The URL can be used to link to this page

2014-11-24_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourr. City of Saint John Common Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, November 24, 2014 6:00 pm Council Chamber Please use Chipman Hill entrance S'il vous plait utiliser 1'entree Chipman Hill Si vous avez besoin des services en francais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal au 658 -2862. 1. Call to Order - Prayer 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of November 3, 2014 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest Pages 2 -6 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 2015 Common Council Meeting Schedule (Recommendation: Approve 2015 7 - 8 Meeting Schedule) 5.2 Saint John Amateur Speed Skating Club - Sponshorship Request 9 - 11 (Recommendation: Approve $250 Sponshorship from Unspecified Grants) 5.3 D. Robichaud Letter: Support for Option 3 - Curbside Recycling and Composting 12-12 (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 5.4 2015 Water & Sewer Utility Capital & Operating Budgets (Recommendation in 13-57 Report) 5.5 Proposed Public Hearing Date - 431 Eldersley Avenue (Recommendation in 58-58 Report) 5.6 Initiate Street Closure and Subsequent Sale of Sears Street (Recommendation 59-63 in Report) 1 Powered BY: XI?IBE 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations / Presentations 8.1 Simonds High School - Duke of Edinburgh's Award Presentations 64-64 9. Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m. 10. Consideration of By -laws 10.1 Third Reading - Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment - 1808 Hickey Road 65-67 10.2 Proposed Section 39 Conditions - 168 -172 Belmont Street 68-72 10.2.1 Third Reading - Zoning ByLaw Amendment - 168 -172 Belmont Street 73-74 10.2.2 Section 39 Conditions - 168 -172 Belmont Street 75-75 10.3 Third Reading - A ByLaw to Amend a ByLaw Respecting Water and Sewerage 76-76 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Energy East Pipeline (Mayor Norton) 77-77 11.2 Saint John Go Bike Project (Councillor Norton) 78-79 11.3 City of Saint John Sunshine List (Councillor Norton) 80-81 11.4 City of Saint John Collective Agreements (Councillor Norton) 82-82 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 Guidelines for Common Council Referrals 83-107 12.2 Funding Flemming Court Park 108-116 12.3 Engagement of Planning and Engineering Consultant: Transportation Strategic 117-120 Plan - Phase 1 12.4 PRO Kids Committee - Terms of Reference - Amendment 121 -126 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Saint John Police Force - Public Opinion Survey 127-246 13.2 Saint John Development Corporation - Asset Management - Market Square 247-249 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 1 15. General Correspondence 16. Supplemental Agenda 16.1 Future Greater Saint John Letter re: True Growth 2.0 250-251 16.2 ZoneSJ Draft ByLaw (Verbal) 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Committee of the Whole - Distraint of Rent 252-252 17.2 Committee of the Whole - Field House at Exhibition Park 253-253 18. Adjournment 3 City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, November 24, 2014 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal au 658 -2862. Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private pursuant to the provisions of subsection 10.(2)(4) of the Municipalities Act and Council / Committee will make a decision(s) in that respect in Open Session: 4:30 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Approval of Minutes 10.2(4) 1.2 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.3 Land Matter 10.2(4)(d) 1.4 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) 1.5 Personal Matter 10.2(4)(b) 1.6 Legal Matter 10.2(4)(b,f,g) The City of Saint John S6ance du conseil communal Le lundi 24 novembre 2014 CornW pknier 1. Ouverture de la seance Si vous souhaitez obtenir des services en fran�ais pour une reunion du Conseil communal, veuillez communiquer avec le bureau du greffier communal au 658 -2862. Chacun des points suivants, en totalite ou en partie, peut faire 1'objet d'une discussion en prive en vertu des dispositions prevues au paragraphe 10.2(4) de la Loi sur les municipalites. Le conseil/comite prendra une ou des decisions a cet 6gard au cours de la seance publique 16 h — Salle de conf6rence, 8e Rage, h6tel de ville 1 Approbation du proces- verbal — paragraphe 10.2(4) 2 Questions relatives a 1'emploi — alinea 10.2(4)j) 3 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alin6a 10.2(4)d) 4 Question financiere — alin6a 10.2(4)c) 5 Question relative au personnel — alin6a 10.2(4)b) 6 Question juridique — alin6a 10.2(4)b), f), g) S6ance ordinaire Ouverture de la reunion, suivie de la priere 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 2.1 Proces- verbal du 3 novembre 2014 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour 4. Divulgations de conflits d'int6rets 5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 5.1 Calendrier des reunions du conseil communal pour 2015 (recommandation approuver le calendrier des reunions pour 2015) 5.2 Club de patinage de vitesse amateur de Saint John — Demande de parrainage (recommandation : approuver le parrainage, a hauteur de 250 $, a meme le fonds de subventions non precise) 5.3 Lettre de D. Robichaud soutenant la troisieme option — Recyclage et compostage (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.4 Budgets de fonctionnement et d'immobilisations des services publics d'eau et d'egouts de 2015 (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.5 Date proposee pour les audiences publiques visant le 431, avenue Eldersley (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.6 Fermeture initiale et vente subsequente de la rue Sears (recommandation figurant au rapport) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations et presentations 8.1 Ecole secondaire Simonds — Remise du Prix du Duc d'Edimbourg 9. Audiences publiques a 18 h 30 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 10.1 Troisieme lecture du projet de modification du plan municipal visant le 1808, chemin Hickey 10.2 Modification proposee aux conditions imposees par I'article 39 visant les 168 -172, rue Belmont 10.2.1 Troisieme lecture du projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage relatif aux 168 -172, rue Belmont 10.2.2 Conditions imposees par I'article 39 visant les 168 -172, rue Belmont 10.3 Troisieme lecture de I'arrete modifiant I'Arrete concernant les reseaux d'eau et d'egouts 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Energy East Pipeline (maire Norton) 11.2 Projet « Go Bike » de Saint John (conseiller Norton) 11.3 Liste devoilant la remuneration des employes de The City of Saint John (conseiller Norton) 11.4 Conventions collectives de The City of Saint John (conseiller Norton) 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Directives pour les renvois au Conseil communal 12.2 Financement du parc de la cour Flemming 12.3 Embauche d'un expert - conseil en urbanisme et en ingenierie — Plan strategique en matiere de transport, phase 1 12.4 Modification apportee au mandat du Comite P.R.O. Jeunesse 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 13.1 Service de police de Saint John — Sondage d'opinion publique 13.2 Saint John Development Corporation — Gestion des biens — Market Square 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance generale 16. Ordre du jour supplementaire 16.1 Lettre de Future Greater Saint John au sujet de la croissance reelle 2.0 16.2 ZoneSJ — Arrete provisoire (rapport verbal) 17. Comite plenier 17.1 Comite plenier — Saisie de loyers 17.2 Comite plenier — Complexe sportif a Exhibition Park 18. Levee de la seance 99- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 3, 2014/LE 3 NOVEMBRE 2014 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — NOVEMBER 3, 2014 - 6:00 P.M. Present: Mel Norton, Mayor Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Farren, Fullerton, Lowe, MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon and Strowbridge - and - P. Woods, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; G. Yeomans, Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; W. Edwards, Commissioner of Transportation and Environment Services; J. Hamilton, Commissioner Growth and Development Services; A. Poffenroth, Deputy Commissioner Building and Inspection Services; D. Cowan, Seargent -at -Arms; K. Clifford, Fire Chief; J. Taylor, Common Clerk; K. Tibbits, Administrative Assistant Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Norton called the meeting to order and Deputy Mayor Rinehart offered the opening prayer. 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved with the addition of items 16.1 ZoneSJ Council Q &A; 17.1 Municipal Services — Beach Road; 17.2 Municipal Services — Ashburn Road; 17.3 Extension — Secondment Agreement — Fred Blaney; and 17.4 Special Committee of the Whole Closed Meeting. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report Replacement — Core /T Network and Server Equipment Common Council: 1. Approve the purchase of Cisco network equipment from Bell Aliant at a total cost of $143,338 + HST; and 2. Approve the purchase of Cisco UCS Chassis and Blade servers from Softchoice at a total cost of $112,338 + HST. 5.2 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2014- 187: Competition Swimming Pool New Lighting System — Canada Games Aquatic Center (CGAC), the proposal submitted by FCC Construction. in the amount of $117,631 plus HST, for the supply and installation of a new LED lighting system in the pool area be accepted. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Merrithew RESOLVED that the recommendations set out for each consent agenda item respectively be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 6. Members Comments Council members commented on various community events. 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 3, 2014/LE 3 NOVEMBRE 2014 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations /Presentations 8.1 Fundy Regional Service Commission: Waste Diversion Report Analysis Referring to the submitted presentation, Mr. Mark McLeod of the Fundy Regional Service Commission presented on the Waste Diversion Report Analysis and commented on the three options that were considered by the Waste Diversion Committee. On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that item 8.1 Fundy Regional Service Commission Presentation: Waste Diversion Report Analysis, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 9. Public Hearings 10. Consideration of By -laws 11. Submissions by Council Members 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.2 Request for Qualifications Evaluation Process — SCDWP 12.2.1 Presentation: Safe Clean Drinking Water Project: RFQ Shortlisting Process On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Merrithew RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2014 -185: Request or Qualifications Evaluation Process — SCDWP, Council adopt the following resolution: Whereas the City issued a Request for Qualification on July 22, 2014 for the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project; and Whereas six respondents submitted a response to the Request for Qualification; and Whereas all respondents were evaluated against the same evaluation criteria; and Whereas the Request for Qualification provides that the three highest scored respondents will be invited to participate in the Request for Proposal process of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project; and Whereas the three highest scored respondents are Port City Water Partners, Port City Water Partnership and Port City Water Solutions; NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Port City Water Partners, Port City Water Partnership and Port City Water Solutions be invited to participate in the Request for Proposal process of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Referring to the submitted presentation, Mr. Price provided a status update on the evaluation process to Council. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Deputy Mayor Rinehart RESOLVED that the presentation entitled, "Safe Clean Drinking Water Project: RFQ Shortlisting Process ", be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried (Councillor Farren withdrew from the meeting) 3 99- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 3, 2014/LE 3 NOVEMBRE 2014 12.3 Web Cameras and Live Webcam Feeds On motion of Councillor MacKenzie Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report entitled Web Cameras and Live Camera Feeds, Council endorse the portal and current web camera installations, with a vision to expand the portal to include new webcam installations in 2015. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Farren re- entered the meeting) 12.4 Public Space WiFi On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report entitled Public Space WiFi, Council endorse the public space WiFi initiative, extend appreciation on behalf of the City to the 2014 project partners, and support a further expansion of the WiFi network in 2015 based on available City and partner resources. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.1 Zone SJ: Final Draft for Adoption 12.1.1 Appendix C: Complete English Zoning By -law 12.1.2 Appendix D: Complete French Zoning By -law 16.1 ZoneSJ Presentation — Council Q &A The City Manager noted that the information before Council incorporates the direction and decisions made to date and that given the significance of this bylaw, he stressed the importance of Council having a clear understanding of the content of the bylaw and its implications. Ms. Forfar and Mr. O'Hearn jointly presented to members of Council and responded to questions. Upon conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Woods noted the following outstanding issues: • The role of the Planning Advisory Committee • Appeal process of staff decisions • Grannie suites and their location in terms of being outside of the PDA and what is permitted • Off - street parking requirements in the Uptown and how it affects winter operations • Incentives for developers • The issue of 1 '/4 acre lot versus the ten acre lot He suggested that staff provide a report on each of these issues for clarification. Mr. Woods commented on the dominance of the municipal plan over the zoning bylaw, and suggested that those items that can be dealt with under the zoning bylaw versus those that must have a municipal plan amendment, be identified. On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that item 16.1 ZoneSJ Presentation — Council Q &A and item 12.1 ZoneSJ: Final Draft for Adoption, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Norton voting nay. 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 11 98- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 3, 2014/LE 3 NOVEMBRE 2014 15. General Correspondence 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Municipal Services — Beach Road On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on November 3, 2014, Council authorize the continued provision of maintenance services only (grading, sanding, snow removal) to the Beach Road on two conditions: 1) that permission from the owner of the property, in a form satisfactory to the City, to undertake the maintenance activities is obtained by the residents; and, 2) those residents whose properties front on the road release and indemnify the City in a form satisfactory to the City. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Farren voting nay. 17.2 Municipal Services — Ashburn Road On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on November 3, 2014, Council authorize the continued provision of maintenance services only (grading, sanding, snow removal) to Ashburn Road on two conditions: 1) that permission from the owner of the property, in a form satisfactory to the City, to undertake the maintenance activities is obtained by the residents; and, 2) those residents whose properties front on the road release and indemnify the City in a form satisfactory to the City. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Farren and Reardon voting nay. 17.3 Contract Extension — Secondment Agreement with Fred Blaney On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on November 3, 2014 Council adopt the following resolution: The Secondment Agreement that was entered into by resolution of Common Council dated September 16th, 2013 between the City, the Province of New Brunswick and Mr. Fred Blaney be amended by extending the "Term" as defined in Article 1.1 therein, until December 31st, 2016 (with all other terms and conditions remaining unchanged), that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare an Amended Secondment Agreement to give effect to this amendment and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute such Amended Secondment Agreement. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 17.4 Special Committee of the Whole Closed Meeting On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on November 3, 2014 a special meeting of 5 99- COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 3, 2014/LE 3 NOVEMBRE 2014 Committee of the Whole closed be scheduled for Thursday, November 13th, 2014 from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, 8" Floor Boardroom, to discuss a Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c). Question being taken, the motion was carried. 18. Adjournment On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the Common Council meeting of November 3, 2014 be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffier communal X EPOTT TO COMMON COUNCIL .;I The City of Saint John November 17, 2014 Your Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council: SUBJECT: 2015 Common Council Meeting Schedule Attached please find the proposed 2015 Common Council meeting schedule for your review and approval. Respectfully submitted, J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 7 Jonathan Taylor Common Clerk COMMON COUNCIL 2015 MEETING SCHEDULE January 5, 2015 REGULAR MEETING January 12, 2015 * *Only if Required/ no meeting scheduled January 19,2015 REGULAR MEETING January 26, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled February 2, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING February 9, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled February 16, 2015 REGULAR MEETING February 23, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled March 2, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING March 9, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled March 16, 2015 REGULAR MEETING March 23, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled March 30, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING April 7, 2015 (Tuesday) * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled April 13, 2015 REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled April 27, 2015 REGULAR MEETING May 4, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled May 11, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 2015 (Tuesday) * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled May 25, 2015 REGULAR MEETING June 1, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled June 8, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING June 15, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled June 22, 2015 REGULAR MEETING June 29, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled July 6, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING July 13, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled July 20, 2015 REGULAR MEETING July 27, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled August 4, 2015 (Tuesday) REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING August 10, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled August 17, 2015 REGULAR MEETING August 24, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled August 31, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING September 8, 2015 (Tuesday) * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled September 14, 2015 REGULAR MEETING September 21, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled September 28, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING October 5, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled October 13, 2015 (Tuesday) REGULAR MEETING October 19, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled October 26, 2015 REGULAR MEETING November 2, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled November 9, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING November 16, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled November 23, 2015 REGULAR MEETING November 30, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled December 7, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING December 14, 2015 * *Only if Required / no meeting scheduled December 21, 2015 REGULAR MEETING with PUBLIC HEARING December 28, 2015 * *Only if Required/ no meeting scheduled * * Council's Procedural Bylaw allows for a Council and /or Committee of the Whole meeting, as required, on the alternate Monday. Belding, Broc From: Trudi Buote <trudibootie @gmail_com> Sent: November -05 -14 10:00 AM To: Belding, Broc Subject: SJASSC Sponsorship request 2014_docx Attachments: SJASSC Sponsorship request 2014.docx Good morning! Thank you for forwarding this request, on behalf of the Saint John Amateur Speed Skating Club, to the Mayor and Saint John Common Council for urgent consideration at their next meeting. The speed skating season has officially begun in Saint John with all of our club skaters getting hack on the ice in October. We started off with a bang and a bunch of special events: SJASSC Open House October 18, SJASSC FUNdamentals Meet November 1 and the upcoming Charles Gorman Memorial Speed Skating Competition at Harbour Station will be earlier than ever on December 13 -14. In addition, a number of our skaters are continuing to train in both Long Track and Short Track for a place on Team NB at the Canada Winter Games which will be in Prince George BC in February. Can we count on your continued support, as in previous years, of $200 toward an ad in our program for the Charles Gorman meet and the Mayor's welcome letter to the athletes? The sponsorship information is attached, and the previous ad can be updated and used again in this years program. Bronze or higher will put your logo on our newly design Blog which is used by club members throughout the year. Please note that the deadline for reply has been extended to November 30, 2014. Thank you for supporting speed skating in the Saint John area! Sincerely, Trudi Buote Director of Fundraising SJASSC 849 -4880 647 -1769 Sent from my iPad I SAINT JOHN AMATEUR SPEED SKATIING CLUB SJASSC Sponsorship 2014 -15 Would you please consider sponsoring the Saint John Amateur Speed Skating Club? Riding on the Canadian success at the recent Winter Olympics, we wish to seize the opportunity to highlight this sport in our own city! The Saint John Amateur Speed Skating Club (SJASSC) provides the opportunity for youth to participate, learn, enjoy, and excel in the sport of Speed Skating. At every level, fun, friendship, and fitness dominate as each skater strives for their personal best. With determination and the coaching of Olympic medalist, Anouk English, our top skaters are now having success on the national stage! SJASSC nurtures skaters from the beginner stages up to National competitors such as those who will be part of Team New Brunswick in the upcoming 2015 Canada Winter Games. SJASSC proudly hosts The Charles Gorman Memorial Meet at Harbour Station on December 13 -14, 2014. It draws skaters, family members and volunteers from across the Atlantic Provinces. We will also host a FUNdamentals Meet in November for the younger skaters to exhibit their skating skills. All our skaters participate in raising money to help keep registration fees reasonable. Volunteers and Community sponsors play a huge role in enabling us to provide the best quality experience for the skaters. Donations of everything from photocopying and refreshments to raffle and auction prizes are greatly appreciated. In the Medal Sponsorship and Advertising Campaign, each sponsorship level offers different degrees of exposure and advertising. Board pads, which can be printed with your logo and /or company name, are highly visible around the ice surface. We use them for all the practices and meets, including the Charles Gorman Memorial Meet at Harbour Station. They are also used at meets hosted by other clubs. The most important aspect of this sponsorship is that the pads provide cushioning for the inevitable falls and increase the safety for the skaters. Interested in something bigger? How about $1500 -5000 to donate towards the youth of the Saint John area? Perhaps over a few years? We are in search of a major sponsor to partner with for the ice rental of the Charles Gorman Meet and other significant costs. We would love to get together and discuss a win -win platinum partnership. Thank you for taking the time to review and consider this information. SJASSC is a non - profit organization that could not exist without the support of many volunteers and the community. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or to discuss your donation or sponsorship. We are excited about the opportunity for a partnership with you. Learn more at www.sis eedskaters.ca. Respectfully, Trudi Buote SJASSC Director of Fundraising 10 trudibootie(a-gmail.com 9 Lionel Drive Quispamsis, NB E2E 1K3 (506) 849 -4880 SAINT JOHN AMATEUR SPEED SKATING CLUE SJASSC Sponsorship 2014 -15 PLATINUM Sponsor $1504 -5.000 We will work with you to assure appropriate recognition 2 BOARD PADS (4x6 feet), printed with company name or logo - Gold Sponsor Recognition on www.sis eedskaters.ca , facebook and on SJASSC Bulletin Board - FULL PAGE AD in "Charles Gorman Memorial Meet" Program Sli Ek 10er J Sponsor � ;0(1 - 1 BOARD PAD (4x6 feet) printed with company name or logo - Silver Sponsor Recognition on www.sjspeedskaters.ca , facebook and SJASSC Bulletin Board FULL PAGE AD in "Charles Gorman Memorial Meet" Program BRONZE Medal Sponsor $254 - FULL PAGE AD in "Charles Gorman Memorial Meet" Program - Bronze Sponsor Recognition on www.sispeedskaters.ca, facebook and SJASSC Bulletin Board Advertisement in the Charles Gorman Memorial Meet PROGRAM SJASSC will host the Charles Gorman Memorial Meet at Harbour Station December 13 -14, 2014. This meet involves approximately 180 skaters, plus volunteers and family. The program is the guide for the competition and is issued to all skaters and volunteers, and then saved as a keepsake. it is an attractive 8 112 x 11in booklet. You may include coupons, special offers, or messages of encouragement. The Program is printed in black and white with a colour front and back cover. Silent Auction and Raffle Prizes Any donations of items or services, large or small, are gratefully accepted. Some popular ideas: Hotel or Inn Accommodations, Passes for sporting events or Entertainment venues, Restaurant Vouchers, Apparel such as hats and jackets, Specialty Food items, Toys and Books, Sporting Goods, Gift Certificates. Silent Auction items can be delivered right up to the date of the meet, December 13 -14. Please note that the DEADLINE for ADVERTISING is OCTOBER 30, 2014. Name of Company Mailing Address Contact Name_ Telephone Email SPONSORSHIP Platinum $1500 -5000 Gold $1000 Silver $500 Bronze $250 ADVERTISEMENT $200 Full Page (10 "x 7 % ") $100 Half Page (5 "x 7 % ") $50 Quarter Page (either 2'/: "x 7 % " or 5 "x 3 ") 11 _ ' 12 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C 2014 — 203 November 18, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: 2015 Water & Sewer Utility Capital & Operating Budgets The Cite of Saint )ohn At the November 10 meeting of Common Council, Council considered a report from the City Manager with respect to recommended Water and Sewer Utility Capital and Operating budgets. Subsequent to some discussion on the matter, Council resolved to give first and second reading to amend the Water and Sewer By -law to set the water rates for 2015. RECOMMENDATIONS Provided Council is satisfied with the recommended budgets (attached), the following resolutions are in order. It is recommended that Common Council adopt the following: RESOLVED that the estimated revenue for the Water and Sewerage Utility for the year 2015 in the amount of $42,371,000 be adopted (Appendix `B "); 2. RESOLVED that the estimate of expenses for the Water and Sewerage Utility for the 2015 in the amount of $42,371,000 be approved (Appendix "A "); and 3. RESOLVED that the By -Law entitled A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Water & Sewerage (Appendix "C ") be given third reading: Schedules "A" and "B" of the By -law respecting Water and Sewerage be amended to reflect the proposed rates for 2015. 4. RESOLVED that subject to subsection 189 (7) (b) of the Municipalities Act, Common Council authorize the establishment of a capital reserve fund. 13 M & C 2014 — 203 Page 2 November 18, 2014 5. RESOLVED that Common Council approve the 2015 Capital Budget for the Utility Fund in the amount of $12,708,000 (gross) with contributions from other sources of $2,255,000 yielding a Capital budget in the amount of $10,453,000 (net) as set in the attached report. Respectfully Submitted Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. J. Patrick Woods, CGA Commissioner City Manager Saint John Water Attachment: M & C 2014 -188 14 REPORT TO COMA40N COUNCIL M &C2014 -188 November 3, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: 2015 Water & Sewer Utility Capital & Operating Budgets SUBSECTION: 1U My of 5a W Jahn Attached to this narrative, are draft documents for Council's consideration. These are 1) Proposed Water & Sewer Utility Operating Budget 2015; 2) Proposed by -law amendment which will set the rates for 2015 (includes a 4 -year projection) 3) Proposed Water & Sewer Utility Capital Budget 2015. It is anticipated that Council, having reviewed the documents and being satisfied with the information contained therein, will give consideration to adopting the recommendations set out at a subsequent Common Council meeting. With respect to the proposed budgets, the following should be noted: Operating Budget The proposed 2015 Operating budget is essentially status quo in that the service levels mirror very closely those contained in the 2014 budget. There are some changes, however. The following is a listing of the more significant changes being proposed: _r, M &C2014— 188 Page 2 November 3, 2014 2015 2014 Proposed Approved Variance % Increase A42,371,000 $39,097,000 $3,274,000 7.7% 1. Wages & Benefits $311,000 2. Professional Services $84,000 3. Operating Supplies; Mechanical $76,000 Components & Water /Sewer Stock 4. Fleet Charges $50,000 5. Electricity - $120,000 6. Chemicals - $177,000 7. Water Supply -City $200,000 8. Carpentry & Small Equipment Repair $43,000 9. Various other line items (lab supplies; $44,000 land easements; equipment rental 10. General Government Charges $64,000 11. Capital from Operating $2,986,000 12. Reduction in Debt Service Charges - $255,000 Description of Variances I. Wages and Benefit Increase: a) Contract Superintendent's position $41,000 requested for 6 months b) 100% funding for Commissioner's $68,000 position c) Position funded for 6 months due to a $42,000 maternity leave in 2014; fully funded in 2015 d) Addition of Quality Engineer for Safe, $100,000 Clean Drinking Water program e) Request for 2 casual labourers for 16 $60,000 weeks 2. Other Professional Services Increase: a) Funding added for a Combined Sewer $200,000 Separation Strategy required by the Department of Environment -2015 only tll M &C2014— 188 Page 3 Noy -ember 3, 2014 b) Funding decreased as service can now be - 116,000 done in house (new lift stations); levels decreased in other areas based on historical expenditures 3. Operating Supplies, Mechanical Components and Water & Sewer Stock: a) Increases in various operating areas based $76,000 on historical expenditures 4. Fleet Charges: a) Estimate based on new funding model for $50,000 Fleet System 5. Electricity: b) Funding decreased based on -$120,000 enhancements that were done to the Lancaster Lagoon and current expenditures at the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Plant 6. Chemicals: a) Reduction in chemicals -$107 000 7. Water Supply - City: a) Process water required for Eastern $200,000 Wastewater Treatment Facility — Revenue will increase by same amount 8. Carpentry & Small Equipment Repair: a) Funding added to resolve outstanding $43,000 safety items and to fund repairs done by garage on small equipment 9. Various other line items: Variance a) Increase for lab supplies; land easements $44,000 and equipment rental E-0-10 M &C2014 -188 Page 4 November 3, 2014 10. General Government Charges: $64,000 11. Capital from Operating. $2,986,000 12. Reduction in Debt Service Charges: - $255,000 The net result of these proposed changes (including minor line item adjustments) is a recommended overall Operating budget increase of $3,274,000. There are two significant contributors to this increase: • An increase in Capital from Operations, $2,986,000; and • a requirement to develop a strategy for combined sewer separation, $200,000. Absent these two items, the increase in the Operating budget for 2015 would be 0.005 (1/2 of 1 %). Council will note thru the accompanying documents, that the increase in the Capital from Operating, has the effect of reducing the amount of borrowing required in future years. This reduces the pressure on fiscal charges and consequently reduces pressure on water rates charged to users. Council, during the approval process, is required to set the water rates that will be charged to users in the coming year. The rates must reflect and recover the Operating and Capital costs of the Utility. It is nevertheless, vitally important to the community of users, that the rates remain affordable. This is challenging given the financial obligations facing the Utility in the next 5 years. However, prudent, strategic spending, coupled with prudent debt management can ensure that our water rates remain affordable. The flat rate being recommended for 2015 is $1152 1. This rate is consistent with forecasted rates of 2013 and 2014. It represents an annual increase of $72 in 2015 or $6.00 per month. The Capital Budget As Council is aware, the continued investment in improvements and renewal of existing infrastructure is fundamental to sustainable, acceptable service delivery. The continued investment, endorsed by Council's actions, (Harbour Clean-up, Safe Clean Drinking Water) comes with a commitment and a price tag. The continuing (perpetual) investment must be managed such that rate payers receive excellent, reliable service at an affordable cost. The attached proposed Capital budget for 2015 reflects that premise. 