2012-10-12_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Friday, October 12, 2012 @ 4:00 p.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Location: Ludlow Room, 8 I Floor City Hall
Regular Meeting
1.1 a,b,c,d,e,f,g) Priority Setting Session
Council Priority Setting Agenda
Friday October 12th
4:00 PM — 7:00 PM
Ludlow Room, 8th Floor City Hall
• Introductions /Overview of Process /Guiding Principles /Expectations /Shared decision making
• PlanSJ /Community Vision
• Public Engagement Results
• Themes from One -on -One Discussions
• Questions of staff for clarification /discussion on outstanding items
• Introduce components of "SOAR" analysis (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, Results)
• Start SOAR Analysis: Strengths /Opportunities
Saturday October 13`h
9:00 AM- 2:00 PM
Rockwood Park Interpretation Centre
• Recap from last night /any outstanding questions /concerns
• Revisit Guiding Principles /Rules of the Road
• Continue SOAR Analysis: Aspirations /Results
• BREAK
• Prioritize Opportunities from SOAR analysis
• Agree on list of priorities (combine results from one -on -one discussions with opportunities listed in
SOAR exercise)
• LUNCH
• Brainstorm /list out specific "aspirations" for each of the priority areas (3 -5 each)
• Rank aspirations for each priority area
• Discuss key performance indicators /metrics to be considered for each priority area
• Review final list and discuss resource requirements to implement new priority areas
• What else is needed? What is Council's Leadership Role in supporting staff in executing to the plan?
• Wrap Up /Next Steps
nsl
Directions:
Shaping the best future for the City
celebrating Saint John's many
waterfronts
The strong heart of the Greater Saint John
Region
Healthy, unique and inclusive
neighbourhoods
A progressive, robust and prosperous
economy
Protecting the natural environment and
ecosystems
Growing the City smarter with complete
and compact communities
An enviable quality of life, choice and
experience
A strong plan for action and making
change
s
1 � r
OWL
1.4.1 PIanSJ Directions
Throughout the PlanSJ community consultation process, the resounding
message received from the public was a desire for change toward a much more
sustainable growth pattern and, ultimately, an improved quality of life for all of
the City's residents. The following nine Directions for Growth and Change reflect
the community's aspirations for the City's future and illustrate best practices in
building sustainable and complete communities. These Directions also provide the
foundation for the Municipal Plan's City Structure and Land Use frameworks:
1. Saint John proactively makes choices to shape the best future for the City.
Saint John:
• Has the courage to say "yes" to what is in the best long term interests of the
City and its citizens and the courage to say "no" to what is not;
• Embraces challenges and passionately defends the right choices for the City
even when they are difficult choices to make;
• Leads by example; and
• Adopts leading edge planning principles.
2. Saint John is the heart of the Greater Saint John Region and is a thriving
urban centre. Saint John is:
• Energetic, creative, entrepreneurial, and authentic;
• The focus for growth and change in the Region as well as the centre for office,
mixed -use, shopping, living, entertainment, innovation, arts, culture, heritage,
education, urban waterfronts and tourism; and
• A City that brings back people that have moved away and is a magnet
for newcomers.
CHAPTER ONE I INTRODUCTION 19
3. Saint John is comprised of healthy, unique and inclusive neighbourhoods.
Saint John:
• Strengthens the concept of `one' Saint John by working to make distinct
neighbourhoods feel part of one City and one future;
• Supports mixed income living, offering a range of diverse housing choices to
meet different life -cycle needs;
• Enables people of any income level to live in a neighbourhood of their choosing;
• Builds on the strong tradition of neighbours taking care of each other -
neighbourhoods are the foundation of the strong community pride that defines
Saint John; and
• Provides a range of services, employment, leisure and recreational choices
within neighbourhoods to provide people with the opportunity to live, work, and
play in their neighbourhood.
4. Saint John actively pursues a progressive, robust and prosperous economy.
Saint John:
• Reflects an economy that has been rooted in the past but now looks forward
progressively to the future;
• Strives towards longterm economic stability and social security;
• Embraces knowledge, innovation, traditional industry, green industry and
emerging employment sectors; and
• Makes positive choices about the economy and about industry that are good
for the people who live in Saint John and contribute to high quality of life for
residents.
20 _P&Wts CITY OF SAINT JOHN MUNICIPAL PLAN
5. Saint John celebrates its many waterfronts and positions them as prominent
and defining elements of the City. Saint John:
• Embraces water as a central feature of the City's economy, natural environment
and a key to the lifestyle and collective community experience of living in Saint
John - magnificent tides, beaches, the Port, fishing, boating, marine ecology,
natural beauty, views, recreational opportunities, and a priority on water quality;
• Celebrates the historic significance of the waterfronts - as key trade and
transportation routes and the primary reason for the City's location; and
• Strengthens its waterfronts - the rivers, Bay of Fundy, and lakes - ecologically
through preservation, publicly by creating and maintaining access for all, and
economically by promoting waterfront development in appropriate locations.
6. Saint John values and protects its natural environment and ecosystems on
land and in water. Saint John:
• Builds the City in balance with nature by encouraging a more compact,
sustainable growth pattern;
• Actively stewards ecological systems through preservation, restoration and
enhancement to increase biodiversity and to restore sensitive or diminished
ecosystems;
• Establishes linked natural areas that preserve ecological systems, connect
between and across land and water, and connect people with nature;
• Reduces the City's ecological footprint and strives toward greater long term
environmental sustainability for future generations;
• Promotes best practices in stormwater management, maintains fresh and
coastal water quality, and promotes water conservation;
CHAPTER ONE I INTRODUCTION 21
• Conserves energy and reduces energy use through sustainable
building design, alternative energy systems and reduced auto
dependence;and
• Develops effective policy on climate change and integrates mitigation
and adaption actions that can be influenced through land use policy.
7. Saint John grows the City smarter by developing complete and
compact communities. Saint John:
• Supports the concept that smart cities grow up not out;
• Revitalizes existing communities through compact development and
infill within the existing developed areas;
• Develops a built form that supports efficient, convenient and viable
alternative choices for transportation including walking, cycling, and
transit that support healthy lifestyles;
• Supports the long term health of the urban core city centre by
making choices that strengthen the urban core and saying "no"
to choices that weaken the urban core;
• Supports compact development by managing development
and infrastructure according to the principles of complete
communities; and
• Adopts broad -based social and economic goals for sustainability,
vibrancy and longterm prosperity.
22 _P&Wts CITY OF SAINT JOHN MUNICIPAL PLAN
8. Saint John offers an enviable quality of life, choice and experience for all
of its citizens. Saint John:
• Builds on unique places, people and experiences;
• Offers a diversity of arts, culture, and recreational activities and
amenities;
• Encourages and fosters a welcoming community of longtime residents,
newcomers, and people of different cultures;
• Provides a high quality environment - buildings, parks and open spaces -
and protects dramatic geography, beautiful views and vistas; and
• Plants trees and quality landscaping to maintain and enhance natural
vegetation throughout the City.
9. Saint John is committed to a strong plan for action and making change.
Saint John:
• Has the courage to stick to the Municipal Plan during both prosperous
times and difficult times;
• Builds partnerships with other levels of government and neighbouring
municipalities to realize the Municipal Plan;
• Nurtures and encourages inclusive and accountable leadership at the
community and municipal level;
• Embodies a culture of integrated planning;
• Sets priorities for capital investment;
• Commits to, sticks to, monitors and implements the Municipal Plan; and
• Builds upon the Municipal Plan by updating the Zoning Bylaw and
Subdivision Bylaw and by preparing more detailed neighbourhood plans.
CHAPTER ONE I INTRODUCTION 23
910ew S U
OUR SAINT JOHN OF THE FUTURE
Ou'r Sa gfjohi, Canada's first city, leads the nation
as an example of a sustainable community.
Ottr lairtitJo w was born of the water. Like the tides
we live by, we are responsive to the constant changes
in our environment, economy, and society.
O" Sa RtJolw is a liveable city designed for
people where everyone can feel at home. We are
diverse in cultures, rich in arts, full of exciting
entertainment and recreational activities.
Oa.f' lat%tttJolut provides educational excellence and
life -long- learning opportunities to help people reach
their full potential. Our dynamic economy is built on
creativity, innovation and entrepreneurial spirit.
Ott, ' Sa fttJo�w is a population of problem solvers
where each individual and organization has a vital
role to play. It is a place where leadership is based
on transparency, integrity, and trust.
O" SarKtJo�w is a place where we overcome our
challenges and live our dreams.
This is our Saint John.
together we will build a stronger community
I
I
SOCIAL
Ou'r City has a strong sense of community and belonging. We live
active and healthy lifestyles supported by a diversity of parks and
open spaces, recreation facilities and programs, cultural and social
events and public gathering places.
OGtr Cray provides a diverse and seamless array of educational
opportunities that promote individual self - sufficiency, innovation,
creativity and life -long learning. Educational programs are
supportive of our community and economic environment.
Ott. ' Ct'iy has a flexible and adaptive housing market that meets
the range of needs within our community. Affordable and
suitable our housing market contributes to beautiful and diverse
neighbourhoods that evoke and encourage a strong sense of place.
Ott. Cray has a diverse, vibrant, resilient, environmentally sound
economy that actively supports wealth creation, innovation,
entrepreneurship and individual economic well- being.
Ottr cay offers a variety of economic and employment
opportunities where individuals thrive with exciting employment
options that reward them for their service.
ENVIRONMENT
Ottr Cray recognizes the inherent responsibility of every individual
and organization to embrace a shared commitment to environmental
stewardship. We are dedicated to living in balance with our natural
settings and decreasing our demands on finite natural resources.
0" City has magnificent waterfronts with public access and bicycle
and pedestrian trails that connect the entire city. Life without a car is
perfectly possible and enjoyable.
INFRASTRUCTURE
O" C, ' t / serves the access and mobility needs of all people
through an evolving array of convenient, comfortable, affordable
and efficient modes of transportation.
Ou'k' City insists on the highest standards of quality in architecture,
landscaping, infrastructure management and urban design. Our
natural and built heritage is a key component in developing new
and renewed places to live, work, play and learn.
GOVERNANCE
Otty City fosters civic engagement and pride through responsible,
cooperative, inclusive and fiscally responsible government that is
accountable for achieving results that matter most to our community.
Otw Ctiy plays a leadership role with other local, provincial and
national elected officials to address common challenges and
opportunities for our community.
rAJ
Community Vision Statement
"Our Saint John, Canada's first city, leads the nation as an example of a sustainable community."
First line of the Community Vision Statement
A Vision Statement for Saint John
The Community Vision Statement was created in 2007. A Citizens Advisory Group made up of
community leaders was dedicated to shaping the thoughts and opinions of thousands of Saint Johners
into a written community vision statement, a vision that became a shared description articulating the
goals and aspirations of the Community as citizens shared their hopes and dreams to define the future
for Saint John.
The Process
A Community Visioning Project, led by the Citizens Advisory Group and facilitated by City staff, guided
the vision process. The project had three goals: to develop a shared community vision for Saint John
through public engagement; to identify outcomes or community needs; and to develop a set of
sustainability principles for Saint John. The sustainability principles provided the foundation for the
creation of the vision and the goals and ensured the environmental, economic, social, governance, and
infrastructure needs of the community were addressed.
The development of the public engagement strategy was predicated on inclusiveness. The engagement
plan was designed to encourage individuals and groups to participate in the process. Reflecting the
diversity in the community was a priority. A number of engagement techniques were used including: a
survey, contests, neighbourhood barbeques, stakeholder meetings, attendance at local events, and a
community workshop.
