Loading...
2014-03-31_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourr. City of Saint John Common Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, March 31, 2014 6:00 pm Council Chamber Please use Chipman Hill entrance S'il vous plait utiliser 1'entree Chipman Hill Si vous avez besoin des services en francais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal au 658 -2862. Pages 1. Call to Order - Prayer 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of Common Council Meeting of March 10, 2014 2 - 4 2.2 Minutes of Common Council Meeting of March 18, 2014 5-12 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 FCM reply re Canada Post Changes (Recommendation: Receive for 13-16 Information) 5.2 Public Information Session - Douglas Ave (Bentley St. to Clarendon St. 17-19 (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 5.3 FCM Meeting March 3 -8, 2014 (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 20-47 5.4 Proposed Public Hearing Date -368 Rothesay Ave, 11 Pickard St, 3636 48-49 Westfield Rd. (Recommendation in Report) 5.5 Engineering Services - Hickey Road, Colpitts Avenue and MRG Station "X" SLS 50-53 upgrades (Recommendation in Report) 5.6 Public Information - Session Millidgeville Stormwater Detention 54-56 Pond (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 1 Powered By: : 7CfllL7`y 1 5.7 2014 Debenture Issue (Recommendation in Report) 57-59 5.8 Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility - Energy Management Program 60-62 (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 5.9 Fluoride Correspondence (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 5.9.1 NB Dental Society 63-63 5.9.2 Horizon Health - C. O'Brien, MD 64-64 5.9.3 Y. Parent, P. Eng 65-77 5.9.4 Horizon Health - J. Doman, MD 78-78 5.10 Presentation - Uptown Saint John (Recommendation refer to Clerk to 79-79 Schedule) 5.11 Ltr. to Council re 2014 PAC Executive (Recommendation: Receive for 80-80 Information) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 7.1 Canadian Oncology Nursing Day- April 1 81 -81 7.2 National Volunteer Week- April 6- April 12 82-82 7.3 Day to Recognize the 110th Anniversary of 2 Squadron, 37 Signal Regiment- 83-83 March 31 7.4 Daffodil Month- April 84-85 8. Delegations / Presentations 9. Public Hearings 10. Consideration of By -laws 10.1 By -Law Amend Respecting Traffic on Streets 86-89 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Replacement Fleet Policy (Councillor McAlary) 90-90 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 Engagement and Development Plan for the Enhancement of Economic 91 -102 Development Criteria within the Evaluation of the City of Saint John's Capital Priorities 1 13 14 15 16 17 12.2 Use of City Water and Sewerage Lines 103-107 12.3 Improvements to the Heritage Grant Program- Phase One 108-180 12.4 City Participation in FCM 181 -183 12.5 Snow Blower Purchase 184-185 Committee Reports Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda General Correspondence 15.1 Letter from Mr. Hamm: Suggestion to Increase Residential Development 186-188 15.2 Cherry Brook Zoo Request (Tabled Feb 17, 2014) 189-189 Supplemental Agenda 16.1 Saint John City Market - Assignment of Lease of Space Stall "D -1" 190-197 Committee of the Whole 17.1 Legal Advisor's Contract - Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project 198-198 17.2 Amendment to the Settlement Agreement between The City of Saint John and 199-204 Pomerleau Inc. relating to the Police Headquarters 18. Adjournment 3 City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday March 31, 2014 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 du greffier communal 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 subsection 10.2(4) of the Municipalities Act and Council / Committee will make a decision(s) in that respect in Open Session: 4:30 p.m. 8t" Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Approval of Minutes 1.2 Approval of Minutes 1.3 10.2(4)(c) —Financial Matter 1.4 10.2(4)0) — Labour Matter 1.5 10.2(4)(b) - Nominating Committee 1.6 10.2(4)(c) —Financial Matter The City of Saint John S6ance du conseil communal Le lundi 31 mars 2014 18 h Salle du conseil Comit6 plenier 1. Ouverture de la seance Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union du conseil communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal au 658 -2862. Chacun des points suivants, en totalit6 on 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 decisions a cet 6gard au cours de la seance publique 16 h 30 — Salle de conference, 8e 6tage, h6tel de ville 1.1 Approbation du proces- verbal — alin6a 10.2(4)b) 1.2 Approbation du proces- verbal — alin6a 10.2(4)b) 1.3 Question financiere — alin6a 10.2(4)c) 1.4 Question relative au personnel — alin&a 10.2(4)j) 1.5 Comit6 des candidatures — alin6a 10.2(4)b) 1.6 Question financi6re — alin6a 10.2(4)c) S6ance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 2.1 Proces- verbal de la r6union du conseil communal tenue le 10 mars 2014 2.2 Proces- verbal de la r6union du conseil communal tenue le 18 mars 2014 3. Adoption de 11ordre du jour 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Questions soumises a Papprobation du conseil 5.1 R6ponse de la Hd6ration canadienne des municipalit6s au sujet des changements a Postes Canada (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.2 S6ance informative publique — Avenue Douglas, de la rue Bentley a la rue Clarendon (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.3 R6union de la 176d6ration canadienne des municipalit6s du 3 au 8 mars 2014 (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.4 Date propos6e pour la tenue d'une audience publique concernant le 368, avenue Rothesay, le 11, rue Pickard et le 3636, chemin Westfield (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.5 Services d'ing6nierie — Travaux d'am6lioration des stations de relevement des eaux us6es du chemin Hickey et de l'avenue Colpitts et de la station de relevement des eaux us6es « X » de Milford - Randolph - Greendale (MRG) (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.6 S6ance informative publique — Bassin de retenue des eaux pluviales de Millidgeville (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.7 Emission d'obligations de 2014 (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.8 Installation de traitement des eaux us6es de Lancaster — Programme de gestion de 1'&nergie (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.9 Correspondance au sujet de la fluoration ( recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.9.1 Soci6t& dentaire du Nouveau - Brunswick 5.9.2 R6seau de Sant& Horizon — C. O'Brien, MD 5.9.3 Y. Parent, Ing. 5.9.4 R6seau de sant6 Horizon — J. Doman, MD 5.10 Pr6sentation — Uptown Saint John (recommandation : transmettre au greffier pour qu'une date de pr6sentation soit fix6e) 5.11 Lettre au conseil concernant la direction du CCU pour 2014 (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 7.1 Journ6e annuelle des soins infirmiers en oncologie du Canada le la avril 7.2 Semaine de faction b6n6vole, du 6 au 12 avril 7.3 Joum&e visant a souligner le 110' anniversaire du 2' escadron du 37' R6giment des Transmissions — le 31 mars 7.4 Mois de la jonquille — Avril 2014 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques 10. Etude des arrWs municipaux 10.1 Troisi &me lecture de la modification de 1'Arr6t& relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Politique de remplacement de la flotte (conseiNre McAlary) 12. Affaires municipales 6voqu6es par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Plan de mobilisation et de d&veloppement pour 1'am &lioration des critBeres de developpement 6conomique dans le cadre de Nvaluation des priorit6s de The City of Saint John en mati &re d'immobilisations 12.2 Utilisation des canalisations d'eau et d' &gouts de la Ville 12.3 Ameliorations apport&es au programme de subventions au patrimoine — Phase 1 12.4 Engagement de la Ville aupr &s de la Federation canadienne des municipalit6s 12.5 Achat d'une souffleuse a neige 13. Rapports d6pos6s par les comit6s 14. Etude des sujets 6cart6s des questions soumises a Papprobation du conseil 15. Correspondance g6n6rale 15.1 Lettre de M. Hamm: Suggestion visant a accroi"lre 1'am &nagement r&sidentiel 15.2 Demande du zoo Cherry Brook (point report& lors de la s6ance du 17 f&vrier 2014) 16. Ordre du jour suppl6mentaire 16.1 March& municipal de The City of Saint John — Cession de bail relativement a Ntal n° « D -1 » 17. Comit6 pl6nier 17.1 Contrat du conseiller juridique — Projet sur la salubrit6 et la propret6 de 1eau potable 17.2 Modification a 1'entente de r&glement entre The City of Saint John et Pomerleau Inc. concernant le quartier g &n&ral du Service de police 18. Lev6e de la s6ance 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 10, 2014 /LE 10 MARS 2014 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — MARCH 10, 2014 - 6:00 P.M. Present: Mel Norton, Mayor Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Farren, Fullerton, Lowe, MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon and Strowbridge - and - P. Woods, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; G. Yeomans, Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; K. Clifford, Fire Chief; J. Taylor, Common Clerk; P. Anglin, Acting Deputy Common Clerk Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Norton called the meeting to order and Deputy Mayor Rinehart offered the opening prayer. 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 6. Members Comments Council members commented on various community events. 8. Delegations /Presentations 8.1 Presentation by Dr. Giffin: Fluoridation of Drinking Water 8.2 NB Dental Association Dr. C.S. Giffin, District Medical Officer of Health — South Region New Brunswick, Dr. K. Manning, NB Dental Society and Dr. J. Clark, NB Dental Society presented their medical opinions concerning the benefits of fluoridation in the municipal drinking water system. Following his presentation, Dr. Clark directed the following three questions to Mayor and Council: • Why staff did not consult with the Dental and Health authorities before submitting their report to Mayor and Council? • Why the Minister of Health was not consulted to discuss cost sharing for fluoridation? • Why roundtable discussions were not held with all stakeholders on the fluoridation issue? Staff also appeared to answer questions on fluoridation distribution in the proposed new drinking water distribution system. On motion of Councillor Reardon Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the City of Saint John continue to add fluoride to the municipal water supply. The Mayor advised that Dr. Clark would be permitted to make additional comments if the motion was tabled. 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 10, 2014/LE 10 MARS 2014 On motion of Deputy Rinehart Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the motion on the floor be tabled. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Merrithew, Fullerton, Strowbridge and McAlary voting nay. On motion of Deputy Rinehart Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that Dr. Clark be permitted to make additional comments. Question being taken, the motion was carried, with Councillors Merrithew, McAlary, Strowbridge and Fullerton voting nay. Dr. Clark made the following additional comments: • That the proposed new municipal water treatment supply system would be able to separate water intended for industrial use from water intended for personal use, thereby eliminating fluoride in the industrial use water supply. • That he would like to be provided an opportunity to rebut the authorities reporting against fluoridation. On motion of Deputy Rinehart Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the motion be lifted from the table. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Reardon Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the City of Saint John continue to add fluoride to the municipal water supply. Question being taken, the motion was a declared a tie, with Councillors Strowbridge, Merrithew, McAlary, Lowe and Fullerton voting nay. The Mayor casting the deciding vote against the motion, the motion was defeated. The City Manager suggested that an affirmative motion would give clear direction to staff. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that the City of Saint John discontinue the use of fluoride in the municipal water supply. Question being taken, the motion was carried, with the Mayor casting the deciding vote, Councillors Norton, Reardon, MacKenzie, Farren and Deputy Rinehart voting nay. 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Door -to -Door Postal Delivery (Councillor MacKenzie) On motion of Councillor MacKenzie Seconded by Councillor Lowe RESOLVED that Common Council request the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to request that the Federal Government direct Canada Post to maintain the current system of residential door -to -door postal delivery in Canada and further that a copy of the resolution be sent to Rodney Weston, MP for his information and use. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 18. Adjournment On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Lowe 3 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 10, 2014 /LE 10 MARS 2014 RESOLVED that the Common Council meeting of March 10, 2014 be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffier communal 11 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 18, 2014 /LE 18 MARS 2014 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — MARCH 18, 2014 - 6:00 P.M. Present: Mel Norton, Mayor Councillors Farren, Fullerton, Lowe, MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon and Strowbridge - and - P. Woods, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; G. Yeomans, Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; B. Keenan, Engineering Manager; Acting Sgt. K. Atherton and A. MacBean, Police; K. Clifford, Fire Chief; J. Taylor, Common Clerk; R. Evans, Administrative Assistant Regrets: Deputy Mayor Rinehart 1. Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Norton called the meeting to order and Reverend John Paul Westin offered the opening prayer. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of February 24, 2014 On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on February 24, 2014, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 2.2 Minutes of March 3, 2014 On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on March 3, 2014, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved with the addition of items 17.1 Memorandum of Agreement #7 — Local 486; and 17.2 City Solicitor: Water Run Off and Fire /Service Lanes. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M & C 2014- 25: Public Information Session Hillcrest Drive - Street Reconstruction be received for information. 5.2 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M & C 2014- 24: Public Information Session Prince William Street (Princess Street to Duke Street) - Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Renewal and Street Reconstruction be received for information. 5 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 18, 2014/LE 18 MARS 2014 5.3 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M & C 2014- 20: Lease of Roof Top — Saint Patrick Street Pedway: 1) The City of Saint John enter into a lease with Rocky's Sports Bar Inc. for a 45.0356 square foot +/- portion of the roof -top situated upon the Saint Patrick Street Pedway (PID Number 39206) on terms and conditions, and in the form of the lease document attached to M &C 2014 — 020; and, 2) That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents. 5.4 That the proclamation submitted by the Saint John District Labour Council be prepared by the Common Clerk's office for submission to the Common Council meeting of Monday, April 14th, 2014 as requested. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the recommendation set out for each consent agenda item respectively be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 6. Members Comments Council members commented on various community events. 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations /Presentations 9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M. 10. Consideration of By -laws 10.1 Third Reading Zoning ByLaw Amendment and Section 39 Conditions: 1942 Manawagonish Road On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -223 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 5900 square metres, located at 1942 Manawagonish Road, also identified as being PID Numbers 55037733 and 00403030, from "RF" Rural to 1 -1" Light Industrial, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -223, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John ", was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the proposed development and use of the parcel of land with an area of approximately 5900 square metres, located at 1942 Manawagonish Road, also identified as being PID Numbers 55037733 and 00403030, be subject to the following conditions: (a) The development be limited to a building equipment and material storage yard, including associated office, maintenance and storage buildings. (b) The site shall not be developed except in accordance with a detailed site plan, prepared by the Developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the location of all buildings, parking areas, outdoor storage X 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 18, 2014 /LE 18 MARS 2014 areas, driveways, signage, exterior lighting, landscaped areas, and other site features. The approved site plan must be attached to the application for building permit for the proposed development. (c) Adequate site drainage facilities, including necessary catch basins, must be provided by the Developer in accordance with a detailed drainage plan, prepared by the Developer and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate. (d) All site improvements shown on the approved site and drainage plans must be completed within one year of building permit approval. (e) That a visual buffer consisting of a fence or coniferous trees or a combination of both be installed between the proposed building on the subject site and existing barn on the adjacent property and along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed visual buffer must be shown on the site plan accompanying the building permit and be completed within one year of issuance of the building permit. (f) That the driveway be relocated off of the adjacent City -owned property and paved a minimum length of 70 metres into the site from the front property line within one year of issuance of the building permit. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -223 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 5900 square metres, located at 1942 Manawagonish Road, also identified as being PID Numbers 55037733 and 00403030, from "RF" Rural to 1 -1" Light Industrial, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -223, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John ". 10.2 Third Reading Zoning ByLaw Amendment and Section 39 Conditions: 811 Grandview Avenue /220 Champlain Drive On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Merrithew RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -224 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1080 square metres, located at 811 Grandview Avenue /220 Champlain Drive, also identified as being PID Numbers 55089007 and 55088991, from "B -2" General Business to "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -224, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John ", was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Merrithew That, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the development and use of the parcel of land with an area of approximately 1,080 square metres, located at 811 Grandview Avenue /220 Champlain N 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 18, 2014/LE 18 MARS 2014 Drive, also identified as PID Numbers 55089007 and 55088991, for the proposed residential use shall be subject to the following conditions: (a) The use of the property is restricted to a maximum of one dwelling unit and /or a rooming house with a maximum of five rooms; (b) Landscaped areas be installed as follows: (i) at least 7.5 metres in width between the parking area and the street line along the Champlain Drive frontage; (ii) at least 2 metres in width between the parking area and the street line along the Grandview Avenue frontage so as to create one access along the Grandview Avenue frontage with a maximum width of 7.6 metres; and (iii) at least 3 metres in width between the parking area and the side property line extending back from Grandview Avenue as illustrated on a site plan to be approved by the Development Officer; (c) That, prior to the approval of the required change of use permit for the rooming house, the owner shall consolidate PID Numbers 55089007 and 55088991 into a single lot; and (d) That all outstanding requirements contained in these conditions be met by the owner no later than March 31, 2015. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -224 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1080 square metres, located at 811 Grandview Avenue /220 Champlain Drive, also identified as being PID Numbers 55089007 and 55088991, from "B -2" General Business to "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential, be read a third time, enacted and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -224, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John ". 10.3 Third Reading Zoning ByLaw Amendment 362 Charlotte Street West On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -225 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1970 square metres, located at 362 Charlotte Street West, also identified as being PID Number 00392035 and a portion of PID Number 55061337, from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "R -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -225, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John ", was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -225 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1970 square metres, located at 362 Charlotte Street West, also identified as being PID Number 00392035 and a portion of PID Number 55061337, from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "R -2" One and Two Family n. 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 18, 2014 /LE 18 MARS 2014 Suburban Residential, be read a third time, enacted and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -225, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John ". 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 FCM Update (Councillor Farren) On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that Councillor Farren provide Council with a brief update regarding the recent FCM meeting he attended. Councillor Farren provided an update to Council with respect to the recent FCM meetings in which he attended. He noted a number of discussion points including the Building Canada Fund; housing shortage across the country; Gas Tax Fund; door -to- door postal delivery; and rail safety. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11.2 Health Care Savings for the Province of New Brunswick (Councillor MacKenzie) On motion of Councillor MacKenzie Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that The City of Saint John write to the Department of Health for the Province of New Brunswick asking the province to assess the cost savings in health care by having fluoride added to municipal water supplies, and should there be cost savings the province provide financial assistance to municipalities to cover the cost of the purchase and installation of water fluoridation equipment and continual operating costs. Question being taken, the motion was defeated with Councillors Farren, Fullerton, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton and Strowbridge voting nay. 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 Engineering Inspection Services 2014 On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Merrithew RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M & C 2014 -23: Engineering Inspection Services 2014 Common Council authorize staff to establish supply agreements with the six consulting firms noted in the submitted report, at the hourly rates provided in this report totaling $430,000 plus HST for the provision of engineering inspection services for 2014 Capital Program projects. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Fullerton voting nay. 12.2 Borrowing Resolution On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M & C 2014 -21: Borrowing Resolution for general operating purposes: 1. The Commissioner of Finance is hereby authorized to borrow, on behalf of the City of Saint John (the Corporation), from the Bank of Nova Scotia (the Bank) from time to time by way of promissory note, a sum or sums not exceeding at any one time five million 9 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 18, 2014/LE 18 MARS 2014 nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($5,950,000) to meet current expenditures of the Corporation; 2. That any two of the Commissioner of Finance, Comptroller or Assistant Comptroller are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation and to furnish to the Bank from time to time a promissory note or notes sealed with the corporate seal for the sum or sums so borrowed with interest at such rate as the bank may from time to time determine; 3. That the Commissioner of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to furnish to the Bank at the time of each borrowing and at such other times as the Bank may from time to time request, a statement showing the nature and amount of the estimated revenues of the current year not yet collected or where the estimates for the year have not been adopted, a statement showing the nature and amount of the estimated revenues of the Corporation as set forth in the estimates adopted for the next preceding year and also showing the total of any amounts borrowed in the current year and in any preceding year that have not been repaid; 4. That the Commissioner of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to apply in payment of all sums borrowed from the Bank, with interest thereon, all of the monies hereafter collected or received on account or realized in respect of the taxes levied for the current year and for any preceding years and all of the monies collected or received from any other source; 5. That for the purposes of bridge financing on Capital Expenditures, that the City of Saint John establish a revolving term loan to bridge finance capital expenditures to a maximum of $25,000,000 and the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to borrow from the Bank to the specified limit; 6. That any two of the Commissioner of Finance, Comptroller or Assistant Comptroller are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation and to furnish to the Bank from time to time a promissory note or notes sealed with the corporate seal for the sum or sums so borrowed with interest at such rate as the Bank may from time to time determine, and; 7. That any two of the Commissioner of Finance, Comptroller or Assistant Comptroller are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation and to furnish to the Bank an Agreement or Agreements under the seal of the Corporation providing for payment to the Bank of all amounts required to be paid by the Bank pursuant to each promissory note of the Corporation guaranteed by the Bank with interest at such rate as the Bank may from time to time determine and of a guarantee fee in respect of each such promissory note at such rate as the Bank may from time to time determine. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Saint John Parking Commission - Traffic By -Law Fines (Tabled on March 3, 2014) On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that item 13.1 Saint John Parking Commission — Traffic By -Law Fines, be lifted from the table. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Consideration was given to a submitted report from the Saint John Parking Commission entitled "Traffic By -Law Fines ". On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and amendments thereto" repealing and replacing Section 26 regarding the fine structure for violations of the Traffic By -Law, be read a first time. 10 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 18, 2014 /LE 18 MARS 2014 Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time by title, the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and amendments thereto ". On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and amendments thereto" repealing and replacing Section 26 regarding the fine structure for violations of the Traffic By -Law, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time by title, the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and amendments thereto ". 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 15.1 Letter from New Brunswick Dental Society On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the letter from the New Brunswick Dental Society with respect to the issue of fluoridation in the water supply, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Reardon voting nay. 15.2 Letter from Marigold Committee - Guinness World Records Certificate On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the letter from the Marigold Committee regarding the Guinness World Records Certificate, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Memorandum of Agreement #7 — Local 486 On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Lowe RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on March 18, 2014, the submitted Memorandum of Agreement #7 — Local 486, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 17.2 Water Run Off and Fire /Service Lane On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on March 18, 2014, the report from the City Solicitor entitled Water Run Off and Fire /Service Lanes, be received for information. 11 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL MARCH 18, 2014/LE 18 MARS 2014 Question being taken, the motion was carried. 18. Adjournment On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the Common Council meeting of March 18, 2014 be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffier communal 12 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL March 31, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Canada Post Changes :k- City of Saint John The Common Clerk received a reply from Diane Belanger, Administrative and Resolutions Coordinator, FCM, dated March 24, 2014, in reference to Common Council's resolution of March 10, 2014 requesting FCM intervention to maintain the current system of residential door -to -door postal delivery in Canada. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Common Council: 1. Receive and file the reply. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Anglin, MLIS, LL.B Acting Deputy Common Clerk 13 Taylor, Jonathan From: Diane Belanger <dbelanger @fcm.ca> Sent: March -24 -14 12 :02 PM To: Taylor, Jonathan Subject: City of Saint John- Canada Post Attachments City of Saint John- Canada Post.PDF Dear Jonathan Taylor and Patricia Anglin Thank you for your letter on this issue. Since the announcement of Canada Post's Five Point Action Plan (FPAP), FCM has been working to ensure that the changes in door -to -door delivery minimize or eliminate sources of conflict with municipal operations. Of critical importance is the location and maintenance of the new community mailboxes (CMBs). Canada Post has argued that the changes under the FPAP are necessary due to budget constraints, primarily as a result of a fundamental shift in the use of traditional mail services by Canadians. The Government of Canada has repeatedly supported Canada Post's strategy under FPAP, As a result, FCM's analysis suggests that these changes will be going forward. The Board of Directors met in early March 2014 to develop a strategy that recognizes that these changes will be imposed but puts in place a strong, principled approach to ensuring meaningful consultations with cities and communities across the country. These consultations must address the three most direct challenges municipalities will face: the location of community mailboxes, the costs of servicing CMBs, and ensuring congruence with local planning policies or processes. 1. Location of community mailboxes — in most municipalities, public property appropriate for the location of these mailboxes is often at a premium. This is especially true in dense, urban downtown locations. Municipal rights of way are often crowded arenas where municipal fixtures such as lighting, trees and water compete with telecommunication infrastructure. Servicing public land and infrastructure is complicated — managing the effects of new CMBs on municipal operations, such as snow clearing, graffiti removal and litter is the responsibility of local governments. Although Canada Post has made it clear that they would remain responsible for maintaining their own infrastructure, there will inevitably be spillover onto municipal property and /or challenges in coordinating activities. 3. incompatibilities with municipal planning initiatives— municipalities are responsible for land use development, often developed through intensive and consultative processes with citizens, businesses and communities. For example, some municipalities have adopted age - friendly policies to help seniors age in place. The end of door - to -door delivery may limit the successes of these types of accessibility planning if Canada Post is not at the table. To this end, FCM's Board of Directors adopted the following principles to guide Canada Post's consultation process with our members. These principles are aimed at both ensuring a consistent consultation process is developed for each community across the country as well as ensuring Canada Post can be held accountable for its processes. Principles For Federal - Municipal Consultations on the Five Point Action Plan t4 Meaningful Consultations: Land -use planning, service delivery and right -of -way management is unique in each city and community across the country. A one - size - fits -all approach will not work for every municipality. Canada Post must work with every municipality individually to ensure meaningful consultation on the location of community mailboxes meets the needs of the community. A- Partnerships: Servicing municipal infrastructure is the responsibility of local governments. Yet municipalities must not inherit the mandate maintaining federally -owned community mailboxes without compensation. Either Canada Post must work with the local government to develop agreeable processes to maintain this infrastructure or Canada Post must compensate local governments for this work. r' Congruence with Municipal Planning: As much as possible, the changes to door -to -door mail delivery must align with local strategies and processes aimed at fostering and supporting age /disability - friendly communities. Unique strategies must be developed in partnership with local governments to ensure local policies are respected. If you have any further questions, please contact Adam Thompson, Senior Policy Advisor, at 613 -907 -6247 or athompson @fcm.ca. Regards, Diane Belanger Administrative and Resolutions Coordinator I Coordonnatrice de I'administration et des resolutions Policy and Research Politiclues et recherches FCM OF FEDERATION DIA tANA tFNNp 6F CANADIAN tANAOfENNE�DES MUNICIPALITIE5 MVNICIPALAS 24, rue Clarence Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1 N 5P3 T. 613- 907 -6324 I F, 613 - 241 -7440 15 March 14, 2014 Federation of Canadian Municipalities 24 Clarence Street Ottawa, ON KIN 5P3 Dear Sir/ Madam, w1P-WL:1-- �iIOZ 16 ml At a meeting of the Common Council, held on March 10, 2014 the following resolution was adopted, namely:- "RESOLVED that Common Council request the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to request that the Federal Government direct Canada Post to maintain the current system of residential door -to -door postal delivery in Canada and further that a copy of the resolution be sent to Rodney Weston, MP for his information and use. " Sincerely, Patricia Anglin Deputy Common Clerk SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada FA 40 I wwwmin"n.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada 1121-41-1 16 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2014 -29 March 25, 2014 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 Douglas Avenue (Bentley Street to Clarendon Street) — Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Renewal and Wastewater Lift Station Installation. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to inform Council of a Public Information Session that will be held in relation to the Douglas Avenue (Bentley Street to Clarendon Street) — Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Renewal and Wastewater Lift Station Installation project, and to update Council on the status of the project. BACKGROUND The approved Water & Sewerage Utility Fund and General Fund Capital Programs include projects for the design and construction of Douglas Avenue (Bentley Street to Civic #228 and Civic #170 to Clarendon Street) — Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Renewal and Wastewater Lift Station Installation. ANALYSIS Staff looks forward to the tender closing in late April, 2014. Construction is expected to begin in mid May, 2014 and continue until the end of October, 2014. This is a major project that will impact the local area during construction. It is for this reason that staff have decided to hold a Public Information Session to allow local residents and business owners an opportunity to view the project design drawings, ask questions and give their feedback. The Public Information Session will be held at the Lorne Middle School at 90 Newman Street on Tuesday, April 8, 2014, from 2 -4 p.m. and 6 -8 p.m. This report is being provided for the information of Council and to extend an invitation to any Councillors who may wish to attend the Public Information Session. 17 M &C2014 -29 March 25, 2014 Page 2 The Public Information Session will be advertised and a copy of the attached notice will be delivered door to door in the project area. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, Kevin O'Brien, P.Eng. Municipal Engineer Wm. Edwards, P.Eng. Commissioner Transportation & Environment in Brian Keenan, P.Eng. Engineering Manager J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager } PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION DOUGLAS AVENUE The City of Saint John will be undertaking the renewal of various sections of underground municipal infrastructure on Douglas Avenue between Bentley Street and Clarendon Street. The project includes the renewal of sections of the existing watermain and sanitary sewer, installation of a new wastewater lift station, installation of a new storm sewer, and asphalt restoration within the construction limits. The project is planned to begin in May, 2014 and is expected to be completed by the end of October, 2014. 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 from Dillon Consulting Limited will be available to answer questions related to the project. The public is invited to attend an information session on this project on the following date and times: DATE: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 PLACE: Lorne Middle School, 90 Newman 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, Dillon Consulting Limited, at (506) 633 -5000 or the City of Saint John Transportation and Environment Services at (506) 658 -4455. 19 &S March 19, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIAPLITIES' BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THUNDER BAY, ONTARIO, MARCH 3-8,2014 n City of Saint John From March 3'd to 8a', 2014, the FCM hosted its Board of Directors and Standing Committee meeting in Thunder Bay, Ontario. As the City of Saint John is an active participant in two FCM Committees, the City's FCM representative Councilor Farren, was present during the March meeting. FCM has released a "Report to Council" on the major developments during the meeting, and Members of Council are encouraged to review the document (see attachment). The primary focus areas during the conference included continued updating and developments on the New Building Canada Fund and further enhancement to the 2015 Election Readiness Strategy. Among other items, the Standing Committee on Municipal Finance and Intergovernmental Arrangements discussed the importance to engage the Government of Canada on its Five Point Action Plan on reducing Canada Post service across Canada. FCM will seek to ensure meaningful consultation, ongoing partnership and encouragement to uphold municipal planning as it relates to the changes to Canada Post. In terms of the Standing Committee on Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Policy, participants mandated the FCM to write a letter to the VIA President and CEO (copying CB and Minister Raitt) requesting clarification on their intention to abandon rail operations on the 70- kilometre line in New Brunswick. For more information, or to review the key findings from the two FCM committees in which the City of Saint John participates — Standing Committee on Municipal Finance and Intergovernmental Arrangements (p. 6 of 25) and Standing 20 M &C -2014 -009 -2- January 28, 2014 Committee on Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Policy (p. 19 of 25), please refer to the attached document. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Common Council: 1. Receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, Phil Ouellette, MA Intergovernmental Affairs Neil Jacobsen Commissioner, Strategic Services Cl Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 21 rEISERATInN OF CANADIAN FCMMUNICIPALITIES CANAMENNE DES MUNICIPAI.171S REPORT TO COUNCIL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THUNDER BAY, ON MARCH 3 -8, 2014 22 FC M O.'- C.1.0101l. CAFzAD'.2h:7E DE'. "dl7AICO A'LME5 N!INIC'Pi.Lf'',' 5 OVERVIEW The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Meeting of the Board of Directors took place in Thunder Bay, Ontario from March 3 -8, 2014. Board members participated in Regional Caucus meetings, Standing Committee and Forum meetings, two Committee of the Whole meetings and the Board meeting. In these meetings, they discussed a broad range of important municipal issues that are presented in detail in the committee reports that follow. Below are three underlining issues that were debated and recommended during committee meetings and brought forward to the Board Meeting: i. The New Building Canada Plan During a special briefing session on the New Building Canada Plan (NBCP), board and committee members expressed concerns regarding serious gaps that the federal government must address in the design of the NBCP. Members noted that these gaps could have been addressed through more meaningful consultation with municipalities, which the government had pledged to undertake when announcing a commitment to a new 10 -year, $14 billion Building Canada Fund (BCF) and a 2 per cent annual index of the federal gas tax transfer in the 2013 federal budget. Among members' concerns is that, to date, they have received no clear indication that a fair share of the new BCF will be invested in municipal projects. The new BCF's funding rules further reduce local flexibility by eliminating core infrastructure categories from eligibility such as local roads. Members are also concerned that the NBCP introduced new requirements that could result in unnecessary red tape and cost property taxpayers more money, including a cumbersome "P3 screen" and rules that could force local governments to carry a higher share of project costs. Members are willing to work with other orders of government on these gaps. They believe the first and most important step is for federal, provincial and territorial governments to ensure that at least 70 per cent of the BCF is invested in our cities and communities, ensuring local governments receive a fair and predictable share of this important new program. The Standing Committee on Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Policy recommended that FCM focus on the following activities: correcting the public record regarding FCM's position on the new Building Canada Plan; monitoring the FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 1 of 25 23 OF CANADIAN CaN.'.'JIFiNEDES NUMWALI "TIES NI!NICfPALiies implementation of the NBCP to ensure a significant majority of the NBCP investments flow to municipalities; collaborating with provincial and territorial municipal associations to support their discussions with provincial and territorial governments; begin developing new infrastructure demands for the 2015 federal election; and continue helping members to communicate our position locally. Following the board meeting, board and committee members were sent a template news release they can use to communicate concerns about the NBCP in their home communities. 2. FCM Election Readiness Worlung Group A new Election Readiness Working Group (ERWG) was struck to guide FCM's strategy in preparation for the 2015 federal election. In its inaugural meeting, the ERWG approved terms of reference for its mandate and discussed several themes that will inform a strategy document to be prepared by staff, including: the opportunity for the municipal sector to influence party platforms, the importance of non - partisanship, the importance of starting to prepare immediately, the opportunity to build upon previous FCM campaigns (Cut My Commute, Infrastructure, Housing), and to coordinate all advocacy activities with election readiness campaign objectives. g. Ukraine The Standing Committee on International Relations recommended that FCM issue a statement reflecting Canadian municipal support for the democratic struggle in the Ukraine. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 2 of 25 24 FCMO' :;,,.P<ADIA'J CANA7IE, NE CES ',,,U,,,C,,,L,,',,,, k:ifAC1PAL1T°e. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 2014 AND 2015 Meetings of FCM's Board of Directors September 3 - 6, 2014 Saguenay, QC November 18 - 21, 2014 Ottawa, ON March 4 -7, 2015 Burnaby, BC September 9 -12, 2015 Fredericton, NB November 17 -20, 2015 Ottawa, ON FCM Annual Conferences May 30 - June 2, 2014 Niagara Falls, ON June 5 - June 8, 2015 Edmonton, AB Sustainable Communities Conferences February 10 - 12, 2015 London, ON STANDING COMMITTEES AND FORUMS FCM's standing committees and forums met to discuss the latest developments and to make recommendations to the Board of Directors. A summary of these activities is provided below. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 25 Page 3 of 25 FCMFELTZATION FL3631C.T101. . OF CANALNAN CAN; DIENAE DES M:UMIICIMALITMS HU: ICIR LITtS REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNI'T'Y SAFETY AND CRIME PREVENTION SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Committee chair Michael Thompson welcomed committee to Thunder Bay. The Chair introduced the Vice - Chairs, Councillors Randy Goulden and Albert Beaudry. Staff provided an update on the Action Items Status Report including an update on the proposed interoperable emergency broadband network. Members pointed to the critical need for municipalities to work together to develop compatible procurement, equipment and network application strategies to ensure technical interoperability capacity among municipal emergency services across Canada. The committee considered two resolutions: Chronic and Prolific Offenders and Emergency Notification of Tsunamis. The first has been referred back to staff for clarification and updated information. The committee heard from FCM's Government Relations team with an update on FCM's Election 2015 strategy as well as the recent meeting between FCM president and the Minister of Public Safety where they discussed the development and delivery of a proposed federal disaster mitigation program. The committee agreed that FCM should strike a technical working group of municipal experts to inform FCM's work with Public Safety, to identify common concerns, needs, best practices and practical recommendations for the NDMP and to ensure that any new federal program is adequately resourced and responds to and meets community and municipal needs. A letter will go out from the FCM president to mayors, city managers, regional managers and the like urging them to identify staff to participate in the working group. FCM staff will ensure appropriate and balanced representation from member cities and communities. Councillors Dave Hodgins and Chris Coleman updated the committee on the activities of the Disaster Risk Reduction Working Group (DRR). The DRR has developed a community disaster preparedness evaluation tool -kit that has been well received by many communities. The committee received a report from Councillor Susan Gimse on the March 4"' meeting of the Joint Committee on Community Corrections (JCCC). Councillor Gimse reported that the committee would be receiving a tool -kit from the JCCC for those who are interested in learning more about and getting involved with ex- FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 26 Page 4 of 25 FCMFI".DEr.ATEDN — DOiTIO;J OF CANADIAN CA;'aAaXUJ'E DES IL M AICIPALIVES MA 1.14ICIPAL' ITE: i offender reintegration initiatives. Examples of these initiatives include Habitat for Humanity Canada's work to train parolees in the construction of homes. Staff provided an update on research being undertaken by the committee on the drivers of policing costs and provided feedback including the need to consider the impact of "Shadow Communities" on the cost of policing and other municipal services. The committee heard of examples of mining and other industry work camps that are not incorporated communities but require services, including policing and emergency services which are being provided by nearby communities who aren't being compensated. Staff was directed to raise this issue with other relevant policy departments to understand if the cross cutting issues of Shadow Communities are being addressed. The committee shared information about the new regulations related to the production of medical marijuana and discussed the need to explore ways to address concerns around the cost of fire services. The committee provided feedback into and approved the FCM Annual Conference policy forum agenda and revised and approved the policy statement. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adoption: 1. Adopt the policy statement, as amended; 2. Adopt the policy forum agenda, as amended; 3. Staff coordinate a technical committee to Public Safety Canada on the development Mitigation Strategy. Recommendations for referral to staff: inform FCM's engagement with of Canada's National Disaster 4. To facilitate the formation of the technical working group, staff will ensure a letter from the President is sent to mayors, city manager, regional managers of member communities, urging them to identify appropriate staff to participate in the working group. 5. Staff to engage provincial and territorial associations to feed into the consultation process for the federal disaster mitigation program. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 27 Page 5 of 25 OF CAP:ADIAN CAAIA[+IE "3NE pZ:= b .4UNIC1N_.LIT9S REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMM=E ON MUNICIPAL FINANCE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Committee chair Don Downe welcomed committee members to Thunder Bay. The Chair introduced the Vice - Chair, Councillor Sav Dhaliwal. The committee approved the report from the November 2013 meeting and staff provided an update on the Action Items Status Report - specifically on FCM's work to monitor the implementation of the Canada -E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) as well as Pas under the new Building Canada Plan. The committee considered eight resolutions dealing with: amendments to the income tax act, regional Veteran Affairs office closures, exotic animal regulations, derelict and abandoned vessels, sport halibut fishing, and various issues surrounding mail delivery in Canada. Following an involved discussion on the recent changes to door -to -door mail delivery in Canada, the committee endorsed a broader, principled position which aims to establish meaningful consultations as a key metric for Canada Post moving forward. It is also a priority to effectively communicate the frustrations of members with respect to the lack of consultations on these changes to date. The committee also directed staff to provide clear context to resolution sponsors on this issue. The committee then heard updates from staff on a variety of priority files. First, staff gave an update on FCM's work to encourage greater collaboration and coordination between all governments toward securing greater foreign direct investment. It was agreed that all opportunities to push this file forward should be taken. Second, the committee heard an update on the future work to be undertaken through the Jack Layton Fellowship. Third, staff provided an update on the status of the 2014 State of the Cities and Communities Report. It is critical that FCM has as much information leading up to Advocacy Days as is possible. While it was recognized that the updated municipal finance component of the report needs to be irrefutable, there was agreement that having this report out as soon as is possible should be the primary goal. Finally, staff informed the committee of the work FCM has been FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 6 of 25 OF U,,:�TION C LER iEW, OF Ci +'!�,'�IAN Cr.K�ApIEid!;E D�t FCMAUN1CirAL1­1ES MUNICIPALfT9G doing in support of the City of Edmonton's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a challenge to the City's use of development charges. The committee approved the FCM Annual Conference policy forum agenda and policy statement. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adoption: 1. Adopt the policy statement, as amended; 2. Adopt the policy forum agenda, as amended; 3. Approve the Principles for Federal - Municipal Consultations on the Five Point Action Plan: a. Meaningful Consultations: Land -use planning, service delivery and right - of -way management is unique in each city and community across the country. A one- size - fits -all approach will not work for every municipality. Canada Post must work with every municipality individually to ensure meaningful consultation on the location of community mailboxes meets the needs of the community. b. Partnerships: Servicing municipal infrastructure is the responsibility of local governments. Yet municipalities must not inherit the mandate maintaining federally -owned community mailboxes without compensation. Either Canada Post must work with the local government to develop agreeable processes to maintain this infrastructure or Canada Post must compensate local governments for this work. c. Congruence with Municipal Planning: As much as possible, the changes to door -to -door mail delivery must align with local strategies and processes aimed at fostering and supporting age /disability- friendly communities. Unique strategies must be developed in partnership with local governments to ensure local policies are respected. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 29 Page 7 of 25 FCM JFt:ANADit.N CAC4ApfEfiNED& 1•:U' JI,:IFA! ITI�5 MU ": °ICIPALITcB REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION The Committee Chair began by welcoming members to the meeting. The committee adopted the agenda as amended and approved the November 2013 meeting report. The format for the proposed policy forum agenda at the annual conference was discussed and many suggestions were provided as to how to make the forum more engaging and more meaningful for members. Ultimately, it was agreed that regardless of the engagement format pursued for the forum, participating members need to understand the purpose, the desired outcomes and the general context for the policy forum in order to provide a clear framework for member input. Staff then presented new amendments to the policy statement and all agreed that the section dedicated to Principles for Federal Assessment should be incorporated as adopted by the Board and more generic wording needed to be used for the amended sections. Staff will be revising those sections of the policy statement for circulation to the Committee. During the lunch period, Thomas Hoggarth, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans presented to the Committee on changes to the Fisheries Act, the new Fisheries Protection Policy and program delivery. Concerns were expressed by Committee members in regards to program reductions, perceived loss of habitat protections and the policy's departure from ecosystem management objectives. Mr. Hoggarth invited the Committee to participate in an upcoming May workshop on the development of guidelines for medium and large water intakes. Following the lunch period, eight resolutions were adopted as recommended by staff and incorporated into the consent agenda. Three of the resolutions, all related to climate change adaptation and disaster mitigation, were combined and it was agreed that these resolutions would serve as guidance to future members of the proposed FCM technical working group in their input to Public Safety's recently announced National Disaster Mitigation Program. Staff then provided an update on FCM advocacy work and a progress report on the Committee's 2013 -14 policy and advocacy priorities. Next, a series of update and decision reports were provided by staff, beginning with the status and direction of policy research in support of 2015 election readiness. The research FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 8 of 25 30 FCMOPDCA ATION CAAADF.7,NN �r:.ANr:D;A;� C.::- JA[7.`:::dNE t=.t:: MUNILMALITIMS MJNIC ; ^:;L;T!S direction and approach on the climate change adaptation priority was agreed to be clear and while there was general agreement on the new approach and next steps to the energy /climate change priority, some had concerns over the uncertain outcomes of this research and whether it would provide a clear advocacy position for FCM on this Committee priority. Staff understand this concern and will develop an inventory of areas of federal jurisdiction or potential influence over municipal energy and energy - efficiency policy and will provide thorough analysis with proposed approaches to building a coherent story on the issue in order to ensure the committees concerns are met and a clear advocacy position emerges. This was followed by a brief update on BCF program design and then a presentation from the Director of National Programs on the direction that FCM's Green Municipal Fund will be taking in 2015. Finally, a memo on the municipal issue of non - flushable products and the approach being pursued by the Municipal Emergency Sewer Use Group in partnership with the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association to deal with this issue was presented. General support was expressed for the dual approach of these organizations to pursue a standard for flushable products while simultaneously engaging in a national education and awareness campaign. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adoption: 1. Write a letter to CWWA and MESUG in support of their initiative to develop a standard for the testing and labeling of flushable products; and 2. Continue with efforts to advance solutions to this problem through the National Zero Waste Council; and 3. Communicate to the FCM membership, the CWWA and MESUG initiative to develop a standard for the testing and labeling of flushable products; and 4. Help support a national educational awareness campaign based on the concept of "toilets are not garbage cans" by disseminating educational materials and resources provided by this initiative to the FCM membership; and FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 31 Page 9 of 25 FCMFECE::A'r:O11' FECr=RATIou OF CAWMIAA CkHADIENHE DES IL AUi 744 L: 112 MUNICIPALMtS 5. Direct FCM staff to explore opportunities for collaboration on both our policy research and advocacy work related to climate change adaptation with partner, sponsor and other organizations whose goals are clearly aligned with those of FCM in this area. Recommendations for referral to staff: 6. Amend the policy statement and circulate to committee members for input; and 7. Amend the policy forum agenda and format and circulate to committee members for input; FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 32 Page 10 of 25 FCMi?FCA ?�ADIAh' CANlaD1�FV' DES REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INCREASING WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Committee Chair Erin Hogan welcomed everyone to Thunder Bay and introduced the Committee Vice - Chairs: Councillor Linda Rydholm of the City of Thunder Bay, ON and Director Susan Gimse of the Regional District of Squamish- Lillooet, BC and invited committee members to introduce themselves. The committee then approved the agenda, the report from the Ottawa Board Meeting, and its action items. Chair Erin Hogan updated the committee on the work of the sub - committee on long -term funding. At this time, the committee requested that the subcommittee explore funding options beyond Status of Women Canada including unions, private sector and the United Nations. Chair Erin Hogan also gave an update on the scholarship sub- committee work. This year the committee received 50 applications for the Canadian Women in Municipal Government Scholarship and 10 applications for Mayor Andree Boucher Memorial Scholarship. Director Susie Gimse updated on International Day of the Girl Child (IDGC) and led the committee in a discussion regarding these celebrations. The committee modified and approved a new approach to IDGC which will have FCM staff sharing the IDGC toolkit with sample proclamations to committee members and Regional Champions in June and August annually. Councillor Linda Rydholm provided an update on the Regional Champions network. The committee then discussed the definition of a Regional Champion as well as possible additional steps in the Regional Champions strategy which intends to renew and revitalize this network. The committee approved a clear definition of a Regional Champion as well as the creation of a Regional Champions Community of Practice to be launched at the Annual Conference in June 2014. Mayor Debra Button led a discussion looking at the possible synergies between the committee and the UCLG Standing Committee on Gender Equality. The committee requested a detailed briefing on the work of the UCLG Standing Committee on Gender Equality and the role of FCM as Vice- Chair. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 11 of 25 33 FCMOF Ck ATEOiJ C'EDFFNENW O' C!'- ;J�.DIAIY C.i;if ;7lEtvC�s C1 =5 YUM1C1PAL1','1ES KUNICJ);� .LITES Head Start for Young Women Program Coordinator Melissa Newitt, Councillor Joni Baechler and Councillor Sylvie Goneau each gave a brief update on the Head Start for Young Women. Next, the committee discussed the Policy Forum Agenda for the 2014 Annual Conference in Niagara Falls agreeing that the focus will be on celebrating the achievements of Head Start for Young Women participants as well as the launch of the Regional Champions community of practice. The Ontario Men's Committee gave an update on their fundraising plans for the Annual Conference and requested feedback from the committee. The policy statement was approved and it was noted that the committee would like to consider modifications in the future. And to wrap up Councillor Linda Rydholm provided an update on the Political Panel and Campaign School that will be taking place in Thunder Bay on March 8th, 2014 with the participation of many committee members. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adoption: 1. Adopt the policy statement, as amended; 2. Approve strategy for IDGC celebrations for 2014: a. FCM staff to distribute the IDGC toolkit with sample proclamations to committee members and Regional Champions in June and August annually; 3. Approve the strategy for the work required to maintain and expand the Regional Champions Program: a. FCM creates and promotes an online Community of Practice for Regional Champions; b. The Standing Committee to officially launch this Community of Practice at the Women's Committee Forum at the Annual General Meeting in Tune 2014. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 34 Page 12 of 25 A Fes[. I OF CANADIAN CAF'ADIEP-` ' FC M- E DES ,-UNiCPA" ,dts C'UNIC:- '3r.L1 =5 REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE RURAL FORUM SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION The meeting began with an introduction by the Chair and approval of the agenda. Following approval of the report of the November 2013 board meeting, staff provided an overview of the action items previously identified by the Forum. Regarding disaster mitigation, a technical committee will be formed by the Standing Committee on Community Safety and Crime Prevention to support FCM's engagement with Public Safety Canada on the development of Canada's National Disaster Mitigation Strategy. On the issue of rural airport viability, staff reiterated that the issue of additional federal funding for airports will be part of FCM's 2015 election work. The Forum then reviewed the progress report on the 2013 -2014 policy and advocacy priorities. Staff confirmed that the research reports on rural sustainability and rural broadband are now complete, and that FCM's advocacy efforts were successful in securing a new $305 million broadband investment in Budget 2014. There was a discussion about the Building Canada Fund and the Small Communities Component. In addition to concerns about program design, members discussed the critical need for investments in capacity building for rural communities. The Forum approved the 2014 FCM Annual Conference Policy Forum Agenda and Policy Statement. President Marit presented an emergency resolution on the level of railway service for the shipment of commodities, which was unanimously adopted by the Forum. Mayor Dooley commented that rail backlogs have a major impact on municipal roads and highways due to increased heavy truck traffic, and that addressing the issue may require an increase in rail infrastructure. Staff then presented the high level findings of the rural sustainability research project, including statistics on employment, economic sectors by GDP, youth out - migration, immigration, and aging, among others. The committee was then provided a briefing on rural broadband, including the recent 700 MHz auction and the upcoming 2500 MHz auction, in preparation for a presentation by the FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 13 of 25 35 FED! ?!:ATICN F0.1PAAi10'4 OF V.PY DIA ' C�NADIE;Ait; DEJ FC1A1UN1C1'1AL:T1F,S MUNICIPALIT"i Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA) on rural broadband deployments. The presentation by Kurt Eby from the CWTA and Timo Hiiback from Tbaytel was followed by a question and answer period. President Dobrowolski made closing remarks. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adoption: 1. Adopt the policy statement, as amended; 2. Adopt the policy forum agenda, as amended; FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 36 Page 14 of 25 FEDErAT10F FEDtRATJON OFCA iADV ve CG,iFDEENN FCM' e'9E„ 'UaGIPAL1T1�5 MU 'ICIPA LITtS REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Acting Committee Chair Roger Anderson welcomed everyone to Thunder Bay and invited committee members, observers and staff to introduce themselves. The Committee approved the agenda and the minutes of the November 2013 meeting in Ottawa. The acting chair then presented the new program reporting format to SCIR members and pointed out amendments to the agenda for approval by the committee. Committee Vice -Chair Garth Frizzell provided an update on the governance task group and brought the completed terms of reference for both the Standing Committee and Governance representatives forward for Committee feedback and final approval. The Tors were approved by the Committee. The new francophone governance representative for the Haiti program, Councillor Brian Pincott and the representative for the Africa programs, Gatineau Councillor Sylvie Goneau were also introduced to the committee. The Committee continued the process of renewing FCM's current international relations framework with a focus on establishing the key principles that should give the new framework. Aligned with FCM's 2012 -17 Strategic Plan, the goal of the renewal is to provide a strategic direction for FCM's existing international activities and identify potential new areas of involvement. Small working group discussions were held around three topic areas: refining the proposed principles, adding to the proposed principles, and the implications of the principles for FCMI's work. The draft framework will be revised and brought forward for one last consultation during the program forum at the Annual Conference in June. The final framework will be brought forward for board approval in September 2014. The Committee also received a report in response to a concern brought forward by Cllr. Tim Stevenson to SCIR following a decision by DFATD (formerly CIDA) to fund a religious organization that had posted homophobic statements on their web site. This concern led to a broader discussion surrounding the values or principles that FCM is applying in its international work, particularly surrounding partnership opportunities, and the policy process for bringing forward committee concerns surrounding international policy issues. A presentation on amendments FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 15 of 25 37 FCMFEDErdAION F60F lnATICA OF CAW,MIAN CAXADXVNe D @. I-39MCIPAUVE.. MUNICI-7'ALITES to partnering guidelines and the FCM resolutions process took place to clarify the committee's position on issues surrounding diversity, values, and advocacy positions. The report was approved unanimously by the Committee. In a new segment called stories from the field Governance Representative for Latin America, Coucillor Marvin Plett presented on his recent experience with a delegation of Nicaraguan representatives who were visiting western Canada, and UBCM President Rhona Martin presented on her recent association capacity building experience in Vietnam. Acting Chair Roger Anderson provided an update on the situation in Ukraine, the safety of staff, and the status of current and new international programming efforts there. As Governance Representative for Ukraine, Chairman Roger Anderson expressed his recent communications with staff and political officials in the country. Committee members shared their personal and professional investments in the country's democratic struggle. The committee accepted the presentations and program reports for FCM International's four current international development programs, the Municipal Partners for Economic Development (MPED), Ukraine Municipal Local Economic Development Program (MLED), the Caribbean Local Economic Development Program (CARILED), and the Programme de Cooperation Municipale Haiti (PCM). Finally, the committee discussed the agenda for the FCM annual general meeting in Niagara Fails in May 2014. The new joint FCM workshop format was introduced to the committee by FCMI Director, Sebastien Hamel. Potential international contributions to the FCM workshops were then discussed by committee members and staff promised to follow up with individual members for status updates on potential workshop contributions. Finally, to address the international overlap of the trade and development files, a joint task group between the finance and intergovernmental committee (FIG) and the international committee (SCIR) was suggested as a future possibility for more targeted board member collaboration. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Emergency recommendations for referral to the Executive Committee: 1. That FCM release a statement reflecting Canadian municipal support for the democratic struggle in the Ukraine. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 16 of 25 FCMOF CANADIAN Cr1kADIE:+1:'E R,:S NUN1IC10,.LITIES MUC,AC1F1ALI7C5 REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Councillor Brian Pincott, the committee chair, introduced Vice Chair, Mayor Edgar Rouleau and welcomed the committee to Thunder Bay. The chair and committee sent their thoughts and best wishes to Vice Chair Councillor Pam McConnell. The committee received the Action Item Status Report and considered five resolutions across a range of issues including the National Day of Health and Fitness, Old Age Security and Recognizing the Year of Reconciliation with Aboriginal Peoples. The committee discussed and amended the resolution on Early Intervention Centres for Mental Health and Addiction to reflect the committee's support for adequately resourced and effective strategies that support people living with mental illness. Government Relations Manager, Shawn Menard, provided the committee with a federal advocacy update. FCM's "Fixing the Housing Crunch Campaign" and Election Preparedness are at the top of our advocacy agenda. Through the Housing Crunch campaign we gained a commitment from the federal government to work with FCM and stakeholders to address social and affordable housing needs. At the same time, the Minister of Social Development has been clear that this government will not reinvest its $1.7 billion annual funding for social housing operating agreements as they expire over the coming years. The impact of the loss of this investment on social housing and across the housing continuum is the focus of FCM's housing advocacy moving forward and will be elaborated on in a pending FCM research report. The chair led a discussion about "Fixing Canada's Housing Crunch" and the vital role of the committee and FCM members in bringing this national campaign to the local level. There was consensus within the committee of the need to address not just social housing, but housing accessibility and gaps across the housing spectrum including adequate rental housing, affordable homeownership and the lack of options for seniors in rural communities. The committee was updated on the National Forum on Housing and the Economy as well as the upcoming Quality of Life Reporting System report on seniors and housing. FCM will work with the committee and the Election Readiness Working FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 17 of 25 39 FEDrEFATION FfrAR_ i'iON OF CANADIAK CA;" AE) 4N 4E JES FC M. NU` XIP:ALITIES MtI,'Nci h .ITS: Group to launch these initiatives over the next six to eight months in a strategic way that supports our housing and elections agenda. Senior Policy Advisor, Leanne Holt, updated the committee on the proposed changes to the federal Additions to Reserve policy. While recent consultation between FCM, the Union of BC Municipalities and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development have led to significant improvements in the proposed policy changes, many questions remain and staff has been directed to seek clarification on a number of concerns. Councillor Ben Henderson provided an update on the Urban Aboriginal Matters working group. The group remains committee to identifying areas of focus for potential action. A workshop in November facilitated by Councillor Paul Harris has brought the group closer to developing a shared mandate and they are currently working to build an agenda for a meeting at the Annual Conference in Niagara. The committee approved the FCM Annual Conference policy forum agenda and policy statement. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adoption: 1. Adopt the policy statement; 2.- Adopt the policy forum agenda; FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL .A Page 18 of 25 rEDU ATIOV FLDERATIOA FC M, OF C. NAD!AN CANADIENNE DZ5 HUNICIPALITMS MU:JIcI1',4LfilcS REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Committee Chair Doug Reycraft welcomed members of the committee to Thunder Bay. The Chair then introduced the Vice - Chairs Mayor Janelle Saskiw and President Robert Coulombe. After approving the agenda and minutes of the November 2013 meeting, the Committee heard an update from staff on the Action Items Status Report. Staff then provided comments on the political environment in Ottawa and the latest intelligence on our advocacy opportunities ahead. Following this update, staff brought the committee up to speed on the activities undertaken to date on the committee's priorities: infrastructure planning, telecommunications policy and rail safety. CEO Brock Carlton provided an overview of what was committed to municipal infrastructure in Budget 2013 and what has been announced to date on the New Building Canada Plan. The committee considered a series of recommendations on next steps with respect to FCM's infrastructure advocacy. Discussion focused on a number of issues. First, including a public outreach component to FCM's Election Readiness strategy is a critical priority for future policy and advocacy work. Second, arming our members with post -board messaging and tools (such as a template press release) is also important. Third, there remain significantly positive elements of the new BCP including the FCM- delivered GTF with a 2% index. This cannot be ignored in our messaging. Finally, a collaborative approach must be struck with our members and the Provincial/Territorial Municipal Associations to capitalize on any other opportunities to influence the scope of the new BCF. Staff then provided updates on our rail safety policy and advocacy work over the year. No doubt it has been a busy year for the committee in its leadership of the municipal response to the future of rail safety in our communities. Next, the committee heard from staff on proposed grade crossing regulations from Transport Canada. In response to the Gazetting of these regulations, staff will be working with a technical working group of municipal staff to review the impacts of these regulations and report back to the committee at the next board FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 19 of 25 41 FE4 "rfaAT1CN rk"k.nemor: FC /ii OFCilNADIAN CANADIE.?116DES P`WNUPIALITIEA MUNICiM LIT `S meeting. The committee then received an update on FCM's ongoing rights -of -way work. The committee approved the 2014 Annual Conference policy forum agenda and policy statement. Representatives from FCM's Atlantic Caucus then brought forward a recommendation that FCM write to VIA Rail's President and CEO to request a response to earlier correspondence from FCM. Finally, the committee welcomed Rick Zaporzan from the National Research Council, who provided a detailed presentation on their work to develop an all - hazards municipal infrastructure risk management tool. Such a tool will provide a valuable resource for our members to make evidence -based decisions on infrastructure priorities. Additional information on the project will be sent to members following the meeting. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adoption: 1. Adopt the policy statement, as amended; 2. Adopt the policy forum agenda, as amended; 3. Direct staff to provide comments to Transport Canada indicating FCM's support for the proposed Grade Crossings Regulations, and identifying any remaining operational concerns before the close of the 90 -day comment period; and 4. Direct staff to monitor the implementation of the Grade Crossings Regulations, in particular cost implications and the efficacy of the blocked crossing provision. 5... Emergency recommendations for referral to the Executive Committee: New Building Canada Plan Set the record straight 1. Direct staff to prepare a public response to misleading information utilized by the Government of Canada and Opposition Parties with respect to our position on the new Building Canada Plan; FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 42 Page 20 of 25 FCMFEO RATION 7ED&A-,104 CF CANADWI CAEADIENNE DES .'-.,UN,C7,AL,T,.. MUiIICIPPLITLLi Hold the Gov't Accountable 2. That FCM monitor the rollout and implementation of the NBCP to ensure a significant majority of the New Building Canada Fund investments flow to municipalities and to hold the Government of Canada to account and ensure federal investments are made transparently. Collaborative Response 3. That FCM collaborate with the Provincial/Territorial Municipal Associations to inform and support their discussions with provinces and territories and promote our key principles on the New Building Canada Plan; Developing the Future Platform 4. That FCM begin development of a new infrastructure ask for Election 2015 which includes a public engagement plan beginning with a gap analysis of the current plan and places emphasis on municipal collaboration on future program design to deliver the best value for every dollar, 6. VIA Rail FCM write a follow -up letter to the VIA President and CEO (copying CN and Minister Raitt) requesting a response to our first resolution, especially in light of CN's intentions to abandon rail operations on the 70- kilometre line in New - Brunswick mostly used by VIA Rail for passenger service. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 43 Page 21 of 25 FCMOF C—RADIAR' Ci1NADlciikE DE', ,.U,J..,,..'1, I IT 17S MVIIVPALITIr' REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE NORTHERN AND REMOTE FORUM SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION The meeting began with an introduction by President Ehaloak, followed by approval of the agenda. The report of the November 2013 meeting was then approved. Staff provided an update on action items previously identified by the Forum. At the request of members, the scheduling of board meetings has been revised to reduce conflicts. On the issue of northern airports, staff explained that Transport Canada is currently conducting a risk -based assessment of the Runway End Safety Area regulations to be completed by the end of 2014. It is anticipated that airports in the territories will continue to be exempt due to economic considerations, but the impact on airports in the provincial north is not yet clear. The Forum was provided with a detailed updated on the 2013 -2014 policy and advocacy priorities: northern housing, telecommunications, and northern infrastructure and adaptation. Members reiterated the urgent need for renewed federal investments in social housing, in particular in areas with extensive resource development. While progress has been made on broadband, including a $305 million commitment in Budget 2014, there remains a need for a long -term comprehensive plan to ensure a minimum level of service for all northerners. Staff participated in a panel discussion on this issue at the 2014 Northern Lights conference. The Forum also discussed the challenges surrounding the program design of the New Building Canada Fund. Members then discussed changes in the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), specifically the closure of a majority of DFO offices in the Northern and Arctic region, the recent changes to the Fisheries Act, and the elimination of DFO's involvement in environmental assessments. Councillor Bidgood explained that these changes are particularly concerning for communities on the Pacific coast given the scale of industrial projects in development in that region. Staff provided an overview of emergency management and search and rescue capabilities in the North. Members agreed that FCM should provide comments to the Tanker Safety Review Panel's consultation on Arctic Ship - source Spills. The Forum also discussed the critical need for enhanced search and rescue FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 22 of 25 EMU FC.M.F7Pc'5' ACI d CANADIVIV. pF C:'.,�'ACI ^iJ CANADIEPII�.' 7E5 AlUA;C1PALITIES MU'.JIC:'V,1.:7tS capabilities that respond directly to community needs in the territories and provincial North. The meeting concluded with approval of the Policy Forum Agenda and Proposed Policy Statement for the 2014 Annual Conference in Niagara Falls, ON. STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations for adoption: 1. Adopt the policy statement, as amended; 2. Adopt the policy forum agenda, as amended; and Recommendations for referral to staff: 3. Direct staff to coordinate a submission to the Tanker Safety Expert Panel consultation on Arctic Ship - source Spills, and report back to the Forum on opportunities to advocate for enhanced search and rescue capabilities that respond to community needs. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 45 Page 23 of 25 FC,?AFEDFRATIOM FtDIR.2T10:j mtjr JZ17ALh'1m_G k�UHICW.UT255; -17 V,NADIAid CA:.ADIE;KN2 M; REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Annually, an Elections Committee is named to oversee the upcoming election process and to receive nominations for Table Officers positions. The 2014 Committee met on Wednesday, March 5t" to review FCM's election procedures and timelines. As defined in FCM by -laws, the following dates are key for the 2014 FCM Elections process: 1 March, 2014 - Launch of FCM's 2014 election process and campaign period 5 -8 March, 2014 (March 2014 Board Meeting) - Meeting of the Elections Committee, March 5 2 April, 2014 (60 days prior to the FCM 2014 Annual General Meeting) - Posting of nominations of Table Officer positions on the FCM Website 11 May, 2014 (21 days prior to FCM 2014 Annual General Meeting) Deadline for submission of nominations for Table Officer positions 13 May, 2014 - Deadline for submission of Consent Forms for Board Member positions (to be registered on the list of candidates) 18 May, 2014 (14 days prior to the FCM 2014 Annual General Meeting) - Deadline for Candidates to Withdraw from any Table Officer positions 1 June, 2014 FCM 2014 Annual General Meeting - Election of Table Officers Provincial Elections for Board Member positions FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL MA Page 24 of 25 FC M- 3 CA; +;ACIAN C,3.A.1DUYNE S3k;S N +UFdrU1AL1 —E!S PXINICIN LITV" As part of their mandate, the Committee also agreed to recommend the appointment of the following directors to the position of Election Chair in their respective province or territory: Yukon President Elaine Wyatt Northwest Territories President Tina Gargan Nunavut President Jeannie Ehaloak British Columbia President Rhona Martin Alberta President Bob Barss Saskatchewan Presidents Debra Button and David Marit Manitoba President Doug Dobrowolski Ontario President Russ Powers Quebec President ex- officio Robert Coulombe New Brunswick President Bruce MacIntosh Prince Edward Island President Bruce MacDougall Nova Scotia President Dave Corkum Newfoundland & LabradorPresident Churence Rogers STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Recommendations for adoption: 1. It is recommended that the individuals listed above be appointed as the Election Chairs in their respective province or territory to the 2014 Elections Committee. FCM REPORT TO COUNCIL 47 Page 25 of 25 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2014 -028 March 21, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: =91 City of Saint John SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing Date — 368 Rothesay Avenue (Adjacent Land), 11 Pickard Street & 3636 Westfield Road As provided in Common Council's resolution of August 3, 2004, this report indicates the rezoning and Section 39 amendment applications received and recommends an appropriate public hearing date. Details of the applications are available in the Common Clerk's office and will form part of the documentation presented at the public hearings. The following applications have been received. Name of Location Existing Proposed Reason Applicant Zone Zone Hughes Surveys Lands to the rear of "P" "i -1" To recognize an & Consultants 368 Rothesay Avenue existing parking Inc. (for Brett area for a car Realty Ltd.) sales lot Brian Reed 11 Pickard Street "R -2" "R -4" To permit the construction of a four - family dwelling Scott Darling 3636 Westfield Road "I -1" "B -2" To permit the construction of a professional office building RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council schedule the public hearings for the rezoning applications of Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc. (land adjacent to 368 Rothesay Avenue), Brian Reed (11 Pickard Street) and Scott Darling (3636 Westfield Road) for Monday, April i; M & C — 2014 — 028 - 2 - March 21, 2014 28, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, and refer the application to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Jacqueline Hamilton, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Growth and Community Development Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M&C2014 -32 March 24, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: The City of Saint John SUBJECT: Engineering Services- Hickey Road, Colpitts Avenue and MRG Station "X" — Wastewater Lift Station Upgrades BACKGROUND The approved 2014 Utility Fund Capital Program includes Sanitary Lift Station upgrades for the Hickey Road, Colpitts Avenue and MRG Station "X" Sanitary Lift Stations. This work involves the design and installation of a new, suction - style, packaged lift station, complete with all controls and weather proof enclosure for the MRG Station "X" and Colpitts Avenue Sanitary Lift Stations. This project also includes the rehabilitation of the Hickey Road Sanitary Lift Station. This rehabilitation includes replacing the two existing pumps, replacing the interior piping and the installation of a new gate valve and flow meter. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was advertised from February 20 to March 13, 2014 to engage an Engineering firm to carry out the following services for the above noted project: ♦ Part A — Site Surveys, Preliminary Investigation and Data Collection ♦ Part B Preliminary Design, Cost Estimates and Design Report ♦ Part C — Detailed Design ♦ Part D — Tender Period Services, Materials Testing & Inspection, Red Books and Record Drawings ♦ Part E — Construction Management PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to make a recommendation for consulting engineering services for this project. 50 M &C2014 -32 March 24, 2014 Page 2 ANALYSIS With comprehensive terms of reference document developed by staff, a public call for proposals was made for consulting engineering services_ The Request for Proposal (RFP) closed on March 13, 2014 with responses received from the following four consulting engineering companies: • CBCL Limited, Saint John, NB • Crandall Engineering Ltd., Saint John, NB • DiIlon Consulting Limited, Saint John, NB • WSP Canada Inc., Saint John, NB A Review Committee consisting of staff from Materials Management and Transportation & Environment Services was formed to evaluate submissions. Each member completed an independent review of the submissions and a joint discussion was held to develop the final ranking of submissions. The Review Committee came to a conclusion on their recommendation, which follows later in the report. The evaluation process uses the expertise of a variety of staff from Purchasing, Engineering, and Operations to ensure a thorough review of the various submissions. Care must be taken to ensure that the necessary level of effort and expertise is being directed to the various tasks involved in the work, while still ensuring that costs to be incurred are appropriate and controllable. It is for these reasons that cost, although very important, cannot be the sole nor most critical deciding factor in making the selection of a consulting engineering firm. The Committee was tasked with the role of reviewing each submission against the proposal evaluation criteria as defined in the proposal call document. These eriteria consisted of the following: 1. Quality and Completeness — Does the proposal address all of the needs raised? Is the proposal presented in an organized and professional manner? 