1 Annual Rate for unmetered single family dwell including ooth water and sanitary sewerage t nnual Rate or unme Bred sin . �rfamil h water sa-�._,s ni ii • itl M &C2014 --188 Page 5 November 3, 2014 The recommended Capital budget for 2015 is $12.7 Million; $10.4 Million being the Utility cost. This is similar to budgets of recent years. The Operating and Capital budget as being presented for 2015 will not result in any increased debt for the Utility. However, due to the very significant investment needed for SCDW, the overall debt of the Utility will increase over the next 4 years. This must be managed and mitigated; staff are recommending a significant shift in borrowing levels for subsequent years. Over the next 4 years, sustainable reinvestment in Utility infrastructure is balanced with a strategic focus on long term debt reduction. Subsequent to the 2015 Capital budget, it is being recommended that annual Capital expenditures in Replacement and Renewal of Infrastructure, be reduced. This annual Capital expenditure reduction (exclusive of SCDW) will be sustainable because of the benefits of Harbour Clean -up and the progression of SCDW project. In addition, staff are recommending that Council approves the establishment of a SCDW reserve fund to further reduce the overall debt over the next 4 years which will have a positive long term impact for all ratepayers. The Operating budget will continue to provide funding for debt retirement, thereby reducing the overall debt and debt servicing costs. The recommended 2015 Saint John Water Utility budget is attached. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council reflect upon the attached documents and make any and all inquiries and recommendations to staff; and receive and file this report. Respectfully Submitted Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. Commissioner Saint John Water Attachments: Report, including adjustments Operating Budget By -law — Saint John Water Capital Budget Cost Tables SBB Documents J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager ff�=_Wlrm .1 T _1+es7 -V. i -I&-+ 7-3r�. Nwor.''r7..i 19'a l --=-�_A • -111.1 • err Appendix "A" Saint John Water - Expenditure Budget Operating Expenditures Budget 2015 Budget 2016 1 BudgeA 2017 Budget 2028 , Budget Drinking Water Watershed Management 251,000 251,000 253,000 254,000 257,000 262,000 Water Treatment 2,318,000 2,336,000 2,529,000 2,795,000 5,140,000 10,382,000 Water Pumping & Storage 1,134,000 1,180,000 1,189,000 1,200,000 1,214,000 1,238,000 Transmission & Distribution 4,728,000 4,872,000 4,910,000 4,949,000 5,009,000 5,109,000 Customer Metering 710,000 740,000 744,000 749,000 756,000 771,000 Industrial Water Watershed Management 474,000 475,000 478,000 541,000 550,000 561,000 Water Pumping & Transmission 1,031,000 1,013,000 1,024,000 1,212,000 1,222,000 1,246,000 Customer Metering 113,000 134,000 135,000 135,000 137,000 140,000 Wastewater Wastewater Pumping 2,253,000 2,436,000 2,459,000 2,485,000 2,520,000 2,570,000 Wastewater Collection 2,703,000 2,890,000 2,814,000 2,840,000 2,877,000 2,935,000 Wastewater Treatment 4,400,000 4,222,000 4,263,000 4,309,000 4,375,000 4,463,000 Infrastructure Management Municipal Engineering 1,326,000 1,357,000 1,362,000 1,368,000 1,380,000 1,408,000 Other Internal Charges 614,000 614,000 615,000 617,000 620,000 630,000 Net Pension Costs 1,335,0001 1,413,000 1,423,000 1,408,0001 1,420,000 1,446,000 23,390,000 23,933,000 24,198,00 24,862,000 27,477,000 33,161,000 Fiscal Charges Debt Servicing 8,110,000 7,855,000 8,648,000 8,421,000 8,902,000 9,564,000 Capital from Operating 7,597,000 10,583,000 12,384,000 14,294,000 13,156,000 7,171,000 Total Fiscal Charges IS,707iWO 18,438,000 , 22,0S8,000 Total Expenditures 39,097,000 42,371,000 4S,230,000 47,577,000 49,S35,000 49,996,OW MI Appendix "B" Saint John Water - Revenue Budget 2014 Revenues Flat Rate Accounts 014 Proposed 17,591,000 201S Proposed 18,794,000 2016 Outlook 19,974,000 2017 Outlook 21,153,000 2018 Outlook 22,276,000 2019 Ii Outlook 22,758,000 Metered Accounts 17,787,000 19,092,000 20,040,000 20,964,000 21,845,000 22,233,000 Fire Protection Levy 2,340,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,200,000 3,200,000 3,025,000 Storm Sewer Levy 900,000 975,000 935,000 915,000 895,000 880,000 Other Revenues 250,000 450,000 1 475,000 1 550,000 1 650,000 700,000 Previous Year's Surplus 229,000 560,000 806.000 795.000 669.000 300,000 Total Revenues I I , M . , 0=. Key Metrics: Flat Rate - Water & Sewerage 1,080 1,152 1,224 1,296 1,364 1,394 Meter Rates: Block 1 1.2188 1.3005 1.3824 1.4633 1.5404 1.5735 Block 2 0.7761 0.8281 0.8803 0.9318 0.9809 1.0020 Block 3 0.2739 0.2922 0.3106 0.3288 0.3461 0.3536 Debt Service Ratio 20.74% 18.54% 19.12% 17.70% 17.97% 19.17% SIN Appendix "C" Proposed 2015 Changes By -Law Number M -16, A By -Law Respecting Water and Sewerage (Water and Sewerage Utility Fund) A BY -LAW TO AMEND UN ARRETE POUR MODIFIER A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND ARRETE CONCERNANT LES R$SEAUX D'EAU ET SEWERAGE D'EGOUTS Be it enacted by Common Council of the City Le conseil communal de The City of Saint John of Saint John, as follows: edicte : A by -law of the City of Saint John entitled "A Par les presentes,l'arrete de The City of Saint By -law Respecting Water and Sewerage" John intitule << Arrete concernant les reseaux enacted on the 711, day of June, A.D. 2004, is d'eau et d'egouts », edicte le 7 juin 2004, est hereby amended as follows: modifie comme suit: 1. Schedules "A" and "B" are repealed and 1. Les annexes «A» et << B n sont abrogees et the following are substituted therefor. sont remplacees par celles qui figurent aux presentes. Mayor or the member of the Council who Maire ou membre du conseil qui presidait la presided at the meeting at which it was reunion a laquelle 1'arrete a ete edicte enacted; and/ Common Clerk Greffiere communale First Reading Premiere lecture Second Reading Deuxieme lecture Third Reading Troisieme lecture N1 A By -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE ARRRT9 CONCERNANT LES RtSEAUX D'EAU ET DTGOUTS SCHEDULE "A" ANNEXE CC A» Effective January 1st, 2015/ En vigueur le 1 er janvier 2015 Flat rate customers Yearly $518.92 Tarif forfaitaire pour Tarif Water charge les clients annuel Redevance sur Feau :K�� S18,92$ A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE SCHEDULE "B" Effective January 1st, 2015 i.:1• METERED CUSTOMFRS - WATER SERVICE CHARGE Meter Size Yearly Monthly (5) BI-Monthly 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm & up 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 i.:1• ARRCTE CONCERNANT LES RtSEAUX D'EAU ET D'EGOUTS ANNEXE << B 99 En vigueur ter janvier 2015 ."WI compteur 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 1 M 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm et plus 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 ."WI BY -LAW NUMBER M -16 A BY -LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE Be it enacted by the Common Council of the City of Saint John as follows: A by -law of the City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Water and Sewerage" enacted on the 7th day of June, A.D. 2004, is hereby amended as follows: ARRETE No M -16 ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE CONCERNANT LE RESEAU WEAU ET D'EGOUTS Le conseil communal de The City of Saint John d6crete ce qui suit : Par les pr6sentes, 1'arr&6 de The City of Saint John intitul6 « Arret6 concernant les r6seaux d'eau et d'6gouts », 6dict6 le 7 juin 2004, est modifi6 comme suit:: 1 Schedules "A" and "B" are repealed and 1 Les annexes «A» et ((B» sont abrogees et the following are substituted: sont remplac6es par celles qui figurent aux pr6sentes. SCHEDULE "A" Effective January 1St, 2015 Flat rate customers Flat rate customers Yearly $518.92 Water charge SCHEDULE`B" Effective January 1St, 2015 METERED CUSTOMERS - WATER SERVICE CHARGE Meter Size Yearly ($) Monthly ($) Bi- Monthl ($) 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm & up 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 METERED CUSTOMERS -CONSUMPTION CHARGE Monthly b y m Bi- Monthly (by m) Consumption (in 3) Rate ($/ in,) Consumption (m') Rate ($/in) For the first 50 1.3005 For the first 100 1.3005 For the next 124,950 0.8281 For the next 249,900 0.8281 For all in excess of 125,000 0.2922 For all in excess of 250,000 0.2922 Spillage 0.1100 Spillage 0.1100 IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the day of, A.D. 2015 and signed by: Mayor /maire ANNEXE ((A>> En vigueur le 1" janvier 2015 Tarif forfaitaire pour les clients Tarif forfaitaire pour Tarif 518,92$ les clients annuel 216.36 Redevance Sur 1eau 36.06 20mm ANNEXE «B» En vigueur le ler janvier 2015 CLIENTS AVEC COMPTEUR -TARIF DES SERVICES D'EAU Dimension du com teur Tarif annuel ($) Tarif mensuel $ Tari bimensuel ($) 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 204mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm et plus 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 CLIENTS AVEC COMPTEUR- FRAIS DE CONSOMMATION Mensuels (par m) Bimestriels (par m ) Consommation Frais Consommation Frais m3) ($ /m) (in,) ($ /m3 Pour les 50 1,3005 Pour les 100 1,3005 premiers premiers Pour les 0,8281 Pour les 0,8281 124 950 249 900 suivants suivants Pour toute 0,2922 Pour toute 0,2922 consommation consommation au -dela de au -dela de 125 000 250 000 Renversement 0,1100 1 Renversement 0,1100 EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal Sur le pr6sent arr6t6 le 2015, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffi6re communale First Reading - Premi6re lecture - Second Reading - Deuxi6me lecture - Third Reading - Troisi6me lecture - Proposed Program Summary For - 2015 Category No. of Other Utility Total Projects Share Share Infrastructure Renewal - Sanitary 17 $400,000 $3,518,000 $3,918,000 Infrastructure Renewal - Water 15 $1,355,000 $3,835,000 $5,190,000 Safe, Clean Drinking Water 1 $500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 Watershed Protection 1 $0 $100,000 $100,000 TOTALS: 34 $2,255,000 $10,453,000 $12,708,000 Summary of Capital Costs (Utility Share) Safe, Clean Drinking Wate r 28.7% Watershed Protection 1.0% Infrastructure Renewal - Water 36.7% Infrastructure Renewal - Sanitary 33.7% Page 1 of 8 MDH: MUNICIPAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. w &s: WATER AND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C --: PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR Priority assignments are subject to change at anytime. ": PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS Infrastructure Renewal - Sanitar Project Location Description Other Share Utility Share Belleview Avenue Highland Road to Civic #72 Renew 125m of existing 300mm T.C. sanitary 0 150.000 Belleview Avenue sewer, including design and construction management services Exmouth Street Richmond Street to Brunswick Design services for the installation of approx. 0 163,000 Drive 320m of Watermain, sanitary sewer and 162m of storm sewer. Foley Court Loch Lomond Road to Civic # Investigate and design a method to remove 0 65,000 34 Foley Court existing sanitary services directed into existing storm sewer. Golding Street Waterloo Street to Bayard Street Design services for the installation of approx. 0 45,000 55m of Watermain, 114m of sanitary sewer and 85m of storm sewer. Harding Street Main Street to Catherwood Renewal of approx. 365m of existing 200mm 0 520,000 Street Cone. Sanitary sewer, including construction management services. Jean Street Loch Lomond Road to Renew approx. 260m of 200mm T.C. (1926 & 0 325,000 Courtenay Avenue 1941) sanitary sewer, including construction management services Lancaster Street Charlotte Street W to Winslow Renew 75m of existing 225mm T.C. sanitary 0 220,000 Street sewer, including design and construction management services Milford Sanitary System Various Locations Rehabilitation of various lengths of 400,000 0 deteriorated sanitary sewer as reccommended in the Milford Drainage Basin Study, including design and construction management services. Project to be funded under G.T.F. Modelling and Mapping East and Central Development of a sanitary sewer model for the 0 250,000 of the Eastern and Eastern and Central sanitary sewerage system. Central Sanitary The project includes updating of the Sewerage System infrastructure mapping for the Eastern and Central sanitary system. Newman Street Albert Street to Rotary Court Design Services for the installation of approx. 0 50,000 85m of 200mm diameter sanitary sewer Paddock Street Waterloo Street to Civic 39 Renew approx. 71m of 300mm T.C.sanitary 0 125,000 Paddock Street sewer, including design and construction management services. Ready Street Main Street to Catherwood Design services for the installation of approx. 0 160,000 Street 300m of Watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Richmond Street Waterloo Street to Prince Renew 130 m of 300 mm T.C. sanitary sewer, 0 170,000 Edward Street including construction management services Page 2 of 8 MDH: MUNICIPAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. w &s: WATER AND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C - * *: PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR Priority assignments are subject to change at any time. *: PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS Infrastructure Renewal - Sanitar Project Location Description Other Share Utility Share University Avenue Millidge Avenue to Royal Cured in place structural lining of approx. 0 850,000 Parkway - Phase 1 650m of existing 375mm concrete sanitary sewer, including construction management services. Water Street Various locations Design and installation of backwater valves for 0 200,000 cross connections between the stonn and sanitary sewers. Waterloo Street Golding Street to Richmond Renew approx. 150m of existing 300mm T.C. 0 100,000 Street sanitary sewer, including construction management services Waterloo Street Peters Street to Paddock Street Renew approx. 82m of 375mm T.C.sanitary 0 125,000 sewer, including design and construction management services. TOTAL: $400.000 $3.518.000 Page 3 of 8 •iier MDH: MUNICIPAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. w &s: WATER AND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C - " ": PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR ": PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS priority assignments are subject to change at any time. Infrastructure Renewal - Water Project Location Description Other Share Utility Share Belleview Avenue Highland Road to Civic #72 Renew approx. 125m of existing 200mm 0 150,000 Belleview Avenue watermain, including design and construction management services. Belleview Avenue Spar Cove Road to Belleview Installation of a watermain extension for the 0 450,000 Avenue connection of the Millidgeville intermediate pressure zone to the existing watermain on Belleview Avenue, including construction management services. Golden Grove Road Golden Grove Road Facility upgrades to the existing pumping 0 750,000 Pumping Station station. Includes building and electrical upgrades, new pumps, etc. Includes construction management services. Harding Street Main Street to Catherwood Renewal of approx. 372m of existing 150mm 0 595,000 Street diameter watermain, including construction management services Hayes Avenue Area Pipeline Road West to Hayes Access improvements to the 150mm 1 300m 0 250,000 Avenue watermain supplying the Hayes Avenue area. Jean Street Loch Lomond Road to Renew approx. 260m of 150mm and 200mm 0 375,000 Courtenay Avenue C.I. (1926 & 1935) with new 200mm watermain, including construction management services Lancaster Street Charlotte Street W to Winslow Renew approx. 150m of existing 200mm 0 285,000 Street watermain, including design and construction management services. Newman Street Albert Street to Rotary Court Design Services for the installation of approx. 0 70,000 170m of 200mm diameter watermain. North Market Wharf North Market Wharf near Renewal of the 250mm watermain near Market 0 250,000 Market Square/ Hilton Square and Hilton, includes design and construction management services. Paddock Street Waterloo Street to Civic 39 Renew approx. 71 m of 200mm C.L(1949) 0 100,000 Paddock Street watermain, including design and construction management services. PCCP Repair Ocean Westway @ Replace one 5m section of distressed 1500mm 0 70,000 Manawagonish Road Prestressed Concrete Cylinder Pipe, including design and construction management services. Richmond Street Waterloo Street to Prince Renew 130 m of 200 nun C.I. (1971), 0 180,000 Edward Street including construction management services Waterloo Street Golding Street to Richmond Renew approx. 150m of existing 300mm 0 170,000 Street watermain, including construction management services Page 4 of 8 MDH: MUNICIPAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. w&s: WATER AND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C --: PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR Priority assignments are subject to change at anytime. ': PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS Infrastructure Renewal - Water Project Location Description Other Utility Share Share Waterloo Street Peters Street to Paddock Street Renew approx. 82m of 300mm C.I. watermain, 0 140,000 including design and construction management services. * Watennain Cleaning and Various locations Cleaning and lining of existing unlined C.I. 1,355,000 0 Lining Phase 11 watermains to improve pressure, water quality, and fire flows. Project to be funded under G.T.F. TOTAL: $1.355,000 $3.835.000 Page 5 of 8 MDH: MUNICIPAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. w &s: WATER AND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C -'': PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR Priority assignments are subject to change at any time. ': PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project Location Description Other Utility Share Share Safe, Clean Drinking TBD Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program envelope 500,000 3,000,000 Water Program for 2015. Details of program for 2015 to be established and approved by Common Council. TOTAL: $500,000 $3.000.000 - Page 6 of 8 MDH: MUNICIPAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. w&s: WATER AND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C - ": PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR ": PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS priority assignments are subject to change at any time. Watershed Protection Project Location Description Other Utility Share Share Watersheds Loch Lomond Watershed Land acquisition for watershed protection (as 0 100,000 required) TOTAL: $0 $100.000 Page 7 of 8 Saint John Water Services Overview The City of Saint John provides water and wastewater services to homes, businesses, industry and institutions through its utility Saint John Water. These services, essential to the community's health, environmental protection, quality of life and economy, are regulated under the Province's Clean Water Act and the Clean Environment Act. Organizational Goals To establish the City of Saint John as a service- based, results oriented, high performance public service organization. Service Based • Considering the needs of the community as a whole • Creating opportunities for citizen feedback and input • Responding effectively and efficiently to address community needs Results Oriented • Clean, safe drinking water, ensuring adequate supply • Quality, fiscally responsible maintained infrastructure • Clean, healthy natural environment High Performance • Collaborative, strategically minded workforce • Culture focused on contributing to community goals through service delivery • Resource conscious and accountable for results Drinking Water Service, Industrial Water Service Wastewater Service Engineering Draft 2015 SJW -1 Saint John Water Services Summary Industrial Water Service Watershed Management Approved 2014 Expenditures 2015 Revenue FTE Projected Expenditures 2016 2017 2018 Drinking Water Service Water Pumping and Transmission 1,031,000 1„013,000 1,013,000 515 1,024,000 1,212,000 Watershed Management 251,000 251,700 251,000 174 253,000 254,000 257,000 Water Treatment 2,318,000 2,336,000 2,336,000 1533 2,529,000 2,795,000 5,140,000 Water Pumping and Storage 1,134,000 1,180,000 1,180,000 670 1,189,000 1,200,000 1,214,000 Water Transmission and Distribution 4,728,000 4,372,000 4,872,000 27 99 4,910,000 4,949,000 5,009,000 Customer Metering 710,000 740,000 740,000_ 5 9:1. 744,000 749,000 756,000 Total Service $9,141,000 $9,379,000A ! _ _ $9,379,000 57.67 9,625,000 9,947,000 12,376,000 Industrial Water Service Watershed Management 474,000 475,000 475,000 2 11 478,000 541,000 550,000 Water Pumping and Transmission 1,031,000 1„013,000 1,013,000 515 1,024,000 1,212,000 1,222,000 Customer Metering 113,000 134,000 134,000 1 07 135,000 135,000 137,000 Total Service $1,618,000 $1,622,000 $1,622,000 833 1,637,000 1,888,000 1,909,000 Wastewater Service Wastewater Pumping 2,253,000 2,436,000 2,436,000 12 31 2,459,000 2,485,000 2,520,000 Wastewater Collection 2,703,000 2,890,000 2,890,000 1801 2,814,000 2,840,000 2,877,000 Wastewater Treatment 4,400,000 4,222,000 4,222,000 2049 4,263,000 4,309,000 4,375,000 Total Service $9,356,000 $9,548,000 $9,548,000 50.81 9,536,000 9,634,000 9,772,000 Municipal Engineering $1,326,000 $1,357,000 $1,357,000 11.37 1,362,000 1,368,000 1,380,000 Other Internal Charges $614,000 $614,000 $614,000 $615,000 $617,000 $620,000 Net Pension Costs $1,335,000 $1,413,000 $1,413,000 $1,423,000 $1,408,000 $1,420,000 Fiscal Charges Debt Servicing $8,110,000 $7,855,000 $7,855,000 $8,648,000 $8,421,000 $8,902,000 Capital from Operating $7,597,000 $10,583,000 $10,583,000 $12,384,000 $14,394,000 $13,156,000 Total Fiscal Charges $15,707,000 $18,438,000 $18,438,000 $21,032,000 $22,715,000 $22,058,000 Saint John Water Budget $39,097,000 $42,371,000 $42,371,000 128.18 $45,230,000 $47,577,000 $49,535,000 Draft 2015 SJW - 2 Table of Contents — 2014 Service Plans Drinking Water Service .............................. Industrial Water Service .................. Wastewater Service .......... ............................... Municipal Engineering ....... ............................... ..... . ............................................................................................................... SJW —4 ......................................................... ..................................................... ..... SJW —12 ................. ......................................................................................... SJW —17 ........................................... ............................... SJW -23 Draft 2015 SJW - 3 Drinking Water Service The Drinking Water Service provides quality drinking water to all users within the community. This service includes the supply of water, treatment, testing, transmission and distribution, administration of the service, and billing and collections. The service is provided under the Approval to Operate W -669 Drinking Water Distribution & Treatment Facilities. The operation of the facilities shall be kept in compliance with the Water Quality Regulation 82 -126 under the Clean Environment Act and the Potable Water Regulation 93 -203 under the Clean Water Act of the Province of New Brunswick. Service Delivery Saint John Water delivers several programs as part of its disinfection and distribution of drinking water to the Community. The chart below identifies these programs and the proportional allocation of resources required to deliver a defined level of service for 2014. Drinking Water Service Programs U Watershed Management E: Water Treatment !.I Water Pumping & Storage Water Transmission & Distribution m Customer Metering Service Drivers Public Health Expectations for clean, safe drinking water and adequate supply Regulatory and legislative requirements Advancements in technology and system upgrades Economy and increasing costs of goods and services Focus on sustainable asset management, aging infrastructure Ratepayers control usage Focus on environmental sustainability and conservation Organizational capacity Draft 2015 SJW - 4 M7 2014 Drinking Water Service Accomplishments and — Drinking Water Service Performance Cost per ml of water • • All water assets at the end of 2013 have a replacement cost of I -- - -- _ approximately $693 million. $650 $600 In 2014 the entire City water distribution system was flushed $550 $500 utilizing unidirectional flushing methods. $450 - $400� Approximately 5 km of cleaning and lining work was completed $350 in 2013. $300 $250 �', -- -.__.� . _ _ _— - — -• Saint John Water operations staff repaired 90 watermain breaks $200 r ----. to date in 2014. $150 i $100 . . Average daily potable water production was approximately 71 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep million litres per day to the end of September 2014. Water Treatment staff completed 45 watermain disinfection projects. Treatment of 25,888 ML of potable water produced and delivered to customers at a cost of $244/ML. Completed installation of a new Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) network that provides real time meter reading and increases meter reading efficiency. Replacement of 700 of industrial, commercial, and institutional water revenue meters. 2015 Major Initiatives, Major Projects and Drinking Water Service Delivery Highlights • Initiate Water & Sewerage Rate Study. • Renewal through Capital, water transmission and distribution mains to support Safe, Clean Drinking Water. • Finalize the testing of groundwater for West water supply in the first quarter of 2015. • Implementation of a Forest Management Plan for Loch Lomond Watershed. Draft 2015 •It'l. SJW - 5 Safe, Clean, Drinking Water Project Where we are now: • Federal and Provincial funding agreements finalized • Project team complete with advisors established • Council approved RFQ respondent shortlist • Data room framework established What we are currently working on: • Draft Request for Proposal • Draft Project Agreement • Finalizing payment mechanism • Finalizing performance specifications • Populating data room • Confirming sustainable yield of groundwater aquifer Next steps: • Issue Request for Proposal • Prepare for RFP question and answer process • Prepare for RFP commercially confidential meetings • Prepare for Bidders meetings • Debrief RFQ respondents Draft 2015 SJW - 6 Watershed Management Program Service Levels and Resources Maintain the area of Loch Lomond and Spruce Lake watersheds including inspections of dams and other infrastructure and repairs as required Watershed clean -up days Investigate and act as necessary to reports of questionable activities in the watershed • Monthly inspection of dams (14 earth and concrete dams) • Daily inspection at each watershed intake • One watershed Clean -up day annuallq if required • Notify appropriate authorities as required • The majority of Water Treatment staff are Clean Water Act Inspectors Watershed lake water quality monitoring • Watershed lakes sampled three times (microbiology and inorganics) per year Draft 2015 • Protects drinking water sources from adverse influences of human beings and nature. and to maintain the enviioomental sustainability of those watersheds through sound management of water, land, forests and infrastructure within each water shed • Designated watersheds are protected, reducing the risk of contaminated water entering the drinking water system • Watershed clean -up days promote the importance of protecting the watersheds M Wages & Benefits $137,399 Goods & Services 113,601 Total Expenditures $251,000 Revenue $251,000 Full Time Equivalent Positrons (FTE) Management 068 Administration! Technical 006 Outside Workers 1.00 Total FTE 1.74 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing —procurement of materials and contracted sewices • Real Estate — support land purchase process in watershed • Legal —support land purchase process in watershed • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements SJW -7 Water Treatment Program Service Levels and Resources Service Level Service Outputs impact of Service Delirvery Resource Requirement,, Outside Workers Treat water to meet regulatory . Approximately 71 ML /day of treated The service strives to deliver safe, clean Wages & Benefits $1,173,138 standards, safety requirements and water (Latimer Lake, Spruce Lake and drinking water that protects and Goods & Services 1.162,862 customer demand 24 hours per day, 365 Red Bead Subdivision) enhanres the health of the community, Total Expenditures $2,336,000 days per year help sustain the economy and provide for growth and development in the Revenue $2,336,000 Maintenance and repairs as necessary • Mamtenanr:e varies each facility community and enhance the quality of on vlater treatment facilities. life in the community Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Weekly water samples collected across the thi ee eater systems and microbiologically analyzed Quarterly water samples collected across the three %eater systems and analyzed for organic parameters Semi - annual water samples collected across the three water systems and analyzed for inorganic parameters. Continuous monitoring through SCADA Response to citizen requests for water quality testing (e g , colour, odour, taste) within ore week (80% of time). Operate and maintain water pumping station Examples of work (as required) include • cleaning, inspection and maintenance • Continuously monitor and control through SCADA • 35 sampling sites weekly (1,820 annually) for total coliforms and a cull and 35 sampling sites nrionthly (420 annually) for hete rotro ph ic plate you nt • 20 sampling sites quarterly (80 annually) for organic parameters • 20 sampling sites semi - annuallv (40 annually) for inorganic parameters • 4 locations (Latimer Lake, Spruce Lake, seaward Crescent, and Ocean Drive Well) are monitored continuously • Number of requests range from 70 to 100 annually • Spruce Lake pumping station Watertreated to meet demands of residential, commercial & institutional customers Management 068 Administration /Technical 433 Outside Workers 7.93 Total FTE 12.94 Part-Time Positions 2.39 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet -- equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT— support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements Draft 2015 SJW - g 9111 Water Pumping & Storage Program Service Levels and Resources Service tevel Service Outputs Impact of Service Delivery Resource Requirernem Operate and maintain water pumping • 10 pumping stations • Pumping of treated water to meet Wages & Benefits $496,270 stations and water storage reservoirs demands of residential, commercial Goods & Services 683,730 • 7 water storage reservoirs (tanks.) Examples of work (as required) include and institutional customers as Total Expenditures $1,180,000 necessary • cleaning, inspection and maintenance • Continuously monitor and control through SCADA • Maintenance of pumps and associated control systems Continuous monitoring of chlorine levels through SCADA Draft 2015 6 Iocation5 (Lakewood Heights Pump Station, Somerset Street Pump Station, University Avenue Pump Station, Gault Road PRV Station, Churchill Heights Water Storage Reservoir and Lancaster Water Storage Reservoir) are monitored continuously • Water storage reservoirs (tanks) store water to meet the peak water demands and for fire flows during an emergency Storage r3servoirs provide water during emergency and planned maintenance at treatment facilities no Revenue $1,180,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE} Management 068 Administration /Technical 027 Outside Workers 567 Total FTE 6.62 Part - 'rime Positions 008 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT— support SCADA and other perfoimar to tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements SJW -9 Water Transmission & Distribution Program Service Levels and Resources Service level Service Outputs Impact of Service Delivery Maintain water transmission and Maintenance requirements vary annually • Safe clean drinking u+ater is available to Wages & Benefits $2,094,577 distribution piping and associated users at adequate pressures and in Goods & Services .777,423, appurtenances (e g , valves, hvdrants, •Over 5DU km of pipe sufficient uantities to meet customer Total Expenditures q p $4,872,000 chambers) • 6,575 valves demand and fire flow requirements Response to service interruptions and service leaks (80% of time) • Within 2 hours for evaluation • Within 48 hours for emergency repairs • Within 2 weeks for less urgent repairs Response to frozen services within 48 hours, 80% of the time Annual (June — October) uni- directional flushing (UDF) of all water distribution pipes of sizes 12" and less Conventional flushing is executed on dead ends and in response to areas where water quality problems are reported • 2,128 fire hydrants • Number of service leaks or breaks varies annually depending on weather conditions and age of infrastructure • Numbei of frozen service varies depending on weather conditions • Approximately 1, 134 sequences in 2014 • 734 hvdrants involved • 300 km of pipe flushed • 1,280 valves used + Flushing moves fi esh 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 Revenue $4,872,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 2 63 Administration ! Technical 233 Outside Workers 22 -33 Total FTE 27.29 Part-Time Positions (PTE) 070 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing -procurement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements Draft 2015 SJW - 10 Customer Metering Program Service Levels and Resources Servire Level Service Outputs Impact of Service Delivery Resource Requirements Outside Workers Provide water meters for qualified • Approximately 80 new meters issued • Ensures qualified customers are billed Wages $ Benefits $422,504 customers as and when required Advise for installations annually based on measured quantities Goods & Services 317,496 on the proper installation of water • Approximately 80 follow -up _ Total Expenditures $740,000 meters inspection and installation of remote • Ensures the accuracy and designed reading equipment operation of the water meter Revenue $740,000 Read water meters on a bi- monthly cycle (ICI and residential) and detect anomalies in consumption that point to leakage or a meter malfunction, identify malfunctioning water meters Replace malfunctioning and obsolete water meters as and when required Provide notification and inspection services to customers experiencing excessive water use • 3,150 meter reads required bi- monthly Saint John Water is transitioning to an automated system in 2015 • Replace approximately 200 malfunctioning or obsolete water meters per year • issue approximately 500 high consumption notices annually, regarding higher than normal water consumption Respond to customer concerns with • Number of customer concerns varies meter and plumbing fixture inspections annually (average 340 /year) • Ensures proper installation as well as accurate and efficient meter readings • Fair and equitable billing of water use • Accountability and control of consumption data for drinking water • Reduce the waste of water and associated costs • Safeguards the accuracy of measured water • Improves efficiency by utilizing modern meter reading methods • Customer service follow -up on abnormal consumption • Identify possible causes of excessive water consumption Full Time Equivalent Positrons (FTE) Management 083 Administration / Technical 008 Outside Workers 5.00 Total FTE 5.91 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing - prociv ernent of water meters • Finance — billings and collections, customer service related to water meters • IT— support meter reading software and equipment • Human Resources —staffing and training requirements Draft 2015 SJW -11 Industrial Water Service The Industrial Water Service is a public service that provides industry west of the St. John River with raw process water. The service includes the supply of untreated water, operation and maintenance of related infrastructure, administration of the service, and billing and collection for water volumes used. Service Delivery Saint John Water delivers several programs as part of its Industrial Water Service. The chart below identifies these programs and the proportional allocation of resources required to deliver a defined level of service for 2012. Industrial Water Service Programs Efficient needs of industry Regulatory and legislative requirements Watershed Management Advancements in technology and system upgrades 'Water Pumping & Transmission Economy and increasing costs of goods and services Focus on sustainable asset management, aging infrastructure I E Customer Metering Ratepayers control usage Focus on environmental sustainability and conservation Organizational capacity Draft 2015 SJW - 12 2014 Industrial Water Service Accomplishments and Performance • Average daily industrial water production is 78 million litres per day to the end of September 2014. • To date in 2014, there have been zero service interruptions to the Industrial Water Service industrial water users. Cost per ml of water supplied • Installation of anew industrial flow meter at NB Power's Coleson Cove I Facility. 