2022-12-06 Growth Committee Agenda Packet - Open Session�B
City of Saint John
Growth Committee - Open Session
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
12:00 pm
2nd Floor Common Council Chamber, City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
Pages
2.1 Minutes of September 27, 2022
1 - 4
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 Quarterly Development Infographic
5-6
6. Business Matters
6.1 Community Standards Compliance
7 - 22
6.2 Community Enhancement Project
23 - 78
6.3 Affordable Housing Grant Program
79 - 102
7. Referrals from Common Council
7.1 A. Johnson — Envision Saint John Request
103 - 104
Recommendation: Refer to Envision SJ for their consideration
7.2 Fundy Tennis Association — Request to Present
105 - 107
Recommendation: Direct staff to schedule a presentation with Growth Committee
7.3 C. Stevenson Dangerous and Vacant Buildings Lists 108 - 110
Recommendation: Direct staff to contact applicant and share information about
the City's compliance and enforcement programs
7.4 We Believe Saint John — Request to Present 111 - 112
Recommendation: Direct staff to schedule a presentation with Growth
Committee
8. Adjournment
K
Growth Committee Meeting
Open Session
September 27, 2022
The City of Saint John
MINUTES- OPEN SESSION GROWTH COMMITTEE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 12:00 P.M.
2ND FLOOR COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL
Present: Deputy Mayor John MacKenzie
Councillor Joanna Killen
Councillor Gerry Lowe
Absent: Mayor Donna Noade Reardon
Councillor Brent Harris
Also
Present: City Manager J. Collin
Commissioner Growth and Community Services J. Hamilton
Director Growth and Community Planning P. Ouellette
Director Permitting and Development A. Poffenroth
Manager Customer Service C. Smith
Growth Manager D. Dobbelsteyn
Communications Officer E. White
Administrative Assistant K. Tibbits
1. Meetine Called to Order
Councillor Killen called the Growth Committee open session meeting to order.
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Approval of Minutes — July 26, 2022
Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Lowe:
RESOLVED that the minutes of July 26, 2022, be approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
3. Approval of Agenda
Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie:
RESOLVED that the agenda of September 27, 2022 be approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 Annual Report— Lord Beaverbrook Rink (Recommendation: Receive for
Information)
1
Growth Committee Meeting
Open Session
September 27, 2022
5.2 Annual Report —Trade and Convention Centre (Recommendation: Receive for
Information)
Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Lowe:
RESOLVED that items 5.1 Lord Beaverbrook Rink Annual Report and 5.2 Trade and Convention
Centre Annual Report, be received for information.
6. Business Matters
6.1 Draft Affordable Housine Action Plan
Mr. Ouellette noted Saint John is taking action with respect to the affordable housing crisis in its
community with the introduction of the Affordable Housing Action Plan. The plan will enhance
Saint John as a vibrant and inclusive community with a range of diverse, safe, and affordable
housing options. It incorporates a multitude of actions with various community partners.
Executive Director of the Human Development Council, Randy Hatfield expressed support for the
affordable housing report, stating it is transformational and speaks to an engagement with the
municipality on an issue that traditionally is left to other levels of government. The report calls
for a full-time employee to be embedded within the Planning Department to oversee the
program. The report also calls for initial funding of $800K.
Mr. A. Reid stated that the final draft of the Affordable Housing Action Plan consists of 39 actions;
is comprehensive; and consists of public, private and non-profit housing solutions. Further efforts
consist of getting the fund up and running, supporting National Housing Week, establishing a
housing facilitator function within the City, establishing a Housing Advisory Committee, exploring
governance enhancements, looking at surplus and under-utilized land policies, reviewing the
city's zoning bylaws, and incorporating housing into neighbourhood planning. Actions for 2024
include a possible Municipal Plan review, review of Incentive programs, greater local
coordination of housing programs, advocacy activities, monitoring and reporting and
coordination of efforts with adjacent jurisdictions and a public awareness campaign.
(K. Foulds, Re/fact Consultants, and E. Starr SHS Consulting, joined the meeting electronically)
Referring to the submitted presentation, Mr. Foulds and Mr. Starr reviewed the final draft of the
Affordable Housing Action plan including the housing needs assessment, gaps in the continuum,
roles and responsibilities of government and community partners, a vision for the plan, plan
objectives, stakeholder engagement, and plan implementation and next steps.
Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Lowe:
RESOLVED that the Growth Committee:
1. Receive and file the submitted report; and,
2. Recommend Common Council adopt the submitted Affordable Housing Action Plan.
►� �•> t r �•� ► rya :� :� a.
6.2 Direct Residential SU000rt in the Neighbourhoods
Referring to the submitted presentation Direct Residential Support in the Neighbourhoods,
various community partners including representatives from ONE Change, PULSE, Crescent Valley
Resource Centre and the Carleton Community Centre discussed the support each provides to the
four priority neighbourhoods.
Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie:
Growth Committee Meeting
Open Session
September 27, 2022
RESOLVED that the submitted presentation entitled Direct Residential Support in the
Neighbourhoods, be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
6.3 Annual Report — Canada Games Aquatic Centre
Referring to the submitted report, Amy McLellan, General Manager of the Canada Games Aquatic
Centre commented on the 2021 Annual report for the centre, the value of the CGAC to the
community and the role the Aquatic Centre plays in attracting and retaining residents to the area.
Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie:
RESOLVED that the Canada Games Aquatic Centre 2021 Annual Report be received for
information.
MOTION CARRIED.
6.4 Annual Report —Harbour Station Commission
Referring to the submitted report, Mike Caddell, General Manager of TD Station, commented on
the 2021 Annual report. TD Station has seen many challenges due to the pandemic which resulted
in events being cancelled or postponed. The building had a shortfall of approximately $750K in
2021 and $40K of additional funding was requested from the City of Saint John to offset the
shortfall. Extra legal expenses put additional strain on the budget. Mr. Caddell discussed
challenges including many events going to the new facility in Moncton and the poor contract with
the Sea Dogs. The City of Saint John is in discussion with a third -party management group to
oversee the management of the facility and expects that the deficit will increase as a result. Part
of that agreement, with exception of himself due to retirement, is that all full-time staff will
remain with the building.
Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie:
RESOLVED that the Harbour Station Commission 2021 Annual Report be received for
information.
MOTION CARRIED.
6.5 Annual Report —Saint John Transit
Referring to the submitted report Mr. Fogan, Director of Transit commented on the 2021 Annual
Report and commented on the Private Member's Bill, which enabled the signing of the
Management Services Agreement. This has led to the capability of Transit to transform and get
other management staff involved in the day-to-day operation, with a mandate to modernize the
transit service.
Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Lowe:
RESOLVED that the Saint John Transit 2021 Annual Report be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
Adjournment
Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie:
RESOLVED that the open session meeting of the Growth Committee be adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED.
Growth Committee Meeting
Open Session
September 27, 2022
The open session meeting of the Growth Committee held on September 27, 2022, was adjourned
at 1:50 p.m.
Building
permits received 634
INIQ09fil"Al"
(5-year average same period: 701) November 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................... .
Value of
construction$942 maill6ion
projects (5-year average same period: $90.0 million)
*single large scale project omitted.
Number of
residential
units created
260
(5-year average
same period: 253) Upcoming
19 projects with over
2000 new units
planned.
Additional
permi
activii
Permis de
construction re us
634
111fiUb"fi"
(moyenne sur 5 ans pour la meme periode : 701) NOVEMBRE 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................... .
Valeur des
pro'etsde 94.2 millions de dollars
J
construction (moyenne sur 5 ans pour la meme periode : 90.0 millions de dollars)
* seul projet a grande echelle omis.
Nombre d'unites
residentielles
creees
260
(moyenne sur 5
ans pour la meme
periode : 253)
A venir
19 projets avec plus de
2000 nouvelles unites
prevus.
Activite de delivrance de
permis supple" mentaire
U
o
c
N
N
0
N
U
�o
i
to
GJ
�
0
N
4-3
E
E
0
U
A
L
_(1)
�--�
W
W
E
gym
C L
W
V
cd
L
E
O
U
o
CL
OCL
J
`n
t�0
O
CIO
-°
'�
�
L
CIO
�
m
CIO
-v
Q
CIO
m
N
E
>
-�
C
E
O
p
V)
U
�
�
>,,
s
�
cn
•
cn
0
O
CL
�0.0
�
a
Mm
E
o
��
f
U
N
N
Q�
Q�
N
N
C6
C6
4-J
4-J
4-J
U
U
cn
aJ
N
N
N
N
i
i
i
N
Q
Q
N
N
N
O
O
U
Q
Q
Q
O
11)
lD
M
00
N
r-I
00
r-I
O
N
N
U
N
U
�
O
Lf)
ateJ
ca
4-J
L
N
_0
ca
r
Q
N
U
N
�
N
C6
.Q
ro
.0
U
E
E
O
_0
U
E
bD
W
0
a..+
.
C:
C:
a--+
�
�
�
�
O
L
U
a
m
m
>
U
m
w
Lk
a
VIA
3
6
I
r,
jfF
Y'
Y{
i•
Fr
V
R
i
q
a1�
V
bD
`U
nO
W
to
laA N
� N
N 1 --0N
N
O
=%%-�
m
^
N
+,
rq
o
N
�
U
3
\M
W
N
�
V
O
O
w
i
N
�o
�
�
L
a
O
Ln
N
N
G)
ci
0 Ln
(V .i
Ln
O
N
a
O
E c"
U/ N
0 O
O
GO
C
.N
ci
O
v N
b0
Ln
�
O
d
0 Ln
ci
u
�A
f6
U
—
N
O
• �
cry
•
L
N
^O
W
U
O
cn
f6
a--+
C2A
Q
4-
O
C
O
a..+
E
ca
O
C2A
ate+
Q
O
cu
O
m
f6
ate-+
L.r)
M
O
Rt
Ln
O
M
l0
M
N
CM
rl
N
Q
O
N
ca
N
U
N
�
cn
O
C6
U
�
�
N
�
N
U
O
U
u
t!f
E
L
to
t!f
L
41
Ln
E
E
O
V
W
WN'
T
/
.�
-0^
^L'
W
• •
W
L
N
'L
C
•�
4-
O
u
N
N
N
S
l�A
E
CL
O
O
�0
O
U
4J
U
_0
cn
U
0
C6
ate-+
C6
N
CL
O
�
�
_
U
N
v
m
i
o N Lf)
Lr) N
Ol
�
ro
u
�
�
N
�
N
�
U
Q
C
O
.�
U
N
E
i
O
}'
U
U
U
0
�
a-J
N
L
�
N
Q
�
0
Q
�
f6
0 C
O
`~
N —
N
U
N
ca
O
cn
L
O
O
4-1
0
N 4
OL'—
E
U
O O
.�
O
ClA
N
E u
O
m
N
N
0
j.7)
O O
m
cv m
Ln r-I
N
N
W
cn
V
N
V
Q
�
N
O
O
cn
_
i
0
v
V /
�l
N
U
i
0
O
I
GROWTH COMMITTEE REPORT
Report Date
November 30, 2022
Meeting Date
December 06, 2022
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
Chair Killen and Members of the Growth Committee
SUBJECT: Community Enhancement Project
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in Growth Committee Open Session.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Benn Purinton
J Hamilton/A Poffenroth
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Growth Committee:
1. Receive and file the attached report and presentation on the Community
Enhancement Project.
2. Recommend that Common Council aggressively pursue with the Province
of New Brunswick the following improvements outlined by the Community
Enhancement Project:
a. The ability to implement a Vacant Building Tax and/or a Vacant
Building Registry linked to the property tax system; and
b. An improved Tax Sale process that better addresses building
abandonment.
3. Endorse a 1-year pilot of an Unsightly Repair Program conditional on
recommendation (2) being approved.
4. Direct staff to implement the enhanced programs and return to Growth
Committee with any additional resource requirements.
5. Recommend that Common Council direct staff to amend the Beautification
Grant Policy to migrate the Beautification Grant Program to the North End
for 2023.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Community Enhancement Project is a holistic one-year review of the City of
Saint John's Property By-law Compliance Programs. The project is meant to
identify areas of opportunity and develop improvements to the City's Compliance
W
-2-
Programs that will allow staff to better execute on Common Council's priorities.
Council's Grow and Belong priorities are the areas where the City's Property By-
law Compliance Programs can have the most impact and therefore the project was
focused on developing improvements that relate to both Grow and Belong.
In addition to better impacting Council's priorities, the project also evaluated
opportunities to synergize compliance efforts with the overall strategic direction
at the city, including neighbourhood planning initiatives and affordable housing
action items.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
N/A
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The Grow priority focuses on both population and economic growth with the goal
of growing both the City's population at 2% annually and the City's tax base at 3%
annually. The City's Property By-law Compliance Programs play a direct role in
that by facilitating investment into mainly residential buildings. This not only has
a direct impact on tax base growth, but it also allows for population growth by
ensuring a supply of safe housing.
The Belong priority focuses on enhancing quality of life, ensuring community
safety and cultivating community pride by providing citizens with safe, clean and
affordable neighbourhoods. The City's Property By-law compliance programs
directly address those needs by addressing hazardous building conditions,
ensuring neighbourhood cleanliness and enforcing general community standards.
REPORT
Under the Community Enhancement Project, improvements to the City's Property
By-law Compliance Programs have been developed with a focus on three project
goals:
1. Developing a Community -Based Approach
2. Facilitating Compliance
3. Enhancing Enforcement
By addressing these needs, staff will have better tools to directly impact
compliance cases in communities, thus achieving more growth, creating safe,
livable neighbourhoods, and cultivating community pride. Addressing these needs
will also prevent loss of housing stock which is critical for long term affordability.
ME
-3-
Multiple improvements have already been implemented or are in the process of
being implemented that will allow staff to better achieve Council's priorities as
they assist in Developing a Community Based Approach and Facilitating
Compliance. This includes the following:
• Implementation of Focus Areas
• Compliance Program Reprioritization
• Establishing Program Coordination Meetings
• Strengthening Relationships with Community Groups
• Expanded Developer Notification List
• Expanded Beautification Grant
More information on these improvements can be found in the attached report
under the "Implemented Improvements" section.
There are various opportunities for the City to improve its Property By-law
Compliance Programs and achieve the project goal of Enhancing Enforcement.
