2012-08-27_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, August 27, 2012
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal,
veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffiere communale au 658 -2862.
Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private
pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of the Municipalities Act and Council /Committee
will make a decision(s) in that respect in Open Session:
4:30 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall
1.0 Approval of Minutes 10.2(4)(b)
1.1 Personnel Matter 10.2(4)(b)
1.2 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c)
1.3 Employment Matter 10.2(4)(b,j)
1.4 Employment Matter 10.2(4)(b,j)
1.5 Personal Information 10.2(4)(b)
1.6 Nominating Committee 10.2(4)(b)
1.7 Personal Information 10.2(4)(b)
1.8 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0)
1.9 Legal Opinion 10.2(4)(f)
Regular Meeting
1. Call to Order — Prayer
7:00 p.m. Council Chamber
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Minutes of July 18, 2012
2.2 Minutes of July 23, 2012
3. Adoption of Agenda
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 Police Commission: Request to Present to Council (Recommendation: Refer
to Clerk to Schedule)
5.2 Town of Quispamsis Letter - Regional Growth Strategy Framework
(Recommendation: Receive for Information)
3
5.3 Letter from Carleton Branch #002 Re: Moving Cenotaph back to Tilley Park
(Recommendation: Refer to the City Manager)
5.4 Proposed Public Utility Easement - 1381 Bayside Dr (Recommendation in
Report)
5.5 Exchange Agreement with Service New Brunswick (Recommendation in
Report)
5.6 Contract 2012 -27: Crack Sealing 2012 (Recommendation in Report)
5.7 622808 N.B. Inc. Easement - Off Canterbury Street (Recommendation in
Report)
5.8 Watershed Land Acquisition Portion of PID 00428524 - 4361 Loch Lomond
Rd (Recommendation in Report)
5.9 City Manager: Public Information Session - Somerset Street
(Recommendation in Report)
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation
7.1 Shinerama Week and Shinerama Day
7.2 United Way Month
8. Delegations / Presentations
8.1 Vibrant Communities - Urban Transportation Initiative
9. Public Hearings
10. Consideration of By -laws
10.1 Third Reading - Taxicab By -law Amendment
10.2 Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment 3795 Loch Lomond Rd / Abigail
Place / Eldersley Av
11. Submissions by Council Members
11.1 Nominating Committee SharePoint Portal (Councillor Norton)
11.2 Scheduling of Council Meetings (Deputy Mayor Rinehart) (Tabled August
13)
12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers
12.1 Common Clerk: Information Governance Suite - The Total Information
Governance Solution
12.2 City Manager: Follow -Up Respecting the 2012 Heritage Grant Program
12.3 City Manager: Peel Plaza - Plaza Tender
13. Committee Reports
13.1 Saint John Transit Commission: Response to Council Resolution Re
Revenue Generating Routes
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15. General Correspondence
15.1 Letter from Latimore Lake & Area Community Association
16. Adjournment
S
The City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 27 aont 2012
Comite pl6nier
1. Ouverture de la seance
Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal,
veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&re communale au 658 -2862.
Chacun des points suivants, en totalit& ou en partie, peut faire Pobjet d'une discussion en
priv6 en vertu des dispositions pr6vues a Particle 10 de la Loi sur les municipalites. Le
conseil /comit6 prendra une ou des d6cisions a cet 6gard au cours de la s6ance publique
16 h 30 — Salle de conference, 8e etage, hotel de ville
1.0 Approbation du proc&s- verbal — alin&a 10.2(4)b)
1.1 Question relative au personnel — alin6a 10.2(4)b)
1.2 Question financiere — alin&a 10.2(4)c)
1.3 Question relative a 1'emploi — alin6as 10.2(4)b), j)
1.4 Question relative a 1'emploi — alin6as 10.2(4)b), j)
1.5 Renseignements personnels — alin6a 10.2(4)b)
1.6 Comite des candidatures — alin6a 10.2(4)b)
1.7 Renseignements personnels — alin6a 10.2(4)b)
1.8 Question relative a 1'emploi — alin&as 10.2(4)j)
1.9 Avis juridique — alin6a 10.2(4)f)
Seance ordinaire
1.Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
19 h — Salle du conseil
2. Approbation du proces- verbal
2.1 Proces- verbal de la s6ance tenue le 18 juillet 2012
2.2 Proces- verbal de la s6ance tenue le 23 juillet 2012
3. Adoption de Pordre du jour
4. Divulgations de conflits d1int6rets
5. Questions soumises a Papprobation du conseil
5.1 Bureau des commissaires de police : Demande visant a effectuer une
pr6sentation devant le conseil (recommandation : transmettre a la greffi&e pour
qu'une date de pr6sentation soit fix6e)
5.2 Lettre de la Ville de Quispamsis relative a la strat&gie de croissance r6gionale
(recommandation : accepter a titre informatif)
5.3 Lettre de la filiale de Carleton n° 002 relative au red6m6nagement du
c6notaphe au parc Tilley (recommandation : transmettre au directeur g6n6ral)
5.4 Servitude d'utilit6 publique propos6e — 1381, promenade Bayside
(recommandation figurant au rapport)
5.5 Accord d'6changes avec Service Nouveau - Brunswick (recommandation
figurant au rapport)
5.6 Contrat 2012 -27 : Calfeutrage des fissures 2012 (recommandation figurant au
rapport)
5.7 622808 N.B. Inc. Easement — Donnant sur la rue Canterbury (recommandation
figurant au rapport)
5.8 Acquisition de bien -fonds relative au bassin versant de la propri6t6 portant le
NID 00428524 situ6e au 4361, chemin Loch Lomond (recommandation figurant
au rapport)
5.9 Directeur g6n6ral : S6ance informative publique — rue Somerset
(recommandation figurant au rapport)
6. Commentaires pr6sent6s par les membres
7. Proclamation
7.1 Semaine Shinerama et Jour Shinerama
7.2 Mois de Centraide
8. D616gations et presentations
8.1 Vibrant Communities — Initiative visant le transport urbain
9. Audiences publiques
10. Etude des arrWs municipaux
10.1 Troisi&me lecture de la modification de 1'Arret6 r6glementant les taxis
10.2 Projet de modification du plan municipal relatif au 3795, chemin Loch
Lomon / place Abigail / avenue Eldersley
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
11.1 Comit& de candidatures Portail SharePoint (conseiller Norton)
11.2 Etablissement du calendrier relatif aux r6unions du conseil (mairesse
suppl6ante Rinehart) (pr&sent6 le 13 aout)
12. Affaires municipales 6voqu6es par les fonctionnaires municipaux
12.1 Greffi&re communale : Information Governance Suite — La solution
complete de la gestion de 1'information
12.2 Directeur g6n6ral : Suivi concemant le programme de subventions au
patrimoine de 2012
12.3 Directeur g6n6ral : Soumission relative a la place Peel
13. Rapports d6pos6s par les comit6s
13.1 Commission des transports de Saint John : R&ponse pr&sent&e au Conseil
d'administration sur les itin&raires lucratifs
14. ktude des sujets 6cart6s des questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil
15. Correspondance g6n6rale
15.1 Lettre reque de 1'association communautaire du lac Latimore et de la r6gion
avoisinante
16. Levke de la s6ance
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 18, 2012/LE 18 JUILLET 2012
COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
CITY HALL — JULY 18, 2012 - 9:30 A.M.
Present:
Mel Norton, Mayor
Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Fullerton, MacKenzie,
McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon, Snook and Strowbridge
WTiT:!
P. Woods, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; G. Yeomans,
Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; K. Forrest,
Commissioner of Growth and Development Services; W.
Edwards, Commissioner of Transportation and Environment
Services; W. Reid, Chief of Police; K. Clifford, Fire Chief; E.
Gormley, Common Clerk and J. Taylor, Assistant Common Clerk.
1. Call To Order
The Mayor Called the meeting to order
1.1 Strategic Decision Making: Council Priorities, Core Service Review and
2013 Service -Based Budget Process
The City Manager spoke briefly of the Council Priorities, the core services review, and
the 2013 service -based budget process.
Referring to the submitted report, J. Hamilton, reviewed the executive summary.
(Mayor Norton withdrew from the meeting and Deputy Mayor Rinehart replaced him as
the Chair.)
(Councillor Reardon entered the meeting.)
S. Rackley -Roach reviewed the submitted presentation entitled Strategic Framework
Council Priority Setting Core Service Review Service -Based Budget Process.
(The Mayor re- entered the meeting and replaced the Deputy as the Chair.)
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Fullerton
RESOLVED that item 1.1 Strategic Decision
Making: Council Priorities, Core Service Review and 2013 Service -Based Budget
Process be tabled.
Question being taken, the motion was defeated with Deputy
Rinehart and Councillors MacKenzie, Snook, Merrithew, and Norton voting nay.
On motion of Councillor Merrithew
Seconded by Councillor Norton
RESOLVED that Common Council:
1. Endorse the recommended framework for the 2013 service -based budget
process inclusive of the Council priority setting and core service review.
2. Endorse the Core Service Review Terms of Reference outlined in this report and
attachment and authorize the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for
consulting services to be engaged on an as- needed basis as outlined in the
Terms of Reference and report back to Council on a recommended external
service provider(s), suggested review process and cost.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Fullerton,
McAlary, and Reardon voting nay.
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
5
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 18, 2012/1-E 18 JUILLET 2012
Mayor
Common Clerk
97-
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 18, 2012/LE 18 JUILLET 2012
SEANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
TENUE A L'HOTEL DE VILLE, LE 18 JUILLET 2012, A 9 H 30
Sont presents :
Mel Norton, maire
la mairesse suppleante Rinehart et les conseillers MacKenzie,
Merrithew, Norton, Snook, Strowbridge et les conseilleres
Fullerton, McAlary et Reardon
-et -
P. Woods, directeur general; J. Nugent, avocat municipal;
G. Yeomans, commissaire aux finances et tresorier; K. Forrest,
commissaire aux services de developpement et de croissance;
W. Edwards, commissaire aux services de transport et
d'environnement; W. Reid, chef de police, K. Clifford, chef du
service d'incendie; E. Gormley, greffiere communale, et J. Taylor,
greffier communal adjoint.
1. Ouverture de la seance
La seance est ouverte par le maire.
1.2 Prise de decisions strategiques : priorites du Conseil, examen des services
de base et processus relatif au budget fonde sur les services pour 2013
Le directeur general aborde brievement les priorites du Conseil, 1'examen des services
de base et le processus relatif au budget fonde sur les services pour 2013.
Faisant reference a un rapport depose anterieurement, J. Hamilton passe en revue le
resume.
(Le maire Norton quitte la reunion et la mairesse suppleante Rinehart assume la
presidence a sa place.)
(La conseillere Reardon se joint a la reunion.)
S. Rackley -Roach passe en revue la presentation anterieure intitulee Prise de decisions
strategiques : priorites du Conseil, examen des services de base et processus relatif au
budget fonde sur les services pour 2013.
(Le maire revient et remplace la mairesse suppleante a titre de president de la reunion.)
Proposition de la conseillere McAlary
Appuyee par la conseillere Fullerton
RESOLU que le point 1.1 intitule Prise de decisions
strategiques : priorites du Conseil, examen des services de base et processus relatif au
budget fonde sur les services pour 2013 soit reporte.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est rejetee. La mairesse
suppleante Rinehart ainsi que les conseillers MacKenzie, Snook, Merrithew et Norton
votent contre la proposition.
Proposition du conseiller Merrithew
Appuyee par le conseiller Norton
RESOLU que le conseil communal:
3. approuve le cadre recommande pour le processus relatif au budget fonde sur les
services pour 2013, y compris 1'etablissement des priorites du Conseil et
1'examen des services de base;
4. approuve le mandat de 1'examen des services de base qui est decrit dans le
present rapport. II est en outre resolu qu'il autorise le directeur general a faire
une demande de propositions en vue de retenir des services de consultants, tels
qu'ils sont definis dans le mandat, lorsque cela est necessaire, et qu'il fasse un
7
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 18, 2012/LE 18 JUILLET 2012
compte rendu au Conseil des recommendations en matiere de fournisseurs de
services externes, de processus d'examen et de couts.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Les conseilleres Fullerton,
McAlary et Reardon votent contre la proposition.
Le maire declare que la seance est levee a 10 h 45.
maire
greffiere communale
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
CITY HALL — JULY 23, 2012 - 5:00 P.M.
Present:
Mel Norton, Mayor
Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Farren, Fullerton,
MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon, Snook and
Strowbridge
- and -
P. Woods, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; G. Yeomans,
Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; K. Clifford, Fire Chief;
E. Gormley, Common Clerk and J. Taylor, Assistant Common
Clerk.
Call To Order — Prayer
Mayor Norton called the meeting to order and Councillor Snook offered the opening
prayer.
3.0 Shared Risk Pension Plan
Referring to a submitted presentation, Susan Rowland, Chair of the Task Force on
Protecting Pensions, provided an outline of a shared risk pension model and she
responded to questions from Council members.
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the shared risk pension plan
presentation be received for information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Items Forwarded from July 16, 2012 Council Meeting
3.1 Citizen Online Crime Reporting System (Councillor Norton)
On motion of Councillor Norton
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the Police Commission be
requested to investigate the implementation of a Citizen Online Crime Reporting System
and report back to council with a recommendation in six weeks.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3.2 2013 Budget Process (Councillor McAlary)
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Merrithew
RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to
commence the Budget process in a timely fashion to allow Council to receive the 2013
Budget prior to year end.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
(The Mayor withdrew from the meeting and the Deputy Mayor replaced him as Chair.)
3.3 Budget 2013 — Schedule for Meetings and Public Consultation (Councillor
Snook)
On motion of Councillor Snook
Seconded by Councillor Farren
RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Snook
entitled Budget 2013 — Schedule for Meetings and Public Consultation be referred to the
City Manager.
9
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
(The Mayor reentered the meeting and returned as Chair.)
3.4 Mispec Park (Councillor Fullerton)
On motion of Councillor Snook
Seconded by Councillor Fullerton
RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Fullerton
entitled Mispec Park be received for information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3.5 Committee to Represent the Interest of Citizens - Taxpayers in Regards to
the Pension (Councillor Fullerton)
On motion of Councillor Fullerton
Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie
RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Fullerton
entitled Committee to Represent the Interest of Citizens — Taxpayers in Regards to the
Pension be received for information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3.6 Costs of Legal Services (Councillor Fullerton)
On motion of Councillor Fullerton
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that Council direct the City Solicitor to
disclose all legal fees (excluding those connected to the Ferguson trial) that have been
charged to the City by outside firms, during the years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and
up to June 30 of 2012; and further the details of these expenditures are to include: name
of firm, name of lawyer, date of work, description of work done, requested by whom, on
what file and total bill.
Responding to a question, Mr. Nugent stated that he will attempt to submit this report to
Council by the end of August 2012.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3.7 Public Transportation Tax Reforms and Innovative Transportation
Solutions (Councillor Snook)
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Deputy Mayor Rinehart
RESOLVED that the letter from Councillor Snook
entitled Public Transportation Tax Reforms and Innovative Transportation Solutions Tax
Relief and Reforms, be referred to Council's priority setting session.
Question being taken, the motion was defeated with Councillors Farren,
Fullerton, Merrithew, Reardon, Snook and Strowbridge voting nay.
On motion of Councillor Snook
Seconded by Councillor Reardon
RESOLVED that, as Council's representative on
the Transit Commission, Councillor Snook will work directly with the Provincial
Government to ensure that necessary and appropriate steps are taken in order to
successfully advocate tax reforms for public transportation in New Brunswick as outlined
in Councillor Snook's submitted letter, dated July 12, 2012, entitled Public Transportation
Tax Reforms and Innovative Transportation Solutions Tax Relief and Reforms.
Councillor MacKenzie proposed an amendment to the main motion, seconded by Deputy
Mayor Rinehart, to add that Councillor Snook will work with other municipalities in the
Province of New Brunswick to develop a collaborative plan.
Question being taken on the amendment, the motion was carried.
10
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
On motion of Councillor Snook
Seconded by Councillor Reardon
RESOLVED that, as Council's representative on
the Transit Commission, Councillor Snook will work directly with other Municipalities in
New Brunswick to ensure that necessary and appropriate steps are taken in order to
successfully advocate tax reforms for public transportation in New Brunswick as outlined
in Councillor Snook's submitted letter, dated July 12, 2012, entitled Public Transportation
Tax Reforms and Innovative Transportation Solutions Tax Relief and Reforms.
Question being taken on the motion as amended, and stated above, the
motion was carried.
On motion of Councillor Snook
Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie
RESOLVED that as suggested in Councillor
Snook's submitted letter, dated July 12, 2012, entitled Public Transportation Tax
Reforms and Innovative Transportation Solutions Tax Relief and Reforms, Common
Council request that Enterprise Saint John explore potential partnerships /funding for the
implementation of creative and innovative transportation options.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Deputy Mayor Rinehart
and Councillor McAlary voting nay.
(Councillor MacKenzie withdrew from the meeting.)
3.8 Utilizing Vacant or Underutilized Space at Saint John Transit Operations
Centre (Councillor Norton)
On motion of Councillor Norton
Seconded by Councillor Farren
RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to
investigate the possibility of using underutilized space for fire services by relocating
emergency services from the aging infrastructure currently in place at Station 4 (36
Courtenay Avenue) to the Saint John Transit Operations Centre (55 McDonald Street)
and prepare a recommendation for Council.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3.9 The Cherry Brook Zoo (Deputy Mayor Rinehart)
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor Merrithew
RESOLVED that the City Manager and /or City
Solicitor be asked to answer the following questions:
1. Is the Zoo situated on lands belonging to the City of Saint John, and if so what is the
tenancy agreement?
2. Who owns the assets of the Cherry Brook Zoo?
3. Where does the liability for the welfare of the animals lie should the Cherry Brook Zoo
cease operations?
4. Are there any risk of financial, legal or other exposure for the City should funding be
further reduced or eliminated and the Zoo cease operations?
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
(Councillor MacKenzie re- entered the meeting.)
3.10 Performance Management Plan (Deputy Mayor Rinehart)
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie
RESOLVED that the Common Clerk be directed to
co- ordinate the following:
1. Council receive immediately copies of the last performance evaluation documents
from each of the four individuals reporting directly to Council.
11
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
2. Council receive immediately copies of most current performance goals and
professional development plan from each of the four individuals reporting directly to
Council.
3. Council immediately set a schedule of meetings, adhering to the requirements of
performance management adopted by Council August 30, 2010, with each of the four
individuals reporting directly to Council, not to be scheduled during regularly scheduled
Council meetings.
4. Council remind supervisors within the company that adherence to proper performance
management, employee development and human resource processes is expected.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3.11 Memorials (Deputy Mayor Rinehart)
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie
RESOLVED that as outlined in the letter from
Deputy Mayor Rinehart entitled Memorials, Council consider the following two options
with respect to donations for Memorials:
1) Council donate a lump sum to a particular charity — one associated with efforts of
the City able to benefit all citizens and then use it for a one year period.
2) Council set a donation cap of 25 dollars and the donation is made to a charity
listed in the obituary.
Councillor McAlary proposed an amendment to the motion, which was seconded by
Councillor Fullerton to adopt option 2 for a 1 year period.
Question being taken on the amendment, the motion was carried.
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie
RESOLVED that as outlined in the letter from
Deputy Mayor Rinehart entitled Memorials, Council set a donation cap of 25 dollars for
memorials with the donation being made to a charity listed in the obituary, and further
that this process be followed for a one year period.
Question being taken on the motion as amended, and stated above, the
motion was carried.
3.12 Media Briefing Notes & Teach In (Deputy Mayor Rinehart)
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the City Manager, or his
designate, be directed to review upcoming Council agendas and prepare briefing notes
on those issues which are likely to attract media attention.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that all media inquiries dealing with
policy related matters for staff be directed to the City Manager, or his designate, in the
first instance.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
(Councillor Farren withdrew from the meeting.)
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that Council consider a "teach -in" by
an expert on media preparedness for Council and senior staff.
12
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
(Councillor Farren re- entered the meeting.)
3.13 Appointee Relationship (Deputy Mayor Rinehart)
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the City Manager and /or the
Common Clerk be directed to develop a briefing document for all groups or
organizations to which Council is asked to nominate or appoint members. Those briefing
booklets should, among other things, clearly define the relationship between the group
and Council, any contractual or other documented agreements between the group and
Council and the nature of their appointment by Council.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart
Seconded by Councillor Fullerton
RESOLVED that the Nominating Committee be
tasked with developing a mechanism whereby (i) Council appointees provide regular
written updates on the activities of the organization to which they have been appointed;
(ii) Council appointees provide a record of their attendance; (iii) Council appointees
provide information should a time sensitive issue come up that is of particular
importance to Council or the City.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
A motion was moved by Councillor McAlary and seconded by Deputy Mayor Rinehart to
direct staff to review all city committees and report back to Council, which was
subsequently withdrawn by the mover and seconder.
3.14 City Manager: Proposed Change to Market Place West Master Plan
On motion of Councillor Snook
Seconded by Councillor McAlary
RESOLVED that the submitted report M &C 2012-
189: Proposed Change to Market Place West Master Plan be tabled pending further
information, including the future budget impact of the proposed project.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Snook
voting nay.
3.15 Buck Letter Re: Sydney Street Bus Shelter
On motion of Councillor Snook
Seconded by Deputy Mayor Rinehart
RESOLVED that the Buck Letter re: Sydney Street
Bus Shelter be received for information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3.16 P. Whitebone Letter Re: Unsightly Property
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Fullerton
RESOLVED that the letter from P. Whitebone
regarding an unsightly property be received for information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
16. Adjournment
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
13
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/1-E 23 JUILLET 2012
Mayor
Common Clerk
14
97-
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
SEANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
TENUE A L'HOTEL DE VILLE, LE 23 JUILLET 2012 A 17 H
Sont presents :
Mel Norton, maire
la mairesse suppleante Rinehart et les conseillers Farren,
MacKenzie, Merrithew, Norton, Snook, Strowbridge et les
conseilleres Fullerton, McAlary et Reardon
-et -
P. Woods, directeur general; J. Nugent, avocat municipal;
G. Yeomans, commissaire aux finances et tresorier; K. Clifford,
chef du service d'incendie; E. Gormley, greffiere communale, et
J. Taylor, greffier communal adjoint.
1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
La seance est ouverte par le maire Norton, et le conseiller Snook recite la priere
d'ouverture.
3.0 Regime de retraite a risque partage
Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, Susan Rowland, presidente du Groupe
de travail sur la protection des regimes de retraite fournit une vue d'ensemble d'un
modele de regime de retraite a risque partage et elle repond aux questions des
membres du conseil.
Proposition de la conseillere McAlary
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que la presentation relative au regime de
retraite a risque partage soit acceptee a titre informatif.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Points reportes de la seance du conseil du 16 juillet 2012
3.1 Systeme de signalement en ligne des crimes pour les citoyens
(conseiller Norton)
Proposition du conseiller Norton
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que I'on demande au Bureau des
commissaires de police d'enqueter sur la faisabilite du projet qui consiste a mettre en
oeuvre un systeme de signalement en ligne des crimes pour les citoyens et de faire part
de ses conclusions au conseil accompagne d'une recommandation dans six semaines.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
3.2 Processus budgetaire de 2013 (conseillere McAlary)
Proposition de la conseillere McAlary
Appuyee par le conseiller Merrithew
RESOLU que le directeur general soit charge
d'entamer le processus budgetaire pour 2013 en temps opportun, de sorte que le conseil
regoive le budget avant la fin de I'annee.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
(Le maire quitte la reunion et la mairesse suppleante assume la presidence a sa place.)
3.3 Budget de 2013 — Calendrier des reunions et des consultations publiques
(conseiller Snook)
Proposition du conseiller Snook
Appuyee par le conseiller Farren
15
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
RESOLU que la lettre du conseiller Snook intitul6e
Budget de 2013 — Calendrier des reunions et des consultations publiques soit transmise
au directeur general.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adopt6e.
(Le maire r6integre la seance et assume de nouveau la pr6sidence.)
3.4 Parc Mispec (conseillbre Fullerton)
Proposition du conseiller Snook
Appuy6e par la conseillere Fullerton
RESOLU que la lettre de la conseillbre Fullerton
intitulee Parc Mispec soit accept6e a titre informatif.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adopt6e.
3.5 Comite devant representer les interets des citoyens /contribuables sur la
question des pensions (conseillbre Fullerton)
Proposition de la conseillere Fullerton
Appuy6e par le conseiller MacKenzie
RESOLU que la lettre de la conseillbre Fullerton
intitul6e Comite devant representer les interets des citoyens/contribuables sur la
question des pensions soit accept6e a titre informatif.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adopt6e.
3.6 Couts lies aux services juridiques (conseillbre Fullerton)
Proposition de la conseillbre Fullerton
Appuy6e par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que le conseil charge l'avocat municipal
de divulguer tous les frais juridiques (a 1'exception de ceux lies au procbs Ferguson) qui
ont 6t6 factur6s a la Ville par des cabinets externes pour les ann6es 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010, 2011 et 2012 (jusqu'au 30 juin 2012); et que les d6tails relatifs a ces d6penses
incluent notamment le nom du cabinet, le nom de I'avocat, la date de l'intervention, la
description du travail accompli, le nom de la personne ayant requis ('intervention, le nom
de I'affaire et le montant total de la facture.
En r6ponse a une question posee, M. Nugent d6clare qu'il essaiera de remettre ce
rapport au Conseil d'ici la fin du mois d'aout 2012.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adopt6e.
3.7 Reformes fiscales visant les transports en commun et solutions en matiere
de modes de transport novateurs (conseiller Snook)
Proposition de la conseillere McAlary
Appuy6e par la mairesse suppl6ante Rinehart
RESOLU que la lettre du conseiller Snook intitul6e
Reformes fiscales et allegements fiscaux visant les transports en commun et les
solutions en matiere de modes de transport novateurs soit transmise lors de la seance
d'6tablissement des priorit6s du conseil.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est rejet6e. Les conseillers Farren,
Merrithew, Snook, Strowbridge et les conseillbres Fullerton et Reardon votent contre.
Proposition du conseiller Snook
Appuy6e par la conseillere Reardon
RESOLU qu'en tant que repr6sentant du conseil au
sein de la Commission des transports, le conseiller Snook collabore directement avec le
gouvernement provincial pour s'assurer que toutes les 6tapes n6cessaires et
appropri6es sont prises pour d6fendre avec succbs les r6formes fiscales pour les
transports publics au Nouveau - Brunswick telles qu'elles sont d6crites dans la lettre du
conseiller Snook dat6e du 12 juillet 212 et intitul6e Reformes fiscales et allegements
16
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
fiscaux visant les transports en commun et les solutions en matiere de modes de
transport novateurs.
Le conseiller MacKenzie, appuye par la mairesse suppleante Rinehart, propose que la
motion principale soit modifiee afin d'ajouter le fait que le conseiller Snook travaillera
conjointement avec d'autres municipalites de la province du Nouveau - Brunswick a
('elaboration d'un plan de collaboration.
A Tissue du vote relatif a la modification, la proposition est
adoptee.
Proposition du conseiller Snook
Appuyee par la conseillere Reardon
RESOLU qu'en tant que representant du conseil au
sein de la Commission des transports, le conseiller Snook collabore directement avec
les autres municipalites du Nouveau - Brunswick pour s'assurer que toutes les etapes
necessaires et appropriees sont prises pour defendre avec succes les reformes fiscales
pour les transports publics au Nouveau - Brunswick telles qu'elles sont decrites dans la
lettre du conseiller Snook datee du 12 juillet 212 et intitulee Reformes fiscales et
allegements fiscaux visant les transports en commun et les solutions en matiere de
modes de transport novateurs.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition telle que modifiee et citee ci- dessus, est
adoptee.
Proposition du conseiller Snook
Appuyee par le conseiller MacKenzie
RESOLU que, comme le suggere le
conseiller Snook dans sa lettre datee du 12 juillet 2012 et intitulee Reformes fiscales et
allegements fiscaux visant les transports en commun et les solutions en matiere de
modes de transport novateurs, le conseil communal demande a Enterprise Saint John
de rechercher d'eventuels partenariats /financements pour la mise en eeuvre de solutions
novatrices en matiere de transport.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. La mairesse
suppleante Rinehart et la conseillere McAlary votent contre la proposition.
(Le conseiller MacKenzie quitte la reunion.)
3.8 Utilisation des espaces vacants ou dont 1'exploitation nest pas optimisee
du centre pour les operations de transport en commun de Saint John
(conseiller Norton)
Proposition du conseiller Norton
Appuyee par le conseiller Farren
RESOLU que le directeur general soit charge
d'explorer la possibilite pour que les services d'incendie se servent des espaces dont
1'exploitation nest pas optimisee, en deplagant les services d'urgence de ('infrastructure
vieillissante qui se trouve actuellement a la caserne de pompier n° 4 (36,
avenue Courtenay) au centre pour les operations de transport en commun de Saint John
(55, rue McDonald) et qu'il prepare une recommandation pour le conseil.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
3.9 Zoo Cherry Brook (mairesse suppleante Rinehart)
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par le conseiller Merrithew
RESOLU que I'on demande au directeur general et
a I'avocat municipal de repondre aux questions suivantes
1. Est -ce que le Zoo Cherry Brook se trouve sur les terres appartenant a la Ville de
Saint John, et si oui, que dit la convention de bail?
2. Qui detient les actifs du Zoo Cherry Brook?
3. Qu'adviendrait -il de la responsabilite a 1'egard du bien -titre des animaux si le Zoo
Cherry Brook venait a fermer?
17
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
4. La Ville s'expose -t -elle a des risques financiers, legaux ou a d'autres risques en cas
de nouvelle diminution du financement, de suppression du financement ou de fermeture
du Zoo Cherry Brook?
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
(Le conseiller MacKenzie est de nouveau present a la reunion.)
3.13 Plan de gestion du rendement (mairesse suppleante Rinehart)
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par le conseiller MacKenzie
RESOLU que la greffiere communale soit chargee
de coordonner ce qui suit :
1. Que le conseil regoive immediatement des copies des documents portant sur la
derniere evaluation du rendement de la part des quatre personnes qui relevent
directement du conseil.
2. Que le conseil re(;oive immediatement des copies du tout dernier plan sur les objectifs
de rendement et le perfection nement professionnel de la part des quatre personnes qui
relevent directement du conseil.
3. Que le conseil fixe immediatement un calendrier pour la tenue de reunions,
conformement aux exigences adoptees par le conseil en date du 30 aout 2010 en
matiere de gestion du rendement, avec chacune des quatre personnes relevant
directement du conseil, sachant que ces reunions ne doivent pas avoir lieu en meme
temps que les reunions du conseil regulierement prevues.
4. Que le conseil rappelle aux superviseurs de 1'entreprise que les processus appropries
lies a la gestion du rendement, au perfection nement des employes et aux ressources
humaines doivent titre respectes.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
3.14 En memoire de (mairesse suppleante Rinehart)
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par le conseiller MacKenzie
RESOLU que, comme it est question dans la lettre
de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart intitulee En memoire de, le conseil envisage les
deux options suivantes en ce qui a trait aux dons :
3) Le Conseil donne une somme forfaitaire a un organisme de charite precis, a
savoir un organisme dont les efforts deployes s'inscrivent dans le cadre de
('initiative menee par la Ville et profitent a tous, et que celui -ci utilise cette somme
pendant un an.
4) Que le conseil fixe un plafond relativement au don, a savoir une somme de 25
dollars, et que celui -ci soit attribue a un organisme figurant dans les avis publies
dans la rubrique necrologique.
La conseillere McAlary propose une modification a la proposition, appuyee par la
conseillere Fullerton, visant a adopter la seconde option pour une periode d'un an.
A ('issue du vote relatif a la modification, la proposition est adoptee.
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par le conseiller MacKenzie
RESOLU que, comme it est question dans la lettre
de la mairesse suppleante intitulee En memoire de, le conseil fixe le montant maximum
d'un don a 25 dollars et que celui -ci soit attribue a un organisme de charite figurant dans
les avis publies dans la rubrique necrologique, et que ce processus soit respecte
pendant un an.
adoptee.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition telle que modifiee et citee ci- dessus, est
in
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
3.15 Notes de conference de presse et seminaire (mairesse suppleante
Rinehart)
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que le directeur general, ou son
representant, soit charge d'examiner les prochains ordres du jour du conseil et de
rediger des notes d'information sur les questions susceptibles d'attirer I'attention des
medias.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que toutes les questions des medias
ayant trait aux politiques et adressees au personnel soient transmises au directeur
general ou a son representant.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
(Le conseiller Farren quitte la reunion.)
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que le conseil envisage la tenue d'un
seminaire, mene par un expert en preparation des medias, pour le conseil et le
personnel- cadre.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
(Le conseiller Farren est de nouveau present a la reunion.)
3.13 Relations avec les personnes designees (mairesse suppleante Rinehart)
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que le directeur general et la greffiere
communale soient charges de rediger un document d'information pour tous les groupes
et les organismes pour lesquels le conseil doit nommer des membres. Chaque
document d'information devra, entre autres, definir clairement la relation entre le groupe
et le conseil, les ententes contractuelles ou les contrats documentes conclus entre le
groupe et le conseil et la nature du poste occupe par les membres nommes par le
conseil au sein dudit groupe.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Proposition de la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
Appuyee par la conseillere Fullerton
RESOLU que le comite des candidatures soit
charge d'elaborer un mecanisme par lequel (i) les membres nommes par le conseil pour
sieger au sein d'un organisme font regulierement le point sur les activites de ce dernier;
(ii) les membres nommes par le conseil presentent un releve de leur presence; (iii) les
membres nommes par le conseil fournissent des renseignements sur toute question
urgente ayant une importance capitale pour le conseil ou la Ville.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
La proposition de la conseillere McAlary, appuyee par la mairesse suppleante Rinehart,
voulant que le personnel passe en revue tous les comites municipaux et fasse un
compte rendu au conseil, est par la suite retiree par la proposeuse et I'appuyeuse.
3.14 Directeur general : Modification proposee au plan d'amenagement de la
place Market Ouest
Proposition du conseiller Snook
Appuyee par la conseillere McAlary
19
97-
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
JULY 23, 2012/LE 23 JUILLET 2012
RESOLU que le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2012-
189 : Modification proposee au plan d'amenagement de la place Market Ouest soit
reporte jusqu'a ce que des renseignements supplementaires soient fournis, y compris
les repercussions du projet en question sur le budget a venir.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Le conseiller Snook vote
contre la proposition.
3.15 Lettre de Buck concernant I'abribus de la rue Sydney
Proposition du conseiller Snook
Appuyee par la mairesse suppleante Rinehart
RESOLU que la lettre de Buck concernant I'abribus
de la rue Sydney soit acceptee a titre informatif.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
3.16 Lettre de P. Whitebone concernant une propriete inesthetique
Proposition de la conseillere McAlary
Appuyee par la conseillere Fullerton
RESOLU que la lettre reque de P. Whitebone au
sujet d'une propriete inesthetique soit acceptee a titre informatif.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
16. Levee de la seance
Le maire declare que la seance est levee a 21 h 30.
maire
greffiere communale
20
Taylor, Jonathan
Subject: FW: Request to present
Mayor Norton and Council:
On behalf of the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners, I am requesting a slot for Chief Reid and me to make a
presentation to Common Council in open session. We will supply supporting documentation in good time. We will be
ready at any meeting on or after September 4th', 2012.
Regards,
Christopher Waldschutz
Chairman, Saint John Board of Police Commissioners
21
QUISPAMSIS
12 Landing Court
P.O. Box 21085
August 15, 2012 Quispamsis, NB
Canada E2E 4Z4
T: 506- 849 -5778
F: 506 - 849 -5799
Mayor Mel Norton & quispamsis @quispamsis.ca
Saint John Common Council www.quispamsis.ca
P. 0. Box 1971
Saint John, NB E2L 4L1
Your Worship and Members of Council:
RE: REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
On behalf of the Quispamsis Town Council, I would like to thank you for your attendance and
presentation at the July 17, 2012 Regular Meeting highlighting the framework for a new Five
Year Regional Growth Strategy for the Greater Saint John Region.
I am pleased to inform you, following your presentation, the Quispamsis Town Council
unanimously supported the adoption and endorsement of the proposed framework for the
Regional Growth Strategy, and looks forward to working with the advisory forum of community
leaders in its efforts to help move the region forward through cooperation and alignment.
Trusting this responds favourably to your presentation and wishing you success in your
worthwhile Regional Growth Strategy efforts.
Yours ruly,
G. Murray Driscoll
Mayor
G SID /cps
Explore our pas Explorez notre passe
Discover your future Decouvrez votre avenir
Grand Bay - Westfield • Quispamsis • R?9esay • St. Martins • Saint John
Carfeton Oranch #002 (")
290 Gudfow Street
Saint ,john, "
E27 1 ES
August 06,2012
Your Worship & Members of Saint John City Council,
On behalf of the members of Carleton Branch #002
The Royal Canadian Legion I wish to submit the following request.
As you are aware this legion has been a very active partner with the
veterans, churches, schools, and the community of lower west side. The
interest and participation has been in force for the past 86years.
We are saddened about the recent sale of our building and property but to try
and maintain, was not viable at this time.
We will be retaining our "Charter ", thus allowing us to hold regular
meetings, remain in the lower West Side area, and most importantly
participate in the Poppy Campaign with the community, churches and
schools. The Veterans and Youth are of our greatest interest.
We are seeking your permission to return the Cenotaph from it's present
location (Ludlow St, West) to Tilly Park, Market Street, West where this
monument originally stood. All costs incurred shall be the responsibility of
Carleton Br #002 RCL.
If further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact us.
We look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
s. Jan St yens, Secretary
Carleton #002 RCL
Paul Durant, President
Carleton #002 RCL
506- 652 -2180 506- 639 -3240
23
Carleton Br. #002 Carleton Br. #002
The Royal Canadian Legion The Royal Canadian Legion
Paul Durant President Jean Stevens Secretary
Legion: 1-506-635-9919 Legion: 1-506-635-9919
Home: 1 -506- 672 -9312 Home: 1- 506 - 6522180
,"� r
Cell: 1 -506 -639 -3240 Cell: 1- 506 - 6083318
24
M &C- 2012 -205
August 8, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Proposed Public Utility Easement -1381 Bayside Drive
ANALYSIS:
City of Saint John
An application has been received to sever a lot from the parent property at 1381
Bayside Drive. The lot to be created is intended to accommodate the development
of a new office / workshop for Kustom General Contracting. The proposed lot
would be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems and would conform
to all of the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws.
While the Development Officer would ordinarily be in a position to endorse the
final plan at this point, the subdivision plan would vest a public utility easement
with an approximate width of 6 metres, as illustrated on the attached Accurate
Concrete Sawing and Drilling Ltd. Subdivision — Tentative Subdivision Plan.
Consequently, the assent of Common Council is required before the plan can be
endorsed.
Normally the vesting of public utility easements is considered in a
recommendation from the Planning Advisory Committee when dealing with more
significant subdivision applications. However, this matter did not require the
consideration of the Committee, and the Community Planning Act does not
require their involvement when dealing only with public utility easements.
The location of the proposed easement has been determined by working in
conjunction with Saint John Energy, which supports the vesting of the proposed
easement. Therefore, the assent of the proposed public utility easement is
recommended.
25
M & C —2012-205 - 2 - August 8, 2012
RECOMMENDATION:
That Common Council assent to the submitted Accurate Concrete Sawing and
Drilling Ltd. Subdivision, in one or more phases, with respect to the proposed
public utility easement.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner
Planning and Development
atrick Woods, CGA
1 y Manager
PF
Project No. 12 -131
26
27
APPROVALS
or
ea of
rvey
P. 003,0505 see Fit 4D N- 40
.1 ACCur te Concrete Sawing and Lot "B"
Drilling Ltd. Property
"*.MomZ R.1, 2004-07-05
the, 2 ho)
RM 40 tW-. 40
Lot "A"
7 3F:1 6011 +
O-r No- Amta Care, 1. S, 1,g and Odflir Ltd,
P P.J_O . OOZ4
7 63 COG
Effee,Ot,e Date � :!004-06 10
3W5
In'tro_1 Thlashe, j 18662842 Reg. ;A4-07- 3
[
rer Acourst, C ... rate CnAr.1 and Drilling Ltd. - Harold Dart
NoTr
\ \ )IM
1. D1rw,U tw are N. B. Grid sok-th, dvi• ,d from G.P.S.
,g
I
2160 (N JD83 CI:R-.' HPN
J'j qt
do is
1.50
3. Ards of autlin,d thus p-riphanut ila:sratati.n
2-01
2 1
72-2
3113 500
de +
see Plan N,. 25914185
Legend Bayside Drive
. ......... . ft-1 Pl—d
. . .. ...... . at,. U..
d ...... .
• be r.
-------- ft- an
_..Y.,_........ Std—rd SUIlly 9vk.r P1111d
A 0,.4 C-11-t.
Adj--t L-
1-1—d c.,old—t. 1t A
It .4-d Faa.d
0 pt'. '-4
■ CN o.
:.a'. Iran
A --- "al"t
F--t.-
Id
or
ea of
rvey
Ith.oad
PIK" ad
.dH'V.l a
Key Plan �-d. 1 40,000
Rectistration Data
O-r No- Amta Care, 1. S, 1,g and Odflir Ltd,
P P.J_O . OOZ4
7 63 COG
Effee,Ot,e Date � :!004-06 10
3W5
In'tro_1 Thlashe, j 18662842 Reg. ;A4-07- 3
[
rer Acourst, C ... rate CnAr.1 and Drilling Ltd. - Harold Dart
NoTr
1. D1rw,U tw are N. B. Grid sok-th, dvi• ,d from G.P.S.
2160 (N JD83 CI:R-.' HPN
are In retes, . to convent to jrhpa,:aj qj..t. gj,'m.