The public consultation concluded in July 2007. The Citizens Advisory Group received well over fifteen
thousand ideas on the future of Saint John. This was a tremendous response to the public engagement
and the opinions and comments reflected the commitment the people of Saint John have to our
community. The Citizens Advisory Group analyzed, debated, and reviewed this information and it
became the basis for the Community Vision Statement and goals.
In November 2007, Common Council endorsed the Community Vision Statement, Twenty Year Goals and
Sustainability Principles for Saint John.
Context
Translating Vision Into Action: Defining the Planning Framework, was adopted by Common Council in
June 2008. The charter describes a long -term, integrated, planning framework to translate vision into
action. A long -term vision (75 -100 years) is supported by high -level goals (20 years) that identify the
public expectations and desired community outcomes. Figure 1 shows the alignment of community
needs with service delivery. The vision represents the long -term community plan and the services are
the actions required to achieve the vision.
Page 1
SAINT 10FIN
r.A
Planning Framework
Achieving effective and efficient service delivery depends on disciplined and focused planning practices
and responsible management of those plans. Strategic planning provides the opportunity to create a
shared community vision and implement plans that move the municipality in the desired direction.
Planning identifies what the community wants to achieve and how the City, together with community
stakeholders, will work together to realize these goals.
In June 2008, Common Council adopted a planning framework (Figure 1) that is designed to support the
City in translating community vision into action. The framework identifies the strategic and operational
planning requirements that support the City in
setting a direction and how to achieve these goals.
The objective of the framework and the planning
cycle that supports its implementation is to build
shared agreement on priorities for the community
and the organization, providing focus and
guidance for policy related decision - making and
support the City in achieving its accountability
requirements.
The framework is based on a top -down, integrated
planning approach. It guides the setting of key
community and organizational outcomes that are
informed by the Community's vision for Saint John
and other key policy planning documents. These
outcomes then inform the development of
operational plans that define the level of service
the public can expect as a result of the City's
service offerings that are designed to address the
things that matter to Saintlohners.
Page 2
WCommunity Expectations
WGoals &Strategies
Strategic Policy Plans — —
i
i
-- — — — — — — — — — — —
WCorporate Direction
Figure 1: Planning framework — additional information can be found on
the City's website http: / /www.saintoohn.ca /en /home /mayor -and-
council /planningframework.aspx.
SAINT JOHN
City of Saint John
Prepared in coordination with
Dillon consulting Ltd.
Performance Concepts Consulting
rA
ServiceSJ: 2012 Public Engagement Results
fii-_„
SAINT JOHN
z A*
• Efficient Service Delivery
• Better Communication
• Accountable Government
• Public- Private Partnerships / Outsourcing
• Increase User Fees
• Tax Rate versus Revenue Generation
• Urban -Rural Service Levels
• Regional Service Coordination
• Community Responsibility
ServiceSJ: 2012 Public Engagement Results
SAINT JOHN
• Roads (number one priority)
• Drinking Water (continues to be a priority)
• Community Planning (development approval process)
• Winter Sidewalk Maintenance (property owners)
• Fire (tiered response review)
• Service Level Reductions
• Right -Size Recreation and Sports Infrastructure
• Priority Neighbourhood Services
• Mobility Needs (Transit Service)
ServiceSJ: 2012 Public Engagement Results
SAINT JOHN
I � 101 kofil a I
S��SJ re
2012 Public Engagement Results
City of Saint John
Prepared in coordination with
Performance
Consulting
Consulting
Table of Contents
Introduction
Priority and Service Themes
L11 Ail 21
1
2
Community Workshop Overview and Summary of Results 6
1.0 Purpose 6
2.0 Process 6
3.0 Rationale for Approach 7
4.0 Interpreting Results and Data Limitations 10
5.0 Workshop Results and Highlights 11
On -Line Consultation
Citizen Survey
Lessons Learned
Appendix
12
13
13
15
Reader's Guide to Workshop and On -line Consultation Results 16
Workshop and On -line Consultation Results 17
Akbfil21
Introduction
Public engagement is the process of working collaboratively with municipal stakeholders to develop
policy, strategies and plans for investment. It involves information sharing, consultation, and active
involvement in decision - making. Effective public engagement results in decisions that are more
sensitive and responsive to citizen values and concerns.
Like many other Canadian municipalities, the City of Saint John is facing significant budget challenges in
delivering services that continue to meet public expectations. Given that the budget process has broad
community impact, many stakeholders and competing priorities, it was recommended that a public
engagement program be conducted in 2012 to inform decisions that will result in more cost - effective
service delivery. Results of the engagement program are intended to inform Council's priority setting,
the core service review, and the 2013 service -based budget process.
The goal of the public engagement program was to not only consult citizens, but more importantly,
engage citizens in a real discussion around important issues using a variety of techniques to reach a
broad cross - section of Saint John residents. The public engagement program was designed to support
and encourage Saint John residents and property owners to learn about City services, to share ideas and
provide input on:
Service priorities for the community
What they think are core services
What they want the City to consider when
making decisions about service delivery
The public engagement program was designed to take on
a holistic approach to ensure meaningful participation by
a wide range of community members. It built on the
highly successful community engagement strategies that
were completed for PlanSJ, the creation of a new
Municipal Plan, and Our Saint John, the creation of a
long -term vision and goals for the community. The public
engagement program was branded ServiceSJ to build off
these past successes.
Engagement activities that facilitate inclusive and accessible two -way communication and dialogue are
preferred as they create shared agreement and understanding on decisions. As a result, the public
engagement program focused on the delivery of community workshops that have the capacity to bring
together diverse and unlike- minded people to think, talk and work together on shared problems. On-
line engagement was designed to strengthen the face -to -face approach of the community workshops.
The citizen survey was a parallel process that was undertaken to provide a more statistically valid
engagement process; however, it does not provide an opportunity to create awareness on the City's
service offerings or facilitate dialog.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 1 I P a g e
Aklfil21
Priority and Service Themes
Results of the public engagement program are expressed in themes or general conclusions. Themes are
indicators of what the public considers to be a priority for the community and where they feel service
improvements are needed. These themes also address where the public is comfortable with
investigating or implementing reductions to current service levels. Public engagement themes are one
of the inputs that should guide Council's priority setting and budget deliberations.
Themes are sorted into two categories including general government and service specific. The themes
presented in this section are based on analysis that combines the qualitative and quantitative data
generated from the community workshops and on -line consultation process; weighed against the
statistically valid citizen survey conducted by Ipsos Reid on behalf of the City. Process and analysis of
individual engagement activities is provided in subsequent sections of this report.
• Efficient Service Delivery
• Better Communication
• Accountable Government
• Public- Private Partnerships / Outsourcing
• Increase User Fees
• Tax Rate versus Revenue Generation
• Urban -Rural Service Levels
• Regional Service Coordination
• Community Responsibility
• Roads (number one priority)
• Drinking Water (continues to be a priority)
• Community Planning (development approval process)
• Winter Sidewalk Maintenance (property owners)
• Fire (tiered response review)
• Service Level Reductions
• Right -Size Recreation and Sports Infrastructure
• Priority Neighbourhood Services
• Mobility Needs (Transit Service)
The following provides some brief commentary for each of the noted priority and service themes. More
detailed information (qualitative and quantitative data) can be found in the appendix to this report.
• Efficient Service Delivery — Qualitative data suggests that citizens would like to see service
improvements, but are not willing to pay more. Workshop participants commented that
efficiencies can be found through better management of service delivery, process improvements,
and employee productivity. The qualitative data is supported by workshop and on -line voting
where many participants chose the option 'to explore a different service delivery model'.
• Better Communication —Workshop and on -line participants expressed the need for more
information to make decisions or comment on service levels. In reviewing on -line comments,
suggestions for service improvement indicate that there is often a lack of understanding as to why
and how the City delivers service.
• Accountable Government— Building off the efficiency and communication themes, citizens are
looking for the City to be more accountable for service results. Many workshop participants
commented on the quality of service delivery and the need to look at how other municipalities
are delivering service. There is clearly a desire for the public to understand the value received for
their investment in the community through tax dollars and service fees
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 2 1 P a g e
Akf_l21
• Public- Private Partnerships / Outsourcing— Workshop and on -line participants indicated the need to
evaluate the benefit of other service delivery models (i.e., Option 4). In the qualitative comments
provided by participants, many indicated that an alternative service delivery model could involve
public - private partnerships, corporate sponsorship, service agreements with community groups, and
contracting out service. The expectation is for cost savings. The citizen survey also supported the
use of public - private partnerships to deliver service with more than 40% of respondents opting for
this method of revenue generation to deliver service for most service groups.
• Increase User Fees —The results of the public engagement program indicate there is an appetite to
raise or introduce user fees to support the delivery of service. The focus is on better cost recovery
for services that are accessed by specific user groups (e.g., heritage, recreation, arenas) to relieve the
burden on the taxpayer. Citizens are comfortable with user fees providing rates are affordable and
equitable. Many participants commented that rates need to be competitive with other
municipalities and in some cases different rates need to be provided for youth, seniors, or low
income families. The citizen survey compares to the views of workshop and on -line participants,
indicating some support for user fees to generate revenue to deliver the level of service citizen
expect.
• Tax Rate versus Revenue Generation — Views on the property tax rate are mixed. The citizen survey
indicates citizens would be comfortable with a tax increase to maintain or expand services. However,
there is little appetite to increase property taxes to generate revenue if there is another service
option (i.e., user fees or public- private partnerships). Citizen survey views on increasing property
taxes are somewhat balanced with many respondents indicating a preference to reduce service levels
to maintain or lower taxes. Many workshop and on -line participants indicated that they would like to
see improvements in a number of service areas, but not willing to pay more, as a result Option 4 —
explore a different service delivery model was often selected.
• Urban -Rural Service Levels — Building on the principles of PIanSJ a number of workshop and on -line
participants suggested different service levels for urban (intensification areas) and rural areas of the
City. In the qualitative data many participants noted that the core of the City should be a priority for
service delivery. In practice, there is a general expectation that the tax rate would reflect the level of
service to be provided in each of these areas.
• Regional Service Coordination — In the qualitative data workshop and on -line participants mentioned
region coordination of service delivery to find efficiencies. Although there was no agreement on any
particular service for regional cooperation, it was a general theme throughout all services. Mentions
for regional service coordination were provided primarily for recreation based services (programming
and facilities), fire and transit.
• Community Responsibility— Workshop and on -line participants suggested partnerships with
business and neighbourhood groups to support service delivery. Encouraging citizens to volunteer
their time to support the delivery of service was also mentioned to find cost savings. Participants
noted that partnership and volunteer programs had the added benefit of creating community pride
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 3 1 P a g e
L11.TA21
and improving the image of Saint John. This theme was also reflected in participant suggestions that
property owners should be responsible for clearing the sidewalks of snow and ice in front of their
properties.
• Roads (number one priority for citizens) — Results of the citizen survey and the ServiceSJ public
engagement program indicate that citizens are not satisfied with roads. It was identified in the
citizen survey as the number one top of mind issue (28 %) that Council and City management should
address. Although some citizens are willing to pay more, the implementation of a new delivery
model is the suggested approach to service improvement.
