. TRAFFIC MALLARD TACEL LTD. TRAFFIC CANAADA DA LTD. SYSTEMS FORESTRY SOLUTIONS # DESCRIPTION Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 200 mm LED's Amber LEDY08 69.17 69.17 60.11 60.11 49.37* 49.37* 78.00 81.00 76.00 79.00 21 200 mm LED's Green LEDG08 68.77 68.77 59.55 59.55 58.94* 58.94* 81.00 84.00 61.00 64.00 300 mm X 300 mm Ped. Lights 22 without housing 129.21 129.21 117.00 117.00 68.54* 68.54* 139.00 145.00 100.00 105.00 300 mm X 300 mm Ped. Lights with housing 23 174.92 174.92 199.00 199.00 159.70* 159.70* 235.00 245.00 171.00 178.00 1 Way Sky Brackets 24 108.13 108.13 123.48 123.48 130.75 130.75 134.00 140.00 103.00* 107.00* 2 Way Sky Brackets AB -0639 25 192.89 192.89 172.20* 172.20* 183.00 192.00 2 Way Sky Brackets AB -0640 26 230.48 230.48 44.76 44.76 188.00* 197.00* 106 TENDER SUMMARY TRAFFIC MATERIALS - 2011- 631001T `[orl FORTRAN INNOVATION ECON ELECT. TRAFFIC MALLARD TACEL LTD. TRAFFIC CANAADA DA LTD. SYSTEMS FORESTRY SOLUTIONS # DESCRIPTION Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Aluminum span Wire Hangers 27 40.57 40.57 67.78 67.78 48.65 48.65 59.00 62.00 39.00* 41.00* 3 -Way Aluminum span Wire Hangers 28 113.97* 113.97* 236.22 236.22 136.65 136.65 145.00 151.00 120.00 125.00 4 -Way Aluminum span Wire Hangers 29 115.87 115.87 261.95 261.95 138.88 138.88 147.00 153.00 111.00* 115.00* 3 -Way Iron span Wire Hangers 30 113.97 113.97 138.08 138.08 136.65 136.65 145.00 151.00 108.00* 113.00* 3 -Way Aluminum Iron span Wire 31 Hangers 115.87 115.87 283.74 283.74 138.88 138.88 147.00 153.00 110.00* 115.00* Pedestrian Timers 407 x 480 32 552.00* 572.00* 227.00 237.00 (26) Conductor Traffic Control Cable 300M roll 33 NO BIDS `[orl TENDER SUMMARY TRAFFIC MATERIALS - 2011- 631001T `DD] FORTRAN INNOVATION ECON ELECT. TRAFFIC MALLARD TACEL LTD. TRAFFIC CANAADA DA LTD. SYSTEMS FORESTRY SOLUTIONS # DESCRIPTION Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 (7) Conductor Traffic Control Cable 34 150M roll 635.85* 635.85* Elbow Mounting Kit 35 21.22 21.22 74.66* 74.66* 19.00 19.75 9.00 10.00 Post Top Mounting Kit 36 79.75 79.75 60.80* 60.80* 69.00 72.00 90.00 95.00 8' Aluminum Traffic poles 37 383.06* 402.32* Push Button Stub Pole 38 300.67* 315.65* Auger In Base 39 NO BIDS TB1 -17 Transformer Base 40 301.74* 316.72* `DD] TENDER SUMMARY TRAFFIC MATERIALS - 2011- 631001T 109 FORTRAN INNOVATION ECONOLITE ELECTROMEGA TRAFFIC MALLARD TACEL LTD. TRAFFIC CANADA LTD. SYSTEMS FORESTRY SOLUTIONS # DESCRIPTION Year I Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 T132 -17 Transformer Base 41 258.94* 271.78* 8' Pole Adapter 42 101.65* 101.65* Pole Plates 43 13.71 13.71 13.75 13.75 16.25 16.25 12.00* 13.50* 13.00 14.00 Prefabricated Detector Loops 44 176.90* 176.90* 470.00 485.00 Motion Detector 45 1,067.05 1,067.05 779.60* 779.60* 925.00 925.00 Presence Detector 46 491.40* 491.40* 715.00 715.00 Decorative Traffic Light Poles 47 NO BIDS 109 TENDER SUMMARY TRAFFIC MATERIALS - 2011- 631001T ( *) Indicates Recommendation `sD] FORTRAN INNOVATION ECON ELECT. TRAFFIC MALLARD TACEL LTD. TRAFFIC CANAADA DA LTD. SYSTEMS FORESTRY SOLUTIONS # DESCRIPTION Year 1 Year 2 Year I Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 3.0 metre Decorative Traffic Light Arms 48 449.40* 472.94* 5.5 metre Decorative Traffic Light Arms 49 636.65* 658.05* Finials 50 NO BIDS ( *) Indicates Recommendation `sD] REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -158 City of saint John June 16, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Tender for Lighting Upgrade — Hilton Belyea Arena BACKGROUND In 2010, the City of Saint John in cooperation with MCW Maricor consultants completed a detailed energy audit of the Hilton Belyea Arena Facility. The objective of the study was to evaluate the current state of energy usage within the facility and provide energy conservation opportunities for energy reduction. One of the recommendations resulting from the audit is an upgrade to the facility's lighting system, consisting of the following: • New ice lights, • Motion sensors in dressing rooms, washrooms, meeting room, hallway to replace circuit breakers, • Light retrofit for all dressing room, washrooms and meeting room, • Exterior Light Upgrade The upgrade to the lighting system will result in the following benefits: • Considerably more illumination on the ice surface • Improvement of the outside light, notably in the parking area • Estimated annual energy savings of $4,000 • Estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 45 Tons of CO2 • Exceptional color rendering, high system efficacy, 95% lumen maintenance, long lamp life (30,000 hrs vs. 18,000), instant on and uniform brightness control • Reduction of annual light maintenance cost due to increase of the rated life of the new lighting systems The noted work is a component of the City of Saint John's Sustainable Energy Management Program, which focuses on environmental responsibility and the reduction of total operating costs. 111 PAGE TWO ANALYSIS Tenders were called on May 26, 2011 and closed on June 15, 2011, with the following results: Contractor 1. JDA Electric Ltd. (Grand Bay, NB) 2. SB Craig Ltd. (Saint John, NB) 3. New Wave Electric Co. Ltd. ( Saint John, NB) 4. D -Mac Electrical Services (Lower Queensbury, NB) 5. GJ Cahill & Co. Ltd. (Saint John, NB) 6. FCC Construction (Saint John, NB) 7. Design Electric Inc. (Rothesay, NB) The Engineer's estimate for the work was $40,000 + HST. Bid Price (Exclusive of HST) $36,800.00 $39,500.00 $36,500.00 $54,600.00 $117,000.00 $46,700.00 $52,010.00 The tenders were reviewed by staffs of Materials Management and Facility Management and were found to be formal and complete in all respects. Staff believes that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This is a planned expenditure for which funds have been allocated in the City of Saint John's Facility Management Department's 2011 Capital Budget ($45,000). Total cost to the City of Saint John for this project if awarded as recommended will be $36,500.00 + HST. In addition, Efficiency New Brunswick will contribute grant monies in the amount of $6,000 toward the capital cost of this project. As such, the City of Saint John will be reimbursed that amount. 112 PAGE THREE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended Tender No. 2011- 082302T: Lighting Upgrade — Hilton Belyea Arena be awarded to the low bidder, New Wave Electric Co. Ltd., at the tax - excluded tendered price of $36,500.00. Respectfully submitted, David Logan Purchasing Agent Patrick Woods City Manager 113 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -157 June 15, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Highway Usage Permit (HUP) Infrastructure Installation and Drainage Swale — Molson Avenue BACKGROUND M The t=its• of Saint Joan The Bleury Street/Danells Drive/Molson Avenue — Watermain, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Installation and Street Reconstruction was approved by Common Council in the 2011 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program (December 20,2010) and in the 2011 General Fund Capital Program (February 7, 2011). The work is scheduled to be performed and completed this year. A small part of this project will be installed on Route 1 at the end of Molson Ave., there being no suitable alternative locations. The work on Route 1 will comprise approximately 12 m. of 600 mm storm sewer pipe, one storm manhole and a drainage swale. The New Brunswick Highway Corporation (NBHC) will permit the City to make the above installation provided that the City enter into a Highway Usage Permit (HUP) with the Corporation. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to request approval from Common Council for a HUP to allow the City to install infrastructure and to build a drainage swale within the limits of Route 1 at the end of Molson Avenue. ANALYSIS A copy of the proposed HUP is attached. The HUP needs to be concluded and in place so that the municipal services infrastructure and drainage swale can be completed during this construction season. 114 Report to Council June 15, 2011 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The fees and security set out in the HUP are pursuant to New Brunswick Regulation 2009 -156 under the New Brunswick Highway Corporation Act. INPUT FROM OTHERS The City Solicitor's Office has reviewed the documentation with input from the City's Insurance Co- ordinator and the Commissioner of Finance whose guidance was sought in respect to the security deposit. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council approve the "Highway Usage Permit (HUP) — 2011- 004 City of Saint John, N.B. — Storm Sewer Installation and Drainage Swale at the end of Molson Avenue" attached to M & C 2011 -157 and that the Mayor and Common Clerk execute the HUP. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations and Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 115 HIGHWAY USAGE PERMIT — 2011 -004 City of Saint John, N.B. — Storm Sewer Installation and Drainage Swale at the end of Molson Avenue THIS PERMIT issued in duplicate originals this 12th day of May 2011. FROM; NEW BRUNSWICK HIGHWAY CORPORATION, a body corporate established under the New Brunswick Highway Corporation Act (hereinafter called "NBHC "); TO: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick (hereinafter called the "Applicant "); WHEREAS the Minister of Transportation has the administration and control of highways in the Province of New Brunswick; AND WHEREAS the administration and control of the Route 1 Highway (the "Highway ") has been given to NBHC by the Minister with the approval of the Lieutenant - Governor in Council; AND WHEREAS the Applicant has requested a Highway Usage Permit for the purpose of installing approximately 12 lineal metres of new 600mm dia. storm sewer, a new manhole and drainage swale within NBHC land at the end of Molson Avenue, which installation, construction methods and dimensions, materials and schedule are more particularly described in Part 1 of Appendix "A" attached hereto and forming a part hereof and is shown on the drawing marked as Appendix "B ", annexed hereto and forming a part hereof and as shown and described on the orthographic image annexed hereto and marked as Appendix "C -2" (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Construction "); AND WHEREAS the Construction shall be located within and along the easterly boundary line of the Route 1 right-of-way, which boundary line is more particularly shown outlined in red on the plan annexed hereto and marked as Appendix "C -l" and as shown on the orthographic image annexed hereto and marked as Appendix "C -2" (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Approved Site "); AND WHEREAS NBHC has agreed to issue to the Applicant this Highway Usage Permit upon the terms and conditions herein set forth herein (the HUP "). THEREFORE in consideration of the payment of the sum of $10.00 by each party to the other, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by each to the other, and in 116 2 consideration of the covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter contained, NBHC and the Applicant covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 1. GENERAL 1.01 NBHC hereby authorizes the Applicant, subject to the terms and conditions herein contained, to enter upon and use the Approved Site on a non exclusive basis for the use and purposes of the Construction as described in Part 1 of Appendix "A" (the "Construction "). 1.02 The Applicant agrees to pay to NBHC for each year during the term of the HUP, the fees that are or may be established under Regulation 2009 -156 made under the New Brunswick Highway Corporation Act as may be amended and revised from time to time. 1.03 Subject to such fees that may be imposed in accordance with subsection 1.02, the Applicant shall pay to NBHC upon execution and for each fiscal year thereafter, the following: (i) a fee of two thousand and five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) as a result of the storm sewer and manhole being installed underground along the highway and as provided for under Section 10(1)(c) of Regulation 2009 -156; (ii) a fee of two thousand and five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) as a result of the installation of a drainage swale along the highway and as provided for under Section 10 (1)(c) of Regulation 2009 -156. 1.04 The fees payable under this section are due and payable on the thirty -first day of December in each fiscal year and are to be made by certified cheque payable to the New Brunswick Highway Corporation. Cheques are to be addressed to NBHC as follows: The New Brunswick Highway Corporation Attention: The Project Manager The Route 1 Gateway Project PO Box 6000 Fredericton NB E3B 5H1 1.05 The Applicant acknowledges and agrees that failure to pay the fees, within thirty days from receipt of the invoice for same, shall result in the termination of the HUP. ARTICLE 2 2. CONSTRUCTION 2.01 The Applicant, its contractors, servants, agents, employees and workers, may, from time to time during the term hereof and at its own expense, perform Construction at the Approved Site. 117 3 2.02 The Applicant shall carry out the Construction so that it causes no damage to the Highway or the right -of -way and the Construction shall be performed in accordance with and meeting the prescribed standards by all applicable federal and provincial statutes, as amended from time to time, and municipal by -laws and all regulations, orders, directives, permits and licences in respect thereof which apply to or otherwise affect the Construction or which apply to or otherwise affect the Applicant and its business assets, insofar as same relates to the Construction, including, but not limited to, this HUP, the Highway Act, the New Brunswick Highway Corporation Act and all environmental and occupation health and safety laws. 2.03 The Applicant undertakes to submit all plans and specifications detailing location, timing, duration and method of installation of the Construction to NBHC prior to the commencement of any Construction. The Applicant hereby agrees to not undertake or commence any Construction prior to receiving written approval from NBHC of the plans and specifications. NBHC undertakes to deal with the plans and specifications expeditiously. It is understood and agreed between the parties hereto that approval of the plans and specifications for any Construction to be carried out on the Approved Site does not in any way affect or alter the Applicant's responsibility for the design or implementation of the Construction and NBHC hereby specifically denies any such responsibility. 2.04 The Applicant agrees to complete and deliver to NBHC a final "as built" plan of the Construction at the Approved Site within three months of the completion of the Construction. 2.05 The Applicant shall carry out the Construction in such a manner as to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Chapter 0 -0.2, R.S.N.B. 1973, including any regulations or orders made thereunder. 2.06 The Applicant shall during the period of Construction: (i) take every reasonable precaution to ensure the health and safety of its employees and the health and safety of any other person having access to the site where any of the Construction is taking place; and (ii) ensure that its employees comply with the Occupational Health and Safeu Act, the regulations and any order made in accordance with the Act or the regulations. 2.07 The Applicant shall, upon the request of NBHC provide to NBHC within seven (7) days of such request, a letter outlining the steps taken by the Applicant to comply with the provisions of sections 2.05 and 2.06 hereof. 2.08 No material or equipment shall be deposited or stored on the Approved Site or the Highway without the prior written approval of NBHC, except for material deposited or stored in the normal fashion which is required for the Construction. 2.09 All brush and /or debris resulting from the Construction and/or operation shall be disposed off the Approved Site and the Highway by the Applicant. 118 4 2.10 No Construction is to take place during darkness or reduced visibility. 2.11 The Applicant shall give NBHC not less than three days notice of its intention to commence the Construction, excluding aerial patrols and normal maintenance activities and the Applicant shall not commence the Construction prior to receiving written approval from NBHC. 2.12 The Applicant shall ensure that it, its contractors, workers or agents abide by and will be bound by the terms and conditions of this HUP. 2.13 No construction shall disturb the asphaltic paved surface of the Highway without the prior written approval of NBHC. ARTICLE 3 3. STANDARD OF CONSTRUCTION 3.01 (a) The Construction shall be performed by the Applicant in a good and workmanlike manner at its own expense. If, in NBHC's opinion, acting reasonably, the Construction is not being carried out in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance section 2.02 hereof and in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted pursuant to section 2.03 hereof and approved by NBHC, NBHC may advise the Applicant of the basis for its opinion and the Applicant will rectify any deficiencies in the Construction to the reasonable satisfaction of NBHC. The Applicant agrees to forthwith rectify and repair any deficiencies in the Construction to the reasonable satisfaction of NBHC. If the Applicant does not forthwith rectify and repair the deficiencies to the reasonable satisfaction of NBHC, NBHC may suspend performance of the Construction by giving written notice to that effect to the Applicant; such suspension shall be effective in the manner specified in the notice. It is understood and agreed between the parties that any request by NBHC for the Applicant to rectify deficiencies in the Construction or the invocation of the authority granted by this paragraph shall not give rise to any claim by the Applicant against NBHC, regardless of the reasonableness of NBHC's opinion, and any such claim is hereby specifically barred. It is further understood and agreed between the parties that failure of NBHC to give instructions in regards to the Construction does not relieve the Applicant of any responsibilities and liabilities under this HUP or otherwise. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 3.01(a) hereof, where NBHC is of the opinion that the Construction poses a hazard to the safety of any person using the Highway, NBHC may request that the Applicant take such action, as is necessary, in the opinion of NBHC, to alleviate the hazard. Upon receiving such a request, the Applicant agrees to forthwith take the requested action at the cost of the Applicant. If the Applicant fails to take such action, NBHC may take such action as is necessary to alleviate the hazard. If NBHC is required to take action under this paragraph, the Applicant shall, upon demand, reimburse NBHC for all expenses reasonably incurred in connection therewith. Any request issued or action taken by NBHC under this paragraph, shall not give rise to any claim by the Applicant and any such claim is 119 5 hereby specifically barred. It is further understood and agreed between the parties that failure of NBHC to issue a request or take action under this paragraph does not relieve the Applicant of any responsibilities and liabilities under this HUP or otherwise. 3.02 The Applicant shall use every reasonable effort to ensure, where practical, that: a) all construction is performed in a manner that causes no damage to the Approved Site or the Highway; b) through traffic flow is maintained on the Highway during all construction according to the Department of Transportation Work Area Traffic Control Manual, as amended from time to time, the receipt of which the Applicant acknowledges; c) the construction does not interfere with or obstruct the Highway or traffic thereon except, with the prior written approval of the NBHC, as may be reasonably necessary or required during actual periods of construction; and d) the construction does not alter or interfere with the drainage pattern of the Highway or any property that is adjacent to or downstream to the Highway. 3.03 Notwithstanding paragraphs 3.01(a) and 3.01(b) hereof, if, in the opinion of NBHC, the Construction or maintenance activities of the Applicant cause or result in disturbance to the asphaltic surface of the Highway or otherwise cause damage to the Highway, including the area within the right -of -way, NBHC may, (but shall not be required to) in addition to and without prejudice to its other rights and remedies available hereunder, undertake and complete such repairs and /or remedial work (including the removal and replacement of any improvements and structures installed under the authority of the HUP) as NBHC considers appropriate, acting reasonably . All such repairs and/or remedial work including all costs incurred to deal with any emergency situation resulting from performing the Construction shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the Applicant covenants to forthwith pay to NBHC, on demand, all costs and expenses, direct or indirect, incurred by NBHC in attending thereto together with interest thereon from the date any such expense is incurred to an including the date payment at the Average Prime rate plus three percent (3 %) per annum, calculated daily not in advance. It is understood and agreed between the parties that the invocation of the authority granted by this paragraph shall not give rise to any claim by the Applicant against NBHC, regardless of the reasonableness of NBHC's opinion, and any such claim is hereby specifically barred. 3.04 If, in the opinion of NBHC, in its sole and absolute discretion, it is not expedient to remedy any damage to the Highway, including any portion of the right -of -way and/or disturbance to the asphaltic surface of the Highway, NBHC may require the Applicant to pay and amount equal to the costs which, in the reasonable estimation of NBHC, would be incurred by NBHC to complete the repairs and /or the remedial work necessary to repair the highway, the right -of -way and /or the asphaltic surface of the Highway to the standard satisfactory to NBHC. NBHC's determination of this amount shall be final and binding for all purposes of the HUP. It is understood and agreed between the parties that the invocation of the authority granted by this paragraph shall 120 G not give rise to any claim by the Applicant against NBHC, regardless of the reasonableness of NBHC's opinion, and any such claim is hereby specifically barred. 3.05 The Applicant shall provide to NBHC, at the time of the execution of this HUP, a cash security deposit in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for the purpose of Articles 3 and 4 to be held by NBHC, on a without interest basis. NBHC may use portions, or all of the security for the purposes of ensuring that the Applicant meets its obligations herein contained. At the end of the 3 years from the date of commencement of Construction, NBHC shall return to the Applicant that portion of the security that remains unused, without interest thereon. 3.06 The Applicant agrees that if any contamination should be encountered, on, in, under or around the property administered by the NBHC: (i) all work will cease immediately in that area, and (ii) the NBHC will be immediately advised of the said contamination in order for the NBHC to assess the situation. 3.07 If the Applicant fails to abide by section 3.06 and contamination is later determined to have been present, the NBHC, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick, NBHC shall not be responsible for the resulting deterioration or damage of the Highway or anything associated therewith. ARTICLE 4 4. REPAIRS TO THE APPROVED SITE 4.01 Upon completion of the Construction the Applicant shall, at its expense and so far as is practical, restore, repair and landscape the Approved Site to the extent necessary to restore the Approved Site to at least the condition existing prior to the commencement of such Construction in a manner satisfactory to the NBHC. 4.02 All repairs to the Approved Site, including repairs required to rectify any damage, alteration or environmental disruption to the area surrounding the Approved Site and/or Highway, including the right -of -way where the Construction is located, occasioned by subsidence, erosion, slope washout or any other damage whatsoever caused by the Construction, the existence of the Construction or the failure of the Construction, at the request and to the reasonable satisfaction of NBHC, shall be the responsibility of the Applicant for the entire period that the Construction remains on the Approved Site or Highway. The Applicant shall give 72 hours notice, where possible, of any future maintenance or repairs to this Construction or surrounding area. Traffic control, if necessary, shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and shall be performed in compliance with the provisions set out in Section 3.02 hereof. 4.03 If NBHC is required to make any repairs to the Approved Site or the Highway or has to clean the highway of debris, as a result of the Construction by the Applicant, the Applicant shall, upon demand, reimburse the NBHC for the cost of all expenses reasonably incurred in connection therewith, provided however, that, except in 121 emergency situations, the NBHC shall first give the Applicant written notice of any situation necessitating the use of the power conferred under this section and allow the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to forthwith proceed to diligently repair the same. 4.04 Notwithstanding any provisions of this HUP, if NBHC relocates or authorizes the relocation, either permanently or temporarily, repairs or redesigns the Highway, the Applicant may be requested to alter, remove or relocate, either permanently or temporarily, the storm sewer and manhole together with the drainage Swale (the installation) at the Applicant's expense, within a reasonable period of time after being requested in writing by NBHC. The Applicant shall alter, remove or relocate, either permanently or temporarily, the Construction, provided, however, that NBHC shall, if possible, grant to the Applicant a new HUP containing similar terms and conditions as herein set out allowing the Applicant to install the Construction on an alternate or replacement site, if any. Nothing herein contained obligates NBHC to pay any costs of the Applicant or to provide the Applicant with an alternate means or replacement of the Construction. ARTICLE 5 5. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY 5.01 The Crown or NBHC shall not be responsible for any damage to the Construction on or at the Approved Site, from any cause whatsoever other than damage resulting from the gross negligence or wilful misconduct of the Crown or NBHC and their respective officers, employees and agents. 5.02 The Applicant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless NBHC, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick and any and all departments, ministries, agencies, boards, commissions and/or corporations thereof (hereinafter referred to as the "Crown "), NBHC, all of their permitted successors and assigns, and all of their respective shareholders, directors, officers, legislators, employees, agents and servants, from and against all liability, damages, claims, suits and actions whatsoever resulting in any way from the Construction on the Approved Site, or the operations maintenance or repair activities of the Applicant or of its employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors. 5.03 The Applicant shall promptly pay compensation to the NBHC for all damages suffered by the NBHC as a result of the Construction, or arising from the operations, maintenance or repair activities of the Applicant. 5.04 The Crown and NBHC, all of their permitted successors and assigns, and all of their respective shareholders, directors, officers, legislators, employees, agents and servants shall not be responsible for any damages suffered by the Applicant as a result of the Construction undertaken by the Applicant from any cause whatsoever or arising from the operations, maintenance or repair activities of the Applicant. 122 M. ARTICLE 6 6. INSURANCE 6.01 The Applicant, at its own expense, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this HUP and any extensions or renewals thereof general liability insurance in form and content acceptable to the NBHC, acting reasonably, to protect the Applicant, their contractors and subcontractors, as well as the Crown, NBHC, and all of their permitted successors and assigns, and their respective shareholders, directors, officers, legislators, employees, agents and servants. 6.02 Such insurance shall provide coverage for property damage to the Approved Site and the Highway, including loss of use thereof, and shall protect the Crown, NBHC, all of their permitted successors and assigns and their respective shareholders, directors, officers, legislators, employees, agents and servants from all claims arising out of liability for property damage, bodily injury (including death) and personal injury arising out of the Construction or maintenance activities of the Applicant or arising from the use or operation of the Approved Site under this HUP. 6.03 This liability insurance shall provide for, but not be limited to: (i) a $10.0 million limit of liability per occurrence; (ii) Sudden & Accidental Pollution coverage for all insured perils; (iii) broad form occurrence property damage (including coverage for loss of use without property damage); (iv) cross liability and separation of interest with respect to each Additional Insured; (v) the Crown, NBHC, all of their permitted successors and assigns, and all of their respective shareholders, directors, officers, legislators, employees, agents and servants to be included as Additional Insureds with respect to liabilities arising as a result of the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of the Approved Site or out of the construction or out of occupancy of or operations in connection with this HUP; (vi) breach of any of the terms and conditions of the policy; or any negligence or wilful act or omission or false representation by any other Insured or any other person, shall not invalidate the insurance with respect to the Crown, NBHC, any of their permitted successors and assigns, and any of their respective shareholders, directors, officers, legislators, employees, agents and servants required to be included as Insureds. 6.04 At all times during the term of this HUP, all insurance policies shall be issued by financially sound insurers licensed to carry on business in Canada or in one or more of the provinces or territories in Canada. All policies shall contain a clause providing that Insurers shall not cancel or materially change the policy until sixty (60) days prior to written notice has been provided to the NBHC. 123 6 6.05 If closely held insurance facilities (e.g. captive, reciprocal or any other form of alternate risk financing) are used instead of conventional insurance to provide any insurance required by this HUP, the Applicant shall provide ninety (90) days prior written notice to NBHC of the program structure and participants with sufficient information to permit NBHC to determine what, if any, supplementary insurance requirements may be needed (e.g. "cut- through" endorsement to captive reinsurers) to ensure continued, adequate protection for the Crown, NBHC, their permitted successors and assigns, and their respective shareholders, directors, officers, legislators, employees, agents and servants required to be included as Insureds. 6.06 Certified true copies of all insurance policies maintained in compliance with this provision, or other documentation in form and content acceptable to NBHC, shall be delivered to NBHC prior to any Construction. Certificates of insurance, or other documentation in form and content acceptable to NBHC, evidencing any renewal of these insurance policies or any replacement insurances, shall be delivered to NBHC not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of existing policies. Certified true copies of all renewal or replacement policies shall be delivered not later than ten (10) business days after a written request from NBHC. 6.07 If any contractor or subcontractor hired by the Applicant, or conducting any operations or Construction in connection with this HUP on behalf of the Applicant, is not insured under the general liability insurance required to be purchased and maintained by the Applicant, the contractor or subcontractor shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of its operations general liability insurance, in form and content acceptable to NBHC, that meets all the coverage and administrative requirements set out in this Article 6. 6.08 NBHC and the Crown shall not be responsible for any damage to the Applicant or their work, from any cause whatsoever, other than resulting from gross negligence or wilful misconduct of NBHC and the Crown and their respective officers, employees or agents. ARTICLE 7 7. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF WORK OR UNDERTAKING INSTALLED 7.01 Following completion of Construction, the Applicant may, during the term of the HUP and upon providing Notice to the NBHC, enter upon the Approved Site for the purpose of maintaining, inspecting, repairing or removing any work appurtenances, attachments, apparatus and equipment (hereinafter referred to in Sections 7.02, and 7.04 as the "work or undertaking ") belonging to the Applicant. 7.02 In performing the maintenance or repair of the work or undertaking as provided for under Paragraph 7.01, the Applicant will comply with the terms and conditions set out under Articles 2, 3 and 4, making the necessary modifications when necessary. 124 10 7.03 In exercising a right granted by this HUP, the Applicant, their agents, servants or anyone acting on its behalf shall be liable to the NBHC and the Crown for all damage caused to the Approved Site and any other property damaged and shall make full compensation for all damage caused or arising while carrying out the activities. 7.04 After Construction and prior to operating the work or undertaking, the Applicant shall file a Certificate of Insurance with NBHC that verifies that it is insured against any liability that it may incur in operating, inspecting, maintaining or repairing the work or undertaking located in, on, along, above or under the Approved Site by an insurance company licensed to do business in the Province of New Brunswick which insurance coverage shall be of a type or class and in an amount approved by NBHC. 7.05 In the event the Highway is realigned and that portion of the Highway on which the Construction or any appurtenances, attachments, apparatus and equipment associated therewith are located no longer becomes part of the Highway, the Applicant shall forthwith remove the same upon notice from NBHC (the "Abandoned Section "). 7.06 The materials associated with the Construction on the Abandoned Section shall be removed at the sole expense of the Applicant. The Applicant shall remove the same and remedy and rehabilitate that farmer portion of the Abandoned Section to the satisfaction of NBHC. Any such work done by the Applicant shall be carried out completely at the expense of the Applicant. 7.07 The Applicant shall have the full right and permission where necessary to enter into the Abandoned Section with people, machinery and material for the purpose of carrying out such obligations however any damage to the same thereby occasioned and where required paying compensation for the damages to NBHC arising from such entry. Any such work done by the Applicant pursuant to this provision is to be carried out completely at the expense of the Applicant and the condition of the area returned to the same condition as it existed prior to entry. 7.08 NBHC shall use all best efforts to cooperate with the Applicant to obtain such further Highway Usage Permits as may be required to permit the Applicant to reconstruct the Construction and or any appurtenances, attachments, apparatus and equipment associated therewith in a prompt manner so as to limit the time under which the Construction is rendered inoperable. ARTICLE 8 8 TERMINATION 8.01 This HUP shall terminate: (a) on the 9th day of January 2035; or 125 I1 (b) at the option of NBHC, upon written notice to the Applicant: (i) if the Approved Site is used for any purpose other than the Construction; (ii) in the event the Applicant shall not have commenced the Construction on the Approved Site within 6 months from the date hereof, the permission hereby granted shall thereupon immediately terminate without further act or notice; or (iii) if the Applicant defaults in observing or performing its obligations herein and it fails to remedy or to diligently take steps with a view of remedying such default after the same has been brought to the attention of the Applicant by NBHC by way of written notice thereof, NBHC may at its sole discretion and without recourse by the Applicant terminate this HUP; (c) at any time, in the sole and absolute discretion of NBHC but the obligations of the Applicant under this HUP shall survive such cessation and determination of such permission. If this HUP is terminated pursuant to subparagraph 8.01(b), the rights hereby granted shall thereupon immediately terminate without further act or notice, and all rights of the Applicant shall thereupon cease and expire, and the Applicant agrees to execute and file such documents as may be necessary to confirm or to give public notice of such termination. 8.02 The Crown and NBHC shall not be liable to pay any amount for costs or damages incurred by the Applicant as a result of the termination of this HUP for any reason. 8.03 In the event the Applicant elects to terminate this HUP, it shall so advise NBHC in writing which notice shall terminate this HUP. 8.04 Upon termination of this HUP pursuant to sections 8.01 or 8.03, the Applicant shall thereafter have the obligation hereunder to forthwith undertake and complete all the terms and conditions which NBHC in its sole discretion considers appropriate to fulfill the Applicant's obligations under this HUP and to restore the Approved Site, so far as practicable, to the same condition as it was prior to the entry and use of the Applicant. Any such work done by the Applicant pursuant to this provision shall be carried out completely at the expense of the Applicant. 8.05 Notwithstanding any provision of the HUP, NBHC may, in its sole and absolute discretion, cancel, terminate or reinstate this HUP in accordance with such conditions as NBHC directs. 126 12 ARTICLE 9 9. NATURE OF HUP 9.01 (a) The Applicant's right to enter the Approved Site for the purpose of the Construction pursuant to this HUP is as a mere licensee. This HUP does not grant or convey to the Applicant any title or other interest in or in respect to the Approved Site or the Highway. (b) Notwithstanding Paragraph (a), any pipeline constructed by the Applicant together with all works, appurtenances, attachments, apparatus, appliances, markers, fixtures and equipment shall be deemed to be or remain the property of the Applicant, even though the same may have become affixed to the Approved Site. 9.02 It is understood and agreed that with respect to any plans, including the plans specified in sections 2.03 and 2.04 to be prepared by the Applicant for purposes of the Construction or for identifying property or the status of title of property, NBHC does not, in any way, represent or warrant to the Applicant that the Approved Site is located as shown on the said plans or that NBHC owns or controls all or any portion of the right -of -way shown. The location of the Approved Site is determined by the Applicant at their sole risk and the Construction is undertaken thereon solely at the risk of the Applicant. If the Applicant wishes to confirm or determine the title or ownership of the Approved Site, it shall examine such title and ownership at its own expense and NBHC shall not be required to produce any abstract of title, title deeds, or copies thereof or any evidence of title other than those in possession of NBHC. 9.03 This HUP is non - exclusive. NBHC hereby reserves the right to grant permission to other persons to use the Approved Site for whatever purpose NBHC deems appropriate provided, always, that NBHC shall not permit any other person to use the Approved Site for any such purpose, in the opinion of NBHC if such use or any construction of other work in connection therewith would in any way interfere with the Applicant's use thereof. 9.04 This HUP, and any right conveyed herein by NBHC to the Applicant, is subject to any other agreement, permission or right previously entered into or granted by the Crown or NBHC to any other persons or corporations to use the Approved Site. The Applicant hereby agrees not to damage or in any way interfere with any other person's use and enjoyment of the Approved Site. The Applicant further agrees to reimburse any person for the costs of any damages to their plant or equipment located on the Approved Site arising from or caused by the negligence of the Applicant in the carrying out of the Construction. 9.05 While the provisions of this HUP are intended to be fully binding and effective between the parties, in the event that any particular provision or provisions hereof or a portion of any said provision is found to be void, voidable or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then the same shall be deemed to be severed from the remainder of this HUP, and all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 127 13 9.06 This HUP in no way affects or binds any other minister, operator, government department, agency or Crown Corporation of the Province of New Brunswick. ARTICLE 10 10. NOTICE 10.01 Any notice, direction or other instrument required or permitted to be given to NBHC hereunder shall be in writing and delivered personally or by courier or sent by facsimile to NBHC at: New Brunswick Highway Corporation PO Box 6000 Fredericton NB E311 5111 Attention: President Facsimile: 506.453.7987 or to such other address or fax number as NBHC may from time to time designate in writing to the Applicant. Any notice, direction or other instrument required or permitted to be given to the Applicant hereunder shall be in writing and delivered personally or by courier or sent by facsimile to the Applicant at: The City of Saint John, NB 15 Market Square PO Box 197 Saint John NB E2L 4L1 Attention: Common Clerk 506.674.4214 or to such other address or fax number as the Applicant may from time to time designate in writing to the NBHC. 10.02 Any notice, direction or other instrument aforesaid, if delivered personally or by courier, shall be deemed to have been sent and received on the date on which it was delivered or, if faxed, shall be deemed to have been sent and received on the day on which transmission is confirmed. If such day is not a Business Day or if the notice is received after ordinary office hours, (time and place of receipt), the notice shall be deemed to have been sent and received on the next Business Day. 10.03 For purpose of this Article, "Business Day" means'any day which is not: i) a Saturday or a Sunday, or ii) a day observed as a holiday under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick. 128 14 ARTICLE 11 11. NEW BRUNSWICK LAWS OR REGULATIONS 11.01 This HUP will be interpreted according to the Laws and Regulations of the Province of New Brunswick. In the event this HUP or any portion of this HUP is or appears to be in conflict with any provisions of the Laws or Regulations of the Province of New Brunswick, then the provisions of the Laws or Regulations of the Province of New Brunswick shall prevail and this HUP or the portion of the HUP in conflict shall be void and of no force or effect, but any portion of this HUP not in conflict shall continue in full force and effect. 11.02 The New Brunswick Highway Corporation. Act, Regulations made thereunder, the Highway Act and Regulations made thereunder, as each may be amended from time to time, and any Act or Regulations made in substitution thereof apply to this HUP and the Applicant agree to be bound thereby. ARTICLE 12 12. SINGULAR - PLURAL 12.01 Whenever herein the context permits, words denoting the singular shall include the plural, the masculine shall include the feminine, and a person shall include a corporation and vice versa. ARTICLE 13 13. BINDING EFFECT 13.01 This HUP, and everything herein contained, shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns provided, however, that the inclusion herein of the word assigns shall not be constructed as permitting any assignment by the Applicant not authorized by this HUP. ARTICLE 14 14. ASSIGNMENT 14.01 This HUP, and the permission granted hereby, shall not be assigned by the Applicant without the prior written consent of NBHC. ARTICLE 15 15 NON - WAIVER 15.01 Failure by NBHC to exercise any right or to require or insist that action be taken according to the terms of this HUP in no way waives the right of NBHC to require or insist that an action be taken according to the terms of this HUP. 129 15 ARTICLE 16 16 AMENDMENTS 16.01 If at any time during the continuance of this HUP, the parties deem it necessary or expedient to make any alteration or additions to this HUP they may do so by means of a written notice to the Applicant which shall be supplemental to and form part of this HUP. ARTICLE 17 17. TIME 17.01 Time is of the essence of this HUP. ARTICLE 18 18. INTERPRETATION 18.01 Terms used herein and not otherwise defined, which are defined in the New Brunswick Highway Corporation Act and regulations thereunder shall have the meaning assigned to them therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this Highway Usage Permit on the day, month and year first written above. SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED Witness 130 New Brunswick Highway Corporation (NBHC) Per: Frederick M. Blaney, P. Eng. Title: President The City of Saint John Mayor Common Clerk Common Clerk Resolution: June ,2011 16 Appendix "A" the Construction Project Backg or and The proposed project is part of a plan for this area to reduce flooding of private properties due to surcharges in the City's sewer systems which has been an issue in this part of the City in recent years. A new storm system is proposed for a portion of Molson Avenue, Bleury Street and Danells Drive. In addition to the storm upgrades, the renewal of water and sanitary sewer infrastructure along Bleury Street and Danells Drive is to be constructed along with the reconstruction of these roadways. The work on Molson Avenue is limited to upsizing the existing storm sewer from Highway # 1 to near Benji Lane which has been shown to be undersized to handle storm water flows. Purpose for Application As shown on the drawings, copies of which are annexed hereto and marked as Appendices "B" and "C -1 ", the end of Molson Avenue is partly on NBDOT right -of -way for Highway # 1. Approximately 12 lineal metres of new 600mm dia. storm sewer and a new manhole are required within this right -of -way for the successful completion of the project. Upgrading the undersized storm sewer on Molson Avenue is a necessary component of mitigating the risk of flooding in this area (the "Construction "). Construction Methods The storm sewer and manhole required on NBDOT right -of -way will be installed using conventional open trench construction methods. That is to say, an excavator and manual labourers will be used to expose and remove the existing pipe to permit the installation of the new storm line. Compaction of backfill materials will be carried out by a manually operated compactor. Although it is on NBDOT right -of -way, all work to install the storm upgrades will be done on the City's side of the fence on the paved portion of Molson Avenue. It will be required to remove a section of the chain link fence to install the storm infrastructure. It is outlined in the contract specifications and the drawings that this work must be carried out within one working day and the fence must be reinstated at the end of that working day. In addition, the contractor must ensure that no pedestrians, etc. cross the fence line with the use of barricades. All work to be carried out during this contract will have full time inspection by CBCL Limited to ensure the requirements outlined in the drawings and specifications are adhered to. Dimensions and Materials 131 17 The storm line proposed is 600 mm dia. Pipe to replace the existing 454mm dia. storm sewer. The materials shall be as per those approved in the City of Saint John General Specifications, i.e. either Reinforced Concrete (RC) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The proposed work to tie into the City's existing storm line will not disturb the asphalt or granular shoulder of Highway ## 1 thus there should be no impacts to traffic flow. The work will be 6.5m (21.3ft) away from the closest edge of asphalt (eastbound lane) and approximately 4.5m * 14.8ft) from the guiderail along the shoulder of the highway. The Construction also includes the construction of a drainage swale alongside the Saint John Throughway. The proposed swale will extend approximately 90m from the end of Molson Avenue to the existing Manwagonish Creek which provides drainage for this area in Saint John. The swale will be 0.3m in depth with a 1.2m wide channel bottom and 3:1 side slopes. The swale will be reinstated with topsoil and sod. The proposed swale is to drain overland flow in excess of the capacity of the proposed storm system, i.e., above the 1 -in -5 year storm return period. The land is owned by NBDOT, the swale is to be located inside of the existing fence line and tree line through ground that is maintained by the adjacent homeowner, The enclosed site plan (Appendix "C -1 ") and the orthographic image (Appendix "C -2 ") illustrates the area. Schedule The work is planned to be undertaken during the 2011 construction season. Upon receiving approval from NBDOT and NBDOE, the project will go to tender immediately to take advantage of the 2011 construction season. The Construction shall be completed on or before October 30, 2011. 132 o 3NY1 fr3B ' I _ F7 N I 4 3Nfl of O I I; l aL I a El-1- � O lit I � a � fill� \. Hi2 ll! - - - - - \y\ y tl��o •� , i` � s1 y 134 _ rT f _ N � 011 ► ■■■MS1■■111E■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■�lO ■111 ■ ■ ■ ■■ � 1 - ■ ■■■mole m■ ONE ■ ■■ ■11 ■t'is ■MEMO ■ ■■ ■MMbilmnffaww ■ ■m sass ■r�sss�eMM ■■■ 134 135 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -153 June 15, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: M The t=its• of Saint Joan SUBJECT: Design and Construction Management: Prince William Street (Civic #221 to Civic #270) — Watermain, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Renewal and Street Reconstruction BACKGROUND At its May 24, 2011 meeting, Common Council authorized staff to conduct negotiations for the engagement of GENIVAR to carry out design and construction management services for the improvements required to Prince William Street pursuant to the Agreement between Ellerdale Properties and The City of Saint John. The project involves the renewal of the watermain, sanitary and storm sewer systems and full street reconstruction including the installation of underground utilities on Prince William Street from civic #221 to civic #270. GENIVAR would be engaged to complete the following design and construction management services: • Site surveys, preliminary investigation and data collection; • Preliminary design, cost estimates and design report; • Public consultation process; • Detailed design and specifications preparation; • Construction management and inspection services and; • Record drawings in digital and hard copy format. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to make recommendations for the addition of a project to the 2011 General Fund Capital Program and for consulting engineering services for this project. 136 M &C2011 -153 June 15, 2011 Page 2 ANALYSIS On May 26, 2011 with a comprehensive and detailed scope of work document developed by staff, a proposal for consulting engineering services was requested from GENIVAR Inc. In response to this request, GENIVAR Inc. submitted a proposal on June 2, 2011. A Review Committee consisting of the following staff completed an analysis of the submission: • Brian Keenan, P.Eng. Engineering Manager, Municipal Engineering • David Russell, P.Eng. Municipal Engineer, Municipal Engineering • Kevin O'Brien, P.Eng. Municipal Engineer, Municipal Engineering • David Logan, CPPB Purchasing Agent/Manager, Materials and Fleet Management Each member completed an independent review of the submission and, subsequently, a Review Committee meeting was held to jointly discuss the information presented in the GENIVAR proposal. The price contained in the proposal was also evaluated by the Committee and staff negotiated with GENIVAR to settle on an acceptable consultant's fee to submit to Council for approval. The submission from GENIVAR Inc. met all of the requirements of the request for proposal in a manner acceptable to the Committee, with a cost effective bid for the project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed cost of the work for GENIVAR Inc. to provide design and construction management services is $149,768.01 including the City's eligible HST rebate based on an estimated 11 week construction management period. An amount of $900,000 is estimated for design, construction management and construction. Engineering fees to cover the cost of design and construction management generally do not exceed 12 -17% of the total overall project cost, depending on the nature of the project and the engineering services required. This upset fee is approximately 16.6% of the total overall estimated project cost, which is considered appropriate for this type of project. 137 M &C2011 -153 June 15, 2011 Page 3 POLICY — ENGAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for engagement of Professional Services, Common Council authorized staff at the May 24, 2011 Council meeting to conduct negotiations for the engagement of an engineering consultant for this project. The costs incurred by the consultant will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Request For Proposal at the rates submitted and accepted in the consultants proposal not to exceed the Recommended Minimum Hourly Rates as contained in The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies — New Brunswick fee guideline. The Construction Management component of this project fee is based on an estimated construction period. The final fee will be calculated based on the actual construction management period. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that: a) The 2011 General Fund Capital Program budget be increased by $900,000 for the reconstruction of Prince William Street from civic #221 to civic #270 as it was not included in the original approved 2011 General Fund Capital Program; and b) the proposal from GENIVAR Inc. for engineering services (design and construction management) for Prince William Street (Civic #221 to Civic #270) in the amount of $149,768.01 after HST rebate, for Watermain, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Renewal and Street Reconstruction be accepted and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation in that regard. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 138 r� F REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -151 June 15, 2011 - His Worship Mayor Ivan Court The City of saint John And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Chesley Drive -- Emergency Asphalt Repairs Request for Funding Support BACKGROUND At a meeting of Common Council, held on April 26, 2011 the following resolution was adopted, namely; "RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -90: Chesley Drive — Emergency Asphalt Repairs, Common Council: 1. Adopt Option 1 as outlined in the submitted report and request required financial support from the Province of New Brunswick in 2011; 2. Advise the Department of Transportation that the cost of future major maintenance repairs exceed Municipal Kilometrage Agreement funding and, as such, require additional investment from the Province to carry out the needed work; 3. Authorize the Mayor to submit this Report to the Minister, with a copy to the Director of Design and the District Engineer for the New Brunswick Department of Transportation." M &C 2011 -124 Tender Asphalt Resurfacing, Chesley Drive report was submitted to Common Council and this project was awarded to Debly Enterprises in the amount of $104,154.93 including tax. 505TAINAE)ILITY r QUALITY — KE5rON51131LITY 139 C6565 Drivc -- Emcrgenc5 Asphalt Rcpairs Requestfor Financial 5upport ,tune 15t6, 20 f 1 Report to Common Council, M€rC 201 1-151 Pagc 2 ANALYsIs This work was completed during the week of June 6, 2011 and an invoice has been submitted in the amount of $98,291.13 including tax. Additional work was approved by the City to undertake resurfacing of 0.14 lane kilometres of roadway along Chesley Drive in the east bound lane just west of Bentley Street. This section of road was also severely deteriorated and the values of the contract unit cost were major factors in approving this additional work. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council authorize the Mayor to submit a formal request for financial support to the Minister, with a copy to the Director of Design and the District Engineer for the New Brunswick Department of Transportation. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering a 'ck Woods, CGA Manager 5U5TAINANLITY - QUALITY ~ RI✓5FON5151LITY 140 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 - 141 June 2, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Consulting Engineering Agreements with ADI Limited PURPOSE M The t=its• of Saint Joan The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's approval for existing Consulting Engineering Agreements with ADI Limited to be assigned to exp Services Inc. /Les services exp Inc. as requested by ADI Limited. BACKGROUND When Consultants are engaged for engineering design and construction management services for specific projects they are required to enter into a Consulting Engineering Agreement with the City of Saint John. The Mayor and Common Clerk execute the Agreements on behalf of the City. ADI Limited has entered into Agreements with the City for the following ongoing projects: 1. Engineering Services: Loch Lomond Road (Russell Street to Westmorland Road) Water and Sanitary Sewer Main Renewal and Road Reconstruction. 2. Engineering Design and Inspection Services: Spar Cove Road — Wastewater Pumping Station. ANALYSIS ADI Limited has advised the City, by letter, that they have changed the name of their company and will be operating under the company name of exp Services Inc./Les services exp Inc. Pursuant to paragraph 15(1) of the Consulting Engineering Agreement, it states that "This Agreement cannot be assigned by ADI Limited to any other service provider without the express 141 M &C2011 -141 June 2, 2011 Page 2 written approval of the City." Further, paragraph 29(1) of the Consulting Engineering Agreement, states "This Agreement shall ensure to the benefit of and be binding on the successors and assigns of the City and on the successors and permitted assigns of the Consultant." Staff is of the opinion that the same high level of service will be obtained from exp Services Inc. /Les services exp Inc. as was anticipated under the original Agreement with ADI Limited. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES This report has been reviewed with the City Solicitor's office. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council authorize the following Agreements be assigned from ADI Limited to exp Services Inc. /Les services exp Inc.: 1. Engineering Services: Loch Lomond Road (Russell Street to Westmorland Road) Water and Sanitary Sewer Main Renewal and Road Reconstruction. 2. Engineering Design and Inspection Services: Spar Cove Road — Wastewater Pumping Station. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 142 Court, Ivan From: F.C. Antigua [fcantigua @bellnet.ca] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 226 PM To: Court, Ivan Cc: Legal BForbes NB (Brian Forbes) Subject: 2011 World Strongest Man Importance: Nigh From: S.C.L. CANADA INC. (Company to be created) 524 St.George Blvd Moncton, NB E1E 2135 June 13, 2011 To: CITY OF SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 ATTN: Mr. Ivan Court, Mayor and Saint John Common Council Subject: 2011 World Strongest Man Competition Dear Mayor and Members of the Common Council: As an individual, altogether with many important partner sponsors, we have obtained the rights and therefore decided to host the Semi - Finals of the World Strongest Man Organization in the beautiful Province of New Brunswick this year (next year the Finals). This competition is similar to Formula 1 and UEFA (the biggest european soccer organization). Why in New Brunswick? Among others, the fact that I have known the people of New Brunswick for many years, people who are warm and welcoming, and because the mayors of the cities involved and some people from the New Brunswick Government have been enthusiasticaly receptive to this great event to take place in New Brunswick this year, and hopefully many years to come. Some of our Canadian strenght athletes have and are still being part of this worldwide competition circuit but Canada never had the privilege to host this platform of competitions. This event being broadcasted in 58 countries, your city will be mentioned as one of the hosting cities. For the first time, the event will last 4 days, starting in Fredericton (the capital of N.B.) September the 29th, to continue in Saint John September the 30th, in Dieppe October the 1 st, and the finals in Shipagan October the 2nd, city where the Festival of the Strong Men of New Brunswick is hosted every year. During the course of this event, strong men will visit local schools and hospitals to meet with kids, as well as gyms and restaurants. There will also be an amateur competition under the surveillance of the international judges and strong men that will take place a few hours before the professionnal competition. We would greatly appreciate for the mayors to do us the honor to launch the professional competition in each of their respective city. We will need your assistance in the choice for the best location to hold such an event, whether in an arena or outside if the weather allows it. Should there be an arena, wood platforms will be installed to protect the floor from any eventual damages. Your assistance also with the security on site, the publicity to attract the crowd so to obtain the maximum attendance from the population; in any other way possible to help make this event a huge success in 2011 and after. In order to help the organization offset some of the high costs involved, maybe suggest or recommend us other 143 sponsors who could be interested in on -site or other kind of advertising. For instance, one city's idea of participation was to give away gifts to the organizers and strongmen, a banquet at the City Hall, etc.. Any and all suggestions are welcome. To better understand the association, please visit the website at www.strongmancl.com Our legal firm advisor for this event is Mr. Brian Forbes from Forbes Roth Basque in Moncton, NB. You may contact me via email or phone: Email: fcantiQUa(a)bellnet.ca Cell: 450 -272 -5350 Time flies quickly. In hope of your prompt positive reply. Thank you and best regards, Francois Vanier SCL Canada Inc. Cell: 450- 272 -5350 c.c.: Brian Forbes 144 �rY Ch C iIY of isaim jalui PEEL PLAZA PROJECT PERFECTION IS OUR GOAL EXCELLENCE WILL BE TOLERATED M & C 2011 -155 OPEN SESSION June 15, 2011 Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT. Engagement of Architectural Consultant 1 Peel Plaza Project f Public Plaza 101:41:19-R10 The purpose of this report is to request that Common Council authorize staff to conduct appropriate negotiations to engage a landscape architectural consultant to complete the detailed design and provide construction management services for the construction of the Public Plaza component of Peel Plaza. The engineering design is to include tender ready documents. BACKGROUND In April of 2007 Common Council authorized the engagement of Daniel K. Glenn Ltd. for the preparation of tender ready documents for the Police /Justice Civic Plaza. At that time no consideration was given to construction management of the project whereas decisions had yet to be made with respect to the timing of the project and the structure (i.e. P3 or traditional ownership). Subsequent to Council's approval Daniel K. Glenn Ltd. began working on conceptual renderings for the North of Union Development. As these concepts and renderings evolved, the City made the decision to fully explore the P3 concept in order to ensure the best value to the City. The P3 process differs from the traditional tendering process in a number of ways. Specifically, as it relates to the Plaza construction, the architect of record is required to produce output specifications for the project in contrast to tender ready documents. The Glenn Group Ltd. (formerly Daniel K. Glenn Ltd.) scope of work was adjusted accordingly and completed. SAINT 10I IN RO, Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 41_1 I www.saink}ohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -S. Canada E2L 40 145 Report to Common Council Page 2 June 15, 2011 The City of Saint Jahn, after careful consideration, made the decision to construct Peel Plaza using traditional tendering and ownership models. Additionally, the timing of the project was adjusted, physical aspects of the components altered, and specific budget targets for each component were identified by Council. CURRENT STATUS With the exception of the Public Plaza area, the components of the Peel Plaza project are well underway. A decision was made in early 2010 to defer the construction of the Plaza until the construction of the Police Headquarters, the Law Courts, and the Municipal Infrastructure were substantially complete. This decision was made for practical /timing considerations. It is practical to begin construction of the Public Plaza in the Spring of 2012. In order for this to happen, detailed drawings of a scaled down Public Plaza project must be completed; and a provision for construction inspection services must be included. Whereas the Glenn Group have already completed a considerable amount of the required design, it is likely in the City's best interest to re- engage Glenn Group for the completion of the design for tender ready documents and for the engagement of construction management through to completion. It is anticipated that Glenn Group could perform these services much more competitively than another competing landscape architectural firm. Staff are, therefore, seeking Council's authority to negotiate these services directly with Glenn Group. Subsequent to the conclusion of negotiations, staff would then make a recommendation to engage Glenn Group Ltd., or in the alternative, recommend a different course of action. Staff's expectation is to complete the design prior to the end of 2011, call and award tenders early in 2012, and begin construction in late March or early April 2012- FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Council in February of 2011 approved an amount $1,400,000 for 2011 and $1,000,000 for 2012 for the Public Plaza component of Peel Plaza. RECOMMENDATION Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for engagement of professional services, Common Council authorize staff to conduct negotiations for the engagement of Glenn Group Ltd. for the design and construction management services required for the Public Plaza component of Peel Plaza. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Edwards, P.Eng. Project Manager Peel Plaza Project WmEljaf encl. 146 J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 - 156 June 15, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: M The City of Saint Joan SUBJECT: Engineering Design and Construction Management: Beach Crescent Sanitary Lift Station Upgrade, Kennebecasis Drive No. 2 Sanitary Lift Station Upgrade & Beach Crescent, Meadowbank Avenue and Kennebecasis Drive Sanitary Sewer Installations BACKGROUND The 2011 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program includes funding for upgrades to the Beach Crescent Sanitary Lift Station and the Kennebecasis Drive No. 2 Sanitary Lift Station as well as sanitary sewer installations on Beach Crescent, Meadowbank Avenue and Kennebecasis Drive. The majority of this project is scheduled to be completed by the end of the 2011, with any remaining work completed in 2012. The projects include funding necessary to engage engineering design and construction management services to complete the following: • Part A - Site Surveys, Preliminary Investigation and Data Collection • Part B - Preliminary Design, Cost Estimates and Design Report • Part C - Public Consultation • Part D - Detailed Design • Part E — Tender Period Services, Materials Testing & Inspection, Red Books and Record Drawings • Part F — Construction Management PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to make a recommendation for consulting engineering services for this project. 147 M &C2011 -156 June 15, 2011 Page 2 ANALYSIS On May 24, 2011, with a comprehensive and detailed scope of work document developed by staff, a proposal for consulting engineering services was requested from CBCL Limited. In response to this request, CBCL Limited submitted a proposal on June 7, 2011. Staff was previously authorized to conduct negotiations with this consultant for engineering services for the Beach Crescent/Kennebecasis Drive /Meadowbank Avenue projects. A Review Committee consisting of the following staff completed an analysis of the submission: • Brian Keenan, P.Eng. Engineering Manager, Municipal Engineering • Graham Huddleston, P.Eng. Operations Manager, Environmental Protection • Susan Steven - Power, P.Eng. Municipal Engineer, Municipal Engineering • David Logan, CPPB Purchasing Agent /Manager, Materials and Fleet Management Each member completed an independent review of the submission and, subsequently, a Review Committee meeting was held to jointly discuss the information presented in the CBCL Limited proposal. The submission from CBCL Limited met all of the requirements of the request for proposal in a manner acceptable to the Committee, with a cost effective bid for the project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed cost of the work for CBCL Limited to provide design and construction management services is $218,441.63, including the City's eligible HST rebate based on an estimated 9 week construction management period. An amount of $1,415,000 is included in the 2011 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program to cover the cost for design, construction and construction management. Engineering fees to cover the cost of design and construction management generally range between 12 -17% of the total overall project cost, depending on the nature of the project and the engineering services required. The upset fee for this proposal is approximately 15.4% of the total overall project cost, which is considered appropriate for this type of project. .• M &C2011 -156 June 15, 2011 Page 3 POLICY — ENGAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for engagement of Professional Services, Common Council has authorized staff with the approval of M &C 2011 -98 to conduct negotiations for the engagement of an engineering consultant for this project. The costs incurred by the consultant will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Request For Proposal at the rates submitted and accepted in the consultants proposal not to exceed the Recommended Minimum Hourly Rates as contained in The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies — New Brunswick fee guideline. The Construction Management component of this project fee is based on an estimated construction period. The final fee will be calculated based on the actual construction management period. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposal from CBCL Limited for engineering services (design and construction management) for Beach Crescent Sanitary Lift Station Upgrade, Kennebecasis Drive No. 2 Sanitary Lift Station Upgrade & Beach Crescent, Meadowbank Avenue and Kennebecasis Drive Sanitary Sewer Installations be accepted and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation in that regard. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 149 Mayor Ivan Court Mayor's Office Bureau du maire 64)-- SAINT JOHN ---------- PROCLAMATION WHEREAS: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 62nd session at UN Headquarters on September 13, 2007; and WHEREAS: on November 12th, 2010, the Government of Canada endorsed the UN Declaration; and WHEREAS: we are challenged to recognize how governments and corporations have failed to honour the rights to the land and self - determination of Canada's first inhabitants; and WHEREAS: on June 20th, KAIROS member churches, communities and Indigenous partners will join in a Day of Solidarity, urging Canada to take concrete steps, in collaboration with Indigenous Peoples, to implement the UN Declaration; and WHEREAS: also on June 20th, in a public action on Parliament Hill, an enormous banner, making support for the implementation of the Declaration, will be created from those received from communities across Canada; and WHEREAS: since Tuesday, June 21, 2011 is National Aboriginal Day in Canada, NOW THEREFORE. I, Mayor Ivan Court, of Saint John do hereby proclaim Tuesday, June 21, 2011 as National Aboriginal Day in the City of Saint John and urge all citizens to support the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We invite you to attend the raising of the Aboriginal Flag at City Hall at 9:00am that day. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21- 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint john, 150 A BY -LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING THE LICENSING OF PEDDLERS AND HAWKERS BY -LAW Be it enacted by the Common Council of The City of Saint John in Common Council as follows: A By -law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Respecting the Licensing of Peddlers and Hawkers in The City of Saint John" enacted on the 5'h day of July, 2004, is hereby amended as follows: 1 Appendix E — "No Peddling or Hawking"— is amended by adding the following words under the following headings: ARRETE MODIFIANT L' ARRETE REGLEMENT ANT LA DELIVRANCE DE PERMIS AUX COLPORTEURS DANS THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Lors dune reunion du conseil communal, The City of Saint John a d6cr6td ce qui suit : L'arret6 r6glementant la d6livrance de permis aux colporteurs dans The City of Saint John, d6cr&6 le 5 juillet, 2004, est modifi6 comme suit . 1 L'Appendice E - «Aucun colportage » - est modifi6 par I'adjonction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : Place Time Endroit Fallsview Anytime Pare Fallsview Park IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Sea] of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * * * ** of * * * ** , A.D. 2011 signed by: First Reading Second Reading Third Reading Mayor /Maire Heure en tout temps EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sccau communal sur le present arret6 le * * * * * ** 2011, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/greffi6re communale - June 6, 2011 Premi6re lecture - June 6, 2011 Deuxi6me lecture - Troisi6me lecture 151 - le 6 juin 2011 - le 6 juin 2011 The City of Saint john June 20, 2011 His Worship Mayor Court And Councillors SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — Sandy Point Road Area A Public Presentation was made on May 9th, 2011 for a proposed amendment to the Municipal Development Plan which would re- designate on Schedule 2 -A of the Municipal Plan, from Low Density Residential to Open Space, parcels of land located to the southeast of Sandy Point Road, between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land located between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive, also identified as portions of PID numbers 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 and 00052548, to permit a park. The required advertising has been completed, and attached you will find a copy of the public notice and insertion order of the proposed municipal plan amendment as well as letters of support, some with conditions attached. If Council wishes, it may choose to refer the matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation and authorize the necessary advertising with a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, or not to proceed with the proposed amendment process, and adopt a resolution to deny the application and receive the attached documentation for information. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Gormley Common Clerk Attachment SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada L-L 4L i I www.saingcjhi ix. a C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L40 152 City of Saint John INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER Newspaper Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (SJTJ= Saint John Telegraph Journal) SJTJ City Information Ad Date(s): Tuesday, April 26h, 2011 ONLY Information for Ad (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc,) Section Headline: ❑ General Notice ❑ Tender ❑ Proposal IN Public Notice Sub- Headline if applicable): Text: INSERT ATTACHED Call to Action: Elizabeth Gormley, Common C1erk/Greffiere comnunale Contact: Telephone: (506) 658 -2862 153 I PUBLIC NOTICE AVIS PUBLIC Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider an amendment to the Municipal Development Plan which would redesignate on Schedule 2 -A of the Plan, from Lori Density Residential to Open Space, the following properties: Parcels of land located to the southeast of Sandy Point Road, between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land located between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive, also identified as portions of PID Nos. 00418129, 55059026, 55059034. 55196380 and 00052548, as illustrated below. A public presentation of the . proposed amendment will take place at a regular meeting of Common Council on Monday, May 9, 2011 in the Council Chamber, Lobby Level, City Hall. REASON FOR CHANGE: To permit a park. Written objections to the proposed amendment may be made to the Council, in care of the undersigned. by June 8, 2011. Enquiries may be made at the office of the Common Clerk or Planning and Development, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. If you require French services for a Common Council meeting, please contact the office of the Common Clerk. Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk 658 -2862 Par les pr6sentes, un avis public est donne par lequel le conseil communal de The City of Saint John a ]'intention d'6tudier la modification du plan d'amenagement municipal visant a faire passer la classification du bien -fonds suivant. a I'annexe 2 -A du plan, de Zone residentielle de faible densite A zone des espaces rerls : des parcelles de terrain situees au sud -est du chemin Sandy Point, entre 1'avenue University et le jardin zoologique Cherry Brook, et une parcelle de terrain situee entre le chemin Sandy Point et la promenade Samuel Davis, etant aussi des parties des NID 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 et 00052548, comme le montre la carte ci- dessous. N A Une presentation publique du projet de modification aura lieu logs de ]a reunion ordinaire du conseil communal le lundi 9 mai 2011 dans la salle du conseil. au niveau du hall d'entree, a 116tel de ville. RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION: Permettre un parc. Veuillez faire part au conseil par ecrit de vos objections au projet de modification au plus lard le 8 juin 2011 a ]'attention de ]a soussigne'e. Pour toute demande de renseignements, veuillez communiquer avec le bureau de ]a grefFiere communale ou le bureau de l'urbanisme et du developpement A 116tel de ville au 15, Market Square, Saint John, N. -B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du lundi au vendredi, sauf les jours feries. Si vows exigez des services frangais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal, s'il vows plait contacter le bureau de ]a grefliere communale. Elizabeth Gormley, grefpiere communale 658 -2862 154 4717326 v✓ VI i WE Cjj�'j lkllql��M kh. -- � Ar Ed IhW-, ■ I X155 t� Z His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and the members of Common Council City of Saint John PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 May 30, 2011 RE: Amendment to the Municipal Development Plan which would redesignate on Schedule 2 -A of the Plan, from Low Density Residential to Open Space parcels of land located to the southeast of sandy Point road between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo and a parcel of land located between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive. Friends of Rockwood Park appreciate and support that Council has decided that the Rockwood Park boundaries be legally defined as they have been historically known, as Sandy Point Road, Foster Thurston Drive, The Throughway and lands around Lily Lake. FORP Inc. supports the proposed amendments, with the exception of two sites. The Municipal Plan was updated and approved by Council in February 1998. This document recognized Rockwood Park and Tucker Park as "open spaces of regional significance... should be preserved and integrated with an open space system extending throughout the city." Friends of Rockwood Park support these statements. In the Council meeting on January 31, 2011, the City Manager was directed to submit a report with respect to the cost for remediation of 1671 Sandy Point Road (also known as Harrigan Lake property.) The Staff Report M & C 201151, dated March 24, for the Council meeting on March 28, 2011 Re: Sandy Point Road Planning Study mentions that the matter is now in the hands of Municipal Operations and Engineering. In a letter to Council dated February 10, 2011 Friends of Rockwood Park Inc. asked that the Harrigan Lake property at # 1671 Sandy Point Road (PID # 00418129) be remediated. We are not aware of any remediation plans for this site to date. We support the re- designation of this site from Low Density residential to Open Space but would like to know the future plans for this site. Draining storm water into the wetland area surrounding Lake Harrigan is, we feel, polluting the lake and over time will damage the beauty, the fish habitat and the nesting sites of ducks and loons. In our opinion, the placing of tons of fill over a wetland without a permit from the Department of the Environment was wrong. The site to -day is unsightly and uninviting. Regarding the property identified between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive (PID # 00052548), FORP Inc. does not support changing this site from Low Density Residential to Open Space as this is the site of the Howe's Lake dump and is a toxic site. It will take huge sums of money to remediate and definitely should not become part of Rockwood Park. When questioned at a council meeting, Former City Manager, Terrance Totten said that the site was not safe to walk on. If it can't be used as Open Space or Park, then it should not be part of the park. Respectfully submitted, Joan Pearce, Friends of Rockwood Park, Inc. 352 Pelton Road, Saint John, NB, E2K 5H7 652 -1551 0-e, F_V_� C� U 156 Tibbits, Kelly From: Taylor, Jonathan Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 2:54 PM To: Tibbits, Kelly Subject: FW: Zoning - Sandy Point Road Kelly, For the Sandy Pt Rd file From: Mona Crowley [mailto:tom.crowley @rogers.com] Sent: Friday, May 27, 20118:48 AM To: Gormley, Elizabeth Subject: Zoning - Sandy Point Road Attention: His Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council We would like to express our views on the zoning of Sandy Point Road. We strongly recommend that single family houses be allowed to be built in this area: 1) The city has already gone to considerable expense to put in services. 2) Single dwelling units would act as a protection for the park. They would not infringe on the park in any way and would not create any significant traffic. These dwellings would prevent future development (such as multiple family dwellings, condos, etc.) which in all probability would adversely effect the park and would definitely cause major traffic problems. 3) More single family homes would add to the protection of current single family dwellings - having homes instead of vacant land where people could wander in leaving garbage and creating other problems. 4) Although minimal, it would create much needed additional tax revenue for the city. 5) We recommend that each building lot (with one house per lot) must abut Sandy Point Road. Thomas & Mona Crowley 29 Crowley Road Saint John, B E2K 5J1 157 Sandy Point Road (Millidgeville) Neighbourhood Group His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council, City of Saint John, PO Box 1971, Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 June 4, 2011 Your Worship and Members of Common Council, RE: Proposed Municipal Development Plan Amendment (from Low Density Residential to Open Space) for city -owned Rockwood Park lands along Sandy Point Road. SPRNG — The Sandy Point Road Neighbourhood Group — includes the residents who live or own property on and near the section of Sandy Point Road that stretches from University Avenue to Foster Thurston Drive. We exist to help achieve planned development in our neighbourhood that enhances the quality and serviceability of our neighbourhood, protects Rockwood Park, and addresses municipal development priorities. We congratulate the City in seeking to restore and secure the boundaries of Rockwood Park in our neighbourhood and support the staff recommendations as described in the May 9th Public Presentation, with the following two exceptions: a. Howe's Lake and the former dumpsite Current MDP: Low Density Residential Current Zoning: RS -2 Proposed: MDP: Open Space Proposed Zoning: P SPRNG Recommendation: Maintain current MDP. Remove this land from the planned borders of Rockwood Park. This land has, historically, not been part of Rockwood Park. This is a toxic dumpsite and, we believe, should not be considered part of the park, nor should its MDP be re- designated, until the site is cleaned up and safe to use. 158 b. Former site of the Peacock's sip by Sam Davis Drive intersection Current MDP: Low Density Residential Current Zoning: P Proposed MPD: No change Proposed Zoning: No change This sliver of land is inside the new park boundary but is not included in the proposed MDP amendment. Was it left out for some reason, or a simple oversight? SPRNG Recommendation: Re- designate this land to Open Space and re -zone to P -2. It is a natural part of Rockwood Park and could serve as a part of the new gateway, as recommended in an earlier staff report. Thank you for considering these two recommendations. Respectfully submitted on behalf of SPRNG, Moni a Chaperlin 1711 Sandy Point Road Saint John NB, E2K 5E8 "Atsko Nose 1687 Sandy Point Road Saint John, NB E2K 5E8 *Please Note: this letter was distributed to SPRNG's email list prior to submission for feedback and two on the list asked to be excluded. 159 June 6, 2011 Mayor and Council c/o Common Clerk, Elizabeth Gormley City Hall, 15 Market Square Saint John, N.B. Mayor and Council and Planning Department Staff, I am writing to express my total support for rezoning changes proposed to the Municipal Development Plan that would re- designate the area along Sandy Point Road from Low - density residential to Open Space. However, I don't understand why the city wishes to re- designate Howe's Lake as Open Space for park, I do not agree with this unless it is determined that this property can be restored and there is a viable and affordable plan to do so. It is my understanding that this former dump is still leaching toxic substances. I would like to thank those members of Common Council who listened to the public. There were many citizens who expressed that they wanted the borders of the park along Sandy Point Road left undeveloped. I am happy that Council realizes the value of Rockwood Park and will enhance it's size and attributes for the well being of citizens and the environment. Sincerely, Mokhtaria Benhatck Saint John, N.B. 160 June 6, 2011 Mayor and Council c/o Common Clerk, Elizabeth Gormley City Hall, 15 Market Square Saint John, N.B. Mayor and Council and Planning Department Staff, I am writing a letter to you about Rockwood Park and this is my 3`d or 4`}' letter on the topic. I have lost track. I hope that this will be the last "public consultation" before the park is finally rezoned as parkland it should be. I believe that the citizens have spoken many times and were clear about their wishes. I am writing to express my total support for rezoning changes to the Municipal Development Plan that would re- designate the area along Sandy Point Road from Low - density residential to Open Space. I also wish to state that I believe the property at #1671 Sandy point Road should also be designated for park land use and not for residential development. As it stands now, it is a mess and needs to restored to its former state. I don't understand why the city wishes to re- designate Howe's Lake as Open Space for park, I do not agree with this unless it is determined that this property can be restored and there is a viable plan to do so. It is my understanding that this former dump is still leaching toxic substances. It sounds like a lost cause. It does not add anything to the park. I would like to thank those members of Common Council who listened to the public. There were many citizens who expressed that they wanted the borders of the park along Sandy Point Road left undeveloped. I am happy that Council realizes the value of Rockwood Park and will enhance it's size and attributes for the well being of citizens and the environment. Since ely, Cindy Kilpatr' Saint John, N.B. 161 HORST SAUERTEIG 88 ]icdeli Ave., :iamt John, N.B., E2K -I 4, phoiw (506 ) 658 -1 326. c -waii sauert%v2j6mb.sFinaaU2o ca June 7, 2011 To the Common Council of the City of Saint John in care of Ms. Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk Re.: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment for designated lots along Sandy Point Road (SPR) Your Worship and Councillors, In the above Proposed Amendment the term 'Open Space' is used, but on the City's website the Municipal Development Plan has no definition for it. I assume, because in the Amendment the Reason For Change' is 'to permit a park', that the 'park' definition in the Municipal By -law applies for the 'Open Space' term. However, the Municipal By -Iaw permits one - family dwellings on 1 acre lots in a'park' [P] zoned area. It should be clearly stated that there will be no housing construction permitted in Rockwood Park (RP). In the past the above 'park' zoning has on occasion been changed to RS -1 and residences have been constructed on smaller lots in what originally was part of RP. As you know, the park was created by an Act of the NB Legislature in 1893 for the purpose: "To establish gardens, a park and pleasure resort in the city..... and to acquire for such purpose...... all such land, lakes, ponds and premises as may be necessary ...... for that purpose...... and to hold same..... forever ". As I interpret this section of the Act, all land acquisitions by the City at any time past, present or in the future, for "the purpose to add land to RP ", are bound by this Act which has been in force since 1893. Whereas the City acquired all lands within RP for the purpose of adding them to the park the above limitations for their usage should apply to all lands comprising RP, in order to comply with the Act. This should form part of the Proposed Amendment, and it would prevent misguided decisions like the Planning Department establishing in its "SPR Planning Study - Project Statement - Version 1" an up to 450m (1475') deep'Study Zone' into RP along SPR "because prospective buyers had expressed interest in the land ". The Amendment has to state categorically that within RP no housing developments, no individual residential housing and no industrial construction will be permitted 'ever'. Another item in the Proposed Amendment is the addition to RP of an area between Sam Davis Drive and SPR which includes the contaminated Howes Lake and the Right of Way for a Power Line and the Brunswick Pipeline. This leaves very little land (and water) which would tit the description of RP as it is portrayed in the City's tourist pamphlets, a RP which the citizens of the city cherish and proudly identify with. 162 This addition to the park had been proposed in the ADl's 'Professional Opinion' as compensation for the loss of park land along SPR to proposed housing developments. Since no such housing developments will be built, RP does not lose land and does not need to be compensated with what can only be described as an alien liability to our pristine RP. Who will be held responsible if children or visitors, who earlier enjoyed a swim in Fisher Lake, jump in a hot night into Howes Lake and suffer a toxic shock? This proposed addition would need a parking area, lots and lots of fencing, some safe way to cross SPR from or into RP and, being bordered by two roads, needs a lot of maintenance to keep it neat and free of dumped trasb. It all costs money the city does not have, and for what purpose? RP is big enough without this proposed addition. Should money be available for RP it should be spent on the maintenance of its trails and bridges, which is now being done by private citizens using their own time and money. This leaves for comments the infamous lot # 1671, where the City has savaged park land above Harrigan Lake by dumping large quantities of surplus rock excavation which closed down the trail around the lake and Harrigan Falls, which was a little brook who cascaded into the lake from a wetland which was also destroyed. The City than put into this huge rock pile a pipeline which discharges contaminated surface water from SPR into Harrigan Lake. Most of the surface area is bulldozed flat, and an earlier Planning Department plan shows a housing development with relatively small lots for one - family houses. With the hoped for approval by Common Council of an Amendment which takes into account the above comments, such a use for lot # 1671 is no longer an option. Lot # 1671 is left a blank on the map attached to the Proposed Amendment, and I have been told that its zoning is divided into a front- and a back part. Whatever is the present and/or future zoning, it should form part of the Proposed Amendment because this lot, where all the protests about the SPR and RP started, attracted much interest from concerned citizens in the city and beyond who are curious about its final destination. This lot should at the present time be left undeveloped until a proper usage within the limitations of the 1893 Act, and the money for it, can be found; but as a first step the sewer line should be blocked as soon as this is feasible. It is unacceptable, and probably unlawful, that contaminated surface water from SPR is discharged into Harrigan Lake, to which eventually more surface water from a developed lot # 1671 will be added. Except for the above comments I salute the Proposed Municipal Amendment. It is a positive step to establish the park boundary along SPR and to maintain its country atmosphere. Hopefully the Amendment will also protect RP from future attempts by developers and consultants to put high -rise and high- priced ghettos into the park, which would threaten the park's intended purpose of offering a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities as well as the revitalizing enjoyment of a solitary wilderness area within Saint John to its citizens as well as to its many visitors during all seasons of the year. Yours truly, P / ,f ' Pm kzq e (H. Sauerteig) 2 163 Attention His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council: We welcome the chance to comment on the zoning regarding Sandy Point Road. We built on Sandy Point Road in 2008 and were glad of the opportunity and believed at the time that there would be more new houses being built as at that time there were more lots available. We recommend building lots to be made available for single family home owners along Sandy Point Road: - building adjacent to Rockwood Park would ensure no further development could take place behind these homes, it would act a buffer zone. This would alleviate the concern of the issues that has been brought up by the "friends of Rockwood Park" - the City of Saint John would receive the money from the sale of the lot, the payment for the water levy plus yearly property taxes. - This money would help recoup the costs of the water line that was put here a few years ago. - These lots could attract hospital workers, university staff /students due to the proximity. Maybe we could keep people in the city. As the sign along this road says "If you lived here, you would be home" - There would be no extra infrastructure costs for the City to sell these lots. - Due to the favorable weather in this area, and knowing that new homes will be built should be a good selling point to attract buyers, more tax base. It seems like a win win for the City and for the new homeowners who could make their home along Sandy Point Road. Mark and Susan Court 1375 Sandy Point Road Saint John, NB Elk 5E6 693 -9367 164 Attention His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council: We welcome the chance to comment on the zoning regarding Sandy Point Road. We believe Single Family Dwelling be allowed to be build in the area. We believe that those who live in our north end community should have a strong voice to detennine our north end community. Reasons: 1. The city has invested money in water and sewerage for the area in order to create tax revenue. 2. The area is presently zoned for single family. 3. Single Family housing will protect Rockwood Park boundaries by preventing future development. 4. Through traffic may slow down if there was less isolation. 