2012-10-13_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour.7 neSJ
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Saturday, October 13, 2012 @ 9:00 a.m. — 2:00 p.m.
Location: Rockwood Park Interpretation Centre
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, 8t" Floor City Hall
• Introductions /Overview of Process /Guiding Principles /Expectations /Shared decision maki
• 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 13th
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 opportunitie
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 tc
® .
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
i
i
tai v;
z.
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 mucl
sustainable growth pattern and, ultimately, an improved quality of life for
the City's residents. The following nine Directions for Growth and Change
the community's aspirations for the City's future and illustrate best practi
building sustainable and complete communities. These Directions also pr
foundation for the Municipal Plan's City Structure and Land Use framewo
1. Saint John proactively makes choices to shape the best future for t
Saint John:
• Has the courage to say "yes" to what is in the best long term interes
City and its citizens and the courage to say "no" to what is not;
• Embraces challenges and passionately defends the right choices for
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 th
urban centre. Saint John is:
• Energetic, creative, entrepreneurial, and authentic;
• The focus for growth and change in the Region as well as the centre
mixed -use, shopping, living, entertainment, innovation, arts, culture,
education, urban waterfronts and tourism; and
• A City that brings back people that have moved away and is a magnE
for newcomers.
3. Saint John is comprised of healthy, unique and inclusive neighbourl
Saint John:
• Strengthens the concept of `one' Saint John by working to make dist
neighbourhoods feel part of one City and one future;
• Supports mixed income living, offering a range of diverse housing ch
meet different life -cycle needs;
• Enables people of any income level to live in a neighbourhood of the
• Builds on the strong tradition of neighbours taking care of each othe
neighbourhoods are the foundation of the strong community pride tl-
Saint John; and
• Provides a range of services, employment, leisure and recreational c
within neighbourhoods to provide people with the opportunity to live,
play in their neighbourhood.
4. Saint John actively pursues a progressive, robust and prosperous ei
Saint John:
• Reflects an economy that has been rooted in the past but now looks
progressively to the future;
• Strives towards longterm economic stability and social security;
• Embraces knowledge, innovation, traditional industry, green industry
emerging employment sectors; and
• Makes positive choices about the economy and about industry that
for the people who live in Saint John and contribute to high quality o'
residents.
5. Saint John celebrates its many waterfronts and positions them as p
and defining elements of the City. Saint John:
• Embraces water as a central feature of the City's economy, natural e
and a key to the lifestyle and collective community experience of livir
John - magnificent tides, beaches, the Port, fishing, boating, marine
natural beauty, views, recreational opportunities, and a priority on w,
• Celebrates the historic significance of the waterfronts - as key trade
transportation routes and the primary reason for the City's location;
• Strengthens its waterfronts - the rivers, Bay of Fundy, and lakes - ec
through preservation, publicly by creating and maintaining access fo
economically by promoting waterfront development in appropriate to
6. Saint John values and protects its natural environment and ecosyst
land and in water. Saint John:
• Builds the City in balance with nature by encouraging a more compa
sustainable growth pattern;
• Actively stewards ecological systems through preservation, restoratic
enhancement to increase biodiversity and to restore sensitive or dirr
ecosystems;
• Establishes linked natural areas that preserve ecological systems, cc
between and across land and water, and connect people with nature
• Reduces the City's ecological footprint and strives toward greater Ion
environmental sustainability for future generations;
• Promotes best practices in stormwater management, maintains fresl
coastal water quality, and promotes water conservation;
• 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 mitigatioi
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.
8. Saint John offers an enviable quality of life, choice and experience
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 residen
newcomers, and people of different cultures;
• Provides a high quality environment - buildings, parks and open spa
and protects dramatic geography, beautiful views and vistas; and
• Plants trees and quality landscaping to maintain and enhance natur;
vegetation throughout the City.
9. Saint John is committed to a strong plan for action and making chE
Saint John:
• Has the courage to stick to the Municipal Plan during both prosperot
times and difficult times;
• Builds partnerships with other levels of government and neighbourin
municipalities to realize the Municipal Plan;
• Nurtures and encourages inclusive and accountable leadership at tr
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;
• Builds upon the Municipal Plan by updating the Zoning Bylaw and
Subdivision Bylaw and by preparing more detailed neighbourhood pl;
ivu
OUR SAINT JOHN OF THE FUTURE
r I
Y'A
Ottr SaittJaka, Canada's first city, leads the nation
as an example of a sustainable community.
Ot,tr laiffltMw 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" Saift jo�w 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.
Orly SaintJo�w 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.
Otwlat�ttJo�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'�w Sai*ttJo�w is a place where we overcome our
challenges and live our dreams.
This is our Saint John.
Ii
SOCIAL
Oar Cl�' has a strong sense of community and bE
active and healthy lifestyles supported by a diver!
open spaces, recreation facilities and programs, ci
events and public gathering places.
Oux Gty provides a diverse and seamless array o
opportunities that promote individual self- suffick
creativity and life -long learning. Educational prog
supportive of our community and economic envir
Ot'w Gd'y has a flexible and adaptive housing mar
the range of needs within our community. Afford
suitable our housing market contributes to beautl
neighbourhoods that evoke and encourage a stro
ECONOMIC
0a,r Ct't l has a diverse, vibrant, resilient, envirom
economy that actively supports wealth creation, ii
entrepreneurship and individual economic well -b
Our Ct%% offers a variety of economic and emplo)
opportunities where individuals thrive with exciti
options that reward them for their service.
ENVIRONMENT
Ot,w CiI �y recognizes the inherent responsibility o
and organization to embrace a shared commitment
stewardship. We are dedicated to living in balancE
settings and decreasing our demands on finite na
Oar C I has magnificent waterfronts with public
and pedestrian trails that connect the entire city. I
perfectly possible and enjoyable.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Ott,' Gtr% serves the access and mobility needs of
through an evolving array of convenient, comfort
and efficient modes of transportation.
0" CtI l insists on the highest standards of qualit,,
landscaping, infrastructure management and urba
natural and built heritage is a key component in de
and renewed places to live, work, play and learn.
GOVERNANCE
0" Ct'I l fosters civic engagement and pride thrOL
cooperative, inclusive and fiscally responsible govE
r,A
Community Vision Statement
"Our Saint John, Canada's first city, leads the nation as an example of a sustainable coi
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 Saini
into a written community vision statement, a vision that became a shared description articula
goals and aspirations of the Community as citizens shared their hopes and dreams to define tl
for Saint John.
The Process
A Community Visioning Project, led by the Citizens Advisory Group and facilitated by City staff
the vision process. The project had three goals: to develop a shared community vision for Sai
through public engagement; to identify outcomes or community needs; and to develop a set
sustainability principles for Saint John. The sustainability principles provided the foundation fc
creation of the vision and the goals and ensured the environmental, economic, social, govern
infrastructure needs of the community were addressed.
The development of the public engagement strategy was predicated on inclusiveness. The en
plan was designed to encourage individuals and groups to participate in the process. Reflectir
diversity in the community was a priority. A number of engagement techniques were used inc
survey, contests, neighbourhood barbeques, stakeholder meetings, attendance at local event
community workshop.