• Drinking Water (continues to be a priority) — Citizens continued to be concerned about the quality of
drinking water. In addition to being one of the top of mind issues in the citizen survey, many of the
workshop and on -line participants indicated a need for full water treatment to address quality and
perceived safety concerns. Workshop participants (50 %) indicated a different model should be
implemented to deliver drinking water, many of them citing a public - private partnership as a
preferred alternative in the qualitative comments.
• Community Planning (development approval process) — Citizens are generally satisfied with the
Community Planning Service (alignment of ServiceSJ and survey results); however, there were
suggestions from workshop and on -line participants to introduce a new model for service delivery.
Citizens feel there is a need to improve the development process to make it more user - friendly,
specifically with respect to understanding roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders, a
coordinated and consistent approach to service delivery (decision- making), and better
communication of application requirements. While there is clearly support for PlanSJ, the City's new
municipal plan, there are concerns that 'forcing' development into the plan's intensification areas
would drive investment to neighbouring communities. Citizens suggested that incentives may be
required to attract development in the PlanSJ intensification areas.
• Winter Sidewalk Maintenance (property owners) — Citizens are generally satisfied with this service
offering (alignment with ServiceSJ and citizen survey); however, workshop and on -line participants
were willing to consider other service delivery models to find cost savings. Most notable was the
suggestion that a by -law be created that would require property owners to clear sidewalks of snow
and ice in front of their properties particularly in residential neighbourhoods. Citizens noted that
winter sidewalk maintenance should focus on the City's core and in school zones with no new
sidewalks added to the maintenance network. A number of participants also noted that there was a
preference to have more timely response to clearing streets of snow and ice.
• Fire (tiered response review) — Workshop and on -line participants indicated a willingness to see a
reduction in service for cost savings, particularly around tiered response. While more information
about how this service is delivered and the relative cost to other core fire services may impact citizen
perceptions, the total cost for providing fire service likely caused many participants to suggest that
there are potential savings to be realized. These results vary from the citizen survey that indicates
that fire services are important to the community and there is little appetite to decrease service.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 4 1 P a g e
Akbfil21
• Service Level Reductions —The engagement program was designed to determine what citizens are
willing to 'trade -off' to maintain or increase service in other areas. Through the citizen survey,
residents indicated they were more willing to accept a lower level of service for Building and
Development Services (Planning, Building Permits, By -law Enforcement) and Parks, Recreation &
Culture Services (Arts, Leisure, Recreation, Parks). In terms of the workshop and on -line results
Heritage, Parks and Sports fields, and Arenas were the service areas where there was a willingness to
accept a lower level of service. These results align with the citizen survey in that these are services
that are typically accessed when there is a specific need, rather than those services that touch a wide
breadth of the community.
• Right -size Recreation and Sports Infrastructure (parks, sports fields and arenas) — Many workshop
and on -line participants noted the need to focus on quality of recreation facilities and infrastructure,
not necessarily quantity. Participants commented on the need to align infrastructure with
community needs and utilization. Participants suggested repurposing parks and sports fields for
community gardens or selling assets to community groups or sporting organizations as ways to right -
size recreation infrastructure. There was some agreement that recreation facilities need to be multi-
purpose for a variety of summer and winter recreation and sport activities. A number of participants
indicated the need for a multiplex that would accommodate a variety of activities, some citing that
this could be accomplished by closing an arena.
• Priority Neighbourhood Services —A general theme of the workshops and on -line public
engagement process was the need to focus on the City's priority neighbourhoods. Service offerings
that have a positive impact in these neighbourhoods include Recreation Programming, Community
Development, and Vacant and Dangerous Buildings. Participants were generally satisfied with these
services, noting that service should not be decreased because of the value they bring to priority
neighbourhoods. The exception being Vacant and Dangerous Buildings where participants felt a
different service delivery model should be explored to deal with this important issue. Participants
were also mindful of how public transit and access to recreation facilities play an important role in
the lives of people who live in these neighbourhoods, suggesting that service objectives or fees
ensure these services are accessible to all citizens.
• Mobility Needs (Transit Service) — Transit was a service area where there were differing views on the
level of service to be provided. Many workshop and on -line participants indicated the need to
increase service by reinstating routes that were recently cut. This view was balanced by the need to
rationalize routes to support demand and find cost savings by cutting or reducing the frequency of
underutilized routes. Participants also questioned the size of buses in relation to ridership on certain
routes. Participants recognized that public transit becomes more sustainable with increased
ridership and cite better communication on schedules as a strategy.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results
51 Page
Akbfil21
Community Workshop Overview and Summary of Results
1.0 Purpose
A series of workshops was held as part of the ServiceSJ. Information from these workshops will be used
as an input into Council's priority setting, core service review outcomes and the upcoming service -based
budget process.
Workshop #1
September 11, 2012 Ward 1
—St. Marks Church
40 (2 Employees)
Workshop #2
September 12, 2012 Ward 2
— Lorne Middle School
55 (10 Employees /4 Repeat)
Workshop #3
September 19, 2012 Ward 3
— Boys & Girls Club
64 (16 Employees /5 Repeat)
Workshop #4
September 20, 2012 Ward 4
— Forest Hills Baptist Church
50 (7 Employees/ 4 Repeat)
* Note: Not all repeat
participants voted in each workshop.
The threefold purpose of these workshops was to provide opportunities for residents to:
1. learn about a selection of services and service levels currently being provided by the City;
2. discuss service expectations and priorities with each other, City staff and Council; and
3. provide input on service expectations and priorities as well opportunities for efficiencies and
innovations.
2.0 Process
The workshops were designed and facilitated by the ServiceSJ consulting team (Performance Concepts
and Dillon Consulting Limited) with input from City staff. Holly McMackin of Dillon was the lead
facilitator and was assisted by more than twenty -five (25) City staff members who volunteered their
time to act as facilitators during the four workshops. The workshop process was designed to provide a
variety of ways for residents to participate in the process and provide input:
Each attendee received a workbook upon registration. Content of the workbook mirrored
Individual presentation content of the workshop and provided questions and space for answers and
Workbook comments. Participants were encouraged to record their thoughts and ideas in their workbook
throughout the workshop, to be submitted afterwards.
Small Group Attendees were assigned to a table upon registration; small group discussions amongst table
participants took place throughout the workshop. These discussions were an opportunity for
Discussions participants to learn and share ideas with each other as well as with their table facilitator.
A volunteer City staff member acted as a facilitator at each table. Their role as facilitator was to
Facilitator
Notes keep participants focused on the questions to be discussed, to act as a resource for questions
and to keep track of comments and key themes discussed at their table.
Audience Each attendee received a hand -held voting device upon registration. These voting devices and
Response audience response technology (ART) were used at various points to allow participants to answer
Technology a question and display results in real time through a PowerPoint presentation.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results
61 Page
fG.�_121
Each workshop followed the same general format:
The external facilitator provided a brief overview to the core service review concept — what is it,
Core Service why it is important, how it will benefit the taxpayer and the rationale behind what services were
Review 101 selected for discussion at the workshop.
Workshop The external facilitator provided an overview of the remainder of the workshop. A total of 14
Overview service groups were discussed at each workshop; these services were grouped into 3 rounds.
Each of these rounds followed the same format:
• The external facilitator provided a brief overview of the services in that round, followed by a
15 to 20 minutes period where participants discussed those services with their table and
facilitator.
Rounds 1- 3 • Following the small group discussions, participants were brought back together as a larger
group to use the ART to respond to questions about each service. Using the ART, results to
each question were displayed in real time on a large screen at the front of the room.
• Each time results were displayed for a question, the external facilitator asked if one or two
participants would like to share their thoughts with the larger group; a microphone was
provided to participants who accepted the offer.
Round 4 The final round of the evening involved asking participants a series of questions on groups of
services rather than considering services on an individual basis as was done in Rounds 1 — 3.
3.0 Rationale for Approach
3.1 Selection of Services for Inclusion in Workshops
The first phase of the core service review is focused on front - facing services, of which the City provides
more than forty (40). These services have been categorized into five (5) groupings as described in the
table below. Groups of fourteen (14) service offerings were selected for inclusion in the workshop.
These selected services cover all five (5) of the above listed categories, including several services that
were noted to receive significant public interest. The service offerings included in the workshop account
for approximately fifty percent (50 %) of the 2012 general fund operating budget.
These services are not option for a
Survival Services municipality; however, service levels can vary
significantly.
These services present a 'user -pay'
Beneficiary opportunity to maximize cost recovery and
reduce tax burdens.
These services generate desired public
Regulatory behaviors around development, property
upkeep and traffic /driving safety.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results
• Roadway Maintenance
• Solid Waste Management
• Fire Services
• Police Services
• Drinking Water
• Community Planning
• Recreation Programming
• Heritage
• Dangerous and Vacant Buildings
71 Page
LIJITA21
•
These services consume significant tax funded Transit
Quality of Life Services budgets. While discretionary, they are • Winter Sidewalk Maintenance
•
typically highly valued by many taxpayers. Parks & City Landscape Arena Maintenance
These services attempt to counterbalance
income disparities among citizens and /or
promote equality and build capacity. These
Fairness Services services are often associated with the • Neighbourhood Support
Provincial government and are often
provincially funded or at least heavily
leveraged by cost sharing.
3.2 Question Answer Options
The same question was asked for each of the 14 groups of service offerings in Rounds 1— 3 of the
workshops: How do you feel about this service? The following four options were provided as possible
answers for participants to discuss in their small groups and then to select an answer using the ART (a
brief elaboration of each option was also provided verbally to participants as described below):
Option 1
Satisfied with the level of service Do taxpayers buy enough 'units' of each service right now?
and cost Does the price seem reasonable?
Option 2
Would like more service and Do you feel taxpayers need to buy more /better service?
willing to pay more Are you willing to pay more?
Service should be decreased; cost
Option 3 Could you get along with less service and a lower tax /utility bill?
savings should results
A different service delivery model Could we save dollars or improve quality by delivering a City
Option 4 should be explored service in a different way (e.g. City workers competing with
private sector for the work)
The options provided were intended to encourage workshop participants to think about service levels
(quantity and quality) in a context that mirrors the reality of what Council must consider in making
budget decisions. Essentially, the quality of services and the benefit to the community must be
balanced against the cost of delivering those services and the burden on the taxpayer. The answer
options were intentionally structured in a way to encourage participants to think, discuss and answer
those types of difficult questions that acknowledge the reality of accepting tradeoffs when it comes to
budget decisions.
As was noted by many workshop participants, an option on finding efficiencies was not provided (i.e., to
increase service at no cost or to maintain service but decrease cost). The rationale for not including
'Option 5' was that it was already assumed by the consultant team and City staff that the majority of
participants want to find cost savings or service improvements through efficiencies. Had 'Option 5'
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 8 1 P a g e
ARA21
been provided, most participants would likely have chosen it. As a result, the process would not have
provided much new insight into preferences and priorities for service delivery of participants.
An additional question was asked for the three beneficiary (user -pay) services discussed at the
workshop — Community Planning, Heritage and Recreation Programming:
Think users and taxpayers already pay Are we striking the right balance between how much the
Option 1 about the right share of total costs. user pays and how much the taxpayer pays?
Think users (as opposed to taxpayers)
Option 2 should shoulder a more significant Should users being paying more of their share of the cost?
Should the taxpayers be subsidizing less of this service?
share of total costs.
Think taxpayers (as opposed to users)
Option 3 should shoulder a more significant Should tax payers be providing more of a subsidy to users?
share of total costs.
