The URL can be used to link to this page

2015-11-23_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourr City of Saint John Common Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, November 23, 2015 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 Powered By; XWE' Pages 1. Call to Order - Prayer 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of November 6th, 2015 2 - 5 2.2 Minutes of November 9th, 2015 6-13 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 14-15 5.1 Engineering Services - Dam Safety Review for the Safe, Clean Drinking Water 16-35 Project (Recommendation in Report) 5.2 Contract No. 2015-27: Marsh Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant 36-38 Decommissioning (Recommendation in Report) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations / Presentations 9. Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m. 10. Consideration of By-laws 1 Powered By; XWE' r� 10.1 Third Reading Zoning ByLaw Amendment with Sec 39 Conditions - 145 Loch 39-41 Lomond Road 10.2 Third Reading Zoning ByLaw Amendment with Sec 39 Conditions - 55 42-43 McDonald Street 10.3 Third Reading Zoning ByLaw Amendment with Sec 39 Conditions - 28 44-46 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward Street 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Saint John Real Estate Board (Mayor Norton) 47-47 11.2 Referral Motion - Report from the Innovation Summit at Harvard on Enabling 48-88 Economies of the Future (Mayor Norton) 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 Demolition of Vacant, Dilapidated and Dangerous Building at 85 Germain Street 89-110 West 12.2 Demolition of Vacant, Dilapidated and Dangerous Buildings at 291 Tower Street 111 -132 12.3 One -Stop Development Shop Project Update 133-174 12.4 Recommended 2016 Urban Development Incentives Program 175-296 12.5 2016 Water & Sewer Utility Operating Budget 297-339 12.6 2016 General Capital Budget 340-370 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 15.1 Belmont Health & Wealth: Operation Red Nose of Greater Saint John 371 -371 15.2 New Brunswick Youth Orchestra: Request for Sponsorship 372-375 15.3 Human Development Council: Service Agreement and Partnership 376-378 15.4 Saint John Multicultural and Newcomers Resource Center: Requesting Free 379-379 Space for Collection of Items 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Recommended Appointments to Committees 380-381 r� 17.2 Preservation of the Royal Charter and Historical Minute Books 382-382 17.3 662677 N.B. Inc. Lease Agreement 383-383 17.4 Special Meetings of Committee of the Whole 384-384 18. Adjournment 3 City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, November 23, 2015 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le bureau 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: 4:00 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Approval of Minutes 10.2(4) 1.2 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) 1.3 Nominating Committee 10.2(4)(b) 1.4 Proposed Agreement 10.2(4)(c) 1.5 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c) 1.6 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) The City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 23 novembre 2015 Comite plenier 1. Ouverture de la seance Si vous souhaitez obtenir des services en frangais 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 ('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 egard au cours de la seance publique : 16 h 30 — Salle de conference, 8e etage, hotel de ville 1.1 Approbation du proces-verbal — paragraphe 10.2(4) 1.2 Question financiere — alinea 10.2(4)c) 1.3 Comite des candidatures — alinea 10.2(4)b) 1.4 Projet d'entente —alinea 10.2(4)c) 1.5 Question financiere — alinea 10.2(4)c) 1.6 Question relative a 1'emploi — alinea 10.2(4)j) 1.7 Litiges possibles — alinea 10.2(4)g) 1.8 Question financiere — alinea 10.2(4)c) 1.9 Seances extraordinaires du comite plenier 1.10 Association des cites du Nouveau -Brunswick — Financement en vertu du programme des routes provinciales designees Seance ordinaire a 18 h Ouverture de la reunion, suivie de la priere 2. Approbation du proces-verbal 2.1 Procbs-verbal de la seance tenue le 6 novembre 2015 2.2 Proces-verbal de la seance tenue le 9 novembre 2015 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 5.1 Services d'ingenierie — Examen de la securite de barrages pour le projet Eau potable saine et propre (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.2 Contrat no 2015-27 : Declassement de I'usine de traitement des eaux usees du ruisseau Marsh (recommendation figurant au rapport) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques a 18 h 30 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 10.1 Troisieme lecture de la modification de I'Arrete de zonage conformement aux conditions imposees par I'article 39 — 145, chemin Loch Lomond 10.2 Troisieme lecture de la modification de I'Arrete de zonage conformement aux conditions imposees par I'article 39 — 55, rue McDonald 10.3 Troisieme lecture de la modification de I'Arrete de zonage conformement aux conditions imposees par I'article 39 — 28, rue Richmond et 91-101, rue Prince Edward 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Saint John Real Estate Board (maire Norton) 11.2 Proposition de renvoi — Rapport du sommet sur ('innovation de Harvard — Enabling Economies of the Future (maire Norton) 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Demolition d'un batiment vacant, delabre et dangereux situe au 85, rue Germain Ouest 12.2 Demolition des batiments vacants, delabres et dangereux situes au 291, rue Tower 12.3 Le point sur le projet de Guichet unique pour I'amenagement 12.4 Programme recommande d'incitatifs pour I'amenagement urbain de 2016 12.5 Budget de fonctionnement des Services d'aqueduc et d'egouts de 2016 12.6 Budget d'immobilisations du fonds d'administration de 2016 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance generale 15.1 Belmont Health and Wealth : Operation Nez rouge du Grand Saint John 15.2 Orchestre des jeunes du Nouveau -Brunswick : Demande de commandite 15.3 Conseil du perfection nement social : Entente de services et partenariat 15.4 Centre d'accueil multiculturel et des nouveaux arrivants de Saint John Demande d'espace gratuit pour la collecte d'articles 16. Ordre du jour supplementaire 17. Comite plenier 17.1 Recommandations de nominations pour sieger aux comites 17.2 Sauvegarde de la charte royale et des registres de proces-verbaux historiques 17.3 Contrat de location — 662677 N.B. Inc. 17.4 Seances extraordinaires du comite plenier 18. Levee de la seance 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 6, 2015/LE 6 NOVEMBRE 2015 COMMON COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — NOVEMBER 6, 2015 - 4:00 P.M. Present: Mel Norton, Mayor Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Farren, Fullerton, Lowe, MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon and Strowbridge. - and - J. Trail, City Manager; W. Edwards, Commissioner of Transportation and Environment Services; K. Fudge, Commissioner of Finance; M. Tompkins, Solicitor; P. Ouellette, Executive Director; J. Taylor, Common Clerk; R. Evans, Administrative Assistant 1. Call To Order Mayor Norton called the meeting to order. 1.1 Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project The Safe, Clean Drinking Water team was in attendance as follows: Steering Committee Mayor Norton Councillor McAlary Jeff Trail, City Manager Neil Jacobsen, Commissioner William Edwards, Commissioner SJ Water Prosect Team Dean Price, Project Manager Kevin Fudge, Commissioner of Finance Melanie Tompkins, Legal Manager Gerry Mattsson, Design Build Manager Jason LeClerc, Quality Manager Mike Baker — Construction Engineer Kendall Mason, Deputy Commission SJ Water Nancy Moar, Communications Manager Tammy McAllister, Communications Support Cheryl McConkey, Project Office Administrator Paula Carroll, Data Room Administrator Keagan Marcus, UNB Student Cindy Calvin, Manager of Materials Management Chris Roberts, Buyer - Materials Management Craig Lavigne, Assistant Comptroller Finance Jodi Stringer -Webb, Operations Manager SJ Water James Margaris, Operations Manager SJ Water Stephanie Rackley -Roach, Manager — Corporate Planning Consultants- CBCL - John Flewelling, Technical Advisor CBCL - Andrew Gates, Technical Advisor CBCL - Brian Moreau, Technical Advisor PwC — Johanne Mullen, Financial Advisor Torys — Mark Bain, Legal Advisor Grant -Thornton — Norm Raynard, Fairness Advisor The City Manager introduced B. Edwards, Commissioner of Saint John Water. Mr. Edwards introduced the topic and gave a brief overview. 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL OCTOBER 26, 2015/LE 26 OCTOBRE 2015 Referring to the submitted presentation, Dean Price, Project Manager, presented on the project overview; Johanne Mullen, PwC Financial Advisor, and Melanie Tompkins, Solicitor, each provided overviews of different stages of the procurement process, stressing the importance of confidentiality to the RFP process. Mr. Edwards reviewed the results and the key messages: • City maintains ownership of lands and infrastructure (WTP + Transmission System) • City maintains control over water and water rates • No Privatization • All existing Public Sector employment maintained • Private Partner retains and manages major project risks including on-time, on - budget delivery • Payment is performance-based, not guaranteed • City set strict performance requirements — including water quality and reliable delivery • City remains accountable / responsible for water service provided to the public Responding to a question regarding halting the project to wait on other possible Federal funding, Mr. Edwards noted that if at any time the new government offers an opportunity to amend the funding agreement so that the City is entitled to additional funding, the City will pursue that option. He stated that it is not in the City's best interest to halt the project in anticipation of new government funding due to possible legal, financial, and reputational ramifications. On motion of Councillor Strowbridge Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that Common Council adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS on July 22, 2014, the City issued a request for qualifications (the "Request for Qualifications") for the design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of a water treatment plant and storage reservoirs, and the design, construction and financing of water transmission system improvements in the City of Saint John (the "Project"); AND WHEREAS six respondents submitted a response to the Request for Qualifications; AND WHEREAS all respondents were evaluated against the evaluation criteria set forth in the Request for Qualifications; AND WHEREAS the Request for Qualifications provides that the three highest scored respondents will be invited to participate in a Request for Proposals process for the Project; AND WHEREAS the three highest scored respondents to the Request for Qualifications were Port City Water Partners, Port City Water Partnership and Port City Water Solutions (collectively, the "Proponents" and each, a "Proponent"); AND WHEREAS on November 3, 2014, Common Council adopted a resolution inviting the Proponents to participate in the request for proposals process for the Project and, on January 8, 2015, the City issued to the Proponents a request for proposals for the Project (the "Request for Proposals"); AND WHEREAS in accordance with the requirements of the Request for Proposals, on July 29, 2015 each of the Proponents submitted a technical proposal for the Project and on October 7, 2015 each of the Proponents submitted a financial proposal for the Project; AND WHEREAS the Request for Proposals provides that from among the proposals that are technically compliant and financially compliant, the Proponent that offers the lowest cost on a net present value basis will be provisionally selected to carry out the Project (the "Preferred Proponent"); AND WHEREAS all Proponents were evaluated against the evaluation criteria set forth in the Request for Proposals and, based on such evaluation, the submission review committee responsible for the review and evaluation of the proposals and the steering 9 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 6, 2015/LE 6 NOVEMBRE 2015 committee for the Project have identified to the City Manager Port City Water Partners as the Preferred Proponent; AND WHEREAS the City has negotiated with the Proponents the final form of a project agreement which sets out the terms and conditions upon which the successful Proponent will carry out the Project (the "Project Agreement"), which agreement was provided to the Proponents on July 16, 2015, subject only to the addition of material which is necessary to fully and accurately reflect the Preferred Proponent's (a) technical and financial proposals, and (b) corporate and sub -contracting structures, the latter being determined, in accordance with the RFP solely by the Preferred Proponent; AND WHEREAS the Request for Proposals requires that the City treat each Proponent's proposal as confidential, and disclosure of the terms and conditions set forth in the Project Agreement prior to entering into the Project Agreement with the Preferred Proponent and the completion of the Preferred Proponent's financing for the Project could compromise the procurement process and the competitive tension among the Proponents to the financial detriment of the City; AND WHEREAS accordingly, on November 4th, 2015, at a meeting of Common Council closed to the public (the "Closed Meeting"), the Project Agreement, the Preferred Proponent's technical and financial proposals and a presentation from the City Manager regarding the foregoing matters and recommending that Port City Water Partners be declared the Preferred Proponent, were presented to and discussed by Common Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, on the recommendation of the City Manager, Common Council hereby declares Port City Water Partners the Preferred Proponent and the City Manager is hereby directed to notify the Preferred Proponent of the same; AND FURTHER that Common Council hereby directs the City Manager to make those additions to the Project Agreement which are necessary to fully and accurately reflect the Preferred Proponent's technical and financial proposals, as well as the Preferred Proponent's corporate and sub -contracting structures, the latter two items being as determined by the Preferred Proponent; AND FURTHER that Common Council hereby authorizes the Mayor and Common Clerk to duly execute the Project Agreement and all agreements attached as schedules to the Project Agreement to which the City is contemplated to be a party (the "Ancillary Agreements"), with only such additions as are required to fully and accurately reflect the Preferred Proponent's technical and financial proposals, as well as the Preferred Proponent's corporate and sub -contracting structures, the latter two items as determined by the Preferred Proponent; AND FURTHER that, except as expressly contemplated herein, there shall be no substantive change to the Project Agreement or to the Ancillary Agreements, and any proposed substantive change shall be put before Common Council for approval prior to execution of the Project Agreement and the Ancillary Agreements; AND FURTHER that City staff is hereby directed to make the final executed version of the Project Agreement publicly available on the City's website within 60 days following the completion of the Preferred Proponent's financing in connection with the Project; AND FURTHER that Common Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to take such further and other action as is consistent with this resolution and as may be necessary or desirable to complete the transactions hereby approved and authorized. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 18. Adjournment On motion of Councillor Strowbridge Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the Common Council meeting of October 26, 2015, be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL OCTOBER 26, 2015/1-E 26 OCTOBRE 2015 The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 5:40 pm. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffier communal 5 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 9, 2015/LE 9 NOVEMBRE 2015 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — NOVEMBER 9, 2015 - 6:00 P.M. Present: Mel Norton, Mayor Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Farren, Fullerton, Lowe, MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon and Strowbridge - and - J. Trail, City Manager; S. Brittain, City Solicitor; K. Fudge, Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; W. Edwards, Commissioner of Transportation and Environment Services; J. Hamilton, Commissioner of Growth and Community Development; N. Jacobsen, Commissioner of Strategic Services; P. Ouellette, Executive Director; K. Clifford, Fire Chief; J. Bates, Police Chief; G. Doucet, Sgt. -at -Arms; J. Taylor, Common Clerk; R. Evans, Administrative Assistant. Call to Order Mayor Norton called the meeting to order. 2. Approval of Minutes On motion of Councillor MacKenzie Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on October 26, 2015, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor Reardon Seconded by Deputy Mayor Rinehart RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved with the addition of items: 16.1 CN Bridge Repainting — Right of Entry Agreement; and 17.1 Special Human Resources Council Committee. 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 M&C 2015 218: 2016 Proposed Council Meeting Schedule, Common Council approve the 2016 proposed Council meeting schedule. 5.2 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2015- 215: Land Exchange with Province Involving Properties Adjoining City's West Side Sewage Lagoon, 1. The City of Saint John convey to the Province of New Brunswick, the property identified as PID No. 55114227; and that the Province of New Brunswick convey to The City of Saint John PID No. 55153845, as per terms and conditions detailed in an attached letter from the Province of New Brunswick dated September 28, 2015; and 2. That the Mayor and Common Clerk sign any documents required to affect the exchange of these properties. 5.3 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2015- 219: Tender for Interior Demolition -City Market Tower, the tender submitted by Avant Garde Construction & Management Inc., in the amount of $115,851.00 plus HST, for the interior demolition of the City Market Tower be accepted. X 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 9, 2015/LE 9 NOVEMBRE, 2015 5.4 That the submitted letter from Barry Ogden, Poverty in Saint John, be received for information. 5.5 That the submitted letter from the Concerned Groups and Affected Landowners regarding Energy East Pipeline be received for information. 5.6 Refer to item 14.1 5.7 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2015- 227: Revision to Agreement with 630794 N.B. Inc. to Connect Sanitary Sewer Lateral to City Infrastructure, the agreement authorized by Council at its meeting dated July 20, 2015 (M&C #2015-136) with 630794 N.B. Inc. for the construction of a sanitary sewer lateral to City infrastructure, be amended, to delete the Schedule "A" dated July 6, 2015 prepared for the agreement dated July 13, 2015 and substitute Schedule "A-1" dated October 29, 2015, as submitted; in all other respects the agreement remain unchanged. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the recommendation set out for each consent agenda item respectively with the exception of item 5.6 City of Saint John Shared Risk Pension Plan - Actuarial Valuation as at January 1, 2015 which has been identified for debate, be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 6. Members Comments Council members commented on various community events. 7. Proclamation 7.1 World Pancreatic Cancer Day - November 13, 2015 The Mayor proclaimed the week of November 13, 2015 World Pancreatic Cancer Day in the City of Saint John. 8. Delegations/Presentations 10. Consideration of By-laws 10.1 Third Reading - Traffic By -Law Amendment - Winter On -Street Parking On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Deputy Mayor Rinehart RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the Authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and amendments thereto", by repealing and replacing subsection 5(9) and deleting Schedule "R", be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the Authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and amendments thereto", was read in its entirety. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the Authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and amendments thereto", by repealing and replacing subsection 5(9) and deleting Schedule "R", be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 7 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 9, 2015/LE 9 NOVEMBRE 2015 Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the Authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and amendments thereto". 13.1 City of Saint John Community Arts Board Increase in Operating Budget On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie RESOLVED that item 13.1 City of Saint John Community Arts Board Increase in Operating Budget, be referred to the City Manager for the 2016 Budget process. Question being taken, the motion was carried 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 14.1 City of Saint John Shared Risk Pension Plan - Actuarial Valuation as at January 1, 2015 On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that the City of Saint John Shared Risk Pension Plan - Actuarial Valuation as at January 1st, 2015, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Fullerton voting nay. 15. General Correspondence 15.1 SJASSC Sponsorship Request 2015-16 On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the request for sponsorship from the Saint John Amateur Speed Skating Club be referred to the City Manager. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 16. Supplemental Agenda 16.1 CN Bridge Repainting — Right of Entry Agreement Mr. Brittain advised that the City's insurance policy will cover the volunteer group should anything happen. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Deputy Mayor Rinehart RESOLVED that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the submitted Right of Entry Agreement between the City and CN Rail in order to accommodate the painting of a mural on the CN Train Bridge at the end of Rothesay Avenue by the Marigolds community group led by Mr. Barry Ogden between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12 noon on Sunday, November 15th, 2015. Mr. Brittain explained that CN has insisted on this agreement as a condition for the group to have access to the bridge. Question being taken, the motion was carried with the Mayor voting in favour and Councillors Fullerton, MacKenzie, Merrithew, Lowe and Reardon voting nay. 9. Public Hearings 6:30 P.M. 9.1 Staff Presentation - 28-30 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward Street regarding Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 9.1.1 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Rezoning with Section 39 Amendments 9.1.2 Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment- 28 Richmond Street (1st and 2nd Reading) n. 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 9, 2015/LE 9 NOVEMBRE, 2015 9.1.3 Letter of Support The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re -zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 4600 square metres, located at 28 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward Street, also identified as PID numbers 00012799, 00012435, 00012443, 00012807 and 00012427, from Mixed Commercial (CM) to General Commercial (CG), with no objections being received. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at its October 20, 2015 meeting at which the committee recommended the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 28 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward Street as described above with Section 39 conditions. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with no one presenting. On motion of Councillor Merrithew Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re -zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 4600 square metres, located at 28 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward Street, also identified as PID numbers 00012799, 00012435, 00012443, 00012807 and 00012427, from Mixed Commercial (CM) to General Commercial (CG), be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John." On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Merrithew RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re -zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 4600 square metres, located at 28 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward Street, also identified as PID numbers 00012799, 00012435, 00012443, 00012807 and 00012427, from Mixed Commercial (CM) to General Commercial (CG), be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John." 9.2 Staff Presentation - 55 McDonald Street regarding Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 9.2.1 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Rezoning with Section 39 Conditions 9.2.2 Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment- 55 McDonald Street (1st and 2nd Reading) 9.2.3 Letter of Opposition The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending subsection 12.6(1) by adding the following to the list of permitted uses in the Utility Service (US) Zone: "- library", with an objection from Mr. Gordon Dalzell being received. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at its October 20, 2015 meeting 9 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 9, 2015/LE 9 NOVEMBRE 2015 at which the committee recommended the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 55 McDonald Street as described above with Section 39 conditions. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with Joann Hamilton -Barry explaining that the mechanical system in the administration system is separate from the H -Vac system in the garage. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Merrithew RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John" amending subsection 12.6(1) by adding the following to the list of permitted uses in the Utility Service (US) Zone: "- library", be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John." On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John" amending subsection 12.6(1) by adding the following to the list of permitted uses in the Utility Service (US) Zone: "- library", be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John." 9.3 Staff Presentation - 85 Whitebone Way regarding Section 39 Amendment 9.3.1 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Amendment to Section 39 Conditions 9.3.2 Proposed Section 39 Amendment The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending the Section 39 conditions imposed on the November 8, 2010 rezoning of the property located at 85 Whitebone Way, also identified as PID numbers 00287805, 55162762 and 55162770, to permit a scrap or salvage yard in addition to the permitted metal recycling business. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at its October 20, 2015 meeting at which the committee recommended that Common Council approve the proposed amendment to the Section 39 conditions for the subject site. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with no one presenting. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Merrithew RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the conditions governing the development and use of the parcel of land with an area of approximately 28,881 square metres, located at 85 Whitebone Way, also identified as PID numbers 00287805, 55162762 and 55162770, imposed by Common Council on November 8, 2010 be repealed and replaced with the following: a) Any changes to the site shall be in accordance with a detailed site plan, prepared by the Developer and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, indicating the 10 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 9, 2015/LE 9 NOVEMBRE, 2015 location of all buildings, parking areas, driveways, loading areas, freestanding signs, exterior lighting, landscaped areas, fencing, and other site features. The approved site plan must be submitted with any building permit or change of use permit for the proposed development. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 9.4 Staff Presentation - 145 Loch Lomond Road regarding Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 9.4.1 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Rezoning with Section 39 Conditions 9.4.2 Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment - 145 Loch Lomond Road (1st and 2nd Reading) The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re -zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1528 square metres, located at 145 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as PID No. 00320440, from Local Commercial (CL) to Two -Unit Residential (R2), with no objections being received. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning staff's report considered at its October 20, 2015 meeting at which the committee recommended the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 145 Loch Lomond Road as described above with Section 39 conditions. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with no one presenting. On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re -zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1528 square metres, located at 145 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as PID No. 00320440, from Local Commercial (CL) to Two -Unit Residential (R2), be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John." On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Deputy Mayor Rinehart RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re -zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1528 square metres, located at 145 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as PID No. 00320440, from Local Commercial (CL) to Two -Unit Residential (R2), be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning ByLaw of The City of Saint John." 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Lease Agreements (Councillor Farren) On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge RESOLVED that all leases with the City of Saint John are to be designed on a cost recovery basis. 11 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 9, 2015/LE 9 NOVEMBRE 2015 Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11.2 Completion of Sidewalk on Boars Head Road (Councillor McAlary) On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the issue of completing the sidewalk on Boars Head Road from the Wesleyan Church to the corner of Boars Head Road and Woodward Ave. be referred to the 2016 Capital budget. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Special Human Resources Council Committee On motion of Deputy Mayor Rinehart Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on November 9, 2015, Common Council adopt the following: That a Special Human Resources Council Committee be created to meet with the City Manager in a closed session to review and set short and long-term expectations and objectives by following the process outlined in the submitted City Manager Performance review document. The Committee shall be comprised of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors Farren and McAlary. Council's rules of procedure shall not be applicable to the Special Committee. The meetings will be open to any member of Council who wishes to attend. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 2016 General Capital Budget The City Manager provided a high level introduction of the budget document. Referring to the submitted document, Mr. Fudge commented on specific items within the 2016 Capital Envelope. The City Manager provided the following comments on the 2016 Capital Budget: - Timeline of getting budgets approved are ahead of past timelines - The 2016 Capital Proposed Budget is consistent with the 2015 investments, continuation of projects from one year to the next - Borrowing is being maintained at a sustainable level, not recommended to increase borrowing - Fluidity to the budget proposal with the contingent funding obligations - Advised Council that this is their last Capital Budget that they will be approving that will reflect their priorities Council provided their input on all of the recommendations made for the 2016 Capital Budget. On motion of Councillor Merrithew Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report 2016 General Capital Budget, Common Council reflect upon the submitted document and make any and all inquiries and recommendations to staff; and the report be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.2 2016 Water and Sewer Utility Operating and Capital Budget 12 98 - COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 9, 2015/LE 9 NOVEMBRE, 2015 Referring to the submitted report, Mr. Edwards reviewed the proposed Water and Sewer Utility Operating and Capital Budget. He advised that they expect an increase of approximately $72 a year on a single family residence for 2016 and that the rates will not peak beyond $1400 a year to 2019 and then subsequent to 2019 as the debt is paid down the rates will start to decrease. On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Lowe RESOLVED that the bylaw entitled, "By -Law Number M-16, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Water and Sewerage" repealing and substituting Schedules "A" and "B", be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number M-16, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Water and Sewerage." On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Lowe RESOLVED that the bylaw entitled, "By -Law Number M-16, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Water and Sewerage" repealing and substituting Schedules "A" and "B", be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number M-16, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Water and Sewerage." On motion of Councillor McAlary Seconded by Councillor Reardon RESOLVED that Common Council approve the 2015 Capital Budget for the Utility Fund in the amount of $10,055,000 (gross) with contributions from other sources of $3,855,000 yielding a Capital budget in the amount of $6,200,000 (net) as set in the submitted report. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13. Committee Reports 18. Adjournment On motion of Councillor Reardon Seconded by Councillor McAlary RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on November 9, 2015 be adjourned. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffier communal 13 COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 232 Report Date November 16, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Saint John Water His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Engineering Services - Dam Safety Review for the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project. OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. HeadCity Manager Gerry Mattsson, P. Eng. Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. I Jeff Trail RECOMMENDATION Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for Engagement of Professional Services, it is recommended that Common Council authorize staff to directly engage Hatch Ltd. to carry out engineering and consultancy services in support of the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project (SCDWP), and, further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to request that Common Council authorize the direct engagement of Hatch Ltd. for the appointment of engineering consultant to carry out a Dam Safety Review (DSR) of Robertson Lake Dam and Latimer Lake Main and South Dams in support of the SCDWP. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION None STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The City of Saint John (the City) and Project Company will be entering into a Private -Public - Partnership (P3) with for the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project (SCDWP). The SCDWP will include the design, build, finance, operate and maintain (DBFOM) of a new water treatment plant and storage facility, as well as the design, build, and finance (DBF) of source improvements (Dams), transmission and pumping infrastructure, and water main rehabilitation REPORT The source improvements aspect of the SCDWP will include upgrades to Robertson Lake Dam as well as Latimer Lake intakes and dams which are part of the Loch Lomond Watershed. The City 14 sM has agreed to provide Project Company with a Dam Safety Report to classify the current condition of the dams and to identify any repairs that may be required as per the regulations pertaining to dam construction, operation and maintenance established in the NB Clean Water Act, Sections 15(1) to 15(3). The City has received from Hatch Ltd. a proposal to complete an assessment or Dam Safety Review (DSR) of the Robertson and Latimer Lake dams. The role of Hatch Ltd. will include engineering support services for the development of the above mentioned DSR and provide vital information regarding the current condition of each dam, as well as, identify any areas of deficiency based on the Canadian Dam Association's Dam Safety Guidelines. Typically, the Request for Proposal method requires a period of 7 to 8 weeks for each substantial project. Direct engagement provides the City the opportunity to identify consulting firms best equipped to complete the designs in a timely manner and significantly reduces the administrative time which is inherent with a traditional call for proposals. The direct engagement process also affords the City staff to fine-tune the details of the engagement in order to achieve the best value for money for the City. Staff has considered work previously completed by the Consultant and is confident in the Consultant's ability to successfully carry out the DSR. The process to -date has been as follows: 1. A detailed scope of work was developed by Staff for this project, 2. Based on that scope of work, the consulting firm submitted their proposed project team, work plan, schedule and a fee to complete all the work identified, 3. Staff reviewed the consultant's submission and evaluated the proposed consultant fee for the project. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The estimated project fee of $186,316.00 (excluding taxes) submitted with the Consultant's proposal is based on an estimated scope of work. The final fee will be calculated based on the actual scope of work and the costs incurred by the Consultant will be paid in accordance with the terms of the executed Consulting Engineering Agreement. The proposed hourly rates do not exceed the Recommended Minimum Hourly Rates as contained in the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies NB — Fee Guideline 2015. For any work outside the scope of their proposal, the Consultant will provide an estimate of time and cost for approval by the City before proceeding. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The City Solicitor's Office has reviewed and approved the final wording of the Consulting Engineering Agreement. The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Materials Management support the recommendation being put forth. The proposed hourly rates are comparable to that of recent other engagements which include senior specialty/expert professionals. ATTACHMENTS No attachments. 15 COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 232 Report Date November 16, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Saint John Water His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Engineering Services - Dam Safety Review for the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project. OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. HeadCity Manager Gerry Mattsson, P. Eng. Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. I Jeff Trail RECOMMENDATION Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for Engagement of Professional Services, it is recommended that Common Council authorize staff to directly engage Hatch Ltd. to carry out engineering and consultancy services in support of the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project (SCDWP), and, further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to request that Common Council authorize the direct engagement of Hatch Ltd. for the appointment of engineering consultant to carry out a Dam Safety Review (DSR) of Robertson Lake Dam and Latimer Lake Main and South Dams in support of the SCDWP. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION None STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The City of Saint John (the City) and Project Company will be entering into a Private -Public - Partnership (P3) with for the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project (SCDWP). The SCDWP will include the design, build, finance, operate and maintain (DBFOM) of a new water treatment plant and storage facility, as well as the design, build, and finance (DBF) of source improvements (Dams), transmission and pumping infrastructure, and water main rehabilitation REPORT The source improvements aspect of the SCDWP will include upgrades to Robertson Lake Dam as well as Latimer Lake intakes and dams which are part of the Loch Lomond Watershed. The City 16 sM has agreed to provide Project Company with a Dam Safety Report to classify the current condition of the dams and to identify any repairs that may be required as per the regulations pertaining to dam construction, operation and maintenance established in the NB Clean Water Act, Sections 15(1) to 15(3). The City has received from Hatch Ltd. a proposal to complete an assessment or Dam Safety Review (DSR) of the Robertson and Latimer Lake dams. The role of Hatch Ltd. will include engineering support services for the development of the above mentioned DSR and provide vital information regarding the current condition of each dam, as well as, identify any areas of deficiency based on the Canadian Dam Association's Dam Safety Guidelines. Typically, the Request for Proposal method requires a period of 7 to 8 weeks for each substantial project. Direct engagement provides the City the opportunity to identify consulting firms best equipped to complete the designs in a timely manner and significantly reduces the administrative time which is inherent with a traditional call for proposals. The direct engagement process also affords the City staff to fine-tune the details of the engagement in order to achieve the best value for money for the City. Staff has considered work previously completed by the Consultant and is confident in the Consultant's ability to successfully carry out the DSR. The process to -date has been as follows: 1. A detailed scope of work was developed by Staff for this project, 2. Based on that scope of work, the consulting firm submitted their proposed project team, work plan, schedule and a fee to complete all the work identified, 3. Staff reviewed the consultant's submission and evaluated the proposed consultant fee for the project. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The estimated project fee of $186,316.00 (excluding taxes) submitted with the Consultant's proposal is based on an estimated scope of work. The final fee will be calculated based on the actual scope of work and the costs incurred by the Consultant will be paid in accordance with the terms of the executed Consulting Engineering Agreement. The proposed hourly rates do not exceed the Recommended Minimum Hourly Rates as contained in the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies NB — Fee Guideline 2015. For any work outside the scope of their proposal, the Consultant will provide an estimate of time and cost for approval by the City before proceeding. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The City Solicitor's Office has reviewed and approved the final wording of the Consulting Engineering Agreement. The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Materials Management support the recommendation being put forth. The proposed hourly rates are comparable to that of recent other engagements which include senior specialty/expert professionals. ATTACHMENTS No attachments. 17 THiS CONSULTING ENGINEERING AGREEMENT made in triplicate this day of , 2015 (the "Effective Date"), BETWEEN: THE CITY OF SAiNT JOHN, having its offices at the City Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City", OF THE FIRST PART, - and - HATCH LTD., an extra -provincial corporation duly registered to do business in the Province of New Brunswick, having its head office in the City of Mississauga, and Province of Ontario, hereinafter called "the Consultant", OF THE SECOND PART. WHEREAS, the City requested from the Consultant a proposal and estimate for a Dam Safety Review for the Robertson Lake Dam and the Latimer Lake Main and South Dams; WHEREAS, the Consultant submitted a Proposal with respect to the preparation of a Dam Safety Review for the said Dams on November 16, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal"] which the City has accepted and is attached hereto as Schedule "A"; WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to set out the terms and conditions upon which the Consultant will perform and deliver engineering consulting services in preparing a Dam Safety Review for the City for the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project. ; WHEREAS, the Common Council on resolved To directly engage Hatch Ltd to carry out Engineering and Consultant services in support of the SCDWP, and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign any required contract documents. NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions The terms defined in this clause shall for all purposes of this Agreement have the meanings specified unless the context otherwise specifies or requires: in -2- 1(0.1) Arbitrator means a Board of Arbitration or a single Arbitrator (as the case may be) appointed in accordance with the provisions of clause 18. 1(0.2) "Change Order" means a written agreement between the parties modifying the terms of the Agreement, including price and schedule, to the extent fair and reasonable in the circumstances. 1(1) City Manager means the city manager of the City or his designate appointed by resolution of Common Council. 1(2) Claims means any actual or threatened loss, liability, cost, charge, interest, claim, demand, allegation, action, cause of action, proceeding, suit, assessment, reassessment, proposed assessment or reassessment, damage, demand, expense, levy, tax, duty, judgment, award, fine, charge, deficiency, penalty, court proceeding or hearing cost, amount paid in settlement, encumbrance, and/or tangible and intangible property right (including all costs and expenses relating to the foregoing, including legal and other professional adviser and expert fees and expenses), and whether arising by contract, at common or statute law, in tort (including negligence and strict liability), in equity, in property or otherwise of any kind or character howsoever, and howsoever arising; and Claim means any one of them; 1(3) Common Council means the elected municipal council of the City. 1(4) Confidential Information means information disclosed to or obtained by the Consultant in connection with the fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement and which has been identified by Municipal Operations as information which should be treated as confidential and shall be as defined in section 9. 1(5) Consultant means the consulting engineering firm who is currently licensed to practice within the Province of New Brunswick to carry out engineering services required to complete the Project and referred to as Hatch Ltd. in this Agreement. 1(6) Consultant Representative means the person designated by the Consultant with duly vested authority to act on behalf of the Consultant. 1(7) Dispute means any dispute, controversy, Claim, disagreement or failure to agree arising out of, in connection with, or relating to the interpretation, performance or application of the Agreement; and Disputes has a corresponding meaning. 1(8) Information means all data, site surveys, preliminary investigations, preliminary designs, design reports with cost estimates, detailed designs, record drawings in digital and hard copy format, plans in digital and hard copy format, public consultation process data or reports, construction management and inspection services data or reports, and other materials developed in pursuance of the Project. 19 -3- 1(9) Municipal Operations means the Municipal Operations & Engineering Department of the City of Saint John. 1(10) Parties means the City and the Consultant, respectively; and Party means individually the City and the Consultant. 1(11) Project means the preparing of a Dam Safety Review for Robertson Lake Dam and Latimor Lake Main and South Dams. 1(12) Proposal means the estimate submitted by the Consultant and attached as Schedule "B" 1(13) Services means those engineering design and construction management services as set out in the Statement of Work and the Proposal and as set forth in this Agreement. 1(14) Work means the scope of the Consultant's services. 1.1 Agreement 1.1(1) References herein to this "Agreement" means the main body of this Agreement and all Schedules 1.1(2) In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the body of the agreement and the Schedules, the body of the Agreement prevails. For clarity, Schedule A prevails over Schedule B in the event there are inconsistencies. 2. General 2(1) The City hereby agrees to retain the Consultant to provide the City with the Services and the Consultant hereby agrees to provide the Services to the City, all in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 2(2) The Consultant shall carry out the work in accordance with the Statement of Work and Proposal and any other written clarification (s) or addendum(s) thereof that has or have been requested and, provided and agreed to by the parties to this Agreement. 3. Term 3(1) The term of this Agreement is 3 years, commencing on the date of execution of the Agreement by both parties. 4. Scope of Services and Responsibilities 4(1) The Consultant shall perform the services as set out in the Statement of Work and Proposal and any other written clarification(s) or addendum(s) thereof that has or 20 have been requested, provided and agreed to by the parties to this Agreement, and these services shall include: (a) the preparing of a Dam Safety Review for the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project; and 4(2) The Consultant shall perform these services under the general direction and control of Municipal Operations and with all due and reasonable diligence, professional skills and competence. 4(3) Consultant will comply with all applicable law and site policies and procedures, including those relating to safety and security, but, unless otherwise agreed, Consultant is not responsible for overall site safety or security at any City premises or the Project site. 4(4) Unless otherwise agreed, Consultant can rely on all information provided by the City or by third parties on behalf of the City for the purpose of providing the services contemplated herein without verification. 5. Fees 5(1) The City shall pay to the Consultant the fees in accordance with the Proposal and the provisions of this Agreement. Additional services and all costs incurred in connection with the additional services will be invoiced to the City according to the payment terms set out in this Agreement unless otherwise agreed to in a Change Order. 5(2) Municipal Operations will review each invoice submitted by the Consultant within five (5) days after receipt and the City shall pay any undisputed amount thereunder within forty-five (45) days of the date of submission of such invoice by the Consultant. 5(3) The fees to be paid by the City for the Services performed hereunder shall be inclusive of any applicable sales taxes. 5(4) With respect to any invoice submitted by the Consultant, the City may, without triggering a default under this Agreement, withhold from any payment otherwise due: (a) any amount incorrectly invoiced, provided that Municipal Operations or the City informs the Consultant of the amounts alleged to be incorrectly invoiced within a reasonable time and the basis for any such assertion for review, resolution and rebelling purposes; or (b) any amount in dispute. 21 5(6) Consultant shall be entitled to a Change Order in the event that: (a) the City issues a written request to the Consultant to perform additional services outside of the scope of the Agreement or (b) there is a material change to the Project that does not result from an error, act or omission of the Consultant. For greater certainty, Consultant shall not be entitled to a Change Order if changes are required as a result of Consultant's breach of its obligations under this Agreement or its negligence. 5(7) The Consultant shall not be obligated to perform and the City shall not be obligated to pay Consultant for additional services prior to the Parties execution of a Change Order related to the additional services. 6. Records and Audit 6(1) In order to provide data to support the invoice for fees, the Consultant shall keep a detailed record of hours worked and the billing rate for all staff performing work on the Project. The Consultant agrees that the City may inspect these time records pursuant to a reasonable request. 6(2) The Consultant, when requested by the City, shall provide copies of receipts in respect to any disbursements for which the Consultant claims payment. 7. Failure to Perform 7(1) Should the City reasonably determine that the Consultant has failed to perform the Work provided for by this Agreement or has otherwise failed to meet its obligations under this Agreement, all payments by the City to the Consultant shall cease as of the date of such failure, and the City may appoint its officials, or any other person or persons in the place instead of the Consultant to perform the Work and the Consultant shall have no claim against the City except for the Work which has been performed by the Consultant under this Agreement up to the time of such failure, without further liability, penalty or obligation to the City under this Agreement, and subject to any amounts that have already been paid to the Consultant. 8. Dismissal and Termination 8(1) In the event that the City, acting reasonably, is of the opinion that the Consultant's Work has failed to meet the Standard of Care set out in Clause 4(2) the City may dismiss the Consultant at any time on thirty (30) days' prior written notice. The City, in such a case, will pay the Consultant for Work performed to the date of dismissal on a pro -rated basis in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, Consultant agrees that its acceptance of such payment is in full satisfaction of any and all claims under this Agreement, without further liability, penalty or obligation to the City under this Agreement, and subject to any amounts that have already been paid to the Consultant. 