The public consultation concluded in July 2007. The Citizens Advisory Group received well ovE
thousand ideas on the future of Saint John. This was a tremendous response to the public enE
and the opinions and comments reflected the commitment the people of Saint John have to c
community. The Citizens Advisory Group analyzed, debated, and reviewed this information ar
became the basis for the Community Vision Statement and goals.
In November 2007, Common Council endorsed the Community Vision Statement, Twenty Yea
Sustainability Principles for Saint John.
Context
r,A
Planning Framework
Achieving effective and efficient service delivery depends on disciplined and focused planning
and responsible management of those plans. Strategic planning provides the opportunity to c
shared community vision and implement plans that move the municipality in the desired direr
Planning identifies what the community wants to achieve and how the City, together with cor
stakeholders, will work together to realize these goals.
In June 2008, Common Council adopted a planning framework (Figure 1) that is designed to si
City in translating community vision into action. The framework identifies the strategic and c
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 I
and the organization, providing focus and
W Community Expectations
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 SaintJohners.
Goals & Strategies
Strategic Policy Plans — —
i
i
-- — — — — — — — — — — —
Figure 1: Planning framework— additional information
the City's website http: / /www.saint'ohn.ca /en /home /r
council /planningframework.aspx.
Prepared
Public Engagement Themes
General
Government
Service
Specific
• Efficient Service Delivery
• Better Communication
• Accountable Government
• Public- Private Partnerships /Outsourcing
• Increase User Fees
• Tax Rate versus Revenue Generation
• Urban -Rural Service Levels
Pianinnni (Zorxiir%n (,nnMinnfinn
• Roads (number one priority)
• Drinking Water (continues to be a priority)
• Community Planning (development approval proc
• Winter Sidewalk Maintenance (property owners)
• Fire (tiered response review)
• Service Level Reductions
• Right -Size Recreation and Sports Infrastructure
Prinritxi Klninhhni irhnnrl Corxiir%oc
• ' �
4A
fA
DRS
2012 Public Engagement Ri
V
City of Si
Prepared in coordini
Dillon Consul
Performance Concepts C
Table of Contents
Introduction
Priority and Service Themes
Community Workshop Overview and Summary of Results
1.0 Purpose
2.0 Process
3.0 Rationale for Approach
4.0 Interpreting Results and Data Limitations
5.0 Workshop Results and Highlights
On -Line Consultation
Citizen Survey
Lessons Learned
Appendix
Reader's Guide to Workshop and On -line Consultation Results
Workshop and On -line Consultation Results
Introduction
Public engagement is the process of working collaboratively with municipal stakeholders to di
policy, strategies and plans for investment. It involves information sharing, consultation, and
involvement in decision - making. Effective public engagement results in decisions that are me
sensitive and responsive to citizen values and concerns.
Like many other Canadian municipalities, the City of Saint John is facing significant budget chz
delivering services that continue to meet public expectations. Given that the budget process
community impact, many stakeholders and competing priorities, it was recommended that a
engagement program be conducted in 2012 to inform decisions that will result in more cost -e
service delivery. Results of the engagement program are intended to inform Council's priorit
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 import
engage citizens in a real discussion around important issues using a variety of techniques to n
broad cross - section of Saint John residents. The public engagement program was designed tc
and encourage Saint John residents and property owners to learn about City services, to shar(
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 OurSaintlohn, 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 dia
preferred as they create shared agreement and understanding on decisions. As a result, the K
r i . I i '. r A 1 .1 . 1 .1
Priority and Service Themes
Results of the public engagement program are expressed in themes or general conclusions. T
indicators of what the public considers to be a priority for the community and where they fee
improvements are needed. These themes also address where the public is comfortable with
investigating or implementing reductions to current service levels. Public engagement theme
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.
presented in this section are based on analysis that combines the qualitative and quantitative
generated from the community workshops and on -line consultation process; weighed against
statistically valid citizen survey conducted by Ipsos Reid on behalf of the City. Process and an;
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 apprc
• Winter Sidewalk Maintenance (property c
• Fire (tiered response review)
• Service Level Reductions
• Right -Size Recreation and Sports Infrastru
• Priority Neighbourhood Services
• Mobility Needs (Transit Service)
The following provides some brief commentary for each of the noted priority and service ther
detailed information (qualitative and quantitative data) can be found in the appendix to this r
• 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 improve
and employee productivity. The qualitative data is supported by workshop and on -line vol
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 commei
suggestions for service improvement indicate that there is often a lack of understanding a!
and how the City delivers service.
• Public- Private Partnerships / Outsourcing— Workshop and on -line participants indicated t
evaluate the benefit of other service delivery models (i.e., Option 4). In the qualitative cor
provided by participants, many indicated that an alternative service delivery model could i
public - private partnerships, corporate sponsorship, service agreements with community g
contracting out service. The expectation is for cost savings. The citizen survey also suppor
use of public - private partnerships to deliver service with more than 40% of respondents of
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 ap
raise or introduce user fees to support the delivery of service. The focus is on better cost r
for services that are accessed by specific user groups (e.g., heritage, recreation, arenas) to
burden on the taxpayer. Citizens are comfortable with user fees providing rates are afford
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
income families. The citizen survey compares to the views of workshop and on -line partici
indicating some support for user fees to generate revenue to deliver the level of service cii
expect.
• Tax Rate versus Revenue Generation — Views on the property tax rate are mixed. The citi;
indicates citizens would be comfortable with a tax increase to maintain or expand services
there is little appetite to increase property taxes to generate revenue if there is another SE
option (i.e., user fees or public- private partnerships). Citizen survey views on increasing p
taxes are somewhat balanced with many respondents indicating a preference to reduce SE
to maintain or lower taxes. Many workshop and on -line participants indicated that they w
see improvements in a number of service areas, but not willing to pay more, as a result Op
explore a different service delivery model was often selected.
• Urban -Rural Service Levels — Building on the principles of PlanSJ a number of workshop ar
participants suggested different service levels for urban (intensification areas) and rural ar
City. In the qualitative data many participants noted that the core of the City should be a I
service delivery. In practice, there is a general expectation that the tax rate would reflect 1
service to be provided in each of these areas.
• Regional Service Coordination — In the qualitative data workshop and on -line participants
region coordination of service delivery to find efficiencies. Although there was no agreen-
particular service for regional cooperation, it was a general theme throughout all services.
for regional service coordination were provided primarily for recreation based services (pr
anrd farilitiPCl fires anrd trancit
and improving the image of Saint John. This theme was also reflected in participant sugge .
property owners should be responsible for clearing the sidewalks of snow and ice in front
properties.
• Roads (number one priority for citizens) — Results of the citizen survey and the ServiceSJ K
engagement program indicate that citizens are not satisfied with roads. It was identified it
citizen survey as the number one top of mind issue (28 %) that Council and City manageme
address. Although some citizens are willing to pay more, the implementation of a new del
model is the suggested approach to service improvement.
