Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2013-03-11_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour
r. City of Saint John Common Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, March 11, 2013 6:00 pm Council Chamber Please use Chipman Hill entrance S'il vous plait utiliser 1'entree Chipman Hill Si vous avez besoin des services en francais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffiere communale au 658 -2862. Pages 1. Call to Order - Prayer 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 7.1 World Plumbing Day - March 11, 2013 1 - 1 8. Delegations / Presentations 9. Public Hearings 10. Consideration of By -laws 11. Submissions by Council Members 1 1 . 1 Speed Limits in the City (Councillor Reardon) 2 - 2 Powered By: ['� � �]E- 1 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 15.1 Campbell and McGrath Letter: Fundraiser for Mispec Beach 16. Supplemental Agenda 16.1 Market Study: Gravel (Deputy Mayor Rinehart) 16.2 Proposed Procedural By -Law Amendment 16.3 Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (Harbour Clean -Up) Agreement - Amendment 16.4 Engineering Services - Groundwater Exploration for Potable Water - Hydrogeological and Environmental Services 16.5 Milestones in the History of Saint John's Public Water Supply 16.6 Saint John Water - 2012 Annual Water Report 16.7 Offer to Purchase City Owned Lands - Lorneville Portion of PID Number 55161541 16.8 Planning Advisory Committee: The Keeping of Urban Chickens Zoning ByLaw Amendment 16.8.1 Planning Advisory Committee: The Keeping of Urban Chickens Zoning By -Law Amendment 16.9 The Council of Canadians Presentation 16.9.1 Public - Public Partnerships 16.9.2 Flawed Failed Abandoned 100 P3's 16.9.3 Overview of Selected Sewer, Wastewater and Water Treatment Projects 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Committee of the Whole: Water Dispute with Rothesay - 1996 Water Supply Agreement 2 3 -3 4 -4 5 -6 7 -13 14-18 19 -33 34-84 85-96 97-117 118 - 118 119-122 123-132 133-154 155-160 161 -182 18. Adjournment City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, March 11, 2013 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi6re communale au 658 -2862. Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of the Municipalities Act and Council / Committee will make a decision(s) in that respect in Open Session: 4:30 p.m. 8t" Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Approval of Minutes 10.2(4) 1.2 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.3 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) 1.4 Legal Matter 10.2(4)(f) 4 The City of Saint John Seance du Conseil communal Le lundi 11 mars 2013 Salle du conseil, 18 h Comite plenier 1. Ouverture de la seance Si vous avez besoin des services en franrais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&re communale au 658 -2862. Chacun des points suivants, en totalit6 ou en partie, peut faire 1'objet d'une discussion en priv6 en vertu des dispositions pr6vues a Particle 10 de la Loi sur les municipalites. Le conseil /comit6 prendra une ou des d6cisions a cet 6gard au cours de la seance publique 16 h 30 — Salle de conference, 8e etage, h6tel de ville 1.1 Approbation du proces- verbal — paragraphe 10.2(4) 1.2 Question relative a 1'emploi — alin&a 10.2(4)j) 1.3 Question financi&re — alin&a 10.2(4)c) 1.4 Question juridique — alin6a 10.2(4)f) Seance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 3. Adoption de l'ordre du jour 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Questions soumises a 11approbation du conseil 6. Commentaires present6s par les membres 7. Proclamation 7.1 Journ6e mondiale de la plomberie — Le 11 mars 2013 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Limites de vitesse de la Ville (conseiller Reardon) 12. Affaires municipales 6voqu6es par les fonctionnaires municipaux 13. Rapports d6pos6s par les comit6s 14. Etude des sujets 6cart6s des questions soumises a Papprobation du conseil 15. Correspondance g6n6rale 15.1 Lettre de Campbell et McGrath: Campagne de financement pour la plage Mispec 16. Ordre du jour suppl6mentaire 16.1 Etude du march& : Gravier (mairesse suppl &ante Rinehart) 16.2 Projet de modification de 1'arr6t& proc6dural 16.3 Entente concernant le Fonds canadien sur Finfrastructure strat6gique (nettoyage du port) — Modification 16.4 Services d'ing &nierie — Exploration des eaux souterraines pour de 1'eau potable — Services hydrog &ologique et environnementaux 16.5 Stapes cl6s de Mistorique de la source publique d'approvisionnement en eau de Saint John 16.6 Rapport annuel de 2012 relatif au r6seau d'aqueduc de Saint John Water 16.7 Offre d'achat de terrains appartenant a la Ville — Partie du chemin Lorneville du NID 55161541 16.8 Comit& consultatif d'urbanisme : Modification de 1'Arret& de zonage concernant 1'61evage de poulets en zone urbaine 16.8.1 Comit& consultatif d'urbanisme : Modification de 1'Arr6t& de zonage concernant 1'61evage de poulets en zone urbaine 16.9 Le Conseil des Canadiens — Pr6sentation 16.9.1 Partenariats Public — Public 16.9.2 Echecs, d&fauts, abandons: 100 PPP 16.9.3 Aper�u de certains projets de r6seau d' &gout, de traitement des eaux us6es et traitement des eaux 17. Comit6 pl6nier 17.1 Comit& pl6nier : Conflit avec la Ville de Rothesay au sujet de Peau — Convention d'approvisionnement en eau de 1996 18. Lev6e de la seance t; r�'•f :O The city of Saint John Mayor Mel Norton Mayor's Office PROCLAMATION du maire WHEREAS: With an increased global focus on climate change, the plumbing industry round the world, across Canada and this region, is a major player in relation to water conservation, use and re -use issues and in the installation and maintenance of equipment using renewable sources of energy. The work of the plumbing industry in Saint John contributes directly to the health and safety of the city's residents. Many are employed as plumbing /pipe - fitting contractors. WHEREAS: The Canadian Institute of Plumbing & Heating (CIPH), the Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada and the World Plumbing Council along with related organizations around the world will join together on March 11, 2013 to raise awareness of the importance of proper plumbing in relation to protecting the planet and its citizens. WHEREAS: The World Health Organization estimates that over 3 million children under the age of five die each year due to water related diseases; simple plumbing solutions could make all the difference in saving lives. NOW THEREFOR.Z*; I, Mayor Mel Norton, of Saint John do hereby proclaim March 11, 2013 World Plumbing Day in the City of Saint John. cress whereof I have set my hand and affixed the seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. x 1971 Saint John, NB Canada EAU www.saintjohn.ca C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L4L1 The City of whit John March 5, 2013 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Speed Limits in the City I would like to suggest we standardize the speed limit within the municipality of SJ to 50km /hr. We want to move forward with bike lanes and more walking opportunities and 50km is a more reasonable speed. Travelling the city I noticed Main St N is 60km /hr with cars mostly going 80km /hr. Sections of Somerset St, where our bike trail will go is 60km /hr. The Causeway 70km /hr I believe with cars going as fast as possible, passing on the inside etc to arrive at the lights 5 seconds sooner!!! A standard speed limit is easier to monitor, awareness is greater and it creates a more liveable city. Motion: Refer to the City Manager for a report on the logistics of standardizing the speed limit to a maximum of 50km /hr, with the option to further reduce speeds, for city owned streets as well as streets owned by the Province within the municipality. Also refer to the City Manager to look into the feasibility of overhead speed monitors that issue a ticket to the registered owner of the license plate. These have been used in Ont. for at least 40 years. Respectfully Submitted, Donna Reardon Councillor - Ward 3 (received via email) rf�I °'v �iS SmN -17 JOT -J-K nO. Box 1971 Sant john, NB Canada E2L 42 1 www saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 mint John, N. -s. Canada EA 4L1 March 5, 2013 Mayor & Council Subject: Fundraiser for Mispec Beach I, John Campbell and Barry McGrath hai ing been following the recent developments as they pertain to Mispec Beach and the limit financial resources available to maintain a presence at the beach to encourage it's usage have decided to organize an outdoor fundraiser consisting of a ten hour concert. The concert would include Jimmy Flynn, well known local band Radio Factory as well as various other bands and acts. We are hoping to have the city's blessing and any material support which they maybe able to offer. The finds raised will be donated to the local community group to assist with their mandate. We have had many meetings with Mr. Harris and he is quite excited about the prospect. We would like the concert to be confined to the ball diamond for security and control reasons and utilizing the lower Park area for parking. We would ask of the city to provide garbage cans, garbage removal service, and picnic tables, mow the area, etc. Some of the various services being donated are security, bartending, cooks, tents, music (IE bands) and shuttle service to name a few. The services of Saint John Ambulance will be acquired as well. The detail for the fundraiser are still evolving but we can say we have targeted July 13th. 2013 as the concert date and look forward to an exciting time at Mispec Beach for the community as a whole. Your consideration and approval for this event would be appreciated. r John Campbell 177 King St. East Saint John 3 Barry McGrath 34 Nason Rd Apt 4 Saint John The City of saint John March 7, 2413 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Market Study: Gravel I understand that the last market study looking at supply and demand for gravel was completed in the 90's and has not been updated since. The issue was raised during the March 4, 2013 Council meeting that the demand for gravel related products is low and that the market is saturated with suppliers. Given the variety of types and quality of these products and the varied uses it does not appear to be a clear cut conclusion regarding the optimal number of operations. The issue of supply has significant impact on Council decisions and implementation of our Municipal Plan. Motion: That Council be provided a scoping document and estimated cost of a market study. Respectfully Submitted, Dr. Shelley M. Rinehart Deputy Mayor (received via email) SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21L 4L4 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E21L 4L1 6,1 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Proposed Procedural By -Law Amendment BACKGROUND The aty of Saint john At its meeting of the March 4, 2013, the Committee of the Whole adopted the following resolution: "RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to amend the Common Council Procedural By -Law with respect to the delivery of Council agendas." As you will recall, Council amended its procedural by -law on July 16, 2012 to change the delivery date of the Council agenda kit from the Friday preceding a Council meeting to the Tuesday preceding such meeting. Furthermore, a section allowing for a supplemental agenda was added to the Procedural By- Law which enabled agenda items to be filed with the Clerk after the distribution of the Tuesday Council kit. The Clerk then prepares a supplemental agenda kit and distributes it to Council on the Friday preceding the meeting. In 2013 Council changed its meeting schedule from bi- weekly to weekly, which has resulted in an agenda submission date (4:00 p.m. on Monday) on the same day as a Council meeting. This poses logistical challenges for staff and has resulted in reports that are often not submitted in time for the regular agenda. In order to create a more effective and efficient agenda process, it is recommended that the agenda submission date be changed to 4:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Council meeting and the Council agenda distribution date be changed to Thursday at 4:30 p.m. It is further suggested that Council amend its resolution establishing a 6:00 p.m. start time for regular Council sessions to permit an earlier meeting when appropriate. For instance, when it is anticipated that the preceding Committee of the Whole meeting will be brief, or when there is no Committee of the Whole meeting, staff could schedule an earlier start time for the regular meeting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt the following 2 resolution: 5 Page 2 1) RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to arrange for an amendment to Council's Procedural By -Law to change the delivery date of Council's agenda kit from the Tuesday immediately preceding a regular Council meeting to the Thursday immediately preceding such meeting; and further, that the deadline for submissions to Council's agenda be changed to "no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the date on which the agenda is to be distributed to members ". 2) RESOLVED that Common Council amend its resolution of November 13, 2012, pertaining to the start time for regular Council meetings, by removing the word "at" preceding "6:00 p.m." and replacing it with "not later than". Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Taylor, Assistant Common Clerk atrick Woods, CGA Manager REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2013 -41 March 4, 2013 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: M17 'Ike Ck. of Saiat )okra SUBJECT: Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (Harbour Clean -Up) Agreement - Amendment INTRODUCTION Saint John Harbour Clean -Up is about good health, clean waterways and quality of life. City of Saint John wastewater treatment and collection systems are being enhanced to protect people and the natural environment, and to help sustain institutions and the economy. The goal of the Harbour Clean-Up program which will be achieved is for the treatment of all collected municipal wastewater during dry weather. The separation of combined sewer systems will continue into the future to reduce the frequency of combined sewer overflows during wet weather events. Substantial progress has been made in the wastewater service under Harbour Clean-Up. The purpose of this report is to recommend that the City of Saint John accept the amendment to the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) Agreement to extend the completion date. BACKGROUND The Harbour Clean-Up Program is comprised of two major project components, the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility and a Wastewater Collection System which includes a total of twenty -four lift stations; each with an associated forcemain and gravity collector sewer. Construction on the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility is complete and the facility is in operation. Staff provided a detailed update (M &C 2012 -285; December 3, 2012) on the status of the Wastewater Collection System. The majority of the lift stations will be operational by the spring of 2013 with only the Main Street West Lift Station #31 remaining to be constructed. Property and easement acquisition for Main Street West Lift Station #31 is currently underway with the property acquisition for the lift station site being approved by council at the November 13, 2012 meeting (M &C 2012 -277). Some easement acquisition remains to be completed prior to tendering of the project. Design work for Lift Station #31 is being completed now that the lift station site is finalized with tendering for the construction of Lift Station #31 scheduled by end of March 2013. This lift station is a medium size station and will operate independently of the other Harbour Clean- Up lift stations and the completion of this lift station will not affect commissioning (start -up) of the major Wastewater Collection System. 7 M &C2013 -41 March 4, 2013 Page 2 ANALYSIS Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) Agreement The CSIF Agreement (Harbour Clean -Up) was signed by the City in September 2008. The program completion date was set at March 31, 2013. Given that Lift Station #31 will not be tendered until March 2013 it is not possible to complete the entire program by the March 31, 2013 date. The City and Infrastructure Canada have been engaged in ongoing dialogue over the past few months regarding an amendment to the CSIF Agreement to extend the overall program completion date. Even though the majority of the Harbour Clean-Up Wastewater System is scheduled to be completed (with the exception of LS #31) by March 31, 2013 Infrastructure Canada has recommended that the Agreement be amended with an extension to March 31, 2015 to allow ample time for program close out procedures and to finalize and submit the overall CSIF Project Completion Report to Infrastructure Canada. The Project Completion Report will include but not limited to: all final project costs, confirmation that terms & conditions of the environmental approvals were followed, outputs & benefits achieved, project sustainability plan and a final compliance audit. The amendment has been received from the Federal Government and is attached to this report. City staff from Transportation & Environment, Finance and Legal have reviewed the amendment and recommend acceptance. The amendment has been signed by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and now must be signed by the Mayor and Common Clerk on behalf of the City of Saint John. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS To date, the cumulative amount committed through award of Harbour Clean-Up Program projects is $97,527,698.34 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate with only Lift Station #31 remaining to be tendered. The overall total estimated cost of the Harbour Clean-Up Program as reported to Council on September 28, 2009 (M &C 2009 -318) remains at $99,400,000 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City of Saint John accept the amendment to extend the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Agreement to March 31, 2015 and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk execute the acceptance of the amendment. Respectfully submitted, B c„.� Brian Keenan, P. Eng. Engineering Manager Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. atrick Woods, CGA Ir Commissioner i y Manager Transportation and Environment z Ministre des Transports, Minister of Transport, de ('infrastructure at des Collectivitds fnfrastructure and Communities et ministre de I'Agence de d6veloppement and Minister of the Economic Devefopment Agency economique du Canada pour les r6gions du Quebec of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Ottawa, Canada K1A ON5 His Worship Mel K. Norton TES 2013 Mayor City of Saint John 15 Market Square P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick EX 4LI Dear Mayor Norton: I am pleased to write to you regarding the signing of an amendment to the Canada — City of Saint John Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Agreement for the Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade Project. I have been informed that your project requires additional time to meet the final reporting requirements of the Agreement. After a thorough analysis of your request, I have decided to approve the requested extension. In that regard, the attached amendment provides for an extension to the Contribution Agreement to March 31, 2015. Please find enclosed, for your approval and signature, four copies of the Agreement Amendment that I have already signed on behalf of the federal government_ Please ensure these original documents are also signed by you and forward two copies care of: Mr. Deryck Trehearne Director General, North, Atlantic and Ontario Directorate Program Operations Branch Infrastructure Canada I 100 — 180 Kent Street Ottawa, Ontario KIP 0136 I am looking forward to the successful completion of this project within the new timelines. Y Denis Lebel, P.C., MY Enclosures n Canada -City of Saint John Amendment to Agreement for Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Saint John Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade CANADA — CITY OF SAINT JOHN CANADA STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUND AGREEMENT FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM UPGRADE PROJECT 2008109 - 2014115 Amendment no. 1 This Amendment is made as of date signed by the last Party. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA ( "Canada "), represented by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities ( "Federal Minister") AND THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN represented by the Mayor and by the Common Clerk of the City of Saint John. Collectively referred to as the "Parties'. SUMMARY INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT AND PROJECT This is an agreement between the Government of Canada and the City of Saint John for funding under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSI F) Contribution Program towards the upgrade of the City of Saint John's Wastewater Treatment System, referred to as the Saint John Harbour clean -up, over fiscal years 2408/09 to 2013114. Canada's contribution under this agreement to the project will be up to a maximum of $26.6 million and will not exceed one third (113) of total eligible costs. The federal contribution is supporting two broad wastewater components: first, the construction, completed in 2011, of a new secondary level wastewater treatment facility, the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility (EWWTF), which wilt service East Saint John and the South Central Peninsula; and secondly, completion of the collection and pumping schemes necessary to intercept and Convey all wastewater to one of three major Saint John wastewater treatment facilities. This Agreement specifies the obligations, requirements and expectations from each of the Parties to give concrete expression to the federal contribution. BACKGROUND WHEREAS the Parties recognize that investments in public infrastructure are fundamental to the quality of life of Canadians and necessary to ensure continued economic growth; AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada allocated $3 billion for infrastructure investments in its 2003 Budget, of which $2 billion was allocated to the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund for Large -scale Strategic Infrastructure Projects that emphasize collaboration with municipal, regional, provincial, territorial governments, as well as other public sector and private sector bodies; AND WHEREAS Canada and the City of Saint John entered into an Agreement dated the 17°i day of September, 2008, setting out the terms and conditions governing Canada's contribution to the Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade project (the "Initial Agreement "). AND WHEREAS Canada and the City of Saint John wish to amend the Initial Agreement to extend its duration and reflect the changes to the Amended Terms and Conditions of the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with the principles set out above, Canada and the City of Saint John hereby agree as follows: 110 Canada -City of Saint John Amendment to Agreement for Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Saint John Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Section 1.3 (Duration of Agreement) is repealed and replaced by the following: 1.3 DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement will be effective as of the date it is signed by the last Party and shall terminate the earlier of: a) twelve (12) months after the Project Completion Date; b) March 31, 2015 unless subject to early termination in accordance with this Agreement. 2. The text after the heading in Section 1.4, Survival, is repealed and replaced by the following: The Parties' rights and obligations, which by their nature extend beyond the expiration or early termination of this Agreement, will survive any expiration or early termination of this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it is expressly agreed that sections 3.3, 7.6, 8, 9.2, 9.5, 9.9, 11.2 and 12 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. 3. Section 31a) is repealed and replaced by the following: a) Canada agrees, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including Schedule B, to pay a contribution to the City from the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund of no more than one third (113) of the total Eligible Costs of the Project, to a maximum of $26.6 million in accordance with the Fiscal Year breakdown in Schedule B. The City of Saint John agrees that the contribution provided by Canada from the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund is to be used for the purposes described in Section 2.2 and Schedule B. 4. Section 5.5 (Changes During the Life of the Project) is repealed and replaced by the following: 5.5 CHANGES DURING THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT a) In this Section, "change' includes, in respect of the Project, L any change to its location, scope or timing; ii. any change that may require a further environmental assessment or aboriginal consultation decision; iii. an increase to the total Eligible Costs of a Project Component, as set out in Schedule B for that Project Component; and iv. an increase to the total Eligible Costs of the Project as set out in Schedule B. b) A request for a change to the Project will be reviewed by the Committee and, if the Federal Co -chair determines that it should be recommended for approval, Canada will undertake the internal procedures to secure necessary approvals. 5. Section 7.3 (Time Limits for Final Claim) is repealed and replaced by the following: 7.3 TIME LIMITS FOR FINAL CLAIM The City agrees that it will not submit the Final Claim for payment any later than the date which is the earlier of: a) twelve (12) months after the Project Completion Date; and b) March 31, 2015. Canada will have no obligation to pay the Final Claim if it is submitted after this date. 6. Section 9.7 (Project Completion Report) is repealed and replaced by the Al Canada -City of Saint John Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund following 9.7 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Amendment to Agreement for Saint John Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Before the earlier of (i) March 31, 2015, and (ii) twelve (12) mnnths after the Project Completion Date, the City agrees to present to Canada a Project completion report setting out: (a) the amounts and the sources of all Project funding: (b) all costs of the Project; (c) all Eligible Costs incurred for the Project (d) all outstanding financial items, including any amount that may have been claimed by the City for ineligible expenditures; (e) any Eligible Costs incurred but not paid at the time; (f) confirmation that the terms and conditions of the environmental Approval have been implemented; (g) attestation by the City that all elements of the Project were completed, (h) an explanation of any variances from any estimate provided during the application process, (i) outputs and benefits achieved compared to those planned, including any unexpected benefits; (j) any issues raised in the final audit report and related adjustments, if necessary; (k) the Project sustainability plan; (I) a final result statement; and (m) the Project Completion Report Summary Form, in the form set out in Schedule E to this Agreement. 7 Section 9.8 (Final Compliance Audit) is repealed and replaced by the following: 9.8 FINAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT Before the earlier of (i) March 31, 2015, and (ii) twelve (12) months after the Project Completion Date, the City agrees to present to Canada a final Compliance Audit as per Section 9 4. The objectives of the final Compliance Audit will be determined by Canada and will take into consideration the findings of the first Compliance Audit. At least six (6) months prior to the deadline for the submission of the final Compliance Audit, Canada will provide to the City the list of the key audit objectives for a final Compliance Audit. 8. All other terms and conditions of the Initial Agreement remain in full force and in effect. 9 This Amendment No.1 may be signed in Counterpart, and the signed copies will, when attached, constitute an original Amending Agreement and form part of the Initial Agreement. 32 Canada -City of Saint John Amendment to Agreement for Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Saint John Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment No.1 has been executed on behalf of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and on behalf of THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, represented by the Mayor and by the Common Clerk of the City of Saint John, Each party hereby confirms that upon execution, this document will be fully enforceable. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA Original signed by: 1� M The Honourable Denis Lebel Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities FEE 1 2013 Date Original Signed by: CITY OF SAINT JOHN Original signed by: Mel K. Norton Mayor of the City of Saint John Date Elizabeth Gormley Common Clerk of the City of Saint John Date 43 1. � . q REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2013 -40 March 6, 2013 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: eb The City cf Saint John SUBJECT: Engineering Services — Groundwater Exploration for Potable Water — Hydrogeological and Environmental Services BACKGROUND Common Council has made the provision of Safe, Clean Drinking Water its foremost priority for the citizens of Saint John. The approved 2013 Water & Sewer Utility Capital Program -Safe, Clean Drinking Water category includes $5,000,000 to advance various aspects of the initiative such as groundwater exploration and the P3 business case. The first goal of the exploration project is to determine if a groundwater supply would be practical and beneficial. The second goal is to prudently develop the resource. On October 15, 2012 Common Council adopted a recommendation from M &C 2012 -265 as follows: "It is recommended that Council authorize staff to develop and issue the "Request for Proposal" for the Groundwater Supply Exploration Project to seek a consultant team to manage the project." A Request for Proposal (RFP) was advertised from January 2, 2013 to January 31, 2013 to engage an Engineering firm to carry out the following services for the above noted project: ♦ Part A — Environmental Impact Assessment, Geophysics Program, Site Surveys, Detailed Investigation and Data Collection ♦ Part B — Preliminary Design, Cost Estimates, Test Drilling and Design Report ♦ Part C — Conduct Public Consultation Process ♦ Part D — Detailed Design and Step two EIA ♦ Part E — Tender Period Services, Materials Testing & Inspection, Red Books and Record Drawings ♦ Part F — Construction Management and Wellfield Protection Plan 14 M &C2013 -40 March b, 2013 Page 2 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to make a recommendation for consulting engineering services for this project. ANALYSIS With a comprehensive terms of reference document developed by staff, a public call for proposals was made for consulting engineering services. The Request for Proposal (RFP) closed on January 31, 2013 with responses received from the following four consulting engineering companies: • GEMTEC Limited, Fredericton, NB • Fundy Engineering and Consulting Ltd., Saint John, NB • TerrAtlantic Engineering Limited, Fredericton, NB • Stantec Consulting Ltd., Saint John, NB A Review Committee consisting of staff from Materials Management, Strategic Services, Saint John Water and Municipal Engineering was formed to evaluate submissions. Each member completed an independent review of the submissions and a joint discussion was held to develop the final ranking of submissions. The Committee interviewed all four consultant teams in order to confirm aspects of the proposals and to clarify their approaches to the project. The Review Committee came to a conclusion on their recommendation, which follows later in the report. The evaluation process uses the expertise of a variety of staff from Purchasing, Engineering, and Operations to ensure a thorough review of the various submissions. The work contemplated is very significant and vital to the City's drinking water system. Care must be taken to ensure that the necessary level of effort and expertise is being directed to the various tasks involved in the work, while still ensuring that costs to be incurred are appropriate and controllable. It is for these reasons that cost, although very important, cannot be the sole nor most critical deciding factor in making the selection of a consulting engineering firm. The Committee was tasked with the role of reviewing each submission against the proposal evaluation criteria as defined in the proposal call document. These criteria consisted of the following: Quality and Completeness — Does the proposal address all of the needs raised? Is the proposal presented in an organized and professional manner? 2. Consultant's Experience — Has the consultant demonstrated a level of expertise with the requirements of this project? 15 M &C2013 -40 March 6, 2013 Page 3 3. Experience of Employees /Sub-consultants —Has the consultant demonstrated a level of expertise for the employees of the company and sub consultants listed? 4. Methodology — Does the approach to the project outlined in the proposal address, in a realistic sense, attainable goals and is it in keeping with the City's expectations for the project? 5. Value Added — What additional information, technology, process or options has the consultant included in his proposal? Is there value added to the consultant's response for this additional information? 6. Cost — Cost will be a factor, however not the only factor to be considered. Is the price quoted in line with the City's estimate for the work and has it allowed for each aspect of the project to be adequately addressed? After careful, independent consideration of presentation, company experience, personnel and technical proposal, the Review Committee met to analyze the findings of each member. After completion of the "technical" evaluation, the financial proposals were opened and addressed. These had been submitted in separate, sealed envelopes. After due consideration, the Review Committee selected the submission of TerrAtlantic Engineering Limited as the best proposal based on an overall rating of the evaluation criteria - presentation, company experience, personnel, technical proposal and cost. The submission from TerrAtlantic Engineering Limited met all of the requirements of the proposal call, in a manner acceptable to the committee, with a cost- effective bid for the project. TerrAtlantic's proposal scored the highest overall, offering the best overall solution for the City with the most comprehensive methodology and approach, a project schedule to meet project expectations and highly experienced and qualified project team members. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed cost of work from TerrAtlantic Engineering Limited to provide engineering design and construction management services for this project is $1,676,516 including HST. This cost is based on an estimated 30 week construction management period. An amount of $5,000,000 is included in the 2013 Water & Sewer Utility Capital Program -Safe, Cleaning Drinking Water category for engineering design, construction management, and construction for this project. The final cost of the engineering fees for this project may be substantially less than the total noted above based on the following. The project assumed exploration activities in five target areas, however we plan to focus only on two initially. Our short term goals for this project are to know by September 2013 if the South Bay area can supply groundwater for the West Side and by December 2013 if the Loch Lomond to Little River area could supply groundwater to the remainder of the City. 16 M &C2013 -40 March 6, 2013 Page 4 The overall cost of this project will be lower if early findings are either very encouraging and the number of target areas are reduced or the findings are discouraging and the program is cut short. The exploration program will be an iterative process and efforts will only be expended if results justify further work. If we only explore and develop the two primary target areas, the engineering services fee would be reduced to $1,196,349. Also, the complete project including the development of permanent production wells may take several years, so these costs will not all be borne in 2013. Exploration work in the two primary target areas this year to determine if groundwater is feasible could cost up to $800,000 taxes included. There are other costs associated with this project that are considered construction costs and are not reflected in the engineering services fee proposal. They are the drilling of test wells and boreholes and the associated pumping and water testing costs. The cost for this work would be in the $150,000 to $300,000 range and would be carried out in 2013. The City's Procurement Policy will be followed to engage these services. Staff will closely monitor the work of the consultants to ensure that it is cost effective and will update Council at significant milestones. Construction of full production wells would be in the range of $3 million to $6 million and would be proposed for future years should the results of the initial stages of this Groundwater Exploration program warrant proceeding to production wells. We do not believe that the City's groundwater exploration will negatively impact our current efforts to examine procurement and funding alternatives for the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program. In the event the City is successful in identifying a reliable groundwater source, it will likely reduce the total cost of the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program whether or not the program is delivered through a traditional approach or a public private partnership. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Materials Management facilitated the RFP process to solicit proposals from Engineering Consultants for the development of a comprehensive groundwater exploration program that will seek water for potable use. The committee was tasked with the role of reviewing each submission against the proposal evaluation criteria as defined in the proposal call document. In accordance with the City's policies and procedures, separate assessments of the technical and financial aspects of the submissions were undertaken by the evaluation committee members. The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Materials Management support the recommendation being put forth. 17 M &C2013 -40 March 6, 2013 Page 5 POLICY — ENGAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS The costs incurred by the consultant will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Request For Proposal at the rates submitted and accepted in the consultants proposal not to exceed the Recommended Minimum Hourly Rates as contained in The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies — New Brunswick fee guideline. The Construction Management component of this project fee is based on an estimated 30 week construction period. The final fee will be calculated based on the actual construction management period. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposal from TerrAtlantic Engineering Limited for engineering design and construction management services for the Groundwater Exploration for Potable Water — Hydrogeological and Environmental Services project in the amount of $1,676,516 including HST be accepted and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation in that regard. Respectfully submitted, Dean Price, P.Eng. Municipal Engineer B� Wm. Edwards, P.Eng. �. Commissioner Transportation & Environment iiE:? Brian Keenan, P.Eng. Engineering Manager 1 4 atrick Woods, CGA City Manager REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL March 7, 2013 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: The City of Saint John SUBJECT: MILESTONES IN THE HISTORY OF SAINT JOHN'S PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY City Staff would like to take the opportunity to provide a high -level briefing to Council on the major milestones in the history of Saint John's public water supply. The presentation (see attachment) is intended to provide Council with information to help in the investigation of safe, clean drinking water in Saint John. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Common Council receive and file. Respectfully submitted, E1 ck Woods, CGA City Manager iV March 11th, 2013 20 Saint John was incorporated Public wells uptown 1785 City Operates Water System (supply from Little River) Streets with water mains West Water System (supply from Spruce Lake) 1854-1859 Expansion of system (supply - Loch Lomond) Robertson Lake Dam Latimer Lake Intakes and Dam 1905 Improvements to 24" (installed in 1850s - 1870s) mains for capacity, quality and reduce water loss 1959 1832-1837 1877 1935-1937 1970 First cholera epidemic* Great Fire Chlorination systems Saint John Water Company added east — west (supply - Lily Lake) Major public health Water system operational advancement 21 Research into water quality and safety begins... lG' -- SAINT (OHN 1970s • Scientific research identified disinfection byproducts in drinking water systems 1980s • As a result of the research, regulations were proposed to address byproducts 1990s • Drinking water regulations enforced and subsequent water utility improvements P- 22 SAINT 101-IN • Water Strategy Report was commissioned • Final Report was presented and approved by Council in September 1999 • Objective: "to develop a 25 -year plan for the logical upgrading, improvement, and expansion of the City's water supply and distribution system in order to ensure the quality, reliability, quantity, and level of service provided by the system, and to identify the capital, operating and maintenance costs associated with this plan. " 23 4-)- SAINT JOHN • Data collection (both flows &water sampling) • Leak detection program • New storage tanks • Reconfiguration of potable transmission • Isolation of industrial transmission • New water treatment plant 24 SAINT JOHN • Due to financial restraints, the City could not implement all of the Strategy's recommendations. The City focused on specific components. • City was faced with two major priorities — Drinking Water and Wastewater, and in the end, wastewater (Harbour Clean -up) was pursued with the help of a major tri- government partnership. 25 SAINT JOHN $128 million in water system improvements: ✓ SCADA, district meters and water consumption data ✓ Pumping stations ✓ Water storage tanks ✓ Pipes and valves ✓ Cleaning and lining of existing pipes ✓ New pressure control zones established ✓ 24" Pipeline on Russell and Thorne ✓ Improve water quality sampling and testing ✓ Reconfiguration of transmission system is partially complete 26 STUNT JOHN Letter from Doctor Giffin, the Medical Officer of Health stating that `waterborne disease is a risk of all surface water supplies' and that Saint John urgently needs advanced drinking water treatment to meet current standards. 27 Q)-- SAINT IOHN • Federal and provincial governments sponsor Infrastructure Stimulus Program (for drinking water) • Several large water projects are completed is Water transmission mains replaced M SAINT JOHN Action Plan for Safe, Clean Drinking Water — A Challenge of Community and Essential Service • Adopted by Council on July 19, 2010 • Established the program we are examining today 29 SAINT JOIIN • Preliminary design of water treatment facility • Water System Improvements Report • Site selection report presented to Council • Series of Drinking Water Updates • Preliminary Submission to PPP Canada July, 2011 to be considered for funding 30 SAINT JOHN • Council identified Drinking Water as a priority • EIA for the water treatment plant at Little River Reservoir is complete and approved by the Province of New Brunswick • P3 Business Case team assembled • Established relationships with PNB, PPPC and engaged the consultants PwC 4-)-- 31 SAINT 101 IN • Common Council • Dean Price • Kevin Fudge • Francois Beaulieu • Kendall Mason • Phil Ouellette • Paula Carroll • Gerry Mattsson • Jacqueline Hamilton • Nancy Moar • Bill Edwards • Stephanie Rackley -Roach • Nicole Taylor • Al Phinney • Cindy Calvin • Pat Woods • Stephanie Walsh 32 SAINT JOHN l March 11th, 2013 33 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C 2013 -38 March 11, 2013 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Saint John Water — 2012 Annual Water Report BACKGROUND Cali .iR The City of Saint John Municipalities in New Brunswick operate public drinking water systems under conditions set out in certificates of Approval to Operate drinking water treatment and distribution facilities. Developed by the Department of the Environment and Local Government, in collaboration with the Department of Health, these formal approvals set out standards for water treatment facilities, distribution systems and operators that strive to assure safe drinking water. The City of Saint John (as the Approval Holder) provides drinking water services to the public under authority of Approval to Operate W -669: Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Facilities. This Approval to Operate was issued by the New Brunswick Minister of the Environment effective April 1, 2011, and supersedes Approval W -254 which expired March 31, 2011. The City's current certificate is valid for a 5 -year period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2016. The certificate of Approval to Operate is a regulatory tool designed around the multi - barrier philosophy. All municipal water systems in New Brunswick are required to abide by the various conditions set out in Approvals to Operate drinking water treatment and distribution facilities. The standards set through the various conditions strive to ensure safe and reliable drinking water for all users. Saint John Water fully endorses the philosophy behind the need for strict regulation of systems supplying such a vital service. Protective Barriers People must have water to live; good health depends on consuming adequate quantities of safe, clean drinking water. That water must be delivered, at the best cost possible, to Saint John homes, institutions and businesses in a state that is clear, colourless, odourless and free of disease - causing micro - organisms (pathogens) or harmful chemicals. 34 M &C2012 -38 March 11, 2013 Page 2 The Drinking Water Service is a public service that provides drinking water to the community and is vital to the economic vitality of the region. This service includes the supply of water, treatment, testing, transmission and distribution, administration of the service, and billing and collections. Saint John Water manages its drinking water service based on the Multi- Barrier Approach from the water source to the user's tap. Drinking water quality must be assured through a series of protective barriers: 1. Source (Watershed) Protection 2. Drinking Water Treatment 3. Operations and Maintenance (including staff training, development and staff levels) 4. Monitoring and Alarms (Sampling Plan, SCADA system, and record keeping) 5. Distribution System (residual chlorine, total coliform, E. coli, flushing, storage reservoirs, backflow prevention and cross connection control) 6. Emergency Response (contingency plans, boil order responses, safety training, etc) These barriers are designed to assist in ensuring the delivery of safe drinking water by preventing contamination (from source to tap) from reaching consumers. Annual Report Condition 36 of the certificate requires submission of an Annual Report to the Department of the Environment and Local Government. The report provides pertinent technical and operating information to the regulator on the City's water systems: Monitoring results (daily /weekly /monthly data such as free chlorine residual, turbidity, pH, temperature, iron, manganese, etc.) Monthly water production Operational highlights (significant incidents and system improvements, changes, or additions); Alarm log (major alarms — the balance to be discussed during the ACE) y Summary of backflow prevention and cross - connection activities; Summary of flushing activities; Operator information (training, certifications, and staffing changes); Public relations (notifications & public education) List of major new extensions and /or renewals complete with analytical results (microbiological, organic& inorganic) and the balance to be discussed during the ACE Additional comments 35 M &C2012 -38 March 11, 2013 Page 3 ANALYSIS The Saint John Water — 2012 Annual Water Report, with all its attachments, consists of hundreds of pages of facts and data. Rather than table the full document with Common Council, just the main body of the Annual Water Report is attached hereto, with its various sections summarized herein. A full copy of the report with all appendices is on file with the Common Clerk. Saint John Water is responsible for the delivery of water and wastewater services on behalf of the City of Saint John. In accordance with condition 39 of the Approval to Operate, the annual water report is intended to provide the Department of Environment and Local Government (system regulator) with pertinent information relating to operation of the municipal water system. The wastewater service annual report is submitted under separate cover. Analytical Results The City of Saint John obtains its drinking water from two watersheds — Spruce Lake and Loch Lomond. The quality of water in the lakes that make up the watersheds is important to the final quality of treated potable water. Over the course of the year, the City analyzed raw water sources from 14 locations measuring a total of 23 analytical parameters for each of those sampling locations. These samples indicate the quality of water available from lakes throughout the watershed which ultimately provide for the sources of our drinking water. To ensure system water is safe to drink, samples are collected weekly at thirty -five locations across the three water systems (the Red Head well field is the third system) and microbiologically analyzed. Twenty of those sites are analyzed for inorganic chemistry semi- annually, and for organic chemistry quarterly. In addition to the testing noted above, several other water parameters are tested routinely to monitor system safety and drinking water quality. These measures include chlorine residual data, pH, fluoride, turbidity, total dissolved solids, iron and conductivity. To continue preparing for the design of the new water treatment facility and to more closely monitor disinfection by- products, the following additional analyses were performed in 2012: • The frequency of trihalomethanes (THMs) sampling remained monthly instead of the Department of Health's requirement of quarterly. • Haloacetic acids (HAAs) like trihalomethanes are another disinfection by- product that is formed when chlorine reacts with untreated water. Although HAAS are not currently regulated in New Brunswick, it is expected that this will happen in the near future. Saint John will not meet this new regulation with its current treatment facilities as they do not remove the organic precursors from the water prior to disinfection. In anticipation of this new guideline, Saint John Water began monthly sampling for HAAs in 2007. • Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and total organic carbon (TOC) are precursors to the formation of both THMs and HAAs. These parameters were also monitored monthly during 2011. A goal in the design of new water treatment facility is the reduction of these M &C2012 -38 March 11, 2013 Page 4 organic precursors, so that when the disinfectant chlorine is added near the end of the treatment process, the quantities of THMs and HAAS formed will be substantially less than current, and less than the levels regulated by Health Canada. • Collection of samples for ultraviolet transmittance (UVT) began in May of 2007. • Taste and odour sampling was also performed in 2012. The indicator parameters for taste and odour are Geosmin and MIB (2- methylisobomeol); these parameters were not detected in the sampling performed in 2012. Water Production - Spruce Lake Annual water production during 2012 for the Spruce Lake system was approximately 48.5 billion litres, an increase of 1.4 billion litres over 2011 annual Spruce Lake water production, which was 47.1 billion litres. In 2012 peak monthly production was 4.89 billion litres and comparatively 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 peak monthly production was 4.55, 3.63, 3.85, 4.1, 4.2, 3.3 and 4.2 billion litres respectively. The largest contributor to the increased production as compared to the past few years is that in 2011 and 2012, there was no flow from the East system crossing the Reversing Falls Bridge to the West system. The result was that the Fundy Heights and Lower West Side zones were supplied from West water only, and all water delivered to Irving Pulp and Paper (IPP) during this period flowed via the 1500 mm west raw water transmission main as opposed to a normal operating split of approximately one -third from east and two - thirds from west. Annual treated water production during 2012 for the Spruce Lake system was approximately 4.51 billion litres. In 2012, peak daily production was 21.0 ML a decrease from 2011 which was 36.1 ML, but similar to 2010 which was 24.9 ML. Following the failure of the Musquash Pump Station service and subsequent repairs, staff turned on the 2000 horsepower pump on March 1, 2012, and began transferring water from the Musquash watershed to Menzies Lake which is part of the Spruce Lake watershed. The level of water in Spruce Lake had dropped to 60.4 in on March 1, 2012. This interbasin transfer is necessary to provide for the industrial demand on the Spruce Lake system. On March 23rd, failures of the hydraulic system lead to a leak of biodegradable hydraulic oil. The clean -up was completed and repairs made to the hydraulic system. Pumping resumed from March 28th until April 13th, when issues with the motor starter forced the shutdown of the operating pump. Pumping resumed from April 18th until May 30"', when pumping ceased due to sufficiently high lake water levels. Pumping resumed from July 11th until September 24th, when work began to install the new Motor Control Center, which was being replaced as a result of the fire in August of 2011. A total volume of 21.618 billion litres was transferred during a total of 218 days of pumping in 2012. Improved management of water continued in 2012, with removal of some of the stop logs from the Menzies Lake dam, which allowed water to flow by gravity via Menzies Brook and into Ludgate Lake /Spruce Lake. This reservoir was used during the peak demand period and stop logs returned in the fall to permit natural refilling of this basin and thus reducing pumping requirements. 37 M &C2012 -38 March 11, 2013 Page 5 Water Production - Loch Lomond During 2012, annual water production for the Loch Lomond system was 27.6 billion litres, an increase of 1.3 billion litres over 2011 Loch Lomond water production, which was 26.3 billion litres, and less than the 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 production which was 42.4, 36.8, 38.3, 45.5, 42.9 and 43.4 billion litres respectively. As mentioned above, there was no flow from the East system crossing the Reversing Falls Bridge to the West system. Annual treated water production for 2012 for the Loch Lomond system was approximately 24.9 billion litres, a decrease of 0.9 billion litres from 2011 water production, which was 25.8 billion litres. In 2012, peak daily production was 101.8 ML a decrease from 2011 which was 111.0 ML. Water Production - Combined Systems Combining the 2012 average daily water production for both the western and eastern systems shows the overall system production (east and west combined) increased to approximately 209 million litres per day from 201 ML per day in 2011. Production in 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was 209 ML, 199 ML, 215 ML, 224 ML, 201 ML, and 205 ML, per day respectively. The reason for the overall system monthly production increase during the July to September period can largely be explained by the annual summer season increase by the larger industrial users; this was approximately 48.2 million litres per day on average. Chemical Consumption During 2012, a total of 127.9 tonnes of gaseous chlorine were purchased for the Loch Lomond System, 228.2 tonnes of sodium hypochlorite for the Spruce Lake System and 88.2 tonnes of hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS / fluoride) purchased for the combined east and west systems. The lack of flow across the Reversing Falls Bridge resulted in less potable water treated and lower chlorine usage in the east system, as well as more potable water treated and higher chlorine usage in the west system. These two changes were not equal, however, as a large industrial user (Irving Pulp and Paper) consumed only raw (un- chlorinated) water during 2012. Due to the Capital upgrades at Spruce Lake Facility, the fluoride had been turned off on March 30, 2011, and remained off for the duration of 2012, while upgrades were still underway. Operational Highlights Operational highlights are detailed in the body of the attached Annual Report. Topics discussed include an extensive Forest Management Plan for the watersheds, boil water orders, the fire at the Musquash Pumping Station, unidirectional flushing, backflow prevention, cross - connection control, watermain breaks, the leak on the Reversing Falls Bridge, and the modelling software. M &C2012 -38 March 11, 2013 Page 6 During 2012, Saint John Water administered a total of 18 water related capital projects designed to renew, clean and line and install new water mains. Approved projects included; cleaning and lining of approximately 1170 in of water distribution mains and renewal of approximately 1791 in of watermains ranging in size from 200 mm to 600 mm. In 2012 a project was not tendered to remove flushing cross - connections between the water distribution and sanitary collection system. The project was carried forward and will be completed during the 2013 construction season. In 2012 Saint John Water carried out modifications to the Seaward Crescent Well House which included a new roof, walls, sidings and a double door to provide access for equipment. Later in 2012, a contract was awarded to remove mechanical, electrical and instrumentation equipment within the existing Well House and install a new chlorine disinfection system, pressure tank, process piping, metering skid, instrumentation and controls. In 2010 the City of Saint John had tendered a contract for replacement of the pumps and installation of back- up power at the Spruce Lake Water Treatment Facility. The purpose of the project was to replace the two original pumps and motor units that had been installed in 1971, with three new pump and motor units, in order to provide a back -up system for reliability / continuity of service, reduction in electricity consumption, as well as to allow for one pump to be removed from service for maintenance while maintaining the ability to have two pumps in service. The upgrade work is now completed. In 2012, the City of Saint John engaged TerrAtlantic Engineering Limited to evaluate if a groundwater supply could meet the quantity and quality needs of the potable users and be practically developed in or near The City of Saint John. This project will continue in 2013. Also in 2012, The City of Saint John engaged PwC to evaluate options and recommend a business case and procurement model for the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program. This work included review of the preliminary costs estimates, market soundings, shortlist procurement options, risk workshop, value for money analysis, and preparation of a business case. This work continues in 2013. Operator Training & Certification Saint John Water continues to make advances in the operation and maintenance of our water and wastewater systems and the pivotal role they play in providing for the protection of public health and the delivery of a vital service. The City of Saint John continues to work with the New Brunswick Community College — Saint John in developing training programs for its water and wastewater operators. The training has been attended by City of Saint John staff, numerous other municipalities from New Brunswick and by private companies. A detailed training and certification summary is included in the annual report. M &C2012 -38 March 11, 2013 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report, and authorize staff to forward the Saint John Water 2012 Annual Water Report to the Department of Environment and the Department of Health on behalf of the City of Saint John (Approval Holder). Respectfully submitted, Nicole Taylor,Eng., P.Eng. Operations Manager, Water Resources & Quality, Saint John Water K dall Mason, P. Eng., PMP J. Patrick Woods, CGA Deputy Commissioner, Saint John Water City Manager 40 ,phn �a O v 0 ev afer.Vone a Spruce Lake Water Treatment Facility Upgrade 2012 Annual Water Report February 2013 41 2012 Annual Water Report 2012 Saint John Water - Annual Water Report Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Protective Barriers 1 Annual Report 2 Monitoring Results 2 Raw Water and Distribution System 2 Monitoring Results 5 Water Production 6 Spruce Lake System 6 Loch Lomond System 10 Combined Systems 13 Chemical Consumption 14 Operational Highlights 15 Watersheds 15 Water Quality 15 Backflow Prevention & Cross - Connection Control 20 Water Distribution 21 Capital Water System Improvements 23 Operator Training & Certification 25 Operator Training — Water Treatment 34 Operator Certification — Water Treatment 35 Operator Training — Water Distribution 35 Operator Certification — Water Distribution 36 Human Resources 37 Responsible staff 37 New Hires 38 Staffing Changes 38 Public Information 40 Communications 40 Customer Service 40 Commitment 41 42 2012 Annual Water Report APPENDICES A. East & West Raw Water Sample Sites B. Raw Water Analytical Results C. Raw Water & Distribution System Organic & Inorganic Analytical Results D. Monthly Water Testing Summaries E. CoA, Water Sampling Plan with Map F. Chlorine Residual Assurance Program — Data & Graphs G. Chlorine Residual Data & Other Monitoring Data H. 2012 Approved Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program I. 2013 Approved Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program J. Examples of Field Test Unit Functional Check Record K. Summary of Accreditations L. Certifications Achieved to Date M. 2012 Summary of Watermain Breaks N. 2012 Staff Training Summary O. CALA Proficiency Testing Report — Saint John Water Environmental Laboratory P. Examples of Weekly Construction Update Q. Public Communication R. Examples of 2012 Media Coverage S. 2012 Customer Requests Relating to Pressure & Water Quality T. 2012 THM, HAA, TOC, DOC, Turbidity, Temperature, and UVT Data U. 2012 Cross Connection Removal Program V. 2012 Taste & Odour Data W. 2012 Water Quality Flushings Inventory 43 ��w ], ' � ., 2012 Annual Water Report 1 INTRODUCTION Saint John Water, a department of the City of Saint John, is responsible for the delivery of three public facing services; Drinking Water, Industrial Water and Wastewater. The following annual report covers the Drinking Water and the Industrial Water services. The Wastewater service annual report is submitted under separate cover. The goal of the Drinking Water service is to supply safe, clean potable water reliably to all users. Currently, drinking water simply receives limited treatment; coarse screening, disinfection (chlorine gas at Latimer Lake and sodium hypochlorite at Spruce Lake) and fluoridation. The service is regulated under the Clean Environment Act — Water Quality Regulation and Clean Water Act - Potable Water Regulation and delivered under Approval to Operate W -669: Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Facilities. This Approval to Operate (a copy is enclosed in Appendix E) was issued by the New Brunswick Minister of the Environment effective April 1, 2011. This Approval supersedes Approval W -254 which expired March 31, 2011. The City's current certificate is valid for a 5 -year period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2016. The certificate represents formal authorization to the City of Saint John (Approval Holder) by the Minister to operate drinking water facilities. The Industrial Water service provides some industries in Saint John (namely Irving Pulp & Paper, Coleson Cove and Irving Paper) with raw industrial water to support and carry out their processes. All municipal drinking water systems in New Brunswick are required to abide by the various conditions set out in Approvals to Operate drinking water treatment and distribution facilities. These regulatory tools set standards for water treatment facilities, distribution facilities, system operators and overall operation of facilities that strive to ensure safe and reliable drinking water for all users. Saint John Water fully endorses these standards and the philosophy behind the need for strict regulation of systems supplying such a vital service to the public. Protective Barriers People must have water to live; good health depends on consuming adequate, quantities of safe, clean drinking water. That water must be delivered, at the best cost possible, to Saint John homes, institutions and businesses in a state that is clear, colourless, odourless and free of disease - causing micro- organisms (pathogens) or harmful chemicals. The Drinking Water Service is a public service that provides drinking water to the community and is vital to the economic vitality of the region. This service includes the supply of water, treatment, testing, transmission and distribution, administration of the service, and billing and collections. Saint John Water manages its drinking water service based on the Multi- Barrier Approach from the water source to the user's tap. Drinking water quality must be assured through a series of protective barriers: 44 2012 Annual Water Report 2 1. Source (Watershed) Protection 2. Drinking Water Treatment 3. Operations and Maintenance (including staff training, development and staff levels) 4. Monitoring and Alarms (Sampling Plan, SCADA system, and record keeping) S. Distribution System (residual chlorine, total coliform, E. coli, flushing, storage reservoirs, backflow prevention and cross connection control) 6. Emergency Response (contingency plans, boil order responses, safety training, etc) Annual Report Condition 36 of the certificate requires submission of an Annual Report to the Department of the Environment and Local Government no later than March 1 of the following year. The report provides pertinent technical and operating information to the regulator on the City's water systems: y Monitoring results (daily /weekly /monthly data such as free chlorine residual, turbidity, pH, temperature, iron, manganese, etc.) Monthly water production y Operational highlights (significant incidents and system improvements, changes, or additions); Alarm log (major alarms — the balance to be discussed during formal Compliance Evaluations) Summary of backflow prevention and cross - connection activities; z Summary of flushing activities; > Operator information (training, certifications, and staffing changes); y Public relations (notifications & public education) List of major new extensions and/or renewals complete with analytical results (microbiological, organic& inorganic) and the balance to be discussed during formal Compliance Evaluations Additional comments MONITORING RESULTS Raw Water and Distribution System The City of Saint John obtains its drinking water from two watersheds — Spruce Lake (west) and Loch Lomond (east). The quality of water in the lakes that make up the watersheds is important to the final quality of treated potable water. To that end, Saint John Water analyzed raw water sources in the eastern water system from ten locations and in the western water system from four locations. This raw water sampling is in addition to the water quality Sampling Plan approved by the Department of Environment. Appendix A includes maps of the east and west systems which note the raw water sample sites. Appendix B provides a summary of all parameters measured for each of the respective raw water sampling locations. 45 0"" wa �P 2012 Annual Water Report 3 The approved Water Sampling Plan from the Department of Environment and Local Government required that samples be collected weekly at thirty five locations across the three water systems and microbiologically analyzed. Twenty of the sites are required to be analyzed semi - annually for inorganic parameters and quarterly for organic parameters. In 2012, there were issues with Sampling Plan locations as follows: Irving Pulp Mill, Meter Chamber, 301 Mill Road (NBSID 15601) - was not sampled during 2012 as there was no flow being directed across the Reversing Falls Bridge. �e Seaward Well (treated), 14 Seaward Crescent (NBSID 21181) — the upgrade to provide chlorination at this well was completed in the fall of 2012. Treated (chlorinated) water was not available at this facility until that time. The sampling plan adhered to during 2012 is summarized below. Bacteriological (w ekly sampling) Source Raw Water Distribution System Loch Lomond 1 17 Spruce Lake 1 10 (NBSID 15601 not sampled) Red Head 2 4 (NBSID 21181 not sampled until the fall) Total 14 30 Inorganic (semi- annual sampling) Source Raw Water Distribution System Loch Lomond 1 7 Spruce Lake 1 7 (NBSID 15601 not sampled) Red Head 2 2 (NBSID 21181 not sampled until the fall) Total 4 16 Organic (quarterly sampling) Source Raw Water Distribution System Loch Lomond 1 7 Spruce Lake 1 7 (NBSID 21181 not sampled) Red Head 2 2 (NBSID 21181 not sampled until the fall) Total 4 16 46 2012 Annual Water Report 4 Organic and inorganic analytical results are included in Appendix C noting each location where the respective samples were collected. Weekly microbiological results for E. coli (EC), total coliforms (TC) and monthly results for Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC) are in Appendix D. A full copy of the Sampling Plan, developed in conjunction with the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Department of Health, is contained in Appendix E. A map showing the various sampling locations is also included in Appendix E. In preparation for the preliminary design of new water treatment facility and to more closely monitor disinfection by- products, the following additional analyses continued through 2012. • Given the levels of trihalomethanes (THMs) found at some of the sampling locations, the frequency of THM sampling remained at monthly; well above the Sampling Plan requirements of quarterly analyses. THMs are formed when the disinfectant chlorine reacts with decaying organic material in the untreated water. Results are reported in Appendix T. • Haloacetic acids (HAAs) are another disinfection by- product formed when chlorine reacts with organic material in the untreated water. Although HAAs are not currently regulated in New Brunswick, it is expected that this will happen in the near future. Results are reported in Appendix T. • Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and total organic carbon (TOC) are precursors to the formation of both THMs and HAAs. These parameters continued to be monitored during 2012. A goal in the design of new water treatment facility is the reduction of these organic precursors, so that when the disinfectant (chlorine) is added near the end of the treatment process, the quantities of THMs and HAAs formed will be substantially less than current, and less than the levels regulated by Health Canada. Results are reported in Appendix T. • Collection of samples for ultraviolet transmittance (UVT) began in May of 2007. Starting March 19, 2010, readings were taken at 254 rim, as per Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21St edition, (2005). Previously, readings were taken at 265 nm. Results for 2012 are reported in Appendix T. • Taste and odour sampling continued to be monitored in 2012. The indicator parameters for taste and odour are Geosmin and MIB (2- methylisoborneol). Results are included in Appendix V. With respect to water testing, Saint John Water utilizes a number of laboratories. Analytical service providers include Saint John Laboratory Services Ltd. for microbiological analyses, SGS Lakefield for organics (including THMs and HAAs) and taste /odour analyses, AGAT Laboratories for inorganics and organic carbon (dissolved and total), Research and 47 2012 Annual Water Report $ Productivity Council for benzo[a]pyrene and pentachlorophenol, and AGAT Laboratories for the watershed analyses. Consideration is given to the proximity of the lab to the water system when selecting an analytical service as travel time delays results and could adversely impact the quality of samples being transported. Appendix K contains summaries of the applicable accreditations currently held by each of the laboratories utilized by Saint John Water. Since 2007, Saint John Water has been utilizing the WaterTrax data management service. It allows data to be input directly into the database by contract laboratories as well as field staff, and historical data may be reported via custom templates, plotted on trend screens, or downloaded into spreadsheet format. The Department of Health has access to all data within WaterTrax. Monitoring Results In June of 2004 a chlorine residual assurance program was put in place that manually tested for effective disinfection every 4 hours, every day, in both the east (Lakewood Heights Pumping Station) and west (Gault Road) systems. In the summer of'-2010, the Gault Road Pumping Station was de- commissioned and the building was demolished. In lieu of manually sampling inside the underground Pressure Reducing Station six times per day, an on -line (continuous) chlorine analyzer was installed and connected to the SCADA system. In 2011, an on -line chlorine analyzer was installed at the Lakewood Heights Pumping Station as well. The data collected during 2012 is summarized in Appendix F. Residual chlorine is also monitored by on -line chlorine analyzers at the Latimer Lake Facility and Spruce Lake Facility. On -line turbidity monitoring was installed and commissioned at the Latimer Lake Treatment Facility and the Spruce Lake Treatment Facility in 2008. Manual calibration checks are performed to confirm the accuracy of the on -line instruments. The calibration check data collected during 2012 is summarized in Appendix T. The temperature of the raw water sources is also measured regularly. The data collected during 2012 is summarized in Appendix T. Note that there is data missing for Spruce Lake. There was an issue with one of the thermometers being used as well as the measurement location. Some of the data was considered inaccurate and therefore removed from the database. Included in Appendix G is the chlorine residual data collected as part of the regular water testing program (including east and west residual sheets) as well as other regularly monitored data, such as pH, temperature, turbidity, fluoride, total dissolved solids, conductivity, and iron. The Saint John Water Environmental Laboratory has been participating in CALA Proficiency Testing for various parameters. The results for 2012 are included in Appendix O. Saint John Water laboratory staff calibrate the portable chlorine detection units to ensure reading accuracy. The HACH Chlorine Pocket Colorimeters calibration check is targeted to be performed on a quarterly basis, or more often if requested from the user. The units are EN �c��phn Iyai N ♦ �'; 2012 Annual Water Report 6 compared against HACH standards to ensure their reliability. The results from these regular calibration checks are recorded and are included in Appendix J. In 2006 two portable turbidimeters were purchased for each water system and a calibration check frequency of quarterly was identified. Annually a HACH customer service representative is contracted to check the portable turbidimeters and on a rotational basis the HACH Chlorine Pocket Colorimeters. Functional Check Record sheets for the portable turbidimeters are also located in Appendix J. The SCADA system that monitors on -line parameters throughout the water system includes a system for generating alarms when conditions are outside of the pre -set desired operating ranges. Saint John Water continues to verify on a regular basis that this system for chlorination alarms, turbidity alarms, and facility intrusion alarms are operating correctly. During 2008 and 2009, a Safety Audit and a Confined Space Audit of water facilities were performed in conjunction with WorkSafeNB. The audits included the treatment plants, pumping stations, storage tanks, and underground chambers. This audit identified 443 items to be addressed, including, for example, ladders that do not meet current code, insufficient ventilation in some areas, improper labelling, improper storage of some chemicals, improper shielding, lack of Standard Operating Procedures, etc. By the end of 2012, 65% (287 of 443) had been addressed and others will be addressed in time. WATER PRODUCTION Spruce Lake System During 2011, a discrepancy in the measurement of treated water flows was discovered. The sum of the two magmeter flows, located at Ocean West Way and Water Tower Road, were 71% of the readings from the insertion flowmeters at the Spruce Lake Facility. As the magmeters are deemed to be the more accurate readings, the treated water flows were adjusted accordingly. The magmeter flows have continued to be used since that time. Annual water production (raw and treated) during 2012 for the Spruce Lake system was approximately 48.5 billion litres, an increase of 1.4 billion litres over 2011 annual Spruce Lake water production, which was 47.1 billion litres. Water production for 2010 was 33.9 billion litres, 2009 was 35.8 billion litres, 2008 was 40.2 billion litres, 2007 was 36 billion litres, 2006 and 2005 were each less than 32 billion litres. In 2012, there continued to be no flow from the East system crossing the Reversing Falls Bridge to the West system. The entire west side continued to be supplied from West water only, and all water delivered to Irving Pulp and Paper (IPP) flowed via the 1500 mm west raw water transmission main as opposed to a the historical operating split of approximately one -third from east and two- thirds from west. M 2012 Annual Water Report 7 In 2012 peak monthly production was 4.89 billion litres and comparatively 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 peak monthly production was 4.55, 3.63, 3.85, 4.1, 4.2, 3.3 and 4.2 billion litres respectively. Spruce Lake System 2012 Combined - Treated and Raw Water Production MONTH PEAK DAILY PRODUCTION (Mega Litres) MONTHLY PRODUCTION (Mega Litres) January 141.7 3,767.0 February 144.5 3,583.5 March 151.2 3,814.6 April 154.4 3,732.0 May 154.4 4,169.5 June 172.1 4,196.6 July 198.5 4,675.5 August 203.9 4,892.8 September 207.9 4,415.7 October 189.4 3,790.5 November 155.2 3,763.7 December 129.0 3,686.8 TOTAL 48,488.1 2012 Spruce Lake System Monthly Production 6,000 5,000 4 ED a� 4,000 3,000 - 2,000 - — 1,000 — - — 0 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 011 2012 Annual VVater Report 8 Annual treated water production during 2012 for the Spruce Lake system was approximately 4.51 billion litres. In 2012, peak daily production was 21.0 ML a decrease from 2011 which was 36.1 ML, but similar to 2010 which was 24.9 ML. Spruce Lake System 2012 Treated Water Production' MONTH PEAK DAILY PRODUCTION (Mega Litres ) MONTHLY PRODUCTION (Mega Litres) January 14.7 374.0 February 15.4 336.4 March 14.1 351.3 April 13.8 361.8 May 15.6 386.2 June 16.6 409.3 July 21.0 437.6 August 20.4 425.1 September 16.2 381.0 October 17.8 389.6 November 16.1 362.2 December 13.4 298.8 TOTAL 4,513.3 `(excludes raw water to Coleson Cove and IPP) a a� 2012 Spruce Lake System Monthly Treated Water Production Following the failure of the Musquash Pump Station service and subsequent repairs, staff turned on the 2000 horsepower pump on March 1, 2012, and began transferring water from the Musquash watershed to Menzies Lake which is part of the Spruce Lake watershed. The level of water in Spruce Lake had dropped to 60.4 m on March 1, 2012. 