1 $60 ' • A preventative maintenance project was completed on the 1500mm raw water pipeline to Irving Pulp and Paper. $50 $40 ° I' $30 $20 $10 2015 Major Initiatives, Major Projects, and Industrial $0 11. Water Service Delivery Highlights Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul • Establishment of a West Industrial System for management and costing of service to users. • Musquash Pump Station —continue facility evaluation and preliminary design for upgrade /reconstruction. • Replacement of one section of the 1500mm raw water transmission main. Aug Sep Draft 2015 SJW - 13 M Industrial Watershed Management Service Levels and Resources Service tevel Service Clutputs. Impact of Service Dellwery Resource Requirements Maintain the area of Loch Lomond and • Monthly inspection of dams (14 earth • Protect the supply of industrial water Wages & Benefits $167,402 Spruce Lake watersheds including and concrete dams) to support business Goods & Services 307,598 inspections of dams and other • Gaily inspection at each facility intake Total Expenditures $475,000 infrastructure and repairs as required • Adequate supplies of industrial water, Investigate and act as necessary to reports of questionable activities in the watershed Watershed clean -up days Watershed lake water quality monitoring (inorganics) • Notify appropriate authorities as required • One watershed Clean -up day annually if required • Watershed lakes sampled three times per year at fair and equitable rates, supports development and growth in the community Revenue $475,000 Full Time Equivalent Positrons (FTE) Management 056 Administration / Technical 005 Outside Workers 150 Total FTE 2.11 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contiacted services • Real Estate — support land purchase process in watershed • Legal — support land purchase process in watershed • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements Draft 2015 SJW - 14 90 Industrial Water Pumping & Transmission Program Service Levels and Resources Meet raw water demands of heavy • Approximately 78 MLlday of industrial • Involves pumping to Menzies Lake industrial users 24 hours per day, 365 water based on the first nine months of (from Musquash) in order to maintain days per year 2014 optimurri water levels at Spruce Lake during periods of high consumption or Maintain industrial water facilities • Musquash Pump Station, Coleson Cove low precipitation, to maintain facility Screen Building, Spruce Lake Screen and .-i ounds Building and Latimer Lake Flume . Delivery of industrial water to meet demands of industrial customers Pumping water frorr East Musquash Reservoir to Menzies Lake to ensure adequate supply (includes high electrical charges and purchase of water from the Province of New Brunswick) Maintain transmission piping system + Historically Musquash Pumping Station has operated three to four mor the per year • S km of 1500mm transmission piping and all associated appurtenances • 4 5 km of transmission piping from Musquash to Menzies Lake Wages & Benefits $394,467 Goods & Services 613,533 Total Expenditures $1,013,000 Revenue $1,013,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions Management 096 Administration / Technical 069 Outside Workers 150 TotallFTE 5.15 Critical Administrative Seirvice Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — piocurementof materials and contracted services • IT— support SCAD.A and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements Draft 2015 � S3W�15 M Industrial Customer Metering Program Service Levels and Resources Outputs Service Level Setvice Read meters for large industrial water . 3 customers (IPP, Coleson Cove, Irving • Provide accurate and timely uVages & Benefits $90,926 users Paper) measurement of water consumed by Goods & Services 43.074 industi ial water users to calculate Total Expenditures $134,000 consumption for billing and examine opportunities for conservation Revenue $134,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 063 Administration /Technical 004 Outside Workers 040 Total FTE 1.07 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipmentavailability • Purchasing - procuiemeiit of water mete rs • Finance — billings and collections, customer service related to water meters • IT— support meter reading software and equipment • Human Resources — staffing and training requnements Draft 2015 5JW - 16 Wastewater Service The Wastewater Service treats domestic sewerage; wastewater collected from residential and commercial sources is conveyed to treatment facilities through sanitary and combined sewers, lift stations and forcemains. Wastewater is treated to meet standards set out in the Approvals to Operate as issued by the Minister of Environment and applicable statutes. Service Delivery Saint John Water delivers several programs as part of its Wastewater Service to ensure protection of the environment. The chart below identifies these programs and the proportional allocation of resources required to deliver a defined level of service for 2013. Wastewater Service Programs Wastewater Pumping Wastewater Collection Wastewater Treatment Draft 2015 •►11 Environmental health Management of municipal wastewater eff luent -CCME Saint John's varying elevations, hills and rocky terrain Regulatory and legislative requirements Advancements in technology and system upgrades Economy and increasing costs of goods and services Focus on sustainable asset management, aging infrastructure Focus on environmental sustainability and conservation Organizational capacity SJW -17 2014 Wastewater Service Accomplishments and Performance • All wastewater assets at the end of 2013 have a replacement cost of approximately $571 million. Wastewater Service Cost per ml of wastewater treated • Wastewater Treatment Facilities achieved 100% compliance with Department of Environment effluent quality limits. + 11 previously commissioned wastewater pumping stations were activated as the Harbour Cleanup project transitioned to the operational stage. • 1 wastewater pumping station constructed, commissioned and activated as part of the Harbour Cleanup project. • 94.15% of effluent quality samples taken at treatment facilities were in compliance; 855 samples, 805 in compliance. $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 I $300 $200 $100 $0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep • Saint John Water operations staff repaired 68 sewermain repairs to date in 2014, • Completely upgraded the controls and electrical systems of Lorneville, Market Place and McAllister Industrial Park Wastewater Pumping Stations and replaced "A" Station (Dominion Park) with all new electrical and mechanical components. • Deactivated the Marsh Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility. • Implementation of a program of Sewermain repairs via trenchless technology • Implementation of a Quick TV program —preliminary sewer pipe inspection tool. Draft 2015 SJW -18 X11 2015 Major Initiatives, Major Projects and Wastewater Treatment Service Delivery Highlights • Complete implementation of a computerized maintenance management system to better manage wastewater treatment and pumping assets and infrastructure. • Upgrade various pumping stations in Milford Randolph Greendale network and Hickey Road to meet flow requirements and improve efficiency. • Develop a long term (30 year) strategy to reduce combined sewer overflows and reduce overflows from infiltration. Draft 2015 ',il SJW -19 Wastewater Pumping Program • Service level S rvrGe Outputs Impact of Service Delivery Resource Requirements Maintenance, inspection and sae • 68 wastewater pumping facilities by • operation of wastewater pumping the end of 2014 facilities • 1 wastewater pumping facrlit r added in 2014 as part of Harbour Clean -up • Preventive maintenance and repay s as required Draft 2015 'M The wastewater pumping stations are an integral part of the wastewater collection system and contribute to the utility goal that 100% of the wastewater within the City serviced area is collected and delivered to treatment facilities Wages & Benefits $935,818 Goods & Services 1,500,182 Total Expenditures $2,436,000 Revenue $2,436,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 093 Administration /Technical 041 Outside Workers 1027 Total FTE 11.61 Part -Time Positions 0.70 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT— support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements SJW -20 Wastewater Collection Program SeIVI.CA! k1!6VeI Service Outputs Impact o.1 Service Delivery Resource Requirements 7 Maintain sanitary and combined sewer • Over 400 km of pipe . Within the CitVs service area, 100% Wages & Benefits $1,349,141 piping along with all associated of wastewater is collected and Goods & Services 1,540,859 appurtenances • Repairs based on video results, breaks deli, ered to treatment facilities for Total Expenditures $2,890,000 and back -ups varies annually treatment contributing to the Response to sewer -back ups once made • # back -ups varies annually protection of puhlic health from Revenue $2,890,000 aware of issue within the following waterborne diseases, the natural timelines (80% of the time) environment including aquatic life Full Time Equivalent Positions and wildlife that depend on it Management 124 • Evaluate within 2 hours • Repair or flush line within 24 hours, providing the problem is the City's responsibility • Provide for courtesy clean (property owners convenience if City line is surcharged) Video maintenance program System flushing • The sntire program is estimated to be completed in a 10 year cycle • Requirements for flushing, based on video results Administration / Technical 3 10 Outside Wor kern 12.67 Total FTE 17.01 Part -Time Positions 100 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — proem ement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other perfoi mance tracking software • Legal -by-law enforcement support • Human Resources —staffing and training requirements Draft 2015 SJW - 21 Wastewater Treatment Program Service Levels and Resources Service Level Service Outputs impact of Service Delivery Resource Maintenance, inspection and safe • 5 wastewater treatment facilities • Protect public health from Wages & Benefits $1,524,021 operation of wastewater treatment Waterborne disease Goods & Services 2,697,979 facilities to provide wastewater • p Preventive maintenance • Protect natural environment Total Expenditures $4,222,000 treatment 24 hours per day, 365 days Repairs vary annually including aquatic and wildlife per year • 16,812 ML -astewater treated o Preserve shorelines for Revenue $4,222,000 annually recreational use Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) o Safety reuse nutrients found in Managernent 093 Collect and analyze samples of influent • 9,000 wastewater samples annually wastewater biosolidF Administration ! Terhnical 2 52 entering the facilities, the effluent (consistently collects and analyzes Outside Workers 1573 leaving the treatment facilities and at more samples than required by the Total FTE 19.18 various strategic locations within the Approvals to Operate) process Part-Time Positions 1.31 Draft 2015 ',.e, Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing —procurement of materials and contracted services • IT— support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements SJW - 22 Engineering The goal of the Engineering program is to provide professional engineering and technical staff resources for engineering support, design and construction management for projects related to capital programs for the improvement of municipal infrastructure and to ensure the integrity of that system through the implementation of sound engineering standards. 2014 Engineering Accomplishments and Performance • In 2014 the following Water and sanitary system projects were undertaken: • Harbour Clean -Up Program completed with the construction of the final lift station at Mill Street. Program included the construction of 24 new lift stations and 24 km of new sewer piping. • Watermain Cleaning and Lining Phase 10 - cleaning and lining of existing unlined cast iron watermains to improve pressure, water quality and fire flows. • Watermain and sanitary sewer renewals in conjunction with road reconstruction on Rodney Street, Prince William Street, Hillcrest Drive, Duke Street and Douglas Avenue. • Designs for upgrades to wastewater station mechanical at Hickey Road Lift Station, Colpitts Lift Station and Milford Randolph Greendale Lift Station. • Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program Implementation. 2015 Major Initiatives, Major Projects and engineering Service Delivery Highlights • The major initiatives for 2015 will be to continue with improvements to the Water and sanitary systems. • Major Water and Sanitary projects include: • Continue with Phase 11 of Watermain Cleaning and Lining. • Watermain and sanitary sewer renewals on Belleview Avenue, Harding Street, Jean Street, Lancaster Street, Richmond Street and Waterloo Street. • Upgrade of water pumping facility at Golden Grove Road. • Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program Implementation. Draft 2015 SJW - 23 Engineering - Service Levels and Resources Service Level Service OUtPUIS Inipaci of Selvice Deliveiy Resource Provide design and construction Infrastructure projects designed and • Sound engineering design and Wages & Benefits $1,089,730 management for the annual Water & constructed as outlined in the Capital construction management is essential moods & Services 267,270 Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program program submission to provide an efficient transportation Total Expenditures $1,357,000 Support annual review and revisions to general specifications Coordinate with the City's Finance and Intergovei nmental Affairs Divisions and the Province and /or Federal Government on infrastructure funding agreements • Updated general specifications • Funding agreements established to finance infrastructure upgrades network and to protect the environment and provide safe, dean drinking water by providing infrastructure that is built properly using sound engineering standards o The development and application of sound engineering standards ensures the long -term integrity of the City's water and sanitary systems Revenue $1,357,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions Management 3 25 Professional 400 In,;rde Workers 412 Total FTE 11.37 Administrative / Other Support Services • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — engagement of consultants and contractors • Human Resources — staffing /training • Legal — land issues, agreements • Real Estate — land issues, acquisition • IT— support of software for design and asset inventory • Intergovernmental Affairs — coordination of funding applications Draft 2015 SJW - 24 997 ,_ COINCIL M &C- 2014 -199 November 13, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing Date — 431 Eldersley Avenue t City of Saint John As provided in Common Council's resolution of August 3, 2004, this report indicates the rezoning and Section 39 amendment applications received and recommends an appropriate public hearing date. Details of the applications are available in the Common Clerk's office and will form part of the documentation presented at the public hearings. The following application has been received. Name of Location Existing Proposed Reason Applicant Zone Zone Jaclyn Carr 431 Eldersley "RS-IM" "R4" (or To recognize an Avenue RL) existing three - unit dwelling RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council schedule the public hearing for the rezoning application of Jaclyn Carr (431 Eldersley Avenue) for Monday, December 22, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, and refer the application to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. submitted, MCIP, RPP Growth and Community Development Services JH/r 9.1 J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2014 -198 November 12, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Initiate Street Closure and Subsequent Sale of Sears Street ANALYSIS City of Saint John Plazacorp Property Holdings Inc. has approached the City to stop -up and close Sears Street, as shown on an attached plan of survey. If successful, it is their intent to purchase the parcel and develop it in conjunction with their vacant property to the south. They are aware the "to be" closed street is not to be occupied by any buildings or structure as the City maintains an existing storm sewer line within this land. Municipal Operations is aware of the proposal to stop -up and close Sears Street and are in agreement, subject to the reservation of an easement for municipal services in and through the entire portion of Sears Street to protect and provide access to existing City services. The City infrastructure contained underneath this street is deep and therefore, the entire width of the street (if closed) would need to be retained to access the pipe. It is the City's policy to offer a proportionate share of any "to be" closed street to the owners of adjoining properties. In this case, there are two adjacent property owners; Sobeys and Plazacorp. Staff has received a letter from Sobeys indicating they have no interest in acquiring any portion of the "to be" closed street; therefore, the entire parcel, if stopped -up and closed could be sold to Plazacorp. The recommendation contained in this report is only to initiate the necessary processes and would not bind the City to effect the street closing. Should the street be stopped -up and closed, the City may sell the land to Plazacorp. The recommendation contained in this report cannot and does not pre- suppose Council's decisions with respect to the bylaws that would need to be adopted. 59 M &C- 2014 -198 November 12, 2014 IIM0117►I lu 101117�1y Sm It is recommended Common Council adopt the following resolution: 1. That the Public Hearing for the consideration of the passing of a By -law to Stop Up and Close Sears Street in its entirety, be set for Monday, December 22, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber; 2. That Common Council authorize the publishing of a notice of the intention to consider passing of such By -law identified above; and 3. In the event that Sears Street is stopped -up and closed; the City being neither explicitly nor implicitly obligated to enact any by -law to stop -up and close any public street, the City shall sell the closed street pursuant to the Agreement attached to this report as Schedule "A" and the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement. Respectfully submitted, Curtis Langille, BA Real Estate Officer Gregory J. Yeomans, CGA, MBA Commissioner Finance and Administrative Services CL /c Attachments •1 Brian Irving, BBA Manager Real Estate Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager ay. �.an�dawste AV. !1 L dft CD a W a Q� S• � � x'rLj O 4 to . ,.. � • � rle�rm an co i. . Ilk „a(• r N , r 61 • .- F'VVJ1,1 LI ItT I v LO Nt r O N r 4 Offer of Purchase and Sale Sears Street Right -of -way (if stopped -up and closed) In the event that Sears Street, as shown on attached Plan of Survey tided, "Plan of Survey Showing Sears Street, City of Saint John, Saint John County, New Brunswick ", prepared by Kierstead Quigley and Roberts Ltd. and dated September 15, 2014 having an area of 1,355 square metres (14,585 square feet), is stopped -up and closed, The City of Saint John offers for sale its freehold interest in the land to Plazacorp Property Holdings Inc., while reserving an easement for municipal services through the entire property for the sum of $33,875.00 plus HST (if applicable). As part of the transaction, The City of Saint John is responsible for the preparation and insertion for the public advertisement notifications, including French translation that are required to satisfy the procedural regulations, prior to the consideration by Common Council to stop -up and close a street. Plazacorp Property Holdings Inc. is responsible for the following: 1. A plan of survey required for the process to stop -up and close the above mentioned Sears Street, the costs associated with the public advertisement notifications that are required to satisfy the procedural regulations, including the translation cost and any administrative document or any other associated administrative or registration costs that are required to secure their interest in the above mentioned property; and 2. A deposit in the form of a certified cheque equal to Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) must be received by the City of Saint John prior to commencement of the process to consider the stop -up and closure of Sears Street. In the event the street is not stopped -up and closed, the deposit minus the cost of advertising and translation will be returned to Plazacorp Property Holdings Inc. This offer is subject to Common Council approval. I ��5 k F_--o '__ C-- a duly authorized representatives) of Plazacorp Property Holdings Inc. hereby accept the offer contained herein. Signature 62 Date U c w uaV '9 n U� c o OW a\ T -° y oe_ i °Ti °° '• �qL �= you uE o o;gx6a�g�C�r$°ro�:o p oD�PE'E ii °$ °5. 'E�...BS'Go au�`�u.'REe 7 �6a` °&I- Ab f _ >7el.cur��no°nnoN ^0 7�oN clnag¢Ip N Pug B° _ °cod 2 bb� E .z Ep?p� 06�18�pg r 1 m E Ir� � u I 8 u I � D h 1� r a o °.SCE �oo�oobtl E �Sa om . o � 1 •°Iri - -� ow °i m I j o eoa o my .om c ��TAti� � o z• V rc z n rn i��oo n e i" E 03 5 nd O D 9 9 o U U D u c a to tt � OSS N o m� I� 4) O m J a d D po ®��- 1 0) C zo m uj C�� C r- ug ` H0 Z O'O O C D 0 y 1 -1 '^ m pE -C r �� E Em f -f L 21�i1Nt�i1 Vpl m 8€ D• orna^vnim E z on ^Wray j= Q ° a °En cSa 0 J N�a Inn 1 C N a I)5 � �o�✓f V i rn n II So8x u9 \5� s SGI OO Jn _ sm .. V..7e ZNegEN i m mn� 4 •Um B° _ °cod 2 bb� E .z Ep?p� 06�18�pg r 1 m E Ir� � u I 8 u I � D h 1� r a o °.SCE �oo�oobtl E �Sa om . o � 1 •°Iri - -� ow °i m I j o eoa o my .om c ��TAti� � o z• V rc z n rn i��oo n e i" E 03 5 nd O D 9 9 o U U D u c a to tt � OSS N o m� I� 4) O m J a d D po ®��- Di� 0) C uj C�� C r- ug ` H0 Z O'O O C D 0 y 1 -1 '^ G Nin "t pE -C r �� E ffrj u ,or,st -r r ° r` x •�' SOfS[S OINfpN Vl / 3 a s .0 �vj o � tloi6a ,(pun3 nj sauf s 6u�dda a Q Is A� 5• M1 9. m n f7 b p sGbls 63 3 21�i1Nt�i1 Vpl orna^vnim E z on ^Wray j= of °a oPa yl _ {s` E C . m °o2 � a °En cSa (r ♦ O p °�'c °E° C N a I)5 � �o�✓f V i rn n II So8x u9 \5� s SGI OO Jn _ sm .. V..7e ZNegEN i m mn� 4 •Um oCkpoo H8Ct $o�9uc $zvo H..�io °Inml n -q1 y0 Nol _1 - -£ OO..OiR3 nRr N+� y ®��O °b°V VLLxZTj ryy aK ILKY V's N 1 gC�u'K �V- mg �U �UwYI g H NNm N IN dib 1 1 l) U .8192yVli °m �� -_pp�� F < <� IE 06 "jj EEZ$d b k o °rc E .ppaxx a sGbls 63 October 30, 2014 Dear Mayor and Common Council, On November 24 1 would like to bring a group of students from Simonds High School to be presented with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award at the bronze level_ They have been working towards this for the past year. They have completed a Skill, Physical Recreation, Service and Adventurous Journey sections. Yours truly, Signed Deborah Adams deborah.adams @nbed.nb.ca Simonds High 658 -2529 Sent via fax to the Common Clerk's Office on November 5, 2014 Typed by Common Clerk's Office Original on file with Common Clerk's Office MI BY -LAW NUMBER C.P. 106 -7 A LAW TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL PLAN BY -LAW ARRETE No C.P. 106 -7 ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF AU PLAN MUNICIPAL Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors d'une reunion du conseil John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a ddictd follows: ce qui suit : The Municipal Plan By -law of The City of Saint John enacted on the 30th day of January, A.D. 2012 is amended by: 1 Amending Schedule A — City Structure, by redesignating a parcel of land with an area of approximately 14.5 hectares, located at 1808 Hickey Road, also identified as being PID Nos. 00418491 55102628, from Rural Resource Area (outside of the Primary Development Area) to Stable Area (within the Primary Development Area) classification; 2 Amending Schedule B — Future Land Use, by redesignating the same parcel of land from Rural Resource (outside of the Primary Development Area) to Stable Residential (within the Primary Development Area) classification - all as shown on the plans attached hereto and forming part of this by -law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2014 and signed by: L'arret6 concernant le plan municipal de The City of Saint John ddcrdtd le 30 janvier 2012 est modifid par : 1 ]a modification de Fannexe A — Structure de la municipalit6, afin de faire passer la ddsignation d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 14,5 hectares, situde au 1808, chemin Hickey, et portant les NID 00418491 et 55102628, de secteur de ressources rurales (hors du principal secteur de developpement) a secteur stable (dans le principal secteur de developpement) ; 2 la modification de 1'annexe B — Utilisation future des sols, afin de faire passer la ddsignation de la parcelle de terrain prdcit6c de secteur de ressources rurales (hors du principal secteur de developpement) a secteur residentiel stable (dans le principal secteur de developpement) - toutes les modifications sont indiqudes sur les plans ci joints et font partie du prdsent arr&6. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le prdsent arret6 le 2014, avec les signatures suivantes : Mayor Common C1erk/Greffer communal First Reading - November 10, 2014 Premiere lecture - le 10 novembre 2014 Second Reading - November 10, 2014 Deuxieme lecture - le 10 novembre 2014 Third Reading - Troisi6me lecture 65 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/ URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 PLAN D'AMENAGEMENT V L Y 10: crols- n O C s r FROM 1 DE Amending Schedule A Modifiant annexe A ch. Hickey Rd. a�a c Co i 1 r TO 1 A Rural Resource Area/ Stable Area (outside of the Primary Development Area) (within the Primary Development Area) Secteur de ressources rurales Secteur stable (hors du principal secteur developpement) (dans le principal secteur de d6veloppement) Applicant: Haldor (1972) Ltd. Location: 1808 Hickey Road PID(s) /NIP(s): 55102628 & 00418491 Considered by P.A.C. /considers par le C.C.U.: October 21 octobre, 2014 Enacted by Council /Approuv6 par le Conseil: Filed in Registry Office /Enregistr6 le: By -Law #/Arrets # Drawn By /Creee Par: John Ellefsen Date Drawn /Carte Creee: November 17 novembre, 2014 .. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 1 URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ! PLAN D'AMENAGEMENT Y 0 crois, C G� d Amending Schedule B Modifiant annexe B ch. Hickey Rd. l \ V FROM 1 DE f. r ■ or Py/ / aa� i r TO 1 A Rural Resource Stable Residential (outside of the Primary Development Area) (within the Primary Development Area) Secteur de ressources rurales Secteur residentiel stable (hors du principal secteur developpement) (dans le principal secteur de developpement) Applicant: Haldor (1972) Ltd. Location: 1808 Hickey Road PID(s)INIP(s): 55102628 & 00418491 Considered by P.A.C.Iconsidere par le C.C.U.: October 21 octobre, 2014 Enacted by Council /Approuve par le Conseil: Filed in Registry Office /Enregistre le: By -Law #IArrete # Drawn By /Creee Par: John Ellefsen Date Drawn /Carte Creee: November 17 novembre, 2014 67 RETO' !i`' M &C- 2014 -202 November 17, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Section 39 Conditions 168 -172 Belmont Street BACKGROUND: rig City of Saint John At its November 10, 2014 Public Hearing, Common Council considered an application to rezone the property at 168 -172 Belmont Street. During the Public Hearing, Carol Rice, a neighbour living adjacent to the subject site, appeared before Council and expressed her concern with the proposed rezoning application. Ms. Rice explained a number of situations involving the tenants of the dwelling at 168 -172 Belmont Street, and the existing conditions of the building, which have caused concern for her when accessing her property and/or spending time in her backyard. These issues included the presence of vicious dogs, the use of profane language and being verbally intimidated. . In addition to the recommended Section 39 condition that would require additional landscaping in the front yard (up to the traveled portion of the right -of- way), Council debated an additional condition that would require the applicant to install a fence along the property line abutting Ms. Rice's dwelling at 164 Belmont Street. However, Council raised a concern with imposing the proposed Section 39 condition without having confirmation that a fence could be constructed on the subject property line. As such, a motion was passed to have staff conduct a site visit and ensure that there are no obvious impediments to constructing a fence that Council should be aware of prior to including the proposed condition in the Section 39 resolution. .: M & C — 2014 — 202 - 2 - November 17, 2014 ANALYSIS: On November 14, 2014 Planning and Building Inspection staff conducted a site visit to the subject property to investigate the feasibility of placing a fence between the two properties. The northern property line of 168 -172 Belmont Street has a length of approximately 30 metres, which is approximately twice the length of the existing dwelling at 164 Belmont Street. The front portion of the subject property line contains an existing stone fence with a length of approximately 11 metres, which, according to aerial photography provided by the City's Geographical Information Services, appears to be located entirely on the property at 168 -172 Belmont Street. The stone fence extends approximately eight metres into the property and three metres beyond the property line and into the Belmont Street right -of -way (see attached site photography). Staff noted that the fence is only a few feet high and in poor condition. The rear portion of the property line contains some small shrubs and a few trees. Removing some of the shrubs and/or trees would likely be required to establish a fence along this portion of the property. Given the observed site conditions, staff feel a board -on -board fence could be placed on the property at 168 -172 Belmont Street. In order to achieve the purpose of creating a visual and physical barrier that helps preserve adequate privacy for the lot at 164 Belmont Street, staff recommend that the fence be constructed at the location where the existing stone fence approximately ends, and should extend for a minimum of 18 metres toward the rear of the lot. RECOMMENDATION: That the following Section 39 resolution be adopted, if Council gives third reading to the proposed rezoning of 168 -172 Belmont Street: That, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the development and use of the parcel of land with an area of approximately 690 square metres, located at 168 -172 Belmont Street, also identified as being PID No. 55213987, be subject to the following conditions: a) That the required front yard extending to the edge of the travelled right -of -way be landscaped within one year of the Building Permit to legalise the use being issued, and b) That a board -on -board fence be constructed within one year of the Building Permit at the location where the existing stone fence approximately ends, and extend for a minimum of 18 metres toward the rear of the lot. .• M &C- 2014 -202 Respectfully submitted, Jody Kliffer, MCIP. RPP Planner -3- queline Hamilton, MURP, MCIP, RPP ommissioner, Growth & Community Development Services 1atrick Woods, CGA 1yC Manager X Project No. 14 -503 70 November 17, 2014 Site Photography t 168 -172 Belmont Street Date: November 17, 2014 The city 0Saint pole. Photo 1:Stone Fence Photo 2: Rear portion of property line Photo 3: Driveway 71 Photo 4: Aerial Shot Proposed Location of Fence along Northern Property Line 72 BY -LAW NUMBER C.P. 110 -231 A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY -LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as follows: The Zoning By -law of The City of Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of December, A.D. 2005, is amended by: 1 Amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 690 square metres, located at 168 -172 Belmont Street, also identified as PID number 55213987, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential pursuant to a resolution adopted by Common Council under Section 39 of the Community Planning Act. - all as shown on the plan attached hereto and forming part of this by -law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2014 and signed by: First Reading - Second Reading - Third Reading - Mayor/Maire ARRETE No C.P. 110 -231 ARRETE MODIFL ,NT L'ARRETE SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Lors d'une reunion du conseil communal, The City of Saint John a ddcrdtd cc qui suit : Uarrete sur le zonage de The City of Saint John, ddcrdtd le dix -neuf (19) ddcembre 2005, est modifid par : 1 La modification de 1'annexe <<A », Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, permettant de modifier ]a designation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 690 metres carres, situde au 168- 172, rue Belmont, et portant le NID 55213987, de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales u R -2 » a zone residentielle — habitations de quatre logements « R -4 » conformement a une resolution adoptee par le conseil municipal en vertu de Particle 39 de la Loi sur l'urbanisme. - toutes les modifications sont indiqudes sur le plan ci joint et font partie du present arret6. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arret6 le 2014, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal November 10, 2014 Premiere lecture November 10, 2014 Deuxieme lecture Troisieme lecture 73 - le 10 novembre 2014 - le 10 novembre 2014 GROWTH & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SERVICE DE LA CROISSANCE ET DU D�VELOPPEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE co �Z. O� REZONING 1 REZONAGE Amending Schedule "A" of the Zoning By-Law of The City of Saint John Modifiant Annexe «A» de I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ;0 a�' f FROM 1 DE �)Pk 0o TO 1 A R -2 R- 4 One And Two Family Kesiaentiai Four Family Residential zone residentielle- habitations unifamiliales residentielle- habitations de quatre logements et bifamiliales Pursuant to a Resolution under Section 39 of the Community Planning Act Conformement a une resolution adoptee par le conseil municipal en vertu de I'article 39 de la Lai sur I'urbanisme Applicant: Diesel Power Service Ltd Location: 168 -172 Belmont Street PID(s) /NIP(s): 55213987 Considered by P.A.C. /considers par le C.C.U.: Enacted by Council /Approuve par le Conseil: Filed in Registry Office /Enregistre le: By -Law No. /Arrete No. October 21 octobre, 2014 Drawn By /Creee Par: John Ellefsen Date Drawn /Carte Creee: November 14 novembre, 2014. 74 Section 39 Conditions —168 -172 Belmont St. That, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the development and use of the parcel of land with an area of approximately 690 square metres, located at 168 -172 Belmont Street, also identified as being PID No. 55213987, be subject to the condition that the required front yard extending to the edge of the travelled right -of -way be landscaped within one year of the Building Permit to legalise the use being issued. 75 BY -LAW NUMBER M -16 A BY -LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE Be it enacted by the Common Council of the City of Saint John as follows: A by -law of the City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Water and Sewerage" enacted on the 7" day of June, A.D. 2004, is hereby amended as follows: 1 Schedules "A" and "B" are repealed and the following are substituted: SCHEDULE "A" Effective January 1", 2015 Flat rate customers Flat rate customers Yearly $518.92 Water charge SCHEDULE "B" Effective January 15t, 2015 METERED CUSTOMERS - WATER SERVICE CHARGE Meter Size Yearly $ Monthly $) Bi- Month] (S) 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm & UP 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 METERED CUSTOMERS -CONSUMPTION CHARGE Monthly (by m) Bi- Monthl (b m') Consumption (m') Rate ($ /m' Consumption in' Rate ($.'m) For the first 50 1.3005 For the first 100 1.3005 For the next 124,950 0.8281 For the next 249,900 0.8281 For all in excess of 125,000 0.2922 I For all in excess of 250,000 0.2922 Spillage 0.1100 S illa a 1 0.1100 IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the day of, A.D. 2015 and signed by: First Reading Second Reading Third Reading Mayor /maire ARRETE No M -16 ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE CONCERNANT LE RESEAU WEAU ET DIGOUTS Le conseil communal de The City of Saint John d6cr&e ce qui suit : Par les presentes, Farrdtd de The City of Saint John intitul6 << Arr6t6 concernant les r6seaux d'eau et d'6gouts >>, ddictd lc 7 juin 2004, est modifi6 comme suit.: 1 Les annexes <<A>> et <<B» soot abrogees et sont remplacees par celles qui figurent aux pr6sentes. ANNEXE<<A» En vigueur le le' janvier 2015 Tarif forfaitaire pour les clients Tarif forfaitaire pour Tarif 518,92$ les clients annuel 216.36 Redevance Sur 1'eau 36.06 20mm ANNEXE <<B>> En vigueur le leT janvier 2015 CLIENTS AVEC COMPTEUR -TARIF DES SERVICES D'EAU Dimension du com teur Tarif annuel ($) Tarif mensuel (S ) Tari bvnensuel(S) 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm et plus 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 CLIENTS AVEC COMPTEUR - FRAIS DE CONSOMMATION Mensuels arm Bimestriels (par m') Consommation Frais Consommation Frais m) ($nn') (m3) (S /m) Pour les 50 1,3005 Pour les 100 1,3005 remiers prei niers Pour les 0,8281 Pour les 0,8281 124 950 249 900 suivants suivants Pour toute 0,2922 Pour toute 0,2922 consommation consommation au -dela de au -dela de 125 000 250 000 Renversement 0,1100 Renversement 0,1100 EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arr6t6 le 2015, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal - November 10, 2014 Premiere lecture - November 10, 2014 Deuxi6me lecture Troisieme lecture 76 - le 10 novembre 2014 - le 10 novembre 2014 November 17, 2014 Deputy Mayor and Members of Common Council Deputy Mayor and Councillors: Subject: Energy East Pipeline WHEREAS Council of the City of Saint John consider the TransCanada Energy East Pipeline project to be of the utmost importance to the Saint John Area by providing the area with the possibilities of economic and community development; WHEREAS Council of the City of Saint John feel that it is in the best interest of the citizens of Saint John to endorse said project; BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Saint John support the TransCanada Energy East Pipeline project. Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) Mel Norton Mayor City of Saint John (F57- SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada E21-41-1 I www.sairtphn.ca C,P.1971 Saint John, N.-B, Canada M41-1 77 November 24, 2014 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: Saint John Go Bike Project Background: The Saint John Go Bike Project is a rental bike solution, for intra -city and trail use. Although Atlantic Canada (and our City of Saint John) has its own challenges — steep hills, small cities, short seasons, cool marine climates and perhaps the most important — the lack of a bicycling mentality. The project team is confident with the correct balance between the placement of the bike stations around our city and overall capital costs that this project is ideally suited for our City of Saint John. Furthermore as the sponsors of the project build the system, it could be viewed as an addition to the transit system, as a commuting alternative, as a means of expanding tourism and finally as a means of promoting a healthy lifestyle. The system will utilize between 5 - 10 bike stations and 55 - 110 bikes. The bikes are nine geared "city" bikes designed for riding on most urban landscape surfaces and can also handle the gravel path surfaces of typical trail networks. This means bikes can be used for touring on trails as well as commuting in uptown or residential areas_ The bike station is approximately 30 square meters. Stations are strategically located throughout the city to create a network that supports a system well suited for Saint John. The design features 20 slots and locking devices with embedded RFIDs for control and monitoring of the station and individual bikes. This project is a tremendous addition to our City of Saint John active transportation objectives and overall recreation plan. Furthermore this project supports the Green Feet Committee which is the environmental group for Uptown Saint John and also supports our City of Saint John sponsored Campus Harbour Connection. The comparison can be made that the Go Bike project can have the same positive impact for active transportation in our City of Saint John that HotSpot Parking had for motorists and business in Uptown Saint John. A move to support the below motion is a move to promote healthier lifestyles and a greener City of Saint John at no cost to our citizens. Motion: (1.) Refer to the Common Clerk for scheduling of the Saint John Go Bike Project Presentation. SAINT JOHN •- - .—I PO. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L4LI I wwwsair:tjohn_ca ' C.P. 1971 Saint]ohri, N. -B. Canada E2L40 Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) Greg Norton Councillor (Ward 1) City of Saint John e -p SAINT JOHN 4 � P.O. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada EX 40 www.sairtjohn.ca C.P 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada ESL 40 79 f . e -p SAINT JOHN 4 � P.O. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada EX 40 www.sairtjohn.ca C.P 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada ESL 40 79 tPK the chyof saint john November 24, 2014 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: City of Saint John Sunshine List Background: A City of Saint John Sunshine List would make our City Hall more transparent and accountable to the citizens of Saint John. Providing such information can allow taxpayers the opportunity to compare service delivery and overall performance of our City of Saint John operations with the compensation paid to those responsible for delivering the service. It is one more way by which this Common Council can provide citizens with more details on how their tax dollars are spent. It is my perspective that implementing a salary, benefit and severance disclosure policy is one more way that we can demonstrate our commitment to providing open data. For example, it was cited in the Calgary Herald on September 30th, 2014 that "proper disclosure lists have let Ontario media track how police officers log overtime." Salaries and benefits are by far the largest expense and are often the least debated and disclosed. It is the responsibility if this Council to govern in such a way as to make transparency a regular feature at City Hall and providing increased sets of open data can help close the accountability gap. This motion, if successful, builds upon our commitment to provide proactive and routine release of information to the public we serve. Motion: (1.) Direct the City Manager to publish to the City of Saint John website an annual list of the names, positions, salaries and total taxable benefits (OT, shift differential, long service premium, benefits, pensions, retirement allowance /severance payments) of all employees. (2.) Whereas listing exact salary by name is not allowable under current RTIPPA Legislation then the direction adopted would be a duplicate model that is currently disclosed by the Province of New Brunswick, by which employee names and a corresponding salary range are reported including regular earnings, overtime, personal service contracts, and any other employee remuneration in lieu of exact salary amounts. The following hyperlink provides a current example of the before mentioned: http: / /www2.gnb.ca/ content /dam /gnb/ Departments /fin /pdf /OC /PAl3Emp.pdf CPU. SAINT JOHN P.C. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada E21L 41_1 I wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint john, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L :1 (3.) Request the Common Clerk send a copy of this resolution to the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners urging them to adopt a likeminded policy. (It should be noted that police services throughout the province of Ontario and elsewhere (e.g. Alberta) do not hold this information under embargo as per the Public Sector Disclosure Act, 1996.} Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) Greg Norton Councillor (Ward 1) City of Saint John SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada E2L 40 ' wwwsaingohn.ca C.P. 1971 Saint Johri, N.-B. Canada E2L 40 �-11 ,R. November 24, 2014 His Worship Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Subject: City of Saint John Collective Agreements Background: Currently collective agreements negotiated with the City of Saint John are buried within council packet material or not available at all unless an RTI or similar request is initiated. The purpose of this motion is to provide the public at large with increased availability of Collective Agreement details without the rigorous work currently required to unearth such public contracts. There are some municipal collective agreements available to the public at large, however, more work must be done to provide citizens with information about how their dollars are spent and services negotiated. For example, Woodstock Police Association and the St_ George Outside Workers makes their collective agreement available electronically on the NB Union Webpage <http: / /www.nbpea.nb.ca> This motion aims to provide a clearer path for citizens to collective agreements, that are negotiated to provide the best possible value and service for taxpayer dollars. Motion: (1.) Request the City Manager investigate possible solutions to how Collective Agreements settled with the City of Saint John can be made more accessible to the public. (2.) Request the City Manager investigate possible solutions to how Collective Agreements settled with the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners can be made more accessible to the public. Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) Greg Norton Councillor (Ward 1) City of Saint John co-W. - _. SAINT JOHN P.C. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada EK 4LI I wwwsairgohn.ca 1 C.P. 1971 Saint john, N. -B. Canada F2L 4L7 �------- EM REPORT DID, .-ti +^I , r . 0.- .r November 18, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: GUIDELINES FOR COMMON COUNCIL REFERRALS City of Saint john BACKGROUND Common Council expresses itself and makes decisions by adopting resolutions during a meeting of Council. Typically, this process begins with a motion being introduced to Council for consideration by one of the following methods: (1) written submissions by Council Members to the Council agenda; (2) motions drafted during a Council meeting; (3) recommendations from Staff Council Reports. Council resolutions requiring Staff follow -up are recorded by the Common Clerk and included in a referral inventory, also called the "actionable items inventory." Council Members are provided direction on the types of available motions through the City's Procedural Bylaw (Bylaw Number M -5). The Bylaw identifies the following types of motions, among others: • Tabling motion; • Motion to defer; • Motion to refer; • Motion to rescind. The types of resolutions that are most commonly found in the City's actionable items inventory are those delegated to the City Manager, to the budget process, or to an agency, board or commission. The nature of each resolution, including follow -up expectations, differs considerably as a result of the complexity of request as well as the capacity to follow -up. ANAL,VC1C The City has an opportunity to ensure a more efficient and results- orientated process associated with referrals. A new more disciplined process will focus on preventing the accumulation of referrals, which can result in unfortunate backlogs and referrals remaining on the actionable items inventory for long periods. The level of priority of existing referrals within the inventory is often times unclear as well as whether referrals require immediate attention or should be removed from the inventory. -2- In this report, it is recommended that the City introduce a new administrative process, which will require collaboration throughout the City, and will enhance (1) how referrals are developed and (2) how to manage outstanding referrals. (1) How referrals are developed There is an existing `best practice' that is exercised by Council Members which should continue on a go forward basis. Council Members are encouraged to connect with the City Manager's Office /Commissioners if they are seeking clarification or feedback on a matter. Council Members certainly have the responsibly and ability to submit motions in Council meetings, but the City Manager's Office /Commissioners can provide preliminary verbal feedback on some matters or delegate the question to Staff, agency, board or commission (ABC) for pre - referral research. This research could include investigating the following: scope, cost, required resources, capacity, etc. As a simple rule of thumb, if a submission from a Member of Council can be resolved by a conversation with the City Manager's Office /Commissioners, consideration should first be placed on pursuing that option. This report will focus on the following types of resolutions: `to direct' and `to refer.' Directing the City Manager Common Council may choose to `direct' the City Manager, which requires the City Manager to take action without an explicit requirement to subsequently report to Council (unless otherwise indicated in the motion). In other words, Common Council has made a decision to proceed on the nature of the resolution and there is no need for the City Manager to return to Council with additional information or research, as Council is prepared to direct action on the matter. Refer to the City Manager The overwhelming majority of resolutions found within the actionable items inventory are `referrals.' Referrals differ from direction to the City Manager in that they indicate Council's interest to receive additional information, research and /or advice before making a final decision on a matter. In order to effectively manage referral motions, this report recommends actions from both Staff and Council Members. Council Members are encouraged to formulate referral motions with the following characteristics: a) Refer only to the City Manager and refrain from referring to other Staff, ABCs and/or initiatives, unless otherwise required; b) Refer without indicating timelines, unless the matter is truly pressing; I -3- c) Council Members should define the nature of the referral follow -up, including verbal report, written report, Resource Implications Questionnaire or refer to existing initiative within the motion. Within the City of Saint John, the City Manager is best equipped to determine who from within the corporation or ABCs should be delegated to respond to a referral. Finally, the City Manager is also best equipped to define a reasonable and fair response time to referrals. With the above in mind, this does not diminish the ability of Council Members from explicitly defining greater specificity in referral motions. In terms of actions directed towards Staff, this report recommends a new administrative process once referrals have been approved by Common Council. After each Council meeting, the City Manager will now triage the referrals originating from Council, designate appropriate timelines and delegate responsibilities to each referral. In addition, the City Manager will ensure the referral receives the appropriate follow -up from Staff, as defined by the Council motion, including: a) Referral to the City Manager with written report back - Expectation is for the City Manager to draft a Report to Council with feedback and/or a recommendation; b) Referral to the City Manager verbal update - City Manager will pursue the resolution and report back to Council with a verbal update, which will occur during Council meetings (both in Committee of the Whole and Open Session); c) Referral to an existing initiative -- Motion will be referred directly to an existing City of Saint John project, research or initiative which will take into account the nature of the referral (Staff will report back on the larger project, research or initiative at a later date). Existing examples of major City of Saint John projects, research or initiatives in which a resolution could be referred to include: Local Governance Reform Agenda; Budget; Fleet Review; True Growth 2.0; One Stop Development Shop; Sustainable Service Review; Transportation Plan. d) Resource Implications Questionnaire (see `Attachment A' for template) — The nature of the resolution points to a new idea/problem/ opportunity that may require substantive demands on the City. The questionnaire is the ideal mechanism to define the extent of work associated with examining the issue, and will require coordination between Staff and the Council Member who drafted the initial resolution. The City Manager will report back to Council on the results of the questionnaire, which will enhance the evidence -based nature of Common Council's decision to pursue or reject the resolution. The introduction of a Resource Implications Questionnaire will instill a more formal process and also identify other variables, including, among others: projected workload and expenditure associated with a ER -4- referral; in -house capacity to effectively respond to the referral; link to existing projects/programs; link to existing referrals; link to Council Priorities; timeline. Once the City Manager has triaged all the referrals, the Common Clerk will update the existing inventory of actionable items. The updated actionable items inventory will be available to Common Council to review and monitor progress via Laserfiche. Council Members are free to connect with the City Manager's Office if there is any feedback or concerns associated with the City Manager's follow -up direction associated with referrals. In addition, the Common Clerk will maintain a list of completed referrals, which provides insight on the quantity of referrals that have been processed over time. For a complete flow chart depicting the new administrative process, please see .Attachment B. (2) How to manage outstanding referrals The City is committed to researching, resolving and following -up on existing Council resolutions in an effective and timely manner. The City Manager will build stronger internal processes to support Council Members with the Resource Implications Questionnaire, delegate new referrals to the appropriate Staff /ABC and ensure periodic follow -up on progress during meetings. Once the City Manager delegates a referral for follow -up, it will then be the responsibility of Commissioners to respond to the referral and update the referral inventory. The planned outcomes with the City's Service Based Budget will be impacted by referrals that require a more substantive workload (as identified by the Resource Implications Questionnaire). In addition, the City will introduce an exercise to review the existing actionable items inventory with newly elected Members of Council after they have established their Council Priorities. This process will allow the City to identify the existing referrals that may fall outside of the newly established Council Priorities. J,oKul J)1►i1D1017:-4 0[1)►1.y This report recommends the immediate adoption of the following improvements to the development, formulation and follow -up associated with Council referrals. The recommendations do not compromise the City's existing Procedural Bylaw, as the recommendations introduce new administrative processes that fall outside the purview of the Bylaw. There is an existing referral that touches on some of the components of this Report, and it was adopted by Common Council on March 4fll, 2013: M. -5- "11.2 RESOLVED that Council invite a proposal from Christopher Boudreau, CEO of Clinic Server, with respect to facilitating an open Committee of the Whole session(y) of'Council for the purpose of reviewing the outstanding motions of Council with the goal of consolidating, reducing and prioritizing the same alignment with 1) Council's strategic priorities; 2) True Growth 2.0; and 3) the recently completed Quality of Work Life Study. " If it is the will of Common Council, the City Manager can be directed to further pursue referral development on the precise terms of the above motion and with Clinic Server. Staff recommends that: 1. Council Members are encouraged to connect with the City Manager prior to bringing a matter to a Council meeting; 2. City Manager be directed to use his/her discretion in supporting Council Members with pre - referral research; 3. Common Council approve the Resource Implications Questionnaire and approve the guidelines associated with its use; 4. Council Members formulate referral motions with the following considerations: (a) Refer only to the City Manager and refrain from referring to other Staff, ABCs and /or initiatives, unless otherwise required; (b) Refer without indicating timelines, unless the matter is truly pressing; (c) Council Members should define the nature of the referral follow - up, including verbal report, written report, Resource Implications Questionnaire or refer to existing initiative within the motion. 5. City Manager use the following types of delegation when processing the actionable items inventory: (a) Referral to the City Manager with written report back; (b) Referral to the City Manager verbal update; (c) Referral to an existing initiative; (d) Referral to Resource Implications Questionnaire; b. The Common Clerk ensure that the City Manager or a designate has the opportunity to deliver verbal updates in both Committee of the Whole and Open Session; 7. The Common Clerk periodically update the actionable items inventory, and ensure it is available to Common Council to review and monitor through Laserfache; 8. The City Manager review the existing list of actionable items inventory with newly elected Members of Council after they have established their Council Priorities; 9. The City Manager includes referrals that require a more substantive workload into annual work plans and the City's Service Based Budget. Respectfully submitted, c Phil Ouellette, MA Executive Director Jonathan Taylor Common Clerk Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager .. -6- p4' ---; CITY OF SAINT JOHN Attachment A RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE DATE: RESOLUTION NAME: KEY COUNCIL MEMBER(S) LINKED WITH RESOLUTION: IDENTIFIED CITY STAFF TO SUPPORT RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE: DESCRIPTION OF RESOLUTION (including target outcome of resolution): LINK WITH FUTURE OR EXISTING CITY INITIATIVES: LINK TO EXISTING REFERRALS (Council Referrals): LINK TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES /CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN (Council Priorities]: IDEAL TIMELINE: PROJECTED IN -HOUSE WORKLOAD REQUIRED TO FULFILL TERMS OF RESOLUTION: PROJECTED EXPENDITURE REQUIRED TO FULFILL TERMS OF RESOLUTION: :• q19569 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE SERVICE LEVEL IMPLICATIONS IF RESOLUTION WAS PURSUED: COMMENTARY: City of Saint John a CITY OF SAINT JOHN Attachment B Council Member has identified a general idea /problem /opportunity that he /she is interested to have the City pursue i Prior to bringing a matter to Council, Council Member may corinect with the City Manager /Commissioners, who can provide verbal feedback and /or delegate the question to a City Staff, agency, board or commission (ABC) for pre - referral research. This research could include investigating scoping, costing, staffing, capacity, etc. .47 When developing the motion, a Council Member should determine if the matter should be 'referred' or `directed' to the City Manager. Refer — Request the City Manager collect additional information, research and /or advice and report back to Council prior to making a final decision on a matter i Council to vote on motion -414� City Manager to triage all referral, delegate responsibility, established timelines for response, and ensure appropriate follow -up (see below) Direct - require the City Manager to take action with no requirement to subsequently report to Council s Council to vote on motion a City Manager to pursue the matter Referral form No written report required, as a short verbal update /report Verbal Report suffices Referral for Matter is more complex in nature and requires detailed Written Report updating Resource Will require coordination between City Staff and the Implications Council Member, and is the ideal mechanism to define the Questionnaire extent of work associated with examining the issue Referral to Resolution is transmitted directly into an existing existing initiative, and becomes the responsibility of those leading initiative the initiative to respond when the final recommendation of the existing initig*e is presented to Couricil City Staff to report back to Council, at which point, Council may choose to adapt a new motion Council Referrals: Guidelines City of Saint John November 2014. W, • Unfortunate backlog of referrals • In July 2014, the City had approximately 275 unresolved referrals The existing unresolved referrals span five years, starting in 2009 93 1. Review and build plan on existing actionable items inventory 2. Introduce necessary guidelines to ensure efficient management of future referrals ., Totall Actionablie: ResDilu #:iloinsPlassed'SlinceNMay 301, 2:012' 698 Completed ResoiutIons sInoe May 3O, 2012: 511 Outstanding. Resvlutio, s Since May 301, 2,012, 187 Percentag,eof Reso-lutiicnsCo,mmpleted' 73% Percentage oil' R�e,s;ollurt:lonsCMutstanding; 27' Actllonabile Resovliutions Paass ;e;d' my Y'ear1.. (NIlaY.301,; 20111.2 -May 2:7,, 20113) 341. t_o irniple: te: dResoilutionsfromi Year 1. (May 3011E 201.2: -May; 27, 2'01.3) 2.99 Outstanding Resollut:iionsfro i Year 1 421 ,actionable ResoilutlionsPlaas'se:dlin Year 2' (tu!rre: 3, 2013 -May 26, 2Q141 269 :o�mpllet.edR;esolu iio,nsfro,mY'e:air2:(June,3, 2:01.3- N1aay2'.6,,:2.014)i 199 01ut.st:anding; R'e:solut:ions from Year 2: 7' Actionable: Resolu.t!llonsiPlassse�d r 11 Year (1u!ne 9,. 20u11.4 -Sep . 29„ 2014) SE Completed Reso,lullci,nsfrornYear3 (June, 91, 2,0114-Sep. 29, 2014) 13 Oulstandlirtig; Rewilu loins from; Year 3, 75 * *: *These nurnbersdo riot iindude resolutilonspass ,edoirccirYiplete:dfrom,past Councils, arid' do not include rireceliwe andfille" miotionas 95 Substantial workload associated with referrals Unclear which referrals are priorities for Common Council Uncertainty on how to manage referrals from a prior Council's term Confusion on whether the mandate of a referral requires action or an investigation in order to determine action Roles and responsibilities in the ongoing management of referrals could be improved ON .. • Slow follow -upon referrals • Challenges in determining the status of past referrals, which can result in referral duplication • Pursuing referrals without a clear understanding on resources and capacity, and consequence on existing work plans and /or service delivery • Varying degrees of specificity in referrals (timing, delegation, ABCs, initiatives) 97 Introduce an efficient and results- orientated administrative process, requiring the collaboration of City Staff and Council Members., in order to enhance (1) how referrals are developed and (2) how to manage outstanding referrals. b .• Council Me mbe r has We ratified a ge nerai de a%proti k m /op ptnrtunaty, that he /she is O to rested to have the Cihr pursue n Prior tobrwC>wamattertoCounc Counci Mernbermxy connect withtheCty Manage riCammss roners,whocan provide vertia. feedback and /or de-agate the question to a Crty Stae. agervcy, board or camm -son tABCI !ar pre - referral research Thsre search cou%d noude rrvest*j3tinascapM costag std*rn& capac?ty etc When developrngthemict,on,aCounc Member shouA deterninefithe matter should be "referiredror "daectecito the City Manager Refer— R-eQuest1heCtyUNWT research mWor Dire& - requrethe%Rv ad vice and report back Coraial prior to mak ft a tin' W decision on a maftr MainVert+o take action with rw requirefrierrt to subsequentIV report t* Counch CamrM 4.x04 M ~"" AL City Manager to triage a[, referrat deiesate responsibility, established timeilnes CAU" is Mate em motlen for resporise, and ensure owaprage %kouc -up jsee below). j Coq+ Manager to pursue the matter, i Rete•rral iF,nr Nb,wr tenirepnrtrequVed. mazhoirk,tierbal updaefrepoo.. MEW t+lertab lkeport suff ces Ctr;r SfnfE to report bacG tc. Reterryi for Matter -s mare corrwi'er .n nature and requnresidefs,4d' Ceunci�at l Written Report updatft which Vo"n. Council V Resource ;14's' require coordination between C'ty Staff and the rn �, �-- tv:rCatBoris Counc-ii Mernbe r, and isthe Ideal, rnechan ;smy to def,ne the choose to r' Ctuestforr.lre ajdant:oi iMfIN'aastir"Nd dlarq&he�sraarar#umMOM' iaaua:. p a �/� new 11 FLOM to Fesokition stransrmtted dkercf.KL into an existing nrwtiari e,w.5'ng 'nliat.ve, and becomesthe respansab, + :lty +otthose :'ead :ing IF an9fatmne the lnitlatiive to respond whenthe finail recornmendatien ofthe exisCing iin*st :twee ;aprewntedto Counci'!. We Council Member has identified a general idea /problem /opportunity that he /she is interested to have the City pursue. Prior to a matter to Council, Coufncil Member may connect with City Manager, who can provide verbal feedback and /or delegate the question to a City Staff, agency, board or commission (ABC) for pre - referral research. This research could include investigating wooing, costing, -qaffing, capacity, etc. When developing the motion, a Council Member should determine if the matter should be referred or directed to the City Manager,, 100 Direct - require the Gilt a o t rager to ta ke a ctin wi t fi no requorernent to subsequently report tic Council. Council to vote on motion City Manager to pursue the matter a 101 Refer — F�qu, s# the City Manager caIlect additional inFormatIon, research and/or advi -Ce and report back to Council per or to making a final decision on a matter. 4 Council to vote on motion i C Manager. to trr, all referra r de legate responsibility, established time lines for response, and ensure appropriate follow-up adsee below). 102 Referral for No written report required, as a short verbal update /report Verbal Report suffices. R.efe�rrap for Matter is more complex in nature and requires det:a�iiled! Written R,epo�t updat'iing., Resource Will require coordination between City Staff and the IMplicatiions Council Member and is the iidleat mechanism to define the Questionnaire extent of work associated with examining the iiss.u.ue. Referral to Resolution its transmitted directly into an existing existing initiative, and becomes the responsibility of those leading; in�itiia�tiiv�e� t:h�e initiative to respond when, the fiinall recom endat' of the existing initiative its presented to Council. 103 Attachmmt WASOUTZE mw-jrmlom SSW CoUftec. 2AM T ftftW OR craff": ..%c %' S s ", �' v I - V 9 A- .4 y t :. %:.,L 4•.•, F as % W., i r•.";. i-.A T a:,. r -s, c,.i P,— I MM:M'= • laseAmm9s ftamftm urwyft" MAO Co Ipoftv"L 104 City Staff to report to Council, at which point, Council may choose to adopt a new motion. 105 • Actionable items inventory and completed referrals on Laserfiche for Staff and Council • Periodic follow -up during City Staff meetings • Commissioners: management and updating • Substantive referrals in work plans / SBB • Review inventory with newly elected Members of Council (determine link to established priorities) ' 4 106 The nine recommendation in the Council Report fulfill the requirements to deliver ... Cmr" hlambe r hos +denbfx:d age ne rag 6ae hVProbfemMYapporfsat0.trttgt M /she is artereaed to 4ae tha C°h" Irt7rttrC Pr'nf +v brahferi • rnataer is caascs. [orated Mehhber afar Lmwsect wWh the Ckr sAarheae r /Canrr�rpters, wtho can Prot de verbal kedhw:* andfor de to a the questnr to a C*V Stage'; MO MY board or cor w avon (ABC) ror pro- ref"rai resstdt The resexhh could ehcYU+e rw. d;eingsrdprhg, eastag, hdlr!+'tg eaPacfil etc Wtiendevecor4dhe motan aCawx(HemberatsothddetermVw rWe.,hatter dseuld be rti, r for d, Fed to she C.t�hNanryer larrw - gegwe�tfta Loy Mar4yer cO; ±ct sddllenal nfarmal.aa rlsaarch andrw Dream Rqule the co d• �artd teaarf bec4to Cawnc:l w�or fo mts4.raest:nhs deenan an s+nattar tttararerhstIke action trvh no requirernertt to se6s gsts M •" rcpart+'r — Wttxd faaaaA M aware ow, largos 4 t e•i Men, w1 to tfiaga a refe rrr. d`4rate resoarvb !tY eatap!.