• Drinking Water (continues to be a priority) — Citizens continued to be concerned about th
drinking water. In addition to being one of the top of mind issues in the citizen survey, ma
workshop and on -line participants indicated a need for full water treatment to address qu;
perceived safety concerns. Workshop participants (50 %) indicated a different model shou
implemented to deliver drinking water, many of them citing a public - private partnership a
preferred alternative in the qualitative comments.
• Community Planning (development approval process) —Citizens are generally satisfied wi
Community Planning Service (alignment of ServiceSJ and survey results); however, there w
suggestions from workshop and on -line participants to introduce a new model for service
Citizens feel there is a need to improve the development process to make it more user -friE
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
municipal plan, there are concerns that 'forcing' development into the plan's intensificatic
would drive investment to neighbouring communities. Citizens suggested that incentives 1
required to attract development in the PlanSJ intensification areas.
• Winter Sidewalk Maintenance (property owners) — Citizens are generally satisfied with th
offering (alignment with ServiceSJ and citizen survey); however, workshop and on -line par -
were willing to consider other service delivery models to find cost savings. Most notable v
suggestion that a by -law be created that would require property owners to clear sidewalkE
and ice in front of their properties particularly in residential neighbourhoods. Citizens note
winter sidewalk maintenance should focus on the City's core and in school zones with no r
sidewalks added to the maintenance network. A number of participants also noted that tl'
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
• Service Level Reductions —The engagement program was designed to determine what citi
willing to 'trade -off' to maintain or increase service in other areas. Through the citizen sur
residents indicated they were more willing to accept a lower level of service for Building ar
Development Services (Planning, Building Permits, By -law Enforcement) and Parks, Recrea
Culture Services (Arts, Leisure, Recreation, Parks). In terms of the workshop and on -line n
Heritage, Parks and Sports fields, and Arenas were the service areas where there was a wil
accept a lower level of service. These results align with the citizen survey in that these ar(
that are typically accessed when there is a specific need, rather than those services that to
breadth of the community.
• Right -size Recreation and Sports Infrastructure (parks, sports fields and arenas) — Many w
and on -line participants noted the need to focus on quality of recreation facilities and infrZ
not necessarily quantity. Participants commented on the need to align infrastructure with
community needs and utilization. Participants suggested repurposing parks and sports fiel
community gardens or selling assets to community groups or sporting organizations as wa,
size recreation infrastructure. There was some agreement that recreation facilities need t,
purpose for a variety of summer and winter recreation and sport activities. A number of p
indicated the need for a multiplex that would accommodate a variety of activities, some ci
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
that have a positive impact in these neighbourhoods include Recreation Programming, Col
Development, and Vacant and Dangerous Buildings. Participants were generally satisfied \
services, noting that service should not be decreased because of the value they bring to pr
neighbourhoods. The exception being Vacant and Dangerous Buildings where participants
different service delivery model should be explored to deal with this important issue. Part
were also mindful of how public transit and access to recreation facilities play an importan
the lives of people who live in these neighbourhoods, suggesting that service objectives or
ensure these services are accessible to all citizens.
• Mobility Needs (Transit Service) — Transit was a service area where there were differing vi
level of service to be provided. Many workshop and on -line participants indicated the nee
increase service by reinstating routes that were recently cut. This view was balanced by tI
rationalize routes to support demand and find cost savings by cutting or reducing the fregi
underutilized routes. Participants also questioned the size of buses in relation to ridership
routes. Participants recognized that public transit becomes more sustainable with increa
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 w
as an input into Council's priority setting, core service review outcomes and the upcoming ser
budget process.
Workshop #1
September 11, 2012
Workshop #2
September 12, 2012
Workshop #3
September 19, 2012
Workshop #4
September 20, 2012
Ward 1— St. Marks Church
Ward 2 — Lorne Middle School
Ward 3 — Boys & Girls Club
Ward 4 — Forest Hills Baptist Church
* Note: Not all repeat participants voted in each workshop.
40 (2 Employees)
55 (10 Employees /
64 (16 Employees /'
50 (7 Employees/ 4
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 (
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 efficienc
innovations.
2.0 Process
The workshops were designed and facilitated by the ServiceSJ consulting team (Performance
and Dillon Consulting Limited) with input from City staff. Holly McMackin of Dillon was the le
facilitator and was assisted by more than twenty -five (25) City staff members who volunteere
time to act as facilitators during the four workshops. The workshop process was designed to
variety of ways for residents to participate in the process and provide input:
Each attendee received a workbook upon registration. Content of the workbook
Individual presentation content of the workshop and provided questions and space for ans
Workbook comments. Participants were encouraged to record their thoughts and ideas in their
throughout the workshop, to be submitted afterwards.
Small Group Attendees were assigned to a table upon registration; small group discussions amoi
Discussions
participants took place throughout the workshop. These discussions were an oppor
participants to learn and share ideas with each other as well as with their table facilital
Each workshop followed the same general format:
Core Service
The external facilitator provided a brief overview to the core service review concept
Review 101 why it is important, how it will benefit the taxpayer and the rationale behind what SE
selected for discussion at the workshop.
Workshop The external facilitator provided an overview of the remainder of the workshop. A tc
Overview service groups were discussed at each workshop; these services were grouped into 3
Each of these rounds followed the same format:
• The external facilitator provided a brief overview of the services in that round, fol
15 to 20 minutes period where participants discussed those services with their tal
facilitator.
Rounds 1 - 3 • Following the small group discussions, participants were brought back together a!
group to use the ART to respond to questions about each service. Using the ART,
each question were displayed in real time on a large screen at the front of the roc
• Each time results were displayed for a question, the external facilitator asked if or
participants would like to share their thoughts with the larger group; a microphor
provided to participants who accepted the offer.
Round 4 The final round of the evening involved asking participants a series of questions on gi
services rather than considering services on an individual basis as was done in Round
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
more than forty (40). These services have been categorized into five (5) groupings as describ(
table below. Groups of fourteen (14) service offerings were selected for inclusion in the work
These selected services cover all five (5) of the above listed categories, including several servii
were noted to receive significant public interest. The service offerings included in the worksh
for approximately fifty percent (50 %) of the 2012 general fund operating budget.
• Roadway Maintenance
These services are not option for a • Solid Waste Managerr
Survival Services municipality; however, service levels can vary • Fire Services
significantly. • Police Services
• Drinking Water
These services consume significant tax funded
Quality of Life Services budgets. While discretionary, they are
typically highly valued by many taxpayers.
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
Provincial government and are often
provincially funded or at least heavily
leveraged by cost sharing.
3.2 Question Answer Options
• Transit
• Winter Sidewalk Main
• Parks & City Landscap,
• Arena Maintenance
• Neighbourhood Suppc
The same question was asked for each of the 14 groups of service offerings in Rounds 1— 3 of
workshops: How do you feel about this service? The following four options were provided as
answers for participants to discuss in their small groups and then to select an answer using th
brief elaboration of each option was also provided verbally to participants as described below
•. .. you teel about this service e Haboration
Option 1
Satisfied with the level of service Do taxpayers buy enough 'units' of each service right
and cost Does the price seem reasonable?
Option 2
Would like more service and
willing to pay more
Option 3
Service should be decreased; cost
savings should results
Do you feel taxpayers need to buy more /better service
Are you willing to pay more?