Some of these opportunities could benefit from increased resources, although not
required to implement, and others would require legislative change. A summary
of these opportunities along with their potential effectiveness and the respective
barriers is provided in the attached report under the "Areas of Opportunity
Analysis" section. From this section, the following improvements are
recommended to be implemented beginning in 2023 with the endorsement of
Common Council:
• Enhanced Minimum Standards
• Unsightly Repair Program
• Court Proceedings for Vacant Buildings
Also from this section, the following improvements require change at the
provincial level:
• Vacant Building Tax / Registry
• Improved Tax Sale Process
It is recommended that those recommended changes be pursued with the
Province.
With the improvements and recommended changes developed under the
Community Enhancement Project, staff will be in a better position and have a
variety of tools to intervene earlier on in the enforcement process. This will
i►R
-4-
prevent deterioration, reduce vacancy and reduce demolitions. The
improvements and recommended changes developed under the Community
Enhancement Project will allow for future growth, create safe, livable
neighbourhoods, cultivate community pride and prevent loss of housing stock to
ensure long term affordability. The attached report provides an in-depth review
of the Community Enhancement Project. For more information on the project,
please refer to the attached report.
SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Staff to implement the enhanced programs and return to Growth Committee with
additional resource requirements.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
General Counsel provided guidance on the City's ability to implement an Unsightly
Repair Program, a Vacant Building Tax and a Vacant Building Registry under
existing legislation.
ATTACHMENTS
Presentation
Community Enhancement Project Report
41.1
4
_
w
o
�U
�
•
O
z
N
N
^�
W
l0
U
�
�
o
f�
LIJ
a-1
E
E
O
U
I
cu
J- J
l
buo
l,W
}+
O
h
N
Q
O
T
0
},
U
O
O
O
O
0
M
�N
U.O
a
0
�
0
V
.0
_
ca
cV
M
j
ca
L40
0.-
C:
U
c
C:
a--+
4..+
a--+
U
a--+
N
O
O
m
CD
O
m
-0
L-
CL
CL
�
N
O
+-+
0
CD
CD
�
U
'�
•�
Q
CT
E
O
Q
O
txo
.Um
�
C:
O
C:
=3
C:
W
cn
0
v
w
U
catw
I
�
_
O
•
O
O
O
fa
m
•
UU
�ci
I
'C
O
�
U
O
N
4—
E
�
E
O
O
O
�
N
O
O
�
N
�
U
�
N
N
}'
O
fV
U
p
O
N
Ll
N
E
L
N
Lli
O
N
a
E
E
41
T
•U
E
4
�
a)M
U
�
L
C:
O
w
C:
w
to
a)
C:
U
•U
L.L
U
ca
�
t]A
pip
•'
-a:,
+,
O
C:
N
E
E
O
U
0
Li
E
ca
tti0
O
Goo
lrlll-� go
Q
O
L
N
E
E
N
N
a--
N
O
U
�
�
L
�
Q
O
O
U
O
},
L
U
(�
N
+N.,
c6
C6
U
O
O
ca
O
�
�
O
-
Q
Q
DC
�
Lu
N
c%
(Y)
(Y)
fi
z
aj
N
m
0 0
i N
Q
O ca
ca
}' C: m
w
_ 0
fu
fu i a) co
o E O >
a +� _
> a) f
_0 a) E
U -0 Q Q
E o
U a) O
C: ca >. O p
E O aj aj
aj az c�
0 ° x
az w p },
E 0 0 0
Im
'C:
`
E
O
U
E
c:
cr
�
O
a)--n
N
E
E
U
O
N
C:
=
N
a)+-)
Mo
�
.
ca
O
U
U
E
.E
O
bA
E
E
_
'
U
C:
bA
0
=3
m
cu
>
t Lo
m
O
O
7A
Q
Q
.5
},
(A
M
O
J
—
� sass
a
c N
O
Q)
E
Q)
L-
0
W
•U
m
W
i
C
co
a--+
N
V
• tU0
E
CO
a�
i
C:
N
CUO
-
•-
-0
N
�--�
-
U
0
CO
Q�
4-J
V
C:
+•+
U
•N
�
U
.N
Q)
E N U = 'E U
E > cn ._ O
N •� ago � aA
CL
O v 0 4-0 p N N
cn cn c% > 4-0 aA O N tUp ate+ O
N
4m, Q O > i
C� �a Ou M w .- a) M w N Ou CL
0
15 .V.
Q�
Q�
N
o
•N
,—
•N >
O
+-+ N
_0 O
•aU�_--+
•f-6
a--
m >
—
L
L _0
QNco
a
•N
-0LL
i
aQ.+
—
C
M
a-J N
U
U
i
p
U
a..,
U
UC:
O
ca
- �
�
•>
ca
a-J
i
p
•
•
O
U
>
u
p
U +-+
cn
O
cn�
>•�
V
W
J- l
v
a-J
i
(a
0
0
Q)
o
0
ca
N
O
U_0
N
N
'
�n
'gip
O
N
O
N
—
O
cn
O
2
• —
cn
aA
_N
U
—
O
O
}'
}'
O
N'
Q
vi
O
w'�
N
0_
ca
O
_
v
>'
'�
>
�
N
+_+
N
�
'
m
i
O
4-J
cn
U
cn
N
U
vi
i
O
D
�O
CL
O
+�-+
0
>
0
4A
O�
'—
ca
N
ca
a)
—
_
m
U
`~
a-
a-
m
E>
U
N
N
' o
L
cn
O
0
O
N
O
N
0
'O
N
-0E
_
L
c/)
N � �
� � O bA
•—
N O ca L
cn U =3
N Co ro N
O N O N U N
N l�A
"O •� •(a
a-J Q N a--+ CAA
ca U U .O �
= c6 0 E cn cn Q
i v 0 4- p v
0 O
ca
O
U � a)
b.0
4-J
_ 0
•� cn
4- Q vi
�_0 o � C 0
� ate1 L � ' 0-� � a--+
ro
W ca •ca •(1)
'N Q N •— N O
a
N � � •� •L
-CIOi N ate.,
rl �
U bA .� O
l0 •N a_, L l�A
O cn
U '
vi
fu
E
N
0
N
U
L
O
N
0
0
Ll
0
(O
T
U
N
O
�
N
�
L
O
O
U
U
a—+
N
>
`•�
cn
ca
•U
>
N
O
cn
�
�
�
O
2
N
•�
N
i
N
�
�
C
4
z
m
N
O
N
.�
w
E
Q
E
N
l^w
i
i
O
_M
r 7
i
i
O
ca
U
L
E
>
�
4A
_O
C:
O
Ln
4A
L
C:
L
E
w
=3
�
O
.0
0-
-0
O
w
Ln
U
O
i
C:
._
=3
W
V
.C:
O
CL
N
L
CL
u
u
W
W
U
U
O
O
N
N
DC
DC
O
U')
N
N
c6
N
O
>-
N
U')
N
N
ca
ca
U
U
_0
_0
a)
a)
O
O
N
bA
N
N
ca
DC
DC
�
N
m
ro
co
c
+�
co
co
U
>.
m
>
E
a--+
i
N
�
�
Q
m
�A
O
O
N
L
E
O
�A
S
E
.�
E
t�A
"m
a
u
E
$
. (
\
J
o
k
f
|
._
,
/
E
o
2
:
�
»k/
o/
yy
0
�
@
mE
:.
D
E
&
§
%
g§E
[
u
E
CL
Ll-
w 2
$E
.
.
.
—
•7
m
R/
2
ca�
" G
2N
u
ATTM 2 -
Community
Enhancement
Project -
Report.docx
November 30, 2022
Purinton, Benn
1
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................1
Overview of Compliance Programs..........................................................................................................................2
ProjectGoals.............................................................................................................................................................3
Linksto Affordable Housing.....................................................................................................................................4
ImplementedImprovements..........................................................................................................................................5
Developing a Community -Based Approach..............................................................................................................5
FacilitatingCompliance............................................................................................................................................6
Areasof Opportunity Analysis......................................................................................................................................7
Additional Vacant Building Penalties.......................................................................................................................8
Ehanched Minimum Property Standards.................................................................................................................13
AddressingAbandonment.......................................................................................................................................14
Additional Improvements and Recommendations.......................................................................................................17
AdditionalImprovements for 2023.........................................................................................................................17
Recommendations for Further Change....................................................................................................................18
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................
21
APPENDIXA — Best Practices Research....................................................................................................................23
Overview.................................................................................................................................................................
23
VacantBuilding Tax...............................................................................................................................................23
VacantBuilding Registry ........................................................................................................................................24
ReceivershipProgram.............................................................................................................................................25
Sources....................................................................................................................................................................26
APPENDIX B — Unsightly Repair Program Risk Analysis.........................................................................................27
The Community Enhancement Project is a holistic one-year review of the City of Saint John's
Property By-law Compliance Programs meant to identify areas of opportunity and develop
improvements to our Compliance Programs that will allow staff to better execute on Common
Council's priorities. Council's Grow and Belong priorities are the areas where the City's Property
By-law Compliance Programs can have the most impact and therefore the project was focused on
developing improvements that relate to these priorities.
The Grow priority focuses on both population and economic growth with the goal of growing both
the City's population at 2% annually and the City's tax base at 3% annually. The City's Property
!E:3
N
By-law Compliance Programs play a direct role in that by facilitating investment into mainly
residential buildings. This not only has a direct impact on tax base growth, but it also allows for
population growth by ensuring a supply of safe housing.
The Belong priority focuses on enhancing quality of life, ensuring community safety and
cultivating community pride by providing our citizens with safe, clean and affordable
neighbourhoods. The City's Property By-law compliance programs directly address those needs
by addressing hazardous building conditions, ensuring neighbourhood cleanliness and enforcing
general community standards.
In addition to better impacting Council's priorities, the project also evaluated opportunities to
synergize by-law enforcement efforts with the overall strategic direction at the city, including
neighbourhood planning initiatives and affordable housing action items.
OVERVIEW OF COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS
COMMUNITY STANDARDS PROGRAM
The Community Standards Program focuses on issues that directly impact the aesthetics,
enjoyment, and pride of a neighbourhood, including unsightly premises, zoning by-law issues,
and general upkeep of properties. The primary focus of the program is currently on cleaning up
unsightly properties throughout the City. Staff work closely with property owners to encourage
the voluntary cleanup of such properties. In instances where voluntary compliance cannot be
achieved, allotice to Comply can be issued to the owner, giving them a specified period of time
to remove the unsightly conditions. If the conditions are not remedied, the City has the power
to remove the unsightly conditions and invoice the costs incurred to the property owner.
MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS PROGRAM
The Minimum Property Standards Program enforces standards for the maintenance and
occupancy of non -owner occupied residential buildings in Saint John. These standards help to
ensure the safety, health, and well-being of those who live in and use the properties. The
Minimum Property Standards by-law provides the minimum standards expected for all housing
in the City. Common issues that City inspectors are looking for include smoke alarms that are
working and in the proper location, safe exiting, bedroom windows meeting minimum size
requirements, and that there are no holes in fire separations between units, among other items.
DANGEROUS AND VACANT BUILDING PROGRAM
Vacant buildings can sometimes attract vandalism, arson, mischief, or criminal activity. These
activities will devalue properties in an area, contribute to deterioration and diminish community
pride. The Dangerous and Vacant Building program monitors vacant buildings throughout the
City. Staff work closely with property owners to repair and reoccupy or demolish vacant
3
buildings. When vacant buildings become a hazard to public safety, a Notice to Comply can be
issued to the owner giving them a specified period of time to either repair or demolish the
building and if the conditions are not remedied, the City has the power to demolish the building
and send the costs incurred to the property owner.
PROJECT GOALS
Improvements to the City's Property By-law Compliance Programs developed under the project
focused on three project goals:
1. Developing a Community -Based Approach
2. Facilitating Compliance
3. Enhancing Enforcement
By addressing these needs, staff will have better tools to directly impact compliance cases in
communities, thus achieving more growth, creating safe, livable neighbourhoods, and cultivating
community pride. Addressing these needs will also prevent loss of housing stock which is critical
for long term affordability. Each improvement developed or recommended under the project ties
back to these desired outcomes.
DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY -BASED APPROACH
There are areas in Saint John that have older housing stock and, in some cases, experience less
investment. As a result, these areas tend to have more compliance cases and due to the age of
the housing stock, cases can have more deficiencies and potentially an increased level of hazard.
Under the current by-law compliance approach, the entire City is prioritized equally. A
compliance case near the City limits is prioritized the same way as a case in the South End. The
case in the South End however will often impact significantly more residents. Under the
Community Enhancement Project, the City's programs were refocused to prioritize areas where
cases have a greater impact on residents. A community approach to by-law compliance has
been developed, allowing staff to better focus efforts on specific communities that are the most
impacted by compliance cases and have Property By-law Compliance work alongside
neighbourhood planning efforts to drive change in those areas.
FACILITATING COMPLIANCE
The City's compliance programs always pursue voluntary compliance, ensuring property
owners have fair and reasonable timelines and expectations to address by-law violations at their
property. Formal enforcement action is used as a last resort if owners are unwilling or unable
to comply with a by-law. This approach allows staff to resolve more cases with fewer resources
and can also lead to better outcomes for the community. For these reasons, City staff work
extensively with property owners to see by-law issues addressed without the need for formal
enforcement action and generally have great success in doing so. However, enforcement cases
67i]
4
can be complex often requiring a suite of different solutions to allow voluntary compliance to
take place. These solutions are crucial to address properties earlier on in the enforcement
process, to reduce the amount of resources extended on formal enforcement action and see
better outcomes on properties.
ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT
Under the City's Property By-law Compliance Programs, there are opportunities to address
cases differently to have greater impact in the Saint John community. In some cases, there can
be limited options to address properties through enforcement when an owner does not comply
with a by-law. This is most notable in the Dangerous and Vacant Building Program, where
effective enforcement action cannot be pursued until a building becomes a hazard to public
safety. Additional enforcement options were evaluated in detail. Changes to the City's Property
By-law Compliance programs are recommended that will allow staff to address more buildings
through enforcement moving forward.
LINKS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Improvements from the Community Enhancement Project will assist the City in achieving the
goals of the Affordable Housing Action Plan, particularly around maintaining existing housing
stock. Concerns about loss of existing housing stock was identified as an emerging issue in the
Affordable Housing Action Plan's assessment of local housing needs. The greater proportion of
older stock in the City means that certain stock may not be in as good a condition and can be at
risk of falling into disrepair. The same stock also tends to be more affordable for this same reason.
Aging stock may need to be revitalized or improved to ensure it can continue to provide adequate,
safe housing. Improvements developed under the Community Enhancement Project will reduce
the potential for loss of housing stock, allowing the City to achieve long term affordability.
Under the Affordable Housing Action Plan's Implementation Strategy, there are three items that
relate to this project. Those three items are:
• Provide additional enforcement of minimum property standards to help maintain stock
while preserving affordability.
