The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-11-07_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour4 City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, November 07, 2011 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order 4:30 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) 1.2 Land Matter 10.2(4)(d) 1.3 Personal Matter 10.2(4)(b) 1.4 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) 1.5 Land Matter 10.2(4)(d) 1.6 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.7 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) Regular Meeting Si vous auriez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&e communale au 658 -2862. 1. Call to Order — Prayer 6:00 p.m. Council Chamber 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Adoption of Agenda 3.1 Common Clerk: Committee System Form of Governance (Tabled on September 19, 2011) 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Construction of Rail Spur Line on a Portion of the former Alignment of Bayside Drive (Recommendation in Report) 5.2 Lucas Letter Re Regent Street Parking (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager) 5.3 Request for Renewal of a Temporary Mobile /Mini -Home 3396 Loch Lomond Road (Recommendation in Report) 5.4 Assent of a Public Utility Easement 21 & 29 Crowley Road (File: 253 Crowley Road) (Recommendation in Report) 5.5 French Language Translation of the text of the Municipal Plan (Recommendation in Report) 5.6 Saint John Board of Trade: City of Saint John 2012 Budget (Recommendation: Refer to Budget Deliberations) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 7.1 Restorative Justice Week November 13-20, 2011 8. Delegations / Presentations 9. Public Hearings 10. Consideration of By -laws 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Fairville Blvd Corridor Enhancement Plan (Councillor McGuire) 11.2 Information Request Re: 2012 Budget (Councillor Snook) 11.3 Three - Tiered Emergency Response Model Information (Councillor Snook) 12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers 12.1 City Manager: Safe, Clean Drinking Water - Progress Report #3 12.2 City Manager: Revised Pension Plan Reform Proposal 12.3 City Manager: Saint John Harbour Clean -Up 12.4 City Manager: Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility Design and Construction Management and HADD Compensation 12.5 Commissioner of Finance: Interim Financing Parking Garage 12.6 City Manager: Simms Corner / Bridge Road - Retaining Wall Repairs 12.7 City Manager: King Street East On- Street Parking 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Saint John Board of Police Commissioners: August 2011 Financial Results 13.2 Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointments to Committees 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 16. Adjournment S City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 7 novembre 2011 Comite plenier 1.Ouverture de la seance 16 h 30 — Salle de conference, 8e etage, h6tel de ville 1.1 Question financiere — alinea 10.2(4)c) 1.2 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alinea 10.2(4)d) 1.3 Question relative au personnel — alinea 10.2(4)b) 1.4 Question financi&re — alinea 10.2(4)c) 1.5 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alinea 10.2(4)d) 1.6 Question relative a 1'emploi 10.2(4)j) 1.7 Question relative a 1'emploi — alinea 10.2(4)j) Seance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere 18 h — Salle du conseil 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 3. Adoption de 1'ordre du jour 3.1 Greffi&e communale : Mode de gestion du syst&me des comites (point reporte lors de la reunion du 19 septembre 2011) 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Questions soumises a 11approbation du conseil 5.1 Construction d'une ligne de chemin de fer sur une partie de Pancien alignement de la promenade Bayside (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.2 Lettre de M. Lucas concernant le stationnement sur la rue Regent (recommandation : transmettre au directeur general) 5.3 Demande de renouvellement de permis relatif a une maison mobile ou mini - maison temporaire situee au 3396, chemin Loch Lomond (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.4 Approbation de la servitude de service public visant les numeros 21 a 29, chemin Crowley (dossier: 253, chemin Crowley) (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.5 Traduction en franrais du texte du plan municipal (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.6 Chambre de commerce de Saint John: Budget 2012 de The City of Saint John (recommandation : renvoyer aux discussions relatives au budget) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 7.1 Semaine de la justice r6paratrice, du 13 au 20 novembre 2011 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Plan d'am6lioration du couloir du boulevard Fairville (conseiller McGuire) 11.2 Demande de renseignements sur le budget 2012 (conseiller Snook) 11.3 Renseignements sur le modele d'intervention d'urgence a trois niveaux (conseiller Snook) 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Directeur g6n&ral : Salubrit6 et propret6 de 1'eau potable — Rapport de progr&s ri 3 12.2 Directeur g6n6ral : Proposition de r6forme du r6gime de retraite 12.3 Directeur g6n6ral : Travaux de nettoyage du port de Saint John 12.4 Directeur g6n6ral : Conception et gestion de la construction d'une installation de traitement des eaux us6es et compensation de la DDP 12.5 Commissaire aux finances : Pr6financement du garage a 6tages 12.6 Directeur g6n6ral : Coin Simms /chemin Bridge — r6paration du mur de sout&nement 12.7 Directeur g6n6ral : Stationnement sur la rue King Est 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 13.1 Bureau des commissaires de la police de Saint John: Bilan financier du mois d'aout 2011 13.2 Comit& pl6nier : Recommandations de nominations pour si6ger aux comit6s 14. ktude des sujets &art& des questions soumises a 11approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance g6n6rale 16. Levee de la seance REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2011 -286 November 7, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Construction of a Rail Spur Line on a Portion of the Former Alignment of Bayside Drive INTRODUCTION City of Saint John The City of Saint John is in receipt of a request from Atlantic Wallboard Limited Partnership to permit the location of a railway spur line on the former alignment of Bayside Drive. DISCUSSION A spur line is required to deliver materials to the wallboard manufacturing facility adjacent to this property. The railway infrastructure is to be located within the former alignment of Bayside Drive, but this property is located some distance from the current street corridor. A license agreement is appended which will permit the Company to occupy the unused/undeveloped portion of Bayside Drive for the spur line. The terms and conditions are substantially the same as in the current License Agreement between the parties for the rail crossing on Bayside Drive at Little River. It is recommended that the City enter into this license agreement. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council grants Atlantic Wallboard Limited as general partner for Atlantic Wallboard Limited Partnership a License to Rail Crossing on Bayside Drive under the general terms and conditions contained in the License Agreement 5 M & C-2011-286 - 2 - November 7, 2011 attached to M &C 2011 -286 and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the License Agreement. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP RPP Commissioner of Planning and Development J. Patrick Woods, C.G.A. City Manager 0 THIS LICENCE AGREEMENT (the "License ") made in duplicate this day of November, 2011. BY AND BETWEEN: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its City Hall at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City" OF THE FIRST PART - and _ ATLANTIC WALLBOARD LIMITED, in its capacity as the General Partner of and on behalf of Atlantic Wallboard Limited Partnership, having an office at 300 Union Street, Saint John, New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "Company" OF THE SECONDTART WHEREAS Old Bayside Drive to the immediate west of the relocated Bayside Drive (the "Street ") is a public street in the City of Saint John; and WHEREAS the City is the owner of the fee simple in the said public street; and WHEREAS the Company is desirous of installing railway track in the said public street and upon completion of such installation using such railway track for rail vehicle/car crossings and the transportation of materials; and WHEREAS the City by resolution of its Common Council meeting on November 2011 authorized a License Agreement in accordance with the terms set out hereinafter; NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that the City in consideration of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar and other good and valuable consideration paid by the Company, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, grants license and permission to the Company by its servants, agents and employees to enter in and upon the Street with men, material and equipment for the purpose of laying, constructing and installing railway track (the "Work "), and upon completion of the Work to use, operate, maintain, repair, replace, renew and remove the Work, commencing upon the date this Licence is executed by the City, save as hereinafter provided otherwise and upon the following terms and conditions: 1. The Work shall be located within the limits of the said Street as shown on the Plan of Survey attached hereto as Schedule "A", or as may otherwise be mutually agreed to in writing between the parties. Final November 4110 7 -2- 2. Except as otherwise provided, the rights and obligations of the City and the Company shall terminate upon the termination of this Licence, save and except the obligation of the Company to remove the Work and restore the site of the Work to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief City Engineer of the City of Saint John (the "Chief City Engineer ") which obligation shall survive the termination of this Licence. 3. The Work shall be performed by the Company at its expense and in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. All street reinstatement and any relocation or repair of any municipal service damaged during the Work or during any maintenance, repair, replacement, renewal or removal of the Work will be as reasonably directed by the Chief City Engineer at the expense of the Company, unless such damage to municipal services occurred as a result of negligence on the part of the City or its employees, agents or contractors. 4. In the event that the municipal•services under or within ten (10) metres of the Work rupture or malfunction within ninety (90) days of the completion of the Work and such rupture or malfunction is due to an act or omission of the Company, then the Company will perform and pay for all reasonable repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief City Engineer. 5. The Company will pay for all regular maintenance associated with the levelling or adjusting of the grade of the crossing relative to the street grade, so as not to cause any hazard to the travelling public and such work must be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief City Engineer within twenty (20) days of receipt of written notice from the City. For greater certainty this clause shall not apply should the City undertake a material change or redesign of the street. In such case any alteration in the location of the Work at the request of the City shall be carried out by the Company at the City's expense and in accordance with the regulations, laws and guidelines governing rail crossings. 6. In the event that the Work contemplated in the above paragraph is not performed, or a hazardous condition remains (any condition which in the opinion of the Chief City Engineer, acting reasonably, presents a danger to the safe use of the street by vehicular or pedestrian traffic) beyond the twentieth (20s') day of receipt of written notice from the City, the City may undertake any and all work in its reasonable opinion that is required to remedy the hazard and the cost of such work shall be borne by the Company. The Company shall pay the City within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt of any invoice along with supporting documentation for such work. 7. The Company will post and maintain rail crossing signs/signals as required by any applicable law. 8. The movement of rail cars across the street must be performed in accordance with the regulations, laws, by -laws and guidelines governing the movement of rail cars, notwithstanding such regulations, laws, by -laws and guidelines, return rail crossings may be made up to a maximum of five (5) times daily to a maximum of ten (10) rail cars per crossing. There shall be no crossings permitted between 7.00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. local time or between 4 :00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. local time. Final November 01 p -3 9. That subject to a minimum of thirty (30) days prior written notice, except in an emergency situation for which no prior notice shall be required, the City reserves the right to remove any portion of the Work or to repair, replace or install new municipal services under or near the Work, provided such removal, repair, replacement or installation shall be at a mutually convenient time and without business disruption compensation. The reinstatement of the Work will be to a condition equal to that existing at the time of its removal, at the expense of the City. In the event the Company wishes to improve or replace portions of the Work at the time of the City's reinstatement, the Company may do so at its own expense provided any additional expenses incurred by the City shall be borne by the Company. In such instances, and if the City so consents (such consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed), the Company may undertake the task of reinstating the crossing for which the City will provide a cash amount equivalent to the City's cost of reinstating the crossing, as existing prior to its removal, All such work undertaken by either party, shall be carried out in a proper, diligent and expeditious manner, 10. The Company shall forthwith pay to the City the sum of One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars plus HST, and thereafter, on each anniversary for the initial twenty (20) years, the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar plus HST. The annual fee will be adjusted every twenty years as mutually agreed upon by the Company and the City, and failing such agreement, as determined by arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act. 11. Upon termination of this Licence, other than due to the default of the City, the Company shall remove the Work and reinstate the Street to a standard acceptable to the City, all at the expense of the Company. 12. Either the City or the Company shall have the right to terminate the Licence if the other party (the "Defaulting Party") fails to perform any of its material obligations set forth in the Licence and such default continues for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof has been given to the Defaulting Party; provided, however, that if the nature of such failure is such that it cannot be cured by a payment of money and cannot be cured within a period of thirty (30) days exercising commercially reasonable diligence, the Defaulting Party shall have such reasonable additional time as may be necessary as long as the curing of such default is begun promptly and is carried out with due diligence to completion. 13. This Licence or any privilege hereunder is not assignable by the Company without the City's prior written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. This clause shall not apply to any mortgaged transaction, or an assignment to an associate or subsidiary company. For the purpose of this clause an aforesaid subsidiary or associate company shall mean a company with a board of directors whose membership is composed of the same or substantially the same members as the Company. 14. The Company shall keep in force for the full term of this Licence a comprehensive general liability insurance policy with respect to the existence of the Work and all the related activities as hereinbefore expressed. The liability policy shall include: (a) a limit of not less than Five Million ($5,000,000.00) Dollars; (b) the City as an additional insured with respect to the Company's activities; (c) a cross - liability clause; (d) contractual liability with respect to this License; and (e) a thirty (30) day written notice of the cancellation of the policy shall be given to the City. Final November 417W . 9 WE 15. The Company shall indemnify and save harmless the City from all Ioss, damage, o5 injury of every nature, kind or description whatsoever and in respect of property owned by others and in respect of damage sustained by others, whether caused by the presence of the Work or the use, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, renewal and removal of the Work by the Company or by the negligence of the Company, its employees, workmen or agents and from all damages, claims, demands, actions, suits or other proceedings by whomsoever made, brought or prosecuted in any manner based upon or arising out of or connected with'this Licence, unless such Ioss, damage, injury or such claims, demands, actions, suits or other proceedings are due to the negligence of the City or its employees, agents, or contractors. 16. The Company's obligation to provide any indemnity under this License is contingent upon (i) prompt written notice by the City to the Company of any claim, demand or proceeding of any type against the City or the occurrence of any situation, which may become the subject matter of a claim for indemnity; (ii) the City permitting the Company to join or otherwise assist the City in the investigation and defence of such claim, action or situation; (iii) the delivery to the Company by the City of a copy of every demand, notice, summons or other process or significant document received by it relating to such matter; (iv) the City not voluntarily making any payment, assuming any obligation or incurring any expense with respect to such claim, demand, proceeding or situation without the prior written consent of the Company; and (v) the City assigning to the Company its rights to recovery against any person, and the City shall execute all papers required and shall do everything necessary to secure and enforce such rights. 17. It is agreed between the City and the Company that neither the City nor the Company shall be held responsible for damages caused by delay or failure to perform an undertaking under the terms of this Licence where the delay or failure is due to fires, strikes, floods, acts of God, lawful acts of public authorities other than the City, or delays or defaults caused by common carriers, which cannot be reasonably foreseen or provided against. 18. This License shall commence on the date of execution and shall continue for a period of twenty (20) years. Thereafter, this License shall automatically renew for subsequent periods of twenty (20) years each, unless the Company provides the City with written notice of termination sixty (60) days prior to the end of the then current period; should the public street through which the work is located be stopped -up and closed and the resulting parcel of land be sold by the City, this Licence shall automatically terminate including the obligations of the Licensee expressly stated in paragraphs 2 and 11. 19. All notices to be given under this Licence must be given under this Licence must be given in writing as follows: To the Company: Atlantic Wallboard Limited Partnership 300 Union Street Saint John, New Brunswick EM 4M3 Attention: Vice President Final November 4111 p' 10 -5- Copy to: 300 Union Street, P.O. Box 5888 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L4 Attention: Secretary And to the City: The City of Saint John 15 Market Square, P. O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 Attention: The Common Clerk Copy to: The City of Saint John P. O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 Attention: Chief City Engineer Notice shall be sufficiently given if delivered by courier or if mailed by prepaid registered mail to the above address or to such other place as may be specified from time to time in writing by either the City or the Company, Any notice or other document, if delivered by courier, shall be deemed to have been given or made on the date delivered, or the date that a confirmation of receipt was recorded by the centre, and if mailed, on the third business day following the date on which it was mailed. In the event of an actual or imminent disruption of postal service in Canada, the notice shall be delivered by courier. 20. No change or modification of this Licence shall be valid unless it be in writing and signed by the City and the Company; 21. This Licence shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of New Brunswick. 21 This Licence is not intended to create any right in the nature of an easement or right -of -way and will be constructed only as a licence and does not prevent the City from imposing, charging, claiming, or levying any rate, tax, lien, assessment, or levy of any description whatsoever against the Company, its successors and assigns, by reason of the construction or presence of the Work previously granted hereunder. 23. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Company, their respective successors and assigns. Final November 41..71 pj 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by their duly authorized representatives the day and year first herein written. SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED 12 THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN G. Ivan Court, Mayor Elizabeth A. Gormley, Common Clerk Common Council Resolution: November , 2911 ATLANTIC WALLBOARD LIMITED, in its capacity as the General Partner of and on behalf of Atlantic Wallboard Limited Per: And: Final November 4111 c 2 pA s V1 m � Z V m°da i OL qt LN / 8 \ / ' Ql /\� u y / / f fir f Cc' f a , �a f S I v1 r I yy \ � yr i � 1 — la-- October 19, 2011 To The Mayor and Councillors of the City of Saint John Re: Regent Street Parking At the public meeting, in 2008, for the East ward I expressed concern to Councillor Snook that parking on the section of Regent Street between Park Avenue and Edith Avenue presented a traffic problem, especially in the winter. The width of this particular section of Regent Street is 7.21 meters, curb to curb. The width of the portion of Regent Street between Edith Avenue and Courtenay Avenue is a proper residential street width of 9.27 meters, curb to curb. Presently, there are signs on the west side of Regent Street, between Park and Edith Avenues which allow two hour parking. Vehicles also park on the east side of the street as there are no signs indicating whether parking is permitted or not. When vehicles are parked on each side of the street, across from each other, this results in a single lane remaining for moving vehicles due to the narrowness of this section of Regent Street. A picture is included to show this. This narrowness often results in vehicles meeting nose -to -nose when vehicles travelling in opposite directions have to go around parked vehicles. This is particularly bad when the vehicles meet at the blind knoll of the street. The narrowness of the street becomes worse in the winter as plowed snow encroaches on the road, up to 600 millimeters on both sides of the street as the winter goes on. The narrow lane remaining becomes a particular problem for larger vehicles such as fire trucks, oil delivery trucks and school buses, to name a few. In fact, a neighbour contacted the fire department regarding the problem when vehicles were parked across from each other. On investigation it was found that the fire truck would not be able to travel between the parked vehicles. To reduce the problem I strongly suggest that " 1`Io Parking" signs be erected on the east side of the portion of Regent Street between Park and Edith Avenues. It would also be of benefit if parking is nor permitted on the west side during the winter months. I recognize that financial restraints do not allow the city to act on every problem, but I believe this one should be addressed before the coming winter. Regards, Kirby Lucas 49 Regent Street 14 15 L p- 4-0- 16 C REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C —2011-279 October 27, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Request for Renewal of a Temporary Mobile / Mini -Home 3396 Loch Lomond Road INTRODUCTION: „� °, ; City of Saint John The Municipalities Act enables Common Council to include a provision in its Mobile Home Parks By -law in order to permit individual mobile homes, on a temporary basis not to exceed one (1) year, on properties that normally would not permit such structures due to their zoning designations. It has been Common Council's practice to consider these requests on a compassionate basis. Previous applications have involved the health of a family member, economic hardship, or a temporary approval so that a conventional home could be constructed in the future. Renewals have been granted in a number of cases allowing the mobile home to remain for many years. In September of 2006 Council requested that written notification be provided to surrounding property owners for any future applications of this nature. Letters have been sent to all landowners within 100 metres (300 feet) of the subject property concerning this matter. ANALYSIS: The subject site is zoned "RS -1 " One and Two Family Suburban Residential and in 1999 Common Council approved the temporary placement of a mini -home on the large parcel of land in question. The landowner's elderly parents wished to reside in the mini -home, which is situated approximately 107 metres (350 feet) from Loch Lomond Road. The applicant had indicated that the mini -home would 17 M &C -2011 —279 -2- be removed when his parents no longer needed it. The applicant's father still resides in the mini -home and therefore, a further one -year extension is requested. Extensions were granted in 2000 through to 2009, with the exception of 2002, 2006 and 2010, when no applications for extensions were submitted. A long driveway access from the public street is constructed to the mini -home, which is screened by tall trees and is not readily visible from neighbouring properties along Loch Lomond Road. A separate well and septic disposal system were installed in accordance with the applicable Provincial regulations at the time the mini -home was originally place on the site, both of which remain in operation today. Other public utilities have also been made available to the site. Building and Technical Services has been advised of the request for a subsequent extension and indicate that it has no objection to the application. RECOMMENDATION: That, pursuant to the Mobile Home Parks By -law, Common Council permit a mini -home to be situated on the large property at 3396 Loch Lomond Road for a temporary period of one (1) year. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development J. trick Woods, CGA Ci anager PF Project No. 11 -1204 in November 7, 2011 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT RS -1 R, X 's RS I IN, RS \ \ NNN / � ✓✓i \ \\ \ \/, i\ ; -� / ,\ \ RS RS— 1 \\ r \ ( \ V, \ ' M P(s) ) /NIs: Subject Site /site en question: 00 PID()/NI Location: 3396, chemin Loch Lomond Road Date: October/ octobre 17, 2011 Scale /6chelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'6chelle 19 r � � ' REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2011 -280 October 28, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Assent of a Public Utility Easement 21 & 29 Crowley Road (File: 253 Crowley Road) ANALYSTS 73 City of Saint John The Development Officer is in a position to endorse the attached Agnes E. Crowley, Joseph F. Crowley, Mary Ellen Crowley & Thomas G. Crowley Subdivision (see attachments). This plan will create independent lots for two long existing dwellings situated on the subject property. However, these dwellings (and another residence between them at 25 Crowley Road) have been serviced by a private access containing an overhead public utility line. The subdivision plan would vest a 5 metre wide public utility easement for the existing utility line. Normally the vesting of public utility easements is considered in a recommendation from the Planning Advisory Committee when dealing with more significant subdivision applications. However, this matter did not require the consideration of the Committee, and the Community Planning Act does not require their involvement when dealing only with public utility easements. The vesting of the proposed easement is supported by Saint John Energy and Aliant Telecom Inc. Therefore, assent of the proposed public utility easement is recommended. 20 M & C-2011 — 280 - 2 - October 28, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council assent to the submitted Agnes E. Crowley, Joseph F. Crowley, Mary Ellen Crowley & Thomas G. Crowley Subdivision with respect to the proposed public utility easement. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development J. trick Woods, CGA Cit Manager MO 21 6m PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/URBAN ISM E ET DEVELOPPEMENT RF V!P ��- RS- 2\� RS- 2 l \ RF RS - 2 "I RS- 2 ex. E -f/ Subject Site /site en question: PID(s) /NIP(s): 00052613 (portion) Location : 21 & 29, ch. Crowley Rd. Date: October 28 octobre 2011 Scale /echelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'echelle 22 of i �N 8364 Cy0 b F ti eF', .5 t Q N 343 R .2Z � � a1�4 A E bye $�zi «' J1"f s j'3 S! $�3c�'x E� -i�f4g o � U w •e � =!R � � 3 no 0 �I z R64 �sz .yry� A Y i�4 E� 'ee �+TV, `'�m01`� "aJ '0.� ~F "° S•a�� a O, 't _ $ C m °J 6'e xxx x sssx ;( Af3 / % K Nacsccc.55s555ccc.;; s¢sa:as g ae - -- �..RR�R � J Yp� REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2011 -287 November 4, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: French Language Translation of the Text of the Municipal Plan INTRODUCTION City of Saint John The approval of Common Council is required to pay the invoice submitted by the Universite de Moncton — Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques for services rendered to translate the draft Municipal Plan into the French language. DISCUSSION Provincial legislation requires that the text of all municipal bylaws be available in both English and French. The Municipal Plan is the single largest bylaw of the City of Saint John and the translation of this document was a significant undertaking. Planning staff worked with the Office of City Solicitor to coordinate this effort and the translation itself was conducted by staff at the Universite de Moncton, which is the only commercial provider of legal translation in New Brunswick. U de M. translators have translated all of the City's bylaws and also provide legal translation services to the province's other municipalities as well as the Government of New Brunswick. This is a specialized service, which is exempted under the Public Purchasing Act from tendering requirements. It was not possible to know the total cost of this work in advance. City staff did negotiate terms for the performance of the service which were favourable and included a condition to ensure timely delivery of the final product. The City is now in receipt of a final invoice in the amount of $30,580, which exceeds the $25,000 spending authority of the City Manager. The approval of Common Council is therefore required to pay this invoice. 24 M & C-2011-287 - 2 - November 7, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Common Council approve payment of the invoice submitted by the Universite de Moncton — Centre de traduction et de terminologie juridiques for services rendered to translate the draft Municipal Plan into the French language in the amount of $30,580. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP RPP Commissioner of Planning and Development J. Patrick Woods, C.G.A. City Manager 25 Saint John Board of Trade Making it happen for business November 3, 2011 Common Council City of Saint John 15 Market Square P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Your Worship and Councillors, Bureau de Commerce de Saint John Faisons marcher les affaires On behalf of the members of the Saint John Board of Trade I respectfully submit this letter outlining our view and recommendations for the 2012 pre- budget consultation process. Our Government Affairs Committee, comprised of various member organizations, has focused on this issue and provided our Board of Directors with several recommendations. Following discussion of the recommendations, our Board of Directors agrees that the recommendations listed should be considered by Common Council and City staff during deliberations for the City's 2012 -2013 Budget. The Saint John Board of Trade recognizes the important step already taken by Common Council over the past few years with the creation of the new Municipal Plan and is encouraged by its potential to help our City grow and develop through careful and measured implementation. The benefits from moving in this direction will be recognized in the long term. Presently, Saint John has the highest tax rate in the Province which puts Saint John and its businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Our members have expressed their concern regarding the impact the current and future pension deficit will have on the city's tax rate and subsequently the impact on Saint John's economy and its potential for growth. The Saint John Board of Trade feels that actions must be taken immediately to alleviate the pressure on core services without raising the tax rate as Saint John faces increasing economic pressure on the budget. Part of the long -term solution is to develop a long -term vision for our City. A significant portion of this vision has already been accomplished with PlanSJ. However, the identification of the necessary steps to achieve the vision requires further clarification. We feel this budget and future budgets should be drafted with this in mind. The following are a number of recommendations for the City to consider in preparation of the 2012 -2013 Budget that could potentially help alleviate the current situation. Fiscal Responsibility /Sustainability — We see a need for the City to consider potential funding cut backs by weighing the long -term impact of each item in the budget. Strategic investments must be carefully considered with the Return On Investment calculated into the decision for funding different projects and operations. Also, there is a 2... 40 rue King Street • C.P /P.O. Box 6037 • Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada Ell 05 • tel 506.634.8111 • fax 506.632.2008 • info @sjboardoftrade.com - www.sjboardoftrade.com 26 -2- need to identify /reconfirm Council's priorities and look at cutting anything that does not fall within those priorities including capital projects and infrastructure. • Regional Cooperation — We encourage the City of Saint John to adopt a policy of exploring regional cooperation as a means to reduce costs through efficiencies, reduced duplication, and economies of scale. This cooperation has the potential to stimulate business through maximizing regional attributes. • Pension Deficit — We feel all options must be fully considered and the long -term impacts weighed. There is concern by the Board of Trade Members the current pension plan is not sustainable without a significant increase to the municipal tax rate. The businesses that contribute to our economy require predictability, especially with respect to the tax rate. Measures must be implemented to ensure a competitive tax rate for our City for the next 5 -10 years to encourage growth, development and investment. • Outsourcing /Insourcing — We encourage you to examine the long -term costs and benefits of outsourcing and in- sourcing various services as they come up for discussion. Benefits and cost cutting opportunities may be found in either outsourcing or in- sourcing certain services. • Transparency — We encourage you to implement a reporting mechanism back to Council that tracks the overall benefits and costs of changes made to determine if the savings predicted were realized. The clear, transparent reporting mechanism would provide an easily understood benchmark to monitor our City's growth and development. We feel that these recommendations should be taken into consideration and implemented. The budget created for the 2012 -2013 year should help sustain new business and remove roadblocks to further economic development in our City. Saint John needs more than tax increases and service cuts to address and reverse the economic pressure. We need wealth creation and investment in our City. To achieve this Common Council and City staff must work with the citizens and businesses to make Saint John a vibrant, attractive place for business to develop, grow and invest. The Saint John Board of Trade is a nationally accredited business organization dedicated to fostering an economic climate that enhances growth, prosperity, and an improved quality of life in the community. With more than 1,000 members, representing 600 small, medium, and large businesses and organizations and therefore, the interests of more than 30,000 citizens, the Board is a dynamic advocate and the principal voice for the business community of Greater Saint John. The elected Board of Directors is representative of the diversity of the membership and their concerns. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further. Sincerely, Imelda Gilm n cormeCTed President .... ..MO.k 27 Mayor Ivan Court Mayor's Office Bureau du maire PROCLAMATION WHEREAS: in the face of crime or conflict, restorative justice offers a philosophy and approach that view these matters principally as harm done to people and relationships; and WHEREAS: restorative justice approaches strive to provide support and opportunities for the voluntary participation and communication between those affected by crime and conflict (victims, offenders, community) to encourage accountability, reparation and a movement towards understanding, feelings of satisfaction, healing and a sense of closure; and WHEREAS: this year's theme for Restorative Justice Week is "Re- visioning Justice ", it is an opportunity to learn about restorative justice, educate and celebrate along with other communities across the country during the week; and NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Ivan Court, L �T of Saint John do hereby proclaim November 13 - 20, 2011 as Restorative Justice Week in the City of Saint John. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 197 - 28 November 7th, 2011 Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council: Issue: Fairville Blvd Corridor Enhancement Plan Context: • Counciil has supported this PlanSJ Economic Growth Opportunity Area on numerous discussions in the past. • As identified in PlanSJ the Business Corridor has significant potential for tax revenue for the City of Saint John. • Being fully aware that the PlanSJ development process has consumed a significant amount of Planning Staff resources I have not raised this issue recently. Motion: Resolved that through the City Manager the appropriate staff (presumably Mr. Forrest) update Council with respect to their efforts on the Fairville Blvd Corridor Enhancement Plan. led, Councillor — Saint John 29 City Hall P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 November 3, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Information request re: 2012 Budget City of Saint John In preparation for the 2012 budget, I am requesting the City Manager provide for Council a detailed organizational chart of all City employees and positions within our City's Legislative and Corporate Administration budget and justification for each respective position. Also, a detailed accounting for all expenses contained within this budget should be provided. It is critical, in the light of having to make drastic cuts to frontline public services such as transit, that we demonstrate an aggressive effort to provide a fair, responsible an balanced budget. As we face a difficult 2012 budget we must be prepared to dive a little deeper as a Council "into the details" and "count the paper clips" as we strive to cut any unnecessary costs and find greater efficiencies in operating City Hall. Motion: Refer to City Manager to provide the above request for information during the 2012 budget deliberations. Respectively Submitted, (received via email) Councillor Snook 30 City Hall P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 November 3, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Three — Tiered Emergency Response Model Information .2 City of Saint john In preparation for the 2012 budget, I am requesting that Council consider making a recommendation for the discontinuation of our city's three - tiered emergency response model (911 calls in Saint John currently automatically dispatches fire, police and ambulance). A significant amount of our City's budget is dedicated to fire protective services. We must continue to look for ways to create new efficiencies resulting in lower operational costs while minimally impacting public safety. As a part of pre budget deliberations, Council should be provided information with regard to the potential savings of discontinuing the practice of dispatching fire personal for non - fire related emergency calls. Specifically, how many calls are made by our fire department personal that are non - fire related and how much do each of these calls cost? If the cost savings are significant, Council will, perhaps, need to look at the elimination of a three - tiered emergency response model in Saint John if it ultimately will save fire personal positions and avoid drastic cuts to the fire service. During these fiscally challenging times for our city we must strive to investigate all opportunities to provide services more efficiently. Motion: Refer to City Manager and 2012 budget deliberations. Respectively Submitted, (Received via email) Councillor Snook 31 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C 2011 - 282 November 31d, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER — PROGRESS REPORT #3 The City of saint John There should be no doubt of the need for facilities to treat drinking water in Saint .John to contemporary Canadian standards. High quality water is vital to our very wellbeing. The Medical Officer of Health expressed clearly his concerns back in December 2003, emphasizing that the timeline for upgrades be as short as possible: Waterborne disease is a risk of all surface water supplies. Chlorine treatment does not eliminate this risk. Also, as you are aware, drinking water standards in Canada are consistently being reviewed and revised to become more stringent. Saint John will likely have to move to advanced water treatment to meet these standards.*' The Safe Clean Drinking Water Program has been designed to address the needs of the community in a manner that assures water quality and service reliability over the long term. To this end, it has three essential and complementary outcomes: 1. Drinking water of the highest quality for our community - to meet GCDWQ *'; 2. A least- cost solution (over the long- term) for users of the water service; and 3. Sustainability - meeting needs today without compromising future generations. PURPOSE OF REPORT This report will cover the following: • Drinking water quality and public health • Flow capacity - treated drinking water system • Program Structuring and Implementation Plan, Version #2 • Direction and oversight of the SCDWProgram (resource requirements) • Funding support and procurement alternatives 1 Enhanced Treatment of Saint John Municipal Water Supply, C. Scott Giffin, MD, MPH, Medical Officer of Health, Region 11, NB Department of Health and Wellness, December 4, 2003 2 Health Canada Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality ac\�ohn Ilyd, P 4, 32 V SAINT JOHN SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER — PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 DRINKING WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 3"1, 2011 The central motivation behind the Action Plan for Safe, Clean Drinking Water is public health: [1 ] to support good health practices (provide the quality drinking water people need to consume); and [2] to protect against water borne disease (eliminating pathogens and other potential hazards from the drinking water delivered to taps). Water Quality and Public Health � III x Lmi w TfLtif? DEP. SHORT ,e,r,a,,,, LONG TER'-\I TERM IHnrrr Diy/ �I1�e�v S�w':ww:� EXPOSURE In providing full, modern treatment and filtration of drinking water for the people of Saint John, and in order to achieve the standards set out in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ), the drinking water service has to address: ■ Microbiological safety - protection against viruses and protozoa, like Giardia and Cryptosporidium; • Disinfection by- product (DBP) reduction - reduce naturally occurring organic matter found in our particular raw water supply, precursors to the formation of trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAS); and ■ Water stability - parameters for pH and alkalinity indicate corrosive water; this could contribute to increased levels of lead and copper concentrations in drinking water, along with internal pipe corrosion. These are the clear and crucial priorities for drinking water treatment! 