51 �� weje '�- 2012 Annual Water Report 9 This interbasin transfer is necessary to provide for the industrial demand on the Spruce Lake system. On March 23'd, failures of the hydraulic system lead to a leak of biodegradable hydraulic oil. The clean-uph was completed and repairs made to the hydraulic system. Pumping resumed from March 28t until April 13th, when issues with the motor starter forced the shutdown of the operating pump. Pumping resumed from April 18th until May 300,, when pumping ceased due to sufficiently high lake water levels. Pumping resumed from July 11th until September 201, when work began to install the new Motor Control Center, which was being replaced as a result of the fire in August of 2011. A total volume of 21.618 billion litres was transferred during a total of 218 days of pumping in 2012. During 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008, the Musquash pump operated for a total of 138, 114, 26 and 48 days, with total volumes of 19.329, 14.412, 3.875 and 3.84 billion litres, respectively. As noted above, all water delivered to Irving Pulp and Paper (IPP) during 2012 flowed via the 1500 mm west raw water transmission main as opposed to a historical operating split of approximately one -third from east and two - thirds from west. This has resulted in increased pumping at Musquash. Improved management of water continued in 2012, with removal of some of the stop logs from the Menzies Lake dam, which allowed water to flow by gravity via Menzies Brook and into Ludgate Lake /Spruce Lake. This reservoir was used during the peak demand period and stop logs returned in the fall to permit natural refilling of this basin and thus reducing pumping requirements. Map of Western Watersheds (Musquash and Spruce Lake) The Spruce Lake watershed is 20.412 km2. The total surface area of the primary lakes is 5.314 km2 (26.0 %) and the City owned land surface totals 13.518 km2 or 66.2% of the total Spruce Lake Watershed area. 52 Inc Dtick X-d— 7 lake lake Lac KoffyS lac Nary. -Lob } lake Ann Lots lac Ghosr Lalak_ lake lac Parchsll Iac Lk, _- - S;hmon Zif _ _ L c lac lagnn Lai, Cmn Lake Lo • lake Ferguson Lac - - !Ac lake Neafa .,lake Lake I �yK / IOCS l � / • / � I Specsacfe Lobs Lac Inks k. Map of Western Watersheds (Musquash and Spruce Lake) The Spruce Lake watershed is 20.412 km2. The total surface area of the primary lakes is 5.314 km2 (26.0 %) and the City owned land surface totals 13.518 km2 or 66.2% of the total Spruce Lake Watershed area. 52 �l�t�ohn t�,d 2012 Annual Water Report 10 Loch Lomond System During 2012, annual water production for the Loch Lomond system (raw and treated) was 27.6 billion litres, an increase of 1.3 billion litres over 2011 Loch Lomond water production, which was 26.3 billion litres, and less than the 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 production which was 42.4, 36.8, 38.3, 45.5, 42.9 and 43.4 billion litres respectively. As mentioned above, there was no flow from the East system crossing the Reversing Falls Bridge to the West system. Loch Lomond System 2012 Combined - Domestic and Industrial Water Production MONTH PEAK DAILY PRODUCTION (Mega Litres) MONTHLY PRODUCTION (Mega Litres) January 78.8 2,154.6 February 86.7 2,215.1 March 92.4 2006.9 April 82.8 2,033.2 May 71.2 2,018.7 June 108.7 2,306.6 July 147.0 3,049.8 August 136.6 3,214.7 September 102.3 2,226.1 October 86.5 1,990.3 November 84.1 2,063.3 December 110.4 2,235.7 TOTAL 27,615.0 3,500 3,000 U) 2,500 L '76- 2,000 N 1,500 1,000 500 0 2012 Loch Lomond System Monthly Production Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. W l� 2012 Annual Water Report 11 Annual treated water production for 2012 for the Loch Lomond system was approximately 24.9 billion litres, a decrease of 0.9 billion litres from 2011 water production, which was 25.8 billion litres. In 2012, peak daily production was 101.8 ML a decrease from 2011 which was 111.0 ML. Loch Lomond System 2012 Treated Water Production MONTH PEAK DAILY PRODUCTION (Mega Litres) MONTHLY PRODUCTION (Mega Litres) January 78.8 2,149.2 February 73.9 2,038.8 March 92.4 2,106.9 April 78.9 2,006.3 May 71.2 2,018.7 June 85.3 1,998.1 July 90.0 2,193.7 August 101.8 2,214.5 September 93.0 2,052.5 October 86.5 1,990.3 November 84.1 2,026.0 December 80.6 2,082.9 TOTAL 24,878.0 `(excludes raw water spillage to Irving Paper) 2012 Loch Lomond System Monthly Treated Water Production 2,500 , ;,.,�' s•. ;r• .. •,t= rte•. „ - – .r 2,000 _... - 1,500 - - — -- -- - 1,000 500 - - -- - - i 0 .s I Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 54 �c��ohn tva P 2012 Annual Water Report 12 Loc Dougl" Lac Cooks Inks Inks Maps of Eastern Watersheds (Loch Lomond) Maps of Eastern Watersheds (Latimer) The Latimer Lake watershed is 1.883 km2. The surface area of Latimer Lake is 0.841 km2 (44.7 %) and the City owned land totals 0.941 km2 or 50.0% of the total Latimer Lake Watershed area. The Loch Lomond watershed is 104.125 km2. The total surface area of the primary lakes in total is 12.940 km2 (12.4 %) and the City owned land totals 44.472 km2 or 42.7 %. 55 ohn wd/ 2012 Annual Water Report 13 Combined Systems Combining the 2012 average daily water production for both the western and eastern systems shows the overall system production (east and west combined) increased to approximately 209 million litres per day from 201 ML per day in 2011. Production in 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 was 209 ML, 199 ML, 215 ML, 224 ML, 201 ML, and 205 ML, per day respectively. The reason for the overall system monthly production increase during the July to September period can largely be explained by the annual summer season increase by the larger industrial users; this was approximately 48.2 million litres per day on average. 19I1I11 -Z 250 ca a Q 200 m 150 m � 100 50 f 2012 Combined Systems (Spruce & Loch Lomond) Average Daily Production (by month including industrial flows) Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 56 c\,ohn P 2012 Annual Water Report 14 Chemical Consumption During 2012, a total of 127.9 tonnes of gaseous chlorine were purchased for the Loch Lomond System, 228.2 tonnes of sodium hypochlorite for the Spruce Lake System and 88.2 tonnes of hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS / fluoride) purchased for the combined east and west systems. The lack of flow across the r' Reversing Falls Bridge resulted in less potable water treated and lower chlorine usage in the east system, as well as more potable. water treated and higher chlorine usage in the west system. These two changes were not equal, however, as a large industrial user (Irving Pulp and Paper) consumed only raw (un- chlorinated) water during 2012. Due to the Capital upgrades at Spruce Lake Facility, the fluoride had been turned off on March 30, 2011, and remained off for the duration of 2012, while upgrades were still underway. Fluoride addition is expected to resume in the spring of 2013, once the construction work is completed. 57 c`�ohn lyd 2012 Annual Water Report 15 OPERATIONAL HIGHLIGHTS WatPrchPrlc As mentioned above, Saint John Water manages its drinking water service based on the Multi - Barrier Approach from the water source to the user's tap. Drinking water quality must be assured through a series of protective barriers. Source (watershed) protection is the first barrier. In general, it is much less expensive to prevent negative impacts to watersheds than site remediation after an incident has occurred. In 2012, Saint John Water began a project with the University of New Brunswick - Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management (FOREM) to develop an extensive Forest Management Plan for its watershed lands. Many of the lands in the watersheds are forested, and this brings risks such as forest fire, disease, and insect infestation. When forests are not managed properly or are not maintained in a state of good health, it puts the drinking water supply at risk. This project continues into 2013, and the report on the Loch Lomond Forest Management Plan for the Loch Lomond watershed is expected in mid -2013. Water Ouality Several boil order notifications were issued during 2012. The following locations were affected: • April 5, 2012 - Milford Road - civic numbers 5 to 46 on Milford Road, as well as 5, 20, and 22 on Francis Street. • May 18, 2012 - Highland Road - civic numbers 137, 138, 146, 151, 153, 164, 165, 167, 175, 180, 183, 191, 194, 197, 202, 204, 208, 210, 215, and Narrows Road. • July 6, 2012 - Thornborough Street area: o Sandy Point Road between Hawthorne Avenue and MacLaren Boulevard (not including Parkwood Avenue) o Thornborough Street o Jack Street o Kelly Lane o Anglin Drive, including Anglin Crescent and Pidgeon Street o Kiwanis Court o Corkery Street o Cranston Avenue between Sixth Street and Thornborough Street (not including Sixth Street) • July 28, 2012 -McLennan Street - civic numbers 19, 20, 21, and 30. • August 14, 2012 -Ashburn Road Ashburn Road -civic numbers 895, 899, and 901. 0 2012 Awmal Water Report 16 The boil order in April on Milford Road was during a Capital project. Contractors were working on installing a new sewer main on Milford Road when they accidentally broke a water main. A boil water order was issued by Department of Health because there was raw sewage present in the same excavation pit. On May 18th, 2012, there was a fire on Victoria Street. The water required to fight the fire caused low suction pressure at the Highland Road Pump Station, which caused the pumps to fail. As the safety of the drinking water could not be guaranteed, a boil water order was issued. On the morning of July 6`h, 2012, there was a water main break near the intersection of Sandy Point Road and Thornborough Street. In order to repair the leak, Saint John Water crews were required to isolate the water main, leaving some homes without water and/or low pressure. Pressure could not be maintained because the pumps were isolated from the area where the break occurred, and the Rockwood Park water storage reservoir had drained completely. At the end of July, following the completion of cleaning and lining on Highland Road and Belleview Avenue, and after the recent boil order was rescinded (for the cleaning and lining project), Saint John Water crews continued to monitor water quality in the area. On the afternoon of July 28th, 2012, crews received unsatisfactory laboratory results from one of the sampling locations. The Department of Health was notified and a boil water order was issued to residents at 19, 20, 21, and 30 McLennan Street. In August of 2011, there was a boil water order on Ashburn Road. It had originated from additional testing that was being performed to monitor water quality following the decision by the Town of Rothesay to connect the Kennebecasis Park and Hastings Cove areas to its Carpenter Pond system. As part of the testing, chlorine and microbiological parameters were frequently tested along the pipe between Rothesay Avenue and Kennebecasis Park. Chlorine levels were unacceptably low at Ashburn Road, and by the end of August 2011, microbiological testing found total coliforms, and a boil water order was issued. Samples taken in the Drury Cove area did not show any adverse results, and the issue on Ashburn Road was attributed to there being only three commercial users serviced by a relatively large watermain, as well as the elevated water temperature. Chlorine and microbiological testing continued to show unacceptably low levels of chlorine and the frequent presence of total coliforms. Following discussions with Department of Health, the boil order was eventually rescinded on January l3th, 2012. This location continued to be monitored closely throughout 2012, and by August 14th, 2012, there was again the presence of coliforms, and a boil water order was re- issued. Copies of the boil order and rescind notices are included in Appendix Q. 59 2012 Annual Water Report 17 On Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011, west side residents and businesses were asked to conserve water, due to an electrical fire at the Musquash Pumping Station. This station pumps water from the Musquash watershed into the Spruce Lake watershed, usually during the summer months when the water elevation at Spruce Lake drops below 60.0 m. The fire completely damaged one of the two motor starters, while the other required significant repair; all the electrical equipment in the room required thorough cleaning. Once the station was re- started, a capital project was initiated to replace the first (irreparable) motor starter, as well as other electrical equipment that had previously been identified for replacement or upgrading. On November 27th, 2011, the main station service tripped, causing the pump to stop. As a result of this sudden interruption, the rush of back flowing water caused vibration on the discharge pipes, and caused a hydraulic line to break. The Department of Environment and Local Government was notified. It was estimated that five to six liters of hydraulic oil was lost and the spill was immediately cleaned up. The hydraulic oil was changed in January of 2012 to food -grade oil. Later in January of 2012, the main electrical service feeding the Musquash Pump Station failed, and work began to restore the power in February. On March 23rd, vibration on the discharge water pipe caused a rigid hydraulic line to break, resulting in the release of approximately 1000 litres of the biodegradable food grade oil that had just been placed in the hydraulic system in January of 2012. The Department of Health and Department of Environment and Local Government were both notified of the spill. BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) sampling was completed on the watercourse, all with results that were non- detectable. At the time of the release, the pump station was flooded; therefore the oil floated on top of the concrete floor, where clean-up was possible. Spill booms and absorbent pads were placed around the pump station in an attempt to collect oil that had floated outside of the building. .R ,om ", 1�"air 2012 Annual Water Repos-t 18 The process of flushing watermains has a twofold purpose; it moves fresh water through areas of low flow and expels sediment and loose particles out of the distribution system. In areas that can't be flushed, problems compound with the inability to introduce fresher water. While it is important to strive to reduce the amount of water flushed, Saint John Water operates and manages the water system with public health, safety and quality of drinking water as its foremost priorities. In order to flush as efficiently and effectively as possible Saint John Water has adopted unidirectional flushing (UDF) as the standard for routine pipe cleaning. This method controls the flow of water by strategically closing valves, thereby increasing flushing velocities and reducing water disturbances in the immediate area. After eight (8) years of sector by sector development, Saint John now has the entire water distribution system (pipes < =300 mm) flushed with the UDF method. The northern most areas (Millidgeville/Westmount) of the City were added in 2012 to a hydraulic model and city wide the flushing sequences were executed. Over this time Saint John Water has engaged the services of Aqua Data Atlantic to design and conduct this service. Starting at the source of water, the science based sequences step through the vast network of pipes, pulling fresh water along the way to the extremities of the system. The table below illustrates the growth of the Unidirectional Flushing Program since 2005. Description 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of sequences 114 205 377 360 544 861 1,015 1,170 Total length of pipe (km) 35 61 137 130 224 373 422 468 Length of pipe flushed (km) 21 42 92 89 183 212 255 303 Total number of fire hydrants 168 278 608 594 987 1,616 1,863 2,145 Number of fire hydrants used 71 131 252 234 368 566 657 768 Total number of valves 377 634 1.298 1,251 2,057 3,439 4,076 4,556 Number of valves used 137 228 407 402 570 933 1,141 1,260 61 sim'i 2012 Annual Water Report 19 The UDF sequences for Saint John were perfonned by Aqua Data technicians between June 4, 2012 and October 9, 2012. As can happen when other infrastructure projects are in progress, some sequence changes are necessary. In these instances Aqua Data would relocate to a different area of the city, returning to finish the zone at a later time. The following information highlights the results of this year's unidirectional flushing program: ■ Total number of sequences 1,170 ■ Total length of pipes flushed 303 km ■ Total number of fire hydrants utilized 768 ■ Total number of valves operated 1,260 ■ Total water volume used 31,306 US Gallons ■ Average velocity per sequence 5.8 ft /second Given the age and condition of some sections of our infrastructure the targeted turbidity is less than or equal to 3.0 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). The average count achieved over the entire program was 1.76 NTU with 97.6% of the sequences measuring below 3.0 NTU. The table below illustrates how Unidirectional Flushing can lead to improved pipe conditions as time goes on. Zone / Sector Average NTU 2012 UDF since Sequences Max NTU Min NTU Over 3 NTU Percent of Sequences Over 3 NTU Carleton 0.99 2005 108 1.41 0.73 0 0.00% Sand Cove 1.09 2006 78 4.30 0.91 1 1.28% New West 1.50 2007 193 4.88 0.89 2 1.04% Lakewood 1.38 2008 44 2.20 0.99 0 0.00% Cottage Hill 1.67 2009 124 2.49 0.98 0 0.00% Central Low 1.82 2009 51 3.47 1.30 1 1.96% East Gravity 1.73 2010 124 3.09 0.99 1 0.81% City Central 2.00 2010 180 2.99 1.21 0 0.00% North End 2.20 2011 114 6.59 1.34 6 5.26% Rockwood 2.51 2011 22 4.50 1.99 1 4.55% Millid eville 2.49 2012 132 4.98 1.26 16 12.12% Average 2012 1.76 NTU 1170 6.59 0.73 28 2.39% With an emphasis on UDF as an annual maintenance program, the past practice of flushing hydrants the conventional way has been discontinued. However from time to time conventional flushing is executed on dead ends and in response to areas where water quality concerns are reported. 62 �-� 2012 Annual Water Report 20 In 2012 Saint John Water performed extensive continuous water quality flushing around the City. At its peak during the warm summer weather, 26 separate water quality flushings (see Appendix W) were active throughout the city; nineteen were located in the east water system and seven in the west system. Thirteen of the flushings are year - round; the remainder are seasonal (temperature related). Flushings that are presently required will not necessarily be needed indefinitely. The need to flush water across the system will reduce over time as pipes are cleaned and lined, renewed, systems are looped, and organics are removed through full treatment. Backflow Prevention and Cross - Connection Control A "cross- connection" is defined as an actual or potential connection between a potable water system and any source of pollution or contamination. Eliminating the connection is the safest method to pursue; otherwise a backflow prevention device is used to protect water systems from non- potable connections, for example: water boilers, sprinkler systems, commercial and industrial equipment. As of December 31, 2012 there were 2,815 testable backflow prevention devices registered with the City of Saint John Cross - Connection Control Program. Premise isolation devices account for 588 of these. The Plumbing Inspector and the Manager, Water Use Management remain active members of the New Brunswick Backflow Prevention Association and the Cross - Connection Control Sub - committee of the Atlantic Canada Water Works Association ( ACWWA). Locally they represent the ACWWA as proctors overseeing certification examinations for the testers of backflow prevention devices. 63 ohn 1, 2012 Annual Water Report 21 Water Distribution In 2012, Saint John Water staff responded to 98 watermain breaks, 9 more than in 2011. The mains ranged in size from 50 mm to 1050 mm in diameter. A detailed listing of the breaks is located in Appendix M. In 2012, Saint John Water completed inspection of its large diameter raw water transmission mains. The 1500 and 1200 mm raw water transmission mains from Robertson Lake to Latimer Lake were inspected, chambers cleaned and debris removed. The 1500 mm raw water transmission main underwent a complete electromagnetic study. One of most significant breaks occurred on September 14'', 2012, near 290 Crown Street. During the excavation process of the water main repair, a gas main was struck by the water distribution crew causing an emergency evacuation of the area. Enbridge Gas was notified and the gas main was isolated and repaired prior to city crews continuing with the water main repair. Above and ]eft — main break on Crown Sheet On November 9`h, a service leak occurred on the 300 mm water main on University Avenue, resulting in an isolation of the water main from Millidge Avenue to the University Avenue Pumping Station. This isolation resulted in the closure of food establishments along University Avenue. On December 18th, 2010 the 475 mm water main crossing under the Reversing Falls Bridge was taken out of service due to a leak within the west end bridge abutment. After reviewing the options and the cost of a repair it was decided to leave the pipe out of service as it was scheduled for replacement in 2012. Due to ongoing work on the Harbour Bridge the replacement of the water main under Reversing Falls Bridge has been pushed to 2013. In 2008 Saint John Water purchased WaterGems water modeling software. A portion of 2008 and all of 2009 was been spent developing a model that accurately reflects the piping infrastructure and system demands. In 2010, the remaining smaller diameter pipes on the east side were entered, completing all loops in the system. 64 0 2012 Annual Water Report 22 The uses for the water model include verification of new watermain sizing as well as numerous water system simulations. Ongoing updates were made and many analyses were carried out in the Saint John Water Model in 2012. New pipes were added to the water model and further verification of existing information was carried out in 2012. The most notable additions to the model were the Spruce Lake Pump Station upgrades and the cleaned and lined cast iron pipes. Various analyses were also carried out in 2012. Twelve water modeling projects were completed and consisted of observing pressures and flows at various areas of the city as well as looking at specific locations under fire flow conditions. Condition 44 (formerly Condition 57) of — r the Approval to Operate requires that 41 mitigation measures for all sources of cross - connections between potable water and sewer systems be undertaken in accordance to the approval plan submitted. In the 2006 Annual report it was noted that staff of Saint John Water identified a total of 115 cross - connections. Field evaluations of each location were completed and a plan *� established to remove the cross - connections. In June 2007 Saint John Water staff informed the Department of Environment there were now 114 cross - connections still remaining and a comprehensive document complete with sketches of all 114 connections was submitted. It was proposed that the work be completed over a two -year period as part of the Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. Phase 1 of the work was approved in 2007 as part of the 2008 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. The project included the removal of flushing cross- connections and the installation of new fire hydrants for future flushing capabilities. Phase 1 of the program was completed in 2008; of the 57 cross - connections identified, 29 were removed, 4 were deferred to 2009 and 24 had been removed by Saint John Water maintenance crews in previous years. Phase 2 of the work was approved as part of the 2009 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. This project similarly included the removal of flushing cross - connections and the installation of new fire hydrants for future flushing capabilities. Phase 2 of the program was tendered and awarded in 2009; however work was not able to commence given the lateness of the construction season, and was undertaken during the 2010. Another $100,000 was allocated in the 2010 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program as more cross - connections had been identified during the water system record (map) updating that was underway. This work was undertaken in 2011. The work that was planned for the 2012 construction season was postponed to early 2013. The list is included in Appendix U, and will complete the removal of known cross connections. The record updating will continue and any new cross - connections identified will be tracked separately to allow for continued budgeting, design and construction work to eliminate all cross - connections. 65 ion° U� s 2012 Annual mater Report 23 CAPITAL WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS During 2012, Saint John Water administered a total of 18 water related capital projects designed to renew, clean and line and install new water mains. Appendix H provides a detailed listing of the projects that were included in the 2012 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program approved by Common Council. Nine projects from the 2011 approved Capital Program were carried forward to 2012 and completed. In 2012, the utility share of capital funding to water related categories (which are made up of infrastructure renewal - water, the safe clean drinking water program, and watershed protection) totalled approximately $9.7 million. The breakdown of the capital funding is presented in a pie chart on the first page in Appendix H, 21.7% Infrastructure Renewal Water, 3.2% Watershed Protection, and 27.3% Water Treatment. Approximately $4.5 million was included within the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program for engaging outside Engineering, financial and legal resources that are required to develop a comprehensive P3 Business Case. In summary, water works completed in 2012 capital projects included the following; cleaning and lining of approximately 1170 in of water distribution mains and renewal of approximately 1791 in of watermains ranging in size from 200 mm to 600 mm. In 2012 a project was not tendered to remove flushing cross - connections between the water distribution and sanitary collection system. The project was carried forward and will be completed during the 2013 construction season. Harbourview Subdivision - Seaward Crescent Well House Upgrades — In 2012 Saint John Water carried out modifications to the existing structure which included a new roof, walls, sidings and a double door to provide access for equipment. Later in 2012, a contract was awarded to remove mechanical, electrical and instrumentation equipment within the existing Seaward Crescent Well House and install a new chlorine disinfection system, pressure tank, process piping, metering skid, instrumentation and controls. The project also involved a piping component to install a pipe loop to act as a contact chamber and allow adequate mixing of chlorine in advance of the first customer. .. '�•��'' 2012 Annual Water Report 24 In 2010 the City of Saint John had tendered a contract for replacement of the pumps and installation of back -up power at the Spruce Lake Water Treatment Facility. The purpose of the project was to replace the two original pumps and motor units that had been installed in 1971, with three new pump and motor units (with associated chlorination and fluoridation systems installed with connections to SCADA), in order to provide a back -up system for reliability / continuity of service, reduction in electricity consumption, as well as to allow for one pump to be removed from service for maintenance while maintaining the ability to have two pumps in service. The upgrade work is now completed, and the fluoride system that had been removed from service during the upgrade will be returned to service in 2013. With respect to the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program, two significant projects were initiated in 2012: 1. Groundwater Exploration - In 2012, the City of Saint John engaged TerrAtlantic Engineering Limited to answer the question: "Can a groundwater supply meet the quantity and quality needs of the potable users and be practically developed in or near The City of Saint John ?" The project initiated with a desktop analysis and some very preliminary reconnaissance of possible groundwater developments. The Consultants identified 5 potential sites that The City of Saint John should explore further using more in -depth hydrogeological services to determine if these sites meet the City's potable water requirements. A request for proposals was advertised in December 2012 for hydrogeological and environmental services to continue the groundwater exploration for potable water. This project will continue in 2013. 2. Drinking Water Advisory Services - The City of Saint John engaged PwC to evaluate options and recommend a business case and procurement model. This work included review of the preliminary costs estimates, market soundings, shortlist procurement options, risk workshop, value for money analysis, and preparation of a business case. This work continues in 2013. 67 om wej 2012 Annual Water Report 25 The Water & Sewerage Business Plan Review that was completed in 2002 determined significant investments in infrastructure renewal were necessary to ensure the future sustainability of the system. As shown in the following graph, significant infrastructure investments have been made in previous years with an investment reduction in 2011 and in 2012 as a result of a focus on Wastewater Treatment projects. It is anticipated future capital programs will involve major investments in water infrastructure. Within Appendix I is a list of the projects proposed as part of the 2013 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. 25000 20000 r 15000 m c J c 10000 .f E N m 5000 0 Approved Capital Water Main Improvement Plans =r- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year ■ Renewal ■ New Install o Rehabilitation OPERATOR TRAINING & CERTIFICATION Saint John Water continues to make advances in the operation and maintenance of our water and wastewater systems and the pivotal role they play in providing for the protection of public health and the delivery of a vital service. Since 2001, the City of Saint John through a partnership with the New Brunswick Community College (NBCC) - Saint John has developed training programs for its water and wastewater operators. The training has been attended by City of Saint John staff, numerous other municipalities from across New Brunswick and by private companies. AN � hn k% 2012 Annual Water Report 26 Employees have continued to make progress in 2012, working towards meeting specific training and certification requirements as required within the Approvals to Operate. It is recognized that training is integral to improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of water and wastewater services. A number of formal training courses were offered to staff during 2012. Some of these courses provide employees with CEUs (Continuing Education Units) and contribute to an environment of continuous learning. While ongoing CEU requirements are not necessary according to the Approval to Operate; Saint John Water strongly believes in improved competencies and skills through continuous learning. Listed below are all formal courses, complete with a short descriptor. Air Brake Endorsement — This is a half day course intended to prepare employees to challenge the air brake endorsement exam, one of the requirements for attainment of a Class III Driver's License. Employees are taught by a City of Saint John T &T Mechanic how to check and adjust slack adjusters using an airbrake simulator in the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Successful completion of the Air-- Brake Examination results in an "E" endorsement on the employee's driver's license. Asbestos Awareness - This half -day program aims to mitigate the risk of exposure to asbestos for employees. The program provides training in hazard identification, the various types of asbestos, the level of exposure risk, and associated health effects. The new Corporate Asbestos Management Program and its various elements (asbestos surveys, risk prioritization, site - specific communication and training, and remediation strategy) are outlined. This training program also explains legislated requirements under the NBOHSA, Code of Practice. Basic Emer —aency Management — This course is structured to provide the participant with a broad base from which to carry out planning and operations for emergencies. The theory of the planning process is introduced and operating procedures are applied to a spectrum of emergency scenarios. The management, command, control and co- ordination functions necessary to meet emergencies are examined using case studies and exercises. This is an entry level course and is considered a prerequisite for advanced level courses. Chain Saw — The NB Safety Council Inc. offers a full day Chain Saw Safety training course. This course has been developed for those who operate a chain saw within their course of duty and includes a classroom component where key areas of safety and operations are covered. This is followed by a practical session where individuals use the skills learned. CFS Common — General Knowledge Water and Wastewater Fundamentals: provides knowledge and skills related to safety, * ,,q"n w� 2012 Annual Water Report 27 mathematics and basic science as it applies to water and wastewater systems. CFS Wastewater Collection - General Knowledge Water and Wastewater Fundamentals: provides knowledge and skills related to safety, mathematics and basic science as it applies to Water and Wastewater systems. Support Systems Water and Wastewater Fundamentals: provides knowledge of major components, principles and proper operation of common equipment including pumps, drive systems, engines and generators, compressors, valves, and control components. Wastewater Quality Fundamentals: provides knowledge and skill related to wastewater quality assurance, and quality control, including wastewater sampling and quality, public health implications and regulatory requirements. Wastewater Collection Process: provides knowledge and skill related to wastewater collection system operation and maintenance, including wastewater collection overview, gravity sewers, sewer operation and maintenance, wastewater lift stations, wastewater force mains, disinfection processes, wastewater treatment overview. - CFS Wastewater Treatment - Support Systems Water and Wastewater Fundamentals: provides knowledge of major components, principles and proper operation of common equipment, including pumps, drive systems, engines and generators, compressors, valves, and control components. Wastewater Quality Fundamentals: provides knowledge and skill related to wastewater quality assurance and quality control, including wastewater sampling and quality, public health implications and regulatory requirements. Wastewater Treatment Process: provides knowledge and skill related to wastewater treatment system operation and maintenance, including wastewater treatment overview, preliminary treatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment, sludge management, disinfection processes, and tertiary treatment. CFS Water Distribution - General Knowledge Water Supply Fundamentals: provides knowledge and skills related to safety, mathematics and basic science as it applies to Water systems. Support Systems Water and Wastewater Fundamentals: provides knowledge of major components, principles and proper operation of common equipment including pumps, drive systems, engines and generators, compressors, valves, and control components. Water Quality Fundamentals: provides knowledge and skill related to potable water quality assurance and quality control, including water sampling and quality, public health implications and regulatory requirements. Water Supply Process: provides knowledge and skill related to water supply system operation and maintenance. CFS Water Treatment - Support Systems Water and Wastewater Fundamentals: provides knowledge of major components, principles and 70 2012 Annual Water Report 28 proper operation of common equipment, including pumps, drive systems, engines and generators, compressors, valves, and control components. Water Quality Fundamentals: provides knowledge and skill related to potable water quality assurance and quality control, including water sampling and quality, public health implications and regulatory requirements. Water Treatment Process: provides knowledge and skill related to water treatment system operation and maintenance, including water treatment overview, primary treatment, secondary treatment, disinfection processes. Class III Driver Preparation - This is a half day course intended to prepare employees to challenge the written portion of the Class III License examination. Completion of the required Class III Medical Examination and submission of the associated Doctor's report is a prerequisite for writing the Class III examination. Successful completion of the Class III written examination qualifies the employee to challenge the road test, the last requirement for award of the Class III Driver's license. This course uses the standard Province of New Brunswick.Class III Preparation Guide. Con ned Space Entry - Participants develop knowledge and skills in confined space entry that meets and exceeds legislated requirements. Training topics include: the legal regulations, standard operating procedures, confined space audit, confined space entry and confined space rescue. Confined Space Rescue - Participants learn to safely and effectively perform confined space rescue. The course covers: a review of confined space entry procedures, atmospheric monitoring and control systems, duties of rescue personnel, personal protective equipment, self contained breathing apparatus, rescue equipment including lifeline, retrieval system, stretcher, casualty packaging and manipulation, rescue procedures and engaging first responders. CPR/First Aid (2 day and 1 day refresher) — These courses are provided for reasons of workplace safety. It explains to individuals the fundamentals of first aid and basic life support. Customer Service - Participants learn the basic principles of customer service with the aim of better serving our internal and external clients. Topics include: the customer - centered organization, internal customers, external customers, identification of needs, prioritization of needs, review of values -based behaviour, elements of high quality service, implications of low quality service, service examples, and lessons learned. Ufective Communication - The goal of this program is to develop knowledge and skill in interpersonal and team communications in the 71 `pinwd 2012 Annual Water Report 29 context of our business, using a variety of techniques including role playing, group discussion, and case studies. The critical importance of effective listening and feedback technique is emphasized as a crucial element in the building of positive workplace relationships. Emergency Site Manazement — This course prepares emergency management practitioners to carry out their roles as members of an emergency site team. In an emergency situation, new relationships must be established quickly between community organizations, outside agencies, volunteers and other entities from various levels of government who might not normally work together. This advanced level course covers the principles of a coordinated multi - service and multi jurisdictional response at an emergency site. Excel Course — The user learns how to navigate in Excel, enter, format and move data, and apply formulas. Fall Arrest Protection — This is a one day training program,. the goal of which is to equip employees with the knowledge and skill required to employ industry standard best practices in Fall Arrest in a variety of operational tasks within Saint John Water, including Confined and Hazardous Space Entry and Rescue. Fire Extinguisher — In this course, participants learn how to classify the types of fires and to use fire extinguishers correctly. Topics include; fire chemistry, fire classification, types of fire extinguishers, fire extinguisher rating, symbols used on fire extinguishers, selecting a fire extinguisher, use of fire extinguishers and inspecting fire extinguishers. Highway Si n� aller - Using group exercises and lectures, students will learn how to control traffic to keep themselves, their co- workers and the public safe while engaged in controlling the flow of traffic through the city's street construction project sites. A "Qualification Test" is required. This course carries a three year recertification requirement. HTE Payroll - This course teaches participants to use the City's HTE payroll Hours Entry System. After an introduction to HTE system environment, participants learn how to make exceptions to the regular weekly hours of employees when required. HTE Work Requests & Job Order - This course teaches participants to use the City's HTE work request job order system. After an introduction to HTE system environment, participants learn how to create internal work requests /job orders, search for work requests /job orders and close job orders. 