22 IM 8(2) This Agreement may be terminated, without cause, by the City upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the Consultant of the City's intention to terminate the same. 8(2.1) Either party may terminate this Agreement on thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the other party in the event that the other party is in substantial default under this Agreement and such default has not been corrected or reasonably commenced to be corrected within fourteen (14) days following notice of such default. 8(3) In the event of termination of this Agreement by the City, it shall within forty-five (45) calendar days of termination, pay the Consultant, for all services rendered and all reimbursable costs incurred by the Consultant up to the date of termination, in accordance with the payment provisions set out in this Agreement. 8(4) Upon early termination of this Agreement and settlement of accounts, or upon completion of the Consultant's obligations and settlement of accounts under this Agreement, all information, data, material, sketches, plans, notes, documents, memoranda, specifications or other paper writing belonging to the City and gathered or assembled by the Consultant or their agents, whether in paper or electronic format or otherwise for the purpose of this Agreement, shall forthwith be delivered to the City by the Consultant. 9. Use and Ownership of Information 9(1) The Consultant will, both during and following the term of this Agreement, treat as confidential and safeguard any information or document concerning the affairs of the City of which the Consultant acquires knowledge or that comes into its possession by reason of the Work for the City under this Agreement and will not disclose either directly or indirectly any such information or documents to any person, firm or corporation without first obtaining the written permission by the City, except any information or documents as the Consultant determines in its professional judgment should be disclosed to a third party. 9(2) Without limiting the generality of paragraph 9(1): (a) The Consultant will not use any information acquired through the Performance of this Agreement (herein referred to as "findings") to gain advantage in any other project or undertaking irrespective of the topic, scale, or scope of such project or undertaking; (b) The Consultant will not disclose any findings during or after the performance of this Agreement; (c) The Consultant will not respond to any inquiries pertaining to any findings and agrees to refer all such inquiries to the City; 23 -7- (d) The Consultant will not disclose or use any information that Municipal Operations cannot or may not wish to disclose; (e) The Consultant shall hold all Confidential Information obtained in trust and confidence for Municipal Operations or the City and shall not disclose, except as required by law or professional obligation, any such Confidential Information, by publication or other means, to any person, company or other government agency nor use same for any other project other than for the benefit of the City as may be authorized by the City in writing; and Any request for such approval by the City shall specifically state the benefit to the City of the disclosure of the Confidential Information. 9(3) In the event that it is necessary for Consultant to disclose confidential information to the City during the performance of the Services, the Consultant will mark the information as confidential ("Consultant's Confidential Information"). The City shall keep Consultant's Confidential Information confidential provided that: (a) the City may disclose Consultant's Confidential Information to those persons who need to know such information for purposes that relate to the performance of the Services; (b) the City may disclose Consultant's Confidential Information to the extent required in connection with the purpose for which the information was disclosed; and (c) the City may disclose Consultant's Confidential Information where it is required to do so by law, provided that the City notifies the Consultant of the requirement to disclose and allows the Consultant to take reasonable steps to lawfully resist or narrow the requirement to disclose the information. 9(4) The obligations referred to in this Clause 9 shall not apply to information which: (a) was at the time of disclosure or thereafter became part of the public domain through not act or omission of the receiving party; (b) became available to the receiving party from a third party who did not acquire such confidential information under an obligation of confidentiality either directly or indirectly to the disclosing party, or (c) was known to the receiving party at the time of disclosure by the disclosing party and such knowledge can be demonstrated by written records that were in existence at the time of disclosure. 24 t� 9(5) Each party retains title to all intellectual property (including all patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets and know how owned or possessed by it by or any of its affiliates and used by it in fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement, including any modifications or improvements thereto ("Background IP"). 10. Liability Insurance 10(1) The Consultant, at no expense to the City, shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of insurance with the following limits of liability: (a) Professional Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance The Insurance Coverage shall be in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) per claim and in the aggregate. When requested, the Consultant shall provide the City proof of Professional Errors and Omissions Liability Insurance carried by the Consultant in accordance with the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, S.N.B. 1999, Chapter 50, and amendments thereto. (b) Comprehensive General Liability and Automobile Insurance The Insurance Coverage shall be in the amount of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) per occurrence and in the aggregate for general liability and Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00) for automobile insurance. When requested, the Consultant shall provide the City with proof of Comprehensive General Liability and Automobile Insurance (Inclusive Limits) for both owned and non -owned vehicles. 10(2) The policies of insurance required in paragraphs 10(1)(a) & 10(1)(b) must provide that the coverage shall stay in force and not be amended, cancelled or allowed to lapse without thirty (30) days prior written notice being given to the City. The Consultant agrees to furnish to the City a renewal certificate at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the expiration of the policy. 10(3) The policy of insurance required in paragraph 10(1)(b) shall name the City as an additional insured and shall contain a cross -liability clause. 10(4) The Consultant shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, coverage from Worksafe NB. 10(5) The Consultant shall, upon execution of this Agreement, submit to the City certificates of insurance evidencing the required coverage as well as current coverage from the Worksafe NB. 25 M 10(6) Notwithstanding anything to the Contrary in this Agreement, Consultant's liability for claims, damages and/or losses covered by the insurance policies referred to in this Clause shall be expressly limited to the available proceeds of insurance up to the limits specified in Clause 10(1). 11. Project Managers 11(1) The City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 11(2) The Consultant shall designate a Consultant Representative who shall represent it and be its agent in all consultations with the City during the term of this Agreement. The Consultant or its Consultant Representative shall attend and assist in all coordination meetings called by the City. 12. Responsibility for Errors 12(1) The Consultant shall be responsible for its work and results under this Agreement. The Consultant, when requested, shall furnish clarification and/or explanation as may be required by the City's representative, acting reasonably, regarding any services rendered under this Agreement or a Change Order. Such clarification and/or explanation shall be provided at no additional cost to the City if it results from an error, or a negligent act or omission of the Consultant. 12(2) The Consultant shall, at no cost to the City and at its own cost, reperform the services where reperformance is required as a result of an error, or a negligent act or omission of the Consultant and shall participate in any meeting required with in regards to the correction. 12(3) Notwithstanding and superseding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, Clause 4(2) represents Consultant's sole warranty respecting the services. 13. Remedies 13(1) Subject to Sections 18 and 19 hereof, upon default by either Party under any terms and conditions of this Agreement, and at any time after the default, either Party shall have all rights and remedies provided by law and by this Agreement. 13(2) No delay or omission by the Parties in exercising any right or remedy shall operate as a waiver of them or of any other right or remedy, and no single or partial exercise of a right or remedy shall preclude any other or further exercise of them or the exercise of any other right or remedy. Furthermore, any Parties may remedy any default by the other Party in any reasonable manner without waiving the default remedied and 26 without waiving any other prior or subsequent default by the defaulting party. All rights and remedies of each Party granted or recognized in this Agreement are cumulative and may be exercised at any time and from time to time independently or in combination. 14. Indemnification 14(1) Subject to clause 14(2) hereof, the Consultant shall indemnify and save harmless the City from all Claims, or other proceedings by whomsoever claimed, made, brought or prosecuted in any manner and whether in respect of property owned by others or in respect of damage sustained by others based upon or arising out of or in connection with the performance of this Agreement or anything done or purported to be done in any manner hereunder, but only to the extent that such Claims, or other proceedings are attributable to and caused by the Consultant's negligent acts or omissions. 14(2) In no event shall the Consultant be obligated to indemnify the City in any manner whatsoever in respect of any Claims, or other proceedings caused by the negligence of the City, or any person for whom the City is responsible. 14(4) Neither party has any liability to the other for any losses, damages or costs that can be construed as indirect, special, punitive or consequential losses, damages or costs. 15. Contract Assi nment 15(1) This Agreement cannot be assigned by the Consultant to any other service provider without the express written approval of the City. 16. Performance 16(1) All Parties agree to do everything reasonably necessary to ensure that the terms of this Agreement are met. 17. Non -Performance 17(1) The failure on the part of any Parties to exercise or enforce any right conferred upon it under this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such right or operate to bar the exercise or enforcement thereof at any time or times thereafter. 18. Dispute Resolution A. Referral to Senior Mana ement 18(1) All Disputes arising out of, or in connection with, this Agreement, or in respect of any legal relationship associated with or derived from this Agreement shall within two (2) 27 -11 - Business Days be referred for resolution to the City Manager and the Consultant Representative. 18(2) If the City Manager and Consultant Representative are not able to resolve the dispute referred to them under this Section within seven (7) Business Days following such referral, the matter shall be referred for resolution by Way of mediation upon the willingness of the Parties. B. Mediation 18(3) Despite an agreement to mediate, a Party may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction or other competent authority for interim measures of protection at any time. 18(4) If the Parties resolve to mediate the Dispute referred to them under subsection 18(2), the Parties shall invoke the following mediation process: (a) Either Party shall immediately declare an impasse and provide written notice to the other within seven (7) Business Days thereof (or such other period as the Parties mutually prescribe) declaring that such party wishes to proceed to mediation and setting out in reasonable detail the issue(s) to be resolved, the proposed time and a list of at least three (3) and not more than five (5) proposed mediators. Each of the proposed mediators shall be an individual: (i) with at least three (3) years' experience working in an executive capacity or representing clients in the area of public disputes, and (ii) unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, with no prior connection, affiliation or other formal relationship with either Party, (b) Upon receipt of such notice, the notified party shall have five (5) Business Days to select one (1) of the proposed mediators as the mediator, failing which the Party providing notice shall select one (1) of its proposed mediators as the mediator. Within seven (7) Business Days following selection of the mediator the matter shall be heard by the mediator. (a) The mediator shall be entitled to establish his or her own practices and Procedures. Each Party shall co-operate fully with the mediator and shall present its case to the mediator orally and/or in writing within (10) Business Days following the mediator's appointment. The mediation shall not be in the nature of arbitration as contemplated by the Arbitration Act and the mediator's decision shall not be binding upon the Parties, but shall be considered as a bona fide attempt by the mediator to judiciously resolve the Dispute. The decision of the mediator shall be rendered in a written report, not to exceed two (2) pages in length, delivered to the Parties within 0 0) Business Days following -12 - the last of such presentations. The fees of the mediator shall be shared equally by the Parties. 18(5) The mediation shall be terminated: a) by the execution of a settlement agreement by the Parties; or b) by a written declaration of one or more parties that the mediation is terminated; or c) by a written declaration by the mediator that further efforts at mediation would not be useful. 18(6) The place of mediation shall be the City of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick. C. Arbitration 18(7) In the event that the parties are unwilling to mediate their Dispute or that the Dispute between the Parties remain unresolved after mediation has been attempted in good faith, then either the City or the Consultant, upon written notice to the other, may refer the dispute for determination to: (a) a single arbitrator mutually agreed to by the parties for disputes with a value of $1,000,000.00 or less or (b) a Board of Arbitration consisting of three (3) persons, one (1) chosen by and on behalf of the City, one (1) chosen by and on behalf of the Consultant and the third chosen by these two for disputes with a value greater than $1,000,000.00. 18(8) In case of failure of the two arbitrators appointed by the Parties hereto to agree upon a third arbitrator or the failure of the Parties to appoint a single arbitrator, such arbitrator shall be appointed by a Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick. 18(9) No one shall be appointed or act as arbitrator who is in any way interested, financially or otherwise, in the conduct of the work or in the business or other affairs of either Party. 18(l 0) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Arbitration Act (1992), New Brunswick, the Arbitrator, upon such terms and conditions as are deemed by him to be appropriate, may allow a Party to amend or supplement its claim, defence or reply at any time prior to the date at which the Parties have been notified of the arbitration hearing date, unless the Arbitrator considers the delay in amending or supplementing such statements to be prejudicial to a Party. The Arbitrator will not permit a Party to amend or supplement its claim, defence or reply once the arbitration hearing has been scheduled. 29 -13- 18(11) The Arbitrator may encourage settlement of the Dispute and, with the written agreement of the parties, may order that mediation, conciliation or other procedures be used by the Parties at any time during the arbitration proceedings to encourage settlement. 18(12) If, during the arbitration proceedings, the Parties settle the Dispute, the Arbitrator shall, upon receiving confirmation of the settlement or determining that there is settlement, terminate the proceedings and, if requested by the Parties, record the settlement in the form of an arbitration award on agreed terms. 18(13) Subject to clause 18(14), any determination made by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties and the cost of such determination shall be apportioned as the Arbitrator may decide. 18(14) Either Party may appeal an arbitration decision to The Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick: (i) on a question of law; or (ii) on a question of fact; or (iii) on a question of mixed fact and law. 18(15) The place of arbitration shall be the City of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick and the provisions of the Arbitration Act (1992), New Brunswick, shall apply to the arbitration. D. Retention of Rights 18(16) It is agreed that no act by either Party shall be construed as a renunciation or waiver of any rights or recourses provided the Party has given the notices required under Section 18 and has carried out the instructions as provided in Section A of this Part. 18(17) Nothing in Section 18 shall be construed in any way to limit a party from asserting any statutory right to a lien under applicable lien legislation of the jurisdiction of New Brunswick and the assertion of such right by initiating judicial proceedings is not to be construed as a waiver of any right that Party may have under Section B of this Part to proceed by way of arbitration to adjudicate the merits of the claim upon which such a lien is based. 19. Force Ma 19(1) It is agreed between all Parties that neither Parties shall be held responsible for damages caused by delay or failure to perform his undertakings under the terms of the Agreement when the delay or failure is due to strikes, labour disputes, other industrial action, riots, fire, explosion, nuclear or radioactive contamination, war, floods, epidemics or pandemics, acts of God, lawful acts of public authorities, or delays or defaults caused by common carriers, which cannot be reasonably foreseen or provided against. After 30 20. 21. 22. 23. -14- ninety (90) consecutive or cumulative days of the suspension of Party's obligations due to force majeure, either Party may terminate the Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice. Time 20(1) This Agreement shall not be enforced or bind any of the Parties, until executed by all the Parties named in it. Notices 21(1) Any notice under this Agreement shall be sufficiently given by personal delivery or by registered letter, postage prepaid, mailed in a Canadian post office and prepaid courier, addressed, in the case of notice to: The City: Municipal Operations & Engineering City of Saint John 175 Rothesay Avenue Saint John, New Brunswick E2J 2B4 Telephone: 506-658-4455 Te l e c o p i e r: 506-658-4740 Hatch Ltd.: Bethanie Parker 231 Regent Street, Suite 302 Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 3W8 Telephone: 506-450-4170 Telecopler: 506-450-4175 or to any other address as may be designated in writing by the Parties and the date of receipt of any notice by mailing shall be deemed conclusively to be five (5) calendar days after the mailing. Reference to Prior A reement 22(1) This Agreement supersedes and takes the place of all prior agreements entered into by the parties with respect to the engineering consultant services related to the preparing of a Dam Safety Analysis for and the providing of dam expert advice on the Safe Clean Drinking Water Project. Amendments 23(1) No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by the Parties. 31 -15- 24. Acknowledgment of Terms and of Entirety 24(1) It is agreed that this agreement embodies the entire agreement between the Parties with regard to the matters dealt with in it, and that no understandings or agreements, verbal or otherwise, exist between the Parties except as expressly set out in this instrument or as set out in the Request for Proposal or the Proposal or any written clarification(s) or addendum(s) that are included as part of this Agreement. 25. Further Documents 25(1) The Parties agree that each of them shall, upon reasonable request of the other, do or cause to be done all further lawful acts, deeds and assurances whatever for the better performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 26. Validity and Interpretation 26(1) Paragraph headings are inserted solely for convenience of reference, do not form part of this Agreement, and are not to be used as an aid in the interpretation of this Agreement. 26(2) The failure of the Parties to insist upon strict adherence to any term or condition of the Agreement on any occasion shall not be considered a waiver of any right thereafter to insist upon strict adherence to that term or condition or any other term or condition of the Agreement. 26(3) The Schedules to the Agreement form part of and are incorporated into the Agreement as fully and effectively as if they were set forth in the Agreement. 27. Governing Law 27(1) This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of New Brunswick and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. 28. Successors Assigns 28(1) This Agreement shall ensure to the benefit of and be binding on the successors and assigns of the City and on the successors and permitted assigns of the Consultant. 29. Severability 29(1) It is intended that all provisions of this Agreement shall be fully binding and effective between the Parties, but in the event that any particular provision or provisions or part of one is found to be void, voidable or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then the particular provision or provisions or part of the provision shall be deemed 32 -16 - severed from the remainder of this Agreement and all other provisions shall remain in full force. 30. Independent Lepal Advice 30(1) The Parties acknowledge having obtained their own independent legal advice with respect to the terms of this Agreement prior to its execution. 31. Acknowledgment of Receipt of Copy 31(1) Each Party acknowledges receipt of a true copy of this Agreement. 33 -17 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF Hatch Ltd. has caused this Agreement to be executed in its corporate name, and on its behalf, by its Business and Commercial Director - Energy, and The City of Saint John has caused this Agreement to be executed in its corporate name in the manner prescribed by the Municipalities Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-22, and amendments thereto. SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED In the presence of: 34 Hatch Ltd. Per: Rob Brown, Business and Commercial Director - Energy I have authority to bind the Consultant THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Mayor Common Clerk Common Council Resolution: -18 - PROVINCE OF ONTARIO I, Rob Brown, of the City of Mississauga and Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 1. That I am the Business and commercial Director - Energy of Hatch, a Consultant named in the foregoing instrument and have custody of the corporate seal of the said company and am duly authorized to make this affidavit. 2. That the corporate seal affixed to the foregoing agreement and purporting to be the corporate seal of Hatch, is the corporate seal of Hatch, a Consultant named in the foregoing instrument and it was affixed by the officers authorized to so affix the seal. 3. That the signature of "Rob Brown", is my signature, and as Business and Commercial Director - Energy of Hatch, I am duly authorized to execute the said instrument. 4. THAT the said document was executed as aforesaid at the City of Mississauga in the Province of Ontario on the day of November, 2013. SWORN TO before me at Mississauga, in the Province of Ontario the day of November, 2013 Commissioner of Oaths, Rob Brown 35 Q , ifjio K\ COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2015-244 Report Date November 18, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Transportation and Environment Services His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Contract No. 2015-27: Marsh Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Decommissioning OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. HeadCity Manager David Russell Wm. Edwards I Jeff Trail RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Contract No. 2015-27: Marsh Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Decommissioning be awarded to the low Tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd., at the tendered price of $145,318.00 (including HST) as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council award Contract 2015- 27: Marsh Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Decommissioning to the low Tenderer. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION December 9, 2013; 2014 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program Approved. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with Council's Priority for Sustainable Infrastructure. 36 -2 - REPORT BACKGROUND The approved 2014 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program includes funding for the decommissioning of the former Marsh Creek wastewater treatment plant located at civic # 180 Thorne Avenue. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on November 18, 2015 with the following results: 1. Galbraith Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB $ 145,318.00 2. Fairville Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB $ 182,596.70 3. TerraEx Inc., Saint John, NB $ 262,386.00 4. Debly Enterprises Ltd., Saint John, NB $ 309,314.90 The Engineer's estimate for the work was $158,000. ANALYSIS The tenders were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. Demolition is expected to be completed by the end of January 2016. 19 10 1LTA IJw[e1ell r[o]00 The Contract includes work that is charged against the 2014 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. Assuming award of the Contract to the low tenderer, an analysis has been completed which includes the estimated amount of work that will be performed by the Contractor and Others. The analysis is as follows: Budget $ 175,000 Project net cost $ 151,700 Variance (Surplus) $ 23,300 POLICY — TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy for the tendering of construction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the specific project specifications. 37 -3 - SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES This facility is currently not in service as the wastewater that this facility originally received was re -directed to the new Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility. Therefore, demolition of the facility will not result in any disruption of service. This project will be completed within the original approved financial budget. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS N/A ATTACHMENTS N/A BY-LAW NUMBER C.P. 111-112 A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN ARRETE No C.P. 111-112 ARRETE MODIFIANT VARRETE DE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors dune r6union du conseil John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a follows: decrete ce qui suit : The Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John enacted on the fifteenth day of December, A.D. 2014, 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 1528 square metres, located at 145 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as PID No. 00320440, from Local Commercial (CL) to Two -Unit Residential (R2) 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. 2015 and signed by: First Reading - Second Reading - Third Reading - Mayor/Maire L'arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John, decrete le quinze (15) decembre 2014, est modifie par : 1 La modification de ]'annexe A, Carte de zonage de The City of Saint John, permettant de modifier la designation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 1 528 metres carres, situee au 145, chemin Loch Lomond, et portant le NID 00320440, de zone commerciale locale (CL) a zone residentielle bifamiliale (R2) conform6ment a une resolution adoptde par le conseil municipal en vertu de ]'article 39 de la Loi sur Purbanisme. - toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur le plan ci joint et font partie du present arrdte. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete le 2015, avec les signatures suivantes Common C1erk/Grefiier communal November 9, 2015 Premiere lecture November 9, 2015 Deuxi6me lecture Troisieme lecture 39 - le 9 novembre 2015 - le 9 novembre 2015 GROWTH & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SERVICE DE LA CROISSANCE ET DU DPEVELOPPEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE REZONING 1 REZONAGE Amending Schedule "A" of the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John Modifiant Annexe «A» de I'Arrete de nonage de The City of Saint John n 0 C. 0 1� C7 Low and Rd. ` Fid. -v Lom°n .� Loch ch 0 FROM 1 DE T4,f A CL R2 * I Two -Unit Residential Zone Local Commercial Zone Zone residentielle — Zone commercial locale habitations bifamiliales Pursuant to a Resolution under Section 39 of the Community Planning Act Conform6ment a une resolution adopt6e par le conseil municipal en vertu de I'article 39 de la Loi sur I'urbanisme Applicant: Greg Harris Location: 145 rue Loch Lomond Road P I D(s)IN IP(s) : 00320440 Considered by P.A.C.Iconsidere par le C.C.U.: October 20 octobre, 2015 Enacted by Council/Approuve par le Conseil: Filed in Registry Office/Enregistre le: By -Law No./Arrete No. Drawn By/Creee Par: Maxime Lapierre Date Drawn/Carte Creee: November 18 novembre, 2015 Section 39 Conditions --145 Loch Lomond Road That, pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the conditions governing the development and use of the parcel of land with an area of approximately 1528 square metres, located at 145 Loch Lomond Road, also identified by PID No. 00320440, imposed by Common Council on March 17, 2008 be amended as follows: a) By repealing conditions a), c), and f) related to the zoning of the site for a business office with a basement apartment; and b) Adding the following as a new condition a): a) that the driveway be reduced in width to 13 metres or less within the required front yard, and that the portion of the front yard not occupied by the driveway be landscaped within one year of the date of issuance of the change of use permit for the proposed residential use. 41 BY-LAW NUMBER C.P. 111-113 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 fifteenth day of December, A.D. 2014, is amended by: 1 Amending subsection 12.6(1) by adding the following to the list of permitted uses in the Utility Service (US) Zone: "- library" pursuant to a resolution adopted by Common Council under Section 39 of the Community Planning Act. 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. 2015 and signed by: Mayor/Maire ARRETE N° C.P.111-113 ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE DE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Lors dune reunion du conseil communal, The City of Saint John a decrdte ce qui suit : L'arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John, ddcrdt6 le quinze (15) ddcembre 2014, est modifid par: 1 La modification du paragraphe 12.6(1) par 1'adjonction de ]'616ment suivant a la liste d'usages permis dans la zone de services publics (US) : o - biblioth6que » conformdment a une resolution adoptee par le conseil municipal en vertu de ]'article 39 de ]a Loi sur 1'urbanisme. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le prdsent arret6 le 2015, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal First Reading - November 9, 2015 Premiere lecture Second Reading - November 9, 2015 Deuxi6me lecture Third Reading - Troisi6me lecture 42 - le 9 novembre 2015 - le 9 novembre 2015 Section 39 Conditions - 55 McDonald Street That Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions imposed on the April 14, 2008 rezoning of the property located at 55 McDonald Street, also identified as PID numbers 00319939, 55188825, 55189948 and 55189955, by deleting condition (a) and replacing it with the following: (a) The use of the rezoned area is limited to the following uses: an operations complex for Saint John Transit and/or a public library. 43 BY-LAW NUMBER C.P. 111-114 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 fifteenth day of December, A.D. 2014, 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 4600 square metres, located at 28 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward Street, also identified as PID numbers 00012799, 00012435, 00012443, 00012807 and 00012427, from Mixed Commercial (CM) to General Commercial (CG) 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. 2015 and signed by: First Reading - Second Reading - Third Reading - Mayor/Maire ARRETE No C.P. 111-114 ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE DE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Lors dune r6union du conseil communal, The City of Saint John a d6crdt6 ce qui suit : L'arrdt6 de zonage de The City of Saint John, d6cr6t6 le quinze (15) d6cembre 2014, est modifi6 par: 1 La modification de 1'annexe A, Carte de zonage de The City of Saint John, permettant de modifier la d6signation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d' environ 4 600 metres carr6s, situ6e au 28, rue Richmond et 91-101, rue Prince Edward, et portant les NID 00012799, 00012435, 00012443, 00012807 and 00012427, de zone commerciale mixte (CM) A zone commerciale g6n6rale (CG) conform6ment a une r6solution adopt6e par le Conseil municipal en vertu de Particle 39 de la Loi sur 1'urbanisme. - toutes les modifications sont indiqu6es sur le plan ci joint et font partie du pr6sent arr6t6. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le prdsent arrdt6 le 2015, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal November 9, 2015 Premi&re lecture November 9, 2015 Deuxi6me lecture Troisieme lecture - le 9 novembre 2015 - le 9 novembre 2015 GROWTH & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SERVICE DE LA CROISSANCE ET DU DMI-OPPEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE REZONING I 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 FROM 1 DE TO 1 A CM CG Mixed Commercial Zone General Commercial Zone Zone commerciale mixte Zone commercials generale 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 Loi sur I'urbanisme Applicant: The Resource Centre for Youth in Greater Saint John (TRC) Location: 28 Richmond Street & 91-101 Prince Edward Street PID(s)INIP(s): 00012799, 00012435, 00012443, 00012807, 00012427 Considered by P.A.C.Iconsidere par le C.C.U.: October 20 octobre, 2015 Enacted by Council/Approuve par le Conseil: Filed in Registry Office/Enregistre le: By -Law No./Arrete No. Drawn By/Creee Par: Maxime LapierreDate Drawn/Carte Creee: November 18 novembre, 2015 Section 39 Conditions - 28 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward 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 4,600 square metres, located at 28-30 Richmond Street and 91-101 Prince Edward Street, also identified as PID Nos. 00012799, 00012435, 00012443, 00012807 and 00012427, be subject to the condition that the use of the site be limited to the uses identified in the General Commercial (CG) zone, with the exception of the following: a bar and/or lounge, a health services lab, or a service station. November 18, 2015 RE: Saint John Real Estate Board Motion Receive a brief presentation from the Saint John Real Estate Board concerning progress to date with regard to the Saint John real estate market which presentation would be made in early 2016. Respectfully, Mayor Mel Norton {L0173634.1} /�� SAINT JOHN —ter P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21-41-1 1 vwvw.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E21- 4L1 47 November 18, 2015 RE: Referral Motion - Report from the Innovation Summit at Harvard on Enabling Economies of the Future Background We recently received a copy of the report on Enabling Economies for the Future from the 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit held at Harvard University. Many of the perspectives offered can provide insight and opportunities to our own community as we set policy and plan for future growth and innovation. Motion That Council refer the report from the Innovation Summit to City staff for consideration and application to upcoming recommendations in 2016 and beyond. Respectfully, Mayor Mel Norton {L0173625.11 SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 r�� Enabling Economies for the Future Insight from I the 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit at Harvard fl�A 1 j Insight from the 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit at Harvard EnablinvEconomiesfor the Future... 0 je�ities and communities are now faced with the challenge of how to foster and enable innovation, as we move from a brick -and -mortar economy to an innovation -based economy. No longer are cities geographically limited - they are now connected to a global economy that can positively support and significantly impact their citizens. The paradigm of industrial production, while still paramount for continued success, is no longer the sole driver of economic growth. New paradigms for employment and business are emerging. They separate the historical physical connection between employees or business owners and business facilities. The adoption of a virtual workplace, and the ability to work from anywhere, is radically changing how citizens work and live in cities while it simultaneously increases the number of virtual enterprises. While the demand for services from communities rises, the ability to meet those demands often does not. Cities are faced with the dilemma of trying to provide innovative, improved service and governance - but while limited by budgets and infrastructures that do not necessarily track the fast -changing world around them. How do cities enable innovation in their workforces and communities? How do cities innovate from within, to meet the ever- increasing, and highly dynamic demands of their citizens? Most importantly, how do the diverse stakeholders - who range from municipal leaders and infrastructure providers to end-user businesses and consumers - initiate the conversation to work together on viable solutions? The 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit: Enabling Economies for the Future was convened on the campus of Harvard University to begin this critical discussion about what cities need to do, how to do it, and how to prepare for the rapidly -approaching future. The event was hosted by the Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard with generous support from Dell. The Summit brought together senior leaders form a diverse array of segments to engage in a thought leadership discussion concerning the future of cities and the facilitation of their innovation economies. Participants included Chief Innovation Officers from several cities and large corporations, education professionals, and leading entrepreneurs. 50 The Summit provided a unique venue and rare forum for dialog and was organized around three main perspectives: 1. City Chief Innovation Officer - CIO is an emerging role found in only a few cities around the USA and the world. But the creation of this position is indicative of the shifting paradigm to innovation as a key component of government and a key enabler for citizens. 2. Technology Infrastructure Partners - How does technology impact the services of future cities? How can it be leveraged, and what partnerships are needed to install, adopt, and ensure the utilization of technology for governments, cities, and citizens? 3. Innovation and Entrepreneurship End -Users - What are the prerequisite tools and resources that cities, businesses, and individuals need to facilitate innovation? How do services and infrastructure impact the ability to be competitive in a global innovation economy? Are these needs being met? The key findings from the Summit are synthesized in this report. This includes research summaries from presenters as well as case histories that highlight what works, what doesrit, and the current thinking of city governments, infrastructure partners, and end-users. 51 Technology and Entrepreneurship if Center at Harvard•_ rt. 'AS Contents City Chief Innovation Officers .............. . . . . . . ........... ..................................... 6 New Urban Mechanics.........................................................................10 Innovation Insights: Experimentation and Risk ............... . ....................................13 Innovation in Education for the Future .............................................. ........,,.,.14 Innovation Insights: Business Model Innovation...................................................16 A Frictionless Future Economy and Implications for Cities...........................................18 Innovation Insights: Challenges and Opportunities with Disruptive Innovations .............. . . . ....... 21 Innovation Insights: Utilization versus Availability..................................................23 Problems of Startups as Economic Development Policy .................. . . . ...... . .................24 Innovation Insights: People -centered Infrastructure ............................... , ......... , , ...... 26 Perspective: Governance Model for Innovation in Cities ............... . . . ...........................27 ActionPlan..................................................................................29 Data and Analytics: Measuring Metros ........................ . . ................................. 30 Measuring Future Readiness....................................................................31 Outlook.......,..,..,.......................................................................32 Opportunities.,...........................,....................,.......,..........,..........32 About the Strategic Innovation Summits ........................... , .... , ... , .................... 33 Acknowledgmentsand Credits ................................ .,...........,...,...........34 52 The city of the future looks very different from the one that has been the cornerstone of society for the past centuries. The 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit revealed several trends that represent a fundamental change in how citizens use and interact with their cities. No longer are cities merely functioning as sources of infrastructure and services - and as common, centralized locations for brick -and -mortar companies. They are now becoming hubs of social cohesion. Citizens choose to live in them based on the availability of amenities and social and economic opportunities. Some examples of changes include: • Gig Economies: People work on small jobs, rather than for a full-time employer. • Virtual Economies: People work for companies thousands of miles away, or perhaps in a distant city across the state. • People -Centered Economies: 9 to 5 workdays have become a relic of history. Many people now work longer hours, and they may also work in smaller increments of time throughout the entire day. • Frictionless Economies: The traditional barriers that represented economic opportunities for many companies are fading away. Now anyone can buy and sell globally and anyone can design and build from anywhere in the world. What does this mean for a city? How can a city chart a course to not only prepare for the future but also thrive in the future? The Summit convened a diverse group of city stakeholders including Chief Innovation Officers, infrastructure providers, educators, and successful entrepreneurs. The purpose was to discuss - and strive to answer - the profoundly important question of how cities can best prepare themselves for the innovation economy of the future. This whitepaper is a distillation and examination of the Summit discussions. It attempts to capture the spirit and the ideas expressed and shared during the Summit, during formal presentations as well as informal discussions. In reflecting on the Summit and reviewing the excellent videos, I found five themes that permeated the discussions across several speakers and forums. I have included those as Innovation Insights which summarize these overarching ideas: • The challenge of experimentation and risk for innovation in the public sector. • The critical need for business model innovation. • The focus on utilization versus availability of technology and infrastructure, • The emerging importance of people -centered infrastructure. • The role of disruption in innovation This Summit was an exciting and engaging two days, for myself and all of the other participants. While it is not a conclusion, it succeeded in starting a discussion that addresses a future that will change not only how we live, but how we think about the role of our cities. Sincerely, Prof. David S. Ricketts, Summit General Chair Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard 53 City Chief Innovation Officers The position of City Chief Innovation Officer is a new one gradually being adopted around the globe. The role of this leader is to answer the challenges faced when creating a city that can compete in and take full advantage of the innovation economy. Four CIOs were invited to speak about their respective city roles and initiatives. Cities that were represented included Burlington, VT, which just created the position a few months ago; Louisville, KY, recipient of a Bloomberg "Innovation Delivery Team" grant'; Riverside, CA, named "The most intelligent Community in the World" in 20122; and Wellington, the capital of New, Zealand, and the first city in New Zealand to install high- speed fiber Internet. What was the origin of the CBO role in your city? Riverside - In 2006, city leaders decided to embark on a $1.6 billion infrastructure upgrade, which included a focus on becoming a smart city. The Chief Innovation Officer was created as part of this new vision to help guide the city and its initiative. Wellington - The role was proposed by Philippa Bowron and was inspired by the CIO role in San Francisco, where Bowron had worked on a city -to -city relationship. The proposed role came at the time of a newly elected, tech -savvy mayor; a restructuring within the city council; a new initiative on asset management; and a focus on driving growth in what had been a flat economy. Louisville - The newly elected mayor, Greg Fisher, campaigned on making Louisville a more sustainable, data -driven and innovative government. To make this happen, he realized he needed to create a position specifically responsible for driving this initiative. The CIO role was a commitment and an enabler to that promise. Burlington - The newly re-elected mayor, Miro Weinberger, came from a business, rather than political, background He was interested in transforming Burlington from a city slow to adopt change and new technology. As part of his mission, he wanted to create a role that would drive long-term infrastructure and technology goals. As a result, the CIO role was created. 1 http://wwwbloomberg.org/press/releases/bloomberg-philanthropies4aunches-42-million-what-works-cities-initiative/ 2 http://wwwintelhgentcommunityorg/indmphp?src=news8crefLio=722&category=Partner+News&prid=722 54 How do you define innovation and what programs do you focus on? Riverside - The CIO manages the IT department as well as a nonprofit called SmartRiverside, which is aimed at narrowing the digital divide in the community by providing free computers to low-income families who complete a minimum level of computer literacy training. The CIO also manages and supports innovation programs across the city. The focus is on developing innovative programs within the city as well as in the community, whether they are city -sponsored or not. Examples include business incubators, technology boot camps, maker spaces, hack-a-thons, coding programs, etc. Riverside's philosophywas perhaps best put by Lea Deesing who said, "I think it's a great time to focus on our human capital by empowering citizens through technology and education' Wellington - Innovation wasnt a term that was commonly agreed upon, so the City Council decided that was a first step. Innovation was simply defined as an invention or change that added value. While the innovation program includes some social projects and internal city council innovations, the majority of focus is on projects that will drive economic growth in the city. Louisville - The CIO's priorities are the mayor's priorities. Innovation is focused on tackling some of the major issues that Louisville faces. Many of them are not high-tech or sexy, such as segregation, drugs, and many other social challenges. The impact was best expressed by Ted Smiths comment `:..this is where all the headroom is, and so if you really take the innovation agenda seriously you say, `That's honestly where all the opportunity is to make a difference."' The CIO office focuses on those programs that will make the biggest social impact to the citizens of the city. Burlington - As a newly created position, the CIO is working with the mayor to define a solid foundation for innovation. Initial focus has been on resident -city interaction and service outlets - trying to find ways to make it easier for citizens to receive city services. In addition, the focus is on improving infrastructure within the city and becoming a proactive participant in planning for new assets and infrastructure improvements. "Innovation shouldnt be something special, it should be part of everyone's day to day," summarized Beth Anderson. 55 Living Lab Project in Wellington, New Zealand The Wellington City Council, in partnership with NEC, has created a Living Lab to explore how sensing technology may make the city safer and smarter - without compromising privacy. The project does two things. It centralizes agencies' existing data — such as records of accidents, tagging, and crime reports, on a heat map. Then it adds data from new sensors that are taught to tell the difference between typical and unusual activity. The sensors send alerts when visible and/or audible activity is beyond the norm. Glass shattering or a fight breaking out send an alert that prompts an officer to look at the live camera feed. This enables multiple agencies to collaborate more efficiently. The system can help detect a vulnerable person requiring assistance, for example, and enable Council to direct a community support person or medical facility team to attend to their needs The centralized data will provide greater understanding of how that area of the city functions, leading to better -informed urban designs. The city can also offer non -sensitive, de -personalized data to its businesses, to help them gain a better understanding of their city and its patterns. Permit Review in Burlington, VT As is true in many cities, Burlington, Vermont's legacy system for construction - related permitting is complex. At times, it can also be a source of frustration for residents hoping to make improvements to existing housing or build new homes. Over the years, changes have been made to the process, in an effort to make it more user-friendly. Now, with direction from the mayor and City Council, a new cross -department initiative has been launched do a "soup -to - nuts" review and reform of the complete permitting process. The evaluation will entail data analysis, public input, and best practice research — to help design a new process and identify new technologies to better support both staff members and permit seekers. The project will seek to transform current thinking about permitting significantly, and not just make incremental changes. The initiative's goal is to explore opportunities to reform the entire permitting process across Burlington; to create a new process that is more efficient, transparent, and predictable; and to encourage investment in Burlington buildings and their enhancement. 56 Philippa Bowron Head of Innovation Beth Anderson Chief Innovation Officer Code to Careers Initiative in Riverside, CA Studies show that there may be over a million unfilled high -paying technical jobs in the United States by the year 2020. SmartRiverside, a nonprofit aimed at empowering the community through education and technology, created a new "Code to Careers" program which consists of a community-based team of Riversides educational, private, nonprofit and public partners. They have come together to create computer programming ("coding") programs for youth in Riverside. Their aim is to empower Riverside's youth with the coding skills required to apply for such high -paying jobs. Many agencies involved with "Code to Careers" now offer free coding classes along with a board game -style roadmap where youth begin with an easy one-hour introduction to computer programming. The roadmap then guides the students onward. It gives them options to continue to learn computer programming through middle school, high school, and college - and to pursue the thousands of high -paying jobs waiting for them in that field. Lea Deesing In addition, Raspberry Pi is an exciting technology that can be used to teach Chief Innovation Officer L computer programming and robotics. Newcomers of all ages can easily and intuitively see how a computer works, plug in components, and learn skills - in record time. SmartRiverside recently began teaching Raspberry Pi robotics coding to at -risk youth at one community center, and they plan to expand that program to other community centers, libraries, schools, and non -profits. ' 0—mw � , Smart Inhalers: Towards data driven solution to air pollution in Louisville, KY Louisville has historically ranked in the top 10 worst places to live if you have asthma or allergies, and the city also has air pollution challenges. While air quality is measured every second in the USA by the Environmental Protection Agency, the impact on asthma has not been easy to demonstrate. The Mayor of Louisville, though his Chief Innovation Officer, designed a pilot program that leverages private philanthropy from the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky and the Norton Healthcare Foundation. The pilot was the first community-based application of Asthmapolis (now called Propeller Health) of Madison, WI. Three hundred Bluetooth sensors have been placed on the rescue medication inhalers of asthmatics. This enables a centralized data center to record the use of inhalers by individuals throughout the city, providing a view of where the worst areas are while also quantifying their severity. The initial heatmap of more than 5,000 rescue inhaler events showed clustering in specific Louisville neighborhoods that were in unexpected places. Ted Smith Chief Innovation Officer The project (wwwairlouisville.com) is scheduled to increase size to almost 1,500 inhalers in the next few years. The hope is that data will provide insight and pinpoint places within the built environment that may be good candidates for changes to traffic flow or green infrastructure, in order to remediate pollution and improve health. 