Could you get along with less service and a lower tax/
A different service delivery model Could we save dollars or improve quality by delivering
Option 4 should be explored service in a different way (e.g. City workers competinc
private sector for the work)
The options provided were intended to encourage workshop participants to think about servi
(quantity and quality) in a context that mirrors the reality of what Council must consider in m
budget decisions. Essentially, the quality of services and the benefit to the community must k
balanced against the cost of delivering those services and the burden on the taxpayer. The ar
options were intentionally structured in a way to encourage participants to think, discuss and
those types of difficult questions that acknowledge the reality of accepting tradeoffs when it c
1- .. -1 - -i - 1 - -' -'
been provided, most participants would likely have chosen it. As a result, the process would r
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:
Option 1
Think users and taxpayers already pay Are we striking the right balance between how r
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
Should the taxpayers be subsidizing less of this s
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
share of total costs.
In Round 4 of each workshop, participants were asked to consider similar questions but rathe
considering questions on an individual service, participants were asked to answer questions v
considering a group of service offerings. Due to limitations with the ART (i.e., a maximum of t
options could be considered for a single question), the list of fourteen (14) service offerings w
into two groupings: survival services and the remaining services.
• Roadway Maintenance • Transit
• Solid Waste Collection
• Drinking Water
• Fire
• Police
• 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
most cases trade -offs must be made and that changes in services levels cannot be considered
isolation but instead must be considered as part of a larger budget of the City as a whole.
4.0 Interpreting Results and Data Limitations
The workshop process and results (and subsequent workbook questionnaire posted online) w
intended to be statistically valid. As with similar consultation events used through the PlanSJ
workshop results of this nature do not represent a large enough sample size of the populatior
statistically valid; nor were workshop question and answer options designed to be statistically
Voting results of the workshops provide an indication of the appetite citizens have for service
These results need to be weighed and analyzed against the qualitative data that was recorde(
Designed to complement the statistically valid data gathered through the telephone survey, tl
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 (
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 efficiei
innovations.
Beyond not being statistically valid, additional limitations exist in both the qualitative and qua
data collected. Specifically, it is common for these types of public engagement activities to at
special interest groups or attendees that are trying to advance a particular agenda. In the cas
ServiceSJ, City employees (including those of the City's agencies, boards and commissions) an
participants represented special interest groups. Not only do these groups have an impact or
results, they have the ability to influence others in their voting and sharing ideas by lobbying 1
against a specific service area.
In responding to these challenges, City employees were asked to identify themselves at their
that citizens understood their perspective. Participants who attended other workshops were
to vote. In a number of cases, participants respected these requests. Through the registratio
special interest group participation can be quantified to qualify workshop results.
The Ipsos Reid annual citizen telephone survey of residents contained similar questions and
statically valid views of service priorities. Combined with workshop and online results, all of t
engagement initiates will inform Council's decision - making with respect to its priorities, core
offerings and the budget process.
Despite these data limitations, the combined qualitative and quantitative data still provides it
the consultant team, City staff and Council. Many residents volunteered their time to particir
these sessions in order to provide valuable insights and ideas and to gain a better understand
5.0 Workshop Results and Highlights
Raw qualitative and quantitative data from the workshops has been included as an Appendix
report. A brief overview of highlights and trends from the workshop results (both qualitative
quantitative) is provided below. In reviewing this information, it is important to bear in mind
trends and highlights are reflective of those citizens who chose to attend the workshop and a
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 t
qualitative and quantitative data was a desire for efficiencies and /or a different way of deliver
particular services. In total results for all four workshops, a different service delivery model sN
explored was the most popular answer for every service except Fire and Police Services. Bet\n
66% of participants selected this response for specific service offerings.
Based on this trend in the quantitative data, combined with the qualitative input received, thi
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 qui
2. increase or improve service levels or quality through increased efficiencies as oppose
increased delivery costs; or
3. deliver a service using a different service delivery model (many citing other municipal
Service offerings most commonly selected for exploration of a different service delivery modE
Transit (66 %), Roads (66 %) and Vacant Buildings (58 %). Service offerings where exploring a d
service delivery model was least frequently selected were Neighbourhood Services (39 %), Pol
and Fire (26 %).
5.2 The desire for additional information
Complementing the desire for efficiencies and change, was the desire for additional informati
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 thi
qualitative data but is also partially reflected in the quantitative data through participants' ter
select 'a different service delivery model should be explored'. Many City staff facilitators also i
participants who did not feel they had adequate information to make an informed decision cl
different service delivery model should be explored' as their default answer.
5.3 Services most commonly identified for change
A number of services emerged as most commonly identified for change over the course of the
workshops: Transit, Roads and Vacant Buildings. This was not only evident in the prevalence
a different service delivery model' responses for these services (as discussed above) but also ii
aspects of the qualitative and quantitative data. For example, Transit (4 %), Roads (4 %) and V
Buildings (3 %) were some of the least commonly identified services when participants were a
whether a service should be decreased. This supports the many qualitative comments that w
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 spE
themes have been outlined in the Priority and Service Themes section of this report. More dE
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
service delivery that would result in savings. The value of on -line consultation is to strengthei
face engagement activities. It provides access to citizens that prefer to be engaged on -line or
to attend the workshops. On -line consultation also provides citizens with more time to think
decisions.
The on -line consultation process built off the community workshops. The goal was to providE
information for citizens to make informed decisions. For consistency, the questionnaire that
designed for the workshop provided the basis for on -line consultation. The questionnaire is a
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, th
comments provided by participants helps to define service priorities and provide context to h
feel about service delivery.
Results of the on -line consultation have been provided in the appendix to this report. The qu
results of the on -line consultation have been combined with workshop data to form the prior
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
results achieved with respect to the services it delivers to the public. In October of 2009, the
Saint John engaged Ipsos Reid to design and conduct three annual citizen surveys to understa
priorities and concerns of its residents and to support its desire to continuously improve servi
delivery. Given the aggressive timelines set out for the City's budget process and supporting i
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
firm. It helps to interpret the results of the workshops and on -line consultation activities. WN
priority and service themes outlined in an earlier section of this report were weighed against
citizen survey results, detailed analysis of citizen survey results will be presented under separ,
Lessons learned
• During staff debriefs of the workshops sessions, employees shared that participants founc
the workshops as they felt they learned something about what and how the City delivers
some cases, participants felt that the opportunity to discuss and learn about municipal se
to change or share their perspectives. Citizens also valued the opportunity to meet with I
outside their normal social and work circles. Participants were generally satisfied with th(
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 d
making. While participants may use voting technology or fill in a questionnaire, there neE
common understanding that the process is not statistically valid and that the value is in cc
dialog on service priorities and the qualitative data that is generated.
• Utilize an on -line public consultation tool that better controls who and the number of tim
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
minimize employee participation in public workshops.
• Continue to communicate service delivery objectives to create a better awareness of wha
can expect from the City's service offerings. As a next step, public open houses could be I
monthly for specific services throughout the year to support on -going consultation relate
priorities and the budget process.