5. Our community will be upgraded by new housing in the area. Recommendation: We recommend that each building lot with one house border on Sandy Point Road protecting the park from future development and allowing new housing to enhance our north end community. Gary and Colleen Knudson 977 Kennebecasis Drive /Owner 1371 Sandy Point Road Saint John, N.B. 658 -1734 165 Saint John Fundy Chapter Conservation Council of New Brunswick May 19, 2011 Mayor and Council City of Saint John c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk Dear Mayor and Council: In response to the public notice given by common council whereby the City of Saint John intends to consider an amendment to the municipal development plan which would redesignate parcels of land along the Sandy Point Road between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo from low density residential to open space. The Saint John Fundy Chapter Conservation Council of New Brunswick is in full support of the redesignation of these properties to open space. These properties were originally acquired by the city years ago to be used as open space added to Rockwood Park. These properties were never built upon or developed. Furthermore, their only human use for over 35 years has been by hikers, naturalists and the general public observing and enjoying the natural areas within Rockwood Park. These properties have always provided important natural buffering and protection for Rockwood Park and require protection from any kind of development. Respectfully submitted, David H. Thompson, Director 279 Mansfield Place Saint John, NB E2M 3A4 166 Gmall - Compose Mall - peggyw.campbeil@gmall.com TO: Mayor and Council; PAC RE: Amendment to the Municipal Development Plan May 18 2011 18 /05/11 1:34 PM I am writing in FAVOR of the proposed amendment to redesignate from "low density residential" to "open space" the parcels of land to the southeast of Sandy Point Road between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land located between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive. I am writing this letter on behalf of the Saint John Worship Group of the Religious Society of Friends. commonly called the Quakers.The reason for this proposed change is "to permit a park." The Quakers have a long history of ::.: Er. ;m about environmental issues. We are, therefore, entirely in favor of this proposal which will help protect Rockwood Park in the future. Thank you for your attention. Peggy Campbell PL�7 Comp6ej r a MAY 2 4 6`1 n. Member, New Brunswick Monthly Meeting, Quakers 59 Brentwood Crescent Saint John E2K 4S1 167 June 6, 2011 Mayor and Council c/o Common Clerk„ Elizabeth. Gormley City Hall, 15 Market Square Saint John, N.B. Mayor and Council and Planning Department Staff, I am writing to express my total support for rezoning changes to the Municipal Development Plan that would redesignate the area along Sandy Point Road from Low density residential to Open Space (which I'm assuming and hoping protects it as "parkland "). I am unclear from the drawing provided if this also applies to 1671 Sandy Point Road but I wish to state that this property should certainly be designated for park land use and not for residential development. If it is the intent of the city to redesignate Howes Lake as Open Space for park, I do not agree with this unless it is ascertained that this property can be remediated and there is a plan to do so. It is my understanding that this former dump is still leaching toxic substances that can be seen in the surface water of streams in that area. Even if this area can be restored for safe use, I have no doubt that the cost would be prohibitive. So why include it in the park? What does it offer if it can't be used? I would like to thank those members of Common Council who listened to the public. There were many citizens who espressed that they wanted the borders of the park along Sandy Point Road left undeveloped. It is my sincere hope that from here on in, that this and future Councils will realize the value of Rockwood Park and enhance it's size and attributes for the well being of citizens and the environment. Sincerely, Denise Ainsworth Saint John, N.B. .: June 06, 2011 Common Clerk Elizabeth Gormley City Hall, 15 Market Square Saintlohn, N.B. Dear Ms. Gormley, Mayor and Council Members As a user of Rockwood Park, l am endorsing the city's Future Land Use Plan that would see the areas along Sandy Point Road rezoned from Low Density Residential to Open Space. 1 am in support of rezoning all the properties along SPR that were being considered for development for park use only. Yours truly, i2 C XtA, � Catherine Collins Saintlohn, NB 169 .' Ott-,/ Ms. Dorothy Dawson 358 Douglas Ave Saint John, NS E2K 1 V 170 June 8, 2011 Mayor and Council, City of Saint John c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk 15 Market Square Saint John NB Re: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment - Sandy Point Road Area Dear Mayor and Council: 1 wish to express my support for the redesignation of land along the Sandy Point Road in the area described in this notice (with the exception of the parcel of land located between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive). Your decision to respond in favour of abandoning plans to develop the area located southeast of Sandy Point Road has made a huge difference in my attitude toward City Hall. Having suffered through the pipeline issue and the alienation felt by the result of that fiasco, I did not have much hope that democracy would prevail in this instance. However, I am very happy to have been proven wrong. As a result of your concern for the wishes of the people, I for one am a much happier and contented Saint Johner knowing that Council will listen. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Betty i_izztt� 171 114 Sandy Point Road Saint John NB E2K 3R8 PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT RE., SANDY POINT ROAD AREA Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider an amendment to the Municipal Development Plan which would redesignate on Schedule 2 -A of the Plan, from Low Densky Rerlden iar to Open Spree. the following propertles: Parcels of land located to the southeast of Sandy Point Road. between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land Ideated between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive, also identified as portions of P1D Nos. 40418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 and 00052548. as illustratod below. (INSERT MAP] A public presentation of the proposed amendment %Sill take place at a regular meeting of Common Council on Monday. May 9, 2011 in the Council Chamber. Lobby Level. City Hall. REASON FOR CHANGE: To perm it a park. Written objections to the proposed an►cndment may be made to the Council, in care of the undersigned, by June k 2011. Enquiries may be made at the office of the Common Clerk or Planning and Development_ City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:34 p.m.. Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. If you require French services for a Common Council meetinx please contact the office of the Common Clerk. Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk 658 -2862 47 11 VMS Tvrj June 8, 2011 Mayor and Council, City of Saint John c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk 15 Market Square Saint John NB Re: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment - Sandy Point Road Area Dear Mayor and Council: 114 Sandy Point Road Saint John NB E2K 3RB I wish to express my s, upport for the redesignation of land to "open space" along the Sandy Point Road in the area described in your notice and map. Yours truly, 4�7 Ernestine Rooney 172 Mayor and Council, c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB E21- 41-1 I support the municipal plan amendment to incorporate the various lots along Sandy Point Road and around Howes Lake in keeping with the open space zoning for Rockwood Park. I approve the Planning Departments recommendations for amendments to Municipal Plan for Sandy point Road. Name: � �a r'�i Address: ) )`146 C v � 0 rni�j �l Postal Code: `z � Q; 173 Mayor and Council, c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Please change parcels as stated in municipal plan amendment from low- density residential to open space. I approve the Planning Departments recommendations for amendments to Municipal Plan for Sandy point Road. Name: Av\y_(a, &Z_� Address: (2) Ptce' Posta I Code: F2E Stf 174 Mayor and Council, c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB E 2 L 41.1 Please return the land to Rockwood Park by folding the parcels, along with property surrounding Howes Lake, into Rockwood Park. I approve the Planning Departments recommendations for amendments to Municipal Plan for Sandy point Road. Name: 5601t-f 7) 1P lcvr —✓l Address: 3,9 C—d*e, u-e Postal Code: ,^a� /P J 175 Mayor and Council, c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 I escape to Rockwood Park all year and enjoy all of Rockwood Park areas. Please fold the parcels, along with property surrounding Howes Lake, into Rockwood Park. I approve the Planning Departments recommendations for amendments to Municipal Plan for Sandy point Road. Name: Address:[/ /•��1 Postal Code: L 3 oQ 0 176 Mayor and Council, c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB E21- 41-1 I enjoy Rockwood Park and do not wish to see it divided any other way that what was thought previously. Please fold the parcels, along with property surrounding Howes Lake, into Rockwood Park. I approve the Planning Departments recommendations for amendments to Municipal Plan for Sandy point Road. C rn c�.0 Name: SkCUO Address: 3-1 wJ' ! he Ave— Sw 14 `.JUI' ]r� Q, B Postal Code:3 177 Mayor and Council, c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NS E2L 41-1 Please make Rockwood Park whole again. Fold the parcels, along with property surrounding Howes Lake, into Rockwood Park. I approve the Planning Departments recommendations for amendments to Municipal Plan for Sandy point Road. U�7j ce � xr Address: Postal Code: C,.,2L - ,fix $ 178 Mayor and Council, c/o Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB E21-41-1 Please change the proposed park land back to Rockwood Park's original status. I approve the Planning Departments recommendations for amendments to Municipal Plan for Sandy point Road. Name: i�WV-1 grC_ & l Address: tt6 � ,5utc 1)rij Postal Code: E 2M 179 June 9, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Rainbow Park Splash pad The Rainbow Park splash pad is already a hit! Many children and families are utilizing this new recreational opportunity in their neighbourhood! It is quickly becoming a new gathering place for families which creates a place where people can connect with others in their community. Clearly, this new attraction will be a very busy place that will provide a better quality of life for all our residents, especially in the south /uptown area! Motion: Receive for information Respectively Submitted, (received via e-mail) Councillor Donnie Snook lr - SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1471 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 :1 Fg 7F -yw k r w wo- qf P V- June 12, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Vacant and derelict buildings Common Council has advocated for the creation of tougher regulations and legislation to address the issue of vacant and derelict buildings in our municipality. On Friday, June 9, 2011 new legislation was passed, allowing Saint John to move forward with the changes this Council demanded. Personally, I want to thank all who were involved in advocating successfully for these important changes. I propose that we move immediately to implement the "Derelict Buildings Proposed Bylaw" dated April 23, 2009. While I realize that the passed legislation is immediately in effect, it is critical we locally translate the passage of broad Provincial legislation into meaningful policies and procedures for our municipality. Motion: I propose that appropriate and immediate action be taken be taken to implement the "Derelict Buildings Proposed Bylaw" as presented to City Council in the staff report dated April 23, 2009. Respectively Submitted, (received via e-mail) Councillor Donnie 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 182 6/16/2011 Your Worship Ivan Court Members of Common Council City of Saint John Dear Mayor Court and Members of Council Motion: The Common Clerk's Department publish a comprehensive listing of appointments that Common Council make to committees. The listing is to include (at a minimum) the name of the organization, terms of reference for the organization, expected time commitments, regular meeting times and any remuneration (monetary or in -kind) received by the appointee for the work done on that particular committee on behalf of the city. Further, this information is to be published on the City Website no later than the end of October of this year. Early in this council's mandate we debated a standing committee system of council. This was tabled until the end of Common Council's term in order to set expectations for any potential incoming councilors. Along this same line of thinking, this information will be very valuable for that debate. Citizens who may wish to become more engaged with their city require more information than simply the short listing that is currently available on our website. I have personally received enquiries regarding commitment expectations on city appointed committees and have had difficulty accessing the information simply because it is not gathered in one spot. Our appointments receive compensation ranging from nothing to significant financial remuneration. In all fairness, those wishing to submit their names to various committees should know what to expect in return. Respectfully Submitted (received via e -mail) Gary Sullivan (P4 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 183 SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1471 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 ---------- —� ., xs`til,iyi June 20, 2011 Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council: Issue: Economic Development Specialist for The City of Saint John Context: • Council recently adopted the recommendations from the Mayor's Task Force on Economic Development. • Input from Economic Development Expert David Campbell has identified the need for The City of Saint John to have within the organization an `economic development specialist'. • Both the cities of Moncton and Fredericton have a team of such a resource within their organizational structures. • The City of Saint John currently invests between 8 -10 million dollars per year on economic development. • No 'new' dollars should be utilized for this position — funding must be achieved from the current economic development allotment. • Knowing the City Manager is extremely involved in pension reform efforts - this motion is to be acted upon only once pension reform activities are terminated. Motion: That the City Manager, through collaboration with key staff, recommend a means of funding the posij*tb" 1p of economic development with The City of Saint John. Res sub d ter McGui Councillor — City of Saint John 4-4)-, 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 4Li 185 � � 1 June 20, 2011 Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council: Issue: Morna Heights School Preservation Context: • Over the last several weeks people from this area have been diligently organizing their efforts. • Many pieces of communication have been forwarded to the local MLA and Minister of Education stating the merits of their 'neighbourhood school'. • Several key organizers attended the June District Education Council (DEC) meeting where policy 409 was invoked. • Strategy meetings have taken place amongst dedicated volunteers. • Short and long term strategies are being identified. • A meeting with MLA Jim Parrot has been agreed to — Wednesday, June 22 at KBM — 7PM. • Residents are hopeful at this meeting that MLA Parrot will publically state he supports keeping Morna Heights School 'ppeW. • Residents are inviting Mayor Court and interested Councillors to attend. Motion: That this report be received for information. Resp ly mitted i eter McGuire Councillor — City of Saint John 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 186 ter' r All 1 r J (i4 )-- SAINT JOHN -----------r June 8, 2011 Common Council of The City of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Saint John Traffic By -Law Amendment — Schedule R Champlain Street At its meeting of June b, 2011, it was recommended to Common Council that it amend the Saint John Traffic By-Law (the `By -law ") so as to regulate the parking of vehicles on Champlain Street between the limits of Maple Row to Duke Street West. Section 113(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, Ch. M -17, authorizes local authorities (a "local authority" includes a municipality) to regulate the standing or parking of vehicles. The City has, at subparagraph 5(9)(a) of the By -law, designated streets excluded from winter on -street parking restriction between the hours of OOh01 and 07hOO in Schedule "R ". Champlain Street between Charlotte Street West to Maple Row is currently listed in Schedule "R" and the attached amendment will result in the desired change requested in M & C Report 2011 -135. Common Council may, if it so wishes, give first and second reading to the attached amendment. Respect lly submitted, Joh . Nugent City Solicitor Attachment P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L4L1 187 A BY -LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING TRAFFIC ON STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1973, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ARRETLs MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF A LA CIRCULATION DANS LES RUES DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN EDICTS CONFORMEMENT A LA LOI SUR LES VEHICULES A MOTEUR (1973) ET MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lars d'une reunion du conseil municipal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a decr&6 ce qui suit: A By -law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Traffic On Streets In The City of Saint John Made 'Under The Authority of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and Amendments Thereto ", enacted on the 19'' day of December, A.D. 2005, is hereby amended as follows: 1 Schedule R — List of Streets Excluded from Winter On- Street Parking Restriction — is amended by deleting the following words under the following headings: Streets Limits Champlain St. Charlotte Street West to Maple Row 2 Schedule R — List of Streets Excluded from Winter On- Street Parking Restriction — is amended by adding the following words under the following headings: Streets Limits Champlain St. Maple Row to Duke Street West Par les presentes, Parretti de The City of Saint John intitule « Arr6tu relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John edicte conformement A la Lai sur les vehicules a moteur (1973) et modifications afferentes >>, decrete le 19 decembre 2005, est modifie comme suit: 1 L'annexe R — Liste des rues exemptes de la restriction de stationnement sur rue pendant Phiver — est modifiee par la suppression des mots suivants sous les titres suivants: Rues Limites rue Champlain de la rue Charlotte ouest au rang Maple 2 L'annexe R — Liste des rues exemptes de la restriction de stationnement sur rue pendant 1'hiver — est modifiee par Fadjonction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants: Rues Limites rue Champlain rang Maple a la rue Duke ouest IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the day of June, A.D., 2011 signed by: Mayor /maire EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau municipal sur le present arrete le juin 2011, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/greffidre communale First Reading - Premiere lecture Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture City Solicitor's Office Bureau de l'avocat municipal The City of Sint John June 16, 2011 Common Council of The City of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings By -law - Resolution At its meeting of November 17, 2008, a number of resolutions facilitating enforcement proceedings were adopted with respect to the Saint John Minimum Property Standards By -Law and Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings By -law. As a result of the new amendment to the Municipalities Act pursuant to Section 190.01(1.1), a new resolution needs to be adopted in order to appoint and authorize staff to notify owners and occupiers with respect to buildings or structures that are a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of being vacant or unoccupied and also to lay informations in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick. Consequently, it is recommended that Council adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, paragraph 190.01(3) of the Municipalities Act, supra, provides that an officer appointed by council may notify the owner or occupier of a building or structure by notice in the form prescribed by regulation when a condition exists pursuant to paragraph 190.01(1.1) of the said Act: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that each of William Edwards, David G. M. Crawford, Amy Poffenroth and Pamela Bentley, is hereby appointed and authorized to notify owners and occupiers with respect to buildings or structures that are a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of being vacant or unoccupied, as set out in the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings By -law, and these appointments and authorizations shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Buildings and Inspection Services Department of the City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first, 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 EA 4L1 190 L Common Council June 16, 2011 Re: Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings By -law - Resolution City Solicitor Page 2 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that each of William Edwards, David G. M. Crawford, Amy Poffenroth, and Pamela Bentley, is hereby designated and authorized to lay informations in the Provincial Court of the Province of New Brunswick for breach of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings By -law, and these designations and authorizations shall continue until they cease to be employees of the Buildings and Inspection Services Department of the City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first. 191 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL OPEN SESSION M &C2011 -161 June 16, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: C f City of Saint John SUBJECT An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act, Bill 42 receives Royal Assent on June 10, 2011 Staff is pleased to report to Council that Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act received third reading and Royal Assent on June 10, 2011. The amendments to Section 190 of the Municipalities Act will allow municipalities in New Brunswick to more adequately address vacant and unoccupied buildings or structures that have become a hazard to the safety of the public. Section 190.01 has been amended to include subsection (1.1) which states: "190.01 (1.1) No person shall permit a building or structure owned or occupied by him or her to become a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of being vacant or unoccupied." The amendments have added new provisions to section 190.01 of the Municipalities Act, essentially expanding the types of building conditions that can be pursued by a municipality to include vacant and unoccupied buildings. The enforcement tools available are the same as they have been for dangerous conditions and unsightly premises, such as appeals, Notices to Comply, tickets, remedial actions and the ability to recover costs of taking remedial action. For the City of Saint John, this amendment means that it can now take action on vacant or unoccupied buildings or structures that have been identified as a concern by Council, citizens and neighbourhoods, but did not apply to the previous provisions of section 190 of the Municipalities Act. 192 M &C2011 -161 -2- June 16, 2011 No By -law amendments are required, as the Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings By -law (the `By -law ") adopts sections 190.001 to 190.07 of the Municipalities Act, which includes the amendments. However, the City Solicitor's Office will, in the near future, be presenting to Council a revised By -law which will incorporate the new drafting format for City by -laws. As it now stands, staff is able to enforce the new provisions of the By -law right away. Buildings and Inspection Services are working with the Legal Department to determine criteria and a process to incorporate the new provisions into the well established procedures already in use. For Council's review, Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act is attached. RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends that this report be received and filed Respectfully submitted, Amy Poffenroth, P. Eng., MBA Deputy Commissioner Buildings and Inspection Services Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager Attachment 193 1st Session, 57th Legislature New Brunswick 59 -60 Elizabeth II, 2010 -2011 BILL 42 An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act Read first time: June 1, 2011 Read second time: Committee: Read third time: 111 session, 571 legislature Nouveau- Brunswick 59 -60 Elizabeth II, 2010 -2011 PROJET DE LOI 42 Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites Premiere lecture : le 11L juin 2011 Deuxieme lecture: Comite : Troisieme lecture : HON. BRUCE FITCH L'HON. BRUCE FITCH 194 2011 BILL 42 An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, enacts as fol- lows: 1 Section 190.01 of the Municipalities Act, chapter M -22 of the Revised Statutes, 1973, is amended (a) in subsection (1) of the French version in the portion preceding paragraph a) by striking out "qu 'il possede "and substituting "qui lui appartiennent"; (b) by adding after subsection(]) the following 190.01(l. 1) No person shall permit a building or struc- ture owned or occupied by him or her to become a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of being vacant or unoccupied. (c) in subsection (2) of the French version by strik- ing out "qu'il possede ou occupe" and substituting "qui lui appartiennent ou qu'il occupe "; (d) in subsection (2.1) by striking out "subsection (2) "and substituting "subsection (1.1) or (2) "; PROJET DE LOI 42 Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites Sa Majeste, sur l'avis et avec le consentement de 1'As- semblee legislative du Nouveau - Brunswick, edicte : 1 L'article 190.01 de la Loi sur les municipalites, cha- pitre M -22 des Lois revisees de 1973, est modifie a) au paragraphe (1) de la version frangaise, au passage qui precede l'alinea a), par la suppression de u qu'il possede » et son remplacement par « qui lui appartiennent »; b) par l'adjonction de ce qui suit apres le paragra- ph e (1) : 190.01(1.1) Nul ne doit tolerer qu'un batiment ou une construction dont it est proprietaire ou qu'il occupe de- vienne dangereux pour la securite du public du fait de son inhabitation ou de son inoccupation. c) au paragraph (2) de la version frangaise, par la suppression de a qu'il possede ou occupe » et son remplacement par « qui lui appartiennent ou qu'il oc- cupe »; d) au paragraph (2.1), par la suppression de a pa- ragraph e (2) » et son remplacem en t par « paragra- phe (1.1) ou (2) »; (e) in subsection (3) e) au paragraph (3), 195 Projet de loi 42 Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites (i) in the portion preceding paragraph (a) by (i) au passage qui precede l'alinea a), par la sup - striking out "subsection (1) or (2) "andsubstituting pression de a paragraphe (1) ou (2) » et son rem - "subsection (1), (1.1) or (2) "; placementpar « paragraphe (1), (1.1) ou (2) »; (ii) in paragraph (c) by striking out "subsection (1) or (2) "and substituting "subsection (1), (1.1) or (2) "• 2 Section 190.021 of the Act is amended (a) by adding after subsection (3) the following 190.021(3.1) On an appeal with respect to a notice under section 190.011 arising out of a condition mentioned in subsection 190.01(1.1), the municipality that gave the no- tice shall have the burden of proving that the building or structure has become a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of being vacant or unoccupied. (b) in subsection (6) (i) in paragraph (a) by striking out "or "at the end of the paragraph; (ii) by repealing paragraph (b) and substituting the following: (b) with respect to a condition mentioned in subsec- tion 190.01(1) or (2), the decision is patently unreason- able, or (iii) by adding after subsection (b) the follow- ing: (c) with respect to a condition mentioned in subsec- tion 190.01(1.1), the decision is unreasonable. 3 Section 190.04 of the Act is amended (a) in subsection (1) (i) inparagraph (a)bystrikingout "or "at the end of the paragraph; (ii) by adding after paragraph (a) the following: (a. 1) if the notice arises out of a condition existing contrary to subsection 190.01(1.1), cause the building or structure of that owner or occupier to be repaired or demolished, or 2 (ii) a l'alinea c), par la suppression de a paragra- phe (1) ou (2) » et son remplacement par « para- graphe (1), (1.1) ou (2) ». 2 L'article 190.021 de la Loi est modifie a) par l'adjonction de ce qui suit apres le paragra- phe (3) : 190.021(3. 1) Sur appel concernant 1'avis que prevoit Particle 190.011 decoulant d'une situation mentionnee au paragraphe 190.01(1.1), it incombe a la municipality d'ou emane 1'avis de prouver que le batiment ou la construction en question est devenu dangereux pour la securite du pu- blic du fait de son inhabitation ou de son inoccupation. b) au paragraphe (6), (i) a l'alinea a), par la suppression de a ou » a la fin de l'alinea; (ii) par l'abrogation de l'alinea b) et son rempla- cem en t par ce qui suit b) dans le cadre d'une situation mentionnee an para- graphe 190.01(1) on (2), la decision est manifestement deraisonnable; on (iii) par l'adjonction de ce qui suit apres l'ali- neab): c) dans le cadre d'une situation mentionnee au para- graphe 190.01(1.1), la decision est deraisonnable. 3 L'article 190.04 de la Loi est modifie a) au paragraphe (1), (i) a l'alinea a), par la suppression de « ou >)d la fin de l'alinea; (ii) par l'adjonction de ce qui suit apres l'ali- neaa): a.1) si 1'avis a pour origine une situation contraire au paragraphe 190.01(1.1), faire reparer on demolir le ba- timent ou la construction de ce proprietaire ou de cet occupant, ou 196 An Act to Amend the Municipalities Act Bill 42 (b) in subsection (2) by striking out "or demolish the b) au paragraph (2), par la suppression de a ou de- building" and substituting "or repair or demolish the molir le bdtiment» et son remplacem en t par « ou re- building". parer ou demolir le batiment ». 197 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -152 June 15, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: M The City of Saint Joan SUBJECT: Contract 2011 -11: Marsh Creek— New Collector Sewer and 600mm Sanitary Force Main Installation INTRODUCTION Saint John Harbour Clean -Up is about good health, clean waterways and quality of life. City of Saint John wastewater treatment and collection systems are being enhanced to protect people and the natural environment, and to help sustain institutions and the economy. Substantial progress has been made in the wastewater service. The purpose of this report is to recommend award of the contract for the construction of Marsh Creek — New Collector Sewer and 600mm Sanitary Force Main Installation. BACKGROUND The Harbour Clean -Up Program is comprised of two major project components, the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility and a Wastewater Collection System. Construction is well underway on the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility. The design work for the Wastewater Collection System is continuing with the following projects tendered and constructed: Bayside Drive Sanitary Forcemain Phase 1 and Phase 2, Monte Cristo Lift Station #34, Red Head Road Lift Station #1, Red Head Road Lift Station #50, Bayside Drive Lift Station #2 and Newmans Brook Sewer Separation. The construction of Spar Cove Pumping Station #22, and Harbour Station SLS No. 10 & Force Main are scheduled to be completed by September 2011. The construction of Riverview Avenue SLS #30 and Force Main is scheduled to be completed by November 2011. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on June 14, 2011, for the Marsh Creek — New Collector Sewer and 600mm Sanitary Force Main Installation with the following results: 1. Gulf Operators Ltd., Saint John, NB $4,575,736.12 2. Dexter Construction Company Ltd., Bedford, NS $5,120,917.05 3. Galbraith Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB $8,721,611.20 The Engineer's estimate for the work was $4,801,540.00. .; M &C2011 -152 June 15, 2011 Page 2 ANALYSIS The tenders were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects with the exception of the tender submitted by Gulf Operators Ltd, which contained two mathematical errors. The mathematical errors were corrected in accordance with Clause 2.18(a) of Division 2 — Instructions to Tenderers and Tendering Procedures, and the corrected amount is reported herein. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Contract includes work that is charged against the 2011 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. Assuming award of the Contract to the low tenderer, an analysis has been completed which includes work that will be performed by City forces and others. The analysis concludes that a total amount of $5,041,540.00 was provided in the budget to complete the construction of the Marsh Creek — New Collector Sewer and 600mm Sanitary Force Main Installation. The projected completion cost of this Contract is estimated to be $5,060,665.91 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate, a $19,125.91 negative difference in the Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. To date, the cumulative amount committed through award of Harbour Clean -Up Program projects is $72,498,905.73 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate. The overall total estimated cost of the Harbour Clean -Up Program as reported to Council on September 28, 2009 (M &C 2009 -318) is $99,400,000 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate. POLICY — TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy for the tendering of construction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the specific project specifications. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Contract No. 2011 -11: Marsh Creek — New Collector Sewer and 600mm Sanitary Force Main Installation be awarded to the low tenderer, Gulf Operators Ltd., at the tendered price of $4,575,736.12 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering 199 J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager M &C2011 -152 June 15, 2011 Page 3 200 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -149 June 13, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation BACKGROUND M The City of Saint Joan Council commissioned development of a Stormwater Management Strategy in June 2006 after a particularly heavy rainstorm caused serious flooding in a number of areas of Saint John, including new subdivisions, as well as Marsh Creek and Glen Falls. Terrain consulting engineers (now Genivar) was engaged by Council to develop the Strategy, in which Marsh Creek was again a primary focus of attention and study. Key findings and recommendations on the Marsh Creek system were included in the Stormwater Management Strategy report presented and adopted by Council in December 2008. Terrain found that the flood risk area for Glen Falls in a 1:100 return period storm event closely approximates the flood risk area outlined in the City's Flood Risk By -law that was adopted in 1980. The latter is based on aerial photos following a severe flooding event in November 1975, and on study work performed over 30 years ago by consulting engineers Proctor and Redfern Limited. Terrain's main recommendation to reduce flooding in heavy rainfall events in Glen Falls and the Marsh Creek Drainage Basin was to divert excess runoff from tributary streams in the upper reaches of the basin into Drury Cove via a closed pipe system. The initial estimate for diversion was expensive ($18M) but the proposal held the potential to finally "solve" the periodic flooding that has been affecting Glen Falls residents and neighbouring businesses. Accordingly, Terrain was engaged to do preliminary design and a cost benefit analysis for the proposed diversion. The preliminary design and cost benefit analysis report was tabled in December 2009. The updated cost estimate for construction of the proposed piped diversion was $51,660,000. This, plus less than universal public support for the project and the potential for storm surge related flooding in the basin, halted further work on the diversion proposal. An idea was then put forward to consider relocation of residents from areas of the flood zone most at risk of future 201 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 2 flooding, and restoration of the vacated areas as natural wetlands. This suggestion was raised at a public meeting for residents of Glen Falls held on Thursday July 15, 2010 at Exhibition Park. The Mayor, members of Council, and City staff were present to provide an overview of the Stormwater Management Strategy and the status of the Preliminary Design and Cost Benefit Analysis for the piped diversion. Residents were encouraged to provide their opinions, thoughts and feedback on the potential for relocation. While citizens were not universally supportive, interest was expressed in the idea, and in what the details of such a plan might be. Forty three property owners subsequently indicated an interest, one way or another, about the idea of selling and relocating — forty one saying yes they would sell, one saying no, and another expressing interest. Since the meeting two more property owners have indicated their interest in pursuing such an option. Subsequent to the meeting at Exhibition Park the matter was considered by Council in Committee (land matter) with a staff report suggesting relocation be considered within the context of a comprehensive overall plan to address flooding in the area. Council adopted this position and the purpose of this report is to update Council, review the current situation and propose a comprehensive plan of actions for Council's consideration and direction. ANALYSIS Why Does Periodic Flooding Continue to Occur in Glen Falls? Glen Falls, and much of the surrounding area is built upon a natural flood plain, the same as parts of Fredericton, Maugerville, Oromocto and other communities are built upon the natural flood plain of the Saint John River. In severe rainstorms there is more runoff generated and directed into Marsh Creek than the channels can carry (i.e. the channels are not large enough to handle the volumes of runoff generated). Insufficient channel capacity, in places reduced further by obstructions, will cause water levels to rise in the upper channels of the Marsh Creek system. As water levels rise above storm sewer outfalls, runoff from streets and private properties cannot drain away as freely and water begins to collect in the pipe systems and to pool around street catch basins and other system inlets. Ponds grow wider and deeper as runoff collects and moves towards lower lying ground. In more severe storms, the channel banks themselves may be overtopped by water, which then flows overland via the path of least resistance. A more formal summary of contributing factors is reprised below from the Proctor and Redfern engineering reports of 1974 and 1976. Some of the individual issues noted in the points below have been addressed since then, but the basic principles are still applicable. Causes of Flooding 1. The effect of the Tide on Discharge to the Sea — during high tide when stream flow cannot be discharged from Marsh Creek into the sea, serious flooding can occur when the volume of water 202 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 3 in the system is greater than the storage volume available within the channel and undeveloped flood plain areas (e.g. forebay; Glen Falls Floodway) 2. Hydraulic Inadequacy of Bridges and Culverts — many bridges and culverts along the Creek did not have adequate capacity to transmit peak flows which occur during heavy rain — this causes a rise in water levels above or behind the structure (backwater effect) — the most significant structures in this regard are the Marsh Creek Bridge (since replaced with a clear span by NBDOT in 1982), the Strescon plant on Ashburn Road, and the Rothesay Avenue crossing near McAllister Drive ( since upgraded by NBDOT in 2001) 3. Inadequate Channel Capacity — (the already inadequate capacity of the channels) to carry flows from heavy rains have been reduced by siltation, overgrown vegetation, debris, and encroachment of building construction. 4. Development Within the Natural Floodplain — buildings erected within the natural floodplain are subjected to periodic inundation and consequent damages when stream flows exceed the channel capacity. In addition to being on a natural flood plain for Marsh Creek, much of Glen Falls and surrounding area was once a tidal flood plain — before the introduction of aboideaux (tide gates) prevented the tide of the Bay of Fundy from flowing inland over low lying salt marshes. Some points in Glen Falls are actually lower than the level of the high tide in the Bay of Fundy, which is now held back by the Courtenay Causeway and flood gates under the Causeway. Past Engineering Studies and Remedial Measures A series of increasingly more severe and damaging flooding events occurred over a period of 10- 15 years in the sixties and seventies — April 1962, February 1970, December 1974, November 1975, January 1976. These led to the commissioning of a series of engineering studies by both the Municipal and Provincial governments, beginning in 1974 by Proctor and Redfern Limited, consulting engineers (P &R 1974; P &R 1976; P &R 1984). These studies produced an abundance of information on the performance of the Marsh Creek system and tributary streams, primary causes and extent of flooding and flood risk areas, and recommendations to mitigate the effects of flooding. The excerpt above on "Causes of Flooding" is one example. Growing out of these studies was a series of recommendations for improvement that included both physical works (structural measures like dykes and dams) and non - structural measures like flood plain management. In fact, one non - structural measure recommended in the 1976 P &R Report was "evacuation" of residents from flood prone areas of Glen Falls — this was not acted on at that time because of the severity of flooding then extant and affecting not only property owners in Glen Falls but elsewhere in the flood risk area as well. A program of remedial physical works and non - structural measures like the Flood Risk By -law that were of benefit to all affected property owners was chosen over the "evacuation" option. The adopted program was carried out, as far as possible, from 1978 -1982 via tri -level government funding agreements (An Agreement on Flood Damage Reduction For Marsh Creek Watershed) overseen by a tri -level committee (The Marsh Creek Flood Damage Reduction Committee). Physical works like the Upper Glen Falls Reservoir (Dam), maintenance clearing 203 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 4 of channels and ditches, construction of the Marco Polo Bridge were completed or supported with funding from the "Agreement on Flood Damage Reduction For Marsh Creek" under the auspices of the Committee. A number of other improvements were also made by other parties (eg construction of dyke for Floodway #3; replacement of crossings including train trestles with culverts and clear span bridges). Upper Glen Falls Reservoir (Dam) A list of physical works completed over the years (plus past recommendations not yet acted upon) is attached to this report. Given the work that has been accomplished, the question might well be why does flooding yet occur, and why haven't past efforts been effective in reducing the flood plain footprint and eliminating flooding? The short answer is that not all of the works proposed in the earlier studies (for 1:100 year return protection and 1:25 year return protection) have been able to be carried out for the reasons noted below. It might appear that the situation essentially remains unchanged given that the flood risk area in the Stormwater Management Strategy mirrors the Flood Risk By -law. However, the November 1975 storm that caused the most serious flooding to date and established the By -law flood risk areas is considered the equivalent of a 1:70 year return event. The flood risk area in the Stormwater Management Strategy reflects a 1:100 year return storm. Similar to the piped diversion recommended by Terrain, low benefit /cost ratios for some of the works recommended by Proctor and Redfern rendered them impractical, and the full 1:100 suite of recommendations was not acted upon. In fact not all of the 1:25 year recommendations could be acted upon, because one essential storage component of the whole system — the forebay area behind Courtenay Causeway - could not be secured for storage purposes. The flooding situation in the Marsh Creek Drainage system has improved in terms of incidence, severity, and duration. However, periodic flooding has not been eliminated and, realistically, is not likely to be in the future, given the costs involved and other constraints on the system. 204 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 5 For residents, the fact that periodic flooding still affects the Glen is evidence the situation hasn't improved, the problem hasn't been "fixed ". Besides the more general flooding episodes there are also local drainage issues in the Glen, the same as in other areas, that can influence perceptions and opinions. Examples of this include runoff in extremely intense rainfall events running from high ground down and through private lots toward the street or creek channel and causing localized flooding conditions, or surcharging storm systems. The reason that more general flooding still occurs periodically is the same as outlined in the previous section — in particularly heavy rainfall events there is too much runoff generated for the Creek channels to handle (i.e. the natural channels are too small for the amount of water trying to flow through them). Current Conditions Discussions about drainage and flooding issues often include descriptions of the size or severity (volume /duration) of rainfall events in terms of a return period e.g. a 1:100 year return period or 1:10 year return period storm. Flood risk and/or flood protection levels may also be expressed as a 1:100 year level of protection, 1:25 year, etc. What exactly do these terms mean and how are they determined? These terms are simply a way of categorizing any rainfall event by comparison with past rainfall records for a specific area like Saint John, and describing the probability that a certain sized storm, or larger, will happen. Small rainfall events happen more often, larger events less frequently. A 1:100 year return storm is a large storm that has a 1% chance (1 /100) of occurring (or being exceeded) in any one year. A 1:20 year return storm is a smaller storm with a 5% chance (1/20) of occurring (or being exceeded) in any one year and a 1:5 year storm is smaller still with a 20% chance (115) of occurring in any one year. This doesn't mean that a 1:5 year size storm will occur once in a five year period, or only once, just that the probability of this size of storm or larger occurring is about once in five years - two could actually occur in the same week. Categorizing rainfall events in this way allows engineers to assess, or design, drainage systems in terms of how much rainfall (and resulting drainage runoff) a system can handle. In this field, engineering assessment is much less precise than, for example, design of a bridge or building, where the strength of materials used and loads to be carried is much more accurately known and calculated. Volumes of drainage runoff generated are based on assumptions and observations of the nature of the terrain as well as direct flow measurements and computer modeling. Actual storm events are related to "design" storms, although each storm event has unique aspects (in terms of intensity and duration). Run -off generated can also be affected by existing ground conditions (e.g. saturated vs. dry), height of ground water table and the like. In addition to these factors, the amount of flooding that may take place within the Marsh Creek flood plain in any particular event may also be influenced by other variables— e.g. how much storage exists within the system prior to the event (is it full or empty ?); functionality of flood control structures — e.g. tide gates; 205 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 6 reservoir outlets (e.g. Lawlor Lake); localized flooding as noted above; presence of beaver dams (West Branch Marsh Creek); point in the tide cycle. Actual storms may be classified against the design storm criteria to indicate severity. Engineering design size of drainage infrastructure is based on being able to handle certain return period "design" storms. In the Stormwater Management Strategy adopted by Council in December 2008 the principle of a dual system design of both a "minor" component (ditches /pipes) local drainage system and "major" overland component is a requirement for all new developments. The minor system is to be sized to handle a 1:5 year return event, while the major system must be able to handle a 1:100 year return event. While this dual system design was not a requirement prior to 2008, the recommended programs of individual structural measures to remediate flooding issues in the Marsh Creek drainage system were first targeted to 1:25 year return (1974), then 1:100 year return (1976), and finally 1:25 year return (1979) as benefit /cost ratio and unavailability of land rendered a full program impractical. Individual projects like the Upper Glen Falls Reservoir were designed to detain a 1:100 year return storm to provide protection from downstream flooding, but not all elements of the recommended program were constructed and so the level of flood protection achieved for the Glen and other areas in the flood risk area remains much less. A key flood protection component of the Marsh Creek drainage system is the downstream storage area (the forebay) that was created behind the Courtenay Causeway when construction was completed in 1963. Without this area for storage and the effective functioning of the tidal gate structure, water levels in the lower Creek are much higher, and flooding more severe all along the system. A staff report in 1990 indicated that flood protection was lower than a 1:5 year return storm when the tide gates were damaged and unable to prevent passage of seawater into the forebay area. The forebay (and tidal gate structure) is a critical feature which will be addressed later in this report. In 1984 the New Brunswick Department of Environment commissioned Proctor and Redfern to do a "Marsh Creek Project Review" to assess the level of flood protection that had been achieved to that point. The idiosyncracies of the Marsh Creek system made a definitive calculation difficult, but the authors estimated that protection was "in the range of 15 -25 years." They also noted that "culvert blockages, ice, and other local conditions may significantly affect the capacity of existing drainage facilities." Despite further improvements in the system since 1984 (e.g. culverts at Simpson Drive and Rothesay Avenue; Glen Falls Floodway) the modeling done by Terrain in 2008 indicates there are a number of properties at risk in a 1:5 year return event, others at risk in a 1:10 year event and so on up to the 1:100 year event. There are also a large number of residential properties in Glen Falls out of the 1:100 flood risk area but also subject to occasional inconvenience caused by periodic flooding of streets. 206 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 7 Courtenay Causeway and Forebay Storage The causeway across Courtenay Bay was conceived in the 1940's not only to alleviate growing vehicle traffic volumes between the City and Parish of Simonds but also as a means of providing greater downstream storage of flows from Marsh Creek during high tide in the Bay of Fundy. Floods affecting developed areas on the "Great Marsh" stretching from the Haymarket Square to Glen Falls were increasing, as development occurred on the marsh area and uplands around it. In 1948, consulting engineer D.O. Turnbull of Saint John confirmed the feasibility of a causeway in an engineering report to the commissioners of the "Great Marsh Commission ". The location he suggested was very nearly the same as the current causeway and he provided preliminary design features (including a tide gate structure) and an associated cost estimate of $700,000. Construction of the original (two -lane) Courtenay Causeway was completed in 1963 under a tri- party agreement between the Province of New Brunswick, City of Saint John, and Irving Oil Limited. In exchange for ownership of the reclaimed lands in Courtenay Bay (behind the Causeway), the Irving interests agreed to construct the base for the causeway and government provided the roads and associated amenities. A six culvert tide gate structure was included near the west side of Courtenay Bay. The Causeway was upgraded in the mid - seventies to four lanes with improved access at both ends (Union Street on the west and Bayside Drive on the east). Porous fill materials in sections of the base allow passage of some seawater into the forebay area behind the Causeway, but with tide gates operating as designed, the Causeway provides a reasonable barrier against the high tides of the Bay of Fundy. This in turn provides a large, and extremely critical, storage area for runoff from Marsh Creek during periods of time when the tide is high. Before the Causeway was built, tide gates were located at the Marsh Bridge road crossing (Rothesay Avenue) east of Haymarket Square. The additional storage space for runoff made available by Courtenay Causeway alleviates flooding issues all along the Marsh Creek system, including Glen Falls. Without the influence of tidewater, normal water levels in the creek are lower and there is more initial storage capacity within the creek channels to handle runoff from heavy rainfall events. The tide gates allow for significant discharge of waters stored in the forebay during low tide, and for continuous downstream flow in Marsh Creek from the upper reaches of the system over the high tide cycle. While forebay storage is a critical moderating influence on the severity (depth) and duration of upstream flooding that occurs, it is important to also understand that increasing the amount of storage capacity available at this location (e.g. excavation; installation of a pumping station or high capacity operable sluice gates) can further improve but not "eliminate" upstream flooding. Glen Falls will continue to flood when runoff from heavy rainfall events is too great for the narrow channels to handle, causing stream levels to rise and local storm sewers to surcharge. Notwithstanding the fact that improvements to forebay storage cannot eliminate upstream flooding, increased storage capacity in this part of the system has consistently been recommended in engineering studies. In the 2008 Stormwater Management Strategy, recommendations to increase storage capacity at the forebay included installation of a pumping station (estimated at $11M) or high capacity operable sluice gates (estimated at $5M), but only 207 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 8 after the upstream piped diversion project was completed. The 1976 Proctor and Redfern report recommended acquisition and excavation of a 57 acre parcel of the forebay for flood storage to meet the objective of a 1:100 year return level of flood protection. This was later reduced to 26.6 acres as a 1:25 year return objective was adopted when the overall remedial program was modified in 1978 -79 because of "low economic efficiencies" (i.e. the benefit cost ratio of some component projects were deemed not to warrant the expenditure). When negotiations failed to secure the necessary lands, expropriation proceedings were initiated in 1982 by the City on behalf of the tri -level government partnership sponsoring the flood reduction program. That process did not acquire the necessary lands. With the inability to secure forebay lands, tri -level agreements expired and the City has worked essentially on its' own since then (with Provincial assistance for replacement of roadway culverts at Rothesay Avenue and Simpson Drive) to maintain the Creek system, and to fund various capital improvement projects as noted on the attachment. It appears that lower lying areas of the forebay providing storage space for runoff waters has not appreciably changed. Elevation data of the Marsh Creek drainage basin was acquired in the Stormwater Management Study using Lidar technology, so the amount of storage space available may be able to be determined without a land survey. A 26.6 acre portion of the forebay is included in a flood risk area in the Flood Risk By -law as illustrated on the orthophoto below. Infilling of this area would require a permit and off - setting excavation elsewhere in the flood plain. Future use of the forebay is uncertain and clarification should be sought as part of a comprehensive plan to deal with flooding in the Marsh Creek Drainage Basin. Courtenay Bay Causeway and Forebay — Flood Risk Area in Light Blue Relocation and Risk Mitigation Strategies For the purposes of this report, the Glen Falls neighbourhood is that within the area bounded by Rothesay Avenue, Golden Grove Road, Broadway Avenue from Rothesay Avenue to Glen Road, Glen Road to Belgian Road, Belgian Road to John T. McMillan Avenue, John T. McMillan No Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 9 Avenue to Golden Grove Road and all the homes from Belgian Road out to the dead end of Glen Road. Only the residential homes /properties lying within or touched by the flood plain identified as the "Glen Falls Flood Risk Area" within City BY -LAW NUMBER CP -11 THE FLOOD RISK AREA BY -LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN" are considered in the numbers that are referenced in this report. There are forty five property owners in Glen Falls who have indicated an interest in relocation, either at the public meeting of July 15, 2010 at Exhibition Park, or with City officials following the meeting. Of these interested property owners, fourteen (14 ) have lots located in areas that could be affected by a return storm of 1:5 years — the total assessed value of these properties is $1,206,800. However, staff noted there are a total of 63 properties with a 1:5 year flood risk within the Glen Falls area as noted. At an average conservative assessment of $85,000 per unit, the total assessed value of residential properties within this risk group is $5,355,000. Twelve (12) property owners with lots located within the 1:10 year return storm risk area indicated an interest in relocation, including one where the owner is not interested in selling and relocating. The total assessed value of these twelve is $999,300, less $115,800 for the person not interested. Overall, there are a total of 92 more properties in the 1:10 year flood risk category over and above the 63 properties in the 1:5 year flood risk area. At an average of $85,000 in assessed value the total value of these properties would be $7,820,000, in addition to $5,335,000 estimated for those with a 1:5 flood risk. Five (5) more property owners that could be affected in a 1:25 year return storm, or smaller risk, expressed interest in relocation and these properties are assessed at $457,800. Of the other owners expressing interest in relocation, five (5) have properties within a 1:50 year return storm ($482,300), four (4) have properties within the 1:100 year return storm flood risk area ($426,400) and five (5) more ($517,100) are outside the designated flood plain. An approach to relocation might be to consider the cost benefit for interested property owners most often affected (ie 1:5 year return period). Of course the potential financial implications of extending such an offer to all in the same flood risk zone has to be understood. This is not the first time that re- location of affected residents from Glen Falls has been considered. In the Proctor and Redfern Report of 1975 -76, "evacuation" of residents was one of five "non - structural" measures considered. In that report it was noted that "of the non - structural measures, residential evacuation presents the possibility of satisfying many of the objectives" (outlined at the beginning of the report). While not feasible at the time, relocation of some number of residents could possibly now be considered as part of an overall solution to flooding in the area. Appealing though the idea may seem at first, there are certain realities. Higher risk properties are not all located in the same area — because of the relatively flat terrain even small variations in elevation can significantly alter risk categories. Properties at the highest risk of flooding may be 209 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 10 located across the street from those that are out of the flood zone altogether. Logistics of relocation would be complex and the cost of such a program high. Not all residents are in favour of relocating and wonder about the negative effects on their neighbourhood such a program could have. The Glen Falls neighbourhood has many appealing qualities, including proximity to the major commercial district, and it occupies a niche in the market. Staff updated the 40+ residents who expressed interest in relocation via newsletter in April. More recently in May, staff and Ward 4 Councillors met with members of the "Glen Falls Community Committee" - their objectives include to "improve the quality of life of our residents and to preserve our neighbourhood for our neighbours and for future generations" and "protecting the future of Glen Falls so that it continues to be a vibrant long standing community ". They wish to "work with the City of Saint John to help find economical solutions to the flood water problem with minimal cost to the City and the least effect on the environment." Of interest is that of those property owners who originally expressed interest in a relocation option, three are represented on the Committee. A program of improvements to public and private properties, similar to initiatives undertaken in other jurisdictions like New Orleans, may be a more practical and manageable proposal as opposed to full scale relocation (see below). In addition to the above considerations there has been a considerable investment in public infrastructure in Glen Falls — in water and sewer services, storm drainage, streets, curbs and sidewalks. Residents of Glen Falls are one part of the equation. Taxpayers in general are another. Affordability and sustainability of solutions for all stakeholders will be a key to whether relocation would be a large or small component of an overall approach and plan to deal with the flooding issue. 