• Maintain on- going monitoring under the City's Dangerous and Vacant Building program
and pursue remedial action under the program to secure active use of buildings and
properties.
• Seek additional provincial authorities to help the City enforce property standards, resolve
delinquent property tax accounts and acquire forfeited buildings/properties for affordable
housing use.
Under the Community Enhancement Project, there are improvements that have been
implemented as well as recommendations for further change that relate to these three action
items.
51
The following section describes changes to the City's Property By-law Compliance Programs that
have been or are in the process of being implemented under the Community Enhancement Project.
A detailed summary of each of these improvements can be found in this section. These
improvements will allow staff to better achieve Council's priorities as they assist in Developing a
Community Based Approach and Facilitating Compliance.
DEVELOPING A COMMUNITY -BASED APPROACH
FOCUS AREAS
To refocus Property By-law Compliance efforts on areas that affect the most citizens, focus
areas were established. Additional consideration will be given to these areas when prioritizing
enforcement and going forward, all compliance programs will focus on the same areas at the
same time. This will allow the City's compliance programs as a whole to drive change in
specific areas of Saint John. It is important to note that this does not mean focus areas will be
focused on exclusively. Rather they will have an increased level of importance under the
programs with the goal of driving overall change in specific areas of Saint John.
Neighbourhoods to be considered for prioritization were established in the following areas:
• South End
• The Uptown
• Waterloo Village
• North End
• Lower West Side
Of the five areas identified, two will be prioritized at any given time. One of the five areas will
be chosen as a primary area for a certain period of time and will be the main area of focus for
the City's compliance efforts. A secondary area will also be chosen where additional focus will
be provided by staff, although not to the same extent as the primary area. Currently, the Property
By-law Compliance's primary area was chosen to be the South End. This selection was based
on the density of compliance cases and to provide support to the existing neighbourhood plan
in that area. The secondary area will be the North End which was also chosen due to case density
and as a precursor to an upcoming neighbourhood plan. It should be noted that the primary and
secondary areas can change and the need for an adjustment will be evaluated regularly, based
on case density as well as the potential for synergy with neighbourhood planning efforts.
COMPLIANCE PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION
61
Ci
Properties in the primary and secondary areas will have a higher weighting in both the
Dangerous and Vacant Building ranking criteria and in a newly developed Minimum Standards
ranking criteria. To achieve this, the City's Dangerous and Vacant Building ranking criteria
was reworked to provide additional weight to specific areas of the City.
As a part of this improvement a Minimum Property Standards ranking criteria was also
developed. Previously, the Minimum Property Standards program worked on a case -by -case
basis and it was up to inspectors along with the guidance of their manager to prioritize their
case load. The new ranking criteria will allow minimum standards staff to easily prioritize their
cases. Additional weight will be given to the primary and secondary areas under this ranking
system to align with the community focused goals.
The Community Standards Program will continue to work on a case -by -case basis. The average
length of a Community Standards compliance case is much shorter in comparison with the other
programs and there is a constant inflow and outflow of cases. Given the frequent flux of cases
and the shorter case length, it is impractical to develop a ranking system. Regardless, staff will
incorporate the new community -based approach into day-to-day management of the program
and will prioritize cases in the focus areas in conjunction with other Property By-law
Compliance Programs.
PROGRAM COORDINATION MEETINGS
To ensure all Property By-law Compliance staff are dedicating attention to focus areas, program
coordination meetings between enforcement staff have been established. These meetings will
occur monthly in the primary area and bi-monthly in the secondary area to ensure the areas are
being prioritized accordingly. The focus of the meetings is for each compliance program to
provide a deliverable for the area and achieve that deliverable by the next program coordination
meeting. The goal is to foster a team -based approach to driving change in a specific
neighbourhood in the City through our compliance programs.
STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY GROUPS
As work is done in these communities, compliance staff will be looking to meet with groups
who work in these areas to find opportunities where common goals may be achieved. This
may include meetings with affected neighbourhood groups to explain our programs to bring
awareness and advocate for safe housing. Generating better links to these communities will
allow Property By-law Compliance staff to have a greater impact in the area. This work will
continue as the work progresses in focus areas.
FACILITATING COMPLIANCE
EXPANDED DEVELOPER NOTIFICATION LIST
6V
7
The Developer Notification List was launched in May of 2021 and provided owners of vacant
buildings the ability to advertise their building for sale to a City email list of developers. If
vacant building owners wish to sell their building, information on the building including asking
price, a description of the property, a list of outstanding debts as well as photos is sent to a City
email list of approximately 40 developers with the owner's consent.
Since the program launched in May 2021, it has been a success. 11 vacant buildings have been
listed and 6 have sold, recovering a total of approximately $100,000 of outstanding property
taxes and water bills. Properties that are tax deficient are much more likely to head towards
City demolition. It is likely that City demolitions have been prevented due to sales through this
program.
This program has been successful in situations where owners are unable to deal with their
properties due to financial or time constraints. These constraints prevent them from addressing
the issues with their properties that continue to deteriorate long term. However, these situations
do not just exist in vacant building cases, they also exist within the Minimum Property
Standards and Community Standards Programs. As part of the Community Enhancement
Project, the Developer Notification List has been expanded. Owners of occupied buildings
monitored under the Minimum Property Standards and Community Standards programs are
now able to advertise their buildings as well. By providing owners with this option, City staff
can facilitate compliance with our by-laws and potentially prevent future vacancy and
deterioration.
INCENTIVES
The City's Urban Development Incentives Program and Beautification Grant can be used as an
instrumental piece to drive voluntary compliance on Property By-law Compliance cases in Saint
John. The financial benefit provided by City incentives encourage property owners to comply
with the City's By-laws. Currently, the Incentive Program is only provided in the South -Central
Peninsula. Where the North End will be a focus area for compliance programs going forward,
it is important to provide incentives to encourage rehabilitation. As a result, the Urban
Development Incentive Program and the Beautification Grant will be expanded to the North
End. This will not only work to drive compliance on existing buildings but will also increase
demand in that area potentially allowing for redevelopment of the vacant lots resulting from
City demolitions over the past number of years. The Urban Development Incentives Program
is scheduled to undergo a full review throughout 2023 and is planned to be expanded to the
North End in 2024. The Beautification Grant is planned to be expanded to the North End in
2023.
6'i!
8
There are various opportunities for the City to improve its Property By-law Compliance Programs
and achieve the project goal of Enhancing Enforcement. However, many of these opportunities
either require legislative change or could benefit from increased resources. A summary of each of
the potential opportunities is provided below along with their potential effectiveness and the
respective barriers that prevent them from being implemented currently.
ADDITIONAL VACANT BUILDING PENALTIES
The Dangerous and Vacant Building Program works to address problematic vacant buildings
throughout Saint John. These vacant buildings affect the quality of life for citizens as they can
attract criminal activity and negatively impact property values in the surrounding area. The
program monitors approximately 145 vacant buildings, the vast majority of which are not
currently dangerous. This is down from a peak of 220 vacant building cases in 2018.
Approximately 60 cases are resolved each year with two thirds of resolved cases being repaired
and reoccupied and one third being demolished.
The Dangerous and Vacant Building program has been a success throughout the years it has been
operational, consistently producing results. There have been significant changes in Saint John as
the program has operated over the years. These changes are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 which
display the status of vacant building cases in 2017 and today in 2022. The green columns show
the number of vacant buildings that are salvageable. The red columns show the number of vacant
buildings progressing towards demolition. The blue columns are both the red and green columns
combined showing the total number of cases. It should be noted that the "Progressing to
Demolition" column does not mean the buildings are hazardous to the point that they should be
demolished today. They are however in a state of deterioration and likely to be demolished within
the next 5 years. In the 2017 chart, each building in the "Progressing to Demolition" column has
since been demolished.
6191
W
Figure 1: Dangerous and Vacant Building Program Case Status (2017)
Figure 2: Dangerous and Vacant Building Program Case Status (2022)
As shown on these charts, both the number of buildings headed towards demolition and the total
number of cases have dropped significantly between 2017 and today. However, the number of
salvageable vacant buildings in the City has remained at around the same levels over the past 5
years. To evolve the Dangerous and Vacant Building Program, increased efforts to address
salvageable vacant buildings, seeing them repaired and reoccupied, are needed. City demolitions
will still occur in the future, but not at the same frequency as in the past 5 years. Resolving
salvageable building cases will require more effort and a strategic approach as many currently
pose no safety hazard.
67�
10
To better address salvageable buildings, additional enforcement measures are needed. Staff often
are able to work with owners to see buildings be repaired and reoccupied without the need for
enforcement. However, some cases do stagnate and if they are not hazardous, there are no straight
forward measures in place to disincentivize long term vacancy of a building. This is problematic
because long term vacancy can often diminish community pride and, in some cases, can deter
further investment into a neighbourhood. Furthermore, these buildings often continue to
deteriorate and potentially become a hazard needing to be demolished, which is an undesirable
outcome. Being able to disincentivize long term vacancy through enforcement would allow the
City to see more buildings be repaired and reoccupied, avoid demolitions and positively impact
community pride, growth and affordability.
As part of the Community Enhancement Project, additional enforcement options for vacant
buildings were analyzed in detail. The findings from the analysis are summarized in this section.
Research on the best practices that other municipalities utilize for vacant buildings can be found
in Appendix A. Recommendations are provided on which options to pursue beginning on page
15.
VACANT BUILDING TAX
A vacant building tax would provide a financial penalty to owners who leave their buildings
vacant long term. As described in the Best Practices Research found in Appendix A,
municipalities in Ontario and British Columbia currently impose additional property taxes on
vacant buildings based on a percentage of the building's assessed value. These taxes were
implemented to address affordability issues and reduce residences being purchased as an
investment and being left vacant during that time. New Brunswick legislation does not currently
allow municipalities to tax vacant buildings at a higher rate.
It should be noted that applying this additional tax based on assessed value may have a limited
effect in Saint John. Property tax based on assessed value can be costly when property values
are high. In Saint John, vacant buildings can have low assessed values, in some cases less than
$20,000. Low assessments will lead to a lower tax that may not disincentivize vacant building
ownership. For this reason, if a vacant building tax were applied, a flat amount as opposed to a
percentage equal for all vacant buildings may be more effective at disincentivizing vacancy
than a percentage.
Another difference to note is that in the provinces where these taxes are charged, the
municipality is responsible for the collection of property tax. hi New Brunswick, the Province
collects property tax for the municipality. If a vacant building tax were to be implemented, it
may be easier for the municipality to identify which buildings are vacant and need additional
tax. Having one party responsible for identifying which properties are vacant and require
additional tax and another responsible for administering and collecting said tax could present
logistical challenges. It also would mean that the Province would have the discretion to decide
6'tl
11
how much of the funding from the tax, if any, would go to the municipality Other municipalities
in Canada do not experience these challenges as they are responsible for both.
Despite these challenges, a vacant building tax is an excellent way to disincentivize long term
vacancy. There is the potential for a vacant building tax to have a positive effect in reducing the
number of vacant buildings in Saint John, especially if the challenges noted above can be
addressed. However, to implement a vacant building tax in New Brunswick, legislative change
would be required.
VACANT BUILDING PERMIT
Another method of applying financial penalties to vacant buildings that other municipalities in
Canada use is a vacant building permit system. These programs require property owners to
apply annually for a permit to register their vacant building with the City. The permit fee
typically costs an equal amount for all vacant buildings. In some cases, the permit fee increases
each year the building remains vacant. To be approved for the permit, owners must meet certain
standards typically regarding security of the building and municipalities can secure the building
at a cost to the owner should the need arise. Vacant building permit systems are more common
in municipalities that deal with problematic vacant buildings that cause issues in their respective
communities.
A vacant building permit system would provide Saint John with the same ability as a vacant
building tax, financially disincentivizing long term vacancy. It should be noted that as opposed
to a tax, the City would manage this system and as a result would receive the financial benefit
it provides. Under the Local Governance Act (the "LGA"), developing a by-law that requires
vacant building owners to apply and pay for a vacant building permit is possible. However, the
ability to do so is not directly outlined by provincial legislation as it is in other areas of Canada.
Furthermore, there are challenges under current legislation that would make a vacant building
permit less effective than in other regions of Canada.
Based on legal analysis, the permit fee must be representative of the administrative cost of
managing the permit system. This could include administrative costs associated with billing and
collecting as well as the periodic monitoring of vacant buildings, which the City currently
provides free of charge to vacant building owners. Based on these administrative costs, the City
could potentially charge $1,000 to $1,500 for the permit. Currently, vacant building owners in
Saint John pay anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 in property taxes and water bills each year.
At the amount of about $1,500, the permit fee could be seen as a cost of doing business to vacant
building owners. It should be noted that approximately 10% of vacant building owners do not
pay their taxes or water bills and in those cases this fee would likely go unpaid as well.
The largest complication with a vacant building registry is collection. Municipalities in Canada
that implement these permits typically can apply the cost of the permit to the outstanding
property taxes if left unpaid. This provides a seamless collection method for municipalities,
611:3
12
ensuring they collect on most of the permit fees. In New Brunswick, the only method to collect
unpaid permit fees is to pursue it in provincial court. This would be significantly more resource
intensive than what other municipalities in Canada experience. Not only would hours be spent
by Growth and Community Services and Finance on billing, General Counsel and Growth and
Community Services would spend multiple hours or potentially days of work preparing for and
attending provincial court for each property with unpaid fees. If the compliance rate for the fee
becomes too low, the permit system becomes unfeasible from a resourcing perspective to
enforce. Given the significant challenges surrounding collection as well as the other issues, it
would be difficult to effectively implement a vacant building permit system in Saint John under
current legislation. However, if a vacant building permit could be linked to the property tax
system as it is in other municipalities, it could be very effective.
UNSIGHTLY REPAIR PROGRAM
One program that has been considered to try to drive change on stagnating vacant building cases
is a program centered around repairing unsightly conditions. This program would use a section
of the LGA that allows the City to repair unsightly dilapidated conditions on a building and
charge the cost of the repairs to the property owner. If the bill goes unpaid, the City would be
reimbursed for the costs by the Province and the bill would be placed on the outstanding
property taxes. The goal of this potential program would be to provide City staff with additional
enforcement measures to disincentivize long term vacancy as well as address buildings that are
not yet hazardous but creating a significant negative impact on community pride.