• Given the large number of staff volunteers and community member attendance required
success of each workshop, debriefing sessions were held after each workshop. The goal c
debriefing sessions was to solicit feedback at what did and did not work to make changes
provide a more enriching experience for participants.
Appendix
Reader's Guide to Workshop and On -line Consultation Results
Workshop and On -line Consultation Results
• Community Planning
• Recreation Programming
• Heritage
• Dangerous and Vacant Buildings
• Neighbourhood Services
• Transit
• Parks & Sports Fields
• Sidewalks — Winter Control
• Arenas
• Solid Waste Collection
• Roads
• Drinking Water
• Fire Services
• Police Services
• Trade -Offs: Satisfied with service
• Trade -Offs: Increase in service
• Trade -Offs: Decrease in service
• Trade -Offs: Different service delivery model
• General Questions
Reader's Guide to Workshop and On -line Consultation Results
Qualitative results are a combination of workshop, workbook and on -line comments. These (
results are based on the number of mentions of a particular service opportunity or ideas for c
Each point is colour coded based on the number of mentions to provide some context to the i
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 chalk
both the workshop and on -line consultation activities, data has been provided separately for
process. As a note, Ward 4 data was cleaned to adjust for employee participation. This was r
for Ward 3, however, the attendee breakdowns (employee and repeat participants) have beer
in the text of the report to ensure context when reviewing the data. Note: Where data is not I
the specific question was not asked in the workshop (i.e., workshops process was adjusted to
participant concerns).
The data presented is not meant to be statistically valid. The value of the workshop and on -Iii
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 (
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 efficiei
innovations.
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%
Planning - Service Levels and Trade-
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Balanced
Model Share
1. Satisfied with level of service
34.4%
43
41.9%
18
35.2%
19
21.4%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more
9.6%
12
4.7%
2
14.8%
8
7.1%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
11.2%
14
11.6%
5
7.4%
4
17.9%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored
44.8%
56
41.9%
18
42.6%
23
53.6%
Totals
5. Think users and taxpayers already pay about the right share
32.2%
49
51.3%
20
38.5%
20
30.0%
6. Think users should shoulder more share
52.0%
79
48.4% 15 43.6%
17
53.8%
28
63.3%
7. Think taxpayers should shoulder more share
15.8%
24
51.6% 16 5.1%
2
7.7%
4
6.7%
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
Decrease Program Offerings — too many programs to support; increase
programming through volunteers only
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%
Recreation - Service Levels and Trad(
Service Level Quest
■ Workshops On
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Balanced
Model Share
1. Satisfied with level of service
24.0%
31
26.7%
12
24.5%
13 19.4%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more
23.3%
30
31.1%
14
26.4%
14 6.5%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
10.9%
14
4.4%
2
13.2%
7 16.1%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored
41.9%
54
37.8%
17
35.9%
19 58.1%
Service - - Totals
11_
1. Think users and taxpayers already pay about the right share
21.3%
33
27.0%
10
32.7%
17 18.2%
7 _r[';_1. .,,,..._'k -..-.,
CA 001
OC O0 AOL
'I Cr_ 00/
11
C1 00/
7_7 -77 70L
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
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Heritage - Service Levels and Trade-
Satisfied Increase Decrease New Balanced
Model Share
1. Satisfied with level of service
21.6%
27
32.4%
12
7.4%
4
32.4%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more
12.8%
16
16.2%
6
18.5%
10
0.0%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
23.2%
29
10.8%
4
29.6%
16
26.5%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored
42.4%
53
40.5%
15
44.4%
24
41.2%
1. Think users and taxpayers already pay about the right share 32.5% 51 50.0% 21 40.8% 20 29.4%
2. Think users should shoulder more share 47.8% 75 53.1% 17 26.2% 11 46.9% 23 70.6%
3. Think taxpayers should shoulder more share 19.7% 31 46.9% 15 23.8% 10 12.2% 6 0.0%
User Pay Totals 157 32 42 49
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
Vacant Buildings - Service Levels
100
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
■ Workshops ■ On -Iii
Satisfied Increase Decri
1. Satisfied with level of service 10.7% 17 20.0% 6 11.9% 5 7.6% 4 5.9%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more 27.7% 44 20.0% 6 35.7% 15 34.0% 18 14.7%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result 3.1% 5 3.3% 1 0.0% 0 1.9% 1 8.8%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored. 58.5% 93 56.7% 17 52.4% 22 56.6% 30 70.6%
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
Neighbourhoods - Service Levels
■ Workshops ■ On -Iii
100%
80%
60% -
40% -
20%
0%
Satisfied Increase Decry
1. Satisfied with level of service
31.0%
49
30.0%
9
36.4%
16
30.0%
15
26.5%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more
23.4%
37
30.0%
9
25.0%
11
30.0%
15
5.9%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
6.3%
10
6.7%
2
4.6%
2
6.0%
3
8.8%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
39.2%
62
33.3%
10
34.1%
15
34.0%
17
58.8%
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
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Transit - Service Levels and
■ Workshops ■ On -li
Satisfied Increase Decr
1. Satisfied with level of service 6.9% 11 3.2% 1 7.0% 3 4.0% 2 14.3%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more 22.6% 36 19.4% 6 32.6% 14 18.0% 9 20.0%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result 4.4% 7 3.2% 1 2.3% 1 8.0% 4 2.9%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored. 66.0% 105 74.2% 23 58.1% 25 70.0% 35 62.9%
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
Parks & Sports Fields - Service Lev(
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
■ Workshops ■ On -li
Satisfied Increase Decr
1. Satisfied with level of service 25.0% 39 19.4% 6 23.8% 10 25.5% 13 31.3%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more 14.1% 22 22.6% 7 9.5% 4 21.6% 11 0.0%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result 16.0% 25 25.8% 8 16.7% 7 15.7% 8 6.3%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored. 44.9% 70 32.3% 10 50.0% 21 37.3% 19 62.5%
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
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
Sidewalks Winter - Service Level
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
■ Workshops a On -I
Satisfied Increase Decr
1. Satisfied with level of service 30.3% 47 25.8% 8 20.0% 8 39.2% 20 33.3%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more 10.3% 16 3.2% 1 17.5% 7 11.8% 6 6.1%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result 11.6% 18 32.3% 10 2.5% 1 9.8% 5 6.1%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored. 47.7% 74 38.7% 12 60.0% 24 39.2% 20 54.5%
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
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Arenas -Service Levels and
■ Workshops 0 On -li
Satisfied Increase Decr
5. Satisfied with level of service 33.3% 50 38.7% 12 34.2% 13 32.0% 16 29.0%
6. Would like more service; willing to pay more 6.0% 9 9.7% 3 2.6% 1 10.0% 5 0.0%
7. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result 14.7% 22 12.9% 4 15.8% 6 18.0% 9 9.7%
8. Think a different service delivery model should be explored. 46.0% 69 38.7% 12 47.4% 18 40.0% 20 61.3%
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
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
Solid Waste - Service Levels ar
■ Workshops On -li
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% M M
Satisfied Increase Decr
5. Satisfied with level of service
44.4%
71
35.5%
11
61.4%
27
38.9%
21
38.7%
6. Would like more service; willing to pay more
6.9%
11
6.5%
2
6.8%
3
9.3%
5
3.2%
7. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
3.1%
5
9.7%
3
0.0%
0
1.9%
1
3.2%
8. Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
45.6%
73
48.4%
15
31.8%
14
50.0%
27
54.8%
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
Roads - Service Levels and 1
■ Workshops ® On -Iii
100%
80%
60%
40% -
20%
0% —lam
Satisfied Increase Decry
1. Satisfied with level of service
19.0%
31
10.0%
3
14.9%
7
29.1%
16
16.1%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more
11.0%
18
13.3%
4
12.8%
6
10.9%
6
6.5%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
4.3%
7
3.3%
1
4.3%
2
1.8%
1
9.7%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
65.6%
107
73.3%
22
68.1%
32
58.2%
32
67.7%
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;
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
Drinking Water - Service Levels
■ Workshops On -Iii
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
I
Satisfied Increase
M.