2. Consultant's .Experience — Has the consultant demonstrated a level of expertise with the requirements of this project? 3. .Experience of Employees f Sub- consultants —Has the consultant demonstrated a level of expertise for the employees of the company and sub consultants listed? 4. Methodology — Does the approach to the project outlined in the proposal address, in a realistic sense, attainable goals and is it in keeping with the City's expectations for the project? 51 M &C2014 -32 March 24, 2014 Page 3 5. Value Added — What additional information, technology, process or options has the consultant included in his proposal? Is there value added to the consultant's response for this additional information? 6. Cost — Cost will be a factor, however not the only factor to be considered. Is the price quoted in line with the City's estimate for the work and has it allowed for each aspect of the project to be adequately addressed? After careful, independent consideration of presentation, company experience, personnel and technical proposal, the Review Committee met to analyze the findings of each member. After completion of the "technical" evaluation, the financial proposals were opened and addressed. These had been submitted in separate, sealed envelopes. After due consideration, the Review Committee selected the submission of Crandall Engineering Ltd. as the best proposal based on an overall rating of the evaluation criteria - presentation, company experience, personnel, technical proposal and cost. The submission from Crandall Engineering Ltd. met all of the requirements of the proposal call, in a manner acceptable to the committee, with a cost - effective bid for the project. Their financial proposal represents the lowest cost solution to the City of Saint John. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed cost of work from Crandall Engineering Ltd. to provide engineering design and construction management services for this project is $130,177.13 including HST. This cost is based on an estimated 12 week construction management period. A total amount of $800,000 was included in the 2014 Water& Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Programs to cover the cost of the design., construction and construction management. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Materials Management facilitated the RFP process to solicit proposals from Engineering Consultants for the Hickey Road, Colpitts Avenue and MRG Station "X" — Wastewater Lift Station Upgrades. The committee was tasked with the role of reviewing each submission against the proposal evaluation criteria as defined in the proposal call document. In accordance with the City's policies and procedures, separate assessments of the technical and financial aspects of the submissions were undertaken by the evaluation committee members. The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Materials Management support the recommendation being put forth. 52 M &C2014 -32 March 24, 2014 Page 4 POLICY — ENGAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS The casts incurred by the consultant will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Request For Proposal at the rates submitted and accepted in the consultants proposal not to exceed the Recommended Minimum Hourly Rates as contained in The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies — New Brunswick fee guideline. The Construction Management component of this project fee is based on an estimated 12 week construction period. The final fee will be calculated based on the actual construction management period. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposal from Crandall Engineering Ltd. for engineering design and construction management services for the Hickey Road, Colpitts Avenue and MRG Station "X" — Wastewater Lift Station Upgrades in the amount of $130,177.13 including HST be accepted and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation in that regard. Respectfully submitted, Pierre LeBlanc, P.Eng Municipal Engineer Win. Edwards, P.Eng. Commissioner Transportation & Environment 53 Brian Keenan, P.Eng. Engineering Manager J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager SPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2014 -33 March 25, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Public Information Session Millidgeville Stormwater Detention Pond PURPOSE The City of Saint John The purpose of this report is to inform Council of a Public Information Session that will be held in relation to the Millidgeville Stormwater Detention Pond Project to be constructed on a City owned parcel of property between Boars Head Road, Cambridge Drive and Grantham Road. BACKGROUND The approved General Fund Capital Program includes a project for the construction of the Millidgeville Stormwater Detention Pond. This work includes excavation, installation of new storm sewer, removal and installation of new cross culverts at Cambridge Drive and landscaping within the construction limits. ANALYSIS Staff looks forward to the tender closing on April 16, 2014. Construction will begin in May 2014 and continue until the end of December 2014. This is a major project that will impact the local area during construction. It is for this reason that staff have decided to hold a Public Information Session to allow local residents and business owners an opportunity to view the project design drawings, ask questions and give their feedback. The Public Information Session will be held at the Charles Gorman Arena at 80 University Ave on Wednesday April 9, 2014, from 2 -4 pm and 6 -8 pm. This report is being provided for the information of Council and to extend an invitation to any Councillors who may wish to attend the Public Information Session. An advertisement for the Public Information Session will be in the Saint John Telegraph Journal on Friday, April 4, 2014. A copy of the notice for the Public Information Session which will be delivered door to door in the project area has been attached. 54 M & C 2014 -33 March 25, 2014 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, Joel Landers, P.Eng, Municipal Engineer Wm. Edwards, P.Eng. Commissioner Transportation & Environment 55 3 0 Brian Keenan, P.Eng. Engineering Manager J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSION MILLIDGEVILLE STORMWATER DETENTION POND The City of Saint John will be undertaking a stormwater detention pond project between Boars Head Road, Cambridge Drive and Grantham Road. Storm sewer will extend along Boars Head Road and between Boars Head Road and Woodward Avenue. The project includes excavation, installation of new storm sewer, removal and installation of new cross culverts at Cambridge Drive and landscaping within the construction limits. The project is anticipated to begin in May, 2014 and is expected to be completed by the end of December, 2014. Representatives from the City of Saint John and the project design team from CBCL Limited will be available to answer questions related to the project. Date: Wednesday, April 91h, 2014 Place: Charles Gorman Arena 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, CBCL Limited, at (506) 633- 6650 or the City of Saint John Transportation and Environment Services at (506) 658 -4455. 56 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2014 -30 March 21, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: All - 01*&LF117L!114:14i kill] :1 =16'1' 11 � BACKGROUND: City of Saint John The New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation is planning a bond issue in the near future. While the issue will not be sold until the Corporation feels that rates are reasonable, they have provided ranges within which the issue could be sold. These are as follows: Interest Rate: Not to exceed an average of 4.50% Price, Net: Not to be less than $98.00 per $100.00 of debenture Term: Serial form to mature in equal annual amounts over a term not to exceed 15 years for the General Fund and 20 years for the Water & Sewerage Utility. Notice of motion was given at the February 17th 2014 meeting of Common Council regarding the need to borrow $11,000,000. In order to proceed with the debenture financing it is now recommended that the following be adopted. 57 M &C- 2014 -30 March 21, 2014 -2- RECOMMENDATION Whereas occasion having arisen in the public interest for the following public civic works and needed civic improvements, that is to say: GENERALFUND General Government $ 500,000 Protective Services $ 3,500,000 Transportation Services $ 4,000,000 Economic Development $ 1,000,000 Parks and Recreation $ 1,500,000 Environmental Health $ 100,000 $ 10,600,000 SAINT JOHN TRANSIT $ 400,000 TOTAL $ 11,000,000 1. Therefore resolved that debentures be issued under provisions of the Acts of Assembly 52, Victoria, Chapter 27, Section 29 and amendments thereto to the amount of $11,000,000. 2. Commissioner of Finance be authorized to issue and to sell to the New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation (the "Corporation ") a City of Saint John bond or debenture in the principal amount of $11,000,000 at such terms and conditions as are recommended by the Corporation. M &C- 2014 -30 March 21, 2014 -3- 3. And further that the City of Saint John agrees to issue post -dated cheques to the Corporation, or other such arrangements as the Corporation may from time to time accept, in payment of principal and interest charges on the above bond or debenture as and when they are required by the Corporation. 4. And further that the Commissioner of Finance be hereby authorized to receive an offer in connection with the foregoing debentures at a price not less than $98 per $100 of debenture, at interest rates not to exceed an average of 4.50% and at a term not to exceed 15 years for the issue related to the General Fund and not to exceed 20 years for the Water & Sewerage Utility. 5. And further that the Commissioner of Finance report to Common Council the exact values for price per $100 of debenture, interest rate and term in years, together with the date of the issue. Respectfully submitted, Gregory J. Yeomans, CGA, MBA Commissioner of Finance and Administrative Services 59 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2014 -31 March 21, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility — Energy Management Program PURPOSE =9y City of Saint John The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the current performance of the energy efficiency at Lancaster Lagoon BACKGROUND In 2010, the City of Saint John in cooperation with Saint John Water Staff developed an Energy Management Plan to help reduce the total annual energy costs associated with the water and wastewater facilities. The plan has identified a list of Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) with their capital investments, energy and operating savings and ranking priority. In 2011, a report to Council was provided on phase 1 of the energy performance at Lancaster Lagoon. The report had indicated that the actual annual energy savings were $55,000 or 694,000 KWH, which resulted in a reduction of over 560 Tons of CO2. ANALYSIS In 2012, operating staff in the Wastewater Treatment sub - service under the direction of the Operations Manager, Environmental Protection took the initiative to review the actual operation of the Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility. The objective was to optimize the process and identify low cost measures to further reduce the total annual energy cost of the facility without impacting the treatment objectives. .e M &C 2014 -31 March 21, 2014 -2- The following is a list of changes made to the equipment and operation of the treatment plant as part of Phase 2 of the Energy Management Plan: ➢ Replacement of main underground air supply lines to reduce leakage, ➢ Installation of new air distribution manifold to replace leaky existing system, ➢ Relocation of dissolved oxygen probe to get a more accurate reading, ➢ Installation of separate blower to operate grit removal system, lowering load on main blower system, and ➢ Increased management of blower operation to reduce electrical loading. A Measurement and Verification Plan (M &VP) was developed and implemented as part of the project to monitor the energy performance of the facility and calculate the energy savings. The M &VP determined that the actual annual energy savings as a result of these changes have increased to $154,192 or 1.86 Million KWH, which resulted in a reduction of over 1500 Tons of CO2. The total capital cost of implementation of these measures was $50,000 +HST. The following graph depicts the energy consumption before and after the Energy Conservation Measures and changes to the operation were implemented: Lancaster Lagoon Energy Analysis 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 2 ?�. 200,000 Y 150,000 100,000 50,000 �a��a`A \� e ��at� �at`r Phi\ ��� ,��e ,� �$�y� ���eO��o�e �e�Vei�e�1.0 2009 2013 61 M &C 2014 -31 March 21, 2014 -3- RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends that this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, Samir Yammine, P.Eng., CEM Energy Manager Gregory J. Yeomans, CGA, MBA Commissioner of Finance and Administrative Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 62 �-,°l (E) New Brunswick Dental Society Societe Dentaire du Nouveau- Brunswick Mayor Mel Norton and Council of the City of Saint John City of Saint John 15 Market Square PO Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 March 24, 2014 Dear Mayor Norton and Councillors, 520 rue King Street, HSBC Place #820 P.©. /C.P. Box 488, Station "A" Fredericton, N.B. E3B 4Z9 Te1.: (506) 452 -8575 Fax: (505) 452 -1872 am sure you are aware that the New Brunswick Dental Society is disappointed in the decision to remove fluoride from the municipal water system. We regret that our professional opinions, based on our training and experience, were not given due consideration. We encourage City Council to consider implementing local programs that will assist those who are most vulnerable in your community so that you can ensure that your decision will not have a detrimental impact on those populations. These programs could include working with local anti - poverty groups such as Vibrant Communities Saint John and the Department of Health to coordinate events for new and young parents to educate them about the importance of protecting their child's teeth; or the importance of using fluoridated products to enhance tooth development and prevent decay. If you are taking the fluoride out of the water, we believe you also should assume some responsibility in educating your citizens about the options available to them. Finally, we suggest that Council to make a public statement about the importance of good oral health habits, which includes using fluoridated products, brushing and flossing, and visiting a dentist twice a year. The ideal time for such a statement to be made would be during the month of April, which is Oral Health month. Should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Dr. Jeff Clark President, NBDS WRIO tl/�� Dr. Kelly Manning President -Elect websiLe: www.nbderital.com email: nbds @nb.aibn.corn � Horizon Medical Staff Organization - Saint John Zone President Dr. Christopher O'Brien P.O. Box 2100, Saint John, N.B. E2K 41_2 Vice President: Dr. Patricia Forgeron Phone: (506) 648 -7073 Fax: (506) 648 -7324 Secretary/Treasurer: Dr. Pamela Forsythe March 15, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton Common Council Common Clerks Office City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, N.B., E2L 4L1 Dear Mayor Norton and Council: We are writing once more on behalf of the physicians of the Saint John Zone, Horizon Health Medical Staff Organization (MSO) concerning fluoridation of our Saint John water supply. You received our first letter of January 24, 2014 stating our unanimous support of fluoridation, based on "best evidence" and "the best interest of the health and wellness of our population." Our letter was one of many letters and statements of support from a number of responsible and reputable organizations including the Saint John Dental Association, the District Medical Health Officer and the Saint John Medical Society. Municipal water fluoridation is supported by more than 90 health - related organizations worldwide including the World Health Organization, the FDA of the USA, as well as the Canadian Public Health Association. It is also supported by Canada's Chief Dental Health Officer, the New Brunswick Dental Association and New Brunswick's Chief Medical Health Officer. We were shocked and disappointed with Council's decision of March 10, 2014 against fluoridation of the Saint John water supply, despite the strong evidence and unbiased support. It seems the vote was based on something other than "best evidence and best practice." It is our understanding there were Council discussions on water fluoridation being a health related issue and therefore a provincial responsibility. I think this is very short - sighted, as we would expect many Council decisions would be viewed through the lens of the health, wellness and safety of our citizens. 'There has been no hesitation for Council to give financial support to municipal initiatives such as clean water, sewage, harbor cleanup and recreation facilities, all clearly focused on the health and wellness of our citizens. As President of the MSO, on behalf of the medical staff, we ask that Saint John City Council reconsider this important matter, and reinstate fluoridation to the City of Saint John water supply. Respectfully, President, MSO, Saint John Zone Horizon Health Network - Yves Parent, P.Eng, 178 King Street East Saint John, NB E2L 1H1 March 17, 2014 Mayor Mel Norton and Saint John Common Council members Dear Mr. Mayor and council members I am writing today to urge you to stop the fluoridation of our city's water. We are all concerned about the safety and quality of our drinking water and as a citizen of this great city who consumes it, I have a personal interest in water quality as much as anyone. Some dental care professionals tell us that we need fluoride in our water to help prevent tooth decay. This practice amounts to forced mass medication of the entire population via the water supply without their consent and a disregard of dosage or adverse effects. This goes against every principle of pharmacology and if it isn't unethical than I don't know what is. The public water supply be kept medication free. Furthermore fluoride's benefits supposedly come from topical application so why are we told to ingest it? After all, drinking sunblock does nothing to help you protect from sun burns. Being in the water supply also makes it very difficult to avoid. It finds its way into our cooking pots. We bathe in it and it finds its in many food and beverage products we purchase. Members of the dental care industry will tell you that the science is settled and fluoridation is perfectly safe and even beneficial but I am here to present evidence to the contrary. There is no drug that is safe for everyone and even among dental care professionals in this country there is disagreement to the safety of this practice. Hardy Limeback, head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto has taken a strong public position opposing water fluoridation. Here are some of the reasons he has cited for his opposition: • There is now a better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental decay. What little benefit fluoridated water may still provide is derived primarily through topical means, not ingestion. • Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer and sold to most of the major cities in North America, which use this industrial grade source of fluoride to fluoridate drinking water. Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial -grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans. In one Texas town they even found radioactive uranium in their fluoride supply. • The other compound used for water fluoridation is sodium fluoride, also commonly found to be the main ingredient in rat poison and nerve gas. Poison in small amounts is still poison. • Half of all ingested fluoride remains in the skeletal system and accumulates with age. Several recent epidemiological studies suggest that only a few years of fluoride ingestion from fluoridated water increases the risk for bone fracture. • There is a dose - dependent relationship between the prevalence /severity of dental fluorosis and fluoride ingestion. • A lifetime of excessive fluoride ingestion will undoubtedly have detrimental effects on a number of biological systems in the body and it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion. • The issue of mass medication of an unapproved drug without the expressed informed consent of each individual must also be addressed. The dose of fluoride cannot be controlled. • Based on the points outlined briefly above, the evidence has convinced me that the benefits of water fluoridation no longer outweigh the risks. Here are what some other facts on fluoride: "Fluoride ingestion leads to an average 10 to 15 point IQ drop in young children" - Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, after performing an extensive toxicology study on the long term effects of fluoride ingestion. 65 • Dr. Mullenix`s results were corroborated in an independent study conducted in 2012 by the Harvard School of Public Health. • Young children ingesting fluoride are very susceptible to dental fluorosis, a condition where the enamel is covered in brown pitted markings resulting in a weak enamel. • Water fluoridation is banned in 97% of Western Europe with with no difference in dental cavity rates when compared to North America. Israel has just banned the practice country -wide, citing health concerns. Japan has never fluoridated its water. Over 800 communities in North America have taken the fluoride out of their water in the last few years, all over health concerns. • According to the National Research Council (2006), "it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." They also found that fluoride increased the uptake and accumulation of aluminum in the brain, a risk factor for Alzheimer's. • As of January 2012, over 4000 North American health professionals have called for an end to water fluoridation. • The US Food and Drug Administration requires that all fluoride toothpaste sold in the U.S. carry a poison warning that instructs users to contact the poison control center if they swallow more than used for brushing. • In 2007, scientists from the Neurotoxicology Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency identified fluoride as having `substantial evidence" of "developmental neurotoxicity." A developmental neurotoxin is a chemical that can damage the young, developing brain. • Evidence on the dangers of fluoride has been around for a long time. Dr. Dean Burk, who in 1937 cofounded the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and headed its cytochemistry department for more than 30 years. He equates water fluoridation to "public murder," referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S, cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it. The study demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. • I grew up in a town that has never fluoridated its water. Since moving to Saint John I have been only drinking water filtered with a reverse osmosis system. Furthermore we have been using fluoride free toothpaste for the past several years so my lifetime fluoride exposure has been minimal. My teeth are just fine, that I can assure you, and the same goes for the rest of my family. Here is a list of health effects known or suspected to be cause by fluoride ingestion. • skeletal fluorosis • dental fluorosis • arthritis • bone fragility • bone cancer • bladder cancer • thyroid disease • lowered IQ The above is just a brief summary of available information on this topic. To conlcude, there are too many risks for the limited benefits. Most of you mentioned water quality as a top priority during the most recent municipal election. Please honor your election pledges and take the fluoride out of our water. If the dental profession feels strongly about fluoride let them distribute fluoride tablets to their clients. Then at least we would have a choice. Yves R. Parent P. Eng. .. FLUORIDE FLUORIDEALERT.ORG Fluoride Action Network 67 MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES DO NOT FLUORIDATE THEIR WATER In the United States, health authorities call fluoridation ,.one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century." Few other countries share this view. In fact, more people drink artificially fluoridated water in the U.S. alone than in the rest of the world combined.' Most advanced nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, 97% of the population has water without a single drop of fluoride added to it.2 Fluoridation proponents will sometimes say this is because Europe adds fluoride to its salt. Only five nations in western Europe, however, have any fluoridated salt.' The vast majority do not. WESTERN EUROPE 97% DO NOT DRINK FLUORIDATED WATER MORE PEOPLE DRINK ARTIFICIALLY FLUORIDATED WATER IN THE U.S. ALONE THAN IN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED It is often claimed that fluoridated water is the main reason the United States has had a large decline in tooth decay over the past 60 years. This same decline in tooth decay, however, has occurred in all developed countries, most of which have never added any fluoride to their water .4 Today, according to data from the World Health Organization, there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between the minority of developed countries that fluoridate water, and the majority that do not.5 8 w d ee G LJ Z a 0 w� NOIN FILUORIGRTEO FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES DO NOT HAVE LESS TOOTH DECAY THAN 1970 2010 NON- FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES SOQRGR: WORLD HEAL71i ORGANIZATION (2013) 68 M FLUORIDE AFFECTS MANY TISSUES IN THE BODY BESIDES THE TEETH Fluoridation advocates have long claimed that the safety of fluoridation is beyond scientific debate.' However, according to the well -known toxicologist, Dr. John Doull, who chaired the National Academy of Science's review on fluoride, the safety of fluoridation remains "unsettled" and "we have much less information than we should, considering how long it has been going on. "' In 2006, Doull's committee at the NAS published an exhaustive 500 -page review of fluoride's toxicity.' The report concludes that fluoride is an "endocrine disruptor" and can affect many things in the body, including the bones, the brain, the thyroid gland, the pineal gland, and even blood sugar levels.' Far from giving fluoride a clean bill of health, the NAS called upon scientists to investigate if current fluoride exposures in the United States are contributing to chronic health problems, like bone disorders, thyroid disease, low intelligence, dementia, and diabetes, particularly in people who are most vulnerable to fluoride's effects.1° These recommendations highlight that --- despite 60 years of fluoridation —many of the basic studies necessary for determining the program's safety have yet to be conducted. It I�l;�blMANDl►1 IS NOT A "NATURAL" PROCESS .• "It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the finctions of tho twain." " i'he possibility has been raised by studios conducted in China that fluoride can lower inicilect.ual abilities." ";Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor." "Several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid Viction " "Sufficient fluoride exposure appears to increase the severity of some types of diabetes " "The relationship between fertility and fluoride requires additional study "Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted." "'These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease." SdiJt�CE National Research Council. (2006) f=luoride in Drinking Water. A Scientific Revfew of EPA s Standards National Academies Press, Washington D C Fluoridation advocates often say that "nature thought of fluoridation first." By this, they mean that fluoride occurs at naturally high levels in some water supplies." Lots of toxic substances, however, like arsenic, and even some medicines, like lithium, can occur at naturally high levels. This doesn't mean they're safe. 12 Further, the level of fluoride added in artificial fluoridation programs is far higher than the level of fluoride that occurs in the vast majority of (unpolluted) fresh surface waters." Also the main fluoride chemical (fluorosilicic acid) that is added to water is not what most people would call J Fact 4 continued a naturally occurring compound. It is a corrosive acid captured in the air pollution control devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry. 14 Fluoride is captured in air pollution control devices because fluoride gases are hazardous air pollutants that cause significant environmental harm.15 This captured fluoride acid is the most contaminated chemical added to public water supplies,16 and may impose additional risks to those presented by natural fluorides. These risks include a possible cancer hazard from the acid's elevated arsenic content, and a possible neurotoxic hazard from the acid's ability -under some conditions - -to increase the erosion of lead from old pipes." 11110111,101M THE FLUORIDE CHEMICAL (" FLUOROSILICIC ACID ") ADDED TO MOST TAP WATER IS A CORROSIVE ACID CAPTURED IN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DEVICES 0 OF AMERICAN SHOW /0 VISIBLENSIGNS OF FLUORIDE OVER - EXPOSURE According to a recent national survey by the CDC, about 40% of American teenagers have a condition called dental fluorosis,'$ Fluorosis is a defect of tooth enamel caused by fluoride's interference with the tooth - forming cells. The condition shows as cloudy spots and streaks and, in more severe cases, brown stains and tooth erosion.' In the 1950s, health officials claimed that fluorosis would only affect 10% of children in fluoridated areas.20 This prediction has proven false. Today, not only do 40% of American teenagers have fluorosis, but, in some fluoridated areas, the rate is as high as 70 to 80 %, with some children suffering advanced forms of the condition -" 70 The high rate of fluorosis in the U.S. reflects the fact that children now receive fluoride from many sources besides tap water. When fluoridation first began, there was not a single tube of toothpaste that contained fluoride. Today, over 95% of toothpastes are fluoridated. Although fluoride toothpastes carry poison warnings on them, studies show that children can swallow large amounts of fluoride when they brush, particularly when using toothpaste with bubble gum and candy flavors.22 Fact 5 continued And there are other sources of fluoride as well, including processsed beverage slfoods,II fluoride pesticides '14 tea 21 Teflon pans '21, and some fluorinated pharmaceuticals.27 The concern today, therefore, is not just the safety of fluoridated water by itself, but the safety of fluoridated water in combination with all the other sources to which we're now exposed. 36 STUDIES HAVE FOUND A CORRELATION BETWEEN FLUORIDE AND LOWER IQ FOR INFANTS, FLUORIDATED WATER PROVIDES NO BENEFITS, ONLY RISKS Up until the 1990s, health authorities advised parents to give fluoride to newborn babies. This is no longer the case. Today, the Institute of Medicine recommends that babies consume a minuscule 10 micrograms of fluoride per day.28 This is roughly the equivalent of what babies ingest from breast milk, which contains virtually no fluoride .21 71 Infants who consume formula made with fluoridated tap water consume up to 700 to 1,200 micrograms of fluoride, or about 100 times more than the recommended amount. According to the CDC, these early spikes of fluoride exposure during infancy provide no known advantage to teeth .31 These spikes can, however, produce harm. Recent studies show that babies who are given fluoridated water in their formula develop significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis.31 Because of this, a number of prominent dental researchers now advise that parents should not add fluoridated water to baby formula .32 And teeth are not the only concern. In July of 2012, scientists from Harvard University warned that the developing brain may be another target for fluoride toxicity." The Harvard team based their warning on a large number of studies from China that have found reduced IQ scores among children exposed to elevated fluoride during their early years of life. Twelve of the studies the Harvard team reviewed found IQ loss at fluoride levels deemed safe in the U.S. and a study sponsored by UNICEF found IQ loss in iodine- deficient children at the so- called "optimal" fluoridation level.34 The possibility that fluoridated water can reduce IQ is a matter that "definitely deserves concern." 35 FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN APPROVED BY THE FDA Fluoride "supplements" are designed to provide children the same dose of fluoride they would receive by drinking fluoridated water .31 Unlike other dietary supplements, however, you can't just walk into a grocery store and buy a fluoride supplement. Because of fluoride's toxicity, you can only buy a fluoride "supplement" if you have a doctor's prescription. Yet, although federal law requires that prescription drugs be approved as safe and effective by the FDA,37 the FDA has never approved fluoride supplements for the prevention of tooth decay.3$ In fact, the only fluoride supplements the FDA has reviewed, have been rejected.39 So, with fluoridation, we are adding to the water a prescription - strength dose of a drug that has never been approved by the FDA. FLUORIDE IS THE ONLY MEDICINE ADDED TO PUBLIC WATER Fluoride is the only chemical added to water that doesn't actually treat the water. Chlorine, for example, is added to kill bacteria so that we can drink the water without getting sick. Fluoride, by contrast, is added to prevent a disease (tooth decay) that is not caused by drinking water. Fluoridation proponents claim that fluoridated water is not a medication because, in their view, it's no different than adding iodine to salt or vitamin D to milk. What proponents fail to acknowledge, however, is that iodine and vitamin D are both essential nutrients; but fluoride is not. An essential nutrient is something the body has a physiological demand for. If we don't have enough 72 NO$ -;'V1 1'2 ' D; tK IN WATER EVERYDAY � FOR L FE %WDEDMOSONTAUT " MY110i1NrJJ" p EDREFS y dl r� Fact 8 coniinued iodine, for example, our thyroid gland won't function properly. Although fluoride advocates sometimes claim that fluoride is a "nutrient," the National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly confirmed that this is not the case .40 Because fluoride is not a nutrient, the FDA has defined fluoride as a medicine when used to prevent disease.41 Since tooth decay is a disease, adding fluoride to water to prevent tooth decay is -- as a matter of logic -- a form of medication. This is one of the reasons why most European nations have rejected fluoridation: because, in their view, the water supply is an inappropriate way to deliver medicine .41 With other medicines, it is the patient, not the doctor, who has the right to decide which drug to take .43 Fluoridation denies people this right. SWALLOWING FLUORIDE PROVIDES LITTLE BENEFIT TO TEETH When water fluoridation first began back in the 1940s, the medical profession believed fluoride needed to be ingested to be most effective in preventing cavities .44 This was why fluoride was added to water and pills — because these are things that people swallow. Today, however, it is now widely recognized that fluoride's main benefit does not actually come from ingestion, it comes from fluoride's topical contact with teeth45 —a fact that even the CDC has now acknowledged .41 So, not only does fluoridation add a medicine to water, it adds a medicine that does not actually need to be swallowed. 73 M DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ARE THE MOST DISADVANTAGED BY FLUORIDE In the United States, there is a serious shortage of dentists who will treat low - income patients .47 The claim, however, that we can compensate for this lack of care by forcing poor populations to consume fluoridation chemicals in their water is a dangerous one. The conditions that make people more vulnerable to fluoride toxicity are more prevalent in poor communities than affluent ones (e.g., nutrient deficiencies, infant formula consumption, kidney disease, and diabetes) .411 This likely explains why African American and Mexican American children suffer significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis.4r These disparities in fluoride risk have led several prominent civil rights leaders— including Andrew Young and the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights organization —to call for an end to fluoridation." Despite claims that fluoridation can prevent the high rates of tooth decay seen in poor areas, the vast majority of poor urban communities have been fluoridated for over 30 years, and yet are still suffering from a severe oral health crisis.51 In fluoridated Cincinnati, the dental director described the state of oral health among poor children as "absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty," -In (fluofidaied) Detroit. g1% o' 5- year -o!d Iblack children have tooth decay with 41Gr,, suffering frorn "severe' decay 11 -in (fluoridated) New York City, 34 95 of pre- school black children from low - income families have rampant tooth decay: with a staggering 6 4 cavities per affected child." -In (fluoridated) Ch sago. 54,X, of third graders have tooth decay `F -In San Antonio, annual head start surveys show that fluoridation failed to reduce the high rate of tooth decay among the city's head start children. After eight years of fluoridation, the tooth decay rate did not decrease - -it mcreased.17 -A national survey by the CDC found that the most fluoridated state in the U.S. (Kentucky) suffers the highest rate ref tooth loss '(140o) while the least fluoridated state (? iawaii) suffers the lowest rate of Tooth loss (16%) 11 -Untreated tooth decay in fluoridated urban areas has led to several deaths. including a 12- year -old child in Prince Georges Maryland, and a 24 -year- old father in Cincinnati.59 adding that "people would be shocked to learn how bad the problem has become. ­52 Many other cities have experienced the same fate. (See sidebar) The simple fact is that poor populations need dental care, not fluoridation chemicals in their water. The millions of dollars spent each year promoting fluoridation would be better spent advocating for policies that provide real dental care: like allowing dental therapists to provide affordable care to populations with little access to dentists.53 In short, fluoridation provides good PR for dental trade associations, but bad medicine for those it's supposedly meant to serve. 74 NOTES FOR FACT 1: "MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES DO NOT FLUORIDATE THEIR WATER" 1) See data at: www .fluoridealert.org /content/bfs- 20121 2) See data at: www. fluoridealert.org /content/water_europe/ 3) For data on the number of countries in Europe that allow fluoridated salt, see: Gotzfried F. (2006). Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 116: 371 -75. Unlike water fluoridation (which applies fluoride to an entire water supply), salt fluoridation in Europe is limited to household salt that people have the option to purchase. In two of the five European countries that allow salt fluoridation, only 6% to 10% of household salt is actually fluoridated). Salt fluoridation is thus a far less intrusive application of fluoride than water fluoridation. NOTES FOR FACT 2: FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES DO NOT HAVE LESS TOOTH DECAY THAN NON-FLUORIDATED COUNTRIES 4) See extensive compilation of published research and data at: www. fluoridealert.org /studies /cariesOl/ 5) World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Education, Training, and Research in Oral Health, Malmo University, Sweden. Data available at http: / /www.mah.se /CAPP/ (accessed on March 30, 2013). NOTES FOR FACT 3: FLUORIDE AFFECTS MANY TISSUES IN THE BODY BESIDES THE TEETH 6) A representative example of this viewpoint was expressed by Dr. Robert Kehoe in 1957: "The question of the public safety of fluoridation is non - existent from the viewpoint of medical science." 7) In a January 2008 article published in Scientific American, Dr. Doull was quoted as saying: °[W]e've gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years —for too long, really —and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that's a hard hurdle to get over, But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this has been going on. I think that's why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began." See: www.fluoridealert.org /researchers /nrc /panelists/ 8) National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA's standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. Available online at: www .nap.edu /catalog.php ?record_id =11571 9) See excerpts of NAS's findings at: www.fluoridealert.org /researchers /nrc /findings/ 10) See excerpts of NAS's recommendations at: www. fluoridealert. org / researchers /nrc /recommendations / NOTES FOR FACT #4: FLUORIDATION IS NOT A "NATURAL" PROCESS 11) Most fresh surface waters (e.g., lakes /streams) contain very little fluoride. When fluoride is obtained from deep ground water supplies, however, fluoride contamination can become a significant problem. See infra note 13. 12) High levels of naturally occurring fluorides have wreaked havoc on tens of millions of people's health around the world, particularly in developing countries where water shortages force many rural communities to obtain water from deep in the ground. Consumption of fluoride -laden well water causes serious health ailments, including tooth loss, bone disease, ulcers, brain damage, heart disease, and thyroid disease. See: www,fluoridealert.org /issues /health /. Because of this, international organizations like UNICEF assist developing nations in finding ways of removing fluoride from the water. For a review by UNICEF on the worldwide scope of fluoride poisoning, see: www.fluoridealert .org /uploads /UNICEF- 1999.pdf 13) In Canada, the average level of fluoride in fresh surface water is just 0.05 ppm, which is 14 to 24 times less fluoride than added to water in fluoridation programs. See: Environment Canada. (1993). Inorganic Fluorides' Priority Substances List Assessment Report. Government of Canada, Ottawa. p. 14. Fresh vegetables, fruits, milk, and eggs contain even lower levels of fluoride (unless they're sprayed with fluoride pesticides). Seen www. fluoridealert.org /content/fresh_foods /. In the rare circumstance where rivers or ponds contain the same level of fluoride that is added to tap water, salmon and frogs have been found to suffer serious harm, including bone disease, changes in behavior, and increased mortality. See: Shaw SD, et al. (2012). Journal of Zoo & Wildlife Medicine 43(3):549 -65; Damkaer DM, Dey DB. (1989). North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 9: 154 -162. 14) As noted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "By recovering by- product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low -cost source of fluoride available to them." See: www.fluoridealert.org /uploads /hanmerl983.pdf, 15) In 20th century, fluoride pollution caused more harm to livestock than any other pollutant. In Polk County, Florida (the capital of America's phosphate industry), cattle downwind of the phosphate industry suffered "mass fluoride poisoning." Between 1953 and 1960, "the cattle population dropped 30,000 head," and "an estimated 150,000 acres of cattle land were abandoned." As one farmer explained, "Around 1953 we noticed a change in our cattle... We watched our cattle become gaunt and starved, their legs became deformed; they lost their teeth. Reproduction fell off and when a cow did have a calf, it was also affected by this malady or was a stillborn." For discussion and documentation, see: www.fluoridealert.org /articles /phosphateOl/ 16) See: Weng C, et al. (2000). Treatment chemicals contribute to arsenic levels. Opflow (AWWA), October, p. 6 -7. Available at: http://www.fluoridealert,org/uploads/opflow-2000.pdf 17) Hirzy JW, et al. (2013). Environ. Sci. Policy http : / /dx.doi. org /10.1016/j.envsci.2013.01.007. On the lead /neurotoxic risk, see: Coplan MJ, et al. (2007). Neurotoxicology 28(5):1032 -42; Maas RP, et al. (2007). Neurotoxicology 28(5):1023 -31. 75 NOTES FOR FACT #5: 40% OF AMERICAN TEENAGERS SHOW VISIBLE SIGNS OF FLUORIDE OVEREXPOSURE. 18) Beltran - Aguilar ED, et al. (2010). Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999 -2004, NCHS Data Brief No. 53. 19) For photographs and discussion, see: www. fluoridealert .org /issues /fluorosis/ 20) Spzunar SM, Burt BA. (1988). J. Dent. Res. 67(5):802 -06; Hodge HC. (1950). J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 40:436 -39. 