In Round 4 of each workshop, participants were asked to consider similar questions but rather than
considering questions on an individual service, participants were asked to answer questions when
considering a group of service offerings. Due to limitations with the ART (i.e., a maximum of ten (10)
options could be considered for a single question), the list of fourteen (14) service offerings was divided
into two groupings: survival services and the remaining services.
• Roadway Maintenance
• Solid Waste Collection
• Drinking Water
• Fire
• Police
• Transit
• Parks & Sports Fields
• Sidewalks: Winter Control
• Arenas & Ice Scheduling
• Dangerous Vacant Buildings
• Neighbourhood Services
• Community Planning
• Recreation Programming
• Heritage
The intent behind the Round 4 series of questions was to encourage tax payers to understand that in
most cases trade -offs must be made and that changes in services levels cannot be considered in
isolation but instead must be considered as part of a larger budget of the City as a whole.
Which services are you most satisfied with the level of service, amount, and cost?
Which service would you most like to see increased re. amount /quality and be willing to pay more?
Which service would you most like to see a reduction in service that would result in savings?
Which service would you most like to see a different service delivery model explored?
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results
91 Page
Akf_l21
4.0 Interpreting Results and Data Limitations
The workshop process and results (and subsequent workbook questionnaire posted online) were not
intended to be statistically valid. As with similar consultation events used through the PlanSJ process,
workshop results of this nature do not represent a large enough sample size of the population to be
statistically valid; nor were workshop question and answer options designed to be statistically valid.
Voting results of the workshops provide an indication of the appetite citizens have for service changes.
These results need to be weighed and analyzed against the qualitative data that was recorded.
Designed to complement the statistically valid data gathered through the telephone survey, the value of
the workshops was to provide an opportunity for residents to:
1. learn about a selection of services and service levels currently being provided by the City;
2. discuss service expectations and priorities with each other, City staff and Council; and
3. submit input on service expectations and priorities as well as opportunities for efficiencies and
innovations.
Beyond not being statistically valid, additional limitations exist in both the qualitative and quantitative
data collected. Specifically, it is common for these types of public engagement activities to attract
special interest groups or attendees that are trying to advance a particular agenda. In the case of
ServiceSJ, City employees (including those of the City's agencies, boards and commissions) and repeat
participants represented special interest groups. Not only do these groups have an impact on voting
results, they have the ability to influence others in their voting and sharing ideas by lobbying for or
against a specific service area.
In responding to these challenges, City employees were asked to identify themselves at their tables so
that citizens understood their perspective. Participants who attended other workshops were asked not
to vote. In a number of cases, participants respected these requests. Through the registration process
special interest group participation can be quantified to qualify workshop results.
The Ipsos Reid annual citizen telephone survey of residents contained similar questions and provides
statically valid views of service priorities. Combined with workshop and online results, all of these
engagement initiates will inform Council's decision - making with respect to its priorities, core service
offerings and the budget process.
Despite these data limitations, the combined qualitative and quantitative data still provides insight for
the consultant team, City staff and Council. Many residents volunteered their time to participate in
these sessions in order to provide valuable insights and ideas and to gain a better understanding of how
the City delivers services.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 10 1 P a g e
A1021
5.0 Workshop Results and Highlights
Raw qualitative and quantitative data from the workshops has been included as an Appendix to this
report. A brief overview of highlights and trends from the workshop results (both qualitative and
quantitative) is provided below. In reviewing this information, it is important to bear in mind that these
trends and highlights are reflective of those citizens who chose to attend the workshop and are not
representative of the Saint John population as a whole.
5.1 The desire for efficiencies and /or a different way of delivering services
One of the most predominant themes that emerged in all four workshops and through both the
qualitative and quantitative data was a desire for efficiencies and /or a different way of delivering
particular services. In total results for all four workshops, a different service delivery model should be
explored was the most popular answer for every service except Fire and Police Services. Between 40 %-
66% of participants selected this response for specific service offerings.
Based on this trend in the quantitative data, combined with the qualitative input received, this is
indicative of participants' opinions that there is a way to:
1. create cost savings by providing a service more efficiently but at the same level or quality;
2. increase or improve service levels or quality through increased efficiencies as opposed to
increased delivery costs; or
3. deliver a service using a different service delivery model (many citing other municipalities).
Service offerings most commonly selected for exploration of a different service delivery model were:
Transit (66%), Roads (66 %) and Vacant Buildings (58 %). Service offerings where exploring a different
service delivery model was least frequently selected were Neighbourhood Services (39%), Police (28 %)
and Fire (26 %).
5.2 The desire for additional information
Complementing the desire for efficiencies and change, was the desire for additional information about
current service levels and how those levels compare to what is being offered in other similar
municipalities in the Maritimes and across the country. This theme emerged very strongly through the
qualitative data but is also partially reflected in the quantitative data through participants' tendency to
select 'a different service delivery model should be explored'. Many City staff facilitators also noted that
participants who did not feel they had adequate information to make an informed decision chose 'a
different service delivery model should be explored' as their default answer.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 111 P a g e
109AM
5.3 Services most commonly identified for change
A number of services emerged as most commonly identified for change over the course of the four
workshops: Transit, Roads and Vacant Buildings. This was not only evident in the prevalence of 'explore
a different service delivery model' responses for these services (as discussed above) but also in other
aspects of the qualitative and quantitative data. For example, Transit (4%), Roads (4 %) and Vacant
Buildings (3 %) were some of the least commonly identified services when participants were asked about
whether a service should be decreased. This supports the many qualitative comments that were
received in regards to the need to increase and /or improve these service areas.
Vacant Buildings (28 %) was the most commonly identified
service when participants were asked what service they
would like more of and be willing to pay more; Transit
(23 %) was also commonly identified. These three services
were also the least commonly identified services when
participants were asked if they were satisfied with the
current level of service and cost: Roads (19 %), Vacant
Buildings (11 %) and Transit (7%).
5.4 Other Themes for Change Identified through Workshops
Workshop participants offered many ideas for change and service improvements. Service specific
themes have been outlined in the Priority and Service Themes section of this report. More detailed
workshop information can be found in the appendix to this report.
On -Line Public Engagement
An on -line option was provided to citizens to weigh -in on service priorities and provide ideas changes to
service delivery that would result in savings. The value of on -line consultation is to strengthen face -to-
face engagement activities. It provides access to citizens that prefer to be engaged on -line or not able
to attend the workshops. On -line consultation also provides citizens with more time to think about their
decisions.
The on -line consultation process built off the community workshops. The goal was to provide service
information for citizens to make informed decisions. For consistency, the questionnaire that was
designed for the workshop provided the basis for on -line consultation. The questionnaire is a
combination of quantitative and open -ended questions (qualitative data). Citizens could access the on-
line questionnaire from September 13, 2012 to October 1, 2012.
Like the community workshops, there are challenges to on -line consultation. On -line consultation is not
statically valid given the types (not reflective of the community's profile) and number of citizens that
participate. There is the possibility that participants may choose to fill out the questionnaire more than
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 12 1 P a g e
L11 Ail 21
once to advance or inhibit the interests of a particular service area. It is also difficult to limit
participation to Saint John residents. While there are challenges with on -line consultation, the
comments provided by participants helps to define service priorities and provide context to how citizens
feel about service delivery.
Results of the on -line consultation have been provided in the appendix to this report. The qualitative
results of the on -line consultation have been combined with workshop data to form the priority and
service themes outlined in an earlier section of this report.
Citizen Survey
The City of Saint John has made a commitment to demonstrating accountability for decisions made and
results achieved with respect to the services it delivers to the public. In October of 2009, the City of
Saint John engaged Ipsos Reid to design and conduct three annual citizen surveys to understand the
priorities and concerns of its residents and to support its desire to continuously improve service
delivery. Given the aggressive timelines set out for the City's budget process and supporting initiatives,
direct engagement of Ipsos Reid was undertaken to support the engagement process.
The citizen survey is a statically valid engagement tool carried out by an independent market research
firm. It helps to interpret the results of the workshops and on -line consultation activities. While the
priority and service themes outlined in an earlier section of this report were weighed against preliminary
citizen survey results, detailed analysis of citizen survey results will be presented under separate cover.
Lessons Learned
• During staff debriefs of the workshops sessions, employees shared that participants found value in
the workshops as they felt they learned something about what and how the City delivers service. In
some cases, participants felt that the opportunity to discuss and learn about municipal service helps
to change or share their perspectives. Citizens also valued the opportunity to meet with people
outside their normal social and work circles. Participants were generally satisfied with the workshop
style as was expressed through voting and the evaluation sheets.
• Set the context for how data collected will be interpreted and used to support Council's decision -
making. While participants may use voting technology or fill in a questionnaire, there needs to be a
common understanding that the process is not statistically valid and that the value is in community
dialog on service priorities and the qualitative data that is generated.
• Providing service information was beneficial as it helped to provide context to discussions and how
participants answered the questions. Workshop improvements would include more time for
discussion.
• One or two (depending on content) larger workshops would help eliminate repeat participants and
minimize the attendance of special interest groups.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results
131 Page
AkITA21
• Utilize an on -line public consultation tool that better controls who and the number of times an
individual can participate.
• Continue efforts to improve outreach for public engagement activities to attract a broad
representation of the community.
• Parallel employee engagement program to the public engagement program in the future to
minimize employee participation in public workshops.
• Continue to communicate service delivery objectives to create a better awareness of what citizens
can expect from the City's service offerings. As a next step, public open houses could be held
monthly for specific services throughout the year to support on -going consultation related to service
priorities and the budget process.
• Given the large number of staff volunteers and community member attendance required for the
success of each workshop, debriefing sessions were held after each workshop. The goal of these
debriefing sessions was to solicit feedback at what did and did not work to make changes that would
provide a more enriching experience for participants.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 14 1 P a g e
L11RA21
Appendix
Reader's Guide to Workshop and On -line Consultation Results 16
Workshop and On -line Consultation Results 17
• Community Planning
17
• Recreation Programming
18
• Heritage
19
• Dangerous and Vacant Buildings
20
• Neighbourhood Services
21
• Transit
22
• Parks & Sports Fields
23
• Sidewalks — Winter Control
24
• Arenas
25
• Solid Waste Collection
26
• Roads
27
• Drinking Water
28
• Fire Services
29
• Police Services
30
• Trade -Offs: Satisfied with service
31
• Trade -Offs: Increase in service
32
• Trade -Offs: Decrease in service
33
• Trade -Offs: Different service delivery model
34
• General Questions
35
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 15 1 P a g e
AITA21
Reader's Guide to Workshop and On -line Consultation Results
Qualitative results are a combination of workshop, workbook and on -line comments. These qualitative
results are based on the number of mentions of a particular service opportunity or ideas for change.
Each point is colour coded based on the number of mentions to provide some context to the reader.
Greater than 20 mentions
Between 10 and 20 mentions
■ Less than 10 mentions
Quantitative results have been provided in a table and visual (graph) format. Given the challenges of
both the workshop and on -line consultation activities, data has been provided separately for each
process. As a note, Ward 4 data was cleaned to adjust for employee participation. This was not possible
for Ward 3; however, the attendee breakdowns (employee and repeat participants) have been provided
in the text of the report to ensure context when reviewing the data. Note: Where data is not provided,
the specific question was not asked in the workshop (i.e., workshops process was adjusted to address
participant concerns).
The data presented is not meant to be statistically valid. The value of the workshop and on -line public
consultation activities was to provide an opportunity for residents to:
1. learn about a selection of services and service levels currently being provided by the City;
2. discuss service expectations and priorities with each other, City staff and Council; and
3. submit input on service expectations and priorities as well as opportunities for efficiencies and
innovations.