Decr
1. Satisfied with level of service
33.5%
54
29.0%
9
27.3%
12
37.0%
20
40.6%
2. Would like more service; willing to pay more
8.1%
13
6.5%
2
6.8%
3
13.0%
7
3.1%
3. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
6.8%
11
3.2%
1
13.6%
6
7.4%
4
0.0%
4. Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
51.6%
83
61.3%
19
52.3%
23
42.6%
23
56.3%
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
Fire - Service Levels and Ti
■ Workshops ■ On -li
100%
80%
60%
40% —
20% -f
0%
Satisfied Increase Decr
4. Satisfied with level of service 29.3% 48 15.6% 5 23.3% 10 29.6% 16 48.6%
5. Would like more service; willing to pay more 19.5% 32 3.1% 1 11.6% 5 38.9% 21 14.3%
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. Think a different service delivery model should be explored. 26.2% 43 50.0% 16 25.6% 11 18.5% 10 17.1%
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 (eg. 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 (eg
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
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Police - Service Levels and
■ Workshops ■ Ond
Satisfied Increase Deci
8. Satisfied with level of service
42.9%
70
38.7%
12
26.7%
12
61.1%
33
39.4%
9. Would like more service; willing to pay more
11.7%
19
6.5%
2
11.1%
5
13.0%
7
15.2%
10. Think service should be decreased; cost savings should result
17.8%
29
16.1%
5
33.3%
15
11.1%
6
9.1%
11. Think a different service delivery model should be explored.
27.6%
45
38.7%
12
28.9%
13
14.8%
8
36.4%
Service Trade -Off Questions
Which service are you most satisfied with the level of service, amount, and cost? (priority ranking)
Roads
4.3%
7
9.4%
3
4.4%
2
1.9%
1
3.0%
Solid Waste Collection
35.2%
57
40.6%
13
51.1%
23
30.8%
16
15.2%
Drinking Water
4.9%
8
12.5%
4
4.4%
2
1.9%
1
3.0%
Fire
33.3%
54
9.4%
3
22.2%
10
44.2%
23
54.5%
Police
22.2%
36
28.1%
9
17.8%
8
21.2%
11
24.2%
Transit
7.6%
12
9.7%
3
4.7%
2
5.9%
3
12.1%
Parks & Sports Fields
11.4%
18
12.9%
4
14.0%
6
7.8%
4
12.1%
Sidewalk: Winter Control
22.8%
36
19.4%
6
11.6%
5
33.3%
17
24.2%
Arenas & Ice Scheduling
14.6%
23
9.7%
3
16.3%
7
9.8%
5
24.2%
Vacant Buildings
5.7%
9
9.7%
3
2.3%
1
7.8%
4
3.0%
Neighbourhood Services
17.7%
28
38.7%
12
20.9%
9
7.8%
4
9.1%
Community Planning
6.3%
10
4.7%
2
11.8%
6
6.1%
Recreation Programming
8.9%
14
16.3%
7
11.8%
6
3.0%
Heritage
5.1%
8
9.3%
4
3.9%
2
6.1%
Totals
158
31
43
51
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
■ Workshop 0 On -line
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
■ Workshop On -line
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
35.2%
56
45.7%
16
40.5%
17
19.2%
10
43.3%
Solid Waste Collection
3.1%
5
5.7%
2
0.0%
0
3.9%
2
3.3%
Drinking Water
27.7%
44
34.3%
12
35.7%
15
26.9%
14
10.0%
Fire
27.0%
43
5.7%
2
16.7%
7
48.1%
25
30.0%
Police
6.9%
11
8.6%
3
7.1%
3
1.9%
1
13.3%
Transit
28.5%
43
38.7%
12
32.5%
13
18.8%
9
28.1%
Parks & Sports Fields
9.9%
15
16.1%
5
5.0%
2
12.5%
6
6.3%
Sidewalk: Winter Control
11.9%
18
9.7%
3
12.5%
5
8.3%
4
18.8%
Arenas & Ice Scheduling
6.0%
9
3.2%
1
2.5%
1
10.4%
5
6.3%
Vacant Buildings
20.5%
31
12.9%
4
22.5%
9
29.2%
14
12.5%
Neighbourhood Services
9.9%
15
19.4%
6
10.0%
4
4.2%
2
9.4%
Community Planning
6.0%
9
7.5%
3
6.3%
3
9.4%
Recreation Programming
4.0%
6
2.5%
1
8.3%
4
3.1%
Heritage
3.3%
5
5.0%
2
2.1%
1
6.3%
Totals
151
31
40
4:
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
■ Workshop ■ On -line
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
■ Workshop ® On -line
Service Trade -Off Questions
Which service would you most like to see a reduction in service that would result in savings? (priority ranking)
Roads
Solid Waste Collection
Drinking Water
Fire
Police
7.2%
10
3.3%
1
0.0%
0
16.3%
7
7.7%
25.9%
36
13.3%
4
22.5%
9
34.9%
15
30.8%
9.4%
13
0.0%
0
7.5%
3
11.6%
5
19.2%
46.8%
65
76.7%
23
60.0%
24
23.3%
10
30.8%
10.8%
15
6.7%
2
10.0%
4
14.0%
6
11.5%
Transit
10.1%
16
9.1%
3
6.8%
3
18.8%
9
2.9%
Parks & Sports Fields
13.2%
21
21.2%
7
11.4%
5
16.7%
8
2.9%
Sidewalk: Winter Control
13.2%
21
33.3%
11
11.4%
5
6.3%
3
5.9%
Arenas & Ice Scheduling
14.5%
23
15.2%
5
13.6%
6
16.7%
8
11.8%
Vacant Buildings
5.7%
9
15.2%
5
4.6%
2
2.1%
1
2.9%
Neighbourhood Services
5.0%
8
6.1%
2
4.6%
2
6.3%
3
2.9%
Community Planning
9.4%
15
11.4%
5
12.5%
6
11.8%
Recreation Programming
5.7%
9
11.4%
5
6.3%
3
2.9%
Heritaize
23.3%
37
25.0%
11
14.6%
7
55.9%
■ Workshop ■ On -line
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
■ Workshop ® On -line
Service Trade -Off Questions
Which service would you most like to see a different service delivery model explored? (priority ranking)
Roads
34.0%
54
21.2%
7
31.7%
13
36.5%
19
45.5%
Solid Waste Collection
22.6%
36
21.2%
7
7.3%
3
32.7%
17
27.3%
Drinking Water
18.2%
29
12.1%
4
31.7%
13
17.3%
9
9.1%
Fire
20.1%
32
39.4%
13
22.0%
9
7.7%
4
18.2%
Police
5.0%
8
6.1%
2
7.3%
3
5.8%
3
0.0%
Transit
43.8%
70
50.0%
16
38.6%
17
46.9%
23
40.0%
Parks & Sports Fields
6.9%
11
6.3%
2
4.6%
2
10.2%
5
5.7%
Sidewalk: Winter Control
9.4%
15
15.6%
5
9.1%
4
6.1%
3
8.6%
Arenas & Ice Scheduling
6.9%
11
9.4%
3
9.1%
4
4.1%
2
5.7%
Vacant Buildings
11.3%
18
9.4%
3
13.6%
6
14.3%
7
5.7%
Neighbourhood Services
3.8%
6
0.0%
0
4.6%
2
0.0%
0
11.4%
Community Planning
3.1%
5
0.0%
0
4.6%
2
4.1%
2
2.9%
Recreation Programming
5.6%
9
6.3%
2
9.1%
4
2.0%
1
5.7%
Heritage
9.4%
15
3.1%
1
6.8%
3
12.2%
6
14.3%
Totals
.0
32
..