3. Ards of autlin,d thus p-riphanut ila:sratati.n
' 7 OW flarn �sri- -,-
4. 'It locument and pro, refenancee refer to the Regf,:ry Offl.e f.ir
Spill John I . Jo Q nt,
5. Field nurve camplelei an Jul_ 12 2012.
6 All to pegZrmw and mardin -tes shown on Me plan
are based an -'I.k Sleroagrphts 0-1,11 Proier- and
the MADE-•.C9R3) Ellip-ld m realized by Se-fee Nee Dwm,',k
High Precision Ke,h nk sosreffnatt sun_, m-monts.
7- p ....... to 19,1,1- 11 the P"" U"'
�!'
.5 �4-2
plan m Bee a. R----(
C!
CarnMohicallorn, b,e./8g11 At _ __aO _. Regionals;
and 'Do, Ft,rer Conrnissiah The C..' of C'•'nt hl.
P.bF. ItiXty E--t(j th..
Ar-t
Ban Alent Regional
Afient �1.1 e.U." R19tt.t.
Agent
TM %- C -ission of The C;t, of Saint John
Purpope Gf Plan
to -i. lot 12-01 and . P.K.- UtWT• E.—I
New Brunswick Grid Co-Ordinate Values
St..
x
Y
Rk.
2
2 53'1 907.664
7 W3 548.773
1 3
2 K ` .18. -'!1
7 W•1 501.793
S A
7 :63 500
14
!499
. 153
2 SM 142:6{5
2 53-' 985.771
2 , 39 769-P.07
7 363 tisjixo4
7 363 523.221
7 3E3 516.047
S If.
PLA44 -12-1890577
FLAM 21P9r-5-
2,110
2 535 341.191
7 363 181*097
H.B. MON.(HR4)
Subdivision Plan
Accurate Concrete Sawing and Drilling
Ltd. Subdivision,
City of Saint John,
Saint John County, New Brunswick.
cartifted correct
RUCHES SURVEYS at CONSUL7ANTS INC.
Su- d tt, Aso I . 2012
John E. Calvin Date
New Or.-lek Land S-,- # 75C
to G 10 20 30 40
-Uss
42 �-012 �2
H1214 N-�1112
as
H R1AW
REPORT TO COMMON Cr.,1UNCjT_,
M & C — 2012 -206
August 8, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
City of Saint John
SUBJECT: EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH SERVICE NEW BRUNSWICK
BACKGROUND:
Service New Brunswick (SNB), acting on behalf of the Government of New Brunswick,
is coordinating an initiative to develop a consolidated and sustainable road network for
New Brunswick that will be freely available, without restriction. The primary purpose of
creating a single authoritative road network is to provide a current, reliable road network
for public safety purposes while reducing duplication of efforts across governments and
as a byproduct, making the data freely available to all consumers.
As part of this initiative, SNB has approached the GIS Division and requested the street
centerlines dataset for the City of Saint John and that the City provide regular monthly
updates. Whereas both the City and SNB are now using the same web -based mapping
software, City Staff negotiated to have access and be able to re -use and leverage any
development that SNB has made and will continue to make in their internet mapping
portal, in return for the street centerlines dataset.
As part of the proposed agreement, Service New Brunswick will be making the street
centerlines dataset available to the public at no cost. This will have an impact on the
City's revenues from sales of this dataset. Historical sales figures, over the past 10 years,
show that the average yearly revenue from this dataset has been $749. However in staff's
opinion, this exchange will provide a net benefit to the City of Saint John, by way of
development cost savings.
29
INPUT FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS:
The City's Legal Department has revised the agreement and their recommended changes
have been made to the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council adopt a motion supporting the City entering into the City
of Saint John and Service New Brunswick / GeoNB New Brunswick Road Network
Update Agreement with Service New Brunswick and that the Mayor and Common Clerk
sign the agreement on the City's behalf.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner
Growth and Development Services
l 1 A-, S—
,I. atrick Woods, CGA
Manager
YL
30
CONTRACT 11 -057
CITY OF SAINT JOHN AND SERVICE NEW BRUNSWICK / GEONB
NEW BRUNSWICK ROAD NETWORK UPDATE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made in duplicate dated this day of July, 2012
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
hereinafter called "the City ",
-and-
Service New Brunswick,
a Crown corporation
of the Province of New Brunswick
hereinafter called "SNB ",
Whereas Service New Brunswick acting on behalf of the Government of New
Brunswick (GNB) is coordinating an initiative to develop a consolidated and sustainable
road network for New Brunswick that will be freely available, without restriction;
And Whereas the primary purpose of creating a single authoritative road network is to
provide a current, reliable road network for public safety purposes while reducing
duplication of efforts across governments and as a byproduct, making the data freely
available to all consumers;
And Whereas it is recognized that the City has the most up to date, accurate road
information within its jurisdiction and there is interest to incorporate this information into
the New Brunswick Road Network (NBRN);
And Whereas a provincial road network is defined as an authoritative dataset which
contains geometry of roads, address ranges and details regarding surface type, origin
etc., and it is maintained on an ongoing basis, and it is accessible in one location, and
to all interested stakeholders for their consumption;
And Whereas in addition to being a complete inventory of road information for the
jurisdiction, road networks are relied upon by stakeholders to accurately determine the
most efficient route to arrive at a destination and to also understand potential issues
regarding the route chosen. Stakeholders requiring this dataset traditionally include:
Emergency responders
• Provincial Departments, Agencies and Corporations including but not limited to
DPS, DOE, DNR, TAP, DoH, NB Elections, Education, NB Power etc.
dfl 2 -001 h - SJ municipal agreement - CONTRACT 1 1 -057
31
2012/05/18
Contract 11 -057
• Economic development agencies and Tourism
• Policy advisors
• Planning agencies
• Federal agencies (Stats Can, NRCan, DND)
• Public mapping agents (Google, Bing)
And Whereas the City is utilizing the same GIS technology as SNB;
And Whereas SNB, through its internet mapping portal, currently referred to as GeoNB,
has also invested in ESRI technology to serve up data and applications for public
consumption;
And Whereas this agreement presents an opportunity for the City to leverage and re-
use the investment SNB has made, and will continue to make, rather than invest and
develop from scratch.
Now Therefore, in consideration of the covenants contained in this Agreement, and for
other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:
1. Objectives of the Agreement
1.1. The main objective of this Agreement is to produce and maintain a consolidated
road network for New Brunswick referred to as the NBRN. The NBRN would be
freely available, without restriction and easily accessible to all interested end
users.
1.2. The other objective of this Agreement is to allow the City to leverage and reuse
investments SNB has made and will continue to make in the future with respect
to applicable geomatics related intellectual property rather than have to pay to
develop them on its own.
1.3. This Agreement sets out each Party's roles and contributions.
2. Definitions
2.1 GeoNB — is the acronym given to the Government of New Brunswick's
collaborative provincial spatial data infrastructure initiative being led by SNB. It
includes hardware, software, data, applications, functionality and related
intellectual property accessible, or in use, currently accessed through the
following link: http: / /www.snb.ca /geonb2 /index.htmi.
2.2 NBRN — the New Brunswick Road Network, a collaborative effort to create and
maintain a consolidated road network for New Brunswick which is intended to
become the authoritative source for basic road information in NB.
M12 -001h - SJ municipal agreement - CONTRALTI I -057 2 2012/05/28
32
Contract 11 -057
2.3NBRN partners — includes the Department of Public Safety (DPS), SNB,
Ambulance New Brunswick (ANB) and other organizations working on behalf of
any of the partners.
2.41nternet mapping portal data and intellectual property — any intellectual property
developed and available through SNB's internet mapping portal and whose rights
reside with SNB.
3. Contributions of Saint John
The City will:
3.1 provide its road data of relevance to the NBRN initiative to SNB or its partners
involved in creating or maintaining the NBRN without restriction;
3.2agree to provide digital monthly updates of the changes to the Saint John data, if
any;
4. Contributions of SNB
SNB will:
4.1 develop, operate and maintain its internet mapping portal on behalf of the GNB
and its partners;
4.2 make available all its internet mapping portal data and intellectual property,
including programming and code, it has developed as part of the internet
mapping portal infrastructure with which it has the rights to do so; and
4.3make available all future internet mapping portal data and intellectual property
thereof, either developed directly by SNB or by one of its internet mapping portal
partners, and whose rights permit SNB to redistribute.
5. Ownership and Usage
5.1 The City hereby grants to SNB a non - exclusive, perpetual, fully paid, irrevocable,
royalty -free right and license to exercise all rights in the Saint John road data.
This includes the right to use, incorporate, modify, improve, further develop, and
distribute the data; and to manufacture and / or distribute derivative products
derived from or for use with the data.
5.2SNB will retain sole ownership and copyright to its internet mapping portal data
and intellectual property.
5.3SNB hereby grants to the City a non - exclusive, perpetual, fully paid, irrevocable,
royalty -free right and license to exercise all rights in the internet mapping portal
data and intellectual property thereof. This includes the right to use, incorporate,
sublicense (with further right of sublicensing), modify, improve, further develop,
and distribute the data and intellectual property; and to manufacture and / or
df12 -001h - SJ municipal agreement- CONTRACTI1 -057 3 2012/0508
33
Contract 11 -057
distribute derivative products derived from or for use with the data and intellectual
property.
6. Term and Termination
6.1 This agreement is for a term of 5 years, commencing on the date this agreement
is duly signed, and may be renewed for one further term of 5 years, on the same
terms and conditions, if both parties agree.
6.2 Notwithstanding section 6.1 this agreement shall terminate:
a. upon written notice of termination by either party at any time, and such
termination shall take effect thirty (30) days after the receipt of such notice
by the other party; or
b. upon mutual agreement of the parties.
6.3 Upon the termination of the agreement for whatever reason, or upon the
expiration of the term or the renewal period, the obligations of the parties defined
at section 3 and 4 cease immediately. However, the provisions of section 5
survive the termination.
7. Release and Indemnity
7.1 SNB shall indemnify and save harmless the City from and against all actions,
causes of actions, proceedings, claims and demands brought against the City,
and from and against all losses, costs, damages or expenses suffered or
incurred by the City, by reason of any damage to property, including property of
the City, or injury, including injury resulting in death, to persons, including the
employees, servants, agents, licensees and invitees of the City, caused by,
resulting from or attributable to the negligent act or omission of SNB or any of its
employees, servants, or agents in the performance of this Agreement.
7.2 Each of SNB and the City, for itself and its successors and assigns, (the
"Releasor ", as the case may be) and to the fullest extent permitted by law,
hereby releases and forever discharges the other, its employees, officers,
agents, successors and assigns, (the "Releasee ", as the case may be) from and
against any and all losses, costs, claims, demands, expenses, proceedings and
actions of every nature and kind for injury or damages, which are or may be in
any way related to or connected or associated with the performance of this
Agreement. Expressly excluded from this release are any obligations of the
Releasee in favour of the Releasor under this Agreement or pursuant to any
document, agreement or instrument delivered pursuant to or contemplated
hereby.
7.3The City shall indemnify and save harmless SNB from and against all actions,
causes of action, proceedings, claims and demands brought against SNB, and
from and against all losses, costs, damages or expenses suffered or incurred by
SNB, by reason of any damage to property, including property of SNB, or injury,
including injury resulting in death, to persons, including the employees, servants,
dt72 -001h - SJ municipal agreement- CONTRACTI I -057 4 2012/05/28
34
Contract 11 -057
agents, licensees and invitees of SNB, caused by, resulting from or attributable
to the negligent act or omission of the City or any of its employees, servants, or
agents in the performance of this Agreement.
7.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, the City
and SNB shall not be liable to each other in any way for indirect or consequential
losses or damages, or damages for pure economic loss, howsoever caused or
contributed to, in connection with. this Agreement.
8. Other
8.1 The City designates the Manager — Geographic Information Systems as the
position responsible to administer the terms and obligations under this
Agreement.
8.2 SNB designates the Manager — Land Information Infrastructure as the position
responsible to administer the terms and obligations under this Agreement.
The City of Saint John
Per:
Date:
Mel Norton, Mayor
Date:
Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk
Service New Brunswick
Per:
1 Date: Z z o tz
Bernard Arseneau,
Vice - President Operations
df12 -001h - SJ municipal agreement - CONTRACTI I -057 5 2012/05/28
35
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2012 -210
August 15, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton
& Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT:
CONTRACT NO. 2012-27: Crack Sealing - 2012
BACKGROUND
The City of Saint John
The 2012 General Fund Operating Budget for Transportation and Environment Services includes
a provision for the crack sealing of asphalt pavements on Manawagonish Road and Fairville
Boulevard.
Crack Sealing is a preventative maintenance activity applied to asphalt surfaces to preserve and
extend their service life. The work consists generally of cleaning the asphalt pavement cracks by
high velocity blowers and immediately filling the cracks with a hot rubberized joint sealing
compound which adheres and seals the cracks in asphalt pavements. A sprinkle of cement or
agricultural lime is then applied to prevent tracking of the sealant by vehicular traffic.
The total length of asphalt cracks to be sealed is approximately 20,000 metres.
TENDER RESULTS
Tenders closed on August 15, 2012, with the following results:
1. 624091 Alberta Limited o/a R &N Maintenance, Guelph, Ontario $ 76,614.00
2. Road Savers Maritime Limited, Chester, Nova Scotia $ 91,530.00
3. Classic Construction Limited, Saint John, New Brunswick $ 169,500.00
The Engineer's estimate for the work was $101,700.00
36
M & C 2012 -210
August 15, 2012
Page 2
ANALYSIS
The tenders were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects. 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
This contract involves work that is to be charged to the 2012 General Fund Operating Budget.
Assuming award of this contract to the low tenderer, the following analysis has been completed.
Approved budget 2012
$100,000.00
Low tender net cost
$70,124.73
Variance (surplus)
$29,875.27
POLICY CONFORMANCE
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.
r "W9Z9]u al D1017- vtClUl
It is recommended that Contract No. 2012 -27: Crack Sealing - 2012, be awarded to the low
tenderer, 624091 Alberta Limited o/a R &N Maintenance at the tendered price of $76,614.00 as
calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
4 A 44.
Rod Mahaney CET
Engineering Technologist
Transportation and Environment
Wm. Edwards, P. Eng.
Commissioner
Transportation and Environment
37
Kevin Rice B.Sc., CET
Deputy Commissioner
Transportation and Environment
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
�L
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL.
13FIX M010411
August 17, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: 622808 N.B. Inc. Easement — Off Canterbury Street
PID #00304683
BACKGROUND:
r'M
City of Saint John
622808 N.B. Inc., who own and are in the process of renovating and upgrading
the building located at 122 -124 Prince William Street (the Palatine Building) has
requested from the City an easement in and through City land designated as PID
#00304683 for installation of an underground power supply line to the rear of
their building from Canterbury Street. The easement is to be located on land
currently used as a driveway in a parking lot managed by the Saint John Parking
Commission. The area that the easement will occupy is the exact same area over
which 622808 N.B. Inc. currently enjoy a permanent Right of Way to the rear of
their building, and therefore the future development potential of the City land will
not be further inconvenienced than at present. 622808 N.B. Inc. plans to add an
elevator and also air conditioning to the Palatine Building as part of its
renovation, but need to upgrade the electrical capacity in order to do so. Saint
John Energy has stated that such an upgrade can only be realized from Canterbury
Street into the rear of the building.
The purpose of this report is to ask Council to grant an easement in favour of
622808 N.B. Inc. for the purpose of installing a below ground power line, as per
the terms and conditions as set out in the attached agreement.
The City's Planning and Development, Heritage, Municipal Engineering, and
Building Inspections Services Departments, the City Solicitors Office, the Saint
John Parking Commission, and Saint John Energy have provided input regarding
this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
That The City of Saint John convey to 622808 N.B. Inc. for the sum of
$3,814.00 (plus H.S.T.) an easement for a public utility in 118 square
metres +/- of the lands being PID #304683 and designated "3.66 m Wide
Right of Way" on a Plan filed in the Saint John County Registry Office as
Number 1261; upon the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement of
Purchase and Sale document attached to M & C 2012 - 211; and
2. That the Mayor and Common Clerk execute any documents required.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory J. Yeon#9, CGA, MBA
Commissioner cvf Yinance and Administrative Services
atrick Woods, C.G.A.
Ciiy Manager
PW W/P
Attachments
39
0p0111t)n
� ppp11p23
Description of Plan: Canterbury & Prince William Street Area
N PID: 00304683
PAN: 1658872
0
v
C
Vacant City Land Used as Parking Lot
Date: 16 August, 2012
w
AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE
The Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Vendor and the Vendor agrees to sell to the Purchaser
an easement for one (1) underground electrical transmission line in and through a portion of the
Vendor's Lands situate at 69 Canterbury Street, Saint John, NB (PID #304683) upon the
following terms and conditions:
Vendor: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB E2L 4L1
Attention: Common Clerk
Purchaser: 622808 N.B. INC.
200 Germain Street
Saint John, NB E2L 2G4
Attention: Dr. Edward Reardon
Premises: 69 Canterbury Street, Saint John, NB (PID #304683)
Easement comprising 118 mZ +/- described as:
All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the
City of Saint John, County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick
being that portion of Lot 81 -4 shown on the subdivision plan entitled
"Subdivision Plan, City of Saint John, Prince William Street" dated May
5`h, 1981, prepared by Murdoch - Lingley Limited and signed by Ronald J.
Bastarache, N.B.L.S., which plan is filed in the Saint John County
Registry Office as Number 1261 and identified thereon as "3.66 m Wide
Right -of -Way" extending from the western sideline of Canterbury Street
to the rear or easterly line of the said Lot 81 -3;
(hereinafter called the "Easement Lands ").
Purchase Price: $3,814.00 + HST if applicable
Deposit: $814.00 payable by the Purchaser upon the delivery of this offer
Balance: $3,000.00 payable on Closing
Closing Date: On or before October 02, 2012.
41
Agreement of Purchase and Sale
622808 N.B. Inc. and The City of Saint John
General:
L The Purchaser may examine the title to the Easement Lands at its own expense
until closing. If within that time any valid objection to the title to the Easement Lands is
made in writing by the Purchaser to the Vendor which the Vendor shall be unable or
unwilling to remove within twenty (20) days of notification of such objection or
objections and which the Purchaser will not waive, this agreement shall, notwithstanding
any intermediate acts or negotiations in respect of such objections, be null and void and
any deposit shall be returned by the Vendor without interest and the Vendor shall not be
Iiable for any costs or damages. Save as to any valid objection so made within such time,
the Purchaser shall be conclusively deemed to have accepted the title of the Vendor to the
Easement Lands.
2. The Purchaser shall acquire from the Vendor an easement and rights at the cost,
risk and expense of the Purchaser, by its officers, servants, agents, contractors and
workers, to enter the Easement Lands with machinery, materials, vehicles and equipment
and to construct, alter, maintain, inspect and repair one (1) underground electrical
transmission line, promptly restoring as far as is practical the surface of the Easement
Lands to the same condition as it was prior to the commencement of the work or
excavation, together with the right by action or otherwise at any time to enjoin the
Vendor, including the successors and assigns of the Vendor from erecting or locating on
the Easement Lands any building, structure or other obstacle which could impair the free
and full use of the easement or permitting the erection or location thereon of any such
building, structure or other obstacle.
3. The Purchaser agrees and covenants that:
(i) The Purchaser will have all necessary building permits and electrical permits
in place prior to commencing the power servicing installation, and
(ii) The Purchaser shall contact the "City's Call Before You Dig Line" (1 866
344 5463) prior to any excavation and should any municipal services be
uncovered/encountered during the construction of the electrical service the
City's Municipal Engineering Department (658 4455) must be notified
immediately.
The Purchaser's obligations set out in this clause will survive the closing of this
transaction and shall be obligations during any construction, altering, maintaining,
inspecting and repairing of the electrical service.
K
42
Agreement of Purchase and Sale
622808 N.B. Inc. and The City of Saint John
4. This offer shall be irrevocable by the Purchaser until 4:00 p.m. local time on 31
August 2012 and upon acceptance by the Vendor shall constitute an Agreement of
Purchase and Sale binding upon the parties hereto. Should the offer be accepted the
deposit will be applied to the Purchase Price and if not accepted the deposit, without
interest, shall be returned to the Purchaser.
5. This offer when accepted shall be read with all changes of gender or number
required by the context, shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs,
executors, administrators, and assigns, and time shall in all respects be of the essence
hereof.
6. There is no representation, warranty, collateral agreement or condition affecting
this Agreement or the Premises except as expressed herein.
7. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
8. The Grant of Easement shall be prepared by the Vendor at its cost in form and
format substantially the same as attached in Schedule "A ". All registration/filing costs
shall be borne by the Purchaser.
9. Any tender of documents or money may be made upon the solicitor for the
Vendor or Purchaser, as the case may be. Money shall be tendered by a bank draft or
certified cheque of a Canadian chartered bank.
10. Any notice permitted or required shall be in writing personally delivered or faxed.
Any notice will be deemed to have been received on the day of actual delivery or
transmission by fax. Notice to the Vendor and Purchaser shall be as hereinbefore set out.
11. Should any provision be unenforceable, it shall be severed from the Agreement
without affecting the enforceability of the remainder of the Agreement.
3
43
Agreement of Purchase and Sale
622808 N.B. Inc. and The City of Saint John
IN WITNE WHEREOT the Purchaser has caused these presents to be executed this
day of ►- 12012.
L.
622808 N.B. INC.
.l'/ n _ C�i(o��
AND the Vendor has caused these presents to be executed this day of
2012.
THE CITY OF SAINT JOAN
Mayor
Common Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
.2012
E
4
SCHEDULE_�A'`
Form 14
EASEMENT
Land Titles Act, S.N.B. 1981, c.L -1.1, s. 24
Parcel Identifier of Parcel
Burdened by Easement:
See Schedule "A"
Parcel Identifier of Parcel
Benefiting from Easement:
11221
Grantor of Easement:
City of Saint John (The)
8'h Floor, City Hall Building
15 Market SQ
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB
E21- 41-1
Grantee of Easement: 622808 N.B. Inc.
200 Germain Street
Saint John, NB
E21-2G4
Description of Easement: See Schedule "A1"
Purposes of Easement: See Schedule 'Al"
The grantor grants to the grantee the described easement over or in the specified
parcel for the specified purposes.
Date: .2012
Grantor of Easement:
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Mayor
Common Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
Grantee of Easement:
622808 N.B. INC.
Per:
And:
45
SCHEDULE "A"
APPARENT PID #304683
All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of
Saint John, County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick being shown
as Lot 81-4 on "Subdivision Plan, City of Saint John, Prince William Street" dated
May 5th, 1981, prepared by Murdoch - Lingley Limited and signed by Ronald J.
Bastarache, N .B.L.S., which plan is filed in the Saint John County Registry
Office as Number 1261.
M
SCHEDULE "Al"
DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSES OF EASEMENT
All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the City of
Saint John, County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick being that
portion of Lot 81-4 shown on the subdivision plan entitled "Subdivision Plan, City
of Saint John, Prince William Street' dated May 5h, 1981, prepared by Murdoch -
Lingley Limited and signed by Ronald J. Bastarache, N.13.L.S., which plan is filed
in the Saint John County Registry Office as Number 1261 and identified thereon
as °3,66 m Wide Right -of -Way" extending from the western sideline of
Canterbury Street to the rear or easterly line of the said Lot 81 -3 (the 'Easement
Lands ").
An easement and rights at the cost, risk and expense of the Grantee of
Easement, its successors and assigns, by its or their officers, servants, agents,
contractors and workers to enter the Easement Lands with machinery, materials,
vehicles and equipment and to construct, after, maintain, inspect and repair one
(1) underground electrical transmission fine, promptly restoring as far as
practicable the surface of the lands to the same condition as it was prior to the
commencement of the work or excavation, together with right by action or
otherwise at any time to enjoin the Grantor of the Easement, the successors and
assigns of such owner from erecting or locating on the Easement Lands any
building, structure or other obstacle which could impair the free or full use of the
easement or permitting the erection or location thereon of any such building,
structure or other obstacle.
47
Q 1�
JJ REPOELT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M & C -- 2012 -212
August 20, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Watershed Land Acquisition
Portion of PID 00428524 — 4361 Loch Lomond Rd
BACKGROUND:
City of Saint John
At its meeting of July 6, 2009, Common Council adopted the following resolution regarding a
portion of lands designated PID 00428524 (the "Land "):
5.14 That as recommended by the Acting City Manager, The City of Saint John accept
the offer of Marvin and Mary Brown as set out in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale
(Agreement) attached to M & C 2009 - 190 & purchase from them the unencumbered
freehold title of the portion of PID 00428524 described in the Agreement for the sum of
$27,500.00 + HST if applicable, upon the terms and conditions contained in the said
Agreement; and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute all
documents required to finalize this transaction.
The City was to have acquired the Land for the purpose of controlling development or other
activity which may adversely affect the City's supply of drinking water as the area is not
currently serviced with municipal water and sewer systems, and is in immediate proximity to the
Loch Lomond reservoir.
This transaction was still active but had not been completed because of outstanding title issues
when Father Bill Elliot, administrator of the St. Joseph's Parish at 4347 Loch Lomond Road,
requested to purchase the Land for use in connection with the mixed use complex they had
developed at St. Joseph's. The Parish has found that bus access to and from the complex was not
safe in its current configuration. Consequently the Parrish wished to acquire the Land to permit
entry from one street and exit to a second street thereby eliminating turning of vehicles in the
parking area of the complex. Saint John Water staff reviewed the Parish's request and were in
agreement.
At its meeting of June 7, 2010 Common Council adopted a resolution to rescind its resolution of
July 6, 2009 regarding the City's acquisition of the Land, thereby allowing the Parish to proceed
with its purchase of the Land. Unfortunately the Parish was unable to complete the purchase due
.•
Report to Common Council Page 2
August 20, 2012
to local citizens' opposition during the attempted re- zoning process. The Parish then abandoned
the deal, and the landowners approached City staff inquiring if the City would be willing to pick
up its purchase of the Land on the same terms & conditions as were in place prior to the City
stepping aside in favour of the Parish. Saint John Water confirmed it would be so interested if
funding could be approved during the 2012 budget process.
Saint John Water was able to secure funding under the 2012 budgeting process and the
negotiations were revived with the landowners. The landowners are willing to re- inject the
$3,000.00 deposit that the City had forfeited to the landowners under the 2009 agreement against
the previously agreed -to $27,500.00 purchase price. Hence the purchase price in the currently
negotiated Agreement of Purchase and Sale document attached hereto, and for Common
Council's consideration, is now $24,500.00.
It was the intention of staff to secure the unencumbered freehold title to the land in question
however legal advises that there is an issue with title in the form of a registered right of way
through the property in question to an adjacent property. Legal also advises that although this
right of way does not appear on the Owner's Certificate of Registered Ownership (as it was
missed in the conversion of the title to the Land Titles system), the right -of -way still exists, and
was never released. That said, access to the adjoining property is provided over public right of
way known as the Johnston Road. This issue was raised with the owner in 2009 who disagreed
and refused, at the time, to rectify the title.
Legal advises that the title to the lands could be quieted through legal proceedings to ensure that
the City obtains an unencumbered title (i.e. to extinguish the right of way). There are costs
associated with such proceedings. The owner has already indicated that he will not pay for a
quieting. As the City seeks to control these lands for watershed purposes; we recommend
acquiring the encumbered title to the lands and not having the title quieted because there are no
plans to develop or sell the lands, and a quieting may also be done at a later time, should it be
required.
Again, to be reiterate and clarify, the City hopes to secure the lands for watershed purposes, the
Water Utility is satisfied with the agreement and the current status of the title to the parcel in
question. The utility has budgeted the appropriate funds and is anxious to secure title to the land.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That The City of Saint John accept the offer of Marvin and Mary Brown as set out in the
Agreement of Purchase and Sale (Agreement) attached to M &C 2012 - 212 & acquire from
them the freehold title of the portion of PID 00428524 described in the Agreement for the
sum of $24,500.00 + HST if applicable, upon the terms and conditions contained in the said
Agreement.
Report to Common Council
August 20, 2012
Page 3
2. That the Mayor and the Common Clerk be authorized to execute all documents required to
finalize this transaction.
rope
3A, MBA
Commissioner of Finance and
Administrative Services
Attachment
pww
J, trick Woods, CGA
City Manager
50
Description of Plan: Browns Subdivision
N PID: 00428524 Address: 4361 Loch Lomond Road
Pan: 01588433 Date: June 30, 2009
51
APPROVALS
LOT 1
a w.w a, rsr a
b •6UtlY
aaatiwv� rww,m ,nas.um scr.
+ na nr we rrao a is r�r wrtn,wl
nocpavna ppprs wpa ,ee •,t
ws a etr,m er tales smr
ACnf: ta,lb.
I N.B. GRID COORDINATE VALUES
PARCEL 'A'
BOA
=-I-
0%
Y *�
SURVEY
AREA
LOT 7
R£C J�ACENT OWNER INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SNB
S.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN IS CORRECT.
�. �.
MMVEN ERVINE BROWN -AU. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE CALCULATED GRID OISTANCES.
- CERTIFICATION IS NOT MADE AS TO LEGAL RRi, BEING THE
(- A ( c
TENTATIVE
�+ `4F
DOMAIN OF A LAWYER NOR TO THE ZONING A SETBACK
Ni
BY -LAWS OR REGULATIONS, BEING THE DOMAIN OF A
.
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
SURVEYED BY: ANDREW K. TOO F, NBA-S.
- CERTIFICATION IS NOT MADE AS TO COVENANTS SET OUT IN
ARMY GEAAL.DINE BROWN THE DOCUMENT(S) AND THE LOCATION OF
DATED: ,RUNE 2Z 2009 0179
n�
o\) �
LOCALITY SKETCH
ORASM: S" F1FkE: R lomom.
[JOB R,ioowa I CAD- WReoe_021 20M :
OESCMPRON
sw,cr srsa mvuc �wr.
b
I\ •�
09 -1
09 -2 �
R
Q'
a
n.row au.�n .um. nc
Slapupy�{v�.om .pp
CY 7.A W pooaos .x w
y �
:4
�e1em'
j
�A,em
sT �
�
��'
vautn caaaurz �u�w
/�
1V7 )�
_
suiem vexed icwstt ro
57J7r 1 37.160
Pro w z a
+�
� �.t�M IAIIpL piK1 AM K MS p,51.K[ /+WN C/(rFl M ►pas. (!wI
SUBDIVISION PLAN:
BROWNS SUBDIVISION
PURPOSE OF PLAN 97-JATED AT 4081 LOCH LOMOND ROAD,
—TO CREATE LOTS 09 -1 AND 09 -2 FOR FUTURE CITY K SAINT JOHN,
A L DEVELOPMENT. COUNtt OF SAINT JOHN, PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK ,eea
V 1p -p tp iC !e q
NOTES SCALE15M
} DOCUMENT - DIRECTIONS ARE N.D. (NO AZIMUTHS DERIVED FROM THE N.B- Terreln Group Im
O MARYEt7 ERNNE BROWN X10 MOftUNENTS TABULATED HEREON. 6gp1yn 9L.8une e+m
MARY GERALDINE BROWN -THE SCALE FACTOR USED WAS 1.000019. SeY4 Jahn•Nan Bmm�HrA
DID 00428521 -THE DOCUMENT NUMBERS REFERRED TO ON THIS PLAN ARE terrain �. d. E2.AD,9
DEED/TRANSFER! 21495479 -HOSE OF THE COUNTY WORD REGISTRY CE OFFICE Cl. 506 0 119
DATED: 2005 -12 -20 EXPRESSION USED HEREIN, THE WORD CONSULTANTS ALL MEAN AN M SO&693MB
THE BEST IT-S I FORMA ION, K OWLED E AND OPINION TO
ONNER'S SIGWATURE: THE BEST OF IT'S INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF: AND 7+e ac"m as rRwcncAt. so<Ur+orls wir+s.arteNpatpmm
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE BY THE Sl]fiVl:YOR•S STATEMENT
A
CONSULT NT.
R£C J�ACENT OWNER INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SNB
S.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN IS CORRECT.
�. �.
MMVEN ERVINE BROWN -AU. DISTANCES SHOWN ARE CALCULATED GRID OISTANCES.
- CERTIFICATION IS NOT MADE AS TO LEGAL RRi, BEING THE
(- A ( c
TENTATIVE
�+ `4F
DOMAIN OF A LAWYER NOR TO THE ZONING A SETBACK
Ni
BY -LAWS OR REGULATIONS, BEING THE DOMAIN OF A
.
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
SURVEYED BY: ANDREW K. TOO F, NBA-S.
- CERTIFICATION IS NOT MADE AS TO COVENANTS SET OUT IN
ARMY GEAAL.DINE BROWN THE DOCUMENT(S) AND THE LOCATION OF
DATED: ,RUNE 2Z 2009 0179
7
MY UNDERGROUND
SERVICES MD /OR FIXTURES, PERMANENT OR OTHERWISE.
— INITIAL FIELD SURVEY WAS COMPLETED MAY S. 2009.
ORASM: S" F1FkE: R lomom.
[JOB R,ioowa I CAD- WReoe_021 20M :
6
AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE
The Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Vendor and the Vendor agrees to sell to the Purchaser
the freehold interest in a portion of the Vendor's Lands PID # 00428524, as hereinafter set out upon
the following terms and conditions:
Vendor: MARVEN ERVINE BROWN and MARY GERALDINE BROWN
4361 Loch Lomond Road
Saint John, NB E2N 1C8
Purchaser: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB E2L4L1
Attention: Common Clerk
Premises: Freehold interest in a portion of PID # 00428524
Comprising 4,616 sq. m. +/- in total
Designated as Parcel 09 -1 on a Tentative plan of survey titled BROWNS SUBDIVISION
prepared by Terrain Group (hereinafter referred to as the "Real Property ")
(Photo- reduced copy of said plan attached hereto)
Purchase Price: $24,500.00 + HST if applicable
Deposit: $3,000.00 payable upon the adoption of the Common Council Resolution
Balance: $21,500.00 on Closing
Closing Date: Within 30 days following the approval of the Subdivision Plan contemplated in section
3. hereunder.
1. The Purchaser shall acquire from the Vendor the unencumbered freehold title in the Real
Property.
2. The Purchaser may examine the title to the Real Property at its own expense until closing. If
within that time any valid objection to the title to the Lands is made in writing by the Purchaser to the
Vendor which the Vendor shall be unable or unwilling to remove within twenty (20) days of notification
of such objection or objections and which the Purchaser will not waive, this agreement shall,
notwithstanding any intermediate acts or negotiations in respect of such objections, be null and void
and any deposit shall be returned by the Vendor without interest and the Vendor shall not be liable for
any costs or damages.
3. When the Purchaser is satisfied with the Vendor's title to the Real Property, the Purchaser shall
prepare at its cost any Subdivision Plan required to effect the conveyance herein contemplated.
1
53
Agreement of Purchase and Sale
Marven E. & Mary G. Brown and The City of Saint John
4. The Vendor shall at its expense terminate all leases with respect to the Real Property such that
the Purchaser will have vacant possession of the Real Property on Closing,
5. If the Purchaser defaults in the closing of the sale under the terms of this Agreement, any
money paid hereunto shall be forfeited to the Vendor by way of liquidated damages and the Vendor
shall have no further recourse against the Purchaser.
6. This offer shall be irrevocable by the Vendor until 4:00 p.m. local time on WiAugust, 2012 and
upon acceptance by the Purchaser shall constitute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale binding upon the
parties hereto.
7. This offer when accepted shall be read with all changes of gender or number required by the
context shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, and
assigns, and time shall in all respects be of the essence hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Vendor has caused these presents to be executed this day of August,
2012,
MARVEN ERVINE BROWN MARY GERALDINE BROWN
AND the Purchaser has caused these presents to be executed this day of , 2012.
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Mayor
Common Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
54
2
APPROVALS
LOT 1
rZ nAM ad rFF n
A ONl,Ma
�— mi iuM iir a�w�Trc
rnraxnvl .vo x .nPaXw+1
eunm n. awID® �Y cur,[ x. eeY.srcrs
Acm[ mrllr� arvmr.
__ NS ,loN
o Op,D
� LLOT 7
. OT .
S %.AYI
\R Jo9R]'ae"
/
Ga
09 -1
I."
83 -1
1. _
PARCEL 'A'
C� � no eiarrN
cm
pa /
t
J SURVEY
` AREA
w^'
LOCALITY SKETCH
d
Q
DESR11PT10N
LIM 4
mm—ONrues_
09 -2
�
�
a6{6m
_
–TO CREATE LOTS 09 -1 AND 09-2 FOR FUTURE
CITY Or SAINT JOHN,
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN, PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK �....
J
DEVELOPMENT.
1�
�
d
•rt
J
cm
pa /
t
J SURVEY
` AREA
w^'
LOCALITY SKETCH
LEGEND
DESR11PT10N
LIM 4
mm—ONrues_
raan.. •.srt+reao..rt rPanerr
�
–TO CREATE LOTS 09 -1 AND 09-2 FOR FUTURE
CITY Or SAINT JOHN,
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN, PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK �....
DEVELOPMENT.
awwrr rrnr rwri .ouw
�
.eosv
•rt
rtD COIMd,.rt. b.r
TJ
vaElrerr /Rue ! r�
Or,.MaRF
MARVEN ERVTNE BROWN
GR40 MONUMENTS TABULATED HEREON.
Enum comer ¢wrtY lmr
®
ruN,1Rv
:THE WAS _
LT
42 524
PID 00428524
THE
THE DOCUMENT NUMBERS ON THIS PLAN ARE
'�'�
S
5 21495179
DATED:
THOSE OF THE COUNTY REGISTRY OFFICE.
J,T rwr ILaW
Q
Ym
H!w
r�
�
h[vartY
YL.`
wo.elc / rtay..
0 R 0 Tp
rxxr
W.
vlrDp
am r.E.e / nr «wwr
– ADJACENT OWNER INFORMATION OBTAUMO FROM SNB
RECORDS
�nrrt rew wrnve
MARVEN ERVINE BROWN
DISTANCES
–ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE CALCULATED GRID _STANCES.
RID D
4ew us,
1�
Yleoiun'ua:
- --
ap YMIm 4RI WY
S
tl»n9MF
DOMAIN OF A LAWYER, NOR TO THE ZONING k SETBACK
BY –LAWS OR REGULATIONS. BONG THE DOMAIN OF A
ialaR 41d rarx
E6
Y,Ad0lalle lr[S
-
r1R
MARY GERALDINE BROWN
– CERTIFICATION 15 NOT MADE AS TO COVENANTS SET OUT IN
THE OQCUM�"S) AND THE LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND
Y=
owil
u>awm7 slew„ nan
SERVICES AND /OR FIXTURES, PERMANENT OR OTHEJTWTSE.
uNrr .am 1-1
Op-
a4.ctt
– INITIAL FIELD SURVEY WAS COMPLETED MAY 5, 2009.
J�
o165oYOVe -�11
car n.,aue
lure. uTUn cazrulr
rL,e
raw .e.a.or a!b r,.,�n
rru
m+v,c.,e s +rsRw e+aar
rrrs rmananer e�uu
pn
re.m rpRnr
rAOEE 1✓(pr� Lam(Yr
(ai
6
SUBDIVISION ALAN:
I
BROWNS SUS IVISl0N
PURPOSE OF PLAN
SITUATED AT 4381 LOCH LOMOND ROAD,
–TO CREATE LOTS 09 -1 AND 09-2 FOR FUTURE
CITY Or SAINT JOHN,
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN, PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK �....
DEVELOPMENT.
10 b
A b
NOTES
SGALI T:eOD
DOCUMENT
– DIRECTIONS ARE N.B. GRID AZMuTNS DERIVED FROM THE H.B.
MARVEN ERVTNE BROWN
GR40 MONUMENTS TABULATED HEREON.
Term, GT
MARY BROWN
:THE WAS _
1pp Mwln sL, BuIbBW
42 524
PID 00428524
THE
THE DOCUMENT NUMBERS ON THIS PLAN ARE
'�'�
SAIMJduV New Brenwwlei
5 21495179
DATED:
THOSE OF THE COUNTY REGISTRY OFFICE.
errs
CrWr E2K 1J5
–1
DATED: 2005 -72 -20
0
–AS USED HEREIN. THE WORD CERTIFY SHALL MEAN AN
r�
A3dp�8
OWNERS SIGNATURE:
EXPRESSION OFTHE CONSULTANTS PROFE59H)NAL OPINION TO
THE REST OF ITS INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND
YI! sclExce of PRncitcu sEaumry
T.R: ypgbfig
rrv�.iarabigwp,mm
N5
ODES NOT COTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE BY THE
_ �• 'S STATELIENT
– ADJACENT OWNER INFORMATION OBTAUMO FROM SNB
RECORDS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT MS FEAR IS CORRECT.
MARVEN ERVINE BROWN
DISTANCES
–ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE CALCULATED GRID _STANCES.
RID D
1�
–ALL
IS NOT MARE AS TO LEGAL BEING THE
TENTATIVE
S
DOMAIN OF A LAWYER, NOR TO THE ZONING k SETBACK
BY –LAWS OR REGULATIONS. BONG THE DOMAIN OF A
N,B.LS.
No.
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
SURVEYED BY: ANDREW K. TOOLE, NSLS.
MARY GERALDINE BROWN
– CERTIFICATION 15 NOT MADE AS TO COVENANTS SET OUT IN
THE OQCUM�"S) AND THE LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND
RA7FD: JUNE ??, 2009 /379
7�
SERVICES AND /OR FIXTURES, PERMANENT OR OTHEJTWTSE.
ae = SSA
rETO. PL
– INITIAL FIELD SURVEY WAS COMPLETED MAY 5, 2009.