33 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 PAGE 3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 SAINT JOHN FLOW CAPACITY - TREATED DRINKING WATER SYSTEM The introduction of a drinking water treatment plant into a water system inherently means building a specific capacity into the water system. Currently, with only chlorine added for disinfection and fluoridation for dental health, water flows virtually unconstrained to users. The amount of water available in the future, however, will be capped by the production limits of the new treatment facility. Current usage demands have been carefully studied, separation of East industrial flows factored in, water loss and leak reduction opportunities identified, and growth projections considered in determining that a 100 ML /d maximum design capacity would be optimal for the treatment facility, with a 75 ML /d design average day flow. This is a maximum day amount ( "Qm ") of 100 million litres or 100,000 cubic metres of drinking water produced per day. Treatment facilities are typically designed for "Qm" (highest 24 hour demand in a one-year period) to ensure adequate volumes of water are available for users across the community. Usage dictates system size and, hence, capital and operating costs; lowering demand, therefore, can save substantial amounts of money. The challenge for the community is to optimize the demand- cost formula. In order to achieve this optimization and assure service reliability well into the future, the people, businesses and industry of Saint John will need to be prudent in how we use our drinking water. Conservation and progressive water use management can reduce average and maximum day demands and, with that, capital and operating costs. Significant gains are possible. The potential for water conservation stems from a fundamentally different concept of water in our human environment. This does not mean doing without. Instead it is about taking a long- term approach with a focus on holistic water resource management and a water ethic that permeates much of what we do. Not only is this approach better for the environment, it is cheaper in the long run - and in this way becomes the only sustainable option.*' Some of the ways a community can save water and reduce costs by lowering use are: • Starting with a community dialogue and education on water usage • Planning for sustainability; linking conservation to design and development • Pricing water right (fairly and equitably for all users); measuring all usage • Fixing system leaks, "wasting" (flushing) less water • Stop flushing the future, reducing waste and fixing plumbing 3 Thinking Beyond Pipes and Pumps, Top Ten Ways Communities Can Save Water and Money, O Brandes, T Maas and E Reynolds, POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria, October 2006 34 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN ■ Looking to the sky - rainwater as a source for outdoor uses • Make managing demand part of daily business PAGE 4 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 Demand management means a comprehensive and integrated approach to improving the overall productivity of water use and delivering water based on the actual quality and service needs of utility customers. Moderating demand for water offers many benefits; advantages that extend well beyond municipal budgets. Conservation eases the burden on lakes, allowing the population and economy to grow without depleting precious water resources. It also reduces the amount of disinfecting chemicals that must be removed from water before it is returned to the environment, and moderates the demand for energy. Costly capital expansions can often be deferred or dropped entirely. Society is beginning to recognize that the largest source of new water ... won't be new at all but, rather, more efficient use of the water we already have. *' The Drinking Water Treatment Facility (DWTF) is being sized to provide an adequate supply of drinking water to meet the needs of the community while controlling costs for new infrastructure. PROGRAM STRUCTURING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, VERSION #2 The Safe Clean Drinking Water Program comprises a series of projects required to assure high quality potable water for the community; its central feature being the 100 ML /day water filtration treatment facility south of Little River Reservoir. The overall estimated cost, in 2010, of component projects was $259,450,000 (adjusted for inflation to an implementation mid- point of 2015). A Program Structuring and Implementation Plan was developed earlier this year as the most realistic approach for implementation of the highest priority elements of the SCDW Program, recognizing the very high cost of the full package of projects. It sought a practical, cost- effective strategy for moving forward. The Program Structuring and Implementation Plan was endorsed by Common Council on April 11 t', 201 1 , at a total estimated cost of just under $172,300,000 - to implement the projects most essential (today) for assurance of safe, clean drinking water. A 4- year "preferred" scenario (2012 to 201 5) was proposed for these projects. Other necessary works would be deferred at some level of risk and scheduled for later implementation. The two preliminary design reports, from RV Anderson Associates for the treatment facility (August 201 1) and from CBCL Limited for system improvements (June 2011 ), have now been received; these have been analyzed. Program scope adjustments have been made and the Program Structuring and Implementation Plan Version #2 developed to further fine tune the City's way forward on drinking water. 4 Eau Canada: The Future of Canada's Water, edited by Karen Bakker, UBC Press, October 2006, p281 35 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 PAGE S REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 SAINT JOHN A review of the Program Structuring and Implementation Plan and its original development follows this report in Appendix "A ". Staff and consultants worked through a painstaking review of opportunities and alternatives to formulate an approach that will meet the essential needs of our community. It involved four stages: [A] Project Phasing; [B] Grouping; [C] Program Schedule; and [D] Affordability Analysis. The various projects (and project parts) were classified into one of ten groups, which categorized how each should be scheduled for implementation: Water Treatment Facilities 2. Core Drinking Water Infrastructure 3. East Industrial System 4. Distribution System Water Quality 5. Conservation and Community Engagement 6. Fire Fighting and Operational Storage Capacity 7. Delivery Risks and Service Reliability 8. Universal (Residential) Metering 9. Development and System Extension 10. Projects Completed These groupings are explained in the attached review. As indicated in Progress Report #2, the approaches to and, as such, the groupings of two system critical projects have been changed: ■ [10- 01 Transmission Reversing Falls Bridge Construction; and ■ [1- 01 Robertson Lake Dam and Tunnels under Airport Runways Inspection. Transmission Reversing Falls Bridge Construction Twin 500mm transmission mains across the bridge will replace an out- of- service 475mm steel line. Construction is planned for 2013. Given its critical nature and relative urgency, coupled with the very strong urging of Provincial officials, the project was incorporated into the Capital Investment Plan (2010- 2013) for the Gas Tax Fund Agreement, approved by Council on August 29`h, 2011: GTF $2,100,000 and Utility (City) $2,184,000. As such, it will be handled separate and apart from the Program Structuring and Implementation Plan package of projects. Dialogue with NBDOT is continuing - - regarding the necessary Highway Usage Permit for construction on this 95 year old bridqe. 36 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN PAGE 6 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 Robertson Lake Dam /Tunnels under Airport Runways Inspection Risks associated with deferral of this project have been reconsidered. The dam is of 1905 construction and it (along with the two tunnels under the airport runways) is a critical to the entire water system. Its failure would be catastrophic for the community's water supply. It has been reassigned to the Group 2 set of projects: core drinking water infrastructure. Preliminary Design Reports (Final) Analysis of the treatment (RVA) and system improvements (CBCL) preliminary design final reports, with updated estimates and the scope clarification those have provided, plus points of overlap between the two reports, has meant some adjustment and updating of the Program Structuring and Implementation (PS &1) Plan. As part of the ongoing effort to realistically anticipate costs and to control those costs wherever possible, an updated version of that Plan has been prepared. The Program Structuring and Implementation Plan Version #2 maintains the "preferred" 4- year implementation scenario of 2012 to 2015 for projects most essential to safe, clean drinking water. The overall estimated cost has been lowered by about $7.8 million from $172.3 million to $164.48 million. The PS &1 Plan Gantt chart showing project phasing, with summary descriptions, current estimates and the tentative Program schedule has been updated. (The Gantt chart is not attached to this report, but forms part of Version #2.) Appendix "B" to the PS &1 Plan (attached) provides a comprehensive listing of the highest priority elements of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program (Group 1, 2 and 3 projects) and a full cost summary for those. This key reference document reflects how costs would be generally distributed over the 2012 to 2015 implementation period. The estimates for each project reflect the planned timing for implementation - 2012 to 2015 (as shown in Appendix "B "). The contingency amount in each is related directly to the level of unknowns in the specific project. At this stage, contingencies range from 10% to 30% of cost. 37 Y SAINT JOHN SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 PAGE 7 NOVEMBER 3"1, 2011 Table 1 (Version #2) summarizes distribution of associated costs over 2012 to 2015. (Costs have been rounded from the estimates provided in Appendix "B "). TABLE 1 (VERSION #2): SCDW PROGRAM (HIGHEST PRIORITY ELEMENTS) PREFERRED 4- YEAR IMPLEMENTATION (NOVEMBER 7T ", 201 1) F- Year 3- Party Total Each Share (Rounded) 2012 $ 5,059,000 $1,687,000 2013 $38,694,000 $12,898,000 2014 $63,444,000 $21,148,000 2015 $57,283,000 $19,095,000 Total $164,480,000 $54,827,000 Deferral of implementation, in whole or in part, from the 2012 to 2015 schedule would mean higher future price tags for the projects involved. For illustrative purposes, Table 2 (Version #2) shows order of magnitude estimates for delays in program implementation (based on an assumed annual construction inflation rate of 5 %). TABLE 2 (VERSION #2): SCDW PROGRAM (HIGHEST PRIORITY ELEMENTS) INFLATIONARY IMPACT OF DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION (NOVEMBER 7T ", 201 1 ) Implementation Delay 3- Party Total Each Share (Rounded) Proposal (complete 2015) $164,480,000 $54,827,000 1 Year Delay (complete 2016) $172,704,000 $57,568,000 2 Years Delay (complete 2017) $181,340,000 $60,447,000 3 Years Delay (complete 2018) $190,407,000 $63,469,000 4 Years Delay (complete 2019) $199,928,000 $66,643,000 Several considerations, at least, should influence the decision on the timing of implementation. One is overall Capital costs; the longer the delay, the more those costs will rise. This would be compounded by also pushing back Group 6 and 7 projects that have already been deferred, but need to be completed as soon as practicable. SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN PAGE 8 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 It should also be understood that project deferral (Group 7) also requires due diligence and engineering analysis to verify that risk will be managed and related preparations made. These requirements will be reported on separately and covered in the 2012 Water and Sewerage Utility Capital budget. By far the most important consideration in the implementation decision, however, is the ever present risk associated with inadequately treated drinking water. The Medical Officer of Health has made his advice clear, time and again, on the need to act. Affordability It is recommended the Program Structuring and Implementation Plan Version #2 be referred to the Commissioner of Finance for update of the affordability analysis. This examination would confirm general affordability of enhanced drinking water. Based on a long- term financial plan, it would model spending forecasts, contributions from others, and life cycles costs; and provide an order- of- magnitude prediction of future water rates and the cost of debt to be managed by the utility. Common Council must remain diligent and maintain its focus on this priority for the community. The funding support of other levels of government remains to be secured, although elected representatives have reiterated the priority of drinking water for Saint John. Recommendations to Council for the 2012 Capital Program will strive to best position the City to maintain the 2012 to 2015 "preferred" timeline, while keeping options for funding support open. DIRECTION AND OVERSIGHT OF THE SCDW PROGRAM (RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS) The Action Plan for Safe, Clean Drinking Water highlighted the need for a dedicated, multi- disciplinary team of professionals and support staff for this very large, multi- faceted endeavour - resources needed for overall program management. Program work far exceeds the capacity of the human resources currently allocated. Managing the magnitude and complexity of this program requires a dedicated team of qualified engineering professionals and experts, backed by communications, operational, administrative, financial, and legal expertise. The latter two become particularly crucial should Council decide to pursue a "public- private partnership" procurement option. Beyond its importance for public health, the drinking water improvement program also represents a major financial endeavour; one that will expend substantial amounts of public money. These expenditures must be assured to produce desired outcomes and maximize value for money. The program management structure has to incorporate the overall governance role of Council through to management of the various project components. It needs senior leadership direction and links to the administrative responsibilities of the City Manager, legal guidance of the City Solicitor, and the financial oversight of the Commissioner of Finance; as well as ongoing consultation with the Council's Drinking Water Committee. 39 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN PAGE 9 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 The experts that led the Value Engineering Review on the Action Plan in 2009 were particularly direct on this topic: a fully resourced and full-time program management (implementation) team had to be put in place. This was emphasized repeatedly by the value engineering team leader Don Stafford. Council should not consider proceeding further with the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program or any of its elements until provision has been made for the dedicated professional engineering, financial, legal and other resources required for its effective implementation. FUNDING SUPPORT AND PROCUREMENT ALTERNATIVES Regardless of how the City decides to proceed in delivering the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program, your staff continues to emphasize the importance of political and funding support from both the Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada. We continue to talk in terms of 3- way cost sharing as critical to affordability; each level of government assuming an equal 1/3 share of responsibility for addressing the needs of its citizens in Saint John - the oldest incorporated city in Canada, as well as the economic engine for this region and the Province of New Brunswick. The expectation for a shared solution is a reasonable one. Staff met with officials from PPP Canada and Partnerships New Brunswick on Tuesday, October 25`". Discussions were informative and useful. The City's Safe Clean Drinking Water Program is considered a viable candidate for the P3 Canada Fund (up to 25% of eligible costs). The next step in the process is development of a P3 business case for the projects involved. Dedication of legal, financial and engineering resources will be essential to this analysis and its eventual interpretation by the City of Saint john. Partnerships New Brunswick has indicated that it could be of assistance in carrying out the business case analysis. A Memorandum of Understanding would be signed between the City and the Province for this work. Senior representatives of this Provincial agency are scheduled to make a presentation to Council on December 5' A public- private partnership approach is an option, but not a panacea for addressing the City's drinking water needs. Extensive legal work, financial prudence, clear definition of technical requirements and full understanding of what is involved will be crucial to ensuring the interests of the City and utility ratepayers are fully represented. TIMELY ACTION AND COMPLETE MEASURES People recognize the importance of drinking water; citizens have made this their most important service priority. Inaction or a failure to act in a timely and complete manner has adverse consequences. It is time to act; to act decisively in the interests of citizens, the economy of the region and for the very future of our community. .A SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council: PAGE 10 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 1. Endorse the Program Structuring and Implementation Plan Version 2, as outlined in this report, at an estimated cost of $164,480,000 for delivering the highest priority elements of the program to assure safe, clean drinking water; 2. Refer this report to the Commissioner of Finance for an affordability analysis of the PS &1 Plan Version 2 and financial recommendations; 3. Subject to the advice of the Commissioner of Finance, adopt the 4- year schedule (2012 to 201 5) for the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program (Highest Priority Elements) as the preferred implementation scenario; 4. Be prepared to consider recommendations on the resource requirements for direction and oversight of Safe Clean Drinking Water Program implementation; 5. Authorize adjustment of the preliminary submission to PPP Canada, approved by Council on July 4`h, 201 1 , to reflect the scope and estimate changes outlined herein, and submission of updated documentation to PPP Canada. 6. In recognition of the vital importance of proceeding with implementation of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program in a timely and complete manner, continue efforts to secure the essential cost sharing agreements with the Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada for equal shares of funding - approximately $54,827,000 from each funding partner - over four years from 2012 to 201 5. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, For Saint John Water J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 41 SAINT JOHN SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 PAGE 11 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 PROGRAM STRUCTURING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Appendix "A" The Program Structuring and Implementation Plan was established as a practical, cost - effective strategy for delivering the infrastructure improvements and facilities needed to assure safe, clean drinking water for Saint john. Staff and consultants worked through a painstaking review of opportunities and alternatives to formulate an approach that will meet the essential needs of our community. It involved four stages: [A] Project Phasing; [B] Grouping; [C] Program Schedule; and [D] Affordability Analysis. A - PROJECT PHASING Safe Clean Drinking Water Program projects were subdivided into various parts or phases, as applicable, to facilitate prioritization and scheduling of expenditures. a) Project pre- design report(s), with analysis of options and risks, updated estimates, and project specific value engineering, as required; b) Detailed design and refined project cost estimates; and c) Construction project (in some cases, multiple construction phases). It is important to understand exactly how project parts can be scheduled, what projects are prerequisite for others, how capital expenditures can be best distributed to match funding availability, and how to proactively adapt to circumstances that will arise. Projects and project phases would be organized for implementation over time, with the most critical scheduled for more urgent execution. Estimates have been updated, reflect escalation for construction inflation, and include taxes, engineering, and contingencies. B - GROUPING The various projects (and project parts) were then classified into one of ten groups: 1 . Water Treatment Facilities 2. Core Drinking Water Infrastructure 3. East Industrial System 4. Distribution System Water Quality 5. Conservation and Community Engagement 6. Fire Fighting and Operational Storage Capacity 7. Delivery Risks and Service Reliability 8. Universal (Residential) Metering 9. Development and System Extension 10. Projects Completed 42 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN PAGE 12 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 These groupings reflect relative priority and /or alternative opportunities for funding; the ultimate goal being implementation of all safe, clean drinking water projects. Certain works must proceed now; others may be deferred in the near- term at some level of risk. Group 1. Water Treatment Facilities The central feature for assuring safe, clean drinking water is the 100,000 m3 per day (100 ML /day) conventional water filtration treatment facility, to be located south of the Little River Reservoir area. If the project is able to proceed expeditiously, it is currently estimated that the facility could be designed and constructed for about the amount earlier planned (depending on actual timing, site conditions and specific features). Detailed design will specify particular treatment features and provide detailed construction cost estimates. Numerous variables could influence final cost outcomes. Group 2. Core Drinking Water Infrastructure Four considerations are basic to every potable water transmission /distribution system: • Quality- maintaining quality as the water travels to the consumer's tap; • Reliability- optimizing system and service reliability; ■ Lost Water- minimizing the loss of water in the system; and ■ Fire Protection - providing quantities sufficient for fire protection. Transmission Improvements Transmission of raw water from Latimer Lake to the new water treatment plant (WTP) and treated water to the distribution system were evaluated along a number of routing options. The transmission backbone to the Lakewood area is sound, but substantial downstream improvements are required. Water Storage The volume of water available through large- capacity transmission mains, now tied directly to source lakes, will not be available when the WTP comes on line, except for industrial systems. Potable flows will be limited by plant output. Consultants have recommended an additional 16.1 ML in two storage reservoirs as the absolute minimum required to handle peak demand, fire flows and system emergencies. System Pumping Drinking water service West of the river will involve pumping from a new Reversing Falls booster pump station to the Lancaster storage reservoir and to an upgraded Spruce Lake pump station for further distribution West. System Rehabilitation Renovations, system modifications, adjustments and local upgrades are required to address a variety of system needs. System Modifications The transition to a single treatment plant model requires system modifications both East and West of the St. john River in order to ensure the new potable system operates effectively over the distances and pressure zones involved. 