ServiceSJ: Public Engagement Results 16 1 P a g e
Community Planning
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Community Planning
Streamline Application Process - make the process clearer for
applicants; make it faster and easier to receive an approval, look at
other areas to modernize the process
More Support for Applicants - staff should provide more support and
guidance to applicants; better process to inform the public of planning
applications
Increase Planning Fees - greater cost recovery to reduce taxpayer
funding; more accountability for time from City staff; use different fees
in different areas of the City to stimulate investment
Increase Density in the City - implement PlanSJ, invest in urban areas,
older neighbourhoods and public spaces to attract residents
■ Regionalize the Service - cost efficient approach, potential for revenue
generation by serving surrounding communities, department cost is
too high
Community Planning - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
_01021
Planning - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
Service Level Questions
■ Workshops ■ On -line
User Pay Questions
■ Workshops v On -line
43
41.9%
18
35.2%
19
21.4%
6
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Balanced Users Taxpayers
Model Share More More
1. Satisfied with level of service
34.4%
43
41.9%
18
35.2%
19
21.4%
6
43.5%
154
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more
9.6%
12
4.7%
2
14.8%
8
7.1%
2
13.0%
46
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
11.2%
14
11.6%
5
7.4%
4
17.9%
5
13.3%
47
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored
44.8%
56
41.9%
18
42.6%
23
53.6%
15
30.2%
107
5. Think users and taxpayers already pay about the right share 32.2% 49 51.3% 20 38.5% 20 30.0% 9 41.7% 146
6. Think users should shoulder more share 52.0% 79 48.4% 15 43.6% 17 53.8% 28 63.3% 19 55.1% 193
7. Think taxpayers should shoulder more share 15.8% 24 51.6% 16 5.1% 2 7.7% 4 6.7% 2 3.1% 11
Totals
171Pa -e
Recreation Programming
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Recreation Programming
Increase User Fees - programs should be paid by those who access
them; focus on providing quality programs not a large quantity; sell
memberships to those who want access to structured programming
More Partnerships for Delivery - partner with community groups to
provide programming; focus on cost effectiveness; explore a regional
framework; City should provide facilities not programs
Decrease /Eliminate User Fees - should not apply to all, kids should
have affordable access; options based on income to ensure access;
recreation is central to supporting a healthy lifestyle
I Decrease Program Offerings - too many programs to support; increase
programming through volunteers only
I More Programming Needed - more activities needed for youth and
kids across the City in summer and in the winter
■ Equal Access to Services - recreation services not equally provided
across neighbourhoods; more services needed in established
neighbourhoods, not just opportunity neighbourhoods
Recreation Programming - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
_01021
Recreation - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
Service Level Questions User Pay Questions
■ Workshops ■ On -line ■ Workshops On -line
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Balanced Users Taxpayers
Model Share More More
1.
Satisfied with level of service
24.0%
31
26.7%
12
24.5%
13
19.4%
6
43.2%
139
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
23.3%
30
31.1%
14
26.4%
14
6.5%
2
24.8%
80
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
10.9%
14
4.4%
2
13.2%
7
16.1%
5
9.6%
31
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored
41.9%
54
37.8%
17
35.9%
19
58.1%
18
22.4%
72
Service
1.
Level Totals
Think users and taxpayers already pay about the right share
21.3%
129
33
27.0%
45
10
32.7%
53
17
18.2%
31
6
45.4%
322
142
2.
Think users should shoulder more share
54.8%
85
39.4% 13 56.8%
21
51.9%
27
72.7%
24
47.0%
147
3.
Think taxpayers should shoulder more share
23.9%
37
60.6% 20 16.2%
6
15.4%
8
9.1%
3
7.7%
24
181 Page
Heritage
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Heritage
Increase Grant Funding - heritage stimulates investment; rewards in
tourism, higher assessments, and improvements to neighbourhoods
Reduce or Eliminate Grant Funding - this is not a priority, not
something taxpayers should be funding; property owners should be
responsible for their property maintenance; provide loans not grants
Heritage Board - rules for property maintenance need to be relaxed;
allow modern expressions of design; current requirements are too
costly which acts as a disincentive to investment
Approval Process - too many buildings are designated, need new
criteria; approval process is too long, not flexible; applicants need
better staff support
Funding Priority- better protection of heritage buildings is needed;
too many are burning down, are dilapidated or are being demolished
Heritage - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
_01021
1.
Satisfied with level of service
21.6%
27
32.4%
12
7.4%
4
32.4%
11
49.0%
150
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
12.8%
16
16.2%
6
18.5%
10
0.0%
0
4.6%
14
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
23.2%
29
10.8%
4
29.6%
16
26.5%
9
32.0%
98
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored
42.4%
53
40.5%
15
44.4%
24
41.2%
14
14.4%
44
Service
Level Totals
125
37
54
34
0.
1.
Think users and taxpayers already pay about the right share
32.5%
51
50.0%
21
40.8%
20
29.4%
10
54.1%
158
2.
Think users should shoulder more share
47.8%
75
53.1% 17 26.2%
11
46.9%
23
70.6%
24
43.5%
127
3.
User
Think taxpayers should shoulder more share
Pay Totals
19.7%
31
157
46.9% 15 23.8%
32
10
42
12.2%
6
4•
0.0%
0
34
2.4%
7
292
19 1 P _ „
Dangerous and Vacant Buildings
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Dangerous and Vacant Buildings
Increase Funding — there are too many buildings that need to be taken down; more
resources are needed to increase the number being removed every year
Process Must be Faster — it takes too long to remove these buildings; they are
dangerous, become fire hazards, discourage investment, reduce assessments, continue
to cost the City in inspections, and put neighbours at risk
Penalize Property Owners — owners should be responsible for demolition or upgrades;
City needs more expropriation powers to be able to deal with absentee and non-
compliant property owners quicker
Re- development Plan — a plan to deal with the vacant lots is needed, too many are left
undeveloped for too long and the state they are in does not encourage investment
Prevention — more resources are needed to prevent buildings from ever reaching the
state of being dangerous; earlier expropriation; take more absentee owners to court;
more enforcement of bylaws needed
Dangerous and Vacant Buildings - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
�:7_12l
Vacant Buildings - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100% —
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
1.
Satisfied with level of service
10.7%
17
20.0%
6
11.9%
5
7.6%
4
5.9%
2
33.8%
102
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
27.7%
44
20.0%
6
35.7%
15
34.0%
18
14.7%
5
34.1%
103
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
3.1%
5
3.3%
1
0.0%
0
1.9%
1
8.8%
3
5.3%
16
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
58.5%
93
56.7%
17
52.4%
22
56.6%
30
70.6%
24
26.8%
81
Totals
159
30
42
53
34
302
201Fa
Neighbourhood Services
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Neighbourhood Services
Eliminate the Program — users should pay for this kind of programming; community
groups receive enough support; resources should be spent on physical improvements,
not social programming; funding does not benefit all City neighbourhoods; Provincial
government is responsible for social programs
Increase the User -Pay component — community agencies and organizations should be
taking more responsibility for these types of social welfare programs; reduce spending
on this type of program until the budget is balanced; more accountability needed from
benefiting agencies
■ Existing program is adequate — retain the existing program, no additional funding is
needed; program needs to be better advertised, was not aware it existed
Neighbourhood Services - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
jok 1121
Neighbourhoods - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
1.
Satisfied with level of service
31.0%
49
30.0%
9
36.4%
16
30.0%
15
26.5%
9
68.4%
203
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
23.4%
37
30.0%
9
25.0%
11
30.0%
15
5.9%
2
13.1%
39
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
6.3%
10
6.7%
2
4.6%
2
6.0%
3
8.8%
3
8.8%
26
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
39.2%
62
33.3%
10
34.1%
15
34.0%
17
58.8%
20
9.8%
29
Totals
158
30
44
50
34
297
21 1 F' >
Transit
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Transit
Increase service — options for weekends, holidays and evenings; express or direct
routes; improve connections to decrease wait time for transfers
■ Introduce smaller buses — low ridership on feeder routes and off -peak hours
■ Optimize /decrease routes —focus service hours on core and priority neighbourhoods
and cutting routes with low ridership provided warning is given and rural areas;
reducing frequency, especially during off -peak hours
Increase ridership — better communication of schedules; service reliability; incentives;
encourage employees to take the bus; reduce parking spaces / increase parking rates
Improve communication — schedules; routes; service changes; bike racks; NextBus
Review fairs — balance user -pay and tax subsidy; discounts for bulk purchases
(monthly), round trips, families, and youth
Transit facility considerations — rent out space; obtain property tax rebate
Transit - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
_ULN
Transit - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100%
80%
60%
40% -
20%
0% -
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
1.
Satisfied with level of service
6.9%
11
3.2%
1
7.0%
3
4.0%
2
14.3%
5
34.2%
100
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
22.6%
36
19.4%
6
32.6%
14
18.0%
9
20.0%
7
24.7%
72
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
4.4%
7
3.2%
1
2.3%
1
8.0%
4
2.9%
1
11.0%
32
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
66.0%
105
74.2%
23
58.1%
25
70.0%
35
62.9%
22
30.1%
88
Totals
159
31
43
50
35
292
2 21P_ -
Parks & Sports Fields
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Parks and Sports Fields
Reduce number of parks, sports fields and playgrounds — quality over quantity; align
with community needs and utilization (demand); repurpose or give to community
groups for gardens
Review user fees — affordable fees focused on better cost recovery; resident versus
non - resident fees; subsidies or lower fees for youth
Outsource or partnerships for maintenance - less frequently used fields; leagues to
provide maintenance
Encourage neighbourhood and volunteer involvement — maintenance of
neighbourhood parks and facilities; City supplies materials; adoption program
■ Better promotion of parks and recreation facility infrastructure — events; Rockwood
Park; non - traditional uses (e.g., weddings)
■ Expand trails (cycling /walking) — expand and connect; age appropriate; Marsh Creek
and Harbour Passage
Parks and Sports Fields - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
_01021
Parks & Sports Fields - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops o On -line
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
1.
Satisfied with level of service
25.0%
39
19.4%
6
23.8%
10
25.5%
13
31.3%
10
53.1%
155
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
14.1%
22
22.6%
7
9.5%
4
21.6%
11
0.0%
0
16.4%
48
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
16.0%
25
25.8%
8
16.7%
7
15.7%
8
6.3%
2
14.7%
43
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
44.9%
70
32.3%
10
50.0%
21
37.3%
19
62.5%
20
15.8%
46
Totals
156
31
42
51
32
292
23 1P_„
Sidewalks — Winter Control
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Sidewalks — Winter Control
Property owner responsible for clearing sidewalks — introduce new by -law; fines for
non - compliance; support options for those with challenges; consideration for some
businesses
I Rationalize service areas — focus on priority areas (uptown, schools); no new sidewalks
added
Service efficiencies — better coordination with winter street maintenance; review
standard and better utilize staff to ensure that sidewalks need maintenance (not bare
or icy)
Review service objectives — focus on safety and accessibility; faster service; more
sidewalks maintained using priorities
Contract Out — cost savings expected
Focus on winter street maintenance — reduce sidewalk service objectives to direct
resources to streets
Sidewalks - Winter Control - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
_ULN
Sidewalks Winter - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100% -
80%
60%
40% - or
20% -
0% - 6 1
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
1.