72 - 2012 Annual Water Report 30 Job Coaching - This course prepares peer trainers to become successful field coaches. The course covers; understanding adult learning needs; the coaching process; setting up the field coaching environment; guidelines for instruction; guidelines for feedback; setting goals and objectives for the trainee; developing checklists; evaluation progress; learner reactions and feedback. Leadership - This course is designed for municipal front line, supervisors and managers (both hourly and staff) who want to contribute to their development as leaders of their organization by leading from the inside out. Knowledge is gained by applying "theory" to real life examples that require interactive group discussion, problem solving and role playing. Natural Gas Safety - Participants learn safe work practices for carrying out street construction operations near natural gas pipelines. The lecture also includes complying with regulations for natural gas pipelines, regulatory authority, notification procedure, penalties associated with non- compliance, required work method and emergency procedures and hazards associated with natural gas. Natural Gas Safety — Working Near A Natural Gas Utility - This is a one - hour safety awareness program, provided by Maritime Northeast and Enbridge Natural Gas, focusing on excavation in proximity to the natural gas utility. Delivered by a combination of PowerPoint and group discussion, the course teaches controls provided by the utility to ensure the safety of their workers and the general public, and teaches Safe Work Procedures for the protection of City employees. This program is open to Management staff, Engineering Staff, and Outside Workers. Network and Windows XP — The learner will recognize and use basic computer functions of the City of Saint John computer network and Windows. Occupation Health and Safety I — This course covers the following; responsibilities under Occupational Health and Safety Act, role of Joint Health and Safety Committees, due diligence, construction safety and the role of the highway signaller. Occupational Health and Safety 2 - Participants learn about the Health and Safety Improvement System (HSIS). Topics include: safety and quality, quality systems general (iterative, audit -based processes), the HSIS framework, implementation methodology and expected outcomes. Orientation New Hire — This is a general orientation to the City of Saint John. This 2 -hour basic orientation provides introduction to the Corporate Strategic Plan, our Values, Vision, etc. Other topics covered include; pension, benefits, training and contact information. 73 \'ohn w, 2012 Annual Water Report 31 Overhead Crane — The course aims to ensure that the City's various operations which employ overhead monorail and jib cranes comply with Part XV of NBOHSA, Regulation 91 -191, Materials Handling Equipment and Personnel Carrying Equipment — Hoisting Apparatus ". This course covers all material specified in Part XV, s 207 — s 212 of the general regulation. Training will be conducted on site at appropriate City of Saint John facilities having an installed overhead monorail crane. Delivery will include lecture and applied components. Skill will be developed in the following subject areas; Hazard Recognition, Hazard Mitigation, Inspection, Operator Record Keeping (log books), Operator Preventative Maintenance, Professional Inspection Requirements, Professional Maintenance Requirements, Safe Load Assessment, Safe Rigging Procedures, and Safe Operation. The course includes a formal examination. Oxyacetylene - Participants learn to safely operate an oxyacetylene cutting torch and how to identify and describe hazards associated with oxyacetylene operation. Professional Driver Improvement - Participants develop skills to prevent collisions by learning a positive approach to driving. Program Management - Through lecture and group work, students will learn skills in managing complex projects as Field Supervisor. Employees will learn the essential framework of project and program management, including scope, schedule, quality and cost, and will develop skill in applying this framework using tools developed by the city of Saint John. Employees will learn the distinctions between project management and program management. Objectives of this course include building skill in writing project charters, developing scope statements, developing project schedules, assigning labour, resources, and procured services, conducting risk analysis, controlling execution, reporting and project closure. Successful completion of this course is a requirement of the senior supervisory level within the Outside Workforce Career Development System. Resource Mana e� - Participants learn the basic principles of Human Resource Management, Property Management and Financial Management. Training topics include: the City's budget process, financial reporting and analysis, inventory and purchasing procedures and fleet management procedures. Respiratory Protection — Participants learn about the types of respiratory protection equipment and how to safely use this equipment. The instructor reviews standard operating procedures and worker's responsibilities. Also 74 2012 Annual Water Report 32 discussed are: the type, selection and use of respirators, fit testing, medical evaluations as well as maintenance and care of respirators. Supervisory Training — The objective is to develop supervisory personnel by providing a series of training modules focusing on key supervisory competencies. Tag Out Lock Out — According to New Brunswick Regulation 91 -191, under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, workplaces must have a written lockout procedure for each machine that is cleaned, maintained, adjusted or repaired. The procedure identifies the proper steps to follow in order to safely lock out the machine. Temporary Services Install & Disinfection — Participants learn to apply safe work methods for installing and disinfecting temporary services. Training materials used include the drinking water standards, transportation of dangerous goods, backflow prevention, safe work procedures and emergency procedures. Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) — Participants learn about the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and become legally certified to transport materials covered by this legislation. Topics include: TDG classifications, packing requirements, TDG symbols, shipping documents and dangerous occurrences. Trenching Safety - Its purpose is to teach safe trenching practices, introduce the dangers of construction excavations, the mechanics of trench cave -ins, potential hazards to workers, requirements under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and protective systems used to avoid trench cave -ins. Vibration Analysis — Participants learn how to diagnose malfunctions in pumps, motors and related equipment with course goals including; strengthening of preventative maintenance programs, minimizing repair expenses and extending infrastructure life. Water Craft Operator - In -class safe boating course that lasts 3 hours on average. All the necessary material needed to obtain your "Pleasure Craft Operator Card" is covered. Included in the 3 hour course is a 45 minute exam which participants must pass in order to get their operator card. WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System) — A system in Canada that provides information on the safe use of hazardous materials in the workplace. Information is provided by means of product labels, material safety data sheets (MSDS) and worker education programs. 75 e a 2012 Annual Water Report 33 Word I Assessment and Course — The user learns how to navigate in Word, enter and format text, change and move text. Work Zone Safety - This course is to protect employees from vehicular traffic passing through construction sites. It teaches control procedures, personal protective equipment, general design instructions and emergency procedures. Appendix N provides a comprehensive summary in tabular form of the Saint John Water team members who attended the various aforementioned courses during 2012. As summarized in the table below, in 2012 several members of the Saint John Water team challenged and achieved various certifications. In addition to the new certifications achieved by staff over the past year, Appendix L provides comprehensive summary of all staff certifications achieved to -date. Certifications Achieved in 2012 ~ > N H Q H H H Vn h�l y H Vi FBI y ICI M W5 h LC h RS y Cd y Vj CC h CC h VJ CC Vi C� CO C� C3 C� CC C� U U U /CCU VU U ? LU 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 NAME 3 3 Mike Carr ' Grant Harrigan ' Jeremy Howley ' Graham Huddleston ' Geoff Kelly ' Carl Kemp ' Mark McKenzie ' James Margaris Trent Mercer ' Adam Newman ' Chris Petrie ' Water Treatment, ` Water Distribution,' Wastewater Collection, 4 Wastewater Treatment 76 n k- 2012 Annual Water Report 34 Operator Traininp, — Water Treatment Condition 27 The Approval Holder shall ensure that all water treatment Operators complete the New Brunswick Community College Treatment Operation Fundamentals Program, the California State University Treatment Plant Operation (Volumes I and II) course, or an equivalent, as approved by the Director, in accordance with Water Quality Regulation 82 -126, section 19. Ms. Nicole Taylor, M.Eng., P.Eng., Operations Manager, Water Resources and Quality, is the overarching operator with direct responsible charge for both water treatment facilities and Ms. Taylor has completed the Water Quality & Water Treatment Fundamentals. Chris Petrie, Superintendent, Water Treatment Facilities has completed Water Quality & Water Treatment Fundamentals in 2011. As identified below, all water treatment operators have completed the NBCC Water Treatment Operations Fundamentals Program. In addition, all four operators have also completed the more advanced Water Quality & Water Treatment Intermediate Program. Stephen Breen Water Quality & Water Treatment Fundamentals — Completed June 2005 Common Intermediate — Completed May 2006 Water Quality & Water Treatment Intermediate — Completed December 2007 James Duke Water Quality & Water Treatment Fundamentals — Completed June 2005 Common Intermediate — Completed March 2006 Water Quality & Water Treatment Intermediate — Completed December 2007 LeRoy Graham Water Quality & Water Treatment Fundamentals — Completed June 2005 Common Intermediate — Completed March 2007 Water Quality & Water Treatment Intermediate — Completed December 2007 Peter Kierstead Water Quality & Treatment Fundamentals — Completed March 2005 Common Intermediate — Completed May 2006 Water Quality & Water Treatment Intermediate — Completed December 2007 During 2011, crew re- structuring had resulted in the need for only two Water Treatment Operators rather than four. On June 30th, 2012, two Water Treatment Operators retired (Peter Kierstead and James Duke). A third Water Treatment Operator (Stephen Breen) retired on December 31St, 2012. As Saint John Water employs more trained operators than the minimum required, there were no compliance issues as a result of these retirements. In summary, all treatment operators meet Condition 27 of the Approval to Operate. 77 2012 Annual Water Report 35 Operator Certification — Water Treatment Condition 28 / Condition 29 The Approval Holder shall ensure that the certification level of the Operator in Charge is at least equivalent to the classification of the water treatment Facilities. The Approval Holder shall employ, as a minimum, one (1) Class II and one (1) Class I Water Treatment Certified Operator (or higher). Through discussions with the DOE Drinking Water Approvals Engineer in 2008, it was clarified that Ms. Taylor being the operator with direct responsible charge of the overall water treatment system is the individual who should be certified to Class II water treatment. Ms. Taylor attained Class IV certification in 2010. Chris Petrie, Superintendent, Water Treatment Facilities obtained Class I certification in 2011. With respect to certification requirements, as noted below, in each instance the certification level of the operator is equivalent to the system classification. Again, as Saint John Water employs more certified operators than the minimum required, there were no compliance issues as a result of retirements in 2012. Saint John Water is therefore in compliance with Conditions 28 and 29. TREATMENT Operator Name Operator Certification Level System Classification Stephen Breen Water Treatment Level II Class II James Duke Water Treatment Level II Class II LeRoy Graham Water Treatment Level II Class II Peter Kierstead Water Treatment Level II Class II Operator Training - Water Distribution Condition 24 The Approval Holder shall ensure that all water distribution Operators complete the New Brunswick Community College Water Distribution Fundamentals Program, the California State University Water Distribution System Operation and Maintenance course, or an equivalent, as approved by the Director, in accordance with Water Quality Regulation 82- 126, section 19. Mr. Jeremy Howley, P.Eng., Operations Manager, Water & Sanitary Systems, is the overarching operator with direct responsible charge for the water distribution system. Mr. Howley completed the Water Distribution Fundamentals level training in January 2009. W c��ohn Wd� 2012 Annual Water Report 36 Mr. John Clack, Manager, Water Use Management has direct responsibility for water metering and backflow prevention (premise isolation). He also oversees the implementation and completion of the annual Unidirectional Flushing Program. John Clack completed the Water Distribution Fundamentals level training in January 2011. As identified below, all water distribution system operators have completed the NBCC Water Distribution Fundamentals Program and one has completed the more advanced Water Quality & Water Distribution Intermediate Program. Clyde Carpenter - has completed the fundamentals training Common Intermediate — Completed spring 2007 William Melanson Common Intermediate — Completed winter 2005 Water Quality & Water Distribution Intermediate — Completed spring 2007 Mike Martin — has completed the fundamentals training Peter Fudge— has completed the fundamentals training Steve Anderson— has completed the fundamentals training In summary, all distribution system operators meet Condition 24 of the Approval to Operate. Operator Certification - Water Distribution Condition 25 /Condition 26 The Approval Holder shall ensure that the certification level of the Operator in Charge is at least equivalent to the classification of the water distribution facility. The Approval Holder shall employ, as a minimum, one (1) Class IV Water Distribution Certified Operator and one (1) Class III Water Distribution Certified Operator (or higher). Through discussions with the DOE Drinking Water Approvals Engineer in 2008, it was clarified that Mr. Howley being the operator with direct responsible charge of the overall water distribution system is the individual who should be certified to Class IV water distribution. Mr. Howley challenged and attained his Class IV Water Distribution in December of 2009. Saint John Water employees that have attained Class III certification in water distribution include; Mr. Mike Martin and Mr. Art Hovey. Saint John Water is in compliance with Conditions 25 and 26. W John Y;, 2012 Annual Water Report 37 DISTRIBUTION Operator Name Operator Certification Level System Classification Mike Martin Water Distribution Class III Class IV (for WD) Certified Operator II - Water Treatment astewater Collection Class II Peter Kierstead Steve Anderson Water Distribution Class II Class IV (for WD) James Duke (Wastewater Collection Class II) Certified Operator II - Water Treatment Clyde Carpenter Water Distribution Class II Class IV (for WD) Certified Operator II - Water & Sanitary Systems (Wastewater Collection Class II Clyde Carpenter Peter Fudge Water Distribution Class II Class IV (for WD) Michael Martin (Wastewater Collection Class II) Certified Operator I - Water & Sanitary Systems William Melanson Water Distribution Class II Class IV (for WD) Certified Operator I - Water & Sanitary Systems (Wastewater Collection Class II Peter Fudge HUMAN RESOURCES Responsible Staff Patrick Woods, CGA LeRoy Graham City Manager - City of Saint John Certified Operator II - Water Treatment William Edwards, P.Eng. Stephen Breen Commissioner - Transportation and Environment Certified Operator II - Water Treatment Kendall Mason, P.Eng. Peter Kierstead Deputy Commissioner - Saint John Water Certified Operator II - Water Treatment Nicole Taylor, M.Eng., P.Eng. James Duke Operations Manager - Water Resources & Quality Certified Operator II - Water Treatment Jeremy Howley, P.Eng. William Melanson Operations Manager - Water & Sanitary Systems Certified Operator II - Water & Sanitary Systems John Clack Clyde Carpenter Manager - Water Use Management Certified Operator II - Water & Sanitary Systems Chris Petrie Michael Martin Water Superintendent— Saint John Water Certified Operator I - Water & Sanitary Systems Brian Keenan, P. Eng. Steve Anderson Engineering Manager - Municipal Engineering Certified Operator I - Water & Sanitary Systems Graham Huddleston, P.Eng. Peter Fudge Operations Manager - Environmental Protection Certified Operator I - Water & Sanitary Systems James Margaris, P.Eng. Michael Cook Wastewater Superintendent — Saint John Water Certified Operator I - Water & Sanitary Systems * 2012 Annual Water Report 38 New Hires During 2012, the City of Saint John hired 8 new employees within Saint John Water operations. Each new hire is listed in the table that follows. Name Status Stephen Breen Robert Galbraith New Hire - Skilled Worker Saleem Kaleem New Hire - Skilled Worker Jacqueline Kelly New Hire - Skilled Worker Mark Madden New Hire — Skilled Worker Colin Perry New Hire — Instrumentation Technician Jody Savoie New Hire — Skilled Worker Liam Theriault New Hire — Skilled Worker Staffing Changes In addition to the new employees hired during 2012, there were numerous Saint John Water staffing changes which are summarized in the table below. There were two employees that were overlooked for the 2011 Annual Report (Michael Cook and John Given), and they are included below as well. Name Status Stephen Breen Retired James Duke Retired Richard Hachey Retired Peter Kierstead Retired Terry Matheson Retired William Melanson Retired Daryl Thompson Retired Harley Dickson Resigned 81 2012 Annual Water Report 39 Stephen Bernard Resigned Jeremy Howley Resigned Carl Kemp Resigned Ross Richard Resigned Steve Anderson Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Operator Peter Fudge Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Operator Michael Martin Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Operator Kevin Ayles Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Designated Operator Rod Comeau Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Designated Operator Randy Benson Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Designated Operator Harold Eatmon Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Designated Operator Brian Marr Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Designated Operator Scott Maxwell Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Designated Operator Danny Stone Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Designated Operator Grant Harrigan Promoted Skilled Worker to Designated Operator Mark McKenzie Promoted Skilled Worker to Designated Operator Michael Meahan Transferred from Wastewater Treatment to Distribution / Wastewater Collection, later promoted Skilled Worker to Designated Operator Stephen Wright Transferred from Utility Services to Water Distribution / Wastewater Collection Tanner McDevitt Transferred into Saint John Water - Skilled Worker and later promoted to Designated Operator Robert Galbraith Transferred from Distribution / Wastewater Collection to Water Resources and Quality Charles Christiansen Transferred out of Saint John Water to Materials Management Vance London Transferred into Saint John Water - Skilled Worker Michael Cook Promoted Maintenance Specialist to Operator in 2011 John (Jack) Given Retired in 2011 82 2012 Annual Water Report 40 PUBLIC INFORMATION Communications During the 2012 capital construction season bilingual communication was regularly provided to citizens by means of weekly construction updates, an example of which can be seen in Appendix P. This information, compiled by staff in Municipal Operations & Engineering, was shared with the public via of the City of Saint John website, news releases carried in the local newspaper and by email to large distribution groups. The regular updates provide citizens with information relating to the limits of work, project start date, work to be accomplished, traffic impacts where applicable, and projected end date. In addition to the construction updates the City continued with its Work Zone Safety campaign that had been started in 2009. Corporate Communications staff have provided invaluable support. In addition to regular weekly update notices there was also information regularly sent out during the summer season with respect to watermain flushing. This information is advertised regularly in the local newspaper as well as on the City of Saint John website to provide citizens with information relating to when and where the flushing is being carried out, noting that there may be some discoloration of water and providing a contact number for further information. A hydrant flushing notice is included within Appendix Q. Further to the regular public information, there are also instances where media releases or special communications are required from time to time. An example of special communications was during the boil water orders of 2012; see Appendix Q for notices issued. Appendix R provides some examples of Saint John Water media coverage in 2012. Customer Service Among the hundreds of customer requests /inquiries received during 2012, a total of 110 were related to water quality and pressure problems that were received through Service Support. Each of the 110 requests were logged as the call was received; included in Appendix S are the list of requests summarized by area (east, west, north, south) and complete with the civic address, a brief description detailing the reason for the job order and any comments relating to the issue or water quality. Additional calls were referred to the Saint John Water Environmental Laboratory. In total, the Saint John Water Laboratory responded to 88 water quality concerns as can be seen on each of the Customer Action Forms enclosed in Appendix S. The forms note the results of each customer analyses and the corrective action undertaken in each instance. Note that there was one large request (with results shown in individual tables) generated by the Safety Officer for the City of Saint John, which was to evaluate water quality at various City facilities, including City Hall, Community Centres, arenas, and several Fire and Police Stations. Of concern were the lead levels found at the Stewart Hurley Arena and the Lord Beaverbrook Rink. The arena managers and the Department of Health were notified, and "Do Not Consume' signs were installed at the arenas. Once plumbing adjustments are completed, Saint John Water will return to these facilities to confirm the lead issues have been addressed. �-*X N�lv IV 2012 Annual Water Report 41 COMMITMENT Saint John Water is committed to service excellence and seeks to continuously improve its operations to meet the diverse needs of its customers. However, Saint John Water has significant infrastructure challenges; old infrastructure and inadequate levels of treatment which present known and unacceptable risks to the user. The Saint John public water system was first established in 1837; the first public water system in Canada and it still has in service today major system components that date back over 155 years - well beyond their useful life. To address the present unacceptable risks, Saint John Water has developed an Action Plan for Safe, Clean Drinking Water. The Action Plan is being updated to set forth a path to renew system infrastructure, construct a modern drinking water treatment facility, reduce system demand, monitor system usage and provide necessary storage; all to assure that safe, clean drinking water will be delivered reliably and sustainably. Understanding the immeasurable value of drinking water to the community, Saint John Common Council has continued to make safe, clean, drinking water its foremost priority. REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M&C- 2013 -37 March 4, 2013 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Offer to Purchase City Owned Lands — Lorneville Portion of PID #E 55161541 City of Saint John As Council is aware, Saint John Industrial Parks is currently advancing the Barge Project. The City owns a parcel of land identified as PID 55161541 which adjoins Saint John Industrial Parks land. The barge access road as planned would traverse through the City parcel. As such, SJIP would like to purchase a 5.5 ha +/- portion of PID 55161541 from the City (see attached sketch). PID 55161541 was purchased from the Province of New Brunswick in early 2000s as part of a land transfer to Bourque Industrial. Bourque in partnership with Black and MacDonald (Black and Mac) needed to purchase land and build a fabrication shop in order to meet its contract to fabricate and install oversized scrubber rings for the gypsum stack at the Coleson Cove retrofit. Interestingly enough this project was the impetus for the Barge project as the local fabricators recognized they had the capacity, expertise and experience to perform this type of work, but simply couldn't get the pieces to market feasibly without a barge facility in Spruce Lake. PID 55161541 was the remnant parcel from the subdivision and transfer to Bourque Industrial. The City had a lift station on this parcel which resulted in a tax bill to Saint John Industrial Parks and the land was considered largely undevelopabie due to its rugged terrain and slope as well as being encumbered by an easement on the westerly portion of the parcel. As such Saint John Industrial Parks transferred the PID to the City for a dollar so that the real property taxes levied would be borne by the user, Saint John Water, Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd. would now like to repurchase a portion of this land. The parcel SJIP aims to acquire does not encroach upon the City lift station and the aforementioned easement and is only seeking that portion which would allow the access road to the wharf along with a minor buffer. The current zoning is "RF" Rural. The City of Saint John has a policy to sell land to a party who offers in an unsolicited manner, so long as the offer is appraised value plus 10 %. This mechanism was put in place so that interested parties with legitimate developments could acquire a necessary interest in land without leveraging the City into less than a fair market value offering. The only other property owner whose land abuts on the piece that Saint John Industrial Parks is seeking is Andrew F Simpson. Staff contacted Mr. Simpson and he has indicated he has no interest in acquiring the subject City land (letter attached). 85 M & C — 2013 —37 - 2 - March 4, 2013 An appraisal performed by deStetcher indicates the land carries a fair market value of $71,000. As such, Saint John Industrial Parks has offered $78,100, which is the appraised value plus 10 %. Should Common Council support the transfer of this 5.5 ha +/- portion of PID55161541, Saint John Industrial Parks has also requested early access to the site so that it may perform some of the preparatory work associated with the Barge Project in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Common Council adopt the following resolution: 1. That Common Council deem the property identified as a 5.44 Ha +/- portion of PH) 55161541, as illustrated on the plan attached to M & C # 2013 -37 (the "Subject Parcel ") to be surplus to the City's needs; and 2. That the City convey the Subject Parcel to Saint John Industrial Parks Limited for $78,100 (plus HST if applicable), subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale document attached to M & C # 2013 -37; and 3. That the City consent to Saint John Industrial Parks Limited making an application for a Municipal Plan Amendment and rezoning of the Subject Parcel, on the express condition that the City is not explicitly nor implicitly obligated to approve any such amendment to the Municipal Plan or the rezoning; and 4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute all necessary documentation. Respectfully submitted, Greg Yeomans, CGA, MBA Commissioner of Finance and Administrative Services J. Patrick Woods, C.G.A. City Manager Attachments :. 87 TY LANDS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO kINT JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD., w 120 IN E 1,3000 i i --p.j- .ANDS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD. Kum eo a ea no iea no AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE The Purchaser agrees to purchase from the Vendor and the Vendor agrees to sell to the Purchaser the freehold interest in a portion of the Vendor's lands bearing PID #55161541 as hereinafter set out upon the following terms and conditions: Vendor: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN P.Q. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2 41-1 Attention: Common Clerk Purchaser: SAINT JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD. P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E21- 41-1 Attention: Kathy Craig, V.P. Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd, Premises: Freehold interest in a portion of parcel of land identified as PID # PID 455161541 (civic address 8021 Lorneville Road), comprising 5.44 hectares +J- and shown on a sketch attached hereto as Schedule "A" (hereinafter called the "Lands "). Purchase Price: $ 78,100 + HST if applicable Deposit: $0 payable upon the adoption of the Common Council Resolution Balance: $78,100+ HST if applicable payable on Closing Closing Date: On or before August 31, 2013. 1. The Purchaser shall acquire from the Vendor the unencumbered and unrestricted freehold title in the lands. 2. The Purchaser may examine the title to the Lands at its own expense until closing. If within that time any valid objection to the title to the Lands is made in writing by the Purchaser to the Vendor which the Vendor shall be unable or unwilling to remove within twenty (20) days of notification of such objection or objections and which the Purchaser will not waive, this agreement shall, notwithstanding any intermediate acts or negotiations in respect of such objections, be null and void and any deposit shall be returned by the Vendor without interest and the Vendor shall not be liable for any costs or damages. 3. The Purchaser may apply to re -zone the Lands at its own expense until closing. If within that time the lands are not rezoned to accommodate the Purchaser's intended use, then this agreement shall be null and void and any deposit shall be returned by the Vendor without interest and the Vendor shall not be liable for any costs or damages. 1 89 Agreement of Purchase and Sale SNP and The City of Saint John 4. This Agreement requires the Purchaser's Board of Directors' approval which has not yet been obtained. If such Board of Directors' approval has not been obtained and notice of such is made in writing by the Purchaser to the Vendor within thirty (30) days of the Council resolution date authorizing this land transaction, this agreement shall be null and void and any deposit shall be returned by the Vendor without interest and the Vendor shall not be liable for any costs or damages. 5. (1) The Purchaser shall prepare at its cost any Plan of Subdivision required to effect the conveyance herein contemplated; and (ii) The Purchaser shall pay for registration and filing fees at SNB for the Subdivision plan. 6. If the Purchaser defaults in the closing of the sale under the terms of this Agreement, any money paid hereunder shall be forfeited to the Vendor by way of liquidated damages and the Vendor shall have no further recourse. 7. This offer shall be irrevocable by the Purchaser until 4:00 p.m. local time on 15 March, 2013 and upon acceptance by the Purchaser shall constitute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale binding upon the parties hereto. 9. The Purchaser, by its authorized representatives, with such equipment as may be necessary, have a right of access to, in and upon the parcel of land identified as PID #55161541 at any time provided such right is exercised with as little disturbance as possible to the Vendor and does not unduly interfere with the Vendor's use of the said parcel of land at such time and for such purposes hereinafter set out: (a) the right of access is to allow the Purchaser to selectively harvest trees from a portion of the Lands as required by the project; (b) the right of access to, in and upon PID #55161541 shall terminate on or before August 31, 2013; (c) any entry to and upon PID #55161541 shall require twenty -four (24) hours prior notice to the Vendor's Real estate Services Department; (d) any entry by or on behalf of the Purchaser shall be at its risk, cost and expense of the Purchaser and the Purchaser shall make good any and all damage caused to PID #55161541; (e) the Purchaser, for itself and is authorized representatives, hereby indemnifies and saves harmless the Vendor from and against all matters arising by reason of the exercise by the Purchaser or by its authorized representatives of the rights given by this right of access. 10. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Purchaser has caused these presents to be executed this day of March 2 4 ►11393 Agreement of Purchase and Sale OP and The City of Saint John SAINT JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARKS Purchaser AND the Vendor has caused these presents to be executed this day of March, 2013. THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Mayor Common Clerk Common Council Resolution: Li ra ITY LANDS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO AINT JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD. AE 1 3aao 93 N .ANDS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO JOHN INDUSTRIAL PARKS LTD. ea a ao iao ro aio F. Andrew Simpson Contracting Ltd. 1031 Fairville Blvd Saint John, NB E2M 5T9 Phone 506 -635 -8711 Fax 506 - 635 -5762 March 1, 2013 City of Saint John P O Box 1971 Saint John, NB E21- 4L1 Attn: Paul Wilson R/E Officer Dear Mr. Wilson, Pursuant to our conversation this letter will serve to advise that I do not object to Saint John Industrial Parks seeking support from the City to purchase a portion of PID 55161541 which abuts Saint John industrial Parks Ltd. and land owned by F. Andrew Simpson Contracting Ltd. Yours truly, F. Andrew Simpson FAS.idrn 94 51" Floor, 61 Union St., P.O. Box 6849, Saint John, N,B. E2L 4S3 Telephone: (506)634 -8423 Fax: (506)634 -0530 March 5, 2013 Saint John Industrial Parks PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L 41_1 Attention: Brian Irving, General Manager Gentlemen: Re: Property of the City of Saint John (portion of PID 55161541) Lorneville Road, Saint John, N.B. As requested, de Stecher Appraisals Ltd. is pleased to forward our appraisal report in which we estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in the above - referenced real property as of March 4, 2013. The value opinion reported below is qualified by certain assumptions, limiting conditions, certifications, and definitions, which are set forth in the report. The property was inspected by and the report was prepared by the undersigned. This report was prepared for Saint John Industrial Parks, and is intended only for the specified use of this client. It may not be distributed to or relied upon by other persons or entities without written permission of de Stecher Appraisals Ltd. As a result of our analysis, we have concluded that the current market value of the fee simple interest (or estate) in the referenced property, subject to the assumptions, limiting conditions, certifications, and definitions contained herein, as of March 4, 2013, is: Seventy One Thousand Dollars $71,000 The preceding value conclusion is based on the extraordinary assumptions /hypothetical conditions expressed in Section 2.8 of this report. Based on our research and analysis, we have estimated that the exposure time implicit in the estimate of market value is six to twelve months. This letter is invalid as an opinion of value if detached from the report, which contains the text, exhibits and addenda. Respectfully submitted, de Stecher Apprai §als Ltd. Davi D. Babin-eau, AACI NBAREA #204010 Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants David D. Babineau, AACI - Clifford W. Lawrence, AACI • Douglas G. Wort, AACI • Adam G. Dickinson, BBA, AACI K. Christopher Lawton, CRA • Gary L. Tobin, CRA • Founded by Roy D. de Stecher, FRiCS, AACI (1919 -1983) I The preceding value conclusion is based on the extraordinary ass umptions /hy_pothetical conditions expressed in Section 2.8 of this report. u e 4 6113165 96 Rde Stecher Appraisals Ltd. SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS Client Saint John Industrial Parks Property Owner: City of Saint John wLocation: Lorneville Road (off of) Saint John, N.B. Property Identification: PID 55161541 (portion of) Interest Appraised: Fee Simple Interest (or Estate) Effective Date: March 4, 2013 Inspection Date: March 4, 2013 Land Area: 5.44± hectares Assessment: $56,000 Property Taxes: $1,188.82 I� Current Zoning: 1 -2, Heavy Industrial and RF, Rural Highest and Best Use Continued holding pending sufficient demand to �! warrant development in accordance with land use policies and the zoning by -law. For detailed analysis and conclusion, see Section 8.0. Estimated Market Value: $71,000 �I Estimated Exposure Time: Six to twelve months The preceding value conclusion is based on the extraordinary ass umptions /hy_pothetical conditions expressed in Section 2.8 of this report. u e 4 6113165 96 Rde Stecher Appraisals Ltd. Planning Advisory Committee March 4, 2013 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: The Keeping of Urban Chickens Zoning Bylaw Amendment �'. City of Saint John On January 14, 2013 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its February 19, 2013 meeting. Raymond Breau appeared before the Committee to express his support for the proposed Bylaw amendments. Mr. Breau informed the Committee that he was the original applicant granted temporary approval by the Committee in 2011 to keep six chickens in his backyard. Mr. Breau stated that he has received support from the local community and has had no problems thus far with keeping chickens on his property. In addition to the above presentations, the Committee received one letter (copy attached). After considering the report, letter, comments made by the public, the Committee recommended approval of the rezoning of the property, subject to the conditions as set out below. RECOMMENDATION: That the following provisions be incorporated into the City's Zoning Bylaw: 1. Amending Section 810 by adding the following as subsection 14: "(14) Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use ": (1) General Provisions (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Zoning Bylaw, the keeping of chickens, as a secondary use to a residence, shall be permitted in the "RF ", "RFM ", and all "R" zones except for "RM" and "MH" zones, subject to the following conditions: i. The number of chickens shall be limited to a minimum of two and a maximum of six. -2- ii. All chickens must be kept in a chicken "coop" that contains an attached outdoor enclosed area ( "chicken run "). iii. A chicken coop shall be considered as an accessory building and subject to the requirements set out in subsection 830(1). iv. A Change of Use permit from the City's Growth and Development Services department shall be required prior to establishing a chicken coop on a property. v. Notwithstanding the setback requirements for accessory buildings in section 830(1) of the City's Zoning Bylaw, chicken coops shall be subject to a minimum side and rear yard setback of 3 metres, and shall have a minimum separation distance of 7.5 metres from any existing dwelling on an adjacent property. vi. The owner of the chickens must reside on the parcel where the chickens are to be kept. vii. The keeping of male chickens (roosters) is not permitted. viii. The owner shall keep chickens for personal use only, and not sell eggs, manure, meat, or other products derived from chickens. (2) Chicken Coop Structure i. The chicken coop must have a minimum of 0.37 square metres of coop floor area per chicken, and at least 0.92 square metres of roofed chicken run area per chicken. ii. A chicken coop shall be enclosed on all sides and shall have a roof and door(s). Access doors must be able to be shut and locked at night. Opening windows and vents must be covered with predator- and bird - resistant wire of less than 2.5 centimetre openings. iii. The owner shall provide and maintain in each coop at least one perch that provides at least 15 cm of space per chicken, and one nest box per chicken. iv. All chicken coops must be located only in the rear yard and must fully enclose the chickens to prevent them from escaping. V. The chicken coop must have a minimum 30 metre setback from any existing wells (drilled or dug). (3) Sanitary Conditions i. The owner shall store manure within a fully enclosed structure, and store no more than 0.1 cubic metres of manure at a time. ii. All stored food for the domesticated chickens must be kept either indoors or in a weather - resistant container designed to prevent access by animals. iii. The owner shall consult with the New Brunswick Department of Health before having a chicken slaughtered or euthanized. 98 -3- iv. The owner shall dispose of a chicken by delivering it to an abattoir, veterinarian or other facility that has the ability to dispose of chickens lawfully. V. No live poultry shall at any time be kept in a cellar or any part of any dwelling or any building used for continuous daily human occupation. Respectfully '1 rrr. Mo tj an ani 1 Chair JK "!-R 4 The City of Saint John DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2013 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICE GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR: MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013 PREPARED BY: 'o&�--Kliffer� Planner SUBJECT: REVIEWED BY: Mark Reade, P. Eng., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Name of Applicant: City of Saint John Proposal: To permit the keeping of up to six chickens in select zones of the City Type of Application: Zoning By -law Amendment JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed amendments to the Zoning By -law. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That the following provisions be incorporated into the City's Zoning Bylaw: C-ly- SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada EZL API www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment Page 2 Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use February 15, 2013 1. Amending Section 810 by adding the following as subsection 14: "(14) Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use ": (1) General Provisions (a) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Zoning Bylaw, the keeping of chickens, as a secondary use to a residence, shall be permitted in the "RF ", "RFM ", and all "R" zones except for "RM" and "MH" zones, subject to the following conditions: i. The number of chickens shall be limited to a minimum of two and a maximum of six. ii. All chickens must be kept in a chicken "coop" that contains an attached outdoor enclosed area ( "chicken run "). iii. A chicken coop shall be considered as an accessory building and subject to the requirements set out in subsection 830(1). iv. A Change of Use permit from the City's Growth and Development Services department shall be required prior to establishing a chicken coop on a property. v. Notwithstanding the setback requirements for accessory buildings in section 830(1) of the City's Zoning Bylaw, chicken coops shall be subject to a minimum side and rear yard setback of 3 metres, and shall have a minimum separation distance of 7.5 metres from any existing dwelling on an adjacent property. vi. The owner of the chickens must reside on the parcel where the chickens are to be kept. vii. The keeping of male chickens (roosters) is not permitted. viii. The owner shall keep chickens for personal use only, and not sell eggs, manure, meat, or other products derived from chickens. (2) Chicken Coop Structure i. The chicken coop must have a minimum of 0.37 square metres of coop floor area per chicken, and at least 0.92 square metres of roofed chicken run area per chicken. ii. A chicken coop shall be enclosed on all sides and shall have a roof and door(s). Access doors must be able to be shut and locked at night. Opening windows and vents must be covered with predator- and bird - resistant wire of less than 2.5 centimetre openings. iii. The owner shall provide and maintain in each coop at least one perch that provides at least 15 cm of space per chicken, and one nest box per chicken. iv. All chicken coops must be located only in the rear yard and must fully enclose the chickens to prevent them from escaping. v. The chicken coop must have a minimum 30 metre setback from any existing wells (drilled or dug). (3) Sanitary Conditions i. The owner shall store manure within a fully enclosed structure, and store no more than 0.1 cubic metres of manure at a time. 101 Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use Page 3 February 15, 2013 ii. All stored food for the domesticated chickens must be kept either indoors or in a weather - resistant container designed to prevent access by animals. iii. The owner shall consult with the New Brunswick Department of Health before having a chicken slaughtered or euthanized. iv. The owner shall dispose of a chicken by delivering it to an abattoir, veterinarian or other facility that has the ability to dispose of chickens lawfully. V. No live poultry shall at any time be kept in a cellar or any part of any dwelling or any building used for continuous daily human occupation. BACKGROUND: An application was received by the City of Saint John in July of 2011 that proposed a Temporary Approval from Raymond Breau of 2 -4 John T. McMillan Drive for the keeping of six chickens for a period of up to one year on his residential property on the City's East Side. Prior to applying for a Temporary Approval the applicant had six chickens on his property for a short time. The applicant was approached by the Bylaw Enforcement division of the Building and Inspection Services department and was notified that the keeping of chickens on a residentially -zoned property was not a permitted use according to the City's Zoning By -law. Planning staff recommended that the applicant be granted a temporary approval to allow time for staff to assess the impacts over the course of one year, and research the benefits and /or drawbacks associated with the keeping of chickens in an urban context. Mr. Breau was granted temporary approval by the Planning Advisory Committee in August, 2011. Staff have visited Mr. Breau's property on several occasions since receiving the original Temporary Use application to assess the keeping of six female chickens in a suburban zone. The results of these site visits, including a review of best practices, are discussed in this report. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Infrastructure Development has no objection to the proposed Zoning By -law Amendments. Inspection & Enforcement Service has been notified of this application. N.B. Department of Health has indicated that, because of the potential of faecal material accumulating in the outdoor area of the coop, it would be recommended to establish a 30 metre setback from any wells (drilled or dug). Further, the Department of Health has commented that when a chicken has either died or is to be slaughtered, it must be done in a humane and sanitary manner that is acceptable to the New Brunswick Department of Health. The carcass should be disposed of in an approved manner as to not create a health hazard. Saint John Police Force has no objection to this application. Department of Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fisheries Dr. Colleen Home, Poultry Veterinarian, has commented that in case of sickness, the owners of any chickens should contact a veterinarian. Dr. Jim Goltz, Veterinarian & Pathologist, has indicated that people should be aware of regulations under the 102 Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use Page 4 February 15, 2013 NB SPCA Act, which require all people keeping birds /animals must provide adequate, food, water and shelter. ANALYSIS: Overview There are numerous cities in Canada that have considered altering their zoning bylaws to permit various forms of "urban agriculture" to occur on residential lots. Municipalities have been asked to revisit land use decisions regarding the keeping of animals in an urban context made decades ago that reflected the values of a previous era. In many instances the dialogue surrounding current decision making has included the growing interest in keeping of a small flock of chickens. The impetus for the renewed interest in urban agriculture is couched in the ethical underpinnings of a burgeoning environmental movement. The emerging need to create a more sustainable society is forcing communities to revisit policies, including those that relate to urban agriculture, that were believed to be sound planning standards for many years. Many cities enacted bylaws to this effect in the latter part of the 20th Century. In the post -World War II period, all forms of urban agriculture were widely regarded as features of a pre -modern society, undesirable by communities that were struggling to distance themselves from the perception of being `backward' or `undeveloped' at the time. The conveniences of the modern city were not believed to include the trappings of `country life', which included, among other things, the keeping of animals as means of providing food. Best practices in urban planning during this time demonstrated little interest in allowing cities to look or behave like the countrysides that surrounded them. However, the context of environmental sustainability has reshaped our values as a society and forced communities to re- evaluate some policies that have been enforced for decades. On several levels the discourse of this paradigm shift has structured the dialogue to assign more value to the ecosystem and the way we as a community impact it, which has guided change in our spending habits, transportation choices, energy use and the food we consume. In this context, several Canadian and American cities have debated the merits and drawbacks of urban chickens at great length, the results of which have varied from city to city. Keeping a small flock of female chickens (hens) in the rear yard of a residential home in an urban area is celebrated by urban agriculturalists as being a strong contributing factor in the struggle to create a more sustainable society. The perceived benefits most frequently associated with keeping chickens include reducing the distance eggs have to travel before being consumed, the feeling of autonomy a person gains over food selection, ethical concerns surrounding the treatment of factory farmed animals, and the value intrinsic to a human-animal bond. As a result of these positive attributes, several communities in North America have opted to amend their bylaws to permit the keeping of chickens. Concerns regarding the keeping of chickens Allowing residents of an urban area to keep backyard chickens has been endorsed by several Canadian municipalities, including Niagara Falls, Vancouver, Victoria, Saanich, North Vancouver, among others. Likewise, Halifax, Calgary, Mississauga and Toronto are among the Canadian communities that have opted against incorporating the keeping of backyard chickens into their zoning bylaws. Other 103 Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use Page 5 February 15, 2013 communities, like Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton, are currently undergoing a review process to consider the issue. Within all these communities, there have been groups advocating both for and against the proposed bylaw amendments. Opposition to the keeping of chickens by groups and individuals in many communities has been fairly common, and in some instances has led to the denial of the proposed bylaw amendments. The reasons most frequently offered against the keeping of chickens in an urban area relate to odour, noise, the attraction of rodents and the spread of disease. These concerns are discussed below. Odour: Like any animal's living area, chicken coops can develop an unpleasant odour if not taken care of properly. Most cities that have permitted the keeping of backyard chickens have incorporated regulations that require regular cleaning of the chicken coop and chicken droppings. Gauging from personal visits to 2 -4 John T. McMillan Drive during the course of the one year Temporary Use permit, it is evident to staff that proper care of a chicken coop can easily address this concern. Raymond Breau, the applicant at the time, more than adequately demonstrated to staff that he takes proper care of his chicken coop, ensuring that the droppings are regularly disposed of in an appropriate manner and that all food is properly stored. Mr. Breau maintains his chicken coop in good condition and takes every precaution to prevent the occurrence of any odours. On all occasions staff visited Mr. Breau's chicken coop, there was never more than a slight odour evident when standing inside the chicken coop, which is to be expected. From outside the coop, there was no detectable odour whatsoever. Noise: There is little credibility to the argument that chickens make an unacceptable amount of noise for an urban environment. On staff visits to Mr. Breau's property, the noise emanating from the chicken coop was at most a small amount of clucking - much less than a dog or a passing car. As indicated in the staff report in August, 2011, "The decibel reading for hens (not roosters) is between 50 and 70 dBs, depending on one's distance from the hens and any vegetation or barriers lying in between. A barking dog, on the other hand, can range between 75 and 100 dBs." If chickens are kept in the rear yard of a property, setback three metres from the property line and 7.5 metres from any neighbouring residential structure, the noise produced from a chicken coop with a maximum of six hens would not be disruptive to the surrounding neighbourhood. Attracting rodents: The keeping of chickens involves the risk of attracting other unwanted animals, such as rodents. However, research shows that this can be safely addressed by taking necessary precautions. Rodents are not attracted to the chickens themselves; rather the chicken feed or other scraps of food that may comprise part of the chickens' regular diet. Ensuring that all food is stored in a closed container inaccessible to other animals is an effective means to address the potential problem of rodents. The spread of disease: A final area of concern commonly expressed by other communities is the potential for avian diseases to spread faster through a community as a result of a greater number of potential disease - carrying species in the region. Recent scares of avian viruses jumping from bird species to humans, such as the Avian Flu Virus, have heightened health concerns across the globe. However, the likelihood of viruses spreading from a small number of backyard chickens to humans is highly unlikely. Some studies suggest that factory farms with a much larger number of chickens in cramped living conditions are more likely to be breeding grounds for an avian virus'. 1 Bouvier, Jaime (2012), "Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal s Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens ". Environmental Law Institute, Vlington, DC. Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment Page 6 Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use February 15, 2013 Research indicates that if an avian virus were to be passed to a coop of backyard chickens, it would likely have to be transmitted either via droppings of other bird species or by a person who has come into contact with an infected bird and inadvertently passed the virus to a domestic flock. The chances of such a scenario occurring are negligible; however, taking simple precautions can further mitigate the risk. Having a covered roof over both the chicken run and the coop is one such strategy that would lessen the chance of disease spreading among avian species. A solid roof would prevent droppings from other bird species to enter the living space of the backyard chickens. Research of other municipalities that have amended their bylaws to permit the keeping of chickens has not indicated that any of the above issues have been a great concern. On the contrary, it was made clear through discussions with staff in both Niagara Falls and Vancouver that the keeping of chickens has not been a problem in their respective municipalities. The Municipal Plan In Policy NE- 36(b), The Municipal Plan specifically identifies the need to support more urban agriculture in order to reduce the cost of healthy food: "Council shall encourage the production of local food and work to increase access to fresh food by ... allowing small -scale urban agriculture within the PDA, in accordance with appropriate provisions in the Zoning Bylaw ". In addition to providing greater access to healthy food options, urban agriculture has a number of other assets associated with its practice. Literature on the subject of keeping chickens in an urban context presents a variety of ways in which urban agriculture of the sort proposed in this report advances ecological sustainability, promotes animal welfare and enhances food security for a community, which are pertinent issues supported by P1anSJ. Through the research conducted and site visits to Mr. Breau's property, staff have come to the conclusion that the keeping of female chickens in the rear yard of a one or two - family residential property does not present considerable health or safety issues to the community and is in keeping with the direction established by The Municipal Plan. Cities that have amended their bylaws in favour of the keeping of chickens in an urban context have a diverse range of regulations that address the concerns outlined above. Staff have reflected on these regulations and used them as a framework to derive a set of recommended standards for the local context, which are discussed below. Proposed bylaws As mentioned, the proposed bylaw standards in this report are a result of existing bylaws in other Canadian and American municipalities as well as bylaws drafted from extensive research conducted on keeping chickens in an urban area to create the optimal policy framework for the local context. The attached table is a summary of several cities that have opted to permit urban chickens in their respective communities. In many instances, the standards adopted by these communities are very similar or the same as those proposed in this report. The size of the coop, setback requirements and the provision that no roosters be permitted are all examples of bylaw standards common to the majority of municipalities that have approved the keeping of chickens. Further, most municipalities do not allow the sale of eggs, require the coop to be in the rear yard, and require the owner of the chickens to live on the property. Staff regard these standards to be reasonable and are therefore included among the current proposed bylaw amendment. 105 Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment Page 7 Keeping of Chickens as a Secondary Use February 15, 2013 Other proposed regulations, such as a minimum of two chickens, the provision of a perch, the storage of chicken feed, and the removal of manure on a regular basis are all provisions that are not as common in other communities, or entirely unique to the bylaw amendment proposed for Saint John. These proposed standards stem from the research conducted and are designed to address the concerns raised in other communities as well as contemplate the sensitivities of urban agriculture from the perspective of both the humans and animals affected. Enforcement The enforcement of the proposed bylaws relating to the keeping of chickens would not be any different than the enforcement of other land uses within the City. An individual wishing to have a flock of backyard chickens would be required to obtain a "Change of Use" permit from the Growth and Development Services department in City Hall. At that time, staff would review the application, check to ensure the zoning was appropriate, the setbacks were adequate, and that the application complied with any other existing bylaws imposed by Council with regard to the keeping of chickens. This point of contact would also offer staff the opportunity to talk with the potential coop owner regarding some of the issues identified above, and direct him/her to any useful literature, websites, pamphlets, or other such materials to further their knowledge on the most current practices for keeping chickens in an urban context. After the Change of Use permit has been issued and the chicken coop established, one inspection to ensure the standards are met will be conducted by staff. After the establishment of the chicken coop and the initial inspection has been completed, future enforcement would be driven by any complaints that might arise from the community. CONCLUSION: The keeping of six chickens in the rear yard of a residential dwelling at 2 -4 John T. McMillan Drive was approved in 2011 for a period of one year. In that time, staff have researched the practice of backyard chicken keeping and monitored the coop at the subject site. Staff have found there to be minimal concern with keeping a small number of female chickens and are therefore recommending that the Zoning Bylaw be amended to incorporate the keeping of chickens in most residential zones, subject to the bylaw provisions proposed in this report. JK 106 107 Max # of Lot Size Space provision Rear Yard Set Side Yard City chickens Roosters Requirements per hen Back Set Back Other at least 0,37 m' of 1 Vancouver coop floor area, and at least 0.92 provide and maintain a floor of any mZ of roofed combination of vegetated or bare earth in each outdoor enclosure outdoor enclosure provide and maintain, in each coop, at least one perch, for each hen, that is at least 15 cm long, and one nest box keep each hen in the enclosed area at all times provide each hen with food, water, shelter, light, ventilation, veterinary care, and opportunities for essential behaviours such as scratching, dust - bathing, and roosting, all sufficient to maintain the hen in good health maintain each hen enclosure in good repair and sanitary condition, and free from vermin and obnoxious smells and substances construct and maintain each hen enclosure to prevent any rodent from harbouring underneath or within it or within its walls, and to prevent entrance by any other animal keep a food container and water container in each coop keep each coop locked from sunset to sunrise remove leftover feed, trash, and manure in a timely manner 107 10 store manure within a fully enclosed structure, and store no more than three cubic feet of manure at a time remove all other manure not used for composting or fertilizing follow biosecurity procedures recommended by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency keep hens for personal use only, and not sell eggs, manure, meat, or other products derived from hens not slaughter, or attempt to euthanize, a hen on the property not dispose of a hen except by delivering it to the Poundkeeper, or to a farm, abattoir, veterinarian, mobile slaughter unit, or other facility that has the ability to dispose of hens lawfully not keep a hen in a cage Max #I of Lot Size Space provision Rear Yard Set Side Yard City Chickens Roosters Requirements per hen Back Set Back Other rooster are not Niagara permitted 2 Falls 10 within the Urban No owner shall allow or permit his or her Boundary 25 ft 15 ft chicken to be at large All chicken coops shall be located only in the rear yard and must fully enclose the chickens and prevent them from escaping 10 109 The chicken coop shall be designed and constructed to ensure proper ventilation and sufficient space for the chickens and maintained in accordance with good animal husbandry practices and shall keep all vermin out All dead chickens must be disposed of immediately and in any event, within 24 hours There must be hygienic storage of and prompt removal of chicken feces The chicken's food supply must be protected against vermin All lots housing chickens must have: (1) detached dwellings on them; (2) a frontage of at least 40 feet; and, (3) a depth of at least 100 feet. 3 Saanich .37 m2 of coop owner or occupier of the parcel registers the 5 not less than 55 floor area 3m 3m flock of hens with the Municipality at least.92 m2 of roofed outdoor the owner of the hens resides on the parcel 10 1,114.8 m2 - 1,8 enclosure area where the hens are to be kept occupies an area of land not exceeding 9.2 m2 30 1,858 m2 - 0.4 h (99 sq. ft). is located in the rear yard of the parcel no limit over 0.4 ha is not more than 2 m in height 109 110 Max # of Lot Size Space provision Rear Yard Set Side Yard City Chickens Roosters Requirements per hen Back Set Back Other 4 North Secure feed to eliminate the risk of pest intrusion Vancouver 8 No loft loft and spoilage 5 Whitehorse 6 No 601 of neighbours have to agree Portland, 5 Org 3 It shall be lawful to keep poultry flocks of any 6 size in A -I zones of the city, so long as they are Rogers, Arz 4 no confined No birds shall be allowed in multi- family complexes, including duplexes There shall be no outside slaughtering of birds All fowl must be kept at all times in a secure enclosure constructed at least two feet above the surface of the ground Enclosures must be situated at least 25 feet from the nearest neighbor's residence Enclosures must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, and must be cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent offensive odors 110 111 must obtain a permit from the Office of the City Clerk, after an inspection and approval by the Office of Animal Control, and must pay a $5.00 annual fee up to four (4) Madison, chickens on 7 a lot with Wis up to four dwelling Units no No person shall slaughter any chickens The chickens shall be provided with a covered enclosure and must be kept in the covered enclosure or a fenced enclosure at all times No enclosure shall be located closer than twenty - five (25) feet to any residential structure on an adjacent lot The owner, operator, or tenant obtains a license The applicant for a license notifies all residents of the property and the owner or operator of the property if the applicant is not the owner or operator. Notification is not required for renewal of a license Max # of Lot Size Space provision Rear Yard Set Side Yard City Chickens Roosters Requirements per hen Back Set Back Other 8 Portland, required (depending on 25 feet from any residential structure on an Maine 5 no area of the city) adjacent lot Enclosed area for chickens 111 112 Must own the property or have written consent from owner Each fowl shall have at least four square feet of floor Rochester, space when kept in 9 NY Not more a coop and shall than 30 fowl have at least four may be kept square feet of in an open Not older space in addition All fowl shall be kept on premises of the licensee, area of 240 than 4 thereto as and for a except, however, that licensee may exercise and square feet months runway engage in flight only pigeons or carrier pigeons All coops, runways and premises where fowl are kept shall be at all times clean and sanitary No live poultry shall at any time be kept in a cellar or any part of any dwelling or any building used for continuous daily human occupation All coops and runways shall be at least 25 feet away from any dwelling or any building used for continuous daily human occupation 112 113 A minimum of two (2) square feet per hen shall be 10 provided for henhouses and six (6) square feet per No person shall keep chickens within the 0 to 5,009 bird for fenced metropolitan government area in such a manner Nashville 2 no square feet enclosures loft loft that a nuisance is created The keeping of chickens shall be in compliance 5,010 to with all applicable zoning laws pursuant to Title 17 4 10,236 sq feet of the Metropolitan Code Max # of Lot Size Space provision Rear Yard Set Side Yard City Chickens Roosters Requirements per hen Back Set Back Other The permittee must occupy the residence on the property where the hens are kept as the 6 10,237 feet or more permittee's personal, primary residence An applicant for a permit must either own the property or have permission from the property owner to be eligible for a permit The fee for an annual permit to keep domesticated hens is twenty -five dollars All stored food for the domesticated hens must be kept either indoors or in a weather - resistant container designed to prevent access by animals. Uneaten food shall be removed daily 113 114 All domesticated hens shall be kept outside of a habitable structure in a predator -proof enclosure, a portion of which must be a covered henhouse, and a portion of which must be a fenced area complying with the provisions of Chapter 16.24 of the Metropolitan Code applicable to the construction of fences In addition to the fenced enclosure, hens shall be provided with a covered, predator - resistant henhouse Fenced enclosures and henhouses must be properly ventilated, clean, dry, and odor -free, kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, in a manner that will not disturb the use or enjoyment of neighboring lots due to noise, odor or other adverse impact The henhouse and fenced enclosure must provide adequate ventilation, adequate sun and shade, and must be constructed in a manner to resist access by rodents, wild birds, and predators, including dogs and cats Henhouses shall be enclosed on all sides and shall have a roof and doors. Access doors must be able to be shut and locked at night. Opening windows and vents must be covered with predator- and bird - resistant wire of less than one (1) inch openings Max # of Lot Size Space provision Rear Yard Set Side Yard City Chickens Roosters Requirements 1perhen Back ISet Back 10ther 114 115 Provision must be made for the storage and removal of chicken manure. All manure for composting or fertilizing shall be contained in a well - aerated garden compost pile. All other manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed. In addition, the henhouse and surrounding area must be kept free from trash and accumulated droppings. No perceptible odor from the hens or the hen enclosure shall be present at any property line. All feed shall be stored in a rodent and predator -proof container having a metal lid. no slaughtering of domesticated hens may occur on the property. No breeding of chickens shall occur on the property. No domesticated hens shall e used or trained for the purpose of fighting for amusement, sport, or financial gain. All 00rneSLICALeG Men!; Snail DC KepL in rn-U- side and /or rear yards of a residential property (25) feet away from any residential structure (other than the permit holder's residence) Permit required. A valid permit issued by the department of health pursuant to Section 8.12.020 of the Metropolitan Code shall be obtained and maintained at all times 115 Seatle 8 no no permit required Coop Restrictions Structures housing domestic fowl must be located at least 10 feet away from any structure that includes a dwelling unit on an adjacent lot 116 iAA- . K14� r-I 1* /2613 . 4L owvj�l L—� 4L—t k44,A) cz�- OA- 4��t FEB 15 2913 L21 117 RE- `'`-+ , � O COMM1 ��, � , Cilia M &C- 2013 -36 March 4, 2013 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: The Keeping of Backyard Chickens Zoning Bylaw Amendment rdon City of Saint John At the February 19, 2013 meeting, the Planning Advisory Committee favourably considered a proposal to amend the City's Zoning Bylaw. The proposed amendments would permit residents in several of the City's residential zones to keep up to six chickens in their backyards, subject to several conditions laid out in the Committee's report to Council. Should Council wish to consider the adoption of the proposed zoning bylaw amendment, it is recommended that a Public Hearing date be set. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council set Monday, April 29, 2013 as the date for a Public Hearing to consider the above proposed Zoning Bylaw amendment and authorise the necessary advertisement. Respectfully submitted, Amy Poffen?6fh, P. Eng., MBA Acting Commissioner Growth & Development Services .c J. trick Woods, CGA City Manager X 118 THE I_E COUNCIL CONSEIL OF CANADIANS DES CANADIANS ;4 i March 11, 2013 Your Worship and Members of Common Council We thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on this very important issue: Federal financing, or the lack thereof, for water infrastructure in our city. The Saint John chapter of the Council of Canadians joins with Common Causes, a recently formed citizen's movement, to advocate for the right decision on this important environmental and social justice issue. There are many aspects of this issue that we believe everyone agrees about. We all agree about the need to: 1. maintain control over our own water supply; 2. ensure a safe, secure municipal water system; 3. find a way to finance the required development; 4. get value for our money; 5. create or maintain good paying jobs; and, 6. retain and build local water management expertise. We are motivated by the fact that access to water is a human right and not a commodity that can be sold or purchased. Our concern is that Saint John will be pressured into a wasteful, ill - advised plan for funding improvements to the system that protects and distributes this irreplaceable, fundamental resource. The pressure to make a quick decision about the future of Saint John's water system reminds us of a recent situation in which council was forced to make a fast decision. In that case, council approved a land tax deal that cost the city millions of dollars in much needed revenue. We need a public debate on this issue. We agree that safe, reliable water is a top priority. But we would like to emphasize that the consequences of missing the current self- imposed deadline are far less significant than making a bad decision that will bind the city to a wasteful contract for the next 20 to 30 years. It is irresponsible for the city to avidly follow the proposed path without doing the required due diligence. We believe diligence on this matter must include the city seeking advice from independent experts otherthan those who are in the business of advocating public - private partnerships. Although only the P3 model has been advanced in recent discussions on this subject, there are more responsible, reliable options available. 