43 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN Group 3. East Industrial System PAGE 13 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 A fundamental water use principle is to match quality of water delivered to that actually needed by end- users. It is neither operationally nor economically prudent to service industrial processes with costly- to- produce treated drinking water. Two separate industrial (raw) systems from Spruce Lake currently serve two large industries West. As part of the strategy to optimize the size of treatment facilities and other system infrastructure, a separate industrial system will be developed to serve heavy industry East of the river. Supply transmission would deliver water (in dual purpose mains) to the Lakewood area. From there, industrial demand to the Irving Oil Refinery would be separated from flows to the new WTP and potable flows to the rest of the city. Group 4. Distribution System Water Quality The interior walls of unlined cast iron mains are subject to internal corrosion; an electrochemical interaction between the metal and its environment, resulting in changes to metallic properties. A gradual build-up of corrosion products (tuberculation) over time leads to two serious system problems; pipe failure or blockage that restricts flows and deterioration of water quality as it travels through these mains to the consumer. Since 2006, cleaning and lining has dramatically improved water quality at the tap, restored fire flows and extended the service life of over 40 kilometres of cast iron watermain - at a much lower cost than full main replacement. Modern water treatment will improve water quality entering the distribution system; it will remove and inactivate harmful microorganisms, remove turbidity and colour, reduce levels of disinfection by- products (THMs /HAAS), and stabilize the water for distribution. This stable water will have less chlorine demand, so chlorine residuals will be easier to maintain through the distribution system and the water will be less corrosive to materials such as cast iron pipe. However, to ensure that improved water quality (from treatment) can provide these benefits to all users across the distribution system, many more kilometres of existing pipelines must be cleaned of tuberculation. Group S. Conservation and Community Engagement Water use efficiency is important to both the economic and environmental aspects of water system sustainability. A progressive community mindset of quality service, "win - win" conservation and water use efficiency practices calls for ongoing dialogue and full engagement of the public. People who understand the full value of safe, clean drinking water will expect high standards and support sustainable water use. The best, most economical means of meeting "new" water needs into the future is conservation now. The system model being developed presumes the capacity to service future growth in Saint John exists within current levels of consumption. M1 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN PAGE 14 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 Planning has assumed that consumption can be moderated and system leakage reduced such that sizing of the treatment facility is significantly less than first contemplated. Also, the growth forecasted by Plan SJ will require water service capacity. Reducing high demand will prevent future problematic service situations; with a right- sized water treatment plant and no barriers to growth. Aggressive leak detection across the system, with a comprehensive schedule of repair and rehabilitation, would reduce water loss and help ensure treatment capacity that will support growth well into the future. Group 6. Fire Fighting and Operational Storage Needs" Latimer Lake and Spruce Lake provide an essentially unlimited quantity of water for firefighting and emergency conditions (failure of critical water systems components). Introduction of a treatment plant into the water system will restrict supply to the plant's production capacity (100 ML /day), plus the amount of water stored in system reservoirs. Industry practice prescribes that storage reservoirs should provide quantities adequate to satisfy consumer demand during emergency operating conditions; typically, sufficient storage to cover 12 to 24 hours. A recent study of Canadian municipalities reported that 75% had at least 24 hours of system storage based on average day demand. The "Water System Improvements" preliminary engineering report (CBCL Limited) summarizes that Saint John currently has 27.3 million litres (ML) of system storage and with a treatment facility should have a minimum capacity of 43.4 ML. Value Engineering considered this minimum and recommended further investigation. Consequently, this has determined that future system storage should be as much as 69.9 ML - based on the City's needs and objectives, such as firefighting capability and service requirements. Given the importance of this issue to firefighting capability, SJ Water and the SJ Fire Department have been jointly assessing storage needs; in terms of Fire Underwriters grading procedures and risks associated with peak fire events. SJ Water has also considered the operational aspects of scheduled maintenance shutdowns or failure of critical system components. Response times of 12 hours or more could be needed depending on type and complexity of the emergency. To ensure continued water service, a sufficient quantity of water must be stored at strategic locations in the system. Based on a minimum storage requirement of 43.4 ML, an amount of 16.1 ML has been accounted for in the SCDW Program. Meeting full firefighting capability and operational needs (69.9 ML) calls for 26.5 ML (61%) more storage. (*The amount of storage ideally required is greater than that included in the Program.) Group 7. Delivery Risks and Service Reliability This group incorporates projects whose implementation would be deferred temporarily. Associated risk and reduced system reliability would need to be managed. The nature of this risk and the potential impact on reliability varies among projects. 45 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN PAGE 15 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 Loch Lomond will supply potable users city- wide, as well as large industrial flows East. Security of supply depends on assured flows through Robertson Lake (man-made, created by a dam) and tunnels under the Saint John Airport runways. Reliability of transmission would be greatly enhanced by a new 600mm main from Commerce Drive along Westmorland Road to Loch Lomond Road, a new 500mm main between the existing crossing north of Highway #1 near Marsh Creek and Metcalf Street, and a new 500mm main from Metcalf along Chesley Drive. These measures would also improve suction pressures at the Somerset and Reversing Falls (new) pumping stations. The realities of fiscal limitations will require projects like these to be delayed for at least a number of years, with associated risks duly managed to assure service reliability. Group 8. Universal (Residential) Metering Metering is a mandatory standard for any water system that seeks to be sustainable. Peak demand dictates system size and, as such, capital costs. Lowering peak demand saves money. While public education and regulations play a part in reducing water use, user pay and associated rate setting is the most effective means of managing demand. Consumers (large and small) respond to clear price signals. With pricing that is well structured, equitable, permanent, and understood by the public, consumers will see the value of investing in behaviours, equipment and appliances that use less water. The benefits of conservation and related price signals are largely lost, however, unless usage is measured. Metering benefits customers through the assurance of paying only for the water they use and reminds users that waste has a cost. It is well established that water meters positively influence consumption; residential per capita water use is consistently lower for metered municipalities across all size ranges. Metering also supports greater accountability and better deployment of repair resources. Many chronic water system problems are often symptomatic of over- consumption. Group 9. Development and System Extension The southeast area of the water system needs a stronger connection to the transmission backbone to assure reliable service to residential and industrial customers, as well as for future connection to the Harbourview Subdivision. Potable water in this currently serviced Red Head neighbourhood is now drawn from municipally- operated wells and pumped through a local distribution system to residential customers. The system is currently being upgraded to provide disinfection, but has no fire protection capability. .. SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN Group 10. Projects Completed PAGE 16 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 Substantial progress was made in 2010/11 on seven Program projects valued at over $20 million completed through the Canada- New Brunswick Infrastructure Stimulus Fund. C - PROGRAM SCHEDULING From the prioritized groupings, Program projects were then organized into a long- range schedule that seeks to be both financially realistic and effective in terms of addressing the most critical drinking water needs of this community, while duly balancing risk. To that end, projects groups were categorized as follows: Groups 1. 2 and 3 ... immediate implementation The highest priority (most essential) elements; scheduled over a 4- year period ( "preferred ") from 2012 to 2015 and the basis for the Program funding request. Groups 4 and 5 ... direct Utility funding and /orFCM GM Fund These immediately essential projects would be funded either by the Utility, through Gas Tax Fund allocations or in partnership with the FCM Green Municipal Fund. Group 6*... separate funding (fire flows /operational storage) Expanding system storage capacity would involve a separate (future) program based on operational service and fire flow (Fire Underwriters' report) requirements. Group 7... deferred implementation Deferred implementation would mean managing certain risks until completion of the highest priority works; and securing funding for these projects at a later time. Groups 8 and 9 ... future implementation Projects identified for future implementation would proceed when deemed most appropriate by the City of Saint John and Saint John Water. The Gantt chart at Appendix "A" shows project phasing, with summary descriptions, current estimates and a tentative Program schedule. Detailed scope of projects and the timeliness of implementation will influence costs. D - AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS The fourth stage involves analysis to confirm general affordability of enhanced drinking water; to understand the cost impact on the water utility and its ratepayers. Based on a long-term financial plan, the process should model spending forecasts, contributions from others, and life cycle costs. It would predict future water rates and confirm that the costs of debt can be managed by the Water Utility. It is recognized by most that understanding the Utility's ability to meet its financial obligations arising from planned Capital investments is vitally important. This 47 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #3 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 282 SAINT JOHN PAGE 17 NOVEMBER 3"°, 2011 assessment will seek to confirm that the value of those investments more than balances with the benefits to be accrued by the community and water users. Utility budget capacity is limited and increasing costs generally are forcing all governments and their agencies to carefully weigh the economics of services, growth, system development, Capital construction, and operation of facilities. As part of full "system" consideration, this analysis should cover the entire program life-cycle from initial development through to eventual replacement. It would be carried out under the auspices of the Commissioner of Finance, with support from Saint John Water. No single formula will precisely define "affordability ". From a micro- perspective, an affordable system means one procured when needed within budget, operated at the desired level of performance and maintained through a planned life-cycle, with implementation risks minimized. At a macro-level, affordability involves broader considerations; overall budgets, competing resource uses, and the degree of fiscal inflexibility typically associated with large Capital investments. Affordability also goes beyond lowest construction or acquisition cost. An affordable system must meet required thresholds for total operating costs, viable cash flow within the larger contexts of the City and the Utility, and support of overall community growth and quality of life for citizens. The recommendations being made and the need for affordability analysis have been reviewed with the Commissioner of Finance. He will offer his perspective on affordability and funding of the schedule of projects being proposed. .• PROGRAM STRUCTURING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPENDIX B SAFE CLEAN DRINKING WATER PROGRAM (HIGHEST PRIORITY ELEMENTS: GROUPS 1, 2, & 3) VERSION #2 SCDW Essential Projects & Funding Oct 30, 2011 @2100 4 Year Plan 49 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total [0 -0] 100 MUD Water Treatment Facility [0 -1] 100 MUD Water Treatment Facility Design $2,807,143 $1,392,857 $4,200,000 [0 -2] 100 MUD Water Treatment Facility Construction $20,599,404 $41,042,752 $40,106,416 $101,748,572 [1 -0] Robertson Lake Dam and Tunnels under Airport Runways [1 -1] Robertson Lake Dam Design $160,000 $160,000 [1 -2] Robertson Lake Dam Construction $2,592,565 $2,592,565 [1 -3] Robertson Lake Tunnels under Airport Runways Inspection $260,000 $260,000 [2 -0] Latimer Lake Intakes and Dam Upgrades [2 -1] Latimer Lake Intakes and Dam Upgrades $75,000 $75,000 [4 -0] Transmission to Treatment (Lakewood Pump Station to WTP). [4 -A] Pre - Design study of the Transmission system in the vicinity of the WTP $75,000 $75,000 [4 -1] Transmission to Treatment (Lakewood Pump Station to WTP) Design. $300,000 $150,000 $450,000 [4 -2] Transmission to Treatment (Lakewood Pump Station to WTP) Construction. $2,251,288 $4,485,522 $4,383,190 $11,120,000 [5 -0] Transmission East (WTP to Sandbank Hill). [5 -1] Transmission East (WTP to Sandbank Hill) Design. $333,333 $166,667 $500,000 [5 -2] Transmission East (WTP to Sandbank Hill) Construction. $2,450,370 $5,034,745 $4,919,884 $12,405,000 [6 -0] Transmission East - Central (Sandbank Hill to Marsh Creek) [6 -1] Transmission East - Central (Sandbank Hill to Marsh Creek) Design $100,000 $100,000 [6 -2] Transmission East - Central (Sandbank Hill to Marsh Creek) Construction $2,115,000 $2,115,000 [7 -0] Transmission Central (Marsh Creek to Metcalf Street) [7 -A] Transmission Central (Marsh Creek to Metcalf Street) Pre - Design $250,000 $250,000 [7 -3] Transmission Central (Marsh Creek to Metcalf Street) Clean & Line $1,396,000 $1,396,000 [9 -0] Transmission Chesley Drive (PRV 107 to Reversing Falls Bridge) [9 -3] Transmission Chesley Drive (PRV 107 to RF Bridge) Rehabilitate Douglas $266,000 $266,000 [10 -0] Transmission Reversing Falls Bridge. Construction [15 -0] North End Storage Reservoir [15 -1] North End Storage Reservoir Design $150,000 $150,000 [15 -2] North End Storage Reservoir Construction $3,770,000 $3,770,000 [16 -0] Storage Reservoir at WTP Site [16 -1] Storage Reservoir at WTP Site Design $348,659 $1,341 $350,000 [16 -2] Storage Reservoir at WTP Site Construction $2,061,091 $3,133,334 $2,823,575 $8,018,000 [16 -A] Additional Storage Reservoir Pre - Design $125,000 $125,000 [17 -0] Reversing Falls Booster Pump Station [17 -1] Reversing Falls Booster Pump Station Design $130,000 $130,000 [17 -2] Reversing Falls Booster Pump Station Construction $3,050,000 $3,050,000 [18 -0] Spruce Lake Pump Station Upgrade $239,639 $219,362 $459,000 [20 -0] West System Modifications [20 -1] West System Modifications Design $50,000 $50,000 [20 -2] West System Modifications Construction $350,000 $350,000 [20 -3] West System Modifications Rehabilitation $500,000 $500,000 [20 -4] West System Modifications Design $50,000 $50,000 [20 -5] West System Modifications Construction $927,000 $927,000 [21 -0] Ocean Westway Rehabilitation (Spruce Lake to Gault Road) $3,350,000 $3,350,000 [23 -0] East Pressure Modifications [23 -1] East Pressure Modifications Design & Construct $496,198 $3,802 $500,000 [25 -0] New Industrial Transmission (Lakewood PS to Sandbank Hill) [25 -1] New Industrial Transmission (Lakewood PS to Sandbank Hill) Design $225,000 $225,000 [25 -2] New Industrial Transmission (Lakewood PS to Sandbank Hill) Construction $4,763,000 $4,763,000 Total $5,059,135 $38,693,583 $63,444,190 $57,283,229 $164,480,137 SCDW Essential Projects & Funding Oct 30, 2011 @2100 4 Year Plan 49 City Manager's Office Bureau du directeur general www. saintjohn. ca November 4, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors, Re; Revised Pension Plan Reform Proposal Background P.O. Box /C.P. 1971 Saint John, NB /N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 The financial position of the City of Saint John Pension Plan has deteriorated considerably since the market decline in 2008. Liabilities for future pension obligations continue to grow with each year of service while market returns on investments have not met the targeted amounts. The plan now has a $131M going concern deficit and given the current market downturn it is unlikely that the plan will meet the needed 2011 investment returns. A concerted effort has been made during the last 18 months to find an effective resolve to the funding deficit. The City has consulted with the pension plan actuary, the municipal employee groups and the provincial regulator to identify a balanced and sustainable solution. The City submitted a reform proposal to the province in early 2011. A detailed analytical review revealed that while the proposal improved the affordability of the plan there remained an unacceptable level of risk that the plan would fail in future years. This analysis necessitated revisions to the original proposal with a more aggressive reduction in benefits and the use of more conservative long -term assumptions. A range of scenarios with different combinations of changes were developed and assessed. Staff worked with the Provincial regulator to ensure that the selected approach would meet their requirements. The purpose of this report is to recommend a revised reform proposal for submission to the Province. Stakeholders Employees have a very real and personal interest in any proposed changes to the plan. Pension benefits represent the largest single asset for most employees other than their home. There is therefore a real reluctance to introduce any change that may negatively impact these benefits. In addition to the 1 50 employees there are also a significant number of other stakeholders that have an interest in any potential changes including —The City as Plan sponsor, the Superintendent of Pensions as plan regulator, the Province of New Brunswick as legislator, Retirees as plan beneficiaries, the Pension Board as administrator /trustee on behalf of the beneficiaries, and the taxpayer as the sponsor's main revenue source. Context The pension funding shortfall is not unique to the City of Saint John. Several other cities in the Province are in a deficit position as are certain provincial employee plans. Likewise the same situation prevails across the country as plan sponsors struggle to determine how to fund promised benefits in a period of economic decline and low interest rates. The ability to provide sufficient income during retirement for the coming retirement wave is a matter that raises significant public policy considerations that goes well beyond the scope of this report. These policy considerations could however influence the legislative environment for pension plans in future years. There is already active discussion at both the Federal and Provincial levels of government about the need for pension reform and any future legislative changes could have a direct bearing on the City of Saint John Pension Plan. Plan Structure Defined Benefit Plans are structured such that an employer promises a specific benefit usually earned for each year of service to be paid to the employee at retirement. In general both the employer and employee contribute a percentage of earnings during the employee's working career to help fund this promised benefit. Investment returns during the life of the plan are intended to generate the largest portion of plan assets used to fund the promised benefits. The employer takes the responsibility and risk to ensure that there will be sufficient funds available to meet the defined pension obligation. The Pension Benefits Act in the province also reinforces this promise by setting out various provisions to protect these earned /promised benefits and to ensure that sufficient assets are available to fulfill this promise. The City of Saint John pension plan is a defined benefit plan. What is the current funding position of the pension plan? (Schedule A) As of December 31, 2010 the City of Saint John has a going concern deficit of $131,356,000 and a solvency deficit of $218,007,000. The plan had $372M in assets and accrued liabilities of $503M. Approximately $236M of the liabilities relates to active employees contributing to the plan and $352M arises from benefits owing to retirees. The plan is considered a mature plan in that the number of retirees is roughly equal to the number of active employees. 2 51 How did this going concern deficit arise? The plan was in a surplus position in 2000 ($24.3M). A deficit of $43.5M was reported in 2003. In 2006 the plan reported a smaller deficit of $31.OM. In 2009 the actuarial valuation identified a going concern deficit of $129M. The report shows that approximately $92M of this amount arose because of lower than anticipated returns in the plan mainly because of the market downturn in 2008. In addition, other factors such as changes in actuarial assumptions offset by some experience gains contributed to the overall deficit. What is the financial impact of this shortfall on the City? What are the long -term risks? (Schedule B) Without any reforms, the City would have to contribute approximately $6.75M annually for current service costs, $13.6M annually for previous arrears for a total of $20.3M annually. This would mean an increase in annual funding from the current budget of $13.OM to $20.3M in 2012. This additional annual funding would be equivalent to 12.2 cents on the tax rate. In simple terms, the tax rate would have to increase from $1.785 to $1.907. The negative implications of a $1.91 municipal tax rate in the province cannot be understated. It would discourage new housing, commercial and industrial growth in the City and cast a decidedly negative impression of the City. If the local economy suffers, so will Provincial coffers. The alternative is a major reduction in services ($73M) in order to maintain the tax rate. Taxpayers will react negatively to vastly reduced services in order to fund increased contributions to the employee pension plan particularly when this is avoidable with joint action by the City, employees and Province. Because of the nature of Defined Benefit plans, City would also continue to be exposed to cover the cost of any additional funding shortfall if the plan does not meet its targeted annual return on investment. What options are available to address the going concern deficit? In practical terms the options are relatively straight forward, the City can increase its payments to the plan to cover the going concern deficit by increasing the tax rate, reduce services to offset the increased cost and maintain the tax rate, adjust the benefit provisions in the plan to reduce the overall cost to a more affordable and sustainable level or exercise some combination of the three options. What legal considerations must come into play? Pension plans in NB are governed by the provisions of the Pensions Benefit Act and related regulations. Any change to the City plan must comply with these requirements. Paramount in the Pension Benefits Act provisions is the protection of accrued benefits and the obligation to dispense with any funding shortfall in a plan. A change in benefits can affect beneficiaries on a go- forward basis, on a retro- active basis or both. There are strict limitations on what if any changes can be made on a retro- active basis. 