.•
Workshop 0 On-line
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
■ Workshop ® On -line
General Questions
How did you learn about tonight's Workshop?
Newspaper
Radio
Council
Friends /family
City Website
Other
22.1% 30
14.7% 20
14.0% 19
28.7% 39
4.4% 6
16.2% 22
In which area of Saint John do you live?
North End
21.4%
30
Millidgeville
15.7%
22
East Saint John
30.0%
42
West Saint John
10.0%
14
Fairville
0.7%
1
Lancaster
1.4%
2
South End
12.1%
17
Uptown /Downtown
6.4%
9
Other
2.1%
3
24.4%
11
17.0%
9
26.3%
10
22.2%
10
11.3%
6
10.5%
4
8.9%
4
11.3%
6
23.7%
9
28.9%
13
35.9%
19
18.4%
7
4.4%
2
1.9%
1
7.9%
3
11.1%
5
22.6%
12
13.2%
5
45.8%
22
12.5%
7
2.8%
1
12.8%
55
41.7%
20
3.6%
2
0.0%
0
11.2%
48
2.1%
1
17.9%
10
86.1%
31
28.8%
124
4.2%
2
16.1%
9
8.3%
3
24.4%
105
0.0%
0
1.8%
1
0.0%
0
0.9%
4
0.0%
0
3.6%
2
0.0%
0
3.5%
15
2.1%
1
28.6%
16
0.0%
0
4.0%
17
0.0%
0
16.1%
9
0.0%
0
8.6%
37
4.2%
2
0.0%
0
2.8%
1
5.8%
25
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
1psos Reid
City of Saint John 2012 Citizen Su
• - 2012 marks the 4t" "City of Saint John" Citizen Surve,
■ 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 fiv
now over 65 years of age; 57% are now 45 years of age & older; only one in
households have children under 18 living in the home; two - thirds own their
varies greatly by Ward); two - thirds of residents lived in the City for 20 years
in four have a university degree
Quality of Life: Measures remain stable compared to one year ago, both in
overall quality of life and the past 3 year trend
Satisfaction with Overall Municipal Programs /Service: 75 %, up 5% from of
most significant decrease in resident satisfaction is with public transit (56 %,
78% in 2011); most significant increase in resident satisfaction is for land us
nnnrnvalc rnmmi mitt' nlannina
Issues of local Concern: While roads and water continue to dominate, co
• citizens with matters relating to municipal finances have doubled in the past
• 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, its 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.
INFRASTRUCTURE
(ROADS)
WATER/WASTEWATER
PENSION ISSUES
FISCAL MANAGEMENT/
BUDGET /FINANCES /DEBT
TAX ISSUES
28%
12%
11%
10%
5%
23%
16%
15%
7%
7%
Citizen Priority Items: 2012 citizen priorities relate to key infrastructure (r(
• drinking water, storm water management, snow removal) and economic d
Higher
Resident
Satisfaction
Levels
L
V
C
E
L
L
V
Municipal Services & Programs:
(n =775)
Parks, trails and other
green space
• Heritage Preservation Parking -PCP
Building Inspection •Availability Public
• • Municipal RECREATION • Transit
By -law enforcement . PROGRAMS* • Animal •
for property issues Control
Land use, zoning approvals
and community planning
Municidal
•
2012 Priorities
Garbage and Compost
Collection •
Emergency
Preparedness • Traffic flow
Wasi
Neighbou ood
improve ent
Snow Removal •
• Storm water management
• Sidewalk maintenance
Economic • Roac
Development Mainten
Lower Priority Bui /Stren�t E
Balancing Service Delivery & Taxation: Slightly more residents now opt to it
either improve or maintain services) rather than reduce services (to either
IP- tax levels)
None of these/
Don't Know, 15%
Reduce Services to
Reduce Taxes, 13
2012 Citizen Survey
(n =775)
Increase Taxes to
Exnand Services,
Reduce Services to
i
Maintain Tax Level,
'Ire/
20%
Increase Tax(
Maintain Seri
27%
1psos Reid
2012 CITIZEN SURVEY
DETAILED STUDY FINDINGS
IN
t�.
ID Overall quality of life measures in Saint John remain stably
• compared to one year ago
Overall Quality of Life (% very Good + Good) IMPI
96% 79% 78% 87% 84% 2012(n=118)
Gov't /Council is doing better
1_
Improvements to Roads
Ipsos Reid 2012 2011 2010 2009
Municipal
Norm Construction /Facility Upgrades
Better /More Positive Outlook 6%
Past 3 Year Trend — Quality of Life in Saint John Better Parks /Trails /Looks Nicer 6%
Ipsos Reid Municipal Norm
2012 2011 2010 ■ 2009
Improved
Stayed the Same
24%
17%
18%
29%
23%
JIW 51%
Jllllllllllllllll
22%
i 47%
49%
48%
54%
Employment Issues
Gov't /Council IME 7%
Finances /Debt imli 7%
Poor Service /Cutbacks MMM
WOR
2012(n=287)
6%
City
of Saint John is
seen to be doing a good job
creating
• - that
is attractive to
both residents and visitors, on
a variety
% Very or Somewhat Good Job
Ensuring a safe and caring community
Preserving the City of Saint John's heritage
Promoting and supporting arts and culture
Supporting strong economy with different
kinds of businesses
Promoting responsible and quality urban
development
Supporting the community's vision
Improving quality of life for residents
2012 Citizen Survey (n =775)
55%
61%
56%
58%
2011
2010
Citizen
Citizen
Survey
Survey
78% 83%
81%
80% 83%
81%
74% 76%
80%
57%
65%
57%
66%
56%
63%
56%
62%
Engaging the community in municipal 51% 46% 46%
decisions
Creating a great community to raise a 72% n/a n/a
family
Creating an attractive destination for
84% n/a n/a
tourists
........................................ ...............................