57 New Urban Mechanics Presented by: Nigel Jacob, Co -Chair Mayors Office of New Urban Mechanics The Office of New Urban Mechanics was formed in 2010 under Mayor Thomas Menino. The purpose was to address not only the big problems that face Boston, but the country at large - multigenerational poverty, a crumbling infrastructure and increasing climate change effects. Mayor Menino realized that if you just hope people will innovate, no one ever will. Instead, you need to find a way to drive to create a center of gravity, to create examples and to show how this can be done and to create team that is doing that 24x7. New Urban Mechanics is a startup essentially working in government whose job it is to develop or to explore the future of city services. They work with people in universities, startups, social entrepreneurs, private individuals, and grassroots organizations. New Urban Mechanics takes the approach of experimentation, before full implementation. They test out new innovations, and fully vet them before they roll them out and try to scale them. They are an R&D rapid prototyping organization that first works with different agencies across the city to figure out what their issues are and then how to test where they should be going next. This rapid prototyping is enabled in part from a gift from the Bloomberg foundation, which provides private money that New Urban Mechanics can use to experiment - and fail - without using taxpayer dollars. They conduct experiments with new innovations and then with quantitative and qualitative data decide whether it will work and more importantlywhether they can scale the idea. They are thinking about scaling from the outset, they do not leave discussion on how to scale to the end, but rather it is baked into the experiment at the beginning. They want to know in principle what is needed to scale an idea if it's successful. The opposite is also true; if the idea fails they try to shut it down as quickly as possible. Nigel Jacob referred to this as the "fail fast" principle. There is also some space right in the middle which is essentially when things "fall flat". The idea is not an outright failure, but people just dorit use it for whatever reason. This, unfortunately, is where many programs end up. "New Urban Mechanics is a startup essentially working in government, whose job is to develop or explore the future of city services. Nigel Jacob New Urban Mechanics is a risk aggregator, as they operate outside of traditional city organization. If say a middle manager from the transportation department has an awesome idea of using flame throwers to melt snow, they can utilize New Urban Mechanics to try out the idea. Many times a department does not have the time, resources or money to try out new idea, but New Urban Mechanics has the funding and resources. If the idea is a failure, it is of no risk to the local governmental agency, but if it is a success, then they share in the positive press and congratulations for the successful idea with the agency. 58 New Urban Mechanics has several programs that have seen wide success. One was revamping the registration for school. If students did not register early, their chances of getting into the school of your choice plummeted. It becomes an equity problem and it was we often found it was families that were socioeconomically struggling that didn't completely the registration on time, and so they had fewer options. New Urban Mechanics developed a user friendly site akin to hotels.com for parents to choose the best school options and to register early. Another innovation addressed the enormous parking issue in Boston. While not creating more spaces, the Park Boston initiative, made paying for parking easier and another initiative, TicketZen, mitigated many of the severe problems for those who didn't pay for parking - fines and license revocation. Park Boston is an app for smart phones that allows you to pay for parking on your phone, and if you do get a ticket, TicketZen, allows you to take a quick picture and you can pay it online. This single feature - of paying your ticket from a picture - has significantly reduced delinquency and escalating fines. New Urban Mechanics has focused on what practical areas it could make an impact, ensuring to leverage its strengths and not tackle projects that it couldn't make successful. In this sense, it is a micro -innovation center that seeks the best bang for the buck. Scaling the many successes is the current mission of the program - how do they tackle some of the more intangible or difficult needs of the city and develop new innovations that scale. "New Urban Mechanics is a startup essentially working in government, whose job is to develop or explore the future of city services. 59 "If I asked you to imagine a government service [... I in color, you may choose grey or maybe beige or something lackluster, maybe kind of works but kind of not. We need to do better than that. We need to find ways to reset people's expectations to show that we can actually build really killer things that people like to use." Nigel Jacob Co -Chair Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics Innovation Insights: Experimentation and Risk One of the tenets of innovation and creativity is the ability to experiment with new ideas and fail. Experimentation and failure, however, are two words not found in any politicians campaign promises. Enabling experimentation and managing risk were common themes throughout the Summit. Pilot programs and small initiatives are common in city government. But the idea of experimentation clearly suggests that the outcome is not known and there is the potential for failure. As one participant articulated it, "Some segments of the public, the media, and elected legislators do not think experimentation is a valid use of taxpayer dollars." But how does one innovate if experimentation and the corresponding risk are not possible in traditional governance policy? Two solutions were posed by participants. The first, offered by Nigel Jacob, was that experimentation and risk can be taken offline into a program setup to specifically handle experimentation and risk, such as Bostons New Urban Mechanics. He explained that New Urban Mechanics represent a means for the city to move experimentation and risk to a localized "lab" to be examined, analyzed, and plant the seeds of innovation. Enabling the experimentation and risk tolerance of New Urban Mechanics is the private sector funding from the Bloomberg Foundation. Smith aptly noted `As it turns out, everybody stops asking the questions if you're not using tax dollars" This raised questions - and possible solutions - related to public/private partnerships and private sector investment capital. The goal in this context was not to gain untapped capital, which has been one motivation for public use of private capital. Instead, the objective would be to use private funds to support activities that represent a what governments and taxpayers consider an unacceptable level of financial risk The funding from the Bloomberg Foundation is one such example, one organization cannot fund every project in a city or every city in the world. Another solution is needed, one that is universal and scalable from small to large projects. The second example came from Ted Smith, who suggested that a city may find ways to mitigate risk, thus making it more palatable to the municipality and its residents. One method would be to increase the number of stakeholders, so that it is not just the mayor's office involved - but perhaps the school district, the mayor's office, and a community foundation. He also shared the idea that public/private endeavors are a way to de -risk experimentation - just as the asthma program in Louisville and the Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky and Norton Healthcare Foundation have shown. Where should a city start? The consensus from Summit participants was that cities should start with small pilot programs to answer basic questions: • Is there a solution to the proposed problem (technology, process, etc)? • Will that solution be readily adopted and utilized by residents? • Is that solution scalable? • Is there a business model that will sustain such a solution? In deciding which problems to tackle first, there were two approaches recommended. The New Urban Mechanics program focuses on projects that fit with their expertise and resources. They choose projects that show great potential for success. An app that uses existing data and solves a problem for every parent waiting for the school bus is an easy win. It is a relatively small infrastructure investment, there is a clear need, and there is easy acceptance and scalability. Louisville has taken a different approach. It uncovers the most important social needs and tries to find ways to de -risk those and obtain private funding for support. The asthma air-quality program is a great example. They focused on finding a solution for specific problems, even if the impediments were great. Riverside has been focusing not only on programs, but also on the culture within their Innovation Department - which includes IT. Lea Deesing described it by saying, "I really think thafs part of the innovative culture - building a safe environment where people understand that they can take risks and fail and they wont be harshly penalized. Really fostering a creative environment, where people are free to have divergent opinions and ideas and where that is still okay. That's actually a great thing." 61 Innovation in Education for the Future Presented by: Richard Culata, Senior Advisor to the Secretary United States Department of Education Richard Culata and his team at the Office of Educational Technology (OET) looked at innovation in cities through learning called Education Innovation Clusters. The purpose was to look at how different areas were using technology to transform and reimagine learning, and the role of learning in creating more innovative cities. He proposed three key focus areas for understanding and developing strategies in education that would lead to more innovations. Learning in an informal space is as important as learning in formal spaces. Culatta and his team did a scan of innovative cities that were robust with informal learning opportunities. They wanted to determine how influential informal versus formal educational opportunities were in the local school districts. What they found was that only about 18% of learning happens in formal spaces. So why were some cities concentrating so much on formal learning opportunities, when so little time was spent in that space? Their research showed that the most innovative cities had more informal learning opportunities. Cities like Chicago, for instance, focus their efforts on learning in informal spaces by creating programs such as Chicago Ideas Week, in which they would bring in people to talk on a variety of interesting subjects and then answer questions by the students. Another initiative is happening in cities such as Dallas called City of learning, in which students can go online to find informal activities that they can do and earn badges to unlock even more informal learning activities. Knowing How Your Learners Learn Culatta and his team went schools to determine how students learn, and while it may have seemed to be a simple task, it was much harder than it seems. They asked educators to think of what a typical college student looked like and they would often point to a smiling coed wearing a backpack, happily walking across campus to class. They are bright eyed, alert and ready to sit through a lecture with pencil ready to make notes, and it is for these students that they create their curriculum. The problem they found is that the image educators had of a typical student, was not really a typical student. Statistics show that 75% of students are non- traditional students: parents completing their degrees at night, full time workers trying to move up within their company and military personnel trying complete a degree while on deployment. 62 It is essential to match the right educational experience with students actual needs. The United States is filled with people who have half or partially completed degrees in higher education. 31 million Americans in the last 20 years have partially completed degrees. In community colleges alone only about half of those that enter programs complete them. In order to create a more innovative economy, there needs to be a strategy to get those with unfinished degrees to complete them. One of the ways that this problem is being addressed is through competency based education rather than the but- in -seat approach. Instead of forcing people to sit through a class an entire semester so they can mark it off on a transcript they develop a program that helps people in workplace situations to learn new skills in which they need to demonstrate competency rather than finishing a particular course. Access to Learning Culatta and his team felt that access to higher education for many students has been weak The current efforts are insufficient for what is needed to create more innovative cities. Some states and cities are addressing this problem more aggressively like Tennessee for instance has made a promise that all students will have access to post -secondary education for free. In Williamsfield, Illinois, they became tired of making their students buy expensive textbooks that were not relevant to what they needed to learn. They use open licensed digital resources instead of textbooks, and with the money they save they provide a computer for every student to use. Culatta states, "We can drop the cost of community college by 25% across the country by transitioning from textbooks to open sources' Broad Adoption into the Ecosystem The OET developed the initiative Education Innovation Clusters to bring innovation into cities. Culata says, "It is not about the schools, it is about bringing partners from different parts of the community together." In PittsburgHs Remake Learning, they have brought together their museums, higher education institutions and have come up with new innovative ways for students to learn both in and out of the classroom. In Forsyth County Georgia they have a program in which businesses all around put stickers in their windows that indicate they are safe places for kids to do their homework Three ways in which Education can create Innovation The first way, Culatta suggests is that educators need to set a vision. For many years educators have included new technology to drive their vision. There are sites such as futurereadyschools.org that allows policy makers to see what the infrastructure would look like when building schools in the future that support more technology and digital types of learning. The second is that we need to tell stories better about what is working in education. There are brilliant ideas and programs around the country that need to be shared. At tech.ed.gov/stories the Office of Educational Technology has created a space in which people from all over the United States can share what they are doing for others. Finally, Culatta believes there needs to be a focus on more equity. Education Secretary Randy Dunn says, "If the technology revolution only happens for the families who already have money in education, it is not really a revolution' Technology gives us very powerful levers to close equity gaps. In order to do this, there a greater access and opportunity for everyone to use it, and if not it just perpetuates the digital divide. Innovation Insights: Business model innovation A point that is often missed when assessing technology and its impact on society is the business model for implementation/utilization of the technology. Glenn Wintrich and Brian Donnellan are co -investigators on a grant from the Science Foundation of Ireland researching smart cities. As part of that work they are investigating the role of business models and how they directly impact the adoption of new technologies in smart cities. Point Dell recently collaborated on a smart buildings project for a 40 -story office building in New York City. By collecting data on the occupancy of the building and comparing it to the HVAC system settings, they found that they were cooling the buildings long after people had left for the evening. In addition, through data analytics, they found that during lunch the building occupancy was very low, allowing them to adjust the HVAC to accommodate that change. These two solutions produced a $250,000 per -quarter savings to the building owner. This solution was an easy sell to the building owners, who quickly asked where else they could realize savings. Counter Point Replacing parking meters with smart meters could allow a new level of service for city - residents, such as enabling credit card payments and even providing the ability to locate unoccupied parking spots. The replacement cost of a parking meter, however, is not cheap. In Santa Monica, new smart parking meters cost $750 each' with a total capital investment` of $4.5M. Seattle installed parking stations, which service 7 parking spaces on average, for a capital investment of $10.2NP. The expected payback period for Seattle is 3+ years - and is based on a prediction of increased revenue from easier parking and reduced service r expenses. A multi-million dollar capital investment with a 3+ year return represents a challenging initiative for any city government..A"* Innovative Business Models Ericsson and Phillips recently introduce "Zero Site' an integration of wireless technology and low-power LED lighting3. Their goal is to provide a business model for cities, to fund Glenn Wintrich the transition from traditional to LED lighting. The LED lighting provides energy reduction Innovation Leader of 50%, but that may not be enough to support the capital cost for new lighting. What's the Dell solution? Zero Site adds micro cells for cellular and broadband data that can be leased to data providers. The license fees help accelerate payback and support maintenance of the system. 1 http://www.smgovnet/departments/council/agendas/2011/20111025/s2011102503-H.htm 2 http://www.dksassociates.com/wp-content/files_mf/1335560385SmarLParking_Meters_Take_Over_the_Westpdf 3 http://www.ericsson.com/ourportfoho/products/zero-site?nav=productc"ory006%7Cfgb_101_0516%7Cfgb_101_0548 �--�,-�-•- --- --°•tea-- dIP �. - f '0 " ..if we simply digitize traditional learning opportunities, we will not be solving problems, in fact, arguably, we could even be taking a step backwards....we need to make sure technology is being used in transformational waves." Richard Culata Senior Advisor to the Secretary United States Department of Education A Frictionless Future Economy and Implications for Cities Presented by: Jim Stikeleather, Chief Innovation Officer, Dell "Change fixes the past," explained Executive Strategist Jim Stikeleather, the Chief Innovation Officer for Dell. 'Transformation creates the future." Rather than focusing on Dell product and services innovations, his particular role is to help Dell itself become a more innovative company, and that innovation extends also to the customer. His group conducts innovation training classes to facilitate Dell teams who want to address a challenge or opportunity. A Frictionless Future Stikeleather and his colleagues work on the development of processes and architectures around innovation and are responsible for foresight activities. They study the outside world in order to forecast or create future scenarios that have an impact on Dell's internal activity and how to respond to that vision of the future. One of the key areas of interest is frictionless economy, and one of the main tenets of their process is that technology does not cause change. Technology can only enable, facilitate, and accelerate changes that already want to take place. One of the misconceptions of technology companies is that they can force change to happen through technology. His group instead looks at technology usage patterns, to discover what people are already trying to accomplish with technology in order to facilitate that change which is already underway. "We're painting a picture of the future and saying, here are the outcomes people are trying to accomplish," Stikeleather said. Critical questions include those that ask which capabilities are necessary to accomplish the desired outcomes, and what types of products and services can deliver those capabilities. It is a different way of looking at the future. An Epitaph for the Past The way capitalism, business, and economics operated for the last thousand or more years is no longer applicable. If someone wanted to create a new product, they had to figure out where the raw materials were coming from and they had to acquire them, process them into goods, and transport the finished products to a retailer who could deliver consumers. That requires lots of time and capital, and ensured that there was a huge amount of information differential between all of those steps in the process. The retailer, for example, probably had no idea what the manufacturer went through or paid to produce those products. Today, by contrast, entrepreneurs can bypass the bank and access capital through crowd -funding sites like Kickstarter. Rather than waiting for products to arrive by ship, they can be produced with 31) printing. GE has actually printed a jet engine that works, and they can even print the electronic circuits and sensors that are the engine's components. "The four major frictions in the economy are information, distance, capital and time. technology made almost all of that go away, said Stikeleather. "In effect, there's no more friction in the economy. That's actually a bad thing. Because, as it turns out, most companies make their profits on overcoming the frictions in the economy.' Because of that changed vision of the future, "We've always done it this way" is going to be the tombstone epitaph of more companies over the next five years than anything else. New Models of Innovation In a frictionless economy, two guys with a new idea and a 3D printer can come in underneath a competitor. Somebody else can come underneath them, and another party can once again undermine everyone else by following the same strategy. In effect, the entire opportunity for profits has gone. While that may sound slightly exaggerated, it is definitely not an exaggeration in the case of monopoly profits. `Ask yourself three questions, what is it that I am going to stop doing? What is it I am going to start doing? What am I going to do differently?" Monopoly profits can come easiest thanks to allies in government. But the other main path to monopoly profits is Jinn Stikeleather creation of avalue proposition nobody else can replicate — and Chief Innovation Officer, Dell that comes through innovation. "With all of this friction out of the way," Stikeleather said, "it has some really interesting applications because on the business side it is totally changing the nature of operating models, organizational models, management models, and — most importantly — business models' Ownership of Nothing What's the largest transportation company in the world now? What's interesting about them? They own nothing. The largest hospitality company in the world owns nothing. The largest retailer has no stores and no real inventory. In 1958, the average age of a company listed in the S&P 500 was 61 years. In 2013 it was 18. Almost 90% of the Fortune 500 firms of 1955 are gone, all driven by these changes. The first major shift is from capital investment to operating investment. The new generation doesrit want ownership of thing like cars and houses. They prefer to use Uber and service like AirB&B. From a corporate perspective, everybody wants to shift from CapEx to OpEx. Rolls Royce doesrit sell engines anymore, for example, because instead they sell power by the hour. They have so many engine sensors that they can tell exactly how much an engine has been used and they bill the customer accordingly. They can also detect that's going to fail before it fails and when the plane lands, they will have the technicians there and all of the equipment and everything necessary to repair it. In effect, that engine lasts forever. Similarly, CES, IBM and Samsung demonstrated a washing machine that monitors itself. It order supplies on its own, knows when it needs repairs, and can actually contract for the repairs — all without any human intervention. 67 Products Becoming Services Meanwhile, most products are turning themselves into services. Nike sells running shoes, but consumers buy them for the wireless service that tracks their fitness and performance. Self -driving cars can be turned into robotic taxies. Based on where that taxi goes, ifs insurance coverage could be calculated to match the risk of each particular route - and insurers could become entrepreneurs similar to those who work for Uber. For a couple of thousand dollars someone could provide partial insurance for that vehicle - competing directly with the largest insurance companies in the world on price. Companies need to ask how to create value for a customer. If an action doesn't do that it should be eliminated. "Ask yourself three questions," Stikeleather recommended. "What is it that I am going to stop doing? What is it I am going to start doing? What am I going to do differently? The key being that you focus and you build an ecosystem to supply everything that you choose not to do' Social Value Historically, the community tried to attract business with jobs and then the people would travel to the jobs. But today the physical infrastructure is less important than the virtual infrastructure. That is going to cause a fundamental shift for cities and communities of all sizes. There is a changing focus on the population versus the businesses. Create a place where people want to live, and business will migrate there - unlike the traditional dynamic of establishing businesses that attract workers who subsequently build communities and cities. The future will likely mean major transformations in industries, the nature of the work, and the demographics of the population and the work they are want to do. But one element does not lend itself to change. "Social values are the one thing you cant go back on," Stikeleather said - and he issued a warning. "Always be thinking and focusing on what you are about to do before you do it. Because once you go down this path you cant get back from it." Innovation 6nsights Challenges and Opportunities with Disruptive Innovations The Innovation Cooper Martin presented preliminary results from the National League of Cities report, "Technology and Mobility" which covers the results from their first research project "What is the City of the Future' For the past 100 years, cities have been designed around the concept of a human -driven automobile. This paradigm may change within the next 10-20 years with the advent of driverless cars and the shifting paradigm to shared -use versus individual ownership of vehicles. low- Automobile usage and storage represent one of the most significant infrastructure investments of any city. An estimated C 20% of city land is dedicated to roads, and another 20% is devoted to parking. A 10% reduction in automobiles was calculated to provide 500,000 acres of reusable land in the USA alone. A recent study in Lisbon showed that a driverless fleet of cars would result in an 80% reduction in required automobiles, freeing - up significant amounts of land in cites while also reducing harmful vehicle emissions. Preliminary results from the NLC study suggest the availability of `smart" and self - driving cars in 2020, with significant adoption in 2030. The Disruption While the benefits to cities from driverless technology appear immense, the disruption it poses is just as striking. A city without human drivers would be a city of automobiles that obeyed all traffic laws, always found approved parking spaces, and never broke down due to lack of maintenance. What would this mean? Cooper Martin An estimated 5% to 30% of municipal revenues, particularly in small towns, conies from Program Director traffic violation fines. Income from parking is also a substantial revenue generator. That Sustainable Cities Institute was demonstrated by Pitisburglis increased parking rates and enforcement time, which National League of Cities recently added $5M to the existing $20.2M parking revenue for the city'. In addition to direct revenue from current automobile infrastructure, there are hundreds of millions of dollars in secondary income from service providers for those who drive. One notable example is truck stops that provide drivers with fuel, food, and other supplies. Another indirect outcome, which may be the most significant for many people, is the loss of jobs because of driverless cars. New York City alone has more than 13,000 taxis,' not to mention the 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the USA 3. Where will they work? Perhaps they'll work for Uber, which has made a significant investment in driverless technology and hired people from Microsoft's mapping division and Carnegie Melloris robotics center. Uber is planning for the disruption, shouldn't cities also? 1 http://www.post-gazette.com/local/dty/2014/12/10/Pittsburgh-to-raise-parldng-meter-rates-charge-at-night/stories/201412100208 2 http://www.nyc.gov/bbnVtIc/downloads/pdf/2014 taxicab_fac bookpdf 3 htq)://www.aUtruddng.com/faq/truck-drivers-in-the-usa/. 4 http://www.popscLcom/war-driverless-car-service-has-begun Photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wild/File:Google%27s_Lexus-2X_450h_Self-Driving_Car jpg (see this for usage rightso 69 ywF. "Change is reversible. Transformation is not." Jim 5tikeleather Chief Innovation Officer, Dell Innovation Insights: Utilization versus Availability cow -�. owl +"!# PSW Fr rf;r.7 Richard Culatta shared an image similar to this one of an unfished building. With it, he highlighted that any citizen would see an unfinished building and immediately feel the need to finish it. But what about those programs in our cities we cannot see that are unfinished? One example Culatta said, is that "31 million Americans in the last 20 years have partially completed degrees." If one looks at community colleges, about 50% of students dont finish their degrees. His point was that having educational infrastructure was meaningless if people dont use it to graduate. Michael Curri shared his experience with fiber optic installations in the USA. While fiber has become popular in affluent suburbs for increasing multi -media streaming, it is also a key driver of economic success in small- and medium-sized businesses. These businesses, however, have been slow to adopt and utilize fiber. Curri said that he was brought in to help the North Georgia Network, which was just six months away from completing a $43M fiber installation. But the network only had an 18% "take rate" Business were not interested in the new service. Cum surveyed them, and found that they did not understand the benefit of the new service. Many, in fact, viewed it as an expensive service with no clear and immediate return on investment. Counter to many people's intuition, the challenge wasrit in getting the technology (fiber) to the companies. The real challenge was convincing companies to utilize the service. 'Availability does not equal adoption and does not equal utilization' concluded Curri. Innovation is defined in many ways, but one simple definition is "generation of new value." "new"and two key criteria are "newand "value" As part of the innovation course we teach at Harvard, we dedicate a lecture to the topic of invention versus innovation. We ask the students, approximately 60% of whom are from the sciences and engineering, to consider how invention without innovation provides little economic and societal value. Invention has become so intertwined with innovation that many couple the two as if they were one in the same. The key to innovation, however, is the generation of new value - not new technology. Making technology and other services available does not lead to or ensure innovation. They may be requisite parts of the equation, but innovation requires delivered value. These two examples show how some projects can provide the "something new,' but still fall short of capturing value. To truly be innovative, cities and all stakeholders need to focus on the end game of realizing value. Technology, infrastructure, and services that are underutilized only serve to drain our wallets, not enhance our cities. Photo by: William Murphy https://www. ickr.com/photos/infomatique/8� 0729406 E42 Michael Curri Founder and President Strategic Networks Group, Inc. Problems of Startups as Economic Development Policy Presented by: Dan Isenberg, Entrepreneurship Policy Advisors Despite what you may read or hear, there is little persuasive evidence that increasing numbers of start-ups is the critical path to prosperity. Startups are not the be-all and end-all of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is one thing; startups are something else - one small slice of that. Recently a startup initiative, Start -Up New York, promised 2,000 jobs - but only delivered 76 jobs at a cost of $28 million dollars. In order to illustrate the issue, the OECD came out with some statistics that showed Belgium had the lowest ratio of startups. Based on that, you might expect that Belgium is in crisis. But if you look at the data you'll find that Belgium is number one in firms that are growing - and if you look at post -entry several years from now, the growth rate is even higher. In the United States, the states that have a higher number of start-ups have fewer growth companies. Montana and Wyoming, for example, had the greatest number of growth companies, whereas New York, California, and Massachusetts had the highest number of start-ups - but the least number of growth companies. Although there is a negative correlation between the ntunber of growth companies and the number of start-ups, there is no correlation between the amount of venture capital invested and the number of startups. "I think entrepreneurship is extraordinary growth" Daniel Isenberg A Gallup Poll further showed that when unemployment is high people start frEntrepreneurship Policy Advisors new businesses, and when employment is low, there are fewer start-ups. A study by the OECD showed that companies that were at least 16 years old had the greatest growth rates in the United States. The greater the survival rate of a company, in other words, the greater the growth. If more and more firms grow more - and more rapidly - in a specific region, the economy will grow. There are some serious problems with the notion that start-ups create jobs. Those that have venture capital usually generate meager results. Only about 5% of startups create net jobs. This maybe due to the fact that oftentimes, because they are not tested, startup jobs are low quality. There is a significant body of empirical research that shows that 15-25 year-old companies are the ones that create jobs. Yet there is still this idea that we need more startups to reduce unemployment and improve economic development. 72 The 5 "P" Practical Principles of Entrepreneurship Place Infectious entrepreneurship is geographical in some cases. There was a Boston innovation district that started with no budget and no full time people allocated to it, but it has been very successful. Meanwhile Lawrence Massachusetts, only 29 miles away, has had very little growth, very high unemployment, and problems with social cohesion. If you look at Woods Hole Massachusetts, they have only 1000 full time residents and has been the host to 56 Nobel Prize winners. But since 1888, there has only been one new company. High Potential Focus on existing ventures with revenues - rather than startups, micro -enterprises, small businesses, or large companies. In the Milwaukee area, for instance, there about 19,000 companies that have a revenue of between $1 million and $10 million dollars. Dan Isenberg argues that 10% to 20% could achieve growth trajectories with a minimal amount of support and mentoring. People In most work environments that have 10-20 leaders, if they decide to do something together, they can accomplish it in a short amount of time. If you want growth you need to convene the 15-20 most effective local leaders from different sectors of an entrepreneurial ecosystem (policy, markets, human capital, support, culture, and finance) for training, alignment, and planning. "Mid-sized companies created 92 Of net new jobs since 2008" American Express and Purpose Dunn &Bradstreet Report Set specific objectives for how many firms need to grow more rapidly. In most places around the world there are usually no more than seven doctors for every 1,000 people. Doctors are important, and we need them, but more is not necessarily better. Similarly, entrepreneurial growth is important, but not everybody needs to be an entrepreneur. Growth is inspiring, not for everybody, but for enough people. Practicality Achieve and broadly communicate "quick wins" The advantage of post -revenue companies is that they already know how things work. They know how to invoice, how to collect, and what it means to go to the bank These companies can show growth in six to 12 months. Growth events occur in short periods of time. 1 http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150414006423/en/N iddle-Market-Companies-Playing-Vital-Role-U.S.#.VhpL8flViko 73 Innovation Insights-, People -centered Infrastructure A panel of entrepreneurs from around the USA were assembled and asked about what mattered most to them and their businesses, in the context of city governance and infrastructure. The answers surprised the participants — what they cared most about was livability. They wanted a city to be a place where they wanted to live in and one that would attract high -talent workers across many industries. The idea of livability and attractiveness surfaced in many other discussions. Taken alone it seems obvious, however, taken in the context of what is the most important service of a city — creating a livable and attractive space — that runs counter to the traditional notion of a city providing electricity, water, sewer, police, etc. The core of the discussion might be summarizes as: "people -centered infrastructure design." An example of such design was mentioned by several participants: The Hunt Library on the Centennial Campus of North Carolina State University. What was most surprising is that the example was not from Boston or the cities where any of the participants lived. That demonstrated a national attractiveness for this particular library. The Hunt Library was completed in 2013 and received rave national reviews from top news outlets, such as Time Magazine and the Wall Street Journal. The building also received dozens of architectural awards, including the Stanford Prize for Innovation in Research Libraries'. The reason? It goes against everything we have thought a library was supposed to be. Entering on the main floor, one is awed by a 4 -story open atrium that continues for the entire length of the building, surrounded by floor -to -ceiling windows. The area offers comfortable seating that would be the envy of any coffee house, and includes a small technology showcase where students can check out non-traditional items such as HD cameras, iPads, laptops, audio recorders, and more. Fifty percent of the 4 -story library is an open plan, created for the use and enjoyment of students. It is a magnet for students and faculty, due to its beauty, comfort, and proximity to technology and resources. The other 50 percent, which represent the floors adjacent to the 4 -story atrium, are not full of books — but rather there is room after room of meeting space, computer spaces, and multimedia rooms. Technology access includes multiple professional recording studios, a full green -screen video production room, and likely the most used amenity — a Game Lab that features a 20 -foot screen for students to play and create video games. The Hunt library combines the draw of beauty and comfort with technology that most students and faculty would never have access to otherwise. It is truly a magnet for people and epitomizes the idea of people -centered design. So where are the books? They are in the basement — where a multi -story robot handles all of the shelving and checkout. Just click on the desired book online, and within five minutes the robot delivers it to the circulation desk. 1 https://wwwlib.ncsu.edu/documcnts/publications/awards/Libraries%20Awards%20Sheet.2015.2.pdf Photo Credit: Seannator (Own work) [CC -BY -SA -3.0 (http://creativeconimons.orgtlicenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons" 74 Perspective: Governance Model for Innovation in Cities Prof. Brian Donnellan participated in a panel on infrastructure development for cities and introduced the idea of Governance as an important concept in the development of infrastructure plans, in particular with technology and innovation. He leverages an existing framework developed for the IT industry on ensuring that initiatives meet all stakeholders needs and provide the greater impact that is desired for society. Generally IT Governance has 5 dimensions associated with it: 1. Strategic alignment 2. Value delivery it 1 3. Risk management Brian Donnellan 4. Resource management Co -Director 5. Performance measurement Innovation Value Institute Although the IT Governance principles were developed for a different context, Briars contention is that some impediments to progress in Smart Cities can be traced to an immaturity in these five areas. Specific examples include • Strategic alignment: poor levels of citizen engagement and uneven involvement and buy -in from key urban stakeholders • Value delivery: lack of sustainable business models once pilot studies and prototyping has been completed. Also, what constitutes "public value" is not always well understood. • Risk management: the results of failure of Smart City projects can be devastating at a societal level. More sophisticated and comprehensive risk analyses are needed. • Resource management: mature co -creation / co -innovation models between cities and IT vendors that include robust public procurement policies and exploitation plans are scarce. • Performance measurement: there is a need for integrated performance and impact assessment systems that combine social, physical and environmental metrics. As smart city program management becomes more mature, there is a realization that a series of unconnected technology testbeds does not integrate to a Smart City. Governance issues such as those outlined above may provide a useful starting point for important discussions on how to arrive at a more holistic view that combines social, physical and environmental perspectives. 75 r NkctR'Ck Ott "*- Jai Menon on how big data really is: "Every conversation from the beginning of time in every region of the world in every era, add it all up and it's 5 Exabyte's ... A self -driving car generates a gigabyte per second of data. There's 13,000 taxi cabs in New York City — That's 26 Exabyte's a year. This is five times as much data in one year for one application in one city." Jai Menon Vice President, Chief Research Officer and Head of Dell Research Action Plan In the final Sunday session, participants worked in small groups to find actions for themselves and others who are seeking to create a future -ready economy. A summary of the core areas for focus is presented below: Business Model Development A critical area of innovation is not just in city services and programs, but also in the business models that make such innovations possible. Focus needs to be placed on how an innovation can be adopted and scaled by a city, not just on the innovation itself. Governance This Summit brought together six Chief Innovation Officers from cities in the USA and New Zealand. The concept of the CIO is a relatively new one, but represents a general realization that there needs to be a dedicated focus on innovation. It does not come as a byproduct of other programs, but instead must be a deliberate and intentional part of city strategy. Innovation Plan While all participants were interested in innovation, it was clear that many cities have not developed a dedicated innovation plan. Such plans may include a mission statement, a roadmap that extends 5,10, and 20 years into the future, as well as a strategy for creating and enabling innovation within a city. In addition, innovation itself is not well -understood. An educational process for city innovators is needed, to help grow a common language, set of skil Is, and framework Urban Competitiveness/Differentiation One of the key outcomes from the Summit was the paramount need for cities to be global attractors of talent. Virtual business has made physical location less important, and looking into the future the focus is on talent, rather than brick -and -mortar. Some participants viewed this as competitiveness, while others saw it as differentiation. The whole community, however, agreed that establishing a plan for talent attractiveness is vital for an innovation economy. Infrastructure As mentioned multiple times at the Summit, the key metric is the utilization of technology and services. This is a paradigm shift for many technology -focused initiatives that rely on new technology to create new value, while ignoring the evidence that value is not always a result of new technology. In addition, data was highlighted as one untapped resource that is low-cost to access and may provide extensive value to cities and their innovation process. Co -creation In multiple discussions, the establishment of private/public partnerships was raised as a means to enable experimentation. It was also offered as a means to develop projects that meet both commercial, as well as social, goals. Social Cohesion Social cohesion was a concept raised early in the Summit by Ted Smith. It epitomizes the concept that the future relies on integrating the social network of city inhabitants, and that the ability for interaction, communication, and (most importantly) sharing, is a key component of attraction and livability. 77 Data and Analytics: Measuring Metros Jim Diffley and Karen Campbell from IHS presented on data and analytics for measuring the current and future state of metro areas. The data presented here is a sampling of the measurement and analytics that can be used to asses the current and future state of cities and metro areas. Metros drive the Economic Growth of States and the US 90% of jobs added in 2014 were in metro regions Good -Paying Jobs IM 42% Quality Of Life A Staying Connected What changes to your economy will bring new opportunities? (c) 2015 IHS. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission. 78 Measuring Future Readiness Throughout the summit there was an underlying discussion on how do we measure progress towards future readiness? While not conclusive, the following was distilled from the summit discussions and the working sessions. It presents a starting point for examining important attributes and quantitative metrics for measuring the readiness and success of innovation programs that enable economies for the future. 1. Existence of an innovation program or CIO 2. Number of public-private joint projects 3. Explicit prototype or experimental process 4. Risk -tolerance/mitigation plan 5. Measurement process 6. Mission and vision in place for future development (5+ years) Commerce c 1. Urban competitiveness SWOT assessment 2. Urban competitiveness strategy in place 3. Inclusion of growth businesses strategy in addition to startups (scaling up) 4. Private -public partnerships (shared savings) 5. Education -private partnerships 6. Economic growth 7. Financial instruments (resources for city) 1. Adoption and utilization of services 2. Open data plan 3. Data analytics initiatives 4. Attractiveness a) Ease of mobility b) Affordable housing c) Innovation spaces d) Interactive community (connection spaces) e) Resiliency (security, disaster recovery, faults..) f) ICT (speed, network nodes) 1. Livability 2. Attractiveness to people a) High -standard of living b) Low crime c) Health -rating d) Informal learning outlets e) Education outlets - access and adoption fl Cultural outlets g) Philanthropy/mentoring 3. Affordability 4. Upward mobility 5. Labor force participation 0 2015 HIS. Used with permission. 79 Outlook At the conclusion of the Summit a few things were clear. Innovation is becoming a key focus for cities as they grow and compete on a global scale and the focal point of innovation, while not universal in title, is becoming a recognized role of city government. What was also apparent at the Summit, was that the diverse group of stakeholders present, do not normally think about the role of the city in enabling an innovation economy. One of the most important realizations - and the simplest - was that the city is integral to enabling innovation. What role and how to enable innovation was not clear, but Lousville, Boston, Riverside and Wellington showed progress in developing a process and role for innovations as a core part of their city governments. In addition, the Summit brought out the need for innovation in areas not traditionally focused on, such as in business model development on scaling of programs and on shifting the focus from physical infrastructure to virtual infrastructure. We hope these insights will seed future discussion on how to create and grow innovation within ciites. Opportunities One of the biggest challenges in all of the projects shared in the Summit, was the difficulty of capital cost of technology, adoption by users and scaling of solutions. Also mentioned throughout the Summit was the new use of data as a source of innovation. Cities compile data on thousands of aspects of the city and its citizens and is naturally progressing to digital management systems to help organize and archive data. This natural progression of the city - to collect, store and organize data digitally, is perhaps the best near-term opportunity for innovation. The capital cost has already been made for existing data collection and many application of existing data, particular digital solutions have been shown to be easily adopted and scale. Perhaps one of the easiest entry point for innovation is the use of existing data and its analysis to improve and create new city services and revenue. Our cities were not build in a week, neither will an innovation platform, but we hope this and future Summits can help be a catalyst for all stakeholders in understanding and enabling innovation. :1 About the Strategic Innovation Summits The Strategic Innovation Summit series was convened to enable multi-disciplinary discussions of senior leaders on relevant topics of the year. Unlike conventional discipline specific conferences, where topical content is narrow and participants are generally from the same discipline, the Summits bring together people from many sectors. These include government, business, education, non-profit, and the arts and sciences. The goal is to create and stimulate conversation that would normally not take place elsewhere, between senior leaders on important topics related to innovation and society. The Summits provide three important benefits to participants: 1. Education — As experts in their fields, participants learn from one another through interactive sessions and dedicated talks. These aim to educate, raise important questions, and present the latest data on trends and the current state of the Summit topic. 2. Multi-disciplinary Engagement -The Summits are sized such that even during the main session, a conversation can occur amongst all participants. Questions and answers are not only between the speakers, but also the participants. Facilitators and moderators from HBS, TECH, and other centers are brought in to ensure engagement and to be a catalyst for the conversation. 3. Action — The ultimate goal of the Summits is impact. For this to happen, action is a critical component. The summits dedicate approximately 25% of the time to action sessions with the participants. That format drives the discussion and ideas presented into an action set for both the participants and the broader community. Summit attendance is by application only, and senior leaders from any discipline that is relevant to the topic are encouraged to apply. Summits are generally convened on the campus of Harvard University, however off-campus Summits do occur when the topic and location enhance the opportunity for conversation and engagement of the participants. - Summit topics are proposed by participants, senior leaders in industry and government, and the Fellows in TECH. Topics are chosen based upon relevance and potential for impact in a broad sense, to include: economic, societal, and environmental benefits. For more information about the Strategic Innovation Summit series, please contact the Program Chair, Prof. David S. Ricketts (summit@theinnovatorsforum.org). Acknowledgments and Credits We would also like to thank the speakers, panelists, and participants in the 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit. Their participation created the foundation for a robust and successful learning environment David Ager, Harvard Business School Beth Anderson, City of Burlington Peter Baer, Palisades Media Ventures Scott Blumenreich, City of Centennial Colorado Ron Bogle, American Architectural Foundation, and Mayors' Institute on City Design Paul Bottino, Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard Philippa Bowron, Wellington City Council Darren Cambridge, American Institutes for Research Karen, Campbell, IHS, Inc. Ron Carroll, Y&R New York Margaret Chen, The New York Times Ryan Coonerty, Santa Cruz County Richard Culatta, United States Department of Education Michael Curri, Strategic Networks Group, Inc. Lea Deesing, City of Riverside James Diff ley, IHS Economics Brian Donnellan, Innovation Value Institute Kathy Doyle, FireFlower Alternative Energy Emily Dunlop, PPR Worldwide Amir Eldad, MassChallenge, Inc. Carla Ferrer Llorca, Harvard Graduate School of Design Matthew Fordahl, The New York Times Erin Gettis, City of Riverside Bruce Gottlieb Sherri Greenberg, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Univeristy of Texas at Austin Griffin Greenberg, Palisades Media Ventures Sara Hand, Spark Growth Fred Hawrysh, PPR Worldwide Tamara Hernandez, Dell Lauren Hirshon, Leadership for a Networked World Kyle Hollifield, Magellan Advisors Daniel Isenberg, Entrepreneurship Policy Advisors Nigel Jacob, Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics Craig Jelniker, Sponsor Keith Krueger, CoSN - Consortium for School Networking Dave Krupinski, Care.com Jacqueline Lin, Harvard University Glynn Lloyd, Boston Impact Initiative Ken Lukas, Leadership for a Networked World Cooper Martin, National League of Cities Elizabeth Matthews, Dell Jai Menon, Dell Dorothy Najda Christina Nguyen, Harvard University Vinit Nijhawan, Boston University Brendan O'Neil, IHS Inc. Antonio Oftelie, Leadership for a Networked World Phillip Page, Cambridge College Amy Ramsay, 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit Catherine Renault, Innovation Policyworks, LLC James Richmond, ELM Energy, LLC David Ricketts, Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard Gillian Sealy, Clinton Foundation Victor Seidel, Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard Shawna Slack, Genesis Advisers Ted Smith, City of Louisville Ria Spencer, VML Scott Stedman, Northside Media Group Jim Stikeleather, Dell Anthony Tivnan, Magellan Jets Devin Vodicka, Vista Unified School District Brian Whitney, Maine Technology Institute Glenn Wintrich, Dell Ruthbea Yesner Clarke, IDC Additionally, credit and thanks are due to Tom Kerr and John Peragine for creative direction and writing, Amy Ramsay for program management, Christopher DeAngelus for web and technical design, Griffin Greenberg for photography, and Todd Gillenwaters for graphic design. The 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit at Harvard AL 84 Hyl,. � _ J DARREN U: Notes Notes LIM Technology and Entrepreneurship Hosted By: 'U212 Center at Harvard The Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard (TECH) hosts the 2015 Strategic Innovation Summit. TECH, part of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, is both a real and virtual space for students, faculty, alumni, and industry leaders to learn together, collaborate, and innovate. TECH enables this holistic exploration by sponsoring and supporting opportunities for the innovation community to gather and exchange knowledge via courses, study groups, mentorship relationships, innovation programs and special events. Find more information at www.tech.seas.harvard.edu Sponsored by: Dell Technology can help you realize your true potential. But only if that technology works harder to provide practical solutions to real-world problems. That's how we define success at Dell. We create efficient, easy-to-use solutions that reduce complexity and let you focus on doing and achieving more of what's important to you and your company. Together, we can create sustaining success, turn challenges into opportunities, change lives for the better. Learn more at wuw.Dell.com. Contact Information www.theinnov�,torsforum.org summit@theinnovatorsforum.o COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2015-235 Report Date November 17, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Growth and Community Development Services His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Demolition of vacant, dilapidated and dangerous buildings at 291 Tower Street (PID#00364521) OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. HeadCity Manager Katelyn Davis Amy Poffenroth Jeff Trail Your City Manager recommends that Common Council direct one or more of the Officers appointed and designated by Council for the enforcement of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law, to arrange for the demolition of the buildings at 291 Tower Street (PID#00364521), in accordance with the applicable City purchasing policies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to advise Council that a Notice to Comply was issued under Section 190 of the Municipalities Act for the buildings at 291 Tower Street, the hazardous conditions outlined in the Notice have not been remedied by the owner within the required time frame and staff is looking for authorization from Council to arrange the demolition of the building. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Enforcement of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law aligns with Council's Community of Choice priority and helps to create a livable community. REPORT The property at 291 Tower Street has two buildings on the premise; a three-storey, wood -framed house with an attached two-storey addition, and a detached single -storey, wood -framed shed which pose a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of unsoundness of structural strength, dilapidation, and being vacant or unoccupied. Ira Staff first became aware of the property's vacancy and began standard enforcement procedures in January of 2015. The building is accessible through two points of entry; the front door, and the south east door which leads to the basement. An interior inspection of the house was conducted on July 16th, 2015 which noted several signs of vandalism including graffiti on walls and ceilings, holes in walls, missing electrical wiring and missing plumbing The interior inspection also revealed that there is an excessive amount of garbage and debris scattered throughout the house. The majority of the floors, as well as the stairs leading to the upper levels, are covered with debris. These items are randomly scattered and would restrict movement of emergency personnel should they need to gain entry to the building. Additionally, many of the items are combustible materials and could be used to initiate a fire. There is a higher risk of a fire event occurring at the property because the building is known to the public to be vacant and it has been left open. The house is in a dilapidated condition. Its exterior cladding consists of layers of cedar shingles, wood clapboards and particleboard clapboards which are deteriorated, broken and peeling. The window frames and door frames on all sides of the building are peeling, weathered, and some sections are rotten. Additionally, there are multiple broken windows. Further evidence of the house's dilapidation is demonstrated by the significant water damage which has occurred inside. The interior inspection revealed that large sections of the ceiling in several rooms have fallen or are hanging as a result of water damage. Numerous large plastic containers were being used to catch water from the leaking roof and are now full with the excess water spilling onto the floor. Significant mould growth was found to be present on numerous walls and ceilings. The house's attached front landing and stairs, attached rear deck, and set of attached stairs and landings at its east side are all structurally unsound. These sets of stairs and landings are all deteriorated, rotten, unlevelled, and are missing handrails and guards. These conditions are a danger to anyone attempting to gain entry to the building. For the reasons described above, a Notice to Comply was issued on September 1s', 2015 and was posted to the front entrance of the house on September 3`d, 2015. The Certificate of Ownership for the building lists two individuals as the registered owners and staff have been advised that one of the owners is deceased. The owner was served with the Notice on September 9th, 2015. The Notice provided the owner with 60 days to remedy the conditions at the property and no action was taken to comply with the requirements of the Notice. During this time no appeal was formally requested. A compliance inspection was conducted on November 9th, 2015 which revealed that the conditions which gave rise to the Notice have not been resolved. Attached for Council's reference is the Notice to Comply that was issued and the affidavits attesting to the service of the Notice on the owner as well as an affidavit attesting to the house's posting. Also included are photographs of the buildings. The Municipalities Act indicates that where a Notice to Comply has been issued arising from a condition where a building has become a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of dilapidation, unsoundness of structural strength, or being vacant or unoccupied, the municipality may cause the building to be demolished. As required in the Act a report from an engineer is attached, forming part of the issued Notice to •N am Comply, and provides the evidence to the building's vacancy, dilapidation, unsoundness of structural strength and resulting hazard to the safety of the public. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES As is written in the Municipalities Act that a municipality must commence in the proceedings of remedial action, approval of Common Council is required prior to starting demolition activities at this property. Cost of the demolition work is approximated at $10,000 to $15,000 and will take about 4-6 weeks before it is complete. Staff will seek competitive bidding in accordance with the City's purchasing policy and the cost of the work will be billed to the property owners. If the bill is left unpaid, it will be submitted to the Province with a request for reimbursement. This property will not be subject to topsoil and grass seed as the demolition will take place outside of the optimal growing season. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The City Solicitor's Office conducted a title search of the property for ownership verification and reviewed the Notice to Comply. Additionally, the City Solicitor's Office registered the Notice with Service New Brunswick's Land Registry. ATTACHMENTS Affidavit of Posting Affidavit of Service Notice to Comply and Inspection Report Photos 91 CANADA PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN IN THE MATTER OF THE BUILDING THAT IS LOCATED AT 291 Tower Street, SAINT JOHN, N.B. (PID number 364521) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Dennis Richard, of Saint John, N.B., Make Oath And Say As Follows: 1. I am employed by The City of Saint John in its Buildings and Inspection Services Department. I have personal knowledge of the matters herein deposed except where otherwise stated. 2. On September 3, 2015, at approximately 1 0';, 2Q & l posted a copy of the Notice to Comply, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and a blank copy of the Notice of Appeal, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", to the front door of a building that is located at 291 Tower Street, Saint John, N.B. Sworn To before me at the City of Saint John, N.B., on the'--� day of September, 2015 Dennis Richard CHRISTOPHER D MCKIEL COMMISSIONER OF OATHS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DECEMBER 31ST, 2019 92 CANADA PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN CITY OF SAINT JOHN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE a— I,CCL �' ��of the Community of Nerepis in the County of Kings and Province of New Brunswick MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1f 1. On the day of a Ndtice to Comply, attached 2015,1 served , with the following documents: Lhibit "A"; a Notice of Appeal, attached hereto as Exhibit `B"; New Brunswick. 2. I was able to identify the person served by means of the fact that he / acknowledged to me he f Sworn To before me at the City of Saint John, N.B., on the /0 day of a a� 2015 VaIIdea /mar �MAFA� 93 x , & Zaa UO OU OU O NayN --ll v n m 4J .y= d *- Um vO —O a) ; rn lloa p 0 Rm S~ O cd X —'0 0) ° U ci ~ mc� =° U3 d U p N N 41 Q3y ^' Q ." •v "Cj 'd .'�" y ��-[ . ¢' c'� �. Q„ ' .U. '� .U. O ,� Q1 1fS r°� O O • � 0 N 1-. U y <cd (D CA M ° ti' m ri Con au), 'd ^� O v b ��y 1O� �S° td y `�.T� ^ 'y 0 y �0 .,S"" -i V� U i"• a U rrnCd Gn + �,.• S� U r/� dJ ~ `V�] r° O v U Cd '"d .� TJ �L]. �" ti �' V Z cd X47, U _ ctl • O ^ !w" O ° fes. A ty '+, +� O e . G, U a•. � ^� U� +, +3 U 'L5 `U a U 17 j Q d U O Q f -q v) 'd r-- I+I © C f. �. O DC •• �' N '+; cd U �1 • ti 1. ¢ U 8 d •� +U, p cd c� cd c d O cerci m 0 S U O W r..l 3\ U] V] C/] M y O d •K U O D U ° CIO.N n m t r- ~CIO w O r r -.O\ m O �„cn En U :� U N W U O •.� D ,� d ,? N y ,p Q OJ 0� 1•. V] 'y ©�► ca "a eC m r; v d +, Cd n� 'd a U a b �. Sa. s� U i C� �, �r 3 ?✓ ... "C3 "CS + v 'Q F. + cd v O Ww L'J a+ o o ° F, ° °' •b a� a ° ° `� y `I) . "D '-o w " '� `� � °o y d W �Ny u f� �" �. o �' °' ``• �. as �, o U N >~ a) N N fl p y -Cl 'G N !7° R. N O m U N p m 0. ca sd �C y sy Q Q. U "v p. +� v v A as y m (D a� D W Z o ° ° Q �, rd °' " ay m �cs U F�� ° 43 "O cn N a) — N W U N FL_r". cU O f� .N 4i a s 1 b "d .yam s, 6 "d � p Ci cd m O >C cd Pt � .a' a) acd C3 —L4 V ° b b = ; o c. w a as y _� 4° o ° o U cp pm O .y ,'" ,� .� U •-U. U '42m O +� `U .U. '� U N O m .y rc O d 14 O 'a Z erd @=Uo mUi" cd ,v 2 a� tm oU I� -� "C U t-+ :••� Q r•� "G i-. CH Z Z��Uo�voW� �o �v 00 A 4.1ti o rn El m v�5 o Chi a3i n ti � '� � � '� � -d � � •� •,� � ~ � °w' o 'd O � `� �' '� � � '� � � � U z CA co Ow �--E U ' r' i rn �i �ij ' Q �' •'•' U j Cd p b Ohio y o�4. H $-4' cd cu co°fba u4°O d U d �m U U v . c 7 . m r! bA � D 1-. p b Q W ° � , O -°O ay �a cu O [� •�, � c.. � o .� o o ,� � ° � '.N � � � •�.. sa o` �"' +Co�i a cr ❑G zoj �d' 4oa�. o o U . cd O oap -' ;. N ^' N cd >, 0 +" CO, Qco 4.D J 11 om a •.�Q °ci. ct3N '�' aS eQj 610,� D •� r+U•� S„•,` ° �"•, , v �' vs h U — cd cd O b W rn O U F.' O N y �- w i..r u f� v v •�" `. C, m U > rn m O O �: a .7, + 0 %d ci m ci m .. .� v, 7:' at ed b 'C y'L C7\ >� a) ° ,, O U U ✓ y, ``" a) 4} N �• O �. w as R3 A� w Ac�� °v�v�A��O •r: [/� r/1 rn V 63 O V N 6) 'lpi N t3 b 'd :d �--+ +V,.;' •�" `C� '""i "'O ppp• '•rj W v' C`�C 4� "" 'Q� ei''n N -d 8. .' 'R $� ` ` 4a �°t2 r V v rn z3 O .. •. O a)cA O V O O Cr at ..� O -d 8) y 4 0�. U I- p Fr v1 U rn V �*" €. [7 Q �" a „O y o - O O O O U V =� O O ._ V a ,--� ° V 9„i ,b Cd .r Vi tW �il Q` i "• .� "' .� Ol O '� •d G) r-� O sN. a •O +G. O Gi �'" cn w O C3. t3 C cd cn VyR N �•+� oa��Rd)!' GN'n " V0 V0 0 O •-iO�V-..'�' "`r��;" .'Or",�mom\�i�, w6aipC's" ,"�p�y";y .�� ^`.gip-d`'+VoV'� _,yb��.', c+0y�d--'� .+C.N3. W� y,V P. y °5tlJ 0'° O`« "cp 7 0.adyr O Ca 14Z4 -4 cd 44 ° aUV) 0 Mya0 o Ej o 2o- • V � 0 O � ^U�r0n co CU rn y -dam' k 'di .d Ln rr� p a v i�. QP.+,� d" rV f3a �5 Q ca f~ V Qr " m ^� c 3 0 a0i va a) av . °� [t.r. -VVG7 NV O ^d j OOImoOO. +V O 6S ' `ai `GO3 O HV „ F. Oa� }}..�� O -ad� •Ycd fl C3 V ai 6 pp a1 cd " e U p rdn m) id cd pO -Vd O O V , cd iCNPU . 7+di cd cd " .4-; V C14 71 Cd Q V S". co i•; "�' *= 2•cn J•. U O d ,O U7 V "-' cd rn V ^ a,N� t+SVV-'r cd .yGeCa •v-rn' •O+--' "va vOa OJ '�"Qcu'."+m� zOV� s�S + V i. •+. VV .V V i U—b:u�UQ� p.�."• y0 OV -OFi �. ••UC,.) �"OH";N 0 C 0�3 -4 cz 'c;d '0 N dU V �-d iL b.�. cd 0O o H✓ N zi Ell oo '" o © v o a' 1. � O ° ° a � U 'y M7 .cd C3 O U v -0 rq A A Q ~d �+ [ �. ti 04 = 3�. cd I~ U -•Gj v� 4) V 4) s" L' 4 p 10 V� V �� 4; cc �D V 1 ,-. p r� +' V id U a. O O V V745 cd Cd 0 cd ON to 0 °o. 's7 ,� p h ' W V P. N '`. �' ° ° pr C-) ,..� G4 ', r•� N O N rn U O O 4) U fes, 'O -[b qj-�' 0 '� V r-� .s� C) U 4) ,� '++•�+••e, • ^� ed U �, oO W �Tq� oO �U aa acd Mai ��°a , •� `n' aNN-Ur+ •�'OyO " 14 a� av �W ° � j 0wOo Pa p0 'd� 8 U ofO 0 - it V '�° G�� '5O a O I O O^4)U O O o cCN --d o NO O u VV o v a L'q w O +� V rd SJ O . O V yV •• rn d]" V do . O O r.+ . s ' E"p O p a4 o cv , V , o .?4 on4L4o ,-° '.- a, 3 > .. �. Cf)�, w a :, ° ©' °� ¢" i ° o d a vLl � `~� �� ' •offerxi° V o Zai lz r O O O oyN+ Z � 0 rA cd )0`', v °Q ° Z' 0 o p, o ri a.°j-d -G 2 cz (U U 'Z o F!ani 6 .O pM 4-1 � O t� • � ai � � � � v V o V v - V � v � # V � � � b O V ^O aO o ` .�4-4 0 t 0A c o a° 00W Z a o w L*oQ 95 El A i u 0 b v � � � ai o • � m`i � p •� U � O oQ 4. U N � U lu UW � pp O x c�n :r iw � Q'—' vi W � F3 � ~ V44 Q o 1 ^C ��• � U � � � � � ' p mat U O N C V o p N�UrnW 0 7� ao � a•CC � O o • � m`i N r O U � O oQ 4. U N � U lu UW � pp O x c�n Q'—' iR � � t• U � V44 Q o 1 0 7� 0IM +�° o a•CC ami o • � m`i N r + cl, U U � O � U lu � pp c� a) cC 'Q 'C M (D ani a� N 6 � ;.., •- ° ami o Cc) ° a� 13 Cd "d - 04 QId ;Z2 Cd Cd ct ° al to ct o 5 cd P, d .° m -d° ami o ° o 4! o on 2 ;-4 "o V P, O renj O �' 0 c� cid 55 d �• ° ° v -o P, - o . �� v abi o aha ce a.. a o v as . Q" rd ° p c� -d P -r 0 •� a�o sem, o +V) 049�' 4� OU �� U 'd SY O P �; s, x rte, 'S cd 0 cd V ^ N m a 97 74 A °41bA bn O o �, ro V ai E y va o 4; sUCd, ,O 0 C+'A+ ° R, ~ a� U ~ ani U ° 04 °'O U id O O u 2 0 0 0 2 -0 -Is-d W� O�� O O D U A rnO O O V O "� O y cd O° �dy .-- 4 v O O U 4 Obi cd 0 .n cid E—� r �+ 4j p ' y gi, A •d qp �" b v =n U U fl U U p U V O sV". �° N O d 0 0 N p � O U p U r/a N A 4j A b� A OCd cd u ++ i'r C3 O t� O 4J o V ,S', v� • �r rh W r 'C O bfy "- ^ y "� O +- A e "4O3 '�'y? ,+ cU�l' .a> tz cn (U U il U A •' c� 1�4 S" *Zj" td N a� 0.3 N di" U fw" Vl N dco N "d v rd ty " O OO �A o O -ti to.2 AU UO iil OArn O 'CU cd N U d A U ,�� p O U Za =# r d U GU , �• U cd A tC .�� ," 4 4 r b�A 'C N S� N d j Q U �U 19 �p _ y U O v Q; .L p N 0O x 4: + O �A LO O U © ¢ c� y O O bn �' —r U y �✓ N r+ 41 N W vi O U" cUd '� O A •c's+--�.�.,,.°,QfVJ1 ' siUU- +O .'-CG �U-„+ 'dFv US-", ri�ycAbA A cQd,J bcAd ~ gb-n Op �'-"'„+''_AcA6 Cy: UCd A., p 4- 0 C3 ttl O O + LP 4Ovda3' J d yOA NAN °�/�AO GO ;z 0 �vU+O U.e 0A ai 4; 'd 'O ` �4� Cd 0w +O- 2N O 4-� U U • a o U ° ° U ai U b 0 A v ,� a ono a •� ° 0 o p b pp fir”. 4- i/� r�i� fi, U b U , H O A t✓ r/a t- m a) '��" F^ U U o cU rrn U U Q1 0 rd ro °o ro rd rn U U 4rA �' U 4.La C >1 o O I=L, 0 ' ro t -.4o ° Z C al Cd U cd 'd U N O cd A sU.+ - cd ed O U 4U-+ ed .UCd (4;;, al 9 ~ � 0 �" A O U U VO 'C p" cdA O U Coo Top cd A ro A A N 4:4- t V AOp O U E- m °U U ro.s-5 U ;11 Q w cd rn v O � O Cd FF"T) Cl p U '� 0 W cu "O to O i O N fJ Q 43 Tl m U v tn o 0 O O }� x yto u 0 v O " cd} ed O N 0 N p 4-i "O 00 0 Cd 0 - '� • tJ o U C�; cd cd O rn �°" O R cd O $fbL)Jj U O0+ '� U con ol U" v O O U v] 4 p O O 6D w bU N U =tn Cd 4- Xl e O v v o v e� 5 v ~ 1'" •O Cd to 0 4� � � ►moi U U � � � � O +'� � vUa O U Q GJ v N U rU+ O cd y U O v 'c3 ti H S:. + w +' Cd r H C-1 0 40. rA N;-4 "O C11 b 01 O O +lc� CdU Q p'' O C9 0 0 Cd ;U ren Q> O O U cd C4 a) O p U y •� '� p +- n U 47 70 4-4 Q # -d 4- V � U � � '-, � �' cd ren � W � �', iU•i O a3 rU _y c�a "Cl1-4 ' Cl j 41cd p ID U ~✓ " " Ld U CJ tr"cd V, ' to to cd O ed n O 9 4-1 o cc cd v b e++d w a-. V + �o o y v LO H cd to p 0 to 4n Cd ° ,. U +- `4 U t7 Q4-1 Gel =: K, 7P ti 0 Itt N O 421 C 4 O O 4-4 QJ O N WU40' G cu U C1 fl '.1 U Uj [d ca c C) �; H C U •� +- U•-��+ cd p o .� cz p ' rl bPk -Zj � a� a '° ° a �, o � 4 ami +s v -43 lad tp to � Cd i , � n' '� � ��. •� � � � +y� bi � 4.4 CIO 4) v gj" 0 O v cd v .� '� sa U 24 4-1 v d 3 vcl v 0 41 41 Z404 v o �, ami �� cd `d o �-4 a� U O 'b '' U i �} r 'd Lo 4-+ r O v U � v z U 1- x } rq U rn cd w cd OOO � cd 0 ro C). 6, Qj Q i� AK U v' O a 4- cd w O O P v� «i "� cd v b-0 O i b U rN cd O Q, *� O O v p Cd y v O cid m O n' v 113 r. a "Ct N O F�j p, U N vy' v Ord v '" L � � O p� 0 v i cd 4� O cd U U' . Y; ?, . U cd "C� +v +� .—Ci m U c� r4 .-U, ✓' �^ c' O rj S"- s A U v -- v +, y�. p v y cd ✓, +� b M v C3 v v) .� 0 a� fr' 7 G� m w 0 -41 - rn F+ ' 'ry' cd .--+ 4-,` N C~d 'b+ Vj O 'A to C,3 �ZEn bh a 3� —, 'd �, R, bq v ;� y �✓ b y O v U O G p' v� tll v Q O b O M O cd >, U m DO Ici LOO e O v� 3 2 U O A te✓ ¢ v 'vG 4-i 4 cd cd cd d vs 49 0` ®� O 100 M 4 r - r 101 to 291 Tower Streetjb�nt John, New Brunswick Photo 1 PID# 00364521 291 Tower Street, fbV John, New Brunswick PID# 00364521 Photo 2 291 Tower Streetlb4nt John, New Brunswick Interior of House PID# 00364521 Photo 3 �- ..Y_ /x 291 Tower Street, Saint lb , New Brunswick Interior of House PID# 00364 21 Photo 4 Iyi Q� 46 am off•�� ..-/ifs �}Ir P)w -.. 1107-,1,6 '2015 291 Tower Streetlbint John, New Brunswick Photo 6 Interior of House PID# 00364521 r ` * - Ik o �`wt �,r•_ 1, -� .�-.a. � 4j r 291 Tower Streetjb�nt John, New Brunswick Interior of House PID# 00364521 Photo 8 Interior of Shed 291 Tower Street, Saint 19 , New Brunswick PID# 00364 21 Photo 9 COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2015-236 Report Date November 17, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Growth and Community Development Services His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Demolition of vacant, dilapidated and dangerous building at 85 Germain Street West (PID#00367813) OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Katelyn Davis Amy Poffenroth I Jeff Trail Your City Manager recommends that Common Council direct one or more of the Officers appointed and designated by Council for the enforcement of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law, to arrange for the demolition of the building at 85 Germain Street West (PID#00367813), in accordance with the applicable City purchasing policies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to advise Council that a Notice to Comply was issued under Section 190 of the Municipalities Act for the building at 85 Germain Street West, the hazardous conditions outlined in the Notice have not been remedied by the owners within the required time frame and staff is looking for direction from Council to arrange the demolition of the building. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Enforcement of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law aligns with Council's Community of Choice priority and helps to create a livable community. REPORT The property at 85 Germain Street West has one building on the premise; a two-storey, wood - framed, two -unit apartment building with an attached single -storey rear shed which pose a 111 Ira hazard to the safety of the public by reason of unsoundness of structural strength, dilapidation, and being vacant or unoccupied. Staff first became aware of the property's vacancy and began standard enforcement procedures in March of 2014. The building is accessible through two points of entry; the south west first - storey door and the south west second -storey door. The first -storey door gives unrestricted access to the entire bottom level and the second -storey door gives unrestricted access to the top level. Both points of entry have been unsecure since staff began monitoring the property. An interior inspection of the building was conducted on April 30th, 2015 and found large amounts of debris throughout both units including combustible items such as wood furniture, and scrap wood. These items are randomly scattered and would restrict movement of emergency personnel should they need to gain entry to the building. There is a higher risk of a fire event occurring at the property because the building has been left open and abandoned. The condition of the apartment building is one of neglect and deterioration. Many of the window frames, door frames, and wood shingles on all sides are peeling, weathered, and some sections are rotten. The concrete steps leading to the front door are deteriorated, broken and are lacking guards and handrails. Additionally, there are large rusted metal pieces of rebar protruding from both sides of the concrete stairs and from the foundation at the easterly corner. Any person who enters onto the property may be at risk of being cut or injured. Further evidence of the building's dilapidation and continued degradation is the significant water damage which has occurred inside and is accelerating the degradation of the structure. Extensive mould growth was found to be present on most walls, ceilings, and other surfaces. Additionally, the floors at both levels are soft and deflect under load thus indicating improper structural support. This deflection in the floor system has likely been caused by deterioration as a result of the excessive water infiltration over an extended period of time. For the reasons described above, a Notice to Comply was issued on July 28th, 2015 and was posted to the front entrance of the building the same day. The Certificate of Ownership for the building lists two individuals as the registered owners. The owners were served with the Notice on September 9th, 2015 and September 17th, 2015. The owners did not take any remedial action to comply with the requirements of the Notice and the property is considered to be abandoned. The Notice provided the owners with 60 days to remedy the conditions at the property. During this time no appeal was formally requested. A compliance inspection was conducted on November 9th, 2015 which revealed that the conditions which gave rise to the Notice have worsened since the Notice was issued. The compliance inspection revealed a ground level door to the basement is now open. Attached for Council's reference is the Notice to Comply that was issued and the affidavits attesting to the service of the Notice on the owners as well as an affidavit attesting to the building's posting. Also included are photographs of the building. The Municipalities Act indicates that where a Notice to Comply has been issued arising from a condition where a building has become a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of dilapidation, unsoundness of structural strength, or being vacant or unoccupied, the municipality may cause the building to be demolished. As required in the Act a report from an engineer is attached, forming part of the issued Notice to Comply, and provides the evidence to the building's vacancy, dilapidation, unsoundness of structural strength and resulting hazard to the safety of the public. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES 112 am As is written in the Municipalities Act that a municipality must commence in the proceedings of remedial action, approval of Common Council is required prior to starting demolition activities at this property. Cost of the demolition work is approximated at $10,000 to $15,000 and will take about 4-6 weeks before it is complete. Staff will seek competitive bidding in accordance with the City's purchasing policy and the cost of the work will be billed to the property owners. If the bill is left unpaid, it will be submitted to the Province with a request for reimbursement. This property will not be subject to topsoil and grass seed as the demolition will take place outside of the optimal growing season. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The City Solicitor's Office provided ownership verification by obtaining the Certificate of Registered Ownership for the property. Additionally, the City Solicitor's Office registered the Notice with Service New Brunswick's Land Registry. ATTACHMENTS Affidavit of Posting Affidavit of Service (1) Affidavit of Service (2) Notice to Comply and Inspection Report Photos 113 114 C O s—� U W m 9 0 -- " o CD z ti w z JQ as CC o U o cd N Q. cz U 00 114 CANADA Province of New Brunswick COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN CITY OF SAINT JOHN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I, Paul Barry of the Town of Rothesay, in the County of rings and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT on the 17th day of September 2015 1 served Stanley Keith Atwell with a copy of the documents annexed hereto marked "A" Notice To Com 1 and "B" Notice of Appeal by leaving a copy of the documents with t at his lace of employment 2. 1 attem ted to se *Keith Atwell ersonally on September 9th,14thand 17th at . At each attempt I left my phone number so r. a ca me. ave never received a call from Mr. Atwell. 3. I asked Theresa Atwell of Mr. Atwell's home address and she did not know but she told me that he did work at 4. I have checked Canada 411 for a phone Number but there is no listing for Keith Atwell. 5. I have checked Facebook, but he does not have an account. SWORN TO at the City of Saint John in the County of Saint John In the Province of New Brunswick this 23 rd day of September 2015. BEFORE ME: (IMMI�IgeL� OATHS ,Alicia am Commissioner of Oaths My Commission Expires December 31, 20 115 CANADA PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN CITY OF SAINT JOHN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE o" of the 7o W (`\ j{ C in the County of i (l c S and Province of New Brunswick MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. On the --"— day of , 2015, I served with the following documents: * a Notice to Comply, attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; + a Notice of Appeal, attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; by leaving a copy with h / her at ANN New Brunswick. 2. I was able to identify the person served by means of the fact that he / she acknowledged to me he I she was Sworn To before me at the City of S int 4obn, N.B., on the day of 2015 Alicia R. Seaward ,Commissioner Of oaths IV cammissio xPires December 31, 20 116 I'll � O O }o . �%" �I L. '� - (� O ' u+ i-� O~ �� L+ ^.yy� • i•-1 • H Q% U .vy "�••I .r�k e/� �. 'Q� r•1 ^I v '•d. ° (% id W O " 0 =3 � ..U+ icy � / . •U-1 p cc �` 'ria r^ 'd v v O" y N O Lt cd 0 v v CA kn en 0 C> `R ° Pcp O U rA1" U �1.7- q v w "v vaa 1v O U U «d �d7 N o a Q1 J 4� 0 M O O " 'Cy cd ca U 7O ^�.. ,^ U O w 6. �' Q ..4 N _ v O U a U v v �" v cd v3 O U ',ti} iy CLi N p N N •� U v O a "-''�. �' C� W �0•,--� +•' .O N I- .-� S1+ w O 7••� CdU O M? W c� S a f O tr ' m t� W p O- y- py. p +N, O .-. O a v U N bU > U .4 O A cd ��r "p� O rn b y <v U °) W •y N+ '�' V SSS., A V O O x `moi O cd cd to .�' ©..U -t c� U •�" �' N �'+ `{-� y c vi _ft , �U., 4 }f `.+ W tit'L]C` O Ln LO" 3: N n 4) CS " cla 6� - +'--* U •� , O O m O •y N rJ] rA 'a .— U (� ;r+ v �: +•-+ ti .O y 0b -� .i? rll�0 .. m � O O , '•"S v 0 Sd O S/} 00 CUD ~ �* O C v C O O .+' O Q N 'C O 'y U h i CI <� ,, n n •rr Q+ '�" O v m [ted O rcCi U yNy�-� y •••. O 8) y "Z� @�v" •a�ti0 dO O•^'�d w�° _� •A-:� v aO O Uy4 p -8 0O3 y y ' N O '"G ° v 7� W O O 0 o o . : 5 .2 In u o v� O rn..co N° aU. O O cwd O UO 4w vi N v P Z w ti w w d �, ° rm 8 ami ACE a vcn ° J.� C3r•q '+ rcw%��" % Pm p . v v+ pC 4 � p cC7 O cd cd O U r 0 QU , 04-0 A Z tri �,�, .�, W w, cV v U 3 r4U U v cd ai N ... U U .� 'd p a� O� U m U Q R, P- H o U © [W� 4l �N`" �'' NU ,� O�N, N •rV©r wCS U 0 '�, cC 4vax N'O w cd 0 v U O Nr- W vro Omm © i cn O i/bA g 0icd Q *fl � rrU„ U 'D . - bD n" p NQ ' 00 a c� T� °' c� • ami c°a °� ami o .p Qcdo E-1 c� ONN\ •y Q $, ❑ QU O ddid p�v¢' G O 0© cd UO � cz o d� OO ed eO o rD O r� ,� N U F� ¢" C'+•+ N }' "d O v ,—. Nom" ca w i.i v 7U-� Cd , b 00 4 .� 00 p Oi 9 w c� � ti C Old ° 4 fl � U tJ to �+ 1� tl 'j," cd U O 0 O � � bti vn rn ri ..+ �i O Ste•. CO — a [A F•'� v ,. v� V .a ny `s .� t1, +" d7 N O oo N r d i a� •� q bn o raaril -� v �' v Cd zs 3 cc 0 PC PC 10 cd 3 3 �. v a QC4 O Z d' 117 V va +--' � � d7 w .-. rn U 7., cd U +' ..■ � s--� ,v 4i � U +�•+ '� � '� � 'C 7 j •'rYys .:n'z% . � '—' 'L3 . � � ti UV.-�+ �y U CU p' 0� t '� O 0 U Q p U cm Mayr -d •d c°i ay " '+" p a� q 4> 0 > ^Q O �. cy O P. 'G 'Gcc -Up 4J O En _ 0 OD UO cn N 0 t bA CQ �i 77 . U cn C U �+" ;:� N Q Ei +� U b rii .cj, cd w p CS' y cn a .'J:.' oaa" cd y" v1 U fl C4 r ", CJ ® U N on 110 Z �rA�°isMiS.cdc Uw ° ;l.ti O� N �- d U by tr En cd C� W) U •t 1 ° a O O O �. O a U (� O O U a by by b 3 Ln 0 cd u a� c> cd CC by tars a o G C> O 0 c� ° d y cd ° " �y 0 Cc '� k•i N "O 4-i ` Sir ° G+ ' bli G it cn 'n V O cyd u3 O yU, ° N U ��", s' rye, -0 0 ° � cd UeiCD m Cd sU [/] Q y =w ca N d> . Ci o�pqa ssem.., s cC5 O O 03 rA CW Azs atdZu a, 0;J00 118 0gg 4 $5 y❑LIZ bn ° V c# bb > ¢ U y N U •� ° 7 c0 rte. U pi U c3 +aa y o +1-4 > U C)O cn Q. 4 O 4Q o O �. cd 4:5 N F�. U O U co O O CL U o -0 AS U bbD °n �•� T•� U �' � t+ as N y O �y 'd cd Ocd U 4t fFJ F -i > a -t:� 10 7:1 V va +--' � � d7 w .-. rn U 7., cd U +' ..■ � s--� ,v 4i � U +�•+ '� � '� � 'C 7 j •'rYys .:n'z% . � '—' 'L3 . � � ti UV.-�+ �y U CU p' 0� t '� O 0 U Q p U cm Mayr -d •d c°i ay " '+" p a� q 4> 0 > ^Q O �. cy O P. 'G 'Gcc -Up 4J O En _ 0 OD UO cn N 0 t bA CQ �i 77 . U cn C U �+" ;:� N Q Ei +� U b rii .cj, cd w p CS' y cn a .'J:.' oaa" cd y" v1 U fl C4 r ", CJ ® U N on 110 Z �rA�°isMiS.cdc Uw ° ;l.ti O� N �- d U by tr En cd C� W) U •t 1 ° a O O O �. O a U (� O O U a by by b 3 Ln 0 cd u a� c> cd CC by tars a o G C> O 0 c� ° d y cd ° " �y 0 Cc '� k•i N "O 4-i ` Sir ° G+ ' bli G it cn 'n V O cyd u3 O yU, ° N U ��", s' rye, -0 0 ° � cd UeiCD m Cd sU [/] Q y =w ca N d> . Ci o�pqa ssem.., s cC5 O O 03 rA CW Azs atdZu a, 0;J00 118 0gg 4 $5 y❑LIZ bn ° V c# bb N U •� ° c0 rte. pi U U C)O cn Q. 4 O 4Q o O obiso0 ;d o LO . S b aG`> o 0 ca -- V �CZ In.aN O o 0 0" U � :14 ; o p tar] O y, {+ Q N •y a b X cl m a cd Qt " `}' gyp" + co ' gO U cd O a,- ° 03 G'U cd a ` Chi © Q 'O U ,Zi O OU U a Q © � QJ U b 4r O -� p rz U 41 a �j , O C A °y v i5k avi a G 4 Q + C N U cs Q G O O O W U V O V a,•v 0 O O (D � "G O V U z3 � U V cd V o cd V -j CO V Pto • U Q 4 CA c� :3 +�b�{k O F' CKJ w CIS O d .� O: kn N Cd 4- 119 U oo N `" oo43 tn W,� O N H H U Cd U .W c , '�o cd ,6O d V1 tr) ✓� O O. �" O ' H � W N Lo QJ U b 4r O -� p rz U N �j Q O C A °y ,y > c,.._ . 'O 0 = G 4 Q + C N U cs Q G rU V U U U G G a,•v d � "G U d � U � � cd V o 6 y 'C3 Q -j .0 cd � ri r c*i �w a Q 4 CA c� :3 O F' CKJ w CIS Ed U4CN 7� w� Cd v � 4J ran) U � Qz F-.UUD W 119 U oo N `" oo43 tn W,� O N H H U Cd U .W c , '�o cd ,6O d V1 tr) ✓� O O. �" O ' H � W N Lo QJ U b 4r O � p rz U v 0 � � o a A ,y > c,.._ . 'O 0 = G 4 Q + C N U cs Q G rU U o 'O U U U G G a,•v •0 > ID a � cd V o 6 y 'C3 � o 3 z -� •� cd � ri r c*i �w a Q 4 CA c� :3 O F' yyV Ol H Cd CIS 4Ci V1 Q ?C U w� 119 U oo N `" oo43 tn W,� O N H H U Cd U .W c , '�o cd ,6O d V1 tr) ✓� O O. �" O ' H � W N Lo QJ U b U > U rz X v 0 U G O � A ,y > c,.._ . 'O 0 = G 4 Q + C N U cs Q G rU U o 'O U U U G G a,•v •0 > ID cd V o 6 y 'C3 di z -� •� cd � ri r c*i �w a 120 i OJ � 4-+ cd W U dq fl 0LIO � - U 'O m C3 � N O U 4." • y p cd N [� Cd Cd U 75 U �. 03 �J-- p r CPO � 45 S] U 3 7 rl ctd m i O x 3 Q v w +- w cd 4-4 CA v Ln U 5 z ~ cO O w N 0 td to � rn tQ N .� .rn U �+ 4 cCIO �i� ct vUi `d U cd U }Qyy cd I� VI Q N Cj t3 �y M oCd ca 3cd ° ° t8 a_ OP.4O 141 U U •P: En v r- ++ ° o ° bD v 4) O Cd Q U p ccd o 120 i OJ � 4-+ cd W U dq fl 0LIO � - U 'O m C3 � N O U 4." • y p cd N [� 03 rl ctd m i O w +- w CA v Ln U 5 O w N 0 td to � rn tQ 4 cCIO �i� �. vUi `d U cd U }Qyy Cj oCd 3cd ° ° t8 a_ En v o 7" ° ° U. o . M -o en O v bU 4-M •rte cd � � y '� , J �` o r' "" ^/. � � '.C7 cd 'TJ �, -� . � ,�v" (��j •� �]y O #�+ }U.+c ice. O V rn T.yTPJ.y cd o Q.% rs�1 �cu cd ° LC h 4 O 7, cd U `d a- U o-�- U .fl O 3-�� at m .— o� U > �- cow b4 " LZ • mM., cd cd ct Lf), Ln © ^G a] o3 += O U) C Gr ^� .fl b v, a) •0 °WD WD 120 v), ,' ^o 4- a) 0 -c� v &, a) v; rs p 7 " 'C a- `a N O U fA Cd U U r+ C O O L cd cd O '� C ° to f� O C)4. CO '� .D �' cd Un g} -gy -14 O O ct p Uvo U Lt 4. r.r 'L� to O C O O � N 'C .� 4~ (z O 4. O "C} 6 Ln uo o Cd Ua 4. g� ami °,�' O 4 53 v + U cin gl „� O O � � � �-•' `� O ° iU-' � � � .� � ted N O � '" O �' � �' ca cn Cd b11 r a0. ,0 `+-+ {-- U m to CD 0 LO Cd vag3 C Q Q. O 4 +� O O cd En • Q)GA cd d 4: Q O O O �i 0 3b o' o Lo ?C O .fl ❑cd cn a v 4J U 'd 03 g� v O +? cd pO 4. a7 O U O N O U O -o°Cd u bn t. o a �s o �n a, a o cd Ln cd 4 s O N m � 121 N w C. C) C� a Cd 4. C U > .0 L Ln Q Cd { z cn ... Up �" N O v' "O >�txo �` ��, U v o� or. ,� y .0 d a +� O ° to S -fl cry 4 U 4- bl) N " o v cd > 7s 4., cd U CXO X-1 a cd g"j *' v 0 Cd v as v o U cd rO 3 U o '5 > 0 0 0 o © ct a gJ d7 •Y cd 4O O U O -CJ acd q >Ln Cd gi b � U � U U U O v), ,' ^o 4- a) 0 -c� v &, a) v; rs p 7 " 'C a- `a N O U fA Cd U U r+ C O O L cd cd O '� C ° to f� O C)4. CO '� .D �' cd Un g} -gy -14 O O ct p Uvo U Lt 4. r.r 'L� to O C O O � N 'C .� 4~ (z O 4. O "C} 6 Ln uo o Cd Ua 4. g� ami °,�' O 4 53 v + U cin gl „� O O � � � �-•' `� O ° iU-' � � � .� � ted N O � '" O �' � �' ca cn Cd b11 r a0. ,0 `+-+ {-- U m to CD 0 LO Cd vag3 C Q Q. O 4 +� O O cd En • Q)GA cd d 4: Q O O O �i 0 3b o' o Lo ?C O .fl ❑cd cn a v 4J U 'd 03 g� v O +? cd pO 4. a7 O U O N O U O -o°Cd u bn t. o a �s o �n a, a o cd Ln cd 4 s O N m � 121 N w ,y, v) Q +-' Ln U + CO)N = to >, � 'C9 'C3 O O, Q y "t7 Q '70d� a ' va ti Q+ °„ }, W Q z •= N cd p i41.1 C Q �+ v° + azo cd i Q o 4, o ami ° ° o o 0 tZ �1 Q Q u -� Ltz ami an to .� UO 'C]r. $n, 9 O 4d Cd �, 4? a Y ° -J--o Q' 3 9 -b �- � 4 LPC) O p O cc 00 cdO .O 'C U CZ -a O . O 41 � Cd—Cd ce Q °' 4 O. tti �. tJ U O O L o a .un (n� © o LO� W C4� � Q U + O LO 4i cd o a i v > ::14-. crl N �. Q bOA G4 Y O CY3Cd Q c'ril O y, m> y 00 N— O- U 4C� en o 4~ -Et o En o w w w � v; w ° `� ,, ° b � Q 3 cd ori - O s. en on � Q Ri 7t.Q ^ 4- O qA ' y bOA `� 'd � (� -05 cd LO) -- v .� Q -c. Ln 1. r. s� � U �Q, Gam} 4•. 4-- n3 cd qQ � j w N M d- r- o b 42 U � H 122 Q � O Q Q _ U M Q 4-+ O OCd tz W 71 U ° ') 4J a o ¢LID � o C m v o U N N Ham°. -0 cd N m Q Lo LdW + Q o Q o ami y `° o ° u -� g ol O $n, Lr U cd O 41 � Q ) Q p Ln��'Cd � � Q 4i i crl r 4C� en o 4~ -Et o o � 'C3 rti Q cd `� cd LO) d U O s� c N m I K. a� � •� -o � `ti U o � Q a � ti-; w a a ° Q a� � -o � � �; -rs ° °+es °o 3-4 Cil CFI 0 Cd 12. to U _ O Cd Ln :14 LO CIO cd O O U .^ y O �[ cd O. N T OLO N O O p° O Q"' O O �. w R cd N U A rte- O U _ O_ �F OO O O �� U v3 Q s O y• �' w bU U v — S, O `� -0 0 Cd N U V aU•Cd Ocd cd U 'C 3 ' Ln Et � O cd U O U bA U .d Q �, �, O cd ^C U (.� p O w N c+� ;-C Q b > O yQ d 'C3 Cdy cdil rV)� 4© O � .D C7 cid �yLO) Ul y raj O ° •d �, m �' SC �' U '6 U 3 U U O O O 4-+ O aCA Cd 4_, t4- Cd El Cj vd ° °' b ° zy .�+ o W 3-4°,, cis `� a� �' � U Q Cd L s _ � :� o o ° `� as �, , 3 A4 o � O U O D U a3 O 5�, U '� O '� U �' cd O d Q N rp N w CC O U U tb i. 'O G] ,� U O � .� +{i� O cd �U tiJ ryy� ctj �� ! 'C N y cd 't7 V rCd n O / ren ° � � S-� �. o - - i•I ,+� ° ~ ?, w ' -� 0 � °tom„Cd to +� z O f -r� bA U U ^O + w O U U � Q U vS a bA + h r. Ln rL++ C b4 • rn W �, w O O 0 cd Ln wU iC vs N U cn 't3 a� ami c o O a 0 � � � � � ,r, � � u. a� . o 0Q u zz oEn a� a� �, is ;-6 b f� ^+ 3 F E H 3 d V) ca U U H d U d ra d d �• H Wcp C�! t rl LI') P" � N M (81 123 u a., ani m 0 124 m 85 Germain Street "St, Saint John, New Brunswick Photo 1 PID# 00367813 i � s !N Access to Basement 85 Germain Stref�dVest, Saint John, New Brunswick PID# 00367813 Photo 2 85 Germain StrfgWest, Saint John, New Photo 3 Brunswick PID# 00367813 S. 44 A Air ~a z . 85 Germain Street Waint John, New Interior of Building Brunswick PIDD 00367813 Photo 4 85 Germain Strg2tjWest, Saint John, New Photo 5 Interior of Building Brunswick PID# 00367813 46 kL 1 85 Germain Strep3jNest, Saint John, New Photo 7 Interior of Building Brunswick PID# 00367813 i N 91, ff So 1 91 85 Germain StrggfiZWest, Saint John, New Photo 8 Interior of Building Brunswick PID# 00367813 COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2015-239 Report Date November 16, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Growth and Community Development Services His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. One -Stop Development Shop Project Update OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager J. Brent McGovern Jacqueline Hamilton I Jeff Trail RECOMMENDATION Recommendation Your City Manager recommends that Common Council: receive and file this quarterly report from the One -Stop Development Shop team for communication to stakeholders during sessions planned for November 25 — 27, 2015; endorse the schedule for adoption of the One -Stop By-laws; and authorize staff to proceed with the additional digitization by managing the costs within the 2015 Growth and Community Development budget envelope. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the report is to provide Council with a milestone update on the overall One -Stop Development Shop project with a focus on the newly created single front counter experience, the technological enhancements, the three by- laws that are either being modernized (Subdivision By-law and Building By-law) or newly created (Drainage By-law) and an update on the project's next steps. The report also provides Council with the information on upcoming stakeholder engagement sessions, the timeline to adopt the new by-laws and seeks authorization to proceed with additional digitization work. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION In February 2015 Council adopted the following recommendations: 133 Ira Adopt the One -Stop Development Shop Final Service Delivery Model options "The Essential Package" and "The Enhanced Compliance Package" as outlined in M&C 2015 — 023 direct staff, subject to Council's budget approvals, to proceed with implementation of the One -Stop Development Shop Final Service Delivery Model options "The Essential Package" and "The Enhanced Compliance Package" as outlined in this M&C 2015-023, and direct staff to proceed with rewriting of the Subdivision By-law and Building By-law and the development of the Stormwater Drainage By-law that incorporates the service improvements outlined in M&C 2015-023. In June 2015 Council received and filed a One -Stop Development Shop Project Update. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The One -Stop Development Shop project is a Council priority related to economic health of the One -Stop Development Shop project aligns with key strategies including PIanSJ and AdvanceSJ and supports developing a culture of continuous improvement, customer focused service delivery which is transparent and accountable. W400]a11 Since the February 16, 2015 Council meeting at which Council adopted the One - Stop Development Shop Final Service Delivery Model recommended options; "The Essential Package" and "The Enhanced Compliance Package" and directed staff to proceed with implementation, staff have been focused on implementing various project initiatives. Staff have been moving forward the Model that includes 61 service enhancements designed to achieve the vision of the One - Stop project and the guiding principles including: - Innovation and Continuous Improvement; - Predictability and Clarity; - Facilitated and Streamlined; and - Customer and Community Focused. Below are project status updates relating to key service enhancements being implemented. Project Status Updates SINGLE FRONT COUNTER EXPERIENCE During the spring, summer and fall of 2015, the needs to create the single front counter experience were identified, the plans created, the project tendered and awarded and the construction work completed. These renovations which included 134 am the construction of a new One -Stop Development front -counter, One -Stop Development Shop public meeting space and support offices has allowed the merging of four service areas (Community Planning, Permitting and Inspection, Infrastructure Development and Heritage) and three separate counters into one public facing new One -Stop front counter. Below are photographs showing the front counter before and after construction. -waiting area — pre -renovations L ter Figure 2 10`h Floor One -Stop Development Shop post renovations figure 3. iu fioor une-stop ueveiopment Shop front Counter — post renovations In addition, the single front counter cross functional team has been established; staff from 175 Rothesay Avenue relocated to the 10th floor at the end of October and office moves to support the newly established front counter are now complete. The team is now comprised of technical and administrative staff from each of the four service areas. This cross functional team will provide a coordinated approach to customer support, quality control at the front counter and will expedite the review process for simple applications by providing approvals at the front counter. 135 -4 - TECHNOLOGY New Online Services The purchase, installation and training associated with C1ick2Gov, a software extension of the City's SunGard Naviline enterprise solution is complete. The software, in January 2016 will add a public facing service that will provide clients with the ability to track their permits online which will be followed by the ability to accept applications and schedule building inspections online. Pilot testing of this system will occur during the months of November and December 2015 with a planned go live during the month of January 2016. Expedited Reviews through Automation The introduction of parallel work flow processing is being introduced to create an efficient review process that will result in a quicker turnaround times. Staff have reviewed industry solutions, however, the cost of such customized systems is significant. Undeterred; staff through innovation created a customized solution using the the City's extensively used Laserfiche software to perform the same function at no additional cost. The digital workflow system at the time of application for a permit will send to each of the appropriate service area reviewers the necessary documentation and track the review status against the departmental performance indicators so that issues are promptly identified and automated alerts issued as necessary. System testing is currently underway and a planned digital workflow system launch is scheduled for the first quarter of 2016. The Move toward a Paperless Office As part of the shift towards a digital records system, a new large format scanner/plotter (to allow for the scanning and plotting of large plans) has been procured and is being integrated into the new workflow system that will allow for parallel processsing. All digitized documents are being placed into the City's Laserfiche document management system greatly improving the search ability and organization of records while reducing the need for office space. To reduce application turnaround times and improve operational efficiencies, the files in three (Community Planning, Infrastructure Development and Heritage) of the four service areas that make up the One -Stop Development Shop have been digitized allowing for ease of file access from any location (office, in field, etc). Staff wishes to use the same bid that was received when a request for quotation (RFQ) was issued in March of 2015 to undertake approximately $14k in additional digitization work. PrecisionDMS (the low bidder) completed all work required to date however staff require Council's approval to proceed with the remaining digitization work. Funds are included in the 2014 budget and the digitization work will result in significant efficiency gains. 136 INIE Smart Mobility The pilot project that included the introduction of tablets for four field staff began in the summer of 2015. The pilot project has been a great success. Some benefits of note are it has provided the inspectors with the tools needed in the field, for example, access to electronic mapping, to the SunGard/Naviline system, to the newly digitized plans and records within Laserfiche, in addition it has provided other operational efficiency gains such as automated report writing functions, elimination of data entry duplication and the use of voice to text technology. The pilot project has resulted in significantly improved workplace efficiencies. With the pilot wrapping up in the month of December the roll out of tablets to all inspectors will occur in early 2016. Improved website Phase I of the improved City website is complete. All development related applications have been updated, a comprehensive schedule of fees for all development related service areas created and instructional materials updated or created to assist customers in preparing plans and submitting applications. Phase II of the improving and redesigning the website will commence in early 2016 and will involve expanding the inventory of instructional and supportive materials by adding new pamphlets, brochures, checklists and standardizing across the Department all applications to simplify the process. Formal application and submission standards will be created for all development service permits and applications. These improvements will help to avoid delays resulting from incomplete applications and improve the operational efficiency. Work is scheduled to be completed by the end of the second quarter 2016. Improved inspection scheduling pilot The improved inspection scheduling pilot for one and two unit buildings began April 1, 2015. Owners, contractors and developers are now required to call to request inspections for all new construction of one and two unit residential dwellings. When the permitted construction is ready for a required building inspection, arrangements are to be made to inspect the work. Once fully operational, the new building inspection scheduling system will improve the operational efficiency while providing a consistent level of service. MODERNIZED INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT BY-LAWS Central to the One -Stop shop is a suite of modernized integrated development by-laws that support the One -Stop guiding principles (that are listed above). The goal of the modernized development by-laws is to improve clarity and predictability for development, while ensuring community standards set out in PlanSJ are met, enforcement is improved and new features of the One -Stop Shop including stormwater management are added. In June of 2015, the team hosted targeted engagement with stakeholders which provided valuable stakeholder input (from over 87 attendees) into the process of 137 -6 - modernizing the Subdivision By-law and creating the Drainage By-law. Work has continued through the summer and fall of 2015 on each of the three by-laws: Subdivision By-law, Drainage By-law and the updating of the Building By-law. Below are overviews of the key new by-law features. Subdivision By-law The adoption of a new Subdivision By-law working in concert with the new 2014 Zoning By-law, will implement the land use policies of our community's state of the art Municipal Plan. The completely new Subdivision By-law will replace the previous Subdivision By-law that has been in effect since 1979 (36 years). Through the new By-law, additional decision making authority is being granted to staff to allow for small approvals to be made at the front counter and tiers to be established according to project size and complexity, with simple lot boundary adjustments receiving approvals at the front counter. The expedited approval systems will streamline the review process by bringing in the appropriate level of staff at the right time. Unlike traditional By-laws, the new Subdivision By-law will feature a design approach. This will provide for designs that are unique to each development site as opposed to simply requiring a standard list of By-law requirements resulting in an inefficient, cookie -cutter approach to subdivision design. This will also improve the approval process for developers, as it will reduce the need to seek variance approvals when proposing innovative designs. Perhaps a more important change is the requirement for developers to provide street lighting in new subdivisions. The cost for a single streetlight and pole is approximately $3,900. The new Subdivision By-law proposes a design -focused approach to the installation of streetlights. Specifically, the Municipal Street Lighting Best Management Practice (Document), adopted by Council in 2014, would regulate street lighting, which uses a warrant system that will significantly reduce the number of streetlights installed in our new subdivisions. Therefore, the expected additional costs to developers should not be onerous. It should also be noted that essentially all communities within Atlantic Canada already have as a requirement that developers, as part of the subdivision development, pay for costs associated with street lighting (this is also viewed as an industry best practice). The new draft By-law employs a number of external engineering documents (for example the Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads by Transportation Association of Canada) to support an innovative design approach. This is an emerging trend across Canada, and will provide continuous improvement to the By-law as these external documents are managed by subject experts on an ongoing basis. The design approach taken by the new Subdivision By-law will inherently require much more collaboration among its stakeholders. The By-law and the One -Stop program will increase collaboration between City staff and Saint John developers and their consultants. For example, prior to submitting an application, developers 138 NO will be encouraged to participate at pre -application meetings with City staff in our new One -Stop meeting room. Here, preliminary subdivision plans can be reviewed and advice provided by City technical staff before developers proceed with a formal application.There will also be greater collaboration with the developer's consultants throughout the life cycle of subdivision projects due to the use of external engineering documents and the opportunity to have pre - construction meetings. It should be noted that as part of an upcoming amendment to the Zoning By-law that will occur in the spring of 2016, a landscaping security deposit will be required will be added for larger projects that trigger significant landscaping requirements. This is to ensure the minimum community standard is met. The security deposit will be roughly 110% of the cost of the landscaping and will be returned once the landscaping has been completed. In instances in which the landscaping has not been completed, the security will be used to complete the work. Industry stakeholders raised concerns regarding the need for a clear program that ensures that the size of the security deposit is not cost prohibitive. The desired outcome of the new Subdivision By-law is a focus on design and collaboration to produce subdivisions that, as envisioned by our new municipal plan, one grounded in a more sustainable and compact patterns of growth, and that are in the long-term best interests of the whole community. Drainage By-law As stated in the new municipal plan, Stormwater management practices are priorities for the City to protect development and to permit growth to take place in appropriate locations as identified in the Municipal Plan. e -J 31dN'T FOHN City of Saint John Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual September 9, 2008 The adoption of a Drainage By-law supports the polices identified in the Municipal Plan with the purpose being to require that drainage systems are constructed in accordance with the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. The proposed By-law will address the regulation of drainage when developing in the City of Saint John and is intended to: safeguard the functionality of existing storm drainage systems; clearly communicate storm drainage regulations of the City; and mitigate drainage effects to both public and private property. There are two features to highlight that will be introduced with the proposed Drainage By-law: Storm Drainage Submissions and As -built Drawings. 