21) See: www. fluoridealert. org /studies /dental_fluorosis0l/ 22) See: www.fluoridealert.org /issues /sources /f- toothpaste/ 23) See: www. fluoridealert.orgfssues /sources /processed/ 24) See: www,fluoridealert.org /issues /sources /f- pesticides/ 25) See: www.fluoridealert.org /issues /sources /tea/ 26) See: www.fluoridealert.org /issues /sources /teflon -pans/ 27) See: www.fluoridealert. org / issues /sources /pharmaceuticals / NOTES FOR FACT #6: FOR INFANTS, FLUORIDATED WATER PROVIDES NO BENEFITS, ONLY RISKS 28) Institute of Medicine. (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. p. 302. 29) Ekstrand J, et al. (1981). British Medical Journal 283: 761 -2. 30) In a May 15, 2012 letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, the CDC wrote: "We are unaware of data ... about the additional protection from tooth decay that could result from [intakes greater than 10 micrograms /day of fluoride]." See: www.fluoridealert.org /uploads /cdc-2012.pdf 31) See: www. fluoridealert.org /studieslinfant02l 32) See: www.fluoridealert.org /studies /infantOl/ 33) Choi AL, et al. (2012). Environmental Health Perspectives 120:1362 -68, 34) For a discussion of these studies, see: www. fluoridealert.org /articles /iq- factst. For a listing of all studies that have found an association between fluoride and reduced IQ, see: www. fluoridealert.org /studies /brainGl /. 35) Dr. Philippe Grandjean, the senior scientist who authored the Harvard review, has stated that: "Chemical brain drain should not be disregarded. The average IQ deficit in children exposed to increased levels of fluoride in drinking water was found to correspond to about 7 points — a sizable difference. To which extent this risk applies to fluoridation in Wichita or Portland or elsewhere is uncertain, but definitely deserves concern." See: www.braindrain.dk/2013102 /fluoridated- water - and - brains /. NOTES FOR FACT #7: FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN APPROVED BY THE FDA 36) Under current fluoride supplementation guidelines, two- year -old children living in non - fluoridated areas are prescribed 0.25 mg of fluoride per day. This is the same amount of fluoride contained in just one 8 ounce glass of water fluoridated at 1 ppm. To learn more about current fluoride supplementation guidelines, see: Rozier RG, et al. (2010). J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 141(12):1480 -89. 37) 21 U.S.C. § 355(a). Although an exception to this rule exists for drugs that were on the market prior to 1938, fluoride supplements did not enter the market until the 1950s. Accordingly, the "grandfather clause" exception does not apply to fluoride supplements. For a detailed discussion on this point, see: www. fluoridealert. org /researchers /fda /explanations/ 38) To access FDA's letters confirming this fact, see: www.fIuorideaiert.org /researchers /fdalnot- approved/ 39) The two fluoride supplements that FDA has rejected are Enziflur (a fluoride /vitamin combination) and prenatal fluoride supplements. See: www. fluoridealert.org /uploads /enziflur- 1975.pdf and www.fluoridealert.org /articles /fda- 19661. NOTES FOR FACT 8: FLUORIDE IS THE ONLY MEDICINE ADDED TO PUBLIC WATER 40) According to the NAS, "fluoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth and development." See: www. fluoridealert. org /studies /essential- nutrientl 41) According to the FDA: "Fluoride, when used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal, is a drug that is subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation." See: www. fluoridealert.org /researchers /fda /drug/ 42) In Germany, for example, "the argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication." See this and other statements from European authorities at: www.fluoridealert. org /contentleurope- statements/. 43) Under the principle of "informed consent, " the patient has the "right to self decision." See: AMA Ethical Opinion 8.08. While the doctor has an "obligation ... to present the medical facts accurately to the patient," it is the patient (or the patient's caregiver) who has the sole right to decide what medical treatments to use. NOTES FOR FACT 9: SWALLOWING FLUORIDE PROVIDES LITTLE BENEFIT TO TEETH 44) Fejerskov 0. (2004). Caries Research 38:184 ( "The hypothesis was that increased intake of fluoride during tooth formation raises the fluoride concentration in enamel and hence increases acid resistance. As a consequence fluoride had to be taken systemically and artificial fluoridation of drinking waters became the 'optimal' solution. "). 45) For an extensive compilation of quotes from dental researchers discussing this consensus, see: www. fluoridealert .org /studies /cariesO4/ 46) According to the CDC, "fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." Centers for Disease Control (1999). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48: 933 -40. 76 NOTES FOR FACT 10: DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES ARE THE MOST DISADVANTAGED BY FLUORIDE 47) In Maryland, 84% of dentists do not accept Medicaid patients. Similar rates exist in other states, including Alabama (82 %), Colorado (79 %), and Ohio (72 %). As a result, most low- income children are not able to receive treatment from a dentist. See data and reports at: www. fluoridealert.org /content/dental -care/ 48) See: www.fluoridealert .org /issues /sourr-es /ej/ 49) Beltran - Aguilar ED et al. (2005). MMWR Surveillance Summaries 54(3): 1 -44. For a discussion of other studies that have found racial disparities in fluorosis rates, see: www.fluoridealert.org/studiesidental—fluorosisO2/ 50) See: www.fluoridealert.org /issues /ej /statements/ 51) For a compilation of reports, see: www.fluoridealert.org /studies /caries07 /. 52) See: www.fluoridealert. org / news /cincinnatis- dental- crisisi 53) Allowing access to dental therapists represents an important strategy for expanding dental care services to underserved populations. Dental therapists are specially trained to provide dental care, such as tooth cleanings and fillings. According to a recent review, "the quality of technical care provided by dental therapists (within their scope of competency) was comparable to that of a dentist, and in some studies was judged to be superior." Nash D, et al. (2012). A Review of the Global Literature on Dental Therapists. W.K. Kellogg Foundation. p. 6. Despite these findings, dental trade associations (such as the American Dental Association) are vigorously lobbying against efforts to allow dental therapists to serve underprivileged populations. See: Levine D. (2011). WhyAre Dentists Opposing Expanded Dental Care? Available at: www.governing.com /topics /health- human- services/ gov- why -a re- dentists - opposing- expanded - denta I -care. html 54) Ismail Al, et al. (2006). Severity of dental caries among African American children in Detroit. Presentation at ADEA/AADR /CADR Conference, March 11. Abstract available at: http: / /iadr.confex.com/ iadr/ 20060rld /techprogram /abstract_73168,htm 55) Albert DA, et al. (2002). Dental caries among disadvantaged 3- to 4- year -old children in northern Manhattan. Pediatric Dentistry 24:229 -33. 56) Bridge to Healthy Smiles. Cook County Oral Health Crisis. Available at: http: l/ www. bridgetohealthysmiles .com /ISDSBrochure.pdf 57) Bexar County Head Start Dental Screenings Program. See data at: www. fluoridealert. orgluploads /san_antonio_caries.pdf 58) Centers for Disease Control. (1999). Behavioral Risk factor Surveillance System. Data summarized at: http: / /dre.hhs.gov /reporU4_3.htm 59) For a discussion of these tragic outcomes, see: Carrie Gann, Man Dies from Toothache, Couldn't Afford Meds, ABC News, Sept. 11 2011, and Laura Owings, Toothache Leads to Boy's Death, ABC News, March 5, 2047. STATEMENTS ON FLUORIDATION FROM CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS "I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies' milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist." "I support the holdings of Fluoridegate hearings so we can learn why we haven't been openly told that fluorides build up in the body over time, why our government agencies haven't told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans, and why we've been told that decades of extensive research show fluoridation to be safe, when the National Research Council in 2006 listed volumes of basic research that has never been done." -Rev. Gerald Durley - Andrew Young "This is a civil rights issue. No one should be subjected to drinking fluoride in their water, especially sensitive groups like kidney patients and diabetics, babies in their milk formula, or poor families that cannot afford to purchase unfluoridated water. Black and Latino families are being disproportionately harmed." - Alveda King 77 M V RESEAL) DE SAUTE Horizon HEALTH NETWORK John Dornan, MD, FRCPC, FACP Chief of Staff, Saint John Assistant Professor, Medicine Endocrinology and Metabolism Dalhousie University March 13, 2014 His 'Worship Mel Norton Mayor of Saint John. Common Clerk's Office City Hall, 8"' Floor PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Dear Mayor Norton and Council: Tel /T61.. (506) 648 -7643 Fax /Tdlec.: (506) 648 -6364 Email /Courriel: John.Doman[a.,IIOrizonNB ca Sent VIA Email On behalf of the Medical Advisory Committee, Saint John area, we would like to advise you that we strongly support the maintenance of fluoridation in the Saint John water supply. Our understanding is that you and the Saint John City Council have felt that fluoridation of the water is a health issue not within your mandate. Indeed, it is our understanding that all of your activities would typically centre around the health and well -being of the citizens of Saint John. The provision of a safe water supply has clearly been accepted as a responsibility of our Council. The maintenance of healthy dentition should be no different, and we would strongly ask you to reconsider Council's recent decision to remove fluoridation from our water supply. You have been provided evidence by the Saint John Medical Society and the Saint John Dental Society supporting fluoridation. We commend yourself and Council for making evidence -based decisions, and collectively we have been glad to provide such evidence. Therefore, on the advice of responsible groups of physicians, including the Saint John Regional Hospital Medical Advisory Committee, we would ask you to reconsider your decision of March 10, 2014 and reinstitute fluoridation of the Saint John water supply. Yours truly, John Doman, MD, FRRCPC, FRCP Chief of Staff, Saint John Horizon Health Network �"AlI Chief of Staff, Saint John /Chef du personnel m6dical, Saint John PO Box 5200, Saint John, NB E2L 4L4 /C.P. 5200, Saint John (N. -B.) E2L 4L4 www. Horizon NB.ca W 6, `1c) Z March 18, 2014 z City of Saint John 15 Market Square O PO Box 1971 ti Saint John, NB E21- 41-1 To Mayor and Council: z ~" As per the following request by council, Uptown SJ would like to provide a presentation to council on its recommendations on Pedestrian streets etc. RESOLVED that Council request Uptown Saint John and such other economic development partners and city staff as is deemed appropriate by the City Manager to: W W 1. Establish for a trial period, the duration, commencement and location of which is to be determined by Uptown Saint John, a pedestrian street or streets. 2. That such pilot project start no later than the spring of 2014 and 3. That at the conclusion of the pilot project, and by not later than the fall of 2014, O Uptown Saint John report to Common Council as to the advisability of establishing a permanent pedestrian street or streets and if advisable, the location and z implementation steps for the same. " Sincerely, a C Dr. Matthew A exander t President, Uptown Saint John Inc. O C Ca U) T. 506.633.9797 F. 506.652.3525 www.uptownsj..com 79 Planning Advisory Committee January 27, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council: P.Q. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: Planning Advisory Committee Executive for 2014 City of saint John The Planning Advisory Committee's Rules of Procedure provide for the election of an executive on a yearly basis. At its January 21, 2014 meeting, the Committee elected the folloxNing individuals as members of the executive for 2014: Chair - Vice Chair - Third Executive Member - Sincerely, Morgan Chair Morgan Lanigan Andrew Miller Eric Falkjar :1 EWIIP-a PROCLAMATION WHEREAS Oncology nurses are committed to providing quality oncology care; and WHEREAS Oncology nurses have demonstrated excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology nursing; and WHEREAS Oncology nurses endeavour to educate the public in the prevention and treatment of cancer, NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Mel Norton, of Saint John do hereby proclaim April 1, 2014 Canadian Oncology Nursing Day in Saint John, New Brunswick. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. P.R.-V CLAMA l 1 O r WHEREAS During the week of April 6"' to April 12'', 2014, Volunteers across Canada are recognized for their hard work in giving back to the community. Volunteers in our region mentor our children, feed our hungry and fundraise for our charitable organizations; and WHEREAS Rogers TV works with volunteers on a national and provincial level and have over 225 volunteers in the province of New Brunswick with over 32 here in the City of Saint John. Volunteers are young students, workers, retirees, men and women of all ages and background; and WHEREAS The goal of Rogers TV is to provide community- based programming with the help and participation of people in the community for the benefit of viewers at home, providing over 2900 hours of programming annually, including coverage of our City Council Proceedings; and WHEREAS Rogers TV in the City of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick is an important facet of our communities, helping to raise over 300 Thousand Dollars through telethons each year to different charitable organizations. NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Mel Norton, of Saint John do hereby proclaim the week of April 6th to April 12th, 2014 National Volunteer Week in Saint John, New Brunswick. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS 2 Squadron, 37 Signal Regiment, has, since its earliest origins in Saint John, New Brunswick, in 1904, as the first signals unit in the Commonwealth, served Canada with honour and distinction; and WHEREAS The year 2014 marks an eleven decade anniversary of the establishment of the Squadron; and WHEREAS All ranks of Squadron, 37 Signal Regiment continue to exhibit the highest standards of military discipline and preparedness; and WHEREAS The City of Saint John has had a long association with the Armed Forces of Canada; and it is considered that the honourable record of the said Squadron should be recognized; and WHEREAS The Common Council of The City of Saint John has bestowed the Squadron with the Freedom of the City, on June 11, 1994, in recognition of the high esteem the citizens of Saint John hold the said Squadron, and in memory of all ranks who gave their lives in service for their country; and WHEREAS That the Common Council of The City of Saint John does hereby congratulate 2 Squadron, 37 Signal Regiment on the significant occasion of its 110th anniversary. NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Mel Norton, of Saint John do hereby proclaim March 31, 2014 the day to recognize the 11Oth anniversary of 2 Squadron, 37 Signal Regiment in Saint John, New Brunswick. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS another Canadian is diagnosed with cancer every three minutes; and WHEREAS the Canadian Cancer Society is working to eradicate all cancers and improve the quality of life for people living with cancer; and WHEREAS daffodil month and daffodil day are opportunities for residents of Saint John to show their support in the fight against cancer; and NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Met Norton, of Saint John do hereby proclaim the month of April to be Daffodil Month in Saint John, New Brunswick. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. I 7 A Canadian Sociefie Cancer canadienne Society du cancer January 22, 2014 Common Clerk's Office, Saint John City Hall P. O. Box 1971 Saint John, N. B, E2L 4L1 Dear Mayor and Council 75With you in the fight for life Avec vows dons le combat pour la vie RECEIVED COMMON CLERK'S OFF` JAN 2 3 2013 CITY OF SAINT JOHN The Canadian Cancer Society Daffodil Campaign is fast approaching. Volunteers are hard at work calling throughout the city taking orders for the special flower. Each year the Canadian Cancer Society, along with a cancer survivor looks forward to making a presentation of a bouquet of Daffodils to the Mayor and council at an open meeting. I would like to suggest the week of March 17, 2014 for this presentation. The Canadian Cancer Society, on behalf of all survivors, thanks you for your past support. We appreciate the opportunity to promote the Daffodil Campaign. Sincerely, it E' Jill Russell Manager, Southern District Canadian Cancer Society 506- 634 -6263 New Brunswick 133 Prince William Street, Suite 201 P.O' Box 2089 Saint John, NB ER 3T5 T 506- 634 -6272 F 506 - 634-3808 ToV Free: 1 800 455 -9090 ker's Helpline 1 877 513-5333 �rpp 1 888 939-3333 1 cancer.ca 8 L mrib,,�nb.cancer.ca Nouveau - Brunswick 133, rue Prince William, bureau 201 C.P. 2089 Saint John (N.-&) Ell 3T5 TO, 506 -634 -6272 T61ec.506- 634 -3808 Sans Frais : 1 800 455-9090 10I6assistance pour fumeuss : 1 877 513 -5333 Courriel: ccsnb@ob.cancerca A BY -LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING TRAFFIC ON STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1973, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ARREA MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF A LA CIRCULATION DANS LES RUES DANS THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN EDICTS CONFORMEMENT A LA LOI SUR LES VEHICULES A MOTEUR (1973) ET LES MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une reunion du conseil municipal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit: A By -law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Traffic On Streets In The City of Saint John Made Under The Authority of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and Amendments Thereto ", enacted on the 19"' day of December, A.D. 2005 (the "By- law "), is hereby amended as follows: Par les presentes, l'arrete de The City of Saint John intituld << Arrete relatif a la circulation dans les rues Bans The City of Saint John edictd conformement a la Loi sur les vehicules a moteur (1973) et les modifications afferentes », decrete le 19 ddcembre 2005 (<< Arr &6 »), est modifie comme suit : I Section 26 is repealed and replaced with the 1 L'article 26 est abroge et remplace par cc following: qui suit: 26(1) Subject to subsection 26(2), any person who violates a provision of this By- law is guilty of an offence and is liable upon summary conviction to a penalty of not less than sixty -five dollars and not to exceed ninety dollars. 26(1) Sous reserve du paragraphe 26(2), toute personne qui contrevient a une des dispositions du present Arrete est coupable d'une infraction et passible sur condamnation sommaire d'une penalite minimale de soixante -einq dollars et ne depassant pas quatre- vingt -dix dollars. 26(2) Any person who violates paragraphs 26(2) Toute personne qui contrevient aux 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), 5(4)(i), section 10, alindas 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), 5(4)(i), Iarticle 10, subsection 16(1) or section 19 of this By- le paragraphe 16(1) ou Particle 19 du law is guilty of an offence and liable upon present Arrete est coupable d'une summary conviction to a penalty of not less infraction et passible sur condemnation than one hundred dollars and not more than sommaire d'une penalite d'un montant one hundred and twenty -five dollars. minimal de cent dollars et d'un montant maximal de cent vingt -einq dollars. 26(3)(a) A person who violates any provision of this By -law, other than paragraphs 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), 5(4)(i), section 10, subsection 16(1) and section 19, may pay to the City of Saint John within fifteen calendar days from the date of such violation a fixed penalty of thirty dollars, and upon such payment, the person who committed the violation is not liable to be prosecuted therefor. M. 26(3)(a) Toute personne qui contrevient a une disposition du present Arrete, autres que celles prevues aux alineas 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), 5(4)(i), Iarticle 10, le paragraphe 16(1) et Particle 19, peut payer a City of Saint John dans un delai de quinze jours civils a compter de la date de ladite infraction, une penalite prevue de trente dollars, et une fois 1'amende payee, la personne n'est plus susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. 26(3)(b) A person who violates any provision of this By -law, other than paragraphs 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), 5(4)(i), section 10, subsection 16(1) and section 19, may pay to the City of Saint John a fixed penalty of forty dollars if payment is made more than fifteen calendar days after the date of the violation but within thirty calendar days of such violation, and upon such payment, the person who committed the violation is not liable to be prosecuted therefor. 26(3)(c) A person who violates any provision of this By -law, other than paragraphs 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), 5(4)(i), section 10, subsection 16(1) and section 19, may pay to the City of Saint John a fixed penalty of sixty -five dollars if payment is made more than thirty calendar days after the date of such violation but before conviction in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick, and upon such payment, the person who committed the violation is not liable to be prosecuted therefor. 26(3)(d) A person who violates paragraphs 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), section 10, subsection 16(1) or section 19 may pay to the City of Saint John within fifteen calendar days from the date of such violation a fixed penalty of fifty dollars, and upon such payment, the person who committed the violation is not liable to be prosecuted therefor. 26(3)(e) A person who violates paragraphs 5(4)(d), 5(4)(6), section 10, subsection 16(1) or section 19 may pay to the City of Saint John a fixed penalty of seventy- five dollars if payment is made more than fifteen calendar days after the date of such violation but within thirty calendar days of such violation, and upon such payment, the person who committed the violation is not liable to be prosecuted therefor. : 26(3)(b) Toute personne qui contrevient a une disposition du pr6sent Arretd, autres que celles prdvues aux alin6as 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), 5(4)(i), ]'article 10, le paragraphe 16(1) et Particle 19, peut payer a City of Saint John une penalit6 prevue de quarante dollars si 1'amende est acquitt6e plus de quinze jours civils apres la date de Pinfraction mail trente jours civils de ladite infraction, et une fois Pamende payee, la personne nest plus susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. 26(3)(c) Toute personne qui contrevient a une disposition du pr6sent Arret6, autres que celles pr6vues aux paragraphes 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), 5(4)(i), Particle 10, le paragraphe 16(1) et Particle 19, peut payer a City of Saint John une p6nalit6 prevue de soixante- cinq dollars si 1'amende est acquitt6e plus de trente jours civils de la date de ]'infraction mais avant une d6claration de culpabilitd a la Cour provincials du Nouveau - Brunswick, et une fois 1'amende payee, la personne nest plus susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. 26(3)(d) Toute personne qui contrevient aux alin6as 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), Particle 10, le paragraphe 16(1) et Particle 19, peut payer A City of Saint John, dans un d6lai de quinze jours civils a compter de la date de ]'infraction, une penalite prevue de cinquante dollars, et une fois l'amende payee, la personne nest plus susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. 26(3)(e) Toute personne qui contrevient aux alin6as 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), Particle 10, le paragraphe 16(1) et ]'article 19, peut payer A City of Saint John une penalit6 pr6vue de soixante- quinze dollars si 1'amende est acquitt6e plus de quinze jours civils apr6s la date de ]'infraction mail dans les trente jours civils de ladite infraction, et une fois 1'amende payee, la personne nest plus susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. 26(3)(f) A person who violates paragraphs 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), section 10, subsection 16(1), or section 19 may pay to the City of Saint John a fixed penalty of one hundred dollars if payment is made more than thirty calendar days after the date of such violation but before conviction in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick, and upon such payment, the person who committed the violation is not liable to be prosecuted therefor. 26(3)(8) A person who violates paragraph 5(4)(i) may pay to the City of Saint John within thirty calendar days from the date of such violation a fixed penalty of seventy - five dollars, and upon such payment, the person who committed the violation is not liable to be prosecuted therefor. 26(3)(h) A person who violates paragraph 5(4)(i) may pay to the City of Saint John a fixed penalty of one hundred dollars if payment is made more than thirty calendar days after the date of such violation but before conviction in the Provincial Court of New Brunswick, and upon such payment, the person who committed the violation is not liable to be prosecuted therefor. .. 26(3)(f) Toute personne qui contrevient aux alineas 5(4)(d), 5(4)(e), Particle 10, le paragraphe 16(1) et I'artiele 19, pout payer A City of Saint Jolui une penalitd prdvue de cent dollars si 1'amende est acquitt6e plus de trente jours civils de la date de ]'infraction mais avant une declaration de culpabilite a la Cour provincials du Nouveau - Brunswick, et une fois 1'amende payee, la personne nest plus susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. 26(3)(8) Toute personne qui contrevient a Palinea 5(4)(i), peat payer a City of Saint John, dans un delai de trente jours civils a compter de la date de ladite infraction, une penalite prdvue de soixante- quinze dollars, et une fois 1'amende payee, ]a personne West plus susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. 26(3)(h) Toute personne qui contrevient a 1'alinda 5(4)(i) pout payer a City of Saint John une penalite prdvue de cent dollars si 1'amende est acquitt6e plus de trente jours civils de la date de ('infraction mais avant une declaration de culpabilite a la Cour provinciale du Nouveau - Brunswick, et une fois 1'amende payee, la personne nest plus susceptible de poursuites judiciaires. 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. 2014 signed by: First Reading Second Reading Third Reading Mayor /Maire EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau municipal sur le present arrete le 2014, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal - March 18, 2014 Premiere lecture - March 18, 2014 Deuxieme lecture - Troisi6me lecture :- - le 18 mars 2014 - le 18 mars 2014 March 26, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Morton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Replacement Fleet Policy Background: I find it most inappropriate that the City of Saint John does not replace necessary equipment in a timely fashion, One of our very necessary services that we provide is proper maintenance of our roadways and sidewalks, this past winter we were short equipment either because of repairs or very old which had been approved by Common Council and this equipment arrived at the normal end of winter season time, just a few weeks ago, It should have been ordered much sooner and then we would have received it at the beginning of our winter season. Recently we discovered that the call for proposal for a new Asphalt Spreader which normally would be needed within the next few weeks had not been ordered and the reason was stated that there was not enough funds in the Reserve Fund to purchase this Spreader, well we are in the business to provide service to the public and if one department is not able to place enough funds in the reserve fund to purchase the equipment to do the job then we must find the funds from another source. I do not believe that the Fire Department for example has all the necessary funding in their budget when it is necessary to purchase a new Fire Truck so why do we feel that it is necessary for the Works Department to have all the funding available in their budget when it is necessary to purchase a new Asphalt Spreader which is a necessary piece of equipment to repair our roads especially during Pot Hole season just coming up. Usually this equipment lasts for several years so we would probably borrow the funds through capital to purchase the equipment and then pay the funds back over time, Recommendation: I believe that Council should be able to review the Replacement Fleet Policy as I feel that although it may have some benefit it does not serve the public well for our city, I request that we be given a better understanding and that through the City Manager we review this policy for further input. Respectfully submitted, Shirley McAlary SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 ! wwwsaint ohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 ---�� 9 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL March 19, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: =9y City of Saint John SUBJECT: ENGAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ENHANCEMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA WITHIN THE EVALUATION OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN'S CAPTIAL PRIORITIES Since November 2013, City Staff and external partners have been developing a project plan to enhance the City's ability to evaluate future economic development opportunities. The attached Engagement and Development Plan seeks "to develop capital priority variables that more closely evaluate economic development initiatives, and further enhance the City's systemic and balanced approach in identifying its own capital priority expenditures." As indicated in the Plan, a strengthened economic development matrix for capital priorities will also "better support City projects under True Growth 2.0, and also, contribute to the definition of Invest SJ as a part of Common Council's priority of Economic Health." The Plan maps -out a sequence of actions for the coming six months that will result in an enhanced ability for the City of Saint John to evaluate economic development opportunities. The Plan also provides key interactions with Common Council as well as external project partners. As the result of this project will impact how Common Council considers future economic development opportunities as well as how agencies, boards commissions and community members pursue such opportunities with Common Council, City Staff believe it was important to have Members of Council fully aware of the intended direction of this project. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Common Council: 1. Receive and file this report. 91 M &C- 2014 -009 -2- January 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Phil Ouellette, MA Intergovernmental Affairs Neil Jacobsen Commissioner, Strategic Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 92 rA City of Saint John February 2014 Engagement and Development Plan: Capital Priorities Matrix 93 F z TABLE OF CONTENTS A) OBJECTIVE ................................................. ............................... 3 B) GOALS ........................................................ ............................... 3 C) PROJECT SCOPING ................................... ............................... 4 D) BACKGROUND .......................................... ............................... 4 E) PORJECT LEADERSHIP ............................. ............................... 5 F) PROJECT PARTNERS ................................ ............................... 5 G) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............... ............................... 6 H) PROJECT MILESTONES ............................ ............................... 7 1) PROJECT TASKS ........................................ ............................... 8 0 A) OBJECTIVE To develop capital priority variables that more closely evaluate economic development initiatives, and further enhance the City's systemic and balanced approach in identifying its own capital priority expenditures. B) GOALS • Develop and implement an engagement process that utilizes the expertise of all interested parties from within the City of Saint John, agencies, boards, commissions, community partners and subject matter experts. • Support a more evidence -based dialogue between Common Council and local economic development opportunities. • Identify key opportunities to engage Common Council, City Staff and key external project partners into the process of the Engagement and Development Plan. • With a strengthened economic development matrix for capital priorities, the City of Saint John will enhance its existing capital priorities matrix, better support City projects under True Growth 2.0, and finally, contribute to the definition of InvestSJ as a part of Common Council's priority of Economic Health (see below figure 1). Figure 1 17 a k 95 4 C) PROJECT SCOPING i •� � y ►►�►►►� rep x� r•�►� r•� i • ► r� •� � ►i � s•» i► ► a►� r � Economic development will be defined as any opportunity that will yield important financial return to the Saint John community and increase revenues or savings to the municipal government of the City of Saint John. Such opportunities may originate from within the municipal government, agencies, boards, community partners, commissions, governments, or the private sector. This Engagement and Development Plan will focus on those economic development opportunities that require support from the City of Saint John's capital budget. The definition of 'economic development' may be revisited over the course of this exercise in order to reach a more accurate description. PROJECT EVOLUTION As it stands now, the Engagement and Development Plan is limited to the City of Saint John's economic development priorities that fall within the City's capital expenditures. However, there is clearly room to expand the scope of the opportunity if need be. While the current project does not include the City's financial contributions to economic development agencies through its operating budget, the project will consider the impact capital expenditures may have on ongoing operating expenses for the City of Saint John. Future developments of this project could also define a mechanism and process to identify common economic development priorities within capital expenditures across the region. D) BACKGROUND The City of Saint John introduced a new capital priorities matrix during the construction of the City's 2012 budget. The matrix measures eight weighted variables, upholding a more systematic and balanced approach to the identification of capital priorities. The eight variables include: (1) Public /Employee safety; (2) Contract/ Laws requirement; (3) Council priority; (4) Co- funding availability; (5) Alignment with Plan SJ; (6) Asset protection; (7) Increased revenue /reduction in operating expense; (8) Improve efficiency /effectiveness. After the implementation of the capital priorities matrix, Common Council defined the priorities for their term. City Staff are now in the process of operationalizing Council Priorities through the Corporate Strategic Plan (CSP), which includes the development and strategy behind one of the components — Invest SJ. 5 While the priority of Invest SJ is being contextual ized, the broader region has undergone an extensive economic development exercise, which includes 36 unique projects, which targets six priority sectors and five goal areas in the regional economy. The exercise has resulted in True Growth 2.0, which is currently being managed by Enterprise Saint John. There are two True Growth 2.0 projects that have generated synergies with the priority of Invest SJ as well as the City's capital priorities matrix, including: "Establish a clear capital investment plan, including a schedule for improvements and the development of new demand generators, to increase tourism in Saint John." "Community Impact Criteria Model - Measurement tool allowing community to prioritize strategic infrastructure projects requiring government funding based on highest return on investment." E) PROJECT LEAERSHIP The leadership over the Engagement and Development Plan ultimately rests with the City of Saint John Common Council, who holds the authority over decisions on capital expenditures. The City Manager will act as the primary liaison between Council and City Staff, and will allow the Commissioner of Strategic Services, Growth and Community Development Services and Finance and Administrative Services to co- sponsor the project. The Manager of Intergovernmental Affairs will act as the Project Lead, and will utilize the advisory support of the City's two Assistant Comptrollers to successfully implement the terms of the project. The three co- sponsors will report updates and recommendations to the City Manager, who will submit final recommendations to Common Council. F) PROJECT PARTNERS In order for the City of Saint John to succeed in developing clear capital priority variables and enhance its systemic and balanced approach in identifying capital priority expenditures, there is a need to ensure the continued contribution and leadership from a variety of partners from within the City as well as key external partners. Key external project partners will be engaged throughout the project and sought for ongoing correspondence in order to collect feedback, best practices and strategic direction. Key external project partners include: Enterprise Saint John, Destination Marketing, Saint John Industrial Parks, Saint John Waterfront Development, Port of Saint John, Saint John Airport, Saint John Board of Trade, and Uptown Saint John. The figure below demonstrates the work flow between external project partners, project leadership 97 and Common Council through the Engagement and Development Plan for the capital priorities matrix. Figure 2 G) ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 11 Common Counci C1 Provide policy directive and high -level leadership on the Engagement and Development Plan and ultimately, all capital expenditures. 2) External Project Partners Share expert support and professional guidance throughout the Engagement and Development Plan. 3) City Manager — Pat Woods Act as primary liaison between Council and City Staff, and primary lead on Council reports and presentations. Will oversee entire project and ensure it aligns with other corporate initiatives. .; 7 4) Project Lead — IGA - Phil Ouellette Project lead for Engagement and Development Plan, and will ensure the efficient execution of project goal, objectives and sequencing. Project lead will also ensure the involvement /coordination of all interested parties throughout the exercise. 5) Project Advisor — Assistant Comptroller — Hilary Nguyen Project Advisor for Engagement and Development Plan, and will support the efficient execution of project goal, objectives and sequencing. 6) Project Advisor — Assistant Comptroller — Craig Lavigne Project Advisor for Engagement and Development Plan, and will support the efficient execution of project goal, objectives and sequencing. 7) Commissioner. Strategic Services — Neil Jacobsen Act as the project's co- sponsor, and provide strategic expertise throughout exercise. 8) Commissioner. Finance and Administrative Services — Greg Yeomans Act as the project's co- sponsor, and provide financial expertise throughout exercise. 9) Commissioner, Growth and Community Development — Jacqueline Hamilton Act as the project's co- sponsor, and provide planning and community growth expertise throughout exercise. H) PROJECT MILESTONES TIMELINE MILESTONE Present to March Scoping Phase 17th, 2014 March 31St, 2014 Common Council Presentation March 31St to June Investigative Phase 13th, 2014 May 9th, 2014 Community Consultation June 13th to Matrix Development Phase September 1St, 2014 July 11th, 2014 Community Consultation September 1St, 2014 Common Council Presentation .. 1) PROJECT TASKS Include a True Growth 2.0 15/11/13 filter on the existing Capital Priorities Matrix. Update partners on City's 20/11/13 direction. Review City's capital 01/15/14 priorities with the True Growth 2.0 filter. Draft initial project plan 24/01/14 detailing objectives, engagement strategy, milestones, sequencing of next steps, etc. Receive initial feedback on 31/01/14 draft project plan from City Manager, Commissioner of Growth and Community Development, Commissioner of Finance and IP Administrative Services, and Commissioner of Strategic Services. Send initial draft project plan 21/02/14 to Janet Scott and Ross Jefferson. Submit revised copy of 28/02/14 project plan to co- sponsors. Send initial draft project plan 10/03/14 to external project partners. Submit revised copy of 26/03/14 project plan to Council Agenda. Develop presentation for 28/03/14 Common Council associated with project plan. Review and seek approval of 31/03/14 project plan from Common Council. Develop 'inventory of 01/04/14 questions' to support thorough investigation of G. Yeomans City Manager G. Yeomans P. Ouellette P. Ouellette P. Ouellette P. Ouellette P. Ouellette P. Ouellette P. Ouellette P. Woods P. Ouellette, H. Nguyen, C. Lavigne 100 Completed. Completed. Competed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Submit to Common Clerk. E.i variables needed for the City of Saint John to make responsible and evidence - based economic development decisions. Send 'inventory of questions' to co- sponsors and external project partners for initial feedback and suggestions. Deadline to submit feedback to 'inventory of questions.' Research 'best practices', 'market standards', and 'comparable municipalities' in answering the 'inventory of questions.' Submit initial findings to external project partners and co- sponsors for feedback. Meet with co- sponsors to receive feedback on initial findings. Consult with external project partners to receive feedback on initial findings. Draft report on recommended standards for future business case variables on economic development opportunities. Receive final commentary and incorporate any final alterations. ■ M 21/04/14 All parties 16/05/14 P. Ouellette, H. May require additional Nguyen, C. feedback process between Lavigne external project partners and co- sponsors. 16/05/14 P. Ouellette 21/05/14 P. Woods To be organized by City Manager. 23/05/14 P. Ouellette, H. Nguyen, C. Using the findings from the Lavigne Investigative Phase, develop 06/06/14 P. Ouellette an initial economic development evaluation matrix. Submit initial findings to external project partners and co- sponsors for feedback. ® Meet with co- sponsors to M 21/04/14 All parties 16/05/14 P. Ouellette, H. May require additional Nguyen, C. feedback process between Lavigne external project partners and co- sponsors. 16/05/14 P. Ouellette 21/05/14 P. Woods To be organized by City Manager. 23/05/14 P. Ouellette, H. Nguyen, C. Lavigne 06/06/14 P. Ouellette Report will not be presented to Council, as it will be combined with the following phase of the project and then presented to Council. Send report to co- sponsors and external project partners. 13/06/14 All parties ==dmb 04/07/14 V P. Ouellette, H Nguyen, C. Lavigne 04/07/14 P. Ouellette 09/07/14 P. Woods 101 Determine fair and just weighting /threshold of measurements in the economic development matrix. To be organized by City 10 receive feedback on initial Manager. findings. Consult with external project 11/07/14 P. Ouellette, H. partners to receive feedback Nguyen, C. on initial findings. Lavigne Draft final report which 08/08/14 P. Ouellette May require additional incorporates findings from feedback process between both Investigative and Matrix external project partners and Development Phases. co- sponsors. Send report to external 08/08/14 P. Ouellette project partners and co- sponsors for final commentary. Incorporate final alterations 26/08/14 P. Ouellette to final report. Submit final report to 26/08/14 P. Ouellette Common Clerk to be included in Council package. Develop presentation for 29/08/14 P. Ouellette Common Council. Present final report to 01/09/14 P. Woods Common Council and seek approval on changes to capital priorities process and economic development consideration. 102 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2014 -27 March 31, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton The City of Saint John And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: USE OF CITY WATER AND SEWERAGE LINES INTRODUCTION As in the usual course, certain residents residing where the City recently extended its water and sewerage infrastructure have been issued notices by the Commissioner to connect to the City's water and sewerage system. The notices to connect are pursuant to subsections 5(1) and 5(2) of "A By -Law Respecting Water and Sewerage. " The authority to enact such by -law provisions is found in subsection 1$9(14) of the Municipalities Act. BACKGROUND On January 31, 2013, Councillor Strowbridge submitted the following motion for Council's consideration: That Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of "A By -Law Respecting Water and Sewerage " be amended by adding a grandfather clause whereby City residents who do not require municipal water and sewerage services are not billed for said services simply because their dwelling stands on land by which a water main runs; .....and further that the amendment be retroactive and only apply to residents whose dwelling existed prior to a municipal water main being available to them; .....and further that the by -law be amended so that existing building owners who do not require municipal water and sewerage services are not required to connect to any new municipal water mains being installed in their area, unless the owner agrees to do so; ..,.,and further when a "grandfathered" house is sold, the new owner is required to connect to the City's municipal water main within 24 months. 