It is important to note that under this potential program, the City would primarily repair
unsightly dilapidated conditions. Exterior unsightly conditions such as peeling paint, missing
siding and broken windows could be addressed under this legislation. The City also can repair
conditions that cause a building to be a hazard by reason of being vacant or unoccupied under
the same section of the LGA. This means that unsecured windows, doors and other openings
could be secured. However, the City cannot use this legislation to completely repair a derelict
building. Any interior conditions are not able to be addressed under a reasonable exercise of
this authority to repair. More details on the City's legal authority to repair buildings within the
risk analysis found in Appendix B.
While this may not provide a direct solution to resolving vacant building cases, implementing
an Unsightly Repair Program would allow the city to disincentivize long term vacancy by
applying the cost of these repairs to the property tax. The repairs will also improve the aesthetic
of the building, addressing some of the negative impacts vacant buildings can cause with respect
to community pride. It should be noted however that it is possible that exterior repairs are
conducted and after repair, the building continues to sit vacant long term. Pursuing these repairs
will not necessarily result in vacant building case being fully resolved.
611%]
13
The main benefit to an Unsightly Repair Program would be providing an additional tool to
pursue voluntary compliance, similar to current enforcement programs. Staff would actively
work with property owners and exhaust all options to see a vacant building be repaired and
reoccupied by the owner. However, if voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, staff would be
prepared to repair any unsightly conditions and secure the building at a cost to the owner.
Focusing on voluntary compliance will minimize risk and allow staff to achieve better results.
The Urban Development Incentive Program, the Beautification Grant and the Developer
Notification List could all play a role in the pursuit of voluntary compliance under this program.
Funding through the Urban Development Incentive and Beautification Grant programs may be
available if owners can repair and reoccupy their building. The Developer Notification List
could assist in helping an owner find buyers should they wish to sell.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
Under existing legislation, the City can pursue fines against a property owner in Provincial
Court if a Notice to Comply expires. These fines can be pursued if the Notice is issued for
unsightly or for hazardous conditions. The City can pursue fines for non-compliance with a
Notice ranging from $240 to $10,200. These fines can be applied for each day that the offence
occurs. Using this ability to pursue fines against vacant buildings is possible, however there are
challenges associated which is why this tool is not utilized today.
As mentioned in the section on Vacant Building Permits, pursuing charges in provincial court
is resource intensive. General Counsel and Growth and Community Services spend days
preparing for each case that proceeds to provincial court. It should also be noted that provincial
court judges will often apply the minimum fine, meaning that these increased resources would
be spent to achieve what could end up being a $240 fine for the owner. A $240 fine is unlikely
to produce any form of compliance and therefore staff may need to attend court repeatedly,
spending more resources, until the judge has enough reason to apply a significant penalty
amount.
Despite these challenges, the ability to pursue fines could still be useful in certain situations. In
the past, the action of issuing a Notice to Comply and being willing to pursue it has resulted in
owners taking steps towards compliance. If fines were to be pursued, it is possible that staff can
achieve voluntary compliance by applying this ability in the right situations. If this tool were to
be used, it is important that it is used in situations where staff have the best chance at achieving
compliance given the associated resourcing demands.
EHANCHED MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS
When rental buildings lack proper maintenance standards, they can deteriorate at an accelerated
rate, causing unsafe conditions for tenants and in some cases can lead to a building being vacated.
The Minimum Property Standards Program enforces proper maintenance and safety standards on
C0i]
14
rental properties throughout Saint John. Currently, the Minimum Property Standards program is
mainly complaint -based. When a complaint comes in, staff conduct an inspection of the building
and provide the owner with a list of minimum standard deficiencies. If an owner does not take
action to address the deficiencies, enforcement action can be pursued in provincial court, leading
to a minimum $1,000 fine that can increase each time the property returns to court.
Lack of maintenance can lead to life safety concerns and minimum standards deficiencies that
will need to be addressed if the building continues to be occupied. The Affordable Housing
Action Strategy has identified additional enforcement through minimum property standards as
an action item. To ensure existing housing stock is safe, to prevent deterioration and to ensure
existing housing remains in the City's housing inventory, the Minimum Property Standards
program must address properties earlier on. Due to the complaint -based nature of the program,
some properties will not be addressed until the building has already experienced deterioration.
If the Minimum Property Standards program is to be used to its full potential, to enforce proper
maintenance standards on buildings throughout the City, the program will need to move forward
from a complaint -based approach and take a more proactive role in the community. This would
include bringing awareness of this program to tenants throughout the City, conducting regular
inspections of rental buildings without the need of a complaint and taking more properties
through the enforcement process. This can be partially achieved with existing resources although
there is opportunity to further enhance this program through additional resources. Enhancing the
Minimum Property Standards Program would allow the program to better enforce proper
maintenance standards earlier on in the enforcement process, ensuring that housing throughout
the community remains safe and the potential loss of housing stock is minimized.
ADDRESSING ABANDONMENT
In New Brunswick, there are limited options for municipalities to deal with abandoned properties
within their community. When the City of Saint John is dealing with abandoned vacant buildings,
there are only two outcomes. Either the building will be demolished due to the associated hazard
and become an abandoned vacant lot, or it will be sold at tax sale to a new owner who can
repurpose it. If a building is demolished and becomes an abandoned vacant lot, the only path
forward to redevelopment is through the tax sale process. This section analyzes solutions for
abandoned properties and provides a summary of the current tax sale process.
SAINT JOHN LAND BANK
The Saint John Land Bank could be an instrumental partner in dealing with abandonment. The
land bank currently works with the Province and can have a certain amount of outstanding
property taxes waived on properties that they purchase. This allows them to make economic
cases for purchasing buildings and lots that otherwise would go unaddressed due to outstanding
tax arrears and other debts. The Saint John Land Bank's goal is to then utilize the property in a
15
way that best benefits the community, developing community gardens, providing affordable
housing solutions, etc. The City could benefit by having more abandoned land and buildings
transferred to the land bank.
RECIEVERSHIPS
Receivership programs are uncommon in Canada and more common in areas throughout the
United States. These programs allow municipalities to take title from negligent vacant property
owners without providing any compensation. Taking title from a property owner is the severest
penalty that can be applied and these programs have a significant number of steps required. If
an owner is present, these programs provide them with an abundance of opportunity to keep
their property. As a result, these programs tend to be directed at dealing with abandonment
issues throughout their region.
In some cases, municipalities with receivership programs will work directly with non -profits to
facilitate ownership transfers. hi Baltimore specifically, ownership is never taken by the
municipality. Instead, the municipality goes through the receivership process and upon
completion, ownership is directly transferred from the previous owner to a non-profit, who then
sells the property at auction to a private developer.
In New Brunswick, there is not legislation that currently allows for taking title without
compensating the owner. This ability was pursued with the Province in the past, but they were
not interested in providing Municipalities with the ability at that time. Although having the
ability to take title would be a powerful tool, it is believed that the issues that it could solve
would be better addressed through improvements to the tax sale process along with additional
vacant building efforts.
TAX SALE
The best option currently for abandoned properties is property tax sale. When an owner has not
paid their property taxes, the property can be sold at a tax sale auction to the highest bidder.
This provides a direct solution to deal with abandoned properties as in most cases the taxes are
not being paid. In most provinces throughout Canada, the municipality is responsible for
management of the tax roll and as a result has direct control over the tax sale process. However,
in New Brunswick, the Province manages the tax roll for the municipality and manages the tax
sale process.
It is beneficial to the City to not have to manage this process. However, the Province's current
tax sale process often does not allow for abandonment issues to be addressed in atimely manner,
specifically in Saint John. The length of time that the process takes from when an owner stops
paying property tax, to when the Province moves forward with tax sale proceedings can allow
for excessive deterioration, meaning that demolition often takes place prior to tax sale. Property
I'
16
taxes are often not paid for a minimum of 4 years before tax sale proceedings commence and
in many cases, the amount of time exceeds 4 years of non-payment.
As part of the Community Enhancement Project, the tax situation was evaluated on a few
recently demolished abandoned vacant buildings. In each case, it is estimated that there were
anywhere from 5-10 years of outstanding taxes on each property prior to demolition moving
forward. Had these properties been sold at tax sale earlier, it is possible that demolition could
have been avoided. This would have retained tax base and housing for the City that has now
been lost.
Another challenge with the tax sale system is that the Province's process to dispose of
unpurchased property is lengthy. When a property goes to tax sale, it must sell for the taxes
outstanding at minimum. When there are no bidders, the Province purchases the property for
the outstanding tax amount. The property is then owned by the Department of Finance, who
transfers it to the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure ("DTP') to dispose of. DTI
then assesses the property and sells it at market value. Typically they are able to sell, but if they
cannot sell at market value then they hold onto the property. It can often take 3 years from when
a property is purchased by the Province at tax sale to when it is sold by DTI. This results in a
7-year timeframe for this process start to finish. It is important to note that 7 years is often the
best -case scenario and in most cases it takes longer. The lengthy disposal process provides
additional delays to redevelopment of vacant buildings that continue to stagnate in the
Province's tax sale system.
Not only can the length of the Province's tax sale and disposal timelines result in abandoned
vacant buildings being demolished, but their length also has an adverse effect on abandoned
vacant lots. This process is currently the only available option to free up land that could be
redeveloped and these extended timelines can delay redevelopment of these sites. This is most
notable on land that the City has previously demolished vacant buildings on. The City can
demolish vacant buildings that are a hazard to the safety of the public at a cost to the owner. If
the City's demolition bill is not paid by the owner, the City submits the bill for reimbursement
to the Province. The Province then adds the reimbursed cost to the outstanding property taxes.
It is rare that the bill for the demolition is paid after it has been added to the outstanding taxes.
In a lot of cases the outstanding tax bill, which includes the demolition bill plus tax levies unpaid
prior to demolition, is greater than the value of the land. Most of these vacant lots are left
abandoned until the Province addresses them through tax sale. They often do not sell when they
get to auction, meaning they must go through the DTI disposal process as well.
Currently, there are estimated to be 40 vacant lots where the City has demolished buildings that
are awaiting tax sale. At the current pace, it will take approximately 4 years for every lot to be
tax sold and then another 3-6 years for DTI to dispose of them. These abandoned vacant lots
will continue to sit vacant until they are addressed through the tax sale and DTI disposal
M
17
processes. These lots could potentially be redeveloped now if they were available to developers,
but extended timeframes are preventing them from moving forward.
In summary, the timeframe for tax sale proceedings is having adverse effects on the City of
Saint John. Abandoned buildings are being demolished when there is the potential for them to
be sold at tax sale and redeveloped. It is also causing unnecessary delays for abandoned vacant
lots that could be redeveloped. The lengthy DTI disposal process is exasperating these issues.
The tax sale process has the potential to address abandonment issues throughout the Province,
but the current process will ultimately lead to more vacant building demolitions and cause
unnecessary delays to vacant lot redevelopment.
The following section provides recommendations for further changes the City could pursue to
improve the effectiveness of Property By-law Compliance efforts. The recommendations
incorporate the analysis from the previous section as well as best practice research found in
Appendix A to develop solutions that work best for Saint John. Implementing these
recommendations will allow staff to better achieve Council's priorities by enhancing enforcement.
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR 2023
ENHANCED MINIMUM PROPERTY STANDARDS
To better enforce proper maintenance standards, the Minimum Property Standards Program will
be enhanced beginning in 2023. Efforts will be taken to bring awareness of this program to
tenants in the City, new cases will be generated through inspections without the need of a
complaint and more formal enforcement action will be taken against problematic properties.
The potential to further enhance these efforts through additional resourcing will be evaluated
and reported back to Growth Committee in early 2023. Enhancing the Minimum Property
Standards Program will better allow staff to enforce maintenance standards in order the prevent
the loss of existing housing stock.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
Going forward, staff will be issuing Notices to Comply on vacant buildings with the intention
of proceeding to court. This ability will only be used in certain circumstances as the ability to
demolish will be used for hazardous buildings and the ability to repair will be used for
salvageable buildings. However, when a case is between demolition and repair, not yet
hazardous but not clearly salvageable, the ability to pursue fines in court will be considered. It
should be noted that given the resourcing demands for both General Counsel and Growth and
Community Services, only a limited amount of these cases can be pursued.
18
UNSIGHTY REPAIR PROGRAM
If operated correctly, the Unsightly Repair Program has the potential to be an excellent tool to
disincentivize long term vacancy. It would provide the City with the ability to address non-
hazardous vacant buildings now, without the need for legislative change. However, it is also
believed to be uncharted territory. During best practice analysis, no instances were found of a
municipality repairing an unsightly building. It should be noted that of the municipalities
researched outside of New Brunswick, none were found that had the ability to do this.
An Unsightly Repair Program will be piloted for one year in 2023. This 1-year pilot, focused
on using this ability to drive change on vacant building cases, would be limited to the North
End and the South -Central Peninsula. The overall goal would be to drive voluntary compliance
on vacant building cases with the goal of affecting as many as 15 buildings. During the pilot,
the program will be thoroughly analyzed and staff will return to Common Council to
recommend whether to continue with the program and if any further changes are required.
With an Unsightly Repair Program in place, staff will be in position to better disincentivize
vacant building ownership and prevent the deterioration of vacant buildings. The goal is to
produce voluntary compliance throughout the focus areas, allowing for future growth,
cultivating community pride and preventing loss of older housing stock. However, adding only
the ability to repair unsightly buildings is not enough to drive overall change in the City with
respect to vacant buildings. This program will be more effective at driving voluntary
compliance if it is implemented alongside financial penalties for vacant buildings and an
improved tax sale process. It is important that should an Unsightly Repair Program move
forward, it should move forward alongside aggressive efforts to pursue those additional
legislative and procedural changes with the Province.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER CHANGE
FINANCIAL PENALTIES FOR VACANT BUILDINGS
In other municipalities in other provinces, financial penalties are applied to vacant building
owners. These penalties are applied either through a tax or a permit system, but each serve the
purpose of disincentivizing vacancy. There are significant challenges associated with
implementing these penalties in Saint John. A vacant building tax cannot be done under current
legislation and while a vacant building registry may be possible, it would face significant
challenges that would make it difficult to enforce. Currently, City staff are not recommending
any implementation of a financial penalty for vacant buildings. Instead, it is recommended that
legislative change be pursued aggressively to effectively apply financial penalties to vacant
buildings in New Brunswick.
ICU
19
If legislative changes were made to allow municipalities in New Brunswick to financially
disincentivize vacancy, both a permit system and a vacant building tax should be considered.
In order to ensure the financial penalty achieves the desired outcomes while mitigating the
potential complications, the legislative changes would need to allow for the following:
I . The LGA would need to directly outline a municipality's ability to apply financial penalties
to vacant buildings through both a vacant building tax and through a permit system.