139 -8 - Storm Drainage Submissions will include storm drainage plans, grading plans erosion and sedimentation control plans and engineering design reports for subdivisions, multi -family residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial developments. The submission and approval of this plan will provide an effective basis for controlling drainage while considering the relationship with adjacent properties. These submissions are current industry standards; however the proposed By-law will provide clarity for designing and accepting plans. As -Built Drawings will ensure work installed is in accordance with the approved design prior to acceptance by the City and the information will also become part of City's infrastructure records for asset and operational management. While as- builts are already a requirement for all water and wastewater projects due to amendments of the Water Quality Regulation of the Clean Environment Act, the proposed Drainage By-law will extend this requirement to developers for all new storm drainage systems. At the industry stakeholder engagement session in December of 2014, concerns were raised about the cost associated with requiring lot grading certificates (as- builts) prepared by Land Surveyors. Through the by-law drafting process, the team identified a means to reduce the cost while maintaining the requirement for an as -built. This was done by allowing professional engineers to confirm that the finished grade meets the Lot Grading Plan as opposed to requiring only a survey by a Land Surveyor. Building By-law The updated draft Building By-law reduces the number of instances for which a building permit is required, includes key features to further encourage a culture of compliance, expedites the permit system by formalizing "Phased Permits", clarifies when an applicant needs professionals on their project and expands the residential occupancy permit program. By expanding when permits are not required and expanding when work will be deemed to be "routine maintenance" the overall need to purchase a Building permit will decrease. Specific examples include the requirement to get building permits for brick repointing or the erection of a fence are being eliminated. From a compliance perspective the following key By-law features are being added. If work for which a permit is required is started prior to the permit being issued (work without a permit), then the permit fee will be doubled up to a maximum additional fee of $25,000 to cover additional investigation, compliance, and enforcement. The general building permit deposit program will improve compliance with development by-laws and support a more efficient inspections program. The deposit will be used to offset costs, such as conducting additional inspections or additional plans review. Upon completion of final inspections, the balance of the deposit will be returned to the customer. This will ensure a level playing field and will help control costs moving forward. Industry stakeholders raised concerns 140 regarding the need for a clear deposit program that is proportionate to the size of projects and to ensure that the size of the deposit is not cost prohibitive. These concerns have been addressed in the drafting of the deposit program by having the deposit program proportionate to the cost of the project but capping the cost of the deposits (maximum additional fee of $25,000). The requirement for deposits will be brought before Council as part of an amendment to the Building By -Law in early 2016. By ensuring compliance with development related by-laws and community standards, the City is supporting the development of a safe, liveable community with vibrant neighbourhoods. These improvement options help to provide staff with the necessary tools to facilitate compliance. Similar to the Subdivision By-law, with the new Building By-law additional decision making authority is being granted to development service staff to allow for small front counter approvals and tiers to be established - according to project size and complexity, with simple siding and window permits receiving approvals at the front counter by the end of the next business day. Within the By-law will also be "Phased Permits". By clarifying through the By-law when an applicant needs professionals on their project, the customer maybe able to decrease their costs by reducing the number of instances when professionals are required. The existing occupancy permit program will be expanded to the residential sector. This will provide property owners with the assurance that all mandatory inspections have been successfully completed. Occupancy permits also provide a compliance mechanism as financial institutions often require written confirmation of the successful completion of all items contained within the building permit. As a note, cost impacts relating to changes associated with the three by-laws are typical costs borne by the developer when looking at other municipalities across Canada and these requirements are viewed as industry best practices. For instance, the cost of as -built drawings and grading plans as well as the cost of street lighting are relatively minimal costs in comparison to the cost of a subdivision. Also the by-laws are introducing additional flexibility to help off -set these costs. Council Referrals Staff have reviewed the issue of placing and dumping of fill in response to a previous Council referral and have identified the means to address the following specific issues: limit, to a reasonable amount of time that a site can have fill added to it; landscape with vegetation over fill that has been placed within a period of one year; and regulate the slopes created by the placement of fill to address, safety, erosion and drainage concerns. 141 -10 - Each of these issues will be addressed through either the placement in the current development by-laws or through an amendment to the Zoning By-law in the first half of 2016. Staff are also reviewing as part of the modernizing of the by-laws another Council referral relating to issue of grassing an area within a specific period of time after a building is demolished. Next Steps for By-laws At this point the One -Stop team is looking to Council to receive and file this report as a basis for stakeholder engagement planned during November 25 - 27. The sessions are targeted for the key beneficiaries of the development service. Once this engagement is complete, the One -Stop team will make final adjustments to the by-laws. Note that the process for approval of the by-laws requires Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) review and approval by Council. Members of Council are more than welcome to attend any of the stakeholder sessions noted in the table below. Stakeholder Group Event Date Staff Sessions One -Stop Information Sessions November 19, 2015 Planning Advisory Committee One -Stop Information Session November 25, 2015 and Heritage Development Board November 26, 2015 Development Industry Breakfast Information Session (7:30am Trade and Convention Centre) Economic Development Agencies Breakfast Information Session November 27, 2015 (8am Ludlow Room) In addition, at this time staff are seeking Council's endorsement of the proposed timeline. Council's role in the coming months will be critical as each of the by- laws are brought forward for discussion and consideration prior to adoption. The target for first and second reading of the By-laws is February 2016, once feedback from the various stakeholder sessions (the week of November 23rd) is considered and incorporated, the by-laws will undergo a legal review, translation will be completed and finally a PAC review. Note translation is estimated to take approximately 4 - 6 weeks. A timeline to adopt each of the three by-laws is noted below. 142 -11 - Project Next Steps Since the February 16, 2015 Council meeting at which Council adopted the One - Stop Development Shop Final Service Delivery Model, staff have either completed or are very near to completing over 50% of the 61 service enhancements that are designed to achieve the vision of the One -Stop project. Between the end of November and mid — 2016 staff will be focused on completing the remaining service enhancements. A summary of the next steps are shown below: Adopted By-laws Subdivision, Drainage and Building By-laws 1st Quarter 2016 (Zoning By-law Spring Revision) Technology Solutions Workflow Automation & Online Permit Tracking 1 St Quarter 2016 Website Significant Customer Enhancements 2n Quarter 2016 Customer Support Forms, Brochures, Pamphlets, and Guides 2nd Quarter 2016 Phased Implementation of Compliance Work without Permits, Deposits, and Securities 2 n Quarter to 4th Quarter 2016 Continuous Improvement Turnaround Metrics, Training Programs and Improvement Team 2nd Quarter 2016 ,SLASt2V,t'baL cowtpLetLow Ju.we 2010 The One -Stop team will continue to update Council on the progress of the project on a quarterly basis. As well, the team will also continue to keep its stakeholders updated through various means; One -Stop stakeholder events, quarterly bulletins and social media. Council will play an important role throughout the next phase of the project, as new by-laws and by-law amendments are brought before PAC and Council for discussion and consideration in preparation for adoption and full implementation of the One -Stop Development Shop in 2016. 143 -12 - SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The One -Stop Development Shop project is focused on enhancing customer service, streamlining the development process, supporting economic development, increasing information sharing within the Community, improving the efficiency of the development service, creating a stronger culture of compliance with development by-laws and contributing to reduced liability risks through improved enforcement. All 61 of the service level enhancements that make up the Final Service Delivery Model that is being implemented are being completed within Council approved budgets. Approval is also being sought to expand the digitization of records through the use of the competitive bid that was received earlier in 2015 from PrecisionDMS (the low bidder) to undertake approximately $14k in additional digitization work. Funds are included in the 2014 budget and the digitization work will result in significant efficiency gains. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Input from the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and ongoing support from Finance, Information Technology (IT) and Legal. Stakeholder engagement is ongoing. ATTACHMENTS PowerPoint Presentation 144 r i M Z 001*1 invoo, DevelopMent'shop r PLANNING BUILDING INFKAti"I'ItL't:`rumi. SAINT JOHN PO Box 1971, Saint John NB • Canada • E21.41.1 OneStop@saintjohn.ca • Tei: (506) 658-2835 145 IMSTUD URVRIOUMF 0 *v - 1- It s 1 Dove OPMOR hop PLANNINC BUILDING I Ff ASI-IgI< CIVRI: SAINT JOHN P4 Box 1971, Saint John NB • Canada • E21.41.1 ©ne5top@saintjohn.ca • Tel: (506)658-283S 146 Briefing Agenda %W, 40 Briefing Agenda I.- eeto�wg_ Briefing Agenda we now , 40 Birmefing Agolcq'� Gaunter Experience rm" 3 Integrated W s f', 0 Counter Improved Facilities Counter 6 Improved Facilities 153 J FdAl -6�i±vzwm Devoopperit Shop q� , tNNj%,. !,,;i I *," " L.,.%INr Counter Improved -- Facilities Enhanced 1� Customer 7 Service Knowledgeable Dedicated Team Technology Solutions Seib00 Technology Solutions 5i New Online Services Paperless Office Improved Website L7A min Smart Mobility LA Inspection chedu`ing Integrated By-laws v t Improve Clarity Predictability Encourage Strengthen Community tanrd Enforcement Compliance Tool %. 0 [develop a Suite of Integrated By-laws for One -Stop Better designed subdivisions with more flexibility and less red tape lit, More collaboration between developers, con LIltants, and City staff More sustainable designs that are in the best interests of the community skbotV�S'�Ovv ?:> -Lclw R1%_ __i _ Employs Industry Guidelines Encourages ur, re t r Collaboration 2 Promotes Fiscal Sustainability SL44wbolV�s�ow g�-Law Brand New Safeguards existing infrastructure OP Clearly communicates stormw t r drainage regulations Mitigates drainage effects on public and , private properties Bram New Operationalizes Drainage Manual l Requires Dminage Submissio Requires As -Built Drawings roti� K012ge ?:�o -I,aw Revised Greater clarity of expectation to landowners, �t mrs r Expedited building permit approval processes Enhanced compliance c enforcement tools to promote community standards 9 MIS ?>IX�La�vtoe) UIJi -LAW Devewp6e.-Ot�! 164 1 165 'L/ 9' i nifelopmo"Lent Oul '7' Nov � W', ec-pn 4uary February By-law Dr ft Legal Revie�w Translation Adoption A01 CT t*Lov%o Next Stens 0 ed By-laws MW -ion, Drainage, and Building Eby -lags Quarter A' ---. J (Zoning 8 -y -lave Spring Revision) Te-chnology Solutions Digitization and Online Permit `hacking Customer Enhanced Next Steps LJ Frochmer Suppoil uras, Pamphlets, and Guides -"Ontinuous Improvement Turnaround Metrics, Training Programs, and Improvement warn .. bawd implementation ork without Permits, Deposits, and Securities L beta b L mL`L 2c)& r Belvelopfint ho P 169 Staff Sessions November 19 PAC • HDB ee"s November 25 Upcoming Engagements Development Industry November 26 Economic Agencies November 27 IL P .......... 171 0 O"c', , Oeln�Ont- Shop e NOW i 0 ri imon %, al &file niri7-a dia a I ,' -q L-A .4 172 14 -01'.1, C'. 5�rl Revalo",Vfltshop�p pme www.sain City Ij 658.28�4 & Den, -e,4 - Develop ent Shop PLANNING BUILDING 1N'i RAS'1"RUC 1' RI: SAINT JOHN PO Box 1971, Saint John NB • Canada • E2L 4L1 OneStop@saintjohn.ca - Tet. (506) 658-2535 174 Q ' if ji'om COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2015-238 Report Date November 17, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Growth and Community Development Services His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Recommended 2016 Urban Development Incentives Program OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Jeff Cyr and Jody Kliffer Jacqueline Hamilton Jeff Trail RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council endorse the Urban Development Incentives model, and refer the budget requirements to the 2016 budget review process; 2. That Council receive and file the report to guide the upcoming stakeholder engagement; and, 3. That Council authorize staff to proceed with the development of the administrative procedures to support the delivery of the model for 2016. ro:fArfla rlisfui�L�►:i'I The purpose of this report is to present the proposed framework for the Urban Development Incentives Program and seek Council endorsement to proceed with the next steps of the process. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION 1. Endorse the recommended principles and suite of development incentives in this report as a basis for the design of new urban development incentives program for the City. 2. Direct funding in the 2015 capital budget for development incentives as follows: a. Increase funding for the existing Heritage Conservation Grant Program by $30,000 to satisfy current demand levels for the program, 175 Ira b. Increase funding for the existing UptownSJ Fagade Program by contributing up to a maximum of $20,000 in 2015 subject to matching dollars being provided by the Uptown Saint John and city participation in the application review process. 3. Direct the remaining funding in the capital budget towards the implementation of new development incentives programs for 2016 which promote residential intensification including: a. Upper Floor Redevelopment Incentive; b. Housing Rehabilitation Incentive; and c. Housing Infill Incentive. 4. Authorize staff to engage with a representative group of stakeholders and potential users in the fall of 2015 to refine the program criteria and requirements in preparation for the 2016 program launch. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT It is one of Council's identified priorities to develop an incentive program to be launched in 2016 as a tool to enourage new growth in the urban core of the City. REPORT BACKGROUND: In late 2014, Council directed staff to pursue the development of an incentive program that offered a suite of options designed to increase private sector investment in residential development in the urban core area of the City. Staff conducted a workshop with Council on February 9, 2015 to establish key principles that will ensure that desired community outcomes inform the design of the incentives program. The workshop resulted in the development of the following six principles subsequently approved by Council: 1. further promote built heritage; 2. increase core neighbourhood density; 3. revitalize waterfront lands; 4. support green building design; 5. promote broader housing opportunities; 6. support mixed-use neighbourhoods. On June 22, 2015 Council endorsed a recommendation for staff to research and develop an incentive program as a pilot program for the South End, Uptown and Waterloo Village neighbourhoods of the City, referred to collectively in the study as the "Central Peninsula". The goal of the program is to promote residential density in the Central Peninsula through reinvestment in vacant lands, vacant upper floors and vacant buildings. The proposed incentive program strategically targets the Central Peninsula as it provides the highest return on investment for 176 am the City, and is the cultural and financial heart of the region. A successful incentive program will be able to leverage public investments in the core area, and help promote the Central Peninsula as a desired option to live, work and play. To help cultivate this outcome, the above principles were used as guiding posts through the development of the program. In addition to establishing the above principles on June 22, 2015, Council also endorsed a recommendation for staff to pursue an engagement process that would solicit input from a strategic cross-section of stakeholders, as well as investigate best practices in the regional and national contexts. Stakeholder Engagement As a means of gathering feedback from the local community, and in order to generate a better understanding of existing incentive programs in other communities, staff conducted a rigorous engagement and research schedule that occurred throughout the summer months of 2015. The engagement process included sessions with developers, real estate agents, vacant building owners, community groups and city agencies. The sessions were held in one-on-one and small group formats in which stakeholders were probed with guiding questions regarding the opportunities and challenges for residential development in the Central Peninsula. As potential users of an urban development incentive program, the input from this group played a central role in developing the structure of the program. In addition to the local engagement process, staff conducted a review of best practices from across Canada, including a few communities in the Eastern United States. Profiling the successful incentive programs that exist in other communities helped inform the development of a model for the Saint John context. The input received from the engagement process is summarized in the attached report. Alignment with PlanSJI, True Growth 2.0 and One -Stop Development Shop Establishing a suite of development incentives that encourage growth and reinvestment in the Central Peninsula, guided by the six principles mentioned above, is aligned with the priorities and goals established by the City's Municipal Plan. The Plan provides clear direction for Council to support future development strategies and investment in the urban core area of the City. The policy framework of the Plan reinforces the critical role that the core plays as a backbone of the greater Saint John region. The principles of the proposed incentive program are also reflected in the direction established by True Growth 2.0, and support the direction established by the One -Stop Development Shop. 177 -4 - Summary of Incentive Model The development incentive model is structured to provide incentives to increase development, beautify the existing built environment, and enhance any related processes to encourage development, while providing relevant supporting information to developers to facilitate their projects. These three initiatives are discussed below. I. Urban Development Grants As discussed in the attached report, the development incentives model provides financial incentives for developers to engage in one of the following three programs: 1. Infill Development Program 2. Upper Floor Redevelopment Program 3. Rehabilitation Program The recommended model is structured to provide a rebate of constructions costs as they relate to the above programs. The rebate for the construction work is proposed to occur over a five year period, resulting in a total rebate of 5.25% of the cost of construction. The repayment schedule for the grant is structured to be 'revenue positive' to ensure that the new tax revenue received as a result of increased assessment value will be greater than the amount granted back to the developer for each year of the program. This approach complies with the requirements of the Municipalities Act. Each one of the recommended programs includes specific criteria that establish boundaries for what is considered eligible for receiving funding. Each program is briefly discussed below. i. Infill Development Program The Infill Development Program is intended for vacant properties located throughout the entire Central Peninsula area. The redevelopment of these lots represents the greatest potential for capturing new residential development that can increase density and provide a diverse range of housing types. New development often places greater value on the surrounding area, which has a positive impact on the vibrancy of the urban core, as well as increases the value of the otherwise dormant land. ii. Upper Floor Redevelopment Program The Upper Floor Redevelopment Program is focused on the mixed-use area of the Uptown, which includes all properties presently within the Uptown Commercial (CU) zone, inclusive of the majority of the Trinity Royal Heritage District. The approved projects will have to include a residential component and 178 WIE occur within existing buildings. The program is designed to capitalize on existing spaces that are typically located in upper floors and vacant commercial buildings, which captures the goals of increasing residential density and preserving our existing building stock. The popularity of upper floor development has seen significant increase over the past ten years, as evidenced by the successful projects conducted by Historica Developments, as well as other developers that currently have similar projects underway in the subject area. Despite the surge in upper floor apartments in the Uptown area, there are several buildings that remain vacant or underutilized in the upper floors. iii. Housing Rehabilitation Program The Rehabilitation Program is designed to target residential buildings within the Central Peninsula that have been vacant for at least one year. Staff would maintain a list of buildings that meet the requirements of the program. However, the owner of any building in the subject area would have the ability to prove that his/her building meets the requirements as described in the eligibility of the program. Vacant buildings in their current form represent a safety hazard to the surrounding community, and are typically assessed well below the median average of dwellings in the Central Peninsula. In addition, significant staff time is spent monitoring these buildings and keeping them in relatively safe condition, including fire and police calls, building inspection site visits, among other impacts these buildings have on municipal resources. Returning these buildings to productive use that involves at least one residential unit will have a variety of positive impacts for the City, including the beautification of the surrounding block, increase of residential density, increased tax base, and the preservation of existing, often historic structures. iv. Construction Challenges Grant In addition to the rebate of the cost of construction, staff are proposing a complementary incentive that is specifically targeted at costs of development that are one-off items that function as barriers to development. Through the engagement process, staff were told that the redevelopment of old buildings, or developing on small urban lots, can involve a range of challenges that make development cost prohibitive. To address this impediment, staff are recommending that a "Construction Challenges Grant" be made available to support the Urban Development Initiatives Program. The grant would target specific costs that are identified on a pre-existing list of development barriers developed by staff. The Construction Challenges Grant is recommended to be structured as a rebate up to 20% of the cost of one of the identified barriers, to a maximum of $50,000. An example of some common barriers include the need to remove contaminated 179 sM soils, rock blasting, replacing knob -and -tube wiring, and installing an elevator in a heritage building. II. Beautification Grants The visual appeal of a neighbourhood is a critical decision-making factor for developers exploring options to commit to new projects. Staff were informed by stakeholders that the aesthetic appearance of a neighbourhood was a is an important factor in designing an effective program. As such, a parallel incentive program to the Urban Development Incentives Program involves a grant that encourages private property owners to reinvest in the facades of their buildings. Although this program is not designed to directly incent new development, it will complement the proposed Urban Development Incentive Program by contributing to the beautification of the public realm in the subject area. Supporting beautification efforts will complement the efforts of the rebate program. Heritage Program and Uptown Saint John Facade Program The beautification program also recommends continued support to the existing Heritage and Facade grant programs administered by the Heritage Service and Uptown Saint John respectively. Both of these programs have demonstrated positive results in enhancing the urban environment over the past 20 years. ii. Residential Beautification Program In addition, the Program is recommending the introduction of a third beautification program that will focus on enhancing the facades of existing residential dwellings outside the Heritage Conservation Area, but within the Central Peninsula. This will allow the remainder of the residents of the Central Peninsula to have access to funding that will help encourage reinvestment in the facades of their dwellings. The proposed program will provide a cap on the amount available per dwelling. III. Soft Incentives Other initiatives that will be undertaken by staff to encourage development will include a range of strategies to facilitate development through process improvements, or granting public access to City initiatives. Through discussions with key stakeholders, staff were told that there are initiatives that could be undertaken without incurring any further costs that would facilitate the development process. Such things as providing developers with information regarding planned capital projects well in advance of work being done would grant developers the opportunity to plan their projects ahead of time. A component of the information provided should include an online mapping service the assists developers, and the general public, in accessing data relevant to support future development. Facilitating the development application and building permit processes by using updated technology and having a "project champion" on staff to help guide an applicant through the system was also mentioned by the stakeholders as a feature that would help incent the development process. These measures are also supported by the One -Stop Development Shop process, which is currently working to implement streamlined municipal processes and provide enhanced information throughout each stage of a development application. Next Steps The endorsement of the urban development incentive program model is a crucial milestone building toward the eventual implementation of the program for the Central Peninsula in 2016. This will allow staff to further refine and operationalize the program. Prior to the implementation of the program in early 2016, the following steps will need to occur: Engage stakeholders on the proposed incentive model Council approval of the budget for the program Establish administrative procedures Develop a communications strategy Council adopt the program policy and procedures Launch program early in 2016 Conclusion Council has asked staff to research and deliver an incentive program that focused on increasing urban density in the Central Peninsula, while adding quality development and helping to preserve the City's assets. Specifically, staff were asked to investigate an incentive program that explored development opportunities for existing vacant lots, vacant upper floors and vacant buildings. As an initial phase in the process of developing an incentive program, staff engaged a range of local stakeholders, and researched a variety of communities that administer incentive programs, to generate a framework of an incentive model appropriate to the Saint John context. The proposed development incentive program recommends three direct incentives that target residential development initiatives that are: (1) on existing vacant lots, (2) in vacant upper floors of existing buildings and heritage assets, and (3) result in the rehabilitation of existing vacant buildings. The proposed suite of incentive options includes an beautification incentive that encourages homeowners to reinvest in the facades of their dwellings as an effort to create an indirect incentive to spur new development. The proposed Urban Development Incentives Program is intended to be a pilot program for the Central Peninsula. Annual review of the program will be critical to ensure the program is reaching its performance targets. A series of metrics 181 Wo will be developed as a part of the administrative procedures, which will be designed to help monitor the success of the program. The metrics will be developed and presented to Council for final approval prior to the launching of the program in 2016, and will be presented as a component of the annual year end report submitted to Council. Staff recommend that Council endorse the proposed Urban Development Incentive model as described in the attached report. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The proposed suite of development incentive programs are focused on stimulating economic activity through the financial support of urban development projects that result in positive planning outcomes. The primary incentive tool is the Residential Density Rebate, which is available to Infill Development, Residential Rehabilitation and upper Floor Redevelopment projects. This rebate is intended to be cost neutral and would not have budget impacts until 2017, at which time they would be offset by new revenues. A high level of uptake in this program would result in a roughly 2 to 1 return on investment over the next 10 years. Illustrative New Revenue from High Uptake in the Residential Density Rebate Over 10 Years Total Tax Revenue Over 10 years of High Uptake in the Proposed $41400,000 Incentive Program Expected Tax Revenue from Status Quo (Not Adopting an Incentives $1,500,000 Program) = Anticipated Net Incremental Increase in Tax Revenue from High $2,900,000 Uptake in the Program Other Revenue Increases (Building Permit Revenue 2016 - 2018 from $1,100,000 High Uptake in the Program & New Water & Sewer Revenue) Grants owed to developers in a High Uptake Scenario $1,500,000 = 2 to 1 Return on Investment Over 10 Years INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The development of the proposed Urban Development Incentives Program included engagement with internal departments and services, including Finance, Legal, Real Estate and Heritage staff. In addition, the engagement process included developers, non-profit organisations, and the following stakeholders 182 IRE from external economic agencies: Waterfront Development, Uptown Saint John, Enterprise Saint John and True Growth 2.0. ATTACHMENTS Urban Development Incentives Program Report 183 m Q Urban I)evelo pme lme%,nvr#w "I Anw?"116 as y e iF - s L kt ® - - �� _ Ogg 185 Contents 1...... Background 1...... Study Area 1...... Principles 2...... Community Outcomes 2...... Actions for 2015 3...... Actions for 2016 4...... Stakeholder Engagement 4...... Stakeholder Themes 7...... Best Practices 8...... Regional Context 9...... Incentive Program Models 11...... Emerging Best Practice Themes 14...... Business Case 14... Development Project Economics 15... Market Assessment 21... Opportunities & Program Impact 26.... Proposed Suite of Programs 27.... Development 27... Grant Types 30.... Upper Floors Redevelopment 30... Past Program 30... Description 31... Example 33.... Infill Development 33... Description 34... Example 36.... Residential Rehabilitation 36... Description 37... Example 39.... Process 40.... Beautification Program 41.... Heritage Grant Program 42.... Facade Grant Program 43.... Residential Beautification Program 43... Description 44... Example 45.... Soft Incentives 46.... Program Monitoring 48.... Next Steps & Implementation 187 Study Area In the early part of 2015, Common Council approved a motion for staff to research a suite of potential development incentives that would generate renewed growth in the urban core area of the City. This area of the City was selected as development in the urban core generates the highest return on investment for the City. In addition, focusing on this area is supported by the policy direction created by PlanSJ, which states that nearly half of future growth should be focused in the urban intensification areas. The specific neighbourhoods in the core area selected for the proposed incentive program include the South End, Uptown and Waterloo Village. For the purposes of this program, this area is collectively referred to in this report as the "Central Peninsula". Principles As a means of establishing clear direction for the incentive program, staff held a workshop with Council on February 9, 2015 which generated the following six principles to guide the design of the program: • further promote built heritage • increase core neighbourhood density • revitalize waterfront lands • support green building design • promote broader housing opportunities • support mixed-use neighbourhoods The above principles were intended to guide the development and formation of the incentive program to ensure that the community goals identified in PlanSJ and True Growth 2.0 are captured in the new suite of development incentive options. By following the established principles for the program, the incentives developed for the Central Peninsula are expected to incent new investment that promotes quality development, increases residential density and results in the redevelopment of vacant lots and properties throughout the subject area. The intention of the development incentives is to facilitate investment in areas that are currently experiencing some form of vacancy Page 1 1 IM within the subject area. The model is designed to create options for new investment, or inspire reinvestment, in these vacant areas throughout the Central Peninsula that will collectively work to spark a new level of investment interest in the urban core of the City, and help reinforce the position of these neighbourhoods as quality places to live, work and play. Community Outcomes The eventual purpose of a development incentive program is to offset market risks that typically deter private sector investment, and stimulate innovative growth linked to established planning outcomes. If the program is successful, the identified outcomes will result in renewed investment in a targeted area of the City that would otherwise not have occurred, while qualitatively adding positive value to the lived experience of these spaces. Successful incentive programs typically target areas in a city that in their current state present relatively high risk for private sector investment but represent the greatest opportunity for reinvestment. Areas in the urban core of Saint John have been shown to have the highest valued return on investment as the urban density of the area is able to leverage historical investments that continue to hold value in today's market. If an incentive program is successful, it will be able to capitalise on these opportunities and restore higher value to the properties located throughout the targeted area. As development interest increases from the private sector over time, the real estate market will assign greater value to the properties located in the neighbourhood, resulting in private investment eventually occurring without the requirement of an incentive program. A comprehensive incentive program should help the market stabilise in challenged areas that have been identified as having a high return on investment, making these desirable neighbourhoods. The success of the incentive program will be determined on its ability to see new growth and investment occur organically in the community. Actions for 2015 The direction given by Council included a strategy to implement temporary measures to boost investment in the Central Peninsula for 2015 while staff researched and developed a more comprehensive incentive model to be launched in 2016. The strategy adopted by Council included the following actions to be carried out in 2015: 1. Bolster the existing Heritage Program by $30,000, 2. Bolster the existing Uptown Saint John Faqade Grant program by up to a maximum of $20,000 of matched funds, Page 1 2 3. Work with Uptown Saint John to develop enhanced criteria to evaluate application for their Fagade Grant program, 4. Conduct research to support a new suite of incentive options to be launched in 2016, 5. Engage with stakeholders in the design of new programs for 2016. Uptown Saint John was able to utilize an approximate total value of $12,500 of the funds made available for the Fagade Grant Program. The Heritage Board was also successful in allocating the additional funds to projects in the second half of 2015. The additional funding provided for both programs resulted in an increased number of residents and business owners in the Uptown area taking advantage of the new funding made available for their projects (see appendixes 1 & 2 for summary of approved projects). These enhancements have made positive contributions to the aesthetic of the public realm in the Uptown area. In addition to the funding boosts, staff worked with Uptown Saint John to help develop updated criteria for their evaluation process to help ensure high quality projects are favourably weighted during the application process. Actions for 2016 The development of a suite of programs to be launched in 2016 has focused on creating new residential units throughout the Central Peninsula in spaces that are currently vacant. Repurposing vacant spaces provides the City with the advantage of increasing the residential density of the area while simultaneously improving the tax base, and fostering investment in heritage buildings within the subject area. The return on investment for projects that repurpose vacant spaces within the urban core have proven to be of high value for the City. As such, the proposed incentives targeting new development beginning in 2016 include the following three programs: 1. Upper Floor Redevelopment Incentive 2. Housing Rehabilitation Incentive 3. Housing Infill Incentive The proposed new programs will effectively target vacant lots, vacant buildings and vacant upper floors. The increase of units in the focus area resulting from the incentives offered will be a key metric used to analyze the success of each program. Returning these spaces to productive use will result in positive community outcomes, including increased residential density, improved building stock, the preservation of historic buildings, and developing a more vibrant urban core. Page 1 3 190 The process of developing the proposed incentive program benefitted from stakeholder engagement. The engagement process occurred throughout the summer months of 2015, and included individual sessions as well as small focus group discussions. Planning staff consulted with City agencies, developers, real estate agents, and owners of vacant dwellings. In total, over 17 one-on-one and small group engagement sessions took place during this time. Although each discussion presented a unique perspective on the use of incentives in the City, clear themes emerged from these sessions, which are discussed below. Stakeholder Themes The consultation process involved discussions with several groups and individuals who were asked a range of questions to help staff understand the most effective policies to achieve the established goals of the proposed incentive program. Many themes emerged from these sessions, including both cautionary input as well as comments suggesting how to make the program successful. The following is a summary of the input offered from these sessions. Incentives must Tip the Balance to Leverage new Investment Designing the proposed program to result in development projects that would not have occurred otherwise must be a primary goal of the incentive program. Our stakeholders clearly stated that it would not be a good use of government money to support projects Page 14 191 that would have happened regardless of the incentive program. The feedback received stressed the importance of designing a program that provides a significant enough financial incentive to help tip the balance in the decision-making processes for developers and property owners who were not quite convinced that their projects would have had a positive return on investment without access to a development incentive. Several developers stated that they generally seek an 8% to 10% return on investment (after financing and taxes) for a development project. This tends to slide depending on the circumstances present in the local market. Provide information on Upcoming Capital Projects It was often repeated that the ability to reinvest in its existing infrastructure, including the public right-of-way and public parks, is a powerful incentive that a municipal government already has. Enhancing the quality of these spaces functions as a incentive for homeowners and developers to make a pro -active decision to reinvest in their properties. It has been recommended, as a part of the incentive program, that staff provide a schedule of tentative public work projects that are scheduled to take place in the subject area. Foreknowledge of major city projects could impact the decision for the private sector to develop in the area at the same time. Need for a Neighbourhood Plan Related to the provision of information regarding City work projects, it was frequently mentioned that such work should be informed by a neighbourhood plan that guides the development of the area in a logical and planned manner. Investment strategies would be guided by public input, and would ultimately help facilitate private sector investment. Right -Size the Incentive Model The feedback to staff has included the sentiment that large projects do not depend on municipal funding as they rely solely on market demand. The focus of the incentive program should be on small and medium sized projects if possible, including small infill projects, renovations of existing dwellings, and beautification efforts in the public realm. The beautification of the Central Peninsula will help promote the area as a desired place to live and work. This contributes to the creation of demand-side growth for larger projects that developers will pursue when the market is ready to absorb that scale of development. Remove Barriers For Development Some projects become too costly as a result of one or more major barriers, such as the need to remediate an existing brownfield, the need for sprinklers, the need to remove rock outcrop, etc. Helping to reduce the cost of such one-off items through up -front grants could help a project make more financial sense. Such challenges are common Page 1 5 192 � • � �i a � ^ L� • . , � f =,•^lam ^� 'i. with older buildings, particularly when renovating the upper floors for residential purposes. Keep Improving Development Review Processes Developers stressed the importance for local government to make their process more efficient. Developers noted the inconvenience of having to visit several different departments, and speak with several different staff, through the process of having a project approved. Making the system faster and more efficient would be a positive step toward incenting development in the City. Focus on Residential Density The rate of commercial vacancy has remained at a high rate for several years, and and there is presently no need for incentives. The incentive program should focus on residential development and aesethitc enhancements that will help bolster the market in the Central Peninsula. Page 1 6 193 MP , - 70 r - r. X1 - � M - In addition to the engagement of stakeholders, a focused survey of national best practices was undertaken. This survey reviewed the incentive programs of municipalities within the Maritimes, Ontario, Western Canada and a unique program in Baltimore, MD. A total of twelve municipalities were contacted as part of the best practices research. The research included a detailed review of each municipality's website; any program materials available; a structured 1-2 hour telephone interview with staff members involved in the program; and the review of any supporting documentation or reports provided by each municipality. The municipalities included are displayed on the following map. Page 1 7 194 The Regional Context In the Atlantic Provinces, there is limited experience in delivering urban development incentive programs. In fact, in the past Saint John has generally been one of the more aggressive municipalities in offering such programs. However, within this past year Edmundston and Moncton have established new programs. The approach of these two programs is to provide multi-year grants based on the value of construction. Moncton The City of Moncton has launched a new development incentives program for the 2015 construction season to encourage the development or redevelopment of vacant properties and buildings within the downtown. It was adopted as a one year pilot program and includes the following grants: Redevelopment Grant Program The Moncton Redevelopment Grant Program is focused on a core precinct within Downtown Moncton. It provides a multi-year grant to new development and the redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties. The base amount of the grant is calculated using the following formula: Construction Costs x General Multiplier ( 0.016 for Residential & 0.024 for Commercial) x Score achieved on a proposal evaluation scoring system The grant is provided over a schedule of five years for projects with construction costs under $10,000,000 and 10 years for projects with costs in excess of this amount. The percentage of the grant decreases by approximately 10-20% each year until the grant has been fully paid. The program is funded through a reserve fund that receives all new tax revenue generated from incentivized projects. Any tax revenue directed to the reserve fund that is not required to pay out grants is used to build a small capital pool to support future infrastructure projects for the downtown core. To further strengthen the urban core, the City of Moncton completed a vision for their Downtown, a Community Improvement Plan and are also embarking upon the creation of a Downtown Precinct Plan to ensure that new investment in the area is fully leveraged by the community. Building Permit and Planning Fee Equivalent Grant Program Moncton is also offering a grant to rebate fees paid to the municipality for building permits and planning approvals in the downtown core precinct. This applies to projects Page 18 195 developing or redeveloping vacant properties or buildings, which are then rebated to the applicants following the completion of the projects. Edmundston In June of 2015, the City of Edmundston adopted a development incentives program that covers the entirety of the Municipality, but focuses additional resources on its downtown. The program is comprised of three grants that target new residential and commercial development, as well as a business start-up grant and a faqade renovation program. The bulk of the program offered by the City of Edmundston is directed toward incenting new investors to the municipality. Following the adoption of the program, the City of Edmundston is now embarking on a new municipal plan, based on the best practices approach of PlanSJ, to focus future investment. Support Program for Investors The Support Program for Investors is a multi-year development grant program for new residential and commercial development with construction costs greater than $300,000. Larger grants are available for construction over $500,000, and an even greater amount for projects with costs greater than $1,000,000. Grants pay out approximately 45% more if the projects are located within the downtown. Incentive Program Models The survey of 12 municipal development incentives programs demonstrated a variety of program models that have been implemented to encourage urban development. Although several of the most widely adopted models in other parts of the country have been identified as not currently permitted under New Brunswick legislation, there are several additional options identified that provide opportunities to adopt an impactful incentives program for Saint John. Construction Cost or Per Unit Grants Construction cost or per unit grants are typically one-time grants that provide a lump sum payment based on a construction cost range, the number of residential units created, or new commercial floorspace developed. As a one-time grant, the effectiveness of these programs are generally reliant on large operating budgets or thorough processes for selecting the highest quality development proposals applying for the grant. In New Brunswick, this grant model has recently been used as part of a multi-year grant program that provides many of the same benefits as the Tax Increment Grant model. This model was developed an alternative, due to New Brunswick Legislation which specificly prohibits both Tax Increment Financing and Grants. As this model focuses on Page 1 9 196 Qr rebating construction costs rather than taxes, it is within the legal authority of a New Brunswick municipality. This alternative model allows a municipality to provide a more impactful development incentive while reducing short term financial commitments. Additionally, by funding these programs through reserve funds with new revenues from incentivized projects, it is assumed that revnue from new development should make these programs cost neutral. However, this assumption implies that any development receiving a grant would not have otherwise occurred. To truly operate as a "cost neutral" program, enough new development must be leveraged through the incentive program to offset revenue lost from projects that would have occurred without an incentive program. Grants Addressing Development Barriers Some municipalities offer development incentives that are designed to reduce or mitigate the impact of key barriers to urban development. One of the most common challenges is the remediation of brownfield sites. Other programs may identify high cost work for the retrofit of existing older buildings that were not constructed to meet the requirements of current building codes or the lifystyle demands of the modern consumer. Fee Rebate Programs Fee Rebate Programs offer relief or reimbursement for costs incurred to obtain development approvals or permits. This is often applied to development cost charges, building permit fees and planning application fees. Although some municipalities will offer this program as a waiver or reduction of fees, there is a growing trend of municipalities offering cash rebates following the completion of the project. This reduces the administrative impacts of reviewing projects "that are not real" and allows the municipality to budget and limit the amount of fees that are not collected. The majority of municipalities surveyed expressed concerns regarding the risks of unpredictable financial impacts of fee rebate programs if they are not operated as part of a budgeted incentives program. Fagade Improvement Grants Commercial fapade improvement grant programs are common throughout Canada. They offer a grant paying a percentage of construction costs to make improvements to the exterior facades of commercial buildings in urban areas. Some municipalities have offered similar programs for residential properties in urban areas, with the goal of improving the curb appeal of a residential neighbourhood. This helps to make the area more attractive for new private sector investment. These programs are often run similarly to heritage grant programs with urban design criteria Page 1 10 197 Zr and a committee review process governing the issuance of maintenance and improvement grants. These grants are typically available to both older and more contemporary buildings. Emerging Best Practice Themes While the 12 communities surveyed all operated different programs, a number of emerging best practice themes were identified. These themes are important considerations that can heavily impact the overall success of a development incentives program. The eight themes discussed below were identified either due to their universality across the 12 municipal programs surveyed, or had been specifically identified by one or more municipalities as an important feature of their program. Connect the Program to a Plan Development incentive programs are most effective when adopted as part of an implementation strategy for neighbourhood or area structure plans. The environment in which real estate developers invest is not only impacted by cash incentives. Development decisions can be more dramitically impacted by strategic improvements to the public realm, such as streetscaping or upgrades to public spaces. A more attractive neighbourhood provides a stronger market for developers to invest in. For this reason, most communities offering development incentives programs are doing so in support of a plan or vision for the neighbourhood. In Ontario, it is a legislated requirement that a Community Improvement Plan be adopted prior to the establishment of any development incentive program. Locally, the City of Moncton is developing a precinct plan for their downtown core in tandem with the new incentives program. Measure Success Program monitoring is important to ensure that public money is being spent wisely. Strong programs set targets and identify key metrics for measuring the success of the program. Often, this will include predefined periods in which a program must go through a formal program evaluation and will include a public reporting process. The most common indicators reported on are the rates at which private investment and new tax assessment are leveraged per dollar spent on grants and incentives. Be Flexible and Adapt to the Market As the intent of an incentive program is to encourage development projects that are not currently happening in the community, or that may not occur without financial incentives, it can be difficult for a municipality to model or predict the response to the program. For this reason, built-in flexibility can be an important component of a program. One way in which some municipalities have achieved this goal is by using all encompasing incentive Page 1 11 Im models such as tax increment financing or per unit grants, or by using a shared funding pool for an entire suite of incentive programs. This ensures that if there is a market for a certain type of project in one year and a different type of project the next, the program can adapt to meet budget targets, while not missing any opportunities. Follow a Timeline An effective incentive program creates a sense of urgency for the development community. A good program will often have a beginning, a middle and an end. This provides time for momentum to build within the development community, while not creating a sense of permanence and complacency. For this reason, many programs are adopted for a three to five year period. Make an Impact A development project requires a large investment and the acceptance of significant risk on behalf of the developer. For this reason, municipal grants and incentives need to be significant in order to acutally incent a development project that may not have occurred otherwise. Incentives need to either make an impact in the developers bottom line, help to encourage market response to projects within the target area or mitigate risks faced by the developer. For this reason, a significant proportion of the municipalities surveyed offered incentive amounts large enough to make an impact. Incentive Program Grant Amounts Municipality Development Incentive Edmonton $7,000 to $12,000 per unit, to a maximum of $252,000 - $432,000 per project. Hamilton Rebate taxes on a sliding scale over five years. No maximum amount Medicine Hat Maximum grant of $100,000 (during first 4 years of the program) 4.7%-7.0% of construction costs over 5 years for projects with construction costs under $10 million. Moncton 8%-12% of construction costs over 10 years for projects with construction costs greater than $10 million. Edmundston Up to $43,500 over 3 years for residential projects greater than $500,000 Page 1 12 199 Cap Large Projects Large scale projects represent a risk to any development incentives program with a limited budget. Without any mechanisms to limit their eligibility or maximum grant amounts, a single large project could effectively drain the