J�
o165oYOVe -�11
LON
6
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2012 -216
August 17, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
The City of Saint john
SUBJECT: Public Information Session — Somerset Street (Wellesley Avenue to Samuel
Davis Drive) Storm Sewer Installation and Street Reconstruction
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to inform Council of a Public Information Session that will be held
in relation to the Somerset Street (Wellesley Avenue to Samuel Davis Drive) project and to
update Council on the status of the project.
BACKGROUND
This project was approved in the 2012/2013 General Fund Capital Program as follows:
Somerset Street (Wellesley Avenue to Samuel Davis Drive) — Street Reconstruction (storm
sewer, excavation, backfill, curb, sidewalk, landscaping) including design and construction
management services.
ANALYSIS
The Tender for the Somerset Street (Wellesley Avenue to Samuel Davis Drive) Storm Sewer
installation and Street Reconstruction project will close on September 19, 2012. This project may
begin as early as October 2012 and is expected to be completed before the end of October 2013.
This project will have an impact on the local area during construction. For this reason 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. This Public Information Session is scheduled to be held at the St Pius X
Roman Catholic Church Hall, 316 Somerset Street, on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 from 2 p.m. to
4 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 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.
56
M &C2012 -216
August 17, 2012
Page 2
Copies of the attached notice for the Public Information Session will be delivered door to door in
the respective project area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this report be received and filed.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Baker, P. Eng.
Municipal Engineer
Wm. Edwards, P. Eng.
Commissioner
Transportation and Environment
57
13 6 - K �, -,,, -
Brian Keenan, P. Eng.
Engineering Manager
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
AIL
PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION
SOMERSET STREET (WELLESLEY AVENUE
TO SAMUEL DAVIS DRIVE)
STORM SEWER INSTALLATION AND
STREET RECONSTRUCTION
The City of Saint John will be reconstructing Somerset Street from Wellesley Avenue to Samuel
Davis Drive. The street reconstruction will include the installation of a new storm sewer, repairs
to the existing sanitary sewer and road reconstruction consisting of new curb, sidewalk and
asphalt road surface.
This project may begin as early as October 2012 and is expected to be completed before the
end of October 2013. Prior to construction, another notice will be distributed to inform residents
and business owners of the actual construction schedule.
Representatives from the City of Saint John and the project design team will be available to
answer questions related to the proposed project. The public is invited to attend an information
session on this project on the following date and times:
Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Place: St Pius X Roman Catholic Church, 316 Somerset Street
Time: 2:00 p.m. — 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. — 8:00 p.m.
For further information about this project, contact the Consultant, GENIVAR, at
(506) 634 -8719 or the City of Saint John (Transportation and Environmental Services) at
(506) 658 -4455
SEANCE D'INFORMATION PUBLIQUE
RUE SOMERSET (DE L'AVENUE WELLESLEY
A LA PROMENADE SAMUEL DAVIS)
INSTALLATION DES EGOUTS PLUVIAUX ET
TRAVAUX DE REFECTION DE LA RUE
The City of Saint John procedera a la refection de la rue Somerset a partir de ('avenue
Wellesley jusqu'a la promenade Samuel Davis. Les travaux de refection comprendront
('installation d'un nouvel egout pluvial, des reparations a 1'egout sanitaire actuel et la refection de
la chaussee, a savoir la construction d'une nouvelle bordure, d'un trottoir et le resurfagage
asphaltique.
Le projet peut commencer aussitot qu'en octobre 2012 et doit se terminer avant la fin d'octobre
2013. Avant que les travaux debutent, un autre avis sera distribue aux residents et aux
proprietaires d'entreprises pour les informer du calendrier de construction.
Des representants de The City of Saint John et des membres de 1'equipe de conception seront
a votre disposition pour repondre aux questions relatives au projet propose. Le public est invite
a assister a une seance d'information sur ce projet a la date et aux heures suivantes :
Date : Le mardi 28 aout 2012
Lieu : Eglise catholique romaine St. Pius X, 316, rue Somerset
Heure: De 14 h A 16 h et de 18 h A 20 h
Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements sur ce projet, veuillez communiquer avec le
consultant de GENIVAR au 506 - 634 -8719 ou avec The City of Saint John (Services de
transport et d'environnement) au 506 - 658 -4455.
59
Mayor Mel Norton
Mayor's Office
Bureau du maire
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: UNBSJ is having their 44th Annual Shinerama
campaign in Saint John to raise funds for cystic
fibrosis research and treatment.
WHEREAS: Shinerama is the single largest charity event among
Canadian University students. Over 21 million dollars
have been raised through the continuous effort of 65
campuses and approximately 40 000 students yearly.
WHEREAS: Students from all walks of life will join the fight by
scouring the streets of Saint John on September 5th in
pursuit of some funds.
WHEREAS: Your support towards these students can go very far to
finding a cure to a terrible disease which affects many
young Canadians.
��
NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Mel Norion��,�%/ of the City of
Saint John do hereby proclaim the week of September 3 -7, 2012 as
Shinerama Week in the City of Saint John and Wednesday September
5th, 2012 as Shinerama Day in the City of Saint John and urge all
citizens to support and participate in activities occurring throughout the
City.
In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
Mayor of +ho ri*., of Cain+ Inhn
SAINT JOHN
Mayor Mel Norton
Mayor's Office
Bureau du maire
64)--
SAINT JOHN
WHEREAS:
PROCLAMATION
This is the United Way's 53rd year of helping
those in need; and
WHEREAS: there are 25- member agencies of the United
Way who provide essential services to those in
need in the community; and
WHEREAS: over 250,000 needed units of service are
provided to citizens in the counties of Saint
John, Kings and Charlotte annually; and
WHEREAS: over $33 million has been invested to support
programs and services in our community;
NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Mel Norton,
of Saint John do hereby proclaim the month of September
2012 as "United Way Month" for the United Way of Greater
Saint John Inc.
I encourage everyone in our community to support the United
Way and the 25- member agencies which provide services
necessary in our community. The annual campaign is truly a
community effort with labor, business, community leaders, non-
profit organizations and numerous volunteers working to
improve the lives of those in our community.
In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the
official seal of the Mayor of ti
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L
Ack 1�1�`U'r Ni T I E S
Saint John
August 15, 2012
Mayor Norton and Members of Common Council
P.O. Box 1971
Saint John, NB E2L 41_1
Dear Mayor Norton and Members of Common Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to present the findings from our work on public transit. This past
winter, Vibrant Communities together with a community steering committee, examined ways to
strengthen our existing public transit system, learning from the experiences of low- income
residents, the working poor and the practices of other communities.
We were very pleased to have an excellent committee guiding our work - Frank McCarey and
Charles Freake, Saint John Transit, Kevin Watson, City of Saint John, Monica Chaperlin, Business
Community Anti - Poverty Initiative, Brenda Murphy, Urban Core Support Network, Mark Butler,
Saint John Board of Trade, Hepzibah Munoz, University of New Brunswick — Saint John and
Juanita Black, Crescent Valley.
This initiative was funded by the NB Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation, the driver of
New Brunswick's poverty reduction strategy. Funding was provided to Vibrant Communities
Saint John, a multi- sector leadership roundtable working with partners to reduce poverty in our
community.
Enclosed is our presentation summarizing our report, Getting Around If You're Just Getting By:
Poverty, Policy and Public Transit. An abridged report and full report is also available to you.
We look forward to our presentation on August 27th
Sincerely,
Dr. Regena Farnsworth
Chair, Vibrant Communities Saint John
Dean of Business, UNBSJ
Vibrant Communities Saint John
c/o Community Health Centre, 116 Coburg Street
Saint John, New Brunswick • E2L 3K1 • Phone: 506 - 693 -0904; Cell: 506 - 608 -1406
62
Vibrant Communities Saint John
c/o Community Health Centre, 116 Coburg Street
Saint John, New Brunswick • E21- 3K1 • Phone: 506 - 693 -0904; Cell: 506 - 608 -1406
63
Saint John
Urban Transportation Initiative
A community -based approach to
assessing and improving transportation access
1
The Importance of Accessible Transportation
Economic: "Public transit... increases the pool of workers and
consumers for companies, and mitigates the harmful effects of
pollution." Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal
Environmental: decreasing personal vehicle use — improves air
quality (reduced GHG emissions); reduces water pollution (road
run -off); contains urban sprawl (encourages urban intensification))
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Social: "[Public transit] can stimulate social interaction arry-ong
members of the community, increase civic participation, foster
closeness among neighbors, and increase people's sense of safety."
National Reseach Council (US)
65
What we Accomplished
525 interview -based surveys (original target 300)
"Riders" = 73%
"Non- riders" = 27%
"Riders" reliance on transit:
Daily = 60%
Once aweek /once or twice a month (30%)
7 focus groups
Promising Practices research by UNBSJ class and Project
Coordinator
1:1:
Findings: Top Barriers to Transportation
Unsuitable schedule —lack of frequency
Lack of weekend &early morning (5:30-7:00am)
Service '
Transfer policy too restrictive
Fares too expensive when travelling with famflies
67
iA
Findings: Top Strengths to Preserve
Affordability (40% riders, 7% non - riders)
. Monthly passes of particular value
Convenience (25% riders, 11% non - riders)
. Don't need parking
. Snow - removal
Friendly drivers (20% riders, 21% non- riders) ��`
1;x;1
Findings: Funding for Public Transit
Government of Canada
Capital asset /infrastructure grants only
Government of New Brunswick
No direct operational funding provided
Only province to levy property taxes on transit facilities
City of Saint John
Lowest operational per capita contribution of the three
transit operators in NB and largest service area i
Gas tax used for water projects vs. transit operation
(common practice of most municipalities)
69 <_
Impact of Accessible Transportation
The business community told us:
Workforce: "A strong pul
sustainability of our local
benefit from a larger and
can get to work." Imelda
of Trade
:)lic transit system is critical to the
business community. Employers
more stable labour force if residents
Gilman, President, Saint John Board
Survey respondents told us: �.
Employment: "I could have kept a security job. I would have
more money, [so] I would increase spending and get out of a
boarding house."
70
Impact of Accessible Transportation
Survey respondents told us (cont'd):
Economic Participation: "I could save $200 [on taxis] — I would
use it for home improvements on my house."
Health: "I could feed my children the food I want to feed the
more often. Superstore has good quality food and good prices
but it is hard to get there."
71
Recommendations: SJ Transit
✓Extend eligible transfer time (complete)
✓Adopt a family travel policy which enables
affordable transportation for multi -child families
(complete)
Specific changes to service in Priority
Neighbourhood
Flexible payment options for monthly transit passes
72
Recommendations: Government
(Federal &Provincial)
Provide operational funding for public transportation
Prioritize infrastructure for public and active
transportation (vs. personal vehicles)
Fund /support community initiatives seeking to
strengthen accessible transportation �'
73
Recommendations: Business
Participate in bulk- buying program
. Purchase monthly transit passes at a discount and
pass discount along to employees
Promote transit among employees
. Increase adoption of public transit as primary
of travel
Charter SJ Transit for regional group travel
74
mode
Recommendations: Residents
Seek partnerships with SJ Transit:
. Adopt a Bus Shelter —the Crescent Valley
Community Tenants Association "adopted" their
neighbourhood bus shelter — installed by SJ Transit
and maintained by Association
Choose public transit as mode of travel
Participate in Share - Your -Ride program (carpool
matching service provided by SJ Parking Commission)
75
i
Recommendations: VCSJ
Work with City and other partners to secure GNB funding for:
• Operational funding for public transit
• Property tax exemption (savings to be directed back to
transit services)
Explore social enterprise such as short -term, city -wide bike
rentals
Promote discounted transit passes for the working poor
Engage community in building an accessible public transit
system
N.
Recommendations:
City of Saint John
Adopt public transit as 2013 Council Priority
Work with Fredericton and Moncton to secure GNB support
for property tax exemption, and direct savings back to SJ
Transit to increase service hours
Participate in and promote bulk- buying transit pass program
for City employees
Prioritize public transportation in planning — Municipal
Transportation Plan, Zoning bylaw, etc.
77
Recommendations:
City of Saint John (cont I d)
Assign federal Gas Tax revenues to SJ Transit to
improve service levels
Review final report and all recommendations
Steward strong public policy for accessible
transportation system
U:a
Our Opportunity
Competitive communities make transit a priority and
intentionally subsidize it for the following results:
Enable economic and social participation of all residents
• Reduce infrastructure costs such as road maintenance and
parking lot development
• Attract high - quality workers for the "Knowledge Economy" �
• Improve environmental performance, benefiting residents
and business
79
GETTING AROUND IF YOU'RE JUST GETTING BY
Poverty, Policy & Public Transit
Final Report
�r
r
Vibrant Communities Saint John • Urban Transportation Initiative
:N
vc0'M TIES
Authored by: Sara Stashick
Prepared for: Vibrant Communities Saint John
c/o Community Health Centre
116 Coburg St
Saint John, NB E21L 3K1
Table of Contents
PREFACE................................................................................................................................... ...............................
3
EXECUTIVESUMMARY .............................................................................................................. ..............................5
Summaryof Findings ........................................................................................................... ..............................8
Impact of Accessible Transportation on Residents .............................................................. ..............................9
PromisingPractices ............................................................................................................. .............................10
Summaryof Recommendations ......................................................................................... .............................11
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... .............................16
TheUrban Transportation Initiative .................................................................................... .............................16
BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................................... .............................17
The Role of Public Transit in a Community Transportation System ..................................... .............................17
TheClimate in the Community ..........................................................................................
.............................17
Faresand Funding at a Glance ............................................................................................ .............................19
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................... ...............................
21
Project Goals & Target Audience ........................................................................................ .............................21
Research Design Considerations ......................................................................................... .............................22
ResearchStrategy ............................................................................................................... .............................22
SURVEYRESULTS ...................................................................................................................... .............................25
FINDINGS— KEY DESTINATIONS ...............................................................................................
.............................26
FINDINGS — GENERAL TRANSIT USE ......................................................................................... .............................30
WhenTransportation is Needed ......................................................................................... .............................31
Areasof Improvement ........................................................................................................ .............................32
Areas to Preserve and Strengthen ......................................................................................
.............................34
Respondents Recommend — Desired Changes .................................................................... .............................34
Impact of Changes on Respondents ................................................................................... .............................35
Increase in Transit Utilization .............................................................................................. .............................36
PROMISINGPRACTICES ............................................................................................................ .............................37
Discounted Passes for the Working Poor ............................................................................ .............................37
FamilyTravel Policies .......................................................................................................... .............................38
Government Funding for Public Transit .............................................................................. .............................39
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................... .............................41
FUNDING AND POLICY SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT ...................................................... .............................42
1. Municipal Funding of Saint John Transit ..................................................................
.............................42
2. Redirect Federal Gas Tax Revenues to Saint John Transit ......................................... .............................43
3. Cost Analysis of Recommendations ......................................................................... .............................43
4. Government of New Brunswick as a Transit Champion ........................................... .............................43
5. Community Partnerships & Saint John Transit ......................................................... .............................44
6. Business Development Role — Investing in the Business of Transit .......................... .............................44
SUPPORTS FOR LOW- INCOME RESIDENTS .......................................................................... .............................45
1. Payment Options — Increasing Access for All Low - income Residents ....................... .............................45
2. Discounted Passes Pilot Program — Help for the "Working Poor" ............................ .............................46
3. Bulk Buying Program - Employers ............................................................................ .............................46
4. Sunday Service — Priority Neighbourhoods .............................................................. .............................47
5. South End Route —Temporary Adjustment ..............................................................
.............................48
6. Weekend Schedule Adjustment ............................................................................... .............................48
Vibrant Communities Saint John 1 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
i
7. Transfer Policy Changes ............................................................................................ .............................48
8. Family Travel Policy— Help for Multi -child Families .................................................. .............................48
9. Seasonal Activity Services & Routes ......................................................................... .............................49
10. U -Pass Program ........................................................................................................ .............................49
11. Social Enterprise — Feasibility Studies ...................................................................... .............................50
MUNICIPALPLANNING & OPERATIONS ............................................................................... .............................51
1. Inclusion in City of Saint John Transportation Plan .................................................. .............................51
2. Prioritizing Public Transit in Municipal Planning ...................................................... .............................51
3. Prioritizing Public Transit in Municipal Operations .................................................. .............................52
INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION .................................................................................. .............................53
1. Bus Stop Identification —Clean Up Program ............................................................ .............................53
2. Nextbus Relaunch .................................................................................................... .............................53
3. Information & Signage — Stops, Routes & Schedules ............................................... .............................54
4. Promoting the Share - Your -Ride Program ................................................................. .............................55
LONGTERM ........................................................................................................................ .............................55
1. Light Rail Transit — the Future of Saint John? ........................................................... .............................55
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................... ...............................
56
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... ...............................
58
APPENDIXA: Rider Survey ....................................................................................................... .............................62
APPENDIXB: Non -rider Survey ................................................................................................ .............................68
APPENDIX C: Maps & Instructions for Online Use .................................................................... .............................71
APPENDIX D: Focus Group Summary ....................................................................................... .............................76
APPENDIX E: Saint John Transit Commission Performance Standards ..................................... .............................80
APPENDIX F: Approaches & Best Practices Summary .............................................................. .............................81
Vibrant Communities Saint John 2 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
i
PREFACE
Access to an affordable and effective public transit system is critically important for low- income households.
It's one of the golden keys to accessing employment, education and training and the day -to -day needs for food,
health care, recreation and other basic services. Transportation is an integral part of one's ability to move
forward in life and yet it poses a constant barrier for low income households. With the encouragement of the
Saint John Common Council, Vibrant Communities Saint John embarked on a study to identify the specific
transportation concerns of citizens who live in priority neighbourhoods (areas with concentrations of poverty
that exceed 25 %) and to identify how their transportation barriers could be removed.
Vibrant Communities Saint John (VCSJ) — a community led multi- sector leadership roundtable — is the steward
of the Greater Saint John Poverty Reduction Strategy. The strategy aims to help low- income households
improve their life situations through specific community led actions that remove barriers to education,
employment, healthy living and community inclusion. With funding from the NB Economic and Social Inclusion
Corporation, the driver of New Brunswick's poverty reduction strategy, VCSJ set out to learn from the
experiences of low- income residents, the working poor and the practices of other communities to help build on
the strengths of our existing public transit system and recommend improvements for the future.
The study revealed that many partners can contribute to investing in a sustainable and accessible public
transit system. For example, employers can help their employees by taking advantage of the bulk- buying
program of Saint John Transit; neighbourhood groups can adopt bus shelters and continue to voice their
accessibility challenges; existing riders can be recruiters for new riders. But Saint John also requires a public
transit system where the three levels of government invest in its future. Both federal and provincial levels of
government must be significant partners in public transit's future.
Economically, Saint John requires a strong transit system that makes it possible for individuals on low income to
find and maintain employment and to access services and activities that improve their quality of life.
Environmentally, Saint John must have reliable transportation alternatives moving us closer to being a
sustainable community. Socially, Saint John requires a transportation system to service an expanding population
of seniors, the many citizens who are challenged by health and /or financial restraints and a potential ridership
who would use public transit if it was more accessible. Each of these goals provides a compelling economic
Vibrant Communities Saint John
0
Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
argument that recognizes public transit as a critical investment in people and community — an investment that
is integral to the sustainable future of our City. This is a call to action and unless change comes about we will
not be ready economically, environmentally, or socially for the future.
Vibrant Communities sincerely thanks committee members: Frank McCarey and Charles Freake (Saint John
Transit), Monica Chaperlin (Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative), Brenda Murphy (Urban Core Support
Network), Mark Butler (Saint John Board of Trade Transportation Committee), Juanita Black (Resident), Kevin
Watson (City of Saint John), Hepzibah Munoz Martinez (University of New Brunswick —Saint John) and Cathy
Wright (VCSJ). Special thanks to Project Coordinator Sara Stashick who together with her team designed this
road map for public transit's future.
Dr. Regena Farnsworth
Chair of Leadership Roundtable, Vibrant Communities Saint John
Dean of Business, UNBSJ
Vibrant Communities Saint John
i
Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Saint John Urban Transportation Initiative is a project of Vibrant Communities Saint John (VCSJ), funded by
the Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation (ESIC, Province of New Brunswick). VCSJ is the agency charged
with leading the Greater Saint John Poverty Reduction Strategy; a key component of this strategy is removing
barriers to transportation for people living in poverty. In January, 2012 VCSJ began a four -month Urban
Transportation Initiative to identify barriers to accessible and affordable transportation for low- income
residents, and make recommendations to eliminate those barriers. A Project Coordinator guided the initiative,
supported by a Steering Committee comprised of members from the City of Saint John, Saint John Transit, the
business community, the University of New Brunswick,
partner non - profit agencies and residents of the Priority
Neighbourhoods. A University of New Brunswick (Saint
John campus) class provided research support in
transportation promising practices. Area employers,
educational institutions and community service agencies
also contributed to the research, and a team of seven
part -time staff collected feedback directly from city
residents.
Public transit is a critical piece of Saint John's transportation system that provides affordable access to our
entire community. The recommendations in this report will propel the changes needed in the system to
provide improved access and opportunities for the working poor in our community. Accessible transportation
is an absolute necessity for any healthy community. With greater investment from all three levels of
government, Saint John could have more riders served by increased frequency and accessibility. The return on
Vibrant Communities Saint John
0
investment would have a domino
effect for government, business,
services and individuals (BTMM, 2004).
As set out in key provincial strategies,
Overcoming Poverty Together
(provincial poverty reduction strategy),
the Climate Change Action Plan and
Rebuilding New Brunswick (Economic
Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
Development Plan), greater investment means savings and revenue generation from an increased number of
people working, reduced healthcare costs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, increased tax base, and reduced
road infrastructure costs. Common Council must establish the goals and standards required to meet the needs
of our community for public transit.
The City of Saint John is home to 70,063 residents as of
the 2011 Census, with an overall poverty rate of 20.6%
(Greater Saint John Community Foundation, 2011), and
concentrated pockets of poverty in the five Priority
Neighbourhoods. The extreme east and west ends of the
city have developed as important commercial centres —
particularly for the retail and industrial sectors that play
significant roles in the employment of low- income
workers. Many survey respondents reside in the north
and central neighbourhoods of the city; these areas have
been targeted for residential intensification for future development. (City of Saint John, 2011) As a result of this
physical development of the community, residents must have access to efficient forms of transportation —that
are affordable relative to their income — which allow them to reach all areas of the city. Unfortunately for those
who rely on transit as their only affordable means of transportation, in late 2011 and early 2012 the City
announced two successive funding reductions to the public transit operator Saint John Transit; as a result
transit services were decreased across the city.
A comparison of transit fares and funding models among
other municipalities reveals that Saint John Transit is
under - funded, and that public transit riders in Saint John
pay higher fares than those in other communities. This
fare structure and the burden it places on low- income
riders is one consequence of the relatively low levels of
government funding infusing Saint John Transit's
operations. Not only does the operator receive less
municipal funding per capita than most of its regional counterparts, but it also receives no direct funding
support from the Government of New Brunswick'.
1 The Government of New Brunswick is one of only five provincial and territorial governments in Canada that does not subsidize public transit.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 6 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
i
A two - pronged approach was taken in the project
research. First, feedback was gathered directly from
city residents through face -to -face interviews
conducted by a "street team" of six Community
Interviewers over the course of six weeks, and
through an online survey available to the public for
three weeks. The results of the street -level surveys
were added to the online database by the project
Information Manager (dedicated role to ensure
consistency in data input), enabling data analysis.
Key issues were explored in detail through six focus
groups, attended by survey respondents who had
"opted -in" when surveyed. Second, research in
transportation best - practices in comparable
communities regionally and across North America
was conducted by UNBSJ students as well as
targeted research conducted by the Project
Coordinator, guided by survey results. Although
public transit — recognized as one of the most
affordable and therefore accessible forms of transportation to our target audience — was the primary focus of
this initiative, other forms of transportation have also been researched and considered in order to gain a more
complete picture.
The project had an initial target of 300 face -to -face surveys — wherever possible to be gathered from the target
audience — and 525 surveys were collected by the end of the project. Seventy percent of respondents were
current riders of public transit and the remaining thirty percent were non - riders.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 7 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
Summary of Findings
The survey collected information on the key destinations of our target audience: work, healthcare, education,
community services, childcare, and leisure centres. In each case detailed survey data has been plotted in maps.
The survey also explored the experiences of current public transit riders and the perceptions of non - riders. For
the most part, those who rely on public transit as their primary form of transportation have a very strong
utilization rate: daily use. A smaller but still significant portion of riders (-19 %) use transit on a weekly basis —
these riders are likely the easiest to convert to more frequent use of transit. In almost all cases increased
frequency was identified as critical to making public transit more accessible to all residents (which is in
keeping with Service Standards, see Appendix Q.
The most pressing scheduling need that is not currently being met, at least not city -wide, is early morning
weekday runs. In the context of work, riders noted challenges in arriving on time due to a later than desirable
start, particularly those who need to traverse the length of the city (i.e. East - west). Weekend service is the
other priority area among those surveyed. Over 100 respondents indicated a need for Saturday services
between the hours of gam and 9pm (most of these require services on their secondary routes vs. the main
lines), and at least 75 respondents require services on Sundays during the same time period.
Scheduling Needs - Riders
250
6amto9am 9amto12pm 12pmto3pm 3pmto6pm 6pmto9pm 9pmto12am 12amto6am
illustration 1: Scheduling needs of current transit riders.
• Monday
• Tuesday
Wednesday
• Thursday
• Friday
T Saturday
■ Sunday
Vibrant Communities Saint John 8 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
The following table summarizes the top three areas of improvement and strength in Saint John's public
transportation system, as identified by survey respondents.
1. "Unsuitable Schedule ": a lack of frequency on
secondary routes' and challenges lining up
connections at transfer points. (78% riders;
31% non - riders)
2. "Unsuitable Weekend Service ": this response
was most common among families where
taking a taxi was considered more convenient
when travelling with multiple children, rather
than working around the infrequent weekend
transit service schedule (43% riders; 12% non -
riders)
3. "Fares too Expensive ": the comments
associated with this category indicate that
with few exceptions these respondents are
travelling with families with multiple children
(35% riders; 19% non - riders)
1. "Affordability ": 40% of riders and 7% of non-
riders cited affordability of public transit as a
key strength.
2. "Convenience ": the second most -cited reason
for liking public transit service (25% of riders,
11% of non - riders).
3. "Friendly Drivers ": 20% of riders, 21% of non-
riders.
Impact of Accessible Transportation on Residents
Respondents were asked to share their thoughts on how improvements to transit might impact their lives. The
ability to "get out of the house" was linked to better access to employment, education, social networks and
activities, all leading to better quality of life and reduced stress / improved mental health. The vast majority of
respondents — 77% of rider and 29% of non - riders — fell into this group. The second most common response
was an improvement in personal finances (33% riders, 50% non - riders). Some respondents went on to connect
this change with the following personal benefits:
• ability to pay off debt
• ability to access education
• ability to save for child's education
2 Secondary —or feeder routes —are those that bring riders from the extremities of the community to the routes that service the bulk of the daily
ridership (primary / main routes).
Vibrant Communities Saint John 9 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
•E
• using savings for vacation, social activities, hobbies, etc.
The importance of the benefits identified by respondents is telling — an improved ability to access public
transportation would have wide - ranging benefits to low- income residents of Saint John. Many of these benefits
— such as improvements in mental and physical health —would also be enjoyed by the community at large and
those stakeholders who fund and provide social services.
Promising Practices
Research into the practices of other communities that were deemed most relevant to low- income residents,
and most applicable to the survey findings are summarized in the body of this report. The top three promising
practices identified were:
1. Significantly discounted monthly transit passes for the working poor. Many jurisdictions subsidize
monthly passes in such a way that eligible residents benefit from a discount of —50 %. These programs
are modelled on partnerships between the municipality and its transit operator and the provincial
government; in some cases a non - governmental- organization (NGO) is also involved.
2. Family travel passes for families with multiple children. "Children free" travel policies are common, and
in many cases these policies accommodate families with multiple children. There is even some limited
recognition of the long -term value of family travel polices, as a means to cultivate the next generation
Vibrant Communities Saint John 10 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
91
of transit riders.
3. Government supports for transit, both policies and funding. Other jurisdictions provide direct funding
support for public transit operation, and / or have enacted legislation which allows local and regional
governments to raise special taxes or collect a portion of local taxes to fund transit operations.
Summary of Recommendations
Our goal is to support the development of a transportation system which is affordable and accessible to low -
income residents of Saint John. Although our recommendations focus on public transit, there is certainly a role
for other forms of transportation and select recommendations specific to Active Transportation and personal
vehicles are also included. The Saint John Transit Commission has developed ideal performance standards (see
Appendix E); if appropriate funding was available to enable Saint John Transit to meet those service standards
many of the recommendations that follow would be very achievable. Along with the City of Saint John, the
Government of New Brunswick also has an important leadership role to play to ensure the on -going provision
of accessible public transit. All stakeholders in our community have a role to play and the following
recommendations (more details are available in the Recommendations section of this report) reflect those
roles.
It is recommended that:
1. The City of Saint John reinvest in the operation of Saint John Transit as soon as possible, and continue
to do so in future municipal budgets to demonstrate a real commitment to this critical public service.
2. The City of Saint John direct a portion of the revenue it receives from the Government of Canada Gas
Tax Fund (GTF) via the provincial government to Saint John Transit.
3. The City of Saint John work with Saint John Transit to complete a cost - analysis of the
recommendations included in this report as soon as possible.
4. The Government of New Brunswick:
4.1. Establish dedicated funding for the provision of public transit.
4.2. Amend existing legislation to allow municipalities to develop their own tools.
4.3. Ensure a balanced approach to transportation projects and funding.
5. Saint John Transit, Vibrant Communities and other stakeholders actively promote partnership
Vibrant Communities Saint John it Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
92
opportunities regarding bus shelters (and other innovative partnerships where appropriate) to city
neighbourhoods, to improve physical access to transportation.
6. Saint John Transit establish a Business Development role as soon as reasonably possible.
1. Saint John Transit, Vibrant Communities and other key stakeholders work together to develop a model
to facilitate the administration of flexible payment options on monthly transit passes.
2. Saint John Transit work with City of Saint John Information Services Department to develop online
payment option (mobile - friendly is the ideal) for bus pass purchase.
3. Pilot a partnership between Saint John Transit, the Government of New Brunswick and other partners
where appropriate, to provide discounted monthly transit passes to low- income, working residents.
4. Vibrant Communities and other community partners actively promote adoption of the existing bulk -
buying opportunity to employers of low- income residents'.
5. The City of Saint John and Horizon Health act as leaders in adopting and promoting the transit pass
bulk- buying program.
6. Saint John Transit ensure that some form of Sunday service is provided to the Priority Neighbourhoods
and other areas where low- income residents live (ex. Davenport, Reading Cres, etc.).
7. Saint John Transit investigate possible modifications to the South End bus ( #21) and the routes that
connect to it during morning peak hours only.
8. Saint John Transit attempt to "normalize" (for example hourly) weekend schedule on secondary
routes.
9. Saint John Transit increase transfer time duration to reflect recent changes to service frequency.
10. Saint John Transit institute a Family Travel Policy where up to four children under the age of twelve
may travel for free with an adult.
11. Saint John Transit investigate a partnership with community groups and neighbourhood associations
to provide special services to key area activity centres.
12. University of New Brunswick, Saint John and the New Brunswick Community College take a leadership
role in pursuing a U -Pass for their students.
13. Vibrant Communities encourage feasibility studies with interested community partners to determine
the sustainability of the following ideas for local Social Enterprises related to improving transportation
3 Potential departments to approach: Social Development, Post - Secondary Education Training and Labour, Invest NB. Also possibility with Human
Resources & Skills Development (federal). Consider government partners interested in advancing employment and economic opportunities.
4 Sectors which are likely to employ our target audience include: retail / service, hospitality / tourism, private healthcare, maintenance services,
seasonal industries such as fishing, construction labourers, etc.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 12 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
93
accessibility in our community:
13.1. Short -term, city -wide bike rentals
13.2. Low -fee snow - clearing service
13.3. Inner -city small vehicle shuttle service
1. City of Saint John refer this report to the Transportation Strategic Plan Steering Committee for
inclusion in the upcoming Transportation Plan development process of PlanSJ.
2. City of Saint John prioritize public transit requirements over that of the personal vehicle and other
considerations in municipal planning practices:
2.1. The provision of new bus stops and shelters as criteria for approval of future mid- and
large -scale real estate developments
2.2. Large commercial developments where high volumes of visitors are anticipated (ex.
shopping centres) be required to provide full -sized islands (vs. stops / shelters)
2.3. Work with Saint John Transit to include standards for new bus stops and shelters in the
recently launched Zoning Bylaw update process
2.4. Curb construction, height and drainage (both for new construction and upgrades of
existing infrastructure) that accommodates public transit equipment such as low -entry
buses
2.5. Re- prioritize the Trails and Bikeways Strategic Plan to address Active Transportation needs
in Priority Neighbourhoods
before other areas of the city
3. City of Saint John ensure that public transit , , [public
is given priority in relevant municipal transit-oriented] development contributes to .
operations:
3.1. Transit routes included in
municipal snow - clearing plan
3.2. Key bus stops and shelter
locations are given priority in
the municipal side -walk clearing
plan
3.3. Adapt to changes in transit
Vibrant Communities Saint John 13 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
91
services as they occur
1. Saint John Transit partner with the community to "clean up" unused bus stop markers that create
confusion for transit riders.
2. Update and relaunch the Nextbus system; actively promote service.
3. Saint John Transit ensure clear and consistent information and signage regarding stop locations,
routes, schedules, etc. — both on the bus and at stops and shelters.
4. Saint John Parking Commission and appropriate partners (ex. Sustainable Saint John) actively promote
the Share - Your -Ride car - pooling service.
Light Rail Transit (LRT) line is a possible long -term solution for our community and should be given serious
study and consideration.
It is widely accepted that a complete transportation system includes an effective public transit service, and that
the service is frequent and affordable. No other transportation choice has the all- encompassing impact of
public transit and therefore the opportunity to have such positive effect on all aspects of a community.
I ill i 1 .
Vibrant Communities Saint John
The results of the Saint John Urban Transportation Initiative
demonstrate that there are a number of opportunities to improve
our public transit system so that it may meet the needs of all citizens
now and for the future. A strong vision for our community is:
• The City of Saint John and the Government of New
Brunswick would both provide stable funding dedicated not
only to capital investments, but more importantly to the
operational costs of public transit
• The business community and employers in other sectors,
particularly those employing low- income workers, would
participate in Saint John Transit's bulk- buying program
• Non - governmental organizations would support public
transportation development and adoption by leveraging
14 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
95
their networks for communication, community engagement and outreach, etc.
• Residents would opt to use public transit as their primary mode of transportation, and encourage
government and community leaders to secure public transit as a key priority in budget decisions,
municipal planning and operations, etc.
Today public transportation in Saint John is being neglected. With such an under - funded operating budget,
Saint John Transit must struggle to provide the limited public transit services available. The lack of frequency of
service equates to an inefficient and unreliable system for residents. Given the intrinsic importance of public
transportation to any community, this significant reduction of funding and services is unacceptable and
solutions must be found to reverse the
current direction. Perhaps most importantly
we can all begin by shifting our mindset,
starting with the decision that the provision
of public transportation is not a budget If -=
expense, but an essential investment in �.
people and their community.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 15 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
M
INTRODUCTION
The Urban Transportation Initiative
The Saint John Urban Transportation Initiative is a project of Vibrant Communities Saint John (VCSJ), funded by
the Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation (ESIC, Province of New Brunswick). VCSJ is the agency charged
with leading the Greater Saint John Poverty Reduction Strategy; a key component of this strategy is removing
barriers to transportation for people living in poverty. Transportation plays a central role in our ability to
participate in our communities and economies; a "complete" transportation system ensures that efficient,
reliable, and affordable forms are available regardless of the physical needs or socio- economic status of citizens.
With this in mind, VCSJ began a four -month Urban Transportation Initiative to identify barriers to accessible and
affordable transportation and make recommendations to eliminate those barriers.
Recognizing the wide- ranging impact of a community's
transportation system, VCSJ partnered with a variety of
stakeholders to complete this project. A Project
Coordinator was recruited to guide the initiative to
completion, supported by a Steering Committee
comprised of members from the City of Saint John, Saint
John Transit, the business community, the University of
New Brunswick, partner non - profit agencies and
residents of the Priority Neighbourhoods. Saint John
Common Council announced its support of the initiative
at an early stage, asking Saint John Transit and
appropriate municipal departments to provide
information and assistance as needed. A University of New Brunswick (Saint John campus) class focusing on
Environmental Justice issues provided research support in transportation promising practices. Area employers,
educational institutions and community service agencies also contributed to the research, and a team of seven
part-time staff collected feedback directly from city residents.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 16 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
97
BACKGROUND
The Role of Public Transit in a Community Transportation System
Public transit is more than just another municipal service. It plays a critical role in the health and sustainability
of a community in every way: socially, environmentally and economically. Its impact on the local environment is
obvious — as more residents of a community select public transit as their primary form of transportation,
vehicle emissions drop through a reduction in personal vehicle use, and wear - and -tear on municipal
infrastructure is reduced, etc. In the economic context, an effective public transit system ensures that
employees are able to get to and from work efficiently (including those who use personal vehicles, as fewer cars
on the road reduces congestion and therefore travel time), and that an employer's reach to potential
employees extends throughout the community rather
than just their own neighbourhood. In a social context,
affordable public transit fulfils the essential role of
ensuring that any resident, regardless of their socio-
economic status, can participate fully in a community.
Community participation achieves a number of important
personal and community outcomes such as workforce
participation and personal wealth, education levels,
mental and physical health, etc. The impact, and
therefore importance of public transit is complex and in
the community context, all- encompassing. (CUTA, 2011)
The Climate in the Community
The City of Saint John is home to 70,063 residents as of the 2011 Census, with an overall poverty rate of 20.6%
(Greater Saint John Community Foundation, 2011). Many low- income residents live in the city's five Priority
Neighbourhoods, so designated because over 25% of neighbourhood residents are living in poverty. In many
cases these residents participate in some level of employment, yet are still earning below the Low Income Cut-
Off (LICO) Line and are considered the "working poor ". As of April 1, 2012, the minimum wage in New
Brunswick was increased to $10.00 per hour, however, even a full -time employee working forty hours a week
earns only $20,000 per year and is therefore considered to be living in poverty. Often this population is
employed in entry -level and / or low- skilled positions found in sectors such as retail and service, tourism,
Vibrant Communities Saint John 17 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
seasonal labour, personal home care, maintenance services, etc.
In January 2012, Saint John Common Council approved the adoption of PlanSJ, the Municipal Plan for the
community which will guide how development occurs over the next generation (twenty -five years) of our city.
PlanSJ details major employment, education and healthcare centres, and identifies areas for residential and
commercial intensification. With few exceptions the extreme east and west ends of the city have been
designated as priority commercial areas — particularly for the retail and industrial sectors that play significant
roles in the employment of low- income workers. Many of the north and central neighbourhoods of the city
have been targeted for residential intensification. (City of Saint John, 2011) As a result, in order to fully
participate in our community and economy, residents must be able to access all areas of the city. They must
find efficient forms of transportation that allow them to reach important destinations such as work, school and
healthcare services that are affordable relative to their income.
Meanwhile in late 2011 the City announced spending cuts that resulted in funding reductions to the public
transit operator Saint John Transit, resulting in service reductions across the city effective December 2011.
Facing a significant debt concern, the municipal government was forced to slash their operating budget even
further in the following months, and funding to Saint John Transit was reduced yet again. Further transit
services were cut, including another decrease in service frequency to many parts of the community and the
complete elimination of services on Statutory Holidays. Where "discretionary riders" (those who don't have to
take public transit for financial reasons but still choose to) have the ability to adapt to these changes to transit
services, residents who rely on them as their only means of accessible transportation have born the brunt of
these budget and service reductions.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 18 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
99
Saint John Transit was not the only public transit operator in the region struggling with fiscal restraint at the
time of this project. Metro Transit in Halifax, NS endured a six - week -long driver strike, and drivers at Codiac
Transpo in nearby Moncton, NB were poised to strike at the time of the writing of this report. All of these
elements combined to create a highly energized climate in the community, one that brought public transit
funding to the forefront for many residents.
Fares and Funding at a Glance
A comparison of transit fares and funding models among twenty -seven other municipalities in Canada reveals
that Saint John Transit is under - funded and has higher rider fares than comparable transit operators. Only
three communities in our population group (50,000- 150,000) charge more than Saint John Transit's adult cash
fare of $2.75; the vast majority of fares fall below the $2.50 mark, with a group average of $2.38 /adult. Very
few transit operators in our group charge any fare
for children under five years of age at all; only
seven of the twenty -seven in our group charge a
fee for children, and Saint John's fare is the highest
among those who dos. The cost of monthly passes
follows this trend, where Saint John is eighth
highest in the group; the average monthly pass
costs $64.53 compared to Saint John's $70 (CUTA,
2010).