119 ti CAS THE LE COUNCIL CONSEIL OF CANADIANS DES CANADIANS ;4 i For example, cities in Canada such as Metro Vancouver (GVWD) looked at a P3 water model, but decided instead to build the largest municipal water treatment plant in Canada themselves due to public opposition to 133's, excessive added costs of the P3 proposals and a concern over the threat of suits under investor -state clauses in trade agreements. Metro Vancouver built their water treatment plant on time and under budget, with federal, provincial and municipal financing, and it now provides drinking water that exceeds federal drinking water standards. (1) Winnipeg built their water treatment plant with federal, provincial and municipal financing, on time and on budget, and their drinking water exceeds federal standards as well. (2) While Moncton opted for a 20 -year design- finance - build- and - maintain P3 contract for its water treatment plant, it retained control of its distribution system and its maintenance, despite heavy pressure from P3 advocates, in part because an independent study commissioned by the city found it would be cheaper than the proposed P3 model. Toronto runs its own water treatment plant. Montreal is upgrading its water treatment plants with federal and provincial gas tax funds and other contributions. And nearby Westmount has cancelled its P3 water contract and taken back ownership, maintenance and control of its water supply from the P3 water company that was running it, because of poor quality service. Other smaller communities like Nanaimo and Kamloops have decided against signing P3 water contracts, and made arrangements to build their water treatment plants themselves. PricewaterhouseCoopers had estimated that the Kamloops plant would cost $60 million as a P3 project, but Kamloops was able to build it for $45.8 million, with the assistance of a PUP (public - public partnership) with the "Centre for Safe Water Excellence." In 2005 it won the Public Works Association of BC Project of the Year award, and in 2006 it achieved Gold LEED certification. (3) As negative examples, we have the Auditor General of New Brunswick's evaluation of the unnecessarily high cost of building schools in this province using the P3 design- build - finance- maintain model. And current media reports of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) 34 year public - private partnership with SNC- Lavalin and Innisfree to design, build, finance and maintain MUHC's new Glen campus, graphically illustrates the perils of PTs. Both examples have been demonstrated to have included excessive cost, and poor quality work. And now, despite the secrecy and lack of accountability characteristic of P3 agreements, participants on both sides of the MUHC project have been issued arrest warrants for their involvement. (4) Hamilton, Ontario signed a 10 -year water - wastewater management P3 contract with a private company in 1994, but the company refused to take responsibility for a massive sewage spill into the harbour, leaving Hamilton to pay the full cleanup cost. When the contract expired, Hamilton found it cheaper to take back control of drinking water and wastewater management, and water and wastewater have met standards since. (5) While France is 'home' to Veolia and Suez —two of the largest private water companies in the 120 2 THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS LE CONSEIL DES CANADIANS COP `K�e/'Vts C06 world —that country has recently seen a significant trend toward the re- municipalization of private water services back into public hands. In France, more than 40 municipalities and urban communities have taken their water services back from private, for - profit operators over the last ten years and are delivering improved, less- costly services. On January 1, 2010, Paris re- municipalized its water system after 25 years of private control. The city saved about $35 million in the first year, and was able to reduce the water tariff by 8 %. (6) Instead of asking for help from P3 Canada and Partnerships NB, Saint John has the option to consider the PUP model and to consult with other Canadian cities that have successfully built and continue to manage their own excellent water treatment systems. Our municipality can choose the proven, traditional method when embarking on this project. And we could follow the examples of Kamloops and Vancouver, gaining access to green funds by achieving LEED designation on these projects. Together we need to lobby the Federal government to provide their obligatory share of funding contributions, free of the added cost and complication of private partnerships. Keep our water works public. Public water works. Thank you for your attention. Saint John Chapter Council of Canadians / Common Causes 121 THE LE COUNCIL CONSEIL OF CANADIANS DES CANADIANS ;4 i Attachments: - "Public- Public Partnerships — An Alternative Model to Leverage the Capacity of Municipal Water Utilities" Food &Water watch - "Public in Canada: An Overview of selected sewer, wastewater and water treatment projects" 2 page copy - "Flawed Failed Abandoned" 100 P3s — Canadian and International Evidence" Nathalie Mehra, Ontario Health Coalition - Media Release "Hamilton's water and wastewater operations have significantly improved" March 31, 2008 [5] - (Book) Public service Private Profits" John Loxley ISBN 978 -1- 55266 -338 -7 - http:// cupe. ca / municipalities / questions - guide - municipal - officials References (1) http: / /www.metrovancouver.org/ services /constructionprojects /water /Documents /Coquitla mUVDisinfectionFactSheet- May20ll.pdf http: / /www.metrovancouver.org/ services /constructionproiects /water /Documents /SCWUPF actSheetJuly2012.pdf (2) http: / /www.winnipeg.ca /waterandwaste/ water /treatment /plantBackground.stm (3) http: / /www.kamloops.ca /environment /waterguality.shtml (4) http:// www. snclavalin .com /news.php ?lang =en &id =1137 http://www.cbc.ca / news /canada /montreal/ story/ 2013 /02 /27 /mtl- mcgiI1- hospital - arthur- po rte r- arrest -wa rra nt. htm I http: / /www.cbc.ca/ news /canada /montreal/ story/ 2012 /12 /18 /muhc- cuts - patient - care.html See also: Rapport du Verificateur general du Quebec a I'Assemblee nationale pour I'annee 2009 -2010, tome II, paragraph 5.101 (6) http: / /canadians.org /blog / ?p =5587 Around 40 municipalities and urban communities in France have already taken water services back into public hands over the last ten years, resulting in cheaper tariffs and improved services. http : / /www.remunicipaIisation.org/ #about http: / /www.epsu.org /a/8683 In France, there has been re- municipalisation of water services, led by the decision of Paris city council to replace the private companies with a municipal water service in 2010. The city saved about $35 million in the first year, and was able to reduce the water tariff by 8 %. A number of privatized lease contracts are expiring, and, inspired by the example of Paris, a further 40 French municipalities have also decided to re- municipalize water services, including major cities such as Bordeaux and Brest. Re- municipalising municipal services in Europe A report commissioned by EPSU to Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) May 2012 122 4 foodew 123 food &water R. europe Food & Water Europe europe @fwwatch.org www.foodandwatereurope.org Food & Water Europe works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control. Copyright © February 2012 by Food & Water Europe. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded at www.foodandwaterwatch.org /europe 124 Introduction Clean drinking water and wastewater treatment are basic services that societies and govern- ments provide. Water is a necessity for life, and safe water and sanitation are crucial for public health. In July 2010, the United Nations declared access to clean water and sanitation to be a human right.' But recognizing the human right to water does not explain how to deliver this right to households. Even with this commit- ment to enhance water delivery and safety, an estimated 884 million people worldwide lack access to safe water, and 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation .2 Meeting this need requires significant invest- ments in infrastructure and expertise. In the last 20 years, major multinational efforts have relied on private sector strategies in both developed and developing countries to provide water. These approaches have included encouraging public - private partnerships (PPPs) between public water utilities and private water companies .3 Proponents of privatization promised increased investment and efficiency, but privatization has failed to meet these expectations .4 Instead, it often has led to deteriorating infrastructure, service disruptions and higher prices for poorer service .5 A different model, called public - public partner- ships (PUPs), can be a more effective method for providing services. In contrast to privatization, which puts public needs into the hands of profit - seeking corporations, PUPs bring together public officials, workers and communities to provide better service for all users more efficiently.6 PUPs allow two or more public water utilities or non - governmental organizations to join forces and leverage their shared capacities. PUPs allow multiple public utilities to pool resources, buying power and technical expertise. The benefits of scale and shared resources can deliver higher public efficiencies and lower costs. These public partnerships, whether domestic or international, improve and promote public delivery of water through sharing best practices. II The partnerships can take many forms and may include networks of public water operators in different areas or non - governmental organiza- tions. As a public collaboration, no PUP partner can generate a profit through the partnership. In short, PUPs provide the collaborative advan- tages of private partnerships without the profit - extracting focus of private operators, and they promote the public interest mission of equitably delivering water services. Although PUPs can be used for many public func- tions, including roads and electricity, they have particular applicability to water. Access to safe drinking water varies widely across the globe. The United Nations Millennium Declaration aimed to "halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water. "' To meet that ambitious goal, more than a billion people will need to gain access to safe water and sanita- tion by 2015.3 This tremendous undertaking will require both international cooperation and atten- tion to local needs. Public - public partnerships are uniquely suited to this task. The reason that PUPs work so well is that they retain local, public control of existing water systems. Public utilities are responsible for most water and wastewater services worldwide.' In 2010, only about 12 percent of the world's popula- tion had water or sewer service that was priva- tized in some way.10 The nature of water service as a public good and natural monopoly favors the public administration of water systems. Public - Public Partnerships • An Alternative Model to Leverage the Capacity of l?V�Icipal Water Utilities The For -Profit Assault on Public Water In the last 20 years, private multinational compa- nies and market - oriented policy advocates have questioned the public nature of water. These proponents contend that market forces are the best way to allocate water's limited availability as a finite and vulnerable resource. In 1992, for example, the Dublin Statement of the International Conference of Water and the Envi- ronment explicitly endorsed the commodification of water by including as one of its guiding prin- ciples that, "Mater has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good. "11 In 2009, the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD), the association of wealthy nations, released a report that promoted the use of market -based water pricing reforms to combat water scarcity, encourage water conservation and efficiently allocate water resources. 12 These efforts have aimed to force water into a market model that fails to accommodate water's unique, life sustaining qualities. Although publicly owned water systems are predom- inant today, privately owned water systems were not uncommon a century ago, and mixed public - private water systems remain common in some countries. In the United States, private ownership of city water systems was prevalent until the late 19th century.13 In France, a combination of public ownership of water systems with private manage- ment of the systems' operation has existed since the mid -19th century. 14 The so- called "French Model," which uses public - private partnerships (PPPs), became the preferred model for international development advocates and the international finance institu- tions that largely fund infrastructure projects in the developing world. 15 Since 1989, the World Bank has promoted the privatization, or partial privatization, of water utilities. By 2002, the Bank had facilitated private sector participation investment of $21.8 billion in 86 water supply utilities in the devel- oping world. 16 The Executive Vice President and CEO of the World Bank's International Finance Corporation (IFC) told participants at the 2008 World Water Week Conference, "We believe that providing clean water and sanitation services is a real business opportunity. "17 The global push to make profit from water provi- sion has been economically and socially damaging. Private water operations tend to have higher prices and often skimp on needed infrastructure maintenance and repairs.1' When private water companies wrest control of public utilities, water prices tend to increase. Food & Water Watch examined the 10 largest U.S. water systems sold to private companies in the last two decades and found that after privatization, water prices typi- cally increased at three times the rate of inflation. After about a decade of private control, household water bills had nearly tripled on average.19 The elite consensus around the so- called French Model has been shaken in recent years. Even Paris's water system, which was considered a flagship PPP, reverted to public operation at the beginning of 2010.20 By reclaiming public control over its water, Paris saved €35 million in the first year allowing it to reduce water prices by 8 percent .21 Paris is not alone. From the Americas to Europe to Africa, privatized water systems are returning to public hands. Public - public partnerships are filling the vacuum left by failed privatization efforts and PPPs. PUPS can leverage the expertise and resources of the public partners in a way that the PPPs were unable to deliver. Moreover, PUPs do not have the profit - maximizing incentive to raise water rates and ignore decaying infrastructure .21 Even researchers for the World Bank admitted that PPPs failed to lower water prices or increase investments in water infrastructure .23 PUPs provide a positive, credible alternative model to water privatization that works for local communities. How PUPS Work Although PUPS were virtually unknown before the early 2000s, they have come to the fore in water provision. A literature review uncovered only two references to PUPS in 2000.24 Nonethe- less, transnational PUPs grew out of an older concept called "twinning." In the years after World 126 Food & Water Europe • www.foodandwatereurope.org War II, many cities twinned with "sister cities" to larger water tank that can lower the total invest- build and encourage business and cultural links 21 While international development support for water service shifted in form from twinning arrange- ments to public - private partnerships during the 1990s, the twinning concept provided the ground- work for future cooperative arrangements.26 A public - public partnership is simply a collabo- ration between two or more public entities to provide or improve public services. Unlike PPPs, neither partner in a PUP expects to earn a profit from the collaboration. The goal is to improve efficiency, efficacy and equity. Public - public partnerships employ three basic strategies to leverage the capacity of cooperating public utilities to increase efficiency, reduce operating and capital costs and lower the prices for consumers. First, two or more smaller utili- ties can band together in purchasing or service partnerships to capture the benefits of bulk purchasing and scale economies for operating and maintenance costs.27 Second, nearby small utility systems can also partner to invest in infrastruc- ture that can be shared between the systems. For example, rather than building two smaller water tanks, the nearby utilities can share a single ment costs for both utilities .211 Third, public utili- ties can partner with more efficient public utilities or team up with non - governmental organizations or their own employees to cut costs and creatively address inefficiencies .29These partnerships allow the combined expertise of technicians, engineers and front -line employees to help maximize effi- ciencies and reduce costs.30 PUPS have delivered a range of benefits to the partnering systems. Two of the leading propo- nents of PUPS, Public Services International and the Transnational Institute, list the strengths and achievements of PUPS as: • "training and developing human resources • technical support on a wide range of issues • improving efficiency and building institutional capacity • financing water services • improving participation .1131 PUPS can work on a variety of scales. Some analysts describe PUPS by their scale, whether within nations, across national boundaries or between industrialized- country utilities and developing -world utilities.32 The Platform for Public- Community Partnerships of the Americas The Platform for Public- Community Partnerships of the Americas formed in 2009 to promote public - public partnerships — referred to as "public- community partnerships" or "public - communitarian partnerships" to reflect its emphasis on community involvement.37 It seeks to strengthen public water services through collaboration among public utilities, cooperatives, labor unions, NGOs and other community organizations and members .38 The Platform emerged out of an initiative of members of the Red VIDA (Inter- American Network for the Defense and Right to Water) to provide an alternative to the failed privatization schemes that had plagued the region over the preceding two decades .39 The organization, nascent and growing, has supported initia- tives in Peru, Uruguay, Bolivia and Colombia.40 Among its projects included a PUP between the public water utilities in Arequipa, Peru, and Greater Buenos Aires, Argentina '41 and a PUP between a labor union and a community aqueduct in Colombia.42 Uruguay — where voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2004 recognizing the human right to water and prohibiting private control of water services43 — has been a key supporter of the Platform,44 and an active participant. In 2010, for example, the state -owned national utility of Uruguay entered into a coopera- tion agreement with the public water and sanitation utility in Cusco, Peru, with the support of the public utility unions .41 Public - Public Partnerships • An Alternative Model to Leverage the Capacity of unicipal Water Utilities Intra -state PUPS, whether between two municipal water providers, a municipal agency and a water treatment, which was expected to improve water quality and public health not just in Krabi, national one, or between an agency and a union or but throughout Thailand .48 non - governmental organization, provide flexibility and can build institutional capacity. For example, in Puerto Cortes, Honduras, service problems with the central government water utility Servicio Autonomo Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantaril- lados ( SANAA) led to water rationing, and the poor service quality was exacerbated in 1993 when a tropical storm destroyed some infrastruc- ture.33 In response, the city formed a new metro- politan -level utility called Cortes Municipal Water Department ( DAMCO) to oversee and improve the water system. Several years later, the city partnered with five civil society groups reflecting diverse community interests to form a new utility called Aguas de Puerto Cortes (APC) to operate the system .34 The partnership has been staggeringly effective. In 1994, SANAA delivered water to 79 percent of residents but averaged only 14 hours of water service per day. By 1999, DAMCO covered 90 percent of the residents with 24 -hour service. By 2007, APC had increased coverage to 98 percent with continued 24 -hour service .35 The civil society cooperatives have been credited with enhancing transparency and increasing trust in the utility.36 Inter -state PUPs, whether North -North or South - South, can provide training and share best prac- tices between two organizations with similar operating constraints. Developmental PUPS typically partner water providers in the Global South with water providers, unions or non- governmental organizations in industrialized countries. These partnerships strengthen devel- oping- country water utilities as industrialized partners invest resources and expertise without extracting profits .46 For example, in 2008, the U.S. Agency for Inter- national Development (USAID) initiated a PUP between the Wastewater Management Authority of Thailand, the city of Krabi, Thailand, and the King County (Washington State) Wastewater Treatment Division in the United States .47 In 2009, experts from King County trained 45 managers and staff on best practices for waste- Public - Public Partnerships Outperform Public- Private Partnerships PUPs are a better option than PPPs, according to the results of recent studies. In 2010, the European Parliament compared public - public partnerships with public - private partnerships and found that PPPs tended to increase water prices, were often costly for municipalities and were particularly poor at providing service to low - income households .49 In contrast, the efficiencies generated by public - public partnerships can be reinvested into the water system instead of being diverted into profits for shareholders.50 Private operators may focus on short -term savings, whereas PUPS capitalize on broadly shared goals between two public entities to have a more lasting impact on the operation of utilities.51 The study found that the comprehensive PUPs approach involves the entire community — the munici- pality, ratepayers, community groups and the utility — which maximizes the accountability and equity of water services .52 PUPS demonstrate a clear advantage over PPPs in practice. For example, in South Africa, a PPP in Nelspruit and a PUP in Harrismith both improved delivery of water service.53 However, the PUP was more collaborative, involved less costly and more seamless negotiations and improved the long -term capacity of the utility.54 While the PPP required four years of negotiation to imple- ment '55 the PUP was launched in only 18 months .56 Moreover, because the PUP focused on capacity building, Harrismith was better equipped to run the system after the partnership. The PUP also seemed more successful at "engaging with the community, responding to complaints and concerns from customers and educating households .1151 Similar results were found in a 2010 United Kingdom study of 46 partnerships, including both PUPs and PPPs, for municipal services (water services were not included in the study). The study found that PUPs were more effective, efficient and equitable than PPPs.58 PUPS were 4 128 Food & Water Europe • www.foodandwatereurope.org more effective at coordinating the skills, exper- tise and resources to achieve the broad mission of providing services to all households.59 Not only were PUPs more effective, the study found that PPPs may actually lead to lower service quality.60 Perhaps surprisingly, PUPs signifi- cantly increased efficiency in service delivery, while partnerships with for -profit firms did not .61 Although PPP proponents contend that privatiza- tion can save money for local governments '62 the study found that PUPs saved money while PPPs failed to reduce costs.61 Less surprisingly, PUPs delivered services more equitably to everyone, including people and communities that are often excluded, underrepresented or disadvantaged .64 In contrast, PPPs prioritized the bottom line over equitable delivery of services .65 PUPs as Foreign Aid Development Tool Cross - border public - public partnerships have strengthened water systems in the developing world, improved public health and served as a foundation for more sustainable economic devel- opment. PUPs between water systems in industri- alized countries and developing countries (North - South) or between utilities in developing countries (South- South) facilitate water system expansion and improve water quality in the developing world by sharing best practices and leveraging efficiency gains by coordinating technical expertise.66 The industrialized- country public utilities can provide the management and technical expertise that the World Bank and other international financial institutions seek when they encourage private company partnerships (often as a condition of providing development loans) .67 North -South PUPs can fill this role at lower cost and with better attention to the public mission of water systems than PPPs.68 International PUPs have a track record of success in the developing world. In Africa alone, there have been at least half a dozen cross - border utility partnerships — as well as several intra -state PUPs — since 1987 .69 As noted above, the Harrismith, South Africa, PUP successfully improved efficiency and expanded access to improved sanitation.70 In the long run, both administrative and managerial capacity - building benefited Harrismith.71 The European Commission recognized the advan- tage of such cross - border partnerships by desig- nating €40 million in 2010 for the establishment of non -profit water and sanitation sector PUPs in African, Caribbean and Pacific Island (ACP) countries .72 This grant program was designed to foster capacity development specifically to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals to improve access to water and sanitation services in the developing world. 13 Importantly, the EU Water Facility guidelines specifically bar profit- making endeavors, thus precluding typical public - private partnerships from receiving grant funding.74 These groundbreaking grants are a unique funding opportunity for water PUPs. Investment in capacity development improves the perfor- mance of public utilities .71 This is especially important during economic downturns when governments face highly constrained budgetary environments and the potential for private invest- ment creates an almost irresistible pressure to privatize public utilities. Many non - governmental organizations have supported the project, and some are urging the expansion of this model to nations outside the ACP countries .76 The United Nations has taken a similar approach that can foster the creation of cross - border PUPs. In 2006, the Advisory Board on Water and Sani- tation, established by Secretary - General Kofi Annan, launched a Water Operators Partner- ships initiative to promote partnerships between water operators, regardless of whether they are public or private." The UN action plan explicitly stated, "[W]e do not exclude private sector opera- tors, NGOs or those who can contribute to the performance of public water undertakings on a not - for -profit basis. 1178 Although private water companies can enter these partnerships to gain a foothold for future for -profit privatizations of public water operations in the developing world,79 the UN program is also a vehicle for public - public partnerships. Public - Public Partnerships • An Alternative Model to Leverage the Capacity of Vicipal Water Utilities Conclusion Municipalities and their waterworks face fiscal hardship. A persistent economic slump and the Eurozone crisis have imperiled the finances of municipal governments across Europe. Private water service providers see this as an opening to take over public water operations.80 In May 2010, Don Correll, then -CEO of American Water, the largest publicly traded U.S. water utility company '81 bragged to investors that the fiscal crisis coupled with the need for expensive water system improvements created golden opportuni- ties for privatization. "So the idea of monetizing some assets," he said, "something that was almost heresy some time ago, is something that we're seeing far more receptivity to today and we are busy with that as well. 1182 But privatizing municipal water systems will not alleviate municipal fiscal problems over the medium and long -term. Privatization can cost more, as private companies often skimp on infrastructure maintenance, raise rates and reduce the quality of service. Crumbling infra- structure and service interruptions from broken water mains have encouraged many cities to abandon contracts with private water opera- tors .83 Other communities have exited public - private partnerships to save money. A survey of 18 U.S. localities that ended water partnerships with private operators since 2007 found that public operation was an average of 21 percent less expensive than private operation.84 In contrast, PUPs have been more efficient, more responsive and cheaper. We are now faced with a choice. We can continue to rely on the failed PPP model that gives control of our valuable water services to private inter- ests, or we can use the proven PUPs model that works for everyone while keeping the water in public hands. The European Commission should be implementing policies that facilitate PUPs in Europe instead of forcing the privatization of water services through austerity measures. Endnotes 1 UN News Centre. "General Assembly declares access to clean water and sanitation is a human right." July 28, 2010. 2 World Health Organization and UNICEF. "Progress on Sanitation and Drink- ing Water: 2010 Update." 2010 at 6 to 7. 3 Petrova, Violeta. At the frontiers of the rush for blue gold: Water privatiza- tion and the human right to water." Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol. 31, iss. 2. 2006 at 577 to 578, 581 to 586. 4 Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development. "Managing Water for All: An OECD Perspective on Pricing and Financing - Key Messages for Policy Makers." 2009 at 10; Warner, Mildred E. "Civic government or market -based governance? The limits of privatization for rural local govern- ments." Agriculture and Human Values, vol. 26, iss. 1 -2. March 2009 at 133 to 134. 5 Petrova, 2006 at 588 to 589; Arnold, Craig Anthony. "Water privatization trends in the United States: human rights, national security and public stewardship." William and Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, vol. 33, iss. 3. Spring 2009 at 799 to 804. 6 Hall, David et al. Public Services International and Transnational Institute "Public- Public Partnerships (PUPs) in Water." March 2009 at 2 and 5. 7 United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 55/2 United Nations Millen- nium Declaration. September 8, 2000. 8 World Health Organization and UNICEF. "Progress on Sanitation and Drink- ing Water: 2010 Update." 2010 at 8 to 9. 9 Wolff, Gary H. and Meena Palaniappan. "Public or private water manage- ment? Cutting the Gordian Knot." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, vol. 130, iss. 1. January /February 2004 at 1. 10 Pinsent Masons. (2010). Pinsent Masons Water Yearbook 2010 -2011. London: Pinsent Masons LLP at 41. 11 The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development, Principle 4. The International Conference on Water and the Environment, Dublin, 1992. 12 See Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, 2009. 13 Wolff and Palaniappan, 2004 at 1. 14 Wackerbauer, Johann. "Public or private water management: Experience from different European countries." IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmen- tal Science, vol. 4, iss. 1. December 2008 at 7. 15 Petrova, 2006 at 577 to 586. 16 Pitman, George Keith. World Bank Operations Evaluation Department, The World Bank. "Bridging Troubled Waters: Assessing the World Bank Water Resources Strategy." 2002 at 8. 17 International Finance Corporation, The World Bank Group. [Press release]. "IFC CEO says public - private partnerships can avert water crisis." August 22, 2008. 18 Petrova, 2006 at 588 to 589; Smith, Harold J. Raftelis Financing Consulting. National Rural Water Association. "Privatization of Small Water Systems." December 23, 2003 at 5 and 17 to 19. 130 Food & Water Europe • www.foodondwatereurope.org 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Food & Water Watch. "Selling Out Consumers: How Water Prices Increased After 10 of the Largest Water System Sales." June 2011 at 1. Godoy, Julio. "Europe: Privatised services back in public hands." Inter Press Service. January 28, 2010; Alemi, Mario. "When Paris sneezes, private water catches a cold." Global Water Intelligence, vol. 9, iss. 7. July 2008. "Paris defends re- municipalisation record." Global Water Intelligence, vol. 12, iss. 5. May 2011 at 12. Hall et al., 2009 at 2 and 5. Gassner, Katharina, et al. The World Bank. "Does Private Sector Participa- tion Improve Performance in Electricity and Water Distribution ?" (Trends and Policy Options No. 6). 2009 at 4, 5 and 49. Boag, Gemma and David McDonald. 'A critical review of Public - Public Part- nerships in water services." Water Alternatives, vol. 3, iss. 1. February 2010 at 3. Boag and McDonald, 2010 at 3; Hall, David et al. Public Services Inter- national Research Unit, University of Greenwich and Municipal Services Project. "Public- Public Partnerships in Health and Essential Services." (Discussion Paper 23). July 2005 at 6, 12 to 13. Boag and McDonald, 2010 at 3; Hall et al., 2005 at 6, 12 to 13. National League of Cities, Alliance for Regional Stewardship. "Guide to Successful Local Government Collaboration in America's Regions." October 2006 at 10 to 11 and 21. Holzer, Marc et al. Local Unit Alignment, Reorganization and Consolidation Commission, School of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University. "Literature Review and Analysis Related to Costs and Benefits of Service Delivery Consolidation among Municipalities." May 6, 2009 at 1, 16 and 19. Hall et al., 2005 at 5 to 7, 12. Beach, Allyne and Linda Kaboolian. Working for America Institute, AFL -CIO and Public Sector Labor Management Committee, John F. Kennedy School of Government and Public Sector, Harvard University. "Working Better Together: A Practical Guide to Help Unions, Elected Officials and Managers Improve Public Services." 2005 at 5, 8, 13, 47 to 52. Hall et al., 2009 at 2. Hall et al., 2005 at 4 to 6. Cotlear, Blanche and Dario Urbina. "Introducing accountability and trans- parency to water and sanitation services in Honduras through enhanced user participation." World Bank Institute, Social Accountability Notes. Janu- ary 2010 at 1. Ibid. at 2. Ibid. at 7. Ibid. at 5. Terhorst, Philipp. "The Platform for Public- Community Partnerships of the Americas." In Compendium of the International Conference About "Water Partnerships Towards Meeting the Climate Challenge." Chennai, TN, India: Centre of Excellence for Change. January 2011 at 73 to 74. Ibid. at 73. Plataforma de Acuerdos Publicos Comunitarios de las Americas. "La Plata - forma se presenta." Bulletin No. 1. December 2010 at 5 to 6. Terhorst, January 2011 at 75. Terhorst, Philipp. "Interview: Public- Community Partnerships in Peru and Uruguay." Reclaiming Public Water Network. March 2011 at 4. Plataforma de Acuerdos Publicos Comunitarios de las Americas, 2010 at 24, 27 and 28. Moshman, Rachel. "The constitutional right to water in Uruguay." Sustain- able Development Law & Policy, vol. 5, iss. 1. Winter 2005 at 65. Terhorst, March 2011 at 5. Ibid. at 4; Plataforma de Acuerdos Publicos Comunitarios de las Americas, 2010 at 7. Boag and McDonald, 2010 at 4 and 5. AECOM International Development. USAID, Regional Development Mis- sion /Asia. "Environmental Cooperation -Asia (ECO -Asia) Water and Sanita- tion / Environmental Governance Fiscal Year 2008 Annual Report." 2008 at 10. 48 USAID REM /A, Regional Environment Office. "Weekly Update." Weekly Report Week Ending February 27, 2009. 49 Tucker, Josephine et al. Directorate B Policy Department, Directorate-Gen- eral for External Policies of the Union, European Parliament. 'A comparative evaluation of public - private and public - public partnerships for urban water services in ACP countries." May 2010 at 33. 50 Ibid. at 13. 51 Ibid. at 13. 52 Ibid. at 15 to 17. 53 Ibid. at 27, 29 and 31. 54 Ibid. at 31. 55 Ibid. at 30. 56 Ibid. at 26. 57 Ibid. at 31. 58 Andrews, Rhys and Tom Entwistle. "Does cross- sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency, and equity." Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory. vol. 20, iss. 3. July 2010 at 679, 685, 692 and 693. 59 Ibid. at 689 and 692. 60 Ibid. at 689. 61 Ibid. at 691. 62 Bloomfield, Pamela. "The challenging business of long -term public - private partnerships: reflections on local experience." Public Administration Review. vol. 66, iss. 3, May /June 2006 at 400. 63 Andrews and Entwistle, 2010 at 691. 64 Ibid. at 692. 65 Ibid. at 692. 66 Hall et al., 2005 at 6, 7 and 13; Boag and McDonald, 2010 at 4 to 9. 67 Tucker et al., 2010 at 1 to 3, 13, 16, 22, 34. 68 Ibid. at 13, 16 to 17, 33. 69 Ibid. at 3. 70 Ibid. at 27. 71 Ibid. at 28. 72 European Commission. "Partnerships for Capacity Development in the ACP Water & Sanitation Sector: Restricted Call for Proposals, Guidelines for grant applicants' " (Reference EuropeAid /129510/C /ACT /Multi). February 24, 2010 at 5 and 1. 73 Ibid. at 5 and 11. 74 Private companies and other non -state actors can participate in these programs as supporting partners but not as implementing or beneficiary partners. See: Ibid. at 5, 9 and 11. 75 Public Services International Research Unit, Business School, University of Greenwich. "ACP -EU Water Partnerships - Briefing Note." August 2010 at 2 and 9. 76 ACME Morocco et al. "Re: Expanding EU support for public - public partner- ships." Open letter to EU Development Commissioner Andris Piebalgs. March 22, 2010. 