2. The LGA would need to provide guidance on the amount that could be charged through a
tax and through a permit fee. This amount needs to be significant enough to disincentivize
vacant building ownership, even if the property has a low assessment.
3. Ideally, the municipality would be able to define criteria for when a vacant building can be
exempt from the tax or from requiring a permit.
4. In the case of a tax, the municipality should be able to seamlessly identify which buildings
are vacant and require additional tax.
5. In the case of a permit system, the LGA would need to provide a method for the permit fee
to be added to the outstanding property tax bill if a vacant building owner does not apply
and pay for the required permit. This could be done through a reimbursement process like
what is done currently for demolitions and clean-ups under section 137.
TAX SALE
Increased vacant building penalties, while necessary to prevent speculation and disincentivize
long term vacancy, could have an unintended consequence of potentially causing abandonment.
Typically, abandonment occurs when the outstanding debts on a property become greater than
its value. It is possible that by increasing the cost of vacant building ownership, that some
additional properties become abandoned. Although abandonment is less likely today than in
previous years due to increases in property values, better solutions are needed to address
abandonments. Current processes do not effectively address these issues and buildings often
remain abandoned for a significant length of time before they are addressed through tax sale or
demolition.
For the tax sale process to address abandonment and prevent loss of housing stock, the
following must be achieved:
L The tax sale process should prioritize areas with a higher population density. Properties in
higher density areas not only can have an increased likelihood of selling at tax sale, but
their abandonment also affects more citizens and is more likely to result in hazardous
conditions, vandalism and other criminal activity, unsightly conditions, etc.
2. For high -density areas, a 4-year maximum requirement should be implemented. Any
property in a high -density area should be sold at tax sale within maximum 2-4 years of
non-payment.
C��
20
3. Should a property not sell at a tax sale auction, the DTI disposal process must allow for
properties in high -density areas to be disposed of within maximum I to 2 years of tax sale.
The Province also can facilitate the development of affordable housing through the tax sale
process. To achieve this, the following options could be considered:
I. Provide first right of refusal to non -profits willing to repurpose properties headed to tax
sale as affordable housing.
2. If the Department of Finance purchases a property for the outstanding tax amount at tax
sale, provide the Department of Finance the option to sell the property directly to a non-
profit willing to repurpose it as affordable housing. These properties could be sold to non-
profits for the outstanding tax amount with a certain amount waived. This is similar to
abilities the Province already provides to non -profits when they purchase properties in tax
arrears and would prevent the need to go through the DTI disposal process.
To achieve the goals listed above, it is possible that legislative changes are required to allow
the Province to operate these processes more efficiently. It is also possible that internal process
or resourcing changes are required to achieve this. It is recommended that the City of Saint John
ask the Province of New Brunswick to review their tax sale and DTI disposal processes and
legislation to determine what is needed to address properties more efficiently and make
necessary changes to achieve the goals listed above.
If the goals listed above were achieved, the tax sale process would be significantly more
effective at addressing properties. This would allow buildings to be sold prior to deteriorating
and being demolished and would allow vacant lots to be freed up for redevelopment in a
reasonable timeframe. This will not only allow for further growth in Saint John but will also be
key to addressing affordability issues by preventing loss of existing housing stock and
efficiently using land. The Province could decide to further prioritize affordable housing by
providing first right of refusal to parties wishing to repurpose these lots and buildings as
affordable housing.
RECEIVERSHIPS
The ability to implement a receivership program, providing the City with the ability to take title
without compensation, could address abandonment issues throughout Saint John. However, the
best solution to achieve better results for abandoned properties is through changes to the tax
sale process. A receivership program would require a significant amount of resources to address
issues that can already be addressed through tax sale.
Therefore, it is not currently recommended that a receivership program be pursued. Instead, it
is recommended that changes to the tax sale process be pursued with the Province. If changes
are not able to occur at the Provincial level to better address abandonment through tax sale,
AYA
21
pursuing additional municipal powers such as the ability to implement a receivership program
could be reconsidered.
Minimum property standards cases, vacant buildings cases, tax sale and demolition may seem like
separate processes that address separate issues. However, these processes are often interconnected
and abandoned buildings that proceed to tax sale or demolition often were once minimum
standards buildings with owners who did not conduct proper maintenance. Proper maintenance
may not be conducted for a variety of reasons. Typically, owners either are not willing or cannot
afford to conduct proper maintenance. This can lead to life safety concerns and deficiencies that
will need to be addressed if the building continues to be occupied. These deficiencies can be costly
to repair and financial penalties can be administered through the Minimum Property Standards
program if life safety items go unaddressed. If the owner cannot afford or does not want to spend
the money to conduct necessary repairs, and continues to incur financial penalties, the building
could become vacated or potentially abandoned.
Had the building been properly maintained at the beginning, it may not deteriorate to this point
and may not have been vacated. To prevent vacant building cases, the Minimum Property
Standards Program needs to address properties earlier before significant deterioration occurs.
Moving forward from a complaint -based system will allow for this and new tools such as the
Developer Notification List and Urban Development Incentives may facilitate voluntary
compliance that may not have occurred in the past. Going forward, with an enhanced Minimum
Property Standards Program, staff will be in a better position to enforce maintenance standards
earlier on to ensure buildings do not deteriorate to a point where they need to be vacated.
If a building does get vacated, the property is at a critical junction. The owner is often going to
decide one of three things. They may spend the resources to address any deficiencies and then
reoccupy, they may sell the building or they may abandon it. An issue that can increase the
likelihood of abandonment is indecision. If at this critical junction, the owner does not choose one
of the three paths forward and instead elects not to address the problem, the extended vacancy of
the building can lead to deterioration that will increase the likelihood that the owner will abandon
the property. Indecision is common and happens for a variety of reasons; it is important to have
tools that can address properties early such as the developer notification list and incentives.
Appropriate penalties are also important to disincentivize long-term vacancy ensuring property
owners decide, in a reasonable timeframe, what their path forward is with their property.
Despite best efforts moving forward, there will be buildings that become abandoned. As previously
mentioned, abandoned buildings have only two outcomes. Either the property is demolished
because it becomes a hazard or it is sold at tax sale by the province to a new owner can repurpose
it. If any properties become abandoned, it is important that the tax sale process is working
C�:3
22
efficiently to ensure as many buildings as possible end up repurposed by new owners as opposed
to being demolished.
With the improvements and recommended changes developed under the Community Enhancement
Project, staff will be in a much better position and have a variety of tools to intervene earlier on in
the enforcement process. This will prevent deterioration, reduce vacancy and reduce demolition.
The improvements and recommended changes developed under the Community Enhancement
Project will allow for future growth, create safe livable neighbourhoods, cultivate community pride
and prevent loss of housing stock to ensure long term affordability.
C1']
23
OVERVIEW
Municipalities throughout Canada along with a few in the United States were researched to
evaluate their practices with respect to code enforcement. The focus of the research was around
vacant building practices to try to find solutions that will improve the Program's enforcement
process. Three solutions were commonly found to deal with vacant buildings in their respective
areas. Two of the solutions are differing ways to apply financial penalties to owners of vacant
buildings. These financial penalties disincentivize long term vacant building ownership and help
municipalities to offset costs associated with running a vacant building program. These financial
penalties are typically handled in one of two ways, a Vacant Building Tax or a Vacant Building
Registry. Another solution used in municipalities is a Receivership program which allows
municipalities to take the title of a vacant building that is owned by a negligent owner. These
programs are typically run in the United States although one municipality in Canada was found
with a similar process. A summary of each of the solutions and some of the municipalities who
use them can be found below.
VACANT BUILDING TAX
The Vacant Building Tax or Empty Homes Tax is a property tax that applies to all vacant
buildings as a percentage of their assessed value. These taxes are currently used in high demand
markets like Ontario and British Columbia with the intent of dissuading speculators who
purchase property, leave it vacant, and then sell for a higher price later. Speculators who leave
their properties uninhabited contribute to affordability issues throughout their municipality and
these taxes are directly targeted at addressing affordable housing issues.
VANCOUVER, BC
Vancouver introduced the Empty Homes Tax in 2017 that that taxed vacant properties at 3% of
the assessed value. In April 2022, this tax was hiked to 5% of the assessed value. Every
homeowner in Vancouver is required to submit a declaration form declaring their home as
occupied each year. If an owner meets the exemption criteria, they are not required to pay the
tax. However, if an owner does not meet the exemption criteria or fails to submit the declaration
form, the additional tax is applied. It was found that from the timeframe of 2016 to 2021, the
amount of empty homes in the area dropped by 10%. It should be noted that while the
implementation of the Empty Homes Tax correlated to a 10% drop in empty homes, there is no
evidence to suggest that the Empty Homes Tax caused the drop. There could be a multitude of
factors that caused this drop in empty homes. British Columbia originally only allowed this tax
to be implemented in Vancouver, however recent provincial legislation changes have allowed
it to be applied in various municipalities throughout the Province.
Me]
24
WINDSOR, ON
Municipalities throughout Ontario have also recently implemented a similar tax at 1% of the
assessed value. This property tax was recently added to provincial legislation allowing
municipalities in Ontario to tax vacant properties at an increased rate. Windsor Ontario was one
of the most recent municipalities to implement this tax. Although Windsor does not have a
formal vacant building program, they do have staff that monitor and issue orders for problematic
vacant buildings, using its version of the minimum property standards by-law to do so. Windsor
hopes the tax will further disincentivize vacant building ownership throughout the city,
preventing speculators and negligent owners.
VACANT BUILDING REGISTRY
Another method of applying financial penalties to vacant buildings is a vacant building registry
program. These programs require property owners to apply for a permit to register their vacant
building with the City. The permit costs an amount that disincentivizes vacant building ownership
and in some cases, increases each year the building becomes vacant. To be approved for the
permit, owners must ensure their vacant building meets certain standards typically surrounding
security of the building. If they are not approved, municipalities often can secure the building at
a cost to the owner. Vacant building registries are more common in municipalities that deal with
blight because of the vacant buildings throughout their region.
WINNIPEG, MB
Winnipeg has an extensive penalty system to disincentivize vacant building ownership. Their
process involves a suite of requirements and financial penalties for owners who leave a building
vacant. These penalties include the requirement to have a boarded building permit, a permit
costing $2,500 minimum and allows owners to board their building to a specific standard
outlined by the City. Owners must also pay an empty building fee equivalent to 1% of the
assessed value of the building. The owner is also must pay inspection fees equivalent to $630
each calendar year. These fees are able to be added to the property tax roll if they go unpaid.
Although this fee system has been in place for some time, it has correlated to more vacant
building cases. In 2015, Winnipeg monitored 358 vacant properties and in 2020, that number
increased to 570. In 2022 it increased again to 615. It should be noted that there is no evidence
to suggest that the implementation of a vacant building fee system is the cause of the rise in the
number of vacant building cases.
SUMMERSIDE, PEI
Summerside recently implemented a vacant building permit system. If buildings in Summerside
are vacant 90 days under the new bylaw, the owner is required to get a permit and secure the
71
25
building. The permit costs $2,485 every four years. A rebate can be provided if the building
becomes occupied within the four-year timeframe that the permit is valid for.
Typically, municipalities with a vacant building registry can apply the cost of unpaid permits
and fees to the outstanding property tax. Summerside currently does not have the ability to do
this and must pursue unpaid fees in provincial court. Summerside currently has less than 10
vacant buildings that this fee would apply to. If a significant number of fees go unpaid, it would
not be unreasonable from a resourcing perspective for Summerside to enforce this by-law
RECEIVERSHIP PROGRAM
Receivership programs are uncommon in Canada and more common in areas throughout the
United States. These programs allow municipalities to take title from negligent vacant property
owners. The properties are typically sold to private individuals who then redevelop them. Taking
title from a property owner should not be taken lightly. It is the severest penalty that can be
applied and as a result, these programs have a significant number of steps required. If an owner
is around, these programs provide them with an abundance of opportunity to keep their property.
As a result, these programs tend to be directed at dealing with abandonment issues throughout
their region.
BALTIMORE, MD
Baltimore Maryland has an extensive receivership program which allows them to seize vacant
buildings from negligent property owners. Vacant buildings in Baltimore are issued notices if
they create a nuisance. If an owner fails to comply with the notice, Baltimore City's housing
department can request the District Court to appoint a receiver to sell, rehabilitate or demolish
the property. Baltimore City's typically appoints a non-profit organization as a receiver who
then sells these properties to buyers that are required to rehabilitate the structure. The process
takes approximately 8 months from when a receivership is filed to when ownership is
transferred to the buyer. As the sale takes place, the receiver never takes title of the property
and therefore does not become liable for the building. Once the sale goes through, all liens are
wiped from the property.
The program has been successful in Baltimore who has filed 500 receiverships per year on
average. From 2011-2019, over 4500 receiverships were filed with approximately 2500 of those
resulting in the properties being reoccupied.
WINNIPEG, MB
In addition to a suite of financial penalties, Winnipeg also has a process called Taking Title
Without Compensation. This process allows Winnipeg to take ownership of a vacant building
26
without compensating the owner if the building is neglected by the owner for an extended period
of time. There are other municipalities in Manitoba that have a fee and permit system similar
to Winnipeg's however the Taking Title Without Compensation ability is unique to the City.
SOURCES
'astonishing' drop in number of empty homes in Metro Vancouver ... Retrieved from
https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/astoni shing-drop-in-number-of-empty-homes-in-
metro-vancouver-census
Nearly 600 previously vacant structures demolished or now occupied in Winnipeg. Retrieved from
https : //winnipeg. ctvnews . ca/nearly-600-previously-vacant-structures-dem oli shed-or-now-
occupied-in-winnipeg-1.2263605
Vacant building receivership - Baltimore City Department of Housing ... Retrieved from
https://dhcd.baltimorecity. gov/sites/default/files/Receivership%20Presentati on%2011.16.20.pdf
How does receivership work in Baltimore? Retrieved from https://baltimoreheritage.github.io/vacant-
buildings-101/guides/receivership/
01
27
Repairing unsightly buildings would be an excellent tool to disincentivize long term vacancy and
prevent deterioration. However, in order to move forward, any potential risks associated with
repairing unsightly buildings should be analyzed and mitigated. Currently there are no
municipalities in New Brunswick who use this authority to repair and in best practice research, no
instances were found of a municipality outside of New Brunswick repairing conditions. This
section analyzes the potential risks involved with moving forward with the City's authority to
repair.