Municipality Coverage (sq kms) Per Capita Contribution
Halifax 250 $112.02
St. John's
105
$53.86
Fredericton
132
$48.87
Moncton
229
$48.21
Saint John
316
$40.12
Cape Breton
200
$27.50
Charlottetown
250
$21.93
Illustration 2: Summary of per capita contributions from Atlantic
Canadian municipalities to their transit operators, vs. area coverage
This fare structure reflects the relatively low levels of government funding infusing Saint John Transit's
operations. Rider fares are subsidized by these government funds — the lower the government subsidy the
higher the fare Saint John Transit must charge to residents to achieve cost recovery. Not only does the operator
receive less municipal funding per capita than most of its regional counterparts, but it also receives no direct
funding support from the Government of New Brunswickb. Even the revenues filtered to the City of Saint John
from the federal Gas Tax Fund have not been directed toward public transit but to other municipal
infrastructure projects. In continually reducing funding support for public transit, as has been the recent
experience of the City of Saint John, and in limiting their role as a direct funder of public transit, as the
5 This analysis is a straight comparison and does not take fare bonuses such as the first child free policy of SJ Transit into account.
6 The Government of New Brunswick is one of only five provincial and territorial governments in Canada that does not subsidize public transit.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 19 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
100
Government of New Brunswick has, our governments have in effect put the survival of public transit in question
and ignored the needs of citizens who rely on transit as their primary form of transportation.
Illustration 2 on the preceding page outlines per capita contributions from Atlantic Canadian municipalities to
their transit operators. Coverage area in square kilometres is also included; larger coverage areas result in
more wear- and -tear on vehicles and increased operating costs. (CUTA, 2011)
Transit Area Coverage vs. Municipal Budget Contribution (per capita)
$350.00
$300.00
$250.00
$200.00
$150.00
$100.00
$50.00
$0.00
Saint John Moncton Fredericton Halifax Cape Breton Charlottetown St. John's
■ Coverage (sq kms) —Per Capita Contribution
Illustration 3: Visual of per capita contributions from Atlantic Canadian municipalities to their transit operators, vs. area
coverage. Note that X axis represents $ for contributions (orange line) and kms for area coverage (blue bars).
Vibrant Communities Saint John 20 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
101
METHODOLOGY
A two - pronged approach was taken in the project research. First, feedback was gathered directly from city
residents through face -to -face interviews conducted by a "street team" of six Community Interviewers, and
through an online survey. The results of the street -level surveys were added to the online database by the
project Information Manager (dedicated role to ensure consistency in data input), enabling data analysis.
Second, research in transportation best - practices in comparable communities regionally and across North
America was conducted by UNB students as well as targeted research conducted by the Project Coordinator,
guided by survey results.
Project Goals & Target Audience
The purpose of the Urban Transportation Initiative was:
The discovery and advancement of sustainable urban transportation solutions which will increase the
accessibility of public transit to low- income residents in Saint John, with a focus on the "working poor ", single -
parents and residents accessing community services.
Supporting goals to this project purpose were:
1. To gain an understanding of the experience of current public transit users —what's working well and
what needs improvement in order to make transit in Saint John more accessible;
2. To explore the perceptions and experiences of potential- riders to:
0 understand why they are not using transit today;
0 identify ways to make transit more accessible, particularly to target stakeholders (low-
income residents).
3. To identify innovative approaches, policies and practices that can lead to more sustainable
solutions for transportation.
Although public transit — recognized as one of the most affordable and therefore accessible forms of
transportation to our target audience — was the primary focus of this initiative, other forms of transportation
have also been researched and considered in order to gain a more complete picture and formulate more
sustainable recommendations.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 21 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
102
Given the scope of the initiative and research involved, temporary support staff were required to complete the
project in time. Where possible low- income candidates were hired with a view to developing additional
employability skills and increasing their chances of future employment opportunities post - project.
Research Design Considerations
• Definition of "accessible transportation" is subjective — where affordability, physical accessibility,
efficiency etc. are all relative terms, the survey should allow respondents to define and evaluate public
transit through their personal context;
• Gathering family data — the survey should be designed in such a way as to collect information on
multiple respondents living in the same household;
• Key destinations — the survey should identify key areas of the city where our target audience access the
following:
• employment
• healthcare
• education
• community services
• childcare
• leisure
• In what ways is transportation not accessible to our target audience?
• What could be done to make transportation more accessible to our target audience?
• What are the existing strengths of the system that should be preserved?
• What would be the impact to our target audience if recommended changes were made?
Research Strategy
The project had an initial target of three - hundred face -to -face surveys —wherever possible to be gathered from
the target audience — seventy percent of which should represent current riders of public transit and the
remaining thirty percent from non - riders. Surveys were gathered directly from residents through face -to -face
interviews conducted by the Community Interviewer team (see below for details), and an online version of the
survey was made available for three weeks to ensure broad community coverage. There were several limitation
in the survey design. First and foremost all survey questions were optional, allowing respondents to skip
Vibrant Communities Saint John 22 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
103
questions at their discretion which did result in a slightly incomplete picture. Respondents also self- identified;
21% of respondents opted to skip the demographic section of the survey resulting in a loss of demographic
information. Respondents chose from a predefined set of neighbourhoods when identifying their key
destinations — some overlap in neighbourhood results was expected based on how the respondent perceived
their geography and neighbourhood borders. Lastly, online survey respondents generally provided much more
subjective information than those interviewed by the Community Interviewer team, who tended to document
common responses in a consistent way.
Six part -time Community Interviewers were recruited based on abilities such as communication and team work
skills, literacy and attention -to- detail, and were trained in interviewing skills with a special focus on probing to
illuminate details in open -ended questions. The Community Interviewers worked in pairs; partners were
assigned based on their ability to complement each others individual skills and therefore learn from and
strengthen each other. At the beginning of March 2012, once the street interviews were completed, four
members of the team were selected to assist in conducting focus groups (survey respondents were able to opt -
in to future focus groups at the end of the survey); two Community Interviewers were trained in facilitation and
two in note - taking skills.
A dedicated Information Manager (IM) received completed surveys from the Community Interviewer team and
added all responses into the online database for analysis. The IM ensured consistency in data input and a high -
level of attention -to- detail; when the survey phase was completed the IM developed a coding system to enable
analysis of responses to the open -ended questions.
A list of important locations across the city where street interviews would be conducted was developed using a
combination of municipal maps (City of Saint John, 2011) and Saint John Transit route maps. The location list
was cross - tabulated with a shift schedule (three -hour increments) that was designed to capture key
transportation periods such as peak commuter hours, weekends, non -peak hours and the period of time when
public transit services are not available (ie. overnight). The resulting matrix was then prioritized, with key shifts
and locations being given priority attention by the team; this matrix was revisited at regular team meetings and
adjusted over the course of the project to account for changes in weather, the impact of the March Break, etc.
Under the guidance of the Project Coordinator the Community Interviewer team worked together to ensure
comprehensive city- and schedule -wide coverage.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 23 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
104
Six focus groups were conducted during the month of March to gain additional insight into key issues resulting
from the surveying:
• non - riders
• families
• priority neighbourhoods (x2)
• transit drivers
• Community Interviewer team (facilitated by the Project Coordinator)
Vibrant Communities Saint John 24 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
105
SURVEY RESULTS
• 525 surveys (original target of 300)
• 345 face -to -face surveys collected & 180 collected online
• 516 residents of Saint John?
• 442 completed surveys (83 respondents opted to leave their survey before completing it, but some
information was captured)
• 73% riders; 27% non-riders'
• 328 self- identified as low- income residents, of those:
• 188 self- identified as working
• 49 self- identified as attending school
• 63 self- identified as attending community programming
• 13 self - identified as new immigrants
• 71 self- identified as people with disabilities
• 59 self- identified as single - parents
• 93 respondents (17.7 %) provided no demographic information
Respondent Home Neighbourhoods By City Quadrant
■ 163; 3:
■ 76
■ 60; 11%
■ East
• Central
■ 109; 21% North
• West
• Skipped
118; 22%
Illustration 4: Home Neighbourhoods of Survey Respondents
7 Online survey was open; non - resident information has been removed from the analysis.
8 Respondents self- identified as a transit rider if they use public transit at least once a month; non - riders use transit less than once a month and rely on
an alternative primary form of transportation.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 25 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
106
FINDINGS - KEY DESTINATIONS
Understanding the key destinations of our target audience plays an important role in informing transportation
planning in Saint John. Online maps have been plotted to support this report, displaying survey results at the
neighbourhood level to present a much more detailed picture of the specific parts of the city low- income
residents frequent for the necessities of daily life. The maps present key destinations in order of importance as
revealed by the survey data — by understanding and prioritizing these destinations we can ensure that they
continue to receive necessary public transit services in the future.
Additional Comments re: Online Maps
1. The top three neighbourhoods (within each quadrant) are indicated:
1.1. push pin indicates highest data value / first priority
1.2. empty bulb pin indicates second highest data value / second priority
1.3. dotted bulb pin indicates second third data value / third priority
2. Additional points are plotted where values are equal
3. Neighbourhoods with fewer than two respondents are not plotted
The following figures illustrate key respondent destinations by city quadrant. In each case detailed survey data
has been plotted on an online map; the link to the corresponding map is included with each figure. The online
maps may be viewed individually or combined in layers; a map of the Priority Neighbourhood boundaries is also
available at: http: / /mags.google.com /maps /ms?
ie= UTF &msa =0 &msid= 212362674123285401216 .0004bc54Of3ecObbb111d
Respondents identified their destinations from a predefined list of neighbourhoods — it is important to note
that these neighbourhood boundaries were subjective and some overlap is expected in the results.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 26 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
107
Employment Destinations
25; 10%
118; 46%
■ East
61; 24% ■ Centre
North
■ West
Illustration 5: Employment destinations by city quadrant. For detailed information see online
map: http:/ /maps. google. com /maps /ms?
ie= UTF &msa =0 &msid= 212362674123285401216 .0004bb87d43d636247aa9
Education Destinations
14. 1 1; 1%
3%
32; 30%
Illustration 6: Education destinations by city quadrant. For detailed information see online
map: http:/ /maps. google. com /maps /ms?
ie= UTF &msa =0& msid = 212362674123285401216 .0004bc41c81555e34d83d
■ East
• Centre
North
• West
Vibrant Communities Saint John 27 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
1:
Healthcare Destinations
213; 45%
31; 7% 50;11%
178; 38%
Illustration 7: Healthcare destinations by city quadrant. For detailed information see online
map: http :/ /maps. google. com /maps /ms?
ie =UTF& msa =0 &msid= 212362674123285401216 .0004bc3fe3e24877f4 f2e
Community Services Destinations
79; 6
6; 5% 10; 8%
■ East
■ Centre
North
■ West
■ East
■ Centre
36; 27% North
■ West
Illustration 8: Community Services destinations by city quadrant. For detailed information see online map:
http:/ /maps. google. com /mops /ms?
ie= UTF &msa =0& msid= 212362674123285401216.0004bc572 ef3627725d48
Vibrant Communities Saint John 28 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
109
Childcare Destinations
2; 5
22; 51%
11; 26%
Illustration 9: Childcare destinations by city quadrant. For detailed information see online
map:http.-Ilmops.google.com/mapslms?
ie= UTF &msa =0 &msid= 212362674123285401216 .0004bc56e6a392285b113
Leisure Destinations
216; 40%
85; 16%
?3; 23%
Illustration 10: Leisure destinations by city quadrant. For detailed information see online
m ap: http:/ /maps. google. com /maps /ms?
ie= UTF &msa =0 &msid= 212362674123285401216 .0004bc576217a66b13514
■ East
■ Centre
North
■ West
■ East
■ Centre
North
■ West
Vibrant Communities Saint John 29 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
110
FINDINGS - GENERAL TRANSIT USE
Understanding key destinations for our target audience was only one part of our research puzzle. It was also
important to understand the experiences of current public transit riders — what parts of the system work and
what needs improvement — as well as the general perceptions of non - riders and how those perceptions fed
their decision to choose other forms of transportation. Respondents were also asked to describe the
characteristics of an ideal transit system, and share their thoughts on potential solutions that might help
achieve that improved state.
Transit Servi ce Awa reness - Non- riders
Low Entry Buses
Bike Racks
Handibus
Share - Your -Ride
Comex
City Transit
0 5 10 1s 20 25 30 35
Illustration 11: Non -rider awareness of existing transit services.
Rider Awareness of Transit Services
Low Entry Buses
�- Resident F
Bike Racks I ■ Resident E
Handibus ■ Resident D
Share - Your -Ride I Resident
COMEX
■ Resident B
�
■ Resident A
City Transit (in -city service only) 1
0 200 400 600
Illustration 12: Awareness of services among existing transit riders. Resident
A is the primary survey respondent, additional household members are
indicated using labels Resident a -F (up to 6 members in household)
The question "Which transit services do you
use ?" was asked to illuminate the adoption
rate / level of awareness of existing services
among riders and non - riders. Responses
clearly indicate a lack of adoption /
awareness of services (and equipment which
enables accessibility) other than regular City
Transit and the COMEX commuter services.
The Community Interviewing team were
often asked to explain what many of the
other services were —this was particularly
true for the Share - Your -Ride program.
For the most part, those who rely on public
transit as their primary form of
transportation have a very strong utilization
rate: daily use. A smaller but still significant
portion of riders (-19 %) use transit on a
weekly basis — these riders are likely the
easiest to convert to more frequent use of
transit (and therefore increase overall utilization) assuming desired changes were made (see page 34 for change
/ impact analysis).
Vibrant Communities Saint John 30 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
111
The majority of regular transit users surveyed were adults (79% of respondents); 8% indicated that a member
of the household used a student pass; 6% were eligible for the senior fare and the remainder represented
children under fourteen years of age. Three percent (3%) of respondents had children under five years old; 5%
had children who were not eligible for a free fare due to age but did not have a student pass, and therefore
would benefit from changes to the family travel policy.
When Transportation is Needed
The most pressing scheduling need that is not currently being met, at least not city -wide, is early morning
weekday runs. Many respondents indicated that although transit services may be available in some parts of the
city at an early hour, in most cases it did not start early enough to allow the rider to complete their journey in
time. In the context of work, riders noted challenges in arriving on time due to a later than desirable start,
particularly those who need to traverse the length of the city (i.e. East - west). This was also cited as an issue
when making healthcare appointments and accessing education.
Weekend service was the other priority area among those surveyed. Many respondents work or attend school
throughout the standard work week and rely on their weekends to run errands, participate in social activities,
etc. As illustrated in Illustration 13, over 100 respondents indicated a need for Saturday services between the
hours of gam and 9pm (most of these require services on their secondary routes vs. the main lines), and at least
75 respondents require services on Sundays during the same time period.
Scheduling Needs - Riders
250
200
150
,j.
100
50
0
11&161
6am to 9am 9am to 12pm 12pm to 3pm 3pm to 6pm 6pm to 9pm 9pm to 12am 12am to 6am
Illustration 13: Scheduling needs of current transit riders.
• Monday
• Tuesday
Wednesday
■ Thursday
■ Friday
Saturday
■ Sunday
Vibrant Communities Saint John 31 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
112
Areas of Improvement
Those riders who do not use public transit on a regular basis (i.e. Weekly trips or less) were asked to indicate
what was preventing them from using the service more frequently. "Unsuitable Schedule" was cited as the
primary barrier; the majority of respondents providing this answer elaborated further, noting a lack of
frequency on secondary routes' and challenges lining up connections at transfer points. In general respondents
linked these issues to a perception of unreliability; worrying about missing connections at transfer points and
therefore being late for work or other commitments.
"Unsuitable Weekend Service" was the second most cited reason for low rider utilization. In this case
respondents noted Sunday service to access places of worship as a key issue. Other respondents indicated a
challenge in accessing shopping and other leisure activities — this response was most common among families
where taking a taxi is often more affordable (vs. paying multiple child fares) and convenient, and individuals
who find using transit challenging when running errands due to lack of storage space for parcels."
"Fares too Expensive" was the third most significant
reason for low rider utilization, however the comments
associated with this category indicate that with few
exceptions these respondents are travelling with families
(multiple children). This indicates that transit utilization
might increase with changes to the fare structure as it
impacts families.
Note that in the following charts the "Other" category includes a wide range of responses. If a respondent
answered "Other ", and then elaborated on their response in such a way as to reflect an established survey
answer, that respondent was added to and counted among the appropriate answer category. For instance
respondents who selected "Other" and then commented on the short eligibility period for transfers and the
additional cost of paying a second cash fare after their transfer expired were counted as part of the "Fares too
expensive" category.
9 Secondary —or feeder routes —are those that bring riders from the extremities of the community to the routes that service the bulk of the daily
ridership (primary / main routes).
10 Additional changes to transit services were introduced after the surveying phase of this project was complete and are not included in this analysis.
Given that those changes included reductions in weekend service it is likely that this has become an even more important service area to consider.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 32 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
113
Reasons for Low Utilization - Riders
Other (please comment):
Winter access is too difficult
Fares are too expensive
I don't know about available services
Unsuitable weekend service
Unsuitable routes
Unsuitable schedule
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Illustration 14: Reasons for low utilization (weekly trips or less) among current transit riders.
Reasons for Low Utilization - Non - riders
Other (please comment)
Winter Access Too Difficult
Fares Too Expensive
I Don't Know About Services
Unsuitable Weekend Service
Unsuitable Routes
Unsuitable Schedule
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Illustration 15: Reasons why non - riders do not choose transit as their primary form of transportation.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 33 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
114
Areas to Preserve and Strengthen
Interestingly, when asked what residents like about using transit 40% of riders and 7% of non - riders cited
"Affordability" of the service. This segment of the respondents recognized the value of monthly passes (vs.
cash fares), and illustrated a clear understanding of the full cost of owning and operating a personal vehicle.
Some of these individuals would likely be "champions" for Saint John Transit and might encourage others to
either adopt the bus as their primary mode of
transportation, or increase its use. Either way, leveraging
the social capital among this group through promotional
(ex. Bring a Friend for Free Day) and reward programs (ex.
free pass draw among monthly pass purchasers) might be
considered as a way to increase transit utilization.
"Convenience" was the second most -cited reason for
liking public transit service (25% of riders, 11% of non -
riders). For the most part this comment was made in the
context of not having to deal with parking in the city,
digging out the car during winter months, etc.
The third most cited reason for liking the bus was
"Friendly Drivers" (20% of riders, 21% of non - riders).
These employees of Saint John Transit are a significant
strength that deserve to be congratulated, continually
developed and engaged.
Respondents Recommend — Desired Changes
Two major themes presented consistently among all respondents: frequency (cited by 30% of riders, 28% non -
riders) and better weekend services (22% of riders, 4% non - riders). In almost all cases increased frequency
was identified as critical to making public transit more accessible to all residents (which is in keeping with
Service Standards, see Appendix Q. Most respondents suggested that a fifteen - minute interval between buses
on major routes was the ideal, with a twenty- to thirty- minute interval on secondary routes. Interestingly,
many respondents suggested that increasing frequency was the solution to improving affordability and
Vibrant Communities Saint John 34 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
115
therefore access to transportation for low- income residents. This illustrates a "build it and they will come"
approach to community services like transit; unfortunately this suggestion does not address the financial
impact of the action on Saint John Transit and its extremely limited resources
Throughout the survey the issue of affordability was not linked to a specific fare or dollar amount for most
respondents". In fact, there was a surprising number of respondents who felt that the adult fare of $2.7S was
at least reasonable, and others who pointed out the value in the monthly bus pass and Transpass12 options (vs.
paying a cash fare, personal vehicle expenses, etc.). Affordability seemed to be qualified through the lens of
the individual's lifestyle needs —their ability to run errands, having flexibility in accessing various routes
(particularly transferring between secondary routes vs. from major to secondary and vice versa), and their
ability to use public transit for volume shopping such as a weekly grocery run for a family. For our target
audience it appears that flexibility of service is intrinsically linked to affordability.
Each of the major themes (areas of improvement, areas of strength, impacts, etc.) discovered through the
survey were explored in greater detail through focus groups; four sessions of survey respondents, one session
with transit drivers and one with the Community Interviewer team who had been using transit throughout the
project. Interestingly, there was very little variation in the discourse between the sessions even though they
were attended by different population groups (ex. non - riders vs. families using transit). Although their
perspective was from the "other side of the coin ", even the transit driver session revealed many of the same
concerns and suggestions for improvement detailed by riders and non - riders. That consistency appears to
validate the priorities and recommendations outlined in this report. Appendix D includes a summary of the
comments and ideas shared with the project team during the focus group sessions.
Impact of Changes on Respondents
The most commonly cited benefit (many sub - categories feed this one) of improving transit services was an
improved ability to "get out of the house "; 77% of rider and 29% of non -rider responses fell into this group.
The ability to "get out of the house" was linked to better access to employment, education, social networks and
activities, all leading to better quality of life and reduced stress / improved mental health. In this category a
significant portion of transit riders (15 %) specifically noted an improved ability to find employment and / or
access education.
11 Some respondents did suggest that a $2 fare would make the bus "affordable ", but they were not able to explain how they arrived at that number.
12 Transpasses, a.k.a. "punch cards" are disposable cards of 10 or 20 rides.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 35 urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
116
A �` s
�1
t•
w �
PA
A
The second most common response was an improvement in personal finances (33% riders, 50% non- riders).
Some respondents went on to connect this change with the following personal benefits:
• ability to pay off debt
• ability to access education
• ability to save for child's education
• using savings for vacation, social activities, hobbies, etc.
The importance of the benefits identified by respondents is telling — an improved ability to access public
transportation would have wide - ranging benefits to low- income residents of Saint John. Many of these benefits
— such as improvements in mental and physical health —would also be enjoyed by the community at large and
those stakeholders who fund and provide
social services. (City of Hamilton, 2010)
Utilization Increase- Riders
70
Increase in Transit Utilization 60
50
Respondents were also asked to indicate if 40
30
they would use public transit more 20
frequently if suggested changes were made, 10 _ ■ ■ .
0
and if possible to predict how many more 25-49 %more No more /Same 10 -19 30+
1-24% more 50-74% more 1 -9 20 -29
trips might be made under ideal
Illustration 16: Self - identified increase in transit utilization among existing
circumstances. Some respondents chose to riders, should suggested changes by made.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 36 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
117
provide hard number estimates while others elected to use percentage increases, as shown in the Illustration
16. Less than 30 respondents indicated no change in their riding behaviour if changes to transit services were
made; the vast majority indicated an
increase in utilization under ideal
circumstances.
Non - riders were asked to predict the
frequency with which they would use public
transit under ideal circumstances. If desired
changes to transit were made, the majority
of non -rider respondents felt that they
would use public transit on a daily basis.
PROMISING PRACTICES
Utilization Increase- Non - riders
25
20
15
10
s ■0
Weekly Afew times a month
Daily Afewtimes a week Once ortwice a month
Illustration 17: Self - identified increase in transit utilization among non - riders,
should suggested changes by made.
Extensive promising practices research was conducted to inform the recommendations contained in this report.
A research team comprised of the students and professor of Environmental Justice from the University of New
Brunswick conducted targeted research in the transportation policies and practices of comparable communities
throughout Atlantic Canada and the state of Maine. A summary of their findings is included in Appendix F of
this report. After the surveying portion of the Urban Transportation Initiative was completed the Project
Coordinator also conducted promising practice research, guided by the survey results. The following summary
includes select examples which are deemed to have relevance to Saint John and / or the target audience of the
initiative.
Discounted Passes for the Working Poor
There are a multitude of jurisdictions across Canada where significantly discounted monthly transit passes are
provided to low- income residents, many of which are focused on the working poor. These programmes
recognize the necessity of public transit as an affordable transportation option for residents who are employed
but earning less than a Living Wage (Acorn Canada, 2011), working part-time or casual employment, etc. Many
Vibrant Communities Saint John 37 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
118
of these programmes:
• subsidize monthly passes in such a way that eligible residents benefit from a discount of —50%
• administer an annual application process to determine client eligibility (vs. a monthly process which
would be cumbersome to the administrator and intrusive to the client)
• provide passes that look the same as "regular" passes to avoid stigmatization (Dempster, 2009)
For the most part these programs are modelled on partnerships between the municipality and its transit
operator and the provincial government; in some cases a non - governmental- organization (NGO) is also
involved, usually as a program administrator. (City of Hamilton, 2012) One of the few noticeable distinctions
between the various program models is whether costs are controlled through a set budget, or through rigid
client eligibility criteria. Rigid eligibility criteria attempt to ensure that only those who truly need the support
receive it, while serving to reassure stakeholders that system abuse and fraud is unlikely. However, budget -
based programmes enjoy the benefit of predictable spending which is attractive to funding partners, and tend
to have fewer restrictions to client eligibility which enables accessibility to those who might not fit more rigid
criteria but still need the support. Of course under this model, once the budget is exhausted no more
assistance is available to other, potentially qualifying residents (Vibrant Communities Calgary, n.d.).
Family Travel Policies
Approaches to family travel policies vary greatly across Canada. The commonality across the country is simply
that in most jurisdictions there is some form of "children free" travel policy, and in many cases these policies
accommodate families with multiple children, generally up to age twelve. One such example exists in the City
of Victoria, where "Youth aged 12 and younger ride free anytime when travelling with their parent or guardian.
The adult simply pays the fare using a [monthly pass]... Up to four youths can travel with one adult" (Dempster,
2009). The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) sells affordable Day Passes to families, where one adult can travel
with up to five youth (under age nineteen) or two adults can travel with up to four children. (TTC, n.d.) In St.
Catherines, ON, families can purchase a pass for seven dollars that can be used for family groups of up to five
individuals. This option is available on the weekend only to enable family outings, errands, etc. (St. Catherine's
Transit, n.d.) Similar programmes exist in Ottawa (OC Transpo, 2010) and Woodstock (Go Green Woodstock,
n.d.), among many others. There is even some limited recognition of the long -term value of family travel
polices, as a means to cultivate the next generation of transit riders — presumably children who grew up taking
the bus are more likely to adopt it as their primary mode of transportation as adults than those with no
exposure. (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2011)
Vibrant Communities Saint John 38 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
119
Government Funding for Public Transit
At the federal level in Canada, financial and policy support for public transit is low relative to other G8 countries
and is typically aimed toward capital and infrastructure investment (vs. operating expenses). The Government
of Canada contributes slightly less than 13% of total
public transit operating costs; in contrast Germany
finances 90 %, New Zealand 50 %, and the United
States 20 %. From a policy standpoint, the United
States, France and Italy are examples of countries that
have enacted legislation which allows local and
regional governments to raise special taxes or collect a
portion of local taxes to fund transit operations.
(Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2011)
At a provincial level, in Atlantic Canada the typical approach is to contribute set annual grants from the
provincial governments to their municipalities to support the provision of municipal services. For the most part
these jurisdictions are not specifically required to support public transit operation. The exception to this rule is
in Nova Scotia, where the Community Transportation Assistance Program (CTAP) provides funding support to
transit operators in low - population density (i.e. rural) regions. Along with Newfoundland & Labrador, the
Northwest Territories, Prince Edward Island and the Yukon, New Brunswick belongs to the group of provinces
and territories that do not direct any financial contribution to public transit operating costs. (CUTA, 2011)
In central and western Canada the funding picture varies slightly, with some provinces investing directly in
public transit operation and others legislating increased local government powers to collect user or other
special fees. In British Columbia, funding public transit is still primarily the responsibility of local government,
however the Province has given its municipalities the authority to levy dedicated transit - related charges such as
Victoria's 3.5C per litre gas tax. The revenues from these special charges are funnelled directly to the public
transit operators; in Victoria's case the gas tax paid for 15% of the operator's 2009 -2010 operating costs.
Alberta's major urban centres generally finance their own public transit operators directly from their very
healthy municipal tax coffers and also contribute to a shared Sustainability Fund which is distributed among the
smaller cities in the province to support their public transit systems. In Saskatchewan all cities and towns are
eligible for funding support from the Urban Revenue Sharing program, which may be funnelled toward public
transit operation at the municipality's discretion. In Manitoba, cities receive unconditional operating grants for
Vibrant Communities Saint John 39 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
120
transit; in 2010 Winnipeg received $30,575,000, almost 30% of its total operating expenses. (CUTA, 2011)
Ontario charges a dedicated gas tax (2C per litre in 2010) for public transit subsidization; in 2010 this fund
contributed $316 million to 93 public transit operators across the province. Since 2003 the Government of
Ontario has contributed $9.3 billion toward public transit operation and capital costs — during that same period
transit ridership increased by 110 million passenger trips (Ontario Ministry of Transportation, 2010). The
Government of Quebec will subsidize 50% of the cost of activities intended to increase ridership (such as
increasing run frequency), and marketing activities to promote public transit in its major urban centres.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 40 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
121
RECOMMENDATIONS
Our goal is to support the development of a transportation system which is affordable and accessible to low -
income residents of Saint John. A complete transportation system that meets the needs of all residents (and
business) requires multiple transportation forms; although our recommendations focus on public transit, there
is certainly a role for other forms of transportation and select recommendations specific to Active
Transportation and personal vehicles are also included.
Specific to public transit, the goal is the development of
services which are frequent and affordable. The Saint
John Transit Commission has developed performance
standards (see Appendix E); if appropriate funding was
available to enable Saint John Transit to meet these
service standards many of the recommendations that
follow would be very achievable, much more so than
they might be in today's climate. In fact it is likely that
many of the concerns expressed by low- income
residents through this project would be immediately
addressed simply by funding public transit adequately.
Similar to that of the City of Saint John, the Government
of New Brunswick also has an important leadership role
to play to ensure the on -going provision of accessible
public transit. As outlined in the Promising Practices
section, our provincial government is one of a small
group of provinces that provide no direct funding
support for the operation of public transit services. Considering the trend toward urbanization in the province,
and the impacts that population migration has on poverty rates in urban centres (Roseland, 2005) public
transportation has been and will become even more critical to the social, environmental and economic capital
of New Brunswick. Therefore the Government of New Brunswick has a responsibility to develop both
operational funding and policy supports that guarantee the sustainability of public transit systems.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 41 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
122
That said, the following recommendations are based on the experiences of current public transit riders (and the
perceptions of non - riders) using existing Saint John Transit services, based on today's funding levels. There
were numerous ideas shared with our team through the survey and focus group process, and there are even
more examples of promising practices and potential solutions from other communities which have informed
our recommendations. With so much to consider, it was important to focus on actions that would have positive
impact on our target audience, both in the short -term and in the long -term through systemic change.
Therefore the following reflect recommendations which a) were most often repeated by respondents through
surveys and /or focus groups; b) are believed to have positive impact on the issues identified, based on
promising practice research in other communities.
It is important to note that additional budget cuts impacting Saint John Transit were announced before this
project was completed and may have resulted in additional service changes not reflected in these
recommendations.
FUNDING AND POLICY SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT
1 Municipal Funding of Saint John Transit
The City of Saint John must reinvest in the operation of Saint John Transit in the next budget cycle, and continue
to do so in future municipal budgets to demonstrate a real commitment to this critical public service. This
requires not only serious financial investment, but the political will to ensure that public transit is a top priority
even during times of fiscal restraint. Prioritizing the funding of public and active transportation options over
the needs of personal vehicles (ex. parking lot development and maintenance), among other choices, would
serve to achieve the city's goal of developing a multi -modal transportation system (City of Saint John, 2011)
while ensuring the provision of affordable transportation options to all residents. Given that Saint John Transit
ridership is the first measurement used to monitor the effectiveness of Saint John's transportation
development (City of Saint John, 2011), it would follow that funding be allocated to reflect its importance.
"Saint John Transit is the province's largest public transit service" (City of Saint John,2011 p172, pp1), yet it
receives a proportionately smaller financial contribution from its municipality than all other transit providers in
the province (See Promising Practices section). Given the high poverty rates in our community and the
understanding that public transit is a necessary form of transportation for this population, the sheer size
(geographically - speaking) of the area requiring service, and the desire to ensure that future development in
Vibrant Communities Saint John 42 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
123
Saint John be sustainable (City of Saint John, n.d.), it is critical that the City of Saint John significantly increase
its contribution to Saint John Transit in future budget cycles.
2 Redirect Federal Gas Tax Revenues to Saint John Transit
The City of Saint John direct a portion of the revenue it receives from the Government of Canada Gas Tax Fund
(GTF) via the provincial government to Saint John Transit. The GTF is a tax on forms of transportation that are
not environmentally sustainable (i.e. Personal vehicles, etc), and is intended to promote the development of
Environmentally Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure (ESMI) projects (Infrastructure Canada, 2005). It stands to
reason that the revenues resulting from this fund would be destined to support the more environmentally
sustainable form of transportation that is public transit. Revenues from this fund would enable the purchase of
more fuel- efficient fleets and other equipment and infrastructure that would make public transit operation
more cost - efficient; presumably those savings would be passed on to riders in the form of affordable transit
fares and more frequent services.
3 Cost Analysis of Recommendations
The City of Saint John work with Saint John Transit to complete cost - analysis of the recommendations included
in this report as soon as possible, and Vibrant Communities share relevant survey data as needed to support
this necessary activity. Consider the Best Practices Guidebook published by the Victoria Transport Policy
Institute in February 2012 for use in this process, as it includes processes to evaluate community benefits and
outcomes as well as real costs of public transit. The methodology employed is also transferable — it can also be
used to evaluate the costs and benefits of other forms of transportation. (Littman, 2012)
4 Government of New Brunswick as a Transit Champion
There are two important steps the Government of New Brunswick must undertake to accept their responsibility
and role as necessary champions of public transit operators in the province:
1 Establish dedicated funding for the provision of public transit. This financial support would be
funnelled directly to transit operators in the province (vs. to the municipalities to be dispensed as the
recipient sees fit), to support capital investment (such as the purchase of more fuel- efficient fleets, etc.)
and more importantly provide a reliable infusion of operational funding for the long -term. (City of
Ottawa, n.d.)
2 Amend existing legislation to allow municipalities to develop their own tools (i.e. taxes and user levies)
Vibrant Communities Saint John 43 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
124
to enhance public transit funding (ex. gas taxes in Victoria, BC and throughout the province of Ontario,
etc.).
3 Ensure a balanced approach to transportation projects and funding. Recognize the importance of
public transit and other forms of non - motorized transportation in relation to highway construction and
the expansion of roads to suburban areas.
S Community Partnerships & Saint John Transit
Saint John Transit, Vibrant Communities and other stakeholders actively promote partnership opportunities
regarding bus shelters (and other innovative partnerships where appropriate) to city neighbourhoods, to
improve physical access to transportation for those who need seating, protection from weather, etc. Just like
the various levels of government, the community also has a role to play in supporting public transit.
An example of an existing community partnership is that of the relationship between Saint John Transit and the
Crescent Valley Community Tenants Association (CVCTA), where Saint John Transit installed a new bus shelter as
requested by the neighbourhood, and the CVCTA maintains the shelter once installed. This partnership is an
example of a real opportunity to fix some of the "smaller" accessibility issues of the system that, due to
resources restraints, Saint John Transit is not currently in a position to address. We suggest promoting this
opportunity through low -cost channels such as community partners (ex. Vibrant Communities), the various
neighbourhood associations, Around the Block publication, social media, City website, etc. Residents of the
Davenport neighbourhood asked for a shelter in their neighbourhood during the newcomer focus group
session; the Settlement Services program through the YM /YWCA could be a potential partner to help fulfil that
request.
6 Business Development Role — Investing in the Business of Transit
Establish a Business Development role within Saint John Transit as soon as reasonably possible. The
expectation that this role be fulfilled through current staffing levels is unreasonable, and is not likely to produce
results that would finance necessary improvements. Public relations, special program marketing and other
business development activities have suffered the brunt of budget cut -backs and require reinvestment to
ensure the sustainability of the organization and our public transit system. We envision this position would be
charged with:
• increasing adoption of existing programs, particularly those which generate revenue and enhance
Vibrant Communities Saint John 44 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
125
service affordability, such as charters, the bulk- buying and U -pass programs, etc.
• developing and executing feasibility studies and business plans for new services / revenue streams
(such as those suggested in this report)
• identifying new and innovative funding opportunities (ex. government subsidies, private foundations,
community funding programs, etc.)
• conducting on -going research of promising practices from other jurisdictions and incorporating said
practices into the Saint John Transit operation, where appropriate
• developing and executing public education and communication campaigns— ensure strong public
support for and positive feelings toward our public transit system
• developing and executing marketing campaigns to increase both ridership and utilization of public
transit
SUPPORTS FOR LOW- INCOME RESIDENTS
Payment Options — Increasing Access for All Low - income Residents
Saint John Transit, Vibrant Communities and other key stakeholders work together to develop a model to
facilitate the administration of flexible payment options on monthly transit passes. Many respondents
indicated an understanding of the value of the monthly transit pass, but find the lump sum payment
prohibitive. A structured payment plan (ex. smaller installments paid bi- weekly) would make a monthly pass
option affordable for the working poor who receive weekly or bi- weekly payment from their employer and are
ineligible for transit subsidies provided by the Government of New Brunswick. Providing more flexible payment
options for transit passes was identified as a solution for both our target audience and the ridership at large.
Given Saint John Transit's current resources restraint we suggest a partner organization (such as the City of
Saint John or community Non - Governmental Organization) function as the administrator of the program —
approving eligibility, managing payments, etc. This form of partnership could also form the foundation for
other opportunities in the future, such as the Discounted Monthly Pass Program for the working poor (see
below).
Now that the Saint John Transit website is housed within that of the City of Saint John, online payments for
monthly passes is more easily achieved. Recommend working with City of Saint John Information Services
Department to develop this payment option (mobile - friendly is the ideal) as soon as possible.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 45 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
126
2 Discounted Passes Pilot Program — Help for the "Working Poor"
Pilot a partnership between Saint John Transit, the Government of New Brunswick13 and other partners where
appropriate, to provide discounted monthly transit passes to low- income, working residents. There are
excellent examples of various forms of such a partnership across the country, most notably TRIP in the Region
of Waterloo. TRIP is a three -way partnership between the provincial government ( funder), the Grand River
Transit commission (operator), and a local non - governmental organization (NGO) which focuses on employment
services for low- income residents (administrator):
• NGO administers applications on an annual basis and approves
rider eligibility;
• Operator provides a half -price monthly pass to the approved
rider, who purchases a regular monthly pass through the same
outlets as other riders and receives the discount simply by
presenting their approval letter;
• NGO monitors and reports the number of discounted passes
purchased to the funder;
• Funder dispenses monies to the NGO, who collects a small
amount for administrative costs and then passes the bulk on to
the operator for cost recovery. (Dempster, 2009)
TRIP is one of many examples of strong partnerships that have been
developed to provide this form of assistance to the working poor. In order to ensure this kind of support is
available to low- income residents in Saint John as soon as possible, we recommend starting this process
immediately, recognizing that it will take some time to identify the best model for our community, negotiate
with partners and establish the operating partnership.
3 Bulk Buying Program - Employers
Vibrant Communities and other community partners actively promote adoption of the existing bulk- buying
opportunity to employers of low- income residents14. This action would support Saint John Transit's continuing
13 Potential departments to approach: Social Development, Post- Secondary Education Training and Labour, Invest NB. Also possibility with Human
Resources & Skills Development (federal). Consider government partners interested in advancing employment and economic opportunities.
14 Sectors which are likely to employ our target audience include: retail / service, hospitality / tourism, private healthcare, maintenance services,
unskilled labour, seasonal industries such as fishing, etc.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 46 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
127
promotion of the program to area businesses. Through this program local employers purchase transit passes
for their employees at a reduced rate through bulk buying power, then pass the savings on to the individual
employees (in some cases employers will further subsidize the passes, making transit even more affordable to
the employee). Unfortunately the adoption rate of this program is relatively low, yet there is significant benefit
to the community in the form of affordable transportation, and Saint John Transit in the form of stable revenue.
This could be achieved most effectively through representative business associations and networks (ex.
ContactNB for contact centres, New Brunswick Human Resource Association includes the HR professionals of
various sectors, etc.). This is also a special opportunity for the members of the Board of Trade, many of whom
are small- and medium -sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs typically employ a small staff and are not able to
participate in bulk- buying, yet many of these businesses also employ our target audience (ex. small tourism
operators hiring seasonally at minimum wage). By extending this purchasing option to these new business
customers the working poor in Saint John would have increased opportunity to access more affordable transit,
and local businesses would benefit from a more reliable workforce. (Shuman, 2007)
As major employers in the community, and organizations which employ our target audience, the City of Saint
John and Horizon Health are best positioned to act as leaders in adopting and promoting this opportunity.
Given the potential positive impact on transportation affordability, resident access and sustainable operational
funding for Saint John Transit, we consider this action of particular importance.
4 Sunday Service — Priority Neighbourhoods
Ensure that some form of Sunday service is provided to the Priority Neighbourhoods and other areas where
low- income residents live (ex. Davenport, Reading Cres, etc.). In many cases the "working poor" and those
accessing education and community programs are busy throughout the typical Monday through Friday work
week, and require some access to shopping and other necessary activities they don't have time for on
weekdays.
An alternative solution to this recommendation is to provide a transit service similar to that provided to seniors
complexes on Tuesdays: a charter -like service that picks up groups of residents from a designated location in
each neighbourhood, at a time which coincides with the start of weekend business hours, and returns said
residents to their respective neighbourhoods with enough time in between to run errands, enjoy some social
activities, etc.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 47 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
128
5 South End Route — Temporary Adjustment
Saint John Transit investigate possible modifications to the South End bus ( #21) and the routes that connect to
it during morning peak hours only. This specific action was identified by survey respondents and the Newcomer
focus group session, to facilitate access to education programs provided by the YM /YWCA in its temporary
location in the Lower South End Business Park. Presumably these service changes would be temporary and
would be revisited again after the YM /YWCA moves into its new permanent home. Suggest Saint John Transit
contact the Y Settlement Services group to assist in investigating the issue.
6 Weekend Schedule Adjustment
Saint John Transit attempt to "normalize" weekend schedule on secondary routes. When route frequency is
every 1h 15m vs. every hour (for example), it is confusing to riders and results in missed buses / connections
and reduces rider utilization.