Satisfied with level of service
30.3%
47
25.8%
8
20.0%
8
39.2%
20
33.3%
11
49.1%
144
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
10.3%
16
3.2%
1
17.5%
7
11.8%
6
6.1%
2
18.8%
55
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
11.6%
18
32.3%
10
2.5%
1
9.8%
5
6.1%
2
9.2%
27
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
47.7%
74
38.7%
12
60.0%
24
39.2%
20
54.5%
18
22.9%
67
Totals
155
31
40
51
33
293
24 1 P
Arenas
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Arenas
Increase fees — cost recovery with higher fees for adults and lower for youth /subsidies;
non - resident premium charged; competitive to attract tournaments
Multi- purpose facilities — promote more uses for arenas (other than skating /hockey);
partner or build multiplex preferably east (can eliminating one or more areas)
Privatize or partnerships for maintenance — contract out maintenance; lease arenas to
operate and maintain
Optimize utilization and operations — provide incentives to book off -peak hours;
review shift schedules to cover booked hours and close when arenas not in use
Accessible public skates — provide better communication on public skating times;
schedule public skates when will get high attendance; build outdoor rinks (e.g.,
Shamrock)
■ Regional service — leverage regional assets to provide better ice time; do not build new
rinks
Arenas - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
Ilk 1121
Arenas -Service Levels andTrade -Offs
■ Workshops R On -line
100%
80%
60% - —
40% -
20% -
0% �-
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
5.
Satisfied with level of service
33.3%
50
38.7%
12
34.2%
13
32.0%
16
29.0%
9
60.5%
173
6.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
6.0%
9
9.7%
3
2.6%
1
10.0%
5
0.0%
0
9.4%
27
7.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
14.7%
22
12.9%
4
15.8%
6
18.0%
9
9.7%
3
14.3%
41
8.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
46.0%
69
38.7%
12
47.4%
18
40.0%
20
61.3%
19
15.7%
45
Totals
150
31
38
50
31
286
251Fa,, e
Solid Waste Collection
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Solid Waste Collection
Introduce curb -side recycling program - consider fee for service; monthly /weekly
Introduce bag -limit - reduce costs related to operations and tipping fees
1 Move back to weekly pick -up -public desire but no willingness to pay more; concerns
over smell and vermin in summer
Contract out - cost savings expected
Reinstate spring clean -up - public desire; concerns over illegal dumping; consider user
fees
Improve blue -bin recycle service - safety; locations (more); emptied in a timely fashion
Convert to a fee for service - pay for what is pick -up; pay for additional bins and bags
Improve communication - service schedules; promotion of waste diversion
■ Fines for not recycling /composting - reduce refuse pick -up and tipping fees
Solid Waste Collection - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
Ilk 1121
Solid Waste - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100%
80%
60% -
40%
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
5.
Satisfied with level of service
44.4%
71
35.5%
11
61.4%
27
38.9%
21
38.7%
12
61.2%
175
6.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
6.9%
11
6.5%
2
6.8%
3
9.3%
5
3.2%
1
10.8%
31
7.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
3.1%
5
9.7%
3
0.0%
0
1.9%
1
3.2%
1
6.3%
18
8.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
45.6%
73
48.4%
15
31.8%
14
50.0%
27
54.8%
17
21.7%
62
Totals
.0
31
44
54
31
286
26 1Pa e
Roads
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Roads
Improve quality of contracted /City forces work — better contract management with
penalties for delays and poor quality
Better coordination of utility and maintenance work — plan street maintenance work
to coordinate with utilities or other maintenance work (e.g., line painting)
Improve traffic during construction season — better coordination of projects; complete
work during off -peak (night -time) hours
Privatize /contract out maintenance work — expect cost savings; better quality
Improve standards — asphalt repairs, utility cuts, construction; consider other
materials (e.g., chipseal outlying roads, concrete high traffic)
■ Introduce truck traffic measures — enforce truck traffic routes (penalties)
■ Lower snow control service objectives — focus on main and emergency routes;
acceptable snow packed standard with winter tire by -law
Roads - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
Ilk 1121
Roads - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100% —
80% -
60%
40%
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
1.
Satisfied with level of service
19.0%
31
10.0%
3
14.9%
7
29.1%
16
16.1%
5
28.5%
82
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
11.0%
18
13.3%
4
12.8%
6
10.9%
6
6.5%
2
33.7%
97
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
4.3%
7
3.3%
1
4.3%
2
1.8%
1
9.7%
3
2.4%
7
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
65.6%
107
73.3%
22
68.1%
32
58.2%
32
67.7%
21
35.4%
102
Totals
163
30
1
271Pa -e
Drinking Water
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Drinking Water
Safe, clean drinking water as a priority — need for treatment plant and piping
upgrades; concerns over number of boil orders, quality, taste
Universal metering — pay for what you use;
I Review rates — affordable rates; equity among ratepayers with heavy users paying fair
share; rates to reflect cost of greater infrastructure needs to support industry
Implement P3 model /privatize /independent commission — affordability of safe, clean
drinking water
■ Eliminate fluoride — value questioned; need to be consistent with other municipalities
■ Raw water industrial system — untreated water to reduce costs
■ Protect watershed — safety and quality of water
■ Better communication — notification of boil orders /shout -offs; water conservation;
understanding on utility versus tax rate
Drinking Water - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
_01021
Drinking Water - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
1.
Satisfied with level of service
33.5%
54
29.0%
9
27.3%
12
37.0%
20
40.6%
13
48.3%
140
2.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
8.1%
13
6.5%
2
6.8%
3
13.0%
7
3.1%
1
22.8%
66
3.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
6.8%
11
3.2%
1
13.6%
6
7.4%
4
0.0%
0
2.8%
8
4.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
51.6%
83
61.3%
19
52.3%
23
42.6%
23
56.3%
18
26.2%
76
Tota
I s
161
31
44
54
32
•0
28
Fire
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Fire
Review Tiered Response — ensure firefighters are not responding to calls they do not
need to respond too; review criteria for dispatching
Increase Funding — citizens not well covered for fire protection; community is at a
higher risk because of the number of derelict buildings and heavy industry; service has
already been cut
Decrease Funding to Fire — bring service cost in line with Moncton and Fredericton;
explore use of volunteer firefighters; reduce service levels to control costs
Cost Recovery — Fire should be charging for services; charge for inspections, non-
compliance, false alarms, technical services; cost - recovery should be a focus for the
service
Service Review— benchmark then bring service in -line with where it should be; use
data to establish what services and what level of service is needed; regionalize the
service with surrounding municipalities
Fire - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
Ilk 1121
Fire - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
4.
Satisfied with level of service
29.3%
48
15.6%
5
23.3%
10
29.6%
16
48.6%
17
32.7%
96
5.
Would like more service; willing to pay more
19.5%
32
3.1%
1
11.6%
5
38.9%
21
14.3%
5
28.6%
84
6.
Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
25.0%
41
31.3%
10
39.5%
17
13.0%
7
20.0%
7
28.9%
85
7.
Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
26.2%
43
50.0%
16
25.6%
11
18.5%
10
17.1%
6
9.9%
29
.,
32
43
54
35
294
29 1P_
Police Services
Service Opportunities and Ideas for Change for Police Services
Different Policing Approach — more police on the streets walking or biking to be more
visible; more attention to the smaller crimes that have a negative effect on the
community leg. vandalism); more enforcement of traffic violations
Service Changes — examine the potential for the RCMP to provide the service; look at
regionalizing to save costs; revenue generation potential should be explored leg
charging for false alarms and specialty services); costs should be in -line with other
similar sized cities
Facilities — more community policing stations, could be integrated into community
centres; concern with a centralized model
Stabilize / Increase Funding — service is effective; more police presence needed; there
are not enough police on duty during the night shifts
Police Services - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
_01021
Police - Service Levels and Trade -Offs
■ Workshops ■ On -line
100
80
60%
40%
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Model
8. Satisfied with level of service
42.9%
70
38.7%
12
26.7%
12
61.1%
33
39.4%
13
57.7%
168
9. Would like more service; willing to pay more
11.7%
19
6.5%
2
11.1%
5
13.0%
7
15.2%
5
15.1%
44
10. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
17.8%
29
16.1%
5
33.3%
15
11.1%
6
9.1%
3
12.7%
37
11. Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
27.6%
45
38.7%
12
28.9%
13
14.8%
8
36.4%
12
14.4%
42
Totals
163
31
45
54
33
291
301Pa -e
Service Trade -Off Questions
Which service are you most satisfied with the level of service, amount, and cost? (priority ranking)
Roads
Solid Waste Collection
Drinking Water
Fire
Police
xIAA21
4.3%
7
9.4%
3
4.4%
2
1.9%
1
3.0%
1
3.9%
11
35.2%
57
40.6%
13
51.1%
23
30.8%
16
15.2%
5
33.8%
95
4.9%
8
12.5%
4
4.4%
2
1.9%
1
3.0%
1
8.5%
24
33.3%
54
9.4%
3
22.2%
10
44.2%
23
54.5%
18
33.5%
94
22.2%
36
28.1%
9
17.8%
8
21.2%
11
24.2%
8
20.3%
57
Transit
7.6%
12
9.7%
3
4.7%
2
5.9%
3
12.1%
4
16.1%
43
Parks & Sports Fields
11.4%
18
12.9%
4
14.0%
6
7.8%
4
12.1%
4
13.9%
37
Sidewalk: Winter Control
22.8%
36
19.4%
6
11.6%
5
33.3%
17
24.2%
8
12.4%
33
Arenas & Ice Scheduling
14.6%
23
9.7%
3
16.3%
7
9.8%
5
24.2%
8
10.5%
28
Vacant Buildings
5.7%
9
9.7%
3
2.3%
1
7.8%
4
3.0%
1
7.9%
21
Neighbourhood Services
17.7%
28
38.7%
12
20.9%
9