¢ted torte ",es for re So& " and errtwte aowwr ate ;a1.OA -tro lsse ba;Ot41 tt[4rrat':pr VerLai3lePerr Weml for irhwrotnim REPOrf tteswrCG yt Imp" Caf.osns O"all is —a."e Refer* -a r er'atrhg it tang tr wb r Cry Manage r to txtrsue ')hn matter waWanf� ca reptsrefrlgwrred: no Awnxrtarl rrpdaten rcp x1 sartfaes Waiter s mare Les ,qee .n nsiwre and requ,resdetarkd +�pdat,q Wale and thsm to define the oiwor4 nmclated v4h e.- sm��Ins the isssu T' Resolwdon is trwwn?tmd d!rer`. .nte an e: at n; ;"Xxtw and btua wsthe m=o,'s•b:ay afOose esi the :n!t+ai is rexo d When the t!nal recommendation w :the v W--* nghlat s Ptesoniied m C.aar 107 J C V Stafr +a report back [Punta as nhkh paad:. Wit umol m� Choose +o adopt. a'a^tan PA-]EFORT TO, COMINION COUNCIL M &. C — 2014 -205 November 24, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Funding Flemming Court Park. BACKGROUND: The Crescent Valley Resource Centre (CVRC) has been developing Flemming Court Park (FCP) for a number of years. The Resource Centre along with many partners including the City of Saint John, Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada has up to this point a high quality water park in place in Flemming Court. The overall design for this project also included a playground, which Crescent Valley is now moving forward with to complete this project. Phase 1 of Flemming Court Park consisting of a Splash Pad was completed in June of 2011. Phase 2 of FCP consists of the playground. The original design of the playground portion of the park was estimated to cost over $400,000. The CVRC had the playground redesigned and reduced in size to achieve a more realistic cost that the community was able to support. The new cost of the playground is $165,500 (Appendix 1). Initially the City of Saint John approved $30,000 in support of Phase 2 of this project. Since the CVRC did not have funding secured from other sources these funds were subsequently diverted to complete upgrades at Rainbow Park. Now that the CVRC has secured other leveraged funding they are asking that the City recommit $30,000 toward the completion of Flemming Court Park. City of Saint John The Regional Development Corporation (RDC) has approved $55,000 toward the completion of Phase 2 (Appendix 2). When CVRC president (Ann Barrett) met with then Minister Trevor Holder, it was explained to Mrs. Barrett that the funding would first need to be spent by CVRC and then reimbursed following the W. M &C -2014 -205 -2 - November 24, 2014 RDC receiving proper documentation. Minister Holder asked Mrs. Barrett to investigate the possibility of the City of Saint John advancing the CVRC the total amount to purchase the equipment; and following the funding claim made to RDC, the City of Saint John to be reimbursed by the CVRC. It is anticipated that an additional $20,500 advance to CVRC is required to purchase the playground structures (Appendix 3). ANALYSIS: The Crescent Valley Resource Centre has a long standing and successful relationship with the City of Saint John in recreation programming and facility development. This project aligns with PLAYS) as follows; The City of Saint John will decommission two adjacent neighbourhood playgrounds that are at the end of their lifecycle (Appendix 4 and Appendix 5). The end result will be an increase in quality while decreasing the quantity of playgrounds. Flemming Court will become the centralized hub for recreation facilities in Crescent Valley. This project is only made possible through community consultation and empowerment. The project also aligns with PLANS) principles on development in the urban core and priority neighbourhoods. Staff has identified funding for this project can be made available through the 2014 Community Development Fund which has a total of $38,000 remaining. This would cover the $30,000 funding request being made. The City's purchasing and finance services have provided input for this process and report. RECOMMENDATIONS• 1. It is recommended that Common Council approve a total of $50,500 as follows; a. $30,000 to support the Flemming Court Park, Phase 2; and, b. $20,500 advance funds to enable the Crescent Valley Resource Centre to purchase the playground structures in 2014 which will be subsequently reimbursed to the City of Saint John upon the release of funding by the Regional Development Corporation. 109 M &C- 2014 -205 3- November 24, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Kevin Watson, BPE Recreation Manager Jacqueline Hamilton, MCiP, RPP Commissioner of Growth and Community Development Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager Appendices 110 Flemming Court Park Playpark Budget Estimated Cost Play Structure 3 Picnic tables,6 benches, 3 trash receptacles Pour in place rubber / Ground prep Installation of play equipment Shipping 13% HST Tota I Funders Funds already raised (Individual Donations) Greater SJ Community Foundation RDC ( Specified Play Equipment) Federal Government City of Saint John Needed Sponsorship Total 111 $70,500.00 $8,075.00 $41,000.00 $23,970.00 $2,700.00 $19,011.85 $165,256.85 $11,500.00 Received $10,000.00 Received $55,000.00 Approved $55,000.00 Requesting $30,000.00 Requesting $4,000.00 $165,500.00 New'ANouveau Bruns ►T C A N A D A January 23, 2014 Ms. Ann Barrett, President The Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc. 130 MacLaren Boulevard Saint John, New Brunswick E2K 3G3 SUBJECT: Project No.: 5450 (2014 -2015) Project Name: The Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc. - Equipment Purchase Dear Ms. Barrett: I am pleased to inform you that the above -noted project has obtained support from the Regional Development Corporation. A financial contribution up to $55,000 for The Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc_ (the applicant) has been approved for this project. Eligible costs and funding for this project are described in Appendix A. Financing Conditions The applicant must provide confirmation within 60 days of this offer that all other financing has been obtained prior to release of any funds for the project. Reimbursement Procedures Any claim for reimbursement for the contribution must be supported by copies of invoices and proof of payment of those invoices. Each claim for payment shall be submitted by March 31, 2015 on forms herein provided. Electronic copies may be obtained at: www.gnb.calydc Terms and Conditions The approval of this project is subject to the following: No public announcement of funding or milestone events such as official openings and ribbon - cuttings shall be made by the recipient without the prior consent of the Regional Development Corporation. 2. The applicant shall not change the project scope, purpose or eligible costs without prior written approval of the Regional Development Corporation. 3. Project work must begin within 60 days of the Regional Development Corporation receiving confirmation of financing. 4. The applicant shall not sell or dispose of any assets purchased by this agreement for a period of 36 months following the completion of this project without prior approval frori an authorized representative of the Regional Development Corporation. Regional Development Corporation /Societ6 de dgveloppement r6gional P.O. Box/C.P. 6000 Fredericton New Brunswick/Nouveau- Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada Wo www.gnb.ca The Crescent Valley Resource Centre .inc. Page 2 Project 5450 5. The applicant shall allow any authorized representative of the Regional Development Corporation reasonable access to the project site(s) and information. 6. The applicant must submit a final activity report to the Regional Development Corporation within 30 days of project completion. 7. Any costs incurred prior to April 1, 2014 are not considered eligible expenses under this offer. 8. The applicant must adhere to all labour and environmental laws and regulations. 9. No Members of the Legislative Assembly, their staff, or their immediate family members shall be a party to this project or derive any benefit arising therefrom_ 10. Any unused portion of this contribution must be reimbursed to the Regional Development Corporation. All correspondence with respect to the involvement in the project is to be forwarded to Lisa Hay- Busson. Should you have any questions or require further information please contact her at (506) 453 -8545. If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions of this offer, please sign the enclosed copy of this I tter and return it to the Regional Development Corporation. Please note that failure to do o within 30 days renders this offer null and void. Sincere , Denis Caro President cc: Honourable Paul Robichaud Enc. This offer accepted on behalf of The Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc. n President: Date: 113 114 115 116 REPOR,'-,Lr TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2014 -201 November 17, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: dr) The Ocy of &MW kin SUBJECT: Engagement of Planning and Engineering Consultant: Transportation Strategic Plan - Phase 1 BACKGROUND The approved 2014 Operating Budget includes funding for Phase 1 of a Transportation Strategic Plan. A Transportation Strategic Plan is an important document which provides a tool to guide investment in and development of the City's transportation network over a 25 -year planning horizon. Timing for this project is important as it will update the City's existing Transportation Plan completed in 1999, which mainly focused on the movement of the motorized travel modes such as automobiles and trucks. It will also build on transportation system improvements, such as the One Mile House Interchange, which have occurred since that time and incorporate the community's land use and future development vision established in the Municipal Plan. Elements of the Plan will also incorporate the community's desire to "create a balanced transportation network to make public transit and active transportation more viable and desirable mobility options ". This is in line with North American trends towards an approach to transportation that considers sustainability, healthy cormnunities and vibrant urban centres. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to engage a Planning and Engineering consulting firm to carry out Phase 1 of the Transportation Strategic Plan. The initial phase will focus on the development of a vision for the City's transportation network and will include the following work elements: ♦ Collection of data regarding existing and future travel demand. This will provide data on the type and timing of trips on the City's transportation network and the locations of where these trips originate and their destinations. This data will guide better decision making regarding development and operation of the transportation network including parking, transit and traffic operations. ♦ Develop Goals and a Vision for the City's Transportation System to guide future development and operations. 117 M &C2014 -201 November 17, 2014 Page 2 ♦ Develop Guidelines for incorporating Transportation into the Municipal Planning and Future Neighbourhood Planning Process. The recommended consultant also has included early deliverables related to truck routes and speed limits and will present the results of Phase 1 to Common Council. Staff will provide regular updates to Common Council over the course of the project. Phases 2 and 3 of the project will include a review of specific transportation initiatives in the City including transit, parking, active transportation and the City's roadway network. These phases would be of a similar order of magnitude and will be recommended to proceed upon completion of Phase 1. Phase 1 will begin upon award in late 2014 and conclude in 2015 with Phase 2 beginning in 2015 and Phase 3 following in 2016. The purpose of this report is to make a recommendation for planning and engineering consulting services for this project. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES — MATERIALS MANAGEMENT In accordance with the City of Saint John's Procurement Policy and Procedures, Materials Management facilitated the RFP process. The RFP was issued on September 8, 2014 and closed on October 9, 2014 with submissions received from the following firms: • Dillon Consulting Limited, Saint John, NB • HDR Corporation, Richmond Hill, ON • IBI Group, Toronto, ON • MMM Group, Halifax, NS A Review Committee consisting of staff from Materials Management, Growth & Community Development, Transportation & Environment Services, Saint John Transit, and the Saint John Parking Commission was formed to evaluate the submissions. 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: 1. Presentation — Quality, completeness, clarity and overall presentation of the proposal. 2. Personnel— Suitability, skills and experience of the Proponent's project team. 3. Project Approach and Methodology — Proponent's strategy and approach to the work, suggested timelinc(s) and general approaches to potential subsequent phases. 4. Value Added— Innovative and valuable solutions beyond the basic scope of work. 118 M&C2014 -201 November 17, 2014 Page 3 5. Cost — Fees for completing the work. After careful, independent evaluation, the Review Committee met to analyze the findings of each member. In accordance with the City of Saint John's Procurement Procedures, after completion of the "technical" evaluation, the financial proposals were opened and factored into the evaluation. After due consideration, the Review Committee unanimously selected the submission from IBI Group as the best proposal based on the overall rating of the evaluation criteria as it best met all of the requirements of the proposal call with a cost- effective solution for the project.. Specific elements of the proposal which led to the selection of IBI Group's project team as the preferred proponent included: • corporate experience on a range of transportation planning and transportation engineering projects throughout Canada and Atlantic Canada; • inclusion of New Brunswick subconsultants Exp and Opus who have relevant transportation experience in the New Brunswick and Saint John context along with a local presence; • a project team including members with experience in urban planning, transportation planning, urban design, transit, parking and traffic engineering; and • a proposed approach and methodology to provide the required project deliverables. The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Materials Management support the recommendation being put forth. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed cost of work from IBI Group to provide planning and engineering services for Phase 1 is $201,140 including HST. An amount of $200,000 is included in the 2014 Operational Budget for this project. Due to the timing of the award, there may work from Phase 1 that will occur in 2015, which will extend the timeline of the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposal from IBI Group for planning and engineering consulting services for the City of Saint John Transportation Strategic Plan (MoveSJ) (the "Project "), be accepted as follows: a) Phase 1 of the project is to be completed by IBI Group, at a cost of $201,104.00, all applicable taxes included; b) That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the Consulting Engineering Agreement. 119 4 M &C2014 -201 November 17, 2014 Page 4 Respectfully submitted, 4 r y Mark Reade, P.Eng., MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Growth & Community Development Services ly F Timothy D. O'Reilly, P.Eng., M.Sc.E. Traffic Engineer, Transportation and Environment Services Wm. Edwards, P.Eng. Commissioner Transportation & Environment Jacqueline Hamilton, MURP, MCIP, RPP Commissioner, Growth & Community Development Services trick Woods, CGA Ci y Manager 120 '17 T TO C0r,4T*-J10NeC0T-JNCrU M &C- 2014 -200 November 24, 2014 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: "P.R.O. Kids Committee — Terms of Reference - Amendment" BACKGROUND: In January 2002, P.R.O. Kids officially launched its program. P.R.O. Kids is a program offered by Growth and Community Development Services, adopted by Common Council on September 5, 2001 and is designed to give financially challenged children in Greater Saint John the means to participate in the leisure pursuit of their choice. Each year, P.R.O. Kids places an average of 805 children in sports, arts, recreation, or culture activities in over 100 different programs in Greater Saint John. P.R.O. Kids is assisted by the P.R.O. Kids Advisory Committee. Committee members are appointed by Common Council. This report proposes amendments to the "P.R.O. Kids Committee — Terms of Reference" (attached as Schedule "A "). ANALYSIS Common Council last amended the P.R.O. Kids Committee - Terms of c'f�nJ Reference on August 3, 2004. As of February 2, 2005 the respective Councils of the Towns of Grand Bay - Westfield, Rothesay, and Quispamsis agreed to provide administrative funding to the P.R.O. Kids budget with the understanding that youth applications will be accepted from their respective municipalities. City of Saint John Common Council adopted a resolution concerning Agencies, Boards, and Commissions ( "ABCs ") on October 29`" of 2012. The P.R.O. Kids Committee - Terms of Reference have been amended to comply with the following sections of that Council Resolution: 2. All appointments made by Council for all ABUS will be for a period of three years with the possibility of one re- appointment term of three years which would allow an individual to serve a total of six years. After an individual has served a total of six years the individual must remain off that particular ABC 121 M &C -2014— 200 -2- November 24, 2014 for a period of at least one year. This will become effective as of the date of this report being approved by Common Council. 3. If Members of Common Council are nominated to serve on any given ABC they will serve only their full term of Council period. 5. As a first step towards ensuring that our ABC'S are more accountable to Common Council, each ABC should fully understand their mandate and should understand what skill sets they require in their Board Members to undertake their duties to perform in the best possible way. In order to bring the P.R.O. Kids Committee - Terms of Reference in line with Common Council's directives on ABC's, to better reflect the regional character of P.R.O. Kids, and to make additional changes to enhance the efficacy of P.R.Q. Kids, the P.R.O. Kids Advisory Committee has unanimously moved to update its Terms of Reference subject to approval from Common Council. The following changes have been proposed for Council approval. 1. The duties of members have been updated to reflect the fact that members do not work directly with children as part of their responsibilities to the P.R.O. Kids Advisory Committee 2. The Term Limits for New Members change from 2 years to 3 years. 2.1. Included term limits for appointed members of Common Council 3. Proposed updates have been made to member composition to better reflect the regional nature of P.R.O. Kids. In addition to appointments made by Saint John Common Council, the Town of Grand Bay - Westfield, the Town of Rothesay, and the Town of Quispamsis will each appoint (1) member to represent their municipalities' interests and to act as a liaison between their respective councils and P.R.Q. Kids. 3.1. Regional appointments have already been happening on an unofficial basis for 10 years. However, certain municipalities will often not have representation on the committee at various points because there has been some confusion about where the responsibility lies regarding the appointment of regional members. This happens particularly because regional members have traditionally been elected officials of the Town of Grand Bay - Westfield, the Town of Rothesay, or the Town of Quispamsis. This amendment will specify that each Municipality be responsible for appointing a member of their own Common Council or some other representative to serve on the P.R.O. Kids Advisory Committee. 3.2. Subject to Common Council approval, the amended P.R.O. Kids Committee - Terms of Reference will be sent to the Common Council 122 M &C -2014— 200 November 24, 2014 -3- of each participating municipality asking that each Council be responsible for appointing (1) member to the P.R.O. Kids Committee. 4. Specified voting rights of members, and set a quorum of 1 /3rd + 1 of voting members to pass motions and resolutions. 5. Expanded the amount of officers of the P.R.O. Kids Advisory Committee to include an executive and set term limits for officers. This will enable P.R.O. Kids to be more effective in fundraising and in making policy initiatives over the long term, and will help ensure good succession planning for the executive. 6. The P.R.O. Kids Advisory Committee will submit an annual report to the Common Council of each municipal partner each year. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council approve the amended "P.R.O. Kids Committee — Terms of Reference" attached as Schedule "A Respectfully submitted, . -, �:, I It 1441 K4, " i �/), , " - ") David Dobbelsteyn, BA Kevin Watson, BPE P.R.O Kids Manager Recreation Manager f ,. 4 Jacqueline Hamilton, MCIP, RPP 6tri2 Woods, CGA Commissioner of Growth and City Manager Community Development 123 Schedule "A" City of Saint John P.R.O. Kids Committee — Terms of Reference Introduction The City of Saint John believes that all children regardless of economic ability should have access to some form of recreation or positive leisure pursuit. To achieve this goal Common Council has created a P.R.O. Kids program. P.R.O. Kids provides program and financial assistance to children and youth in need so that all children and youth will have the opportunity to participate in the arts, cultural, recreation, and sport activity of their choice. Individual participation in such activities has been shown to increase self - esteem, knowledge and personal development. 1. Duties of the P.R.O. Kids Committee Members 1.1. Act as ambassador and advocate for the program in the community. 1.2. Develop and participate in Fundraising activities of committee. 1.3. Seek "in- kind" support - such as free registrations. 1.4, Serve in an advisory capacity to staff and Common Council 1.5. Attend regular meetings of committee. 1.6. Members do not work directly with children as part of their duties on committee; instead, members will endeavour to work on behalf of children in need. 2. Committee Composition The Committee shall consist of- 2. 1. A minimum of 12 and a maximum of 15 members representing a wide cross section of community interest. 2.2. Common Council of Saint John shall appoint 11 members, plus at least one member of Common Council. 2.3. The Town of Grand Bay - Westfield, the Town of Rothesay, and the Town of Quispamsis shall each appoint one member to represent the interests of their respective regions on the committee and who will act as liaison between the Committee and their respective municipality. 2.4. The Recreation Manager and the P.R.O. Kids Manager sit on the committee as ex- officio members. 2.5. Committee members have voting rights regarding motions and resolutions; City staff are non - voting members. 1 of 3 124 2.6. When appointing members to the committee, Common Council shall endeavor to choose members with expertise and representation from one or more of the following areas: • Youth • Recreation/sport/culture participants and volunteers • P.R.O. Kids financial supporters • Marketing expertise 3. Committee Officers • Social/Health services • Parent • Fundraising expertise • Community leaders • Common Council 3.1. The P.R.O. Kids Committee shall have authority to appoint its own officers. 3.2. Officers that form an Executive are: (i) the Chair, (ii) the Vice - Chair, and (iii) the Past Chair. 3.3. Officers may serve in a position for a 1 year term. The Chair automatically becomes the Past Chair for a 1 year term once a new Chair is elected. The Vice -Chair does not automatically become the Chair after the office of Chair is vacant, but only does so if elected by committee resolution. 3.4. The Chair will officiate at meetings, and the Vice -Chair will officiate if the Chair is absent. 3.5. The executive members of the P.R.O. Kids Committee have the authority to sign letters, applications, and reports on behalf of, and at the request of the Committee. 3.6. The Committee shall also appoint a Secretary from among its members. The Secretary may serve for up to three years in that position. 4. Terms of Office 4.1. Committee members shall be appointed for three years. 4.2. Members may serve a maximum of two consecutive terms. Members may be re- appointed after a one -year absence. 4.3. Council shall stagger appointments so that no more than 50% of members' terms end at the same time. 4.4. A person shall cease to be a member of the Committee if that individual fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the Committee of which proper notice has been given, and without having been excused by resolution of the Committee. 4.5. The Committee may by resolution appoint such sub - committees as it may require for the purpose of carrying out or reporting on specific projects. 4.6. Committee members shall serve without remuneration. 2 of 3 125 4.7. All Committee members' terms will normally begin on January 1St and end on December 31St in the third year of their appointment. If a member is appointed mid -term, their term will end on December 31" in the third year of their appointment. If a Committee member is an elected official, their term ends on the date of the next municipal election of the municipality they represent. 4.8. Committee members who are appointed agree to serve their entire term, but may for a just reason resign from the committee provided they provide proper notification to the Committee who will then notify the Office of the Common Clerk. 5. Meetings 5.1. The committee shall meet a minimum of six times per year. 5.2. The Recreation Manager shall provide staff and resources for meeting requirements. 5.3. A quorum of UP + 1 of voting members is required to pass motions and resolutions. 6. Reporting 6.1. The Committee shall once a year provide an annual report to the Common Council of each municipal partner. Adopted: Common Council, City of Saint John, (September 5, 200 1) Amended: Common Council, City of Saint John, (December 8, 2003) Amended: Common Council Ci • of Saint John (August 3 2004 3 of 3 126 S' r :L �T1•�!J SAINT JOHN BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS PO Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick Canada E21, 4L1 Bureau des Commissaires du Service de Police de Saint John C.P. 1971 Saint John Nouveau - Brunswick Canada E2L 4L JONATHAN FRANKLIN Chair/ President KAREN KEILLER Vice ChairlVice President MAYOR MEL NORTON CommissionerlCommissaire GREG NORTON Commissioner /Commissaire NICOLE PAQUET Commissioner /Commissaire JENNIFER CARHART CommissionerlCommissain; BRIAN BOUDREAU Commissioner /Commissaire WILLIAM G. REID Chief of Police/Chef de Police JACKIE FERRAR Executive Administrator! Secretaire Administrative TelephonelTelephone: (506) 648 -3324 E- madlCourrieL• policecommission(W sainifohn.ca d- i_. SAINT JOHN Explore our pastl Explorez notre pass6 Discover your futurel Decouvrez voUe avenir November 6, 2014 PUBLIC SESSION M &C 2014 -195 Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Saint John Police Force - Public Opinion Survey take pleasure in providing Council members with the Community Policing Survey carried out by Ipsos Reid during the period September 4-17,2014. As you will see the 2014 Survey results indicate a notable improvement in the performance of the Saint John Police Force on numerous levels compared to four years ago and the satisfaction levels with the overall performance of the Police Force continues to be high. Respectfully submitted, J nathan Franklin Clairman Saint John Board of Police Commissioners rjaf ancl. 127 7 1psos� Ipsos Reid �int John Police Force Community Policing Survey Presentation November 4, 2014 Y ; I 128 R� Research Methodology Target Respondent Sample Size Margin of Error Method of Data Collection Study Timing & Survey Length F NIpsos Reid .......................................................................................... ............................... Residents living in the City of Saint John, 18 years of age or older 400 Interviews completed, broken down as follows by region: • North: 91 interviews • SouthlCentrai: 104 interviews • East: 100 interviews • West: 101 interviews Overall Margin of Error is + 4.910 (95% of the time) Regional Results are ± 10% (95% of the time) Telephone, Listed Sample Source by Postal Code, random method of selection in household; Saint John Police Force provided the questionnaire Conducted by 1psos Reid during the period of Sept. 4 -17, 2014. Average Interview Length was 20 Minutes � .......................................................................................... .............. ............................... ... 129 Ipsos Reid Key Study Findings j 130 1p� L - � II sk, lay Key Study Findings j 130 1p� L - � II Key Study Conclusions M[psos Reid ...................—, ................. ...... . . . . . . . . . I . t . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . • 2014 results indicate a notable improvement in the performance of the Saint John Police Force on many levels compared to four years ago; significantly fewer residents now believe crime in their City has increased over the past few years; as well, residents' concern with many types of crime have also decreased, especially crimes noted as being of most concern to residents. • Satisfaction levels with the overall performance of the Saint John Police Force continues to be high. In terms of the quality of service, ensuring the safety of residents and enforcing the law, a significant improvement is noted when compared to 2010. As a result, more residents now feel safe in their homes and when walking alone in the evening compared to four years ago. • Efforts in the North End continue to stand out with residents in this neighbourhood community more likely than others to note an improvement in police services overall in the City. ......................................................... ................... .................................................................. .................. �i 131 1psos Reid IL IPSOS ,bout Your City and Neighbourhood • Crime in the Past Three Years • City Wide Issues of Concern • Neighbourhood Safety • Issues of Concern in Neighbourhood 132 71 `•,�5a11 T JC a Increased 0 Remained The Same is Decreased 31% City Overall (n =400) 45% 17% North (n =91) 18% 24% 48% South/ Central 24% 43% (n =104) 20% 36% East (n =100) 42% 17% 37% West (n =101) 46% 13% * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 9596 Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown +� Question 2 in the past three years, do you think crime has increased, remained the same or decreased? 133 0 Ipsos Reid Significant change since 2010' (change in % Increased) 412% 426% ................................. ............................... n/c ................................. ............................... X14% ................................. ............................... n/c s • - •I Ipsos IF, 11 CRIMES /ISSUES OF MOST CONCERN IN THE CITY OVERALL, 2014 Homelessness Presence of Drugs /Drug Dealers Speeding Cars /Aggressive Driving Youth Crime /Violence Assaults (n =400) • Very Concerned 0 Concerned Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 7 How concerned are you with each of the following conditions in Saint John 134 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Concerned + Concemed) i s 83% 1 n/c 76% 72 i 4,12 r .................! ......... ..,.. ................. ... ................... ......... 74 % i 69% CRIME IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, 2014 ■ Increased a Remained The Same Decreased ZO% City Overall (n =400) 520/0 20% 1$% North (n =91) 21% South/ Central 20% 46% (n =104) 25% 20% East (n =100) 19% 24% West (n =101) — 15 54% 54% 54% Significant change since 2010* (change in % Increased) 1,117% 11,116% n/c n/c n/c * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 3 What about in your neighbourhood? In the past three years_ do you think crime has increased, remained the same or decreased? 135 Fm 1 0 1psos CRIMES OF MOST CONCERN IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD, 2014 I!h Very Concerned V. Concerned Speeding Cars Break & Enter /Burglary Youth Crime /Violence Vandalism to Property Theft From Vehicles Presence of Drugs /Drug Dealers Violence Against Women (n =400) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 9596 Confidence interval) since 2010 are shown `• Question 7 How concerned are you with each of the following conditions In Saint John'? 136 Significant change since 2010' (% Very Concemed + Concemed) i 59% y9% ........................ ............................... I 55% V I....................... ............................... I 45% I y12% I 47% j s10% .............. ............................. I........... 53Q/ ; n/c 49% ................. I....................... ............,.................. 43% n/c i Ipsos Reid Police Services In i Your Neighbourhood • Police Performance • Contact with Police • Quality of Police Services 137 -� i W - Jr Police Services In i Your Neighbourhood • Police Performance • Contact with Police • Quality of Police Services 137 -� i W - Overall Performance of the Saint John Police Force Very Good Good 32% Average 23% Poor 5% (n =400) I Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95 %; Con; idenre Interval) since 2010 are shown aIpsos Reid Significant change since 2010* i i T10% f I I I............................ ............................... i 1 I 41% i n/c i I ............................ ............................... I i *L7% i I I I I i I n/c rr, Question 9 Overall, how would you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force in terms of ensuring the safety and security ^f the citi2ens of Saint John' 138 Overall Performance of the Saint John Police Force North (n =91) ■ very Good ■ Good • Average is Poor 6% South / Central (n =104) 7% East (n =100) 0% 20% 31% 33% 37% 30% 1 31% 41% 45% Mipsos Reid Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good) T14% 43% West (n =101) 23% i 4% � * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 9 Overall, how would you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force in terms of ensuring the safety and security of the citizens of Saint John? 139 n/c n/c n/c Performance of the Saint John Police Force Law Enforcement Community /Human Relationships Responsiveness Crime Prevention % Very Good + Good Note: The percentage results above are based on the average of a number of components (n =400) which comprise each functional area of policing . * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidences Interval) since 2010 are shown k�a Question 8 Hove do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each of the following? 