210 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 11 Future Steps As noted above, relocation of Glen Falls residents must be considered as a possible part of a comprehensive review and plan to address flooding that affects the Marsh Creek Drainage Basin. The piped diversion system proposed by Terrain cannot be justified based on the analysis of benefits to costs, similar to some other physical remedial works that were proposed in earlier engineering studies. However, other works could yield some incremental benefits for current flooding conditions. The most notable of these for Glen Falls flooding are upstream reservoirs at Mystery Lake and Kelly Lake to detain peak flows from entering the Marsh Creek system through Cold Brook. Similarly, an outlet control structure at Ashburn Lake could help reduce flows into the West Branch of Marsh Creek, while providing some benefit to the YMCA property located there. Reconstruction /replacement of the Mystery Lake Dam with a new outlet control structure is being pursued, preliminary design and a wetland functional assessment and rare species survey has been undertaken, and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is planned in the 2012 Capital Program. Detention capacity is limited at Mystery Lake while Kelly Lake has more potential detention benefit. Preliminary actions were undertaken for Kelly Lake (lands acquired) and design initiated but not carried through when residents of the area approached Council of the day (1993) requesting that the project not proceed because periodically elevated water levels would negatively impact their properties. Of interest is that recent complaints of wet grounds were received from a property owner upstream of Mystery Lake and attributed to work to restore the structure, even though no work has been undertaken and the stop logs in the spillway have been removed for many years. The attachment to this correspondence summarizes all remediation measures, proposed and executed, under five broad categories, - 1) detention/diversion, 2) channel efficiency, 3) downstream storage, 4) storage /efficiency, and 5) non - structural measures. While remediation measures have been the focus of attention to try and improve conditions, continued maintenance of existing channels has always been a concern to prevent matters from worsening. To this end a comprehensive ongoing maintenance program is important, but is hampered by the fact that most of the creek system runs through privately owned lands. Another factor is increasing environmental regulation which prohibits, or complicates, traditional maintenance practices and approaches. The question of who is ultimately responsible for the creek system and its performance is a legal one which should be reviewed by legal staff and a determination made. Notwithstanding, extensive maintenance of the system of ditches in and around Glen Falls leading to Marsh Creek was recently undertaken and completed by City forces. More maintenance effort and resources (funding) in future will be required to maintain this drainage system infrastructure and assets in a restructured program. Staff has made initial contacts with Provincial Emergency Measures officials seeking information on any flood assistance or relief programs that may be available or accessible to help address situations such as Glen Falls. At present there are no programs specifically dedicated to reducing flood risks but the Federal Government in conjunction with Territorial and Provincial 211 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 12 Governments launched "Canada's National Disaster Mitigation Strategy" in January 2008. There is no funding directly associated to this initiative, but eligible or approved mitigation measures could be supported through the Build Canada Fund. This is an avenue that could be pursued for designated mitigation projects. A tri -level approach for funding support should again be part of the plan on a go forward basis. CONCLUSIONS The findings of the Stormwater Management Strategy, and Preliminary Design and Cost Benefits Analysis for the proposed piped diversion, leaves little doubt of the inevitability of continued flooding along Marsh Creek, without diversion or without a trend to lower amounts of precipitation and less severe storm events. The level of flood protection currently in place as expressed by "return storm" varies for Glen Falls residents, depending on the ground elevation of their property — some residents are affected by storms of less than 1:5 year return period, others 1:10 year return and upward, and still others are out of the flood risk zone altogether. Weather appears to be trending to greater precipitation amounts and an increase in the frequency of severe rainfall events. Calculations for "design" storms may have to be revised as years pass and more data is collected. Design storms at best approximate actual rainfall events, but flooding conditions on the ground in the Marsh Creek Drainage Basin reflect other factors as well such as existing ground conditions and pre existing amount of storage available in stream channels and storage areas. Physical works to provide flood level protection against 1:100 year return storms in this area are uneconomic on a benefit to cost consideration. The inability to secure forebay lands as a component of a 1:25 year protection program makes achievement of higher levels of protection even more remote. Sea level rise is a factor to consider for low lying areas like Glen Falls and the Marsh Creek Drainage Basin. Flooding conditions will not improve as the sea becomes higher in relation to the Great Marsh area. Indeed the 2008 Stormwater Management Strategy Report identified a real flood risk to the area from storm surge in the Bay of Fundy, in combination with other factors. Potential mitigation measures (physical works) other than diversion (e.g. construction of a control structure at Mystery Lake, detention at Kelly Lake and Ashburn Lakes, provision of more floodway space and the like) may all yield some incremental improvement to the frequency, severity, and duration of flooding that takes place, but the basic problem would remain for Glen Falls . At times there will be simply too much runoff from upland regions entering channels that are too narrow, shallow, and flat to carry all of the water directed into them, and flooding of Glen Falls and other low lying areas in the Marsh Creek flood plain will continue occur. The Stormwater Management Strategy clearly indicates that proposed improvements in the lower basin (e.g. CNR culverts, Causeway sluiceway or forebay pumping) will not effectively change (improve) flooding conditions in Glen Falls, on their own. This is consistent with previous study 212 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 13 findings. The outline of the 1:100 flood plain determined by Terrain is almost identical to the Glen Falls and Lower Marsh Creek Flood Risk areas that were established in the Flood Risk By- law, based on earlier work by Proctor and Redfern. Under the circumstances, relocation of homes and residents away from the most impacted areas has been raised as the only viable and sure way to reduce the impacts of flooding on citizens. Dialogue on this possibility has been opened with residents of the area and feedback received. The purpose of this report is to place the relocation proposal within the context of an overall plan and approach to the negative impacts of continuing periodic episodes of flooding. There will be costs associated with any mitigation measure. The question will be how much, and then to determine a fair allocation among participating parties. Three levels of government were initially engaged in partnership to deal with the effects of flooding in the Glen Falls area. It would follow that an attempt to implement a plan to "finalize" dealings with flooding on this flood plain and mitigate damages should also involve the three government levels. Finally the question of forebay storage should be addressed again in some manner, in order to properly consider all other parts of a comprehensive plan to deal with flooding in the Marsh Creek Drainage Basin. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Common Council: 1. Recognizes that periodic flooding will continue to occur on the Marsh Creek Flood Plain. 2. Continues the process regarding design and reconstruction of a new outlet control structure for Mystery Lake. 3. Reviews the Flood Risk By -law as it may be applied to the flood risk area identified in the forebay; reviews By -law for changes to prevent further residential construction in the flood risk areas; revises flood risk areas based on Stormwater Management Strategy model. 4. Follows up to determine the current storage space available in the forebay area. 5. Prepares a comprehensive program of inspection and maintenance for Marsh Creek Drainage system. 6. Updates a flood response contingency plan in the event of flooding with warnings and public communications for severe events — through Saint John EMO 7. Engages the services of a consultant to determine the benefit and feasibility of constructing detention reservoirs on Kelly Lake and Ashburn Lake and models the performance of Majors Brook. 8. Consults with the YMCA (owners) concerning Ashburn Lake to determine interest in possibly re- building an outlet control structure for the dual purposes of the recreation facility and flood water storage. 9. Consults with appropriate staff of other government levels (eg NBEMO) regarding flood assistance and other programs that may be pertinent to this situation. 213 Glen Falls Flooding and Residential Relocation June 13, 2011 Page 14 10. Consults with owners of the forebay lands to determine current status. 11. Develops a feasible assistance program for private property owners based on an appropriate cost sharing model and pursue tri -level government support. 12. Directs the City Solicitor to review the legal ownership of the creek system and physical structures and responsibilities arising therefrom for maintenance and efficiency performance in carrying flows. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody P.Eng Commissioner, Municipal Operations and Engineering J. Patrick Woods CGA City Manager 214 CATEGORY Proiect Detention /Diversion Upper Glen Falls Reservoir Lower Marsh Creek Floodway( #3 - below Strescon) Lawlor Lake Outlet Forest Hills Dam Mystery Lake Dam Kelly Lake Reservoir Ashburn Lake Reservoir Dry pond /wetland enhance Majors Brook West Branch Marsh Creek to Drury Cove Mystery Lake to Cruickshank Lake (Blackall) & Little R. Piped Diversion - Drury Cove Channel Efficiency Clean channel; debris and vegetation Maintenance Program Add Culvert CNR (Below Marsh Bridge) Replace Culverts Clear Span CNR Below Marsh Bridge Replace CNR Trestle @ One Mile Marsh Bridge Add culvert Marco Polo Bridge Replace Ashburn Lake Road Bridge Replace Private Crossing - Strescon Remove Trestle Bridge MacKay Lumber Replace Culvert Rothesay Avenue Replace Culvert Simpson Drive Replace Culvert Glen Road Replace Culvert Connaught Ave. Downstream Storage Construct Courtenay Causeway c/w tide gates Forebay Storage (57 Ac) Forebay Pumps Cold Brook Floodway ( #1)Excav 15 ac + 15 ac Majors Brook Floodway ( #2) Excav 20 ac + 10 ac Local Diking /Flood Walls & Pumping- Glen Falls Local Diking /Flood Walls & Pumping- Majors Brook Forebay Storage (26 Ac) Forebay Pumps Courtenay Bay Storage Repair /replace tide gates Glen Falls Floodway Replace tide gates; install sluice gates or forebay pumps Study of Causeway; earth dam; higher levee Storage /Efficiency Enlarge /re -align narrow channels 215 Re- alignment Ashburn Creek to Lower Marsh Creek Enlarge Channel from Glen Road to CNR Crossing Enlarge channel from Forebay to Strescon Non Structural Measures Residential Evacuation & Relocation Glen Falls Floodplain Management - Flood Zones By -Law Flood Warning & Emergency Evacuation Flood Proofing Flood Insurance By -Law Amendments - no new residential until risk reduced Study Forebay to establish storage volume & maintain Benefits Cost to increase protection evaluated Policy of 1:100 protection set Buy /expropraite all lands along watercourses - Initiate Negotiations with IOL - gain control of floodway Zoning By -law - amended - floodway zone along watercourses Consult NBDOT - replace tide gates with pump station Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual Increase Controls Over Future Development on Floodplain P &R 76 - Water Management Study Marsh Creek Watershed - 1976 Proctor and Redfern Limited GFLR 87 - Glen Falls Flood Risk 1987 - Planning and Development FAIR 90 - Marsh Creek Flood Risk Abatement Program - 1990 - Building and Technical Services ACRES /I011- 82- Forebay Storage Options presented during forebay expropriation process - 1982 SMS 08 - Stormwater Management Strategy - Terrain - 2008 ENG - Engineering Initiated Projects GEMTEC 09 - Mystery Lake Flood Control System 2009 -2011 TERR 09 - Preliminary Design and Cost Benefit Analysis 2009 CADILLAC /AMEC - McAllister Mall Flood Protection Project 2009 -2010 Turnbull 48 - Report to Great Marsh Commission on Feasibility of a Causeway across Courtenay Bay 194E 216 Source Status P &R 76 P &R 76 P &R 76; Terr 09 Eng P &R 76; FAP 90 GEMTEC 09 P &R 76; FAP 90 Terr 09 Complete '79 Complete '79 Repl. '79; '10 Complete '80 Prelim Design & EIA Not pursued 1993; Kelly Lake Res Further review req'd Cadillac /AMEC Private initiative - pending P &R 76 N/R P &R 76 N/R SMS 08 Suspended '10 during EIA P &R 76 Complete 78 -79 City Forces P &R 76; GFLR'87 Ongoing P &R 76 Complete 78 -79 CNR FAP 90; SMS 08 Pending P &R 76 Complete - clear span CNR P &R 76 Decided on Clear Span Modified'77 -78 Complete'82 NBDOT Modified Complete NBDOT Acres'82 IOL Complete Strescon Ltd. Acres'82 IOL Removed FAP 90 Replaced ' NBDOT FAP 90 Replaced ' NBDOT Eng '08 Replaced ' 09 CSJ Eng '08 Replaced ' 10 CSJ D. Turnbull '48 Complete '63 P &R 76 & Modified Dropped to 26 ac '78 -79 P &R 76 N/R P &R 76 Not pursued P &R 76 Not pursued P &R 76 N/R P &R 76 N/R Modified Expropriation Unsuccessful '82 Acres'82 IOL Offered to IOL to build; not pursued Acres'82 IOL Dropped; Expense FAP '90 Eng 99 Constructed '99 &'01 SMS 08 Pending upstream diversion SMS 08 Expense; pending upstream diversion Comments P &R 76; Not pursued - land acquisition & encroachment of structures 217 P &R 76; Not pursued FAP '90 Not pursued - land acquisition & encroachment of structures FAP'90 Not pursued - land acquisition & encroachment of structures P &R 76; Eng 11 N/R originally; reconsideration '11 P &R 76 PNB Legislation& Flood Risk By- law'80 P &R 76 Normal Operting Procedures P &R 76 Some work done by private owners P &R 76 N/R or Followed up GFLR 87 ? GFLR 87 Not pursued GFLR 87 FAP '90 FAP '90 FAP '90 FAP '90 FAP '90 SMS 08 Adopted '08 SMS 08 218 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -150 June 15", 2011 � His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council The City of Saint john Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the community's Solid Waste Management Service, a brief update on aspects of the service under review, and a context for changes being contemplated. BACKGROUND The Solid Waste Management Service is an essential community service - essential to public health, to quality of life in Saint John and to cleanliness of properties and streetscapes - provided in accordance with the provisions of A By -Law for the Storage, Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste in the City of Saint John (the Solid Waste By -Law). The service comprises seven basic elements: Residential Refuse Collection Collection /disposal of refuse from eligible households on a bi- weekly basis; currently weekly in priority neighbourhoods. 2. Residential Compost Collection Collection /disposal of compost from eligible households on a bi- weekly basis; currently weekly in priority neighbourhoods. 3. Blue Bin Recycling and Composting Promotion Promote participation in the Fundy Region's recycling and composting programs. 4. Litter Control Control street litter and efficiently service municipal litter containers placed at strategic locations around the city. 5. Special Activities Special service features, such as bulky item pick -up, white goods drop off, Christmas tree mulch, and neighbourhood clean -up initiatives. 6. Service Coordination and Consultation Maintaining the inventory of eligible residential customers, collection schedules and handling service needs of clients. 7. By -Law Administration and Public Education Administration of the By -Law and public education to promote waste diversion, with a particular focus on preventing and prosecuting illegal dumping. 219 COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PAGE 2 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 JUNE 1 ST 2011 Sustainability and Continuous Improvement Since establishment of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission in August 1995, the opening of the Crane Mountain Landfill facility in November 1997, and the introduction of region -wide composting in August 2001, solid waste management in Saint John has continued to evolve. Council has considered various reports over the years, including: • Residential Solid Waste Collection Service, M &C 2001 -95, March 22 ^d, 2001 • Integrated Resource and Solid Waste Management - Service, Sustainability, Costs and the Environment, M &C 2005-179, May 31't, 2005 • Solid Waste Management Service, M &C 2007 -328, November 28', 2007 • Same Week, Same Day - Solid Waste Service Implementation, M &C 2008 -258, August 28`h, 2008 • User Pay Option - Solid Waste Management Service, M &C 2009 -252, September 10`", 2009 • Preliminary Estimates - Implementation of Curbside Recycling, M &C 2009- 329, October 15', 2009 Maintaining a clear focus on Sustainability and continuous improvement is very important; increasing diversion to reduce expensive tipping fees for refuse, finding opportunities for more cost - effective delivery of service, improving public education, firmly enforcing landlord responsibilities for their waste management, continuing support of community clean -ups and redoubling efforts to eradicate illegal dumping. The fiscal challenges facing municipalities, coupled with a seemingly insatiable demand on limited public resources, require that services are prudently managed and that viable options to improve the output -cost equation are actively pursued. The underlying goal is to best provide for the real solid waste needs of the community. Current Service The City's 2011 budget for solid waste totals just over $4.1 million; with major (budget) cost factors being: • Vehicles - Usage /Fuel /Insurance $615,000 • Personnel $783,000 • Tipping Fees (Disposal) $810,000 • Contracted Collection Services $1,760,000 Collection of refuse and compost is provided for about 22,190 eligible residential households; the great majority (18,395 or 82.9 %) bi- weekly and 3,795 in the priority neighbourhoods on a weekly basis. In due course, the service should transition to an equivalent bi- weekly level of service to all residential households in the city. 220 COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 ANALYSIS PAGE 3 JUNE I ST 2011 There are opportunities for positive change in the solid waste service - based on principles of sustainability, prudent financial management and responsibility on the part of every citizen and property owner. Council has also requested consideration of several ideas. In addition, solid waste services are among those being considered for regionalization by the Government of New Brunswick. Aspects of Service under Review Alternatives for Solid Waste Collection An operational and financial examination has been made of "in house" versus "contracted" collection options. The financial analysis compared three alternatives: [1 ] the status quo, the existing 64/36% split between internal and external collection; [2] bringing all collection "in house" and terminating the current contract arrangement; and [3] outsourcing all collection activity. There are several considerations involved in choosing among collection alternatives and certain factors limit the timing and /or viability of some options for the City of Saint john. A separate report (M &C 2011-89, dated June 17 th , 201 1) will follow. Limits for Household Refuse Saint John does not divert enough of the waste that it generates; too much goes out for garbage collection and ends up in the landfill. As a result, the costs of disposal (for taxpayers generally) are substantially higher than they could be. A recent report, considered at the June 6`h meeting of Council, outlined a "2 Bags or Less" voluntary pilot project being undertaken with 460 households in the Douglas Avenue area. Of the estimated 17,718 tonnes of residential waste generated in 2010, about 68.5% (12,152 tonnes) went into the landfill as refuse. The diverted waste comprised 3,359 tonnes of compost (19.0 %) and only 2,207 tonnes of recycled materials (12.5 %). This community can and must do better. User Pay and Sustainability Managing solid waste effectively at the best cost over the long term means truly embracing sustainability; practicing a philosophy that maximizes resource reuse, recycling and diversion, minimizes waste generation, and extends the service life of landfill infrastructure. A system of "user -pay" could be the key to encouraging individual responsibility for the cost of solid waste. Although there are good reasons for having a service like this one within the suite of those covered by property taxes, doing so does not encourage waste reduction or diversion; costs are not readily apparent to system users. Those who generate the most waste are not paying their fair share of the costs. Without a direct financial incentive to reduce waste, many people will not take personal responsibility to control costs. Council will probably need to consider a user -pay structure for solid waste at some future point. Priority Neighbourhoods (Level of Service) The interim higher level of service that priority neighbourhoods receive reflects substantive municipal support for those residents working to bring about positive change in these important areas of the city. The initiative was supported by the Human Development Council, Vibrant Communities 221 COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PAGE 4 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 JUNE 1 ST 2011 and the Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative. However, there is a cost associated with this higher level of service; one that cannot be justified indefinitely. A gradual transition to the standard bi- weekly level of service will be proposed - neighbourhood by neighbourhood. In some cases there will be difficult challenges to overcome in doing so. Mechanized Refuse (Cart) Handling The benefits of mechanized collection ( "black cart" system similar to compost) are many. Containers, possibly with a range of sizes, could be used to establish "limits" and pricing based on capacity. The greatest benefit, however, is in reduction of back injuries common to this type of work. Improved operating efficiency and tidier neighbourhoods could also be expected. Currently, everything from small plastic shopping bags to varying sizes and shapes of containers to loose and awkward refuse are placed for collection. Staff will caution Council, however, that the cost of procuring carts should be the responsibility of individual households and not be absorbed by the municipal (property tax) budget. Night Time Collection A night time collection "pilot" initiated several years ago has not proven itself. Potential benefits have been outweighed by certain challenges associated with night work. Citizens will be advised of the move away from night time collection in the South Central Peninsula. Should conditions change, the City could reconsider a broader policy of night time collection at some time in the future. Recycling Options Saint John is currently served by a depot recycling service operated by the Fundy Regional Solid Waste Commission. Citizens voluntarily bring their paper, cardboard, plastics and other recyclables to one of 13 strategically located Blue Bin depots in the city. Although the service is a good one, many citizens would prefer curbside recycling. Although more recyclables would probably be generated, a curb side service would also involve much higher operating costs and not pay for itself; the higher costs would not be offset by recycling revenues. Even the current system is subsidized by tipping fees for refuse. Finding the right recycling model for Saint John remains a work in progress; the balance of net costs and benefits will determine the most feasible approach for this community. Clean Neighbourhoods An important part of the solid waste service is working with citizens to clean -up neighbourhoods. Community groups are encouraged to take such initiatives and to make arrangements with Municipal Operations for the support needed. Service to Provincial Housing The City has come to provide service to a group of NB Housing properties and incur costs that rightfully rest with the Province. Staff has been in discussions with Provincial representatives to resolve this matter. By -Law and Enforcement Capability The Solid Waste By -Law is the foundation for the community's solid waste service. Beyond defining residential eligibility, it outlines standards for storage, handling and disposal of solid waste generally. The By -Law needs to be kept current and reflect modern thinking for a clean, healthy and liveable city; one that minimizes its ecological footprint, optimizes service outputs with costs, and strives 222 COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PAGE S REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 JUNE 1 ST 2011 for long -term sustainability. It needs to be properly administered and communicated. Also vitally important is positive enforcement of its provisions. The City does not presently have the capability needed to effectively enforce the Solid Waste By -Law. Work on its update is underway, along with developing an effective solution for enforcement. Illegal Dumping /Placement Illegal dumping defiles the community; it is unhealthy, irresponsible, unlawful, and costly to taxpayers. It happens essentially in two ways. The first is the garbage, old appliances and furniture, and hazardous wastes dumped in out - of- the -way places, including watersheds and parklands. The other involves people ineligible for service, often as a result of inadequate provisions for garbage in their own buildings, placing garbage in front of eligible city households for pick -up. Eliminating this problem must be a high priority for the City - with public education and preventive measures, supported by the vigorous prosecution of offenders. Clean -Up Week Notwithstanding the popularity of Clean -Up Week, its price tag was very high and its demand on resources was disruptive to several essential spring time services. Analysis in 2001 strongly indicated that the program did not represent an effective use of limited public resources. More critical and seriously under funded programs, such as street, sidewalk and storm drainage system maintenance, could better utilize the dollars being spent on picking up and disposing of what was primarily "private refuse ". The cost of Clean -Up Week far outweighed the benefits gained. Annual Report Card A series of measureable improvement objectives, established for the service, will be reported on annually. This year's report has been drafted and will be presented to Council in the near future. Other Considerations Regionalization of Solid Waste Services As Council is aware, the 2008 Finn Report, "Building Stronger Local Governments and Regions ", recommended that solid waste management be designated as a `supra - municipal' service, to be handled exclusively on a regional basis: "Responsibility for the planning and management of the entire solid waste stream, from collection, to recycling, to disposal transferred to the regional service district." An integrated approach has merit. Given the current Government's plans for municipal reform, it would be prudent for the City to prepare itself for changes that could come to pass. Council needs to weigh the risks associated with making significant investments in the service prior to decisions on regionalization - against the benefits expected from the changes being made. Strikes /Work Stoppages Several communities across the country have experienced work stoppages that impacted their garbage collection; most notable among these being the City of Toronto. A 39 -day strike in 2009 produced serious difficulties for the municipality and its citizens. Among the consequences have been changing public opinions, the election of a new municipal council with strong points of view and a highly publicized debate on privatization of solid waste collection. On May 1 7t" of this year, 223 COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PAGE 6 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 JUNE 1 ST 2011 Toronto council voted conclusively to start a bidding process that could see private waste haulers collect garbage from some 165,000 households previously serviced by municipal equipment and employees; claiming potential to save millions of dollars. Saint John needs to be mindful of the effects a work stoppage can have on a service like solid waste; something not experienced here since 1981. Equipment And Mechanical Support Essential to reliable solid waste collection is the fleet of packers and the supporting maintenance resources to keep the equipment ready for the continuous daily schedule. Refuse and compost are collected five days a week, 52 weeks a year, statutory holidays included. The equipment is heavily used and can be subject to breakdown. As equipment availability is central to the service, there must be a built -in equipment reserve and the maintenance garage must operate an evening or night shift that keeps the packers in good repair, mobile and available for morning use. Working in Solid Waste Over the years, diligent managers and a fairly small group of stalwart employees have enabled the City to deliver a good "in house" solid waste collection service. Although much improved recently, there have been periods of considerable lost time from duty. Also, employment in "sanitation" is not attractive to the majority of workers; very few seek full time employment there. The "staffing" reality for this service can be a real challenge, making its delivery very difficult. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Solid Waste Management Service is budgeted to cost taxpayers over $4.1 million in 2011. These costs are related directly to the amount of waste generated by residential households. Consistent with the goals of Plan SJ, the community can and must change. Being a clean, healthy and liveable city involves minimizing our ecological footprint, optimizing resource use, and achieving long -term sustainability. There is room for financial improvement in how the community and individual citizens manage solid waste. All concerned need to work hard to that end. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. J. Patrick Woods, CGA Commissioner, City Manager Municipal Operations & Engineering 224 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -89 June 17, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE — OUTSOURCE DECISION INTRODUCTION The City of Saint John Effective solid waste management is an essential municipal service — important for reasons of public health, quality of life, and the cleanliness of properties and streetscapes. Staff is undertaking a comprehensive review of the service — based on principles of sustainability, quality service, prudent financial management and responsibility on the part of every citizen. This is one of several solid waste topics that will be reported over the coming months. Purpose of Report This report presents a financial and operational review of collection alternatives; essentially, "in- house" City resources or utilization of "contracted" carriers - a "make- versus -buy" choice. BACKGROUND Currently, 19 of 53 solid waste collection routes are contracted (based on available resources), while the remainder are serviced by City employees and equipment. The Solid Waste Management Service has been a highly rated municipal service with respect to citizen satisfaction. In 2009 and 2010, an average of 79% of citizens was satisfied (very or somewhat) with service delivery and an average of 86% of citizens believes that this service is `very important'. ANALYSIS Periodic operational and financial analysis of the Solid Waste Management Service is necessary to ensure the City provides optimal service delivery and receives the best value for the allocated funding. As operational and/or financial conditions change, the service must adapt to new realities. 5U5TAINANLITY 225 Solid Waste Management jervice — Outsourcing Decision ,June 17,201 1 Report to Common Council, M &C 2011-89 Page 2 In 2010, the City sought and received `Expressions of Interest' from local contractors to provide sole source contracted solid waste and compost collection services for a total of 22,190 households, of which 3,795 customers receive weekly collection service. Two contractors submitted bids - based on 2009 solid waste /compost disposal expense information. Bids were also received for the existing 19 contracted routes and for an arrangement that would contract 50% of the routes; the other 50% operated by the City. The enclosed Solid Waste Collection Financial Analysis — Outsource Decision dated June 17th, 2011 (Appendix A) has been prepared by Finance. It compares three alternatives: [#I] the status quo, the existing 64 %/36% split between internal and external collection; [ #2] bringing all collection "in house" and terminating the current contract arrangement; and [ #3] outsourcing all collection activity. The objective of the analysis was to provide financial guidance for a decision on selecting the most cost - effective collection option for Saint John. The author cautions that "readers ... should take note of the scope limitations section ... in addition to carefully reviewing the assumptions within that drive the financial results ". When assessing alternative #3, it had to be assumed the City could reduce the cost of its workforce. Reduction of wage and benefit costs would be a key to pursuing such an option. Although alternative #3 was deemed competitive, though not superior, its feasibility is constrained by the City's collective agreement with CUPE, Local 18 and the commitment to maintain a minimum number of workers. Although staff will discuss the alternative during its presentation, it is not one that is viable under existing conditions. The comparisons outlined herein look at #1 (status quo - split) and #2 ( "in house "). The financial analysis indicates that City equipment and employees can provide all solid waste and compost collection services at a savings of about $1.3 million over 5 years, with operational savings on an absolute basis of approximately $500,000 annually. The discounted payback period is expected in 1.81 years on the initial upfront investment of approximately $794,000 required for three additional packer units. Based on a 5 -year projection of annual costs for all 25,985 units (18,395 bi- weekly + 2 x 3,795 weekly), it is projected that the City can provide this service for all units at an overall average rate of $11.42 per unit per month over the next five years. Once the current annual supply contract, for contracted collection services, expires in September 2011, a necessary extension of services for a period of approximately 8 to 10 months would be needed (depending on equipment availability) for transition to full "in- house" collection. Personnel Considerations Factors impacting service delivery include personnel and equipment availability. We highlight the good job done by solid waste and compost collection personnel. A core group of stalwarts has enabled the City to deliver an excellent collection service. In the 505TAINANLITY 226 Solid Waste Management jervice — Outsourcing Decision ,June 17, 201 1 Report to Common Council, M &C 2011-89 Page 3 past, however, wear and tear on some employees has been telling. Team members have been lost for periods of time and their non - availability has made service delivery difficult. In cooperation with Local 18, a pilot project began in 2009 where new personnel start out in solid waste and then `graduate' to another service area in time. Lost time in this service area has been reduced by over 75% in 2009 and 2010 when compared to 2008. Should City forces provide city -wide collection service; four additional personnel at the entry Skilled Worker level would be required; re- allocated from other service programs. Equipment Fleet The City's solid waste fleet currently consists of seven (7) side - loading one - person packers and a mini - packer unit for litter clean up. This equipment is scheduled for replacement every 10 years with several packers due to be replaced in the next few years through the Fleet `reserve' fund. Six of the seven packer units are beyond their optimum replacement point, but are less than ten years old. In continuous operations of this nature, equipment is heavily utilized and subject to breakdown. An evening shift instituted in the mechanical garage has played a crucial role towards the operational readiness of this equipment. Equipment availability is a central consideration in planning and setting route schedules for any continuous service. Garbage /compost must be collected on the appointed day and transported to Crane Mountain. In order to ensure service reliability, a level of equipment redundancy must be built into service schedules. All pieces of equipment cannot be scheduled for deployment every day. Should City forces provide city -wide collection service, a side - loading one - person packer with dual access and two rear - loading two- person split packers ; would need to be added to the existing fleet to offset current contract resources; to enable consistent service delivery and ensure efficiency of service on narrow roads, in uptown traffic and on one -way streets. 