7.8%
4
9.1%
3
9.7%
26
Community Planning
6.3%
10
4.7%
2
11.8%
6
6.1%
2
10.9%
29
Recreation Programming
8.9%
14
16.3%
7
11.8%
6
3.0%
1
8.2%
22
Heritage
Totals
5.1%
8
158
31
9.3%
4
43
3.9%
2
51
6.1%
2
33
10.5%
28
267
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
■ Workshop ■ On -line
Roads Solid Drinking Fire Police
Waste Water
■ Workshop ■ On -line
40.00%
30.00% -
20.00% -
10.00%
0.00%
Transit Parks Sidewalks Arenas Buildings Neighbour- Planning Recreation Heritage
hood
311 Page
Service Trade -Off Questions
Which service would you most like to see increased re. amount /quality and be willing to pay more? (priority ranking)
Roads
Solid Waste Collection
Drinking Water
Fire
Police
�:7_12l
35.2%
56
45.7%
16
40.5%
17
19.2%
10
43.3%
13
35.6%
95
3.1%
5
5.7%
2
0.0%
0
3.9%
2
3.3%
1
5.6%
15
27.7%
44
34.3%
12
35.7%
15
26.9%
14
10.0%
3
14.2%
38
27.0%
43
5.7%
2
16.7%
7
48.1%
25
30.0%
9
33.3%
89
6.9%
11
8.6%
3
7.1%
3
1.9%
1
13.3%
4
11.2%
30
Transit
28.5%
43
38.7%
12
32.5%
13
18.8%
9
28.1%
9
23.5%
61
Parks & Sports Fields
9.9%
15
16.1%
5
5.0%
2
12.5%
6
6.3%
2
13.8%
36
Sidewalk: Winter Control
11.9%
18
9.7%
3
12.5%
5
8.3%
4
18.8%
6
15.8%
41
Arenas & Ice Scheduling
6.0%
9
3.2%
1
2.5%
1
10.4%
5
6.3%
2
7.7%
20
Vacant Buildings
20.5%
31
12.9%
4
22.5%
9
29.2%
14
12.5%
4
18.8%
49
Neighbourhood Services
9.9%
15
19.4%
6
10.0%
4
4.2%
2
9.4%
3
7.3%
19
Community Planning
6.0%
9
7.5%
3
6.3%
3
9.4%
3
2.3%
6
Recreation Programming
4.0%
6
2.5%
1
8.3%
4
3.1%
1
8.1%
21
Heritage
3.3%
5
5.0%
2
2.1%
1
6.3%
2
2.7%
7
Totals
151
31
40
4:
32
260
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
■ Workshop ■ On -line
Roads Solid Drinking Fire Police
Waste Water
■ Workshop ■ On -line
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00% At
Transit Parks Sidewalks Arenas Buildings Neighbour- Planning Recreation Heritage
hood
321Page
�:7,121
Service Trade -Off Questions
Which service would you most like to see a reduction in service that would result in savings? (priority ranking)
Roads
7.2%
10
3.3%
1
0.0%
0
16.3%
7
7.7%
2
7.0%
18
Solid Waste Collection
25.9%
36
13.3%
4
22.5%
9
34.9%
15
30.8%
8
28.0%
72
Drinking Water
9.4%
13
0.0%
0
7.S%
3
11.6%
5
19.2%
5
10.9%
28
Fire
46.8%
65
76.7%
23
60.0%
24
23.3%
10
30.8%
8
39.3%
101
Police
10.8%
15
6.7%
2
10.0%
4
14.0%
6
11.5%
3
14.8%
38
Transit
10.1%
16
9.1%
3
6.8%
3
18.8%
9
2.9%
1
10.5%
28
Parks & Sports Fields
13.2%
21
21.2%
7
11.4%
5
16.7%
8
2.9%
1
5.3%
14
Sidewalk: Winter Control
13.2%
21
33.3%
11
11.4%
5
6.3%
3
5.9%
2
7.5%
20
Arenas & Ice Scheduling
14.5%
23
15.2%
5
13.6%
6
16.7%
8
11.8%
4
15.0%
40
Vacant Buildings
5.7%
9
15.2%
5
4.6%
2
2.1%
1
2.9%
1
6.0%
16
Neighbourhood Services
5.0%
8
6.1%
2
4.6%
2
6.3%
3
2.9%
1
5.6%
15
Community Planning
9.4%
15
11.4%
5
12.5%
6
11.8%
4
9.0%
24
Recreation Programming
5.7%
9
11.4%
5
6.3%
3
2.9%
1
4.1%
11
Heritage
Totals
23.3%
37
25.0%
11
„
14.6%
7
,;
55.9%
19
34
36.8%
98
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
■ Workshop ■ On -line
Roads Solid Drinking Fire Police
Waste Water
■ Workshop ■ On -line
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00% -
10.00%
0.00%
Transit Parks Sidewalks Arenas Buildings Neighbour- Planning Recreation Heritage
hood
331Page
Service Trade -Off Questions
Which service would you most like to see a different service delivery model explored? (priority ranking)
Roads
Solid Waste Collection
Drinking Water
Fire
Police
�:7,121
34.0%
54
21.2%
7
31.7%
13
36.5%
19
45.5%
15
24.1%
65
22.6%
36
21.2%
7
7.3%
3
32.7%
17
27.3%
9
25.2%
68
18.2%
29
12.1%
4
31.7%
13
17.3%
9
9.1%
3
19.3%
52
20.1%
32
39.4%
13
22.0%
9
7.7%
4
18.2%
6
20.0%
54
5.0%
8
6.1%
2
7.3%
3
5.8%
3
0.0%
0
11.5%
31
Transit
43.8%
70
50.0%
16
38.6%
17
46.9%
23
40.0%
14
27.3%
73
Parks & Sports Fields
6.9%
11
6.3%
2
4.6%
2
10.2%
5
5.7%
2
8.2%
22
Sidewalk: Winter Control
9.4%
15
15.6%
5
9.1%
4
6.1%
3
8.6%
3
9.7%
26
Arenas & Ice Scheduling
6.9%
11
9.4%
3
9.1%
4
4.1%
2
5.7%
2
11.6%
31
Vacant Buildings
11.3%
18
9.4%
3
13.6%
6
14.3%
7
5.7%
2
13.5%
36
Neighbourhood Services
3.8%
6
0.0%
0
4.6%
2
0.0%
0
11.4%
4
5.2%
14
Community Planning
3.1%
5
0.0%
0
4.6%
2
4.1%
2
2.9%
1
7.1%
19
Recreation Programming
5.6%
9
6.3%
2
9.1%
4
2.0%
1
5.7%
2
6.4%
17
Heritage
9.4%
15
3.1%
1
6.8%
3
12.2%
6
14.3%
5
10.9%
29
Totals
.0
32
44
,.
35
267
■ Workshop ■ On -line
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Roads Solid Drinking Fire Police
Waste Water
■ Workshop ■ On -line
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Transit Parks Sidewalks Arenas Buildings Neighbour- Planning Recreation Heritage
hood
341Page
General Questions
How did you learn about tonight's Workshop?
Newspaper
22.1%
30
24.4%
11
17.0%
9
26.3%
10
Radio
14.7%
20
22.2%
10
11.3%
6
10.5%
4
Council
14.0%
19
8.9%
4
11.3%
6
23.7%
9
Friends /family
28.7%
39
28.9%
13
35.9%
19
18.4%
7
City Website
4.4%
6
4.4%
2
1.9%
1
7.9%
3
Other
16.2%
22
11.1%
5
22.6%
12
13.2%
5
In which area of Saint John do you live?
North End
21.4%
30
45.8%
22
12.5%
7
2.8%
1
12.8%
55
Millidgeville
15.7%
22
41.7%
20
3.6%
2
0.0%
0
11.2%
48
East Saint John
30.0%
42
2.1%
1
17.9%
10
86.1%
31
28.8%
124
West Saint John
10.0%
14
4.2%
2
16.1%
9
8.3%
3
24.4%
105
Fairville
0.7%
1
0.0%
0
1.8%
1
0.0%
0
0.9%
4
Lancaster
1.4%
2
0.0%
0
3.6%
2
0.0%
0
3.5%
15
South End
12.1%
17
2.1%
1
28.6%
16
0.0%
0
4.0%
17
Uptown /Downtown
6.4%
9
0.0%
0
16.1%
9
0.0%
0
8.6%
37
Other
2.1%
3
4.2%
2
0.0%
0
2.8%
1
5.8%
25
Totals
40
4:
56
36
430
How do you feel about the Workshop style and delivery method used tonight?
Unsatisfied
24.3%
33
20.0%
9
35.2%
19
13.5%
5
Somewhat unsatisfied
16.2%
22
11.1%
5
22.2%
12
13.5%
5
Neutral
14.0%
19
20.0%
9
9.3%
5
13.5%
5
Somewhat Satisfied
24.3%
33
28.9%
13
13.0%
7
35.1%
13
Satisfied
21.3%
29
20.0%
9
20.4%
11
24.3%
9
A I
351 Page
rAi
Ipsos Reid
City of Saint John 2012 Citizen Survey
2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John Nobody's Unpredictable
2012 marks the 4t" "City of Saint John" Citizen Survey
■ City of Saint John Annual Citizen Survey
Why is it important? How is it conducted? How it can help guide priorities?
■ Key Study Findings:
Resident Profile: Community composition should be considered... one in five residents are
now over 65 years of age; 57% are now 45 years of age & older; only one in three
households have children under 18 living in the home; two - thirds own their home (which
varies greatly by Ward); two - thirds of residents lived in the City for 20 years or more; one
in four have a university degree
Quality of Life: Measures remain stable compared to one year ago, both in terms of
overall quality of life and the past 3 year trend
Satisfaction with Overall Municipal Programs /Service: 75 %, up 5% from one year ago;
most significant decrease in resident satisfaction is with public transit (56 %, down from
78% in 2011); most significant increase in resident satisfaction is for land use, zoning
approvals, community planning
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John 12
Issues of Local Concern: While roads and water continue to dominate, concern among
citizens with matters relating to municipal finances have doubled in the past 4 years
• The state of our roads, there are many
potholes destroying our cars.
• Have got to prioritize roads, they are terrible.
• Potholes, drive around the City, you will see
them everywhere
• Roads, every road you go down, it's ripped up.
• Water, it has to be cleaned up and the system
has to be rebuilt, they have to protect our
clean water supply.
• My water has a smell to it when you turn on
the tap, 1 get my water from Sobey's.
• Water quality should be a high priority
• Pension fund, it's in the tank.
• Pension needs to be sorted one way or
another and get control of the pension board.
• Pension the City employees get, it is all '
screwed up, the sooner they get it taken care
of, it is bankrupting the City
• Get the debt under control.
• Curb unnecessary spending such as Peel Plaza.
• Budget —for in debt and not providing enough
services.
• Reducing City expenditures
INFRASTRUCTURE 28% 23% 19% 23%
(ROADS)
WATER /WASTEWATER 12% 16% 16% 13%
PENSION ISSUES 11% 15% 1% 2%
FISCAL MANAGEMENT/
BUDGET /FINANCES /DEBT 10% 7% 6% 2%
TAX ISSUES 5% 7% 12% 6%
• Property taxes are too high, everyone is moving away.
• Tax rate, too high
• Only issue 1 have is property taxes are too high
1. In your view, as a resident of the City of Saint John, what is the one most important LOCAL issue facing the City today, that is the one issue you feel should receive the
greatest attention from Common Council and Citv Management?
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
13
Higher
Resident
Satisfaction
Levels
L
N
D
U
C
ra
E
i
L
a
0�
Lower
Resident
Satisfaction
Levels
Citizen Priority Items: 2012 citizen priorities relate to key infrastructure (roads /sidewalks,
drinking water, storm water management, snow removal) and economic development
Municipal Services & Programs: 2012 Priorities
(n =775)
Collection • •
Police Services
Parks, trails and other
green space
Emergency
Preparedness • Traffic flow
Heritage Preservation
Municir al Wastewater treatment
• .
Building In,pection •Availability Public • Snow Removal • Drinkin
• Municipal RECREATION • Transit Neighbou ood • Storm water management Water
g
By -law enforcement , • • Animal • •
PROGRAMS Control improve ent Sidewalk maintenance
for property issues Land use, zonin a royals
g pp Economic • Road
and community planning Development •
Maintenance
Lower Importance to Citizens
Importance (Requiremen )
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
Higher Importance to Citizens
14
Balancing Service Delivery & Taxation: Slightly more residents now opt to increase taxes (to
either improve or maintain services) rather than reduce services (to either reduce or maintain
tax levels)
2012 Citizen Survey
(n =775)
Increase Taxes to
None of these/ Expand Services,
Don't Know, 15% 20%
Reduce Services tom
Reduce Taxes, 13%
Reduce Services to
Maintain Tax Level,
25%
Increase Taxes to
Maintain Services,
27%
14. Municipal property taxes are the primary way to pay for services and programs provided by the City of Saint John. Due to the increased cost of maintaining current service
levels and infrastructure, the City must balance taxation and service delivery levels. To deal with this situation, which of the following four options would you most like the City
to pursue?