AUTHORITY TO REPAIR
It first must be established that the City of Saint John has the authority to repair buildings, and
to what extent. The authority to repair buildings is provided within sections 128 to 143 of the
LGA. Section 131 of the LGA states that:
131(1) No person shall permit premises owned or occupied by him or her to be unsightly
by permitting to remain on any part of the premises
(a) any ashes, junk, rubbish or refuse,
(b) an accumulation of wood shavings, paper, sawdust or other residue of production or
construction,
(c) a derelict vehicle, equipment or machinery or the body or any part of a vehicle,
equipment or machinery, or
(d) a dilapidated building.
131(2) No person shall permit a building or other structure owned or occupied by the
person to become a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of being vacant or
unoccupied.
131(3) No person shall permit a building or other structure owned or occupied by the
person to become a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of dilapidation or
unsoundness of structural strength.
As per section 132, the City can issue a Notice to Comply if a condition referred to in subsection
131(l), 131(2) or 131(3) exists.
Section 137 provides the City with the power to clean, repair or demolish if a Notice expires in
non-compliance:
rL!
2s
137(1) If an owner or occupier does not comply with a final and binding notice given
under section 132 within the time set out in the notice, the local government may, rather
than commencing proceedings in respect of the violation or in addition to doing so,
(a) cause the premises of that owner or occupier to be cleaned up or repaired if the notice
arises out of a condition contrary to subsection 131(1),
(b) cause the building or other structure of that owner or occupier to be repaired or
demolished if the notice arises out of a condition contrary to subsection 131(2), or
(c) cause the building or other structure of that owner or occupier to be demolished if the
notice arises out of a condition contrary to subsection 131(3).
As per section 137, the specific remedial action that can be taken (clean up, repair or demolish)
is determined based on the violation that the notice is issued under. A notice issued under
section 131(1) (unsightly dilapidated building) provides the city with the ability to clean up or
repair as per 137(1)(a). A notice issued under section 131(2) (building is hazardous by reason
of being vacant) provides the city with the ability to repair or demolish as per 137(1)(b). Finally,
a notice issued under 131(3) (building is hazardous by reason of being dilapidated or
structurally unsound) provides the city with only the ability to demolish as per 137(1)(c). The
City's Unsightly Repair Program will focus on repairing conditions under section 131(1)
(unsightly dilapidated building) although section 131(2) may be used under certain
circumstances.
It is important to note that, based on legal analysis, repairs must only address the conditions
that gave rise to the issuance of the Notice to Comply. This means that if a Notice for
unsightly conditions is issued, the City can only repair the conditions that cause the building
to be unsightly. This may include peeling paint, broken windows and missing siding among a
variety of other conditions. If the City issues a Notice under section 131(2) (building is
hazardous by reason of being vacant), the City can only repair conditions that cause the
building to be a hazard by reason of being vacant. This means that the City would only be
able to address conditions related to the security of the building if the Notice was issued under
131(2). Both 131(1) and 131(2) will be used under this program to conduct repairs, however
the repairs will primarily be conducted under 131(1) to address unsightly conditions. By only
repairing the conditions that gave rise to the issuance of a Notice to Comply, the City would
be exercising its authority to repair in a reasonable manner.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED UNSIGHTLY
Under paragraph 137(1)(a), the authority to either clean-up or repair is conditional upon the
Notice to Comply arising out of a condition contrary to subsection 131(l), meaning, the
premises being "unsightly" by permitting a "dilapidated building". This means that the City can
only repair dilapidated conditions that cause the premise to be unsightly. In other words, the
City cannot repaint a building because it does not like the colour of the paint or replace a door
because it does not like the look of a door. The City must demonstrate that the conditions to be
M
29
repaired is in a state of disrepair, thus causing the building to be unsightly. Examples of
conditions that could be repaired include broken windows, missing siding and peeling paint. In
summary, the City does not have the authority to deem something unsightly because it does not
like the look of it. The City must demonstrate that the building is in a state of disrepair, thus
causing the premise to be unsightly.
As part of the Unsightly Repair Program, a ranking criterion has been developed that will rank
all unsightly vacant buildings to prioritize enforcement action through repair. The criteria will
rank buildings by providing points for each unsightly dilapidated condition. If a building scores
higher than above a certain amount, it becomes eligible for enforcement action under the
Unsightly Repair Program.
LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION
There is concern that City could be liable to the property owner or other individuals for any
repairs conducted. This concern is heightened if a situation arises where repairs were conducted
improperly due to poor workmanship. However, the LGA offers a degree of statutory protection
when the City is exercising its authority to either clean-up, repair or demolish under section 137
as follows:
137(5) A local government or a person acting on its behalf is not liable to compensate
an owner or occupier or any other person by reason of anything done by or on behalf
of the local government in the reasonable exercise of its powers under this section.
(emphasis added)
This protection is subject to the "reasonable exercise" of the authority to either clean-up, repair
or demolish. If the City goes beyond its authority and carry out repairs that are not required to
address the conditions that gave rise to the issuance of a Notice to Comply, then, the City is not
exercising its authority in a reasonable manner.
It is important that the City reasonably exercise its authority to repair so that this statutory
protection is in place. This will provide the City protection against any claims that could arise
if the City moves forward with repairing conditions.
REIMBURSEMENT
With regards to recovery of costs incurred in exercising the authority under subsection 137(l),
the LGA provides as follows:
137(3) The costs of carrying out any work set out in subsection (1), including any
associated charge or fee, is chargeable to the owner or occupier and becomes a debt
due to the local government.
NQ
30
143(1) If a debt due to a local government under subsection 137(3) or 139 4 remains
unpaid in whole or in part and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is of the
opinion that the local government has made reasonable efforts to recover the unpaid
amount, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board shall, if the local government
requests the Minister to do so before December 31 in any year, pay to the local
government the following amounts in the following year:
(a) the unpaid amount of the debt; and
(b) interest on the unpaid amount of the debt
(i) calculated at the same rate that is applied in determining the amount of a
penalty under subsection 10(3) of the Real Property Tax Act, and
(ii) accruing from the day the local government completes the work or measures in
respect of which the debt arose to the day the local government makes a request
under this subsection for payment in respect of the debt.
143(2) A local government shall make a request under subsection (1) by submitting to
the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board a statement of the expenditures of the local
government that gave rise to the debt.
The City is still required to attempt to recoup the repair costs from the property owner. If the
City is unsuccessful, then the City can apply to the Province for reimbursement by submitting
a statement of expenditures, similar to what done currently for demolitions and unsightly clean-
ups.
The Province of New Brunswick was contacted, and discussions were had on the City's
authority to repair. They agreed that the City has the ability to repair unsightly conditions and
be reimbursed so long as proper procedure is followed.
THIRD PARTY CONTRACTOR
As part of this program, the City will be entering an agreement with one third -party general
contractor who will conduct all repairs. If the program is approved, a Request for Proposal will
be sent out in early 2023 for general contractors to bid with a proposal. A contract will be
developed with the Contractor who submits the best proposal.
The City will be evaluating bids with respect to price, but also with respect to contractor's
experience to ensure they have the expertise necessary to conduct any repairs that may be
necessary as part of this program. The contractor will be fully responsible for the quality of any
repairs and will provide warranties to the repairs conducted as part of this contract. If for some
reason a repair was conducted improperly, the contract will be required to return to the site to
address the issues. The contractor will also be required to have an insurance policy. This, along
WA
31
with the statutory protection, will limit liability against the City if the situation occurs where a
repair is conducted incorrectly.
FUTURE IMMUNITY GUIDELINE
It is important to note that while this program will serve to disincentivize vacancy, repairs under
this program will not prevent the building from continuing to be vacant. After repairs move
forward, a building may deteriorate or be subj ect to vandalism that causes it to become unsightly
again. Also, it is the responsibility of the property owner to perform the repairs necessary to
prevent this. However, to prevent properties from being subject to an excessive number of
repairs by the City, buildings that were repaired within the past 18 months through City action
will be provided immunity from this program. It should be noted that this immunity does not
prevent the building from being demolished by City action if it becomes a hazard.
FINANCIAL LIMIT GUIDELINE
To mitigate excess risk, there will be a limit that the City will spend on the repair of unsightly
conditions. Applying this limit will reduce liability and ensure a property maintains economic
feasibility, reducing the likelihood that it will become abandoned. Most vacant buildings tend
to residential and range from single family homes up to four units. The table below shows the
financial limit guidelines that will apply in those cases:
If this financial limit is not able to be followed for a specific case and an adjusted limit is needed,
City staff will provide both the adjusted limit and the reason why it is needed to Common
Council as part of the report recommending the repairs.
SUMMARY
The City not only has the authority to repair certain conditions on buildings under the LGA but
is also provided with statutory protection to do so, so long as the authority is reasonably
exercised. Furthermore, all repairs will be conducted by a third -party contractor who will
assume all responsibilities with respect to warranty and workmanship, further providing
protection to the City. To further mitigate excess risk, internal steps will be taken such as
limiting the amount that will be spent on repairs and providing temporary immunity to
properties that were recently repaired.
N-11
GROWTH COMMITTEE REPORT
M&C No.
N/A
Report Date
December 01, 2022
Meeting Date
December 06, 2022
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
Chair Joanna Killen and Members of the Growth Committee
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Grant Fund
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Andrew Reid
Jacqueline Hamilton
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATIONS
Growth Committee recommends that Common Council adopt the Affordable
Housing Grant Policy, with the goal of increasing the amount of new affordable
residential units constructed in the City of Saint John.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Federal and Provincial programs recognizing the need for more affordable housing
can be characterized as a generational investment. The 10-year National Housing
Strategy (2017), led by Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC) and in
collaboration with provincial governments delivers several components aimed to
increase supply of affordable units, fund community housing projects, and provide
benefits to help stabilize those struggling to afford rent.
Locally, there is a documented need for more affordable housing units in Saint
John (City of Saint John Housing Action Plan, 2022). In July, three options were
presented to Growth Committee regarding the use of an $800,000 investment
into affordable housing. Of key importance in the development of the finalized
Program was ensuring the following:
- Timely delivery of the Program to address housing shortfalls
- Alignment with the City's Affordable Housing Action Plan and Municipal
Plan
- Incorporation of City's Housing Needs Assessment into the Program
Saint John's Affordable Housing Grant Program (AHGP) seeks to take advantage of
existing Federal/Provincial programs to provide flexible and targeted top -up
grants that will aim to help create additional affordable units in our community.
r0%]
-2-
Upon adoption by Council, staff will develop a formal application in accordance
with the policy, create a grant agreement template for successful applicants, and
roll out the program for applicants in January of 2023.
Based on the parameters of the AHGP, staff anticipate that this program could
assist with the immediate development of 30 to 60 new affordable residential
units in the City of Saint John.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
On October 3, 2022, Common Council adopted the Affordable Housing Action
Plan. Action Number 13 states:
The City immediately establish a Saint John Affordable Housing Fund to
fund the development of new affordable housing units and that the Fund
is:
a) Targeted to non -market housing on a priority basis
b) Initially seeded through a $800,000 contribution and augmented via
future provincial and federal funding programs (e.g. CMHC Housing
Accelerator Fund)
On July 261h, 2022, Growth Committee received and filed a report and
presentation with regards to three possible options for the creation of a $800,000
Affordable Housing Grant Program for 2023.
On May 301h, 2022, Common Council approved a motion to allocate funding from
the Regional Development Corporation and the Federal Government for
Affordable Housing, with $1,100,000 budgeted toward Affordable Housing &
Neighbourhoods. Of the $1,100,000, $800,000 was earmarked towards a Grant
Program for 2023 and the remaining $300,000 towards implementation of the 5-
year Affordable Housing Action Plan.
REPORT
Housing is an urgent and pressing matter in Saint John. On October 3, 2022,
Common Council adopted the City of Saint John Affordable Housing Action Plan.
The Plan is a blueprint for a more coordinated approach to guide local action in
the community over the short, medium and longer term. Development of an
Affordable Housing Grant Program was identified as an immediate action in the
Plan. Timeliness is key to coordinating with Federal/Provincial funding programs
(e.g. CMHC's Rapid Housing Initiative).
Through the creation of Saint John's AHGP, staff worked with Dillon Consulting to
develop different grant options for consideration. Dillon Consulting has assessed
these three options to determine the most functional approach that will work for
Saint John and settled upon the attached Program, which is summarized below.
E:ii]
-3-
The AHGP will have two tiers aimed at non-profit and private developers,
with non-profit developers having access to $10,000 per affordable unit up
to $200,000 and private developers $8,000 per affordable unit up to
$160,000.
Grants are evaluated on a 90-day cycle by a Grant Committee composed
of City Staff and in accordance with an evaluation criteria as generally
outlined in the Affordable Housing Grant Program Policy.
Projects are prioritized according to project readiness and the evaluation
criteria. Criteria ensures that projects are prioritized according to the City's
established plans and policies, including the Affordable Housing Action
Plan and Municipal Plan.
Bonus funds are available towards projects that address market gaps in the
form of an additional grant up to $50,000 (e.g. 3 bedroom units, vacant
building retrofit, exceedance of accessibility or energy efficiency
standards).
Once a building permit for the project has been submitted, all developers
are required to enter into a Grant Agreement with the City of Saint John
which will define the terms and conditions in accordance with the
Program.
Disbursement of funds will occur after an occupancy permit is issued,
unless otherwise approved by Common Council.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
Common Council has established five priorities for their 2021-2026 term.
Affordable Housing aligns with the following Council Priorities.
Grow:
• Population Growth
o Grow our population at a rate of 2% annually by the end of
Council's term.
Belong:
• Livable Neighbourhoods
o Facilitate a mix of affordable housing in all of our neighbourhoods.
SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The Affordable Housing Grant program will utilize a one-time investment of
$800,000 in operating funds as established in the 2022 budget adjustment. The
$800,000 fund is a portion of funding that was allocated to the City from the
Regional Development Corporation in the Spring of 2022.
This funding was provided by a combination of federal and provincial dollars with
part of the objective to support housing shortfalls. The AHGP will help facilitate
E:1iI
-4-
the development of new affordable housing units throughout the City, increasing
the quality of life of the future residents of these units. Augmentation of the fund
may be sought through future provincial and federal funding programs (e.g. CMHC
Housing Accelerator Fund).
Based on the proposed policy, staff anticipate that this program could assist with
the development of 30 to 60 new affordable residential units in the City of Saint
John.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The Policy was developed with the input of local housing provider stakeholders
and reviewed by Growth and Community Services, Finance, and the General
Counsel Office.