77 United Nations Secretary - General's Advisory Board on Water and Sanita- tion. "Hashimoto Action Plan, Compendium of Actions." March 2006 at 1 and 3. 78 Ibid. at 3. 79 Hall et al., 2009 at 12. 80 Merrick, Amy. "Cash flows in water deals." The Wall Street Journal. August 12, 2010; Keen, Judy. "Cities consider selling water, sewer systems for cash." USA Today. April 21, 2010. 81 American Water Works Company, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Com- mission. Form 10 -K. February 25, 2011 at 3. 82 Correll, Don. American Water Works Co. `American Water Works Co. Inc. at Macquarie Global Infrastructure Conference - Final." Fair Disclosure Wire. May 25, 2010. 83 Arnold, 2009 at 799 to 804; for more examples, see Food & Water Watch. "Money Down the Drain: How Private Control of Water Wastes Public Resources." February 2009. 84 Food & Water Watch. "The Public Works: How the Remunicipalization of Water Services Saves Money." December 2010. X11 Public - Public Partnerships • An Alternative Model to Leverage the Capacity of 1 icipal Water Utilities 7 food &water Food & Water Europe gum ' europe @fwwatch.org www.foodandwatereurope.org 132 1 �"quo i ; a. The Horrid 100 CANADIAN 1. Abbottsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre P3, BC. Flawed. 2. Accenture Ministry of Social Services Business Transformation Project P3, ON. Flawed. 3. BC Medical Services Plan and PharmaCare P3. Flawed. 4. Bruce Nuclear P3, ON, Flawed, 5. Calgary Southeast Hospital P3, Alta. Abandoned. 6. Calgary Courthouse P3, Alta. Failed. 7. Charleswood Bridge P3, Winnepeg, Man. Flawed. 8. Coquihalla Highway P3, BC. Abandoned. 9. Confederation Bridge P3, PEI. Flawed. 10. Cranbrook Civic Arena P3, BC. Failed, 11. Duke Point Hydro P3, Nanaimo, BC. Flawed. 12. Edmonton Grocery Store High School P3, Alta. Failed. 13. Evergreen Park School P3, NB. Flawed, 14. Foyer Saint- Charles Long Term Care Home P3, Quebec City, Que. Flawed. 15, Greater Vancouver Regional District Seymour Water Filtration Plant P3, BC. Abandoned. 16. Greater Vancouver Transit Authority Rapid Transit P3, BC. Flawed, 134 17. Hamilton Entertainment & Convention Facility Inc. P3, ON. Abandoned. 18. Hamilton- Wentworth Water & Wastewater Treatment P3, ON. Abandoned. 19. Halifax School P3, NS. FIawed. 20. Highway 407 P3, ON. Flawed. 21. Long term care facilities, 13,000 private beds, ON. FIawed. Maple Ridge Downtown Redevelopment P3, BC. Abandoned. 23. Nelson Recreation Complex P3, BC. Abandoned. 24. - 54. Nova Scotia Schools (30) P3. Program cancelled 55. PEI Hospital P3. Abandoned, 56. Port Alberni Civic Arena P3, BC, Abandoned. 57. Royal Ottawa Hospital P3, ON. Flawed. 58. Swan Hills Waste Management Facility, Alta. Abandoned, 59. St. Albert recreational facility P3, Alta. Abandoned. 60. Timmins and District Dialysis Centre P3, ON. Failed. 61. Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre P3, BC. Failed. 62. Victoria Arena & Entertainment Complex P3, BC. Flawed. 63. Welland Community Centre P3, ON. Failed. 64. William Osler Health Centre P3, Brampton, ON. Flawed. 135 with Accenture in 2002 to maintain the system that only they could run. Ultimately the system cost taxpayers $500 million with training costs and other expenditures. In 2004, it was found that the system was unable to calculate a 3% welfare increase for recipients and would require another $10 million to fix and $7 million to test. Source Toronto Star, "How costly computer sparked a 'nightmare': Social services system 'inflexible from Day 1,' expert says," Richard Brennan and Robert Benzie, July 10, 2004. `ply p /. y py� 4 yAp_ ..._..__._... Rii�M Ml d1ca! S 11 - Ice 7 V!ZwN! slid rlicrr= C G7we N.I. Flawed: Inadequate risk transfer, concerns over privacy of information. The BC government contracted the administration of the Medical Services Plan & PharmaCare to Maximus Inc., a US company. Under the American Patriot Act, health records held by Maximus are subject to secret search and seizure by US Authorities. BC's privacy commissioner warned the government of the risks of this private contract. Source CP, Victoria, May 28, 2004. "BC Privacy Watchdog seeks US government, FBI input in Patriot Act probe" by Dirk Meissner. Also see Privacy Commissioner's Report at: www.righttopTivacycompaign.com Ericc, Flawed; high costs, poor risk transfer, Bruce Power, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Energy, announced an agreement with Ontario Power Generation to lease and operate the Bruce "A" and "B" nuclear generating stations until 2018, with an option to lease for another 25 years. ,r 136 t ��'�A r'. }I•i is P31 Failed: costs up by 66%, design flaws, When the cost for a one -stop super courthouse jumped 66 %, to $500 million from $300 million, moves were made by the province to pull back from the P3 model. Justices complained that the design of the courthouse was flawed and filled the needs of the developer, not the court. After intense negotiations between the P3 consortium GWL Realty Advisors and the provincial government, the province decided to build the facility publicly. Source Edmonton Journal, "P3s dicey for education, health sectors — think tank", Sunday June 13, 2004. Pg Al2. Edmonton Journal, "Province likely to pick up entire bill for super courthouse ", April 28, 2004. Calgary Sun, "Province Trumpets P3 Myth ", August 19, 2004. Flawed: high cost's. On a contract totalling $11.6 million, the Charleswood Bridge P3 was found to have cost taxpayers $1.4 million more than if the bridge was built publicly. Over 10% of the project cost was eaten up by the cost of preparing and evaluating the bids. Source John Loxley, Department of Economics, University of Manitoba. 137 !0 Failed: delays, cost cverruns,.legal disputes, The P3 project officially failed five years after implementation, following lengthy construction delays, cost overruns and legal disputes. The private sector operator paid the City of Cranbrook $1.7 million to resume ownership and operation of the facility earlier this year. Source Vancouver Sun, 05 August 2004, pg B3. Flawed. high costs, inflexible. The proposed deal requires BC Utilities Commission to make annual payments to Duke Point Power Ltd. plus a levy when natural gas power is used for the length of the 25 year contract. According to Dan Potts, Executive Director of the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee representing major industrial users of purchased electric power in BC, the deal, "raises the real possibility that high fuel costs and low utilization will make the power from this plant horrendously expensive." He concludes, "Better options must be developed if BC Hydro is serious about supplying reliable low -cost power for generations." BCUC rejected a previous similar proposal in 2003. Source The Vancouver Sun, "The flaws in the Duke Point Deal," Editorial, Dan Potts, pg A15, Mesday, November 16, 2004. 138 14 41 J, Flawed: high costs:, A government - commissioned study found that the proposed P3 long term care facility would cost $14 million more than it would to build the facility publicly and $110,000 more per bed than it would to manage the facility publicly over the 25 year duration of the proposed contract. The study by Mallette Services- conseils was kept quiet by the government, but was released after a successful Freedom of Information request. Source CUPE Quebec press conference, January 20, 2005. a 11 Abandoned, high costs and poor accountability. The GVRD cancelled plans for a P3 to build and operate a new water filtration plant after more than 1,000 community members attended consultations raising concerns over the cost and accountability of the project. Primary concerns included the threat of NAFTA Chapter 11 State - Investor Clause trade suits. Source GVRD water decision a "great public victory" says CUPE (CUPS News, June 29), 139 t F [ City Council abandoned the P3 proposal as it would reduce access to the facility for community groups and would be too inflexible, according to City Councillors. Source Dundas Star News, "Restructured HECFI seeking alternative sources of revenue ", pg. 40. Friday November 12, 2004. Abandoned: maintenance problems, legal disputes, high costs, poor risk transfer, The P3 deal was signed in 1994 under a 10 year, $187 million contract to Philip Utilities Management Corp. That company has since changed ownership four times, ultimately leaving Hamilton's water in the hands of American Water Services Canada Corp. In 2004, the contract came up. All of the private sector bids were higher than the cost of running the facilities in- house. This P3 has been plagued by environmental disaster and malfunctioning equipment. In the mid- 1990s, the P3 was the site of the largest ever sewage spill in Lake Ontario. The full cost of clean up fell to the City of Hamilton. The full cost of the cleanup and details of the City's attempt to hold the corporation responsible have been kept secret. As of January 1, the P3 was abandoned and the water and wastewater systems were re- publicized. Source The Hamilton Spectator, Pg Al "City eyes takeover of water, sewer operations" TLesday, August 31, 2004. 140 21 22, h�`rr 1x1f ;q tt ?na f9 3ii s f:?cr 13"Vtoo i7Tiivatc'1kid r Flawed. high, costs; public. ownership lost, In three rounds of bidding from 1998 -2000, the Ontario government contracted with for - profit companies to build over 13,000 long term care beds as profit- seeking ventures. For the first time, taxpayers are paying for beds to be owned and operated by for- profit companies. In contracts that span 20 years, the province will pay $10.35 per bed per day for 20 years for the capital portion of the costs. At the end of the deal, Ontarians will have paid over $900 million for beds which the companies will own and can convert for their own uses. The end of the deals, at approximately 2020, coincides with the time period in which the biggest crest of baby boomers will reach age 80. Ontarians will then have to pay again for beds for which they have already paid, or build new ones. Source From Paul McKay series on long term care facility deals in Ontario, printed in the Ottawa Citizen. (leisure centre, youth arts centre, library, parking garage, office tower and hotel) P3:. 1i ^ Abandoned- high costs, legal disputes. The BC Supreme court ruled that the 50 year downtown redevelopment P3 deal signed by the District of Maple Ridge was illegal. A subsequent forensic audit found that the proposed deal was flawed and was deliberately designed to favour the P3 over traditional public procurement. Extra costs incurred by the P3 contract resulted in the District of Maple Ridge resuming control and ownership of the complex in 2004, after the community voted 141 .FY.4 a SS y for the consortia. The schools are plagued with scandal and problems. After 6 years, the Nova Scotia government cancelled the P3 program. However, 30 school deals lasting up to 35 years had been signed. Source N.S. Auditor's Report. Winnepeg Free Press, "Warning:the P3s are coming ?" by Murray Dobbin, July 21, 2002. Heather -jane Robertson, "Why P3 schools are D4 schools or How public private partnerships lead to disillusionment, dirty dealings and debt", CCPA BC, May 23, 2002. Abandoned; high costs. The PEI government abandoned plans for a P3 hospital after public outcry and a report that the privatization would cost more than if the hospital was to be built publicly. Source Charlottetown Guardian, "Hospital project may be put to tender ", Saturday, June 2, 20011 pg Al. .J �{ qy s +�,l�vv p Pal CIV241 r . °8.vcm- P3j BC. ,Abandoned: NS 4 costs. The City rejected a proposed P3 deal after the realization that taxpayers would only achieve peripheral benefits from the contract, and opted for traditional financing /public procurement Instead, Source Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, "Public Private Partnerships: the 7Yue Cost of P3s ", 2003. 142 59 ZY 1---- -,-.1 61 F "„ F fr? Abandoned: hIS4 costs. City council abandoned a P3 recreation facility because, "We inherited a P3 scheme that we found was good for the developer but not for the city's pocketbook," according to Mayor Richard Plain. Source The Edmonton Journal, "Mayor a* ccuses opponent of flip flop," Pg B4, Wednesday September 29, 2004. - .:?i1i=1".r�;'. �`��w3'iriZ Failed: no bidders interested. Project abandoned, no bidders interested. It is speculated that the market that would provide additional revenue streams for the private sector is too small in this northern community to be attractive to the for - profit companies. #Yrf �, �.il r.'r �kFd CC. S��4..�i KAF SC Failed: Inadequate risk transfer, Plans for a P3 expansion to the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre were cancelled after the provincial government was unable to secure adequate protection ('risk transfer') for its investment. 143 .s Flawed. cost overruns, delays,, secrecy. Costs for the P3 hospital deal grew from $350 million to over $550 million during the lease negotiation. In this period, the size of the planned hospital was reduced and the new hospital is now to be opened in stages. The higher private borrowing rate and premium on equity mean that capital costs are $174 million more than they would be if the hospital was built publicly. All other financial information pertaining to the service privatization regime is considered a "commercial secret" shrouded from scrutiny by taxpayers, along with theValue for Money report and many other documents. Ultimately, the deal was over a year late. Source Schedule 8, Project Agreement, William Osler Health Centre and The Health Infrastructure Company of Canada. 144 6S' 66 Failed: cost overruns, eventual goverment bail out. The link would have cost 1 billion pounds if it had been publicly procured. Instead, the private consortium was given 5.7 billion pounds worth of land and public money to cover its costs. Later, the government agreed to bail out the consortium by underwriting a 3.7 billion pound loan to the consortium as part of a 5.8 billion pound re- financing deal. Source George Moribiot, "Captiue State ". Flawed; poor desigri, poor risk transfer, poorly negotiated deal, 6ighercosts, Design problems and shoddy construction have plagued the hospital as follows: two ceilings have collapsed because of cheap plastic joints in piping and other plumbing faults, one joint narrowly missed patients in the maternity unit; the sewage system could not cope with the number of users and flooded the operating theatre; clerical and laundry staff cannot work in their offices because they are too small; expensive bespoke trolleys had to be commissioned because those supplied don't fit between the beds; the transparent roof means that on sunny days the temperature reaches over 33C, the hospital has no air conditioning; and two windows have blown out of their frames, one showering a consultant and a nurse with glass. One of the risks supposedly transferred to the P3 consortium was the risk that targets for clinical cost savings wood not be met, and the cost of this risk was estimated at 5 million pounds. 145 has won the bid to privatize the Brampton, Ontario hospital P3) made 11 million pounds in profit. The hospital failed inspections for basic standards in hygiene, trolley waits, cancelled operations and breast cancer referrals. The CFO was fired. Community health spending has been reduced to fund the additional costs of the acute sector. Funding for the provision of services shifted to the community - mental health and learning difficulties, and community nursing - was withdrawn. In order to increase funding for the P3 by 2 million pounds per year, funding for a child resource centre, relocation physical disability services, and relocation mental health services were cut entirely. Community nursing and community hospital services were reduced. Source Guardian, January 8, 2004 Observer, Sunday, July 4, 2004 ibid. British Medical Association Journal, Pollock et aI. "Planning the "new" NHS:doumsizing for the 21" century, Vol. 319, July 17, 1999. Public Money and Management. "Pump- Priming the PFI:Why are Privately Financed Hospital Schemes Being Subsidized ?" Gaffney and Pollock. January- March 1999, 68 fkoy3l V" 1- Flawed: design flaws, land deal scandal, poorly negotiated deal, high costs, poor value for money calculation, cuts to services, The hospital was built without operating theatre lights, The hospital lands in town were sold off in a scandal- ridden land deal and the hospital was moved to a greenspace outside of town, The land is over an old mine and rats climb to the surface and infest the hospital when it rains. The high costs of the P3 have been born by reducing beds in a false estimation of faster patient "throughput ". Beds have been reduced by 24% across the health district and community services have also been cut. Further reductions in community care and beds may be necessary to meet the financial deficit, primarily due to the high costs of the P3s in the health district. The workforce plans for the new P3 show that the projected clinical staff budget was 17% less than in the former public hospital. The new P3 hospital was planned to have 18% less staff. 146 70 71 w. i _ • tiny 11i St.h", is P3, UK Failed; company went bankrupt. After delay and uncertainty due to a collapse of P3 corporation Jarvis' finances and shares, the Fife council cancelled the 176 million pound P3 schools deal and had to begin to renegotiate the deal with other bidders. Source The Guardian, "Council calls off school deal with Jarvis" Friday August 20, 2004. Srh"- *—Ni J d d, �hf.i y�GdiJ F a'1 Flawed; high costs; design flaws. 29 schools involved in the country's biggest education P3 contract with Amey and Mitel is worth 160 million pounds. The deal has resulted in the loss of six swimming pools, smaller and fewer classrooms, science laboratory benches facing walls instead of teachers and fewer game halls. Source The Observer "Britain on the road to a very private revolution" Sunday May 27, 2001, 147 74 as M'st!"A 1,10 spit -11 In *eveneii UK Flawed: legal disputes, "Patients are facing potentially dangerous delays in receiving test results following the end of a P3 in pathology, according to the British Medical Association. The problems follow the end of a private sector contract and return of pathology services at the Lister Hospital in Stevenage to the public sector. The trust and private provider OmniLabs could not agree on a formula which would have allowed the hospital to continue to use OmniLabs computers for a changeover period. There have been delays while data is transferred from one computer system to another, and problems tracking specimens. It is said that neither side would enter such a similar contract again." Source Publicnet - www.publicnet.co.uk Nday, 14 December 2001. I.Cl s0.4nil' Flawed: high costs; delays. The cost of private finance has added 455 million pounds to the cost of the project, to be financed by ratepayers and London taxpayers. A report by the National Audit Office found that the sell -off provided private engineering companies with profits of 18 -20 %, a third higher than the norm. The NAO found that the costs for the contracts rose by 590 million pounds through the negotiation period. The project was more than two years behind schedule. The government agreed to cover bidders' costs amounting to 250 million pounds. The costs for the public side's consultant fees were 109 million pounds. Source The Guardian. "Auditors say tube sale was bad deal" Thursday June 17, 2004, also see The Observer "Britain on the road to a very private revolution" Sunday May 27, 2002. 148 18 =83 Failed: deal cancelled, delays, risk, P3 contract for 6 schools in Norfolk collapsed as P3 company Jarvis, facing financial difficulties, was 26 months behind schedule and was unable to find a local subcontractor. source UNISON, press release, November 10, 2004. 84 '7 i W f--h tin%; i '.i..f 1. 1.' .K �f {i�p`�:'45Y Flawed: legal disputes, high costs. Two "containment rooms" that should use a system of negative pressure to seal in lethal viruses were found to be defective. A nurse lifted the ceiling tiles in the hallway and found that the ducting had never been connected. Thirteen patients had been treated in this ward for tuberculosis. The hospital trust launched an inquiry and the National Audit Office investigated. It emerged that the management had known about the problem for more than two years. The director of public health complained to Octagon Healthcare, the consortium that built and runs the hospital. The consortium admitted they knew the rooms were not working and that staff were told to use "tried and true" methods to prevent contamination. The hospital trust has spent 80,000 pounds to ensure that the rooms now work. They are in a dispute with the consortium over who is responsible to pay the bill. In December 2003, Octagon (made up of Innisfree, Laing and Serco) refinanced the project and received a 100 million pound 149 1 ; Flawed: cost overruns from 360 million to 800 million pounds, delays. Initial estimates by the Department of Health costed the P3 development and relocation of three London hospitals onto one site at 360 million pounds when it was approved. Redesign was forced on the consortium because the wards were too small. Costs escalated to 800 million pounds and were expected to increase by another 200 million. Critics note that the hospital costs four times that of Portsmouth hospital redevelopment which has 100 more beds. Source Sunday 71mes of London, "Series of blunders lead to billion -pound hospital', August 3, 2003. PL. Zr , Flawed: riots, poor management, poor design, labour relations problems, Even before the prison was officially opened, it suffered eight major riots and two suicides. The Prisons Minister, Joyce Quinn, admitted that it lacked adequate work and training, drugs testing and visitor facilities. According to the Prison Reform Trust, by five months after the prison had been opened, it had thirty fewer guards than it needed due to "an unexpectedly high turnover of staff ", Prisoners had to be transferred to a publicly -run prison. Within a year of opening, the consortium Securicor was fined 105 thousand pounds for a series of offenses. Source George Monbiot "Captive State" 150 89 Flawed: design problems, unnecessarily large deal to attract bidders, high costs, poor land deal, Poor design means that the recovery room is located 80 metres from the operating theatre. The original hospital redevelopment plan included a refurbishment of existing facilities and a partial new build. In order to make the scheme more attractive for P3 bidders, the plan was transformed into an entirely new build on a greenfield site out of town, releasing the city centre site for development by the P3 consortium. Source Pollock et al. British Medical Association Journal. "Private finance and "value for money" in NHS hospitals:a policy in search of a rationale? Vol. 324.18 May 2002. Public Money and Management. "Pump- Priming the PFI:Vlhy are Privately Financed Hospital Schemes Being Subsidized ?" Gaffney and Pollock. January-March 1999, Aar *fY7ev,. Flawed: financial problems, destSn /construction problems. Bovis and Lendlease were the developers behind the P3, While the hospital is facing financial problems, the firms made a 12 million pound profit from a refinancing deal. The hospital has been beset with problems including power cuts, exploding glass awnings and rodent infestations. Source Observer, Sunday July 4, 2004 Ibid. 151 finished schools are now the public's problem as parents scrambled to move their children to other school rolls. Source The Guardian Allyson Pollock and David Price, "We are left footing the bill: the public pays the price when contractors pull out of projects ", Tuesday July 27, 2004. J 94 i - a Flawed; high costs, financial problems. Four years after the 93 million pound hospital was built, it had to close a ward to save money towards its 6 million pound deficit, adding 600 more patients to waiting lists. source British Medical Association Journal, Pollock et aI. "Planning the `new' NHS: downsizing for the 21't century". Vol. 319, July 17, 1999. Flawed, high costs, design flaws, rinancial problems, A contract disagreement between the public hospital and the private consortium featured the consortium claiming that its contractual responsibilities did not include portering. An ambulance had to be called to move a patient 400 yards to a ward. The hospital was built on a business case that was geared to making the P3 affordable and cut beds. The new hospital faced a serious bed shortage within the first few weeks of opening - in the middle of summer. The hospital has been plagued with serious design flaws, shoddy construction disasters and equipment failures including: the respiratory ward is extremely hot; the generator failed plunging 152 9S-i f Central Lonclon, Flawed /failed: high costs, poor design, project may be cancelled. The higher cost of private finance added an average of 39% to the total capital costs of the projects in North Durham, Carlisle and Worcester. Jon Rouse, chief executive of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment described the plans as "cramped and overdeveloped. What concerns us is the functionality of the building in delivering the best possible medical services and patient environment." CABE's report said the design "recreates mistakes made in the 1960s .... If it were put forward as an office project, it is extremely difficult to imagine it being given planning permission.... We have little sense that the project proposes more than compliance with the building regulations in terms of energy useage." The consortium had failed to act on the government's planning advice. The design was criticized for having too many rooms with no windows, the blocks appeared jumbled and ad hoc and patients would be confused by the complex layout. It concluded, "The standard of the design, in our view, falls a long way short of what ought to be expected of one of the largest public sector building projects in the country." As of August 2004, London mayor Ken Livingstone is set to veto the P3 megahospital. Source The Economist. "PFlnancing new hospitals: Health service. January 10, 2004. The Guardian. "New Royal London hospital design 'a failurel". 7tiesday August 3, 2004. 153 �J 99 kr_ ' -4 -O-Acct h,'Ad !eye'; -`, iiwsp�lt i ?z in Flawed: financial problems, service Guts. According to the BMJ, the project was calculated using a discount rate of 6 %, but according to the revised treasury guidelines of Sept 2003, 3Va % was the correct rate to use. As in other P3s, the financial model used, overstated the risk transfer to the private sector. Using the corrected rate, the P3 was 22 million pounds more expensive than its public sector comparator. The hospital is closing a ward to save 2.5 million towards its deficit. Source British Medical Association Journal, Pollack et al. "Planning the `new' NHS:downsizing for the 21'1 century". Vol. 319, July 17, 1999. See also letter to BMJ from Martin Blaiklock, BMJ'2003;327 :395 (16 August) ,doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7411.395 -a Flawed; company in financial difficulties, delays, company paid no compensation. The hospital redevelopment was left half built when Jarvis ran into financial trouble. The company abandoned the project and will not pay any compensation for leaving the project incomplete, The redevelopment will be a year late. A new deal has been negotiated with a new company. Source Hornsey and Crouch EndJournal, "Jaruis won'tpay for hospital building failure ", February 23,2005. 154 Public in .Canada: An Overview of selected sewer, wastewater and water treatment projects Strategic Infrastructure Fund. That federal commitment is in addition to $2.83 million iii federal Einding from the Canada -New Brunswick Munucipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, which was provided in'March of 2006. Despite this significant finding from the Harper. government, the project will not be 'done as 'a P3. • City of Montreal water and wastewater -- Over the next four years, the City of Montreal will receive a total of $254 million fiom the federal and Quebec governments for upgrading of the City's drinking water and wastewater systems. The source of finds is a federal /provincial gas tax agreement. Inn February of 2007, the.two senior governments provided an initial payment ofS46 million, There are no plans to use P3 procurement for, these upgrades. Indeed, the City of Westmount will return its water system to public operation o' January .1, 2008-after dissatisfaction with private sector operation. • Regional District of Nanaimo — In_July of 2007, the federal and provincial govermnents annotulced that the R.D.N. would receive a total of $6.8 million from gas tax fiends to malce �J improver rents to-sewage treatment at. the Greater Nanaimo Pollution Control Centre and 7 the French Creek Pollution Control Centre near Parksville. The Greater Nanahno P.C.C. improvements will reduce the need for chemically enhanced primary treatment and improve the quality of discharges into the Strait of Georgia. Neither the Greater Nanaimo P.C.C. nor the French: Creek P.C.C. were built as Pas and both are operated publicly. • Saanich Peninsula Wastewater Treatment Plant — The Saanich Peninsula Wastewater Treatment, Plant currently supports 30,000 residents but is designed to provide secondary treatment for up to 50,000 residents of Saanich Peninsula municipalities and First Nations. Supportedby a 50 per cent. provincial government grant, construction of the plant began in early.1998 and was completed within budget by the end of 1999. It began operation in February 2000. The capital.cost of the plant was $20 million. Operating costs are roughly $1 million per year. The project was not donne as a P3. Regular "aiunial reports from. the plant indicate that treated effluent is well within acceptable limits. Certainly; the successful example of -the Saanich Peninsula.plannt can inform decisions about Core Area sewage treatment. The Saanich Peninsula plant.is operated by the C.R.D. and its workers are represented by CUPE Local 1978. • Seymour- Cgpilano Water Filtration Proiect —.In 2001, the Greater Vancouver Regional District had decided to deliver its. new Seymour- Capilano water filtration project as a P3 until community opposition'forced a change of position. The project was subsequently procured normally and is now nearing completioni as a public project_ According to a May 28,'2007 report to the Finance Committee of the GVRDI; the water filtration project is. not only on schedule but is projected to be completed at a cost of $566 million; which is $34 million less than its approved budget of $600 million! Beaalise of successful public sector management, this non -P3 is projected to be significantly under budget despite the Lower Mainland's hot construction economy. • Whistler Wastewater Treatment Project —,In January of 2005, under pressure from the provincial government and Partnerships B.0 .-, the Council of the Resort Municipality of Whistler decided to procure its new sewage treatment plant as a P3. After strong community opposition and overwhelrning citizen rejection in an alter iative approval See: littp://www.gvrd.bc.ca/board/coi-nag&ndas/Fiiiaiice/Jume/6.-I.pdf PalR2 of 4. Public in Canada:.An Overview of selected sewer, wastewater and water treatment projects process vote, Wliistler ooun'cil changed its position in 2006 and decided to procure the project normally instead: hi July 2007, the municipality awarded.a $28 million contract for the bulls of necessary constmetion work. The price on that contract is 11 Wbelow engineering estimates which belied predictions from• P3 proponents that regular procurement will increase costs. • Fort McMurray wastewater treatment plant — 4-120 06, Edmonton based Epcor had proposed to the Regiarial Municipality of Wood Buffalo that Epcor build .and operate Fort McMurray's new wastewater treatment plant. In February of 2006, the Council opted to keep the construction and operation of the new plant in public hands.instead, hiring local ixrzn$ird Consta:uction to work With the municipal project manager to build the facility.', .The $160 million project is on track and is'projected to open in 2009. • Annacis and Lulu Island_secondari+ sewage treatment -. In the late 1990s, federal/provinciaUmtinicipal infrastructure funding supported a major project to improve the Annacis sewage treatment facility in the Lower Mainland. The secondary treatment upgrade was completed in 1999 using conventional procurement.--The non -P3 was completed for $90-million less than its $530 million budget.- Currently, Metro Vancouver's Lulu. Island, wastewater - treatment plant is being expanded and upgraded. with a $25 million non -P3 investment. Both Annacis and Lulu Island are operated - publicly. • Edmonton Drainage Services — Although Epcor is owned by the City of Edmonton, 'Epcor operates as a private company in the private marketplace. In 2005, Epcor made a proposal to Edmonton City Council to take over the Drainage Services which are currently owned and operated directly by the City.' Edmonton. Drainage Services plans, builds, operates and maintains the connplete network of pipes, to nnels,'pump stations, storage - and treatment facilities that Make up Edmonton's 4,300 kilometre drainage system. They ensure environmentally sound, disposal, of City domestic sewage, industrial wastewater and stone water, and consistently exceed regulatory requirements. Epcor's piopoSal was extremely controversial. On September 28, 2005, after hearing 31 presentations from -concerned . citizens; Edmonton Council voted. 7-6 to reject Epcor's proposals. Edmonton Drainage Services continue today.to be directly operated by the City. It is interesting that Edmonton City Council and' citizens of Edmonton were unwilling to turn. operation of their sewage and drainage system to Epcor; even though Edmonton is the shareholder of the company. • Kamloops Centre for Drinking Water Quality — In 2001, the City of Kamloops was under considerable pressure to proctue its new water treatment plan:as a P3. Following a strong community campaign in support of public water, tale kamloops Centre for Drinking Water Quality was procured as a public project instead. It began operation in 2005. When the P3 was being considered, Price- Waterhouse Coopers and others projected that a P3 would. cost $60 million. The actual. cost of the project was $48.5 million, or 20 %' less than the prediction for the?3. The project won the 2005 Project of the Year Award from the. B.-C. Public Works Association and in 2006 the Canada Green Building Council awarded the Kamloops project Gold certification under the LEED (Leadership iii Energy and Environmental Design) program — the highest certification possible. Each day the plant treats tip to 160 million. litres of drinking watei using membrane filtration technology. All innovative public /public partnership between the City of Kamloops and the Centre for Safe P41963 of 4 P3 school projects blasted by AG report CBC News Posted: Jan 12, 2012 10:43 AM AT Last Updated: Jan 12, 2012 7:48 PM AT URL: http_ / /www.ebe.ca/ news /canada/ new- brwiswick /story /2012/01/12/nb-p3- school auditor- eneral- 1030.html The former Liberal government pushed forward with a public - private partnership agreement to build two schools without proper evidence to support the decision, according to the province's auditor general. Auditor General Kim MacPherson said in her report that she found no evidence the Department of Supply and Services performed a formal preliminary analysis before moving forward with a private - public partnership to build the Eleanor W. Graham Middle School and the Moncton North School. "We found no evidence, however, that any kind of formal preliminary analysis was performed to support the P3 decision made by the cabinet," the report said. "We were advised there was some informal discussion among senior officials in the Department of Finance and the Department of Supply and Services during the budget process, but we were unable to determine the rationale for this decision." There were other questions about how the Liberal government moved forward with the project. In October 2008, the government merged the two school projects into one overall agreement. But the auditor general found "no evidence that this decision was supported by any type of formal assessment showing [the agreement] as the most cost - effective form of P3 for this project." As well, the report said neither the Department of Supply and Services nor the Department of Education were officially involved with the decision alter the procurement method. And the report said, the provincial government performed a value- for -money analysis after the decision to adopt the P3 approach was picked. The auditor general pointed out that normally those assessments are conducted before the decision is made. MacPherson's report said this could raise questions about bias. "Since the P3 decision was already made when the VFM [value - for - money] analysis began, there is a potential risk that the VFM analysis could be biased to support the Cabinet's P3 decision," the report said. 157 The auditor general also raised concerns about the payments and the process of hiring two advisors. A "process advisor" was paid $107,000 and a financial advisor was paid $565,000 for their services. However, the two advisors were hired without a public competition. "In our opinion, due process was not followed in engaging these advisors," the report said. No advance debate Former premier Shawn Graham unveiled the agreement to build the two new schools in September 2009. (Government of New Brunswick)The report, which was released on Thursday, also said the deal was signed before the legislative assembly was told of the deals. She said the project was not included in the capital estimates until 2010 -11 although the provincial government had signed multi -year agreements with a successful bidder in September 2009. The deal with the contractor included a commitment to make annual payments of roughly $5.1 million for a 30 -year period. "The legislative assembly had no opportunity to debate this commitment in advance of the decision being made," the report said. "In our view, government should obtain approval of the legislature through the budget process before a multi -year P3 contract is signed." Questions over costs The auditor general also raised questions over the project's cost savings touted by the government. The department said the P3 project would save $12.5 million compared to the traditional approach of building a school. The auditor general's report offered a different view, however. The report said the provincial government inflated the costs of maintenance and other life -cycle costs. The department estimated those costs would be $23.7 million compared to the $9.5 million cited by the auditor general. When those differences are factored in, the auditor general's report said the traditional method would actually have saved $1.7 million 158 Media Release F.',',R !'AAMEMATE RELEASE flarnVoTs veastewmter isperations inave sigirti,flicantly imp-woved HAMILTON. ON — filarch 31, 2008 — Fz�f -ne tttrd year sinow. , ter a g ta n't -s in-h,. in 20,D5. immmvng year a�qr perfc;7.TP-Me ":as t.Oar: i�attar thar One prev±aus �2 year a.` "rape wlrle- e-nnanced. Pe7fer-mance. !`'e V•3 treat'r-er,41 fadiifins in-no-iise. The ��vt -.Utj,;7es tle ---pprfa..,v.