3 52 A change to the Pension Benefits Act is required in order to suspend earned benefits. An adverse change to benefits requires that plan members be notified in advance and that they be given an opportunity to voice their support or objections to the proposed changes. In addition, the City of Saint John Pension Act is a private act and any change in the benefit provisions of the plan must be submitted to the Private Members Committee for consideration. There is a hearing process and both the proponents and opponents of the proposed amendments are given an opportunity to present their position. Finally, the plan is also registered with the Canada Revenue Agency for income tax purposes and the plan provisions cannot conflict with the registration requirements. What other considerations must come into play in any proposed solution? Beyond the legal requirements, the plan must be affordable for both the plan sponsor and the plan contributors and just as importantly the plan must be financially sustainable over the long -term. Pension benefits in defined benefit plans are in effect a long -term promise to pay. Critical assumptions must be made today about future interest rates, the best asset mix, projected rates of return, mortality of plan members, retirement dates, length of service etc. Each of these assumptions has a direct impact on determining not only the funding position of the plan but more practically how much money must be put in the plan today in order to meet the pension promise of tomorrow. These assumptions are determined by the Board of Trustees based on the advice of their professional investment managers and the plan's actuary. The assumptions are also subject to approval of the Superintendent of Pensions. The more conservative the assumptions (lower rates of return, longer life span etc.) the greater the current level of funding required to meet the future obligations. What is meant by sustainability? How is it determined? Why is it relevant to the City plan? From the financial perspective, sustainability means there will be enough funding available over the life of the plan to pay all of the promised benefits. The challenge is that the future is uncertain. A statistical method called Stochastic Testing is used to develop over a thousand scenarios based on different combinations of assumptions over an extended period of time. From this statistical method risk factors are determined about the likelihood (probability) of the plan attaining certain levels of funding sufficient to meet its obligations. During the review of the original reform proposal it was determined that there remained an unacceptable risk of plan ruin even with the planned changes. This led to the conclusion that even more aggressive action was required in order to put the plan on a sustainable financial footing. The revised proposal (S7) has been assessed and meets the sustainability requirement. 4 53 Have the employee groups and retirees been involved in the reform discussions? From the outset the City invited representatives from the various employee groups and retirees to participate in the reform process. All information was made available to the representatives and a broad range of ideas and suggestions were developed and evaluated during the course of the reform process. The current proposal is a refinement of a scenario presented to employees within the last month. The interests of the various parties do not readily align and achieving a common consensus on a comprehensive approach as to how to best address the funding issue(s) has not been achieved. The responsibility therefore rests with the plan sponsor to take definitive action. Is support of the employees /retirees necessary in order to proceed? What is their position? There is no legal requirement for employees /retirees to support the proposed reforms. In fact, pension benefits are not matters covered by the various collective agreements. The plan is however governed by an Act of the legislature and it would be easier to secure the needed changes if there is support from those most affected. Opposition to proposed changes can result in delays or a lack of action. From the outset, the City decided it did not want to act in an arbitrary or heavy handed fashion given the importance of retirement benefits to its plan members. The various employee groups and retiree representatives have been ongoing participants in the reform process. While they have expressed a willingness to support the original proposal (Option A) they have expressed opposition to further reductions in benefits in particular the suspension of accrued indexing and the elimination of overtime from pension calculations. In both cases it must be noted that the plan changes are not intended to penalize the plan members but are intended to protect the core plan benefits over the long -term and ensure that the plan is indeed sustainable and affordable over time. The reality is that the proposed reforms are a deliberate attempt to ensure that the promised pensions are in fact available in the future and absent these needed changes there is a real risk that not only will there be no indexing but the very pensions themselves will have to be substantially reduced. What if the employee groups and /or retirees object to the proposal? While employees and retirees were prepared to accept the suspension of indexing on a prospective basis as set out in Option A, the loss of accrued indexing represents a significant financial impact to these individuals and runs contrary to the current legislative provisions that protect accrued benefits. The reality is that the plan cannot afford to provide indexed pensions. The plan is in a very weak financial position and should the plan fail then the actual pensions would have to be reduced substantially. By suspending all accrued indexing until such time as the plan is in a position to afford this benefit, the pensions of both active members and retirees are being protected. 5 54 As noted previously, affected employees and retirees will be given an opportunity to voice their concerns during the legislative amendment process. The Provincial government will then have to weigh the concerns of these individuals against the real need to address the funding deficit in the plan and the overall impact on the taxpayers and the community if plan changes are not implemented. What happens if there is a delay in obtaining the needed legislative changes? There will be no adverse financial impact if the needed legislative changes are delayed but are made effective January 1, 2012. If however, the effective date of the changes is delayed then the costs will continue to rise monthly. If the changes are not implemented then the increased annual contributions of $7.33M will come due. This will in turn create a large operating deficit and necessitate either a substantial tax rate hike or a consequent reduction in services. What approach is being recommended? (Schedule C —S7) The key elements of the revised proposal included; • A reduction in the projected rate of return in the fund from 6.5% to 6.0% to reduce volatility • Adoption of a de- risking strategy to rebalance the asset mix in line with the mature nature of the plan • Adoption of a comprehensive funding and benefits policy to determine the distribution of future surpluses, when benefits are reinstated etc. • Revision of the mortality assumption to reflect national standards (more conservative) • Base salary averaging period increased from 3 years to 5 years for all employees on a prospective basis • Accrued post- retirement indexing suspended for all active employees until plan is funded 110% • Indexing on future service eliminated until the plan can afford to reinstate (ad -hoc basis) • Employee contribution rate fixed at 9.0% of regular earnings • Overtime pay excluded from definition of earnings on a go forward basis • Retiree indexing suspended effective December 31, 2011 until the plan is funded 110% • Age 60 as earliest retirement date for new hires after January 2012 with a 7% contribution rate • Consolidation of previous deficits into one annual payment • Amortization of going concern liability over a 15 year term • City to make minimum annual contribution of 21% of payroll until the plan is fully funded • City will continue to be responsible for any additional losses incurred in future years What is the impact on employees? The contribution of employees is not insignificant. Under the proposed reforms they would; • Have all accrued indexing suspended until the plan is in funding position to absorb costs • See a reduction in the value earned pension benefits from 21% to 16% of payroll • Make a weekly contribution of 9% of regular pay to the plan 0 55 • Extend the average earning period from 3 years to 5 years • Agree to a two year wage freeze • Have overtime removed from the definition of earnings on a go forward basis In addition, new hires (January 2012) would have a substantially reduced benefit scheme; • Defined benefit plan based on five year averaging period • Unreduced retirement at age 60 instead of Rule of 85 • No Indexing in the plan • Overtime would not pensionable • A 7% Employee contribution rate based on +/ -14.0% plan value It should be noted that the changes will have no direct impact on the earned pensions of active employees other than the suspension of indexing. The impact of the elimination of overtime from the earnings calculation and elimination of indexing on a go forward basis will vary depending on the nature and length of service of individual employees. What is the impact on retirees? Under this proposal, retirees would continue to get the pensions they have received as of December 31, 2011 however indexing would be suspended on a go- forward basis until such time as the plan is in a financial position to begin to reinstate some indexing. The history of indexed benefits is particularly relevant in this instance. Originally, City pension benefits were not indexed. Any increase was provided on an ad- hoc basis. In 1996 the plan was in a surplus position and indexing at the rate of 2.0% was introduced for service after 1992. Again in 2000 the plan was able to extend indexing at the rate of 1% for service from 1975 to 1992. The then employees and now retirees did not in fact pay for indexing over the course of their careers. The plan provided indexation when it was in a financial position to do so and it is now in a serious deficit position and can no longer afford to pay indexed benefits. From an internal equity perspective the suspension of indexing for retirees also recognizes that the liability for retiree benefits represents over half the current funding shortfall and that some contribution from retirees towards the pension solution is a necessity. As pointed out above, absent reforms, the very plan benefits themselves will be at risk. Suspending indexation is not very palatable for retirees but their current pensions will not be reduced. What is the impact on the City's budget as the plan sponsor? Until the accrued indexation that was removed is fully restored, the City of Saint John must make a minimum contribution of 21% of payroll to the pension fund. For further clarity, in years where a contribution of less than 21% is required, the City will nonetheless make a contribution of 21% of payroll to the fund. In years where a contribution of over 21% of payroll is mandated, the City will make the higher contribution. 7 56 In dollar terms this equates to approximately $13.1M in the 2012 budget. As the calculation is based on a percentage of payroll, as the payroll costs increase so will the absolute dollar amount increase in each subsequent year. Notwithstanding the proposed reforms, the City's annual commitment to funding the pension plan will be substantial and represents about 22 cents for current service cost and deficit payments. When would the suspended indexed benefits be reinstated? The proposal would require that indexing not be restored until the funding ratio in the plan is at 110 %. It is likely that this would be done on an incremental basis as the plan's financial position permits. The funding ratio of the plan is currently 70% and would move to approximately 80% with the proposed reforms. Is the reform proposal balanced and reasonable for employees, taxpayers and retirees? Given the magnitude to the going concern deficit and the weak financial position of the pension fund it must be recognized that aggressive changes are required in order to restore the plan to a strong financial position and avoid the risk of plan failure. In other words, the solution will be painful for all stakeholders. At the same time, it was understood that a heavy handed approach that unfairly burdens one group at the expense of another would not be well received by the provincial government. • In the case of the employees they are contributing approximately $75M in accrued plan benefits in order to ensure that base pensions are available in future years. • In the case of the City as the plan sponsor, the City will be obligated to contribute 21% of payroll or $13.1M in 2011 dollars (CSC and Arrears) each year to the plan for a minimum of 15 years ($195M). The City also retains liability should future plan losses arise. • In the case of retirees they are contributing approximately $40M by forfeiting accrued indexing benefits until the plan can afford to pay the cost of these benefits in order to ensure that their full pensions will be paid. In effect, each of the three key stakeholders will be making a real and substantial contribution to correcting the funding situation in the plan. The value of the combined reduction in plan benefits for retirees and actives equates to approximately $9.OM per year or 15 cents on the tax rate. The value of the $13.1M City payment equates to approximately 22 cents on the tax rate. Are there amounts outstanding for 2010 and 2011 while the reform process was underway? Given that the original reform proposal did not proceed, the City's monthly contributions to the plan since January 2010 have been lower than required. The City made a retroactive payment in 2011 of $8.7M to settle the 2010 arrears. It is estimated that the shortfall for 2011 will be approximately $7.OM. The City is obligated to make this payment to the plan. The actual monthly payment schedule was built around the original plan reforms and was not an attempt to avoid responsibility for the obligation. M 57 The City has submitted a request to the Department of Local Government seeking to have the 2010 and 2011 payments recognized on our financial statements over a 10 year period in keeping with the long- term nature of the plan liabilities. Approval of this request will avoid the requirement to post substantial operating deficits in 2010 and 2011 and just as importantly avoid unnecessary tax rate increases in subsequent years. The Department of Local Government has advised that this request will be considered as part of the overall reform initiative and discussions are ongoing to resolve the issue. How do the proposed changes address the issues of affordability and sustainability? The proposed reforms address these matters in a variety of ways; • Immediately reduces discount rate to 6.0 %- reduces volatility (risk) but increases liability by $26.OM • Eliminates loading on mortality rates — more realistic assumption on future mortality • Reduces value of pension plan from21% to 16% - substantial reduction in employee benefits • Move to a more balanced asset mix in line with maturity of membership • Elimination /suspension of indexing for actives and retirees reduces plan liability by approximately $75.OM and shares responsibility for putting the plan on stable financial footing • Increases funding ratio from 70% to 80.8% - immediately strengthens funding ratio by 10% • Reduces going concern liability from $131M to $88.31VI (with more conservative assumptions) • Allows for immediate payment of 2010/11 arrears with 10 year deferral • Adoption of changes sets annual cost +/- $13.11M (S7)— allows margin of flexibility to absorb anticipated market losses in 2011 What about the impact of losses in the current year? The current market volatility although not as severe as that of 2008 is posing an additional financial risk to the plan. An analysis by the plan actuary shows that at a breakeven point (0% return) the plan sponsor would have to contribute an additional $1.9M annually to make up for the shortfall. The actual funding requirement will be lesser or greater depending on the financial results at December 31, 2011. As a rule of thumb each one percent variation in return will mean a $310,000 positive or negative impact on the $1.9M estimate. This additional obligation has been considered in the reform process. Why not just convert the existing plan to a Defined Contribution (DC) plan? As noted previously the plan has a solvency deficit of approximately $218M. If the plan benefits were converted to a defined contribution structure the full liability would come due immediately. The City simply does not have $218M available to cover this cost. Why not offer DC benefits on a go- forward basis? The proposal reduces the level of defined benefit for new hires by approximately one - third. Employees have already expressed concerns based on internal equity (ie that two employees doing the same work 0 would be receiving different levels of benefits). They also argue that the loss of over $75M in benefits is a more than fair contribution from plan members towards solving the pension shortfall. Our actuary has also advised that a change of this nature would actually increase costs in the short term and that any financial benefits would not be realized for about 20 years. Furthermore, the going concern deficit ($131.OM) relates to benefits already earned so moving to a DC plan would not eliminate this liability and the additional payments cited above would still have to be paid. Notwithstanding these concerns the potential to transition to a DC plan on a go- forward basis should remain an option should the plan's financial position not begin to improve over a reasonable time frame. What are the next steps? What is the time line? The first requirement is to submit a formal request to the Province (Dept. of Justice) to consider the revised reforms. If a favourable response is received then the formal drafting of the amendments to the City of Saint John Pension Act would be completed and translated. During the drafting process a number of key provisions would have to be identified including the trigger points for restoring indexing that has been suspended, the actual distribution between retirees and actives etc. City staff would work with the plan actuary and Provincial regulator to finalize these requirements. The formal legislative amendments would then be approved by Council and submitted to the Province to begin the enactment process. If the Province responds in the negative to the revised proposal, it would then be necessary to ascertain exactly what requirements must be addressed so that timely amendments can be made. The status quo in the plan is not a financially viable option. The original target remains the fall sitting of the legislature however this time line is very tight. Should the provincial authorities decide to proceed in the spring sitting then as noted previously it is imperative that the needed amendments be made retro- active to January 1, 2012. Are there are other scenarios available? The most straightforward scenario is that the City as plan sponsor just accept the increased cost, not make any plan changes, adopt more conservative assumptions and either increase the tax rate or reduce services. This approach is not only short - sighted in that it would not address the underlying financial weakness in the pension plan but it would also create a tax rate environment that would discourage new investment and growth in the community. The City working with the plan actuary also developed a scenario that would have accrued indexing reduced by 1% instead of the full 2 %. The only way this is affordable is if the payment term on the deficit is extended to 20 years and the assumed rate of return is set at 6.25 %. The extended term and a higher interest rate assumption increase the risk of plan failure and this option was determined not to be sustainable. 