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
15
Ipsos Reid
2012 CITIZEN SURVEY
DETAILED STUDY FINDINGS
n64!v- .,
SAINT JOHN
2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
Nobody's Unpredictable
Overall quality of life measures in Saint John remain stable
compared to one year ago
Overall Quality of Life (% Very Good + Good)
96
79% 78%
A --L
Ipsos Reid 2012 2011
Municipal
Norm
87% 84%
_,w
2010 2009
Past 3 Year Trend — Quality of Life in Saint John
■ Ipsos Reid Municipal Norm ■ 2012 2011 x- 2010 ■ 2009
24%
17%
Improved 18%
29
23
51%
47
Stayed the Same 49%
48
54%
Worsened
22%
21%
22%
1 35
32
r 2012 (n =118)
Gov't /Council is doing better
Improvements to Roads
Construction /Facility Upgrades
Better /More Positive Outlook
Better Parks /Trails /Looks Nicer
IMPROVED — HOW?
9%
9%
6%
6%
17%
WORSENED — HOW?
2012(n=287)
Employment Issu
Gov't /Coun
Finances /De
Poor Service /Cutbac
Economy /Recessii
Tax Issues /High Tax
2. How would you rate the overall quality of life in the City of Saint John today? 3. And, do you feel that the quality of life in the City of Saint John in the past three years has ...
4. Why do you think the quality of life has improved? 5. Why do you think the quality of life has worsened?
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John 17
City of Saint John is
seen to be doing a good job
creating
a community
that is attractive to
both residents and visitors, on
a variety
of dimensions
Very or Somewhat Good Job
2012 Citizen Survey (n =775)
Ensuring a safe and caring community
Preserving the City of Saint John's heritage
78%
80%
2011
2010
2009
Ipsos Reid
Citizen
Citizen
Citizen
Municipal
Survey
Survey
Survey
Norm
83%
81%
84%
76%
83%
81%
83%
73%
Promoting and supporting arts and culture
M 74%
76%
80%
77%
n/a
Supporting strong economy with different
55%
57%
65%
73%
75%
kinds of businesses
k
Promoting responsible and quality urban
development
61%
57%
66%
69%
52%
Supporting the community's vision
56%
56%
63%
68%
57%
Improving quality of life for residents
58%
56%
62%
66%
72%
Engaging the community in municipal
.......... ............................... .................
decisions
°
51/0
46%
46%
47%
62%
Creating a great community to raise a
...................................... ............................
family
72%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Creating an attractive destination for
tourists
84%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
............
Valuing and respecting the natural
......................................................................................................................
...............................
environment
74%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Offering exciting entertainment activities
...................................................................................................................
...............................
and recreational opportunities
59%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
12. Now please tell me whether you think the City of Saint John is doing a good or a poor lob in each of the following areas. The first area is
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
18
Level of importance of municipal services/ programs remains generally
consistent with past years; however some slight variances are noted
2012 Citizen Survey - % Very Important
(n =775)
Drinking water
95%
Ipsos Reid
Police services
2010 Citizen
92%
Fire services
91%
Municipal
Road maintenance
Survey
91%
Garbage and compost collection
87%
95%
95%
Wastewater treatment
96%
90%
86%
93%
84%
Snow removal
93%
94%
85%
91%
89%
Traffic safety (Motor /Pedestrian)
64%
85%
81%
89%
74%
Economic Development
88%
90%
78%
89%
87%
Sidewalk maintenance (including snow removal)
n/a
n/a
75%
n/a
n/a
Emergency Preparedness
n/a
n/a
75%
77%
77%
Storm water management
59%
n/a
73 %T
n/a
n/a
Recreation Facilities
65%
67%
n/a
Parks, trails and other green space
62%
63 %,,�
51%
71%
Public transit
67%
62%
T
48%
Neighbourhood Improvement
60%
62%
n/a
n/a
Animal Control
n/a
58%
n/a
Recreation Programs
51%
56%
52%
Parking availability
n/a
52%
n/a
Land use, zoning approvals and community...
55%
46% y
54%
Building Permits /Inspection
59%
46%,4,
63%
Bylaw Enforcement for Property Issues
1
43%
n/a
Heritage preservation
42%
39%
50%
9. 1 am going to read a list of programs and services provided to you by the City of Saint John. Please tell me how important each one is to you?
1,4, Arrow indicates a significant difference between 2011 and 2012 Survey Results
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
19
Ipsos Reid
2011 Citizen
2010 Citizen
2009 Citizen
Municipal
Survey
Survey
Survey
Norm
95%
95%
97%
96%
90%
91%
93%
84%
93%
93%
94%
86%
91%
89%
91%
64%
85%
84%
89%
74%
85%
88%
90%
84%
89%
87%
92%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
77%
77%
81%
59%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
68%
65%
74%
n/a
63%
62%
63%
51%
71%
73%
67%
63%
55%
48%
54%
60%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
51%
52%
52%
43%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
55%
48%
54%
60%
59%
57%
63%
43%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
42%
43%
50%
32%
9. 1 am going to read a list of programs and services provided to you by the City of Saint John. Please tell me how important each one is to you?
1,4, Arrow indicates a significant difference between 2011 and 2012 Survey Results
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
19
Citizen satisfaction with municipal program /service performance has improved
overall and in a number of key areas with a few declines noted
2012 Citizen Survey - % Satisfied (Very or Somewhat) (n =775)
Overall Municipal Programs /Services
Drinking water
Police services
Fire services
Road maintenance
Garbage and compost collection
Wastewater treatment
Snow removal
Traffic safety (Motor /Pedestrian)
Economic Development
Sidewalk maintenance (including snow removal)
Emergency Preparedness
Storm water management
Recreation Facilities
Parks, trails and other green space
Public transit
Neighbourhood Improvement
Animal Control
Recreation Programs
Parking availability
Land use, zoning approvals and community planning
Building Permits /Inspection
Bylaw Enforcement for Property Issues
Heritage preservation
2011 Citizen 2010 Citizen 2009 Citizen Ipsos Reid
Survey Survey Survey Municipal
Norm
75 %t 70% 78% 76% 81%
.............. ...............................
58%
54%
56%
57%
89%
90%
91%
89%
92%
85%
92 %s�
96%
98%
96%
94%
............................... .
32 %T
22%
34%
31%
70%
84 %t
79%
78%
80%
85%
77 %t
67%
69%
60%
84%
74 %t
68%
71%
60%
n/a
82%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
64%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
61%
57%
58%
48%
82%
87%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
66%
68%
72%
59%
n/a
75%
76%
73%
75%
87%
91%
90%
88%
90%
90%
56% y
78%
82%
80%
68%
75%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
53%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
74%
75%
78%
76%
87%
69%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
74 %t
62%
69%
70%
70%
74% T
69%
68%
65%
60%
72%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
85 %l`
80%
80%
80%
80%
7. Please tell me how satisfied you are with the overall level and quality of services and programs provided by the City of Saint John?
8. 1 am going to read a list of programs and services provided to you by the City of Saint John. Please tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing in providing that
Tsl, Arrow indicates a significant difference between 2011 and 2012 Survey Results q
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
110
Residents are mixed in their evaluation of City services compared to other similar sized cities
in the region, however they are clear, the City should seek to deliver services at the same
' level of other similarly sized cities in the region
How Do City of Saint John Service Levels Compare to Other Cities of Similar Size In...
(n =775)
7%
28%
7%
■ New Brunswick
42%
Atlantic Canada
43%
Better Same
44%
43%
City of Saint John Should Provide Service Levels That Are....
(n =775)
■ New Brunswick Atlantic Canada
66% 64%
Better
Same
40. How do you think City of Saint John service levels compare to other cities of a similar size in ... ?
41. And, similarly, do you think the City of Saint John should provide service levels that are the same, better or worse than other cities of a similar size in ...?
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
3%
Worse
3%
Worse
a
L� ► ♦
Four in ten believe "private- public partnerships" should be pursued if the City has
to generate additional revenue to deliver the level of service citizens expect
■ User Fees
41%
Means of Generating Additional Revenue to
Deliver Municipal Services at Level Expected
(n =775)
Property Tax Mix of User Fees & Property Tax Private /Public Partnership
43%
19% 19%
9%
N
Public Safety Services Road /Sidewalk Services
(Fire, Police) (Summer, Winter Maint.)
42
41%
42%
Transportation Services Solid Waste Collection
(Pedestrian, Public (Garbage, Compost)
Transit, Parking)
Parks, Rec & Culture
Services
(Arts, Leisure, Rec, Parks)
38. If the City had to generate additional revenue to deliver the level of service citizens expect, which of the following options would you most like the City to pursue for each
of the following types of municipal services?
1psos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
25%
5%
Building & Dev. Services
(Planning, Building
Permits, Bylaw
Enforcement)
12
While most City residents believe the municipality should deliver Public Safety
Services, Road /Sidewalk Services and Transportation Services directly, they are
' ' more mixed in opinion on who should deliver other municipal services
57%
34%
7%
Who Should Deliver Municipal Services?
(n =775)
N City Directly
Contracting Some to Private Contractors
Pursue Partnerships with other service providers /levels of gov't
49%
46%
Public Safety Services Road /Sidewalk Services Transportation Services
(Fire, Police) (Summer, Winter Maint.) (Pedestrian, Public
Transit, Parking)
28
38% 39%
33% 35%
Solid Waste Collection Parks, Rec & Culture
(Garbage, Compost) Services
(Arts, Leisure, Rec, Parks)
39. There has been some discussion about who should deliver some of the municipal services. Service could be provided by the City directly, contracted out to private operators,
or it could be in partnership with other service providers or levels of government. What is your preference for who should deliver each of the following types of municipal se4o
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
Building & Dev. Services
(Planning, Building
Permits, Bylaw
Enforcement)
13
Residents identify the areas where they are unwilling to accept lower service levels
if required to address other service priority areas.
Water /Wastewater Services
Road /Sidewalk Services
(Summer & Winter Maintenance)
Public Safety Services
(Fire, Police)
Solid Waste Collection
(Garbage, Compost)
Transportation Services
(Pedestrian, Public Transit, Parking)
Parks, Recreation, & Culture Services
(Arts, Leisure, Recreation Parks)
Building & Development Services
(Planning, Building Permits, Bylaw
Enforcement)
% of Residents Willing to Accept Lower Service Levels to
Address Other Service Priorities
12%
17%
22%
24%
(n =775)
44%
M Q r, o%
42. If the City had to reduce service levels in one area to address priorities in other service areas, please indicate in which area (s) you would be willing to accept lower service
levels? (Must select at least one area)
74%
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John 1 14
Ipsos Reid
2012 CITIZEN SURVEY - APPENDIX
a k
n64!v- .,
SAINT JOHN
2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
Nobody's Unpredictable
Reliability of the Survey Results
Question:
Is the survey sample similar to the
population on key characteristics?
Does the sample "represent" the
actual population of the City of Saint John?
Answer:
The sample was selected to reflect the
proportion of the population living in each
Wa rd.
Additionally, quota sampling and weighting
are used to ensure representation
of residents by age and gender groups in
levels similar to the actual population of the
City of Saint John (based on 2010 census
information).
Margin of Error:
The margin of error for a sample of n =775
(assuming a 95% confidence level) is + 3.5%
Ipsos Reid 2012 Citizen Survey, City of Saint John
18 to 24 years 12% 12%
25 to 34 years 16% 16%
35 to 44 years 15% 15%
45 to 54 years 20% 20%
55 to 64 years 17% 17%
65 years or older 20% 20%
Gender
Male 48% 46%
Female 52% 54%
a