Valuing and respecting the natural
environment 74% n/a n/a
Level of importance of municipal services /programs rem(
consistent with past years; however some slight variances
2012 Citizen Survey - % Very Important
(n =775)
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...
95%
92%
)1%
)1%
/0
2011 Citizen 2010 Citizen
Survey Survey
95%
90%
93%
91%
85%
85%
89%
n/a
n/a
77%
n/a
68%
63%
71%
55%
n/a
n/a
51%
n/a
55%
95%
91%
93%
89°%
84%
88%
87°%
n/a
n/a
77°%
n/a
65%
62°%
73%
48%
n/a
n/a
52%
n/a
4 R%
Citizen satisfaction with municipal program /service performance
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 58%
Police services
Fire services
Road maintenance 32% T
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
75%
2011 Citizen 2010 (
Survey Sur,
90%
92 %�
84% "r
77 %T
74% t
82%
64%
61%
87%
66%
75%
91%
56%
75%
53%
74%
69%
74%
70%
54%
91%
96%
22%
79%
67%
68%
n/a
n/a
57%
n/a
68%
76%
90%
78%
n/a
n/a
75%
n/a
62%
Residents are mixed in their evaluation of City services compared to other
in the region, however they are clear, the City should seek to deliver servi
level of other similarly sized cities in the region
How Do City of Saint John Service Levels Compare to Other Cities of Similar Size
(n =775)
7%
Better
28%
7%
■ New Brunswick
42%
Atlantic Canada
43%
Same
44%
City of Saint John Should Provide Service Levels That Are....
n =775
31%
■ New Brunswick
66%
Atlantic Canada
64%
3%
Wor
Four in ten believe "private- public partnerships" should be pursu
• to generate additional revenue to deliver the level of service citi
41%
User Fees
Means of Generating Additional Revenue to
Deliver Municipal Services at Level Expected
(n =775)
Property Tax Mix of User Fees & Property Tax Private / Publi
43%
38%
42%
41%
Public Safety Services
Road /Sidewalk Services Transportation Services
Solid Waste Collection Parks, Rec & Culture
While most City residents believe the municipality should deliver
Services, Road /Sidewalk Services and Transportation Services dii
more mixed in opinion on who should deliver other municipal se
57%
Public Safety Services
Who Should Deliver Municipal Services?
(n =775)
q City Directly
Contracting Some to Private Contractors
Pursue Partnerships with other service providers /levels of gov't
22%
i
49%
46%
38% 39%
Road /Sidewalk Services Transportation Services
Solid Waste Collection
36%
Parks, Rec & Culture
Residents identify the areas where they are unwilling to accept loin
• if required to address other service priority areas.
I IC
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
% of Residents Willing to Accept Lower Service
12%
Address Other Service Priorities
Yo
22%
24%
(n =775)
44%
56%
1psos Reid
2012 CITIZEN SURVEY - APPENDIX
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
Ward.
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).
Age
18 to 24 years 12%
25 to 34 years 16%
35 to 44 years 15%
45 to 54 years 20%
55 to 64 years 17%
65 years or older 20%
Gender
n n 1 n ten,
Fm RsUxon^
The City at Saint John
SAINT 1
Council Priority Setting S1
October
The City of Saint John
What to Expect: Oct 12/1.':.
■ Day 1: Friday, Oct 12 (4prn — 7pm)
• Welcome /Agenda /Guiding Principles
• Background: Plan SJ; Vision 2015; Public Consultatio
• Summary of one -on -one discussions
• Examples of Outcomes
• Start Facilitated Exercise: SOAR (Strengths, Opportui
Aspirations, Results)
■ Day 2: Saturday, Oct 13 (gam — 2pm)
• Continue Facilitated Exercise: SOAR
• Shortlist Priorities
• List Aspirations /Outcomes for each Priority Area
F1 MPtrir.q ni .q r.,j .q.q inn
The City of Saint John
Priorities —How Deep?
■ High level "guideposts" for the duration of
Used to guide your shared decision makin
processes (will inform your Budget proces
is NOT at the detailed level of budget proc
■ These sessions are not about getting into
one service over another.
■ Ideally will help shape your Council agend
forward
■ Final product —
Priorities and
high
level ex
ni itrnmAC — to
hp rlicri
iccPrl
nn
Ti
iACrlav
i
The City of Saint John
Your Session:
Your Expectations
F Think about what you expect frc
these sessions and your persor
commitment to make this a
meaningful first step in shared
decision making for your term o
Council
The City of Saint John
Guiding Principles
• Everyone participates
• All ideas are valued
• Be respectful and curious; ask and
• Seek higher ground and inspired aci
■ Create idea- and positive action -enr
conversations
■ Leave personal agendas at the door
on shared decision making and outc
The City of Saint John
Summary: One -on -One
Discussions
■ 1 asked: what is your view of priorities and what are you hea
Fiscal
Responsibility/
Pension
Most want to let the
task force come back
with recommendations
Some would like to do
"homework" and prepare
for what the task force
will come back with
Most believe public
doesn't understand the
Roads
Priority area since
roads are the
"face" of our city —
sends a message
to visitors what we
are all about
All citizens use
and need the
roads — whether
driving, taking the
bus, biking, etc
Water Quality of
Life /Liveable
City
Grow
Devel
All brought this up Outcomes within this Absolut
as a high priority: priority vary by busines
"need to get this Councillor, but all agree our city
done" it is a priority busines
Need to determine
best way to deliver
on this priority.
What is the best
funding model?
Continue to focus on
the urban core and
priority areas : renew
the plan and
commitment
Transportation: includes
transit, walkways,
City neE
"policinc
provide
develoa
Focus c
messag
The City of Saint John
Our Vision
• Our Saint John, Canada's first city, leads the nation as an exan
sustainable community.
• Our Saint John was born of the water. Like the tides we live by,
responsive to the constant changes in our environment, econor
society.
■ Our Saint John is a liveable city designed for people where ev(
feel at home. We are diverse in cultures, rich in arts, full of exci-
entertainment and recreational activities.
• Our Saint John provides educational excellence and life long le
opportunities to help people reach their full potential. Our dynar
is built on creativity, innovation and entrepreneurial spirit.
• Our Saint John is a population of problem solvers where each i
organization has a vital role to play. It is a place where leaders[
on transparency, integrity, and trust.
■ ni it Raint .Inhn i.oz a nlarrP whPrP wP nvPrrrnmP ni it r�hallPnnP.q
The City of Saint John
Facilitated Exercise:
SOAR Analysis
With SOAR, our focus is on
the community
and
corporate stre
enhancing
what
is currently
done
well,
rather
than
concentrating
c
threats and /or weaknesses.
Strengths
What are our greatest
strengths?
Aspirations
What is our preferred
future?
Opportunities
What are our best
opportunities?
Results
What are the measurabl(
results that will tell us we'N
r, r+ h ; r.,, i r. A + h r, + - ,; r• ; r% r% IN f + k'