10 59 What other benefit changes were considered? Consideration was also given to other benefit changes including integrating CPP /OAS with the plan benefits, using career average earnings in the benefit calculation and eliminating the LTD provisions in the plan to name a few. The only way to reduce deficit payments is to reduce liabilities and liabilities are for benefits already accrued. In the case of integration, this would impact only the current service cost. It would therefore be for future service only but the impact would be less than eliminating indexation. It was decided to eliminate indexation on the principle that it is better to retire with a higher pension rather than to retire with a lower pension but with indexation. The elimination of indexing also reduces the overall plan risk for the sponsor. As to the use of Career Average Earnings, this would have had a significant financial impact (6% of payroll) in addition to the loss of indexing and was deemed an excessive change for active employees. Changing to career average would decrease the value of the plan from 16% of payroll to 10 %. It would not have been possible to then keep employee contribution at 9% therefor career average plan was excluded. Elimination of LTD benefits was also contemplated however concern about the cost and availability of LTD coverage outside of the plan for high risk professions and the use of tighter administrative practices to assess disability claims led to the conclusion that there would be only marginal benefit to implementing this change. Should however the proposed suspension /elimination of indexing in the plan not receive the required legislative approvals then each of these options will have to be reconsidered. In this case a defined contribution plan for new hires could also become an option. Our actuaries also advised against creating what they referred to as 'benefit cliffs'. For example if you have a benefit now and retire you retain it but if you wait until January 1S` to retire you lose the benefit. This approach poses the risk of creating an unusually large number of retirements in the current year. What are the risks of the proposed reform? Undoubtedly the most significant risk is that the needed reforms not take place on a timely basis. The elected members of Council and the Legislature may be faced with vocal opposition to the planned reduction in benefits. Inaction will not only expose the taxpayers in the community to a substantial tax rate increase and /or service reduction but will also mean even more aggressive action on plan benefits will be required in the future as plan liabilities continue to grow each month. There is also a risk that plan members acting either individually or collectively, launch a legal challenge to the proposed changes to either delay or prevent their implementation. What, if any, challenge would be successful can be nothing more than a matter of speculation at this time. 11 •1 Finally, there is no way of accurately determining when the suspended indexing can be reinstated. Poor market conditions could mean that benefits are not restored for an extended period of time. Human Resource Implications Council should be aware that a reduction in pension benefits can have an adverse impact on employee retention and recruitment. The consequence of the proposed changes cannot be measured definitively however it is anticipated that some employees will deem it appropriate to retire earlier than planned and some employees may opt to move to other employers with better overall compensation. There could also be a negative impact on employee morale and labour- management relations as the benefit reductions are implemented. Conclusion The City of Saint John Pension Plan is burdened with a $131M going concern deficit as at December 31, 2010. Left unattended, the City as plan sponsor would have to increase its annual contribution to the plan from approximately $13.OM to $20.3M or $73M annually. This would necessitate a 12 cent increase in the municipal tax rate. Neither this level of annual funding nor a major increase in the tax rate is affordable or desirable. A detailed analysis of the financial position of the plan also indicated that there is an unacceptable risk of plan failure and that changes to the long -term plan assumptions and the asset mix are required in addition to the supplementary funding in order to render it sustainable. Simply put, the plan is in need of fundamental reform if it is to be both affordable and sustainable. Several scenarios were developed to address these issues. The recommended approach is both sustainable and affordable and meets the established requirements. The proposed reforms reduce benefits for active employees by suspending accrued indexing, eliminating indexing on future service, extending the salary averaging period, and removing overtime in the calculation of pensions. New hires would have no indexing and would also be required to work until age 60 to qualify for an unreduced pension. In addition, the retirees would have their indexing suspended as of January 2012 until such time as the plan could afford to reinstate the benefit. Finally, the City would be required to provide annual funding to the plan equal to a minimum of 21% of payroll costs in order to help restore the financial position of the fund. It is estimated that taken together the reforms will immediately increase the funding ratio of the plan from 70% to 81% and significantly reduce the risk of plan failure. Overall the proposed reforms while aggressive are reasonable and balanced and reflect the need for each of the key stakeholders to make a real contribution to solving the pension funding dilemma. The requirement for timely action cannot be overstated in order to avoid increased liabilities and the need for more aggressive benefit reductions. 12 61 On a final note, some may suggest that other changes would be more appropriate. The proposed model is integrated and balanced. In order to reduce the financial impact on one group it will mean an increased financial demand on another group so as to still achieve the desired reductions. It is incumbent on those advancing alternatives to demonstrate that they are fair to all and will actually be effective in addressing the reality of the financial shortfall in the plan. Input from Other Sources The City Solicitor, Commissioner of Finance and Plan Actuary have provided input in the report and recommendation. Recommendation RESOLVED that Common Council adopt Option S7, as described in the October 28, 2011 correspondence in this matter from the City Manager addressed to Common Council, as the framework for amendments to the City of Saint John Pension Act; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Province of New Brunswick be formally advised accordingly; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager, the Commissioner of Finance and the City Solicitor be directed to develop, in conjunction with the Superintendent of Pensions and AON Hewitt, and submit to Common Council for its consideration and decision, the details of the terms governing the reintroduction of suspended indexing. Respectfully submitted, . Patrick Woods CGA City Manager 13 62 Gregory J. Yeomans CGA MBA Commissioner of Finance Schedule A ru R"'an, Section 1: Going Concern Valuation Results Going Concern Financial Position of the Plan The going concern valuation provides an assessment of the Plan's financial position at the valuation date on the premise that the Plan continues on into the future indefinitely. The going concern financial position of the Plan as at December 31, 2010 is shown in the following table. The results as at December 31, 2009 are also shown for comparison purposes. Going Concern Financial Position December 31, 2010 December New assumptions Previous assumptions 31, 2009 M M (s) Assets Market value of invested assets 372,228,000 372,228,000 332,653,000 Smoothing adjustment 0 0 0 Total assets 372,228,000 372,228,000 332,653,000 Liabilities Active members 215,896,000 212,963,000 208,463,000 Retired members and beneficiaries 287,085,000 281,817,000 253,250,000 Deferred vested members 164,000 161,000 146,000 Outstanding refunds 439.000 439.000 0 Total liabilities 503,584,000 495,380,000 461,859,000 Surplus / (Unfunded liability) (131,356,000) (123,152,000) (129,206,000) Actuarial Report as at December 31, 2010 City of Saint John Pension Plan Aon Hewitt I ©Aon Consulting Inc. 2011 —All Rights Reserved 63 7 City of Saint John Budget impact of Pension Funding Assumptions: Unconditional grant Tax base growth Financial impact: Current service cost Past service cost Base level funding required Current funding level Change in required funding Tax rate impact no change 3.00% Anticipated 2011 shortfall based on Investment returns Additional funding required Tax rate impact ($600,000 = 1 cent) Schedule B Without With Reform Reform Package Package Difference 4,038,000 6,754,000 2,716,000 7,331,000 13,589,600 6,258,600 11,369,000 20,343,600 8,974,600 13,005,000 13,005,000 - 13, 005, 000 13, 005, 000 - 1,636,000 7,338,600 8,974,600 2.70 12.20 1,827,000 1,827,000 - 191,000 9,165,600 8,974,600 0.30 15.30 Schedule C CITY OF SAINT JOHN PENSION PLAN SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ASSUMPTION CHANGES, S2 S7 Actuarial assumptions - Expected rate of return 6.00% 6.00% - Mortality table no loading no loading - Valuation of assets Market Value Market Value - Provision for fees (6 %) Market Value No Benefit changes - Current members and retirees - Past service (prior to Jan 1 2012) - FAE 3 3 - Post retirement indexation no change suspended - Unreduced retirement age no change no change - Salary definition no change no change - Future accruals (Jan 1 2012) - FAE 3 5 - Post retirement indexation no change no indexation - Unreduced retirement age no change no change - Employee contribution 9% 9% - Salary definition no change base only - New hires - FAE 3 5 - Post retirement indexation no change no indexation - Unreduced retirement age no change 60 - Employee contribution 9% 7% - Salary definition no change base only Relief measures - consolidation of 2010 deficits no yes - amortization period 15 15 C:1Users\pw18561Documentsl[Copy of Summary scenarios _ g7 - adjot- S2378a8bonly- value]Feuil1 CITY OF SAINT JOHN PENSION PLAN SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ASSUMPTION CHANGES, nrAlrrlT /�i I A Alllrn A AIP P9 I Irr a A A n I rl1 C: \Users \pw1856 \Documents \[Copy of Summary scenari os6g7- adjot- S2378a8bonly- value]Feuil1 S2 1 S7 Assets 372,228 372,228 Liabilities: 535,501 460,494 (Deficit) (163,273) (88,266) Funding ratio 69.5% 80.8% CSC Employer ($) 7,144 4,038 CSC Employer (% payroll) 12.3% 6.9% Deficit payment ($) - Inc. 3 % 15,535 7,331 Deficit payment (% of payroll) 26.7% 12.6% Total Employer ($) 22,679 11,369 Total Employer (% payroll) 39.0% 19.5% Expected additional employer contributions due to 2011 losses ($) 15,535 1,827 Additionnal contributions (% of payroll) 26.7% 3.1% 2011 Payroll 58,284 58,284 2011 Budgeted Employer contributions 13,005 13,005 Gap 9,674 192 Tax rate impact (1 cent = $600,000) 16.1 0.3 C: \Users \pw1856 \Documents \[Copy of Summary scenari os6g7- adjot- S2378a8bonly- value]Feuil1 CITY OF SAINT JOHN PENSION PLAN SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF ASSUMPTION CHANGES, nrr.Irr1T /" I I A K Ir' r- r, A k I1 Pl I ir- . .r n r I i�r-. -. S2 S7 Probability of full funding after 25 years 67.7% 67.5% Probability of being funded below 70% 1.6% 1.8% 80% 6.6% 7.0% 90% 18.5% 18.9% 100% 33.7% 32.5% 125% 67.5% 65.7% 150% 83.4% 81.6% Average employer contributions (25 years) 5% 17.1% 8.4% 25% 22.0% 11.4% 50% 27.5% 15.8% 75% 33.3% 20.7% 95% 43.1% 28.9% Mean 28.4% 16.8% Standard deviation 7.9% 6.5% S2 S7 Average employer contributions First 5 years 5% 31.5% 12.8% 25% 37.9% 17.6% 50% 41.3% 20.7% 75% 44.6% 23.9% 95% 49.1% 28.1 % First 10 years 5% 23.6.% 10.3% 25% 32.2% 15.1% 50% 38.9% 20.0% 75% 45.1% 25.2% 95% 52.5% 32.0% C: \Users \pw1856 \Documents \[Copy of Summary scenarios_ V7- adjot- S2378a8bonly- value]Feuil1 67 City of Saint John Pension Plan Analysis of Retirees by Range of Pension Annual Pension Cumulative Range Number Percent Number Percent 0 to 4,999 17 2.06% 17 2.06% 5,000 to 9,999 64 7.74% 81 9.80% 10,000 to 14,999 88 10.64% 169 20.44% 15,000 to 19,999 82 9.92% 251 30.36% 20,000 to 24,999 101 12.21% 352 42.57% 25,000 to 29,999 101 12.21% 453 54.78% 30,000 to 34,999 94 11.37% 547 66.15% 35,000 to 39,999 99 11.97% 646 78.12% 40,000 to 44,999 66 7.98% 712 86.10% 45,000 to 49,999 45 5.44% 757 91.54% 50,000 to 54,999 34 4.11% 791 95.65% 55,000 to 59,999 29 3.51% 820 99.16% Over 60,000 7 0.85% 827 100.01% 827 68 22/09/2011 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -256 November 1St, 2011 m. His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council The City of Saint to Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Saint John Harbour Clean -Up This report will update Common Council on the Harbour Clean -Up Program. BACKGROUND Progress There has been tangible progress made in improving our community's wastewater service and, as a result, its water environment is getting much healthier. Waterways like the lower end of Marsh Creek (One -Mile House to Courtney Bay), Dutchman's Creek, the St. John River, Saint John Harbour and others that in 1993 received some 23.5 million litres of untreated, raw sewage effluents per day have been or are being cleaned up. Clean Water Environment Municipal wastewater effluents are among the largest sources of pollution, by volume, in Canadian waters. Untreated or inadequately treated wastewaters have serious impacts on aquatic life and the environment, contribute significantly to water pollution related health problems, and have adverse consequences for the economy. Alternatively, a clean water environment translates into better health, a more inviting waterfront and waterways, more positive economic opportunities (recreation, tourism, fishing), and enhanced quality of life. 1993 Wastewater Strategy Work towards these outcomes has been going on since the early 1990s, when the three levels of government studied the environmental quality of Saint John Harbour and wastewater treatment in Saint John. The 1993 Wastewater Strategy resulted; a comprehensive program of recommended improvements for the treatment of all collected wastewater effluents. Earlier Improvements A series of wastewater service advances were made prior to "Harbour Clean -Up ": Western Beaches Collection System (Phase I completed in 1995, Phase II in 1997); the major Churchill Boulevard Sewage Lift Station (1999); Kennebecasis Drive Lift Stations and Forcemain (2000); Millidgeville WWTP Sludge Dewatering Upgrade (2000); the Churchill Boulevard Sanitary Collector Sewer (2002); Millidgeville WWTP Expansion (2003); Taylor- McLaren -Sandy Point Sanitary Collector (2005); Spar Cove - Millidge Sanitary Collector (2006); and the Prince Street Sanitary Collector Sewer (2006). Design of the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility, undertaken by the City, was completed (and ready to go) in 2007. .• SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011- 256 NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 PAGE 2 HARBOUR CLEAN -UP PROGRAM The Province of New Brunswick committed its share of funding on October 4th, 2006. On September 17th, 2008, a contribution agreement with the Government of Canada for its share was signed, in follow -up to an announcement made on March 16th, 2007. The Saint John Harbour Clean -Up Program comprises two main components: I. Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility ( EWWTF); and II. Wastewater Collection System (see collection system upgrade map). Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility ( EWWTF) The contract for construction of the EWWTF was awarded by Council on March 16th, 2009 to Pomerleau Inc. and work began soon after on the site of the existing Hazen Creek WWT Plant on Red Head Road. The facility outfall contract was awarded on March 29th, 2010. Both projects are now close to substantial completion. Wastewater has been introduced to the new facility for processing and the plant is undergoing final testing and commissioning prior to being formally turned over to the City. Saint John Water is taking over operations and staff is becoming familiar with the modern equipment and the much advanced technology involved. The old Hazen Creek treatment plant has been demolished and removed. The new facility is one that Saint John will be proud of; it will serve the community for decades to come. Upon completion of collection system upgrades, the EWWTF will treat municipal wastewater effluents from serviced areas in East Saint John, the South - Central Peninsula, and neighbourhoods north of the Throughway. The three Saint John wastewater treatment facilities of the future - Lancaster, Millidgeville, and the new Eastern plant — will provide secondary level treatment and position this community well to meet its enviommental protection obligations. 70 SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011- 256 PAGE 3 Wastewater Collection System The wastewater collection and pumping system requires a total of 22 additional lift stations and new forcemain/collector sewers to be constructed. Work on these has progressed well, with the following projects tendered and constructed or underway: 1. Bayside Drive Sanitary Forcemain, Phase 1 and Phase 2 - completed; 2. Monte Cristo Lift Station #34 and Forcemain - completed; 3. Red Head Road Lift Station #1 - completed; 4. Red Head Road Lift Station #50 - completed; 5. Bayside Drive Lift Station #2 - completed; 6. Newmans Brook Sewer Separation - completed; 7. Spar Cove Lift Station #22 - completed; 8. Harbour Station SLS #10 and Forcemain - completion November 2011; 9. Riverview Avenue SLS #30 and Forcemain - completion November 2011; 10. Marsh Creek New Collector Sewer and Forcemain - completion June 2012; 11. Crown Street SLS #8 and Forcemain - completion June 2012; and 12. Bridge Street SLS #23 - completion June 2012. The rest of this year and next will be busy as remaining network components are tendered for construction in 2012. These lift station, forcemain and sanitary collector projects are generally smaller in scope than the works already completed or underway. The tendering period for each project is typically three weeks, with an additional two -week period for analysis, recommendation to Council and award of the contract. Construction would begin shortly thereafter, with all invoices, including holdback amounts, submitted before March 31 st, 2013. 71 SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011- 256 PAGE 4 The next group of wastewater pumping facilities, with associated forcemain and collector sewers, to be constructed are (tentative dates for tendering as indicated): 13. Milford Lift Station #32 - tender November 2011; 14. Tippet Drive Lift Station #33 - tender November 2011; 15. Chesley Drive Lift Station #I OA - tender November 2011; 16. Lower Cove (Water Street) Lift Station #9 - tender January 2012; 17. Bayside Drive (at Causeway) Lift Station #3 - tender January 2012; 18. Crown Street (Elliot Row) Lift Station #7 - tender February 2012; 19. Crown Street (King Street East) Lift Station #7A - tender February 2012; 20. Haymarket Square Lift Station #5 - tender February 2012; 21. Rothesay Avenue (at civic #175) Lift Station #6 - tender February 2012; 22. Riverview Drive (near Throughway) Lift Station #28 - tender March 2012; 23. Kennedy Street Lift Station #24 - tender April 2012; 24. Highland Road Lift Station #21 - tender April 2012; and 25. Main Street West Lift Station #31 - tender April 2012. Table 1 (attached) provides a status summary of all wastewater upgrade projects. The overall total estimated cost of the Harbour Clean -Up Program, as reported to Council on September 28th, 2009, is $99,400,000 including the City's eligible HST rebate. To date, the cumulative amount committed through award of program projects is almost $77,516,000. The current analysis of the package of Program projects indicates that overall costs will fall well within the $99,400,000 budget. THORNE AVENUE LIFT STATION #4 (MRIF) Thorne Avenue Lift Station #4 is the largest, most critical pumping facility in the City's entire wastewater system. Being constructed with funding support from the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (approved September 2006) and separate from the Harbour Clean -Up Program, it will receive and push flows from East Saint John, the South Central Peninsula and areas north of the Throughway to treatment at the new Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility. This "essential infrastructure" in relatively close proximity to the Bay of Fundy is being constructed as a Post - Disaster Facility - to withstand a 1 -in -100 year storm surge and continue to deliver service in the event of a disaster. Its location in the lower Marsh Creek drainage basin and required deep construction (15.4 metre depth of foundation) make for particularly challenging soil and ground water conditions. Common Council awarded the contract for construction to Castle Rock Construction Services Inc. on May 9th, 2011, with completion scheduled for June 2012. 72 SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011- 256 PAGE 5 The approved budget for the Thorne Avenue Lift Station #4 project is $16,820,000. MODERN FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Members of Council should visit the new Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility and other system upgrades as soon as possible. These works represent a lasting investment in our community's future. Photographs of the new EWWTF are attached. Saint John will soon reach its 100% treatment objective with a wastewater system that is modern and robust; one that will treat collected domestic sewage to demanding Canadian standards. We will move ahead of many communities in this regard. Emphasis going forward will need to be on properly maintaining this infrastructure - to ensure its reliability and to maximize its service life. Strengthened environmental regulations being introduced through the Canada -wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluents will also require careful attention to what is going into municipal sewer systems. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS - OPERATING COSTS Council should appreciate that the marked increase in the number of facilities and their operating requirements will mean higher overall operating costs for wastewater services. Although staff resources will not increase, added expenses for electricity, fuel, chemicals, property taxes, sludge disposal and the like will impact user charges. This has been recognized from the outset and highlighted in earlier budget reports. INPUT FROM OTHERS The Saint John Harbour Clean -Up Program has been a joint effort of several municipal departments, supported by engineering consultants and the construction industry. The Legal Department (most notably Lynda Farrell), Community Planning and Real Estate (Paul Wilson), Finance (Greg Yeomans and Hilary Nguyen), and Saint John Water Operations (Graham Huddleston and the wastewater treatment team) have provided invaluable support to Municipal Engineering (Brian Keenan, Kendall Mason and John Campbell). Each member of staff involved has provided exceptional service and made a lasting contribution to their community. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering 73 J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011- 256 NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 PAGE 6 TABLE 1: WASTEWATER PUMPING AND COLLECTION PROJECT STATUS Project Location Design/ Tender/ Property General Construction Comments Lift Station #1 Red Head Road Construction Land acquired Fairville Construction Ltd. complete (J.D. Irving) Contract #2010 -3 Lift Station #2 Bayside Drive Construction Land acquired Gulf Operators Ltd. complete (NB Power) Contract #2010 -2 Land acquisition to Tender Lift Station #3 Bayside Drive Design underway be finalized January 2012 (Irving Oil) Castle Rock Lift Station #4 Thorne Avenue Construction Land acquired Construction underway (Downey) Services Inc. Contract #2010 -1 Lift Station #5 City Road Design underway License Agreement Tender required (CN) February 2012 Lift Station #6 Rothesay Avenue Design underway License Agreement Tender required (CN) February 2012 Lift Station #7 Crown Street Design underway City property Tender February 2012 Construction Land acquired Fairville Lift Station #8 Crown Street underway (NB Housing) Construction Ltd. Contract #2011 -9 Land acquisition Tender Lift Station #9 Water Street Design underway being finalized January 2012 (SJ Port Authority) Construction near Fairville Lift Station #10 Harbour Station completion City property Construction Ltd. Contract #2010 -13 Land acquired Lift Station Chesley Drive Design underway (David and Abraham Tender #10A Inc. and NB November 2011 Southern Land acquisition Tender Lift Station #21 Highland Road Design underway finalized April 2012 (Four Star Leasing) Construction Galbraith Lift Station #22 Spar Cove complete City property Construction Ltd. Contract #2010 -24 74 SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011- 256 NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 PAGE 7 TABLE 1: WASTEWATER PUMPING AND COLLECTION PROJECT STATUS Design/ Tender/ General Project Location Property Construction Comments Main Street — Construction Galbraith Lift Station #23 Robertson's Square underway City property Construction Ltd. Contract #2011 -12 Land acquired Tender Lift Station #24 Kennedy Street Design underway (Applied Pressure April 2012 Inc) Highway Usage Tender Lift Station #28 Riverview Drive Design underway Permit required March 2012 (NBDOT) Construction Galbraith Lift Station #30 Falls View Drive underway City property Construction Ltd. Contract #2011 -10 Lift Station #31 Main Street West Design underway Land acquisition Tender required April 2012 Lift Station #32 Milford Road Design underway Partial street closure Tender completed November 2011 Lift Station #33 Dominion Park Design underway City property Tender Road November 2011 Construction Galbraith Lift Station #34 Monte Cristo Park complete City property Construction Ltd. Contract #2009 -19 Construction Land acquired Fairville Lift Station #50 Red Head Road complete (J.D. Irving) Construction Ltd. Contract #2010 -3 Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Area Construction Land acquired Gulf Operators Ltd. Collector Sewer underway (J.D. Irving) Contract #2011 -11 Newmans Construction Land acquired ACL Construction Brook Sewer Sandy Point Road complete (NB Supply & Contract #2009 -36 Separation Services) Bayside Drive Construction Gulf Operators Ltd. Force Main Bayside Drive complete Street ROW Contract #2009 -5 Phase 1 Bayside Drive Construction Gulf Operators Ltd. Force Main Bayside Drive complete Street ROW Contract #2010 -2 Phase 2 75 doft �o 8 Z v v �Z v ° =, �on O aja I gx ig O v Fri v c n O m O D N i w D 0 x v M --AM D� �gm 1 to m M Z� x m m mm � m; �r M > N > Z m (A ro > w SL) p a o > 0 m 4 -An 07 N >D Z N N m -j Co # oc Z Q X D :E D m X O r rs:t Z n o � 0 z C K N D 1 Cl) r �J CO O w r N w c � Fx CO) — T a i�.:'f Pig - O D N i w D 0 x v M --AM D� �gm 1 to m M Z� x m m mm � m; �r M > N > Z m (A ro > w SL) p a o > 0 m 4 -An 07 N >D Z N N m -j Co # oc Z Q N r cn CO) — i�.:'f Pig - � L r r A N CD N N N r O - r � N �i7 W co ono ooxux x ZDX ZZOO o VI Gn y N � 0�0� 0 C r C � C 0) UM 00 N =IM Z n0000 OA mm0-,1 cn ;u0 00�p r zxm cO�m mO <n�� D z - �Dm C Z f�Tl M OX Z N r N N N r N r o do yD a� O O O m N - O O O -vow— I SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -256 EWWTF PHOTOS SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP PROGRAM EASTERN WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, RED HEAD ROAD Former Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant EWWTF - Excavation underway for foundation construction (Old Hazen Creek WWTP in operation during entire construction) 77 SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -256 EWWTF PHOTOS EWWTF - foundation and building construction underway EWWTF taking shape including excavation for marine outfall pipe SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -256 EWWTF PHOTOS EWWTF Outfall Pipe with concrete weights EWWTF - Operations and Control Centre, Laboratory, and Training Building 79 SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -256 EWWTF PHOTOS EWWTF Blower Building (Blowers, UV Disinfection, PLC Room, Back -up Power Generation, and Activated Sludge Pumping) EWWTF Blower Building — 3 Blower Units 4 :1 SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -256 EWWTF PHOTOS Blower Building - Activated Sludge Pumping Equipment Main Processing Building (Coarse Screening, Influent Pumps, Aerated Grit Chambers, Sludge Pumping/Dewatering, Grit and Sludge Removal) a SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -256 EWWTF PHOTOS Main Processing Building - Headworks Equipment Main Processing Building - Sludge Thickening Equipment M SAINT JOHN HARBOUR CLEAN -UP NOVEMBER 1ST, 2011 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -256 EWWTF PHOTOS Main Processing Building - Sludge Dewatering Equipment (2 units) Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility (Building in foreground maintained from former Hazen Creek Plant) W REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -272 October 17, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility Design and Construction Management and HADD Compensation PURPOSE 71r � I The City of Saint john The purpose of this report is to update Council on the status of the engineering services (design and construction management) for the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility project and the required HADD compensation as a result of the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat necessary during construction of the marine outfall for the treatment facility. BACKGROUND EWWTF Design and Construction Management On July 19, 2004 (M &C 2004 -202), Council approved the engagement of CBCL Limited to provide engineering services (design and construction management) for the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility ( EWWTF). The proposed cost of the work from CBCL Limited at that time was $3,197,460 including HST. On April 20, 2009 (M &C 2009 -102), Council approved that the design and construction management fees for CBCL Limited be increased to $3,437,360 as a result of additional work carried out by CBCL Limited. ANALYSIS EWWTF Design and Construction Management The original request for proposal (RFP) document was prepared by staff and was advertised in 2004 as a public call for proposals. The RFP document contained a detailed project scope and described the proposed schedule for the construction of the EWWTF. The Proposal submitted by CBCL Limited for design and construction management was based on an 18 month construction schedule for the EWWTF and the EWWTF Outfall. When a tender was issued in 2008 it was decided to allow 800 calendar days (approximately 27 months) for construction of the EWWTF to ensure that the City received the best possible tender pricing. It was felt that a tighter completion schedule would likely result in higher tender prices. The City's current policy is to M & C 2011 — 272 October 17, 2011 Page 2 compensate the engineering consultants for construction management based on the actual construction duration. CBCL Limited is requesting an amount of $367,520 for construction management services carried out over an additional nine month period. EWWTF Outfall HADD Compensation The EWWTF Outfall project required that material be excavated in the intertidal area of the Bay of Fundy near Hazen Creek, Red Head Road. As part of the environmental approvals for undertaking the work, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Authorization for Works or Undertakings, Affecting Fish Habitat requires that the project owner provide compensation to offset the environmental implications of the project. The construction of the outfall was deemed by DFO to result in a harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat thus creating the need for a Fish Habitat Compensation Plan in compliance with the Fisheries Act of Canada. DFO has stipulated that the compensation restoration be carried out within the Hazen Creek Watershed. The compensation plan was drafted in conjunction with CBCL Limited and the Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP) Saint John group. The plan outlined the proposed elements of restoration within the Hazen Creek Watershed. DFO reviewed the compensation plan and determined that five of seven submitted restoration projects be completed as part of the HADD compensation for the EWWTF Outfall construction. The City of Saint John must complete five restoration projects by November 30, 2012 to offset the effects of the EWWTF Outfall construction. The HADD Compensation projects are outlined as follows: 1. Whitebone Way Culvert — The structural integrity of the culvert located on the upstream side of Whitebone Way has failed. Spring freshets have physically moved the metal culvert out of the stream channel. The stream now runs through a crack in the bottom of the culvert at the point where the deflections begins. The lack of structural integrity reduces fish passage and creates opportunities for sediment to enter the stream via the eroding and undercutting road bank. To remediate the problem, the existing culvert will be replaced with a bottomless culvert and the length reduced to prevent it from extending past the upstream bank. Gabions will be installed on the upstream bank to ensure bank and culvert stability, and to direct flow into the culvert. On the downstream side of the culvert, a series of pools will be created to step the watercourse down the existing levels. 2. Hazen Creek Access Road Culverts — An access road running parallel to Hazen Creek contains two hanging culverts that create an impassable barrier to fish. The two culverts will be replaced with two bottomless culverts to facilitate fish passage. On the upstream and downstream sides of the culverts, a series of pools will be created to step the watercourse up /down to existing levels. 3. Hazen Creek — The lower reach of Hazen Creek has "blown out" during the spring freshet and has become braided, resulting in the loss of a definitive stream channel and extremely shallow water. These conditions create a lack of low water fish habitat and a barrier to fish passage during low water conditions. The original stream channel will be identified for re- establishment and a new channel will be created, the banks and riparian areas will be reinforced, and all unnecessary woody debris will be removed. Finally, wing deflectors, upstream of the braiding, will be installed to direct the creek flow into the new channel. L-IR M & C 2011 — 272 October 17, 2011 Page 3 4. McAllister Industrial Park Culvert — A hanging culvert that emerges from beneath the train tracks in the McAllister Industrial Park creates a barrier to fish passage. The barrier will be removed by modifying the downstream side of the culvert to create an apron/sluiceway. A series of pools will be constructed to step the watercourse down to a level that may be passable for fish. Culvert replacement is not included in the scope of work. 5. McIlveen Drive — A deteriorating bank downstream of McIlveen Drive is causing sediment and woody debris to enter the stream. The bank in the area of the problem will be reinforced with large rock to build up the base height of the bank. Also, the slopes of the bank will be revegetated and all unnecessary woody debris will be removed. The extent of the HADD compensation was not known at the time of the engagement of CBCL Limited in July 2004. The authorization for Works or Undertakings Affecting Fish Habitat was received by the City from DFO in January 2010 which document defined the compensation projects that the City was to complete. The fee for CBCL to carry out design and construction management for the HADD compensation projects is $94,850, based on an estimated four week construction management period. The estimated cost for construction of the five compensation projects if $400,000. The HADD compensation project would be tendered in accordance with the City's Tendering Policy for Construction Contracts. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Both the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility and Outfall contracts are projected to be completed well under the contract award amounts. There is sufficient funding available within the cost projections presented at the time of the contract awards to cover the HADD compensation project cost of $494,850 and the additional CBCL fee of $367,520 related to the EWWTF construction period. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that: 1. The Engineering services agreement with CBCL Limited for Design and Construction Management of the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility project be increased from $3,437,360 to $3,899,730 as outlined in this report. 2. The HADD compensation projects in the Hazen Creek Watershed area with a construction budget estimate of $400,000 be designed and tendered under the Harbour Clean -Up Program in accordance with the City's Tendering Policy for Construction Contracts. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. J. Patrick woods, CGA Commissioner City Manager Municipal Operations & Engineering 0 November 3, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Interim Financing Parking Garage Background: At the meeting of Common Council held on October 25th, 2010 the following resolution was adopted: "Resolved that Common Council hereby authorizes a loan to the Saint John Parking Commission to be available should construction of the Peel Plaza Parking Garage so- called proceed, in an amount not to exceed eleven million dollars ($11,000,000) at an interest rate and net price to be as determined by the market at the time of the City's issuing the pertinent debenture to the New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation; such loan to be for a term mutually agreed to by the City and Parking Commission, but not exceeding twenty -five years in any event, and having loan repayments which are synchronized with the repayment scheme established by the aforesaid debenture." Analysis: As Council is aware construction of the parking garage is underway. The budgeted cost of the parking garage is $16,546,400. In the normal course of operations when the City undertakes the construction of a capital project progress payments are required to be made to the developer on a regular basis based on the costs incurred on the project. The funds used to make these payments are taken from the City's cash holdings. However when sufficient funds are not available, the City utilizes a bridge financing credit facility that it has with Scotiabank, the City's Council appointed service provider of banking services. The above referenced Council resolution, related to the funding of the parking garage provides authority to borrow up to $11,000,000 to finance the Saint John Parking Commission `s share of the cost of the project through the issue of a debenture to the New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation. However the resolution does not provide authority for the City to provide interim financing of the project to the Saint John Parking Commission. As is the case with all capital projects there is the need to make progress payments as the project proceeds. /_'AN), — — — SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L7 I www.saingohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 M November 3, 2011 Subject: Interim Financing Parking Garage Page 2 The Parking Commission does not have sufficient cash to fund construction of the project nor does it have a credit facility upon which it can draw to fund the project until its completion and a debenture has been issued. In addition as noted above, the cost of the project is $16,546,400. Council is aware of an agreement with the Province of New Brunswick to provide funding of a portion (approximately 40 %) of the capital costs of the project following the date of substantial completion. Since this funding will not be available until 45 days after substantial completion of the project interim funding is needed to support the entire construction cost of the project. It is proposed that Common Council authorize staff to provide, via the City's bridge financing credit facility, interim funding for the construction of the parking garage at the rate of interest the City is charged on advances drawn on its credit facility until such time as the funding from the Province has been received and the debenture has been issued. All interest and costs related to the provision of this interim funding to be paid by the Parking Commission. Recommendation: "RESOLVED that the City's bridge financing credit facility be made available to provide interim funding for the construction by the Saint John Parking Commission (the Parking Commission) of the Carleton - Sewell Street Parking Garage (the Parking Garage) to a maximum of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) on condition that the Parking Commission shall pay, as they become due, the associated interest charges calculated at the rate charged to the City from time to time for draws made in that regard; such arrangement shall continue until the Province's capital funding contribution to the construction of the Parking Garage has been received and the City's Debenture to fund the Parking Commission's share of the capital costs of the Parking Garage has been issued; AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the City enter into an agreement with the Parking Commission reflective of the terms described herein as well as those contained in the Council resolution of October 25, 2010 which authorized a loan from the City to the Parking Commission for the construction of the Parking Garage. Respectfully Gregory��eomans, CGA, MBA Commi oner of Finance REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -285 November 1, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Simms Corner / Bridge Road - Retaining Wall Repairs PURPOSE 71r � I The City of Saint john The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to add a project to the 2011 General Fund Capital Program for the repair of a section of the Simms Corner / Bridge Road retaining wall. BACKGROUND The retaining wall is located adjacent to the Simms Paint Brush Factory. It is constructed from cast in place concrete approximately 177 meters long and varies in height up to a maximum of 3.7 meters. This wall provides support for the Bridge Road roadway, adjacent curb and sidewalk and guide rail. The wall is severely deteriorated and there are a number of large sections of concrete that have separated from the wall and are leaning past vertical and are causing a significant safety hazard to the public. Staff believe that ownership and responsibility for the retaining wall rests with the Province but have yet to receive a response on the ownership issue from the Province. ANALYSIS GENIVAR Inc. was engaged by the City to carry out design for the Simms Corner / Bridge Road Corridor realignment. The retaining wall was evaluated in conjunction with this design project. City staff and GENIVAR Inc. have recently inspected the retaining wall and determined that it is unsafe in its current state. Since the Simms Corner / Bridge Road reconstruction project timeline is uncertain, it would be prudent to repair the existing wall now. The current design drawings for the road reconstruction project propose that the majority of this wall be removed and replaced with a landscaped slope so staff are recommending repairs to the retaining wall at this time as opposed to complete replacement. Where ownership of the retaining wall has yet to be resolved, staff propose that the City effect the necessary repairs and invoice the Province for the cost of the design and construction associated with the repairs. :• M &C2011 -285 November 1, 2011 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It is anticipated that design and construction costs for the retaining wall repairs will be approximately $400,000 including the City's eligible HST rebate. Staff recommend adding a project to the 2011 General Fund Capital Program so this important project can proceed now. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that: 1. The 2011 General Fund Capital Program budget be increased by $400,000 for the Simms Comer/ Bridge Road— Retaining Wall Repairs project. 2. Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for engagement of Professional Services, Common Council authorize staff to conduct negotiations for the engagement of GENIVAR Inc. to carry out design and construction management services for the Simms Comer/ Bridge Road— Retaining Wall Repairs project. 3. Notwithstanding the City's Tendering Policy For Construction Contracts, Common Council authorize staff to request quotations from three private construction companies who have been engaged in the type of work specified in order to expedite the completion of the repairs with the understanding that staff will report back to Council with a recommendation for a contract award. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager .E REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL November 2, 2011 M &C2011 -281 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: King Street East On- Street Parking BACKGROUND 71n The City of Saint john At its April 11, 2011 meeting Common Council resolved by way of submission by Councillor Norton "that Council refer to the appropriate staff and request to a review of parking on King Street East between the blocks of Carmarthen and Wentworth and Pitt and Crown streets with regard to exempting those streets from alternate side street parking so as to permit parking on both sides of those streets within the limits of the specified streets." This report updates Council with the results of staff's review. The yellow bordered areas in the below aerial photograph are the two King Street East blocks in question. Both blocks contain a centre landscaped median. The block between them (Wentworth to Pitt) has no centre median. IN % S,i 4 r 1i .may I j1 Y�..�. 