program's budget for an entire year. For this reason, most municipalities limit grants to a maximum amount. Be Clear, Predictable and Streamlined To effectively incent new development projects, an incentive program should be clear and predictable in order to provide the development community with the information and time to effectively plan their projects. Development projects have significant upfront costs which can include the purchase of properties, consulting fees for design work and early debt servicing costs. If developers are unable to submit an application for an incentive without a high degree of certainty that they will be approved (provided it meets program and design criteria), the capital costs of the project may deter the developer from attempting the application and the project. Encourage Quality Projects Projects that are of low quality design, or are not contextually appropriate for the subject neighbourhood, can negatively impact the attractiveness of an area for investment. For this reason, most municipalities implement minimum design requirements or guidelines to encourage quality projects. In some programs, a formal committee review is included and projects are picked to receive grants based on quality of design. Page 1 13 N To support informed decision-making and develop an understanding of the business reality of the development industry, a series of statistical and financial analyses were conducted. Three key studies were undertaken to improve the project team's understanding of the economics of individual projects, the realities of the current marketplace and the financial impact of the incentives program on a municipality. The result was the selection of a multi-year grant paying out a value of 5.25% of construction costs over a five year period as the core component of the proposed development incentives program. Development Project Economics To test the impact of potential development incentives, a series of real estate pro -formas were prepared for a range of development project scenarios. A pro -forma is a financial analysis tool used to determine the viability and potential return on investment for a proposed development project. Whether it is developed as a series of complex spreadsheets, or informally conducted on scrap paper, it is the primary method for assessing development projects. The real estate pro -formas developed were used to assess the impact of potential grants. These pro -formas were analyzed over 10 years for multi -unit projects and over two years for townhouse infill projects. Numbers on construction, operating costs and expected rates of return were determined using industry standards and reviewed in conjunction with five local developers, consultants and property owners to confirm the accuracy for the Saint John marketplace. This analysis was run for the following project types: 14 Unit Apartment Building; 8 Unit Apartment Building; and 3 Unit Row House Development. Through this analysis, a number of key observations were made regarding the size of the incentive required to impact development: Multi -Unit Buildings The impact of development incentives for multi -unit buildings was negligible until the incentive amount reached approximately 5-10% of construction costs. At this rate, a multi -unit building would be able to lower the per-unit rent by approximately $50-$100 to access a larger portion of the rental market. Alternatively, the developer could carry an additional 5% vacancy rate in the multi -unit building as a result of the incentive program while not running an operating loss. Effectively, the incentive would allow developers to either expand Page 1 14 201 the size of their target market or to reduce the risk of running an operating loss due to vacancy. Townhouse Developments For smaller townhouse development projects 5% performed as an effective incentive amount. At 5%, this incentive covered roughly one-third of the desired rate of return of a developer, making infill projects more attractive. This would also allow developers to sell townhouses for a sale price of approximately $10,000 - $15,000 lower, while maintaining an acceptable rate of return and appealing to a wider market. Additionally, it would also allow the developer to carry the cost of the development for approximately 6-8 months if the project is notable to sell immediately. Large Development Projects The pro -forma analysis confirmed what had already been raised by stakeholders and addressed by the programs of other municipalities: that large projects would require too large of an incentive for Saint John to safely provide meaningful grants. The results of the pro -forma analysis in conjunction with the review of best practices and feedback from stakeholders led to the recommendation that an incentive at the rate of approximately 5% would be effective in encouraging more development in the Central Peninsula. Market Assessment To ensure the proposed program is grounded in realistic market expectations, a market assessment was conducted to identify key opportunities for revitalizing the Central Peninsula and to assess the latent market potential for medium to high density residential development. The results of this assessment show a clear need to encourage more reinvestment in Saint John's core as well as the potential to build off some of the recent momentum in the Central Peninsula. Vacant Lots Vacant Lots in the Central Peninsula have been identified as a key concern for the community. These lots detract from their surrounding neighbourhoods, harm the image and marketing potential of the City, and represent a significant opportunity cost. On average, properties within the Central Peninsula have the most value per square foot in the City. This is not specific to Saint John, but is in fact a fundamental principle of land economics. In its current state, the Central Peninsula represents approximately 0.66% of the land mass of Saint John, yet generates 12.68% of the municipal taxes. Page 1 15 202 As depicted in the map below, there are currently 287 vacant lots in the Central Peninsula. Equally as concerning as the sheer volume of vacant lots, is the existence of vacant lots in prominent mixed-use areas in the Uptown, such as on Prince William Street, Germain Street, King Square and along the waterfront. Despite this, these lots represent a valuable development opportunity for the City - that if developed at typical densities for the area - would yield upwards to 4,000 residential units and over four hundred million dollars in property assessment. Vacant Lots Number of Vacant Lots: 287 Average Value: $41,240 Typical Value of Small Vacant Lots: $1,500 - $10,000 Typical Value of Small Lots Redeveloped: $250,000 Typical Value of Mid to Large Size Lots: $40,000 - $100,000 Typical Value of Mid to Large Lots Redeveloped: $3,000,000 Vacant Lot located on Historic Germain Street Dangerous and Vacant Buildings 'err { Vacant buildings represent both a missed opportunity and a burden for the municipality. Not only are these buildings often unleveraged architectural assets, but in their current state they can represent both safety and fire risks for the community, which require regular monitoring by city staff. These buildings also negatively impact surrounding property values and act as a deterrent to any future investment in the area. The redevelopment of these buildings are a win-win for Saint John. It reduces administrative impacts on the City while improving neighbourhoods, increasing safety, generating new 203 i Page 1 16 tax revenue and improving the market potential for future investment in the Central Peninsula. Vacant Buildings Growth & Community Development currently administers a dangerous and vacant building program. A list of approximately 150 vacant buildings are monitored by staff, 40 of which are located in the Central Peninsula. In extreme cases the program may undertake the demolition of buildings to resolve the public safety hazard. Vacant building located on Duke Street A Buildings in Substandard Condition In addition to buildings identified on the Dangerous and Vacant Buildings list, there is a large quantity of buildings in substandard condition that are currently occupied, or are vacant and have not yet been identified by the City. In their current state, these properties negatively impact the overall attractiveness of the surrounding neighbourhood and impede investment. Currently, there are 71 buildings in the Central Peninsula with an assessment of below $70,000. Many of these buildings may require major upgrades, while others may only require significant exterior improvements. Page 1 17 N LZJ l � M al Buildings with Low Property Assessment Assessed Under $40,000: 25 Assessed $40,000 - $70,000: 46 ,� SddR *Properties with low Assessments in the South End Development Trends Over the last decade the Central Peninsula has experienced two waves of reinvestment worth a value of approximately $47,000,000, as reported on their building permit applications. The majority of this investment occurred prior to 2010, during a period in which development activity was considerably heightened across the region. While these numbers seem to indicate a considerable cooling of the market in the Central Peninsula in the past five years, further evaluation of these numbers produces a more positive outlook for the following reasons: Development in the Central Peninsula from 2005-2009 was bolstered by significant government support of four large affordable or mixed income housing projects totaling roughly $18,000,000 in building permit fees. This sector has not been active in this market since the construction of Abbey St. Andrews in 2009. Page 1 18 205 �A_ -- IT I L Investment in new condo developments (often sold as investment properties to people external to Saint John) are providing local developers with a safe market with reduced risk. This has helped to bolster the market for new -build condos over the past five years. From 2005-2009, 13 high-end new -build condo units were brought to market and sold locally. Since 2010, approximately 112 new build condo units have been brought to market, a portion of which were sold to investors across Canada. A niche market for high-end apartment rental units for young professionals and downsizing members of the baby boom generation has helped to bolster the housing market in the Central Peninsula in recent years. This resulted in a growing interest in the redevelopment of many of the upper floors of larger heritage buildings by both local developers and external investors. These projects typically seek to capitalize on the desirability of urban living and close access to the amenities provided in Uptown Saint john. Properties within the Heritage Conservation Areas have outpaced the rest of the City with respect to overall increase in property assessment. Over the span of 20 years, the average taxes paid by properties within heritage areas increased 62% more than those located outside of them. This further supports the importance of quality design for an incentives programs. Building Permits Over $50,000 Value $50,000-$99,000: 40 $100,000-$999,999: 27 $1,000,000-$10,000,000: 10 206 4;;. Page 1 19 Total Permit Value 2010-2015: $13,305,500 Kr Number of Permits 2010- 2015: 28 as Total Permit Value 2005-2009: We - $33,678,600 $33,678,600 Number of Permits 2005- 005-2009:49 2009:49 ' Building Permits By Value 2005-2015 $50,000-$99,000: 40 $100,000-$999,999: 27 $1,000,000-$10,000,000: 10 206 4;;. Page 1 19 Development Projections To facilitate the design of the incentives program and to support the identification of realistic development targets, a set of development projections were prepared for the Central Peninsula. The projections identified both a low and high scenario for the estimated number of units constructed over the next three years. The projections were developed by determining the Central Peninsula's market share for new residential units constructed in the Greater Saint John area, as reported by CMHC. The average market share for the Central Peninsula for both years of high and low performance were calculated and adjusted according to CMHC development projections for upcoming years. This resulted in serviceable estimates for both successful and unsuccessful development scenarios within the context of a soft market. It is assumed that the low scenario would represent the status quo and a failure of the development incentives program to incent new development while the high scenario would represent a highly successful program. Over the proposed three year duration recommended for an incentives program, the low to high estimates ranged from 55 to 146 new units constructed. These estimates are depicted in the chart below. 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2016 2017 2018 a Status Quo - Semi & Row High - Semi & Row 0 Status Quo - Apartments High - Apartments Page 1 20 207 Opportunities and Program Impact The research and analysis outlined in this report led to the identification of a multi-year construction cost grant of 5.25% as being the most effective option for incentivizing new residential development, while limiting the immediate financial impact on the municipality. A fundamental reason for the selection of this model is the potential to implement this program in a manner that is cost neutral for the municipality. A multi- year grant would be provided following the completion of the project and the generation of new revenue for the municipality. The new revenue generated from the development project would be directed to a reserve fund to finance the incentive program. To ensure that this model can be adapted to Saint John in a manner that is effective and low risk for the municipality, a survey of more than 20 past development projects was conducted and ground tested using the proposed incentive funding model. The results of this analysis showed that, provided a few scenarios were addressed through program criteria, this model could be successfully adopted in Saint John. Potential Revenue Streams A successful development incentives program has the potential to generate new revenue streams that offset the costs of providing the incentives and contribute to overall City revenue. This includes an increase in taxes paid to the municipality, additional building permit fees and new water and sewer revenue. Tax Revenue If the incentive program succeeds in leveraging a significant amount of new investment in the Central Peninsula and is able to grant the entirety of the proposed annual budget for the three year program, it will provide a significant contribution to the tax base of the City. By year three of this scenario, the incremental increase in tax revenue due to the incentivized projects would reach $481,000 annually. Grant commitments will also begin to fall exponentially by year three, as no new grants will be committed beyond this point and the average value of grants owing begins to decline and be phased out. Under this scenario, up to $30,000,000 would be invested by the private sector over three years. Over the lifespan of the program, $1,575,000 would be paid out as grants, while approximately $3,737,650 would be generated as new tax revenue. The development projections assume that some developments receiving grants would have occurred regardless of the provision of development incentives. This is displayed in the chart below as the "Status Quo". Despite this, full uptake in the program will still provide a net increase in tax revenue above the status quo by approximately $300,000 on an annual basis. Page 1 21 I Over a period of 10 years, when accounting for grants paid and the forgone revenue of projects that would have happened anyway, net tax revenues would generate a surplus of approximately $2,900,000. 4-4 z ru a 0 N O i v QJ QJ CC X F� 3 0J z $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 2015 Tax Base* 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 * Reflects Existing Tax Base of the Central Peninsula. Building Permit Revenue Net Increase in Annual Tax Revenue (App.) $300, 000 Expected Revenue Status Quo Maximum Revenue Yield From High Uptake Grants Required for High Uptake In addition to potential new building permit revenue from an increased level of development, the ground testing of past projects also identified the potential for increased building permit revenue due to higher accuracy in reporting the value of the proposed construction. This is a positive trend identified by most of the municipalities contacted, which comes as a result of the requirement for the applicant to submit detailed contractor quotes with their development incentives program application. Of the more than 20 projects surveyed, building permit values are estimated to be reported approximately 40% below actual construction costs. This could increase permit revenues from approximately $10,000 to $90,000, depending on uptake in the incentives program. o Page 1 22 $100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 2016 2017 2018 Water & Sewer Revenue ■ Status Quo ■ High Uptake Incentivizing new development in the Central Peninsula will also generate new water and sewer revenue, while not requiring the creation of new infrastructure to be maintained. Based on the high and low unit projections, new water and sewer revenues could range between $20,000 and $60,000 of new revenue annually. $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 2016 2017 2018 210 ■ Status Quo ■ High Uptake Page 1 23 Potential Risks and Mitigation Measures The testing of past development projects identified a small number of potential scenarios in which the municipality is at risk of not maintaining the cost neutrality of the program. These scenarios are listed below along with measures to either mitigate or eliminate any risks to the municipality. Assessment Reduction Program Recipients The Province of New Brunswick operates an Assessment Reduction Program in order to provide relief and incentives to charitable or not-for-profit organizations that benefit one or more of the following: Relief of poverty; Services to youth; Services to the elderly; and Services to the disabled or disadvantaged. This program provides an additional subsidy for affordable housing developments by reducing the assessed value of the property. This results in reduced operating costs and a guaranteed market for a portion of the building. Due to the decreased assessment for these projects, the value of grants at 5.25% cannot be maintained in a manner that is cost neutral. The results of the ground testing of the grant showed that a grant of 2.5% over 5 years at 0.5% per year will provide an effective incentive for these projects, while maintaining the cost neutrality of the program. Demolition and Construction Infill development projects that require the demolition of an existing building pose a challenge for the cost neutrality of the program. Additionally, incentivizing this activity may also undermine other goals of the program relating to the rehabilitation of vacant buildings and the redevelopment of upper floors. For this reason, it is recommended that infill projects only be eligible if the subject lot has been vacant for more than one year. Multiple Buildings on a Lot In very limited circumstances, a property owner may have the opportunity to construct additional buildings on an existing lot. This can complicate staff review of the project and cause additional administrative challenges for the determination of the reserve fund contribution. For this reason, it is recommended that infill projects eligible for incentives must be located on their own PID. Page 1 24 211 Poor Quality Design Projects with a low standard of urban design have the potential to negatively impact the attractiveness of a neighbourhood for investment and are anticipated to often not maintain cost neutrality under this incentive model. For this reason, it is recommended that a minimum set of design guideline criteria be estabished as a requirement of the incentive program. Page 1 25 212 213 m m I Urban Development m m IncerrWes ® m Central Peninsula Q1 Re -Investment Program Options A suite of incentive programs is proposed to help stimulate new investment in the Central Peninsula. It is a three pronged approach designed to support the development community while also encouraging neighbourhood beautification, which will help induce increased demand for residential development. There are three types of incentive programs pursued as part of this strategy: Urban Development incentives are intended to encourage new development or redevelopment projects by providing support to development projects meeting key planning outcomes. Beautification Grants are to encourage property owners to make investments in the improvement of the facades of their buildings. These investments will help to improve streetscapes in the Central Peninsula, indirectly making areas more attractive for further private sector investment. Soft incentives are non -monetary programs, services and information offered to the development community to address key challenges and to help facilitate the development process. The Development Incentives Program is comprised of three program streams; each offer a variety of grant funding opportunities to eligible projects. The three program streams focus on (1) residential infill on vacant lots, (2) upper floors, and (3) housing rehabilitation in the Central Peninsula area of the City. Residential Density Rebate Eligible Residential Grant Construction Funding Challenges Grant Building Permit Rebate (Priority for Affordable Housing Projects Only) Grant Types Residential Density Rebate Residential Construction Challenges Grant Feasibility Study Grant Building Permit Rebate (Priority for Affordable Housing Projects Only) Residential Density Rebate Residential Construction Challenges Grant Feasibility Study Grant Building Permit Rebate Four types of grants are made available for projects eligible for one of the three development incentive program streams. These include: Residential Density Rebate Market Housing Projects The Residential Density Rebate is a multi-year grant that offers a 5.25% refund of construction costs for eligible development projects over a 5 year period. This grant is paid according to the following disbursement schedule: Year 1 1.5% Year 2 1.5% Year 3 1.125% Year 4 0.75% Year 5 0.375% Total Grant 5.25% Page 1 28 215 Projects will be capped at a maximum grant amount of $35,000 in year one. Social Housing Projects For eligible projects containing subsidized housing units or owned by not-for- profit organizations, the following Residential Density Rebate payment schedule is applicable: Grants for social housing developments are subject to a maximum grant amount of $35,000 in year 1 and $120,000 in total grants over 5 years. Residential Construction Challenges Grant The residential construction challenges grant is intended as a supplementary grant for projects which incur costs due to key challenges which are above and beyond standard residential construction projects. This grant pays a maximum of 5% of total construction costs up to a maximum of $50,000. There are 12 eligible types of work that can be included in an application for this grant. Sample Residential Construction Challenges Grant W :. Potential Grant Amount �11"'JIbqgninu.1i Year 1 0.5% Year 2 0.5% Year 3 0.5% Year 4 0.5% Year 5 0.5% Total Grant 2.5% Grants for social housing developments are subject to a maximum grant amount of $35,000 in year 1 and $120,000 in total grants over 5 years. Residential Construction Challenges Grant The residential construction challenges grant is intended as a supplementary grant for projects which incur costs due to key challenges which are above and beyond standard residential construction projects. This grant pays a maximum of 5% of total construction costs up to a maximum of $50,000. There are 12 eligible types of work that can be included in an application for this grant. Sample Residential Construction Challenges Grant W :. Potential Grant Amount Secondary Egress Upgrades 20% of Costs to a maximum of $10,000 dollars. Sprinkler Systems Installation 20% of Costs to a maximum of $10,000 dollars. Elevators 20% of Costs to a maximum of $20,000 dollars. Fire Separation Challenges 20% of Costs to a maximum of $10,000 dollars. Rock Breaking Contaminated Soils 20% of Costs to a maximum of $5,000 dollars. 20% of Costs to a maximum of $30,000 dollars. Combined Sewers 20% of Costs to a maximum of $20,000 dollars. Structural Issues 20% of Costs to a maximum of $10,000 dollars. Foundation Issues 20% of Costs to a maximum of $10,000 dollars. New Windows (Cutting out Brick) 10% of Costs to a maximum of $2,500 dollars. Asbestos Removal 20% of Costs to a maximum of $10,000 dollars. Upgrading of Knob & Tube Electrical 20% of Costs to a maximum of $10,000 dollars. The maximum grant amount for each project or townhouse development cannot exceed 5% of total construction costs or $50,000. Page 1 29 216 As this grant has a limited budget, it will be awarded only to the top eligible proposals. This will be determined by a standing committee, which will review and score each application according to consistency with program goals, design criteria and the greatest need. Feasibility Study Grant The feasibility study grant provides support for a technical study or engineering assessment of the feasibility of potential upper floor redevelopment or a residential rehabilitation project. This grant pays 50% of the cost of the study up to a maximum of $10,000. Building Permit Rebate The building permit rebate could provide up to 80% of building permit fees to a maximum of $10,000 for eligible applications. Building permit fees would be paid in full at the time of application and would be rebated following the successful completion of the project. It is recommended that the building permit rebate be made available to social housing and residential rehabilitation projects that meet the program criteria. Page 130 217 Past program An incentive program that targeted reinvestment in the upper floors of building in the Trinity Royal heritage district existed from 1991 to 1996. At the time, Council recognised the value in repurposing vacant upper floor spaces for commercial and/or residential use. The research included a profile of the existing building stock within the study area. The program anticipated the need for building owners to undergo a professional study to better understand the feasibility of the proposed renovations. It was perceived that the cost of such a study would function as a deterrent for a potential renovation project. As such, the incentive program provided 80% of the cost of the study, up to a maximum of $35,000. The second portion of the incentive program covered 50% of the work done to the building to create the residential units, up to a maximum of $10,000. The Upper Floors Grant program in the 1990s was unsuccessful in incenting the renovation of any upper floor units. There are likely several factors that contribute to the lack of uptake for the program, including the growing trend to live in the suburbs that continued throughout the 1990s. After reviewing the file, and researching current trends, staff are confident that a new program could be structured to procure positive results in 2016. The opportunity for a successful program is premised on the following observations: The development of the program in the 1990s was premature for capturing the upswing of interest in living in urban loft apartments, which has occurred in cities across North America since then; The grant program was likely not generous enough to entice any interest; and, The previous National Building Code had less ability to regulate older structures in a manner that facilitated renovations for residential purposes Description of Proposed Program The proposed program attempts to address the perceived barriers of the previous program, and offers a range of incentive opportunities designed to meet the financial challenges of renovating these buildings to attract interest in this housing option. To achieve this, the proposed program has the following criteria: Page 131 NM Criteria The redevelopment project must be wholly or partially located in the upper floor of an existing building The building must be located in the Uptown Commercial (CU) zone The project must result in at least one new residential unit 20% of the building's Gross Floor Area and the project must be residential The building must be inspected by a City Building Inspector to verify that the proposed work will result in the creation of at least one additional residential unit Eligibility for Barriers Grant An applicant seeking an Upper Floors Grant may also apply for a Construction Barriers Grant if the project involves any of the following barriers: The upgrade or installation of an elevator The installation of sprinklers in the building Providing a secondary egress Removing environmental contaminants (i.e. asbestos, lead paint) Masonry work Barrier free design features The building has knob -and -tube electrical wiring that needs updating Example 89 Princess Street - "The Warehouse" Prior to recent renovations, the property at 89 Princess Street for several decades was a 30,000 square foot building with one commercial operator on the ground floor and 0- 219 Page 132 vacant upper floors used for storage and/or office space. In 2014, the new owner of the building invested in the redevelopment, which yielded approximately 25 residential units and three commercial ground floor uses after completion. The project has had a significant positive impact on the Uptown by contributing to the vibrancy of the area, helping preserve a heritage building, and creating increased tax revenue for the City. If the reconstruction of this building were to occur under the proposed incentive program, the revenue generated and cost to the city would be as follows: Before renovations Vacant upper floors 1 commercial use on ground floor App. 30,000 square feet Previous assessment: app. $350,000 After renovations Contains app. 25 units 3 commercial uses on ground floor Final Assessment: $1,893,800 Cost of . RR Construction $2,000,000 amount received New Assessment generatedGrant Tax for $ 1,893,800 Difference 1st Year $ 30,000 $ 33,804 $ 3,804 2nd Year $ 30,000 $ 33,804 $ 3,804 3rd Year $ 22,500 $ 33,804 $ 11,304 4th Year $ 15,000 $ 33,804 $ 18,804 5th Year $ 7,500 $ 33,804 $ 26,304 Total $ 105,000 $ 169,022 $ 64,022 As the above chart illustrates, the highest amount of rebate paid to the developer occurs in years one and two. The following years see an increased return based on the value of the taxes that will be received from the property after the new assessment rates have taken affect and the amount owed back to the developer begins to descend. For every year after the grant has been paid back, the City will continue to receive a minimum of $33,804 of tax base from the development. Page 1 33 220 Description of the program The proposed Infill Development grant is intended to incent new development on vacant lands within the Central Peninsula. In its current form, vacant land holds little value for the City, and can have a negative impact on the aesthetics of a neighbourhood. However, vacant land also represents the potential for future growth. The proposed Infill Development grant is intended to target these vacant lands for the next generation of growth in the Central Peninsula. The program will involve the following criteria: Criteria The development must be in the Central Peninsula The proposed development must occur on a property that has been vacant, or not had a main structure on it for at least one year The project must result in at least two residential units 50% of the floor area must be dedicated to residential uses All necessary planning approvals must be obtained prior to the submission of an application All municipal approvals must be obtained to be eligible for the final grant All townhouse or row house development must be comprised of attached dwellings, and must be a minimum of two units Townhouse projects will not be eligible for a grant until after the completion of the second townhouse The project must receive a passing score from the Incentive Committee, based on the Committee's design criteria and guidelines (TBD) The final grant will not be approved until a final occupancy permit has been issued and all required documentation, including receipts and/or financial statements, have been submitted 221 Page 134 Eligibility for Construction Barriers Grant An applicant seeking an Infill Development Grant may also apply for a Construction Barriers Grant if the project involves any of the following barriers: The development includes the installation of an elevator The development requires any site remediation work The site requires rock breaking to prepare for development Example 4 Queen Square The below vacant lot is located at 4 Queen Square. Prior to the example infill project illustrated below, the property was assessed at $11,000, generating tax revenue for the City worth $196/year. For the purposes of this example, it will be assumed that the illustrated two-storey, two -unit, wood -framed development cost $200,000 to construct. If the construction of this building were to occur under the proposed incentive program, the revenue generated and cost to the city would be as follows: Before development Vacant lot App. 357 square metres Previous assessment: $11,000 After development Contains 2 units Final Assessment: $220,000 Enhances aesthetics of the neighbourhood Page 135 222 As the above chart indicates, the example infill project trends positive from a City revenue perspective. The first two years see the highest rate of payback to the developer, but still manage to return $927 in taxes to the City, which increases to more than $3,900 each year following the lifespan of the incentive program. Page 136 223 Description of the program The proposed program is intended to incent the redevelopment of existing vacant buildings within the Central Peninsula. For the purposes of this program, a building will have to have been vacant for at least one year, and must be considered "uninhabitable" or "dangerous". Currently there are approximately 14 buildings on the City's "Dangerous and Vacant" building list that fit this description within the Central Peninsula. The D&V list will be used as a starting point to build a working list of buildings that would be on a list unique to the Residential Rehabilitation Program. It is anticipated that this list would evolve overtime with information provided by property owners who wish to access the proposed program, as well as from ongoing updated information from Building Inspection staff. The proposed grant program will involve the following criteria: Criteria The building must be located within the Central Peninsula. The building must meet one of the following criteria: o It is on a City maintained list, unique to the Development Incentives Program, of vacant buildings; o The property has been vacant for more than 1 year and is assessed as not being suitable for residential habitation. ■ This will require an inspection by our staff. However, first the onus will be on the applicant to prove that the building is vacant through low utility bills. The vacant building rehabilitation project must create a minimum of one new residential unit. To be eligible for the full grant amount, the property owner may not apply for any Provincial housing programs. Page 137 224 If the property owner applies for any Provincial housing programs, they are only eligible for 2.5% of construction costs paid out over five years (0.5% per year). All necessary planning approvals must be obtained prior to the submission of an application. All municipal approvals must be obtained to be eligible for the final grant. The project must receive a passing score from the Development Incentives Committee, based on the Committee's design criteria and guidelines. The final grant will not be approved until a final occupancy permit has been issued and all required documentation, including receipts and/or financial statements, have been submitted. Eligibility for Construction Barriers Grant An applicant seeking a Rehabilitation Grant may also apply for a Construction Barriers Grant if the project involves any of the following barriers: The work includes the installation of an elevator The work includes the installation of sprinklers The building has knob -and -tube electrical wiring that needs updating The cutting of new windows into brick The development includes barrier free design features Example 98-100 St. James Street The below redevelopment project is located at 98-100 St. James Street. The dwelling had been vacant for several years prior to the new owner undertaking the work to bring it back to a habitable state. Prior to work being done, the building was assessed at $27,700, generating $482/year in tax revenue for the City. For the purposes of this example, it will be assumed that the construction costs for the redevelopment was $150,000. If the rehabilitation of this building were to occur under the proposed incentive program, the revenue generated and cost to the city would be as follows: Before development Vacant dwelling Fire hazard to community Contributing to urban blight Before After 225 Previous assessment: $27,700 After development Restored to two -unit dwelling Significant aesthetic improvements Historic structure preserved for foreseeable future Final Assessment: $203,800 226 Page 1 39 Application and Review Process It is intended that the application review process for all three development incentive programs be integrated with newly adopted review processes of the One -Stop Shop, including pre -application meetings and the project champion program. A preliminary application review process may be driven by several potential milestones: The submission of a complete application including all plans, cost estimates and a project schedule; A potential committee review process to ensure projects are consistent with the program design guidelines and to award grants from approved capital funds is being explored; The potential requirement for Council approval of the multi-year Residential Density Rebate; and The re -assessment of the property by Service New Brunswick and the payment of new tax revenue into the designated reserve fund. A potential application review, approval and grant disbursement process will be designed to ensure that all this takes place prior to the issuance of the Residential Density Rebate. This ensures the program remains cost neutral and is fully funded by new tax revenue prior to the payment of grants. Page 140 227 Several individuals and groups who offered feedback through the engagement process indicated that the beautification of the public realm can work as a powerful incentive tool for the private sector. A street with enhanced landscaping treatments and attractive building facades will be more likely to attract new investment than a street with minimal visual appeal. Likewise, the presence of derelict structures or buildings can deter new investment in the area as well as reinvestment for owners of neighbouring properties. Although many properties in the Central Peninsula are in pristine condition and add a very positive impact on the surrounding neighbourhood, several dwellings are in need of reinvestment to their exterior, which includes painting, siding, landscaping, masonry work, etc. The City currently boasts two separate programs that incent external work to existing structures. The Heritage Grant Program, administered by Growth and Community Planning, and the Fapade Grant Program administered by Uptown Saint John continue to offer grants for homeowners and business owners respectively. These programs contributed to the preservation of historic buildings and helped to develop the unique character of the Uptown area. Part of the request for a suite of incentive options to be launched in 2016 includes a recommended increase to the operational budget for both of these programs. The increased impact of the Heritage grant and Fapade grant complement the proposed incentive programs that target development in vacant areas of the Uptown. In addition to increasing the budget for these two programs, staff are recommending that an additional beautification grant be offered to residents in the Central Peninsula. This program would allow residents in the study area to take advantage of the opportunity to improve the facades of their dwellings during the lifespan of the development incentives program, which will contribute to the overall beautification of the Central Peninsula. All three programs are discussed below. Page 141 NM The heritage area is located predominantly in the South End and Uptown area, but extends in some instances to include buildings located in other neighbourhoods in the urban area of the City. The Heritage Grant Program includes a few different components that collectively work to achieve the goal of the program, which is to assist owners of heritage buildings to retain traditional materials and details of their character -defining elements. Over the years, the Heritage Program has been successful in retaining heritage structures within the preservation area, and providing the distinct physical beauty of the City that is highly celebrated. The program has proven to have a 3-1 return on investment. The program offers the following incentives: 1. 50% of a conservation plan, to a maximum of $1500 2. 25% of a maintenance grant, to a maximum of $750 3. 25% to 45% of a conservation grant, to a maximum of $7,500 The increased funds provided for 2015 resulted in seven additional projects being completed this year. It is staff's recommendation that the same increased contribution be made to the heritage program for 2016 as a means of strengthening the impacts of the suite of incentive programs discussed above. Page 142 229 The Faqade Grant Program is an incentive program intended to provide funding for businesses that are reinvesting in the facades of their buildings. The grant is applied to any work to the faqade of a building, including siding work, windows, signage, doors, etc. The program is administered by Uptown Saint John and has been successful in facilitating reinvestment in businesses with the BIA. As a preliminary measure to help incent reinvestment in the Uptown area for 2015, the City offered matching funds up to a maximum of $20,000 to bolster this program. The increased funds resulted in more businesses reinvesting in their facades. In addition to providing matching funding, the City committed to working with Uptown Saint John to help generate a more robust set of criteria to ensure that the quality of faqade work proposed on projects coming .. Pamb, 'o .• k r� forward meets the community's expectations for design. This work was completed in the summer of 2015, and will be applied to applications for 2016. The Faqade Grant Program offers the following grants: 1. A design grant for professional consulting fees up to 50%, to a maximum of $1,000 2. A project grant for eligible faqade work up to 50% of the project, to a maximum of $4,000 for each building faqade Offering an increase to the Faqade Program represents a further mechanism to help broaden the potential impact of the incentive program for the coming year. Page 143 230 Description of the program The Residential Beautification Grant program is designed to incent reinvestment in existing residential dwellings within the Central Peninsula, but outside the heritage preservation area. The purpose of the program is to offer some funding to residents and building owners in the subject area to do work to the street -facing fagades of their buildings. The enhanced visual appeal of the street will help build market confidence in the neighbourhood, and hopefully incent investment in new development, or inspire further reinvestment in existing dwellings in the area. Criteria The dwelling must be in the Central Peninsula The dwelling must be outside the heritage area The proposed work must be for a residential dwelling Only work done to the front of dwelling (including flankage yard frontage) will be considered The proposed work must be approved by the Incentive Committee Taxes for the subject dwelling must not be in arears All necessary planning approvals must be obtained prior to the submission of an application All municipal approvals must be obtained to be eligible for the final grant Eligible Work Exterior Painting Siding Repair/ Replacement Architectural Detail Repair/ Replacement Windows & Doors Exterior Front Steps, Handrails & Walkways Landscaping in the front or flankage yards, including sod, shrubs, trees & plant beds Page 144 231 Ineligible Work Interior Renovations Roof Repair/ Replacement Driveways Detached Garages Exterior Improvements to backyards or areas not visible from the street front Grant Formula 25% of eligible costs to a maximum of $5,000 Example 159-161 Orange Street The below property is located at 159-161 Orange Street. The property is in the heritage area and received a grant for the fapade work done to the building in 2014. The owner reinvested in new clap board siding, painted all four sides of the building, and installed a new front door. By way of example, if this building were outside the heritage area, and the work done to this building were to occur under the proposed incentive program, the impact to the program would be as follows: Total cost: $33,000 Number of eligible facades: 2 Approximate amount eligible for beautification incentive: $16,500 Total grant given: $4,125 The work done is a considerable aesthetic enhancement that extends beyond the property boundaries, and contributes to the beautification of the entire street. Developers have indicated that this type of Before After reinvestment operates as a form of incentive for future reinvestment or development to occur in the surrounding area. 232 Page 145 It should be noted that this project involved a higher average cost for fagade work than dwellings typically incur, as well as it would have two sides eligible for funding as it is a corner lot. Page 146 233 In addition to the direct incentives mentioned above, staff have been told by several developers and other groups that there are forms of `incentives' that do not involve the distribution of funds. These `soft incentives' include process improvement and providing information relating to city work projects to help developers coordinate their investments to take advantage of city investments. Improving government processes, for example, was often mentioned as an effective item that could be improved upon to facilitate the process of development in the community. Staff have committed to improving internal processes as they relate to development in the City, which has been captured in the "One Stop Shop" program currently being unrolled in phases. Another form of `soft incentive' is to provide information relating to the City's past and future investment plans that relate to the public realm, such as road work, park improvement strategies, landscaping efforts, etc. As the City scopes the work it is going to make a priority in the near future, more information could be made available to the public, which could help the private sector decision making regarding investments in the Central Peninsula. Another key soft incentive is to support the development community in their acquisition of urban properties. A map outlining potential development sites with key information is under development in preparation to be launched as part of the Incentives Program. Options regarding strategic land assembly are also being explored by the City in cooperation with the Economic Development Agencies. Options for potential `soft incentives' are still being explored. Staff plan on developing a working list, including some of the items mentioned above, to present and discuss during the second round of engagement. Page 147 234 Regular program monitoring and reporting are important mechanisms for ensuring accountability in administration and to improve the overall effectiveness of the program. If aspects of the program are providing poor results or putting the municipality at risk, the program should be amended or cancelled. For this reason, a clear monitoring and reporting system is proposed for the development incentives program. Annual Monitoring Report With the adoption of the proposed development incentives program, a formal annual monitoring report will be prepared to update Common Council on the status of the program and budget each year. This will be in additional to regular council updates on the program. The report will provide an overview of grants issued, new tax revenue, future grant commitments and anticipated future tax revenue. A recommendation will be provided to Council on whether to continue to operate the program or if changes should be made to budget targets. Three Year Program Evaluation At the completion of the full 3 year development incentives program, a full program evaluation will be completed and reported back to Common Council. The evaluation will assess the effectiveness and impact of the incentives program. At the completion of this evaluation, Common Council will be advised on the success of the program and options moving forward which could include: Closing the Program; Extending the Program if a need still exists; or Implementing the program in another neighbourhood. Several key performance indicators have been identified to support monitoring of the program. The table below outlines preliminary indicators that could be tracked from the outset of the program to support a comprehensive review of the programs return on investment. Page 148 235 Number & Value of Grants Committed Number of Applications Percent of budget target Spent Private Sector Investment Investment Leverage Rate New Tax Revenue New Tax Assessment New Tax Revenue Leverage Rate Additional Building Permit Revenue New Water & Sewer Revenue New Units Created Upper Floors Developed Number & Area of Vacant Lots Developed Number of Vacant Buildings Redeveloped Number of Projects Percentage of new Dwelling Units Constructed in the Central Peninsula Return on Investment Assessment Staff Hours/ Administrative Impact Affordable Housing Units Created Number & Value of Grants Committed Number of Applications Private Sector Investment Projects by type of Maintenance Activity Staff Hours/ Administrative Impact Number of Applications Number & Value of Grants Issued Private Sector Investment Metrics are already in place for this program. Page 149 236 The endorsement of this incentive program model is a crucial milestone towards the implementation of the development incentives program for the Central Peninsula in 2016. This signifies councils endorsement of the overall strategy for the program and will allow staff to further refine and operationalize the program through the following steps: Engage Stakeholders on the Proposed Incentive Model Stakeholder engagement is scheduled in tandem with the One -Stop Development Shop By -Law engagement sessions this month. The engagement schedule is outlined in the following chart. Engagement • P. Planning Advisory Committee & Heritage November 25th Development Board Developers, Property Owners and Consultants November 26th Economic Development Agencies November 27th Council Budget Review A submission has been made for the program for the 2016 budget process. The majority of the proposed program funding for 2016 is from carryover capital budget funds as per Council resolution, with a smaller request for new initiative funding to support operating grant programs such as the Building Permit Rebate and the Heritage Grant Program. The foundation of the program, the Residential Density Rebate, is intended to be cost neutral and would not have budget impacts until 2017, at which point they would be offset by new revenues. Establish Administrative Procedures Work will need to be completed to establish and operationalize the development incentive program for 2016. This will include the refinement of program, the development of new administrative procedures and the establishment of a reserve fund for the Residential Density Rebate in time for 2017. This will need to be coordinated with multiple City departments including Finance and Strategic Services. Develop a Communications Strategy Following Council approval of budget, marketing of the program would be undertaken to encourage uptake in the program in 2016. Final marketing materials will also need to be prepared following the final adoption of the Programs Policies & Procedures. Page 150 237 Council Adoption of Program Policy & Procedures A detailed document outlining the full criteria, guidelines, processes and procedures of the development incentives program will be prepared. This document will be brought before Council in early 2016 (January - February) as part of the formal adoption of the incentives program. Program Effective Date The recommended effective date for the program is proposed for January 1St, 2016. Although, the program will not be formally launched and applications will not be accepted at this time, any eligible new development applications that have not submitted a building application prior to January 1St, 2016 will be able to apply for the grant once formally adopted by Council. Program Launch Subject to Council approval of budget and administrative procedures, it is recommended that the program be formally launched in early 2016. Develop Communications Council Endorsement Strategy ..'�' .................... . .� Program Effective Date, January Is' : Develop Finalize Program ' Administrative Policy & Procedures ' Engage Stakeholders Procedures Document Council Adoption, Refine Program Early 2016 :....�..................... Program Launch Council Decision on Budget Submission I Page 151 �REO Appendix I Heritage Grant Summary 241 C V' N C co p 0 0 N O O A O O N N w y � N N N N N N O V ° N W cO m N N N fl 0 4t: N N ^ V7 � Q p N N N N N N o N r N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O � N � (D Q Q O O O O O CD (D O O O O O O m m (D 'O N N N N Q n 7 Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N C N Q Q_ Z V P a A W N O �o O 3 P N_ A W N m n O p p 7 7 0 DCD Z J CD J Q y Q p O � O Q 7 J (D J (nD G7 Q Q Q (a 7 T C C G Q. Q 7 � W � A ~ O Z O_ O (D N N a N N O N � Q N N O O N N y N N P N O N A N CL A n D N O = j N fn _ OO W NNN a 0 N G 3 C. Q C N O OOO .P O O G O O O O O (n O O W G1 W co W N b W W W OD Vi OD V N N P U P C- O. W W W O. O W W I I I I IW N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N V P N A W N O �o O V P N_ A W N Q W y O_ N N N N N N N N N N N W O N N y N N P N O N A N y A � w 00 W N b W W W W Vi OD V N N U P N O W W O. O �O N OJ W V p A y aD O ti N Q U n n n Q n n J n Q J N ]C D - p C c 4 n 7 << j (D (D O, Q_ 7 j Q P J (D N a 7 Q J O o N (D N N Q (O Q (D N Q' c c Q' cQ in (D N Q N 'Z N Ny` (D O �. O S N Q (D D (D (D O m 3 m c m y m ti m m O m m 'm m m m m m 6 N Q (D (D (D O N 'Z O (D Q W N (D (D :D 3(D(D(D o m W � m m o 3 o K m D CD (D (D c 5 (D N c 3 (D p A -. 'n N ` Q n o N cl a `Da � o 0 0 oo o oo o o' �� 0 a 7 J 7 J fl < W 3 N 4 Q< o 0 m m �. �. �. ii �. �. n CD s m m m O3o m m a o Q c c n n n n n n Q n(D 0 0 m O (o Q n Q n O Q O n Q O n o ° OC W 7 7 7 7 O(D m 7 3 3 Q o (D (D (D (D (D N (D N (D W Q N ID O O O (D (D o to N= < (D < N < (D < N < (D < N < (D < N Q (D = n 0 O J Q C 7 7 7 J Q C Z -Q -QN_ (D O Qo Qo Q Q 0 a 0 -o 0 a 0 -o 0 a 0 -o 0 -Q o -o J 0 G) i Q C o n °. 