7 Transfer Policy Changes
Increase transfer time duration to reflect recent changes to service frequency. Over time service reductions
have occurred, impacting connections and wait -times between buses, but transfer time has not increased
accordingly. As a result riders may find themselves with an expired transfer, through no fault of their own, and
are forced to pay an additional full fare to complete theirjourney. This situation was most commonly reported
by riders who must make more than one transfer in order to complete their journey (i.e. Begin on a secondary
route, transfer to main route, transfer again to secondary route to reach destination). This issue was repeated
in all focus groups — including that conducted with the Saint John Transit drivers —and should be considered top
priority. Although we recognize the impact this change might have on fare revenue, the current policy and its
application results in an unfair Catch -22 situation for riders and is also preventing many non - riders from
adopting transit as their preferred method of transportation.
8 Family Travel Policy — Help for Multi -child Families
Saint John Transit institute a Family Travel Policy where up to four children under the age of twelve may travel
for free with an adult. Children travelling without an adult are not eligible for the free fare and must pay the
regular youth cash fare (or use their student pass). Approaches to Family Travel Policies vary greatly across
Vibrant Communities Saint John 48 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
129
Canada; we recommend that Saint John Transit explore various models in detail to assist in selecting the most
appropriate model to meet this community need as well as the internal needs of their operation. (Dempster &
Tucs, 2009)
9 Seasonal Activity Services & Routes
Saint John Transit investigate a partnership with community groups and neighbourhood associations to provide
special services to key area activity centres — specifically the Irving Nature Park and other areas of the city not
currently accessible through public transit. This suggestion was brought up in a number of focus group sessions
and through the online survey. Many low- income respondents felt that they were not able to access these
areas of the city and therefore feel left out of opportunities to socialize and be healthy and active. The charter -
like service described on page 46 would be another approach to consider when addressing this issue.
10 U -Pass Program
University of New Brunswick, Saint John and the
New Brunswick Community College take a
leadership role in pursuing a U -Pass for their
students. Past negotiations were unsuccessful
because the student body perceived the
additional fee as an expense rather than an
opportunity; it is important that the institutions
themselves, with support from internal
champions such as the Green Society of UNB,
promote this program from within and challenge
this perception. This is particularly important
when considering that existing student fees subsidize on -site parking for those who can afford personal
vehicles; these fees are paid by all students, including those who can not afford a personal vehicle and are not
benefiting from the provision of discount parking. The same consideration would be reciprocated in the form
of affordable public transit through a U -Pass program. Engage specific student associations who are likely to
support the initiative to act as internal champions. Also include community partners who will support the
initiative, such as Sustainable Saint John and FUSION.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 49 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
130
11 Social Enterprise — Feasibility Studies
Vibrant Communities encourage feasibility studies with interested community partners to determine the
sustainability of the following ideas for local Social Enterprises related to improving transportation accessibility
in our community:
1. Short -term, city -wide bike rentals: bicycles are donated by individuals, corporations, police seizures,
etc. and used to furnish short -term rental kiosks at various locations across the city. An experienced
mechanic teaches youth at risk and / or those requiring employability skills to refurbish the bicycles
(potential community partnership with Teen Resource Centre or other youth- oriented NGO),
developing employability skills and ensuring safety and consistency in the equipment provided to the
renters (Bikesmart, n.d.). The refurbished bicycles can be rented at and returned to un- manned kiosks
(Bixi Montreal, n.d.) across the city, providing an affordable active transportation option to residents
and tourists.
2. Low -fee snow - clearing service: a group that provides light snow - clearing services for a reasonable fee.
Potential clients would include Saint John Transit (clearing bus stops and shelters), area businesses
(shovelling and salting walks and entrances), and residential locations such as multi -unit buildings
where no superintendent is on -site to provide the service. The casual, on -call nature of the enterprise
would be suitable employment for low- income residents who are unable to enter the workforce with a
more structured schedule, but who wish to supplement their income assistance (ex. single - parents,
people with episodic disabilities, seniors, etc.).
3. Inner -city small vehicle shuttle service: by appointment driver service where residents call in advance
to book a ride that meets their scheduling needs. Examples of this kind of enterprise exist in other
communities (Seniors Assisted Transportation Society of Greater Edmonton, n.d.) and are primarily
volunteer- driven and based on a cost - recovery model. Another model to consider is that of the very
successful Operation Red Nose holiday ride program; Saint John's ORN was the only one in NB this year
due to the strong Social Capital among Saint Johners and consistent corporate sponsorship.
Vibrant Communities Saint John SO Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
131
MUNICIPAL PLANNING & OPERATIONS
1 Inclusion in City of Saint John Transportation Plan
The City of Saint John refer this report to the Transportation Strategic Plan Steering Committee for inclusion in
the upcoming Transportation Plan development process of PlanSJ.
2 Prioritizing Public Transit in Municipal Planning
City of Saint John prioritize public transit requirements over
that of the personal vehicle and other considerations in
municipal planning practices. Specifically:
• The provision of new bus stops and shelters as criteria
for approval of future mid- and large -scale real estate
developments, where appropriate for the
neighbourhood and the likely ridership generated by
the development. Similar to Coquitlam, BC's 20% Rule
promoting affordable housing in real estate
development (City of Coquitlam, 2007), this approach
places the burden of new stop / shelter construction
and on -going maintenance on the developers, whose
eventual tenants will benefit most from the provision
of transit at their site. Approval criteria could be
based on location and ability to integrate into transit
routes, size of development / number of people
needing to access the development (and therefore might access transit), etc.
• Large commercial developments where high volumes of visitors are anticipated (ex. shopping centres)
be required to provide full -sized islands (vs. stops / shelters), of appropriate size and design to
accommodate the volume of riders and buses needing to access the site. The transit island at Lancaster
Mall is an example of a new development which has not provided adequate space for the volume of
buses and riders on -site every day. This has resulted in a messy situation where a crucial transit
connection point is dangerous for pedestrians getting on and off the buses, nerve - wracking for bus
Vibrant Communities Saint John 51 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
132
drivers worried about pedestrian and vehicular safety, and challenging to operators of personal vehicles
accessing the mall.
• Work with Saint John Transit to include standards for new bus stops and shelters in the recently
launched Zoning Bylaw update process (City of Saint John, 2011). Consider issues related to pedestrian
and rider safety (ex. shelter set -backs leave enough room for wheelchair users to pass, enough room for
high passenger volumes at busy sites, etc.); climate and comfort issues such as full - length wind screens,
garbage cans and recycling depots, benches, signage, etc.; construction , siting, drainage, etc.
increasing the safety, cleanliness, quantity and comfort of our stops and shelters is likely to improve
resident adoption of public transit as their preferred method of transportation.
• Curb construction, height and drainage (both for new construction and upgrades of existing
infrastructure) that accommodates public transit equipment such as low -entry buses. Inconsistent curb
heights across the city make application of the low -entry and wheelchair ramp equipment difficult for
transit operators at many bus stops. This results in some physical barriers to accessing buses which
could be solved over time through standardized curb construction.
• Re- prioritize the Trails and Bikeways Strategic Plan to address Active Transportation needs in Priority
Neighbourhoods before other areas of the city (City of Saint John, 2011). Recognizing that Active
Transportation is highly affordable and therefore a necessary option for low- income residents, the trails
and bike lanes planned to connect Priority
Neighbourhoods with important healthcare, education
and employment / commerce centres must be given
priority over that of other areas of the city. First on the
list would be those improvements slated for areas that
are designated as both Priority Neighbourhoods and
Urban Intensification Areas (City of Saint John, 2011),
such as the Lower West Side, Lower South End, certain
parts of the North End, etc.
3 Prioritizing Public Transit in Municipal Operations
Many of the complaints related to customer service and physical accessibility would be addressed in a long-
term, sustainable way by ensuring that public transit is given priority in relevant municipal operations.
Recommend the City of Saint John (and other governments where appropriate) work with Saint John Transit to
include public transit as a top city priority in the following areas:
Vibrant Communities Saint John 52 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
133
• Transit routes included in municipal snow - clearing plan (considered high priority) — ensuring bus routes
are cleared early and often will ensure this affordable transportation option is as available as possible
for the citizens who rely on it.
• Ensure that key bus stops and shelter locations are given priority and included in the municipal side-
walk clearing plan.
• Adapt to changes in transit services as they occur, in both the street and sidewalk snow - clearing plans.
INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION
1 Bus Stop Identification — Clean Up Program
Saint John Transit partner with the community to "clean up" unused bus stop markers that create confusion for
transit riders. Many old and unused bus stops are still marked in the City of Saint John — survey respondents
and focus group participants shared stories of missing their bus because they were standing at "a stop that isn't
a stop ". Transit drivers are best positioned to identify the locations of these unused, still signed bus stops and
therefore can be utilized to map them. Recognizing the position of financial restraint Saint John Transit finds
t
2 Nextbus Relaunch
itself in today, we recommend working with community
partners to remove these unused stops to improve the
overall system. This could be achieved through work with
neighbourhood associations (ex. Crescent Valley
Community Tenants Association), business organizations
such as the Board of Trade (i.e. Members with unused stops
in front of their businesses would remove said stop
signage / pole paint / etc.), service groups such as the Lions
Club. Removing the barrier of confusion created by these
unused stops could result in increased utilization,
particularly in new ridership.
Update and relaunch the Nextbus system (currently coming back online after adapting to service changes).
Nextbus allows riders to monitor the progress of their buses in real time through GPS tracking on their personal
Vibrant Communities Saint John 53 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
134
mobile devices and has the potential to reduce missed buses and connections as riders become familiar with
recent service changes. Although the technology can't be relied on to ensure that no rider ever misses a bus
again, it would help riders better plan their trips, and ideally communicate with their drivers where connections
look to be too close to make (drivers can radio to connecting bus and ask other drivers to wait to ensure
connections are made). Making the system more user - friendly —and for those going to work, school or medical
appointments, more reliable — would contribute to increasing rider utilization over time. And in the short -term,
it would serve to alleviate some of the frustrations felt by riders and operators alike as the incidences of missed
buses are reduced.
In order for this system to have the positive impact it could, it will also be important to actively promote the
service for an extended period to ensure that residents are aware of and take advantage of the service. Given
the high adoption rate of social media in Saint John, social media such as Facebook would be a low -cost
communication tool available for the long -term.
3 Information & Signage — Stops, Routes & Schedules
The provision of clear and consistent information regarding stop
locations, routes, schedules, etc. — both on the bus and at stops and
shelters — was repeatedly identified as a necessary improvement to
our transit system. Where confusion and a lack of understanding of
the transit system has been identified as a disincentive to choosing
transit, re- investing in information and Signage would support an
increase in rider utilization and encourage non - riders to adopt transit
as their preferred form of transportation.
This is an area where the potential solutions are many:
• street -level metal signs with concrete foundation
• printed route pamphlets on buses
• hanging signs on utility poles
• semi - permanent (ex. Laminated print -out) route and schedule information housed in designated spot
on all buses in area normally used for interior advertising (requires negotiation with advertising
partner)
Vibrant Communities Saint John 54 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
135
• housings at stops which can hold printed route and schedule information; protected from the elements
but still able to update
• dedicated phone number with pre- recorded route and schedule information
4 Promoting the Share - Your -Ride Program
Saint John Parking Commission and appropriate partners (ex. Sustainable Saint John) actively promote the
Share - Your -Ride car - pooling service. This online matching service connects personal vehicle users with other
commuters who share common destinations and schedules to enable car - pooling among strangers. Given the
affordability benefits of car - pooling (share expenses such as gas and parking, reduce vehicle wear - and -tear,
etc.) and community benefits (less traffic, fewer vehicle emissions, less wear - and -tear on municipal
infrastructure, etc.), increasing utilization of this program would have significant positive impact for all. Possible
promotional venues include social media, free public service announcements via local media, community
newsletters, employer networks (ex. Board of Trade), traditional media buys, etc. All stakeholders — Saint John
Parking Commission, Saint John Transit, City of Saint John, Vibrant Communities and partner organizations —
would benefit from increasing program exposure and could play a role in promoting Share - Your -Ride.
LONG TERM
1 Light Rail Transit — the Future of Saint John?
Considering the dramatic physical distance separating the key east and west commercial districts of Saint John,
and the economic importance of these extremities, a Light Rail Transit (LRT) line is a possible long -term solution
for our community and should be given serious study and consideration. The development of LRT
infrastructure is currently the target of a plethora of government and international funding options, including
the federal Gas Tax Fund, the Building Canada Fund, among many others (Parliament of Canada, 2010). LRT
could go a long way in alleviating the significant burden placed on Saint John Transit buses, while ensuring fast,
frequent and environmentally sustainable transportation services across the length of the city. The LRT could
replace the major transit routes traversing the city, allowing Saint John Transit to redistribute its resources to
supply frequent service via the north -to -south secondary routes along the length of the LRT line. This ideal
end -state would resemble a centipede —the LRT as the torso and the bus secondary routes as the legs.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 55 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
136
CONCLUSION
It is widely accepted that a complete transportation system includes an effective public transit service.
Although there are certainly roles for other forms of transportation, no other transportation choice has the all -
encompassing impact of public transit and therefore the opportunity to have such positive effect on all aspects
of a community.
The results of the Saint John Urban Transportation Initiative demonstrate that there are a number of
opportunities to improve our public transit system so that it may meet the needs of all citizens now and for the
future. Perhaps most importantly, all stakeholders - all levels of government, the business community, non-
governmental organizations, and Saint John residents themselves - must commit to their respective roles in
building and supporting a strong public transit system.
- -'-\ I It is strongly recommended that the City of Saint John
and the Government of New Brunswick both provide
stable funding dedicated not only to capital investments,
but more importantly to the operational costs of public
transit. Additionally the provincial government would
support the ability of municipalities to finance their
public transit operators by enacting legislation allowing
the development of financial and transportation
demand - management tools such as gas taxes and other
community -based levies. The business community,
particularly those employing low- income workers, would participate in Saint John Transit's bulk- buying
program, actively encourage their employees to adopt transit as their primary method of transportation
wherever possible and participate in partnerships with Saint John Transit such as those described in the
Recommendations section of this report. Non - governmental organizations providing community services
would assist by accessing the bulk- buying program for their employees, participating in partnerships wherever
resources allow, and play a supporting role by leveraging their various networks (ex. communication,
community engagement and advocacy, etc.) for the benefit of public transit. The role of residents includes
everything from adopting public transit as a preferred method of transportation, to encouraging government
and community leaders to enshrine public transit as a key priority in budget decisions, municipal planning and
Vibrant Communities Saint John 56 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
137
operations, etc.
Public transportation in Saint John is being neglected, and those who rely on the bus as their main form of
transportation (primarily low- income residents) are suffering the consequences. A lack of frequency of service
equates to an inefficient and unreliable system, impacting the ability of low- income Saint Johners to access
and / or find employment, access education and healthcare, participate in social opportunities, etc. If the
history of funding cuts continues, it is likely that Saint John Transit will spiral toward the point of organizational
failure: funding partners trim budgets even further based on low ridership numbers, and ridership continues to
drop as a result of service reductions from funding cuts. Given the intrinsic importance of public transportation
to any community, this recent history of budget reductions is unacceptable and solutions must be found to
reverse the current direction. Perhaps most importantly we can all begin by shifting our mindset, starting with
the decision that the provision of public transportation is not a budget expense, but an essential investment in
people and their community.
r.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 57 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
138
REFERENCES
Acorn Canada (2011). Living Wage Resource Centre, Retrieved from http: / /www.livingwages.ca/
ADI Ltd. & Urban Policies Inc. (2009). The Urban Structure of Saint John: Sustainable Directions to Guide
Change, Toronto, ON
Bikesmart Essex County (n.d.). About Bikesmart, Retrieved from: http : / /www.bikesmart.ca /pagel.php
Bixi Montreal (n.d.). Ride with Bixi, Retrieved from http: / /montreal.bixi.com /ride- with -bixi /functioning
Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal (2004). Public transit: a powerful economic - development engine for
the metropolitan Montreal region, Montreal, QC
Canadian Urban Transit Association (2011). Canadian Transit Fact Book: 2010 Operating Data, Toronto, ON
Canadian Urban Transit Association (2011). Federal, Provincial & Territorial Public Transit Funding Programs in
Canada, Toronto, ON
Canadian Urban Transit Association (2010). Transit Fact Sheet, Toronto, ON
City of Coquitlam (2007). Affordable Housing in Coquitlam, Coquitlam, BC
City of Hamilton (2012). Support Programs - Affordable Transit Pass Program, Retrieved from
http:// www.hamiIton.ca /HeaIthandSocia[ Services/ SocialServices/ SupportPrograms /AffordableTransitPass.htm
City of Hamilton (2010). Internal report: Affordable Transit Pass Pilot Program - Change in Status from Pilot to
Permanent Program, Hamilton, ON
City of Ottawa (n.d.). Poverty Affects Us All: A Community Approach to Poverty Reduction, Ottawa, ON
City of Saint John (n.d.). Council Priorities 2009 - 2012, Saint John, NB
Vibrant Communities Saint John 58 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
139
City of Saint John (2011). PlanSJ: City of Saint John Municipal Plan, Saint John, NB
City of Saint John (2010). Saint John Growth & Change Strategy and Municipal Plan: Final Technical Background
Report, Saint John, NB
Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation & Highway Safety (2009). Cross Canada Survey on
Jurisdictions' Approaches and Activities in Sustainable Transportation, Ottawa, ON
Cumberland County Transportation Services (n.d.). Retrieved from
http: // cctscumberland .com /index_files /Page441.htm
Dempster, B. (2009). Investigating Affordable Transportation Options in the Region of Waterloo with a Focus on
Public Transit, Region of Waterloo, ON: Civics Research Co- operative
Dempster, B. & Tucs, E. (2009). Increasing Affordable Transportation Options in the Region of Waterloo: A
Selection of Options, Region of Waterloo, ON: Civics Research Co- operative
Greater Saint John Community Foundation (2011). Vital Signs 2011, Saint John, NB
Hatfield M., Pyper W., Gustajtis B. (2010). First Comprehensive Review of the Market Basket Measure
of Low Income, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
Hemson Consulting (2011). Fiscal Impact Analysis of Plan Saint John
Infrastructure Canada (2005). Agreement On The Transfer Of Federal Gas Tax Revenues Under The New Deal For
Cities And Communities, Retrieved from http: / /www. infrastructure .gc.ca /prog /agreements- ententes /gtf- fte /nb-
eng.html#scheda
LeBlanc, M. (2010). Student Bus Pass Creates Affordable Transportation [Blog], Retrieved from
http: / /synthr.wordpress.com/ 2010 /09/12/ student - bus -pass- creates - affordable- transportation/
Vibrant Communities Saint John 59 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
140
Littman, T. (2012). Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs: Best Practices Guidebook, Victoria, BC: Victoria
Transport Policy Institute
Loewen, G. (2009). A Compendium of Poverty Reduction Strategies and Frameworks, Waterloo, ON: Tamarack —
An Institute for Community Engagement
Ontario Ministry of Transportation (2010). Gas Tax Fuels Better Public Transit, Retrieved from
http: / /news.onta rio.ca /mto /en/ 2010 /04 /gas- tax - fuels- better - public- tran sit- 1.htmI
Ontario Ministry of Transportation (2011). Transit- Supportive Guidelines, Retrieved from
http : / /www.mto.gov.on.calenglishl transit / supportive - guideline /ridership - strategies.shtml
The Common Front for Social Justice, Inc. (2011). Proposed Modifications Regarding Social Assistance Policies:
Brief to the Minister of Social Development and the Committee on Social Assistance Reform, Moncton, NB
Parliament of Canada (2010). Federal Support for Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit Systems in Canada,
Ottawa, ON: Library of Canada
Results of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Questionnaire: A summary of the public consultation on poverty
reduction in Nova Scotia, (2008).
Roseland, M. (2005). Toward Sustainable Communities, Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers
Vibrant Communities Saint John (2009). Saint John Poverty Reduction Strategy, Retrieved from
http:// sjhdc. ca/ povertyreduction /workforce_partici patio n.htmI
Seniors Assisted Transportation Society of Greater Edmonton (n.d.). About Us, Retrieved from
http: / /www.satsofedmonton.org /aboutus.html
Shuman, M. (2007). The Small -Mart Revolution, San Francisco, CA: Berrett - Koehler Publishers
Stantec Consulting Ltd. (2011). National Strategies on Public Transit Policy Framework, Victoria, BC: Victoria
Vibrant Communities Saint John 60 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
141
Transport Policy Institute
Toronto Transit Commission (n.d.). Day Pass: Unlimited One Day Travel, Retrieved from
http: / /ttc.ca /Fa res_and_passes /Passes /Day_Pass /i ndex.jsp
US Department of Transportation (2003). Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
2002 Conditions and Performance Report, Retrieved from http: / /www.fhwa.dot.gov /policy /2002cpr /chl4.htm
Vibrant Communities Calgary (n.d.). Affordable Transportation, Retrieved from
http: / /www.vibrantcalgary.com/ vibrant - initiatives /affordable- transportation/
Vibrant Communities Saint John 61 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
142
APPENDIX A: Rider Survey
Note to Interviewers: the purpose of this survey is to explore the behaviours and perceptions of current transit riders —
what is working well, and what needs improvement. Please use the survey questions as your guide, and record any
additional information provided by the respondent at the end of the survey.
Providing household (vs. individual) responses is optional. If gathering household data, please try to keep consistent track
of the individual family members throughout the survey. Example: a two - parent household with one son and one
daughter. Assuming mom is the survey respondent, mom = Resident A; dad = Resident B; daughter = Resident C; son =
resident D.
If a question is not applicable to the respondent and all of the members of their household, simply note "n /a" beside the
question. If the question is applicable but the respondent chooses not to provide an answer, simply note "opt -out" beside
the question.
Unless otherwise specified, "transit" refers to in -city service (does not include COMEX).
SECTION A: Rider Behaviour
Which transit services do you use? (check all that apply for each member of your household)
How often do you and each of the members of your household use transit services? (please indicate the fare
cateeory for which each household member is eligible)
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
City Transit
COM EX
Share - Your -Ride
Handibus
Bike Racks
Low Entry Buses
How often do you and each of the members of your household use transit services? (please indicate the fare
cateeory for which each household member is eligible)
Vibrant Communities Saint John 62 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
143
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Child under 5
Child 6 -14
"Student" (no age
specified)
Adult (14 -64)
Senior Citizen (65 +)
Daily
Weekly
Vibrant Communities Saint John 62 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
143
=ew times / month
Dnce or twice / month
3. If you use transit services once a week or less, please tell us which factors deter you from using them more
frequently. (circle all that apply... don't forget to probe for details of the issue: why was the schedule unsuitable,
etc ?)
Unsuitable schedule Unsuitable routes Unsuitable weekend service Don't know about services
Fares too expensive Winter access too difficult Other (specify):
4. If you use a monthly or Transpass (punch card), how do you get them?
5. If you don't use a transit pass of any kind, why not?
6. What do you like about taking the bus?
7. What do you dislike about taking the bus?
8. How often do you use other forms of trans nortatinn?
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
I buy them myself
Employer- sponsored
(specify)
Case Manager
School (specify)
Community service
agency (specify)
5. If you don't use a transit pass of any kind, why not?
6. What do you like about taking the bus?
7. What do you dislike about taking the bus?
8. How often do you use other forms of trans nortatinn?
Vibrant Communities Saint John 63 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
144
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Daily
Weekly
Few times /month
Once or twice a month
Vibrant Communities Saint John 63 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
144
Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) of your journey to work and how you get there.
I—
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Destination
Drive
Get a lift
Transit
Bike
Walk
Taxi
Other (specify):
10. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) of your journey to school and how you get there.
11. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) of your primary healthcare provider (ex. personal doctor, mental
health counsellor, health clinic, etc.) and how you get there.
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Destination
Drive
Get a lift
Transit
Bike
Walk
Taxi
Other (specify):
11. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) of your primary healthcare provider (ex. personal doctor, mental
health counsellor, health clinic, etc.) and how you get there.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 64 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
145
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Destination
Drive
Get a lift
Transit
Bike
Walk
Taxi
Other (specify):
Vibrant Communities Saint John 64 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
145
12. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) you visit most often for shopping and how you get there (inc.
groceries, clothing, household items, etc.).
13. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) you visit most often for social or leisure activities and how you get
there.
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Destination
Drive
Get a lift
Transit
Bike
Walk
Taxi
Other (specify):
13. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) you visit most often for social or leisure activities and how you get
there.
14. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) you visit most often for community services / programmes and
how you get there.
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Destination
Drive
Get a lift
Transit
Bike
Walk
Taxi
Other (specify):
14. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) you visit most often for community services / programmes and
how you get there.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 65 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
146
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Destination
Drive
Get a lift
Transit
Bike
Walk
Taxi
Other (specify):
Vibrant Communities Saint John 65 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
146
15. Please tell us the destination (neighbourhood) you visit most often for childcare and how you get there.
16. Durine which times do you most need / want to use transportation (in any form)? (check all that apply)
Resident A
Resident B
Resident C
Resident D
Resident E
Resident F
Destination
6am to gam
Drive
9am to 12pm
Get a lift
12pm to 3pm
Transit
3pm to 6pm
Bike
6pm to 9pm
Walk
9pm to 12am
Taxi
Other (specify):
16. Durine which times do you most need / want to use transportation (in any form)? (check all that apply)
17. When and / or where do you find it most difficult to access transit?
SECTION B: Impact of Changes to Transit Services
18. What suggestions do you have to make transit more affordable to you as a rider? Note to Interviewer: please
encourage the respondent to think creatively on this item; "making fares cheaper" is the obvious and easy
answer!
19. What other changes could be made to make transit more accessible to you?
20. If these changes were made, how many more trips would you take per month?
Vibrant Communities Saint John 66 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
147
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday
6am to gam
9am to 12pm
12pm to 3pm
3pm to 6pm
6pm to 9pm
9pm to 12am
12am to 6am
17. When and / or where do you find it most difficult to access transit?
SECTION B: Impact of Changes to Transit Services
18. What suggestions do you have to make transit more affordable to you as a rider? Note to Interviewer: please
encourage the respondent to think creatively on this item; "making fares cheaper" is the obvious and easy
answer!
19. What other changes could be made to make transit more accessible to you?
20. If these changes were made, how many more trips would you take per month?
Vibrant Communities Saint John 66 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
147
21. if these changes were made, what would be the impact on your life / household?
SECTION C: Respondent Demographics
22. What is your postal code / in which neighbourhood do you live?
Note to Interviewer: postal code is preferable but if the respondent doesn't know they can provide their
neighbourhood info instead.
23. Please tell us about yourself (circle all that apply).
Single Living with partner/ spouse Single- parent
Two - parent family
Working
Household income
$25,000 / yr or less
A person with a disability which does
not impact my mobility
Living with parent
In School
Household income
$25,000 - $40,000 / yr
A person with a disability that does
impact my mobility
New to Canada
Participating in a community service /
programme
Household income
more than $40,000 / yr
Focus Group Opt -in
May we contact you to participate in a focus group to further explore these issues? Yes No
If yes...
Name:
Telephone:
Email:
Thank the respondent for their time and input, and explain that their comments will help to inform recommendations to
improve access to transportation in Saint John!
Vibrant Communities Saint John
67
i•
Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
APPENDIX B: Non -rider Survey
Note to Interviewers: the purpose of this survey is to explore the behaviours and perceptions of residents who do not use
transit today —why not, and what needs to change for them to start using transit. Please use the survey questions as your
guide, and record any additional information provided by the respondent at the end of the survey.
Unless otherwise specified, "transit" refers to in -city service (does not include COMEX).
Please include your name, the date you conducted the survey, the location (neighbourhood, bus shelter location, LEX,
etc.), and assign a survey number. Your survey number is based on your own count as an individual, not a combined team -
based count, fyi (ex. 012 = twelfth survey you have completed).
Surveyor Name:
Date:
Location:
Survey Count:
SECTION A: Knowledge of Transit
1. Have you used transit services since the New Year? Yes No
2. If yes, which ones?
City Transit COMEX Share - Your -Ride Handibus Bike Racks Low Entry Buses
3. What did you like about transit?
4. What did you dislike about transit?
5. Why is transit not your main mode of transportation?
Unsuitable schedule Unsuitable Routes Unsuitable Weekend Service Don't know about services
Fares too expensive Winter access too difficult Other (specify):
6. Please tell us more about the main reason why you don't use transit (for example, if you selected "unsuitable
schedule ", what specifically is the problem with the service schedule ?).
Note to Interviewers: please use the following categories when filling in the "Form of Transportation" in the table below.
bike drive get a lift taxi walk other (please be specific)
Vibrant Communities Saint John 68 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
149
SECTION B: Forms of Transportation
What forms of transportation do you use and why? Note: telling us your destination will help us to understand
which areas of the community might need transportation solutions.
Destination
Neighbourhood
Form of Transportation
Reason
Work
School
Primary healthcare
Leisure activities
Community services /
programmes
Childcare
Other (specify):
If you use a personal car or truck as your primary mode of transportation, how old is your vehicle? Note: an age
estimate is acceptable, but a manufacture year is preferable.
What would have to change to make transit more accessible to you?
SECTION C: Impact of Changes
10. If these changes were made, would you choose to use transit? Yes No
11. If no, why not?
Vibrant Communities Saint John 69 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
150
12. If yes, how often would you use transit?
Daily Weekly Few times / month Once or twice / month
13. If transit was more accessible to you, what would be the impact on your household / life?
SECTION D: Respondent Demographics
14. What is your postal code / in which neighbourhood do you live?
Note to Interviewer: postal code is preferable but if the respondent doesn't know they can provide their
neighbourhood info instead.
L5. Please tell us about yourself (circle
all that apply).
Single
Living with partner / spouse Single- parent
Two - parent family
Living with parent
New to Canada
Working
In School
Participating in a community service /
programme
Household income
Household income
Household income
$25,000 / yr or less
$25,000 - $40,000 / yr
more than $40,000 / yr
A person with a disability which does
A person with a disability that does
not impact my mobility
impact my mobility
Focus Group Opt -in
May we contact you to participate in a focus group to further explore these issues?
If yes...
game:
Telephone:
:mail:
Yes No
Thank the respondent for their time and input, and explain that their comments will help to inform recommendations to
improve access to transportation in Saint John!
Vibrant Communities Saint John 70 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
151
APPENDIX C: Maps & Instructions for Online Use
Screen shots of the online maps that illustrate key destinations of our survey respondents, by city quadrant (i.e.
North, South, East and West), are included in the following pages. These destinations include:
• Employment Centres
• Education Centres
• Healthcare Centres
• Community Services & Programme Centres
• Childcare Centres
• Leisure Centres
• Priority Neighbourhood boundaries
Follow the instructions below to access the online maps, which include details of the survey results including
number of respondents and priority level.
1. To access online maps copy and paste the URL provided in this report (if you are viewing electronically)
into the address bar of your browser, or if your operating system allows, Ctrl +click the URL in the body
of the report. Or if you are using a hard -copy version of the report, very carefully — with a keen eye for
details — transpose the URL provided in this report into your web browser address bar.
2. When the map has loaded you can save to "My Places ": if you already have a Google account the
process will be automatic, if not you will be prompted to start an account (free). Click on the "Save to
My Places" hyperlink at the upper right corner of the navigation panel on the left of your screen. If you
want to be able to layer the maps together you must have a Google Maps account.
3. Once you have saved the maps they will be listed in the navigation panel on the left under "My Places ".
Click on the individual map you want to view — by clicking on either a place- marker in a map or the
listing in the left navigation panel, the relevant survey results details will display in the map.
4. To layer the maps in your "My Places" list click on the maps in your left navigation panel that you want
to view. If they do not automatically overlay, click on the drop down arrow in the upper right corner of
the map (usually positioned under the "Satellite" icon on your screen, depending on your settings) and
make sure the maps you want to see in combination have check marks beside them. Through this drop
down menu you can choose which maps to display and which should remain hidden.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 71 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
152
Glove uau -.
Get tllfeallDni MY plecei Q, Go ^iM F9Xa ry1p, '
Collaboale ono le a,lwe..,r
Photos otos
row e , r;e..c. :,:M,n f f ~• y,t
Priority Neighbourhood Boundaries
Boundaries of the Priority Neighbourhoods of CSI. •�_ (: -- . I nt•,.. I (
tnis w
®
w ,
mac a. ,., t�,,rr
n Ra
Lower West Side ur, ce.n,FUlu
,r no 'us.;. Heal. I...we, ✓ '
a Lower South End
o-rte
Waterloo Village
r..rnw Harr erg aAk`'.
Old North End r _;af Q . Sohn
Crescent Valley 6 R.
�r -1— MN
Reading Crescent � Ir •'�` •
r a enym .. •.. r ..n s.r 31— HamMllvkw
.. 'M. .n.acler O a,nl.� 1. r� � ••l
l2ml �� r..r,r •. AnMOhve J'" �'
r_ I r �•
illustration 18: Screen shot of online map of Priority Neighbourhood boundaries in Saint John. Available at:
http•/ /maps gooale ca/maps/ms?msid= 212362674123285401216 .0004bc54Of3ecObbb111d &msa= 0 &11= 45.285274.-
66.032295 &s pn= 0.131164, 0.338173
Vibrant Communities Saint John 72 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
153
va, +•, t r:niWn cPr ; . _
-a•,a Fong HAs
p
Get directions My places 4 /
�'. Gdl Cluo Eastnoun
4 is
R
b ®
sr s k
Satellite
Collaborate
®
Employment Centres by Quadrant
p'e
H
'- d vx P "Mill de69-11. r.lu + f s1Y<r
, , ram Paths
rl✓ do _y.. • �'
s ""°osnQ
�.
,A{ p
wy poi
Photos 1
Primary Employment Centres (CSJ) resulting from
V sankieC
surrey data.
V
. 1 G+,dene • r
C a a
Presented in order of priority based on
a) City Quadrants
`
"°1y�p saint,:
Hepn#
x
b) % of respondents within Quadrant
VCSJ Urban Transportation Inhiative
March 2012
I .. paint `_ ,#
II tilg"� m°wl i.-r
.0
�o' , •••' -
`
Saint John
Rr A
l I r,—p wr M KML
l c
Area
l -
d.•. 57
p
� M`i0rd
Mldwood
e`+,e a0 4
•mac
Q !
Uptow Employment
r -
y)
T.�•' ��
gw
End Employment Area
Y
2i
RNar ROa
tLower South
••<<�
WV
tWaterloo Village Employment Area
I a' aimmi�`'�.,
Lansdowne Employr'ent Area
®Gamery , Iaia sYea
Graenmk � � �a �
�
Red tkad
� c•.�
t yob
Illustration 19: Screen shot of online map
of key Employment Centres in Saint John. Available at: htto: /
/maps.aoo le. ca maps /ms?
msid= 212362674123285401216 0004bb87d43d636247aa9
&msa= 0 &11 =45. 277302.- 66.051178 &son= 0.065591.0.169086
Vibrant Communities Saint John 72 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
153
ru Satellite
Photos w
f
f
rlp�em
sma .
fMillidgeville Education Centre � 1p
Ai. +s..9
Illustration 20: Screen shot of online mop of key Education Centres in Saint John. Available at: http•/ /maps aoogle ca /mans /mss
msid= 212362674123285401216 .00O4bc41c81555e34d83d &msa =0 &11= 45.285757 -66 068516 &spn =0 065581 0 169086
ar Point Foaa m ,✓
Gel R'reetions PAY Pis— Q C -� n u.a.�.,y ,.• Ror -4 .M
A.r. b,•w.. k PMk Mu+ �3 Fomal /M r
CIS I
GaY fastno�:t+
�J 4 Satellite �,�.
Collaborate Rorxrvooa — -
v Park r m smerF Photos i..�
Healthcare Desidnatlons by Quadrant
G qa �r.e a -
Primary Healthcare Centres (CSJ) resulting from PAW —
survey Fals Park
0
survey data.
shirwy 1 .{ NOpa.xeN � 0 qMt 1a
Presented in order of priority based on ~i Gwdii x u. ,4 t^O'`� {
Cab Wbm
a) City Quadrants
b) % of respondents within Quadrant LI r"ya� O sa,m
:oM East
VCSJ Urban Transportation Initiative i, �°�'°M 4 sw
March 2012 FO1,,Dk yI
Rate tnd MP '-A—.:mmaot hN_
Ra 0 Saint Job
bW.rnM .a • Q
{ Uptown Healthcare Centre
MI 4 e
r NPrn beet +'
Waterloo Village HeaNhcare Centre 4 \
tLower South End HeaNhcare Centre i�
R .., .. or _ to e,ws'ps .,�'"•,
{ Mdlldgeeille Healthcare Centre south a r ,
tkm 9 (Ante! „� Cls.�^,!•C. wM Wait t
Illustration 21: Screen shot of online map of key Healthcare Centres in SaintJohn. Available at: httn:/ /mans.aoogle.ca /maps /ms?
msid= 212362674123285401216 .00O4bc3fe3e24877f4f2e &msa= 0 &11 =45 280564 -66 070404 &spn =0 065587 0 169086
Vibrant Communities Saint John 73 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
154
Getif —tiona PAY pIa_ea
i
Saner
1"mT Roaa
Cogaboratc
r ,ti Pac
:
sir Pan M.
Pan,
e
Education Centres by Quadrant
Primary Education Centres (CSJ) resulting I om
+
�' —
HP
survey data.
y
rdredpeH�k oy.t+
Presented in order of priority based on:
a) City Quadrants
�*+.....�
b) % of respondents within Quadrant
_
Sank>
Garb.
VCSJ Urban Transportation Initiative
March 2012
s
'S,Mre 4
Zeta Me rwp —ft a eortmanl UIL ®
_
P look
R
Ure— Education Centre
town
a �
R. i
ru Satellite
Photos w
f
f
rlp�em
sma .
fMillidgeville Education Centre � 1p
Ai. +s..9
Illustration 20: Screen shot of online mop of key Education Centres in Saint John. Available at: http•/ /maps aoogle ca /mans /mss
msid= 212362674123285401216 .00O4bc41c81555e34d83d &msa =0 &11= 45.285757 -66 068516 &spn =0 065581 0 169086
ar Point Foaa m ,✓
Gel R'reetions PAY Pis— Q C -� n u.a.�.,y ,.• Ror -4 .M
A.r. b,•w.. k PMk Mu+ �3 Fomal /M r
CIS I
GaY fastno�:t+
�J 4 Satellite �,�.
Collaborate Rorxrvooa — -
v Park r m smerF Photos i..�
Healthcare Desidnatlons by Quadrant
G qa �r.e a -
Primary Healthcare Centres (CSJ) resulting from PAW —
survey Fals Park
0
survey data.
shirwy 1 .{ NOpa.xeN � 0 qMt 1a
Presented in order of priority based on ~i Gwdii x u. ,4 t^O'`� {
Cab Wbm
a) City Quadrants
b) % of respondents within Quadrant LI r"ya� O sa,m
:oM East
VCSJ Urban Transportation Initiative i, �°�'°M 4 sw
March 2012 FO1,,Dk yI
Rate tnd MP '-A—.:mmaot hN_
Ra 0 Saint Job
bW.rnM .a • Q
{ Uptown Healthcare Centre
MI 4 e
r NPrn beet +'
Waterloo Village HeaNhcare Centre 4 \
tLower South End HeaNhcare Centre i�
R .., .. or _ to e,ws'ps .,�'"•,
{ Mdlldgeeille Healthcare Centre south a r ,
tkm 9 (Ante! „� Cls.�^,!•C. wM Wait t
Illustration 21: Screen shot of online map of key Healthcare Centres in SaintJohn. Available at: httn:/ /mans.aoogle.ca /maps /ms?
msid= 212362674123285401216 .00O4bc3fe3e24877f4f2e &msa= 0 &11 =45 280564 -66 070404 &spn =0 065587 0 169086
Vibrant Communities Saint John 73 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
154
M 1 ^ n.+. lo:•r.v,. -s Piro Roctimaild l L Fa:asl XNS .Mr
Get directions My places 1§
•p titan Club (r Eas4mo rt aR.
Codaborale ® s;.,+r, . q RPM ® Si:ver s .. - .
• S,, H sc ar 4 , •P Photos
-t Milt�rk wy.u: f a
�tP„, � � yP Fa'Is Pik e
Shopping Centres by Quadrant �!'qo � �
Primary Shopping Centres (CSI) resulting from survey +D yfi° B Msghn �� ° s
data.
Presented in order of priority based on. * Green wr ° cnemp eln e,,,
s"" a! / HegMs
a) City Quadrants / saint
b) % of respondents within Quadrant _ E ' Jam East
P�
Marc Urban Transportation Initiative - ✓ r-
March 2012 Plald*wlam.
a.nQ
Fete I:.o •, i'.en.
-N K"_ _ +1 -
R.adagl r Saint JI�
McAllister Retail Shopping Centre � �
McAllister industrial Park Shopping Centre i RNealc r
tSilver Falls Shopping Centre y,efe`a ,yk 94
0 TmS �'S
{ Uptown Shopping Centre tf , rN,,,4 ..v ' i
i f • w ! Red Head m
a
illustration 22: Screen shot of online map of key Leisure destinations in Saint John. Available at: http://maps.google.ca / maas/ms?
msid = 212362674123285401216 .0004bc576217a66b13514 &msa =0
F wk 1 , i'Ga E. :moats , --
Got directions PAY Glace. U �.
dr Rik E 10 S .Nte
Callaborate 'L ? • Falb Photos
Community Service l Programs (CSIP) by Ic } , ' n H•w^x,
Quadrant
Primary Community Service & Programs (CSIP)
Centres resulting from survey data eN•r:mr �, O s" ^!