3j 4 �r L fiI0_ CA-Ilk } 1 _ *.r. sr IL 91 M &C2011 -281 November 2, 2011 Page 2 Systemic changes to on- street parking in the South Central Peninsula, including on King Street East, occurred in the fall of 2003. A comprehensive study, which included community consultation, led to these changes. The goal of this study was to improve livability for residents of the Peninsula by finding a balance between the unique demand for on- street parking with keeping their streets clear of snow in the winter and clean for the remainder of the year. Implemented recommendations of this study included the creation of the South Central Overnight Parking Ban that is called when needed for snow clearing; Alternate Side Parking semi - monthly that permits snow clearing between called Bans as well as street sweeping in the other three seasons; and expansion of the Residential Parking Permit Program (RPPP) that exempts residents from time -based parking restrictions applicable to other vehicles. All three of these implemented recommendations work hand -in -hand to improve livability in the Peninsula. Following the first winter of the above - mentioned implemented recommendations members of the Saint John Parking Commission and Municipal Operations met again with residents to discuss the outcomes of the new program. While the vast majority of feedback received was positive the need for more on- street parking on King Street East was communicated by some attending residents. In light of the feedback and recognition of the issue staff reviewed options including permitting parallel parking on both sides of the one wider block with no centre median (Wentworth to Pitt), permitting angled parking on both sides of this block, and permitting perpendicular parking along the centre of this Wentworth to Pitt block where a median would otherwise exist. The first option was implemented via a Council- endorsed amendment to the City's Traffic By -Law in the fall of 2004 and was meant to be temporary at the time. The third option was also considered viable until it was discovered it would not adhere to the Motor Vehicle Act. Parking on both sides of this block became the permanent solution. A subsequent Update to the original residential parking study for the Peninsula, which included further public consultation, was completed in 2009. This update concluded that there were specific "parking pressures" on some street blocks, including two blocks of King Street East (Wentworth to Crown) where on- street parking demand was reaching the available supply. These blocks were called "Friction Areas ". The Update noted that parking demand related to nearby commercial uses may be contributing to some of these Friction Areas, including commuter parking. The Update suggested study of this commuter parking in residential zones could identify problem areas and further changes to the RPPP program and /or increased enforcement of vehicles that are not linked to the RPPP. The Update also re- iterated that the RPPP was developed based on zones and not individual streets and therefore some blocks may experience parking demand close to or at supply but other near -by blocks within the same zone would have parking availability. The Update also commented on the potential influence on demand of vehicles parked on- street by residents with off - street parking availability. ANALYSIS Councillor Norton suggested in his letter another alternative solution to on- street parking supply and demand issues in one of the defined Friction Areas (King Street East). It is clear from the preamble of his letter that convenient near -by parking is one important factor that contributes to the livability in the Peninsula. The suggested solution of permitting parking on both sides of the above -noted blocks would increase parking supply, which generally would create more 92 M &C2011 -281 November 2, 2011 Page 3 availability of closer on- street parking of those living on these blocks. To exempt these blocks from the alternate side parking regulation, the following amendment to the City's Traffic By- Law would be required followed by changes to on- street signage: Delete King Street East with Limits of Carmarthen Street to Wentworth Street from Schedule H -1 Delete King Street East with Limits of Pitt Street to easterly end of King Street East from Schedule H -1 Add King Street East with Limits of Crown Street to easterly end of King Street East to Schedule H -1 The created alternate side parking regulation provides more opportunity to clear snow from streets outside of times when the Overnight Parking Ban is called. Snow can to be cleared from one side of the street for half of the month then the other side for the remainder of the month without the presence of parked cars. The temporary Overnight Bans are absolutely necessary for public safety reasons but staff is very cognizant of the associated inconvenience to residents in deciding when one is required. The complimenting alternate side parking regulation can limit the number of Overnight Bans required, particularly during the middle and end of the month when parked vehicles are switching from one side of the street to the other. Residents' participation in developing and implementing this combined system was key given the associated inconveniences. In the end, wider streets with cleared snow create a more livable and safer city. These combined regulations also limit the need for sporadic parking bans on individual Peninsula streets; these sporadic bans require implementation of individual notification processes to affected vehicle owners and can be less predictable for residents. An alternate side parking exemption for the Wentworth to Pitt block of King Street East was previously recommended by staff and supported by Council through changed regulations. In this case the exemption best contributed to livability as the wider street could accommodate both parked vehicles, space for traffic flow and space for minor encroaching of snow banks into the parking and vehicle lanes that would otherwise be more regularly removed with alternate side parking. Snow removal on this single block can coincide with the Overnight Ban if required. The Carmarthen to Wentworth and Pitt to Crown blocks of King Street East are narrow due to the centre median, which is more typical of the width available for parking and traffic lanes in the Peninsula with the alternate side parking regulation in place. Encroaching snow banks into the parking and vehicle lanes without the ability to more effectively remove it using alternate side parking can quickly decrease the already narrow width, which would not contribute to livability. Staff also went further and considered an option of creating alternate side parking on either side of the centre median of these two blocks, essentially treating the two lanes as their own "street" to increase parking supply. This option was discounted for three reasons: (1) This would also allow parking that is in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act, (2) This may add to confusion as every other street in the Peninsula with alternate side parking is treated as a whole street, and (3) For six hour periods twice per month vehicles are actually permitted to park on both sides of the "street ", which would significantly narrow the width available for a traffic lane during these times. 93 M &C2011 -281 November 2, 2011 Page 4 On- street parking supply remains adequate for the demand when considering each RPPP zone as a whole. Supply on some individual streets, such as King Street East, may not be adequate at times but the RPPP program was set up in such a way that near -by streets should have additional capacity during these periods. This same larger "zone" approach has been used by staff in assessing where exemptions could be made to the Overnight Winter Parking Restriction introduced in 2009 that is applicable on most remaining City streets. Other options to provide better on- street parking availability to those residents who need it include means of decreasing or not contributing to further parking demand. These options are recommended by staff. Continued enforcement of time -based restrictions discourages non- residents from parking in RPPP zones. This is particularly applicable to King Street East given its proximity to commercial areas of the Peninsula. Residents that have driveways should park in them; this can be managed by the Parking Commission by continuing to issue RPPP permits only to those residents without off - street parking options. Considering on- street supply and demand when land development projects that propose use of on- street parking are requested can avoid creating further Friction Areas. Implemented initiatives such as the Comex by the Transit and Parking Commissions as well as future initiatives such as improved cycling and pedestrian facilities envisioned in P1anSJ decreases the reliance on the automobile and thus demand for parked vehicles at one's destination in the Peninsula. Such examples of reducing on- street parking demand are recommended by staff to address concerns by residents of King Street East or other Peninsula streets rather than increasing on- street parking supply. INPUT OF OTHERS The Saint John Parking Commission has been consulted for its experience in managing parking in the South Central Peninsula. Staff was also in contact with a resident of King Street East to identify the issues and potential solutions from the perspective of the neighbourhood. The resident indicated that on- street parking demand within the Carmarthen to Wentworth block appeared higher with daytime demand potentially impacted by the nearby commercial area. An opportunity to decrease demand through continued enforcement of time -based parking restrictions (maximum 2 hours, 8 AM — 5 PM on King Street East) was reinforced through this conversation. CONCLUSIONS Much study and public consultation since 2003 has occurred in finding the best means of contributing to livability for residents of the South Central Peninsula. A balance between on- street parking requirements and clear streets has been paramount. With some minor revisions the implemented Residential Parking Permit Program, the South Central Overnight Parking Ban, and Alternate Side Parking has achieved this balance. King Street East is one street in the Peninsula where on- street parking demand from residential and nearby commercial properties reaches available supply. Parking supply was increased on this street in 2004 by permitting parking on both sides of the wider street block. Near -by streets 91 M &C2011 -281 November 2, 2011 Page 5 within the same RPPP zone should accommodate additional demand when required. Other staff - recommended means of reducing parking demand can further reduce times when there is no available parking directly on King Street East. A Council- adopted referral to consider permitting parking on both sides of two additional blocks of King Street East (Carmarthen to Wentworth and Pitt to Crown) is not recommended by staff. These two blocks are narrow, typical of Peninsula Streets that would be significantly impacted by encroaching snow banks along the street that cannot be effectively removed without alternate side parking. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 95 SAINT JOHN BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS PO Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick Canada E21L 4L1 Bureau des Commissaires du Service de Police de Saint John C.P. 1971 Saint John Nouveau - Brunswick Canada E2L 4L 1 CHRISTOPHER WALDSCHUTZ Chair/ President DAVID EMERSON Vice Chair/Vice President MARY - EILEEN O'BRIEN Secretary/Secr6taire MAYOR IVAN COURT Commissioner/ Commissaire JONATHAN FRANKLIN Commissioner /Commissaire PETER MCGUIRE Commissioner /Commissaire TIMOTHY CHRISTIE Commissioner /Commissaire WILLIAM G. REID Chief of Police /Chef de Police JACKIE FERRAR Executive Administrator/ Secr6taire Administrative Telephone/T616phone: (506) 674 -4142 Fax/T616copieur (506) 648 -3304 E- mail /Courriel: )olicecommission(o)saintiohn. c SAINT JOHN Explore our past/ Explorez notre passe Discover your future/ D6couvrez votre avenir November 2, 2011 PUBLIC SESSION M &C 2011 -283 Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Saint John Police Force - August 2011 Financial Results At the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners meeting on November 1, 2011 the following resolution was passed - RESOLVED that the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners accept and approve the Financial Report for the period ended as at August 31, 2011, and forward a copy to Common Council as required under Section 7(3) of the New Brunswick Police Act. Yom truly, Christopher Waldschutz Chairman Saint John Board of Police Commissioners /jaf encl. M REPORT TO COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC SESSION November 1, 2011 Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission Chairman Waldschutz and Members SUBJECT Operating Budget — August 2011 Financial Results BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a update on the financial position of the Saint John Police Force's Operating Budget for the second trimester ended August 31, 2011. FINANCIAL POSITION/RESULTS For the period ended as at August 31, 2011, the Saint John Police Force was under budget by $598,069 or 3.89 %. There were six key revenue /expense categories that contributed to this temporary budget variance for the second fiscal reporting period in 2011. 1. Revenue Offsets - $590,090. 2. Salaries and Wages were under budget by $117,757. 3. Overtime costs exceeded budget by $250,010. 4. Wage costs for On -Call and Court Time were over budget by $95,455. 5. Fringe Benefits were under by $13,149. 6. Good and Services were under budget by $222,537. 97 Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission November 1, 2011 Page 2 Subject: 2011 Operating Budget — August YTD Financial Results Budget Analysis REVENUE OFF -SETS The $590,090 is a credit against operating expenses. The revenue recovered for Secondments, Peacekeeping Missions, and Extra -Duty assignments are a direct offset to officer wages and overtime costs respectively. Budget Revenue Source Variance Prisoner Lodging (2,000) Accident Reports $2,567 Taxi Licences $19,995 Security Clearances $651 Secondments and Peacekeeping Missions $418,215 ETS Contract — Pt. Lepreau (8,334) Extra -Duty Billings $158,996 $590,090 SALARIES AND WAGES Police officer salaries were under budget by $105,757. This variance results from retirements during 2011 and a recruitment campaign has commenced to fill vacancies. OVERTIME Local 61 The overtime costs were over budget by $250,010. The Patrol Division accounted for $139,208 and the Criminal Investigation Division was over budget by $104,511. There was a complex homicide investigation in 2011 for the Criminal Investigation division that contributed to the significant increase in overtime. This overall variance in overtime for both divisions is reduced by $158,996 in revenue that was recovered for extra -duty assignments. Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission November 1, 2011 Page 3 Subject. 2011 Operating Budget — August YTD Financial Results OTHER PERSONNEL COSTS On -Call Pay On -Call Pay is over budget by $27,744 and this over expenditure is reduced by $25,000, which reflects the bi- annual charge to Pt. Lepreau for Emergency Tactical Services (ETS) members that are on -call each week. Court Time - Local 61 The cost for court time exceeded budget by $67,586. GOODS & SERVICES The various Goods and Services accounts were under budget by $222,537. This favorable variance at the end of August is a timing difference between the monthly budget allocation and purchases for vehicles, equipment, supplies, and maintenance contracts on software and other technology. YEAR END FINANCIAL PROJECTION The August financial report continues to be the reference point used to project the final budget results at year -end while recognizing there often is unforeseen incidents that may occur at an operational level during the last trimester that can substantially increase overtime costs. Based on monthly financial meetings with members of the senior management team, all pending expenses have been accounted for and there are no major events anticipated that should increase overtime costs for the last reporting period in 2011 The revenue sources from Secondments, Peacekeeping Missions, Extra -Duty, and all cost recovery from Criminal Intelligence Service New Brunswick (CISNB) for special joint operations will continue to reduce the salaries and overtime costs for the organization. .. Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission November 1, 2011 Page 4 Subject. 2011 Operating Budget — August YTD Financial Results Based on all known variables that may have a direct impact on the 2011 Operating Budget, the projected year -end financial position for the Saint John Police Force is estimated to be the approved budget of $22,899,426 with no significant variance anticipated. RECOMMENDATION • It is recommended that the Board accept and approve this Financial Report for the period ended as at August 31, 2011 and forward a copy to Common Council as required under Section 7 (3) of the New Brunswick Police Act. Attached reports and documents: Budget Variance Analysis — August 30, 2011 Consolidated Statement of Operations — Comparative Report 2011 vs. 2010 Respectfully submitted, Av4"S'. Marven E. Corscadden, CGA William D. Todd DIRECTOR HR & FINANCE OFFICER CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CHIEF OF POLICE 100 Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission November 1, 2011 Page 5 Subject. 2011 Operating Budget — August YTD Financial Results BUDGET VARIANCE ANALYSIS For the Period Ended August 31, 2011 Budget Expenses Variance Current Variance is: Timing Actual $ 15,375,990 $14,777,921 $598,0691 $598,069 $14k. Expense Category Variance Explanation of Variance Revenue $590,090 Prisoner Lodging ($2,000) Accident Reports $ 2,567 Taxi Licences $19,995 Security Clearances $651 Secondments and $418,215 Peacekeeping Missions Pt. Lepreau (8,334) Extra -Duty Billings $158,996 $590,090 Salaries & Wages $117,757 e Salaries- Non -Union under budget by $14k. • Salaries -Local 486 under budget by $28k. • Police Officer salaries are under budget by $106k and this amount results from vacancies in 2011. • Salaries -Temp over budget by ($36k) and the offset is in 486 and Local 18 salaries. 9 Salaries -Local 18 under budget by $9k. Overtime ($250,010) . Overtime -SJPA- Patrol: Over budget by ($139k) and this amount is reduced by $159k in revenue charged for Extra — Duty assignments. • Overtime -SJPA- Criminal Investigations: Over budget by ($105k) and this amount is reduced by $159k in revenue charged for Extra —Duty assignments. 101 Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission November 1, 2011 Page 6 Subject: 2011 Operating Budget — August YTD Financial Results Exaense Cateeory Variance Explanation of Variance Other Personnel Costs ($95,455) On -Call: On -Call Pay is over budget by ($28k) and this amount will be reduced by the annual charge to Pt. Lepreau for $50,000 to charge for ETS members that are on On -Call each week • Court Time: Over budget by ($68k). Fringe Benefits $13,149 . Benefits are calculated at 24.5 %. This expense is directly proportional to actual wages and other earnings for the year. General Services $14,055 o No significant variance at the end of August 2011 other than the timing difference between the budget allocation and the acquisition of goods & services or the receipt of vendor invoices. Insurance $29,102 . Vehicle Insurance: The actual premium cost for insurance coverage in 2011 (fleet and facilities) was $21 k less than anticipated. • Deductible Account: Under budget by $8k and this relates to the timing of any charges back to Police for insurance claims from 3`d parties. Professional Services $26,697 . Legal Expense — Over budget by ($30k) and this expense relates to labour negotiations with police union and arbitration hearing. • Detention Security - This expense is under budget by $231k and this is the timing difference between the receipt of the vendor invoices (one month in arrears) and the actual budget allocation. 102 Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission November 1, 2011 Page 7 Subject. 2011 Operating Budget — August YTD Financial Results Expense Cateciory Variance Explanation of Variance Other Purchased Services ($27,210) • Purchase Services - This expense is over budget by ($34k) and this is the timing difference between the monthly budget allocation and the acquisition of services Repair & Maintenance ($50,635) . Computer Maintenance ($51 k). This variance relates to the necessary expenditure in 2011 for new interviewing technology and equipment for all interview rooms. This new technology is transferrable to One Peel Plaza. Rentals ($50,250) Vehicle Rentals -SCU - This expense is over budget by ($14k) and this represents the additional rental of unmarked vehicles for Street Crime Operations. • City Hall Rental - The annual lease charge for City Hall has increased by $40k from $915K to $955k and this additional lease cost was not known in 2010 and budgeted for in the current ear. Purchased Goods ($2,617) • Other Goods ($19k) - Timing difference between the budget allocation and the purchase of goods.. • Imprest Fund ($12k) — Timing difference between the budget allocation and the replenishment of the Imprest Fund based on investigations and The usage of paid informants. • Special Operations $21 k —Timing difference between the budget allocation and when special Investigative Operations are launched and completed in 2011. 103 Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission November 1, 2011 Page 8 Subject. 2011 Operating Budget — August YTD Financial Results Fxnanca ['.afpnnry Variance Exnlanation of Variance Government Services $2,345 . No significant variance at the end of August 2011. Internal Services $47,953 o Fleet Maintenance - $65k — The maintenance costs at the end of August was under budget based on actual repairs and maintenance for this 8 -month period and the budget allocation. An additional $21 k charge will be recorded in the subsequent accounting period to reconcile the actual repair cost to the budget allocation. • Fleet Fuel - ($32k) — The fuel costs at the end of August was over budget and this is due to record high fuel prices in 2011. • Evergreen Computer Replacement Program - $10k — The monthly lease charges for the evergreen computer replacement was under budget at the end of August. Asset Purchases $233,098 . Vehicles $157k —The budget for new units was under budget as of August 2011. However, the remaining vehicle purchased for the current year will be completed and recorded in the last financial reporting period. Computers $20k — The acquisition of computer equipment and other periphal devices not covered under the evergreen program was under budget and this amount will be used to offset other unbudgeted expenditures in 2011. • Other Assets $56k - Timing difference between the budget allocation and the acquisition of other assets. 104 Chris Waldschutz, Chairman and Members of the Board of Police Commission November 1, 2011 Page 9 Subject. 2011 Operating Budget - August YTD Financial Results Saint John Police Force Consolidated Statement of Operations For the Period Ended Aug 31, 2011 2011 2010 Budget Actual Variance Budget Actual Variance Salaries & Wages 9,736,819 9,619,062 117,757 9,042,532 9,219,098 (176,566) Overtime 172,528 422,538 (250,010) 172,528 479,423 (306,895) Other Personnel Costs 128,784 224,239 (95,455) 126,784 222,170 (95,386) Fringe Benefits 2,462,564 2,449,415 13,149 2,373,186 2,407,955 (34,769) Total Wages & Fringe Benefits 12,500,695 12,715,254 (214,559) 11,715,030 12,328,646 (613,616) General Services 444,452 430,397 14,055 451,124 411,536 39,588 Insurance 104,511 75,409 29,102 109,964 98,874 11,090 Professional Services 277,656 250,959 26,697 293,984 245,363 48,621 Other Purchased Services 82,968 110,178 (27,210) 78,648 77,384 1,264 Repairs & Maintenance 100,656 151,291 (50,635) 89,976 29,694 60,282 Rentals 639,328 689,578 (50,250) 632,656 655,251 (22,595) Purchased Goods 344,560 347,177 (2,617) 319,400 307,688 11,712 Government Services 12,500 10,155 2,345 11,328 9,929 1,399 Internal Corporate Charges 496,232 448,279 47,953 490,264 432,270 57,994 Asset Purchases 472,432 239,334 233,098 462,240 302,593 159,647 Total Goods & Services 2,975,295 2,752,757 222,537 2,939,584 2,570,582 369,002 $ 15,475,990 $ 15,468,011 $ 7,979 $14,654,614 $ 14,899,228 $ (244,614) Revenue Off -Sets 100,000 690,090 590,090 87,486 742,751 655,265 NET Budget Results $ 15,375,990 $ 14,777,921 $ 598,069 $14,654,614 $ 14,156,478 $ 410,651 3.89% 2.80% 105 City Hall P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 November 7, 2011 Deputy Mayor and Councillors Subject: Recommended Appointments to Committees The Committee of the Whole having met on October 24, 2011, made the following recommendations as appointments to committees: City of Saint John Enterprise Saint John: to re- appoint Anita Punamiya and Dr. Robert MacKinnon each for a three year term from October 24th, 2011 to October 24th, 2014. Saint John Pension Board of Trustees: to re- appoint Pat Woods for a three year term from December 1st, 2011 to December 1st, 2014. Trade & Convention Centre Oversight Committee: to re- appoint Greg Yeomans and Peter Gaulton each for a three year term from October 24th, 2011 to October 24th, 2014. Heritage Development Board — to re- appoint Leona Laracy for a three year term from October 28th, 2011 to October 28th, 2014. Saint John Community Arts Board: to appoint Peter Asimakos, Peter Magee and Heather White - Brittain each for a three year term from October 24th, 2011 to October 24th, 2014. PRO Kids: to appoint Patrick Beamish, Glen Jackson and Eric Savoie each for a two year term from January 1 st, 2012 to December 31 st, 2014. Leisure Services Advisory Board: to appoint Ann McShane for a three year term from October 24th, 2011 to October 24th, 2014. Sincerely, Ivan Court Mayor 106