103 (Ase of City -ter and Sewerage Lines Report to Common council — 2014 -27 At its meeting of February 4, 2013 Council passed the following resolution: Marcie 3 1, 2014 Page 2 Resolved that item 11.1.1 Use of City Water and Sewerage Lines (Councillor Strowbridge) be referred to the City Manager for a report and recommendation" ANALYSIS A legal opinion on the matter was provided by the City Solicitor's Office which indicated that the authorities granted by the Province in the Municipalities Act does not accommodate what is being proposed in the above motion because the motion purports to treat property owners differently (applies to some while exempting others). As a result, the City can choose to either continue to exercise the authority to compel all residents to connect to the municipal system when services are available or remove the requirement altogether from the by -law, relieving anyone in those circumstances from having to contribute to the water and sewerage system. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended: That the City continue to exercise the authority granted under subsection 1$9(14) of the Municipalities Act (the authority) to compel owners of a building standing on land by which a sewer or water main runs to connect to the City's infrastructure or make a charge in lieu of; 2. That the by -law be amended so that all building owners in these circumstances, who choose not to connect to City services, will be subject to a rate equal to the fixed service charge rather than the flat rate charge; 3. That the by -law amendment be retroactive to January 1 ", 2013. The recommendation is an equitable approach because: It allows pre - existing homeowners who do not wish to connect to City services extended on their street the ability to pay a lower rate than the rate charged to someone who is actually connected and receiving City water and/or sewerage services; 2. It recognizes that all owners with a dwelling on land for which water or sewer mains run benefit from the availability of the City water and sewerage infrastructure and as such should contribute to the cost associated with the system; 104 Use of City Water and Scwcrage Lines Keport to common council - Zo 14 -.Z7 Marcie 3 1, 201'9 - �a�c 3 3. It has a negligible financial impact to the Utility (less than 1110"' of a percent of the annual budget) while providing a significant reduction to residents in these particular circumstances; 4. It continues to provide a financial disincentive for users seeking to not connect up with municipal water & sewerage services; It is comparable (fixed charge) to the policies followed by other municipalities in New Brunswick, including the cities of Moncton and Fredericton. Attached to this correspondence is the text of proposed amendments to the by -law, prepared by the City Solicitor's Office, which if adopted would give effect to the arrangement recommended herein. Respectfully submitted, Kevin. Fudge, CA Deputy Commissioner Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. Commissioner 105 J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager BY -LAW NO. M -16 A LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE ARRETP NO M -16 ARRPTE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE CONCERNANT LES RESEAUX D'EAU ET D'EGOUTS Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une rdunion du conseil communal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit: A By -law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Water and Sewerage", enacted on the 7"' day of June, A.D. 2004, is hereby amended as follows: 1. Section 5(2) is repealed and replaced with the following: "5(2) Where an owner fails to comply with a notice issued by the Commissioner under subsection (1): (a) respecting connection to a water main, such owner shall pay a rate equal to what the water service charge would be had the connection been made, as set out in Schedule "B"; (b) respecting connection to a sewer main, such owner shall pay a rate equal to (a) above multiplied by the percentage set out in Schedule "C "; (c) respecting connection to both a water main and sewer main, such owner shall pay a rate equal to the combination of (a) and (b) above; (d) the provisions set out in paragraphs 5(2)(a) through (c) above shall be retroactive to January 1 ", 2013." 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. 2014 signed by: Par les presentes, Parr&& de The City of Saint John intitule « Arret6 concernant les reseaux d'eau et d'egouts >>, ddcrdtd le 7 juin 2004, est modifie cotmne suit: 1. Le paragraphe 5(2) est abrog6 et remplace par ce qui suit : << 5(2) Lorsqu'un propridtaire ne se conforme pas A Pavis dmis par le comrnissaire en vertu du paragraphe (1) : a) concernant le raccordement a une conduite d'eau principale, le propri6taire dolt payer les memes frais de service pour Veau que ceux qu'il aurait dil payer si le raccordement avait et6 effectue, comme enonce a I'annexe << B »; b) concernant le raccordernent a une conduite d'eau principale, le propri6taire doit payer un taux equivalent a a) ci- dessus multiplie par le pourcentage dtabli a ]'annexe << C »; c) concernant le raccordement a la fois a une conduite d'eau principale ct a un egout collecteur, le propri6taire doit payer un taux equivalent a la combinaison de a) et b) ci- dessus; d) les dispositions enoncees aux ali e'as 5(2)a) Ac) ci- dessus, prennent effet r6troactivenient au 1 e, j anvier 2013. » EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le prdsent arrdte le 2014, avec les signatures suivantes : 106 Mayor /Maire Common Clerk/greifier communal First Reading - Premifre lecture Second Reading Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture 107 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2014 -34 March 31, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Improvements to the Heritage Grant Program — Phase One BACKGROUND City of Saint John The Heritage Grant Program is an incentive program designed to encourage heritage property owners to meet the spirit and intent of the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -law, 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. In August 2012, after the heritage grant budget was reduced to $90,000, Common Council adopted revised funding ratios for the three different types of grants and adopted a number of reforms to the Heritage Conservation Grant Guidelines, which also included the Policies for Approval. ANAI.VCIC The program has now experienced two years with the reduced budget, change of funding ratios and caps, and the amended policy guidelines. During this time, the program has not expended all of the grant funding available, and a number of administrative issues have been identified for improvement. Staff is recommending that Common Council approve an updated Heritage Grant Program Policy, attached as Appendix A. Details of the policy changes are discussed in detail below. W. M & C-2014-34 - 2 - March 31, 2014 Grant Fun din k Ratios and Caps In 2012 and 2013, despite a reduced grant budget of $90,000, the Heritage Grant Program experienced a significant drop in the total number of successful grant awards, releasing only 57 percent of the total budget available in 2012 and 30 percent of the total available in 2013. The reduction can be attributed to (but not limited to): • Projects are smaller in size and scope than in past years; • The number of heritage permits has decreased in 2012 and 2013 (a sign of economic conditions); • The small number of contractors skilled and available to conduct heritage restoration work; • Lack of awareness about the Program and a misperception that funds are not available; • Lack of outreach about the Grant Program (mainly due to staffing shortages). The funding ratios and caps approved in 2012 greatly reduced the amount of funding that could be allocated for heritage property owners' eligible projects. While it would have been a suitable funding mix with the past economic and staffing conditions given the available budget, it turned out to be unsuitable for the events of 2012 and 2013. Staff looked at a number of different scenarios to determine the right funding mix for the Heritage Program given today's circumstances. Options were presented to the Heritage Development Board ( "the Board ") on February 5, 2014, and endorsed on March 19, 2014 (report is attached as Appendix B). Below is a comparison of the current funding mix and the proposed funding mix: TYPE OF GRANT CURRENT FUNDING MIX PROPOSED FUNDING MIX Heritage Maintenance Grant 15% up to a maximum of $500 per year 25% up to a maximum of $750 per year ➢ Routine maintenance, such as painting, repairs ➢ Storefront tenant signage ➢ For properties without a conservation plan Heritage Conservation Grant a) 15% up to a maximum of a) 25% up to a maximum of $7,500 ➢ Large conservation projects $5,000 per year per year ➢ Conservation plan is required b) 25% up to a maximum of b) 45% up to a maximum of $7,500 $5,000 per year per year 4 masonry /structural/ 4 restoration work to original original doors & windows character - defining elements, and masonry /structural Heritage Conservation Plan Grant ➢ Incentive to have a professional 50% up to a maximum of $1,000 50% up to a maximum of $1,500 Conservation plan prepared 109 M &C- 2014 -34 -3- March 31, 2014 In each category, the grant funding maximums are increased by 50 percent as well as an increase in the funding ratios to 25 percent and 45 percent. Staff and the Board recognize the cost burden of restoration work, and that this work requires experienced tradespeople and costly materials. Increasing the funding ratios and caps will provide larger awards on an individual basis, while working within the same annual budget. The aim is not to simply exhaust the budget with the changes, but to shape the parameters which more appropriately fund heritage conservation work. Furthermore, the goal is to provide real financial incentive for property owners to undertake necessary maintenance projects and encourage restoration rather than replacement. Adm in istrative Im provem en is Late in 2012 and early in 2013, Staff noted a number of issues and deficiencies with the Grant program that needed to be corrected and improved. Some of these are listed below: • Awareness, knowledge and understanding of the program was lacking among Heritage property owners; • Processes and procedures were not documented; • Internal controls, standards and targets were not developed or documented; • Eligibility requirements were at times unclear; • Applicants were providing insufficient and /or incomplete submissions and deadlines were not being met; • The forms, information and letters from the City were not always clear; program requirements were not clear; • Applicants had to wait until the end of the year to get funding, even though their project may have been completed months earlier. Recognizing that significant improvements were required, and given the staffing shortage experienced by the Heritage Program, Staff engaged the consulting services of Deloitte to: • Conduct a best practice review and research of other heritage grant programs in the country, • Identify areas for improvement and controls that should be implemented, • Develop and document a sound, supportable policy with associated processes and forms for the heritage grant program. The review was intended to assist Staff to implement a grant program that was more accountable and transparent for tax payers, provide clarity and consistency for applicants, improve communications for heritage property owners and generally provide more efficient and effective service delivery. Deloitte performed benchmarking research on various heritage grant programs in Canada and included Atlantic Canadian cities as well as others across Canada. Deloitte also interviewed past 110 M &C- 2014 -34 -4- March 31, 2014 applicants of Saint John's heritage grant program and Heritage Program Staff. The Deloitte report is attached as Appendix C for Council's information. Deloitte developed a number of recommendations for policy and procedural change and /or clarification and to implement a number of internal controls to the program. Deloitte recommended that the changes be implemented in two phases. Phase One focuses on a clear, concise policy document that implements Deloitte's recommendations and administrative improvements, including documenting existing practices into the policy, documenting the procedure, developing easy to use forms and modifying the tracking spreadsheets so information is more readily available. Highlights of the proposed Phase One improvements include: • Applicants will receive grant funding 60 days after submitting the Grant Summary form — they will no longer have to wait until late December; • Applicants will not have to wait for a Heritage Development Board meeting to be approved for a Heritage Grant; • Applicants must be in good standing with the City; • Applicants must have insurance on the subject property; • Applicants must provide a written estimate; • Storefront tenants are eligible for a Maintenance grant for storefront signage. Proposed Phase One administrative improvements and preliminary information about potential Phase Two changes were presented to the Board at its meeting on March 5, 2014, and were endorsed on March 19, 2014 (report is attached as Appendix D). Staff will be ready to implement the proposed improvements as soon as the policy receives Council approval. The policy document, the application process handout and new forms will all be available on the website and at the office if approved by Council. The Phase Two improvements are still in the research stage, and will require more discussion with the Board on the details and implementation plan, including communication with heritage property owners prior to rolling out the changes. Phase Two is intended to be implemented on January 1, 2015, with Board and Council approval in early Fall. Next Steps The Heritage Development Board has endorsed the Heritage Grant Program Policy (Appendix A) and submitted a recommendation to Common Council to that effect. Staff and the Board has committed to reviewing the policy annually to ensure the funding mix and policy document is appropriate and is still achieving the goals of the grant program. 111 M &C- 2014 -34 -5- March 31, 2014 If Common Council approves the new Policy document, Staff is ready to roll -out the new program right away. An information package (attached as Appendix E) will be mailed out to all heritage property owners with a quick reference brochure and application process, the policy document, and the application and grant summary forms. This information will also be included on the City's website and the Growth and Community Development Services office. RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends that Common Council adopt the Heritage Grant Program Policy as set out in Appendix A, to be implemented on April 1, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Poffenroth PEng MBA Deputy Commissioner Growth and Community Development Services Jacqueline Hamilton, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Growth and Community Development Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager Attachments: Appendix A Heritage Grant Program Policy Appendix B February 4, 2014 Report to Heritage Development Board Appendix C Deloitte Report Appendix D March 3, 2014 Report to Heritage Development Board Appendix E Communication Package and Forms 112 APPRENDIX A March 31, 2014 W 9 SAINT JOHN PROGRAM AIM HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM POLICY JOHN Frr The Heritage Grant Program is an incentive program designed to encourage property owners to meet the spirit and intent of the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law, as expressed in the National Standards for Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 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. (1RIF('TI\ /FC Primary: • To encourage retention of designated heritage buildings and their character - defining elements, including their 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 waste 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 1. Heritage Maintenance Grant: A grant of 25% up to a maximum of $750 per year available to properties without a Conservation Plan in place; also available to tenants for storefront signage. 2. Heritage Conservation Grant: A grant of 25% - 45% up to a maximum of $7,500 per year to support large conservation projects for properties which have a Conservation Plan in place. There are two levels of funding provided by the Conservation Grant, depending on the nature of the project: a) Minor funding: 25% up to a maximum of $7,500 for maintenance work, as outlined in the Conservation Plan. b) Major funding: 45% up to a maximum of $7,500 for restoration work to original character - defining elements, and for major projects such as masonry or structural repair. 3. Heritage Conservation Plan Grant: A grant provided to offset the cost of retaining a design professional (architect or engineer) to prepare a Conservation Plan for designated heritage properties. A Conservation Plan provides the property owner with a phased plan to undertake required heritage /structural work. 50% of the cost is funded up to a maximum of $1,500. Page 1 of 4 113 ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES • Grants are awarded based on the Property Identification Number (PID) rather than per civic address. Each PID is eligible to receive one grant per category per year. • Property must be a non - government owned designated heritage property located within one of the designated Saint John Conservation Heritage Areas. Refer to the Saintlohn Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law for a listing of properties. A copy of the By -Law can be found on the City's website, picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services office, or an official copy at the Common Clerk's office. • Property must be covered by insurance. • Property owner must be in good standing with the City of Saint John and shall not have unpaid property taxes. • Property owner must not have any outstanding property - related by -law violations and /or building permit violations. ELIGIBLE WORK & MATERIALS • Projects must be to the exterior of the property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit]. • Projects must be completed prior to the Grant Summary Form deadline and grant funding for projects not completed by the end of the calendar year will be forfeited except in exceptional circumstances. Note: For appropriate materials and restoration approaches, please see the Practical Conservation Guidelines on the City's website, which can also be picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services offices. INELIGIBLE WORK & MATERIALS • Contemporary materials such as but not limited to vinyl or aluminum clad windows, steel doors, or vinyl siding. • Work carried out prior to issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit]. • Work carried out without required building permits in place prior to work being undertaken. • Work related to landscaping, roof replacement, or infill construction. • Owner performed labour. • Poor or defective work as identified by the Heritage Officer and /or Building Inspector. HERITAGE GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS Note: Application forms can be found on the City's website, or picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services office, 10th floor City Hall. • Before completing and submitting a Heritage Grant Funding Application form, applicants must first obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit] and building permit (if required), and include these numbers on their Heritage Grant Funding Application form. • The following must accompany the completed application form: • Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit] number; • Building permit number (if required) for proposed work; • Recent photographs of all sides of the building and detailed photographs of area related to proposed work; • Start and end date for proposed project; • Signature of both the applicant and owner of the property; Page 2 of 4 114 • Those applying for a Heritage Conservation Grant must copy and attach page extracts from the Heritage Conservation Plan that relate to the proposed work to be funded; • Those applying for a Heritage Conservation Plan Grant must include the Heritage Conservation Plan; • Written project cost estimate. REVIEW OF HERITAGE GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL • Applications will be screened for basic eligibility as they are received (i.e. application package is complete and legible). Applicants will be notified promptly if their application is ineligible. • Complete applications will be reviewed by Heritage Staff for the following: • Ensuring the Certificate of Appropriateness was approved; • If required, confirming building permit has been issued; • Reviewing project estimates and calculating amount of requested grant funding; • Conditional approval will be awarded to applicants that meet the eligibility requirements. Conditional approval will be awarded in the sequence in which applications are submitted. • Approval of a Heritage Grant Application conditionally approves the applicant for grant funding rather than guaranteeing it. • Conditional approvals cannot exceed the Council- approved budgeted amount. If the grant requests exceed the budgeted amount, then any subsequent applicants will be placed on a waiting list in the sequence in which they applied. Applicants that are on the waiting list will submit the grant summary form upon completion of their project. Waiting list applicants will be notified by letter after the November 30 deadline about the status of their submission. BUILDING INSPECTION • A successful building inspection by Building & Inspections Services for the proposed work is required to receive grant funding (If a building permit is required). • It is the responsibility of the grant applicant to notify the Building & Inspections Services of the project completion and arrange for inspection. • The Building inspection should be arranged and completed prior to submission of the Grant Summary Form. • The inspection must be completed by November 30. Allow two weeks for the inspection to be scheduled and completed. HERITAGE OFFICER INSPECTION • A successful inspection by a Heritage Officer of the City of Saint John is required to receive grant funding. • It is the responsibility of the grant applicant to notify the Growth and Community Development Services that the project is complete and ready for inspection by the Heritage Officer. • A Heritage inspection should be arranged and completed prior to submission of the Grant Summary Form as outlined below. • The Heritage Officer will inspect and photograph the completed work to ensure that it shows good craftsmanship and complies with the Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit]. • The inspection must be completed by November 30. Allow two weeks for the inspection to be scheduled and completed. Page 3 of 4 115 GRANT SUMMARY FORM • The Grant Summary Form is required to be completed and submitted once the project work related to the grant application is complete in order to receive grant funding. • Grant Summary Forms are accepted throughout the year up until November 30. • The Grant Summary Form should include the following information and attached documents: • Using the space provided, an itemized summary of the invoices and receipts that correspond to the work outlined in the Certificate of Appropriateness with the amounts stated pre -HST; • Legible photocopies of all invoices and receipts included in the summary with proof of payment; • Signature of the applicant, the legal owner of the property, and contractors who performed the project. • Applicant must assert that a building inspection (if required) and heritage inspection have been requested and completed to the best of their knowledge. • It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the itemized summary is complete, accurate, and legible. • Grant Summary Forms are reviewed when received and applicants will be notified through written communication within 60 days of submission whether the form is approved, with attached cheque, or whether it has been denied. PAYMENT OR DENIAL OF GRANT FUNDING • Whether the applicant receives grant funding depends on successful building and heritage inspections and a properly completed and approved Grant Summary Form. • The City will release grant funding payments within 60 days after submission of the Grant Summary Form provided all requirements are met. • Wait list applicants will be notified by letter after the November 30 deadline about the status of their submission. Heritage Services I Growth and Community Development Services 101h Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E21- 41-1 If you have any questions or concerns Heritage Staff can be contacted at: Phone: (506) 658 -2835 Fax: (506) 658 -2837 Email: heritage @saintiohn.ca �r SAINT JOHN Page 4 of 4 116 REPORT TO THE HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT BOARD: The city of saint John Implementation of 2014 Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Date: February 4th, 2014 To: Heritage Development Board From: Growth and Development Services Prepared by: Alice C. Fudge Heritage Officer Approved by: Amy Poffenroth, P.Eng, MBA Deputy Commissioner BACKGROUND On February 1St 2012, Common Council adopted the City's 2012 operating budget which featured a variety of service reductions. For the City's Heritage Service, the budget included a reduction in the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program to a total of $90,000 from the previous year's $200,000.00 amount. As a result of the lowered budget amount, considerable changes to the Heritage Grants Policy were adopted by Council so that the City of Saint John could continue to deliver the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program with an appropriate funding ratio model. On August P, 2012, Council resolved that the Heritage Grants be established in accordance with the following recommended reforms: 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 Heritage Conservation 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 %. This grant funding model has been administered by the City of Saint John for 2012 and 2013. At the time of the budget reduction, it was presumed that $90,000 would be insufficient to support all requests for grant funding. However, Heritage staff and the Heritage Development Board (HDB) have experienced a significant drop in the total number of successful grant awards and ) ear -end grant total payout with released amounts of only 57% in 2012 and 30% in 2013 of the $90,000 budget total. P.O. Box 1911 C.P. 1971 i Saint John, NB Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L4L1 Canada E2L4L1 ..Si.A•- -s SA!NT 101-1n' wvrv.saintjohn.ca 117 The HDB and Heritage staff express desire to implement changes to the 2014 Heritage Grant funding model (funding ratios and caps) to better serve the heritage community as well as aligning the focus with the program's primary objectives: to encourage retention of designated heritage buildings. The purpose of this report is to provide HDB with the proposed amendments to the Heritage Grant Policy as it relates to the funding ratios. DISCUSSION Current State: Grant funding year -end totals over the past two years has declined significantly since the grant policy reforms in 2012. The HDB and staff have identified several changes that have influenced the drop in annual grant awards to an all-time low of approximately 113 of the total funding budget (in 2013). For two years the Heritage Grant funding budget of $90,000 has not been reached; in 2012 a total of $51,466 was released (30 successful grants) — in 2013 the total declined again to $27,188 (20 successful grants). In past years, the annual grant budget of $200,000 has not been sufficient to fund the number of requests for grants The total grant envelope is and was allocated on a first -come first -serve basis, where all of the funding was fully committed (conditionally approved) by late summer /early fall. Currently, a significant portion of the grant budget is left untouched at the end of the year. This decline is one indication that the current grant funding model is ineffectively supporting the heritage community. In recent years, heritage projects have been noticeably smaller, where the scope of work has been generally based on necessity, overdue repairs and maintenance, Compared to previous years, individual project scales are considered minor — for instance, only one application in 2013 reached the maximum Conservation Grant amount of $5,000. When individual construction costs are less, along with low funding ratios, it results in a trifling year -end total. The shortfall in grant totals may be attributed to the current slow economic climate in this region. The population has been conservative with their spending and building projects, as noticed in the steadily declining numbers for Heritage Permits as well as Building Permits. Staff found that in some circumstances approved heritage projects were never started (2013); and some projects were started but not completed within the year, consequently, the property owner did not continue with the grant application process. It is presumed there may be a misperception among heritage property owners regarding the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program — an assumption that there is little grant money available now, after the budget cut of 2012 and the grant reductions. This notion is likely an outcome of the insufficient awareness about the program. In past years, there has been very Iittle public outreach regarding the categories of grant funding that is accessible for heritage maintenance /restoration projects, or the application process. Lack of awareness has been a weakness; the Heritage Service has seen some staff vacancies and a shortage of communication with the public at a time when the Grant program was undertaking major changes in its policy. Furthermore, the HDB and staff have implemented Council's reforms to the grant policy, with regards to grant eligibility, specifically, no longer funding roof replacement, new development (infill construction, decks, etc.), or contemporary materials. The grant policy's primary objectives have become foremost. More narrow focus on eligibility has contributed to the reduced grant totals, at the same time, has increased the accountability with respect to the use of public funds. Recommended Reforms: 118 Increased public awareness of the grant program will be a significant factor in creating a successful impact, and ultimately achieving the results we aim for. Adjustments to the policy and to the funding model are needed to better suit the circumstances of this economy and to better serve the community. The following reforms to the grant funding model will reflect the benefit of restoration and increase funding for individual projects: 1. Heritage Maintenance Grant: A grant of 25% up to a maximum of $750 per year provided for routine maintenance improvements such as painting, repairs, or storefront signage for tenants. Maintenance Grants are available to properties without a Conservation Plan in place. 2. Heritage Conservation Grant: A grant of 25% - 45% up to a maximum of $7,500 per year to support large conservation projects for properties which have a Conservation Plan in place. There are two levels of funding provided by the Conservation Grant, depending on the nature of the project: a) 25% up to a maximum of $7,500 for maintenance work. b) 45% up to a maximum of $7,500 for restoration work to original character - defining elements, and for major projects such as masonry or structural repair. 3. Heritage Conservation Plan Grant: A grant provided to offset the cost of retaining a design professional (architect or engineer) to prepare a Conservation Plan for designated heritage properties. A Conservation Plan provides the property- owner with a phased plan to undertake required heritage /structural work. 50% of the cost is funded up to a maximum of $1,500. In each category the grant funding maximums are increased by 50% as well as an increase in the funding ratios to 25 % -45 %. The HDB recognizes the cost burden of restoration work specifically that this work requires experienced trades workers and costly materials. Increasing the funding ratios will provide larger awards on an individual basis, while working within the same annual budget. When this new model is applied to the grant totals from 2012 and 2013, they are each still below the budget. The aim is not to simply exhaust the funding budget with the ratio changes, but to shape the parameters which more appropriately fund heritage conservation work. Furthermore, the goal is to provide real financial incentive for property owners to undertake necessary maintenance projects and encourage restoration rather than replacement. This year, Heritage Services are preparing for more grant applications, so the proposed changes are relatively conservative. Through the grant policy and procedural changes [report and discussion to be held at the following HDB meeting], a strong awareness piece will be implemented to open the lines of communication and attract new grant applications. RECOMMENDATION For the Heritage Development Board to consider the proposed changes to the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program as it relates to the grant funding ratios. 119 2013 GRANTS - *nsenotior. rAmeivation grant 2012 Grants Conservation Plan Grant films 0 Maintenance Conservation Plans w Maintenance L. Conservation W Conservation Plan 120 Deloitte January 31, 2013 Grants for Heritage Conservation. Program The City of Saint John 121 Table of contents Section 1: Summary of scope and deliverables Section 2: Summary of benchmarking research and best practices Section 3: Recommended policy /procedure improvements ............ Section 4: Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy.......... Section 5: Implementation of internal controls .. ............................... Appendices Appendix A — Benchmarking research of similar programs Appendix B — Application form Phase 1 Appendix C — Application form Phase 2 Appendix D — Grant summary form Appendix E — Conditional approval letter Phase 1 Appendix F — Conditional approval letter Phase 2 Appendix G — Denial letter Phase 1 Appendix H — Denial letter Phase 2 Appendix I — Grant funding approval letter Appendix J — Grant funding denial letter Appendix K — Frequently asked questions Phase 1 Appendix L — Frequently asked questions Phase 2 Appendix M — Process flow chart .1 .2 .5 .8 15 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Wof Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program i Section 1: Summary of scope and deliverables Overview of facts and circumstances The Grants for Heritage Conservation Program (the "Heritage Grant program ") currently lacks a formal administration policy and the appropriate processes and internal controls to support such a policy. As a result, the Growth and Community Development Services of The City of Saint John (the "City ") has requested Deloitte LLP's ( "Deloitte ") assistance with the design and documentation of an administrative policy and the resulting processes and internal controls for the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program. Scope of report The scope of this report is based on the agreed upon deliverables in the Statement of Work as agreed to by the City and Deloitte. The scope and associated deliverables have been updated as appropriate throughout the engagement based on discussions with City staff. The agreed upon scope of engagement and final deliverables were outlined as follows: Information gathering and research • Performing benchmarking research on similar existing heritage grant programs in Canada, with a focus on Municipalities with similar heritage programs. Best practices identified during the benchmarking research are included in Section 2 and Appendix A of this report. • Interviews with City Staff (Acting Commissioner, Heritage Officers, and Building Inspectors) and other stakeholders have occurred to gain an understanding of existing process and areas that require improvement. • Review and consideration of recommendations from the Heritage Development Board. • Interviews with former Heritage Grant applications to understand areas for improvement. • Review of a sample of grant applications that are considered problematic to understand the current program limitation. • Review of documentation of the existing process relating to the Heritage Grant program prepared by the City. Reporting • Project status updates with the Acting Commissioner. • Closing meeting with management to review deliverables. Deliverables • Report to management summarizing the project and best practices observed in our research. • Heritage Grant program policy and process document for phase 1 and full implementation. • Heritage Grant application form for phase 1 and full implementation. • Heritage Grant fact sheet (e.g., Frequently Asked Questions). • Heritage Grant communication of approval and denial letters for phase 1 and full implementation. • Heritage Grant program process flow chart. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 12�of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 1 Section 2: Summary of benchmarking research and best practices Existing grant programs in Canada Deloitte performed benchmarking research on various heritage grant programs available in a number of Canadian municipalities. Our research focused on both Atlantic municipalities and others across Canada to provide the best cross section of best practices. We obtained Heritage Program Guidelines and Application Forms as well as performed interviews with the following municipalities across Canada that had similar heritage grant programs to The City of Saint John: • Moncton, New Brunswick • Halifax, Nova Scotia • Cape Breton, Nova Scotia • Toronto, Ontario • Victoria, British Columbia • Vernon, British Columbia There were a number of eligibility and application requirements for heritage grant funding that were consistent across the majority of municipalities selected for the comparison. These best practices for eligibility and final funding are as follows: • Where required, appropriate building permits must be obtained prior to commencing proposed project. • Applicant and property owner are required to be in good standing with the municipality and shall not have unpaid taxes or any other legal claim outstanding. • A minimum of two to three contractor estimates from qualified restoration professionals for the proposed work were required to be provided with the application form. • Owner performed labour is not eligible for grant funding. • Any changes made to proposed work need to be appropriately reported to the Heritage Department and any additional work completed that is not reported will not be eligible for grant funding. • Projects must be completed within the fiscal year for which they are approved. Grants conditionally approved for projects not completed by the end of the fiscal year are forfeited except in exceptional circumstances. • Grant payment is conditional on satisfactory completion of approved work by a Heritage Officer, photographic documentation of completed work, and submission of receipts and paid invoices, all by the deadline outlined in the policy. • Final grant funding is contingent on available program funds. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 2 Additionally, some municipalities included limits on the number of grants and /or the amount of grants per property over certain time periods including: • Moncton, NB and Halifax, NS both limited the number of grants per property to one per year and two in any four year period. • Cape Breton, NS limits one project per property approved in any given year. • Victoria, BC limits the grants for any one property to a total of $20,500. • In Vernon, BC, the owner of a property on the Vernon Heritage Register can apply for a Heritage Restoration Grant, for a maximum of $5,000; and, notwithstanding the amount of the first grant awarded, the heritage property may be awarded a second grant which is not to exceed $3,000 and is not to be awarded within 5 years of the first grant being received by the property owner. Some of the municipalities selected for the benchmarking research comparison also have grant preference or priority guidelines including: • Moncton, NB — Preference is given to first time applicants and for restoration of publicly visible features. Priority is also given to projects involving preservation and restoration of historic structural and weatherproofing elements. • Cape Breton, NS — Priority is given to first time applicants. Priority is also given to projects that significantly enhance the heritage value of the property. • Vernon, BC — Priority is given to projects in the following order of importance: 1) exterior restoration, 2) exterior and structural repair, and 3) exterior painting. The findings discussed above were taken into consideration when drafting the formal policy and application forms for the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program. The full analysis and results of the benchmarking research we performed is included in Appendix A. Interviews with past applicants Interviews were performed with four past applicants with varied degrees of experience with the program, ranging from three years to ten years. The following general feedback was obtained: • There is a lack of information available to the public surrounding the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program objectives and processes, making it difficult to understand. • There is a lack of communication between the staff involved in the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program and current and prospective applicants. • The information that is currently available is difficult to find on the City's website. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 125of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 3 The interviewees also made the following suggestions to aid in reducing the negative feedback outlined above: • Information, including the program's policy and application forms, should be available on the Heritage Conservation section of the City's website. • Outreach to real estate agents could be performed to inform them of the grant program and the requirements. This would aid in their discussions regarding the impact of purchasing a heritage property with new heritage property owners. • Public information meetings should be held early each year to remind experienced heritage property owners and inform new heritage property owners of the Heritage Grant policy requirements and to communicate any changes to the program or policy. Communication of the meetings should be publicized in the newspaper, radio, on the City's website, and where possible, individual heritage property owners should be sent an email or a letter communicating that a meeting will be held. • There should be more consistent communication with current year applicants throughout the year, including reminder letters about deadlines, issues with grant summary forms that are returned early, and conditional approval letters should be sent out in accordance with the timelines outlined in the new policy. The feedback gathered through our interviews was taken into consideration in the analysis of our research used to create the formal policy and application forms for the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Upof Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 4 Section 3: Recommended policy /procedure improvements Overview Transformation of processes and policies is of great significance to the public sector today. Currently, all public sector entities are under scrutiny related to the ways programs are developed, funded and delivered. Transparency and accountability, and efficient service delivery are critical to the success of any public sector organization. Public sector organizations that are able to master change will thrive; those that cannot will continually be challenged by increasing costs and public criticism and the City of Saint John Heritage Conservation Program is no different in this regard. Currently, the only existing policy for the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program is documented in the August 27, 2012 Council Report. As a result, there is limited public awareness and understanding of the program, as well as confusion regarding the administration and internal controls of the program. This increases the risk that the program will not be able to meet its objectives and the program will be seen by taxpayers as waste of resources. In our compilation of this report we have obtained information from staff interviews, applicant interviews, a review of program documentation and benchmarking research. Through our analysis of the information obtained we have recommended a number of changes to the current policy for the Heritage Grant program and recommend the implementation of a number of internal controls. We recommend that the proposed changes to the Heritage Grant program, resulting from the new policy, be implemented in two phases over the next two years. The first phase (contemplated for fiscal 2014) will see changes made to the requirements the applicants must meet in order to receive both conditional and final approval for grant funding. It will also involve implementing internal controls around the program to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the administration of the program. The second phase will involve the implementation of further requirements for applicants as well as application deadlines for both grant applications and grant summary forms. Outlined below are the significant changes recommended to the current policy (including the proposed phase for implementation). We have outlined why we believe the change is necessary and the benefits of implementing this change. We have also provided two versions of the Heritage Grant program policy corresponding with each phase. Both versions of the formal policy are outlined in Section 4. Internal control recommendations are discussed in the next section, Section 5 of this report. Other documents referenced in the policies below (e.g., forms and applications) can be found in Appendices B through M. Recommended policy changes Home owners must be in good standing with the City The policy should include a requirement that property owners applying for Heritage Grant funds must be in good standing with the City, meaning they shall not have unpaid taxes or other significant amounts or outstanding bylaw violations and /or building permit violations. The purpose of this recommended requirement is to ensure that the City is not disbursing tax payer money to applicants who have outstanding accounts with the City or violations and building permit violations. This recommendation reduces the risk that the Heritage Grant Program will be seen as a mechanism to provide funding for those applicants not in good standing with the City to pay outstanding balances. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 127of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 5 We recommend that this requirement be implemented using a phased in approach as a process will need to be developed to coordinate with other City departments and services to ensure information on balances owing by property owners can be shared. We recommend in Phase 1 of the policy implementation that the requirement only states that applicants cannot have unpaid taxes and bylaw and building permits violations with the City of Saint John. We recommend the other requirements related to other significant amounts be implemented in Phase 2. Other significant amounts may include outstanding water and sewage balances owing or significant balances of parking tickets or other violations, which are all administered by different departments. Consent must be obtained from the property owner to acquire this information from other City departments and services, which has been added to the application form in the following Appendices. Insurance We recommend the Phase 1 policy requires that the property owner has home insurance on the heritage property for which Heritage Grant Program funding is being received, and specifically, that any damage to work completed would be covered by this insurance. This requirement ensures that the City's investment in the heritage conservation of a given property through Heritage Grant funding is protected in the event of damage or loss of the heritage property through coverage of insurance. Secondly, this recommendation also reduces the risk that the City is investing tax payer money in heritage buildings that cannot obtain comprehensive insurance due to building code violations or other unsafe practices, or in properties where the owner does not care to protect their investment. This is also a best practice we noted that is currently implemented by half of the municipalities in the benchmarking research. Completion of project within fiscal year The current Heritage Grant program does not currently have any established limits on project durations or a required completion date. In some cases, projects are carried on for years and the applicants may continue to receive grant funding over a number of years for a continuing project. This gives the appearance that there is no limit of the amount of grant funding that can be obtained for a given project and can lead to abuses of the program through a lack of controls over project timelines. To reduce the risk of abuse of the Heritage Grant program in future years we recommend that there be a requirement that all projects applying for grant funding be completed by the end of the fiscal year. This also means that any incomplete projects will be forfeited except in exceptional circumstances, which will be determined on a case by case basis by the City staff responsible for the determination of grant funding. If the applicant meets the exceptional circumstances, they can make a new application for the proposed work in the subsequent year. This recommendation is also considered a best practice as it is currently implemented by every municipality included in the benchmarking research. We recommend that this change be implemented in Phase 1 of the policy. Heritage grant application form deadlines Currently, Heritage Grant applicants can apply for a grant at any time during the year prior to the end of November. This increases the risk that projects will not be completed within the fiscal year and that abuses of program funding may occur, as discussed in the above paragraph. It also increases the difficultly of year over year planning and administration of the Heritage Grant program and ultimately, the distribution of budgeted funds in the most effective and efficient manner. We recommend implementing a deadline for the submission of Heritage Grant Application forms, to be introduced in Phase 2 of the policy changes. The purpose of introducing this deadline is to facilitate the planning and administration of the Heritage Grant program and to limit the abuses associated with a lack of deadlines. With all applications received by a deadline, the Heritage Staff will have the ability to provide a better service to applicants and have more consistent and timely communication with the conditionally approved applicants throughout the remainder of the year, improving relationships with heritage property owners and increasing the overall awareness of policy requirements. It will also allow planning for the administration of the budget more efficiently and effectively. This deadline will also facilitate the ability of the City to provide the heritage grant funding sooner if all requirements for funding are met. This new requirement will also allow the City to implement a priority system in the future if desired. This recommendation is considered a best practice as it is currently implemented by every municipality included in the benchmarking research. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 14of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 6 60 day deadline for approval /denial In the past, the deadline for Grant Summary Forms was the end of November, after which funding was approved or denied and cheques were typically run and sent out in mid - December. We recommend that this deadline remain to facilitate the administration of the Heritage Grant Program; however, changes to the policy should be implemented that reward heritage property owners who comply with policies and complete their project work early, have inspections completed and submit their grant summary forms on a timely basis. We recommend that Heritage Grant payments for successful grant applicants be paid 60 days after receiving a successfully completed Heritage Grant Summary Form. This means that the Heritage Staff are required to complete the review process, approve or deny funding and provide payment within a 60 day timeframe. Upon approval or denial, the appropriate letter will be sent out to the applicant and if approved, a cheque will also be sent. The purpose of this policy change is to give conditionally approved applicants the incentive to complete their proposed projects in a timely manner as they will then receive their funding when their project is completed as opposed to the end of the fiscal year. Estimates The current policy requires applicants to state the estimated project cost on the Heritage Permit Application Form. This amount is used to calculate the preliminary amount of Heritage Grant funding. Currently there is no requirement for formal project estimates from contractors to be submitted with the Heritage Permit Application Form, increasing the risk that inaccurate estimates will be used to calculate the conditionally approved amounts or that property owners have not contemplated the full cost of the project. We recommend that applicants for Heritage Grant funding be required to submit two formal contractor estimates for the proposed work with their Heritage Grant Application. This recommendation is considered a best practice as it is currently implemented by every municipality included in the benchmarking research. We recommend that this change to the policy be implemented in Phase 2 to give the City adequate time to introduce this significant change. As discussed above, formal project estimates will allow the amount of conditional approval to be more accurately calculated; however, the requirement does not completely eliminate the risk of inaccurate estimates being provided. Applicants may have pre- existing business or personal relationships with contractors and may request overstated formal estimates to increase the amount of conditional approval and grant funding to be received. In order to ensure that a fair amount of grant funding is awarded for the proposed work and minimize the risk of overpayment of grant funding, it is recommended that the amount of conditional approval be calculated as the average between the two formal project estimates provided with the Heritage Grant Funding Application. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. UP& Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 7 Section 4: Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy Policy — Phase 1 Program Aim 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. Objectives Primary: • To encourage retention of designated heritage buildings and their character - defining elements, including their 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 waste 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 1. Heritage Maintenance Grant: a) 15% to a maximum of $500 b) For applicants who do not have a conservative plan in place, with the exception of a proposed commercial tenant sign. 2. Heritage Conservation Grant: a) 15 % -25% to a maximum of $5,000 b) 25% is reserved for structural or masonry repairs or repairs to original doors and windows c) Eligibility requires a Conservation Plan to be in place 3. Heritage Conservation Plan Grant— 50% to a maximum of $1,000. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. lA9of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 8 Eligible Properties • Grants are awarded based on the Property Identification Number (PID) rather than per civic address. Each PID is eligible to receive one grant per category per year. • Property must be a non - government owned, designated heritage property located in one of the designated Heritage Conservation Areas in the City of Saint John. Refer to the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law for a listing of Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas. A copy of the By- Law can be found on the City's website, or picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services offices. • Property must be covered by home insurance. • Property owner must be in good standing with the City of Saint John and shall not have unpaid taxes. • Property owner must not have any outstanding property related bylaw violations and /or building permit warrants. Eligible Work and Materials • Commercial tenant signage using traditional detailing and materials. • Projects must be to the exterior of the property. • For appropriate materials and restoration approaches please see the Practical Conservation Guidelines on the City's website, which can also be picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services offices. • Projects must be completed prior to the Grant Summary form deadline • Grant funding for projects not completed by the deadline will be forfeited except in exceptional circumstances. Ineligible Work and Materials • Contemporary materials such as vinyl or aluminum clad windows, steel doors, or vinyl siding. • Work carried out prior to issuance for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). • Work carried out without required building permits in place prior to work being undertaken. • Work related to landscaping, contemporary roof repairs /replacement, or new infill development /addition. • Owner performed labour. • Poor or defective work. Heritage Grant Funding Applications Before completing and submitting a Heritage Grant Funding Application form, applicants must first apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) and building permit (if required), and include application numbers on their Heritage Grant Funding Application form. Application forms can be found on the City's website, or picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services offices. The following must accompany the completed application form: — Building permit number, if required for proposed work; — Recent photographs of all sides of the building and detailed photographs of area related to proposed work; — Signature of both the applicant and owner of the property; — Those applying for a Heritage Conservation Grant must copy and attach page extracts from the Heritage Conservation Plan that relate to the proposed work to be funded. — Those applying for a Heritage Conservation Plan Grant must include a copy of the Heritage Conservation Plan. • Approval of a Heritage Grant Application conditionally approves the applicant for grant funding at the end of the fiscal year rather than guaranteeing it. • Owner must provide start and end date for proposed project. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 1A) of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 9 Review of Heritage Grant Funding Applications for Conditional Approval or Denial • Applications will be screened for basic eligibility as they are received (i.e., application package is complete and legible). Applicants will be notified promptly if their application is ineligible. • Applications will be reviewed by Heritage Staff for the following: — Ensuring the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) was issued. — If required, confirming building permit application has been issued. — Reviewing project estimates and calculating amount of requested grant funding. — Awarding conditional approval to applicants that meet the eligibility requirements. • Heritage staff will notify applicants in writing within 30 days of their conditional approval or denial. Building Inspections • A successful building inspection by Building & Inspections Services for the proposed work to be funded is required to receive grant funding. • It is the responsibility of the grant applicant to notify the Building & Inspections Services offices of the project completion and arrange for inspection. • Building inspections must be arranged and completed prior to submission of the Grant Summary Form as outlined below. • The inspection must be completed by November 30. Heritage Officer Inspection • A successful inspection by a Heritage Officer of the City of Saint John is required to receive grant funding. • It is the responsibility of the grant applicant to notify the Growth and Community Development Services offices that the project is complete and ready for inspection by the Heritage Officer. • Heritage Officer inspections should be arranged and completed prior to submission of the Grant Summary Form as outlined below. • The Heritage Officer will inspect the completed work to ensure that it shows good craftsmanship and was completed in a professional manner and according to the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). Photographs of the completed work will also be obtained. • The inspection must be completed by November 30. Grant Summary Form • The Grant Summary Form is required to be completed and submitted once the project work related to the grant application is complete in order to receive grant funding. • Grant Summary Forms are accepted until November 30. • The Grant Summary Form should include the following information and attached documents: — Using the space provided, an itemized summary of the invoices and receipts that correspond to the work outlined in the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) with the amounts stated pre -HST — Legible photocopies of all invoices and receipts included in the summary with proof of payment — Applicant must assert that both a successful building inspection and heritage inspection have been completed. — Signature of the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) applicant, the legal owner of the property, and contractors who performed the project. • It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the itemized summary is complete, accurate, and legible. • Grant Summary Forms are reviewed when received and applicants will be notified through written communication within 60 days of submission whether the form is approved, with attached cheque, or whether it has been denied. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Wof Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 10 Payment or Denial of Grant Funding • Grant funding depends on successful building and heritage inspections and a properly completed and approved Grant Summary Form. • The deadline for release of grant funding is 60 days after submission of the Grant Summary Form provided all requirements are met. Policy — Phase 2 (Full Implementation) Program Aim 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. Objectives Primary: • To encourage retention of designated heritage buildings and their character - defining elements, including their 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 waste 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 4. Heritage Maintenance Grant: a) 15% to a maximum of $500 b) For applicants who do not have a conservative plan in place, with the exception of a proposed commercial tenant sign. 5. Heritage Conservation Grant: a) 15 % -25% to a maximum of $5,000 b) 25% is reserved for structural or masonry repairs or repairs to original doors and windows c) Eligibility requires a Conservation Plan to be in place 6. Heritage Conservation Plan Grant— 50% to a maximum of $1,000. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Wof Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 11 Eligible Properties • Grants are awarded based on the Property Identification Number (PID) rather than per civic address. Each PID is eligible to receive one grant per category per year. • Property must be a non - government owned, designated heritage property located in one of the designated Heritage Conservation Areas in the City of Saint John. Refer to the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law for a listing of Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas. A copy of the By- Law can be found on the City's website, or picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services offices. • Property must be covered by home insurance. • Property owner must be in good standing with the City of Saint John and shall not have unpaid taxes. • Property owner must not have any outstanding property related bylaw violations and /or building permit warrants. Eligible Work and Materials • Commercial tenant signage using traditional detailing and materials. • Projects must be to the exterior of the property. • For appropriate materials and restoration approaches please see the Practical Conservation Guidelines on the City's website, which can also be picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services offices. • Projects must be completed prior to the Grant Summary form deadline • Grant funding for projects not completed by the deadline will be forfeited except in exceptional circumstances. Ineligible Work and Materials • Contemporary materials such as vinyl or aluminum clad windows, steel doors, or vinyl siding. • Work carried out prior to issuance for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). • Work carried out without required building permits in place prior to work being undertaken. • Work related to landscaping, contemporary roof repairs /replacement, or new infill development /addition. • Owner performed labour. • Poor or defective work. Heritage Grant Funding Applications • Heritage Grant Funding Applications are accepted from January 1 — April 30 of each fiscal year. • Before completing and submitting a Heritage Grant Funding Application form, applicants must first apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) and building permit, if required, and disclose these application numbers on their Heritage Grant Funding Application form. • Application forms can be found on the City's website, or picked up in person at the Growth and Community Development Services offices. • The following must accompany the grant application form: — Building permit number, if required for proposed work — Minimum of two written project estimates detailing work to be performed and the associated cost of the work from 2 separate contractors — Recent photographs of all sides of the building and detailed photographs of area related to proposed work — Signature of both the applicant and owner of the property — Those applying for a Heritage Conservation Grant much copy and attach page extracts from the Heritage Conservation Plan that relate to the proposed work to be funded. — Those applying for a Heritage Conservation Plan Grant must include a copy of the Heritage Conservation Plan. • Approval of a Heritage Grant Application conditionally approves the applicant for grant funding at the end of the fiscal year rather than guaranteeing it. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 12 Review of Heritage Grant Funding Applications for Conditional Approval or Denial • Applications will be screened for basic eligibility as they are received (i.e., application package is complete and legible). Applicants will be notified promptly if their application is ineligible. • A full review process of all grant funding applications will take place between May 1 and June 15. • Applications will be reviewed by Heritage Staff for the following: — Ensuring the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) was approved — If required, confirming building permit application has been filed — Reviewing project estimates and calculating amount of requested grant funding — Awarding conditional approval to applicants that meet the eligibility requirements • The amount of conditional approval will be calculated as the average of the two estimates provided. • Deadline for sending out the conditional approval and denial letters is June 15 and the letters shall include the following information: — Whether the applicant was approved or denied for conditional approval of grant funding — If approved, a listing of the conditions that must be met. — If denied, the reason for denial and additional information regarding the policy for heritage grant funding. Building Inspections • A successful building inspection by Building & Inspections Services is required to receive grant funding. • It is the responsibility of the grant applicant to notify the Building & Inspections Services offices of the project completion and arrange for inspection. • Building inspections must be arranged and completed prior to submission of the Grant Summary Form as outlined below. • The inspection must be completed by November 30. Heritage Officer Inspection • A successful inspection by a Heritage Officer of the City of Saint John is required to receive grant funding. • It is the responsibility of the grant applicant to notify the Growth and Community Development Services offices of the project completion and arrange for inspection by the Heritage Officer. • Heritage Officer inspections should be arranged and completed prior to submission of the Grant Summary Form as outlined below. • The Heritage Officer will inspect the completed work to ensure that it shows good craftsmanship and was completed in a professional manner and according to the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). Photographs of the completed work will also be obtained. • The inspection must be completed by November 30. Grant Summary Form • The Grant Summary Form is required to be completed and submitted once the project work related to the grant application is complete in order to receive grant funding approval. • Grant Summary Forms are accepted until November 30. • The Grant Summary Form should include the following information and attached documents: — Using the space provided, an itemized summary of the invoices and receipts that correspond to the work outlined in the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) with the amounts stated pre -HST — Legible photocopies of all invoices and receipts included in the summary with proof of payment — Applicant must assert that both a successful building inspection and heritage inspection have been completed. — Signature of the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) holder, the legal owner of the property, and contractors who performed the project. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Wof Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 13 It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the itemized summary is complete, accurate, and legible. Grant Summary Forms are reviewed when received and applicants will be notified through written communication within 60 days of submission whether the form is approved, with attached cheque, or whether it has been denied. Payment or denial of grant funding • Whether the applicant receives grant funding depends on successful building and heritage inspections and a properly completed and approved Grant Summary Form. • The deadline for grant funding payments is 60 days after submission of the Grant Summary Form provided all requirements are met. Annual process timeline overview Heritage Grant application period Review of Heritage Grant Funding Applications Deadline for Letters of Conditional Approval or Denial to be sent Inspection and Grant Summary Form deadline Review of Grant Summary Forms Deadline for Letters of Approval with cheques or Letters of Denial to be sent © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 1Cr P.f Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 14 Section 5: Implementation of internal controls Overview Strong internal controls are vital to the success of any organization or program. Internal controls not only help prevent errors and other issues from occurring; they also drive better performance. Generally, when an organization has an inadequate level of internal controls, it can experience additional costs, wasted resources and heightened exposure to risk. To prevent these outcomes, and ensure the organization is running efficiently, it needs to ensure relevant internal controls are implemented and operating effectively. The Heritage Grant program is no different. Implementing a relevant and effective internal control structure will ensure program costs are reasonable, and will ensure effective management of both the funds allocated to the program, and its fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers of the City. As discussed in Section 3, through interviews with staff, and applicants, review of documentation and benchmarking research, weaknesses were identified related to the internal controls of administering the Heritage Grants Program. These weaknesses are identified below and recommendations on internal controls have been made accordingly. Documentation 1. The master spreadsheet that is used to track Certificates of Appropriateness and Grant Funding by the heritage staff is stored on the department network which gives all department employees access to the spreadsheet and the ability to alter the document, which could lead to errors or deletions in the content. It is recommended that while the master spreadsheet should remain on the network for access by heritage staff, the spreadsheet should be password protected so that only the appropriate heritage staff members can access and alter the information. 2. Generally, spreadsheets lack appropriate controls related to the security, completeness, accuracy, and validity of the information. As a result, incorrect information could be presented in reports to various stakeholders, incorrect amounts could be paid to Heritage Grant applicants or other errors can occur. Additionally, the previous master spreadsheet needs to be redesigned to reflect the information needs required to administer the new policy outlined in this report. A number of modifications were made to the spreadsheet to reflect the new information required and to increase the security, completeness, accuracy and validity of the data: a) Additional columns have been added related to requirements of the new policy, including ones that document when a control or program requirement has occurred, for example, building and heritage inspection signoffs. This ensures that there is a tracking mechanism for program requirements and ensures the data and tracking of information for the heritage grant program is complete. b) A number of columns now include lists that limit the value or type of input that can occur. This can reduce input errors and increase the overall accuracy and validity of the data. c) Two columns have automated formulas to calculate the conditional grant funding and the final grant funding. The cells in these columns have been "locked" via the "protect sheet' functionality in excel. Automation and security of certain cells will reduce potential input and formula errors and will increase the accuracy and validity of the information contained in the spreadsheet. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 1A7of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 15 Owner vs. tenant The Grants for Heritage Conservation Application asks the applicant to specify if they are the owner of the property listed on the application. If they are not the owner, the contact information and signature of the owner is required on the application. There is no requirement for the applicant to attach proof of ownership. The applicant may not be the owner of the building and may forge the owner's signature to receive grant funding for work performed. The owner may also apply for grant funding for similar projects for the same property. It is recommended that prior to approving the applicant for conditional grant funding; a member of the Heritage Staff should confirm that the owner identified on the grant application form is the owner of the building. Building permits Not all applicants apply for and obtain the required building permits for the heritage work proposed on the grant funding application form and in the past there has been infrequent communication with the Building Permit division to ensure that an approved building permit has been obtained. Additionally, in cases where an approved building permit has been obtained, the estimates provided on the Heritage Grant application form are not compared to those provided on the Building Permit Application to confirm that the work being reported to both divisions is consistent. As a result, heritage renovation /restoration work may be completed and funding awarded to applicants who did not have the appropriate building permits in place or did not pass a final building inspection and therefore the work may not be up to code. It also gives applicants the ability to overstate estimates on their grant applications and understate estimates on their building permit applications. To help eliminate these issues, the application form has been updated requiring applicants to disclose their building permit number. In addition, we recommend a member of the heritage staff also confirms the application for a building permit was submitted and approved prior to granting conditional approval and to ensure the building permit was finalized and approved within 60 days of the applicant submitted their Grant Summary Form. The heritage staff should also confirm that the estimates are comparable. We also recommend that before final approval is made that the heritage staff also confirm that the work completed on the property passed its final building inspection. Grant Summary Form reminder In the past, after sending conditional approval letters to approved applicants, there was little to no further communications until the Heritage Staff receives communication from the applicants or receives Grant Summary Forms. A lack of formal communication with applicants increases the risk that deadlines for Grant Summary form completion will be missed resulting in either the heritage grant program not being fully utilized to the extent that is approved in the budget or it will result in "exceptions" to the policy, which may lead applicants to believe that the policy requirements are not enforceable. We recommend that reminder letters be sent out by October 1 to all conditionally approved applicants reminding them of the November 30 deadline for both building permit and heritage permit inspections and Grant Summary Form submissions. A copy of a blank Grant Summary Form should also be attached. Additionally, we recommend that contact information for arranging both a heritage inspection and a building inspection be included in the reminder. Matching of receipts to heritage permit In the past, applicants have submitted receipts for work that is not related to the work approved by the Heritage Permit. In some cases it is hard for Heritage Staff to determine whether receipts submitted relate to the approved Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). To reduce the incidence of this occurring, the Grant Summary Form has been updated, requiring the applicant to reference their attached invoices and receipts individually and describe which part of the completed work it relates to. Judgment will still be required to determine if the invoice and receipts are appropriate for the completed work and any suspicious invoices and receipts should be questioned or rejected. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 16 Appendix A — Benchmarking research of similar programs Saint NB John, Moncton, NB NS NS . NL Building permit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes required Good standing with city /heritage laws and No Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes committee Property must be No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes privately owned House must be for residential or No Yes Yes Yes Commercial No Yes Yes commercial use Property must be No Yes No No N/A No Yes Yes insured Work must add to public's No No No No N/A Yes No No understanding of conservation Highly visible from No No Yes No N/A Yes No Yes public right -of -way Estimates required 0 2 2 1 N/A 3 2 3 Changes to be No Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes reported Large grants need No Yes Yes No N/A No No No additional paperwork © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 139 City of Satin John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Receiptlinvoice summary required Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes with support Deadline for Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes — 2 Years Yes Yes receipts /invoices Progressive funding No Yes No No No No No No payments Appeal period when No No Yes 5 No N/A Yes No No denied days Completed in fiscal Yes — Yes — year approved No Yes Yes Yes Yes extensions exceptions Yes allowed made Additional unrelated No No No No N/A No No No work funded Grant forfeited for No Yes Yes Yes N/A No Yes Yes incomplete work Limit on amount of Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes grants (# or $) Priority for first time No Yes Yes Yes N/A No No No applicants Priority given to No Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes No Yes certain work Approval contingent Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes No Yes on available funds HST /GST Sometimes Yes No No N/A Yes Yes No reimbursement Compensation for Yes No No Yes N/A No No No work prior to approval Deadline to No No No No N/A Yes Yes Yes commence work Warranty for work No No No No N/A No No Yes done Owner labour allowed No No No No N/A Yes No Yes — Unable to reach St. John's for questions © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 140 City of Satin John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix Phase 1 For in office use only Grant Application # Date received in office: HDB Meeting date: B — Application form Please note: it is the Applicant's responsibility to understand and comply with all aspects of the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy. Failure to understand and comply with the policy may result in the denial of a grant. A Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) is required before commencing any work on a property in a Heritage Conservation Area. Before preparing your application form please review the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy and apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). Certificate of Appropriateness Application #: Description of work from approved Certificate of Appropriateness Application: Property Indentification (PID) #: If a building permit is required for the proposed work, please include the building permit application number in the space below. If you are unsure whether you need a building permit for the proposed work, please contact the Building & Inspections Services at (506) 658 -2911. Building Permit Application #: © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 14 1 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Grant Type ❑ Heritage Maintenance Grant: — 15% to a maximum of $500 — For applicants who do not have a conservative plan in place, with the exception of a commercial tenant sign ❑ Heritage Conservation Grant: — 15 % -25% to a maximum of $5,000 — 25% is reserved for structural or masonry repairs or repairs to original doors and windows — Eligibility requires a Conservation Plan to be in place ❑ Heritage Conservation Plan Grant — 50% to a maximum of $1,000 Personal Information Name of Applicant: Mailing Address of Applicant: Home Phone #: Work Phone # Fax #: Email Address: Would you prefer to receive communications via letter or email? • Letter • Email Are you currently in good standing with the City of Saint John, meaning you have no unpaid taxes or outstanding bylaw violations? ❑ Yes ❑ No Are you the legal owner of the property? • Yes — Continue to Property Information section of application. • No — Please indicate the legal owner's contact information below. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 142 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Name of Owner: Mailing Address of Owner: Home Phone #: Work Phone # Fax #: Email Address: ❑ As the owner of the property, I am aware that, by allowing the tenant to apply for a Heritage Conservation Grant, I am forfeiting my right to apply for a Heritage Conservation Grant in the applicable year. Property Information Address of Heritage Property: Heritage Conservation Area: Is the property described above covered by home insurance? • Yes • No Please attach any historic photographs (if available) you have as well as recent photographs of all exterior sides of the building in digital format. Also required are close up recent photographs of the exterior area where the proposed work will take place. ❑ Attached ❑ Not available Project Estimate Please provide an estimate and breakdown of project costs (pre -HST): Structural: Other: © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 143 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Description of Proposed Project Estimated Start Date of Work (ex. April 25, 201x): Estimated Completion Date of Work (ex. October 25, 201x): Heritage Grant Funding Application Checklist Ensure your application includes all of the following items: • Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) Application number • Confirmation of good standing with the City of Saint John • Confirmation that owner, if different from applicant, is aware of grant application • Confirmation of comprehensive home insurance • Any historic photographs of the property • Recent photographs of all exterior sides of the building including close up recent photographs of the exterior area where the proposed work will take place • If required, the Building Permit Application number • Signature of applicant and legal owner of the building • If you are applying for a Heritage Conservation Grant you also need to attach page extracts from the Heritage Conservation Plan that relate to the proposed work to be funded • If you are applying for a Heritage Conservation Plan Grant you also need to attach a copy of the Heritage Conservation Plan. Signatures I hereby request that this application be considered under the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program for the Growth and Community Development Services Department of The City of Saint John. By signing below I certify that all information included on this application form is truthful and accurate information. Applicant's printed name Applicant's signature DD /MM /YYYY Property owner's printed name Property owner's signature D D/M M /YYYY © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 144 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Application Submissions Heritage Conservation Grant Applications may be submitted either by mail or in person at the following address: Heritage Staff I Growth and Community Development Services 10th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E21- 41-1 If you have any questions or concerns the Heritage Staff can be contacted at: Phone: (506) 658 -2835 Fax: (506) 658 -2837 Email: Heritage @SaintJohn.ca © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 145 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix Phase 2 For in office use only Grant Application # Date received in office: HDB Meeting date: C — Application form Please note: it is the Applicant's responsibility to understand and comply with all aspects of the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy. Failure to understand and comply with the policy may result in the denial of a grant. A Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) is required before commencing any work on a property in a Heritage Conservation Area. Before preparing your application form please review the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy and apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). Certificate of Appropriateness Application #: Description of work from approved Certificate of Appropriateness Application: Property Indentification (PID) #: If a building permit is required for the proposed work, please include the building permit application number in the space below. If you are unsure whether you need a building permit for the proposed work, please contact the Building & Inspections Services at (506) 658 -2911. Building Permit Application #: © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 146 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Grant Type ❑ Heritage Maintenance Grant: — 15% to a maximum of $500 — For applicants who do not have a conservative plan in place, with the exception of a commercial tenant sign ❑ Heritage Conservation Grant: — 15 % -25% to a maximum of $5,000 — 25% is reserved for structural or masonry repairs or repairs to original doors and windows — Eligibility requires a Conservation Plan to be in place ❑ Heritage Conservation Plan Grant — 50% to a maximum of $1,000 Personal Information Name of Applicant: Mailing Address of Applicant: Home Phone #: Work Phone # Fax #: Email Address: Would you prefer to receive communications via letter or email? • Letter • Email Are you currently in good standing with the City of Saint John, meaning you have no unpaid taxes or other significant amounts and no outstanding bylaw violations? ❑ Yes ❑ No Are you the legal owner of the property? • Yes — Continue to Property Information section of application. • No — Please indicate the legal owner's contact information below. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 147 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Name of Owner: Mailing Address of Owner: Home Phone #: Work Phone # Fax #: Email Address: ❑ As the owner of the property, I am aware that, by allowing the tenant to apply for a Heritage Conservation Grant, I am forfeiting my right to apply for a Heritage Conservation Grant in the applicable year. Property Information Address of Heritage Property: Heritage Conservation Area: Is the property described above covered by home insurance? • Yes • No Please attach any historic photographs (if available) you have as well as recent photographs of all exterior sides of the building in digital format. Also required are close up recent photographs of the exterior area where the proposed work will take place. ❑ Attached ❑ Not available Description of Proposed Project Estimated Start Date of Work (ex. April 25, 201x): Estimated Completion Date of Work (ex. October 25, 201x): © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 148 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Project Estimates Please attach two formal project estimates from qualified contractors for the proposed work and summarize the pre -HST costs in the space provided below. The estimates should include details of the proposed work as well as materials to be used. There are Practical Conservation Guidelines which provide useful tips and information on conserving your heritage property as well as eligible work and materials. These are available both on the City's website and in person at the Growth and Community Development Services offices. Estimate #1: Name of Contractor: Contact # of Contractor: JEstimate Provided (Pre -HST): Estimate #2: Name of Contractor: Contact # of Contractor: Estimate Provided (Pre -HST): If one of the two estimates detailed above includes an estimate provided by the applicant /owner who is a contractor, please include the contractor's business number below: Contractor's Business Number: Heritage Grant Funding Application Checklist Ensure your application includes all of the following items: • Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) Application number • Confirmation of good standing with the City of Saint John • Confirmation of owner forfeiture of additional grants for the applicable year • Confirmation of comprehensive home insurance • Any historic photographs of the property • Recent photographs of all exterior sides of the building including close up recent photographs of the exterior area where the proposed work will take place • Two formal project estimates from qualified contractors for the proposed work • If required, the Building Permit Application number • Signature of applicant and legal owner of the building • If you are applying for a Heritage Conservation Grant you also need to attach page extracts from the Heritage Conservation Plan that relate to the proposed work to be funded. • If you are applying for a Heritage Conservation Plan Grant you also need to attach a copy of the Heritage Conservation Plan. If application is complete you will receive notice by June 15. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 149 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Signatures I hereby request that this application be considered under the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program for the Growth and Community Development Services Department of The City of Saint John. By signing below I certify that all information included on this application form is truthful and accurate information. Applicant's printed name Applicant's signature DD /MM /YYYY Application Submissions Property owner's printed name Property owner's signature DD /MM /YYYY The application period for Heritage Grant Funding is January 1 — April 30 and the applications may be submitted either by mail or in person at the following address: Heritage Staff I Growth and Community Development Services 10th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E21- 41-1 If you have any questions or concerns the Heritage Staff can be contacted at: Phone: (506) 658 -2835 Fax: (506) 658 -2837 Email: Heritage @SaintJohn.ca © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 150 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix D —Grant Summary Form For in office use only Date received in office: Date notified of conditional approval: Application Submissions The deadline to submit a Grant Summary Form for a conditionally approved grant is November 30, xxxx and the application may be submitted either by mail or in person at the following address: Heritage Staff I Growth and Community Development Services 10th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 41_1 If you have any questions or concerns the Heritage Staff can be contacted at: Phone: (506) 658 -2835 Fax: (506) 658 -2837 Email: Heritage @SaintJohn.ca General Information Name of Applicant: Property Address: Certificate of Appropriateness #: Grant Application #: Summary of Costs In the space provided below, please complete an itemized summary of the invoices /receipts incurred in relation to the work outlined in the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) that was submitted to obtain conditional heritage grant approval. A legible photocopy of each invoice /receipt included in the itemized summary below should be attached to this form. When summarizing the information required, please follow the guidelines below: © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 151 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 1. Reference each invoice /receipt as A -Z and when summarizing, enter this reference in first column below. 2. Provide a description of both the nature of the work itemized on the invoice /receipt (i.e., labour, materials, or rentals) in the second column. 3. Provide which component identified in the approved Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) to which the work relates in the third column. 4. The amount to be entered into the fourth column is the pre -HST amount of the invoice or receipt. Receipt Reference Description /Location of Work Component of Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) Amount (Pre -HST) If more space is required to provide a complete itemized summary, please obtain and attach a second Grant Summary Form. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 152 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Signatures I hereby submit this Grant Summary for consideration under the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program for the Growth and Community Development Services Department of The City of Saint John. By signing below I certify that all information included on this application form and each point below is truthful and accurate information: • Work summarized above has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions indicated on the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) • A Heritage Officer of the City of Saint John was informed that the project is complete and the subject property has had a successful inspection • A Building Inspector was informed that the work related to the grant funding is complete and the subject property has had a successful inspection • All information provided on this form is truthful and accurate information. Applicant's printed name Applicant's signature D D/M M /YYYY First contractor's printed name Property owner's printed name Property owner's signature D D/M M /YYYY Second contractor's printed name First contractor's signature Second contractor's signature D D/M M /YYYY D D/M M/YYYY © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 153 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix E — letter Phase 1 Conditional approval Date of Letter Applicant Name Applicant Address Line #1 Applicant Address Line #2 Saint John, New Brunswick Postal Code Re: Conditional Approval for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address Dear Applicant, We are pleased to advise you that your application for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address was accepted and you are conditionally approved to receive funding. However, each year Growth and Community Development Services is granted an annual funding budget for the Heritage Conservation Grant Program which may not allow all applicants who meet the eligibility requirements and /or are conditionally approved to receive grant funding. In order to qualify for grant funding the project must be completed as outlined in your approved Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). At the completion of your project, you must also provide a completed Grant Summary Form which includes the following requirements: • An itemized summary of the invoices /receipts with amounts (stated pre -HST) incurred for the work outlined in the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) that was approved and submitted for conditional grant funding approval • Legible photocopies of all invoices /receipts included in the itemized summary on the form, with proof of payment, should be attached to the form • Certification that both a building inspection and Heritage Officer inspection have been completed and • Signature of the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) holder, the legal owner of the property, and contractors who performed the project. A blank copy of the Grant Summary Form has been enclosed with this letter. Upon the completion of your project you may submit your completed grant summary form at any point until November 30, which is the 2014 submission deadline. Late or incomplete submissions will be rejected. Your successful submission will then receive grant funding within 60 days. We are looking forward to seeing the positive results of your project and our Grants for Heritage Conservation Program. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at 506 - 658 -2838. Sincerely, Alice Fudge Heritage Analyst Growth & Community Development Services Enclosure © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 154 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix F — Conditional approval letter Phase 2 April 30, 20xx Applicant Name Applicant Address Line #1 Applicant Address Line #2 Saint John, New Brunswick Postal Code Re: Conditional Approval for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address Dear Applicant, We are pleased to advise you that your application for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address was accepted and you are conditionally approved. However, each year the Growth and Community Office is granted an annual funding budget for the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program which may not allow all applicants who meet the eligibility requirements and /or are conditionally approved to receive grant funding, as outlined below. In order to qualify for final grant funding approval the project must be completed as outlined in your approved Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). At the completion of your project, you must also provide a Grant Summary Form which should include the following: • An itemized summary of the invoices /receipts with amounts (stated pre -HST) incurred for the work outlined in the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) that was approved and submitted for conditional grant funding approval • Legible photocopies of all invoices /receipts included in the itemized summary on the form, with proof of payment, should be attached to the form • Certification that both a building inspection and Heritage Officer inspection have been completed and • Signature of the Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) holder, the legal owner of the property, and contractors who performed the project. A blank copy of the Grant Summary Form has been enclosed with this letter. The deadline for submission of the Grant Summary Form is November 30, xxxx. Late or incomplete submissions will be rejected. The deadline for grant funding approval, with funding cheques, and /or denial letters is December 30, xxxx. We are looking forward to seeing the positive results of your project and our Grants for Heritage Conservation Program. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at 506 - 658 -2838. Sincerely, Alice Fudge Heritage Analyst Growth & Community Development Services Enclosure © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 155 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix G — Denial letter Phase 1 Date of Letter Applicant Name Applicant Address Line #1 Applicant Address Line #2 Saint John, New Brunswick Postal Code Re: Denial for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address Dear Applicant, We regret to inform you that your application for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address has been denied for the following reason(s): Reason. If the issue above is addressed appropriately, you may re -apply for a Heritage Grant for This Fiscal Year. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at 506 - 658 -2838. Sincerely, Alice Fudge Heritage Analyst Growth & Community Development Services © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 156 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix H — Denial letter Phase 2 April 15, 20xx Applicant Name Applicant Address Line #1 Applicant Address Line #2 Saint John, New Brunswick Postal Code Re: Denial for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address Dear Applicant, We regret to inform you that your application for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address has been denied for the following reason(s): Reason. You may apply for a Heritage Grant for Next Fiscal Year between January 1 and April 30, Fiscal Year. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at 506 - 658 -2838. Sincerely, Alice Fudge Heritage Analyst Growth & Community Development Services © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 157 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix I —Grant funding approval letter December 15, 20xx Applicant Name Applicant Address Line #1 Applicant Address Line #2 Saint John, New Brunswick Postal Code Re: Approval for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address Dear Applicant, We are pleased to advise you that your Grant Summary Form for Property Address has been reviewed and determined to be in compliance with the requirements and you have been approved to receive $ in heritage grant funding for Fiscal Year. The approved grant amount you are entitled to has been calculated based on a grant funding ratio of xx% multiplied by the eligible project costs outlined in the Grant Summary Form up to a maximum of Maximum Amount. We would like to commend you for your efforts in heritage conservation and thank you for participating in the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program. We truly appreciate your engagement in assisting the City of Saint John achieve its objectives of heritage conservation. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at 506 - 658 -2838. Sincerely, Alice Fudge Heritage Analyst Growth & Community Development Services Enclosure © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 158 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix J —Grant funding denial letter April 15, 20xx Applicant Name Applicant Address Line #1 Applicant Address Line #2 Saint John, New Brunswick Postal Code Re: Denial for Heritage Grant Funding for Property Address Dear Applicant, We regret to inform you that your Grant Summary Form for Property Address has been denied. Upon inspection of the property and review of the Grant Summary Form for Property Address, it was determined that the following conditions have not been met in order for you to be rewarded grant funding: • Condition not met • Condition not met If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact me at 506 - 658 -2838. Sincerely, Alice Fudge Heritage Analyst Growth & Community Development Services © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 159 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix K — Frequently asked questions Phase 1 1. What is a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) and why do I need one prior to applying for a Heritage Grant? A Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) is a permit that is required in order to perform any exterior work to a property that is within one of the designated Heritage Conservation Areas in the City of Saint John, New Brunswick. Heritage Grant funding cannot be awarded for work that has not been approved through a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). 2. How do I apply for a Heritage Grant? The first step in applying for a Heritage Grant is to read the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy to gain an understanding of the program and the requirements. Next you should fill out the Grants for Heritage Conservation Application Form and submit it either by mail or in person at the following address: Heritage Staff I Growth and Community Development Services 10th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E21- 41-1 If you have any questions or concerns the Heritage Staff can be contacted at: Phone: (506) 658 -2835 Fax: (506) 658 -2837 Email: Heritage @SaintJohn.ca 3. 1 am a tenant rather than the owner of a heritage property. Can I apply for a Heritage Grant for the work I would like to perform on the unit I occupy? For the tenant of a heritage property to perform work and receive Heritage Grant funding, the owner must be aware and approve of the proposed work and Heritage Grant Funding Application. The owner's contact information and signature are required on the Grants for Heritage Conservation Application form as well as the Grant Summary Form. The owner must also certify on the Grants to Heritage Conservation Application form that they are aware that by signing the form. 4. The Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy states that I must submit my building permit number on my Grants for Heritage Conservation Application form if one is required. How do I determine if a building permit is required for the work I am planning? If you are unsure whether you need a building permit for the proposed work, please contact the Building & Inspections Services at (506) 658 -2911. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all information and required building permits. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 160 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Appendix L — Frequently asked questions Phase 2 1. What is a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) and why do I need one prior to applying for a Heritage Grant? A Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit) is a permit that is required in order to perform any exterior work to a property that falls within one of the designated Heritage Conservation Areas in the city of Saint John, New Brunswick. Heritage Grant funding cannot be awarded for work that has not been approved through a Certificate of Appropriateness (Heritage Permit). 2. How do I apply for a Heritage Grant? The first step in applying for a Heritage Grant is to read the Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy to gain an understanding of the program and the requirements. Next you should fill out the Grants for Heritage Conservation Application Form and submit it either by mail or in person at the following address: Heritage Staff I Growth and Community Development Services 10th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E21- 41-1 If you have any questions or concerns the Heritage Staff can be contacted at: Phone: (506) 658 -2835 Fax: (506) 658 -2837 Email: Heritage @SaintJohn.ca 3. 1 am a tenant rather than the owner of a heritage property. Can I apply for a Heritage Grant for the work I would like to perform on the unit I occupy? For the tenant of a heritage property to perform work and receive Heritage Grant funding, the owner must be aware and approve of the proposed work and Heritage Grant Funding Application. The owner's contact information and signature are required on the Grants for Heritage Conservation Application form as well as the Grant Summary Form. The owner must also certify on the Grants to Heritage Conservation Application form that they are aware that by signing the form they are forfeiting the ability to apply for additional grants in the applicable year. 4. The Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy states that I must submit my building permit application number on my Grants for Heritage Conservation Application form if one is required. How do I determine if a building permit is required for the work I am planning? If you are unsure whether you need a building permit for the proposed work, please contact the Building & Inspections Services at (506) 658 -2911. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain all information and required building permits. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 161 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program 5. The Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy states that owner performed labour is not eligible for Heritage Grant funding. What if I am the owner of my property and also a contractor? If the applicant is the owner of the eligible property as well as a contractor and would like to perform the work themself, they may receive funding for the labour as long as they submit the two required estimates with one being their own and the other being another independent contractor's estimate. If the two required estimates are not submitted, the work performed by the applicant will be considered owner performed labour and the applicant will only be eligible for claiming funding for materials and equipment rentals. The owner /contractor must also submit their business number on the Grants for Heritage Conservation Application Form. 6. The Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Policy states that projects must be completed within the fiscal year for which they are approved and Heritage Grant funding for projects not completed by the end of the fiscal year will be forfeited except in exceptional circumstances. What constitutes exceptional circumstances and what steps should be taken if they occur? Exceptional circumstances involve situations in which the work could not be completed due to circumstances outside of the applicant's control. An applicant wishing to extend a project must provide by November 1 of the fiscal year which they have been approved for a Heritage Grant, in writing, the exceptional circumstances they have encountered. The Heritage Staff will then review the request and determine if a project extension is appropriate and will notify the applicant by December 15 of the fiscal year of approval or denial of said project extension. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 162 City of Saint John — Grants for Heritage Conservation Program Pa rty . Step . Requirements Responsible icant Submissionof: - Certificate of Appropriateness Application - Building Permit Application - Grant Application See Policy for full details of application requirements for the Grants for H eritage Conservation Program city PreliminaryReviewat - Ensure the form is properly completed; Application upon Submission -Ensure all required attachments are present. City Begin Tracking Process Enter application information i nto master tracking spreadsheet. City Granting Conditional Approval - Review application to ensure all requirements are met; -Ensure the Certificate of Appropriateness was approved by Heritage Development Board;. - Ensure building permit was issued front Building & Inspections Services; -If applicant is not legal owner of property, confirm if the owner identifi ed on the a ppl i cation form is the owner of the building; Applicant Complete Work and Request - Notify Heritage Staff and Building & Inspections Inspections Services that project is complete and ready for inspections. Cy Heritage Officer Inspection - Ensure work was completed according to the Certificateof Appropriateness; -Update and sign off on master tracking spreadsheet Applicant & Submissionof Grant Summary EM Applicant: city rM Form a See Policy for full details of application requirements. City: Add submission date to master tracking spreadsheet. 'City Grant Funding Approval - Review Grant Summary Form to ensure all requirements are met; - Ensurecompletedworkpassedbuilding inspection through e-mail communication with Bui.ld'ung & Inspections Services - 5end approval letters with cheques or denial letters within 60 daysof submission. -Update mastertracking spreadsheet. f1 Canada's To 1©0 } Employers www.deloittexa Deloitte, one of Canada's leading professional services firms, provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services. Deloitte LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com /about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 164 REPORT TO HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT BOARD: IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM - PHASE ONE Date: March 3, 2014 To: Heritage Development Board From: Growth and Community Development Services Prepared by: Amy Poffenroth, P.Eng, MBA __W6�� Deputy Commissioner BACKGROUND The Grants for Heritage Conservation Program is an incentive program designed to encourage heritage property owners to meet the spirit and intent of the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -law, as expressed in the National Standards for Conservation of Historic Places in Canada 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. In August 2012, Common Council adopted revised funding ratios for the three different types of grants and approved the Recommended Reforms to the Heritage Conservation Grant Guidelines, which also included the Policies for Approval: Grants for Heritage Conservation Program. ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING GRANT PROGRAM Late in 2012 and early in 2013, Staff noted a number of issues and deficiencies with the Grant program that needed to be corrected and improved. Some of these are listed below: • Awareness, knowledge and understanding of the program was wanting among Heritage property owners; • Processes and procedures were not documented; • Internal controls, standards and targets were not developed or documented; • Eligibility requirements were at times unclear; 165 • Applicants were providing insufficient and/or incomplete submissions, deadlines were not being met, receipts submitted by the applicant were not linked to the approved Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit]; • The program was at risk of being abused; for instance, required permits were not always in place and amounts claimed for the grant program were sometimes higher than the estimates provided for purposes of obtaining building permits; • Grant renewals followed no particular process and were difficult to track and manage; some property owners were being funded more than the maximum over the life of the project; • The forms were not clear or easy to use; • Information and letters from the City were not always clear; program requirements were not clear; • Applicants have submitted multiple applications in one year for various pieces of their project for the same building, making tracking and approvals confusing and difficult; • Deadlines did not always make sense. For instance, applicants could successfully be approved for a grant 2 weeks before the end of the submission date; • Conditional approvals are based on informal estimates provided by the applicant, but often they were not accurate — either understated or overstated; • Property owners may not have been aware that their tenant was applying for a grant for their building; • Applicants had to wait until the end of the year to get their funding, even though their project may be completed months earlier. Recognizing that significant improvements were required and understanding the staffing shortage experienced by the Heritage Program, staff decided to engage the consulting services of Deloitte to: • conduct a best practice review and research of other heritage grant programs in the country, • identify areas for improvement and controls that should be implemented, • develop and document a sound, supportable policy with associated processes and forms for the heritage grant program. The review was intended to assist staff implement a grant program that was more accountable and transparent for tax payers, provide clarity and consistency for applicants, improve communications for heritage property owners and generally provide more efficient and effective service delivery. THE DELOITTE REPORT — FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The final Deloitte report was received by staff on February 28, 2014. It is attached for the Board's review. Deloitte performed benchmarking research on various heritage grant programs in Canada and included Atlantic Canadian cities as well as others across Canada. They reviewed heritage grant program guidelines and associated forms, as well as conducted interviews with the following 2 1 P a g e 166 municipalities with similar heritage grant programs to the City: Moncton, Halifax, Cape Breton, Toronto, Victoria and Vernon BC. Their best practice summary is shown on page 2 to 4 as well as Appendix A of their report. Deloitte also interviewed past applicants of Saint John's heritage grant program. Staff provided Deloitte with a list of past applicants; each of these property owners was invited by letter to participate in the interview by calling if they were interested. Deloitte interviewed four past applicants to get their feedback. General feedback identified a number of issues, including a lack of information about the program's objectives and processes; difficult to understand the process; lack of communication with current and prospective grant applicants; information is difficult to find on the website. Based on their best practice research and interviews with staff and past applicants, Deloitte developed a number of recommendations for policy and procedural change and /or clarification to implement a number of internal controls to the program. Deloitte recommended that the changes be implemented in two phases. Staff agrees with a phased approach, but will be recommending slight changes to the phasing that Deloitte has suggested. The significant changes as recommended by Deloitte are summarized below and are detailed on pages 5 — 7 of their report. • Property owners must be in good standing with the City, meaning no unpaid taxes /accounts, outstanding by -law or permit violations; • Property owners must have insurance on the property; • The project for which a grant has been conditionally approved must be completed within the fiscal year; • Heritage grant applications are to have submission deadlines in the Spring (Phase 2); • Grant funding is released after 60 days of the summary form being completed; • Applicants are to provide written estimates with the application form. In addition to these changes, Deloitte and staff has worked together to develop and document administrative processes of the program, including improving both the Application form and the Grant Summary form and any associated letters. THE PHASED APPROACH Based on the Deloitte report and in -depth staff review and discussion, we are proposing a phased approach to the grant program improvements. Phase 1 focuses on administrative improvements and a clear, concise policy document; it is recommended to be implemented as soon as it receives Board endorsement and final Council approval. Phase 2 implements changes that require more research and discussion on the details and implementation plan, including communication with heritage 3 1 P a g e 167 property owners prior to rolling out the changes. Phase 2 is intended to be implemented on January 1, 2015, with Board and Council approval in early Fall. Significant changes in Phase 1 include: • Applicants to be in good standing with the City; • Applicants to have home insurance on the subject property; • Applicants to provide a written estimate; • Clarification that property owners are eligible for one grant per category per year per PID #; • Tenants are eligible for a grant for storefront signage without affecting the property owner's ability to access a Conservation grant; • Applicants can receive grant funding within 60 days of submitting the Grant Summary form — they do not have to wait until the end of the year for payment. Significant changes in Phase 2 include all of Phase 1 improvements in addition to: • Two written estimates (including business numbers) are required with the application form; grant conditional approvals will be based on an average of the two estimates; • Grant applicants will be received between January and April only with approval decisions being made by June; • Applicants must complete their projects within the fiscal year except in exceptional circumstances; • Grant conditional approvals will be approved by staff to reduce applicant wait times. Phase 2 improvements require further review and research and will be brought to the Board at a future date for its consideration. PHASE 1 IMPROVEMENTS Phase 1 of the grant improvement program includes some policy changes and clarifications, new forms and letters and administrative improvements. The policy document is attached to this report. Also attached to this report is a chart that explains and compares the current procedures /policies with the proposed changes in phase 1 and phase 2. This document provides more details on the individual improvements that are proposed. Highlights of the changes in the policy are discussed below: POLICY Categories of Grants The funding ratios for the categories of grants have been modified as previously discussed with the Board. In each category the grant funding maximums are increased by 50 percent as well as an increase in the funding ratios to 25 — 45 percent. It also outlines a new initiative that intends on increasing flexibility for tenants so they can access grant funding 4 1 P a g e .: for storefront signage without affecting their landlord's ability to access Conservation grant funding. A tenant in this scenario is eligible for a maintenance grant for 25% of their signage project, up to a maximum of $750. The property owner can still access a Conservation grant up to a maximum of $7,500 in the same year. Eligible Properties This section clarifies practices that are typically already in place but have not been documented, and implements Deloitte's recommendations. New items include clarity around one grant per category per year per PID #, what is meant by "in good standing with the City" and outlines that home insurance is required. Eligible and Ineligible Work and Materials These sections clarify practices and policies are that already in place. Heritage Grant Funding Applications This section outlines application requirements, documents existing practices and implements Deloitte's recommendations concerning the application form. It also requires that applicants submit a written estimate. Building Inspection and Heritage Officer Inspection These sections clearly outline that a successful building inspection and heritage officer inspection is required prior to receiving grant funding, and that it is the responsibility of the applicant to call for the inspections once the project is complete. This will help to address some of the compliance issues that have been experienced and allows time for alterations to be made prior to final submission of the grant summary form. Grant Summary Form FoRms This section outlines form requirements, documents existing practices and implements Deloitte's recommendations concerning the grant summary form. It also provides for a turnaround time of 60 days for staff to send the final approval letter with the payment. This means that applicants do not have to wait until the end of the year to receive the grant payment. The Application form and the Grant Summary form (both attached) have been improved so it is easier for applicants to fill out and easier for staff to process. Submission requirements are clearly outlined on the forms to ensure completeness. Also attached to this report is a chart that explains and compares the current form requirements with those in phase 1 and phase 2. 169 5 1 P a g e ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS The administrative improvements include documenting existing practices into the policy, documenting the procedure, developing easy to use forms and modifying the tracking spreadsheets so information is more readily available. The policy document, the application process handout and new forms will all be available on the website and at the office. NEXT STEPS If endorsed by the Board, the next step would be for the Board to prepare a brief report to Council recommending approval of the Policy document. If the Board is in a position to endorse the Phase 1 improvements, then staff will prepare a report to council for the meeting of March 171H Once approved, staff will mail out an information package to all heritage property owners with a cover letter, the policy document, the application and grant summary forms, and the application process handout. This information will also be included on the City's website on the Heritage Services page. Staff is also in discussions with the City's Communications office to explore additional opportunities for raising awareness about the grant program improvements. We will keep the Board advised of any press releases, or other media events. Any applicants who have already applied for a grant will be contacted by staff immediately after Council approval to provide them with the new forms and advise them of the requirements. They will be required to submit new forms, to be considered by the Board for approval. Staff recommends that they retain their current priority sequence even if they do not submit the form in the same sequence. It is suggested that they are given 30 days to submit the new forms in order to retain their priority sequence. After Phase 1 is fully implemented, staff will be continuing research and discussion on the Phase 2 improvements, with the intention of returning to the Board for endorsement in early Fall. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Heritage Development Board endorse the Phase 1 improvements to the Heritage Grant program as outlined in this report and prepare a report to Council recommending approval of the attached Grants for Heritage Conservation Program: Policy for Approval. 6 1 P a g e 170 NT JOHN &V 10 r ( I F, HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM 2014 A MESSAGE TO ALL HERITAGE PROPERTY OWNERS: Heritage Services of the City of Saint John is pleased to initiate many improvements to the Heritage Grant Program approved by Common Council on March 31st, 2014. Changes include new application forms, Grant funding ratios, and revisions to the Program Policy that will help clarify the requirements for your next Her- itage Grant application. M► r � - GRANT FUNDING CATEGORIES The Heritage Grant ratios have been increased to provide property owners with more appropri- ate funding to encourage retention of designat- ed heritage buildings: 1. Heritage Maintenance Grant: A grant of 25% up to a maximum of $750 per year available to properties without a Conservation Plan in place; also available to tenants for storefront signage. 2. Heritage Conservation Grant: A grant of 25% - 45% up to a maximum of $7,500 per year to sup- port large conservation projects for properties which have a Conservation Plan in place. 3. Heritage Conservation Plan Grant: A grant provided to offset the cost of retaining a design professional (architect or engineer) to prepare a Conservation Plan for designated heritage prop- erties. 50% of the cost is funded up to a maxi- mum of $1,500. N" RELEASE OF HERITAGE GRANT FUNDING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR Property owners are now eligible to receive Her- itage Grant funding any time throughout the year! Once your restoration project is complete and your Grant Summary Form review was suc- cessful, grant cheques can be released within 6o days of submission. The deadline for all grant submissions is November 3oth. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE NEW HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM? Please contact Heritage Officer at 658 -2835 or by email at heritage@a saintjohn.ca. All application forms and the Heritage Grant Program Policy are available online at www. saintjohn.ca or at the Growth and Community Development Services office on the loth floor of City Hall. Heritage Services JGrowth & Community Development Services loth Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 41_1 SAWY JOHN NTJOHN HERITAGE GRANT , APPLICATION PROCESS For assistance or questions regarding the SAINT JOHN Heritage Grant Program 9r)" contact heritage staff at heritage @saintjohn.ca or by phone at (506) 658 -2835 • Be sure that you have an approved Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit] in place for work. ARRANGE •Contact Building and Inspection Services to determine if a Building Permit is required for your project. If one is required, be sure your permit has been issed prior to completing the heritage grant application form. •Once your project is complete you must notify Heritage Services NOTIFY and Building and Inspection Services to arrange for required inspections. Allow two weeks for the inspection to be scheduled and completed. ~ •Drop off your completed Grant Summary Form to Heritage Services, 10th floor City Hall. Your complete submission will COMPLETE e accepted until November 30th. -Be • sure that legible photocopies of all paid invoices and receipts are included in the itemized summary and are attched to the form. Please see the check list of J requirements provided on the Grant Summary Form. RECEIVE Upon successful review of your Grant Summary Form, The City will release grant cheque payments within 60 days of your submission, provided all requirements are met. 172 • Review the Heritage Grant Program Policy. APPLY 'Fill out Heritage Grant Application form. [Policy and Forms are available Online or at Heritage Services] 1 •Drop off your completed Heritage Grant Application form to SUBMIT Heritage Services, th floor City Hall. •Be sure that all required information and signatures are included with your application! Please see the checklist of requirements provided on the application form. .Receive letter of conditional grant approval and Grant Summary Form for your scope of work this year. WORK -Begin your heritage project! Be sure to follow the conditions on the Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit]. -Keep in touch with the Heritage Officer during the project. •Once your project is complete you must notify Heritage Services NOTIFY and Building and Inspection Services to arrange for required inspections. Allow two weeks for the inspection to be scheduled and completed. ~ •Drop off your completed Grant Summary Form to Heritage Services, 10th floor City Hall. Your complete submission will COMPLETE e accepted until November 30th. -Be • sure that legible photocopies of all paid invoices and receipts are included in the itemized summary and are attched to the form. Please see the check list of J requirements provided on the Grant Summary Form. RECEIVE Upon successful review of your Grant Summary Form, The City will release grant cheque payments within 60 days of your submission, provided all requirements are met. 172 SAINT JOHN S)A NT JOHN r f r .L, HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION FORM I In -Office Use Only I Grant Application #: Date Submitted: A Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit] is required before commencing any work on a property in a Heritage Conservation Area. Before preparing your application form please review the Heritage Grant Program Policy and obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit]. Please note: it is the Applicant's responsibility to understand and comply with all aspects of the Heritage Grant Program Policy. Failure to understand and comply with the policy may result in the denial of a grant. The Policy document is available online, at Heritage Services, or by contacting the Heritage Officer. Reauired: Address of Property: Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit]: PID #: Please include the building permit number, if required, for the proposed work. Work performed prior to issuance of a (required) building permit is ineligible for Building Permit #: a Heritage Grant. To be sure whether your proposed project requires a building permit, please contact the Building Inspections Services at (506) 658 -2911 or by email buildinginspection @saintjohn.ca. Personal Contact Information Name of Applicant: Mailing Address: Daytime Phone #: Cell Phone #: Fax #: Email Address: Would you prefer to receive communications concerning your Heritage Grant application via letter or email? ❑ Letter ❑ Email Application submissions: Heritage Grant Applications may be submitted either by mail or in person at the following address: Heritage Services I Growth and Community Development Services 10th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 If you have any questions or concerns Heritage Staff can be contacted at: Phone: (506) 658 -2835 Fax: (506) 658 -2837 Email: heritage @saintjohn.ca SAINT JOHN Grant Categories (Check that which applies to you) ❑ Heritage Conservation Plan Grant: A grant provided to offset the cost of retaining a design professional (architect or engineer) to prepare a Conservation Plan for designated heritage properties. A Conservation Plan provides the property owner with a phased plan to undertake required heritage /structural work. 50% of the cost is funded up to a maximum of $1,500. ❑ Heritage Maintenance Grant: A grant of 25% up to a maximum of $750 per year available to properties without a Conservation Plan in place; also available to tenants for storefront signage. ❑ Heritage Conservation Grant: A grant of 25% - 45% up to a maximum of $7,500 per year to support large conservation projects for properties which have a Conservation Plan in place. There are two levels of funding provided by the Conservation Grant, depending on the nature of the project: Minor funding: 25% up to a maximum of $7,500 for maintenance work as outlined in Conservation Plan. Major funding: 45% up to a maximum of $7,500 for restoration work to original character - defining elements, and for major projects such as masonry or structural repair. Project Cost Estimate In the table below please describe your project cost estimates within the applicable Heritage Grant Category; include the work items from the associated Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit] plus the total cost of each item before HST (example - Restoration of 4 original windows - $XXX). Written project estimates must be attached with application form. CATEGORY APPROVED ITEM[S] FROM COA COST ESTIMATE PRE -HST Heritage Conservation Plan Grant [n/al $ Estimated Project Start Date: Estimated Project End Date: Recent photographs [close -up and whole elevation] of the exterior area where the proposed work will take place. ❑ Attached to form ❑ Submitted Digitally If available, include any historic photographs of your property. ❑ Attached to form ❑ Submitted Digitally ❑ Not available Page 2 of 4 174 Property Information Are you the legal owner of the property? ❑ Yes ❑ No — Please indicate the legal owner's contact information below. Name of Property Owner: Mailing Address of Property Owner: Daytime Phone #: Cell Phone #: Fax #: Email Address: To be completed by the Property Owner: Is the subject property covered by insurance? ❑ Yes ❑ No Are you currently in good standing with the City of Saint John, meaning you have no unpaid taxes or outstanding property - related by -law violations? ❑ Yes ❑ No As the owner of the property , I am aware that, by allowing my tenant to apply for a Heritage Conservation Grant, I am forfeiting my opportunity to apply for a Heritage Conservation Grant in the applicable year. Property owner's printed name Property owner's signature DD/ MM /YYY Heritage Grant Funding Application checklist Ensure your application is complete and includes all of the following items: ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness number ❑ If required, the Building Permit number ❑ Any historic photographs of the property ❑ Recent photographs of all exterior sides of the building including close up recent photographs of the exterior area where the proposed work will take place ❑ Confirmation of good standing with the City of Saint John ❑ Confirmation that owner, if different from applicant, is aware of grant application ❑ Confirmation of property insurance ❑ Signature of applicant and legal owner of the building ❑ If you are applying for a Heritage Conservation Grant you also need to attach page extracts from the Heritage Conservation Plan that relate to the proposed work to be funded ❑ If you are applying for a Heritage Conservation Plan Grant you also need to attach a copy of the Heritage Conservation Plan. Page 3 of 4 175 Signatures I hereby request that this application be considered under the Heritage Grant Program Policy of the Growth and Community Development Services Department of The City of Saint John. By signing below I certify that all information included on this application form is truthful and accurate. Applicant's printed name Applicant's signature General Collection Statement) / / DD/ MM/ YYYY This information is being collected in order for the City of Saint John to deliver an existing program / service; the collection is limited to that which is necessary to deliver the program / service. Unless required to do so by law, the City of Saint John will not share your personal information with any third party without your express consent. The legal authority for collecting this information is to be found in the Municipalities Act and the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For further information or questions regarding the collection of personal information, please contact the Access & Privacy Officer: City Hall Building 8th Floor - 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2L lE8 commonclerk(csaint'ohn. ca (506) 658 -2862 Page 4 of 4 176 9 64) 11 SAINT JOHN NT 10HN HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM \ 19 R191 05 1 1/ F.11 'kV I fel C 1/ In -Office Use Only Grant Application #: Date Submitted: Date for Return (60 days): APPLICANT: Mr. Johnny Heritage MAILING ADDRESS: 123 Historic Street, Saint John, NB E2L 2E2 PROPERTY: 123 Historic Street HERITAGE PERMIT #: 14 -00 GRANT APPLICATION #: 2014 -00 GRANT TYPE: Heritage Conservation Grant DATE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED: April 301h, 2014 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL: Maximum grant of $3,225.00 based on project estimates - Major 45%: $6,500.00 = $2,925.00 - Minor 25%: $1,200.00 = $300.00 [Example] Application submissions: The deadline to submit a Grant Summary Form for a conditionally approved grant is November 30, 2014 and the application may be submitted either by mail or in person at the following address: Heritage Services I Growth and Community Development Services 10th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 41_1 If you have any questions or concerns Heritage Staff can be contacted at: Phone: (506) 658 -2835 Fax: (506) 658 -2837 Email: heritage @saintiohn.ca� SAINT JOHN GRANT SUMMARY CHECKLIST Ensure your application is complete and includes all of the following items: ❑ Legible photocopies of paid invoices /receipts attached with this submission ❑ Signature of applicant and legal owner of the building ❑ Signature of Contractor(s) of the project. SUMMARY OF COSTS 177 In the table provided below, please complete an itemized summary of the paid invoices /receipts incurred that correspond to the work outlined in the Certificate of Appropriateness [Heritage Permit] submitted with your heritage grant application. A legible photocopy of each invoice /receipt included in the itemized summary below should be attached to this form. When summarizing the information required, please follow the guidelines below: 1. Reference each paid invoice /receipt as #1, #2, etc., enter this reference in first column of summary below; 2. Provide a description of the nature of the work recorded on the invoice /receipt (i.e., labour, materials, or rentals) in the second column. 