„ .� �� Jahn East
Presented in order of priority based on sm
a) City Quadrants ,f '=y, .
b) % of respondents whhin Quadrant < rokak
VCSI Urban Transportation Initiative Prr
March 2012 +
_ Raneci'r J Saint John 'c
,for,:: 5. Sere k, :. k�Y.J ^D4amac ....4• 0 .�v andeao0
Rare t. q w.p Yirae s comma -I na'. i9
sa btriDr_ 9
Upto— CSIP Cewe
e I :..,:: e.,_,ro seu T.r* :wnr«. care, I.
tLower South End CSIP Cent re ".s n- ��
11 re,c..r z;k-.seaN <er. old", m ',..s"'k 6.1 cef D• C mz
Watadao Village CSIP Centre "�' � ,
.:r - :. I?^�'rene!Y ^.'Cn cxrn I: �q feentlN< (� P.etl Neal
F +rtdy
.� Old North End CSIP Contra "liar Purdrs XepMs ea. Enoro - .;•p,..
illustration 23: Screen shot of online map of key Community Service destinations in Saint John. Available at:
h=.- Ilmaps aooale ca/maos/ms?msid= 212362674123285401216 .0004bc572ef3627725d48 &msa= 0 &11= 45.276457,-
66.090317& s p n = 0.065592, 0.169086
Vibrant Communities Saint John 74 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
155
Getd(rectlons MY alacea
t
....
E
( 2' a Clan Fall.
eper:
��••��
Presented in order of priority based on:
I tC° e
�^ .7 H• t!%e"•'
L Satellite
- arpa.. -.-
a) Z Quadrants
�. saror cclmon. .k..
Laxenppl
Photos
b) % of respondents within Quadrant
VCSJ Urban Transportation Initiative
■
Pam R— ® o�' .+
r
w. �`<z F*10 X1,
'
March 2012
+
- P.0 W'q' I d
' * carcwe Es.anan pe
Natl1ln !'so ' ' It a cear+. k'.
P..1wcM
i ...r•. P!M1 f m e1:vN fLk
H wx: ;N i 11,44
.�� W,
"` Lot.
{ Lower South End Childcare Centre
Mi'I k
Fall P" �^ F
yle.! �FOr f '^ Hai a Q, aF✓
.�°i/
<v
Uptown Childcare centre
7 . a Centre
cs CMngkm
Waterloo Village Childcare Centre
p calm
j Mcldlister Retail Childcare Centre
l'
Crescent Valley Childcare Centre
Mow^ rx aas�
Millidgerille Childcare Centre
Saint John
Landsdowne Childcare Contra
Ot
I
lra
! >rr
Illustration 24: Screen shot of online map of key Childcare destinations in Saint John. Available at: http' //maps gooale ca /mans /ms?
msid= 212362674123185401216. 0004bc56e6a392285b113 &mso= 0 &11 =45 293849 -66 031 78 &spn =0 065572 0 169086
Vibrant Communities Saint John 75 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
156
APPENDIX D: Focus Group Summary
The following summarizes discussions held with low- income residents of Saint John who were invited to
participate in a series of focus groups: priority neighbourhood- specific (x2), families, non - riders, newcomers to
Canada, transit bus drivers and the Community Interviewer team. The focus groups were held to explore key
issues revealed through the Urban Transportation Initiative survey. Only items that were discussed repeatedly
in different focus groups are included in this summary.
Section A: Physical Access
1. Some people find that physical access to the bus (particularly during the winter, but in general) is pretty
challenging — what would you do to improve the situation?
• Buses should come every 20 mins (referring to secondary routes)
• Need more bus shelters — people who are ill, the elderly, parents with young children, etc. all need
protection from the elements and our unpredictable, coastal weather
0 "Some people have trouble standing for long periods of time"
• Prioritize snow - clearing and salting on transit routes (vs. those roads not used by buses) first
0 "In Davenport the bus stop is on a hill and needs to be plowed in the wintertime so the bus does
not get stuck on the big hill."
• Need a policy regarding the application of low -entry and disability ramp equipment (participants felt
this was inconsistently applied, depending on the driver)
• Snow - clearing at bus stops is necessary — many participants shared stories of having trouble accessing
the bus because stops were not cleared out (physically inaccessible to the rider), or because the bus
could not pull over close enough to the curb to enable their passengers to board (physically inaccessible
to the vehicle)
• Watershed and drainage is an issue at many stops — in the winter poor drainage leads to sheets of ice
which make getting on and off the bus precarious
• Implement a Citizen Parking ticket system (similar to that for disabled parking) where residents can
chastise other residents who illegally park their personal vehicles in designated bus pull -overs
Vibrant Communities Saint John 76 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
157
2. What could be done to make bus stops more attractive, useful and accessible to transit riders?
• Need garbage cans (and ideally compost bins) at bus stops and in shelters... currently no place to put
garbage before boarding the bus
• Route maps and schedules posted at bus stops
• Arrange stops so that they are directly across the street from that of the opposite direction — avoid stop
location confusion
• Shelters and stops need lighting for safety
• Regular sign maintenance — remove old signs where stops no longer exist (ex. Loch Lomond Rd.,
Germain St.)
• "No smoking" signs in shelters / fine people for smoking in bus shelters
3. What, if anything, would you be willing to give up in exchange for these improvements to physical
accessibility?
• Nothing: with few exceptions, all participants felt that they had "already given up enough ".
Section B: Scheduling
1. Some transit users have told us they have long waits at certain transfer points, usually when the
secondary routes connect to the main lines. What suggestions do you have to improve this situation?
• Increase layovers time to — 10- 15mins at all transfer points. When one driver is running behind (due to
extra time taken to deal with poor weather, construction, or a number of passengers requiring
assistance to board, etc.) and the connecting route driver is on time, riders miss their transfers and are
forced to pay another full cash fare to get on the next bus (which in some cases may not be along for an
hour).
• Transfers should be eligible for a longer period of time and no restrictions re: where they can be applied
0 "If I want to go from a secondary route to another secondary route, I should be able to do it!"
2. Our survey responses tell us that residents would get a lot of use out of early morning and more
weekend bus services. How would you improve early morning and weekend bus service?
Vibrant Communities Saint John 77 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
158
• Need Sunday service on secondary routes, at least during noon -5pm business hours
• Statutory Holiday service still required (eliminated in response to most recent budget reduction), at
least on Canada Day, New Years Day and NB Day for various city activities
• "I can't get to work if I don't have a bus!"
• "People are apt to shut in and not use the bus at all"
Section C: Affordability
1. What suggestions do you have to make public transit more affordable to residents?
• Day pass — charge a lump sum to ride all day, anywhere in the city. Good for residents and tourists.
• Smart Card system — allows riders flexible payment options by purchasing only the number of rides they
need
• Family Pass — ability for adults to travel with multiple children, also specifically noted for weekends
when family outings are common
• Transfer time increase / transfers eligible at all locations
• Provincial subsidy to reduce fares across the board
• Flexible payment options — lump sum payment for monthly pass cost - prohibitive for low- income
residents who are paid weekly or bi- weekly
• Actively promote employer bulk- buying program — allow employee payroll deductions as form of
payment
• Increase funding contribution from City of Saint John
2. How do you think Transit could save money?
• Use smaller, more fuel- efficient vehicles during non -peak
• Conduct "proper" repairs on equipment vs. band -aid solutions
• Adjust services based on seasonal ridership
• Prioritize "inner- city" vs. suburban routes
Vibrant Communities Saint John 78 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
159
• Combine Parking and Transit Commissions so one is financing the other
3. How could Transit earn more money?
• Actively promote cost - benefits of transit vs. personal vehicle (PR activity)
• Provide a city tour service to tourists and residents
• Provide more of the "shuttle services" (referencing Tuesday services to seniors complexes)
• Create "fund developer" role within Saint John Transit
• Discount charters to NGOs – actively promote
• Marketing and education campaigns:
• hug a bus
• Buy -one, Get -one (monthly passes)
• bring a friend for free day
• Go Green, etc.
• Position SJ Transit as the exclusive charter provider for City of Saint John, area NGOs, etc.
Section D: Other
1. Do you have any other suggestions to improve transportation accessibility in Saint John?
• Inner -city shuttle service (subsidiary of SJ Transit or separate social enterprise)
• Make bike lanes permanent part of SJ transportation system (across the city)
• SJ Police patrol Harbour Passage more frequently for safety
• Taxis:
0 weekly or monthly pass (_# rides for—$)
0 10" trip free (or similar) program
• Share Your Ride service needs promotion
Vibrant Communities Saint John 79 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
160
APPENDIX E: Saint John Transit Commission Performance Standards
Service Standards
Used in 2009 Design
1. Service within 500 m of 85% of city residents
2. Service on mainlines from Gam to 12pm
• Every 20 minutes during peak
• Every 30 minutes off peak
1. Service on feeder routes from Gam to 10pm
• Every 30 minutes during peak
• Every 60 minutes off peak
1. Suburban service Monday to Friday;
• 3 trips in the morning and 3 trips in the evening
SAINT Jn11N TRANSIT ®-
Vibrant Communities Saint John 80 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
161
APPENDIX F: Approaches & Best Practices Summary
By: Hepzibah Munoz Martinez, Katelyn Parlee, Michael McKenzie, James Langille, Tommy Walsh and Chris
Ogden — University of New Brunswick Saint John
The expansion of cities through urban sprawl and the location of employment away from people's homes has
changed the geography of travel and increased the need for people's mobility across long distances.' Two main
approaches to transportation have attempted to provide solutions to mobility issues in cities. On the one hand,
supply -side tactics focused on personal mobility aim at increasing the speed and ease of individual movement
in vehicles through the increase of road and transit capacity. A concrete example is the construction and
expansion of roads." On the other hand, a demand management perspective with a focus on accessibility
planning emphasizes the need to manage physical space and use community -scale public and non - motorized
transport and other resources to reduce the number of vehicles and /or change the mode and length of the trip.
Examples of this approach are concentration of jobs in clusters and residential densities, high occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane, car parking management, public transit, community -based para- transit and bicycle and pedestrian
paths. "' The latter addresses poverty and inequality issues because it recognizes that some groups such as low
income adults, the elderly and people with disabilities are not able to own a car, and therefore need alternative
forms of affordable and accessible transportation."
In Canada, several provincial initiatives have followed the latter approach in relation to public transit. Alberta
established the Green Transit Incentives Program. Through this program, the province granted two billion
dollars for local, regional and intercity public transit. At the municipal level, some of this funding has been
channeled to the light rail transit in Calgary and Edmonton." In British Columbia, the provincial government
developed a Provincial Transit Plan which involved funding from the federal, provincial and municipal
governments. This plan set the goal of spending a total of 14 billion dollars in transit investment by the year
2020. Other best practices in the province include U -pass and employee transit pass programs, High
Occupancy Vehicle lanes, and a promotion of biking through investment in marketing campaigns and biking
infrastructure."' In Nova Scotia, the provincial government has placed emphasis on active transportation, bus
rapid transit projects, employee pass programs and transit tax credits. "" The Ontario government gives
municipalities a portion of the provincial gas taxes to invest in public transit. The Ontario government also
funds the inter - municipal commuter train and bus services and promotes HOV lanes in roads. It plans to
implement a seamless regional transit fare card (PRESTO). Quebec's provincial government has implemented
rural transit programs as well as grant program to improve accessibility. "" In contrast, other municipalities in
Vibrant Communities Saint John 81 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
162
the Maritimes continue emphasizing personal mobility in motorized vehicle over accessibility through public
transit. This is the case of New Brunswick. For instance, the provincial government subsidizes parking fees for
its employees in private garages in downtown Fredericton."
At the municipal level, cities in the Maritimes such as Moncton and Halifax have created and implemented
municipal Active Transportation Plans which link pedestrian and bicycle trails to public transit facilities.' In these
cities, public transit is part of a wider strategy that includes different forms of transportation while addressing
accessibility, affordability, health and environmental issues. Several small and medium -sized cities in Canada
are undertaking initiatives that promote accessibility in public transit. Yet, it is important to differentiate those
cities that have benefited from the current commodity boom, and therefore can fund public transit, from those
that are the hardest hit by deindustrialization and the recent economic crises. The latter is the case of Windsor
and Sudbury, Ontario. Windsor has an official plan to achieve a sustainable transportation system and the City
Council requires all proposed developments to provide infrastructure and amenities for public transportation
that are easily accessible to the public. " There is also free transit on smog days, which has increased ridership
by 50 percent in the city of Windsor.`
Greater Sudbury Transit provides up to $500 per non - profit organization to provide transit assistance for low -
income groups. It also funded a program in 2009 to provide free transit ride passes to elementary and high
school students which were handed out through the public library system. Students at both Laurentian
University and College Boreal are able to access public transit at a reduced rate which is absorbed into the cost
of tuition and they are able to use their student identification cards to board transit buses for an unlimited
number of times during the fall and the winter terms. In Sudbury, there are also private and community
partnerships that facilitate transportation accessibility to seniors. A grocery store has entered into a partnership
with some of the seniors residences located in the Downtown area in order to provide a bus shuttle service free
of charge so that residents can get their groceries up to three times per week.""'
The cities of Bangor and Portland, Maine in the United States also provide examples of best practices in small
and medium -sized cities. These cities provide important lessons for the Canadian context in relation to the
close coordination between federal, state and municipal authorities in implementing an accessibility approach
to transportation. The Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation Systems or PACTS is an initiative set by the
three levels of government to promote and invest in public transit and non - motorized transportation at the
regional level.` Bangor has a similar system called Bangor Area Transportation System or BACTS. Like PACTS,
Vibrant Communities Saint John 82 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
163
BACTS also establishes regular public consultations to assess the transportation needs of residents of the city
and its metropolitan area.x" The Bangor Area Transportation also provides incentives to increase ridership such
as Free Friday, stops at non - designated stops and the use of public transit to cultural events such as the
American Folk Festival.% "' These best practices show the importance of collaboration between the three levels of
government for funding and planning of accessible transportation as well as the significance of a regional
strategy for public transit and bike and pedestrian trails in the context of urban sprawl and suburbanization.
Vibrant Communities Saint John 83 Urban Transportation Initiative, May 2012
164
Ubbels, Barry. 2004. Unfare solutions local earmarked charges to fund public transport. London. Spon,
p. 12.
ii Anthony Downs and Robert Puentes. 2005. "The need for regional anticongestion policies." In Katz,
Bruce, and Robert Puentes (eds.) Taking the high road: a metropolitan agenda for transportation reform.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, p. 170.
iii Robert Cervero. 2001. "Integration of Urban Transport and Urban Planning," In Freire, Mila, and Richard
E. Stren (eds.)The challenge of urban government policies and practices. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, pp.
409, 421.
iv Evelyn Blumenberg and Margy Waller. 2005. "The Long Journey to Work: A Federal Transportation
Policy for Working Families." In Katz, Bruce, Puentes, Robert (eds.). Taking the High Road : A Metropolitan
Agenda for Transportation Reform. Washington, DC, USA: Brookings Institution Press, 2005. P. 198.
v Urban Transit Task Force to Ministers of Transportation. 2010. Recent Developments in Transit in
Canadian Cities, 2010, Ottawa, p. 5.
vi Urban Transportation Task force. 2009. Urban Transit in Canada: Taking Stock of Recent Progress,
Ottawa, October., pp. 7 -8.
vii ibid., p. 15 -16.
viii Ibid. 10-13,
ix Dillon Consulting Limited. 2008. Strategic plan for Transit Services. Fredericton, August.
x City of Moncton. 2002. "Active Transportation Plan ". December.
http: / /www.moncton.ca/ Assets / Residents +English /RPTC /Active +Living /Active +Transpo
rtation +ENG /AT +Plan.pdf, Codiac Transpo. 2011. http:// www. codiactranspo.ca /page3682.aspx, SGE
Acres Ltd., Marshall Macklin Monaghan and Go for Green. 2005. Halifax Regional Municipality, HRM Active
Transportation Plan: Background Working Paper." Halifax.
xi Go for Health. 2011. Summary of Gaps and Best Practices: Environmental Scan of Municipal Policies
that Support Healthy Living. City of Windsor.
xii Transport Canada. Free Transit on Smog Days: Clearing the Air
http: / /www.tc.gc.ca /eng /programs/ environment - utsp - freetransitonsmogdays- 235.htm
xiii Rainbow Routes Association. 2010. Sustainable Mobility Plan for the Greater City of Sudbury, Sudbury,
June, pp. 56 -7.
xiv PACTS. 2011. Transportation Improvement Programs. (February 25, 2012).
http: / /www.pactsplan.org/ documents / PACTS %20TIP %20September %202011.pdf.
xv Bangor area comprehensive plan BACTS Transportation system. http: / /www.bactsmpo.org/
xvi Bangor Transportation web page. http: // bangorinfo .com /transportation.html
165
A BY -LAW TO AMEND BY -LAW
NUMBER M -12 — A BY -LAW
RESPECTING THE REGULATING
AND LICENSING OF OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF TAXICABS IN THE
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
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 `By -Law Number M -12 - A
By -Law Respecting the Regulating and
Licensing of Owners and Operators of
Taxicabs in The City of Saint John"
enacted on the 5th day of July, 2004, is
hereby amended as follows:
ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE
NUMBRO M -12 - ARRETE PORTANT
REGLEMENTATION DES
ACTIVITES DES PROPRIETAIRES
ET EXPLOITANTS DE VOITURES-
TAXIS ET DE L'OCTROI DE PERMIS
AUX PROPRIETAIRES ET
EXPLOITANTS DE TAXIS DANS THE
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Lors dune reunion du conseil
communal, The City of Saint John a
decrete ce qui suit :
Pars les presentes, Farrete de The
City of Saint John intitule a Arrete Numero
M -12 - Arrete portant reglementation des
activites des proprietaires et exploitants de
voitures -taxis et de Foctroi de permis aux
proprietaires et exploitants de taxis dans
The City of Saint John » decrete le 5 juillet,
2004, est modifie comme suit:
1 Section 23 is amended by deleting 1 L'article 23 est modifie par la
subsection 23(4). suppression du paragraphe 23(4).
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
, A.D. 2012 and signed by:
Mayor /Maire
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John
a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le
present arrete le 2012,
avec les signatures suivantes
Common Clerk/Greffiere communale
First Reading - August 13, 2012 Premiere lecture
Second Reading - August 13, 2012 Deuxieme lecture
Third Reading - Troisieme lecture
166
- le 13 aout 2012
- le 13 aout 2012
The City of Saint John
August 27, 2012
His Worship Mayor Court
And Councillors
Your Worship and Councillors
SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — 3795 Loch Lomond Road /
Abigail Place / Eldersley Avenue
A Public Presentation was made on July 16th, 2012 of a proposed amendment to the
Municipal Development Plan which would redesignate on Schedule "A" of the Plan, from
Rural Resource Area to Stable Area, a parcel of land located at 3795 Loch Lomond
Road, Abigail Place and 356 Eldersley Avenue, also identified as a being portions of PID
Numbers 55214910, 00329144, 55196588 and 00330159;
and redesignate on Schedule "B" of the Plan — Future Land Use, the same parcels of
land from Rural Resource to Rural Residential to recognize three previously approved
rural residential subdivisions.
The required advertising has been completed, and attached you will find a copy of the
public notice for the proposed municipal plan amendment.
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, October 9th 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
mA.AAKT JOKIN IF O, [kax'1974 SdintjInfin, Nil Cat" :h !20.,911 "AraJ;olimc_a I C.P. 1971 %mtjohn, NA. Cart.AF.a LAM-]
167
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
RE: 3795 LOCH LOMOND ROAD, ABIGAIL
PLACE AND 356 ELDERSLEY AVENUE
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:
1. Redesignate, on Schedule A of the Plan, those
portions of the parcels of land located at 3795 Loch
Lomond Road, Abigail Place and 356 Eldersley
Avenue and currently designated Rural Resource
Area, being portions of PID Nos. 55214910,
00329144, 55196588 and 00330159, from Rural
Resource Area to Stable Area, as illustrated below;
2. Redesignate, on Schedule B of the Plan, the
same portions of the parcels of land, from Rural
Resource to Rural Residential.
[INSERT MAP]
A public presentation of the proposed amendment
will take place at a regular meeting of Common
Council on Monday, July 16, 2012 in the Council
Chamber, Lobby Level, City Hall.
REASON FOR CHANGE:
To recognize three previously approved rural
residential subdivisions.
Written objections to the proposed amendment may
be made to the Council, in care of the undersigned,
by August 15, 2012. 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
PROJET DE MODIFICATION DU PLAN
MUNICIPAL
OBJET: 3795, CHEMIN LOCH LOMOND,
PLACE ABIGAIL ET 356, AVENUE
ELDERSLEY
Par les presentes, un avis public est donne par
lequel le conseil communal de The City of Saint
John a l'intention d'6tudier la modification du plan
d'amenagement municipal comme suit:
1. Modifier la designation, a 1'annexe A du plan,
des parties des parcelles de terrains situees au 3795,
chemin Loch Lomond, a la place Abigail et au 356,
avenue Eldersley et actuellement designees comme
zones de ressources rurales, soit des parties des
NID 55214910, 00329144, 55196588 et 00330159,
afin de les faire passer de secteur de ressources
rurales a secteur stable, comme it est indiqu6 ci-
dessous.
2. Modifier la designation, h 1'annexe B du plan,
des memes parties des parcelles de terrains, afin de
les faire passer de secteur de ressources rurales a
secteur residentiel rural.
[INSERER LA CARTE]
Une presentation publique du projet de
modification aura lieu lors de la reunion ordinaire
du conseil communal le lundi 16 juillet 2012 dans
la salle du conseil, au niveau du hall d'entr6c, a
1'h6tel de ville.
RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION:
La reconnaissance de trois lotissements residentiels
ruraux pr6cedemment approuv6s.
Veuillez faire part au conseil par ecrit de vos
objections au projet de modification au plus tard le
15 aont 2012 a 1'attention de la soussignee. Pour
toute demande de renseignements, veuillez
communiquer avec le bureau de la greffi6re
communale ou le bureau de 1'urbanisme et du
d6veloppement 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 vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour
une reunion de Conseil Communal, veuillez
contacter le bureau de la greffiere communale.
Elizabeth Gormley, greffiere communale
658 -2862
.:
August 14, 2012
His Worship Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Nominating Committee SharePoint Portal
Currently Microsoft SharePoint is used as part of the City of Saint John IT infrastructure. The Nominating
Committee, which is a sub - committee of Common Council, does not have access to a safe and secure
vehicle to conveniently review applicant resumes and CV's for those wishing to serve on City of Saint
John agencies, boards and commissions.
The creation of a Microsoft SharePoint site, will allow those charged with selecting candidates to serve
on our ABC's a safe, secure and convenient mechanism to adequately review qualified candidates. By
providing admin rights to the SharePoint Portal, only select individuals will be allowed to conveniently
peruse resumes /CV's in a convenient electronic environment in preparation for nominating committee
meetings.
Motion: Direct the Common Clerk to report back to Council regarding the creation of an electronic
solution whereby the Nominating Committee:
(1) Would have safe, secure and convenient access of applicant's resumes and CV's.
(2) Could view a comprehensive list of the ABCs, their respective members and mandate.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Received via email)
Greg Norton
Councillor (Ward 1)
City of Saint John
NW
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 E21L 4L1
169
A =.
August 1, 2012
His Worship Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Scheduling of Council Meetings
As you know, Council meetings are currently scheduled every two weeks with the option of meeting
every week if /when required. The current practice is to hold the closed session Committee of the
Whole meeting prior to the regular open session of Council. This can pose a challenge as, due to time
constraints, it can be difficult for Council to complete each of the closed session agenda items prior to
the scheduled start time of the open session meeting.
In order to address this challenge, Council may want to consider a new scheduling model. For instance, a
full closed session meeting could be scheduled on council's off weeks, thereby eliminating the need of
being on time for the regular open session meeting. Another suggestion would be for all regular open
session meetings to be consistently scheduled for a 7:00 p.m. start time. Council members may have
other suggestions /input.
Motion: That the regular open session Council meeting is consistently scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Received via email)
Deputy Mayor Shelley Rinehart
City of Saint John
414)-
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4LI I wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L7
-----------
170
'1yp1.
, -
The City of Saint John
August 27, 2012
Mayor Norton, Deputy Mayor Rinehart
And Councillors
Subject: The Information Governance Suite: The Total Information Governance Solution
Mayor Norton, Deputy Mayor and Councillors,
Background
On April 28, 2008, the Mayor and Council approved the Records Management Policy for the City of Saint
John. Since 2008, the City and other organizations are facing a world of chaos that is organizational
information. According to RMfuture watch. com, approximately 7 % -9% of enterprise content can be
considered official records. It is that 7 – 9% of enterprise content that is governed by the Records
Management Policy.
The Information Governance Policy Suite addresses the 7 -9% as well as the other 91% of the
organization's information. This information lives and grows exponentially on servers. It walks out the
door on portable devices. It lives in the cloud. It's being duplicated on hard drives and in Share Point sites
and it must be governed.
The Information Governance Suite replaces the Records Management Policy, April 2008 with a suite of
policy instruments that govern all phases of the information lifecycle, from document creation to grave.
The Suite also addresses the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements by
including Access, Privacy, Security, and Surveillance Policies.
The Suite has been designed to reflect high level policy documents, and lower level directives,
standards, guidelines and procedures. The lower level documents explain the "how to" policy mandates.
All policy must be approved by Council. The lower level policy instruments are enabled by the policy.
The Policies have received favourable review by the Provincial Archivist and the Information Access and
Privacy Officer for the province. We have sent the policies to the senior leadership team for review and
input.
414");—
; -=
MN11' RX40 RO. B x 1 971 Sa'uH lohv, NU C ;aria4;1 LA, 411,1 C':".f? 1971 Saint: John, U.-B. Canada VA A-1
171
Commenting on the changes from the Records Management Policy I call your attention to the removal
of the requirement for legal review before any record is destroyed. We have based our authority both
on a review of the legislation and legal opinion from the Department of Justice.
We quote the following provision:
Archives Act s.7 (1) "Public records referred to in a schedule approved by the Provincial
Archivist shall be disposed of in accordance with that records schedule."
The schedule approved by the Provincial Archivist that binds municipal records is the Municipal Records
Authority (MRA). The MRA is the official guide for the management of municipal records within the
province of New Brunswick. The MRA serves two purposes:
• it provides a suggested framework for the organization and description of records
• it provides approved retention and disposition schedules for those records
It is important to note that municipalities with a different file plan already in place are not obligated to
use the MRA File Classification Plan, but they must use and apply the appropriate retention and
disposition schedules for those records.
The legal opinion we rely on can be summarized from an excerpt from correspondence from the
Provincial Archivist to our City Solicitor dated September 6'h, 2011:
"Our correspondence regarding retention of municipal records, which began nearly three years
ago, has taken a considerable amount of time, but I trust that this response will bring matters to
a conclusion. That said, during the process a number of legal aspects to the MRA and retention
of records have been explored and the insights gained should be useful in the future. This letter
is in regards specifically to your last question 'whether the Province of New Brunswick would be
prepared to indemnify the City (and, by extension, other municipalities across New Brunswick)
from any loss or prejudice suffered as a result of having relied to its detriment upon one or more
retention schedules set out in the MRA (i.e. having disposed of records in accordance with the
MRA, which should have been kept longer due a retention period required under a Statute or
Regulation).'
On the basis of the legal opinion we have received we are satisfied that in following the
retention schedules as provided by the Provincial Archivist there is no liability on the
municipality provided the municipality acted in good faith. Therefore there is no need for an
indemnity agreement."
The following municipalities follow the MRA as mandated by the province: Fredericton, Rothesay,
Miramichi, Moncton, Woodstock, Oromocto, to name a few we have consulted with.
172
Recommendation: that Council approve the submitted Information Governance Suite of Policies,
namely:
• Information Management Policy
• Access Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Information Security Policy
• Video Surveillance Policy
The following policies are currently in progress and will be submitted in the near future to Council for
approval:
• Share Point Governance Policy
• Social Media Policy
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Gormley
Common Cleric
Attachments
173
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
INFORMATIRN
MANAGEMENT
Document Title: Information Management Policy
Document Type: Policy
No. of Pages: 10
Scope: Applies to the City of Saint John
Policy No.:
Revision No.:
Revision History:
Supersedes the Records Management Policy for the City of Saint John approved by Common Council on
April 28, 2008
Date Created:
Council Approval
Expiry Date:
Contact:
Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
Corporate Records Manager
2012 -08 -08
YYYY -MM -DD
(2 years from
Office of the Common Clerk
approval date)
174
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE ........................................................................................................ ..............................3
2. POLICY STATEMENT ....................................................................................... ..............................3
3. SCOPE ............................................................................................................. ..............................3
4. POLICY CONTEXT ............................................................................................ ..............................3
5. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS ..................................................................... ..............................4
6. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................................................... ..............................5
7. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ...................................................... ..............................5
8. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................................................... ..............................6
9. MONITOR AND REVIEW ................................................................................. ..............................7
10. IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... ..............................7
11. AUTHORIZATION .......................................................................................... ..............................7
12. RESOURCES .................................................................................................. ..............................8
13. PROCEDURES ................................................................................................ ..............................8
14. GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................... ..............................8
15. INQUIRIES .................................................................................................... .............................10
2
175
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
1. PURPOSE
Information is the cornerstone of a democratic, effective and accountable municipal government.
Information must be managed throughout its lifecycle, allowing for an effective and responsive
government. This policy will demonstrate that information management is a priority for the City.
2. POLICY STATEMENT
The objective of this policy is to achieve efficient and effective information management to support
program and service delivery; foster informed decision making; facilitate accountability; transparency,
and collaboration; and preserve and ensure access to information and records for the benefit of present
and future generations.
3. SCOPE
The Policy applies to all programs and services within the City; this includes programs and services
reporting to the City Manager, City Solicitor, Treasurer and Common Clerk.
The Policy applies to all aspects of the City's programs and services, all records and information created
during business transactions, and all business applications used to create records and information.
4. POLICY CONTEXT
Information Management was recognized as part of the City's responsibilities in the Royal Charter 1785,
and emerged as a distinct activity in a local government context in 1987, when the Provincial Archives
introduced a document entitled Authorities Governing the Retention and Disposition of Records of the
New Brunswick Municipalities. An Electronic Information Management System (EIMS) was introduced by
the City in 2005 using Laserfiche as the software technology. In 2012 further information management
responsibilities are required by the City to be compliant with the Right to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act.
Digital records and information management has been underdeveloped throughout the City and
information is not consistently lifecycle managed. In the electronic environment (e.g. e- administration,
e- government, e- commerce), records and information processes will increasingly be automated and
supported by automated records systems. This is apparent in several projects, such as the Saint John
Information Management (SJIM) project, the RTIPPA program, and recent acquisition of specialized
automated records systems such as Caseware (Audit Software) and Taleo (Performance Appraisal
software) to manage records. The City is embarking on a new approach to manage its information assets
in an EIMS that integrates Laserfiche with SharePoint 2010 (LfSP). There are approximately 600
employees using computers across the City and almost all of them creates or works with public records
and information. With the new strategy, employees will be required to work within the EIMS and be
accountable for accurately identifying information created and stored in the system.
Automated systems for managing information, such as but not limited to, the City Website (public
portal), Njoyn (Recruiting software), Taleo (Performance Appraisal software) Sungard HTE (Work Orders
3
176
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
Software), Caseware (Audit Software), CLASS (Leisure Services contracts software), ATIPXpress (RTIPPA
software) will comply with International Standard Organization (ISO) functional requirements for
management systems for information and follow legislative and business requirements.
The Office of the Common Clerk will develop all information management strategies, and is responsible
for the design and review of all information management practices.
Implementation will be at the program and service level in accordance with the Policy and operational
requirements.
5. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS
The City acknowledges the following laws that relate to records and information management:
• Charter of The City of Saint John, 1785 (U.K.) Geo. III as amended
• Archives Act, S.N.B. 1977, c.A -11.1 as amended
• Community Planning Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.0 -12 as amended
• Electronic Transactions Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.145 as amended
• Evidence Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.E -11 as amended
• Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.M -12 as amended
• Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c.0.0.5 as amended
• Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, R.S.C. 2000, c.5 as
amended
• Public Records Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.212 as amended
• Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B, 2009, c. R-10.6 as amended
The Information Management Program will develop records and information management systems that
capture and maintain records and information with appropriate evidential characteristics in accordance
with its obligations under the above -noted statutes.
The City acknowledges the following standards that relate to records and information management:
• CGSB- 72.11.93 Microfilm and Electronic Images as Documentary Evidence, Canadian
General Standards Board
• CGSB- 72.34 -2005 Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence, Canadian General
Standards Board
• ISO 15489- 1:2001 Information and documentation — Records management Part 1:
General, International Organization for Standardization
• ISO 15489 - 2:2001 Information and documentation — Records management Part 2:
Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization
• ISO /TR 15801 -2006 Electronic Imaging — Information Stored Electronically —
Recommendations for Trustworthiness and Reliability
• ISO 19005 - 1:2005 PDF /A, International Organization for Standardization
4
177
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
• ISO 23081 - 1:2006 Records Management Metadata, International Organization for
Standardization
• ISO 30300:2011 Information and documentation — Management systems for records —
Fundamentals and vocabulary
• ISO 30301:2011 Information and documentation — Management systems for records -
Requirements
• DoD 5015.2 -STD Electronic Records Management Software Application Design Criteria
Standard, USA Department of Defense
• The Sedona Canada E- Discovery Principles, the Sedona Conference
The City acknowledges the following best practices that relate to records and information management:
• Local Government Resource Manual, Section 6 - Records Management, Province of New
Brunswick
• Guideline for Outsourcing Records Storage to the Cloud, ARMA International, 2010
• Guideline for Evaluating Offsite Records Storage Facilities, ARMA International, 2007
• Website Records Management, ARMA International, 2009
• Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles (GARP), ARMA International, 2011
6. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Information Management Program provides strategic guidance and support to the City to achieve a
service - based, results oriented, high performance public service organization. The Information
Management Program can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations of the City by:
• providing better use of resources (space, time, people, money) as valuable time and energy can
be wasted trying to find information when there is not an adequate filing system in place
• meeting operational requirements (e.g. number of years minutes, financial records are kept)
• meeting administrative requirements (day to day activities)
• meeting legal requirements (for compliance with laws and for protection and support during
litigation)
• meeting fiscal requirements (records required for audit)
• preserving valuable information
The Information Management Program will provide the right information to the right person at the right
time. The Information Management Program also includes a records management service, archives
service, records filing centre service, and forms management service.
7. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The City's information management systems are dedicated to the creation, maintenance and protection
of authentic, reliable and usable records and information for as long as they are required to effectively
and efficiently support business functions and activities.
5
178
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
The City adopts the Municipal Records Authority for New Brunswick, developed by the Provincial
Archives of New Brunswick and the Association of Municipal Administrators of New Brunswick, as the
uniform classification system and records retention and disposition schedule for records in all formats.
The information management systems will manage the following processes:
• creation, receipt or capture of information within the information management system
• storage of information
• protection of information integrity and authenticity
• security of information
• access to information
• disposal of information in accordance with the approved disposal authority
The City will consistently and uniformly manage information in all formats throughout its life -cycle from
creation and receipt to final disposition.
The City recognizes that the vast majority of its records and information are "born digital" and that the
primary information management system is therefore an Electronic Information Management System
(EIMS). Paper -based records of the City will be captured within this system through digital imaging. This
EIMS is to be used in all programs and services of the City.
8. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Office of the Common Clerk is responsible for developing Information Governance policy, directives,
standards and guidelines and tools. The Common Clerk is accountable for the Information Governance
Policies and Program and delegates the day to day administration and implementation to the Corporate
Records Manager. The Common Clerk is also the designated Head of the Right to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (RTIPPA) for the City.
The Corporate Records Manager is responsible for overseeing the design, implementation, and
maintenance of the Policy, administering the Information Management Program, overseeing lifecycle
management of corporate records, stewardship of the SharePoint 2010 working architecture, control
over the EIMS systems including quality assurance and metrics reporting, providing Records and
Information Management training and awareness sessions as well as monitoring compliance.
The Access and Privacy Officer is responsible for administering the Right to Information and Protection
of Privacy Program; ensuring that privacy implications are considered in all the City's activities; advising
the City on the appropriate privacy safeguards that need to be implemented when the City is collecting,
using, disclosing and disposing of personal information; providing training and awareness sessions; and
monitoring compliance.
The Manager of Information Technology Services has the responsibility for the management of
technology in service delivery for the City including responsibility for security such that the integrity and
authenticity of records are maintained and for providing IT training to employees. The Manager of
0
179
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
Information Technology Services is also responsible for providing adequate technological infrastructure
to ensure the integrity of all electronic information assets.
Ultimate accountability for holding employees responsible for complying with the City's policies
including the privacy policies, standards and applicable legislation rests with the City Manager, City
Solicitor and Common Clerk. Commissioners and Service Managers must provide management support
and leadership by ensuring:
• that employees are working with the EIMS and are held accountable for accurately identifying
information created and appropriately stored;
• effective organization of information throughout their units;
• the sound implementation of investment decisions in the management of information and
technology;
• the ongoing performance measurement of the management of information;
• employee compliance competency assessment in annual performance reviews;
• that Records Coordinators with a sound knowledge of the information are assigned in the
business unit; it is not suitable to assign casuals or summer students to perform the tasks of
Records Coordinators as they lack the requisite knowledge to manage the unit's information
and to make decisions concerning the lifecycle management and protection of the business
units information assets;
• that Records Coordinators (identified and designated at the business unit level) and
Commissioners are responsible for supporting records and information management practices
as defined by the Policy within their respective areas; and that
• City employees are responsible for protecting all information within their realm of responsibility
as defined by City policies, standards, guidelines, and applicable legislation.
9. MONITOR AND REVIEW
The Policy is subject to review within two years from approval date. The Information Management
Program will be subject to review and audits will be conducted by an audit committee established by the
Office of the Common Clerk. The audit committee may be comprised of a cross - departmental internal
committee or by an independent third party.
10. IMPLEMENTATION
The Policy will be implemented upon approval by Common Council.
11. AUTHORIZATION
This Policy has been approved by Common Council on Month # #, 2012.
7
:1
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
12. RESOURCES
Print Resources
The Municipal Records Authority for New Brunswick (MRA), Municipal Records Management Steering
Committee of the Provincial Archives, and the Association of Municipal Administrators of New
Brunswick (2011), Fredericton: Government of New Brunswick
Office of the Common Clerk (2007), ERMS (MRA /RME Integration): File Plan and Disposition Instructions.
Saint John: City of Saint John
Human Resources
The City recognizes that a Records and Information Implementation Team initially comprised of the
Corporate Records Manager, Access and Privacy Officer and Records Coordinators will evolve into
corporate Records and Information Management Committee as the program is introduced to business
units across the organization.
13. PROCEDURES
Information Management procedures will be developed in consultation with the Corporate Records
Manager.
14. GLOSSARY
Asset
Anything that has value to an organizatic
Capture
A deliberate action which results in the registration of information into an information management
system. For certain business activities, this may be designated into electronic systems so that the
capture is concurrent with the creation of records.
Classification / Classification System
The systematic identification and arrangement of business activities and /or records into categories
according to logically structured conventions, methods, and procedural rules represented in a
classification system.
Disposal /Disposition
Refers to the range of processes associated with implementing information retention, destruction or
transfer decisions which are documented in authorities or other instruments
Disposition Schedule
181
0
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
The records retention and disposition schedule gives the City authority to dispose of records it no longer
requires. Also known as a retention schedule.
Electronic Information Management System (EIMS)
A recordkeeping system that manages electronic records and information throughout their lifecycle,
from creation, receipt and capture through to their destruction or permanent retention and retains their
integrity and authenticity while ensuring that they remain accessible. Also referred to as Electronic
Management System for Records (EMSR), Electronic Records Management System (ERMS), Electronic
Document and Records management System (EDRMS)
Information
Information generated or received by the City or its employees and used in the operation of our
organization. Business information includes records, data, and documents stored in any form (e.g.,
paper, electronic, audio and video recordings, and imaging media).
Information Management
A discipline that directs and supports effective and efficient management of information in an
organization, from planning and systems development to disposal or long -term preservation.
Lifecycle of a Record
The stages of activity between the creation or receipt of a record and its final disposition. There are five
stages in the lifecycle of a record; namely, the creation, receipt, active use, semi - active use, infrequent
(inactive) use and final disposition. Records are also said to have three ages based upon their reference
or use: active, semi - active, and inactive.
Provincial Archives of New Brunswick (PANB)
The body responsible for selecting, acquiring, preserving records of historical or continuing value and
making them available for future posterity. The PANB has determined the classification scheme and the
records retention and disposition schedules for municipalities.
The Municipal Records Authority for New Brunswick (MRA)
The classification plan and mandatory retention schedule for municipalities in the Province of New
Brunswick.
Public Record
The books, papers and records kept by or in the custody of an officer of the Province, a municipality or a
rural community in the carrying out of his or her duty as that officer are vested in Her Majesty the
Queen and her successors.
Record
:A
0
Information Management Policy for the City of Saint John
Record means a record of information in any form, and includes information that is written,
photographed or stored in any manner, on any storage medium or by any means, including by graphic,
electronic or mechanical means, but does not include electronic software or any mechanism that
produces records.
15. INQUIRIES
For more information on the Policy, please contact the Corporate Records Manager in the Office of the
Common Clerk.
10
183
Access Policy for the City of Saint John
IN FORMAT 14-0- T
MANAGEMENT
Document Title: Access Policy
Document Type: Policy
No. of Pages: 7
Scope: Applies to the City of Saint John
Policy No.:
Revision No.:
Revision History:
Date Created:
2012 -08 -08
Council Approval Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
Expiry Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
(2 years from
approval date)
Contact:
Access & Privacy Officer
Office of the Common Clerk
• ,
1. PURPOSE ... ...............................
2. POLICY STATEMENT .................
3. SCOPE ........ ...............................
4. POLICY CONTEXT ......................
5. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .
7. COMPLIANCE ............................
8. MONITOR AND REVIEW ...........
9. IMPLEMENTATION ...................
10. AUTHORIZATION ....................
11. GLOSSARY ...............................
12. INQU
TABLE OF CONTENTS
185
Access Policy for the City of Saint John
V
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
7
2
Access Policy for the City of Saint John
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Access Policy (the "Policy') for The City of Saint John (the "City') is to outline
generally accepted access principles with which employees of the City will comply; to ensure that the
City will be in compliance with applicable practices and legislation including the Right to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act (RTIPPA); to manage requests for information in a timely and consistent
manner; and to demonstrate that openness and transparency is a priority for the City.
2. POLICY STATEMENT
The City is committed to openness and transparency to make its information easily accessible, with
consideration given to the protection of personal privacy and confidentiality, and to assist applicants
throughout the entire request process. 1W
All activities concerning the handling of records and information within the City are to be in accordance
with City policies and supporting procedures.
3. SCOPE
This Policy applies to all City employees handling records and information while conducting City
business.
4. POLICY CONTEXT
Citizens expect a single point of contact where formal access to information requests of the City may be
placed. It is the Common Clerk that has been designated "Head" at the City for purposes of RTIPPA.
Consequently, all formal requests made under RTIPPA are registered, tracked and processed by the
Office of the Common Clerk.
Requests for information are triaged into two streams depending on the nature of the information
requested: routine requests and formal requests. Often information may be easily accessible without
the need to make a formal request under RTIPPA. Routine requests may be responded to directly by
service areas; however, service areas must work with the Access & Privacy Officer to develop an up -to-
date list of records available via the routine release stream.
In processing a request made under RTIPPA, the City will adhere to the following access principles:
• Process the request without regard to an individual's identity;
• Offer reasonable assistance throughout the request process;
• Provide information on RTIPPA, including information on the processing of a request and the
right to appeal to the Access and Privacy Commissioner of the Province of New Brunswick
and /or to the Court of Queen's Bench of the Province of New Brunswick;
• Inform applicants without undue delay when a request needs to be clarified;
• Make every reasonable effort to locate and retrieve the requested information;
E1
00
Access Policy for the City of Saint John
• Apply limited and specific exceptions to the requested information;
• Provide accurate and complete responses;
• Provide timely access to the requested information;
• Provide information in the format requested where possible; and
• Provide an appropriate location to examine the requested information.
5. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS
The City acknowledges the following laws that relate to records and information management:
• Charter of The City of Saint John, 1785 (U.K.) Geo. III as amended
• Archives Act, S.N.B. 1977, c.A -11.1 as amended
• Community Planning Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.0 -12 as amended
• Electronic Transactions Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.145 as amended
• Evidence Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.E -11 as amended
• Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.M -12 as amended IV
• Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c.O.0.5 as amended
• Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, R.S.C. 2000, c.5 as amended
• Public Records Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.212 as amended
• Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B, 2009, c.R -10.6 as amended.
The City acknowledges the following standards, guidelines and best practices that relate to access:
• CAN /CSA -Q830 Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information
• CAN /CSA- PLUS -8300 Workbook on Applying the CSA Model Code
• CAN /CSA- PLUS -8830 Implementing Privacy Codes of Practice.
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Common Clerk is accountable for the Policy and delegates the day to day administration and
implementation to the Access & Privacy Officer. Ultimate accountability for holding employees
responsible for complying with City policy rests jointly with the City Manager, City Solicitor and Common
Clerk.
The Access & Privacy Officer is responsible for the day to day implementation of the Policy; providing
advice on RTIPPA; processing and responding to all formal access to information requests in a timely and
complete manner; advising the City on the appropriate information to disclose and not to disclose to
applicants; providing training and awareness sessions; and monitoring and compliance.
The Corporate Records Manager, Access & Privacy Officer and the Manager of Information Technology
Systems are jointly responsible for identifying the personal information holdings within the City's
electronic information repositories. The Corporate Records Manager and Access & Privacy Officer are
jointly responsible to ensure that personal information in any format is retained for a reasonable period
of time. The Corporate Records Manager is responsible for authorizing the secure disposition of
0
187
Access Policy for the City of Saint John
personal information according to the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the City's
Information Security Policy and procedures.
The Manager of Information Technology Systems is responsible for securely maintaining the City's
electronic information repositories, according to the City's Information Security Policy and procedures,
such that the integrity and authenticity of the City's information is assured.
Service Area Managers are responsible for ensuring that employees comply with the Policy, procedures
and applicable legislation. Program Area Commissioners provide management support and leadership.
City employees are responsible to provide access to all information within their realm of responsibility
as defined by the Policy, procedures and applicable legislation.
7. COMPLIANCE
It is the Common Clerk's responsibility to ensure compliance with the Policy' y requiring that employees
sign off on the Policy upon employment. Compliance will be monitored by the Access & Privacy Officer
with assistance from Program Area Commissioners, Service Area Managers, the Office of the Common
Clerk and the Office of the City Solicitor.
Violations or non - compliance with the Policy, regardless of size or scope, may carry potentially
significant consequences for the City. Violations may constitute theft, fraud, destruction or alteration of
corporate information; privacy breach; unauthorized disclosure of information assets; and /or loss of
intellectual property. Violations of the Policy will cause employee disciplinary action, up to and
including dismissal.
8. MONITOR AND REVIEW
The Policy is subject to review within two years from approval date
The review will be conducted by a
committee established by the Office of the Common Clerk. The committee may be comprised of a cross -
functional internal membership or an independent third party.
9. IMPLEMENTATION
The Policy will be implemented upon approval by Common Council.
10. AUTHORIZATION
This Policy has been approved by Common Council on Month # #, 2012.
im
Access Policy for the City of Saint John
11. GLOSSARY
Access Principles
The City's access principles are based on those of the Government of Canada as expressed in the
Directive on the Administration of the Access to Information Act (2012).
Applicant
A person who makes a request for access to information contained in a record.
Employee
An employee is an individual or corporation hired by the City to perform work under either a contract
for services or a contract of service.
Exception *V%A�,
Specific instance where the City is entitled to refuse to disclose information in response to a request
received under RTIPPA. Exceptions are either discretionary or mandatory.
Information
Data presented in readily comprehensible form to which meaning has been attributed within the
context of its use. Unless the context otherwise requires, this means information contained in a record.
Information Security X
The protection of information and information systems from a wide range of risks including
unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction in order to provide
authenticity, integrity, confidentiality and availability.
Personal Information
Recorded information about an identifiable individual, including but not limited to, (a) the individual's
name, (b) the individual's home address or electronic mail address or home telephone or facsimile
number, (c) information about the individual's age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or family
status, (d) information about the individual's ancestry, race, colour, nationality or national or ethnic
origin, (e) information about the individual's religion or creed or religious belief, association or activity,
(f) personal health information about the individual, (g) the individual's blood type, fingerprints or other
hereditary characteristics, (h) information about the individual's political belief, association or activity, (i)
information about the individual's education, employment or occupation or educational, employment or
occupational history, (j) information about the individual's source of income or financial circumstances,
activities or history, (k) information about the individual's criminal history, including regulatory offences,
(1) the individual's own personal views or opinions, except if they are about another person, (m) the
views or opinions expressed about the individual by another person, and (n) an identifying number,
symbol or other particular assigned to the individual.
Privacy Breach
An unauthorized access to, or collection, use or disclosure of personal information.
Record
Recorded information, regardless of medium or characteristics, made or received by an organization
that is evidence of its operations, and has value requiring its retention for a specific period of time.
A
:•
Access Policy for the City of Saint John
Records Retention and Disposition Schedule
A schedule that gives the City the authority to dispose of (transfer or destroy) records it no longer
requires. This schedule identifies the period of time that personal information in the custody of the City
is to be retained.
Requests
Formal requests - Request for records that are neither routinely available nor available through more
informal procedures. A request for access to a record will specify the record requested or where the
record in which the relevant information may be contained is not known to the applicant, provide
enough particularity as to time, place and event to enable a person familiar with the subject matter to
identify the relevant record. Requests must include information specified in the regulations. Unless an
applicant has limited ability to read or write in either English or French, or has a disability or condition
that impairs his or her ability to make a written request, requests must be made in writing. Formal
requests must be directed to the Access & Privacy Officer as soon as they are received.
Routine Requests - Requests for information that is easily accessible and not subject to RTIPPA.
Applicable fees may be charged, if this has been the practice in the past. The request can be verbal and
does not require the involvement of the Access & Privacy Officer. Routinely released records must be
identified and listed in a reference table.
12. INQUIRIES
For more information on the Policy, please contact the Access & Privacy Officer in the Office of the
Common Clerk. w f�-M=Mhhl
7
190
Privacy Policy for the City of Saint John
INFORMATI 4. N
MANAGEMENT
Document Title: Privacy Policy
Document Type: Policy
No. of Pages: 7
Scope: Applies to the City of Saint John
#k
Policy No.:
Revision No.:
9%6,
Revision History:
Date Created:
2012 -08 -08
Council Approval Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
Expiry Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
(2 years from
approval date)
Contact:
Access & Privacy Officer
Office of the Common Clerk
191
Privacy Policy for the City of Saint John
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................... ..............................3
2. POLICY STATEMENT ...................................................................................................... ..............................3
3. SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ ..............................3
4. POLICY CONTEXT ........................................................................................................... ..............................3
5. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS .................................................................................... ..............................4
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................... ..............................5
7. COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................. ..............................5
8. MONITOR AND REVIEW ................................................................................................ ..............................6
9. IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ ..............................6
10. AUTHORIZATION ......................................................................................................... ..............................6
11. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................... ..............................6
12. INQUIRIES ..................................................................................................................... ..............................7
2
192
Privacy Policy for the City of Saint John
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Privacy Policy (the "Policy ") for The City of Saint John (the "City ") is to outline
generally accepted privacy principles with which employees of the City will comply, to ensure that the
City is in compliance with applicable legislation including the Right to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (RTIPPA) and to demonstrate that protecting individuals' personal information is a priority
for the City.
2. POLICY STATEMENT
The City is committed to protecting the privacy of its employees and citizens. The City will ensure
compliance with all applicable legislation related to the collection, use, retention, disclosure and
disposition of personal information.
All activities concerning the handling of records and information Nh City are in accordance with
City policies and supporting procedures.
3. SCOPE
This Policy applies to all City employees handling records and information while conducting City
business.
4. POLICY CONTEXT
Citizens and employees entrust their personal information to the City and expect that it will be
protected. The City will ensure that the personal information in its care, custody, and control will be
collected, used, retained, disclosed and disposed of in compliance with the following generally accepted
privacy principles.
The following privacy principles are essential to the proper handling of personal information and
alignment with the requirements of legislation.
Accountability
The City is responsible for personal information under its control and has assigned ultimate
accountability for compliance to the Common Clerk by designating the Common Clerk "Head" for the
purposes of RTIPPA. The day to day administration and implementation of the principles have been
delegated by the Head to the Access & Privacy Officer.
Identifying Purposes
The purpose for which personal information is collected will be identified by the City before or during
the time the information is collected.
Consent
The consent of an individual is required for the City to collect, use or disclose of personal information,
except where inappropriate.
3
193
Privacy Policy for the City of Saint John
Limiting Collection
The collection of personal information will be limited to that which is necessary for the purposes
identified by the City. Information will be collected by fair and lawful means.
Limiting Use, Disclosure and Retention
Personal information will not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which the City
collected it, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. Personal information will be
retained only as long as necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes or as required by law. Personal
information will be securely disposed of in accordance with approved records retention schedules,
information disposal practices and all applicable information security policies and procedures.
Accuracy
Personal information collected by the City will be as accurate, complete, and up -to -date as is necessary
for the purposes for which it is to be used. N 40 Safeguards
The City will protect and safeguard personal information in its possession appropriate to the sensitivity
of the information.
Openness INV
The City will make readily available to individuals specific information about policies and practices
related to the handling of personal information.
Individual Access
Upon request, the City will provide an individual with information on the existence, use and disclosure
of his /her personal information and will give access to that information. An individual will be able to
challenge the completeness.and, accurac of the information and provide updates, as appropriate.
Challenging Compliance
An individual will be able to address a concern regarding compliance with these principles to the Access
& Privacy Officer.
5. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS
The City acknowledges the following laws that relate to records and information management:
• Charter of The City of Saintlohn, 1785 (U.K.) Geo. III as amended
• Archives Act, S.N.B. 1977, c.A -11.1 as amended
• Community Planning Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.0 -12 as amended
• Electronic Transactions Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.145 as amended
• Evidence Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.E -11 as amended
• Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-12 as amended
• Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c. 0.0.5 as amended
• Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, R.S.C. 2000, c.5 as amended
• Public Records Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.212 as amended
4
194
Privacy Policy for the City of Saint John
• Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B, 2009, c.R -10.6 as amended.
The City acknowledges the following standards, guidelines and best practices that relate to privacy:
• CAN /CSA -Q830 Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information
• CAN /CSA- PLUS -8300 Workbook on Applying the CSA Model Code
• CAN /CSA- PLUS -8830 Implementing Privacy Codes of Practice.
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Common Clerk is accountable for the Policy and delegates the day to day administration and
implementation to the Access & Privacy Officer. Ultimate accountability for holding employees
responsible for complying with City policy rests jointly with the City Manager, City Solicitor and Common
Clerk.
The Access & Privacy Officer is responsible for the day to day implementation of the Policy; ensuring
that privacy implications are considered in all the City's activities; advising the City on the appropriate
privacy safeguards that need to be implemented when the City is collecting, using, retaining, disclosing
and disposing of personal information; providing training and awareness sessions; and monitoring and
compliance.
The Corporate Records Manager, Access & Privacy Officer and the Manager of Information Technology
Systems are jointly responsible for identifying the personal information holdings within the City's
electronic information repositories. The Corporate Records Manager and Access & Privacy Officer are
jointly responsible to ensure that personal information in any format is retained for a reasonable period
of time. The Corporate Records Manager is responsible for authorizing the secure disposition of
personal information according to the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the City's
Information Security Policy and procedures.
The Manager of Information Technology Systems is responsible for securely maintaining the City's
electronic information repositories, according to the City's Information Security Policy and procedures,
such that the integrity and authenticity of the City's information is assured.
Service Area Managers are responsible for ensuring employees comply with the Policy, procedures and
applicable legislation. Program Area Commissioners provide management support and leadership.
City employees are responsible for protecting all information within their realm of responsibility as
defined by City policies, procedures and applicable legislation.
7. COMPLIANCE
It is the Common Clerk's responsibility to ensure compliance with the Policy by requiring that employees
sign off on the Policy upon employment. Compliance will be monitored by the Access & Privacy Officer
with assistance from Program Area Commissioners, Service Area Managers, the Office of the Common
Clerk and the Office of the City Solicitor.
G
195
Privacy Policy for the City of Saint John
Violations or non - compliance with the Policy, regardless of size or scope, may carry potentially
significant consequences for the City. Violations may constitute theft, fraud, destruction or alteration of
corporate information; privacy breach; unauthorized disclosure of information assets; and /or loss of
intellectual property. Violations of the Policy will cause employee disciplinary action, up to and including
dismissal.
8. MONITOR AND REVIEW
The Policy is subject to review within two years from approval date. The review will be conducted by a
committee established by the Office of the Common Clerk. The committee may be comprised of a cross -
functional internal membership or an independent third party.
9. IMPLEMENTATION
The Policy will be implemented upon approval by
10. AUTHORIZATION
This Policy has been approved by Common Council on Month # #, 2012.
11. GLOSSARY
Disposition
The range of processes associated with implementing records retention, destruction or transfer
decisions which are documented in authorities or other instruments.
Employee o 4
An employee is an individual or corporation hired by the City to perform work under either a contract
for services or a contract of service.
Information
Data presented in readily comprehensible form to which meaning has been attributed within the
context of its use. Unless the context otherwise requires, this means information contained in a record.
Information Security
The protection of information and information systems from a wide range of risks including
unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction in order to provide
authenticity, integrity, confidentiality and availability.
6
196
Privacy Policy for the City of Saint John
Personal Information
Recorded information about an identifiable individual, including but not limited to, (a) the individual's
name, (b) the individual's home address or electronic mail address or home telephone or facsimile
number, (c) information about the individual's age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or family
status, (d) information about the individual's ancestry, race, colour, nationality or national or ethnic
origin, (e) information about the individual's religion or creed or religious belief, association or activity,
(fl personal health information about the individual, (g) the individual's blood type, fingerprints or other
hereditary characteristics, (h) information about the individual's political belief, association or activity,
(i) information about the individual's education, employment or occupation or educational,
employment or occupational history, (j) information about the individual's source of income or
financial circumstances, activities or history, (k) information about the individual's criminal history,
including regulatory offences, (1) the individual's own personal views or opinions, except if they are
about another person, (m) the views or opinions expressed about the individual by another person, and
(n) an identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual.
Privacy Breach "' hh�
Unauthorized access to, or collection, use or disclosure of personal information.
Privacy Principles
The Canadian iteration of these privacy principles was first published in 1996 by the Canadian Standards
Association as is known as the Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information.
Record `V�
Recorded information, regardless of medium or characteristics, made or received by an organization
that is evidence of its operations, and has value requiring its retention for a specific period of time.
Records Retention and Disposition Schedule
A schedule which gives the City the authority to dispose of (transfer or destroy) records it no longer
requires. This schedule identifies the period of time that personal information in the custody of the City
is to be retained.
12. INQUIRIES
For more information on this Policy, please contact Access & Privacy Officer in the Office of the Common
Clerk.
7
197
Information Security Policy for the City of Saint John
INFORMATI 4. N
MANAGEMENT
Document Title: Information Security Policy
Document Type: Policy
No. of Pages: 6
Scope: Applies to the City of Saint John
#k
Policy No.:
Revision No.:
9%6,
Revision History:
Date Created:
2012 -08 -08
Council Approval
Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
Expiry Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
(2 years from
approval date)
Contact:
Access & Privacy Officer
Office of the Common Clerk
im
Information Security Policy for the City of Saint John
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... ............................... 3
2. POLICY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... ............................... 3
3. SCOPE .......................................................................................................................... ..............................3
4. POLICY CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ ............................... 3
5. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS ................................................................................. ............................... 4
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................... ..............................4
7. COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................................... ..............................5
8. MONITOR AND REVIEW ............................................................................................. ............................... 5
9. IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................... ............................... 5
10. AUTHORIZATION ...................................................................................................... ............................... 5
11. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. ............................... 5
12. INQUIRIES ................................................................................................................. ............................... 6
2
199
Information Security Policy for the City of Saint John
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Information Security Policy (the "Policy ") for the City of Saint John (the "City ") is to
assist in protecting its information assets against internal, external, deliberate or accidental threat
including natural disasters. Towards this end, the City will strive continuously to be in compliance with
identified standards, best practices and legislation including the Right to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act (RTIPPA). This policy will demonstrate that information security is a priority for the City.
2. POLICY STATEMENT
The Policy will ensure the protection of records and information against any unauthorized access. This
includes electronic and physical records and information. The confidentiality of information will be
assured and the integrity and availability of the information maintained.
In support of the aforementioned:
• Business continuity plans, including a business continuity plan for essential /vital records, will be
developed, tested, documented and maintained;
• Computer system backups will be made for security of information and emergency system
recovery purposes and not for the purpose of long -term storage of information, nor as a method
to satisfy the conditions of a records retention schedule;
• Procedures to support the Policy will be maintained for areas including but not limited to access,
authorization, authentication, updates, virus and malware controls;
• Information security education and awareness training for both electronic and physical records
and information shall be available for all employees; and,
• New employees must sign confidentiality /non - disclosure agreements.
All suspected electronic information security breaches will be promptly reported to the Commissioner of
Strategic Services. All breaches involving personal information (privacy breaches) or breaches involving
physical information security will be promptly reported to the Common Clerk. Incident logs will be
maintained by the Common Clerk and Commissioner of Strategic Services in accordance with legislative
requirements and best practice
3. SCOPE '*N" ')
This Policy applies to all City employees.
4. POLICY CONTEXT
The Commissioner of Strategic Services is responsible for overseeing Information Technology Systems.
The Manager of Information Technology Systems is responsible for the maintenance, installation,
security and support of all information technology tools used to manage information assets.
The Common Clerk is responsible for ensuring business and vital records and information are managed
in accordance with legislative requirements.
200
Information Security Policy for the City of Saint John
S. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS
The City acknowledges the following laws that relate to records and information management:
• Charter of The City of Saint John, 1785 (U.K.) Geo. III as amended
• Archives Act, S.N.B. 1977, c.A -11.1 as amended
• Community Planning Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.0 -12 as amended
• Electronic Transactions Act, S.N.B. 2011, c. 145 as amended
• Evidence Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.E -11 as amended
• Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-12 as amended
• Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c.0.0.5 as amended
• Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, R.S.C. 2000, c.5 as amended
• Public Records Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.212 as amended
• Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B, 2009, c.R -10.6 as amended.
The City acknowledges the following standards, guidelines and best practices that relate to information
security:
• ISO 27001:2005 Information technology —Security techniques —Information security
management systems — Requirements.
• ISO 27002:2005 Information technology —Security techniques —Code of practice for information
security management.
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES lk
The Common Clerk is accountable for the Policy and delegates the day to day administration and
implementation to the Access & Privacy Officer. Ultimate accountability for holding employees
responsible for complying with City policy rests jointly with the City Manager, City Solicitor and Common
Clerk.
The Manager of Information Technology Systems is responsible for securely maintaining the City's
electronic information repositories, according to the City's Information Security Policy and procedures,
such that the integrity and authenticity of the City's information is assured. The Manager of Information
Technology Systems is responsible for monitoring and compliance; assessing security risks; investigating
security incidents; and providing training and awareness sessions for electronic systems.
The Access & Privacy Officer is responsible for advising the City on the appropriate privacy safeguards
that need to be implemented; providing training and awareness sessions; and monitoring and
compliance with respect to the handling of personal and confidential information.
The Corporate Records Manager is responsible to ensure City information has the appropriate level of
security applied.
Service Area Managers are responsible for ensuring employees comply with the Policy, procedures and
applicable legislation. Program Area Commissioners provide management support and leadership. City
4
201
Information Security Policy for the City of Saint John
employees are responsible for ensuring the security of all information within their realm of
responsibility as defined by City policies, procedures and applicable legislation.
7. COMPLIANCE
It is the Common Clerk's responsibility to ensure compliance with the Policy by requiring that employees
sign off on the Policy upon employment. Compliance will be jointly monitored by the Access & Privacy
Officer, Corporate Records Manager and Manager of Information Technology Systems with assistance
from Program Area Commissioners, Service Area Managers, the Office of the Common Clerk and the
Office of the City Solicitor.
Violations of or non - compliance with the Policy, regardless of size or scope, may carry potentially
significant consequences for the City. Violations may constitute theft, fraud, destruction or alteration of
corporate information; privacy breach; unauthorized disclosure of information assets; and /or loss of
intellectual property. Violations of the Policy will cause employee disciplinary action, up to and
including dismissal.
8. MONITOR AND REVIEW
The Policy is subject to review within two years from approval date. The review will be conducted by a
committee established by the Office of the Common Clerk. The committee may be comprised of a cross -
functional internal membership or an independent third party.
9. IMPLEMENTATION
The Policy will be implemented upon approval by Common Council.
10. AUTHORIZATION
This Policy has been approved by Common Council on the Month # #, 2012.
11. GLOSSARY N1
Disposition
The range of processes associated with implementing records retention, destruction or transfer
decisions which are documented in authorities or other instruments.
Employee
An employee is an individual or corporation hired by the City to perform work under either a contract
for services or a contract of service.
5
202
Information Security Policy for the City of Saint John
Information
Data presented in readily comprehensible form to which meaning has been attributed within the
context of its use. Unless the context otherwise requires, this means information contained in a record.
Information Security
The protection of information and information systems from a wide range of risks including
unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction in order to provide
authenticity, integrity, confidentiality and availability.
Personal Information
Recorded information about an identifiable individual, including but not limited to, (a) the individual's
name, (b) the individual's home address or electronic mail address or home telephone or facsimile
number, (c) information about the individual's age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or family
status, (d) information about the individual's ancestry, race, colour, nationality or national or ethnic
origin, (e) information about the individual's religion or creed or religious belief, association or activity,
(fl personal health information about the individual, (g) the individual's blood type, fingerprints or other
hereditary characteristics, (h) information about the individual's political belief, association or activity,
(i) information about the individual's education, employment or occupation or educational,
employment or occupational history, (j) information about the individual's source of income or
financial circumstances, activities or history, (k) information about the individual's criminal history,
including regulatory offences, (1) the individual's own personal views or opinions, except if they are
about another person, (m) the views or opinions expressed about the individual by another person, and
(n) an identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual.
Privacy Breach
An unauthorized access to, or collection, use or disclosure of personal information.
Record
Recorded information, regardless of medium or characteristics, made or received by an organization
that is evidence of its operations, and has value requiring its retention for a specific period of time.
Records Retention and Disposition Schedule
A schedule that gives the City the authority to dispose of (transfer or destroy) records it no longer
requires. This schedule identifies the period of time that personal information in the custody of the City
is to be retained.
12. INQUIRIES
For more information on this Policy, please contact the Access & Privacy Officer, Corporate Records
Manager and Manager of Information Technology Systems.
0
203
Video Surveillance Policy for the City of Saint John
INFORMATI 4. N
MANAGEMENT
Document Title: Video Surveillance Policy
Document Type: Policy
No. of Pages: 7
Scope: Applies to the City of Saint John
#k
Policy No.:
Revision No.:
9%6,
Revision History:
Date Created:
2012 -08 -08
Council Approval Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
Expiry Date:
YYYY -MM -DD
(2 years from
approval date)
Contact:
Access & Privacy Officer
Office of the Common Clerk
204
Video Surveillance Policy for the City of Saint John
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE .................................................................................................................... ............................... 3
2. POLICY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... ............................... 3
3. SCOPE .......................................................................................................................... ..............................3
4. POLICY CONTEXT ........................................................................................................ ............................... 3
5. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS
................................................................................. ............................... 4
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................... ............................... 5
7. COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................................... ..............................6
8. MONITOR AND REVIEW ............................................................................................. ............................... 6
9. IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................... ............................... 6
10. AUTHORIZATION .... ............................... .................................................. ............................... 6
11. GLOSSARY ..................................................... ........................ .............................. 6
12. INQUIRIES ................................................................................................................. ............................... 7
2
205
Video Surveillance Policy for the City of Saint John
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Video Surveillance Policy (the "Policy ") for The City of Saint John (the "City ") is to
ensure the proper conduct of video surveillance within spaces under City management, following public
sector best practices and compliance with applicable legislation including the Right to Information and
Protection of Personal Information Act (RTIPPA).
2. POLICY STATEMENT
Video surveillance, when utilized with other security measures, is an effective means of ensuring the
security and safety of City facilities, the individuals who use them, and the assets housed within them.
However, the need to ensure security and safety must be balanced with an individual's right to privacy.
Detailed requirements and responsibilities regarding the collection, notification, use, security and
retention of personal information can be located in related procedures.
3. SCOPE
This policy applies to all City facilities and to all employees, elected officials, patrons, visitors and tenants
of City facilities.
4. POLICY CONTEXT
The privacy principles applying to video surveillance include:
Accountability
The City is responsible for personal information under its control and has assigned ultimate
accountability for compliance to the Common Clerk by designating the Common Clerk "Head" for the
purposes of RTIPPA.
Identifying Purposes
The public will be informed of the purpose for the collection of personal information by surveillance
equipment.
Notification'
The public will be notified of the presence of video surveillance equipment. Signage as required under
RTIPPA will be posted in plain language.
Limiting Collection
Information collected will be limited to that which is necessary for the stated purpose. If possible,
collection will be restricted to the time in which suspect activities are most likely to occur.
1 While related to the consent principle of the Canadian Standards Association's Model Code for the Protection of Personal
Information, this notification principle is from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' Generally Accepted Privacy
Principles. This is a legislated requirement under RTIPPA.
3
206
Video Surveillance Policy for the City of Saint John
Limiting Use, Disclosure and Retention
Personal information will not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which the City
collected it, except with the consent of the individual or as required by the law. Personal information
will be retained only as long as necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes or as required by law.
Personal information will be securely disposed of in accordance with approved records retention
schedules, information disposal practices and all applicable information security policies and
procedures.
Accuracy
Accurate, complete and time stamped records and information will be maintained.
Safeguards
Security of City equipment and recorded information will be assured 'and only authorized employees will
be provided access to a tightly controlled video surveillance system. A combination of physical,
technological and organizational controls will be employed.
Openness
Information about the Policy and related procedures will be available to the public.
Individual Access
Individuals whose images are recorded will be able to request access to their recorded personal
information. All access requests will be directed to the Access & Privacy Officer.
Challenging Compliance
Video surveillance shall be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and individuals will be able
to challenge compliance.
S. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS
The City acknowledges the following laws that relate to records and information management:
• Charter of The City of Saint John, 1785 (U.K.) Geo. III as amended
• Archives Act, S.N.B. 1977, c.A -11.1 as amended
• Community Planning Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.0 -12 as amended
• Electronic Transactions Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.145 as amended
• Evidence Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c.E -11 as amended
• Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-12 as amended
• Official Languages Act, S.N.B. 2002, c.0.0.5 as amended
• Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, R.S.C. 2000, c.5 as amended
• Public Records Act, S.N.B. 2011, c.212 as amended
• Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B, 2009, c.R -10.6 as amended.
The City acknowledges the following standards, guidelines and best practices that relate to video
surveillance:
4
207
Video Surveillance Policy for the City of Saint John
• CAN /CSA -Q830 Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information
• CAN /CSA- PLUS -8300 Workbook on Applying the CSA Model Code
• CAN /CSA- PLUS -8830 Implementing Privacy Codes of Practice
• MC10 -2 - Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario - Privacy Complaint Report
• Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario - Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance
Cameras in Public Places
• Office for the Information and Privacy Commissioner of British Columbia - Public Surveillance
System Guidelines
• Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada - Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance of
Public Places by Police and Law Enforcement Authorities.
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The Common Clerk is accountable for the Policy and delegates the day to day administration and
implementation to the Access & Privacy Officer. Ultimate accountability for holding employees
responsible for complying with City policy rests jointly with the City Manager, City Solicitor and Common
Clerk.
The Access & Privacy Officer is responsible for overseeing the design, implementation, and maintenance
of the Policy; monitoring and compliance; conducting privacy impact assessments of existing or
proposed video surveillance systems; processing inquiries; investigating privacy complaints; and
authorizing employees who are permitted to operate the surveillance system.
The Corporate Records Manager, Access & Privacy Officer and the Manager of Information Technology
Systems are jointly responsible for identifying the personal information holdings within the City's
electronic information repositories. The Corporate Records Manager and Access & Privacy Officer are
responsible to ensure that personal information in any format is retained for a reasonable period of
time. The Corporate Records Manager is responsible for authorizing the secure disposition of personal
information according to the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the City's
Information Security Policy and procedures.
The Manager of Information Technology Systems is responsible for securely maintaining the City's
electronic information repositories, according to the City's Information Security Policy and procedures,
such that the integrity and authenticity of the City's information is assured.
Service Area Managers are responsible for determining the requirement for a video surveillance system
and are responsible for ensuring employees comply with the Policy, procedures and applicable
legislation. Program Area Commissioners provide management support and leadership.
City employees are responsible for following this Policy. Video surveillance systems, including any
components or records, may not be used without prior authorization. A City employee receiving an
inquiry from the public regarding the Video Surveillance Policy will direct the inquiry to the Access &
Privacy Officer.
G
1:
Video Surveillance Policy for the City of Saint John
7. COMPLIANCE
It is the Common Clerk's responsibility to ensure compliance with the Policy by requiring that employees
sign off on the Policy upon employment. Compliance will be monitored by the Access & Privacy Officer
with assistance from Program Area Commissioners, Service Area Managers, the Office of the Common
Clerk and the Office of the City Solicitor.
Violations or non - compliance with the Policy, regardless of size or scope, may carry potentially
significant consequences for the City. Violations may constitute theft, fraud, destruction or alterations
of corporate information; privacy breach; unauthorized disclosure of information assets; and /or loss of
intellectual property. Violations of the Policy will cause employee disciplinary action, up to and
including dismissal.
8. MONITOR AND REVIEW
The Policy is subject to review within two years from approval date. The review will be conducted by a
committee established by the Office of the Common Clerk. The committee may be comprised of a cross -
functional internal membership or an independent third party.
9. IMPLEMENTATION
The Policy will be implemented upon approval by Common Council.
10. AUTHORIZATION
This Policy has been approved by Common Council on Month # #, 2012.
11. GLOSSARY
Employee
An employee is an individual or corporation hired by the City to perform work under either a contract
for services or a contract of service.
Information
Data presented in readily comprehensible form to which meaning has been attributed within the
context of its use. Unless the context otherwise requires, this means information contained in a record.
Information Security
The protection of information and information systems from a wide range of risks including
unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction in order to provide
authenticity, integrity, confidentiality and availability.
6
209
Video Surveillance Policy for the City of Saint John
Personal Information
Recorded information about an identifiable individual, including but not limited to, (a) the individual's
name, (b) the individual's home address or electronic mail address or home telephone or facsimile
number, (c) information about the individual's age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status or family
status, (d) information about the individual's ancestry, race, colour, nationality or national or ethnic
origin, (e) information about the individual's religion or creed or religious belief, association or activity,
(f) personal health information about the individual, (g) the individual's blood type, fingerprints or other
hereditary characteristics, (h) information about the individual's political belief, association or activity,
(i) information about the individual's education, employment or occupation or educational,
employment or occupational history, (j) information about the individual's source of income or
financial circumstances, activities or history, (k) information about the individual's criminal history,
including regulatory offences, (1) the individual's own personal views or opinions, except if they are
about another person, (m) the views or opinions expressed about the individual by another person, and
(n) an identifying number, symbol or other particular assigned to the individual.
Privacy Breach
An unauthorized access to, or collection, use or rsc osure of personal infor i n.
Privacy Impact Assessment
A policy process for identifying, assessing and mitigating pr %y risks.
Record ftL
Recorded information, regardless of medium or characteristics, made or received by an organization
that is evidence of its operations, and has value requiring its retention for a specific period of time.
Records Retention and Disposition Schedule
A schedule which gives the City the authority to dispose of (transfer or destroy) records it no longer
requires. This schedule identXthe od of time that personal information in the custody of the City
is to be retained.
Video Surveillance System
Any system or device that enables continuous or periodic recording, observing or monitoring of facilities
and /or individuals.
12. INQUIRIES
For more information on the Policy, please contact the Access & Privacy Officer in the Office of the
Common Clerk.
7
210
INF4RMATI4W
MANAGEMENT
Information Governance Policy Suite
Endorsed by the Province
"We all commend you on developing these
documents and all noted that the documents
are well written and com pre hensive....They
may well become the model for other
municipalities in New Brunswick."
Provincial Archivist
211
INF4RMATI4W
MANAGEMENT
RTIPPA Policies
Endorsed by the Province
"I have reviewed the policies and find that they
are excellent....) would like.. to share them with
other municipalities who are looking at doing the
same thing. Also... permission to post them in the
"toolbox" a national resource for posting
resource materials, training videos, etc."
Chief Information Access and Privacy Officer
PA K,
INF4RMATI4W
MANAGEMENT
Framework
Polir;
Directives
Standa•ds
Gu CIC 105
Prrrpdurpq
213
INF4RMATI"
MANAGEMENT
GUIDELINES \
TBD
9 DIRECTIVES
7STANDARDS
a GUIDELINES
ECTIVES LFrameveork
/
Aeople Marwgeme
I r anwwor
=k
me
9
\DIRECTIVES
/1
2
STANDARDS
'�
2 GUIDELINES.
5
POLICIES
r� «nvu
E.y�Mlvrr
MY�iQOMrt
,
k
0
DIRECTIVES
0
",(we 2 TANDARDS'
Valu *s and Ethics )AsSMS ame —k OUCIES
Code for the Public
SsMq 0
GUIDELINES
i
i Bad 8
ices 5 DIRECTIVEewa POLICIES
Woomarron S
a I mancral STANDARDS
1"1010f1V FAanagenwm
Framework Ftanwwak
j \ 10
T 5 % GUIDELINES
POLICIES POLICIES
11
DIRECTIVES 26
GUIDELINES
19 12
STANDARDS 25 STANDARDS
GUIDELINES
22 DIRECTIVES
214
INFORMAT14N
MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK
INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
SHAREPOINT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
POLICIES
ACCESS POLICY
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT POLICY
INFORMATION SECURITY POLICY
PRIVACY POLICY
SHAREPOINT GOVERNANCE POLICY (IN PROGRESS)
SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY (IN PROGRESS)
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE POLICY
DIRECTIVES
STANDARDS
IMAGING REQUIREMENTS STANDARD (IN PROGRESS)
GUIDELINES
FORMS GUIDELINE PART 1: RTIPPA COMPLIANCE
FORMS GUIDELINE PART 2: IM COMPLIANCE
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
PROCEDURES
RTIPPA PROCEDURES TABLE 1- PROCESSING A RTIPPA REQUEST
RTIPPA PROCEDURES TABLE 2 - THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION
RTIPPA PROCEDURE TABLE 3 - REVIEW PROCESS - COMMISSIONER
RTIPPA PROCEDURE TABLE 4 - REVIEW PROCESS - COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
215
IFRMTI 4
MANAGEMENT
Information Governance Framework
• Scope change from RM to IM
— 7% - 9% of enterprise content is governed by the current
Records Management Policy
— the remaining 91% of the organization's information is in
need of governance
it
Y
hi1P:lJxnrti_vxrdle. neeU '. s: ,' ' �'
216
F
4
�-
4
n n n n IYnN
•'n n`Ti
.IP
'ni`.
it
Y
hi1P:lJxnrti_vxrdle. neeU '. s: ,' ' �'
216
MANAGEMENT
SharePoint 2010: Governance Framework
• SharePoint 2007
— Ungoverned & no "roll -out" strategy
— Everyone has full Administration Rights
— Not utilized as expected
• SharePoint 2010
— Governance applied (includes SPROG) Roll -out strategy
— Roles and Responsibilities assigned
— Mandatory participation
217
MANAGEMENT
IM Policy: Major revisions
• Records Management Policy, April 2008
— records only policy
— section 10. Legal Review
• Information Management Policy, August 2012
— records and information policy
— legal review requirement removed, following legal opinion
from Department of Justice
— mandatory "compliance" competency
218
I1F"R.I'vI.TI "
MANAGEMENT
I
I
I
IM Policy Compliance Competency
adheres to security policies
maintains confidentiality and protects business information
maintains required records
follows organizational policies
QK'
Declaring Electronic Records
LIS 1' Reiar,ra o Ce
File that Document!
- W s "my" document �' 1
This Is "too mvclh
7 #Lot� "Admin" do
P
"Filing a docume -nt Into a rECOFds repository Is an unnatural act"
INFORMATPPN
MANAGEMENT
RTIPPA Policies
• Access Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Video Surveillance Policy
• Information Security Policy
kwplwo
to40
Pa
of t
or
;abel
F � ividuz !
220
MANAGEMENT
Access Policy
• The
public's
current right
to information is extremely narrow
and
limited
to perhaps a
half dozen records
• There is a profound disconnect between the public's belief in
their right to know and government openness and
accountability
• The Access Policy is a high level strategic statement that
openness and transparency is a priority for the City .
221
MANAGEMENT
Privacy Policy
• The public has a high expectation for the protection of their
personal information
• Legal rights and privacy frameworks
• Information Privacy type
• The Privacy Policy is a high level strategic statement that
protecting personal information is a priority for the City.
222
I NFORMATI4N
MANAGEMENT Video Surveillance Policy
• Emerged as a result of initiatives taking place across the City
• Large number of current locations under surveillance with few
instances of proper notification to public
• The Video Surveillance Policy is a high level strategic
statement that the proper conduct of video surveillance
within spaces under City management is a priority for the City.
223
I F MAT I( IN'
MANAGEMENT
Information Security Policy
• Print and electronic
• Information and information systems
• information security breach and information privacy breach
• The Information Security Policy is a high level strategic
statement that the protection of information and information
systems is a priority for the City.
224
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
Discussion?
225
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2012 -214
August 17, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Follow -Up Respecting the 2012 Heritage Grant Program
"431 1
The city of Stunt jDhn
Attached, please find all of the reports that have been prepared respecting the disbursement of
funds available under the Heritage Grant Program. All of the background related to the issue is
provided in the attached report dated August 3, 2012. At the Common Council meeting on
August 13, 2012, Council expressed a desire to reconsider whether grant funding under the
Heritage Maintenance Grant program should be maintained.
Common Council essentially has the following options at its disposal:
1. That the Heritage Grant Policy be established in accordance with the Policy and funding
levels set out in correspondence from the City Manager to Common Council, dated the 3rd
day of August, 2012, with such amendments to take effect retroactively on January 1St,
2012 which maintains the Heritage Conservation Plan Grant, Conservation Development
Grant and Heritage Maintenance Grant programs.
2. That the Heritage Grant Policy be established in accordance with the Policy and funding
levels set out in correspondence from the City Manager to Common Council, dated the 26th
day of March, 2012, with such amendments to take effect retroactively on January 1St, 2012
which maintains the Heritage Conservation Plan Grant and Conservation Development
Grant programs but discontinues the Heritage Maintenance Grant program.