140 ipsos Reid Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good + Good) i i r T7% f............................ ............................... n/c t r r n/c r r r ......................... .. ,....,................... ...... r i 3 n/c Contact With SJPF In Past 3 Years (n =400) No 39% Yes 60% Quality of Police Service Deceived Very Satisfied 31% Satisfied 30% Neither i 80/0 Dissatisfied 5% Very Dissatisfied 5% (n =241) ® Ipsos Reid 2014 Sig change % Yes since 2010* North 60% n/c South /Central $7% nlc East 66% n/c West 69% nlc Significant change since 2010* n/c n/c n/c n/c n/c Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 nre shown Question 10 During the past three yeas, did you talk to or were you in contact with a Saint John Police officer for any reason? ° Question 11 What was the main reason for vour most recent contact with the Saint John Police Force officer? Question 12 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Question 13 Thinking e)f this last contact with a Sant John orilice officer,- how satisfied were you with the quality of *_ne..00lice service vou- eceived? 141 .. Ipsos Reid Emergency Contact with SJPF In Past 3 Years (n =400) 2014 Sig change % yes since 2010* Yes North 8% 4,13% 18 % 24% nlc South/Central East 15% n/c No west 24% n/c 82% Emergency Telephone Service sag W Completely Agree r: Agree i change 2010* 9 -1 -1 Operator answered my call 92% n/c promptly 9 -1 -1 Operator 2 was courteous ,: 92% n/c and professional u Satisfied overall ! with the quality of 90% n/c the 9 -1 -1- service (n =72* *) • Please note that only statistically significant differences fat 95% Confidenre? interval) since 2010 are shown. ** Caution, smaller sample base Y. Question 14 During the past three years, have you called the police for an Emergency; for example have you dialed -1 -1 for a life threatening situation, trine in progress, or serious traffic accident? Question 15. Thinking about your last cal! to the Sant John Police, to what extent do you agree with each or *he following statement-' 142 ® ipsos Reid Non - Emergency Contact with Police In Past 3 Years (n =400) 2014 Sig changes % Yes since 2010* Yes North 20% 4,14% 24% South /Central 27% n/c East 23% nlc Na No West 26% nic Non - Emergency Telephone Service Sig. (n =95) . change w- Completely Agree W Agree 2010* Telephone call was handled in timely 88% I I n/c manner .........I I .................... Person who answered was courteous and 93% j n/c professional I Obtained information /service 90% @ n/c needed, 2014 ........... ................... Hours for non- emergency call service 93% 11 /C weresatisfactory ..... ........... .. 1 .................... Satisfied overall with 89% I n/c quality of telephone service Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95"6 Confidence Interval) since 7010 are shown - Question 16 During the past three vears, have you called the police for a Non-Emergency matter Question 17 Was this call related to a crime' `mss Question : ° Thinking now about your last non - emergency call, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? 143 r M Ipsos Reid Visit to SJPF Station Past 3 Years (n =400) 2014 Sig changes % Yes since 2010` North 21% 4116% Yes 20% South/Central 14% n/c East 15% n/c No West 30% 4116% 80% Service During Visit to Police Station (n =79 * *) J Completely Agree C. Agree Served in a timely manner Person at front desk was courteous and professional Obtained the information or service I needed Satisfied overall with the Front Desk service Sig. change 2010* k 86% C n/c k 90% n/c k 91% n/c 86% n/c Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 9596 Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown ** Caution, smaller sample size Question 19 During the past three years, did you go to a Saint John Police Station or office to request information of a service? L Question. 20A• Thinking of the last, time you went to the police station front desk. to what extent do agree with the following statements? 144 OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF SERVICE PROVIDED BY SAINT JOHN POLICE FORCE, 2014 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither 13% Dissatisfied 44/4 (n =4fl0} 34% *Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 9.5% Confidence Interval) since 1010 are shown r Question 21 Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of the servire provided by the Saint John Police Force? rXy 145 Significant changes since 2010` T8% I 4 1 ............................... ............................... I I I 49% i n/c I I ............................... ............................... I I i I n/c 1 1 1 I I I I n/c OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF SERVICE PROVIDED Ipsos BY SAINT JOHN POLICE FORCE BY REGION OF THE CITY, 2014 ■ Very Satisfied ■ Satisfied ■ Neither North (n =91) South/ Central (n = 104) East (n =100) West (n =101) 12% 4% (n =400) Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 9596 Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 21 Overall, how satisfied ale you with the quality of the service provided by the Saint John Police Force? 146 Dissatisfied 11% 8% 43% 14% 3% 49% 15% 1% 51% 53% i I E I Significant change since 2010 (% Very Satisfied) t14 ................. ............................... n/c ............................ ............................... n/c n/c 0 0 Ipsos Reid Crime Prevention I • Safety at Home • Crime Prevention Information 147 :wr A -==O=AI%T JO 9" Feeling Safe at Home — Daytime & Evening /Night DAYTIME HOURS —HOME, v014 Very Safe Sate Neutral 3% Unsafe 2% (n =400) 25% Ipsos Rein Significant change since 2010* 69% n/c n/c n/c n/c Very Safe Safe Neutral 5% Unsafe 4% (n =400) * Please note that only statistically significant dl_fferences (at 95% Confidence lntervalj since 2010 are shown Question MA Haw safe de you feel in your own home during the day? Question 19B How safe do you ire vour own home after dart;: m Significant change since 2010* 58% t10% 33% n/c ........................ . n/c n/c �� Ipsos Rein Feel Safe Walking Alone Daytime & Evening /Night DAYTIME — WALKING ALONE, 2014 Very Safe Safe Neutral 5% Unsafe 4% (n =400) 32% Significant changes since 2010* 59% T13 6 11,113% n/c n/c Very Safe Safe Neutral Unsafe (n =400) *Please note that only statistically signifirant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question iA How safe do you feel walking alone in yow neighbourhood during the day Question 5B How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighbourhood after dark? 149 Significant changes since 2010* 25% n/c 39% n/c 8 °/A n/c 25% n/c Security Measures Used, Crime Prevention Programs Security Measures Used At Home .............................. ............................... • Exterior Lighting ........................................ ............................... • Deadbolt Locks 2014 Significant changes since 2010* .............................. .I.. ",......................... 84% n/c ..................... 1. ....... ... — ................... ........... 86% n/c • Shades on Garage Windows 33% ..................... ............................. ...,.....,,....... ............ ..............,.....,.., .......,...,.......,. • Dog ..................................................................................................... 27% ............................... • Participate in Neighbourhood Watch ..................................... ...... 14% i.......... ..... i...................... .. .........................ie.r.. y. • Alarm System .................... 29% ........................................................................................................ ............................... • Window Bars /Filaments 260/ ......................................................................................................... ............................... • Caretaker /Security Guard 13% • Video Surveillance 16% n/c n/c n/c 0111% ..... ............................... n/c n/c . ............................... t8% 0 fpsos Reid Participate in Saint John Based ;Significant Crime Prevention Programs 2014 changes (Past 3 Years) ;since 2010* ......................................... . .................. . ....... .... ............................. .....:........................ ............................... • Neighbourhood Watch 7% n/c .................................. ............................... -...................................................;...... ...........,.................., • DARE € 6% n/c • Crime Stoppers 4% n/c ................................................................. ............................... ...................... i...................... • Block Parent Program € 3% n/c • Community Policing Problem 3% n/c Solving Exercise ................ ......................................... .......................... . i.................... I..................... ...e5..................................... Current Member • Neighbourhood Watch 4% n/c Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confiderce Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 40 What security measures are used where yuu live+ Question 41 Within the last three years, have you participated for your household, either as a recipient of se,vjces or as a volunteer, in any of the �e followmr loho based crime nravantinn nrnprame +n make your nelg}'l ^!!•F ^ ^'t "� °•� 150 IPSOS Ipsos Reid A 0000ft f. Questions' 151 1psos Ipsos Reid 'aint John Police Force Community Policing Surrey, 2014 October 10, 2014 i w A I� 152 r ^ QQ jpw- ;��5aI1T l�r jpw- ;��5aI1T l�r Table of Contents ... . ............... ....... ...... ... . .... . ..... ... . .... ............. ...... KEY STUDY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT YOUR CITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD ................... .... ............. I ............. .................................................................................................................. POLICE SERVICES IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD ............... I ............ .................. .... ............. ................................................................................................... .......... EXPERIENCE WITH CRIME IN SAINTJOHN CRIME PREVENTION COMMUNITY PROFILE - DEMOGRAPHICS, HOUSING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS APPENDIX A - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 0 Ipsos Reid ........................ PAG E 4 5 13 29 33 41 44 45 ................ I.........,.... ......... ...... ...................................... . ............................ 11 .................... I.... ........................................ APPENDIX 8 QUESTIONNAIRE 47 • .. . .... .. . I .. .. . ............. ..... I- ...... .. .... 153 Ipsos Reid Key Study Conclusions 154 I .o4RT JE Key Study Conclusions MIpws Reid -,.: x.: xaeaaa,.. ae. e¢ e. ee• x• xxaxxae. e•.... rax¢ e...... .............................! eyees..••••••••••••...... ...':_e:_LL'_...eez..L.e_e,.aeL L L_ L__ LL e_.x.e.= i• i • C • 2014 results indicate a notable improvement in the performance of the Saint John Police Force on many levels compared to four years ago; significantly fewer residents now believe crime in their City has increased over the past few years; as well, residents' concern with many types of crime have also decreased, especially crimes noted as being of most concern to residents. . • Satisfaction levels with the overall performance of the Saint John Police Force continues to be high. In terms of the quality of service, ensuring the safety of residents and enforcing the law, a significant improvement is noted when compared to 2010. As a result, more residents now feel safe in their homes and when walking alone in the evening compared to four years ago. • Efforts in the North End continue to stand out with residents in this neighbourhood community more likely than others to note an improvement in police services overall in the City. 155 .. 1psos Reid 1psos�� ,r ! About Your City and Neighbourhood • Crime in the Past Three Years • Neighbourhood Safety • Issues of Concern in Neighbourhood • City Wide Issues of Concern 156 T.:.A- - `•, _ � §1111 JG Compared to 2010, significantly fewer residents now believe crime in the City has increased; with the most drastic improvement noted in the North region of the City, followed by the Eastern region of the city. 0 rlpsos Reid I ' Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 2 t- -1the past three years, do you think crime has increased, remaine-i the same or decreased? 157 Significant change ■ Increased ■ Remained The Same ■ Decreased j since 2010* (change in % Increased) I 31% I City Overall (n =400) 45% 1,12% 17 0 ! ! ............... ............................... E I 74% I I I North (n =91) 48% j 426% 18°/0 I South/ Central 24 O 430/0 I i n/c (n =104) 20% 36% 4,14% East (n =100) 420/0 17% ..,..... 37% � West (n =101) 46% n/c 13% ' Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 2 t- -1the past three years, do you think crime has increased, remaine-i the same or decreased? 157 Crime levels in the neighborhood have also decreased since 2010, 9 tpsosReid mainly due to significant improvement in the North where the percentage of residents who reported that crime has increased has dropped 16% since 2010. i Increased ■ Remained The Same Decreased 20% City Overall (n =400) 52% 20% 18% North (n =91) 54% 21% South/ Central MENEM ZO% (n =104) 46% 25% IMMMIML�0% East (n =100) 54% 19% 24% West (n =101) 54% 15�/a Significant change since 2010* (change in % Increased) 1 7% ............................... ............................... s 16% ............................... ............................... n/c ............................... ............................... n/c n/c * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 3 What about in your neighbours r ,-,d7 In the past three years, do you think crime has increased, remained the same or decreased? 158 Crimes /Issues of Most Concern to Citizens — City of Saint John Overall NIpsos Reid Levels of concern (both very concerned and concerned) with many crimes most concerning to residents have significantly dropped since 2010. Concern related to the issue of homelessness however remains much the same as it was four years ago, in 2010. ~` Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown AIQuestion 7 How concerned are you with a Bch of the following conditions in Saint John? J. 159 OVERALL, IN THE CITY , i Significant change since 2010' Ej Very C o ncerned a Concerned (% Very Concemed i + Concerned) Homelessness i 83% i i n/c Presence of Drugs /Drug Dealers i 76% i 4,9% .... ... ......... .. ..... 1... ...- ..- .... ............ ..,..:.. ------ ..._...:. Speeding Cars /Aggressive Driving 72% i i............................................................ 4,12% Youth Crime /Violence » ................. ... 74% i L8% Assaults W6� now 69% i X11% (n =400) ~` Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown AIQuestion 7 How concerned are you with a Bch of the following conditions in Saint John? J. 159 Crimes /issues of Secondary Concern to Citizens - City of Saint John overall R1psos Reid Residents' concern with gun violence, homicide, racial tensions and hate crime has dropped since 2010. However, concern with other crimes such as prostitution, intoxicated persons, panhandling and terrorist activities has remained consistent since 2010. OVERALL, IN THE CITY Significant changes 0; Very Concerned • Concerned i since 2010* (% Very Concemed & Concemed) Prostitution ' • 54% n/c Gun Violence 49 %......� ................`L10 /.,.....,............., 00 J ..................... t................. ..................................... Intoxicated Persons ' 54% 1 n/c ..................... 1.......... ......... .... .................... ....,..,... Homicide ' • 50% i 4,11% Hate Crime ..,.... 41 % . ................ ..................,.., 1 . Panhandling .... 47%...... i .................. ..n /c.........,..,..,..,..,..,, Racial Tensions • ' 33% i 4,11% .....................+....................... ..........I.................,., Terrorist Activities ' • 27% i n/c ............................................ ............................... Motorcycle Gangs 33% i n/c ......... .....1...................... ...........1............. Protests/ Demonstrations ' • • ' 11% n/c (n =400) € I Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown a, Questir n 7 How conternod are you with ?ach of the following conditions in Saint John -e v^v 160 Crimes of Most Concern to Citizens - Neighbourhood tpsos Reid There's a significant decline in residents concern with crime in their neighbourhood when it comes to youth crime /violence, speeding cars, burglary, vandalism to property, and presence of drugs /drug dealers. Concern levels with theft from vehicles and violence against women crimes remained unchanged over the past 4 years. �l�ila�l :a►�I�[c�;I:��1�1:�;I�I�I��4�� Significant change since 2010* (% Very Concerned B Very Concerned 8 Concerned +Concerned) 1 Speeding Cars 59% y9% 1 Break & Enter/Burglary • , 55% ,Lq% I I Youth Crime /Violence 45% 12% 1 .......................... I ....... ....,...........,. I� Vandalism to Property • • 47% j y10% ! ...................................... ............................... Theft From Vehicles 53% n/c �- ............. ..............,..,..,...,.., Presence of Drugs /Drug 49% ,�8% Dealers .................a,. ,.,..,........ , ...... ,,.,...,,..., ............. .,. I Violence Against Women �._ 43% n/c (n =400) * Please note that only statistically significant differences lot 9S% Conridcnce Interval] since 20.10 are shown Question 7 How concerned are you with each of the following conditions in Saint John) 161 Crimes of Secondary Concern to Citizens - Neighbourhood aIpsos Reid Concern among residents of crime in their own neighbourhood has significantly decreased since 2010 in a number of key areas as noted below. In other areas it has remained unchanged, IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD, 201747] P' Very Concerned a Concerned 10% 25�% 13% 28 °/0 ' 10% 23 °.'0 10% 27% 7% 27% 7% 17% 5% 19% 7% 19% 6% 19% 4% 17% 7% 14% 4% 12% * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence interval) since 2010 are shown Significant change r... Question 6A. How concerned are you with each of the following conditions iri your neighbourhood-.1 In otherwords, how much of a problem ,c Tonsar(t rn your r.n P,nir urharac( 162 since 2010* (% Very Concerned I + Concemed) I 35% sk2% ..............1................ 41% ............................... n/c ................... .. 37% I............................. I ............. ...., L8% 1............... ....................... 24% ............................... i 4,8% 24% y 8 % ......I 26% .. ..................................... ....,.. 0% ............ 25% ............... ............................... n/c I..... ......... .......... .... 27% € .............................. I........... n/c I...... .......... 21% I I ................................................ n/c ....................... 16% i ......... ............................... I ....... y 14% r... Question 6A. How concerned are you with each of the following conditions iri your neighbourhood-.1 In otherwords, how much of a problem ,c Tonsar(t rn your r.n P,nir urharac( 162 Crimes of Lower Level Concern to Citizens - {Neighbourhood 'psos Reid Concern among residents in their own neighbourhood with noisy neighbours /parties and panhandling have significantly dropped since 2010. (n =400) Prostitution Noisy, Late Parties Panhandling Racial Tensions IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD, 2014 J V, Very Concerned V Concerned Motorcycle Gangs rk, - *Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% C onf:rfence Interval) since 2016 orr shown Question 6A How concerned are you with each of the following conditions in your neighbourhood? In other words, how much of v a }problem rr- j;n;sert; in yo:ir rieighbovrhood; ' 163 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Concemed + Concemed) 24% t n/c 4 ................................................ 20% ............................... 10% i c 21% ,�6% 1 I ....................................... 15% ............................... n/c i.. 17! . ... ................. ............................... i n/c I Question 6A How concerned are you with each of the following conditions in your neighbourhood? In other words, how much of v a }problem rr- j;n;sert; in yo:ir rieighbovrhood; ' 163 Ipsos Reid a Police Services In � Your Neighbourhood • Police Performance • Contact with Police • Quality of Police Services 164 I w �► � II�'� Lam... t Overall Performance of the Saint John Police Force R tpsosReid The majority of residents of the City of Saint John continue to believe the Saint John Police Force is doing a good (or very goody job in ensuring the safety and security of citizens. It's important to note the significant increase in the percentage of residents who report a "very good" level of performance when compared to 2010. Very Good Good 32% Average 23% Poor 5% (n -400) *Please note that only statistically significant differences (ar 95% Confidcnce interval) since 2010 are shown 41% Significant change since 2010* T10% n/c 10% n/c Question 9 Overall, how would you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force Erg terms of ensuring the safety and security of the ccnce:;s -,Saint lohn7 165 Overall Performance of the Saint John Police Force " 1psos Reid Again we note a significant improvement in Saint John residents' evaluation of the Saint John Police Force in the North region. The number of residents in this area who reported a "very good" performance significantly increased since 2010. North (n =91) ■ Very Good 8 Good ■ Average a Poor 6% South/ Central (n =104) 7% East (n =100) 0% West (n =101) i i wio 20% 23% 31% 33% 37% 30% 31% 41% 45% 43% Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good) T14% n/c n/c ......................... ............................... 4% * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence tntcrval ) since 2010 are shown 3 Question 9 Overall; how would you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force In terms of ensuring the safety and securitk erZ041: of the r_itixF-nc of Saint Inhn , 166 n/c Performance of the Saint John Police Forte Residents in 2014 continue to rate the Saint John Police Force as doing a good job in all key functional performance areas, especially when it comes to law enforcement (% very good + good increased by 7% since 2010). Law Enforcement Community /Human Relationships Responsiveness Crime Prevention % Very Good + Good OF 57'0A Note: The percentage results above are based on the average of a number of components (n =400) which comprise each functional area of policing as outlined in the next 4 pages. Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Questior, 8 How do you rate the performance of the Saint john Police Force on each of the followmg7 167 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good + Good) t7% ......................... ............................... n/c ..................................... ............ I...... n/c n/c Performance of Saint John Police Force Law Enforcement 0 Ipsos Reid Residents' evaluation of the Saint John Police Force in terms of ensuring public safety at demonstrations as well as enforcing the law remain very consistent in 2014 with four years ago. However, a significant improvement can be noted when it comes to apprehending criminals and enforcing traffic laws (% very good + good increased by 10% and 9 %, respectively over the past four year period. ■ Very Good ii Good Ensuring Public Safety/ Security at Demonstrations and Public Gatherings Enforcing the Law Apprehending Criminals Enforcing Traffic Laws (n =400) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 8 How do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each of the following? rr:.n •i Significant change since 2010 ( Very Good + Good) 77� ...................... ......... ............................... ....... 72% n/c 66% T 10' /, 64% Performance of Saint John Police Force - Crime Prevention MIpsos Reid Significant improvement can be noted in terms of preventing crime and dealing with problems that really concern people in their neighbourhood. Residents' evaluation of the Saint John Police Force performance regarding other crime prevention areas remained fairly consistent since 2010. Dealing with Problems that Really Concern People in your Neighbourhood Police Presence in Police Vehicles Police Presence in Local Schools Preventing Crime Police Presence on Foot /Bicycle (n =400) fib Very Good 8 Good 26% 37% *Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question S Horn do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each of the following? 169 Significant change since 2010* 40% n/c (% Very Good I + Good) 63% i i T7% 0 ........... .... ....... A ................... I.................... i 69% i n/c i i 54% a n/c s i......... ............................... 58% T9% 40% n/c Performance of Saint John Police Force - Responsiveness 0 tpsos Reid Residents' evaluation of Saint John's Police Force's Responsiveness in their own neighbourhood remain very consistent in 2014 with those of four years ago, with the exception of two areas that have improved significantly; working with residents to solve crimes, and responding to disorderly youth /crime. Responding promptly to emergency calls Helping victims of crime Working with residents to solve crimes Investigating /solving crimes Responding to disorderly youth /crime (n -4001 ■ Very Good N Good 23% ]42 ' Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 8 How do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each of the following? 170 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good + Good) 76% n/c ............. -.................. 60% i ! i ............................... n/c ...................` ..,...... i 60% 1 _ ............................... T7% ..................... ..�... I 62% ; -- -- .............................. n/c i 65% i T8 Performance of Saint John Police Force - Community & Human Relationships TP wo IS = When it comes to the Saint John Police Force's performance in the area of Community and Human relationships, a significant improvement in resident"s evaluation can be noted; in terms of providing bilineual services, and in the area of web/online information orovided. k, Very Good ■crood Being Approachable and Easy to Talk To Being Sensitive to the Situation and Snowing Respect to People Treating People Fairly Relations with Different Cultural Communities Providing Bilingual Services Web/Online Information Provided (n::400) Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Significant change ". 0) , Question How do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each of the following? zi 171 since 2010* (% Very Good + Good) 79% n/c ........................ 70% .. n/c ... ........ - - - ---- ----------- ...... . ....... 69% n/c ............. . ....... ........ ....... 57% n/c ............................................. 56% j t 10% ......................... A. ...... I...., . ..... ......... 47% I t8% ". 0) , Question How do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each of the following? zi 171 Residents who have had contact with the Saint John Police Force in the past 3 years are satisfied with the quality of service received. Contact With SJPF In Past 3 Years (n =400) 2014 Sig change No ' % Yes since 2010* 0 3 /o Yes North 60% n1c 60% 5outhlCentral 57% n1c East 65% nlc West 59% n/c Quality of Police Service Received Very Satisfied Satisfied 30% Neither 9 8% Dissatisfied 1 5% Very Dissatisfied 1 5% (n =241) Significant change since 2010* 51a/o n/c n/c n/c • Six in ten (60 %) City residents reported having had some contact with the Police in the past three years. The vast majority of residents who have had contact with the police were satisfied with the overall quality of police service received • The primary reasons for the contact with �olice was generally as follows: (n =241 — Officer offered assistance /information (66 %) — Victim of a crime (22 %) Witness /report a crime (23 %) Traffic violation /accident (8%) • The majority of citizens who dealt with police officers agreed they were courteous and professional (88 %) in their personal interactions (n =242) "" '" ° °.. ° ° °. °. °. ° ° ° ° °. °. °. ° °•.... Almost nine in ten citizens (86 %) who n/c had contact with police in the past three °• °. °. ° °° ° °. ° ° °. ... ° ° ° ° ° °° years agreed they were confident in the n/c officers ability to handle the situation (n =241) Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown OF Question 10 Liu, Ping the past three years, did you tall to or were you in contact with a Saint John Police officer for any reason Question 11 What was the mair, reason for your most recent contact with the Saint John Police Force officer, Question 11 To what extent do you agf ee wito kh a following statements? Question 13 ihf t&ink of thin fact rnntart wlfh > 512-t i.,h., Police officer, how satisfied were you with the quality J '.i! nukt, VOAi � ' 172 Residents who have had emergency contact with Police in past 2 -3 years are quite satisfied with the quality of the 911 service received It ;a "= I Emergency Contact with SJPF In Past 3 Years • Two in ten city residents report having (n =400) called the police for an emergency during the past three years (18 %). It is Yes of interest to note that the number of 2474 Sig change residents who contacted the police for �"Ye' ""g 2010°i °* an emergency significantly dropped in North 8% 4,13% the North region when compared to Na South /Central 24% nlc 2010. $2% East 15% n/c West 24% n/c There is a high level of complete agreement among residents that the 9 -1 -1 service they received in their Emergency Telephone Service slg emergency was both prompt and K Completely Agree =Agree l change professional, with virtually all agreeing 2010* to some extent, most in complete 9 -1 -1 Operator ; agreement. (n =72 *) answered my call 92% I n/c promptly I Overall, nine in ten of those residents 9 -1 -1 Operator was courteous "'' I 92% n/c who did have emergency contact with the Saint John Police Force agree or and professional - - completely agree they were satisfied Satisfied overall r._ with the quality of `u 90% n/c overall with the quality of the 9 -1 -1 service they received. (n =72 *) the 9 -1 -1- service I (n =72 * *) I * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence lntervatj since 2010 are shown ** Small sample size, caution Question 14 Luring the past three years, have you called the police for an Emergency, for example have you dialed 9 -1 -1 -for a life threatening situation, r'"• crime in progress, or seI IOUs traffic accident? QuQstron 15 Thinking about your last call te, the Saint !ohn Police. to what extent do you agree nth each of the following statements 173 Residents continue to be positive in their assessment of non - emergency i s Reitz telephone service contact with Saint John Police Force in the past 3 years 4 L W;. 1`4` (PAST 3 YEARS), 2014 Non- Emergency Contact with Police In Past 3 Years (n =400) • Yes .. Telephone call was handled in timely, 2014 24% % Yes North 20% No South /Central 27% 76% East 23% West 26% Sig changes since 2010* \H4% Two in ten (24 %) city residents called police for a non - emergency during the past three years. Half of those were identified as calls related to a crime. We Again, we note a significant drop in the n/c number of residents who contacted nlc the police for a non - emergency matter in the North when compared to 2010. Non- Emergency Telephone Service si (n =95) t�; Completely Agree & Agree Telephone call was handled in timely, manner 88% r I n/c Person who answered was courteous and '' 90% professional ............... r................. 93% i .. n/c Obtained Information /service n/c 5 needed, 2014 - Hours for non - emergency call service were satisfactory Satisfied overall with quality of telephone �. service • Residents dealing with the police on non - emergency matters agree they were treated courteously, efficiently and received the information or service they required. (n =95) • Overall, nine in ten were satisfied overall with the quality of service received in this service encounter. (n =95) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown ":1 1? "1.. Question 16 Curing the past three years, have you called the pof ice for a Non-Emergency mattei7 8 y Question 17 Was this call related to a crime? ,�. Question 1S ThmPing now abe r, v.- r' 'a:. -:n- emergency call, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? w 174 g. ;change 2010- 88% r I n/c .................. �................. 93% i ............ n/c 90% ............... n/c ............... r................. 93% i .. n/c ............1 ................... I 89% n/c • Residents dealing with the police on non - emergency matters agree they were treated courteously, efficiently and received the information or service they required. (n =95) • Overall, nine in ten were satisfied overall with the quality of service received in this service encounter. (n =95) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown ":1 1? "1.. Question 16 Curing the past three years, have you called the pof ice for a Non-Emergency mattei7 8 y Question 17 Was this call related to a crime? ,�. Question 1S ThmPing now abe r, v.- r' 'a:. -:n- emergency call, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? w 174 Visits to the Police Station overall were down, driven primarily by a decrease ® Ipsos Reid in visits among residents in the North and West regions of the City - Visit to SJPF Station Past 3 Years 2010* 86% I o n/c 0 Two in ten (20 %) city residents have (n =400) n/c actually visited a Saint John Police Ye 2044 Sig changes Force office to request information or 201 )1a I�, °! °Yes >�Incez °'° a service in the past three years. North 21% yis% Significant changes since 2010 South /Central 14% nic belong to the North and West No East 18% nlc neighborhood's, where the number of 80% West 30% 11,16% residents who have visited the Police station has decreased. Service During Visit to Police Station , sag. (o =79 * *) Served in a timely manner Person at front desk was courteous and professional Obtained the Infonnation or service I needed Satisfied overall with the Front Desk service F Completely Agree C: Agree change • Residents rate the service they received on -site at Police stations /offices as being positive and meeting their needs. * Please note thatonly statistically significant differences (at95 %Confidence Interval) since 2010 ore shown "* Caution, smaller sample size Question 19 During the past Three years, did yon+ go to a Saint John Police Station or office to request information or a senoice? Question 20A Thinking of the last time you 'ment to the N:dice station front desk, to what extent do agree with the following statements'+ 175 2010* 86% I o n/c I ................... .l. 90% n/c 0 91% n/c ...............J .................... 