*;#rate imangs car year frorn 2CC;7 as a rptsvi',, c,-i in4miume, Year Sudget Allocatuor! Appm 1favinspir i Millions 7 91^' 7,70 20 2007 3C 49 2.34 7.7'i r--- TWa 1 $6.09 — 4A9 521AItl Me �',ItY e Hivn4tor has expwien. ed severs: �-!�;n ficant ac!i5everne7m zmrus: SYMOTS ha'Ave carsist.ently jmpn:�a.- Tc the the Safe Dr., with the regu.atv�i requ; ents am M.Mng Writer Ad. Stal �ave �ceer. SL43.0assf-J! !r, A-ZhlevLng, ccns�sten` prz;;ress., approacNng pe..e t n it ite via ter systsns t_ ensure t.,at has a safe an-j re:'ab-'s drin%!n; water %�;Pzy. A faw inspection rafing Ims 1,Mt mean that Vie dwP*;n2 walar by the systerr .,s unsafe however it Wes inOwse thS - .ogres = whic• tnere s nom, for .,.,prveem. envl, ir; the sysste-r V rree'..-+r.,g the The foftmviig -,ha the resals cf the :nspecl-cr, fnings f6r fl is past Inme years. Drinki-q.; V, 2 MEMO Want Ca5ve VAW-11 SuP21y Linden. S, In NOT The Vlt+ nvinieu6Z iniVa'k AcN,-ri. R-an tarrets cased .W mrgevs area set r-,� ft .n # 'r rn!r1IsSfO.n O'Ci hE'P Mu7�--apaO'es reA tema,20nal J:,,� cc �.jCC. �AZr:��LX In 3r- qFff2r'& to rernviste. lhee 7h 25 mzrths sfr,::e te ourent ir th-e�:z 21 year:-! cf ce the Weldemanw- 159 P, or to 20w 5, t!1231 Doane. <or3s of �e '�y`s . -ister ar.j ,ves`ewat ?- fao[^.,tes were outs u ed a ,-h-,,,ate o ^" ` J years. 2454, as th3 von. }rah oa7ne M- fnr renswa', a Ora,, Sery -se A �r -e wry � fas �!evel .pe ;or znvate oporatcrs to fit -Z on. V e -4cjs dual ±a���e and ajsn :tattve !_,bjeutives 3n' pe,4 nanoe tari;ets were 'dent.x�eG ^ the agree -.W4. +°t. d -s th �4 the F in .i�t .,1.n ,.! h (, .y �a ',�UE.'tC1 in-house � Tri:,ti.' u,.e .��w�a:+/. 1 '�1.a�M �'4 th� 'I��.th.' ���t �.; f�+sGsas ±'R�'' lJG �3tin� ia. 1,1i!r, i/'�rrt�' i�v'.+�5 and C n«•, direz; ed sta":; IC coerate #I'e fk' ities ,.r, r,.z=.rd9ri' with � the S'aradar -4a ca7,1 ^szje."„~ te5 :)l:`!i ^ed :"1 +re Draf` Ssntice Afire # n--n1e and to an ari.,%4 wncrt ;art Cor'4''?;owing 1:?e a tua' ceC`a-rr?aa""ce of C]�' rat Cr'S �fl dose Std. ^.�:a. "LAS Gt.i''.r t' t!'e i "e '^" 'ri. —he 20, ;: %' annua; re Cr. cas a Msente: to Pia' '!V0 kS :.OM,M, -n;:tee today c,Infi-T.ew that the Servte gig- eeme ^,t targets and of ectiv", for 2,"17 have AbSen asn`erted Ar<th sigr iMcan+ CoSt szv;nus. In `ll.e Agroei- ,en,t, ir;:e -!I-e pay- ner,"s `neee o:it.:ne,4 F6 prvate operaa'a,,S IC as' ;eve a «,other >eveE CF per`or a ^Ce: it a prsvete opBratur .vas s" operat n e fac lines ar'd a- h:evel tl' e se-ne hig "er ]eve,' Y perfcnmar; a as tr.e Vty ',s zurremiy ao^ ev rg, the opera':cr ^eer M,-,t rlea to 9 Total of $594 'i� G over t� :ee yearn �r�: ", y5 to 20 -07. This 's a 4orsideran44 west SaVIi;s tr te "7ne P;:blic Norks Departm.ent is fccused or: Irp emenb. Ig west managerrent pre y e-s to act, eve ccs and seMce eff yian es •r NIe also ba!arcir, ox ;rnpo-re7t scc ai ar:d zr+vimrrrnenta! - as .`es.° said of Stewart, general tMar;ape. of Pub',c ;'vork;a, This report :and derr;cns", tes 1.1-gat we.►- managed services delivered by "he pubk. seo:or can corn ete wan t'�e 'Th't rer= . ca'd rertairsly reTiorces that bnng`!"9 operations of the ware- and wastewater treatment fa ltties i^ -douse has been a success,- said J'T" Harur ., Senior Direc,o- of Wate- and Wastewater it , ^e Putr.k: Works Deoartment. "Ou- we - waired and mQtvated stafx wl!! zont`m:e t4 bu'!d on L.he mo~nen#tim to fU�e- oatim:ze ou." pro asses and achiem ° ..proved starcards are :ost efle- .Vvensn w t!° "?e goo! of reachirc per ion _30_ M,3. d:a Contaez JIrr Ham= 90)c•545-2424 ext. 4483 Serb- Dire tor, Prater and Waste rater PuJ!', -, 4sorKs Department City e, Hamsltcn Hamilton Public Wlowcs — ProWdng services that bring our City to Imo! • E REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL 11 March 2013 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council city of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Rothesay Water Dispute Re: Water Dispute with Rothesay — 1996 Water Supply Agreement Common Council at its meeting of February 4, 2013 authorized the execution of an Agreement with Rothesay, extending the deadline for the City's commencing action against the Town for breach of the 1996 Water Supply Agreement until March 15, 2013. This extension was designed to allow the parties additional time to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute in question. Negotiations have continued successfully and as a result I am recommending execution of the proposed settlement Agreement, a copy of which is attached. The solicitor for Rothesay advises that the Town Manager will likewise be recommending to Rothesay Council at its meeting scheduled for March 11, 2013 the execution of the proposed settlement Agreement. The draft settlement Agreement provides: (1) That Rothesay shall make a one -time payment to the City of $200,000.00 upon execution of the Settlement Agreement. (2) That Rothesay accepts full responsibility of any environmental consequences associated with the "discharge" of City water at the Discharge Points provided that the water discharged is in conformity with the terms of the applicable Approval to Operate issued for the City's system by the Province from time to time. (3) That Rothesay indemnifies the City against claims, actions, damages, etc. made in connection with the discharge of water from the Discharge Points, provided that the water so discharged is in conformity with the terms of the applicable Approval to Operate document issued by the Province for the City's water system, and further provided that any damage or injury in question is not the result of negligence of the City or of its workers, agents or contractors. (4) That the Agreement shall be for a period of for ten years with a single three year extension available at the City's option. 161 (5) That the obligations of Rothesay to accept responsibility for the environmental consequences of the discharge and indemnify the City, survive the expiration of the settlement Agreement. (6) That the parties release each other of any and all claims, etc. either might have against the other under the 1996 Water Supply Agreement. Recommendation: That the proposed settlement Agreement between the City of Saint John and Rothesay, a copy of which is attached, be accepted and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the said Agreement." 1 J. rick Woods, CGA CITY MANAGER 162 AGREEMENT This Agreement made in duplicate copies this _ day of March, 2013. BY AND BETWEEN: ROTHESAY in the County of Kings and Province of New Brunswick, a body corporate, ( "Rothesay ") OF THE FIRST PART - and - THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, a body corporate, ( "Saint John ") OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Village of Renforth ( "Renforth "), for several years, experienced repeated problems arising from its insufficient supply of water, which rendered Renforth unable to meet the demand of the properties of the areas of Renforth known as Kennebecasis Park and Hastings Cove; AND WHEREAS Renforth, owing to its inability to provide a sufficient supply of water to the properties of Kennebecasis Park and Hastings Cove, requested that Saint John assist it by extending Saint John's water system from 733 Rothesay Avenue, its then limit, to the Park Drive entrance of Kennebecasis Park and Hastings Cove; AND WHEREAS Saint John and Renforth subsequently entered into an agreement, dated September 18'', 1996, which was amended on October 7th, 1997 (the "1996 Agreement ") and which is attached as Schedule "A" hereto, under which Saint John agreed to extend its water system for the purpose of providing Renforth, at the metered rates stipulated in Saint John's By- Law Respecting Water and Sewerage, as amended from time to time, an exclusive supply of water that Renforth would purchase and, in turn, distribute via its own water system to the properties of Kennebecasis Park and Hastings Cove; AND WHEREAS the amalgamation of Renforth and Rothesay occurred effective January 1", 1998 pursuant to Regulation 97 -40 under the Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M -22, which resulted in Kennebecasis Park and Hastings Cove becoming part of Rothesay; AND WHEREAS Saint John continued to provide water to Rothesay under the 1996 Agreement until February 8`h, 2011, being the date that Rothesay, without the prior agreement of Saint John, disconnected from Saint John's water system and began providing water to the properties of Kennebecasis Park and Hastings Cove via its own newly extended water system; AND WHEREAS Rothesay's act of disconnecting from Saint John's water system on February 8`h, 2011 without the prior agreement of Saint John, has resulted in a large dead end water main thereby necessitating the discharge of water from Saint John's water system to ensure that those properties still serviced by the extension of the Saint John water system receive a supply of water which complies with applicable regulatory standards, requirements and approvals respecting water quality, as amended from time to time; AND WHEREAS an immediate and cost effective solution to the water's decreased chlorine residuals caused by a dead end water main is to cause water to be discharged from Saint John's water system at locations situated at or about 36 Park Drive and 1726 Rothesay Road and which are more particularly identified in Schedule "B" attached hereto (together, the "Discharge Points "), in order for Saint John to achieve compliance with applicable regulatory standards, 163 requirements and approvals respecting water quality, as amended from time to time, for the ratepayers still serviced by the extension of the Saint John water system; AND WHEREAS Saint John and Rothesay dispute the application of the 1996 Agreement to Rothesay's act of disconnecting from Saint John's water system on February 8th, 2011 without the prior agreement of Saint John; AND WHEREAS Saint John and Rothesay have, notwithstanding their aforesaid differing opinions regarding the legal significance of Rothesay's act of disconnecting from Saint John's water system on February 8`h, 2011, arrived at a mutually acceptable resolution to the dispute respecting the 1996 Agreement, as identified in the immediately preceding recital, in the interest of preserving good relations and demonstrating a spirit of cooperation between Saint John and Rothesay; NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that the parties for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, covenant and agree as follows: Obligations of Rothesay 1. Rothesay shall: a. upon execution of this agreement, make a one -time payment to Saint John in the amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) which shall be accepted by Saint John as full and final compensation for all past, present and future losses and claims under the 1996 Agreement arising from Rothesay's act of disconnecting from Saint John's water system on February 8ffi, 2011 without the prior agreement of Saint John; b. notwithstanding the generality of paragraph a. above, refrain from interfering in any way with Saint John's continuing to provide water to the buildings existing at the date of execution of these presents on Portage Road and Cedar Bank Drive in Rothesay and also to Saint James The Less Anglican Church, which is situated at 1760 Rothesay Road on lands located partially in Rothesay and partially in Saint John, at the metered rates stipulated in Saint John's By -Law Respecting Water and Sewerage, as amended from time to time; c. construct, at its sole and absolute cost and expense, and no later than June 30`h, 2013, infrastructure owned and controlled by Rothesay, the purpose of which is to accept all of the water discharged by Saint John at the Discharge Points; d. physically connect the infrastructure referred to in paragraph c. to Saint John's water system at the Discharge Point located in Saint John approximately 70 metres southeast of civic number 36 Park Drive, so as to accept all of the water there discharged, and transmit it directly and exclusively to water, sewer, drainage or other infrastructure owned and operated by Rothesay; e. physically connect the infrastructure referred to in paragraph c. to Saint John's water system at the Discharge Point located at or about civic number 1726 Rothesay Road so as to accept all of the water there discharged, and transmit it directly and exclusively to water, sewer, drainage or other infrastructure owned and operated by Rothesay; f. install on the infrastructure referred to in paragraph c. an adequate backflow mechanism to the satisfaction of the Chief City Engineer in order to protect the safety of Saint John's water supply; g. at all times, maintain and operate the infrastructure referred to in paragraph c. at Rothesay's sole and absolute cost and expense; h. provided that the water discharged at the Discharge Points from the City's water system is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Approval to Operate 164 the City's Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Facilities (or any document by which the Approval to Operate might be replaced or supplemented from time to time) as issued under the authority of by Province of New Brunswick, accept and does hereby accept liability and responsibility for any and all water that is discharged from Saint John's water system at the Discharge Points for however long it is discharged, the discharge of which Rothesay shall not at any time stop, interrupt or otherwise interfere with without the prior consent and written agreement of Saint John's Common Council or in the case of imminent risk of injury to persons or damage to property, the Chief City Engineer; i. notwithstanding paragraph h. above, refrain from using, permitting or facilitating the use of water accepted by Rothesay from Saint John at the Discharge Points, for human consumption and refrain from reconnecting its water system to Saint John's water system without the prior consent and written agreement of Saint John's Common Council; notwithstanding the generality of paragraph h. above, and provided that the water discharged at the Discharge Points from the City's water system is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Approval to Operate the City's Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Facilities (or any document by which the Approval to Operate might be replaced or supplemented from time to time) as issued under the authority of the Province of New Brunswick i. accept and does hereby accept liability and take full and complete responsibility for all environmental problems, issues or violations of any applicable statutes or regulations, be they federal or provincial, resulting from, related to or in any way connected with the discharge of water accepted by Rothesay from Saint John at the Discharge Points; ii. pay for any and all costs, including legal fees, incurred by Saint John as a result of a quasi - criminal /regulatory or criminal prosecution(s) for violations of any applicable statutes or regulations, be they federal or provincial, resulting from, related to or in any way connected with the discharge of water accepted by Rothesay from Saint John at the Discharge Points, and iii. immediately reimburse Saint John the exact amount of any fine(s) imposed by a court, or jointly submitted to a court by the parties, as a consequence of violations of any applicable statutes or regulations, be they federal or provincial, resulting from, related to or in any way connected with the discharge of water accepted by Rothesay from Saint John at the Discharge Points; k. provided that the water discharged at the Discharge Points from the City's water system is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Approval to Operate the City's Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Facilities (or any document by which the Approval to Operate might be replaced or supplemented from time to time) as issued under the authority of the Province of New Brunswick, indemnify and save Saint John harmless from and against all actions, causes of action, proceedings, whether civil, quasi- criminal/regulatory or criminal, claims brought against and demands made of Saint John, and from and against all losses, costs damages, fees or expenses (including legal fees and expenses) suffered or incurred by Saint John by reason of any damage to property, including but not limited to property of Saint John, or injury, including injury resulting in death, to persons including the employees, servants, agents, licensees and invitees of Saint John, caused by, resulting from or in any way related to or connected with the discharge of water accepted by Rothesay from Saint John at the Discharge Points, unless such damage or injury is the result of negligence of the City, its servants, agents, employees, workmen or contractors. 165 4 Obligations of Saint John 2. Saint John shall: a. monitor weekly the chlorine levels of the water accepted by Rothesay from Saint John at the Discharge Points and, in the event that chlorine residual levels are found to exceed .7 mg/L, immediately advise Rothesay of such exceedance and respond promptly to reduce that level to not more than 1.0 mg/L; b. deliver to Rothesay's infrastructure at the Discharge Points only that volume of water that is necessary for the quality of the water distributed via the extension of Saint John's water system to comply with applicable regulatory standards, requirements and approvals respecting water quality, as amended from time to time. Licence 3. (a) Rothesay hereby grants to the City and its servants, agents, employees, workmen and contractors, together with vehicles and equipment, permission and licence to enter upon and exit from the lands on which the Discharge Points are located, for the purposes of establishing, operating, maintaining, repairing and replacing the piping, equipment, structures or facilities owned or operated by the City at the Discharge Points, during the Term hereof. (b) Saint John hereby grants to Rothesay and its servants, agents, employees, workmen and contractors, together with vehicles and equipment, permission and licence to enter upon and exit from the lands on which the Discharge Point which is located approximately 70 metres southeast of 36 Park Drive, is situated, for the purposes of discharging its obligations hereunder. Release 4. The parties acknowledge the sufficiency of the consideration, as set out in this agreement, and hereby remise, release and forever discharge each other and their respective agents, officers, employees, successors and assigns of and from any and all damages, demands, costs, causes or manner of action, claims of every nature and kind whatsoever, which one party may have had against the other under the 1996 Agreement. Performance 5. Both parties agree to do everything necessary to ensure that the terms of this agreement take effect. Non Performance 6. The failure on the part of either party to exercise or enforce any right conferred upon it under this agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such right or operate to bar the exercise or enforcement thereof at any time or times thereafter. Remedies 7. Upon default by either party under any terms of this agreement, and at any time after the default, either party shall have all rights and remedies provided by law and by this agreement. No delay or omission by either party in exercising any right or remedy shall operate as a waiver of them or of any other right or remedy, and no single or partial exercise of a right or remedy shall preclude any other or further exercise of them or the exercise of any other right or remedy. Furthermore, either party may remedy any default by the other party in any reasonable manner without waiving the default remedied and without waiving any other prior or subsequent default by the defaulting party. All rights and remedies of each party granted or recognized in this agreement are cumulative and may be exercised at any time and from time to time independently or in combination. 166 5 Term 9. Unless the City advises Rothesay in writing of an earlier expiration, the term of this agreement shall be a period of ten (10) years commencing on the date of its execution, provided that the City may in its sole discretion extend the term once for a further three (3) years upon advice in writing to Rothesay prior to the expiration of the term. Survival of Provisions 10. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, Rothesay hereby acknowledges and agrees that the provisions of sections lh, lj, and lk herein survive the expiration of this agreement. Reference to Prior Agreements 11. This agreement supersedes and takes the place of the 1996 Agreement. Amendments 12. No change or modification of this agreement shall be valid unless it be in writing and signed by each party in compliance with the requirements of the Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M -22. Further documents 13. The parties agree that each of them shall, upon reasonable request of the other, do or cause to be done all further lawful acts, deeds and assurances whatever for the better performance of the terms and conditions of this agreement, provided that all reasonable costs with respect to the same shall be paid for by the requesting party. Governing Law 14. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of New Brunswick. Independent Legal Advice 15. The parties each acknowledge having obtained their own independent legal advice with respect to the terms of this agreement prior to its execution. Successors and assigns 16. This agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding on the respective successors and permitted assigns of each of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement the day of March, 2013. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of 167 ROTHESAY Mayor Clerk Council Resolution Date: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Mayor Assistant Common Clerk Common Council Resolution Date: 168 TMS AGRMaNT made this /9 day of Septembers 1996. BY AND BETWEEN: and THE VILLAGE OF RENFORM in the County of Kings and Province ofNew Bru unvicdcs abody corporates hereinafter called the "Village" OF TM ONE PART - and - TBE CITY OF SAINT JOHN in the County of Saint John and Proving of New Bnmswicl, a body corpora* hereinafter called the "City" OF THE OTAHFH PART WEIEREAS the Village has requested a supply of potable water from the City; WEEMS the City has agreed to provide such supply of potable water; and WHEREAS to provide such supply ofpotable water the City must extend its water supply system from its present limit at 733 Rothesay Avenue to the City/Village boundary on Rothemy Road and Park Drives and the Village must construct a water supply system within its boundaries; and WHEREAS the City and the Village have agreed to a cost sharing arrangement with respect to the supplying of potable water; and WMMAS the Honourable Minister of the EUvi1Dnnaent of the Province ofNew Brunswick has expressed the Province's willingness to cost share in the afbreWd project; NOW TMREFORE T'MR AGREEMWINT V TTNEMT'Jf that in consideration ccf the premises and the mu bW Uth and confidence of the parries hereto, the parties hereby cowanant and agree as follows; 1. The City agrow to the angagement of Godfrey Associates Ltd by the Village of Ran&rth, to design the project, prepare the tender docauments and for inspection services during construction, Page i of 6 169 2. The project will be constructed by the City and shalt include the construction of it 300 Hurt watermain and appurtenances from the City's Misting water system on Rathesay Avenue, Senerally within the rights Of way of Rothesay Avenue and Rothesay Road, to the City boundaries on Rathesay Road and Park Drive, and necessary watamWn and appurtanances beyond the City boundary to connect to the Village's existing water distribution system. The work will also include the appropriate number of hydrants along Rothesay Road as weU as 25 man venter services laterals from be main to the property rise of buildings on lots immediately adjaoent to Rothesay Road. ReinQtatement imiading appropriate padding and full width resurfacing of City streets affiCied, with 40mm asphalt seal, wilt be included in the project cost and will be poforrned in 1997. 3, The City shall be responsible for appro)dmatelyy 75 meters of 300 mm watermain and appurtenances beyond the City boundary on Rothesay Road. 4. The City shall pay, subject to reimbursement as provided for in paragraph 8 hereof; all costs to execute the work described in paragraph 2. 5. The consultant, Godfrey Associates Ltd., will provide the City with progress claims for the contractor on a monthly basis, and any other cost' inornaation relative to work, which may be required by the City. 6. The work will be designed and constructed to City of Saint John standards and all subject to the approval of'tha Chief City Engineer. 7. The cost of the project shall consist of the cost of executing the work described in paragraph 2, including engineering cost. 8. 1. (a) The City shall be responsnble for 28% ofthe oust of the.project as defined in paragraph 7 hereofto a mLxiw a of $359,250.00. (b) It is anticipated that the Province shall reimburse to the City soy* of the cost of the project to a maximum of $750,000.000 in accordance with the letter from the Honourable Minister ofthe Enviro=en% dated September 5, 1996, wbich is attached hereto as Schedule'W. ( c ) The Village shall be responsible far the balance ofthe cost of the project. 2.. (a) The City shall bill the Village and the Province ofNew Brunswick Page 2 of 6 170 on a periodic basis, such billings, .subject to parWaph 8(2)(b), to reflect a 28 %, 50% and 22% division of responsibrility fir the cost of the project between the City, the Province and the Village respectively, (b) Once the City's contribution has reached its maximum amount as identified in paragraph 8(1)(a) hereof the balance of the cost ofthe project shall be billed to the Wage and the Province with the Village hereby expressly acknowledging responsWity for reimbursing to the City that portion ortion of the cost of the project which' exceeds the amount identified in paragraph 8 (1((a) plus the actual contribution of the province pursuant to Schedule "N' (a) The Village shall pay to the City those bills submitted to it pursuant to paragraph 8(2)(d) within thirty (30) days of r"pt. The Village shaIl pay iuttwest at the prime rate charged by the Baas ofNova Sao* on any bill not paid within the said thirty (30) days. It is anticipated that the Province shall pay to the City those bills submitted to it pursuant to paragraph 8 (2)(a) in. accorda= with the said Schedule W. 3. Interest expenses calculated at the prime rate charged by the Bank of Nova Scotia from time to time and inmrred by the City from the beginning of construction until the proceeds are received by the City from the New Brunswick Municipal Finance Corporation, in respect to long term finwu jag arrangements for the project shall be shared equally between the City and the Villages The City shell bill the Village on a monthly basis for the latter's share under this subparagraph and the Village shill pay the same within thirty (3 0) days of receipt of billings. The Village shall pay interest at the prime rate charged by the Bank ofNova Scotia on any bill not paid with the said thirty (30) days. 4. The City is responsible for 50 % of the cost of the work as described in paragraph 3 with the rrovince being responsible for the other 50 % pur Cant to Schedule "A" 9. A. meter supplied by the City and a bads flow prevention device supplied by the Village, and approved by the Chief City Engineer are to be installed at the end of the City's waterkine, and before the distnbution system in Kmebecasis Park The meter is to be installed as per the City's By -Law respecting water and sewerage, Page 3 of 6 171 10. Tire Village shall: 1. Supply, install and rr 6Adn two 35mm water services eomrmencmg at the curb stops situate at the Park Drive right of way boundary, for the purpose of servicing those properties within the Village limits which are located on Portage Road and Cedar Bank Drive; 2. Arrange to have kstalied a water meter provided by the City at each of the properties serviced by the roaster services described In subparagraph 1 hereof;, 3. Pay to the City any and all rates and chargers set out in the City's By-Law respecting water and sewerage as its erdsts from time to time slated to the properties identified in subparagraph 1 hereof as though those properties were subject to the said By -Law. 11. Through discussion with the Village, the Chief City Engineer will notify the village when it is able to utilize the nearly constructed water system. Thia date will be known as the start date. 12. As oftho start data, the Village, shalt„ subject to panWaph 13 hereof comply with all provisions of the City's By Law respeding water and sewerage as it exists from time to time, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing those relating to rates and charges as though the Village were a customer under that By -Law. 13. 1. For each successive twelve (12) month period during the tan (10) years immediately following the City's receipt of proceeds from the New Brunswick Ulmicdpal Finance Corporation in rasped to the project, the total amount which the Vn7 p is required to pay the City puruant to this Amt, "I in no event, be less than the actual cost to the City, for each such period respectively, to service the debt (which includes payw=b of both principal and interest) arising pursuant paragraph 8(1)(a), less any n e nue owed to the City from serviced water customers to the system between 733 Rothesay Avenue and the City1Vzllage border. 2. in the event that the total amount blued to the Village pursuant to paragraph 12 $or each succesaive twelve (12) month period during the tarn (10) years immediately following the City's receipt of proceeds from the New Brunswicic Municipal Finance Corporation with respect to the project is less than the amount identified in paragraph 13(1) theft the diffe=e shalt be billed to the VdNge and sbali be payable within 30 days of receipt. Tine Village shall pay.interest at the prime rate charged by the Bank of Nova Scotia on any bill not paid within the said thirty (30) days. Page 4 of fi 172 14. 1. The Village hereby acknowledges the sole ownership in the City of Saint John of the watermain and appurtenances installed pursuant to this Agreement lying witfi City limits as well as the approximately 75 m ofwatermain described in paragraph 3 lying with in the Village limits. 2. The Village shalt execute a He em in favour ofthe City for the operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of tba aforesaid approximately 75 in of watermain. 3. The Village hereby accepts sole responsibility for inaintei*g the portion of the 25 mm water service$ identified in paragraph 10 which he within the City limits. 15. The City may at any time arraage to treat, or have treated, the water delivered to the Village of Remforih in order to meet specific requirements as determined by the City, 16. The Village will not sell water delivered by the City to any other municipality. 17 T% Village shall nit, after The start date, provide water to rilizem in Rminebecads: Park and Hastings Cove from any source othertban the City. 18. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to be a guarantee of an uninterrupted water supply or a sufficient or uniform water pressure. 19, The City shall not be liable for any damage or injury caused or done by reason of the interruption of guupply, operation, variation, in prepEum, or on the account of turning off or turning on of water, or drawing of a vacuum on the system by fire pumpers. 20. Failure ofthe City to supply water stlgulated for herein caused by Act of God, dimimrtion of the source of supply of water from natural uses, breakdown in the system or for any other reason other than negligence of the City or its employees, workmen or agents shalt not operate as a breach of'this Agreement, but in any of such events the City shall with all due dispatch use its best endeavors to restore the supply of water for the Vi'llage's requirements thereafter. 21. Any notice required, or otherwise, shall be in writing and in the case of the City ;given to the City at P. 4. Box 1971, Saint John, N. B. E2L 4L1, Attention Common Clerk and in the case of the Village at 95 Shore Road, Refforth, N, B, B2H 1K7, Attention Village Cie& 22 Time shall be ofthe essence. 23. The laws ofthe Province of New Brunswick shall govern. Page 5 of 6 173 24. This Agreement shall be read with aU changes of gender or number as required by the context. 25. This Agreement and any agreement of sale shall extend to and be binding upon and enure, to the benefit ofthe City and the Village, their successors and permitted assigns. IlN't MCNESS VaWREOF the parties hereto have executed these prese= the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED ) THE VILLAGE OF REIFORTH Page 6 of 6 174 ) May6r 0 D ) ) couna Resolution September 18, 1996 )TEE CITY OF SAINT JOHN ley MCAJO, Mayor j Mary L. rd, common Oferk )Common Council Resolution September 23, 1996 p� a °�e 1t%u emau SCHEDULE j�►' Nouveau j► ,22sui September 6, 1996 File No. 7064 -S12 Mayor Shirley McAlary Clty of Saint John F. 0. Box 1971 Saint Joan, N8 E2L 4L1 Dear Mayor McAlary: RE: City of Saint Jahn Water Una Extension to Renforth This is further to my fetter dated July 23, 1996 concomfng funding for a water lime extension to the Village of Renforth. i am pleased to inform you that the Province is prepared to cost share 509 of the revised $1.5M total aoct of this project. Th® provincial funding will lee pravfded In 1896 -97 and 1997.98. I congratulate you and your Councii for reaching this Important Agreement. Sincerely, �VAUGH 6 M BLANEY Minister /pl cc Laureen Jarrett, MLA Village of Renforth i rrl.✓ra one. 006) (90� p�c/r67fr�p► cur: 4,513337% 175 VtCjkW=Vn FWdedcm„ rPCw Bmam ek NOUMV41ymwkk Cauw& QE %Hi C--ft loss", PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK. COUNTY OF KINGS I, JOAN FITZGERALD, of the Village of Renforth, in the County of Kings and the Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATS, AND SAY THAT: I . I am the Clerk for the Village ofRertforth and as such, am authorized by the said Village ofRenforth to make this affidavit, 2. The seal aced to the foregoing Agreement, purporting to be the corporate seal of the said Village of Renforth is the corporate seal of the said Village of Renforth and was aced thereto by authority ofthe said VM Me. 3. The signature " Terrance J. Kalfoil " and the signature U. Fitzgerald" subscribed to the said Agreement are the signatures of the said Terrance I. Moil and Joan Fitzgerald, and such persons are duly authorized by the said Village of Renforth to execute the said Agreement. SWORN TO at the Village of } Renforth, in the County of Kings and ) Provinoe of New Brunswick, this 18th ) day of September, 1996. } BEFORE MB: ) Richard A. Northrup } A COMMISSIONER OF OATHS ) BRING A SOLICITOR 176 Joart Fitzgerald PROVINCB OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN 1, MARY L. MUNPORD, of the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY: - 1. THAT I am the Common Clerk of the City of Saint John and have cu wdy of the Common Seal hereof. 2. THAT the Seal to the aforegoing instr!ment affixed is the Common Seal of the said The City of Saint John and that it was so affixed by Order of the Common Council of the said City. 3. THAT the signature "Shirley McAlary" to the said instrument is the signature of Shirley IvMcAlaiy, Mayor of the said City, and the signature "Mary L. Munfiord" thereto is my own Signature. 4. THAT we are the proper officers to sign the aforegoing instrument on behalf of The City of Saint John. SWORN TO at the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, this di 4W day of September, 1996. PP-- - r IA ' r atlas, Being a Solicitor 177 ..... , 1997. THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT made this day of October, BY AND BETWEEN: THE VILLAGE OF RENFORTH, of the County of Kings and Province of New Brunswick, a body corporate, hereinafter called the "Village" OF THE ONE PART - and - THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, hereinafter called the "City" OF THE OTHER PART WHEREAS the parties hereto executed an Agreement dated the 18th day of September, 1996 respecting the extension of City water services to a portion of the Village; and WHEREAS the Village has requested that the Agreement be amended so as to permit the Village to establish an additional water service connected to the City's water main located in Rothesay Road, as will more fully appear herein; and WHEREAS Common Council of the City by resolution adopted at a public meeting of Council held on September 22, 1996 acceded to the aforesaid request of the Village; WHEREAS the Village has made provision for the expenditure in 1997 of the funds necessary to undertake the activity described in paragraph l hereof, pursuant to Section 87(2) of the Municipalities Act, Chapter M -22 R.S.N.B. 1973 as amended; 178 - 3 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first above written, SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED ) THE VILLAGE OF RENFORTH w AA PAAJ- JO Terrence 1. Kilfoil ayor ) } : 7. F gerAM, lerk C ciI Resolution: GTE l997, > TAE CITY OF SAINT JOHN jV egf 4S* MCAJ , Mayof } Mary L. unford, CornVon Clerk Common Council Resolution: } ) September 22, 1997 179 PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF KINGS I, JOAN FITZGERALD, of the Village of Renforth, in the County of Kings and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT: 1. I am the Clerk for the Village of Renforth and as such, am authorized by the said Village of Renforth to make this affidavit. 2. The seal affixed to the foregoing Amending Agreement, purporting to be the corporate seal of the said Village of Renforth is the corporate seal of the said Village of Renforth and was affixed by authority of the said Village. 3. The signature "Terrence J. Kilfoil" and the signatufe "J. Fitzgerald" subscribed to the said Amending Agreement are the signatures of the said Terrance J. Kilfoil and Joan Fitzgerald, and such persons are duly authorized by the said Village of Renforth to execute the said Amending Agreement. SWORN TO at the Village of Renforth, in the County of Kings and Province o Ne w MN. � y of Before me: A Commissioner of aths Being a Solicitor Jo V Fitzlgerald E PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN I, MARY L. MUNFORD, of the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY: - 1. THAT I am the Common Clerk of the City of Saint John and have custody of the Common Seal hereof. 2. THAT the Seal to the aforegoing instrument affixed is the Common Seal of the said The City of Saint John and that it was so affixed by Order of the Common Council of the said City. 3. THAT the signature "Shirley McAtary" to the said instrument is the signature of Shirley McAtary, Mayor of the said City, and the signature "Mary L. Munford" thereto is my own signature. 4. THAT we are the proper officers to sign the aforegoing instrument on behalf of The City of Saint John. SWORN TO at the City of Saint - John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, this 1444day of Qetebcr, 9mu BEFORE ME: o ' sioner f aths, Being a Solicitor 181 W � ,Yr n, Iff fl, AN �. '4f*