Staff have also been in contact with the Regional Development Corporation and
on the rollout of the program.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Affordable Housing Grant Program Presentation
2. Draft Affordable Housing Grant Program Policy
E-1YA
4—j
M
A
am
an
Nil
N
N
�
�
ca
a--+
ro
a-J
+N-+
rq
cn
O
U
N
.�
•
CD
N
.—
'gin
O
E
Q.ca
o
O
=
_O
v
c,
a)
�O
N
N
O
0
>.
�
E
a)O
O
v
Q
v
O-0
O
p
4-
Q
O
N
N
O
O
E
C�0
_0
�.O
o
+j
°=
p.—
Co
o
�
°
�o
��
'v
O
�
�
Q
�
O
Q
O
E
ai
_
'U
4
O
Q
U
f6
=3
0O
U
N
O
p
O
C
L7
N
_�
o
Qro
o
O
�
=
00
p
0
0
N4-
cCD
N�
fV
ca
2
U=�
E
O
O
'gin
N
p
Q
fV
N
•—
Q
>'
O
O
N
O
U
O
E
O
O
U
m
Q
0
o
0wc�
�,}'�
O
m
'
N
E�
a=+
.No
U
��070���2}'�
moo"
C:
C:o
ALA
0
<
OUV
O
OU
co
4—
_0
O
c
�
C6
E
.
EL
=
cn
f6
O
—
V
�
U
O
a- j
c
O
.
Q)
=
Q
cn
a�
Q)
a- j
O
—
m
4-J
c
a- j
N
(1)
Q
O
U
Q-0.-
O
0in
LO
co
C6
aA
N
�
�
i
Q
E
C6
O
Q
E
O
�
O
-0
O
CL
O
O
`-
O
o
O
O
o
0
o
0
.-
N
iJ}
l0
r-I
O
4j}
Q
O
f6
•>
0
Q
—
t
c:
4—)
N
ll
•—
a�
O
O
L
vi
O
U
o
0
0
o
�
v
�
o
Q
O
a— j
cc
o
o
o
(�
ca
8
a) cn
O N tb
.0 D ;
U. ' cn
O C: N O C: U _O
U co U i O a- J U
� -0 0 � C: a)
_ U � " -0 M U
C6 O 0 UD � i N U
a--' ca N a-J
c� oE E a) O
E O N
:u N O U
U + p N �-+
ca >' � i
U aJ 0 0
+_, ca O �• cn � .0
CL Crn U -0 O >
N O N N�`� U a)
ro r-4 Q 01 ca LL cOi�
U
U
I -
co
V)
H
a- j
M
4-
0
N
N
N
N
A
N
a--+
ca �
ca
N 4-j
� N
O
}_'
N U
Ln N
O �
O O N
U 0 4--+
N E
U E
O .N O
U -0 U
. . .
t�A
8
V)
H
4-j
M
L-
O
N
N
N
N
I
4-0
CL
•�
=3
4 J
M
4-j
O
U
O
+-,
N
};
N
O
.N
•53
�O
U
c
U
U
i
Ca
N
U
E
O
• ca
},
+�
O
+�-+
a)-
i
(
N
U
Q
8
4—j
LU
N
Q�
Q
i
a••+
_
O
m
O
_
Q
_
O
Q
E
0
LL
N
N
N
a_
E
\�
Ln
•U
�
N
fa
•�
a--+
U
�
Q
+-+O
.i
ate--+
O
f6
>
O
0
CoL
O
•C
Q
a••+
E
O
O
cn
U
N
•�
(AU
3
c
m
�
O
taA
}'
v
�
+�
O
v
t�A
•
0
O
U
N
N
v
m
"
ca
cn
+�•+
0-
CL
+�-+
0
i
A�:
NV
C.n
ro
X I t.,A t.
r
0
U
U
—
�--+
z
�
a
N
a1
U
p
.�
c�
�
E
0-
t
�
v
C.7
p
O
ii
O
a
Z
_0
U
O
N
U
v
C:
a)
Q
v
v
-
}'
U_
��
0
0
N
U
v
N
N
J
O
E
E
E
E
N
O
>
N
..
O
o
0
0
�
E
}'
O
0-0
o
E
N
E
E
0
0
ca
O U
u
U
u
v
u
Q
U
a-J
•
Ln
N
`
•O
c
L
N
ca
=3
E
0
0
�
V
O�
�
�
N
0
0
E
M
m
•
a- j
�i
�i
V
>
w
co
Ln
O
•
i1
Ln
'o
0-
Ln
O
ca
O
J
.=3
Q �
•O >
Q r
O
bn =3
a-+ 4-1 a-J
O O
a--+ 4- J
DC a)
n
i1
Ln
4-J
'o
CL
Ln
Ln
ca
No
a-J
L
Q
a- J
•O
Q
.N
Ln
V
Q
•
N
a-J
•O
Q
M
•V
W
bn
c
W
•
N
c
O
L.LJ
C6
a--+
c�
O
U
U
4-J
a--'
ateJ
C:
(D
O
�7
i
N
4-J
4-
0
N
C
ca
Q
=
vi
�
.O
M
O
p
4-
O
O
-
N
4-1CL
_�
O
O
m
o
N
4--0
N
w
�
ca
ca
M
m
Ln
c
O
N
I
LO
rn
70A
DRAFT
City of Saint John Affordable Housing Grant Program
1. Program Background
The following program provides a framework for increasing the number of affordable housing units in
Saint John's residential inventory. The program is aligned with Federal and Provincial Programs and
implements the objectives of the City's Affordable Housing Action Plan (AHAP).
2. Policy Statement
The City of Saint John supports the development of affordable and equitable housing throughout the
City's Primary Development Area, as defined by the Municipal Development Plan. The purpose of the
AHGP is to increase the number of affordable rental units on the City's housing market and ensure those
units remain affordable, long term.
2.1 Policy and Program Evaluation
The AHGP will be monitored throughout each grant cycle for number of affordable housing units
committed. At the end of the first grant cycle, Staff will provide an update to Growth Committee that
provides the total number of affordable units, the breakdown of unit structure, and the estimated
timeline for construction and occupancy.
3. Definitions
"Affordable Housing Rental Program" means the Program administered by the Province of New
Brunswick's Department of Social Development to provide capital grant funding towards the creation of
new housing units for low- and moderate -income households in New Brunswick.
"Affordable housing unit" is defined by the Province of New Brunswick's Social Development
Department (SD) through its Affordable Housing Rental Program and/or Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation (CMHC). In the case of CMHC, affordable housing unit means a unit that provides a
minimum depth of affordability where tenants pay no more than 30% of their before -tax income on
housing costs and the unit remains affordable for a minimum of 20 years.
"CMHC/Federal Funding Programs" means the suite of funding offered by Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation which includes but is not limited to the National Housing Co -Investment Fund and
Rapid Housing Initiative.
"Construction costs, material or labour" means the total cost of construction of the building including
site preparation, mechanical and electrical components.
"Non-profit developer" means a corporation no part of the income of which is payable to or otherwise
available for the personal benefit of any proprietor, member, or shareholder thereof.
"For -profit developer" means a registered corporation that develops and provides housing.
DRAFT
"Townhouse" means a building containing two or more dwelling units arranged side by side each with
an independent exterior entrance and separated vertically by a common wall extending from the
foundation to the roof.
"Vacant building" means the building has been vacant for at least one year and was either (1) previously
used as an institutional building, or (2) has a minimum of 20% floor space that lacks basic facilities or is
substantially damaged to the extent that the new facilities must be installed or the new components
must be replaced or reconstructed to meet the By-law Respecting Standards for Maintenance and
Occupancy of Buildings and Premises.
4. Goals
Success of the AHGP will be determined by the number of affordable housing units to which the
Program contributes and depth of their affordability. The Affordable Housing Grant Program is designed
to achieve the following outcomes:
• Address the following gaps in the local housing continuum identified in the Affordable Housing
Action Plan: Supportive/special needs housing, housing to the most vulnerable households, and
affordable rental housing;
• Fulfilling the Affordable Housing Action Plan's principle of promoting public investment for
public benefit;
• Effective and meaningful distribution of funds to shovel -ready projects;
• Supporting non-profit housing projects in providing long-term affordable housing options; and,
• Incentivizing the use of the Province's Affordable Rental Housing Program
5. Affordable Housing Grant Overview
The Affordable Housing Grant provides additional funding to projects approved under the Province of
New Brunswick's Affordable Rental Housing Program and CMHC funding Programs. It is designed to
provide additional funds to non- and for -profit developers via a "top up" grant to be used to directly
impact the success and sustainability of the affordable dwelling unit. The Affordable Housing Grant will
prioritize projects that meet the project readiness definition described in section 6.1 and are
experiencing fiscal constraints.
5.1 Grant Description
The Affordable Housing Grant consists of two tiers of grants based on non- and for- profit developers.
Each tier provides a baseline grant and opportunity to access additional funding for innovative solutions
to identified market gaps or issues.
a) Tier 1: Non -Profit Development
Otl
DRAFT
A Tier 1 grant base amount of $10,000 per affordable unit to a maximum of $200,000 per project is
available to any non-profit developer that meets the program's eligibility requirements.
An additional $50,000 is available in bonus funds for market gap solutions. Market gap solutions are
determined by the City's Grant Committee.
b) Tier 2: For -Profit Development
A Tier 2 grant base amount of $8,000 per affordable unit to a maximum of $160,000 per project is
available to any for -profit developer that meets the program's eligibility requirements.
An additional $50,000 is available in bonus funds for market gap solutions. Market gap solutions are
determined by the City's Grant Committee.
5.2 Grant Cycles
a) Grant Cycle 1 opens after Council's adoption of the AHGP and closes after 90 days.
b) Grant Cycle 1 prioritizes projects according to the highest point value awarded in Section 7.1 and 7.2.
If there are remaining funds that have not been committed after 90 days, a second cycle will open and
run for 90 days before closing and so on until all funds are committed.
c) Funds may be committed during the second and subsequent grant cycles, previous to the 90 day cycle
closing to ensure an expedited process for shovel -ready projects.
5.3 Eligible Expenditures
a) The following expenditures are eligible under the Affordable Housing Grant:
• Construction costs, materials;
• Construction costs, labour;
• Construction costs, other; at the discretion of the City's Staff Committee;
• Consultant fees for professional services (e.g. drawings and design); and
• Shared amenity costs such as appliances for shared laundry facilities, appliances or equipment
for shared spaces like community rooms, storage or bicycle lockers, or other expenditures at the
discretion of the City's Staff Committee.
The cost of individual unit furnishings including furniture and appliances are not eligible.
5.4 Disbursement of Grant Funds
a) The Affordable Housing Grant is disbursed upon completion of the project and issuance of an
occupancy permit.
b) Substantial revisions to the building permit submission attached to the application form, including
but not limited to the reduction in number of affordable units, may void the application or require
the application be resubmitted.
DRAFT
6. Project Eligibility Requirements
6.1 Project Readiness
Projects are prioritized by their "shovel readiness." Prior to application, a project must meet the
following:
a) For a project to be considered for the Affordable Housing Grant, all planning approvals must be in
place. Planning approvals include confirmation that the project is in compliance with the Municipal
Plan and Zoning By-law.
b) The project must be aligned with the overall vision and objectives of the City's Affordable Housing
Action Plan.
c) Projects are encouraged to attach their building permit application to the grant application. The
project will be considered ineligible should an applicant not obtain a building permit for the project
within 12 months of applying for a grant, provided the applicant has participated in a pre -application
meeting.
d) Projects which have undertaken site preparation work or obtained a building permit but have not
advanced past the pouring of foundations are eligible to apply for an Affordable Housing Grant.
e) Confirmation of project readiness will be determined by City Staff at the time of the grant
application.
6.2 Project Eligibility
Each project shall meet the following criteria prior to entering into a grant agreement for an Affordable
Housing Grant with the City of Saint John:
a) The project shall be located within the Primary Development Area as defined by the City's Municipal
Plan;
b) The project shall be located within an Intensification Area as defined by the City's Municipal Plan or
within a 1 kilometre radius of a transit stop;
c) The project shall be appropriate to the area as determined by compliance with the Municipal Plan
and Zoning By-law;
d) Proof of funding sources including confirmation of Federal or Provincial funding and confirmation of
funds from a Canadian Financial Institution shall be provided. The project must have received a
letter of support through the Province's Affordable Rental Housing Program or a letter of intent
through a CMHC Funding Program.
e) The Grant Committee reserves the right to determine whether the application is complete or
incomplete.
4
061
DRAFT
7. Grant Evaluation Criteria
7.1 Grant Committee
Each Affordable Housing Grant Application is evaluated by a committee of Staff. The role of the
Committee is to confirm eligibility of applications and evaluate each application in the context of the
Policy criteria contained within this policy.
a. The Committee shall be comprised of, at minimum, one Staff from the Department of Finance;
one Staff from the One Stop Development Shop; two Staff from Growth and Community
Development Services; and one Staff that represents the City's Legal Counsel. Membership in
the Committee is not to exceed 7 Staff.
b. Members of the Committee shall be approved or removed by the Commissioner.
c. The Grant Committee will meet to review applications as needed at the closing of the first grant
cycle, and as needed during each subsequent grant cycle according to the evaluation criteria.
d. Funding will be committed in the order of the projects that score the highest number of points
according to the evaluation criteria. Eligible projects that are not selected during the first cycle
may be added to a waitlist and will be evaluated against projects in the subsequent grant cycle.
7.2 Evaluation Criteria
To determine priority of funding per each grant cycle, each application will be evaluated under the
following point structure.
a. Affordable Unit Count (1 point per unit)
b. Project is located within an Intensification Area as defined by Schedule A of the Municipal Plan
(5 points)
c. Application includes a building permit submission with full set of drawings, including site plan
and floor plans or letter of commitment from the Department of Social Development (5 points)
7.3 Bonus Evaluation
An additional $50,000 is available per project to support innovation and market gap solutions.
a. Three Bedroom Units or Townhouses
A project proposing one or more affordable three -bedroom units or townhouse units are eligible for
an additional $2,500 per unit up to a maximum of $50,000. (1 point per three -bedroom or
townhouse unit)
b. Retrofitting Existing Buildings
5
` 919j
DRAFT
A project which retrofits a vacant building into affordable units is eligible for an additional $5,000
per unit up to a maximum of $50,000. (0.5 point per retrofitted unit)
c. Accessibility Standards
A project which achieves better than minimum standards for accessibility towards new development
or retrofitting is eligible for an additional $2,500 per unit up to a maximum of $50,000. (1 point per
each additional accessible unit on top of provincial requirement)
d. Energy Efficiency
Project seeking to provide a high degree of energy efficiency to ensure long term affordability by
meeting 2017 National Energy Code requirements will receive up to $50,000. (3 points)
e. Other
Other gaps identified by the applicant may be considered by the Committee for a maximum of
$2,500 per unit up to a maximum of $25,000.