86% i n/c I • Residents rate the service they received on -site at Police stations /offices as being positive and meeting their needs. * Please note thatonly statistically significant differences (at95 %Confidence Interval) since 2010 ore shown "* Caution, smaller sample size Question 19 During the past Three years, did yon+ go to a Saint John Police Station or office to request information or a senoice? Question 20A Thinking of the last time you 'ment to the N:dice station front desk, to what extent do agree with the following statements'+ 175 Residents' satisfaction with the overall quality of service provided to them by the Saint John Police Force in 2014 has significantly increased since 2010 Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither 13% Dissatisfied 1 4% (n =400) 34% Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 2]. Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of the service provided b the Saint John Police Forre"o Y 4 tY P Y �a asv 176 ® Ipsos Reid Significant changes I since 2010* I I I I I Ts% I I I ..................... ............................... ........ I I I 49% i n/c I I ............................. ............................... I I I l n/c I I I I I I n/c On a regional basis, residents in all areas of the City continue to be satisfied .. lWs Reid with the quality of service received from the Saint John Police Force, with a significant improvement noted in the North area of the City. s Very Satisfied ■ Satisfied a Neither North (n =91) South/ Central (n=104) East (n =100) 3% 1% 11% 8% 14% 15% 32% 33% 32% Dissatisfied 3910 043% 4910 51% West (n =101) 53% 12% 4% (n =400) *Please note that only statisticaliv significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 2l Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of the servire provided by the Saint John Police Force" 177 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Satisfied) T14% ......................... ............................... n/c ......................... ............................... n/c n/c Four in ten residents in the City report an improvement in the quality of Ipsos Reid police service, with less than one in ten who reported that over the — past 3 years, quality has deteriorated. Improved Stayed the same (n =400) 37% Deteriorated 9% �' Please note that only statisticolly significant differences tat 95% Garr /idence Interval) since x'0.10 nre shown 51% 0 % Question 23 Has the quality of police service in Saint John deteriorated, stayed the same or improved in the last 2 -3 yeas? e..v 178 Significant change since 2010* i n/c n/c n/c On a regional basis, no significant changes can be noted between the regions or ® lWs Reid since 2010 with four in ten residents reporting the quality of police service has improved over the past 3 years. North (n =91) South/ Central (n=104) East (n =100) West (n =101) (n =aoo) ■ Improved ■ stayed the same w Deteriorated , Significant change since 2010 (% Improved) 44% 7% 51% 5% 53% 13% 54% * Please note that only statistrcolly significont drfferenCes (at 75% Conlitience 1"ite i vot) since 2010 aw shown `�" Question 22 etas the quality of police service in Saint John detenoiated, stayed the same or improved in the last 2 -3 ypam? 1. 179 n/c ......................... ............................... n/c ................. ............................... I....... n/c ......................... ............................... n/c Ipsos Reid PSOS Experience with Crime In Saint John • Incidence of Personal Crime • Nature of Crimes Experienced • Crime and Business :M v :.,� . ..r 4M The extent to which crime is present in the community as measured by ipsos those who report being a victim of crime in the past 12 months has p g p remained consistent in 2014 compared to 2010. VICTIM OF CRIME IN PAST 12 MONTHS OR MMUR OF FAMILY), ! 19 Victim of Crime In Past 12 Months • One in ten city residents have been the victim of a crime in the City in the past year (n=400) (9 %), with the crime rate being significantly Yes 2014 sly changes lower in the East when compared to other 9% %Yes since 2010' regions North 11% nlc South/Central 15% nlc The crimes committed against persons were most often (n= 19 * *): No East 2% nlc 91°/ west 9% nic ➢ Assault (other than sexual assault) ➢ Robbery ➢ Harassment, Threats Was Crime Committed Against Person or Property ➢ Sexual Assault • Crimes committed against property consisted of the following (n= 24 * *): Person 32% ➢ Damage ➢ Break & Enter j' Theft Property 46% • The locations of the crimes varied, most Both often the crime occurred at the resident's Person & 190/0 a home or on their property (57 %), on the Property street or other public place (35 %), in a (n =37 * *) 8% of crimes committed against people or property commercial or institutional building (16 %), were reported to have involved the use of a weapon- followed by another private residence (11 %), * *Caution, small sample size or at work (8 %) (n =37 * *) r* , Question 24 Have you or an immediate member of your family been a victim of crime to Saint John in the past 12 months? Question 25 was the most -� ��. recent crime you experienced enced a g arnSt a P erson, against mst P ro P ett y or both Question 26 Thinking of the most recent rncidence, what type of crime (s) n nr..n..r ern rxniir rn fsrs�.l �. er,emhor7 t4�.acY�nn Ti T=- -�-;'; -;;. w,3s _c^+mttted against yS` -! q n. }� Q mn f rm ant �1 thm r _ bout .. +. e:=: ,nr..st. ,... rrrne(SI involve n I 10 .a........ �.1 ..r�...7 181 The likelihood of reporting a crime has remained the same when compared to four years ago with 89% of those victims indicating they did report the Ip3os Reid crime to the Police. Ki LV41' Notified Police of Incident/Crime (n =37 * *) No Yes 89°% Professionalism of SJPF Responding to this Incident (n =33 * *) • The majority of residents who experienced a crime in the past year reported the incident to the Saint John Police Force (89 %), with results being consistent with those in 2010 • Public opinion in 2014 remains high in terms of the professionalism of the force as well as satisfaction with actions taken as a result of the incident that was reported Satisfaction with Actions of Police in Incident (n =33 * *) 36% 33% ' 27% 24% 24% 15% IF - 12% 12% 12% 3% I I� mmw' Very Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Satisfied Dissatisfied ** caution, small sample size f Question 30 Were the saint John Police notified of this incidence Question 32 How would you rate the professionalism of the Saint John Police Force in responding to this incident? �.•.� �jill'Si:N,.r. j :7 TPun��rg of ��, , � ^41t rEi. ?rN urCitlri:! .'1: i7tic`ied wr• .• ,you with th,! Z:'1,at:, :h.? i aLce !•.xtW : 182 Business Crime in the City of Saint John has remained the same compared to four years ago Own /Operate A Business in City (n =400) Yes 2014 Sig changes 7% % Yes since 2010* North 11% nlc South /Central 4% nlc No East 10% nlc 93% West 3% nlc • Compared to four years ago, the percent of business owners and operators in the City report about the same incidence of crime in the City. • Among the few (7 %) business owners in the City, 15% were victims of crime in the past year. • The crimes committed were theft, break & enter, assault and damage to property. Victim of Crime In Business (n=27**) No 85% * Please note that only statistically significant differences (of 95% Confidence lnteruall since 1010 are shown * Caution, small sample size Question 36 Go you own or operate a business in SaintkhO Question 37 Has your business been the location of a crime in the past 12 months'•' .a QuestAun 33 thinking of the must rut crtt inudeot wttat tvpP. -W . . I , as corn„ ' b� Jr .n Ou!• •r:' 183 Yes 15% !pros Reid Ipsos Reid IPSOSA Crime Prevention • Safety at Home • Crime Prevention Information Ml Aaft Jaw, The vast majority of residents in the City feel very safe at home during the daytime hours; the majority of residents also feel safe at home in the evening /night. It's of interest to note a 10% increase in the number of residents who feel very safe in the evening /night since 2010.` DAYTIME HOURS — HOME, 2014 Significant change since 2010* n /r Very Safe 69% l�(3505 Safe = 26% n/c Neutral 3% n/c ....................... . Unsafe 2% n/c 7 (n =400) Very Safe Safe Neutral 5% Unsafe 4% (n =400) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since <010 are shown QuestjaR NA How sale do you feel in your own home during the day? Question 39B How safe do you in voui awn home after dark; 185 33% Significant change since 2010* 580/0 1%10% ..... I............ n/c ........................ n/c ..... I............ n/c On a regional basis, residents of the City feel generally safe in their own home in M Ipasos Reid the daytime (especially in the East when compared to South /Central neighbourhood). However, no significant changes regarding resident's daytime safety can be noted since 2010 North (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West (n =101) ■ Very Safe Safe Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 39A Flow safe do you feJ ire your own home during the day? :• Significant change since 2010 (% Very Safe l & Safe) l l l 95% i n/c i i 93% n/c i 96% 1 n/c 98% 1 n/c On a regional basis, residents of the City feel generally safe in their own home after dark (especially so in the East). It's of interest to note that residents in the North are more likely to report feeling "very safe ", now compared to 2010. North (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West (n =101) F Very Safe ■ Safe 'Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence lnrervaO since 2010 are shown ,, Ouesbon 398 How safe da you in your own home after dark? . 187 M1psos Reid Significant change since 2010* (% Very Safe & Safe) I I 92% I '1`11% I i 87% n/c .. ............................... 95% n/c i 90% n/c i i The vast majority of residents in the City feel very safe walking alone during IWs Reid the day (even more so than in 2010); the majority of residents also feel safe walking alone in the evening /night (no significant changes since 2010) DAYTIME —WALKING ALONE, 2014 Very Safe Safe Neutral 5% Unsafe 4% (n =400) 32% Significant changes since 2010* 59% T13% +1,13% ........................ n/c n/c Significant changes since 2010* Very Safe 25% n/c Safe Neutral Unsafe (n =400) r Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown ``• Question 5A How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighbourhood during the days Quest »n SF i.,ti c,}!r J done iP vouo neighbourhood after dark? Im 39% n/c 8% n/c 25% n/c Looking at results regionally, residents of the South /Central neighbourhood feel less ® 1psos Reid safe walking in the daytime when compared to residents of other neighbourhoods. However, a significant increase in the number of residents who feel safe walking alone in the daytime can be noted in the North region when compared to 2010. North (n =91) South/ Central (n=104) East (n =100) West (n =101) ■ Very Safe ■ Safe * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Con.0dence interval) since 1010 are shown Question 5A How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighbourhood dw ing the day" IM Significant change since 2010* (% Very Safe i l & Safe) l 93% i l t10% _ ............... rt i i l 88% i l ............................................. n/c t ............. ..... ... I I ............................... ................ l 92% l n/c l ..� t i ................. ............................... 89% i n/c Looking at results regionally, residents of the East neighbourhood feel safer Ipsos Reid walking in the evening /night when compared to residents of the South /Central neighbourhood with no significant changes noted when comparing to 2010. Morth (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West (n =101) IN Very Safe ■ Safe * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown 4uestron 5B How safe do you feel walking alone In your neighbourhood after darkP 190 Significant change since 2010` (% Very Safe d & Safe) I d 64% i n/c d d ................................ ............................... l d l 55% n/c l l .......... 74% -I. d 74% i n/c I i I I 65% i n/c I l NOME7l The majority of security measures used at home have remained consistent since 2010, with the exception of an increased use of alarm systems and video surveillance. Crime Prevention Programs have not witnessed any significant changes when compared to four years ago. Significant Security Measures Used At Home 2014 ' changes since 2010* • Exterior Lighting .................... ............................... • Deadbolt Locks ......... ............................... 84% n/c 86% 1 n/c ................................................................................................... ............................... • Shades on Garage Windows 33% .................................................................................................. .......... .................... •Dog 27% Participate in Neighbourhood Watch • Alarm System • Window Bars /Filaments .................................................................... ................................ e....... • Caretaker /Security Guard .. ............................... . .. ............................... . ........................... • Video Surveillance 0 1psos Reid Participate in Saint John Based Crime Prevention Programs 1 2014 (Past 3 Years) ............................................................................. .......I................J ............�ii • Neighbourhood Watch 7% • DARE 6% .............................................................. ............................... • Crime Stoppers n/c • Block Parent Program n/c 14% n/c 29% 16% 13% 16% T 7°% n/c ... p� ........ ...............�..�..�..�,.�..� n/c :.,,... ... ............................... T8% Significant changes since 2010* n/c n/c ...................... n/c n/c • Community Policing Problem 3% n/c Solving Exercise Current Member • ............................. _ ....................... �. ,..,..,..,.��c..,..,....... Neighbourhood Watch 4 % * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence interval) since 2010 are shown Question 40 What security measures are used where you live? Question 4 i Within the last three years, have you participated for your household, either as a recipient of sert,ices or as a volunteer, in any of the fr;ile�y,rr}e C�rr1 Inhn k}lgarl rmhrarp.r to rnpLa your neighbou,", i? €Pr7 �a 191 Ipsos Reid Community Profile 1 (Based on Study Sample) i • Demographics • Housing Characteristics 192 �.'MCi�3r�'� Demographics and Housing Characteristics rpws Reid HOUSEHOLD 18 -44 34% 1 2 45 -64 43% 3 _ 65+ 23% 4+ 14% Average Age =52 Years i►., 4. CHILDRU Mali 43% 13% No Chflclm 63% 31% Question 45 In what year were you borne Question 464 Huw many adults (aged 18+), including yru, We in your residence? Questiw 4613 rjo you have anv children under 18 living with yo,,"' Gender {recorded by objervationt 193 50% Demographics and Housing Characteristics Rel 41( Single detached home 43% Law rise apartment - 23% High rise apartment ■ 10% Duplex 0 7% Garden house, town house or .6% row house Semi detached home , 4% ! EDUCATIGN Less than high school 1 7% High school graduate 27% Some college, university or _ 18 %c trade school College /trade diploma or 420/0 university degree 10mrwro Il�srs HOUSEHOLD INCOME <$40K 30% $40K -$80K 27 % $80K+ 210 DISABILITY AND VISIBLE MINORITY Person with disability Member of visible minority Question 47 Du you (or a member of your household) own of rent the dwelling you live in? Qunsti )n 48 What type of dwelling do you live in? Question 49 In which of the following broad categories does your total annual household income re ll before taxes? Question 50 What is your current „ level of - duc,rtion? Qu?stron i oo aou romidpr unnr -,elf to be a person with a disabilit -l" * -• ,r ° � f'- you consider p -. der yourself to ;+e a tne,'nbei of a 194 Additional Findings of Interest psos Re"d Residents living in the North End (19% as opposed to 32% in 2010; a significant decline) as well as those in the South /Central region (32 %) were more likely than residents in the East (2 %) or West side (8 %) to believe their neighbourhood has more crime than other neighbourhoods Despite the perception their neighbourhood has more crime than others, residents in both the North End and South /Central region generally feel as safe as residents in the other parts of the City do when walking alone in their neighbourhood during the day (North: 92% safe; South /Central: 89 %; East: 92 %; West: 89 %). It's of interest to note that safety perceptions have significantly improved in the North End (an increase of 13% in those reporting Very Safe, compared to 2010) • The sense of security residents feel across all parts of the City in walking alone during the day however does not translate into the same sense of security walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, regardless of where they live (North: 64% ; South /Central: 55 %; East: 74 %; West: 64 %). No significant changes were noted when compared to 2010 in this regard • Three in ten residents in the City currently have an Alarm System (29 %, as opposed to 22% in 2010; a significant increase of 7 %) installed in their home, the majority still rely on exterior lighting (84 %), deadbolt locks (86 %) and some rely on Shades on Garage Windows (33 %) followed by relying on a dog (27 %) for home security A very small percentage of residents are currently participating in organized crime prevention programs such as a Block Parents (3 %) or Neighbourhood Watch (7 %) with the number of residents who participate in the East End significantly higher than in other regions (14 %) • Residents of the South /Central area of the City have smaller households when compared to other City neighbourhoods. Moreover, lower income levels are noted for residents of the South /Central followed by the North region. Lower education levels are also noted for the South /Central area when compared to other regions �► A higher proportion of renters continue to live in the South /Central region (74 %, consistent with 2006 and 2010), however it is of interest to note a significant decrease in the number of renters residing in the North End (41% in 2014 as opposed to 64% in 2010). The number of renters has remained consistent in both the East (23 %) and West sides (25 %) of the City compared to four years ago. 195 Ipsos Reid f,� , IL A, 1�� r" i Appendix ,w 1 Research Methodology 196 Research Methodology Target Respondent Sample Size Margin of Error Method of Data Collection Study Timing & Survey Length ............................................................................. ............................... e Residents living in the City of Saint John, 18 years of age or older 400 Interviews completed, broken down as follows by region: • North: 91 interviews • South /Central: 104 interviews • East: 100 interviews • West: 101 interviews 9 Ipsos Reid While the calls were targeted based on listed postal code, the respondent was classified based on their reported postal code (or civic address) Overall results may be considered accurate to within + 4.9% (95% of the time) while regional results are accurate to within + 10% (95% of the time) ` Telephone, Listed Sample Source by Postal Code, Household Member with Next Birthday (random method of selection); Saint John Police Force provided the survey questionnaire for use in this study The survey was conducted by Ipsos Reid during the period of Sept. 4 -17, 2014. Average Interview Length was 20 Minutes ................... ...... -- ............ ..... - 197 0 0 Ipsos Reid Appendit B Questionnaire m I �ti. 40=--- 411 r JG . 0=4 IL 199 Ipsos Reid Ipsos paint Jahn Police Force Community Policing 5urveV 2014 October 10, 2014 I -T 200 R Table of Contents PAG E KEY STUDY CONCLUSIONS 4 ABOUT YOUR CITY AND NEIGHBOURHOOD 5 ......................... ................ .................................. I-- ........ - .............. .........................................................,..................... I...... ...... , POLICE SERVICES IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD 13 ...................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... EXPERIENCE WITH CRIME IN SAINTJOHN 29 ................................................................................................................................................................. ............................... CRIME PREVENTION 33 ............................................................................................................................................................. ............................... COMMUNITY PROFILE -DEMOGRAPHICS, HOUSING 41 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 44 APPENDIX A - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 45 APPENDIX B - QUESTIONNAIRE 47 201 Ipsos Reid Ipsos Reid Key Study Conclusions 202 I H Key tud Conclusions M Mpws Reid v v 2014 results indicate a notable improvement in the performance of the Saint John Police Force on many levels compared to four years ago; significantly fewer residents now believe crime in their City has increased over the past few years; as well, residents' concern with many types of crime have also decreased, especially crimes noted as being of most concern to residents. . • Satisfaction levels with the overall performance of the Saint John Police Force continues to be high. In terms of the quality of service, ensuring the safety of residents and enforcing the law, a significant improvement is noted when compared to 2010. As a result, more residents now feel safe in their homes and when walking alone in the evening compared to four years ago. a. Efforts in the North End continue to stand out with residents in this neighbourhood community more likely than others to note an improvement in police services overall in the City. 203 1psos Reid Abot.it Your City and Neighbourhood \ . I 1 • Crime in the Past Three Years • Neighbourhood Safety • Issues of Concern in Neighbourhood • City Wide Issues of Concern 204 p -L �� r Compared to 20101, significantly fewer residents now believe crime in the City has increased; with the most drastic improvement noted in the North region of the City, followed by the Eastern region of the city. MIpsos Reid Question Z In the past three years, do you think crime has increased, remained the some or decreased' 205 I Significant change ■ Increased M Remained The Same a Decreased i since 2010* (change in % Increased) I 31% I City Overall (n =400) 45% y12% 17% ............... ............................... t F 74a /o I I I North (n =91) 48% i 4,26% 18% I ............................. I.............................. South/ Central 240/h 43% j n/c (n =104) 200/6 I 36% 14°10 East (n =100) 42% 17% 37% West (n =101) 46% i n/c 13% * Please note that only statistically significant differences (ot 95% Confidence Interval) since 7.010 are shown Question Z In the past three years, do you think crime has increased, remained the some or decreased' 205 Crime levels in the neighborhood have also decreased since 2010, M 1pws Reid mainly due to significant improvement in the North where the percentage of residents who reported that crime has increased has dropped 16% since 2010. x Increased City Overall (n =400) North (n =91) 141 Remained The Same F Decreased 20% 20% 184/4 West (n =101) 15% " Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown 52% 54% 54% 54% Significant change since 2010* (change in % Increased) y7% ...................... ............................... y 16% n/c n/c n/c Question 3 What about in your neighbourhood j In the past three years, do you chink crime has increased, remained the same or de:reaspd? 206 South / Central I0% (n =104) 464/0 zs °io 20% East (n =100) 19% 24% West (n =101) 15% " Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown 52% 54% 54% 54% Significant change since 2010* (change in % Increased) y7% ...................... ............................... y 16% n/c n/c n/c Question 3 What about in your neighbourhood j In the past three years, do you chink crime has increased, remained the same or de:reaspd? 206 Crimes /Issues of Most Concern to Citizens - City of Saint John Overall 0 1psos Reid Levels of concern (both very concerned and concerned) with many crimes most concerning to residents have significantly dropped since 2010. Concern related to the issue of homelessness however remains much the same as it was four years ago, in 2010. Homelessness Presence of Drugs /Drug Dealers Speeding CarslAggressive Driving Youth Crime /Violence Assaults (n =400) IN THE CITY OVERALL, 2014 a Very Concerned a Concerned * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 7 How concerned are y� pia with each of the following conditions in Saint )ohr.' 207 i Significant change since 2010* (% Very Concemed } Concemed) 83% i n/c f 76/0 y9% 72% y12% ! f 74% l 'W% s i 69% i s11% Crimes /Issues of Secondary Concern to Citizens — City of Saint John Overall IPsos Residents' concern with gun violence, homicide, racial tensions and hate crime has dropped since 2010. However, concern with other crimes such as prostitution, intoxicated persons, panhandling and terrorist activities has remained consistent since 2010. Immm— IN THE CITY OVERALL, 2-014 Significant changes m Very Concerned ■ Concerned since 2010` (% Very Concemed & Concemed) Prostitution ' 54% i n/c Gun Violence 130/o 360/6 44% { ....................... ............................... i ,k0% Intoxicated Persons ................. a....................... ............................... 54% j n/c ..................... 1...................... ............................... Homicide 50% Hate Crime 41%...... i ............ .....y9 %.,..,..,..,............ Panhandling..380/o .................... 47% 7.....,................ ..............,..,..,..,..,..,, i n/c Racial Tensions • • 33% t Terrorist Activities i • • .................+..,..,................. 27% ...........................,.., j n/c ................... ....................... ......I......................., Motorcycle Gangs ' • 33% E n/c ............. ........1...................... ........................, Protests/ Demonstrations ' • 11% n/c (n =400) *Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown rq; Quest +on 7 How concerned are you with each of the fr.!iowrng co.iditions in Saint John? 1: Crimes of Most Concern to Citizens - Neighbourhood k P10S There's a significant decline in residents concern with crime in their neighbourhood when it comes to youth crime /violence, speeding cars, burglary, vandalism to property, and presence of drugs /drug dealers. Concern levels with theft from vehicles and violence against women crimes remained unchanged over the past 4 years. RI Very Concerned U Concerned Speeding Cars Break k Enter/Burglary Youth Crime /Violence Vandalism to Property Theft From Vehicles Presence of Drugs/ Drug Dealers Violence Against Women (n =400) 4' Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Significant change I since 2010' (% Very Concerned I I + Concerned) 59% I ,Lq% ............... ..................... I 45% I I - ................ .......... .., X1,12% 47% j J/10% 53% n/c 49% j 4,8% i 43% I n/c Quest= 7 How concerned are you with each of the following conditions in Saint John? e..Q. s 209 Crimes of Secondary Concern to Citizens Ipsas Reid - Neighbourhood Concern among residents of crime in their own neighbourhood has significantly decreased since 2010 in a number of key areas as noted below. In other areas it has remained unchanged. F IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD, Significant change since 2010* V Very Concerned IR Concerned i (% Very Concemed i + Concerned) i Poor Street Lighting ' . 35% .................................. j 12% Domestic Violence 28% , 41% ............................... n/c Intoxicated Persons .................... 33% j X11% Assault ....................... 37% ..................................... I........ Car Theft % 27% ...... 34%..... i ....... ..........y8 %,..,..,........... I................... Marijuana Grow Ops � ......... .............. 24% I ............... ... .......... Loitering � •' .....,. 24%...... i ...... .........y,8�.,..,..,..,..,..,. Gun Violence 26 %.., ., i ...... ..........y7 %...,..,..,..,..,.. Hate Crime 611/o .......... 25% .. .............. ................11............. ' n/c Bicycle Theft ,..,..i 21 % ................. ........ ........ y 12 0 Homicide ....... . ........... ...I............................................... 27% . n/c Street Gangs ,..,..2,1�.,..f .. .............. ............................... /..................,.... (n =00) Graffiti................ 16% 4,14% i *Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown 'v ' Question 6A How coAcerned are you with each of the following conditions in your neighbourhood? In other words, how much of 210 Crimes of Lower Level Concern to Citizens - Neighbourhood 0 1psosftid Concern among residents in their own neighbourhood with noisy neighbours/parties and panhandling have significantly dropped since 2010. (n=400) Prostitution Noisy, Late Parties Panhandling Racial Tensions IN THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD, 2014 W Very Concerned is Concerned Motorcycle Gangs IMMI&M * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Significant change since 2010* (10 Very Concerned + Concerned) 24% n/c .. . ....... ... .... . 20% � 4,10% 21% 416% .......................... is% ..................................................... i n/c .. ........................I__.... 17% _ W. ::.::.:.:......:,:--- -------- -- n/c liv. . Question 6A How concerned are you with each of the following conditions in your neighbourhood? In other words, haw ,'such of a problem is linser' (r. Voijr1-:eigbbourhooi7' 4001%& 1 211 Ipsos Reid Police Services Ire Your Neighbourhood • Police Performance • Contact with Police • Quality of Police Services 212 L H 4 ilk Overall Performance of the Saint John Police Force M ipsosReid The majority of residents of the City of Saint John continue to believe the Saint John Police Force is doing a good (or very good) job in ensuring the safety and security of citizens. It's important to note the significant increase in the percentage of residents who report a "very good" level of performance when compared to 2010. Very Good Good 32% Average 23% Poor 5% (o =400) Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence interval) since 2010 are shown Significant change since 2010` i i T10% i i a.......................... I............................. i i i 41% i n/c ......................... ............................... n/c T* Question 9 Overall, how would you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Fotce in terms of ensuring the safety and security of the citizens of Saint inhna .mod 213 Overall Performance of the Saint John Police Force M Ipsos Reid Again we note a significant improvement in Saint John residents' evaluation of the Saint John Police Force in the North region. The number of residents in this area who reported a "very good" performance significantly increased since 2010. North (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West (n =101) ■ Very Good ■ Good or, Average a Poor 6% 20% 7% 0% 37% 41% 23% 45% 43% Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good) t14% ......................... ............................... n/c ............ ............. ............................... n/c ......................... ............................... n/c 4% i Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown A W. Question 51 Overall, how would you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force in terms of ensuring the safety; and security a++ _ens of Saint JohnP 214 Performance of the Saint John Police Force MIpsos Reid Residents in 2014 continue to rate the Saint John Police Force as doing a good job in all key functional performance areas, especially when it comes to law enforcement (% very good + good increased by 7% since 2010). Law Enforcement Community/Human Relationships Responsiveness Crime Prevention % Very Good + Good "e? Note: The percentage results above are based can the average of a number of components (n =aoo) which comprise each functional area of policing as outlined In the next 4 pages. * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown ,41 Question 8 How do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each nt the following? 215 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good + Good) T7% n/c n/c n/c Performance of Saint John Police Force Law Enforcement Ipsos = Residents' evaluation of the Saint .John Police Force in terms of ensuring public safety at demonstrations as well as enforcing the law remain very consistent in 2014 with four years ago. However, a significant improvement can be noted when it comes to apprehending criminals and enforcing traffic laws (% very good + good increased by 10% and 9 %, respectively over the past four year period. Ensuring Public Safety/ Security at Demonstrations and Public Gatherings Enforcing the Law 0, Very Good ■ Good 2510 47% Apprehending Criminals ' Enforcing Traffic Laws • • , (n =400) Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question S low do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force an each of the following? 216 Significant change since 2010* N Very Good + Good) I I 77% i n/c I I I s 72% i n/c i ................... {........... ........................................ 66% T 10% i 64% T9% Performance of Saint John Police Force - Crime Prevention 0 Ipsos Reid Significant improvement can be noted in terms of preventing crime and dealing with problems that really concern people in their neighbourhood. Residents' evaluation of the Saint John Police Force performance regarding other crime prevention areas remained fairly consistent since 2010. N Very Good ■ Good Dealing with Problems that Really Concern People in your Neighbourhood Police Presence in Police Vehicles Police Presence in Local Schools Preventing Crime Police Presence on Foot/Bicycle t. . I �,- (n=400) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question How do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each of the •oflowmg7 4h., 217 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good I + Good) 63% t7% - - -- -- ----- ----- -- -- - k i n/c ........... 54% ........ ..... ... n/c ........... 58% j t9% 40% ... ................... ........ I 1 n/c Performance of Saint John Police Force Responsiveness M Ipsos Reid Residents' evaluation of Saint John's Police Force's Responsiveness in their own neighbourhood remain very consistent in 2014 with those of four years ago, with the exception of two areas that have improved significantly; working with residents to solve crimes, and responding to disorderly youth /crime. Responding promptly to emergency calls Helping victims of crime Working with residents to solve crimes Investigating/solving crimes Responding to disorderly youth/crime 0 =400) k Very Good N Good ' Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown �1 ,i. Question 8 Horn do you rate the pe,forrnance of the Saint John Police Force an each of the following? 218 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good + Good) 76% n/c i i 60% ...................... n/c i 60% ......... ............................... T7% ................... ...... i................. I 62% i i ...................... 