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 CD n 0 CD CD 11 CD CD CD Q z z O 7 J J ID J J J J J ti Q Q D O n <_ <_ (U n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J ^ V I (D Z O Z (D Z (D Z (D Z N Z (D Z N Z (D Z N Z (D Z N Z O Z (D Z (D Z N Z O Z N Z N Z N Z (D Z N Z (D Z N Z N Z (D Z (D Z Q O J O J O J O 7 O 7 o 7 o 7 o 7 o 7 o 7 0 7 0 7 0 J O J O 7 O 7 O J O 7 O JJ 0 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 J 0 7 0 J 0 7 0 G7 Q G) G) G7 0 (D G) (D 0 G) G) o a 0 0 G) G) Q G) G) G) - G) Q Q Q Q Q ij Q Q Q d Q Q Q Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Qo F.- [Fl- T'T'] 7 J J V � ° v - (NJn p, Qo 0(�Jn .Pp O N V W O O W O OJ V �O W V W N W O V V V V P W W O W O W O NG -� W W W �O (n �O N o Q V PN NO 1 O OO O W CJ WN OV O WV N V W A A a0 L]. NNN NN -to NNNN -LA in -Ln N 44 NNNN -LA NNNNN j!O 4 W- V fn 4 V V W V V N N N V N W V V N W A A N < O AO�o N Nin 0 in � 00 W0 P N N N O N Vi A�A�O 1o"(D = O O 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 V 14 N O N C' t0J7 N O O O O O 9p O O 0 O 0 O O W N O (JAi O O O O O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fn O O O O 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 4A 4n -Lo G7 N C WN V W W A A N C 'ato fnPNN O W- -0 co (D O A N A O O O O Go N O V O Q O O W fn O O O V OD N O V O 00 0000 O 0000 V O 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o W 0 242 243 Appendix II Facade Grant Summary 245 Ranking Applicant Name Address Score Avg. Score $ requested Description of Project Funds Allocated $ 1 Historica Quattro Limited Partnership 30-38 Canterbury Street 384 96 $85,000-$100,000 3 storefronts, residential entrances, framing, windows, doors, lighting, awning, painting, signage ($7,500 Heritage Development Funding) $4,000.00 2 Historica Quattro Limited Partnership 20 Grannan Street 345 86 $20,000-$25,000 Garage door, rear door, framing, windows, doors, lighting, awning, painting, signage $4,000.00 3 Hist ro Limn a hip annan 0,0 Ins windows and in door 00 4 Hardman Group Limited 1 Market Square 239 80 $36,160 Renovation of Market Square Entrance $4,000.00 5 Cornerstone Enterprise Limited. 56 King Street 217 72 $15,000 Paint, lighting, new windows $4,000.00 6 Michael Bruce (by Roy Billingsley) 167 Prince William Street 271 68 $8,285 Steamer's outdoor deck seating, cooking shelter $4,000.00 7 Premium Investment Holdings 87 King Street 249 62 $4,000 New sign (Taste of Egypt) $1,000.00 Total disbursements $21,000.00 USA contribution $12,500.00 City of Saint John contribution $8,500.00 246 City of Saint John http://www.saintoohn.ca Urban Development Incentive!5 Central Peninsula Re -Investment Program Options Developent Shap Growth and Community Development Services website: http://www.saintwohn.ca/en/home/cityhaII/deveIo pment rowth/defauIt.aspx City of Saint John 15 Market Square PO Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 OneStop@saintjohn.ca (506) 658-2835 Ana ib m& t ME Urban t ;;01I ;Central Peninsula T. _ Program Options nG o FAUN* City of Saint John http://www.saintiohn.ca Growth and Community Development Services website: http_:l/www.saintiohn.ca/en/home/citvhall/develo amentgrowth/defau It.aspx City of Saint John 15 Market Square PO Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 OneStop@saintiohn.ca (506) 658-2835 11 1"AtA AK 0 1 16 IA V 14 lb "a qw 4b 4 6 i' rn I \c.a �[.� 1---) -7 f (v -i— LIC Am L7 (v �1 IL .V mmt,,df t (2 L LV L f (v -i— LIC 252 IL .V mmt,,df t (2 L LV L 0 O —w 0 z x O 0 C Z r w rML 9 v .v 0 rw Ii --v" IW f �n E I is I I w I kh� 00 Ll w 0 0 I v I sk V -ACI n4r 7 x n lorl ,Pot LI 255 Ik vv a I A 0 0 M i ,q PTO Wry • SO! 70 1 Olt W f I - • n -' R^Y �w w, Wit, :pyo N rf 2564`..-•- 5+b W 0611 6 K C" i s■ so t1. Stakeholder Feedback Incentives Must Leverage New Investment . Stakeholder Feedback Need for a Neighbourhood Plan --. a AbJ Stakeholder Feedback Provide Information on Upcoming Capital Projects Stakeholder Feedback Right Size the Incentives Stakeholder Feedback M Stakeholder Feedback Keep Improving Address Barriers to Development Review Development Processes Stakeholder Feedback Focus on Increasing Residential Density @ Is s L ms � � � 0 $ � � �� , �� ■�� . : � .�� . \/�■, �� ... • � � � � � � i . . . , . . * . e a: � z ,e � � � - e ■ � e ■ a � © @ \ /. Alk . zAID \_ ft"\ �■ \60. - ,� N 0 v 4J u edLM I'mm 4J co It l N Ilr7cd 4JF Cl bO �t 043 L0 i--' 0 V11 `*"0 0 ed .2 :L v) u C V) {A c iv T�4-J L. CL 'CI) I _ C* a . S. C: 0 o �. LL s Fz 4.4 c ;"J u u -0 rL It l N Best Practices-EIt'9vt-; ng Connect the Program to a Neighbourhood Plan Best Practices Am Lit _ Follow aTimeline Best Practices am L-A , Be Clear, Predictable Streamlined Best Practices O 1.� Be Flexible &Adapt to the Market Best Practices ETTierging Li Make an Impact Best Practices - ,. ^4W LAK , Encourage Quality Projects cr a) 0 CL u CD pr NE n u' 0 a. 3 m cl MANr N o � r+ V1 rD 0 -, 0 hi NE hi � O o 0 0 U .o y oh o: 0 NE n> 0 3 O Not Z 0 M (D x CrQ =r o o 0 o 0 x 0 rL CL 0 :3 3 ul m m 0 z n> 0 3 m 3 M cr (D x C 0 N 0 :3 3 ul m (D (D v F v a m 0 CL (D 3 (D v F v a 5 > mbq m MT Cr o' � M V1 m c 0 �+ Ln a Z M r t' 0 rt -*k 0 lk. iii _ i 3i NEW now ■:■, a c m MT Cr o' � 3 m :0 m 11cl 0 "a3 M, C m on 0 0 4M T" n Ell rt 3 i 0 +7� U r 0 +w s AAA. f A'A ■ AAA r'A! '(5 c 4c cr M 0 o � CL 4 orq -` ro 0 +7� U r 0 +w s AAA. f A'A ■ AAA r'A! '(5 c 4c cr M � o � 3 ro r+ IW6 ■ii IN - ::: "'P Z cr 0 0 ^f s JP A) x CD c 0 Ll jo L •. � u� r� I I � I :::Pi ! i f t[i loan an" a IC m "I < Cr o � 3 0 n r+ m �p s crr+� Io n r) z z 0 rt 0 cr c(A 0 0 0 (D 0 c 0 0 (D ICL rt fD m Ln(D 0 C 3 `A _ a cr Imm * (DT f+ f+ 4 ❑ (A >o cD C+ 9 =r �. 40 -v ma 3 CD 20 � C C+ r+. n " (D=rtj o - o C a o us(D C A C vc c MT CL Cr > C) =3 r ML :3 ti) 3 0 m 3 x *40 f+ X fD N (D C vc m MT 4c Cr m A) o � 3 m f+ .wm� La r* c n rt v 4c 0 -o 3 3 rt c o � 3 v 4c 0 -o 3 3 rt 'TT;.ra TT f 4A r -t Ln Ul :w: P� .onus a c Cr 0 %0%4 12 3 c� 'TT;.ra TT f 4A r -t Ln Ul :w: P� .onus a c Cr 0 3 12 3 c� v 0 -o 3 m R -A - IL --AEA 0 ept 03 4w wi 0 0 psn 0 n s N PJ rwt 4A C) C) C) r� d�J ld, (A En Ul 0 n pi rt 0 rt , m IACL m a' ■:■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ a c ol° c o ' 3 m x 3 -v 0' i rt CL Le 051, n 0 3 40V 4-t CL wj r) rt 0 cr 0 NJ 3 �y 4< cr fD � O � 3 fD N � 0 �y w PJ rt 126) CL s; 7n C CA a ,(D C) CL 0 X 7 CL N O V :::p- low OWN a c cr o � 3 m x Ul .06 W 4 V L C> O 0 N CD i N ``, N Ln Ul Un W 4 V L C> O 0 N a& w 0 CI 0 0 L71 d� na 5 aTYOh .' 1 it,+ .�-r'�, 4 ' �'," �� .. �,' � N�.,7�,r'}� s•� �' � �'7+ i �'-1 � � ;'�� ,�- Vr4��/�''�.P.. 1T��iy4�� --_ y. 9p, _ 282 /a V). N O N 1 N i O W J lf V)h '(l. 40- hN NJ 4::b Q1 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 283 I O N 4�:b 01 0000 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 o O O O O O 283 I N O N N O w N 0 4j", 0 O 0 0 O 0 284 co O N O o - 0 0 0 0 O o 0 Oo O O O O 0 o O 284 N 0 F-� W N 0 N N 0 N U'I ih ilh ih ih '(h 4j)- V). (n Ln 0) cn Ol m 0) %.. m 00 O N .P O) 00 o O 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285 i � ■ ■ i i i ! ■ 0 MO 3 tot 7 x CL 7 Ll F i 40 is r � 1 a• � i 1� Ll F i 40 is Jim ka $ f d : ~' \ § y~ Jim 11 i r+ o p� QQ M�ot M 0 (D - .�. C r+ o o n o0 C o CA N W, M n c 0 m M�ot 0 (D - C r+ o P) c C CA C o cD 5. W, M n c 0 m 0 � tat tl) n� IVo 0 <.,cr =r y. F Q° tip Z 5 0 CL C"Q• O o c o � o ar+ r. C cr � tat tl) IVo 0 <.,cr =r y. F o r- tip RO 0 CL O c w o (D C C) � Z tl) m r =r CL A o r- tip M >o 0 CL O c CL rD w o (D C C) L 290 u l itv Iff Mr f r L 290 u l itv Iff 4w 0 i■ 7. C+ y 3 „ o a'• O °a - X040 (� � y a :' as CA oa w 3 0 * -n C Lo l f+ (D _ L �qCL 2 M 0 3 Ln m 0 (A r+ 0 i i m i -n ma3 0 _ m CD 0 0 (D m m J= 0 Im3, } r+ 1 i DJ 60-1 r+ rtL 6n 0 i i m i 15 CD 0 r+ 0 �s r+ 0 i i m i W- IMP 7 w O 3 3 n' O� CA • • m, CVQ 4 OIQ C rt r -r MUM � c r l�7 (D. o O °' . N _. N a o' rz ro 3 o• O � • r+ CL L �- ° :OQ as • s • � o o3 M3 R� cD p _ o• y � 0 m OQ a O w O n n 3 Q- 3 <� V n 294 W- IMP 7 w O 3 3 n' O� CA m.gp -a ri M (D -o pu r+ ti' COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 237 Report Date November 17, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Saint John Water His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. 2016 Water & Sewer Utility Operating Budget OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION OPEN AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Kendall Mason Wm. Edwards Jeff Trail RECOMMENDATION Provided Council is satisfied with the recommended budgets (attached), the following resolutions are in order. It is recommended that Common Council adopt the following: 1. RESOLVED that the estimated revenue for the Water and Sewerage Utility for the year 2016 in the amount of $43,947,000 be adopted (Appendix `B"); 2. RESOLVED that the estimate of expenses for the Water and Sewerage Utility for the year 2016 in the amount of $43,947,000 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: A By-law to amend a By-law respecting Water and Sewerage be amended by repealing Schedules `A" and `B" in Section 44, and substituted by the submitted 2016 Schedules `A" and "B. " EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the November 9 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 approve the 2016 Capital Budget and give first and second reading to amend the Water and Sewer By-law to set the water rates for 2016. 297 -2 - PREVIOUS RESOLUTION 1. "RESOLVED that Common Council approve the 2016 Capital Budget for the Utility Fund in the amount of $10,055,000 (gross) with contributions from other sources of $3,855,000 yielding a Capital budget in the amount of $6,200,000 (net) as set in the attached report," and 2. RESOLVED that the By -Law entitled A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Water & Sewerage (Appendix "C") be given first and second reading: A By-law to amend a By-law respecting Water and Sewerage be amended by repealing Schedules `A" and "B" in Section 44, and substituted by the submitted 2016 Schedules `A " and "B. " SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES See attached service -based budget ATTACHMENTS M & C 2015-224 M.* REPORT TO COMMONCOUNCIL M&C2015-224 a November 2" 2015 His Worship Mayor Mel Norton l'u'g ahwe And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: 2016 WATt & SEWER UTHMY OYEMTING & CAMAL BUDGET SUBSECTION: Attached to this narrative, are draft documents for Council's consideration. These are 1) Proposed Water & Sewer Utility Operating Budget 20I6; 2) Proposed by-law amendment which will set the rates for 2016 (includes a 3 -year projection) 3) Proposed Water & Sewer Utility Capital Budget 2016. 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: THE OPERATING BUDGET The proposed 2016 Operating budget is essentially status quo in that the service levels mirror very closely those contained in the 2015 budget. There are some changes, however. The following is a listing of the more significant changes being proposed: 244 299 2016 W-tw&5c=ruti1i63 Capfia1 * opa"nS M&CZ013-221 11 ammber2m 3013 FEW,Z €`3f Fres S _ ZUI-5-Approved Valiance '% Increase $43,947,000 $42,371,000 $1,576,000 3.7% Wages & Benefits $584,698 Capital from Operating $0%000 Mechanical Components $,M,000 Operating Supplies $75,000 Tipping Fees $60,000 Electricity $50,000 Professional Services ($250,000) Deserintion of Variances 1. Wages and Benefit: The increase in wages and benefits can be attributed to the following: * Temporary term positions to prepare for the design and construction of the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project that will commence in February 2016. Two Construction Auditors and one Construction Engineer will be re- assigned from the General Fund. Necessary increases associated with newly negotiated Local 18 Collective Agreement �► Overtime was underfunded in past yews, budget adjustment to reflect actual experience 2. Capital from Operating Aligning with Council's priority for sustainable infrastructure, the increased investment in Capital from Operating continues the strategy introduced in the 2015 Budget to deliberately fund renewal capital out of the operating Fund while at the same time reserving funds for the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Project. This has the effect of reducing the amount of borrowing required in future years, which consequently reduces fiscal cbargcs and pressure on water rates charged to users. The strategy includes the elimination of the Utility Fleet Replacement deficit over a period of 5 years. 3. Mechanical Components & Opera�i g Sullies With the recent commissioning of the Harbour Cleanup project, it is expected that pump maintenance and repair will be necessary over the next few years as 245 300 2016 WRt-&5c—LM!hj Capka l&C)peraftBuc�pft N-6--.2.013 M$Ca013-12+ Fop the City monitors the integration of the new infrastructure with the wastewater and storm water system. 4. TiRRina Fees Sludge removal cost stemming from a fully operational Eastern Wastewater Treatment Plant. 5. Electricit Estimated increase in electricity cost based on annual inflation and historical consumption. 6. Professional Services Professional services vary depending on annual projects and initiatives, expected reduction in 2016. The net result of these proposed changes is a recommended overall operating budget increase of $1,576,000. Absent the increased investment in Capital fiom Operating, the increase in the Operating budget for 2016 is $880,000, or 2a/o year over year. 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 2016 is $12241. This rate is consistent with forecasted rates of 2013, 2014 and 2015. It represents an annual increase of $72 in 2016 or $6.00 per month. THE C"ITAT, BUDGET As Council is aware, the continued investment in improvements and renewal of existing infinstructure 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 2016 reflects that premise. I Annual Rate for unmetered single family dwelling including both water and sanitary sewerage 246 301 2016 Water&5awerddihj IsOpervftbudp• MaC2011-22+ Nov=6rz!t2i* ? P&V+ The recommended Capital budget for 2016 is $10.1 Million; $6.2 Million being the Utility cost. The Operating and Capital budget as being presented for 2016 will not result in any increased debt for the Utility. The 2016 Budget continues the strategy of sustainability presented to Council in 2015; a long term foes on sustainable reinvestment in infrastructure balanced with a targeted plan for long term debt reduction. The 2016 budget includes appropriate funding to ensure all Utility renewal capital is funded out of the operating budget and not tbrough the issuance of long term debt Furfl more, in 2015 Council authorized the establishment of a capital reserve fund Included in the 2016 Budget is a recommended $2.3 million dollar investment in the capital asset reserve. This investment will reduce the overall debt over the next 4 years, reduce debt service pressure on the Operating Fund, and drive positive returns in the long term for all ratepayers. The Operating budget will also continue to provide funding for debt retirement, thereby reducing the overall debt and debt servicing costs. The recommended 2016 Saint John Water Utility budget is attached. RECOAEUENDATIONS 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 Kevin Fudge Commissioner of Finance Attachments: Report, including adjustments Operating Budget By-law — Saint John Water Capital Budget Cost Tables SBB Documents 247 302 Jeff Trail City Manager Appendix "A" Saint John Water - Ekpenditure Budget Operating Expenditures i Drinking Water Watershed Mana ement 251,000 267,000 267,000 273,000 280,100 Water Treatment 2,336,000 2,382,000 2,674,000 4,609,000 91100,000 Water Pumping & Storage 11180,010 1,155,000 1,183,000 1,211,000 1,246,000 Transmission & Distribution 4,872,000 5,172,000 5,240,ODO I 513 ,000 5,477,00D Customer Metering 740,000 716,000 732 000 750,000 772,000 Industrial Water Watershed Management 475,000 487,000 _ 555,100 568,000 584,000 Water Pumping &Transmission 1,013,000 11000,000 11195,000 1,228,000 1,753,000 Customer Metering 134,000 147,000 1501010 154,000 157,000 Wastewater Wastewater Pumping 2,436,000 2,821,000 2,876,000 2,936,000 2,995,000 Wastewater Collection 2,890,000 2,906,000 2,966,000 3,033,000 3,094,000 Wastewater Treatment 4,222,000 4,405,000 4,488,ODO 4,581,100 4,673,000 Infrastructure Aobfmgernent Municipal Engineering 2,357,000 1,278,000 1,307,0001 1,339,000 1,366,000 Other internal Charges 614,000 650,000 665,000 675,000 685,000 Net Pension Casts 1.41-3-0-00-r-1.41[I,QDQ l I 24,794.0110 i nn2-nnn *F !! 1. 1_n�n_nm f �-nn i 2 8, 1 Z 1.00D ±„452.000 33,134.000 Fiscal Charges Debt Servicing 7,55500 7,874,OQ0 8,235,000 9,170,000 10,401,000 Capital from 0eratin Tofial RwAl Charges Total Expenditures In-U3.ow , , 42,371,000 ii,]74 nnn + e 43.947.000 11931t-nnn ------- 45,B73.000 ,. ,,_ In n6 nm_ 4BA57,00048.%9q.000 5,464.000 248 303 Appendix "B" Saint John Water - Revenue Budget 2016 Key Metrics: Flat Rate - Water & Sewerage 1,152 1,224 1,296 1,364 1,399 Revenues Flat Rate Accounts 2-015 Pfopo 18,794,000 2036i Outlookt !9,759,000 20,924,000 22,036,000 r 22,591,000 Metered Accounts 19,092,000 19,213,000 20,094,000 20,935,000 21,363,000 Fire Protection Levy 2,500,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,700000 3,000,000 Storm Sewer Levy 975,000 995,000 985,000 972,000 958,000 Other Revenues 450,000 566,000 592,000 673,000 704,000 Previous Year's Surplus Total Revenues 560.000 t 1.014.000 +jii 878,000 r 751.OD0 : n . + 3R-:%R • , , r Key Metrics: Flat Rate - Water & Sewerage 1,152 1,224 1,296 1,364 1,399 Meter Rates: Block 1 1.3005 1.3824 1.4633 1.5404 1.5789 Block 2 0.8281 0.8803 0.9318 0.9809 1.0054 Block 3 0.2922 0.3106 0.3288 0.3461 0.3548 Debt Service Ratio 18.5496 17.9246 17.9596 19.08%1 21.2396 249 304 Appendix "C" Proposed 2015 Changes By -Law Number M-16, A By -Law Respecting Nater and Sewerage (Water and Sewerage Utility Fund) A BY-LAW TO AMEND UN ARRftT9 POUR MODIFIER A BY-LAW RESPECTING WATER AND ARRt3 nt CONCERNANT LBS R$SEAUX D'EAU ET SEWERAGE DIGOUTs Be it enacted by Common Council of the City Le conseil communal de The City of Saint john of Saint John, as follows: Micte : A by-law of the City of Saint John entitled "A Par les pr6sentes,l'arr6th de The City of Saint By-law Respecting Water and Sewerage" John intituM 4(Arr6t6 concernant les rAseaux enacted on the 71h day of June, A.D. 2004, is d'eau et d'6gouts ao, 6dict6 le 7 juin 2004, est hereby amended as follows: modifie comme suit: i. Schedules "A" and "B" are repealed and 1. Les annexes «A » et -K B » sont abrog6es et the following are substituted therefor. sont remplac6es par celles qui figurent aux pr6sentes. Mayor or the member of the Council who Maire ou membre du conseil qui pr6sidait la presided at the meeting at which it was r6union a laquelle 1'arr6t6 a dt6 6dict6 enacted; and/ Common Clerk Greffl6re communale First Reading Premi6re lecture Second Reading Deuxi6me lecture Third Reading Troisi6me lecture 250 305 A BY-LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE SCHEDULE "A" ARRM CONCERNANT LES R&MAUX DtAU ET DUOUTS ANNEXE CC A >9 Effective January 1st, 2016/ En vigueur le 1 - janvier 2016 251 306 A BY-LAW REspECrmNG WATER AND SEWERAGE SCHEDULE "B" Effective January 1s , 2016 HI'molmIlly 15) 15mm 216.36 16.03 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 1,747.66 252 307 MombIV M For the first 50 1.38244 For the first 100 1.3824 For the next 124,950 0.8803 For the next 249,900 0.8803 For all in excess of 125,000 0.3106 ' For all in excess of 250,000 03106 Spillage 0.1100 Spillage 0.1100 252 307 ARRA CONCERNTANT LHS R$MAUX WEAU HT DIGOUTS ANINE m cc B » En vigueur J* janvier 2016 15mm 216.36 16.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 '44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm et plus 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 Pour les 50 premiers m3 1,3824 Pour les 100 premiers m3 1,3824 ! Pour les 124 950 m3 sulvants 0,8803 Pour les 249 900 m3 suivants 018803 Pour toute consummation au -dela de 125 000 m3 0,3106 Pour toute consommation au -deli de 250 000 m$ 0,3106 Renversement _ 0,1100 Renversement 0,110011 253 308 L yW � Y to 4 V) {Si � G C m E C � N E N = d u i oz VOL .Q tom? C u mu $ � c E E -cap V, °u a am e e a t ca° E U c0� w X 0 a o0 w •O uyi C J2 `7 N _ Q N 7 v u 00 •O v 1.0 Cro ice,, cr m p C �R N � w W C N g� Q us . e i .0 -a•� o go V Uo W C 5 , 4A c ° z to p o a b 3 t 42 c c ES. 4.4 V •� c °�s' pCp E M c QI N 'p a! tmw '� U S UL. OG V 2554 309 �A to E :5 CA ul a O C t!1 c 00 KL O LLA a a Q Ir cam 40 0 �� N �C� IS R 08 os�08 e �j� 31 06' LSq g R O !1 u1 16 N t�fS 1� � ��pp da�ryce it -F 111 N h N R1 f. A a V? VJ• VF § 108, 8 1 ! fV rl 11"1 H NtIit Yi 9!{ J W i �R-Ono92 A8'q ��RsosA� N wY1 N +eF rt +4 Ir rl .1A r � M1 uS N >~TqR�O Q1 N �r L -i ri s. N r Vi. , 1801 N eq -T r A fF !7 ri nT S' ML VN in t I � 000001 99 b �;p 88s888g�ry� Og1�*i$ e cnn 94 : N `I qr a `.'� '1 ffi i t 1p� �a�" 0 [V 01 A N N I f A I D 3 C E Y C d c c 1 pppp F 8 V1 C +C' •C G R F g Li toEm ep m s CL ro g%B Jul CL _ �� c uzm— �11-CCla 19 Iv a W? w R g I W }� g o3333u� 33ca'� 3333' C z LL. .1 255 310 u R W-1 N 256 311 rl Q N a w o d �' `m a a = Q. CL C Lo .� a L v J73 C N H OJ Q�1 C. o.`n 8 49 d � a ��oac — c � E o a a eva'C C d r t� a -� C N N Y 't.41 �> = C TV pi. 00C *1 . g o 0 E C C a 2 Q3� 0o an m 00 pr a CL CLVV 1 a r:p as d f!1 0 ar Si t H � T N s � E U t o a � a C � z a °J o � LU d � o VID o o o o CL � O C G u as CCL _a a L a n E tR :d Lo 3 257 312 TL v e� E to E o OD C Q °0 Of a m u3 c a b M Lo C '�9 E m r� a LU LS A�Jp D fpi `a Lo 3 257 312 w aB a o v E to E o OD oil f °0 Of 'a r m E a' c a b w aB a o I— E a IN 2558 313 L C a CL 0 3 0 V C h W � 163: v E a E � v � C 3 .x � p _ C CL C a �1 cca CL OJ 7 C f E °' E O I N boh r� CJ eo A c, a - w t U 4� O o J 4 4A ao Y 7 O .te �aR iLnc c L 0 f�f 10 Q d m } m E p� E '41 a a E N h � a CL r� a0� Q E H _ V 2558 313 L C a CL 0 3 0 V c ro � o EE .x � p _ C fp tit +� � I a �1 cca CL L a E °' E O I N w t CL Li OM 1T O J 4 4A ao O .te �aR wt 0 L 0 f�f 10 Q d m } c o d '41 4-. a E a t aa c o E E � ° a VI N Q E H _ V • s s • 2558 313 L C a CL 0 3 0 V Y E a wl E �- u T C o E E a0 °u L G u u a Co. ++ CL W c v QC C ICo V • +� L a C 'v��i to a � t; d ;v E 44 �' 3 r L41 bo 0 �- #$ 6. . �'_mc La Q7 r_ `° Q60 1 ' aro m CL AS E c o Wr o C E Q �, E u �' a C CL 0 8 o O Q. w aC 3 O Q C C ,�°, a m = R d7 C] C G E E r L° 9 m ca c .c � C m R° E o I w to no to to 3L EL m �h 19�9 Vi Ii W d I.J LL V.p !t �L d d C. Yl M# • e R / • fi / 0 0 / i M / • 4 / 2559 314 w N LF to LF- I § C ■ $§ sot; �2 2 b &% m§ k t & ■ a&CE$ 2 © §E§ «•�§± ■_ ■ © § - L @ § � ■ � � � � � § � a � a � B 260 315 \k - r:f TEaRf � _ &■ L / - Lo§Itq%2 . ' § V I $ § ■ o e _ � �� e CLa E - - - t: ; a ■ E f § @ a o 2 V 2 g ■ © ■� � � � ■ k �§§ �■ 0V - CL CL�E� %. § $ E G B ■ ■ o � g �§■ � � ■ po�� /a �§ � cr � � � � ■ § § %��°k 2 ® � $%� c � Ic §2■ � �%2 �2 . 3.9 A§ � f 2ru 1 7 S -E 260 315 \k e��iTioen�.V a a yy VF A. ail C CL � � � A gl � A C %• C m O C C. c a a� d p� fdC m Y�, 3 OAF A C CL C110 g R��ppE- N 6 A PrP Et s., r2 4 O •• • • 00 A w p C!jf C CL u E e U 3 Or In CLLit in in a V J2 F.2CL p'�_�� Via` 3� r�na m� �A ra -c iy qu� _� c A a m Qo CL Cc 00 IL E g env a E FL'A" c c O C + a ,r g c Q y � � � m Y � g`g C3 Tlb C ar7 S 7 C ~ g=? A O L E FL �q F- tv � `0 3 « E a a c°a a Or Orn U • . 261 316 SS pp mm � O $ N O in �io d a "� In &CE m tLa45Iwom w InCL E LO 39 a m Q yy W 4p rNO r a+ a C 7 L d a a. E t x .. w by E E $ at m- E E L Ts o 0 EEI� CL 01 c "T�.3 °mv�i.Ei� LL _ t N 3 a cf E L= m c 3E V LP �iR� CL s 262 317 P% 2m a 4 it M lL q fm _ in iN/> N in C c ,p 12 CL C a a a 'o ` 5 E on 3�stEx C m 4 ' 3 a� c8 WE w C � EaEC ID a t.,� " w r t c a cIE a m �Ecc d� � • a a! C yE, Q ym E E a v a N L C bd 'Q O 'a ¢ m HE CL O Or R E 'S � E s in E pp ffM�12 rg CM c oa cEm La M43« un a a E� ?-.I _Io m0, E r E P EL CL ul c « CL ap nM so IL RL 'O +• u IV CL 263 318 0 N tm W C LA E 1i4 O CL r 7 A� o ` 4& �U m 3 12 E s 3 E �' s 6 c � c � � S� Sr 1 c_ r c7 N Al I- W s . . • • a V C L I 9 E C 'yV�l L° � � 9! m .a '� "° � �► exp, '� � +'i G cr c CL f �. E~ $ M b 'O q C W fY D W -V C C W A imm n a a m e $ O E cr �. o m 8 n E 'Eu Q p i 0• � L A $ $� a C CL EL C 16 • • • • s • as �- sti' � V � c oCL � cr °'cry qc c c� 42co roty9 0s �_ 0 L"_ N E C L m �� Q C i E OQ = m C M= � 4 � Q iu� �w�m `at pmL" Ec IS E�°� 264 319 r9 a 4a IS ; J2 0 m � L u ai a a r_ M Z m 4W O . t: CL o m �N O CL w L LAD 0 ��O m m 3� 0 0 Q. c qn `a. IL t i I� C � C EaiQ � C C c � 'a � E .0 L a w d � 3 M 265 320 w fL � o E U C VA a m � g0 W im LU 1L LLL IL t i I� C � C EaiQ � C C c � 'a � E .0 L a w d � 3 M 265 320 i i F r � s � fel C to t CL o c Vb •E fa CL kc o +� c i . 3 C6 E d s _ 'o c C m c •ro � c W L: L m L a o a w 1f1 c w o sussN a c ^q vq +'L � E: h E � fO '� *1 N F- i a f0 W w 0 N r e N • ar 266 321 ao Ln �4a CL be ECl � CL E a 106 � m a o $ for E c E Z C n 267 322 V. h c 3 II 7 4 w cr 0 �'o S vs • • E 14 N V I F N 9 v � � IV IV $ C W 460 CLo C f+ LZ 7 C I Q SO C W r q } N G W a W V Y R EL � X IE 267 322 V. 0 a W iou E L tb 0 4�F .E as a� CL L - Wk z M C o00 N p A � v a C A 9� a� _ C 3 1� OC ti � � � • • • • 4 � m E ;, n$ E� E E `d � .c FL �.� m 6 E E c L V E �c vs o a P A C y IA9IPt } to E 10 V ' .s ii E {} N o r q e m Le & E S a p Err1 ILL V d :312 b E M 3 R dei C an 3 a m xCc J � •� N 3 � � E 2:! 1 qu � 1p M EL CL E IE M u -5 !2 o o `i6m E�t � t La b. CL C E 9 ge m g 268 323 4 3 N IRf o§c§ & ■ 0 ■2 0 � � 0 2 A $au �a $ § a-k �® -0f ' . a ® /g2aE , E m ® _ ■ & o ' ƒ k E ©� ■ &�§� ��e§§�§g�� 7 � - § �_ ■ § e ■ E rl a ■t■s 28§ 324 � k � § _ a�� \ IL Ek E 8 AL 0 � c - m _ � � & � ■ CL � � mCIE. � c ® � � 2 0 @ z - � � § 28§ 324 � k W 2 d a 0 r u m � �+ L C m E u � o C C O 0 -0 m ad c I o Lu Q1 a VI y d! U 3 H ED a Q 4 m c .2 FL 't 2 O CL IL o y � E �o rIn o MW �w 270 325 a N � o ani CL a 'G d c F LU c us � C L C c y o ZZ 0to E 4 a C m r p E c _3 W Vl cl. W LL I.C. 270 325 a N � o ani CL a d c F 270 325 a N -e, 3is E c '& O K e. ✓ aw L ruQy+ t q� V/ ep CL € w Mip L47 99 eu «s o12 CL Q FA N Im E RL L a a a 4 eco a r � to +� o c c `a r =_ E •m in Ea a W �aE_ E = `� E CL In E ori u am m t0 ez ro 7 c aCL to a Cr L � CL � �o 3 F, m c e � C c '& eh ✓ aw L S q� U ep � C € w Mip ea Q aE r� CL FA IL Im E ees r U& a • Cr u a � � � a, w ' a lu C W �aE_ mai m+�+ E ori u LD 271 326 FA M L S q� a � € w Mip � � a Pa c a � � � be C cc t w ' a CL C L CL E a ro 7 c C L � CL � �o 3 F, m c e � C 0 Y'6 C.A G U9 w ro u E T bt O 0� ro 4a LA m ■4 F� 0 a $L v a 13-8 a _ $ Ecr Lp CL CL 23, E N WE _ ' $ 3 Ets d 272 327 t -I N !� N � � 10 a c CL x r EEL �IV ago CL� f��, 3 M I "E�ol i wa a � � O c 'a e G a i 16 E E iCL A C a CL 3 L OL d C C .r $ 0 �E 2 C 3 C C to 7 ul Q 4 �6jj C '� C 3 mn oC 0�J W27 EL a E h 273 328 P LA 0 Ln cj 0 Gj Qj iJ w Q L- n. n. A+ c SIJ H Q� Ti 39 Ql ar m r b ITp 3 � C C_ a c ` V ze A 322 +� § �7 ii apg C CL r C C O y Y C Rr C `a a m 4 !e C u Ica }g U sN uu m b °'v ■ E a Q M pis OY � C a� . . 4 • r b ITp 3 � C C_ a c ` V C 322 +� § �7 ii apg C CL r C C O y Y C Rr C G R 4 !e C u f U r b ITp 3 � C E ` uli m� a c ` V a E6 i y 3 E� +' U CL r C C O y C C G R a I C f U VS d y�y C a Q M pis OY � C r b ITp 3 � C E ` uli m� y N c ` V a E6 i y 3 E� +' U CL r C C O y go b d y eCp C G R a I 274 329 P � a Iva t= � CA c Q. m � o c � c ar � V! E to W EL V&�� E �, a IV C as C, r i L L iA.V.Go ai L Fe r Z 10 Y {I7 L C •C M +C+ N C v E a W E '� �' b a lu a uCL LO c .a '� a .g a► C s c Lp 0 Q m a o L. m 'c �aZia16. Lon m tn in Ln m s c Q a' C C -c IL QC N v � C N CO O ' C d 41 LU m % v i C Jm c D � _a c +� uj Ln OT = w+ N •� w �u O i'�' � a p p •� r N � g 275 330 19 oc �i L m 'c CL a Y G A a ami C a 9 NZ W 65 C C � i 4m G m p m = *� A 0 c E Uaci r o. a a E eo E oc rr c a `6 c H N P y V01 N C t s M YD a d -a Gt w Y w mc 01 I • c m d D a 03 3 E u 1 aJ 7 U 8 S 3 c On • e r r N C4 2 .i *rlp2 iO % K ^r m IMf Oi C C in 0 m E s�Cc A C_ a Lm r $- E C g A aced Es� aE!—M I i p o.3s�t_ . . . . • Lk ? a C tW � d � 7 a � CL CL �� § Q LF te ,' a •_ c c� Oi W A Y C y 7b E c CL IIEc � d 4 n do 9 4 c .0 E all E gLlCL m v c �m �V c E Lp m 1y C L d — M M C V p 8 N C �7 L fp cE N d C C $ m E 9 E d Cc c E CL a i% c3 t7 276 331 Gm Pr2j osc�ti_Protgr m Sullimar1' For - 21116 No. of Other utility Ca�tB�Dl7/ Projects Share Share Total Infrastrnetare Renewal - Sanitary 14 $0 Infrastructure Renewal - Water 1$ $1,355,000 Safe, Clean Drinking Water 1 $2,500,000 Watershed Protection k $0 52,700,000 $3,385,000 $65,000 $50,000 $2,700,000 54,740,000 $2,565,000 $50,000 TOTALS: 34 $3,855,000 $6,200,000 $10,055,000 Summary of Capital Costs tlltllity, Share) Sail, Clean DrinkingWatershedProtection Water 0.8% 1.0% Infrastructure lianewel - Sanitary 43.676 infrastructure lienewal- Water 5C6% MDlt MUNICIPAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This Is a tentative program Hating of proposed capital projects. wds: 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 aro subject to change at any time. PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FINDING FROM OTHERS Infrastructure renewal - San.i.ta MOMMEr Project Location Description Other Utility . . Share Share Mr_. City Line Fort Duflbrin Road to Existing Design services to connect sanitary sawem from 0 5%000 Sanitary Sewer four houses at the end of City Line and direct flows to the nearest sanitary sewer. City Road City Road Area Design services for fire renewal of existing 0 50,000 - sanitary sewer behind city road bakery. � Clyde Street City Road to Forest Street Design services to renew approx. 142m of 0 25,000 timber sewer with 900mm sanitary sewer, watermain, and street services. Currie Avenue Visart Street to Pugsley Avenue Design services for renewal of 165m of 300mm 0 50,000 concrete sanitary sewer and 165m of 150mm Cl wateannain. Famouth Street Richmond Street to Brunswick Regrew approx. 300 m of 225 nun T.C. and 300 0 310,000 Drive nun T.C. sanitary sewer with new 200mm , including design and construction manegomem senices. Crolding Street Waterloo Street to Bayard Street Renew approx. 114 m of 225 mm T.C. and 300 0 110,000 mm T.C. sanitary sewer with new 300mm, including design and construction management servicer. W Lancaster Lagoon Solids Lancaster Lagoon Design services to upgrade the solids 0 100,000 Menet management of the lancester lagoon. _ Newman Street Albert Street to Rotary Court Installation of opprox. 135m of 200mm 0 250,000 diameter sanitary sewer, including construction management services. Paddock Street Civic 39 Paddock Stever to Renew approx. 12Qrn of 300mn% and 375mm 0 145,000 Coburg Streak T.C. sanitary sewers, including design and construction management services ._ Princess Street Charlotte Street to Sydney Street Renew approx. l 10m of 300mm T.C. (1 870) 0 12SAM seratery sewer, including design and construction management services Ready Street Main Street to Catherwood Renewal of approx. 300m of existing 225 T.C. 0 475,000 Street sanitary sewer, including construction management services. ~ Tilley Avenue Tilley Avenue to Marsh Street Design services for new 200mm sanitary sewer 0 100,000 to separate flow to LS # 6. _ University Avenue Royal Parkway to Varsity Cured in place structural lining of approx. 0 850,000 Street - Phase 2 600m of existing 375mm sanitary sewer, including construction mange nent services, 43 _ Victoria Street Durham Stria to Civic # 179 Replacement of 4(1m of 225mm T.C. Sanitary 0 60,000 Victoria Street sewer with new 200mm sanitary sower and 2 new manholes including design and construction management services. MDH: MUNK PAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. YAW 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. - SaWtary Project Location Description Other Utility Share Share TOTAL: 14 $22010,000 Purge 3 vF � MDH: MUNICPAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS FKH REGIONALLY DEMIONATED HIGHWAYS This Is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. W&s: WATERAND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C-:" PROJECTS CARRIED QUER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR !: PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS Priority assignments are Subject to change at anytime. Infrastructure Renewal - water Protect Location Description Other Utility Share Share Bulk Water dispensing West Side IustalMon of a new bulls water dispensing 0 50,000 Station station, including design and construction managalat services. ._. Exmouth Street _ . _ Richmond Street to Brunswick .. Renew approx. 3I dim of 200mm C.I. with new 0 350,000 -_ Drive 200mm weenrmin including design and construction maugcmeatt services. Golding Street Waterloo Street to Bayard Street Renew approx. 70sn of i 50mm C.I. with new 0 120,000 200mm watermain, including design and construction IIjana MM# Services. Loch Lomond Road Froin McNamara Drive 85m East Design services to install approx. 85m of 0 45,000 300mm watermain on Loch Lomond Road to loop the existing 300mm supply line to the Lakewood tank from the 250mm line at MoNamaraDrive _ McAllister Drive Westmorland Road to Mountain Design services to renew appmx.1141m of 0 900,000 View Drive 250mm and 300mm C.I. watesmiin with new 300mm, and conshuct the first 500m ftm Westmorland Road up the hill, including dam► and construction management services. McLellan Stud Pokiok Road to Highland Road Design services for extending the waterrnain 0 25,000 52m for looping and ranewal of sanitary sewer. Musquash Water Musquash Water Pwnping Design services for upgrades and refurbishment 0 200,000 Pumping Station Station of the Musquash Water Pumping Station. Newman Sheet Albert Street to Rotary Court Installation of approx. 170m 01'200mm 0 365,000 diameter RzterrnaK including construction management services. Paddock Street Civic 39 Paddock Street to Renew approx. 12thn of200nmr watermain 0 135,000 Coburg Street (1949), including design and coashvetion manageiment services Pokiok Road McLellan Street to Dad End Design Services to renew approx. 90m of 0 25,000 50mm brass watenmain. _ Princess Street Charlotte Street to Sydney Street Renew approx. 130m of 250mm C.I. (1912) 0 195,000 watearmain, including design and construction management services Ready Street Main Street to Cathearwoo . Renewal of approx. 300m of existing 150nmm 0 545,000 Strad C.I. watermaiu, including construction management services SCADA System Various Locations Design of an independent redundant link fare 0 50,000 SCADA communications. Victoria Street Durham Street to Chic # 179 Replacement of 70m of 150mm C.I. water main 0 100,000 Victoria Street with 200mm PVC including hydrant, including design and exmstruction management services. MDH: MUNCIPAL DESIGNATED WGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDFT: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGFIWAYS This is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. wigs: WATERAND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C-": PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COKMEMN THE FOLLOWING YEAR Priority assignments are subject to change at any time. ^. PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS Infrastructure Renewal - water project Location Description Other Utility Share Share Water Trearinent Spruce Lake Watcr Pumping Design services for the constructive of a new 0 100,000 Admirdamdon / Control Treatment Facility Administration .' Control facility associated Facility _ _ vdth the now Groundwater system. Wates Use Etiicimc y Various Locations Purchase and Install water meters in various 0 80,000 locations. Waterloo Street Haymarket Square to Castle Design services for renewal of 355m of 300mm �y 0 100,000 Street T.C. sanitary seww and 355m of 300rmn C.I. waterrnain. " Watermain Clearing and Various Iocations Cleaning and lining of existing unlined C.I. 1,355,000 0 Lining Phase 12 WabemWns to improve p wsure, vJater quality, and fht floras. Project to be funded under G.T.F. T TAL: $1.335.000 $3,385,000 Pages of 7 MDH: MLJNKWAL DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESfGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: RE004ALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This Is a tentative program listing of proposed capital projects. w&: WATERANDSEWER RELATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C - P- PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR Priority assignments are subject to change at any tirne. PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON RIMING FROM OTHERS Safe. Clean Drink.n Water Prcdact Location Description Other Utility Share Shane Safe, Clean DdAing TBD Safe, Clem Drinlong Wiper Program envelope 2,500,000 65,000 Water i"mp m for 2016. Details of program for 2016 to be ». established and approved by Common Cmmcii. OTAL: $2.500.000 $65.000 Page 6of7 MUM MUNJUVAL UkSIGNAIED HKSHVVAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS ROH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS This Is a tantative program listing of proposed capital protects. w&a: WATER AND SEWER RMATED PROJECTS This list has not been approved by Common Council. C -A : PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING YEAR Priorlty assignments are subject to change at any time. PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHER$ Watershed Protection Project Lavation Description Other Utility Sure Share pr Watarsheda Loch Lomond Watershed Land acquisition for watershed pmtection (as 0 50,000 reNirod) TIAL: I& 1M.000 • Page Tof7 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°i 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't, 2016 Flat rate customers Flat rate customers Yearly $551.35 Water charge SCHEDULE`B" Effective January 1St, 2016 METERED CUSTOMERS - WATER SERVICE CHARGE Meter Size Yearly ($) 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 1 645.20 1,290.40 250mm & u.p 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 METERED CUSTOMERS - CONSUMPTION CHARGE Monthly (by m Bi -Mon thl (b m Consumption (m) Rate $/m3) Consumption (m) Rate ($,m' For the first 50 1.3824 For the first 100 1.3824 For the next 124,950 0.8803 For the next 249,900 0.8803 For all in excess of 125,000 0.3106 For all in excess of 250,000 0.3106 spillage 0.1100 1 Sills a 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. 2016 and signed by: Mayor/maire ARRETE No M-16 ARRETE MODNIANT L'ARRETE CONCERNANT LE RESEAU D'EAU 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 intitu16 o Arret6 concernant les r6seaux d'eau et d'6gouts», ddict6 le 7 juin 2004, est modifi6 comme suit:: 1 Les annexes «A» et «B» sont abrog6es et soot remplac6es par celles qui figurent aux prdsentes. ANNEXE «A» En vigueur le I" j anvier 2016 Tarif forfaitaire pour les clients Tarif forfaitaire.pour Tarif 551,35$ les clients annuel 216.36 Redevance sur 1'eau 36.06 20mm ANNEXE > En vigueur le 1" janvier 2016 CLIENTS AVEC COMPTEUR-TARIF DES SERVICES D'EAU Dimension du cam tcur Tarif annuel ($) Tarif mensuel $ Tari bimensuel($) 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 50mm et plus 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 CLIENTS AVEC COMPTEUR - FRAIS DE CONSOMMATION Mensuels ar m) Bimestriels (par m Consommation Frais Consommation Frais m3) ($/m) (m') ($/m) Pour les 50 1,3824 Pour les 100 1,3824 premiers prenners Pour les 0,8803 Pour les 0,8803 124 950 249 900 suivants suivants Pour tOute 0,3106 Pour toute 0,3106 consommation consommation au -dela de au -dela de 125 000 250 000 Renvesenent 0,1100 1 Renversement 0,1100 EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le pr6sent arr&6 le 2016, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffier communal First Reading - November 9, 2015 Premi6re lecture Second Reading - November 9, 2015 Deuxi6me lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture 339 - le 9 novembre 2015 - le 9 novembre 2015 Q , ifjio K\ COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2015-240 Report Date November 17, 2015 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Service Area Finance and Administrative Services His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: 2016 General Capital Budget OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. HeadCity Manager Craig Lavigne Kevin Fudge I Jeff Trail RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council approve the 2016 Recommended General Capital Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2016 General Capital Budget was presented to Council at its November 9t" 2015 meeting. The purpose of presenting the 2016 Capital Budget was to allow Council to provide feedback and allow staff to incorporate that feedback into a final version of the 2016 General Capital Budget. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION 2016 General Capital Budget, M&C 2015-225: It is recommended that Common Council reflect upon the attached document and make any and all inquiries and recommendations to staff: and receive and file this report. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The 2016 Proposed General Capital Budget is aligned with Plan SJ, Play SJ and the concentration of investment is in prime development and intensification areas and is aligned with Council's strategic priorities. 340 Ira REPORT The proposed 2016 General Capital Budget totals $21,814,349 of which $9,958,049 is funded from other sources (gas tax, reserves, etc.) and the remainder $11,856,300 is to be funded by debt issue. ($11,749,010 in 2015) The following modifications were made based on the feedback from Council, there in an increase in the City share by $152,000 compared to the Capital Budget presented on Nov. 9th, 2015. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES This Capital Budget is making investments in long term municipal infrastructure and other public assets. The projects included in the 2016 General Capital Budget meet Council's priorities such as reducing flood risk, continual improvements to roads and sidewalks, community of choice, and public safety; while maintaining sound fiscal management of debt and operating costs. 341 Handi-Bus —Additional Handi-Bus Transit Commission $155,000 needed to increase service and reduce expenditures Parking Commission $20,000 Coin Wrapper— Replace existing wrapper which is at end of useful life Harbour Station $32,000 Replace Replay Video — Contractual agreement LBR $50,000 Replace Exit Fire Doors and Interior— Safety Issue Transportation $350,000 Boars Head Road — Curb and Sidewalks Transportation $250,000 Union Street — Street Signalized Lights - Safety Issue Transportation -$250,000 King Square Work- Delay Work on Bus Lanes Waterfront Development -$290,000 Loyalist Plaza —Await to see if funding is in place before supporting Waterfront Development -$195,000 Dredging Market Slip- Seeking support from Port Authority Waterfront Development $30,000 Harbour Passage and Boardwalk Total Adjustments $152,000 SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES This Capital Budget is making investments in long term municipal infrastructure and other public assets. The projects included in the 2016 General Capital Budget meet Council's priorities such as reducing flood risk, continual improvements to roads and sidewalks, community of choice, and public safety; while maintaining sound fiscal management of debt and operating costs. 341 -3 - INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Council Members asked a variety of questions during the discussion of the 2016 General Capital Budget. Many of the questions were answered by staff at the meeting. The following questions were not answered at the November Stn meeting; please see attached answers to the following questions. Library — Please confirm follow up with Library concerning the widening of meeting rooms not recommended for approval. Staff followed up with Library to confirm request does not meet capital guidelines and would be considered maintenance item. Facility management will add this item as part of their 2016 maintenance program. Waterfront Development — Is dredging the City's responsibility or should the Port look after this? Market Slip is owned by the City and does not fall under the responsibility of the Saint John Port Authority; however discussions with the Port Authority have been initiated. There floating docks will not be able to be put in for the 2016 season. Waterfront Development — Loyalist Plaza Design Costs — This request has been deferred until Staff has more information on the project and there is a reasonable expectation that third party funding for the project will be met. Transit — I<ing Square Bus Shelters — Referring to the list above of adjustments; Transportation will not be proceeding with adding bus lanes on King Street North in 2016, therefore this request will be deferred until Transportation proceeds with this project. Transit — Small Bus Trial — There has been no business case presented to Council to make an informed decision on whether the City should proceed with smaller buses. The request should be deferred until the new CEO is hired and a business case is prepared to justify the investment. Transit — Tools — $75,000 was approved in 2013 for tools and staff will have a discussion with Transit on a detailed listing of tools for the 2017 Capital budget. Parking Commission — Electronic Chalking Systems — In order for Parking to fully leverage this asset, there needs to be By-law changes for the increased area to be patrolled for parking violations. A business case has yet to be developed therefor, the request should be deferred until the new CEO is hired and a business case is prepared to justify the investment. Transportation — Cedar Point — Staff was asked to look at improvements to the area. The addition of 350K to complete the curbs and sidewalks on Boars Head 342 -4 - Road will fill in a gap in the sidewalk and curbing, address safety concerns for pedestrians and improve the area near the entrance to Cedar Point. Transportation - Grannan Lane — Should the City continue to redo street with concrete or look at using asphalt? With the proper quality control in place, Transportation staff recommends continue with using concrete. Transportation — The City is spending an extra 10% this year and Council would like to know what that 10% is and please confirm Gas Tax Funding for 2015 to 2016. The additional 10% is directly related to additional road work. Staff also confirms the Gas Tax Funding for 2015 and 2016 as it relates to roads was $1.5 for both 2015 and 2016. Included in the investment of the additional road work is fixing cuts in asphalt and backfilling resulting from necessary underground work as was the case in the 2015 Capital Budget. 2015 2016 Gas Tax Funding 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 City Share 2, 665, 000.00 3, 075, 000.00 Total 4,165,000.00 4,575,000.00 Information Technology — Is there a huge risk by not replacing Air Conditioning unit as requested. Staff continues to monitor the Data room and is confident the risk can be reduced through ongoing monitoring and minor repairs. Fleet — Where is the new fire truck going to be used and confirm Fire Department contributes to the Fleet Reserve? The proposed Fire Truck will be located at #2 Fire Station (Loch Lomond Road). The Fire Department does contribute to the fleet reserve when it comes to their smaller vehicles (passenger vehicles); however Fire Trucks are not part of the Fleet Reserve Capital Budget — What is on the deferred list that is not approved because it would be considered a Maintenance Expense? See Appendix 2 for items that would be considered maintenance. Police — Is there a safety risk by not replacing firearms. Police agreed it would be acceptable to purchase these firearms out of the 2017 Capital Budget. However, if Council wishes to proceed with the replacement of firearms this year, the total capital budget would be increased by $200,000. This amount has not been included in the recommended budget. 343 -5 - ATTACHMENTS Appendix 1— 2016 Recommended General Capital Budget Appendix 2 — Not Recommended for 2016 General Capital Budget M&C 2015-225 344 Exhibit 1 - 2016 General Capital Budget Recommended Project BUDGET -OTHER BUDGET - CITY CATEGORY DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION # SHARE SHARE 1 Transportation Transportation & Asphalt Roadway Maintenance and $ 750,000 $ - Environment Rehabilitation program 2 Transportation Transportation & Concrete curb and sidewalk including drainage $ 750,000 $ - Environment with Asphalt Program various locations 3 Transportation Transportation & Canterbury Street Curb & Sidewalk, $ 150,000 - Environment $ - 4 Transportation Transportation & Exmouth Street - Street reconstruction (W&S) $ 660,000 Environment $ - 5 Transportation Transportation & Boars Head Road - Curb and sidewalk $ 350,000 Environment $ - 6 Transportation Transportation & Golding Street - Concrete sidewalk and $ 255,000 Environment renewing the asphalt (W&S) $ - 7 Transportation Transportation & Grannan Lane - Replacement of concrete $ 150,000 Environment driving surface with new concrete. $ - 8 Transportation Transportation & Guide Rail Replacement Program - Phase 2 of 4 $ 200,000 Environment $ - 9 Transportation Transportation & Harmony Drive - Street reconstruction (curb, $ 275,000 Environment sidewalk, landscaping and paving), $ - 10 Transportation Transportation & King Square North - New Fully Signalized $ 335,000 Environment Intersection - Top of King Street $ - 11 Transportation Transportation & King Square North - New Fully Signalized $ 335,000 Environment Intersection - Front of City Market $ - 12 Transportation Transportation & Union Street/Patrick Street Signalized Lights $ 250,000 Environment $ - 13 Transportation Transportation & Newman Street - Street reconstruction - (W&S) $ 370,000 Environment $ - 14 Transportation Transportation & Paddock Street - Street reconstruction $ 215,000 Environment $ - 15 Transportation Transportation & Princess Street - Charlotte to Syndey Street - $ 700,000 Environment Street reconstruction - (W&S) $ - 345 Exhibit 1- 2016 General Capital Budget Recommended 346 Replacement of existing deteriorated retaining 16 Transportation Transportation & in $ 125,000 walls supporting streets and sidewalks Environment various locations $ - 17 Transportation Transportation & Skyline Drive - Street reconstruction $ 175,000 Environment $ - 18 Transit Transportation & Bus Replacement $ 475,000 Environment $ - 19 Transit Transportation & Handi-Bus $ 155,000 Environment $ - 20 Storm Transportation & Exmouth Street - Richmond St - Brunswick Drive $ 300,000 $ - Environment -Storm Upgrade - (W&S) 21 Storm Transportation & Golding Street - Waterloo to Bayard Street - $ 115,000 $ - Environment Storm Sewer upgrade - (W&S) 22 Storm Transportation & Hanover Street - Crown to March Creek - Storm $ 400,000 Environment sewer upgrade - (W&S) $ - 23 Storm Transportation & Honeysuckle, Sherbrook Street Culvert # 4 - $ 2,600,000 $ - Environment replace culvert by NBDTI 24 Storm Transportation & Honeysuckle, Sherbrook Street Culvert # 3 - $ 1,200,000 $ - Environment replace undersized culvert by NBDTI 25 Storm Transportation & Honeysuckle, Sherbrook Street replace $ 475,000 $ - Environment undersized culvert # 5 and Removal of culvert # 26 Storm Transportation & Kelly Lane - End of Kelly Lane to Sandy Point $ 115,000 Environment Road - Storm sewer for separation $ - 27 Storm Transportation & Paddock Street - 39 Paddock to Coburg -Storm $ 115,000 Environment sewer for separation - W&S $ - 28 Storm Transportation & Princess Street - Charlotte to Syndey Street - $ 85,000 Environment Storm sewer for separation - W&S $ - 29 Storm Transportation & Ready Street - Main to Catherwood Street - $ 250,000 Environment Storm sewer for separation - W&S $ - 30 Storm Transportation & Development of a stormwater model for the $ 160,000 Environment East and Central catchment Area $ 31 Storm Transportation & Westgate Park Drainage Basin - Trunk Storm $ 1,060,000 Environment Sewer New $ - storm sewer - 346 Exhibit 1- 2016 General Capital Budget Recommended 32 Storm Transportation & Westgate Park Drainage Basin - Property $ 110,000 Environment acquisition for construction of collector swale $ - 33 Parks & Public Transportation & Renewal of existing infrastructure such as $ 550,000 Spaces Environment sportfield assets, playground, tennis courts $ - 34 Parks & Public Transportation & Rainbow Park $ 250,000 Spaces Environment $ - 35 Parking Transportation & Coin Wrapper $ 20,000 Commssion Environment $ - 36 Public Safety Strategic Services Trunk Radio for Emergency Services - Public $ 1,250,000 Safety Required $ - 37 Information Strategic Services Replace City Network Infrastructure $ 100,000 Technolo gY $ 38 Information Strategic Services One Stop Applications & Hardware $ 50,000 Technolo gY $ 39 Information Strategic Services Upgrades to ERP $ 30,000 Technolo gY $ 40 Information Strategic Services Additional Disk Storage Systems & Tape Backup $ 200,000 $ 20,000 Technology 41 Information Strategic Services Computer Replacement Program $ 400,000 $ - Technology 42 Information Strategic Services PSCC GIS Mapping Program $ 108,049 Technology 43 Economic Waterfront Development Harbour Passage Eco -Hub $ - $ 35,000 Development 44 Economic Waterfront Development Harbour Passage and Boardwalk $ - $ 30,000 Development 45 Facilities Harbour Station Replace Cooking Equipment $ - $ 48,000 Management 46 Facilities Harbour Station Replace Replay Video Equipment $ 32,000 Management 47 Facilities Harbour Station Purchase new Computers/Servers $ - $ 17,500 Management 48 Facilities Harbour Station Replace Video Switcher/Playback Equipment $ - $ 45,000 Management 347 Exhibit 1- 2016 General Capital Budget Recommended 49 Public Safety Fire Replacement of aged SCBA packs and Bottles $ - $ 75,000 (2016) 50 Public Safety Fire Purchase of New Fire Engine (2016) $ - $ 500,000 51 Public Safety PSCC Upgrade Back PSCC Consul of Firestation #1 $ - $ 40,000 52 Facilities Library Shelving - mobile display shelves for new East $ $ 10,000 - Management Branch 53 Facilities Library Shelving - mobile periodical display units for $ $ 8,000 - Management new East Branch 54 Facilities Library Furniture - for space at new East Branch, in $ $ 15,000 - Management Transit Building 55 Facilities Library Move to Saint Transit - Approved in 2015 $ - $ 203,200 Management 56 Facilities Library Signage - East Branch at Transit Building $ - $ 35,000 Management Recreation & 57 Municipal Canada Games Aquatic Replace flow control valves $ - $ 28,350 Centre Owned Facilities Recreation & 58 Municipal Canada Games Aquatic Replace Flow Meter $ - $ 7,000 Centre Owned Facilities Recreation & 59 Municipal Canada Games Aquatic Facility Capital Renewal $ - $ 200,000 Centre Owned Facilities Recreation & 60 Municipal Canada Games Aquatic Retrofit Breaker Panels: Filter Rooms $ - $ 47,250 Owned Facilities Centre Exhibit 1 - 2016 General Capital Budget Recommended $9,958,049 $11,856,300 Recreation & 61 Municipal Canada Games Aquatic Epoxy filter tank (leisure tank) $ - $ 20,000 Centre Owned Facilities 62 Facilities City Market City Market Renovation $ - $ 580,000 Management 63 Facilities City Market City Market Pedway Elevating Devices $ - $ 120,000 Management Replacement 64 Facilities Lilly Lake Pavillion Year 3 of 3 year commitment of Captial $ - $ 150,000 Management 65 Economic Trade & Convention Centre Year 4 of 5 year Commitment of Capital $ - $ 170,000 Development 66 Facilities Facility Management Carleton Community Center Replace Windows $ $ 60,000 - Management Phase 1 67 Facilities Facility Management Carleton Community Center Replace $ - $ 80,000 Management Foundation Wateroroofing 68 Facilities Facility Management Forest Hill Canteen - Connect Sanitary Systems $ $ 40,000 - Management to Municipal Services 69 Facilities Facility Management Fire Station #4- Replace Roof $ - $ 80,000 Management 70 Facilities Facility Management Fire Station #4/#6- HVAC Upgrade $ - $ 40,000 Management Facility Capital Renewal - Petes Frootique 71 Facilities Facility Management Leasehold, Rockwood Park Int Center, Arts $ - $ 110,000 Management Building 72 Facilities Lord Beaverbrook Rink Exit Fire Doors and interior Doors Replacement $ - $ 50,000 Management 73 Finance & Admin Fleet Management Fleet Replacment $ 2,000,000 $ - 74 Economic Trade & Convention Centre Chair Replacements $ - $ 100,000 Development 75 Economic Industrial Parks Industrial Park Land Development $ - $ 200,000 Development $9,958,049 $11,856,300 Exhibit 2 - Not Recommended For 2016 General Capital Budget Project BUDGET- BUDGET - CITY CATEGORY DEPARTMENT DESCRIPTION MAINTENANCE # OTHERSHARE SHARE Creighton Avenue - Road reconstruction (storm 1 Transportation Transportation & sewer, road widening, excavation, curb, $ - $1,200,000 Environment landscaping, paving) Bonita Avenue - Street reconstruction 2 Transportation Transportation &(excavation, backfill, curb, sidewalk, landscaping $ - $950,000 Environment and paving) Pidgeon Terrace - Street reconstruction 3 Transportation Transportation & (excavation, backfill, curb, sidewalk, landscaping $ - $105,000 Environment and paving) Whipple Street - Street reconstruction 4 Transportation Transportation & (excavation, backfill, curb, sidewalk, landscaping $ - $700,000 Environment and paving) Cedar Point - Cedar Wood Drive - Street 5 Transportation Transportation & reconstruction (excavation, backfill ditches, $ - $1,480,000 Environment curb, sidewalk, landscaping and paving) 6 Transportation Transportation & King Street North - Three new bus lanes for $ - $250,000 Environment additional bus parking 7 Storm Transportation & Cedar Point - Cedarwood Drive - Install approx. $1,770,000 Environment 1045 m of new storm sewer $ Includes for the replacement and renewal of 8 Parks & Public Spaces Transportation & existing infrastructure such as sportfield assets, $25,000 $20,000 Environment playground, tennis courts and other facilities. 