8. Administration
a. Applications for the Affordable Housing Grant shall be made by completing Schedule A.
b. Applications may be approved subject to the approval of a building permit.
c. The Committee's decisions on applications are final.
d. Applications and grant disbursement are subject to fund availability.
e. Legal names of the property owner(s) are required and if an applicant is acting on behalf of the
owner, property authorization from the owner of the property.
f. Applications will not be considered if construction has already commenced on the project, as
defined by the date at which the pouring of the footings or foundation has begun.
g. Once a building permit has been applied for, the developer shall enter into an agreement with
the City that outlines the terms of the grant disbursement (Appendix 1). The agreement may
consider additional requirements the City determines to be necessary to secure the long term
affordability of the eligible dwelling units.
h. All costs associated with the preparation and submission of an application under this Policy are
the responsibility of the applicant. The City shall not pay any costs incurred by an applicant in
the preparation and submission of an application under this policy, or any costs incurred in
relation to the execution and delivery of a Grant Agreement.
`O
DRAFT
Fulfillment of bonus criteria which was applied for may be audited at the expense of the
applicant upon project completion.
9. Budgeting and Payment of Grants
a. The total grant cannot comprise more than 50% of the overall construction costs as determined
at the time of building permit application;
b. The City will only enter into a Grant Agreement the total value of which does not exceed
$250,000 per project.
c. Notwithstanding Section 5.4(a), disbursement of funds may occur earlier, prior to issuance of an
occupancy permit, should a special need arise. A business case must be provided to the Grant
Committee. The terms and conditions of disbursement will require Common Council approval
through a grant agreement.
d. Should a grant expire, the funds allocated to that project will revert to the Grant Reserve Fund
and the next eligible project will be evaluated.
e. Prior to payment of any grant under this Policy, the City may withhold payment should any of
the following be determined:
i. The property taxes and/or water and sewage fees for the property have not been paid
in full, or,
ii. The property is in violation of City By-laws including but not limited to the Building By-
law, Zoning By-law, or Municipal Plan.
III
`[oya
From: City of Saint John, New Brunswick
To: Common Clerk
Subject: Webform submission from: Request to present to council form
Date: July 25, 2022 8:53:05 PM
[ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an
external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please
forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk
at 649-6047. * *
Submitted on Mon, 07/25/2022 - 20:53
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
About Person/Group Presenting
First Name:
Andrew
Last Name:
Johnson
Address:
Pitt
Street
Saint John, New Brunswick. E2L 2V8
Canada
Day Time Phone Number:
5067210361
Email
andrewt s-j gmail.com
If you do NOT wish to have your personal information (address, phone number, email)
become part of the public record, please check this box.
No
About your Request
Topic of Presentation:
Request Envision Saint John Proposal
WIN
Purpose for Presentation (what is the ask of Council):
The purpose of this request is for Council to request that Staff instruction Envision Saint John
to provide a brief economic opinion of the Heritage Areas, and their Tourism, Educational,
and Cultural Values to Selling the City, and the typical do's and don't of how that value can be
affected.
Aka if there is 400 of the same building type and lose one type, no big deal, if there is only
one type of that building, what's the value to the portfolio of assets, how many are critical, and
what are the numbers which can be removed until we loose a market advantage that it
currently enables?
Background Information:
The background information is to provide Council with additional information prior to 3rd
reading of the affirmation of the removal of the lots 111 to 119 from the Heritage area, and it's
longterm economic cost that it potentially can have to the tourism industry, and the
educational insights which will be lost from it's removal.
This is to allow for a fuller understanding of the information, and to enable some of the
precursor paperwork that would be required in order to expropriate the property of 111-119
King Street East for the protection of the public tourism and cultural industry. Which does not
provide directly any income for the current property owners and may be said to be competition
to the current owner in order of importance of wills, my personal will is that a foreign non
income tax paying citizen's desires do not trump those of the local tax paying citizens, and that
changing the law to make their life easier, is not something that should ever be consider
lightly, as it strains the patients of a normal citizen to obey the laws because they are the laws
and they should be obeyed. It reinforces that there is something wrong with the system.
However, much of what can be consider wrong, can also be consider miscommunication and
misunderstanding, which might just require transparency and (a gentle nudge towards where
the information is located, as we can't know what you don't tell us, and we can't remember
everything you say all the time, without flaw, and 3rd party assistance is useful) An example
of this is exit signage leading to safety, put up before we have an event, so that passive
communication can be achieved.
`[9L!
From: City of Saint John, New Brunswick
To: Common Clerk
Subject: Webform submission from: Request to present to council form
Date: July 7, 2022 3:46:31 PM
[ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an
external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please
forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk
at 649-6047. * *
Submitted on Thu, 07/07/2022 - 15:36
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
About Person/Group Presenting
First Name:
Dana
Last Name:
Brown
Name of Organization/Group (where applicable):
Fundy Tennis Association (FTA)
Address:
2 Royal Lane
Rothesay, New Brunswick. E2E3R3
Canada
Day Time Phone Number:
5066473262
Email
fundytennisna gmail.com
If you do NOT wish to have your personal information (address, phone number, email) become
part of the public record, please check this box.
No
ilWei
About your Request
Topic of Presentation:
The UNBSJ / FTA Press Release re Indoor Tennis at UNBSJ
Purpose for Presentation (what is the ask of Council):
The purpose of the presentation is two -fold:
1- to inform city council about the work the FTA has been doing regarding the Fundy Region
acquiring an Indoor tennis Facility
2 - To ask for the city's engagement on the project and ultimately their financial support on the
project.
Background Information:
The Fundy Tennis Association, a not for profit incorporated business, was created in 2016 with its
sole mission to facilitate the creation of an indoor tennis facility to serve the entire Fundy region.
New Brunswick is the poorest province in Canada with publicly accessible indoor tennis courts per
capita.
FTA and UNBSJ have partnered, signed a letter of intend, completed a geotechnical survey of the
proposed site and completed an architectural plan of the new proposed facility. All this information
is available on our website.
www.FundyTennis.ca
Notable links:
1- UNBSJ / FTA joint press release
(available as NEWS on our website)
https://i rp.cd n-website.com/a49aa96f/files/uploaded/FTA%20-%20N R%20-
%20Ten n is%20Ce ntre%20_FI NAL_16.06.2022. pdf
2- FTA project Brochure
(available as VIEW CAMPAIGN BROCHURE on our website)
https://irp.cdn-website.com/a49aa96f/files/uploaded/FTA%20Brochure%20-%20Digital.pdf
6 Key Success Factors for this project:
1- A formidable partner in UNBSJ and engaged support from TennisNB and Tennis Canada.
2- Our location is outstanding! Not stuck in some industrial park like Abony in Fredericton or the ATC
in a Halifax industrial park.
3- Our project will not impact any existing local indoor businesses since there are none. And equally
important we do not expect to impact the seasonal clubs but rather add a support option to the
existing tennis clubs in the Fundy region. (8 tennis clubs in the Fundy region)
4- New Brunswick is the poorest province in terms of indoor facilities per capita in Canada according
to a Tennis Canada report. (This will put us on a par with Nova Scotia)
5- The Fundy Tennis Association project team consists of a dozen talented and passionate volunteers
who are determined to bring year round tennis to our region because it is such a worthwhile and
impactful activity for both junior players and adults! (Actually from 3 years old until 83). Click Here
for the real benefit!
6- We will have pickleball courts in our facility. Our current plan will provide a 'Sound Curtained' flex
court which will provide 4 on demand pickleball courts.
`191-1
` IYA
14 Aug 2022
Dear Saint John City Council,
Re: application to appear before Council to request that consideration is given to
making whatever changes are necessary — including using provisions in the
Local Governance Act - to enable a more proactive repair and maintenance
programme to keep buildings from reaching the point that demolition is the only
outcome with focus on 80 Main St.
I am writing to discuss a property — 80 Main St [PAN 1652135] - on the Dangerous and
Vacant Buildings list. 80 Main is an 1899 custom built duplex designed by famed New
Brunswick architect George Ernest Fairweather that could still house two families if
restored. Annual property taxes are currently $1946.50.
The City of Saint John indicated it reached out to the owner on my behalf in 2021 to see
if they would sell. I have also reached out via text, phone, email, letter, and realtor. I
have not received any response although an individual known to the owner said the
owner did receive my correspondence and they are not interested in selling. I recognize
the owner is not required to sell, and I may not be the only party interested in buying it.
As far as I understand, there is no property tax or other debt owing on the property. I
did have a local restoration expert take a look at the exterior, from the adjoining
neighbours' properties, and he indicated we have months not years to save this
building. The City of Saint John did enter the premises on 14 Jul 2022 under the Saint
John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Building and Structures By -Law.
I understand that the Local Governance Act, section 137(1)(a) allows for the City to
clean, repair, or demolish and in fact can "cause the premises of that owner or occupier
to be cleaned up or repaired if the notice arises out of a condition contrary to subsection
131(1)."
Of note, the City of Ottawa just introduced, coming into effect January 2023, a new by-
law introducing a permitting system for vacant buildings and a more intensive
monitoring system. The ultimate goal remains for the owner to undertake the work
themself, but the City is poised to step in and stabilize a building if it has to.
I want to draw your attention to the loss of revenue for the City that the degradation of
this building poses. The City invested time contacting the owner, monitoring the
building, and entering and reporting on the premises. Unfortunately, 80 Main St. still
has the distinct possibility of being demolished.
Demolishing buildings has a profound impact on the City. Take for example the
demolition of 110 Victoria St. in 2021. The City has not yet recouped the $14,531
demolition costs. 120 Main St. was demolished in 2019 and $17,947 remains
outstanding for demolition. Further compounding these losses are the loss of annual
IiDU]
property tax and the impact to the community — both lots remain vacant. There are
many more demolished buildings that the City of Saint John absorbed financially — here
the City has an opportunity to take a new path, use the tools available to it, and be
fiscally conservative while supporting our community and addressing housing needs.
In terms of community, according to Google maps — this is what Main Street between
Albert and Cedar (just up the road) looked like in 2009:
And this is what the exact same stretch looked like in 2019.
ere Puk
A` OW r N
Notice more than 5 buildings are gone and not replaced. Cars are gone too. This
means, in a decade, property taxes, families, and community have left and are not
replaced.
` 916-1
If dangerous elements were identified during the inspection, it is my hope that the City
acts on the recommendations arising from the inspection that was undertaken as per
the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Building and Structures By -Law and
that consideration will be given to taking steps to remediate any significant problems as
per the Local Governance Actin order to save this structure in the hopes that it will once
again be able to house families.
In conclusion: from the outside (and the City would know more as a result of the
inspection), it appears to be a situation that requires not only improved
maintenance but likely some significant remedial repair work. Sadly, this seems
to be a situation in which the present owner(s) meet their minimum legal
requirements (paying their taxes) but they do not appear to be taking steps to
maintain the building or remediate any of the potential damage. If the status quo
remains, it seems likely that the building will fall into a that will eventually require
demolition. The current practice of the City is to not intervene while buildings are
being neglected and falling into disrepair and instead, the City seems to wait until
such time as buildings deteriorate into such a state of decay that they most often
need to be demolished before the City invests time and money into those
buildings. I request that Council take a close look at whatever recommendations
arise from the inspection that was undertaken and consider acting sooner, rather
than later, to get whatever repairs and maintenance put in place to preserve this
building in a neighbourhood that has already been neglected too much. I believe
that the City can issue a "Notice to Comply". I would like for the Council to
consider what steps that the City can do to if an owner fails to make those
necessary repairs. The current paradigm of waiting for a building to fall into such
disrepair that it needs to be demolished is failing to maintain the housing stock.
There is an old proverb that states "a stitch, in time, saves nine." It may make
sense that the City follow Ottawa's lead and develop a programme that would
allow the City to make proactive repairs to save buildings. I ask for the
opportunity to appear before Council to request that consideration is given to
making whatever changes are necessary to enact a more proactive repair and
maintenance programme to keep buildings from reaching the point that
demolition is the only outcome.
Sincerely,
Carrie Stevenson
Saint John, NB
`sK
From: City of Saint John, New Brunswick
To: Common Clerk
Subject: Webform submission from: Request to present to council form
Date: November 8, 2022 9:34:50 PM
[ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an
external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please
forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk
at 649-6047. * *
Submitted on Tue, 11/08/2022 - 21:32
Submitted by: Anonymous
Submitted values are:
About Person/Group Presenting
First Name:
Daniel
Last Name:
Foote
Name of Organization/Group (where applicable):
WE Believe Saint John
Address:
108 Penobscuis Loop Rd
PENOBSQUIS, New Brunswick. e4g 2b8
Canada
Day Time Phone Number:
5064342254
Email
daniel.footena nbed.nb.ca
If you do NOT wish to have your personal information (address, phone number, email) become
part of the public record, please check this box.
No
111
About your Request
Topic of Presentation:
Financial support for We Believe -Saint John
Purpose for Presentation (what is the ask of Council):
I would like to meet with the Growth Committee to talk about financial support for Canada's largest
youth event that was held for the first time in 2018 and planning to be held on May 18, 2023 at TD
Station. This is a large event that in 2018 brought 8000 students and educators to TD station and
over 80,000 watching live stream across North America and beyond.
Background Information:
We Believe Saint John is a youth -led, grassroots community initiative based in Saint John, New
Brunswick that engages students in volunteerism, leadership, and social action through year-round
activities. We Believe is an international celebration to motivate students to give back both locally
and globally to causes that they are passionate about.
We Believe took place for the first time on May 17, 2018 at TD Station with more than 8,000 live -
audience members and over 80,000 students watching via livestream. The students who
participated were in grades 5 to 12 and come from all across the Maritime provinces and the state of
Maine. We Believe now takes place every second year.
Students are empowered to be the change they desire to see in the world. As you may know, our
event scheduled for May 2022 is postponed due to the everchanging and uncertain circumstances
regarding COVID-19. That being said, our event has been rescheduled for May 18 2023 at TD Station
in Saint John, New Brunswick. Under the guidance of officials, we will have appropriate safety
procedures in place for We Believe 2023. This will likely be the first large gathering for most of our
students and educators since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
WE Believe 2023 wants to celebrate the tenacity and perseverance of our communities and
encourage everyone to support and give back to those who have worked tirelessly to help us get
through these uncertain times while keeping our spirits high.
I want to thank you for your continued support as we are
preparing this incredible event to empower and motivate our youth.
`N