RECOMMENDATION
That Common Council adopt either the proposed Heritage Grants Policy identified in
correspondence from the City Manager to Common Council, dated the 26h day of March, 2012
226
M &C2012 -214
August 17, 2012
Page 2
or correspondence from the City Manager to Common Council, dated the 3'd day of August,
2012, with such amendments to take effect retroactively on January 1St, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
C � �
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner
Growth and Development Services
R `
J P trick Woods, CGA
Ci y Manager
227
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M & C 2012 -204
August 3, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: The 2012 Heritage Grant Program
BACKGROUND
[h
The City of Saint John
On February l" 2012, Common Council adopted the City's 2012 Operating Budget which
included fee increases for heritage applications and a reduced funding level for the Heritage
Grants program. The 2012 Operating Budget reduced the available grant funding from $200,000
to $100,000. Council sought the advice of staff and the Heritage Board on the implementation of
these reforms and on March 12, 2012 held the required public hearing to consider the proposed
fee increases.
In response to feedback received at the public hearing objecting to the impact of the fees on
smaller heritage maintenance projects, Council opted not to move forward with the heritage fee
increase. Council further decided to absorb the shortfall in anticipated revenue through a further
$10,000 reduction in the heritage grant program. This means that there is now only $90,000
available for the heritage grant program in 2012.
The City of Saint John administers three different grant programs in Heritage as follows:
1. Heritage Maintenance Grants: Small scale grants of 20% of eligible costs, up to a
maximum of $1,000 per year, are provided for routine maintenance or improvements
such as painting, repairs, and storefront signage. In 2011, 44 % of the total applications
processed under the program were maintenance grants accounting for about 11% of the
total grants budget.
2. Heritage Conservation Grants: Heritage conservation grants are provided which target
support for larger conservation projects which have a conservation plan in place (see `3'
228
M & C 2012 — 204
August 3, 2012
Page 2
below). In 2011, these applications represented about 44% of the total applications and
accounted for 83% for the total grants budget.
These grants provide funding at 20 to 40% of eligible costs, up to $10,000 (the 40%
funding ratio covers masonry and other structural work, as well as repairs to original
windows and doors).
3. Heritage Conservation Plan Grants: Grants are provided to offset the costs of retaining a
design professional to develop a Conservation Plan for designated heritage properties.
Conservation Plans are undertaken by a design professional (architect or engineer) and
provide guidance on how best to conserve a building by identifying and prioritizing
required heritage conservation work. Costs of having these plans prepared are funded at
50 %, up to an established maximum depending on the size and complexity of the
building. In 2011, these represented about 12% of the total number of applications and
6% of the grant funding.
For the past number of years, the annual grant budget of $200,000 has not been sufficient to fund
all requests for grant funding. The total grant envelope has been allocated on a first- come -first-
served basis, with funding usually fully committed by late summer /early fail.
At the March 26, 2012 meeting of Common Council, concern was expressed respecting the staff
recommendation to focus the significantly reduced grant funding on the more significant
conservation projects. Council expressed a desire to maintain some grant funding for the small
heritage maintenance projects. The following resolution was adopted:
"RESOLVED that the proposed 2012 Operating Budget Heritage Grant Reforms be
referred to the City Manager for a revised recommendation to include heritage
maintenance grants. "
On April 23, 2012, Common Council received correspondence from the Heritage Development
Board recommending that all of the grant programs be maintained but that the maximum ceilings
for grant funding be reduced to $5,000 for Heritage Conservation Grants and $500 for Heritage
Maintenance Grants. Council referred the correspondence from the Heritage Development
Board to the City Manager for a report and recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Based on the discussions held at Common Council in the spring and the conversations at the
Heritage Development Board (HDB), there appears to be a desire to maintain the three grant
programs despite there now being less than half of the funding that has been available annually
in recent years. To implement the will of Council and the HDB, the only way to achieve this is
to reduce the amount of money provided to each grant recipient. Even with the $200,000
envelope provided in years prior to 2012, grant funding has only been available on a first -come-
first - served basis as the envelope is not sufficient to provide money to all eligible property
229
M & C 2012 — 204
August 3, 2012
Page 3
owners. As of July 11, 2012, total requests for grant funding in all programs total $196,660
based on the existing criteria. As discussed previously, there is now only $90,000 in grant
funding available resulting in the need to make major changes to the funding caps and funding
ratios.
The following table provides the approach advocated by Council and the HDB and the resulting
scale and scope of the grant program for 2012.
Type of Grant
Current Funding Caps
Option Recommended by
HDB
Heritage
20% to maximum of $1,000 per year for
15% to $500 maximum
Maintenance
routine maintenance.
Grants
Heritage
20 to 40% up to a maximum of $10,000
15 to 25% to $5,000
Conservation
depending on the type of work.
maximum
Grants
Heritage
These costs are funded up to 50 % to an
50% to $1,000 maximum
Conservation
established maximum depending on the size
Plan Grants
and complexity of the project.
Under the criteria proposed by the Heritage Development Board, the total value of requests year
to date (to the end of July) totals $105,625. It is clear that program funding will not be adequate
to provide grant funding to all applicants. It is presumed that Common Council wants to
continue with the practice of providing grant funding on a first- come -first -served basis so those
who apply in the last half of 2012 will likely not receive any grant funding,
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are financial implications for grant recipients as a result of the grant policy adopted by
Common Council but the City's expenditure is capped at $90,000 for 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
Given the direction previously provided by Common Council, it would be appropriate for the
following resolutions to be adopted:
1. That the Heritage Grants Policy incorporate the following revisions to the Heritage Grants
program:
a. The maximum funding for preparation of a Conservation Plan by a design
professional be set at $1,000 at a funding ratio of 50 %;
230
M&C2012 -204
August 3, 2012
Page 3
owners. As of July 11, 2012, total requests for grant funding in all programs total $196,660
based on the existing criteria. As discussed previously, there is now only $90,000 in grant
funding available resulting in the need to make major changes to the funding caps and funding
ratios.
The following table provides the approach advocated by Council and the HDB and the resulting
scale and scope of the grant program for 2012.
Type of Grant
Current Funding Caps
Option Recommended by
HDB
Heritage
20% to maximum of $1,000 per year for
15% to $500 maximum
Maintenance
routine maintenance.
Grants
Heritage
20 to 40% up to a maximum of $10,000
15 to 25% to $5,000
Conservation
depending on the type of work.
maximum
Grants
Heritage
These costs are funded up to 50 % to an
50% to $1,000 maximum
Conservation
established maximum depending on the size
Plan Grants I
and complexity of the project.
Under the criteria proposed by the Heritage Development Board, the total value of requests year
to date (to the end of July) totals $105,625. It is clear that program funding will not be adequate
to provide grant funding to all applicants. It is presumed that Common Council wants to
continue with the practice of providing grant funding on a first- come -first -served basis so those
who apply in the last half of 2012 will likely not receive any grant funding.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are financial implications for grant recipients as a result of the grant policy adopted by
Common Council but the City's expenditure is capped at $90,000 for 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
Given the direction previously provided by Common Council, it would be appropriate for the
following resolutions to be adopted:
1. That the Heritage Grants Policy incorporate the following revisions to the Heritage Grants
program:
a. The maximum funding for preparation of a Conservation Plan by a design
professional be set at $1,000 at a funding ratio of 50 %;
231
M &C2012 -204
August 3, 2012
Page 4
b. The maximum Conservation Development Grant be set at $5,000 at a funding ratio
of 15% to 25% with 25% being reserved for masonry /structure repairs and repairs to
original windows /doors for projects that have a Conservation Plan in place;
C. That the maximum Heritage Maintenance Grant be set at $500 at a funding ratio of
15 %.
2. Common Council adopt the amended Heritage Grants Policy as set out in Appendix A to
correspondence from the City Manager to Common Council, dated the 3`d day of August,
2012, with such amendments to take effect retroactively on January 1 st, 2012; and
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MC1P, RPP
Commissioner
Growth and Development Services
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
232
M &C2012 -204
August 3, 2012
Page 5
Appendix A: Recommended Reforms to the Heritage Conservation
Grant Guidelines
Objectives: Grants for Heritage Conservation Pro ram
Primary:
To encourage retention of designated heritage buildings and their character - defining
elements, including their traditional materials and details;
To maximize conservation of the character defining elements of designated heritage
buildings using an approach of:
o understanding,
o documenting,
o planning (for proposed use) and then
o intervening;
Secondary:
• To create employment opportunities for the citizens of Saint John;
• To discourage demolition of designated heritage buildings;
• To reduce landfill and the impact on the environment by demonstrating that the
greenest building is one that already exists;
• To encourage owners to undertake necessary but costly major conservation
projects.
Categories of Grants
To be eligible for receipt of funds from the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program
the building must be in a Heritage Conservation Area designated by Common Council.
There are three categories of grants:
1) Heritage Conservation Plan Grant
50% of costs, up to $1000, for commercial or residential buildings to retain a
design professional to prepare a Conservation Plan for a building.
Z) Heritage Conservation Grant
• 15 -25% of eligible costs up to $5,000 per year, based on the amount spent on
conservation of character - defining elements on the exterior of a building
(excludes contemporary roof renovations and new infill construction); provided a
conservation plan is in place.
233
M & C 2012 — 204
August 3, 2012
Page 6
3) Heritage Maintenance Grant
• 15% of costs, up to $500 based on the amount spent on conservation of
character - defining elements on the exterior of a building (excludes contemporary
roof renovations and new infill construction).
Policies for Aauroval: Grants for Heritage Conservation Program
The Grants for Heritage Conservation Program is an incentive program designed to
encourage owners to meet the spirit and intent of the Saint John Heritage Conservation
Areas Bylaw, as expressed in the national Standards for Conservation of Historic Places
and Saint John's own series of Practical Conservation Guidelines. Heritage Grants are
not construction subsidies; they are intended to assist owners to retain traditional
materials and details of character - defining elements and, if necessary, replace them
with new components, matching the original materials and profiles:
1) A heritage grant will only be approved if:
• a Heritage Permit was approved before work started; and
• there are no outstanding violations and /or Building Permit warrants; and
A Heritage Conservation Grant will only be approved if a Conservation Plan for
the building has been prepared by a design professional.
2) A heritage grant will not be approved for work involving the use of contemporary
or alternate materials.
3) A heritage grant will only be released if:
• work is completed as indicated on the approved Heritage Permit;
• work is completed in a professional manner and shows good
craftsmanship and attention to detail.
4) A heritage grant will only be released following submission of:
o a request for payment;
o receipts or cancelled cheques; and
o confirmation by the owner and contractor that the work was completed in
accordance with the conditions of approval and as indicated on the
Heritage Permit.
5) Heritage grants are provided on a first- come - first- served basis based on available
funding.
234
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL,
M &C 2012- 66
March 26, 2012
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
& Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: 2012 Operating Budget Heritage Grant Reforms
BACKGROUND:
T
The City of Saint John
On February l" 2012, Common Council adopted the City's 2012 Operating Budget which
included fee increases for heritage applications and reductions in the Heritage Grants program.
Council sought the advice of staff and the Heritage Board on the implementation of these
reforms and on March 12, 2012 held the required public hearing to consider the proposed fee
increases.
In response to feedback received at the public hearing objecting to the impact of the fees on
smaller heritage maintenance projects, Council opted not to move forward with the heritage fee
increase. Council further decided to absorb the revenue shortfall through a $10,000 reduction in
the heritage grants.
The purpose of this report is to seek Common Council approval of the amendments to the City's
Heritage Grants Policy which will set Council direction on how these funds should be directed to
support the City's Heritage Conservation Program.
ANALYSIS:
As previously noted, the Heritage Conservation Program requires significant administrative
resources with more than 770 registered heritage properties in 11 designated heritage
conservations areas. The program involves a high level of technical and conservation based
expertise and review, involving staff and the Heritage Board. The ongoing Heritage Program
Review has identified concerns with the sustainability of the current levels of service with the
available resources. With a significant reduction in the funding for the Grants program
($110,000 less than in 2011), revisions to the Heritage Grants program must therefore address
both the administrative capacity of staff to deliver the program and ensure that projects which
235
receive municipal funding are strategic to supporting the objectives of the City's Heritage
Conservation Program.
Heritage Grants Program Reforms
The approved 2012 Operating Budget as amended by Council includes a reduction of $110,000
from the City's Heritage Grants Program, a reduction of more than half of the 2011 funding level
of $200,000.
Current State
The Heritage Grants program currently targets funding to support revitalization of heritage
conservation areas through three types of grants:
1. Heritage Maintenance Grants: Small scale grants of up 20% to maximum of $1,000 per
year are provided for routine maintenance improvements such as painting, repairs, and
storefront signage. In 2011, 44 % of the total applications processed under the program
were maintenance grants accounting for about 11 % of the total grants budget.
2. Heritage Conservation Grants: Heritage conservation grants are provided which target
support for larger conservation projects which have a conservation plan in place. In
2011, these applications represent about 44% of the total applications and account for
83% for the total grants budget. For conservation grants, there are two levels of support
provided depending on the nature of the project:
a. 20% of up to a maximum of $5,000 based on $25,000 spent (minor)
b. 40% of up to a maximum of $10,000 based on $25,000 spent for major projects
incorporating structures or openings or masonry work (major).
3. Heritage Consen�ation Plan Grants: Grants are provided to offset the costs of retaining a
design professional to develop a Conservation Plan for designated heritage properties.
Conservation Plans are undertaken by a design professional such as an architect or
engineer and identify a phasing plan to undertake required heritage conservation work.
These costs are funded up to 50 % to an established maximum depending on the nature of
the project (e.g. a higher maximum is set for commercial facades as compared to single
unit dwellings). In 2011, these represented about 12% of the total number of applications
and 6% of the grant funding.
For the past number of years, the annual grant budget of $200,000 has not been sufficient to fund
the number of requests for grant funding. The total grant envelope has been allocated on a first
come first serve basis, with funding usually fully committed by late summer /early fall.
Recommended Reforms
The delivery of a heritage grants program, although not mandated by the Provincial Heritage
Conservation Act, does underscore the City's commitment to its heritage program. These
municipal investments help sustain continued economic development and continue to provide a
unique identity for our city enhancing the quality of life enjoyed by our citizens. The $110,000
reduction in this year's heritage grant budget will require the implementation of a number of
reforms. These reforms are necessary to ensure that the grants program is targeted towards the
projects which maximize benefits for heritage conservation in Saint John, while continuing to
stimulate economic development and bolster the tax -base.
236
3
Heritage Conservation Grants
Heritage staff had proposed to that the program that supports major conservation projects should
be maintained to the maximum extent possible. Given the funding reduction, staff suggested that
the funding maximum of $10,000 be reduced to$7,500 per project in order to allow a greater
number of projects to be funded. In addition, staff recommended that certain projects be
removed from the eligibility list including roof projects and new (infill) construction, in favor of
projects focused on conservation of existing buildings. The HDB had a different view and has
taken the position that Conservation Grants should be reduced to a $5,000 maximum in order to
retain funds for Preservation (maintenance) projects.
Staff members are of the opinion that in the current economy, the focus needs to be to stimulate
larger conservation projects which produce bigger spin -offs. Reducing the level of funding may
make the difference between a project proceeding or remaining idle.
Heritage Conservation Plan Grants
Staff and Board Members agree that maintaining funding for Conservation Plans is essential to
ensuring sound conservation practices over the longer term. Staff members are comfortable with
the proposal by the Board to retain the funding ratio at 50% rather than reducing it to 35% as
originally proposed by staff. Staff and the Board agree that the maximum grant available should
be reduced to $1,000 so the funding ratio will not be particularly relevant.
Heritage Maintenance Grants
Staff had proposed to eliminate heritage maintenance grants of under $1,000 because these types
of grant applications consume a disproportionate share of the administration of the grants
program. Further, these routine improvements should occur as part of a regular maintenance
program that any property owner in any part of the City would be expected to undertake,
regardless of the building being in a heritage conservation area. Staff members agree with the
concept of "Conservation Through Continuous Care ". Experience has shown, however, that
retention of a $500 grant for small projects as proposed by the Board will not provide a sufficient
incentive for property owners to proceed (or not proceed) with these projects. The intent of the
grant program was not to be a construction subsidy but to act as an incentive to make it more
feasible for owners to retain the character defining elements of their building. Consequently,
staff continue to recommend that the reduced funds approved for 2012 are better invested in
large scale projects.
As previously noted, applications received to date already would commit a significant portion of
the 2012 funding envelope. Beginning in 2012, grant applications have been tabled by the
Heritage Board in anticipation of budget approval and revisions to the grant program guidelines.
Therefore, it is recommended that the new grant guidelines be made retroactive to January 1,
2012 so that they guide consideration of all applications for this year. Applications will continue
to be evaluated on a first come /first serve basis until the budget is committed. Going forward, it
is anticipated that it would be beneficial to implement a more competitive grant process which is
evaluated on a biannual basis to ensure the most worthy projects receive funding. This approach
should be linked with further changes in the heritage program which will reduce administration
for smaller and more routine applications.
237
M
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that:
1. Common Council adopt the amended Heritage Grants Policy as set out in
Appendix A to correspondence from the City Manager to Common Council,
dated the 26'x' day of March, 2012, with such amendment to take effect
retroactively on January 1St, 2012; and
2. That the Heritage Grants Policy incorporates that following revisions to the
Heritage Grants program:
a. The maximum funding for preparation of a Conservation Plan by a
design professional be set at $1,000 at a funding ratio of 50 %;
b. The maximum Conservation Development Grant be set at $7,500 at a
funding ratio of 20% for Projects that have a conservation plan in place;
c. That the Heritage Maintenance Grants be eliminated.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MC1P RPP
Commissioner
Planning and Development
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
attachments
238
E
Attachment A Recommended Reforms to the Heritage Conservation Grant Guidelines
Objectives: Grants for Heritage Conservation Program
Primary:
To encourage retention of designated heritage buildings and their character - defining
elements, including their traditional materials and details;
To maximize conservation of the character defining elements of designated heritage
buildings using an approach of:
o understanding,
o documenting,
o planning (for proposed use) and then
o intervening;
Secondary:
• To create employment opportunities for the citizens of Saint John;
• To discourage demolition of designated heritage buildings;
• To reduce landfill and the impact on the environment by demonstrating that the
greenest building is one that already exists;
• To encourage owners to undertake necessary but costly major conservation
projects.
Categories of Grants
To be eligible for receipt of funds from the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program
the building must be in a Heritage Conservation Area designated by Common Council.
There are two categories of grants:
1) Heritage Conservation Plan Grant
50% of costs up to $1000 for commercial or residential buildings to retain a
design professional to prepare a Conservation Plan for a building; and
2) Heritage Conservation Development Grant
• 20% of costs up to $7,500 per year, based on $37,500 or more spent on
conservation of character defining elements on the exterior of a building
(excludes contemporary roof renovations and new infill construction).
239
M
Policies for Approval: Grants for Heritage Conservation Program
The Grants for Heritage Conservation Program is an incentive program designed to
encourage owners to meet the spirit and intent of the Saintlohn Heritage Conservation
Areas Bylaw, as expressed in the national Standards for Conservation of Historic Places
and Saint John's own series of Practical Conservation Guidelines Heritage Grants are
not construction subsidies; they are intended to assist owners to retain traditional
materials and details of character defining elements and, if necessary, replace them
with new to match the original materials and profiles:
1) A Heritage Conservation Development Grant will only be approved if:
• a Heritage Permit was approved before work started;
• there are no outstanding violations and /or Building Permit warrants;
• a Conservation Plan for the building has been prepared by a design
professional;
2) A Heritage Conservation Development Grant will not be approved for work
involving the use of contemporary or alternate materials;
3) A Heritage Conservation Development Grant will only be released if:
o work is completed as indicated on the approved Heritage Permit;
o work is completed in a professional manner and shows good
craftsmanship and attention to detail; and
4) A Heritage Conservation Development Grant will only be released following
submission of:
o a request for payment;
o receipts or cancelled cheques; and
o confirmation by the owner and contractor that the work was completed in
accordance with the conditions of approval and as indicated on the
Heritage Permit.
240
E.EPORI TO COMMON COUNCIL
March 81", 2012
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Amendments to Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law - Fees
IM
City of Saint John
Members of the Heritage Development Board reviewed the proposed amendments
to the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law to add a new Section 18 to provide
for charging of fees and to define a schedule of fees for various Heritage services
provided by the City of Saint John. As requested by Common Council, the Board
offers the following comments for consideration.
During the recent Heritage Service Review completed internally, a number of
communities across Canada were contacted regarding the operation of their
heritage program. In particular, we were interested to determine how they dealt
with similar challenges faced by Saint John. At that time, none of these
communities levied a user (application) fee for heritage conservation projects.
This was not considered best practice and, as such, cannot be recommended by
the Board. Members are concerned that property owners will avoid the
application process as a result of the proposed fee. This has the potential to
undermine the ability of heritage staff and the Board to continue to build on the
good will that currently exists with property owners in our heritage communities.
Of particular concern, are the smaller maintenance projects which contribute to
the life of the building and the visual appeal of our heritage neighborhoods. The
Board noted that an across - the -board permit fee of $100 could exceed the cost of
a small project and generally, could represent an inequitable percentage of the
cost of any project under several thousand dollars. In these cases, the concern is
that the application fee would be a deterrent to follow the legitimate approval
process which would guarantee access to heritage staff expertise and ensure the
best practice for the conservation of the building.
However, the Board does recognize the City's need to identify sources of revenue
generation. If Council feels it is prudent to collect a heritage permit. fee, the
Board offers the following alternative:
Establish a sliding scale offees such that the fee for smaller Preservation
(maintenance) projects with an estimated construction value of less than
$5, 000 is set at $25. As such property owners embarking on larger
Conservation (rehabilitation) projects would be charged an additional $10 /
$1, 000 of construction value above $5, 000.
241
-2-
Based on the numbers of applications received and values of projects completed
annually over each of the past five years the Board believes this would be a more
efficacious way to generate the desired $10,000 in fees.
Recognizing that the smaller projects consume a larger portion of staff resources
than is desirable, the Board has been working towards streamlining the
application process by transferring approval of routine applications to staff. It is
anticipated that this amended process will reduce both approval and staff time.
The goal is to introduce this new streamlined process prior to this construction
season. As such, we hope a better balance between revenue and staff resources
will be achieved, while continuing to offer an essential quality service.
RECOMMENDATION:
Members of the Board have also had an extensive discussion on how to maximize
the impact of the budget approved by Council for the Grants for Heritage
Conservation Program. In response to recommendations provided by staff the
Board offers the following comments:
1. As indicated by staff the funds to prepare a Conservation Plan by a
registered design professional are seen by Board members as the most
valuable use of funds to ensure owner "buy -in" as a steward of their
heritage asset. The Board is also in agreement with reducing the
maximum amount available from $1,750 to $1,000 but would prefer that
the current funding ratio of up to 50% remain in place, rather than
reducing it to 35 %.
2. When considering the approach for small projects, members of the Board
concluded that rather than completely eliminate the grant available for
small Preservation (maintenance) projects, retention of even a small
amount would offer a greater benefit and help ensure adherence to the
heritage program. Therefore, the Board recommends retaining an amount
of $500, which is a reduction from the current $1,000.
In order to retain funding for smaller Preservation (maintenance) projects,
the Board proposes to reduce the maximum grant available for the larger
Conservation (rehabilitation) projects which have a Conservation Plan in
place. The current staff recommendation is $7,500. We propose this be
reduced to $5,000. It is felt that, although smaller, this amount will still
provide an incentive to owners and developers to undertake larger
projects.
e pectfully submitted,
L o a Laracey, Chair
ritage Development Board
242
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C- 2012 -32
February 13, 2012
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
& Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: Implementation of 2012 Operating Budget Heritage Reforms
BACKGROUND:
MI
City of Saint john
On February 1" 2012, Common Council adopted the City's 2012 operating budget
which featured a variety of service reductions as well as measures to increase
revenues through increased user and application fees. For the City's Heritage
Service, the budget included fee increases for heritage applications and reductions
in the grants for Heritage Conservation.
Amendments to the Heritage Conservation Bylaw are required to fully implement
the changes contained in the budget. This process requires Council to seek the
advice of its Heritage Development Board and also hold a public hearing before
the fee changes can take effect. The hearing date to consider the Bylaw changes
is proposed for the March 12, 2012 Common Council meeting.
The purpose of this report is to provide Common Council with the required
amendments to the Heritage Bylaw.
ANALYSIS:
New Heritage Fee Schedule
Current State
The administration of Saint John's Heritage Conservation Program requires
significant resources with more than 770 registered heritage properties in 11
designated heritage conservations areas. The program involves a high level of
technical review, involving staff and the Heritage Development Board. An
ongoing Heritage Program Review has identified concerns with sustaining the
current levels of service with the available resources. The introduction of heritage
fees will help offset these administrative costs.
243
M &C- 2012 -32 -2.
The recently adopted N.B. Heritage Conservation Act, now require that fees be
included in a Municipal Heritage By -law.
Recommended Reforms
Heritage staff are recommending that a $100 fee be established for heritage
permits and a new fee of $100 be introduced for letters confirming properties are
located in a designated heritage area_ Assuming the current level of applications
continue the potential exists to generate at least $10,000 in new revenue per
calendar year.
Reforms in the Grants Program for Heritage Conservation
The approved 2012 Operating Budget includes a reduction of $100,000 from the
City's Heritage Grants Program, a 50% reduction from its 2011 level of $200,000.
Current State
The Grants Program for Heritage Conservation currently provides incentives to
encourage development of heritage conservation areas through three types of
grants:
1. Heritage Maintenance Grants: Small scale grants of up 20% to maximum
of $1000 per year are provided for routine maintenance improvements
such as painting, repairs, and storefront signage. In 2011, 44 % of the
total applications processed under the program were maintenance grants
accounting for about 11 % of the total grant program budget.
2. Heritage Conservation Grants: Heritage conservation grants target
support for larger conservation projects which have a conservation plan in
place. In 2011, these applications represent about 44% of the total
applications and account for 83% of the total grants budget. For
conservation grants, there are two levels of support provided depending on
the nature of the project:
a. 20% of up to a maximum of $5,000 for minor conservation work;
b. 40% of up to a maximum of $10,000 for major projects
incorporating structural openings or masonry work (major).
3. Heritage Conservation Plan Grants: Grants are provided to offset the
costs of retaining a design professional to develop a Conservation Plan for
designated heritage properties. Conservation Plans are undertaken by a
design professional such as an architect or engineer and identify a phased
plan to undertake required heritage consen ation work. These costs are
funded of up to a 50 % to an established maximum depending on the
nature of the project (e.g. a greater maximum is set for commercial
facades as compared to single unit dwellings). In 2011, these represented
244
February 13, 2012
M & C —2012 —32 - 3 - February 13, 2012
about 12% of the total number of applications and 6% of the grant
funding.
For the past number of years the annual grant budget of $200,000 has not been
sufficient to fund the number of requests for grant funding; the total grant
envelope is allocated on a first come -first serve basis, with funding usually fully
committed by late summer / early fall.
Recommended Reforms
Although not mandated by the N.B. Heritage Conservation Act, the delivery of a
heritage grants program helps sustain continued economic development and helps
to make Saint John a more liveable community. The funds invested by the City in
heritage conservation leverage significant private sector investment and generate
economic development. Therefore, the ($100,000) reduction in this year's
heritage grant budget will require a number program reforms to ensure that the
heritage grants program is targeted towards the projects which maximize benefits
for heritage conservation in Saint John, while continuing to stimulate economic
development.
The following changes are recommended by Heritage Staff
1. Target the Grants for Heritage Conservation towards major conservation
projects which provide the greatest public benefit to conserving the City's
heritage assets. Major improvement projects leverage significant
investment in heritage resources that wouldn't otherwise occur without
municipal investment and provide the greatest opportunity to ensure
ongoing stewardship of heritage assets. These applications will continue
to require the preparation of a conservation plan. The amounts eligible for
major conservation projects will be reduced to allow a greater number of
projects to be funded with the reduced program envelope (proposed 20%
funding to a maximum of $7500). Also changes are recommended to
remove eligibility for certain improvements such as new infill
construction, to target program efforts towards heritage conservation.
2. Maintain funding for Conservation Plans which are an important tool to
ensure sound conservation practices over the longer term. In order to
address the smaller program funding envelope, minor adjustments are
recommended to the grant criteria to reduce eligible funding amounts from
50% to 35% funding and lower the maximum grant to $1000.
3. Eliminate heritage maintenance grants of under $1000. These types of
applications consume a disproportionate share of the administrative
resources of the grants program for routine improvements which should
occur as part of a regular maintenance program. These applications
representing on average about 44% of applications but only account for
11 % of the funding. Experience has shown that these projects are often
deferred and many are not dependent on the grant. Given the level of
245
M & C-2012-32 - 4 - February 13, 20I2
improvement (average payouts are just over $700), reduction of the
funding for these types of projects can be rationalized on the basis of their
limited degree of impact on the heritage conservation program.
The proposed Policies, Objectives, and Eligibility Criteria of the Grants for
Heritage Conservation Program are attached which detail the proposed changes.
It is recommended that before Council adopts the amended Grant Guidelines, it
seek the input of the Heritage Development Board who are actively involved in
the review and approval of heritage grants. The Heritage Development Board
would be requested to provide its feedback on the changes prior to Council's
approval.
Beginning in January 2012, all grants applications received by the Heritage
Development Board were approved conditional on the budget being approved by
Council. Applications received to date represent a significant portion of the
$100,000 budget established for the grants program (about 60 %), therefore, it is
recommended that the new grant guidelines be made effective for the 2012 budget
year and guide consideration of all applications for this year. Applications will
continue to be evaluated on a first come -first serve basis until the budget is
committed. Going forward, it is anticipated that it would be beneficial to
implement a more competitive grant process which is evaluated on a semi - annual
basis to ensure the most worthy projects receive funding. This approach should
be linked with further changes in the heritage program which will reduce
administration for smaller more routine applications.
Attachments
A. Proposed Amendments to the Heritage Bylaw to Implement New Heritage
Fee Schedule
B. Proposed Changes to the Policies, Objectives, and Eligibility Criteria of
the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Common Council:
1. Give notice of its intention to consider adoption of proposed
amendments to the Heritage By -law as contained in Appendix A to
incorporate a new fee structure for heritage applications at a public
hearing to be held on March 12 2012 at 7:00pm in the Council
Chamber;
2. Refer the proposed bylaw amendments to the Heritage Development
Board for advice to Council prior to first and second reading;
246
M & C --- 2012 -- 32 5- February 13, 2012
3. Refer recommended 2012 Grants for Heritage Conservation Program
to the Heritage Development Board for review and input prior to
Council approval of the proposed reforms.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MCIP RPP
Commissioner
Planning and Development
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
JH
247 ,;
M & C — 2012 — 32 - 6- February 13, 2012
Attachment A: Proposed Amendments to the Heritage Bylaw to Implement a
New Heritage Fee Schedule
A LAW TO AMEND THE SAINT JOHN HERITAGE CONSERVATION
AREAS BY -LAW HC -01
Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as
follows:
The Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law (HC -1) enacted on the 9th
day of October, A.D. 2007, is amended by:
Adding the following as a new Section 18
"A person who seeks a Heritage Permit [Certificate of Appropriateness] in
accordance with this By -Law pursuant to the Municipal Heritage Conservation
Act (M -21.1) shall
(1) Submit to the Heritage Officer:
a) A complete application signed by the owner; and
b) At the time of the request, a fee of $100 payable to the City of Saint
John;
(2) Fees for Heritage Conservation service shall be:
a) 5100 for an application for a Heritage Permit;
b) $100 for providing a letter of confirmation that a property
i. is / is not in a Heritage Conservation Area; or
ii. there are / are not violation(s) of the Heritage Conservation
Areas By -Law against the property."
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 _ th day of
March, A.D. 2012 and signed by:
Mayor
Common Clerk
248
M & C-2012-32 7 - February 13, 2012
Attachment B: Recommended Reforms to the Grants for Heritage
Conservation Program
Obiectives: Grants for Heritage Conservation Program
Primary:
• To encourage retention of designated heritage buildings and their character -
defining elements, including their traditional materials and details;
• To maximize conservation of the character defining elements of designated
heritage buildings using an approach of: understanding, documenting,
planning (for proposed use) and then intervening;
Secondary:
• To create employment opportunities for the citizens of Saint John;
• To discourage demolition of designated heritage buildings;
• To reduce landfill and the impact on the environment by demonstrating that
the greenest building is one that already exists;
• To encourage owners to undertake necessary but costly major conservation
projects.
Categories of Grants
To be eligible for receipt of funds from the Grants,for Heritage Conservation
Program the building must be in a Heritage Conservation Area designated by
Common Council. There are two categories of grants:
1) Heritage Conservation Plan Grant
• 35% of costs up to $1,000 for commercial or residential buildings to retain
a design professional to prepare a Conservation Plan for a building; and
2) Heritage Conservation Development Grant
• 20% of costs up to $7,500 per year, based on $37,500 or more spent on
conservation of character defining elements and replacement in -kind when
necessary, (based on an analysis of condition) of elements and details on
the exterior of a building.
249
M & C— 2012 —32 - 8 - February 13, 2012
Policies for Approval: Grants for Heritaze Conservation Program
The Grants for Heritage Conservation Pro ram is an incentive program designed
to encourage owners to meet the spirit and intent of the Saint John Heritage
Conservation Areas Bylaw, as expressed in the national Standards for
Conservation of Historic Places and Saint John's own series of Practical
Conservation Guidelines.
Heritage Grants are not construction subsidies; they are intended to assist owners
to retain traditional materials and details of character- defining elements and, if
necessary, replace them with new elements matching the original materials and
profiles:
1) A Heritage Conservation Development Grant will only be approved if-
a) a Conservation Plan for the building has been prepared by a design
professional;
b) a Heritage Permit was approved before work started;
c) the work is completed as indicated on the approved Heritage Permit;
d) the work is completed in a professional manner and shows good
craftsmanship and attention to detail;
e) there are no outstanding violations and /or Building Permit warrants;
2) A Heritage Conservation Development Grant will only be released
following submission of:
a) a request for payment;
b) receipts or cancelled cheques; and
c) confirmation by the owner and contractor that the work was completed
in accordance with the conditions of approval and as indicated on the
Heritage Permit;
3) The following work is not eligible for funding under the Grants for
Heritage Conservation Program:
a) work involving the use of contemporary or alternate materials;
b) work on flat roof membranes including galvanized and pre - painted
flashings [note: work on portions of roof beyond a 45 degree angle
relative to the facades of the building will be considered as a wall and
will be eligible for funding, provided that copper, slate or wood
shingles are utilized;
c) new (infill) construction projects [note: additions to existing buildings
evaluated under Section 8 of the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law
are eligible for funding.
250 1
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
E13-
M &C2012 -215
The City of Saint john
August 20, 2012
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Peel Plaza — Plaza Tender
The overall Peel Plaza Capital Budget contained funding for the construction of a Public Plaza.
This tender provides for the construction of the primary entrance to the Police Headquarters, the
Arts Centre, and the Provincial Law Courts. Additionally, landscaped public spaces will be
created in the general area bordering the new Arts Centre and the new buildings.
The work generally consists of the supply of all necessary labour, materials and equipment for
the construction of the plaza, which includes entrances to the buildings, a public plaza, sidewalks
and landscaping.
Tenders closed on 15 August, 2012, with the following results:
1. Bird Construction Group $1,797,000
2. Maxim 2000 Inc. $1,874,000
3. Avondale Construction Ltd. $2,027,327
4. Pomerleau Inc. $2,315,000
Prices tendered include taxes.
The Project Manager's estimate for the work was $1,800,000.
The tenders were reviewed by Staff and all tenders were found to be formal and complete. 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.
This work, if awarded by Council, will be charged against the General Fund Capital Program.
251
M &C2012 -215
August 20, 2012
Page 2
ANALYSIS
The following analysis is provided:
Budget Amounts:
City Contribution
Provincial Contribution
Total
Budget
Less Engineering & Project Management
Less Tender Amount
Less 12% Contingency
Budget Surplus
OVC", IORV11
$ 2,000,000
(up to)
500,000
Lump Sum
2,500,000
Total Budget
2,500,000
200,000
1,797,000
215,640
$ <287,360>
As Council is well aware, there has been considerable discussion over the past 2 %2 years around
the affordability of the Peel Plaza project. Notwithstanding budgeted allocations, Council has
made it clear that the construction of the last remaining component, the Plaza, must not only
provide value for money, but be affordable within the context of the City's available finances.
These considerations are balanced with the public expectation that the Plaza will be completed in
a professional and utilitarian manner.
In March of 2012, Council instructed staff to call for tenders for the Plaza. The tender
documents /specifications were developed with the consensus of the Peel Plaza Steering
Committee. Unfortunately, the results of that tender call exceeded the financial budget provided,
and as a result, Council opted to not award the first tender. Staff was instructed to "scale back"
the extent of the plaza finishings while still respecting the conceptual design as envisaged by the
subcommittee.
In response, staff issued a much revised tender which has resulted in bids being reduced by
approximately $1.1 Million. This reduced scale meets the expectations of the Steering
Committee and was approved by Council prior to the tender being called. This project will
complete the essential elements, be aesthetically pleasing, be functional and will allow for future
improvements /embellishments if and when deemed appropriate and affordable. Coincident with
this tender is Council's directive to invite the public to make recognized donations, over time, to
accent the project.
Timing is critical. Substantial completion of the three new buildings is predicted to occur over
the next 2 months. The building owners will then begin occupancy. The entrances to these
buildings are an essential component of occupancy.
252
M &C2012 -215
August 20, 2012
Page 3
If this tender is awarded, it is anticipated that construction will begin in September with
substantial completion/performance by the end of November. Final completion will be late
spring of 2013.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Contract 2012- 081802T: Public Plaza, be awarded to the low tenderer
Bird Construction Group, at the tendered price of $1,797,000, and further, that the Mayor and
Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
Respectfully submitted,
4�
Wm. Edwards, P. Eng.
Project Manager
Peel Plaza
253
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
SAINT JOHN
SAINT JOHN TRANSIT COMMISSION
55 MCDONALD STREET / 55 RUE MCDONALD
SAINT JOHN, N.B. CANADA / SAINT JOHN, (N. -B.) CANADA
E2J OC7
Your Worship Mel K Norton
And members of Common Council
City of Saint John
PO Box 1971
Saint John, N.B. E21- 41-1
Dear mayor Norton and Councillors:
TRANSIT INFORMATION
(506) 658 -4700
www.thinktransit.com
GENERAL OFFICES (506) 658 -4710
FAX (506) 658 -4704
At the Saint John Transit Commission meeting of July 25, 2012, the Commission
reviewed the following motion:
"Resolved that Saint John Common Council request the Saint John Transit
Commission to investigate revenue generating routes to Sussex potash
mines and Point Lepreau generating station to transport workers from
Grand Bay Westfield, Saint John, Rothesay, Quipamsis and Hampton to the
Sussex mines and reverse route to Point Lepreau. Further to this, may
council request that the transit commission closely inspect the Cruise
ship Passenger business, in an effort to gain some business in tourism.
Additionally discussions could be held with the new District Education
Council for transporting students throughout the new Southern New
Brunswick Anglophone School District in an effort to increase revenues. By
generating more revenue at peak and preferred times there would be more
funds to restore and improve service during low traffic times."
254
Common Council should first be aware that Saint John Transit does not have the
operating authority to provide scheduled bus service outside of the City of Saint
John under the provincial Motor Carrier Act, an act administered by the Energy
and Utilities Board. That being said, the Commission could make application to
the Energy and Utilities Board for such operating authority and might be
successful as was the case for the introduction of the current Comex service.
We do have a charter licence under the Motor carrier Act to operate outside the
City boundaries and it was under this operating authority that Saint John Transit
provided a regular bus service from the City to Point Lepreau for an eighteen
month period under a contract with Atomic Energy of Canada. Under this
arrangement, AEC paid Saint John Transit the full cost of the charter service and
passengers were entitled to use the service free of charge. Unfortunately, the
service was not well used and last year AEC discontinued this contract with the
Commission.
With regards to the Sussex potash mines, Saint John Transit did tender on a
charter contract with the mine owners to provide a service from the City to the
mines and return. We were unsuccessful in our tender and the business was
awarded to a bus firm out of Sussex called Optimum Ride. It is my understanding
that the service is again free to the passengers and I believe that it is being well
used as evidenced by the number of cars parking at the departure point in the
City.
Given the above two scenarios, the Commission feels that a bus service that
would charge a fare would not be successful. Saint John Transit would need to
charge at least $16.50 return for the Sussex run and would need at least 30
passengers to break even. The run to Point Lepreau would need at least 30
passengers paying $13.50 return to break even.
With regards to the Cruise ship passengers, Saint John Transit currently
successfully operates a City tour with two different departure times on Cruise ship
255
days. We normally carry in excess of 60 passengers in total on these days and
generate in excess of $1,200.00 each Cruise ship day.
We have been meeting with the District School Board for the past several weeks
with regards to the transportation of high school students under contract for the
next school year. Last school year we transported about 1,000 high school
students under contract with the school board on school days on our regular
scheduled service. As a result of the council motion, at our last meeting with the
school board, we inquired about the possibility of high school students using our
ComeX service from the outlying areas to City schools and were advised that for
the next year the school board would not be offering transportation rights to
students from the outlying areas wishing to attend City of Saint John high schools.
Such students will be required to make their own arrangements as has always
been the case. It was suggested that this policy may be reviewed in the future,
but there will be no changes at this time.
Saint John Transit will continue to look for opportunities to generate new
revenues and we appreciate any suggestions from Common Council for our
consideration.
Yours truly,
Chris Titus
Chairman
256
044 llk
3+k
��r -,
7+�2, L Lk L-
D,
x0
12- 01-2--
ll� ez-
JA-e��
—tit�ci
)" J-411�
U
0
��1yu.c�c
r-r�-
`4ef ice (,t/
otz-n
G�'rr/YYLP�LU
258 c,�rzt