9 Parks &Public Spaces Transportation & Swanton Street -Playground equipment $25,000 $25,000 Environment replacement and park improvements. 10 Parks &Public Spaces Transportation & Market Place West -Includes new splash pad $250,000 $250,000 Environment adjacent to existing playground. 11 Saint John Transit Transportation & Buses Seek Funding $950,000 $ - Environment 350 Exhibit 2 - Not Recommended For 2016 General Capital Budget 12 Saint John Transit Transportation & Small Bus Trial $100,000 $50,000 Environment 13 Saint John Transit Transportation & Small Bus Trial $226,667 $113,333 Environment 14 Saint John Transit Transportation & Video Upgrade $56,667 $28,333 Environment 15 Saint John Transit Transportation & Service/Plow Truck $ - $55,000 Environment 16 Saint John Transit Transportation & Uptown Bus Shelter $26,667 $13,333 Environment 17 Saint John Transit Transportation & Garage Tools/Equipment $ - $50,000 Environment 18 Safety Fire Three Bay Garage at Training Academy (2016) $ - $350,000 19 Safety Police Replace Firearms $ - $200,000 20 Facility Management Fire Installation of Drafting Tank at Training Grounds $ - $150,000 (2016) 21 Information Strategic Services Trunk Radio for Emergency Services $ - $2,250,000 Technology 22 Information Strategic Services Server Infrastructure Replacement $ - $100,000 Technology 23 Information Strategic Services Applications and Systems (upgrades and $ - $30,000 Technology implementation of ERP) 24 Information Strategic Services Data Center Air Conditioner $ - $100,000 Technology 25 Information Strategic Services Connectivity $ - $40,000 Technology 26 Facilities Management Library Signage - Exterior facade at Market Square $ - $8,000 27 Facilities Management Library Signage - Wayfinders at Central Library $ - $5,000 Maintenance 28 Facilities Management Library Widen meeting room doors to accommodate $ - $4,000 Maintenance wheelchairs at Central 351 Exhibit 2 - Not Recommended For 2016 General Capital Budget 352 Recreation & 29 Municipal Owned Canada Games Aquatic Deck scrubber $ - $20,000 Facilities Centre Recreation & 30 Municipal Owned Canada Games Aquatic Replace Exit Sign $ - $7,020 Facilities Centre Recreation & 31 Municipal Owned Canada Games Aquatic Replace AHU#2 to Heat Pump Technology $ - $600,000 Facilities Centre Recreation & 32 Municipal Owned Canada Games Aquatic Refurbish lift car $ - $28,350 Facilities Centre Recreation & 33 Municipal Owned Canada Games Aquatic Facility Capital Renewal $ - $50,000 Facilities Centre 34 Saint John Parking Transportation & Electronic Chalking Machines $ - $40,000 Commission Environment 35 Saint John Parking Transportation & Pay and Display Parking Machines (5 Machines) $ - $80,000 Commission Environment 36 Economic Waterfront Development Market Slip dredging $ - $195,000 Development 37 Fleet Management Finance and Admin Fleet Replacment $ - $500,000 38 Economic Industrial Parks Development of Land $ - $100,000 Development 39 Economic Waterfront Development Market Slip dredging $ - $195,000 Development 40 Economic Waterfront Development Design renderings - infill strategy project $ - $45,000 Development 41 Economic Waterfront Development Loyalist Plaza final design/const. drawings $ - $290,000 Development 42 Facilities Management Harbour Station Complete Phase 2 of LED Lighting Project $ - $40,000 43 Facilities Management Harbour Station Replace Audio Routing Equipment $ - $25,000 44 Facilities Management Harbour Station Replace Wireless Beltpacks $ - $5,000 Maintenance 352 Exhibit 2 - Not Recommended For 2016 General Capital Budget 45 Facilities Management Harbour Station Replace 1993 Chairs $ - $100,000 46 Facilities Management City Market City Market Renovation $ - $360,000 47 Facilities Management Facilities Management Replace Windows -TIC West $ - $55,000 48 Facilities Management Facilities Management Hurley Arena Interior Renovation $ - $250,000 49 Facilities Management Facilities Management Sustainable Energy Management Program on$ - $45,000 City Owned Buildings 50 Facilities Management Facilities Management Hurley,Gorman and Belyea Arena- Building$ - $10,000 Study not Capital Electrical Systems Assessment 51 Facilities Management Facilities Management Facility Management Capital Renewal of Building $ - $240,000 Systems and Equipment $1,660,001 $13,577,369 353 COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2015-225 Report Date November 02, 2015 Meeting Date November 09, 2015 Service Area Finance and Administrative Services His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: 2016 General Capital Budget OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Kevin Fudge Kevin Fudge Jeff Trail RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council reflect upon the attached document and make any and all inquiries and recommendations to staff; and receive and file this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Purpose of the Report is to propose a 2016 General Fund Capital Budget. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION Click here to enter any previous relevant resolution. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The 2016 Proposed General Capital Budget is aligned with Plan SJ and Council's strategic priorities REPORT The Capital Budget is Council's plan for making investments in long term municipal infrastructure and other public assets. The projects included in the 2016 General Capital Budget are driven by the need to renew or replace existing infrastructure, to increase service standards, or to provide new infrastructure to support growth initiatives. 354 -2 - The requests received for capital projects exceed funding that is available. Approximately $37 million in Capital requests were submitted. Staff has strategically prioritized the capital submissions based on the following key criteria: 1) Alignment with Council's priorities and Plan SJ; 2) Impact on employee or public safety; 3) Required by existing contractual commitments; 4) Co -funding opportunities; 5) Improves efficiency or effectiveness of the City; 6) Improves service to the community; 7) Produces incremental municipal revenue or reduces city operating expenses; 8) Whether the project is linked to projects identified for funding in the Utility Capital Fund or to another investment 9) investment protects the City's assets. The proposed 2016 General Capital Budget totals $21,662,349 of which $9,958,049 is to be funded from other sources (gas tax, reserves, etc.) and the remainder $11,704,300 is to be funded by debt issue. ($11,749,010 in 2015). As illustrated in Exhibit 1, excluding the non -location specific investments, virtually all of the proposed 2016 General Capital Budget investments are located in the Primary Development Area. In addition, more than half of the proposed investments are planned for the intensifications areas, with the majority of those intensification investments being focused in the Uptown and Central Peninsula Urban Core Neighborhoods. 2016 CAPITAL ENVELOPE Transportation - It is a Council priority to continue to invest in direct road improvements including asphalt, curb and sidewalks, and surface reinstatements associated with water and sewer projects. The 2016 Capital Budget includes $4.6 million of investment in asphalt, curb and sidewalk and street reconstruction. This represents a year over year increase of approximately 10% compared to the 2015 Capital Budget. In addition, funding is included for ongoing guard rails replacement program ($200,000), two new fully signalized intersections at King's Square ($700,000), and the ongoing program of replacement of deteriorating retaining walls ($125,000). Drainage - Upgrades to the storm water system include new storm sewers, channel improvements, and separation of storm and sanitary sewers in 9 locations. With a total investment of $6.8 million ($5.7 million from other government sources to offset this cost), the City continues to make focused investments to address surface drainage and flooding issues throughout the community. 355 -3 - Recreation - Key spending in recreation includes renewal of existing sport fields, playground, park revitalization and tennis courts ($800,000). Funds are also included to provide equipment replacements at Harbour Station ($110,500), and key investments in the Canada Games Aquatic Centre for facility and equipment renewal ($302,600). It is anticipated that the Canada Games Aquatic Center will require considerably higher capital investment in future years. City Market - City Market is in need of major upgrades and maintenance. The exterior brickwork is decaying and the upper windows, pedway escalator and lift are in need of replacement. The mezzanine is in need of upgrading as well as general lifecycle renewal investments in windows, doors, and roof is required. The City Market Tower suffered major water damage from a burst pipe. A total investment of $3.5 million is required to restore the interior of the Market Tower. The City committed $270,000 in 2014, $700,000 in 2015 and staff proposes $700,000 in 2016. In 2017 a final investment of $360,000 would bring the total City investment to $2.03 million. Along with committed funding from ACOA for $2.03 million and a pending application from the Province for another $2.03 million, a total investment in the City Market would total $6.09 million to restore this City treasure Public Safety Services: A. Trunk Radio Emergency System -Communication is an essential component for public safety (Fire, Police and EMO services). Trunk radio systems provide the communication backbone for protective services in Saint John, throughout New Brunswick and across Canada. The existing analog trunk radio system technology is outdated, over 30 years old and was installed in Saint John in the early 1990's. It is used by the Saint John Police Force, Saint John Fire Department, Saint John Emergency Measures Organization, and Saint John Municipal Operations. The equipment, radios and infrastructure are no longer supported by the manufacturer. The Province and other New Brunswick municipalities have also been dealing with aging and obsolete trunk radio systems. The Provincial Government is making a significant financial investment to upgrade and enhance its mobile trunk radio communication system in partnership with Bell Mobility. The project includes configuration of a new network, digital mobile equipment and the construction of communication towers. Bell Mobility has commenced work on the new system and it is being carried out in stages with completion expected in late 2016. The current Bell Mobility analog system will continue to be used until the new one is fully functional. 356 EM The Provincial project presents a strategic window of opportunity to align the City investment with the investment in the Provincial network. The Trunk Radio Emergency System project is estimated to cost approximately $2.5-$3 million dollars. The City investment is expected to include new subscriber gear (radio equipment for Police and Fire) estimated between $1 to $1.5 million dollars; equipment and conversion build costs for the Public Safety Communication Center (911) in the range of $500 thousand to $1 million dollars; and additional tower requirements for City wide coverage, yet to be determined, that could cost $500 thousand to $1 million dollars. Monthly subscription charges are expected to be similar to the current subscription charge of the analog system. Detailed quotes, specifications and implementation timelines are still not final. The Public Safety Communication Center (911) conversion is estimated to take place in Q3. Implementation of subscriber equipment could be late Q3 or Q4. It is optimistic for the City to be fully converted by early December. A robust City business case must be performedto ensure value for money. Although project costs are estimated at $2.5 million to $3 million dollars, given the uncertainty in timing, the 2016 Capital Budget includes funding of $1.250 million for the Trunk Radio Project with the remaining investment planned for 2017. When project timelines are finalized, Staff will report back to Council with a request for any required adjustments to the Capital envelope accordingly. Staff is seeking Council's formal commitment to the Trunk Radio Emergency System Project given its critical importance and risk to public safety. Staff will present a business case to Council in 2016 with options that provide best value for money. B. Fire Service - A fleet replacement schedule for the 10 primary fire units was established approximately 10 years ago with the objective of getting the most effective and efficient use of these capital purchase ( including the goal of minimizing large scale maintenance issues related to operating cost and availability). Three of the ten fire service units have now exceeded their replacement period and in turn maintenance cost have risen. The maintenance cost for Engine # 2 (2001) has exceeded $40,000 in 2015. The proposed 2016 Capital Budget includes funding to replace Engine #2 ($500,000). Funding has also been included to replace aged SCBA packs and bottles ($75,000). Investments are proposed to upgrade the HVAC in Fire Station #4, 36 Courtney Avenue and Fire Station #6, 286 King Street West ($40,000) as well as to replace the roof in Fire Station #4 ($80,000). Transit - The City will continue its investment in Public Transportation by committing to the purchase of a new bus ($475,000) which will positively impact the average age of the transit fleet. The Transit average fleet age is currently 10.79 years whereas the national average is 7.5 years. The General Manager of 357 -5 - Saint John Transit believes a sustainable target should be 9 years. 11 of the 47 buses in the fleet were acquired in the year 2007 through external funding. Given this distribution curve, the average age of the bus fleet is expected to increase to 11.50 years in 2016 even with the purchase of 1 new bus. Information Technology - The City's information technology supports the effective and efficient delivery of the services provided to residents, and is largely dependent on current and modern IT systems. The proposed budget includes $800,000 in IT investments, with $600,000 being funded from the computer reserve fund for a net capital requirement of $200,000. Network infrastructure and upgrades to the enterprise resource planning system ERP ($130,000), needed disk storage and backup systems ($220,000), One Stop Development Shop Application & Hardware ($50,000) and the regular replacement of monitors, laptops, workstations and licensing agreements funded from reserves. Finally, a funding commitment has been secured for a Public Safety GIS mapping solution that creates a common operating picture for emergency services ($108,049). Fleet - $2.5 million (including the investment in a fire truck of $500k) in fleet replacement will ensure the City has the equipment and fleet required to provide necessary public service. The cost is offset by a contribution of $2.0 million from the fleet replacement fund. Staff will present a list of proposed acquisitions for Council approval in the coming weeks. Economic Development — includes year 4 of 5 commitments for the Trade & Convention Centre as well as funding for chair replacement ($270,000) to maintain competitiveness in the marketplace. The budget also proposes an investment in land development for the Saint John Industrial Parks ($200,000). Waterfront Capital is based on the City's committed contribution to the Loyalist Plaza refurbishment. The City has committed $3.4 million provided the campaign raises the funds needed to proceed with the refurbishment. The 2016 Capital Budget includes funds for the engineering, final design and construction drawings, in the amount of 290,000. Also included in the Budget is $35,000 for the third Eco Hub on Harbour Passage which will be located at the back corner of the Fort Latour site. Funding from TD Bank for this Eco Hub has already been received. The budget also includes $195,000 for dredging at Market Slip. Currently most boats cannot get into Market Slip because there has been no dredging done since 2005. This will provide the boating community with a place to get their boats into Market Slip and be able to enjoy what Uptown Saint John has to offer. Facilities — Lily Lake will receive its final installment for the 3 year commitment of capital for $150,000 to improve accessibility, fire protection, audio/visual equipment and energy efficiency as part of a three year renewal plan. The East Branch Library will be re -locating to Saint John Transit Atrium. Rents will be paid to Saint John Transit, resulting in financial savings for the City of approximately 0 M $100,000 per year that the Library would have been paying in Rent at its current location. Funding is included for new shelving, furniture, moving costs, and signage ($221,200). A repair envelope will allow for improvements at the Rockwood Park Interpretation Centre, the Arts Building and for Leasehold improvements ($110,000). Window replacement and foundation waterproofing will be carried out at the Carleton Community Center ($140,000) and the Forest Hills Canteen will be connected to the municipal sanitary system ($40,000). Contingent Funding Envelope - While a nominal budget allocation is shown for each of these projects, actual disbursement by the City is contingent on certain conditions being met. It is contemplated that the City will seek to secure funding for these projects through any of the Building Canada Fund, Gas Tax Fund or other Federal or Provincial programs. A. Exhibition Centre - this $22 million dollar project involves the construction of a new Field House at Exhibition Park. The Centre would include an indoor track and facilities for a range of indoor sport activities. The Exhibition Association is willing to commit land and funding to initiate the development. The City has been requested to consider a contribution of $4.2 million over a three year period. It is unlikely that a City contribution would be required prior to 2017. The City funding is contingent on the project sponsors identifying the capital funding to construct the project and a strict limit on the City's exposure to fund any future operating deficit. B. Loyalist Plaza — the estimated cost of the Plaza Development is $6.4 million with an anticipated City contribution of $3.4 million. A master plan has been developed, after a series of public consultations, that when implemented will serve to rejuvenate this anchor location in the Uptown. The City's commitment is contingent on the remainder of the capital funding being secured. Fiscal Responsibility The 2016 Capital Budget places more financial pressure on future operating budgets as the cost of principle and interest payments become fixed costs for the City, thus committing future operating budgets to these expenses. Through responsible fiscal management, based on an annual $11-12 million dollar Capital program, debt retirement will start to exceed new debt issues in 2017. The Capital Budget must strike a balance between sustainable infrastructure needs and affordable and responsible fiscal management. The Finance Department, continuing to build upon the completion of identifying and tracking of the City's Tangible Capital Assets, will work in 2016 to develop a Financial Sustainable Planning Program which includes an Asset Management Plan, Long Term Debt Policy and Long Term Capital Plan. The success of the project 359 -7 - involves the participation of not only Finance, but the major stewards of the City's assets, such as Water, Transportation, Fleet, and Facility Management. Along with input from Council, Staff and other Stakeholders, a Financial Sustainable Planning Program must be developed to help guide how Financial Resources are managed moving forward. CONCLUSION Planned capital expenditures total $21,662,339 with $9,958,049 coming from other sources for a net Capital budget of $11,704,300. The annual funding from the gas tax program has helped reduce projected borrowing costs and has allowed the City to undertake needed infrastructure improvements. Funding from bond issues is within the City's borrowing capacity. The Capital Budget addresses a range of community needs with a strong emphasis on Council priorities. The investments made will contribute to Saint John being a Community of Choice — with better roads, reduced flooding, improved recreation facilities, better public spaces, improved protective services and continued enhancement of strategic assets. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Input has been received from the Senior Leadership Team and the Finance Committee of Council ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1: 2016 Capital Investment Map Exhibit 2: 2016 General Capital Recommended Exhibit 3: 2016 General Capital Not Recommended Me Exhibit I -8 - - - ------- -- ----------------- - -------- 2DI6 Proposed General Capital Program 361 362 0 O 0 a 0 O a O O 0 a 0 a LLJ O O 0 C] O C] 0 a a O a a O m a a a 0 0 0 0 0 o a o a a ry a O O v O O Lr) Ln u•] a O Lr a V1 2 Ln �.D Ln en a r- m m yrs r� _q o car O V) cD cN 1--i ry ry m m cv m cN n 4A. v} v1- t/) m � v} m uU Q W O a O a LQ u Ln Ln {ry Ln ro r� o v)- -U� m co rCa +-roC m C> C r�6 C +--J C U Ln m a, oA 3 o m Q o C '� w .1 L c 3 �!` 3 u 0 aJ } U V G1 +- dA L W m ut 0 L coW a! u Ln 0 OL '� -Q C) 0 ti Y Li ro � Q ` O ° E c uo a a CL o +' a° +' �, Q �_ o a, a ro ° Q Z fl Z L ai o v o cL° aj o � o ` C �' +B a v aj Q V °ccJ w '� ~ — a) v, '7, v o a� a� v C ' t Q -p V7 4. W m a L+") L C O 0 L o c +`� +' to V x r i m a1 .� 3 ro N @ Z U Z O Q� V) L +--� N ai �, m a) y cn Q �[ N aJ a1 V Z "a +� Q O + L L N +`- a1 m t./) C -J 4A w ,7 L m M L M W +, m +� ai �) Y L N i--� r1 m VT tw a1 C C � O 3 (v L w u N L Q (� Q a1 a) L m '� — a� 07 +� Cy a! L' +� o +� � CL a) C t 'a C •ya m C -0 L!1 V) � V) '� v7 VT E Q aS a"' a 'i5 o w bA oz U d m CL Z 4 LU l7 06 oz 06 off obi 06 of S 06 0Z 0Z 06 06 0;5 025 06 +1 +10 +' +1 +' Z C+ C C C C C C C C C C C C C +' C C +' C C C C+ C C: 4-1 C C *' C C C C +� C W o W a! - W- aJ O a1 Q aJ Q W .- w �- as .0 w .� v .a w .o 0 .� W aC, r +, C L }' L L L +-' C +'1 C L L L C +-' Q L +1 C L L C L C }' C L }' C L �-' C +, C m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 L 0 L 0 0 as Q 0_ 0- Q a. a. Q CL Q 0- n. 0. =. �0 Q 0 vi 7 Ll� 7 Ln > V> > Ln > Ln 7 to V t vn > vi 7 V) LA Ln ? - cn 7 Ey e C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C M w m w m w m w m w m w m w m w m w M w m Lu m w m w m w m w L L L L LLLL L L L L L L L L L C C C C C C C C !* C C C C C C y. O O Q O C) O O © C) D 0 O o Q Q m .0 :r .0 +1 .a � m m m m m m m m m co m m ry m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q 0 0 0 0 LU CL a- a 0- 0- 0- Q Q Q 0- 0 a a a a V) VI V1 0 Ln Vf N V) Vf V1 V) 0 0 V) V1 V m m m m ro m m m m m m m m m m u 4i �# � N m et u , w r� oa cr a � r� m d• � L a 362 a� E O u a) to m m Q m U m a r_ 0 (D ei d N N .G X W O O I O I I I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O Q O Ln Uf) O Ull Ln fit) O O O O f� h O r -I r -I '� Ln QD rl Ln � � r-! r -I N -I -i Ln P I I 0 CD 0 O O I I I I I Q I a Q O O p O O O o Ln O �o o � � {n- ri qj,� Vl- -Q� v E a � C Y C) U U rri cu L L 7 O c aL +� +� H m C � to cn O to ` L U O rn O V)) Z3 V7 Q) j 7 m qa) `� ° •+� L cin{aj > -0 N" C O L U vOi n L 0-6 _ Z L �5 -0 Q Q L U CZm v 0 o N U o o E0 v v Q a) I I L Z L UOU }� C VI cn Q VCl Vl Q a; - Q � c) E Ln O Ln N C3 41 nE Q V) O O J U} ro +, Gp L O ¢) C O �, d U C O Op O `Y i Y U n p L O rLa + Q- (, C1 O L o y a. tiA QJ 4-1 C L O D d to O }a ro £1 L L +� L C C T Q U s. V) a Ln O C O C 4-1 � ❑ a) n {� +L. C m Z ❑ Q N V L U L N i ° `� L Q L N L w b W Ln Y O N +� wco E Qi Q N U w N U1 N C Q 9i 0.) N I I Q C m d 4- Q '�' ° L :..� U U 4n U 'J` 41 �' Ln C� E cu L%i N +� C •� vi +' OA N (fi its N Q) C ro O V) o L 0 +1 cn L O Q In rz ?r. N Y +� L a Q a) N J Y c� W L T vLn ° w n o a) N 7 w > L ° � T O V N `n C L fl 0 O C O C n = C 7 3 O X U` co 2 2 Y m d OOCaj Q w 2 C d m o6 ozi 07 66 0�5 06 06 czi cz 06 co cz 06 016 co 0o C i -+C C +, C a J C +., C }I +.' C C — C + -' C 4 . a•_' C +-I C .11 C i --I C +-� C y C +-+ C 0 C 0 0 C 0 C ° C o C a O 0 C 0 C 0 C o C a C ° C o C 0 C 0 C ro E E ra E ro rQ m m cv m m m L -1 L L L LL L L L L L L m o a° o o° o° o° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o L Q o L a o L o L 0 0 Q• a Q Q CL 0- Q Q Q CL g Q Q 0- Q Q n 7 v 0 7 cn 7 ul cn 7 0 7 V 0 0 7 y 7 Ln C C C CO C O C C C C C C C C C C C C cz w M w m w m w m L m w m w m w m w m w m L m w M w m w m w m w C U n Q m E E E E E E E E E E E E E O Q m L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L 0 L Q L o L O L o L 0 L ° a cz a) u m Q V) v7 tin v) v7 to N V) Ln N Ln (n V) Ln Ln v) r L ti ru a LD fl- 00 00 (7) O -1 c -I c -i rl r -I rV rV N N N N N N N N M m 363 al 'C3 E 0 u a O. R V C C7 UD r -I 0 N N L X W 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 o C o L o 0 C 0 Ln N O O O � m rn "t -1 1*rlj r 11 —i O O Q O 61 O = O 0 O W O O O N ih Lll t!} ili i/} {/} {/l. {/l. •(!} {/} V/ in• Q U 3 Y o +1 r- n a} r 1 U {1A a1 4- a (6 a) Q ++ m aD In u 3 CL E L a••' > c Q U i Z3 m to C L cr LL m ._.. cn .> L _y 06 O L ca L �V7• 00 a cu �n v L L m �' 0 C i a L_Z Ul u U c LL L '�: ��y o2S E C OU 0 a1 Q bOA (O d U Y C w O v 4-1 aJ c �, ' a j L La..l (o Q W — N S L � a EL mo to CL E M- m V C) Ln o ran 3 v "l " 2 a, ° ,, CL C L2 0 L v r Lm p i i D sz eU a 4 ' i U to � ro a � v I 0 V -0 N � cJ E N Lu Q m cu �' CL +, O a1 - N u � L a Q Q Q O 4 � L cn 3 -� L a3 m � In ; Ln y_ CL 4-j CL d d 2 u m v > E E a1 f1 r6 D vi i Q L s o a CL C +1 C 4� C a) aJ v V) 0 �A U u u u u u u u D- 0 0 0 C +j O O 0 O 0 O 4% > L ] L ] L 7 L ' L L > L aJ Q) a! v tp @ v w 0 aj > > > N a v +, L V) Ln Ln V) Ln cn Ln v as a) v, cn cn a L D U U U U U U _U ❑ a L L L `L L Ll �. Q V) to to w tm °�' w En do ate' c o 0 0 C- c - 1 � a a' 0 0 0 -0 -0 -0 m LU m o m m m ns B I— l/5 Vi V) U) sn cn cn L a.) L v L aj 2 2 2 m m m 41 ap D LlA O 00 O O o4 O o0 O C1A .� W ,'v a) .L' aJ u) U in W in a7 a1 w aJ ci (U m .� ° O H O o ° .z O E E E E 2 E a E E E s o v, o o a o a o 0 0 D Q O g_ :t v .v +, v .v += cn cn co cn Y Ln 0 o c�a o u o o c U°> a� M `� " c :E a) 4- aJ Q7 4- a1 a) L Lj > U> L u � U L u > LL LL m - m m C C C � C a1 aJ a) 7 7 N m dr Ln lD r- 00 O1 N m ft LIl lD r- 00 m m m m m m m m et <t d 9 a a E O u a m 0 to m m Q m V f6 C! a C7 m 4 N N X Lu O O O CD O O O 0 0 O O O d Q O N m O m Q O Ln N O O �O 06H O t^l coN p C) p 00 O t� tri y' +✓� i!} V k L i1 +n -L4 -Vs- <n tn 1 -tn to vl- w _ Ln 4- tic 0 t O C VI � C C E u C L C O O ._ tL p > m a m aJ c C p w + C° mC n Q v' w > oL w > �' j T9 u bA 3 CL aJ a�J= C LL C *' m ca + <m F' ° 2 °' `� aJ a > c Lq= u m _ c v w fD O �p u [� Om a} ?: Q. L m 7- Y fl) m aJ (L).� aJ f1 m a✓ a S3 Oro CLn uaJ — LJ +•+ 0 E w a LL m * p a?� ) C L7a C to [a o Lu aC- o— dJ a) Z7i U L LL LO u u u u u fi5 m (p r0 z cr a a a a Q a T i i Ln aJ LOaJ Ln QJ (n aJ Y B LWQJL E 4.1 .1 L m m aJ B aJ m v f'6 aJ ro aJ c C ...J J J J J (q U (,r} V {] U 0 u � CO U ate+ V rp co n3 rc � ra U V U U U C C C V DZS •� Ln oZi •2 kA co V) N cn a] L'1 aJ N aJ sA OJ to a} _ C RS = C (9 � 4- C m = 4 - C = C f1$ of aJ vi aJ L' E .� .' E .T E Q U C 'V O _� U Q U O Q- U E. V ' a! !_' aJ !� aJ }' aJ _O +-+ U Li- _O ++ V m a� u _O ar U 'z; U l6 ++ .0 t]0 = 00 — bA U — fop U — 40 u ro '� ca 'C Li fp •C ca C m LL C .}+ —_ t�A -_ oz m u m M m C m M m aJ Z3 LJ '6 �J C �J 3 C u rp U fB C LL C L.L C LL M C LL rB C LL roC� a' u u Lj U C C CCm Of 0 0 0 0 0 m o m Ln m rn O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln QD 365 al as E E 0 u w cr d m CL CJ �o aj C ,m Y LC N t X LU 0. CD 0 I 0 o o a o 0 0 0 L a a o 0 0 © o o r -I 110 00 lzzr 00 I�rtn I I I I I I O I I O O O O O N y11 /7 N 3 E O (11 aJ L v = cr CL CL V) _0 a v � U u �- O 0 O u �� 0 � LL a Q a--1 4 Q L 0 _ C a1 N u 4 O q! a1 ® In U y U V C a1 E E O +} ` r� Q a Y E a--+ a) C" rv' V Q) Qf I L u cu C m C � � .c E a) HT1 C C I ai Q •C m cr L L 4--1 d '+� C [0 to C E 7 O N i tv. co m Ln C 1Am sZ o� U O O O � u ai L) U D v'Ji LL a7 O 0 L MQj L C O �. _ L.L +� = C u u ra J O u L.L cu L v L L C +- +1 4-1 4-1 } C r_ w c C C C C: C �--+ ai OU E •> O W a1 aJ Mo W a1 aJ ai O m n3 m rO m roa m 0.0 2 CL C C C C C C m QJ r0 m m r6 ra m m . Y C cL 2 2 2i O J u T O�S +y .0 +-� •u +, •Q � +1 :u .0 aJ 0�1j C _ J Qa m m rE m m r9 Ll a i3 LL LL LL- Ll L1 L. -0 iia ria 1. L C Q) �n v V) W u, m 0 W ul w 0 a -0 ai ar °' E E E .T E ,v E .T E .v E .Lu T '+' E a E E E E +' aJ O cL +l aJ :t aJ }1 aJ ±1 a1 *' ai w CZ 0 S O a C O .0 .UO .0 .0 m C O C O Q ra C O0 a u m C a rn m m r- u m ro ro ra a1 v O 4J O 4J LL LU i LL LL M U- m C LL f6 LL m LL C @ C CL a) Lu ajaj I..L c -i N m Lf] CO n 00 m O L4 LD LD LO w C.o to Lp LD n n 0. 47 m E O u Q) 0 Z 41 w U -cs 3 m rL m U f0 L to C7 r.D e-1 O N 1 M a+ 's x W 367 I V p C) p C7 O O O C? W Q 4 O o m o cc a o 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 a W. = O Q� O O 00O O p rn (14 CNJ Ln e l Lr) q t�rx U tn NW a o 0 o a o 6" C7 ul o o C� C C ll:� p W LPi Lr O) 0 o 0 WN N li N Ql r -i N O t„ to z c xw Ln Q Q Q a V 0 0 Q) m Ln o� v C: ro o Ln .- � u w -� o" u n '� `a °' a E o L tU Q C m m I _ Q ,� L S2 C .Q a-- Vi +-I a) CF- 'O Ln L VI O _ Y C Q �L m I VI Q Q1 tm 0 u '> a) v a) a p a) ;° Q Z aa)i C too ro m 0 U X m i- -0 tIA y -0 tlo L -0 hA Q C L L m aJ 3. E Q) CL C i i N N CL cn C a) 7 C of C O p O iLD I— C •> ,d +-I u V7 U Y fiQ L C V7 0 m � m i Si -a '+-+ oc Q .� •Q Ln of o- 0 vi m a C LL m m V 0 E u -0 : u -0 u Qui rUa a) a - .x e = — ca C Q) C C u Tj X M CL L I C +� 4) Q) m to m W 73 u to aJ = m = u= m v— m CJ m O LJ * m q) O a) E E 7 3 � C � � _ � 7 Ln lIS C/I � C 1 ULCLJ aJ L 7 U u <C L O p O C ra m m e p c a c a O u '� Oaim CO b -O +, L +, �i C Q 4- m a) m 7 ' 6 7 � a) Q C L C C Cl) 1G to n a m U U � U � U h c/7 u cm obi 06 06 06 o'f xS 06 65 06 '7 a- C .�' C a-- C +., C a'' C ++ C +.. C +- C a..' C �""' C V) C iA C o r O c o 0 O Q o r o o m m m W v 0E ,_ a) m E ._ a) ro E ._ a) cz E (U m E a) m a) m a o E a) m a) L �- L L Ln was li O 0 0 Q O O Q OL Q O aLU Q .L 0- L CL L CL CL 0- 0-- m Ln c r Ln o c Ly C C C C c C C C C C m W m W ra W m LU m W ro LU m W ra W m LL1 C C C L L L L L L L L L '�-o C C C C C u u u vi cn vi ut o a a O o z � s .Q -0 rLe � m m m m mm m C n vi Z 0 +yaj u W0 W 0 0 0 0 0CL 0 o L O Ld 66 m 66 m L) 06 m C C C L/) CL V7 M VI CL 0 N I CL 0 0 Q d Q C C C C C ,� , — L7 m L rraa m m L L L a--• C C C c a a a V) cn Ln U •� ?� r -I N ro LPI QD r- 00 Ql Q •-i ci �i H L a 367 Q mo m o o QQQry o o 0 o a0 -iO Q O d Q O Oo O Q Q Q bo r4� lzr m N rl r -I N r n iIF t/� V')- IAI in iJ} tP} ?rt V} Q00 ill} VN in• ih in- t!} t/} i/} t/} t/} t/} t/} i/} th i/1 t/} tD V � O Q O O V1 m (N O C V cu L,O Let Vsi E L pro C N vT a) u CLO^ as m aJ Y L asU as T Q w ro i 4J _Q N co H c O C c6 O .- w a, ria L Ln = as C CD N U CL mO Z Q j, 4° Q O O O O u c`l w L u2r 3 •� V) c L O i B o p +, Q m > a �o o _� a 2 c U o «� m ,-� o bn `�° m D _o � m ' a cz Ci V -� 4- m cn 0. co m c ro w C7 C7 O L O -LU 'm �G as > Va � p v i m Ln f2 Q c O c u Q a i Ln Ln c- < +- N a-- 'A +-• N0 c Nf VI V7 VI to v} O O O C U V U U U U co m m rb Qj a) i i cn V) Ln V) V) H V) CA rL4 fU co to +- as O bn O on O bn O w O M O bA cn w us w H H F H T T � 'a O "+, O + _O+, _O + ❑ as a) C C C C N _T Q7 �- 1 = a) •U bA co O E C f� O E C `° O E C to O E O ro O E r� 0 a+ v Ll aJ O L O L O t O m m m m M L L �= L t L= C L s C- L- bn 'u ro - OD u cn V) V} V) � C O v O u O u O V O u O U ra C M O VI V) V) V7 [t v7 to R W C) Q V-1 N ro b Ln LD I" 00 01 ri r -I �-•� r'1 ri N N N N N N N N N N • t O o o a o a a o a O a o mO O aO0 aOD O r- a °0° N Ln r1400 o 0 0 O IA- I lj'� -V)- 4.1� to 4-r� in in rh v a, toC cu 0 ay OaJ v v H — 7�7 Q L � Lnro ai 4L 0 C L Q L a) Q] 41 N U f0 a} C f-- � Vto +� 4' as i aJ s 3 a w x a) c o v oA u E 4- o ro fu va o +' 0 -0 i f4 = �_ onC C 2 " ca C Ln L ZS (A V a) L ut 0 +� U �+ N L tL U .LZ Q Sa 4- (n a) Q @ ,� aJ �. co CL Q V 0 U U W X U 1 a-- 4 aJ L a1 ❑ OJ N a1 +-- Q 'L v Nro = CLJ ro LL rz E u w ❑ 0 toc Q aj v 0 to ro CL U U U UU U rfl fb m ro m m to QA bA a s a s 6 c E Q Q Q Q Q Q .Y C .1 C C L O 7 Ln a) V) N tn W <n W v� a) vi aj m .2 ° .Q a a Q a) L L a� E C C aj + C W + C W + C Ln v, a — c9 '2 ami ❑ a cc as ca a) a) n3 v co N Q) L L J J [] U U U LJ U (rj U (7 U ('] V —0 E —0O E E a) VS 'O Z3 U C U �_ U c (6 C fp [O C r6 C Y6 C [6 C m to [6 V) ro fn C r L U U U Uro LZ Y U U � v v v +� CJ C C 0� C C) 06 C 0Z C cz C 06 C of f C c +-+ +� CJ E vi N v7 a) C � in C � un C 3:v} C 3 C 3 N C � Ln.� W .0 aJ ,U W N U w ,V w E .2 E o O .v o 0 T o O w 0 O T o O .2 o o .9' E E E E E E to E E E E — Rs = is — bA := OD m = 'U m ro 'u m M= m ca — 'u m 'u ca ra — c O C O C O C C C O U m u a g a CL v a u v CL v Q v a u OU r� _o OU LL LL U .0 LL U .[_] L1.. U .0 i.L U .0 L.L U LL U Li- 0 0 7 U QJ a) c (] C a C U C a) C .0 aJ C ,u (U C LSA w w aJ w aJ +., W v w v C O' C CL C cr C 7 � 3 ❑ ❑ ❑ aJ ❑ ❑ LLL m C L] Co f- 0o CT O N M M m m m m m M M) ro M cr cJ • t 370 m 00 lqr cm wq Vi- 4D h a o 0 o a C) Q o 0 C o � 0 C o Q 0 ni m O� Ln Ln p t n trr } Ln irs {Nrr I I t I I I 1 I I I I I I I to Q .Q .Q -j CL 4 .� L L2 c aJ c m4 Q Q Q C C� Q} E bA ti0 C Q_ cr Ln w V w C N m d m E 4_ a--1 a to Ln L (A'� 7aJ 7 O C Ct0 - a1 c tiO W -p '' r6 O m (.> aJ C _cr d w m a-' J L aJ Q m - U O a ? Fry)+,+�n p[ cn !� W C a Cl) Ln c o m a) d Ln -7J cu 4-, -0 C 4-1 m W C�C 4. 1 Q C iJ Ln N N QJ C V Q QJ _� � m -O m C ti0 0 m Ln w 7, aJ w S_. Q)d N O aJ u C m aJ rJ a) L L aJ > C ti0 m m m Ln m rn 0 aJ Q m aJ v, h m d c w U u C tw C v� m C u m -a Q 0 QO U aJ aJ L a--1 m C T O vCL a c w co CL v y u m CL 2 w `n aJ aJ a C C C C C aJ aJ aJ aJ aJ Q Q C C C c C E E E E E 0 0 0 +� 0 +� Q Q Z- o +I Y O +, w w aJ w aJ 9 w > +iv m-1 +m -� +� m fu � w i do m w m do m w 6n m m aJ W cn ri'1 cJ) Cn V7 m C C C C C C O Cra O S s0 a--+ L L L L L aJ aJ aJ aJ aJ aJ cu co .0 .0 •� .U� +1+�-1 m O LL 7m 7 Li Li wm Li +� C Y C +-I C 4� C +-1 +1 C C +1 C +V C a --I C C C C C C aJ ,uaJ yr N "I aJ vi cn 4J of aC1 vs aJ cn a1 rn ai cn d Ln N cn aJ w W Q+'1 O_ O a }' QJ w }' wt' aJ {i1 aJ '' aw :F' aJ +' aJ t' aJ 't cu a"' w }' aJ C Q c O ' to = to - W = w - to = UO — w — w - w = bA = w = w Q cll Q -@u m u m u m u m u m u m u m u m u m u mu m u m u v m c LL m C L.i m c m c LL LL m C LL m C LL m c l.L m c LL m c m c m c m c W a W a m m m m m m m m LL m LL m U- m LL m 2: lzr Ln D r- m m � d r Ln Ln rn 370 m 00 lqr cm wq Vi- 4D h Belmont Health & Wealth November 10th, 2015 To: Saint John Mayor and Council Re: Operation Red Nose of Greater Saint John 2015 Mayor Mel Norton and Saint John City Councillors. S-605, 933 Prince William Street Saint John, NB E2L 2B5 Phone: (506) 634-7050 Toll Free: 9-800-565-7050 Facsimile: (506) 634-6379 www. gobelmont. ca We are writing this letter to common council to update you an exciting, socially responsible program that we are bringing back to the greater Saint John Region. Operation Red Nose is a designated driver program that offers people in the region a safe, non-judgemental means of returning you and your loved ones home, but also the vehicle that you took with you to the event, dinner or social gathering you attended. The program is being brought back thanks to title sponsors Rothesay Kings Rotary Club and Belmont Health & Wealth, along with the help of all our partners and sponsors. Although the program offers a free ride home with our volunteers, we will be accepting donations for P.R.O Kids Saint John. The program will be running on Friday and Saturday nights, for 4 weeks starting November 27th/28th and ending the weekend Dec 17th/18th. The service will operate from Grand Bay -Westfield, Saint John, Millidgeville, KV and Hampton. We have been working very hard to spread the word Saint John and the surrounding area for sponsors and volunteers in order to make sure that we can help make a difference and offer many people a safe ride home. This is where we could use your help. We were hoping that Saint John Council would mention Operation Red Nose in the "member comments" portion of the agenda at the meeting on the 2.3`d. The fact that this meeting falls during our first weekend of the program, we would really appreciate the help. As co-chairs of the program, Jen Butler and I will be in attendance at the meeting on the 23rd and should we be given the opportunity, we would love to address council as well. Last but not least, we were hoping that it might be possible to have a picture taken with the mayor and council wearing our red noses to post on our web page and other social media. Thank you for the consideration Jen Butler and Paul Boudreau Co -Chairs, Operation Red Nose of Greater Saint John 2015 371 November 16, 2015 Mr. Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E2L4L1 Dear Mr. Taylor, I am excited to tell you about the New Brunswick Youth Orchestra's (NBYO) upcoming concert in Saint John on Sunday, January l Oth, 2016. The "Inspiring Excellence" concert will showcase the talents of our 85 members of the NBYO, of which 18 are from the Saint John area. These young men and women have been working hard to prepare for this concert, but need the help of our community to make it a success. We are seeking your help in making this concert as successful as last year's. Once again, we are offering our concert sponsors 10 free tickets of premier seating to the performance for a $500 contribution, This also includes recognition in our program and during the concert. Last year a number of our sponsors shared their tickets with employees and clients. With Christmas just around the corner, what could be better than sharing the gift of music with people that mean so much to your organization? We hope you will consider being a concert sponsor this year! We recognize that this is the fiscal year end for many organizations. If you wish to be a concert sponsor for our upcoming concert and wish to make your contribution after the New Year, that is certainly possible and we can still get your complimentary tickets to you in plenty of time for Christmas! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at: campjkjt@a nb.sympatico.ca or by calling 672-1354. Many thanks! Sincerely, Kelly Campbell Parent Volunteer New Brunswick Youth Orchestra 372 JA I S I T I N V, I. VK I A 'i I L P.: I YOUR LOGO HERE INSPIRING EXCELLENCE NewRrosvAckdesx,unes Youth GKWra du Ncova u-Brunswkk I'NSPIf ER L EXCE.LLENCE A N TO N 10 D L L G A D Ticket Pumh.16 (! loc allons New Brunswick ordmte des jeune Youth ONhestra du Hoau-uidk r. About the New Brunswick Youth Orchestra Founded in 1965, the NBYO is proud to celebrate our 51St season. This year's theme is Inspiring Excelleace. Our mission is to inspire children and youth to achieve their potential through learning and performing orchestral music. Corporations can support NBYO through generous financial and in-kind contributions. You're invited to become a sponsor of the youth leadership and development that has been exemplified by NBYO for half -a -century, proudly serving thousands of dedicated young musicians from across the province. Throughout 2014-15 NBYO commemorated the centenary of the beginning of World War One on a journey of remembrance, through music and reflection, The Keeping Faith tour included performances in Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic, throughout New Brunswick, and in our nation's capital for the official opening of the Canadian War Museum's new permanent exhibition, The Home Front 9917. Keeping Faith is also the title of the NBYO's newest CD, which was nominated for a 2015 Music NB Award. The recording includes music specially commissioned by the orchestra to commemorate the role of Canada and New Brunswick in the First World War. In July 2011 the New Brunswick Youth Orchestra competed with orchestras from around the globe at the Summa Cum Laude International Youth Music Festival in Vienna, Austria. They won first place in the orchestra category—the only Canadian orchestra to ever win this distinction from the panel of international judges. The NBYO is comprised of over 80 men and women from across the province. Members are English and French speaking, from diverse backgrounds, and range from 12 to 22 years of age. The New Brunswick Youth Orchestra performs under the inspired direction of Music Director and Conductor—Maestro Antonio Delgado. 374 New Brunswick - Orchesfte des jeunes Youth O du mean -Brunswick Coince ill, 8 p o n s o r $500 Public acknowledgement at concerts Logo recognition in concert programs Ten VIP concert tickets (prime auditorium seating) Acknowledgement in post -concert thank -you publicity 375 Co-u-neil Identifies and &&dresses social issues in Greater Saint Jghn through research, information, coor, it on and networking November 17, 2015 Mayor Mel Norton and Members of Common Council Dear Mayor Norton and Councillors: Re: A service agreement and partnership with the Human Development Council We are writing to propose that the City of Saint John enter into a service agreement and partnership with the Human Development Council (HDC) which would include a multiyear service agreement with the City of Saint John. This service/partnership agreement is designed to offer the City a suite of resources and services and a trusted social lens on municipal and community programs and initiatives. Services and resources offered through this service agreement would focus on highlighting Common Council's priorities and assisting them in moving forward on expected outcomes and targets. The HDC would provide the following services: Organizing and supporting facilitated community discussions on key social issues; D Assisting in the identification of major social trends within the city, province and country; ➢ Researching, presenting and taking a leadership role with pilot project opportunities that align with Council's priorities; Attracting speakers, scholars and government officials to Saint John to discuss innovative ways to address social issues; Networking with national and provincial social agencies to promote Saint John's successes and attract new social justice initiatives; ➢ Actively engaging the community, surrounding towns and the province in an ongoing dialogue about social issues using social media platforms; Acting as an incubator for new social enterprises to replicate our successes with Housing Alternatives, the Learning Exchange and the Community Loan Fund; ➢ Consufting on social issues, funding sources and initiatives; Maintaining a comprehensive online directory of community based services; Pursuing a province wide 211 system. Third Fir, City Market, 47 Chartotte Street, PO Box 6125, Stn A, Saint John, ND F2L 4R6 Tet: (506) 634-1673 Fax (506) 636.8543 INFO line (506) 633.4636 hdc@nbnet.nb.ca www.hun-tandevelopmenteounc.ii.nb.co A UNITED �APAGENCY - The HDC would offer the following resources: ➢ Geographic Information System (GIS) integration and collaboration (using census data to provide detailed socia economic maps of Saint John's wards and neighborhoods); Social media support to highlight, promote and discuss the city of Saint John's initiatives, challenges and priorities; ➢ Content management for press releases, special projects, social media accounts and publications from the City regarding social issues, trends, statistics, infographs and projects; ➢ Statistics pertaining to the City and province using trusted data sources; Monitoring of Statistic Canada's new data releases; ➢ Access to a consortium of data users under the Community Data Strategy of the Canadian Council on Social Development. We are grateful for the City's financial support since our inception in 1979. This has allowed us to be an effective mechanism and shine the light on important social issues such as child poverty, homelessness, the unique challenges of priority neighborhoods and many others. We are also cognizant that funding for non -profits has become more and more of a challenge as budgets are stretched to accommodate growing demands of infrastructure improvements, recreational facilities as well as supporting cultural initiatives. This is why we are proposing a working partnership with detailed services and resources dedicated to the City's commitment of addressing pressing social issues. We want the City, mayor and councillors to clearly see the value of what we bring to the table in this service agreement. The funding provided by the City of Saint John would allow us to support the city in all its social initiatives and continue to employ 5 full time as well as three part- time staff. In turn, we would also be able to continue to pursue our principal community activities: providing residents, non-profit organizations and businesses access to timely, relevant social statistics; offering consulting services for new projects; networking with provincial and national organizations; providing trusted content management and sharing social media exposure; creating info graphics to better illustrate data and the latest statistics; maintaining a supportive role in funding requests of other non -profits; and, providing original video content, research services and public access to a comprehensive and updated database of current programs and services. 377 We are presently working on securing funding to coordinate the community's capacity to attract and retain Newcomers. We have applied, with the support of the regional mayors and local settlement agencies, for federal funding to convene and coordinate a Local Immigration Partnership. We would welcome further opportunities to work with the City on immigration matters as well as other social initiatives. Our ability to address these and other important local, provincial and national issues would be strengthened if the City accepts to refer this proposal for a service agreement and partnership. This much needed service agreement would also send an important message to our present and future funders that the City of Saint John is committed to making a difference by investing in the process of researching and implementing innovative solutions to age old social challenges. Our infrastructure may be one of the oldest in the country but our approach to poverty eradication and social inclusion is very relevant to today's economic and social challenges. On behalf of our board of directors, staff and volunteers we thank you for taking the time to consider our request for not only a service agreement but a viable partnership between our two organizations. Yours truly, Randy'Hatfield Executive Director Saint John Human Development Council 378 November 18, 2015 Mayor Norton and Members of Council: The Saint John Multicultural and Newcomers Resource Center (SJMNRC) is a non-profit organization that provides an integrated approach to services for newcomers. All the services are free for immigrants in order to encourage and promote cultural diversity. We have all read the recent media coverage surrounding the Syrian refugees. We have been advised that here in Saint John we may expect around 800 refugees in the next few weeks. Although we do not have the full details at this time, many organizations and churches are now working together to find a solution for welcoming the refugees in Saint John. SJMNRC is preparing a campaign to collect winter clothes, boots, furniture and dry food for the refugees, but unfortunately we do not have adequate space in our office to collect these items. I would like to ask the City and City council to provide us with a free space uptown. Ideally the space would be a very visible location for those citizens who would like to help us by providing donations. We need to find a quick solution and it would be greatly appreciated if the City could help SJMNRC by providing us space by the beginning of December. We need to work together to find a solution for refugees who will be arriving here in winter time. I would like to thank all the city council members for your time and decision. Best regards, Sandrine SELWAY Agent d'accueil et d'etablissement Gestionnaire des programmes francophones Centre d'Accueil Multiculturel et des Nouveaux Arrivants de Saint Jean Inc. Email: sandrine.selway(�nrc.ca Ligne directe: (..ro6) 642-7265 Fax: 906.6,i4.6o8o Reception: (.ro6) 642-4242 165, rue Union 4ieme etage, Saint John (NB) E2L 5C7 Web: www.sjmnrc.ca 379 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors, Subject: Recommended Appointments to Committees The Committee of the Whole, having met on November 23, 2015, adopted the following resolution: "RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on November 23, 2015, Common Council approve the following appointments: Canada Games Foundation: to appoint Councillor Shirley McAlary as designate for the Mayor from November 23, 2015 until the end of her current term on Council. Community Grants Evaluation Committee: to reappoint both Rev. Erik Kraglund and David O'Toole each for a three year term from December 23, 2015 to December 23, 2018. Discover Saint John: to appoint Councillor Greg Norton from November 23, 2015 until the end of his current term on Council. FCM: to appoint Councillor Shirley McAlary from November 23, 2015 until the end of her current term on Council. Planning Advisory Committee: to appoint Christopher Martin for a three year term from November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2018. Saint John Aquatic Centre Commission: to appoint Shelly Dauphinee for a three year term from November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2018. Saint John Community Arts Board: to appoint Shannon Merrifield for a three year term from November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2018. Saint John Free Public Library: to appoint William Marr for a three year term from November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2018. Saint John Industrial Parks: to appoint Jeff Sheehan for a three year term from November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2018. Taxicab Advisory Committee: to appoint Councillor John MacKenzie from November 23, 2015 to the end of his current term on Council and appoint Gordon Perry to a three year term from November 26, 2015 to November 26, 2018, pending acquisition of taxi license. SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21-41-1 1 www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 Trade and Convention Oversight Committee: to appoint Peter Murray for a three year term from November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2018. Stonehammer Geopark: to appoint Tim O'Reilly as a senior City staff appointment on the board for a three year term from November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2018, or until such time that he is no longer in his current position with Parks and Public Spaces. Sincerely, Mel Norton Mayor SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint Jahn, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 M Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors, Subject: Preservation of the Royal Charter and Historical Minute Books The Committee of the Whole, having met on November 23, 2015, adopted the following resolution: "RESOLVED that for the preservation of the Royal Charter and Minute Books and to maintain ownership by the City of Saint John, it is recommended that Common Council direct staff to develop an Agreement between the City of Saint John and the Provincial Archives of New Brunswick for a temporary transfer of custody of these documents for up to 5 years; and further, that the agreement specify that the City may retrieve the documents at any time; and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute said agreement." Sincerely, Mel Norton Mayor SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21-41-1 1 www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 382 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors, Subject: 662677 N.B. Inc. Lease Agreement The Committee of the Whole, having met on November 23, 2015, adopted the following resolution: "WHEREAS the City Lessor entered into a Lease dated the 31St day of May, 2012 (the "Lease") with 056975 N.B. Ltd. As Lessee, for demised premises described as: "All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate lying and being in the City and County of Saint John and the Province of New Brunswick identified, described and shown as Lot 12-01 on a Subdivision Plan entitled "Amending Subdivision Plan, the City of Saint John Subdivision, Falls View Drive dated May 30, 2012, prepared by Wade M. MacNutt, NBLS and filed in the Saint John County Registry Office on June 8, 2012 as No. 31567135"; and WHEREAS 056975 N.B. Ltd. Assigned the Lease to 662677 N.B. Inc. by Assignment dated the 3 d day of August 2012; and WHEREAS rent due on November 1, 2015 under the Lease remains unpaid; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City as Lessor and pursuant to the terms thereof terminate the Lease, re-enter into and upon and take possession of the premises demised in the name of the whole as of the Lessor's former estate; AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute any and all documentation effecting such termination, re-entry and possession." Sincerely, Mel Norton Mayor SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21-41-1 1 www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 383 Meeting Date November 23, 2015 Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors, Subject: Scheduling of Special Meetings The Committee of the Whole, having met on November 23, 2015, adopted the following resolution: "RESOLVED that Common Council schedule a Special Budget Committee of the Whole Closed Session meeting on Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 6pm in the 8th floor boardroom and further that Common Council schedule a Special Budget Committee of the Whole Closed Session meeting on Monday, November 30, 2015 at 4:00pm in the 8t" floor boardroom." Sincerely, Mel Norton Mayor SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21-41-1 1 www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 ME