505TAINANLITY 227 l� Solid Waste Management jervice — Outsourcing Decision ,June 17, 201 1 Report to Common Council, M &C 2011-89 Page 4 Service Continuity A solid waste service performed entirely by municipal employees increases the risk of service disruption in times of labour strife. Solid waste (garbage) becomes a critical public health issue when collection does not occur in a timely and thorough manner. Despite this, the costs versus benefits of City personnel providing collection services at this time cannot be ignored. The local contracting community could still be engaged in the future should economic realities and cost -of- service circumstances change. Collective Agreement Provisions Staff has proposed a letter of agreement with Local 18 that would make necessary amendments to the collective agreement on wage levels for solid waste workers. It also proposes a "no strike / no lock -out" provision for workers in this essential service. The document will be brought forward for Council's consideration when agreement has been tentatively reached on its wording. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Cost implications are presented in the attached financial analysis prepared by Finance. CONCLUDING REMARKS The analysis of the solid waste collection service has been undertaken by staff of Finance and Municipal Operations. The changes outlined will be implemented, subject to Council's approval of 2012 funding for three additional packer units and ratification of the necessary letter of agreement with Local 18. Specific recommendations for those decisions will be brought forward soon to enable the process of change to move ahead. At this time, feedback from members of Council would be appropriate. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 505TAINANLITY 228 db SCI' JOHN N E W B R U N 8 W 1 C K SOLID WASTE COLLECTION Financial Analysis — Outsource Review June 17th, 2011 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. ............................... 3 -4 INTRODUCTION £t BACKGROUND ..................................................................... ..............................5 OBJECTIVE............................................................................................... ............................... 6 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................... ............................... 7 SCOPELIMITATION ..................................................................................... ............................... 8 KEYASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................. ............................... 9 -10 BUDGET PROJECTION ( PRO - FORMA) ............................................................. ............................... 11 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ ............................... 12 DIFFERENTIAL COST ANALYSIS (STATUS QUO VERSUS `IN- HOUSE' ) ............................................................. ............................... 12 BaseCase ........................................................................................................................................................ .............................12 Sensitivity Analysis — Best, Worst & Most Likely Case ........................................................................... ............................... 13 -14 BudgetImpact Analysis ................................................................................................................................... .............................14 Conclusion & Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... .............................15 DIFFERENTIAL COST ANALYSIS (`IN- HOUSE' VERSUS `OUTSOURCE') ............................................................ ............................... 16 BaseCase ........................................................................................................................................................ .............................16 Sensitivity Analysis — Best, Worst & Most Likely Case ................................................................................... .............................17 BudgetImpact Analysis ................................................................................................................................... .............................18 Conclusion & Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... .............................19 RISKFACTORS ........................................................................................ ............................... 20 2 230 FW_ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City provides for collection of refuse and compost, through the Solid Waste Collection Service, at 22,190 eligible residential households in accordance with the Solid Waste By -Law. Approximately 18,395 of those households receive service on a bi- weekly basis, while 3,795 households in priority neighbourhoods are serviced weekly. This amounts to collection at 25,985 units (18,395 +3,795 +3,795) during every two week period, utilizing both "in- house" resources (16,718 collection units) and contracted services (9,267 units) by FERO Waste and Recycling Inc. ( "FERO "). A re- evaluation of the service and its methods of delivery have been undertaken. On the matter of solid waste collection, the City can decide to proceed with the following options: 1. Continue with the Status Quo which means servicing 16,718 units with "In- House" resources and outsourcing 9,267 units with contracted services ( "Alternative #1 "); 2. Bring all 25,985 units "In- House" and terminate existing contractor services ( "Alternative #2 "); 3. Outsource all 25,985 units to the contractor that provides the most competitive pricing and acceptable service level ( "Alternative #3 ") The objective of this report is to provide financial analysis that is useful for making a decision associated with the above alternatives. The readers of this report should take note of the scope limitations section of the report in addition to carefully reviewing the assumptions within that drive the financial results. Alternative #1 versus Alternative #2 Finance produced a differential cost analysis to compare the cost of providing solid waste collection services via Alternative #1 versus Alternative #2. With assumptions vetted by operations, Finance estimates Alterative #2 will result in increased value for the City by approximately $1,387,000 over a 5 year period. This is supported by an expected reduction in annual operating costs of approximately $500K per annum. However, given the inherent uncertainty of assumptions, different financial results could arise. Finance sensitivity tested the assumptions for the number of City workers required and percentage of contingency afforded to produce best case, worst case and most likely case scenarios. The base case provides for 4 additional City workers and offers a 5% contingency. On a best case scenario (4 additional City workers and no contingency) Finance estimates Alternative #2 will yield value accretion of $1,631,176 over 5 years. On the flipside, a worst case scenario provides for 6 City workers and an additional 10% contingency, reducing the value increase to $581,666 over the same period. The most likely result will be somewhere in between, estimated between $989,413 and $1,507,847 over a 5 year period. Applying probabilities produces an expected case of approximately $1,292,000 over 5 years. Operations indicate a call for bids was sent in August of 2010 for the units currently serviced by FERO, for which FERO was the lowest bidder. The expectation is sending another call for bids would yield similar results. Based on this information and the results established in the financial model, Finance concludes Alternative #2 would achieve better value for money for the City. Alternative #2 versus Alternative #3 Expressions of interest (EOI) were solicited for Alternative #3 with Waste Management of Canada Corporation ( "WMCC ") being the lowest bidder. Based on assumptions vetted by operations, and based on the WMCC bid, Finance estimates Alternative #2 provides marginally higher value for money over the 7 year term by approximately $255,000. This is supported by an expected reduction in annual operating costs of approximately $225K per year. 231 However, given the inherent uncertainty of assumptions, different financial results could arise. The base case assumes Alternative #2 would require 4 additional City workers in Solid Waste and incorporates a 5% contingency. A best case scenario assumes 4 additional City workers is sufficient and incorporates no contingency, resulting in estimated value accretion of approximately $784,694 over 7 years. On the other hand, a worst case scenario assumes 6 City workers are required and adds a 10% contingency, diluting value by approximately negative $974,447 over the same period. The most likely result will be somewhere in between, estimated between a negative value of $350,469 and a positive value of $521,093 over the 7 year term. Applying probabilities produces an expected case of approximately $137,000 in positive value, basically a breakeven between the two alternatives. Paramount to any outsource decision is the cost of wages and benefits. When assessing Alternative #3, Finance had to assume the City is unrestricted in its ability to reduce the cost of its workforce; otherwise the financial analysis of Alternative #3 is moot. Wages and benefits are the single largest savings when undertaking such a review. The reality, however, is the collective agreement with Local 18 commits the City to maintain a minimum of 293 outside workers. Unless otherwise negotiated it is unlikely that savings can be realized by means of a permanent workforce reduction. Finance recommends sustaining the "In- House" business model at this point in time due to the following: 1. Finance estimates value accretion for the "In- House" approach as the most probable result 2. Start-up cost would be significant if the City needed to get back into the solid waste business 3. There is rate uncertainty in the WMCC contract, with a clause for rate increases for fuel and inflation 4. Uncertainty of feasibility for a permanent workforce reduction to generate required savings However, WMCC did put forward a very competitive proposal. The value gap between the two alternatives over 7 years is slim. Further investigation and discussion may be merited given the EOI expressly states opportunity for a lower rate based on a longer term agreement. Finance recommends if such discussions do proceed, a formula be agreed upon representing annual inflation and fuel increases that is transparent for both parties. In addition, given the significant start-up costs required to get back into the solid waste business, Finance recommends the proposal be based on a longer term than 5 -7 years. A positive business case is also dependent on the City's ability to reduce wages and benefits. Finally, the financial model should be refreshed if these events were to occur. Business Case & Risk Management The financial projections within this report should form part of an overall business case to provide Council with a comprehensive picture aligned with the City's overall corporate strategy. The business case should consist of a thorough analysis of the City's needs, opportunities, threats (risks), and alternatives. From a risk management perspective, Finance suggests the strategy addresses the following business issues: 1. Risk of loss of service quality and control in the outsource model 2. Business interruption risks from labour disputes and strikes 3. Business interruption risks from contractor business closure 4. Uncertainty in long term contractor rates 5. Quality of monitoring, reporting, information needs 6. Impact on employee morale 232 INTR OD UCTION & BA CKGR O UND Municipalities across Canada are continuously seeking ways to provide high service levels in the most cost effective manner. One approach to reduce costs is through outsourcing, provided it is not cost prohibitive and there is a business case to support it. The purpose of this report is to study that business case. For several years the City has contracted out part of the collection of its solid waste, primarily for reasons of internal capacity and resource limitations. The City provides for collection of refuse and compost, through the Solid Waste Collection Service, at 22,190 eligible residential households in accordance with the Solid Waste By -Law. Approximately 18,395 of those households receive service on a bi- weekly basis, while 3,795 households in priority neighbourhoods are serviced weekly. This amounts to collection at 25,985 units (18,395 +3,795 +3,795) during every two week period, utilizing both "in- house" resources (16,718 collection units) and contracted services (9,267 units) by FERO Waste and Recycling Inc. ( "FERO "). A re- evaluation of the service and its methods of delivery have been undertaken. Based on the 2011 budget submission, the City is expected to invest $4,113,000 in Solid Waste collection, with $1,760,000 representing contracted services. Expressions of interest (EOI) were recently solicited for the collection of all 25,985 units. Two responses were received on Thursday, August 19th, 2010; one from FERO and the other from Waste Management of Canada Corporation ( "WMCC "). The EOI in no way binds the City of Saint John to either company. Pricing on a final tender would be based on further due diligence supplied by the City and may result in higher or lower pricing. The following is a summary of the pricing terms within each EOI: The Finance Department was requested to provide a financial analysis to support an overall business case that compares the merits of providing solid waste services with City workers (hereinafter referred to as "In- House ") to the value of outsourcing the service to a private contractor. The financial analysis for such a business case is often referred to as a "Make- versus -Buy" decision. 233 FERO Waste Management of Canada Term 3 Years with option to renew 5 -7 Years with option to renew Solid Waste & Compost $15.40 per unit per month $7.50 per household per month Disposal Cost Included in Price Excluded in Pricing Annual CPI Adjustment No Yes Fuel Included in Price Monthly Rate Adjustment The Finance Department was requested to provide a financial analysis to support an overall business case that compares the merits of providing solid waste services with City workers (hereinafter referred to as "In- House ") to the value of outsourcing the service to a private contractor. The financial analysis for such a business case is often referred to as a "Make- versus -Buy" decision. 233 OBJECTIVE The City of Saint John can decide to proceed with the following options for Solid Waste Collection services: 1. Continue with the Status Quo which means service 16,718 collection units with "In- House" resources and outsource 9,267 units with FERO ( "Alternative #1) 2. Bring all 25,985 units "In- House" and terminate the FERO contract ( "Alternative #2 ") 3. Outsource all 25,985 collection units to a private contractor that provides the most competitive pricing and acceptable service level ( "Alternative #3") The objective of the report is to produce financial analysis that is useful for making a go forward decision. Two financial analyses will be employed: 1. Differential Cost Analysis 2. Budget Impact Analysis The report will also touch on the importance of having a business case for long term investment decisions that addresses both the financial implications and a strategy for risk management. 234 METHODOLOGY Strategic investment decisions should be based on a business case that focuses on the long term to ensure the City obtains the highest value for money. Production of a financial model is critical for justifying whether an investment has value, as well as to demonstrate the long term impact of the strategic decision. A discounted cash flow ( "DCF ") analysis is considered the "gold standard" of financial analysis for measuring the value of long term investments. Cash is the most important measure in a DCF analysis, as incremental future cash flow streams are discounted to a present value to measure the value of a potential investment. The concept of incremental is an important one, as only costs that are affected by taking certain action is relevant. Fixed costs are ignored; as they exist no matter what decision is made. Discounting is another important concept. Discounting determines the present value of a stream of payments that is to be paid or received in the future. Discounting is important to ensure proper weighting is applied to costs today as well as costs into the future. Finally, DCF models also incorporate opportunity cost. Opportunity costs are the costs or benefits foregone by choosing an alternative action. DCF financial models are a powerful tool, however it is important that all inputs in the model are heavily vetted. Financial models are merely a financial tool and are only as good as the information placed within. It is imperative to obtain a comfort level with the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions. The results in a DCF model demonstrates that if the value arrived at is positive; then the opportunity may be a good one. Differential Cost Analysis According to the Government Finance Officers Association' (the "GFOA "), it is recommended that a differential cost analysis (a particular type of "DCF" analysis) be conducted when reviewing the merits of outsourcing. The differential cost analysis illustrates the value difference between two or more alternatives. Future cash flow projections are based on supportable management assumptions and known factors. Given the inherent uncertainty of assumptions, a high level of diligence is required in the vetting process. A sensitivity analysis should also be produced to demonstrate a "best case ", "worst case" and "most likely" case scenario. One major pitfall organizations sometimes fall into is comparing the total costs of alternatives rather than the differential or incremental costs. Doing so can lead to misleading results because fixed costs are often included in total cost and are irrelevant to the decision. For example, if employee costs cannot be avoided due to contractual commitments either directly or indirectly, the costs would be considered fixed and not relevant to the "Make- versus -Buy" decision. A calculation of the Internal Rate of Return ( "IRR ") and the Discounted Payback Period (DPP) often accompany these analyses. The 1RR is an indicator of investment return while the DPP calculates the amount of time until the investment is recovered. Budgetary Impact Assessment As expected, there will also be interest in projecting what the City's budget may look like for each alternative. The DCF analysis provides an assessment of value whereas the budget demonstrates funding requirements. ' "Make or Buy? "— R. Gregory Michel, GFOA Manager of Research and Consulting, August 2004 235 SCOPE LIMITATION Readers of this report should take note of the various scope limitations within this document: 1. As it relates to Alternative #3 on page 6, paramount to any outsource decision is the cost of wages and benefits. When assessing Alternative #3, Finance had to assume that the organization is unrestricted in its ability to reduce the cost of its workforce; otherwise the financial analysis of Alternative #3 is moot. Wages and benefits are the single largest savings when undertaking such a review. In reality, however, the collective agreement with Local 18 commits the City to maintain a minimum of 293 outside workers. Unless otherwise negotiated it is unlikely that savings can be realized by means of a permanent workforce reduction. In light of this, for purposes of assessing Alternative #3, the report should be used as an illustrative example of what could possibly be achieved if such limitations did not exist. Some savings may or may not be achievable through reallocation of the permanent workforce. This would require further financial analysis and is considered out of scope for this report. 2. The financial analysis is specifically geared to the solid waste services provided today. Other potential value added services not currently offered, such as curb side recycling, were not contemplated and are outside the scope of this report. 3. Operating and business practices were not reviewed for synergistic cost savings by Finance (i.e. route scheduling, manpower scheduling, etc.) and is also considered outside the scope of the analysis, although Operations should seek to optimize such considerations. 4. Finance did not review any potential impact to service levels from changing the current business model. Questions regarding service level should be posed to Operations. 5. Finance did not analyze the costs associated with a potential transitioning to a user pay system. 6. Alternative #2 compares the cost of FERO services to projected "In- House" costs. The analysis is specific to the current contracted rates with FERO. The WMCC bid is outside the scope of Alternative #2 given the company placed a bid only on the entire business (all City routes). 236 KEY ASSUMPTIONS Wages & Benefits • Per scope limitation #1 on page 8, for purposes of assessing Alternative #3, it is assumed the City is able to achieve, regardless of its collective agreement obligations, a reduction in wages and benefits from outsourcing solid waste collection services. • Based on Operations management, Alternative #2 would require 4 additional full time City workers in Solid Waste. Alternative #3 plans for a reduction of 13 full time equivalent positions ( "FTEs "). • Based on Operations management, for Alternative #3, through adherence with the seniority hierarchy, the reduction in 13 FTEs would be with employees that have less than 2 years of service; sufficient working notice would be provided and negligible severance payouts would be required. Expressions of Interest WMCC's bid excludes disposal costs from their pricing; their position is that leaving these costs with the City allows for "a more competitive price ". The FERO bid includes disposal costs. Finance adjusted WMCC's bid for the estimated disposal costs and both bids for non - refundable portion of HST to establish an "apples to apples" rate. The WMCC rate was deemed lowest bid based on the following table for the first year: Term Annual Charge Estimated Disposal Costs Total Solid Waste /Compost Collection Units Monthly Unit Rate Fero WMCC $4,966,738 $2,065,577 $0 $1,410,289 $4,966,738 $3,475,866 25,985 25,985 $15.93 $11.15 ** Annual Charge includes Non Refundable Portion of HST • WMCC minimum contract term per EOI is 5 -7 years with upside potential that additional option years may result in more competitive pricing • Pricing on final tender will be based on a more detailed due diligence exchange with the City which may or may not result in higher or lower pricing on tender • WMCC rates are adjusted regularly for changes in CPI and Fuel prices Fuel Costs • Consideration to density, and fuel rates. Assumes 5% annual increase Contingency • To be conservative, a contingency was applied in the base case at 5% and was sensitivity tested 237 Capital Investment • Alternative #2 requires the purchase of 3 solid waste packers. The 3 packers would consist of 1 side loading 1 person packer, and 2 rear loading 2 person split packers and have an estimated average unit price of approximately $264,667. • The City currently has a fleet of 7 side loading 1 person packers. • Based on Fleet Management, the useful life of a packer is estimated to be 10 years Debt Financing • Discount rate - 5.5% • Borrowing Term — 15 Years Tipping Fees • Based on budget and tonnage information from Operations management • Refuse Rate - $108 per ton • Compost Rate - $28 per ton Salvage Value • Finance consulted with Fleet Management to estimate salvage value for the current packer fleet, which are typically salvaged through an auction process • Fleet Management suggests a declining balance depreciation calculation and a straight line depreciation calculation is a reasonable basis to estimate salvage value. The straight line method depreciates over a 10 year useful life. The Declining- Balance method assumes depreciation of 30% on the initial purchase price (year one) and then a further 20% each consecutive year from the previous year balance. • Based upon the above parameters, salvage value is estimated at approximately $260,000 (mid -point below) as reflected below: $197,922 $322,520 Midpoint $ 260,221 Estimate $ 260,000 Employee Lost Time • Opportunity cost calculated based on historical payroll records, and include sick time, workers compensation, medical, family care, union business, and other non work related absences. 10 238 Residual Values Packers Veh # Purchase Price 30/20 Straight Line (10 yrs) 2006 Ford F -550 569 $104,915 $24,065 $47,966 2001 Freightliner 640 $72,200 $10,599 $10,000 2008 International 641 $167,000 $59,853 $104,200 2003 Freightliner 643 $140,076 $17,136 $23,008 2001 Freightliner 644 $72,200 $10,599 $10,000 2006 International 1 646 1 $186,366 $42,748 $80,546 2002 International 647 $185,626 $15,260 $10,000 2006 International 648 $77,000 $17,662 $36,800 $197,922 $322,520 Midpoint $ 260,221 Estimate $ 260,000 Employee Lost Time • Opportunity cost calculated based on historical payroll records, and include sick time, workers compensation, medical, family care, union business, and other non work related absences. 10 238 BUDGET PROJECTION (PRO- FORMA) For the purpose of this report, the 2011 Solid Waste operating budget (Alternative #1 - Status Quo) was adjusted to project what the budget would look like based on an "In- House" model and based on a full outsource model with WMCC. 1. Alternative #1 (Status Quo) is based on the submitted 2011 Solid Waste Collection operating budget which includes FERO contractor fees for 9,267 collection units. 2. Alternative #2 ( "In- House ") is based on the status quo budget adjusted for 4 additional FTEs, increasing total solid waste workers from 9 to 13, to support the 9,267 units serviced by FERO. In addition, incremental tipping fees, vehicle charges and overhead costs were added. These costs are offset from the reduction in contractor fees. A further capital investment of approximately $794,000 would be required for the purchase of 3 new packers. 3. Alternative #3 (WMCC Outsource) is based on the status quo budget adjusted to remove avoidable "In- House" costs and to add the additional WMCC costs for all 25,985 units. The Pro -Forma budgets are illustrated below: Pro Forma Operating Budget Alternative #1 Status Quo Alternative #2 "in-House" Alternative #3 Outsource Based on projected 2011 Solid Waste Budget Additional Resources I Required Based on Waste Management Submission Wages & Benefits $783,391 $1,014,620 $155,812 Tipping Fees $810,000 $1,410,289 $1,410,289 Outsource Services $1,760,000 $0 $2,065,497 Vehicle Usage $479,460 $677,928 $8,736 Vehicle Fuel $107,605 $187,605 $2,000 Other $173,487 $228,525 $199,617 $4,113,943 $3,518,967 $3,841,951 Fiscal Charges $0 $96,603 $0 Total Solid Waste $4,113,943 $3,615,570 $3,841,951 3 Packers Capital Required Alternative #1 Status Quo Alternative #2 "in-House" Alternative #3 Outsource Based on projected 2011 Solid Waste Budget Additional Resources I Required Based on Waste Management Submission $0 $794,000 $0 "Annual operating budget impact forpackers reflected in fiscal charges above 11 239 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Status Quo (Alternative #1) versus "In- House" (Alternative #2) The status quo has City workers collecting 16,718 collection units while FERO services picks up the remaining 9,267 units. The contracted price per unit with FERO is $15.40 per unit per month. In respect to scope limitation #6 on page 8 of this report, the first financial analysis compares the cost of FERO services to the cost of servicing those 9,267 units fully with "In- House" resources. Exhibit 1 - Differential Cost Analysis - FERO contract Based on the assumptions previously detailed, the value of replacing the current FERO contract with "In- House" resources is valued at an estimated $1,387,000 over a 5 year period. The discounted payback period on the investment in 3 packers is estimated to be within 20.75 months. The internal rate of return of 57.16% over 5 years exceeds the City's cost to acquire debt supporting a positive business case. FERO's expression of interest for all units proposed the same rate charged today for the next 36 months, thus Finance assumed the FERO rate would be fixed until year 4, and thereafter, a CPI inflation factor was applied. The detail is presented below: Solid Waste Differential Cost Analysis DCF Rounded to nearest 000's Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Incremental Savings FERO contract $ - $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,795,000 $ 1,831,000 $ - $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,795,000 $ 1,831,000 Incremental Investment in Packers $ (794,000) Incremental "In- House" Costs Tipping Fees for 9,267 units $ - $ (600,000) $ (612,000) $ (625,000) $ (637,000) $ (650,000) 4 FTE's - Solid Waste $ - $ (231,000) $ (238,000) $ (245,000) $ (253,000) $ (260,000) Fuel - 3 Packers $ - $ (80,000) $ (84,000) $ (88,000) $ (92,000) $ (97,000) Vehicle Charges - 3 Packers $ - $ (198,000) $ (202,000) $ (206,000) $ (211,000) $ (215,000) Estimated Lost Time - 4 FTE's $ - $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (16,000) $ (16,000) $ (17,000) Insurance $ - $ (3,000) $ (3,000) $ (3,000) $ (3,000) $ (3,000) Admin $ - $ (12,000) $ (12,000) $ (13,000) $ (13,000) $ (13,000) Contingency (5 %) $ - $ (57,000) $ (58,000) $ (60,000) $ (61,000) $ (63,000) Change in Working Capital $ - $ (78,000) $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ (1,000) $ (1,000) $ - $(1,274,000) $(1,220,000) $(1,252,000) $(1,287,000) $(1,319,000) Incremental "In- House" Savings $ (794,000) $ 486,000 $ 540,000 $ 508,000 $ 508,000 $ 512,000 Discounted "In- House" Savings (5.5%) $ (794,000) $ 461,000 $ 485,000 $ 433,000 $ 410,000 $ 392,000 Cumulative "In- House" Discounted Savings $ (794,000) $ (333,000) $ 152,000 $ 585,000 $ 995,000 $ 1,387,000 Discounted Payback Period 20.75 months Internal Rate of Return on Investment 57.16% over 5 years 12 240 Exhibit 2 — Sensitivity Analysis (Best Case, Worst Case, Most Likely Case, and Expected Case) The DCF is quite sensitive to two particular assumptions: 1. Number of additional FTEs required to service the additional 9,267 units (4 in base case) 2. Percentage contingency applied in the financial model (5% in base case) The sensitivity analysis (also referred to as the "what if' analysis) demonstrates the financial risk of volatile assumptions. Finance prepared a sensitivity analysis to test the financial model's volatility to changes in FTE and contingency for purposes of estimating a worst case, best case and most likely case scenario: Best Case: A best case scenario would see the City adding 4 FTEs and experience 0% contingency. If realized, this would give rise to a positive DCF valuation of approximately $1,631,176 over a 5 year period, a discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return on the investment in 3 Packers of 64.92% over 5 years. Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario, assuming 10% contingency and 6 FTEs results in a positive DCF valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54 months and an internal rate of return of 29.85% on investment. Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall in between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a discounted payback period in the range of 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. The most likely scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement. Expected Case: Weightings (probabilities) were applied to the outcomes in the tables above for various ranges of contingency and FTE requirements for the discounted cash flow, payback period, and internal rate of return (see results in table in page 14). Assigning probability produces an expected result. Finance assigned a 75% probability that 4 FTEs would be required, 15% for 5 FTE's and 10% for 6 FTE's. In addition, Finance assigned the following probabilities for contingency; 5% probability that no contingency would be required, 20% probability of a 2.5% contingency, 50% probability for 5% contingency, 20% probability for 7.5% contingency, and 5% probability of a 10% contingency. Assigning these 13 241 Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Contin enc W LL 0.00% _ _2.500/6 _ $1,631,176 I $ 1,507,847 _ _5.00_% _ $ 1,387,000 _ _7._50_% _ 10.00% $ 1,261,190 I $ 1,137,861 4 FTE 4 FTE 5 FTE $1,378,360 $ 1,248,711 $1,125,544 $ 989,574 $ 1,119,062 $_9_89,4_13 $ 859,764 $ 853,605 $ _ 717,635 $ 581,666 6 FTE Best Case: A best case scenario would see the City adding 4 FTEs and experience 0% contingency. If realized, this would give rise to a positive DCF valuation of approximately $1,631,176 over a 5 year period, a discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return on the investment in 3 Packers of 64.92% over 5 years. Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario, assuming 10% contingency and 6 FTEs results in a positive DCF valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54 months and an internal rate of return of 29.85% on investment. Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall in between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a discounted payback period in the range of 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. The most likely scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement. Expected Case: Weightings (probabilities) were applied to the outcomes in the tables above for various ranges of contingency and FTE requirements for the discounted cash flow, payback period, and internal rate of return (see results in table in page 14). Assigning probability produces an expected result. Finance assigned a 75% probability that 4 FTEs would be required, 15% for 5 FTE's and 10% for 6 FTE's. In addition, Finance assigned the following probabilities for contingency; 5% probability that no contingency would be required, 20% probability of a 2.5% contingency, 50% probability for 5% contingency, 20% probability for 7.5% contingency, and 5% probability of a 10% contingency. Assigning these 13 241 Payback Period (Months) Contingency W LL 0.00% 2.50% 5.00% 7.50% 10.00% W LL 4 FTE 18.83 19.75 20.75 21.85 l 23.08 5 FTE 20.76 _ _ 21.9_4 23.14 24.24 _ 23.25 24.26 26.01 28.09 25.95 6 FTE 30.54 Best Case: A best case scenario would see the City adding 4 FTEs and experience 0% contingency. If realized, this would give rise to a positive DCF valuation of approximately $1,631,176 over a 5 year period, a discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return on the investment in 3 Packers of 64.92% over 5 years. Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario, assuming 10% contingency and 6 FTEs results in a positive DCF valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54 months and an internal rate of return of 29.85% on investment. Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall in between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a discounted payback period in the range of 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. The most likely scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement. Expected Case: Weightings (probabilities) were applied to the outcomes in the tables above for various ranges of contingency and FTE requirements for the discounted cash flow, payback period, and internal rate of return (see results in table in page 14). Assigning probability produces an expected result. Finance assigned a 75% probability that 4 FTEs would be required, 15% for 5 FTE's and 10% for 6 FTE's. In addition, Finance assigned the following probabilities for contingency; 5% probability that no contingency would be required, 20% probability of a 2.5% contingency, 50% probability for 5% contingency, 20% probability for 7.5% contingency, and 5% probability of a 10% contingency. Assigning these 13 241 Internal Rate of Return Contingency W LL 0.00% — 2.50% - - - -- 61.04% 5.00% — - - - -- 57.16% 7.50% — - - - -- 53.20% 10.00% 4 FTE 64.92% 49.18% 5 FTE 57.03% I _ 52.83% _ 48.87% 44.29% _ 48.59% —.--44.26% 39.62% _ _ I 39.81% 34.82% 29.85% 6 FTE Best Case: A best case scenario would see the City adding 4 FTEs and experience 0% contingency. If realized, this would give rise to a positive DCF valuation of approximately $1,631,176 over a 5 year period, a discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return on the investment in 3 Packers of 64.92% over 5 years. Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario, assuming 10% contingency and 6 FTEs results in a positive DCF valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54 months and an internal rate of return of 29.85% on investment. Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall in between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a discounted payback period in the range of 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. The most likely scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement. Expected Case: Weightings (probabilities) were applied to the outcomes in the tables above for various ranges of contingency and FTE requirements for the discounted cash flow, payback period, and internal rate of return (see results in table in page 14). Assigning probability produces an expected result. Finance assigned a 75% probability that 4 FTEs would be required, 15% for 5 FTE's and 10% for 6 FTE's. In addition, Finance assigned the following probabilities for contingency; 5% probability that no contingency would be required, 20% probability of a 2.5% contingency, 50% probability for 5% contingency, 20% probability for 7.5% contingency, and 5% probability of a 10% contingency. Assigning these 13 241 probabilities to the results in the tables above produces an expected positive valuation of approximately $1,292,000 over the 5 year period, including an expected payback period of 21.69 months and an expected internal rate of return of 54.09 %. See results in table below: Tota 1 $1,292,000 Expected Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) $0 Wei htin w $677,928 5% 1 20% 50% 20% 50 LL 75% $ 61,000 1 $ 226,000 1 $ 520,000 $ 189,000 $ 43,000 15% $ 10,000 1 $ 37,0001 $ 84,000 1 $ 30,000 1 $ 6,000 10% $ 6,000 1 $ 20,000 1 $ 43,000 1 $ 14,000 1 $ 3,000 Tota 1 $1,292,000 Total 21.69 months Expected Payback Period (Months) $0 Weighting w $677,928 5% 20% 50% 20% 5% LL 75% 0.71 2.96 7.78 3.28 0.87 15% 0.16 0.661 1.74 1 0.73 0.19 10% 1 0.12 0.481 1.301 0.56 0.15 Total 21.69 months Total 54.09% Exhibit 3 — Budget Impact Assessment Based on assumptions, compared to the status quo, Finance estimates Alternative #2 reduces the annual operating budget requirement by approximately $498,373. With consideration to future inflationary factors, Finance estimates savings of approximately $500,000 annually. Pro Forma Budget Alternative #1 Status Quo Alternative #2 "in-House" Based on projected 2011 Solid Additional Resources Waste Budget Required Wages & Benefits $783,391 $1,014,620 Tipping Fees $810,000 $1,410,289 Outsource Services Expected Internal Rate of Return $0 Weighting w $677,928 5% 20% 50% 20% 5% LL 75% 2.43% 9.16% 21.43% 7.98% 1.84% 15% 0.43% 1.58% 3.64% 1.33% 0.30% 10% 1 0.24% 0.89% 1.98% 0.70% 0.15% Total 54.09% Exhibit 3 — Budget Impact Assessment Based on assumptions, compared to the status quo, Finance estimates Alternative #2 reduces the annual operating budget requirement by approximately $498,373. With consideration to future inflationary factors, Finance estimates savings of approximately $500,000 annually. Pro Forma Budget Alternative #1 Status Quo Alternative #2 "in-House" Based on projected 2011 Solid Additional Resources Waste Budget Required Wages & Benefits $783,391 $1,014,620 Tipping Fees $810,000 $1,410,289 Outsource Services $1,760,000 $0 Vehicle Usage $479,460 $677,928 Vehicle Fuel $107,605 $187,605 Other $173,487 $228,525 $4,113,943 $3,518,967 Fiscal Charges $0 $96,603 Total Solid Waste $4,113,943 $3,615,570 $4 -113 -943 - S3.615.570 = $498.373 14 242 Conclusion - Status Ono (Alternative #1) versus "In- House" (Alternative #2 There is an interest in understanding the financial implications of replacing the current FERO contract that services 9,267 units with "In- House" resources. Finance produced a differential cost analysis based on a Discounted Cash Flow methodology to assess the value proposition. Based on assumptions in the base case, replacing the FERO contract with City workers adds approximately $1,387,000 in value over a 5 year period, a discounted payback period of 20.75 months and an internal rate of return of approximately 57.16 %. The financial model is sensitive to two particular assumptions; the number of additional FTEs required and the percentage contingency applied. A best case scenario includes a 0% contingency and 4 FTEs to produce a positive value of approximately $1,632,000 over 5 years, a discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return of 64.92 %. For the worst case scenario, Finance estimates a positive valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54 months and an internal rate of return of 29.85 %. The most likely scenario ranges between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a discounted payback period between 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The most likely scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement. Probabilities were applied to percent contingency and number of additional FTEs to produce an expected value of approximately $1,292,000 over the 5 year period, as well as an expected discounted payback period of 21.69 months and an expected internal rate of return of 54.09 %. Based on assumptions, compared to the cost of the FERO contract, Finance estimates the "In- House" solution will reduce annual operating costs by approximately $500,000 annually. Recommendation Operations indicate a tender for bids was sent in August of 2010 for the 9,267 units currently serviced by FERO, for which FERO was the lowest bidder. The expectation is that another tender call would yield similar results. Based on this information and the results established in the financial model, Finance concludes Alternative #2 would achieve better value for money in solid waste collection for the City. 15 243 "In- House" ( "Alternative #2 ") versus Outsource ( "Alternative #3 ") A financial analysis is also necessary to understand the opportunity that exists with the expression of interest from the lowest bidder, WMCC, to outsource all 25,985 collection units currently serviced. The reader must keep in mind scope limitation #1 on page 7 when interpreting the results hereunder. Differential Cost Analysis - Base Case Over a 7 year term, "In- House" solid waste collection services are estimated to generate $255,000 in value compared to contracting with WMCC contract over the same period. Even though the annual savings are estimated at $225K per year with an "In- House" approach, the break even period is estimated at 5.53 years due to the upfront investment in 3 packers combined with the opportunity cost of the current fleet salvage value (combined at over $1 million dollars). The EOI stipulates that a longer term contract than 5 -7 years may have upside pricing potential for the City. Given these factors, and considering how narrow the value gap is between the two alternatives, Finance recommends that further analysis be conducted after exploration of a longer term rate with WMCC. Exhibit 4 - Differential Cost Analysis - Outsource Decision Solid Waste Collection - Discounted Cash Flow DCF Rounded to nearest 000's Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Incremental Contracted Services WMCC Contract $ $ 2,065,000 $ 2,123,000 $ 2,183,000 $ 2,244,000 $ 2,307,000 $ 2,371,000 $ 2,438,000 $ $ 2,065,000 $ 2,123,000 $ 2,183,000 $ 2,244,000 $ 2,307,000 $ 2,371,000 $ 2,438,000 Incremental Investment in Packers $ (794,000) Salvage Opportunity for Packer Fleet $ (260,000) Incremental "In- House" Costs Wages & Benefits $ $ (859,000) $ (885,000) $ (911,000) $ (938,000) $ (967,000) $ (996,000) $(1,025,000) Vehicle Usage $ $ (669,000) $ (683,000) $ (696,000) $ (710,000) $ (724,000) $ (739,000) $ (754,000) Fuel $ $ (186,000) $ (195,000) $ (205,000) $ (215,000) $ (226,000) $ (237,000) $ (249,000) Other $ $ (29,000) $ (29,000) $ (30,000) $ (31,000) $ (31,000) $ (32,000) $ (33,000) Lost Time $ $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (16,000) $ (16,000) $ (17,000) $ (17,000) $ (18,000) Contingency (5 %) $ $ (88,000) $ (90,000) $ (93,000) $ (96,000) $ (98,000) $ (101,000) $ (104,000) Change in Working Capital $ $ (31,000) $ (1,000) $ (1,000) $ (1,000) $ (1,000) $ (1,000) $ (1,000) $ $(1,877,000) $(1,898,000) $(1,952,000) $(2,007,000) $(2,064,000) $(2,123,000) $(2,184,000) Incremental "In- House" Savings $ (1,054,000) $ 188,000 $ 225,000 $ 231,000 $ 237,000 $ 243,000 $ 248,000 $ 254,000 Discounted "In- House" Savings $ (1,054,000) $ 178,000 $ 202,000 $ 197,000 $ 191,000 $ 186,000 $ 180,000 $ 175,000 Cumulative "In- House" Savings $ (1,054,000) $ (876,000) $ (674,000) $ (477,000) $ (286,000) $ (100,000) $ 80,000 $ 255,000 Discounted Payback Period 5.53 years Internal Rate of Return on Investment 11.68% 16 244 Exhibit 5 — Sensitivity Analysis (Best Case, Worst Case, and Most Likely Case Consistent with Exhibit 2, the following sensitivity analysis demonstrates the financial risk of various assumptions. Finance prepared a sensitivity analysis to test the financial model's volatility to changes in FTE and contingency for purposes of estimating a worst case, best case and most likely case scenario: Best Case: The best case scenario (no contingency and 4 FTE) for an "In- House" service is estimated to result in a value of $784,694 over a 7 year period. A breakeven would be achieved within 3.89 years and an internal rate of return of 22.83% after the full 7 year term. Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario for the "In- House" solution, based on a 10% contingency and 6 FTEs, could erode value by ($974,447) over 7 years, with no payback or return on investment. Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall somewhere in between negative ($350,469) and positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. Expected Case: As per Exhibit 2, probabilities weightings were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year contract. The payback period would be 75.24 months and the internal rate of return would be 8.45 %. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Contingency w 0.00% 2.50% 5.00% 7.50_% 10.00% 10.00% 4 FTE _ _2.50% _ $ 784, 694 1 $ 521,093 _ _ $ 255,000 _ _ $ (6,110) $ 269, 712 5.53 5 FTE $ 464,360,$ _1_92,7_50 $ _ (78,859) $ 5350_46 $ (622,079) 4.73 6 FTE $ 144,026 $ (135,592) $ (415,210) 82 $ (694,8) $ (974,447) Best Case: The best case scenario (no contingency and 4 FTE) for an "In- House" service is estimated to result in a value of $784,694 over a 7 year period. A breakeven would be achieved within 3.89 years and an internal rate of return of 22.83% after the full 7 year term. Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario for the "In- House" solution, based on a 10% contingency and 6 FTEs, could erode value by ($974,447) over 7 years, with no payback or return on investment. Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall somewhere in between negative ($350,469) and positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. Expected Case: As per Exhibit 2, probabilities weightings were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year contract. The payback period would be 75.24 months and the internal rate of return would be 8.45 %. Payback Period (Years) Contingency w 0.00% 2.50% 5.00% 7.50% 10.00% LL 4 FTE 3.89 4.57 5.53 7.04 9.75 5 FTE 4.73 5.82 7.61 11.16 - 14.20% 6 FTE 6.09 8.15 12.64 -17.51% - Best Case: The best case scenario (no contingency and 4 FTE) for an "In- House" service is estimated to result in a value of $784,694 over a 7 year period. A breakeven would be achieved within 3.89 years and an internal rate of return of 22.83% after the full 7 year term. Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario for the "In- House" solution, based on a 10% contingency and 6 FTEs, could erode value by ($974,447) over 7 years, with no payback or return on investment. Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall somewhere in between negative ($350,469) and positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. Expected Case: As per Exhibit 2, probabilities weightings were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year contract. The payback period would be 75.24 months and the internal rate of return would be 8.45 %. Internal Rate of Return Contingency w 0.00% 2.50% 5.00% 7.50% 10.00% LL 4 FTE 22.83% 17.45% 11.68% 5.34% -1.87% 5 FTE 16.25% 10.19% 3.46% -4.35% - 14.20% 6 FTE 9.04% 1.93% -6.46% -17.51% - Best Case: The best case scenario (no contingency and 4 FTE) for an "In- House" service is estimated to result in a value of $784,694 over a 7 year period. A breakeven would be achieved within 3.89 years and an internal rate of return of 22.83% after the full 7 year term. Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario for the "In- House" solution, based on a 10% contingency and 6 FTEs, could erode value by ($974,447) over 7 years, with no payback or return on investment. Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall somewhere in between negative ($350,469) and positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. Expected Case: As per Exhibit 2, probabilities weightings were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year contract. The payback period would be 75.24 months and the internal rate of return would be 8.45 %. Tota 1 $ 137,000 17 245 Expected Value Weighting w 5% 20% 50% 20% 5% 75% $ 29,000 $ 78,000 $ 96,000 $ (1,000) $ (10,000) 15% $ 3,000 $ 6,000 $ (6,000) $ (11,000) $ (5,0100) 10% $ 1,000 $ 3,000 $ 21,000 $ 14,000 $ 5,000 Tota 1 $ 137,000 17 245 The model is also sensitive to future rate increases from WMCC. The table below illustrate the sensitivity of rate increases: "In- House" Value WMCC Rate Increase Alternative #3 Outsource 2.00% 1 2.40% 1 2.80% 3.00% 4.00% 4 FTE 1 $ 12,874 $ 121,463 1 $ 255,000 1 $ 326,145 1 $ 675,911 If WMCC's annual rate increase is 4 %, the value of the "In- House" approach escalates to approximately $675,911. If WMCC holds their annual rate increase to 2% over the next 7 years, the result is a virtual break - even between the two alternatives. The base model assumes a 2.8% increase representing fuel and inflation increases. Exhibit 6 — Budget Impact Assessment The Alternative #2 "In- House" Solid Waste Collection budget is projected to be less than the WMCC outsource model by approximately $226,381. Finance estimates annual budgeted savings of approximately $225K per year. See below: Pro Forma Operating Budget Alternative #2 "In- House" Alternative #3 Outsource Additional Resources Required Based on Waste Management Submission Wages & Benefits $1,014,620 $155,812 Tipping Fees $1,410,289 $1,410,289 Outsource Services $0 $2,065,497 Vehicle Usage $677,928 $8,736 Vehicle Fuel $187,605 $2,000 Other $228,525 $199,617 $3,518,967 $3,841,951 Fiscal Charges $96,603 $0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . . . ........... . . . . . . ............................ . Total Solid Waste $3,615,570 $3,841,951 $3,841,951 - $3,615,570 = $226,381 18 246 Conclusion — "In- House" ( "Alternative #2 ") versus Outsource ( "Alternative #3" It appears WMCC has offered a very competitive bid price. However, based on assumptions, the "In- House" approach is expected to result in a modest increase in value over 7 years versus the WMCC contract by approximately $255,000, including a discounted payback of 5.53 years and an internal rate of return of 11.68 %. Based on the level of contingency and additional workers required, on a best case scenario, the value could be as high as $784,694 with a payback period of 3.89 years and an internal rate of return of 22.83 %. This scenario assumes a 0% contingency and 4 additional FTEs. A worst case scenario could result in a negative valuation over 7 years of approximately ($974,447) with no payback or return. This scenario is based on 10% contingency and 6 FTEs. The most likely scenario will be somewhere in between, estimated at negative ($350,469) and positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement. Probabilities were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year contract, discounted payback period of 6.27 years and an internal rate of return of 8.45 %. The budget impact analysis illustrates that an "In- House" model will result in lower operating costs than a complete outsource model by approximately $226,381. Finance estimates annual budgeted savings of approximately $225K per year. The EOI with WMCC states that preferential pricing may be possible with a longer term agreement. The term in the EOI was for a 5 -7 year term, with annual adjustments for CPI and fuel increases. The collective bargaining agreement with Local 18 commits the City to maintain a minimum of 293 outside workers. As a result it is unlikely that savings can be realized by means of a permanent workforce reduction. In light of this, for purposes of assessing Alternative #3, the report should be used as an illustrative example of what could possibly be achieved if such limitations did not exist. Recommendation The financial results of Alternative #2 ( "In- House ") compared to Alternative #3 (WMCC) are quite interesting. Over a 7 year period Alternative #2 is projected to generate slightly higher value. However, depending on certain assumptions, the value could swing in either direction. Based on the information we have today, Finance would recommend an "In- House" solution over the WMCC solution due to the following: 1. Finance estimates value accretion for the "In- House" approach as the most probable result 2. Start-up cost would be significant if the City decided to get back into the solid waste business 3. There is rate uncertainty in the WMCC contract, with a clause allowing for rate increases at any time for fuel and inflation. There is uncertainty as to the financial impact after the 7 year term. 4. There is uncertainty as to a permanent workforce reduction to generate required savings However, WMCC did put forward a competitive bid. The value gap between the two alternatives over 7 years is slim. Further investigation and discussion may be merited given the EOI expressly states opportunity for a lower rate based on a longer term agreement. Finance recommends if such discussions do proceed, a formula be agreed upon representing annual inflation and fuel increases that is transparent for both parties. In addition, given the significant start-up costs required to get back into the solid waste business, Finance recommends the proposal be based on a longer term than 5 -7 years. A positive business case is also dependent on the City's ability to reduce wages and benefits. Finally, the financial model should be refreshed if these events were to occur. W1 247 Business Case & Risk Management The financial projections within this report should be part of an overall business case to provide Council with a comprehensive picture aligned with the City's overall corporate strategy. The business case should consist of a thorough analysis of the City's needs, opportunities, threats (risks), and alternatives. From a Risk Management perspective, Finance suggests the risk management strategy includes the following business issues: 1. Risk of loss of service quality and control in the outsource model 2. Business interruption risks from labour disputes and strikes 3. Business interruption risks from contractor business closure 4. Uncertainty in long term contractor rates 5. Quality of monitoring, reporting, information needs 6. Impact on employee morale 7. Waste Reduction Program 20 .• 6/17/2011 Finance Department 249 Current State ➢City provides service for 22,190 households ➢ 18,395 households have bi- weekly service ➢3,795 households receive weekly service U n its Collected 25,985 (18,395+31795+31795) ➢ 16,718 units (64 %) collected by City workers ➢9,267 units (36 %) collected by the contractor Finance Department 250 6/17/2011 2011 Solid Waste Collection Budget Total 2011 Budget of $4,113,943 $173,487 $5871065-- 14 0 $810,000-- R. 20% 43% $117601000 Contractor ■Wages Tipping Fee ■ Vehicle /Fuel Other Finance Department 251 6/19/2011 Objectives of Financial Report To estimate financial impact of the following options: ➢ Continue with the Status Quo servicing 16,718 units with "In- House" resources and outsourcing 9,267 units ( "Alternative #1) ➢ Bring all 25,985 units "In- House" and terminate the FERO contract ( "Alternative #2 ") ➢ Outsource all 25,985 units to the contractor that provides the most competitive pricing and acceptable service level ( "Alternative #Y) 252 Methodology ➢Concept of Incremental ➢Why focus on incremental savings and costs? ➢Discounted Cash Flow Analysis ( "DCF ") ➢What is a DCF? ➢What does the result tell us? ➢Why do we use discounting? ➢What is the Discounted Payback Period? ➢What is a Differential Cost Analysis? ➢Budget versus DCF 253 Significant Considerations ➢ Financial calculations are simply mathematics, the value of a financial analysis is determined by the quality of the data and assumptions used ➢Users of the report should ensure they are comfortable with the assumptions outlined in the report, the assumptions will drive the results ➢Users should understand all scope limitations 254 Objective #1: Status Quo versus "In- House" Scope Limitations: ➢ Analysis based on services provided today ➢ Finance did not analyze the costs associated with a user pay system ➢ Finance did not review any potential impact to service levels from changing the current business model ➢ Operating and business practices were not reviewed for synergistic opportunities (i.e. route scheduling, manpower scheduling, etc.) Finance Department 255 6/20/2011 Key Assumptions ➢ Investment in Packers: ➢ 1 side loading 1 person packer, and 2 rear loading 2 person split packers ➢ Total Investment estimated to be $794,000 with 10 year useful life ➢ Vehicle Maintenance & Replacement ➢ 3 Packers @ 5,513 per month based on Fleet ➢ Average Maintenance $30K annually, lifecycle cost over 10 years ➢ City Workers: ➢ 4 additional at skilled worker wage - $44,595 per year plus fringe ➢ Tipping Fees: ➢ Refuge Tonnage: 4,795 tons @ $108 ➢ Compost Tonnage: 1,364 tons @ $28 Finance Department 256 6/20/2011 Assumptions Continued ➢ Fuel: ➢Current City Average Cost per Unit - $6.29 ➢Density Factor — 1.4 times the rate ➢9,267 units @ $8.81 ➢Other Assumptions: ➢Insurance —estimates from insurance ➢Contingency — 5% ➢Administrative Costs — 2% ➢Lost Time — based on experience ➢Inflation — CPI ➢Fuel — 5% annual increase ➢Discount rate — 5.5% Finance Department 257 6/17/2011 Service HST Tota I Estimate City Savings Incremental Contractor Savings Incremental City Costs Quantity Rate I Annual Cost 9,267 9,276 $15.40 $1,712,542 $58,740 9,276 $11,000 $1,771,282 $1,760,000 Net Incremental Savings Savings - $1,760,000 Costs - $1,274,000 Net Savings - $486,000 City Workers Wages Benefits Ove rti m e Tipping Fees Refuge Compost Bulky Quantity I Rate I Annual Cost 4 $45,000 $180,000 4 $11,000 $44,100 4 $1,725 $6,900 4 $57,725 $231,000 5000 $108 $540,000 1000 $28 $28,000 $32,000 $600,000 Vehicle Charges 3 $66,000 $198,000 Fuel Charges 9267 $9 $80,000 Other $108,000 Contingency 5% $57,000 Tota 1 $1,274,000 Finance Department 258 6/17/2011 Base Case Valuation Solid Waste Differential Cost Analysis DCF Rounded to nearest 000's Incremental Savings FERO contract Incremental Investment in Packers Incremental "In- House" Costs Tipping Fees for 9,267 units 4 FTE's - Solid Waste Fuel - 3 Packers Vehicle Charges - 3 Packers Estimated Lost Time - 4 FTE's Insurance Admin Contingency (5 %) Change in Working Capital Incremental "In- House" Savings Discounted "In- House" Savings (5.5 %) Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 $ - $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,795,000 $ 1,831,000 $ - $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,795,000 $ 1,831,000 $ (794,000) $ - $ (600,000) $ (612,000) $ (625,000) $ (637,000) $ (650,000) $ - $ (231,000) $ (238,000) $ (245,000) $ (253,000) $ (260,000) $ - $ (80,000) $ (84,000) $ (88,000) $ (92,000) $ (97,000) $ - $ (198,000) $ (202,000) $ (206,000) $ (211,000) $ (215,000) $ - $ (15,000) $ (15,000) $ (16,000) $ (16,000) $ (17,000) $ - $ (3,000) $ (3,000) $ (3,000) $ (3,000) $ (3,000) $ - $ (12,000) $ (12,000) $ (13,000) $ (13,000) $ (13,000) $ - $ (57,000) $ (58,000) $ (60,000) $ (61,000) $ (63,000) $ - $ (78,000) $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ (1,000) $ (1,000) $ - $(1,274,000) $(1,220,000) $(1,252,000) $(1,287,000) $(1,319,000) $ (794, 000) $ 486,000 $ 540,000 $ 508,000 $ 508,000 $ 512,000 $ (794, 000) $ 461,000 $ 485,000 $ 433,000 $ 410,000 $ 392,000 Cumulative "In- House" Discounted Savings $ (794,000) $ (333,000) $ 152,000 $ 585,000 $ 995,000 $ 1,387,000 Discounted Payback Period 20.75 months Finance Department 259 6/17/2011 Risk Analysis • Financial risk of changes in two key assumptions from the base case, City Workers and Contingency, was tested to estimate a worst and best case scenario: Finance Department 260 6/17/2011 Base Case Worst Case Best Case City Workers Conten enc 4 5% 6 10% 4 0% Average Savings 5 Year Valuation 5 Year Payback months $ 510,000 $ 1,387,000 21 $ 321,000 $ 582,000 31 $ 570,000 $ 1,631,000 19 Finance Department 260 6/17/2011 Objective 2: Full Outsource (Alternative #3) • Valuation results indicate Alternative #3 is competitive over 7 years, with the "In- House" business case producing a marginally higher result, however, given the slim value gap, small changes in assumptions can produce negative or positive results • Permanent Reduction in workforce is the largest savings in an outsource arrangement and must be achievable to make the outsource alternative palatable • Further due diligence is required for this alternative to understand: — Issues with collective agreement — Contractor indicated lower price for longer term commitment — Significant Start Up Costs to get back in the business — Long term certainty of costs beyond 7 years for contractor rates — Transparency in contractor rates for inflationary clauses Finance Department 261 6/17/2011 Recommendation • If it is desired to pursue further due diligence the Financial Model would require a refresh if as a result there are changes in terms, conditions and assumptions • Finance recommends a risk management strategy be structured to address the following issues: — Managing service quality in an outsource arrangement — Ability to influence waste reduction and other programs in an outsource — Business Interruption risk of Contractor — Interruption risk from employee labour disputes /strikes — Address uncertainty in long term contractor rates — Address transparency of contractor rates — Future employee costs — Quality of monitoring, reporting, information needs — Employee Morale Finance Department 262 6/17/2011