3. Provide which component identified in the approved Certificate of Appropriateness to which the work relates in the third column. 4. The amount to be entered into the fourth column is the pre -HST amount of the invoice or receipt. [If more space is required to complete the summary, please obtain and attach a second Grant Summary Form] Summary of Project Costs Receipt Reference [# Numbered] Description of Receipt Item(s) Component of Certificate of Appropriateness [ A -Z ] Amount (Pre -HST) [Staff Use] Ex: i suppLCes forpGlCvtivv,U g - Pr�vm avud ov east facaole2�5oo TOTAL: $ 178 Applicant Signature I hereby submit this grant summary form for consideration under the Heritage Grant Program for the Growth and Community Development Services Department of The City of Saint John. By signing below I certify that all information included on this Grant Summary form and each point below is truthful and accurate: ❑ Work summarized above has been completed in accordance with the terms and conditions indicated on the Certificate of Appropriateness. ❑ A Heritage Officer of the City of Saint John was informed that the project is complete and the subject property has had a successful inspection. Date of Heritage Inspection: ❑ A Building Inspector was informed that the work related to the grant funding is complete and the subject property has had a successful inspection. Date of Building Inspection: ❑ All information provided on this form is truthful and accurate information. Applicant's printed name Property Owner Signature Property owner's printed name Contractors Signatures First contractor's printed name First contractor's signature General Collection Statement Applicant's signature Property owner's signature Second contractor's printed name Second contractor's signature DD/ MM/ YYYY DD/ MM/ YYYY --/ ___j— DD/ MM/ YYYY ___j _ DD/ MM/ YYYY This information is being collected in order for the City of Saint John to deliver an existing program / service; the collection is limited to that which is necessary to deliver the program / service. Unless required to do so by law, the City of Saint John will not share your personal information with any third party without your express consent. The legal authority for collecting this information is to be found in the Municipalities Act and the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For further information or questions regarding the collection of personal information, please contact the Access & Privacy Officer: City Hall Building 8th Floor - 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E21, JE8 commonclerk(aasaintiohn.ca (506) 658 -2862 179 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL March 26th, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councilors; SUBJECT: Proposed Heritage Grant Program Policy City of saint John At its meeting of March 19th, 2014 the Heritage Development Board considered the proposed changes to the Heritage Grant Program Policy. Staff prepared a package for all Board members which was reviewed in -depth individually and discussed in the meeting. The Heritage Development Board is pleased to support improvements to the Heritage Grant Policy and applaud staffs' effort to develop this tremendous document and fully endorse it. It was moved by: Scott Rinehart Seconded by: Patrick McCaffrey That the heritage Development Board endorse the Phase I improvements to the Heritage Grant program, as amended, in the report entitled., "Improvements to the Heritage Grant Program - Phase One " and prepare a report to Council recommending approval of the attached Grants for Heritage Conservation Program: Policy for Approval, !nt Board Chair :1 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL March 19, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: CONTINUED CITY OF SAINT JOHN PATRICIPATION IN FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES COMMITTEES City of Saint John BACKGROUND: On June 14"', 2013, Common Council adopted a resolution to pursue membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' (FCM) committee structure and identify one Member of Council to represent the municipality in FCM Committees, The City was later approved by the FCM to participate in two committees: Municipal Finance and Intergovernmental Arrangements and Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Policy. For the past year, the City of Saint John representative on FCM Committees has actively participated in the two committees, and the City is now assessing the value of is continued participation in FCM Committees. The objective of this report is to provide a recommendation to Common Council on future involvement in FCM Committees. ANALYSIS Common Council's Nominations Committee appointed Councillor Bill Farren in June 2013 to represent the City on two FCM committees. Since the appointment, Councillor Farren attended three FCM Board and Committee conferences, including: • St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador — September 2013; • Ottawa, Ontario — November 2013; • Thunder Bay, Ontario — March 2014. While FCM's Annual General Meeting, which regularly occurs in late May, is open to all municipal leaders, FCM hosts three other conferences annually for Board and Committee members only. These three conferences support the ongoing efforts of those municipal leaders more directly involved in the governance of FCM, either through the Board of Director or the nine committees. Councillor Farren's involvement in FCM was also supported through the City of Saint John's Intergovernmental Affairs and Common Clerk's offices, which provided policy, logistical, meeting and strategic support. 181 M &C -2014 -009 -2- January 28, 2014 Each FCM Board and Committee conference is formatted in a similar fashion, which allows for: • Committee time — discussion, updates from FCM staff, identification of priorities, resolutions, and review of emerging issues; • Special speakers — FCM regularly invites elected officials or subject matter experts to address conference participants; • General meeting — each conference includes a general meeting which allows for high -level updates from each committee as well as matters that fall under the Board of Directors; • Networking — each conference schedules time to allow participants to interact outside of sessions. In order to determine the value of the City of Saint John's participation in FCM Committees, Common Council should consider the cost of involvement versus the benefits of direct participation in FCM committees. An inventory of benefits was assembled through Councillor Farren's feedback to City Staff after his participation in all three FCM Board and Committee conferences. City Staff are recommending for continued participation in FCM committees, because there is strong value in the City's ongoing representation in the committee structure and for the reasons identified below. FINANCIAL City of Saint John's Annual FCM Membership Fee (applies $9,900 regardless of involvement in FCM Committees) Travel, accommodations, per diem and incidental for one $10,000 City of Saint John Common Council representative to four FCM conferences annually (approximately $2,500 /conference) BENEFITS The following inventory of benefits is restricted to ongoing participation in FCM Committees, which accounts for benefits above and beyond a standard membership in FCM: • More direct involvement in establishing FCM's pan- Canadian priorities for all municipalities; • Enhanced ability to convey local matters of interest to generate a more global effort to respond; • Greater ability for the City of Saint John to build bi- lateral and multi- lateral connections with fellow municipalities and municipal associations (both for Members of Council and City Staff); 182 M &C- 2014 -009 -3- January 28, 2014 • Ability to maintain a strong understanding of pan- Canadian municipal issues and emerging issues; • Receive most up -to -date progress on FCM, federal, provincial and municipal developments; • Participation in the FCM's Advocacy Days Conference, where FCM Board and Committee members meet with over 120 federal and provincial leaders in Ottawa every November; • Opportunity to identify national `best practices' on a variety of municipal issues, from both FCM Staff, Board and Committee members (i.e. local governance reform and permissive legisIation); • Ability to more meaningfully involve expertise from the City of Saint John into the pan - Canadian conversation (i.e. Chief Kevin Clifford's contribution to the National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group). RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Common Council: I . Direct the City Manager to notify the FCM of the City's interest to send one Member of Council to the following two FCM committees for 2014- 2015: Municipal Finance and Intergovernmental Arrangements and Municipal Infrastructure and Transportation Policy. 2. Request Members of Council interested in participating in FCM Committees for 2014 -2015 to notify the Common Clerk, who will then send to the City's Nomination Committee. Respectfully submitted, Phil Ouellette, MA Intergovernmental Affairs Neil Jacobsen Commissioner, Strategic Services atrick Woods, CGA City Manager 183 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C201426 March 21, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Snow Blower Purchase BACKGROUND M The r=ite of Saint Joan Four snow blowers that attach to the front of loaders are vital pieces of equipment in achieving objectives of the City's Winter Management Plan. These snow blowers are used for snow removal activities including during South Central Peninsula Snow Bans. Two of the existing four blowers reached the end of their useful life and need to be replaced. A process to replace one was initiated given the urgency. Replacement of the second blower will also be required. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES — MATERIALS MANAGEMENT: A public tender call for the supply of one (1) 220 horsepower (or greater) loader - mounted snow blower attachment was advertised on February 28, 2014 and closed on March 12, 2014. Two (2) companies responded to the tender call by submitting bids. The results are as follows (excluding HST): COMPANY NAME TENDER PRICE* J. A. Larue Inc. (Quebec, QC) $99,448.00 Saunders Equipment Ltd. (Fredericton, NB) $107,195.00 *Exclusive of HST Staff of Fleet Management, Transportation & Environment Services and Materials Management have reviewed the tenders and have found them to be complete and compliant with the technical specifications put forth within the tender call. Staff believes that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to supply the equipment as required, and recommend acceptance of their tender. The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Materials Management support the recommendation being put forth. ME Snow Blower Report to Common Council, M & C 2014 - 26 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS March 21, 2014 Page 2 If awarded as recommended, the cost to supply one Snowblower — Loader Attachment will be $99,448.00 plus HST. This acquisition will be funded through the equipment reserve fund. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council award the tender for the supply of one (1) Snowblower — Loader Attachment to J.A. Larue . at a price of $99.448.00 plus HST. Respectfully submitted, -2- n for / R. Kevin Rice B. Sc., CET Deputy Commissioner Transportation and Environment Services Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. Commissioner Transportation and Environment Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 185 w i l' I a March 18" 2014 tvla ;car.ind' Cour_cil City --a;`Saiui •lohn t.ij'lice. Ot lLIV P. t), P-M, Sal ±nt John. "'. I;. ".I •1.1 Re: Sa es.ion To ir?crease Residential Development Your Worship and Councilors As a well seasoned REALTOR(R) who has specialized in land development over the past 30 years, I would like to bring forward a suggestion for you to consider in order to promote residential developinew and new home sales in the Saint John area. The reason I would like to bring this suggestion to your attention is bc;causa recently I was working with a potential 1.i #nil Developer front another Province who looktd at various parcels of land to invest in. Ailer he settled on a piece of land in Saint John for his development, we went over the estimated costs that he would expect to encounter. He seemed to be very satisfied with the most of the costs with the axception of the property taxes. I had explained to him that once he subdivided the land, he would have to pay full property faxes on each lot. He was taken aback by this and subsequently decided to walk away. It is my opinion that this practice of charging !lie high pri)Vincial MId nttn ; ;c:pa, ta:;cs on the developed lot is very much a deterrent for DevuIopers considering the amount of money that would have been spent on subdivision costs, infrastructure costs and road developments costs. New home builders are treated better than the Developer because they l -ave flit oppert till it\ to a, loll ls,r the G %m -')c; 10pled Tax gat,-- on spec houses. 71,,s .s - _, ienr:d e a torid) ;mpmba cn:rw lv 7 rW `.or sale. UM ,MW Proi osionals Saint John Inc. = awdlab Street Saint John, Mw Brunswiek F-2K 9 B2 Office: (SOS) 63444 Fria: (506) 632.1937 www.mam-sjnb.com �turoa• I - My suggestion is simple. Allow the Developers and thi Builders uf nesidcn:ial properties a "Tax Holiday" on the incrcasw in the property taxes until the property is either sold or reaches perhaps a three yzar limit. The pre- OLN't'lcinti1ont prop:xty taxes that were being on land or lots would continue to be paid by the Dcveloper or Builder the lots are either sold or reach the term limit of 3 yoars.. l t.amples o. the "I'f:.l` Holiday" prograin would work as follows; A Dev toper buys a track of land consisting of 15 acres with present proporty tG.xcs of x",5,000.00. The Develop:r develops the 1wid into 72 lots complete with all City services and roads and siu,!Nvalks in accordance with the Developer's Agreement with the City. The lots are placed on the market for Lale at say $45,000 each. The Provint_c sands the m-w tai; bills to the Developer for all the unsold lots amounting to $1,500.00 each. So if the Developer has 10 lots left, then his bill would be $15,000. Now if we use the suggested "Tax Holiday" incentive towards the same lots. the Devt loper would only pay propert f- taxes oil each improved lot ill the amount of $416.6(1,)r :.t foal [tl' i.1 M.60. This would save the Developer almost $10,000 which e%oulLl sirlli t-; ith thti +10,,10p0 cnl cots. The total investment by the Developer on this project would be approximately $400,000.00. The City would belle lit from incret�sed taxes once th. lot is Gold or the plan has expired. A Builder buys a serviced lot for $45,000 with the property taxes being S 1.300.00. The Builder builds a home on the lot worth $350,000.00. At the end of the year the Builder receives a property tax bill for the unsold home in the amount oi'`+6. 2().00. Under the "Tax I loliday" incCntivu, the Builder who has not sold the house would only pay the propetly taxes of S I. 0xl_00 which is based on the original property taxes that were paid when lie purchased the serviced lot. By taking advantage of the "Tax Holida." program, the Builder is not burden;:d at the end of the year to pay the increased property taxes. Once the new home is sold, the new owner %%ould st trt to pay the ia'c-.:s ba. -Cd on the l'uJ n0tz- �Mir.r to.-c!_tpied t.-.% rt:te of'S6?00.00. ....13 187 By council supporting this "Tai. Holiday" incentive for Developers & Builders, it would encouragi: boih Developers and Builders to once again invest and build in the Cite of Saint john without costing the City any monies up front and in tho long run and would contribute to increasing the population of the City �is well sc increasing the tax revenues that would he genera ed from the program after 3 yearF, or �_:ooner. Understanding that the 'Tax Holiday" Incentive may tAe some time to be approved and impl%incnted. I think there is a need for the City of Saint John to once again offer a New Horne Grant" to either the Developer /Builder or directly to th,: Home Buyer so as to spark n.;ry home building in Saini John. The previous new home incentive ghat ivas offered to the Developer/Builders vms very successful and did do NvIiat it was designed to do and that was to spur nets home development in the City with the goal to incrca.w revenue; and population. The upfront cost of this typ%: of program is estimated to have been rocoul %:d I)v the City within 3 years. With all the goad nevus recently about the Irving's big investment into the Pulp & Paper Mill at Reversing Falls it is time to step up to the plate and offer incentives fo Dev;.lopers and Builders to invest in Saint John so that we can be ready for the on -slot of new people who will want to locate in Saint John in order to ride the long awaited wave of prosperity that is starting to roll in. Respectfully submitted � s Hod Hamm l Associate Broker Re /Max Professionals Saint John fnc. CIJEiwn, N His Worship y POQK Zoo p the Mayor Mel Norton & Members of Common Council RECEIVED Pox Box 1971 f COMMON CLERK'S © PCE City Hall SAN 2 8 2013 Saint John, NB E2K 51-19 CITY 0'F SAINT JOHN January 22, 2014 VANISHED KINGDOM PARK Dear Mayor Norton and Members of Common Council, 901 Foster Thurston Dr. Saint John, NO E2K SH9 I would like to begin by saying thank you for your support over the many years Phone (506) 634 -1440 as I look to celebrating both the Cherry Brook Zoo's and my own 4Wh Anniversary with the zoo. I have never written to you before but as the Chief Administrative Director I would wows gLnbrookz o.com like to take this opportunity to explain our present financial situation. We maintained www.cherrybrookzoo . com accreditation last year once again and their main concern is our financial stability. Perhaps the biggest misconception is that we still have money in a reserved account. Ten years ago 71GER CLAWS MINI GOLF we had over $400,000.00 of which we drew roughly 40,000.00 a year. The audited financial statement that you received was for 2012 at that point we had $60,000.00 left in Municipal Sponsors the reserve account in the year 2013 we withdrew $40,000.00 to sustain operations and in 2014 this last week we withdrew the remaining $25,000.00 which will leave us looking at a ar.�tsgL.m—et shortfall this year. We had asked for $100,000.00 budget (an increase of $40,000.001 Yu r;nx ^9z which was a realistic budget which now leaves us a deficit in the year ahead. I had an Safn! Jot:]. Pia E2L 4L emergency meeting with the staff and the Board Members at which time 1 immediately took a $17,000.00 cut in my wages. The fact that Lynda has been on full disability for the last ten years and volunteered her time has saved us $30,000.00 a year. Two years ago we were told that a signed severance package for Lynda and 1 that we could close the zoo, R R Hampton Roa d shake hands and take the othesay,NewBrunswick $120,000.00 and walk away and we turned that down as we E2E 51-5 couldn't put ourselves before the zoo and signed off on our package. There are vacation weeks that I have never used and never asked for reimbursement; these are just some of the personal sacrifices we have made to ensure the zoo continues. Major Animal Sponsors We have also discussed the possibilities of closing for three months through the winter but we know this would not be enough. A cut back in full time staff has been considered but is not something we feel can be done. We had a rough year last year with ��� extremely high vet bills due to illness of the tiger, the roof on the Main Entrance Building sPAATAN;��EPOPM had to be replaced at a cost of over $6500.00 by Dugay Roofing which is still outstanding. We had our Main Entrance Sign vandalized and destroyed which originally cost $10,000.00 and will never be replaced. I had honestly thought this facility would carry on for another forty years but in all frankness we are at a crossroads; but perhaps there is some way the city can help us out. We have a few thoughts or suggestions and are open to any other suggestions that come our way. One of the most important issues is the legality of the land Spartan and Maggie which if in our name either outright or on a long term lease would allow us to eliminate Male & Female Black spider the over $11,000.00 tax bill. During the forty years that I have been involved we have not Monkey once paid overtime but we do offer the staff minimal health care through Blue Cross might there be a way that our staff could be covered by your health plan because of the large James (Rory) & Olga Grant numbers of employees that you have. Can we work together to integrate property Rory -Male Zebra insurance and liability to lower those costs as well. There is a driveway next to ours that leads into the nature trail that is plowed, salt and sanded by the city after every storm. Is Anonymous, Rothesay, NB there a possibility that they could do our main entrance and main parking lot? In the Karma, Female Amur Tiger spring and summer they go by our driveway and do pothole repairs and is it possible that they could do a few potholes for us. We understand that advertising is a must and due to our limited budget is there any way as a nonprofit that we could have the cost of advertising in the Saint John Guide reduced and could the city utilize their dollar power in all their publications to assist in promoting the zoo. i honestly believe that there are no more cuts to be made as there are no pension plans, raises or increases for the staff, but with your help we can make the next forty years even better. We have a Strategic Capital Plan in place that we could immediately begin working on if we were not so concerned with operating budget and if the City of Saint John could increase our operational grant to $100,000.00 we could solve all the above problems and begin a major change in the Cherry Brook Zoo, YOUR SUPPORT Respectfully Submitted „ }- Leonard M. Collrin Chief Administrative Director Cherry Brook Zoo Inc. Discovering Our Past 901 Foster Thurston Drive, Saint John, NB arorecting Our future E2K SH9 =THEIR SURVIVAL 489 A Rrsaisiered 1 L©rncraied Non- Profit Charitable 1917 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C 2014 -36 March 27, 2014 His Worship Mel Norton And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT Saint John City Market — Assignment of Lease of Space Stall "D -1" Ike City of Saiw John On July 30, 2012, Common Council resolved to enter into a lease with Kyung Soon Chang (dba Howard's Convenience) for the lease of Stall "D -1" in the City Market. Kyung Soon Chang has and continues to operate a tobacconist and variety store on the premises. On February 9, 2014, Kyung Soon Chang approached the City of Saint John with the intentions of selling his assets to Dae Yeon Lee and subsequently requested an assignment of his current lease to Dae Yeon Lee. In order to sell his business, pursuant to Article 12 of the existing lease, Kyung Soon Chang must secure Council's consent to an Assignment of Lease to a prospective purchaser. ANALYSIS Dae Yeon Lee has displayed and appears cognizant of the protocols which govern the City Market and tenants. Staff is satisfied that Dae Yeon Lee has sufficient familiarity with the business and anticipates its satisfactory continuation. The proposed use is considered appropriate in that it does not conflict with any existing uses and will maintain the current utilization of said space. Additionally, Dae Yeon Lee has submitted all the necessary documents and information required to enter into a lease agreement with the City of Saint John. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The assigned Lease resolved on July 30, 2012 is highlighted by a term of five years, with three years remaining and an average rent remaining of $30.00 per square foot (psf). The Gross rent shall be paid in equal monthly installments, monthly in advance, via pre - authorized debiting. There is no Landlord's base building work required. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Staff of the City Market, Facility Management Department, Legal Department, and the Finance Department have all reviewed and contributed to this report. RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends: 190 Report to Common Council Page 2 of 2 Saint John City Market - Assignment of Lease of Space Stall "D -1" 1. That the City consent to the Assignment of Lease from Kyung Soon Chang to Dae Yeon Lee, effective April 1, 2014, and further That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the Assignment of Lease in the form as attached to this M &C 2014 -36. Respectfully subm Gregory. om s, CGA, MBA Commi ne , Finance and Administrative Services Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 191 ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE THIS ASSIGNMENT made as of the day of April, 2014, BETWEEN: KYUNG SOON CHANG, of The City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, doing business as "Howard's Convenience" (the "Assignor "), m DAE YEON LEE, of The City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick (the "Assignee "), am 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 (the "Landlord "), WHEREAS: 1. By a lease between the Assignor and the Landlord dated July 31st, 2012 (the "Lease "), the premises, being a portion of the City Market, 45 Charlotte Street, Saint John, New Brunswick, more particularly described in the lease (the "Premises ") for a term of five (5) years and subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein, were leased by the Landlord to the Assignor, as tenant, upon the terms and conditions set forth therein; 2. The Assignor has agreed to assign the Lease and all rights of the Assignor contained therein to the Assignee; and 3. The Landlord has agreed to the within assignment of the Lease and all rights of the Assignor contained therein. NOW THEREFORE THIS ASSIGNMENT WITNESSES that in 192 consideration of herein contained (the receipt and acknowledged by follows: 1. Assignment 2 the respective covenants and conditions and other good and valuable consideration sufficiency of which are hereby each party), the parties hereto agree as (1) The Assignor hereby assigns, transfers, sets over and conveys to the Assignee all of its right, title. estate and interest in and to the Lease and the Premises, together with the unexpired residue of the term and all renewals thereof and all benefits to be derived therefrom and all rights contained therein, subject to the payment of rent and the observance and performance of the covenants, provisos and conditions on the part of the Assignor contained therein TO HAVE AND TO HOLD same unto the Assignee for its sole and only use forever. (2) The Assignor covenants and agrees with the Assignee that: (a)the Lease is a valid and subsisting lease and that the covenants, provisos and conditions on the part of the Assignor contained therein have been duly observed and performed up to the date hereof and the rent reserved thereby has been duly paid up to the date hereof; (b)neither the Lease nor the Assignor's rights thereunder have been surrendered, waived, released, amended, assigned, encumbered or discounted prior to the delivery of this Assignment; (c)the Assignor has good right, full power and absolute authority to assign the Lease to the Assignee and it has not heretofore executed any assignment, sublease or encumbrance of the Lease, and the Lease is in full force and effect without default or breach by any of the parties thereto and without addition or amendment; and (d)subject to the payment of rent and the observance and performance of the covenants, provisos and conditions on the part of the Assignor contained in 193 3 the Lease, the Assignee may enjoy the Premises for the residue of the term of the Lease and any renewals thereof, without interruption by the Assignor or any persons claiming through it. (3) The Assignor agrees that it shall indemnify and save harmless the Assignee from and against any and all claims, demands, charges, costs and expenses in respect of the covenants, provisos and conditions on the part of the Assignor set out in the Lease for the period prior to the date hereof. (4) it is acknowledged and agreed that, pursuant to the terms of this Assignment, the Assignor is assigning to the Assignee all of the Assignor's rights contained in the Lease. 2. Landlord's Consent to Assignment (1) The Landlord grants its consent to the Assignment, subject to the terms and conditions herein. (2) The Landlord confirms that the consent of the Landlord does not constitute a waiver of the necessity for obtaining consent to any further assignment of or subletting or other transfer of the Lease or the Premises, nor shall it be construed or interpreted as a forfeiture or waiver of any of the rights of the Landlord contained in the Lease. (3) The Landlord confirms that by giving its consent, the Landlord does not acknowledge or approve of any of the terms of the Assignment as between the Assignor and the Assignee. (4) The Landlord confirms that this consent shall not in any way derogate from the rights of the Landlord under the Lease nor operate to release the Assignor from its obligations contained in the Lease. 3. Assumption The Assignee covenants with the Assignor that from and after the date hereof the Assignee shall, throughout the term of the Lease and any renewals thereof, pay the rent reserved at the time and in the manner provided in the 194 4 Lease and observe and perform the covenants, provisos and conditions on the part of the Assignor therein set forth and shall indemnify and save harmless the Assignor from and against any and all claims, demands, charges, costs and expenses in respect of such covenants, provisos and conditions (for greater certainty, it is acknowledged and agreed that the Assignee is not responsible or liable for any breaches or liabilities arising from the Lease prior to the date hereof). 4. Miscellaneous (1) All notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and delivered or sent by prepaid registered mail to the address of the intended recipient set forth below or at such other address as may from time to time be notified by the Assignor or the Assignee in writing. To the Assignor at To the Assignee at: To the Landlord at: Kyung Soon Chang 6 Cedarwood Drive Saint John, NB E2K 4T4 Dae Yeon Lee 45 Charlotte Street Saint John, NB E2L 2H7 The City of PO Box 1971 Saint John, Saint John NB E2L 4L1 (2) Each party shall promptly do, execute, deliver or cause to be done, executed and delivered all further acts, documents and things in connection with this Agreement that the other party or parties thereto may reasonably require for the purpose of giving effect to this Agreement and carrying out its provisions and completing the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. (3) Unless the context otherwise requires, words importing the singular in number only shall include the plural and vice versa, words importing the use of gender shall include the masculine, feminine and neuter genders, and words importing persons shall include individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, trusts, 195 unincorporated organizations, governmental bodies and other legal or business entities. (4) This Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original. Such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument and, notwithstanding the date of execution, shall be deemed to bear the effective date set forth above. (5) Delivery of an executed copy of a signature page to this Agreement by facsimile transmission shall be effective as delivery of an original executed copy of this Agreement, and each party hereto undertakes to provide each other party with a copy of the Agreement bearing original signatures forthwith upon demand. (6) The rights and liabilities of the parties shall enure to the benefit of their respective legal representatives, heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns, as the case may be. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Assignor has hereunto executed these presents the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED } in the presence of: } } t d KYUNG SOON CHANG IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Assignee as Tenant has hereunto executed these presents the day Of April, 2014. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) in the presence of: ) ) DAE YEON LEE 196 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Lessor has hereunto executed these presents the day Of April, 2014. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN in the presence of: } ) MAYOR COMMON CLERK Common Council Resolution 2014 197 The City of Saint John March 31, 2014 Deputy Mayor and Councillors Subject: Legal Advisor's Contract — Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project The Committee of the Whole, having met on March 31, 2014, made the following recommendation: RESOLVED that Common Council: a) Approves the terms and conditions of the proposed Legal Advisor's Contract between The City of Saint John and Torys LLP, for the provision of legal services relating to the formation and implementation of a public- private partnership for the delivery of the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project, the text of which contract accompanies the City Manager's correspondence, dated March 25, 2014; and, b) That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the Legal Advisor's Contract. Sincerely, Mel Norton Mayor i SIA-UN'T YXIN P.O. B-)x 971 Sairv,,foin, NH G, -i da U! 41:1 1 wvr:: SJVI*Ihnxie I GF' 1971 S,AN, JdIII, IAA. Gdnadaa E2L4LI 198 The City of Sata John March 31, 2014 Deputy Mayor and Councillors Subject: Amendment to the Settlement Agreement between The City of Saint John and Pomerleau Inc. relating to the Police Headquarters The Committee of the Whole, having met on March 31, 2014, made the following recommendation: RESOLVED that Common Council: a) Approve the submitted text of the Second Amending Settlement Agreement between The City of Saint John and Pomerleau Inc., in relation to the Police Headquarters, the text of which accompanies the City Manager's correspondence in this matter to Common Council, dated March 31, 2014; and b) That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the Second Amending Settlement Agreement. Sincerely, Mel Norton Mayor SlIN ' 410#9N, I°O. B ox 1971 Saie�t. John, NB Canada UL�4 1 I VA-A-1 111 �0hn.G1 I �-.;! "1971 Saint John, N -B. Onada 1= -L4L1 199 This SECOND AMENDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT made in triplicate this day of April, 2014 (the "EfFective Date "). BETWEEN: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City'°' OF THE FiRST PART . AND - POMERLEAU INC., a extra - provincial corporation registered under the laws of New Brunswick and having a place of business at 521, 6e Avenue, City of Saint - George, Quebec, hereinafter called "Pomerleau" OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS by a Settlement Agreement dated April 17, 2013 (the "Original Agreement"), the City and Pomerleau entered into an agreement concerning a claim advanced by Pomerleau against the City for compensation for outstanding accounts, approved change orders, holdbacks, delays in the performance of the work, extra costs, other expenses and interests; AND WHEREAS the Original Agreement was amended on May 8, 2013 (the "First Amending Agreement") in order to correct discrepancies between change order values issued by the consultant and that carried by Pomerleau within the final progress claims, AND WHEREAS the City and Pomerleau (the "Parties ") wish to further amend the Original Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof; AND WHEREAS this Second Amending Settlement Agreement (the "Second Amending Agreement ") relates to a credit of $2,000.00 for the shoot house electrical and a credit of $3,000.00 for lockers which Pomerleau will provide the City, AND WHEREAS Common Council on [61], 2014 resolved: (1) [Q) ] 293 200 -2- NOW THEREFORE THIS SECOND AMENDING AGREEMENT WITNESSES THAT inconsideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions set out in this Second Amending Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: (1) The Parties agree that the recitals aforementioned are true and correct in all material aspects. (2) Pomerleau agrees to provide the City a total credit of $5,000.00, HST /GST included, to be deducted from the Contract Price. For greater clarity, as the remaining outstanding amount to be paid to Pomerleau pursuant to the Original Agreement is the Deficiencies Holdback, the Parties agree to modify and amend section 6 of the Original Agreement as follows: (A) Section 6 is deleted and replaced with the following provision: The City shall retain from the Contract Price, pursuant to General Condition 5.7.5 of the Contract, a holdback for deficiencies in the amount of Two Hundred and Forty -Five Thousand Dollars ($24$,000.00), HST /GST included (the "Deficiencies Holdback "). (3) The Parties hereby confirm that all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement and First Amending Agreement are in full force and effect, unamended, except as expressly provided in this Second Amending Agreement. (4) This Second Amending Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. (5) Any notice under this Second Amending Agreement shall be sufficiently given by personal delivery or by registered letter, postage prepaid, malled in a Canadian post office and prepaid courier, addressed, In the case of notice to the City, to the Common Clerk, 15 Market Square, P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, New Brunswick, E21. 41-1, Telephone: 506.658.2867, Fax: 506.674.4214, and in the case of Pomerleau, 10 Morris Drive, Unit 37, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, B3B 11(8, Telephone: 902.468.3669, Fax: 902.468.3049; or to any other address as may be designated in writing by the Parties and the date of receipt of any notice by mailing shall be deemed conclusively to be five (5) calendar days after the mailing. [End of Second Amending Agreement] 294 201 -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City of Saint John has hereto fixed in its corporate seal and caused these presents to be executed by its duly authorized officers in the manner prescribed by the Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M -22, and amendments thereto, and Pomerleau Inc. has caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year first written above. SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED in the presence of Witness THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Per: Mel K. Norton, Mayor Jonathan A. Taylor, Common Clerk Council Resolution: [ *], 2014 POMERLEAU INC. Per: Patrick Stiles, P.Eng., LEED" AP, GSC Regional Director — Atlantic 295 202 -4- PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN I, JONATHAN A. TAYLOR, of the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 1. THAT I am the Common Clerk of the City of Saint John and Have custody of the Common Seal hereof. 2. THAT the Seal to the aforegoing Instrument affixed Is the Common Seal of the said The City of Saint John and that it was affixed by Order of the Common Council of the said City. 3. THAT the signature "Mel K. Norton" to the said instrument is the signature of Mel K. Norton, Mayor of the said City, and the signature "Jonathan A. Taylor" thereto is my own signature. 4. THAT we are the proper officers to sign the aforegoing instrument on behalf of The City of Saint John. SWORN TO before me at Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick the day of April, 2014. Frangois M. Beaulieu Commissioner of Oaths Being a Solicitor Jonathan A. Taylor 296 203 I%2 PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA I. , of the City of Dartmouth and Province of Nova Scotia, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 1. That the within Instrument was executed by Patrick Stiles, Regional Director — Atlantic for Pomerieau Inc. 2. That the signature of "Patrick Stites" set and subscribed to the said Instrument Is the signature of the said Patrick Stiles and was subscribed thereto in my presence. SWORN TO before me at Dartmouth } and Province of Nova Scotia the j day of April, 2014. j } } 1 Commissioner of Oaths, } 297 204