1........... ....................... ... n/c I 65% i I ............................... t8% Performance of Saint John Police Force - Community & Human Relationships aiipsos Reid When it comes to the Saint John Police Force's performance in the area of Community and Human relationships, a significant improvement in resident's evaluation can be noted; in terms of providing bilingual services, and in the area of web /online information provided. K Very Good r Good Being Approachable and Easy to Talk To Being Sensitive to the Situation and Showing ' Respect to People Treating People Fairly Relations with Different Cultural Communities Providing Bilingual Services MMMJMW-A� Web /Online Information Provided (n =440) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 8 How do you rate the performance of the Saint John Police Force on each of the following? 219 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Good i + Good) i 79% n/c 70% : n/c 1 69% n/c 57% n/c 56% 11` 10% S 47% i 118% Residents who have had contact with the Saint John Police Force in the past 3 years are satisfied with the quality of service received. Contact With SJPF In Past 3 Years (n =400) 2014 ' Sig change No % Yes since 2010° 39% yes North 6D% We 60% South /Central 57% We East 65% n/c West 59% nic Quality of Police Service Received Very Satisfied Satisfied 30% Neither 80/0 Dissatisfied 50/0 Very Dissatisfied 5% (n=241) Significant change since 2010' 51% n/c n/c n/c Ipsos Reid • Six in ten (60 %) City residents reported having had some contact with the Police in the past three years. The vast majority of residents who have had contact with the police were satisfied with the overall quality of police service rece ived • The primary reasons for the contact with police was generally as follows: (n =241) Officer offered assistance /information (66 %) Victim of a crime (22 %) Witness /report a crime (23 %) Traffic violation /accident (8 %) • The majority of citizens who dealt with police officers agreed they were courteous and professional (88 %) in their personal interactions (n =241) ........................................................ • Almost nine in ten citizens (86 %) who n/c had contact with police in the past three ........................................................ years agreed they were confident in the n/c officers ability to handle the situation (n =241) Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 10 During the past Three years, did you talk to or were you in contaet with a Saint John r'olrce officer for any reason? Question 11 What was the main reason for your most recent contact with the Saint John Police Force officer? Question 12 To what extent do you r ' :gym_• f•' ~,l :Plc 1% S::.2;:;<<:w •A estion 13. Thinking of'thiF lart Miltirt "13th I Cpint inh U1 H1..,rF�.R� k, ow sp sfl£d were vou voth the quaht�t 220 Residents who have had emergency contact with Police in past 2 -3 years are quite satisfied with the quality of the 911 service received t Emergency Contact with SJPF In Past 3 Years • Two in ten city residents report having (n =400) called the police for an emergency during the past three years (18 %). It is Yes of interest to note that the number of 18% 2014 Sig change residents who contacted the police for %Y@3 since 2010* an emergency significantly dropped in North 8% 4,13% the North region when compared to South/Central 24% nlc 2010. No 82% East 15% nlc West 24% n/c There is a high level of complete agreement among residents that the 9 -1 -1 service they received in their Emergency Telephone Service sEg emergency was both prompt and F. Completely Agree z Agree change professional, with virtually all agreeing 2010* to some extent, most in complete 9 -1 -1 Operator answered my call �''' 0 92 /0 n/c agreement. (n =72 *) promptly _ ........ ..........:.......... Overall, nine in ten of those residents 9 -1 -1 Operator was courteous :.. 92% n/c who did have emergency contact with the Saint John Police Force agree or and professional _.. _ completely agree they were satisfied the the Satisfied overall with the quality of .. 90o � I n/c overall with quality of 9 -1 -1 service they received. (n =72 *) the 9 -1 -1- service g 8 (n =72 * *) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown "Small sample size, caution Question 14 During the past three years, have you called the police for an Emergency, for eyample have you dialed 9 -1 -1 for a life threatening situation, crime in proeress, or serious traff r accident' Question 15 Thinking about your last call to the saint John Police, to what extent do you agree with each ofluie iolljow,agstatermer —' 221 Residents continue to be positive in their assessment of non - emergency Ipws Reid telephone service contact 0 p t with Saint John Police Force in the past 3 years Non - Emergency Contact with Police In Past 3 Years (n =ao0) Two in ten (24 %) city residents called police for a non - emergency during the Yes rk 3014 Sig changes past three years. Half of those were 24/0 `^ % Yes since 201V identified as calls related to a crime. North 20% 4,14% No South /Central 27% nic Again, we note a significant drop in the 760,0 East 23% nlc number of residents who contacted West 26% We the police for a non - emergency matter in the North when compared to 2010. Non - Emergency Telephone Service c ) Sig. ' Residents dealing with the police on p CompletelyAgree r_ Agree 12010* non - emergency matters agree they handled in ti l was handled in timely ! I $$% I n�C were treated courteously, efficiently � manner I and received the information or Person who answered was courteous and t .. ...........1,.................. 93 % 1 n/c service they required. (n =95) professional Obtained inPneedtl 2014ice needed, 2414 i 90� l .,n. .c..... o l / A Overall, nine in ten were satisfied , I .................. overall with the quality of service n- Hours for no ervi emergency call sce were satisfactory 93 /o I n/C received in this service encounter. Satisfied overall with quality of telephone o I 89% n I C service I ' Please mote that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 ore shown m. Question 16 During the past three years, have you called the police foi a Non- Emergency matter' Question 17 Wil s this tali related to a crime+ " Question 18 Thinktng now about vou+ last non - emergency call. to what extent do you agree with the following statements? 222 Visits to the Police Station overall were down, driven primarily by a decrease ® spsosReid in visits among residents in the North and West regions of the City Visit to SJPF Station Past 3 Years I 86% j n/c l ............. I • Two in ten (20 %) city residents have (n =400) n/c actually visited a Saint John Police Yes 2014 Sig changes Force office to request information or 2D% %Yes since 2010* a service in the past three years. North 21% 4116% Significant changes since 2010 South/Central 14% nlc belong to the North and West No East 15% >n►c neighborhood's, where the number of 80% west 30% %�16% residents who have visited the Police station has decreased. Service During Visit to Police Station Sig. (n =79 * *) Served in a timely manner Person at front desk was courteous and professional Obtained the information or service I needed P-2 Completely Agree ►' Agree Satisfied overall with the Front Desk service M9rqvIW change • Residents rate the service they received on -site at Police stations /offices as being positive and meeting their needs. Please note that only statistically significant differences (ot 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown "* Caution, smaller sample size Gr Question 19 Ouring the past three years, did you go to a Saint John Police Station of office' to request information or a service Questron 20A Thinking of the last time v< u went to the ►police station front desk.. to what extent do agree with the following statements? v"as 223 2010' I 86% j n/c l ............. I .................... 90% n/c I 91% 1 n/c ..................... i .................... 86% n/c • Residents rate the service they received on -site at Police stations /offices as being positive and meeting their needs. Please note that only statistically significant differences (ot 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown "* Caution, smaller sample size Gr Question 19 Ouring the past three years, did you go to a Saint John Police Station of office' to request information or a service Questron 20A Thinking of the last time v< u went to the ►police station front desk.. to what extent do agree with the following statements? v"as 223 Residents' satisfaction with the overall quality of service provided to them .. tpsos Reid by the Saint John Police Force in 2014 has significantly increased since 2010 Very Satisfied Satisfied 34% Neither , =13% Dissatisfied 1 40/0 (n =400) *Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 1010 are shown Question 71 Overall, hour satisfied are you with the quality of the service provided by the Saint John Police Forre7 224 Significant changes i since 2010* i i i T8% i i i i............................. ............................... E 49% i n/c i ............................. ............................... i l i n/c i a i i i i n/c On a regional basis, residents in all areas of the City continue to be satisfied . , 1psos Reid with the quality of service received from the Saint John Police Force, with a significant improvement noted in the North area of the City. ■ Very Satisfied ■ Satisfied w Neither North (n =91) Dissatisfied 43% 49% 51% 8% South/ Central (n=104) 3% East (n =100) 1% 14% 15% 32% 33% 32% West (n =101) 53% 12% 4% (n =470) * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Iritcrvol) since 1010 are shown Question �1 Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality of the service provided by the Saint John Police Force? 225 Significant change since 2010' (% Very Satisfied) T 14% n/c n/c n/c Four in ten residents in the City report an improvement in the quality of Ips05 Reid police service, with less than one in ten who reported that over the past 3 years, quality has deteriorated. Improved Stayed the same .Deteriorated (n =400) 37% 9% * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown 5110 Question 22 Has the quality of Police service in Saint John deteriorated stayed the same or improved in the last 2 -3 years? 226 I Significant change since 2010* f i I I I E n/c I I I E............. ............................... E I I I n/c i i i i ............................................................ i i n/c On a regional basis, no significant changes can be noted between the regions or ® 1psos Reid since 2010 with four in ten residents reporting the quality of police service has improved over the past 3 years. North (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West (n =101) (n =400) ■ Improved ■ Stayed the same k Deteriorated 44% 7% 51% 5% 53% 13% 54% Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confident e interval) since 2010 are shown s .. Question 22 Has the quality of police service it Saint John deteriorated, stayed the same or improved +;r the last 2 -3 years? J. 227 Significant change since 2010* (% Improved) n/c n/c ......................... ............................... n/c .............. ............................... n/c Ipsos Reid f-Af r ( 1 S r t Experience Sri C �� e h - I j t In Salim John h t • Incidence of Personal Crime • Nature of Crimes Experienced • Crime and Business 228 The extent to which crime is present in the community as measured by those who report being a victim of crime in the past 12 months has remained consistent in 2014 compared to 2010. Victim of Crime In Past 12 Months (n =400) Yes 2014 ftchanges 911/0 % Yes since 2010= North 11% nlc South /Central 15% nlc No East 2% nlc a 91 o West 9% nlc Was Crime Committed Against Person or Property Person 32% Property MEMPOM 46% Both Person & 19% Property (n =37 * *) 8% of crimes committed against people or property were reported to have involved the use of a weapon- ** Caution, small sample size ® 1psos Reid • One in ten city residents have been the victim of a crime in the City in the past year (9 %), with the crime rate being significantly lower in the East when compared to other regions • The crimes committed against persons were most often (n= 19 * *): Assault (other than sexual assault) y Robbery ➢ Harassment, Threats ➢ Sexual Assault • Crimes committed against property consisted of the following (n= 24 * *): i> Damage Break & Enter v Theft • The locations of the crimes varied, most often the crime occurred at the resident's home or on their property (57 %), on the street or other public place (35 %), in a commercial or institutional building (16 %), followed by another private residence (11 %), or at work (8 %) (n =37 * *) } Question 24 Have you o: an immediate member of your famrly been a victim of crime in Saint John in the past i? months? Question 25 Was the most recent crime you experienced against a person, against property or both? Question 26. Thinking of the most recent incidence, what type of crime (s) mas committed against ,o;: 4r";c? : :r :r mr �r �mmfe► „� :�r! :•� 229 The likelihood of reporting a crime has remained the same when compared to four years ago with 89% of those victims indicating they did report the rpsosReid crime to the Police. Notified Police of Incident/Crime (n =37 * *) No 11% Yes 89% Professionalism of SJPF Responding to this Incident (n =33 * *) 36% 24% 24% 12% 3 E % IF Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor ** Caution, small sample size 4 • The majority of residents who experienced a crime in the past year reported the incident to the Saint John Police Force (89 %), with results being consistent with those in 2010 • Public opinion in 2014 remains high in terms of the professionalism of the force as well as satisfaction with actions taken as a result of the incident that was reported Satisfaction with Actions of Police in Incident (n =33 * *) 33% 27% 15% �a 12% 12% Very Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Very Satisfied Dissatisfied .`- Ques *.ion M Were the Saint John Police notified of this incidence•' Question 32- Now would you rate the professionalism of the Saint John Police rorce in responding to this incident? Thinkingofthi> mus: iecenttn odent. how sxaUedWCIc"ou with Tf m!- rr. -r:,u r. ;..� 230 Business Crime in the City of Saint John has remained the same compared to four years ago Own /Operate A Business in City (n =400) Yes 2014 Sig changes 7% % Yes since 2010* North 11% nlc South /Central 4% nlc No East 10% nlc 93% West 3% nlc • Compared to four years ago, the percent of business owners and operators in the City report about the same incidence of crime in the City. • Among the few (7 %) business owners in the City, 15% were victims of crime in the past year. • The crimes committed were theft, break & enter, assault and damage to property. ® 1psos Reid Victim of Crime In Business (n =27**) No 85% * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidrnce interval.) since 2010 are shown * Caution, small sample size `!' Question 36 Do you own or operate a business in Saint John? gry° Question 37 H ?s your businecr been the location of a crime in the past 12 months? c. --�� i}uPtTion ?� tl'iin��ng 6t tfti-` mvtit �r�cnt nci,�wii v,hat • .• ,�.�.• , ,. 231 Yes 16% 1psos Reid 1psos 1 Crime Prevention • Safety at Home • Crime Prevention Information 232 4 • ti The vast majority of residents in the City feel very safe at home during the daytime hours; the majority of residents also feel safe at home in the evening /night. It's of interest to note a 10% increase in the number of residents who feel very safe in the evening /night since 2010. DAYTIME HOURS — HOME, 2014 Very Safe Safe Neutral 3% Unsafe 2% (n =400) 26% stpsos Reid Significant change since 2010* 1.69% n/c ........................ n/c n/c ........................ n/c Very Safe Safe Neutral 5% Unsafe 4% (n =400) Please note that only statistically significant differences (art 95% Confidence Interval) s nce 2010 are shown t } Question 39A How safe do you feel in your awn home during the day? Question 39B How&,re c'o yuu in your own home after dark's 233 Significant change since 2010' 5$ 0/0 t10% 33% n/c n/c n/c On a regional basis, residents of the City feel generally safe in their own home in M Ipsos Reid the daytime (especially in the East when compared to South /Central neighbourhood). However, no significant changes regarding resident's daytime safety can be noted since 2010 North (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West 0=101) ■ Very Safe ■ Safe 62% 31% *Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 9596 Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 341 How safe do you feel in your own home during the day? 234 95% Significant change since 2010* (% Very Safe & Safe) n/c . ............................... f.............--•...... ............................... 93% n/c 96% n/c .................. ............................... 98% n/c i On a regional basis, residents of the City feel generally safe in their own home after dark (especially so in the East). It's of interest to note that residents in the North are more likely to report feeling "very safe ", now compared to 2010. North (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West (n =101) I Very Safe ■ Safe ,'Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval j since 2010 are .shown �- Question 3993 Slow safe do «ou rn your own hc,me after dark? vrr 235 Mtpsos Reid Significant change since 2010* (% Very Safe & Safe) 92% s I '1`11% I I .................. ....... I . 1...................... ,................. I 87% n/c i 95% I i n/c i i .... � ................... i ..................... .................. 90°1 n/c i I The vast majority of residents in the City feel very safe walking alone during Ipws Reid the day (even more so than in 2010); the majority of residents also feel safe walking alone in the evening /night (no significant changes since 2010) DAYTIME —WALKING ALONE, 2014 Very Safe Safe Neutral 5% Unsafe 4% (n =400) 32% Significant Changes since 2010* 59% T13% 4.113% .................... n/c ................. n/c Significant changes since 2010' Very Safe 25% n/c Safe Neutral Unsafe (n =400) Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 9596 Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown .: �llEstion 5A Wow safe do you feel walking alone in your neighbour hood during the day? Question !:° 'r'; vw = I;.. you feel walking alone ir, uour - mghbourhood sifter dark? 236 39% n/c 80/0 n/c 25% n/c Looking at results regionally, residents of the South /Central neighbourhood feel less 1psos Reid safe walking in the daytime when compared to residents of other neighbourhoods. ' However, a significant increase in the number of residents who feel safe walking alone in the daytime can be noted in the North region when compared to 2010. North (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West (n =101) ■ Very Safe ■ Safe * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown Question 5A How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighhourhoud during the day? Mawip 237 93% Significant change l since 2010* (% Very Safe s & Safe) x`10% .................... :. .............. .. ................... _............ 88% t n/c t _. ... _.....� . . ..--------- -- ._._._._.- .... -... i 1 92% n/c ....................; ......................... I ............ . ..... . 89% i n/c l l l Looking at results regionally, residents of the East neighbourhood feel safer 1psos Reid walking in the evening /night when compared to residents of the South /Central neighbourhood with no significant changes noted when comparing to 2010. North (n =91) South/ Central (n =104) East (n =100) West (n =101) ■ Very Safe ■ Safe * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval] since 2010 are shown ' Question 58 How safe do you Feel walking alone in your neighbourhood after dark? 238 Significant change since 2010* (% Very Safe & Safe) E 64% n/c i 55% n/c i . .............. 74% ...._ ............................. ........ n/c i r .....: ..::.:::. ...............:......... 65% F. a i n/c The majority of security measures used at home have remained consistent since 2010, with the exception of an increased use of alarm systems and video surveillance. Crime Prevention Programs have not witnessed any significant changes when compared to four years ago. Security Measures Used At Home • Exterior Lighting • Deadbolt Locks ..................................................... ............................... • Shades on Garage Windows .............................. ............................... I................. • Dog Significant 2014 changes since 2010* 84% n/c 86% n/c 33% n/c ........... i ....... ......... ..... i........................................ 27% n/c ............... .... ............ ............ ................ . ........... . ............. ...... ...... i................... S........ ............................... • Participate in Neighbourhood Watch 1 14% 1 n/c ........................................................................................................... ............................... • Alarm System 29% T7% .............. .......... . ............... ............. ...... .......................... ....................... .. i...................... y ......................... ............... • Window Bars /Filaments 16% n/c ................................................................................................................:......... .........I..................... • Caretaker /Security Guard 13% n/c ........................................................................... ............................... €.................., ............ ............................... • Video Surveillance 16% T8% I Participate in Saint John Based Significant Crime Prevention Programs 2014 changes (Past 3 Years) :since 2010* • Neighbourhood Watch 7% F n/c .............................................. ............................... • DARE 6% n/c �.. �.. �..� ........................................................................................ d.............. ........4...................... • Crime Stoppers 4% n/c ........................................................................................... ..........3.................... . h... ............................... • Block Parent Program 3% n/c ...................................................................... ............................... ......................i ... ............................... • Community Policing Problem 3% n/c Solving Exercise Current Member • Neighbourhood Watch 4% n/c * Please note that only statistically significant differences (at 95% Confidence Interval) since 2010 are shown c U Question 40 What security measures are used where you live? Question Ci, Within the East three y4�:ars, have you participated for your household, either as a recipient of services of as a volunteer, in any of the fohow-n ; Sant John basecr prograi,;s .c � i sake your° ^eighbourhoor! 239 Ipsos Reid i I 5 Community Profile (Based on Studv Sample) i • Demographics • Housing Characteristics 240 1. Demographics and Housing Characteristics , , Ipsos Reid 18 -44 340/b 1 31% i 45 -64 43% 2 50% 3 -13% 65+ 23% Average Age =52 Years Mali 43°/ 4+ , 4% MUSEHOLD (Under 18 yrs. old) 1 No Children 63% Question 4S In what year were you boina Question 46A glow many adults (aged 18 +), including you, live in your residenrea Question 468 Do you have any cliddren under- 18 Wing with you? Gender (recorded by obsarvatinn) 241 Demographics and Housing Characteristics Ref 411 Single detached home 43% Low rise apartment - 23% High rise apartment ■ 10% Duplex .7% Garden house, town house or 6% row house 0 Semi detached home' 4% EDUCATION Less than high school 1 7% High school graduate 27% Some college, university or _ 180/0 trade school College /trade diploma or 4Z% university degree Emirw Person with disability Member of visible minority EIpsos Reid HOUSEHOLD WCflME <$40K 30% $40K -$80K 27% $80K+ 21% s' • Question 47 Do you (or a member of your household) own or rent the dwelling you live my Question 48 What type of dwelling do you live in7 Question 49 In which of the following broad categories does your total annual household income fall before taxes -? Question SO What is your :urrent level .f educatrCrn� uu��ivr �. flb V5u I'dnG �s+r �mrrcolf rn tim a ?r50n with a dlSdbllrty' 4 i.ii:h!n mnr. t.. . r �3nsr�er yorars�'If to ale a rnemb+?r of a 242 Additional Findings of Interest • Residents living in the North End (19% as opposed to 32% in 2010; a significant decline) as well as those in the South /Central region (32 %) were more likely than residents in the East (2 %) or West side (8 %) to believe their neighbourhood has more crime than other neighbourhoods • Despite the perception their neighbourhood has more crime than others, residents in both the North End and South /Central region generally feel as safe as residents in the other parts of the City do when walking alone in their neighbourhood during the day (North: 92% safe; South /Central: 89 %; East: 92 %; West: 89 %). It's of interest to note that safety perceptions have significantly improved in the North End (an increase of 13% in those reporting Very Safe, compared to 2010) The sense of security residents feel across all parts of the City in walking alone during the day however does not translate into the same sense of security walking alone in their neighbourhood after dark, regardless of where they live (North: 64 %; South /Central: 55 %; East: 74 %; West: 64 %). No significant changes were noted when compared to 2010 in this regard • Three in ten residents in the City currently have an Alarm System (29 %, as opposed to 22% in 2010; a significant increase of 7 %) installed in their home, the majority still rely on exterior lighting (84 %), deadbolt locks (86 %) and some rely on Shades on Garage Windows (33 %) followed by relying on a dog (27 %) for home security • A very small percentage of residents are currently participating in organized crime prevention programs such as a Block Parents (3 %) or Neighbourhood Watch (7 %) with the number of residents who participate in the East End significantly higher than in other regions (14 %) • Residents of the South /Central area of the City have smaller households when compared to other City neighbourhoods. Moreover, lower income levels are noted for residents of the South /Central followed by the North region. Lower education levels are also noted for the South /Central area when compared to other regions • A higher proportion of renters continue to live in the South /Central region (74 %, consistent with 2006 and 2010), however it is of interest to note a significant decrease in the number of renters residing in the North End (41% in 2014 as opposed to 64% in 2010). The number of renters has remained consistent in both the East (23 %) and West sides (25 %) of the City compared to four years ago. 243 0 0 Ipsos Reid A App e ilml A Re .se :rch Methodolo v 244 wwo- �Wd4wwsm; Imw - haimm I Research Methodology Target Respondent Sample Size Margin of Error Method of Data Collection Study Timing & Survey Length r► . Ipsos Reid ............................................................. ............................... Residents living in the City of Saint John, 18 years of age or older 400 Interviews completed, broken down as follows by region: • North: 91 interviews • South /Central: 104 interviews East: 100 interviews • West: 101 interviews While the calls were targeted based on listed postal code, the respondent was classified based on their reported postal code (or civic address) Overall results may be considered accurate to within + 4.9% (95% of the time) while regional results are accurate to within + 10% (95% of the time) Telephone, Listed Sample Source by Postal Code, Household Member with Next Birthday (random method of selection); Saint John Police Force provided the survey questionnaire for use in this study The survey was conducted by Ipsos Reid during the period of Sept. 4 -17, 2014. Average Interview Length was 20 Minutes ................................................................................................. ............................... 245 IPSOS� Ipsos Reid AppendiA'%-- B Questionnaire 246 - --q= kk , SHIN- )OF N DEVELOPMEN -FCORPORATI(DN P.O. Box 7200, Saint Jchn, New Brunswick F2L 4S6 Tel: 506- 649 -6066 Fax: S06 -649 -6068 November 6, 2014 Patrick Woods City Manager City of Saint John 15 Market Square Saint John, New Brunswick Dear Mr. Woods; RE: Asset management — Market S uare Please find attached the details regarding the Smythe Street expansion joint replacement project. Essentially, due to the amount of work to complete and funding required, this will become a two - phased, two -year project. As the attached report will show, there is an immediate requirement to address the water penetration at the Hilton /Boardwalk location. Should you require further information please contact me Regards; Kent Macintyre General Manage 247 Smythe Street Expansion Joint Replacement An Asset Management Project -- Market Square Complex 2014 -2015 The Smythe Street expansion joints are located on Smythe Street and along the exterior base of the Market Square building. The Market Square Parking garage is directly underneath the Market Square Complex and Smythe Street. These expansion joints have a dual purpose, expanding and contracting according to weather conditions and prevention of water penetration into the underground parking facility. The expansion joints have a lifespan of approximately 7 -10 years. The current expansion joints targeted for replacement have been utilized for 8 -10 years. During the last three (3) years SJDC has systematically replaced aged expansion joints and now the final section is to be completed. The parking garage has experienced water penetration is specific areas (at times extensive) and in recent months the Hilton Hotel has begun to experience severe leakage in one designated area (it has been determined the water penetration originates from a specific Boardwalk area). The final replacement sections were budgeted and approved (capital) for 2014. An RFP, utilizing the City of Saint John RFP template, was issued and only one bid was received (Alternative Concrete Technologies Ltd.). Ironically, through a competitive process, the previous work on the Smythe Street expansion joints was performed by Alternative Concrete Technologies Ltd. The RFP resulted in a much higher cost than budgeted. One of the reasons for the increased cost, as compared to budget, was the significant increase in out - sourced specialized material costs. Because of the urgency to replace the joints and prevent further water penetration we have spoken with Alternative Concrete Technologies and an arrangement has been reached to conduct the work over two years (fall 2014 and spring 2015) while maintaining the current bid price. The immediate concern is the intrusion of water at the Hilton Hotel location. This work can be completed before the end of year 2014. NM The SJDC approved 2014 capital budget for expansion joint replacement is $92,000, however, with the addition of the Hilton Hotel leakage the cost of the replacement work has increased beyond the $92,000. The Alternative Concrete Technologies bid for both the Hilton and Market Square exterior is $187,000. SJDC does have sufficient approved funding in the 2014 budget to remedy the Hilton Hotel water penetration, however, new funding will be required in 2015 for the remainder of the Market Square work ($105,000) — this has been submitted in the 2015 SJDC capital budget. There is a $10,000 contingency included in the 2015 budget to allow for any unforeseen items that make arise during the replacement process. Therefore, SJDC is recommending two courses of action; 1. To immediately commence the expansion joint replacement at the Hilton Hotel /Boardwalk location, utilizing the existing approved capital funds. 2. To pre - approve the expansion joint replacement ($105,000) for 2015 —to solidify the contractual arrangement with Alternative Concrete Technologies Ltd. Regards; Kent Macln1 General Ma 249 Future Greater Saint John November 21, 2014 Mayor Mel Norton & Members of Common Council City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E21- 41-1 Your Worship and Members of Council: Future Greater Saint John (FGSJ) is an independent organization formed by a group of interested community business and professional leaders in the fall of 2011. The group supports development efforts of other organizations in the region. In early 2012 FGSJ participated in the business community collaboration surrounding the development of True Growth 2.0 as well as making recommendations to the steering committee on the proposed new structure of Enterprise Saint John. In both these initiatives we strongly recommended a tight alignment of all economic development agencies working to improve conditions in our city and region. We believed it was a mandate of the True Growth 2.0 initiative, and a key part of the strategy for the development and growth of Greater Saint John and the reforming of Enterprise Saint John, that there be an alignment of goals and initiatives for all Saint John Economic Development Partners - Saint John Development Corporation (DBA Waterfront Development), Saint John Industrial Parks, Enterprise Saint John and Discover Saint John. That was almost 24 months ago. Our city is still experiencing difficulties with a variety of economic development issues; therefore FGSJ now believes that a formal consolidation of these agencies is critical for the alignment of True Growth 2.0 goals to take place. We hope Council will address this issue in an urgent manner. It is a critical imperative for our City to effectively move our economy forward. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Future Greater Saint John, John Wheatley, P.Eng, Chair Gary Lawson, QC, Executive Member l Robert Vincent, Executive Member 251 Joel Levesque, Executive Member ii. November 24, 2014 Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors, Subject: Committee of the Whole: Distraint of Rent The Committee of the Whole, having met on November 24, 2014, adopted the following resolution: "RESOLVED that the recommendation made by the Committee of the Whole, at a meeting held on November 24, 2014, respecting distraint for arrears in rent of City owned property, be adopted." Sincerely, Mel Norton Mayor SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21- 41-1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.R 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 252 ii. November 24, 2014 Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors, Subject: Committee of the Whole: Field House at Exhibition Park The Committee of the Whole, having met on November 24, 2014, adopted the following resolution: "RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on November 24, 2014, Common Council approve the request to finance $10,000 for the Field House site plan initiative." Sincerely, Mel Norton Mayor SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21- 41-1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.R 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 253