Loading...
2023-01-09_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour�B City of Saint John Common Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, January 9, 2023 6:00 pm 2nd Floor Common Council Chamber, City Hall An Electronic means of communication will be used at this meeting. The public may attend the meeting in person in the Council Chamber or view the meeting on the City's Website (wwwsaintjohn.ca) or on Rogers TV. 1. Call to Order 1.1 Land Acknowledgement 1.2 National Anthem 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Council Minutes December 12, 2022 2.2 Council Minutes December 19, 2022 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Proposed Public Hearing Date: 50 Newport Crescent, 54-58 Broad Street and a Text Amendment 5.2 Contract No. 2022-16: Market Place West Phase III Revitalization 5.3 Community Investment Fund Agreement: City of Saint John — Improvements (Design Services) — Millidgeville Boat Ramp Renewal 5.4 City of Saint John Fleet Maintenance Garage Relocation to the Saint John Transit Operations Centre Building Pages 20 - 22 23 - 25 26 - 33 34 - 37 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations / Presentations 9. Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m. 9.1 Public Hearing -35 Water Street - Section 59 conditions 10. Consideration of By-laws 10.1 10.1 Zoning By -Law Amendment with s 59 Conditions-51 Heather Way (Third Reading) 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Guaranteed Livable Basic Income (Deputy Mayor MacKenzie) 11.1.1 Supplemental information Att 1 11.1.2 Supplemental Information Aft 2 11.1.3 Supplemental Information Aft 3 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1 Chief Administrative Officer Update on Select Catalytic Projects and Advocacy (Verbal) 12.2 Transit Transformation 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Community Enhancement Project 13.2 Affordable Housing Grant Program 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 15.1 Submission to Council -Tidal Heritage Development - Affordable Housing Grant Program —Redacted (Receive for information) 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 38 - 119 120 - 152 153 - 154 155 - 157 158 - 163 164 - 187 188 - 220 221 - 276 277 - 308 309 - 310 K 18. Adjoumment COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 The City of Saint job n MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN DECEMBER 12, 2022 AT 6:00 PM 2ND FLOOR COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL An Electronic means of communication will be used at this meeting. The public may attend the meeting in person in the Council Chamber or view the meeting on the City's Website (www.saintjohn.ca) or on Rogers TV. Present: Mayor Donna Noade Reardon Deputy Mayor John MacKenzie Councillor -at -Large Gary Sullivan Councillor -at -Large Brent Harris Councillor Ward 1 Greg Norton Councillor Ward 1 Joanna Killen Councillor Ward 2 Barry Ogden Councillor Ward 3 Gerry Lowe Councillor Ward 3 David Hickey Councillor Ward 4 Greg Stewart Councillor Ward 4 Paula Radwan Absent: Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) B. McGovern General Counsel M. Tompkins Commissioner Human Resources S. Hossack Fire Chief K. Clifford Commissioner Utilities & Infrastructure Services I. Fogan Commissioner Growth & Community Services J Hamilton Commissioner Finance K. Fudge Commissioner Public Works and Transportation Services M. Hugenholtz City Clerk J. Taylor Administrative Officer R. Evans Deputy Clerk Patricia Anglin Call to Order COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 1.1 Land Acknowledgement Councillor Radwan read aloud the Land Acknowledgement and called for a moment of reflection. "The City of Saint John/Menaquesk is situated is the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet.The Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet along with their Indigenous Neighbours, the Mi'Kmaq/Mi'kmaw and Passamaquoddy/Peskotomuhkati signed Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s that protected their rights to lands and resources." 1.2 National Anthem Raelin Fudge a Grade 8 student and attending the Alison Dawn Voice and Music Academy sang O Canada. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of November 28th. 2022 Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Harris: RESOLVED that the minutes of November 28th, 2022, be approved. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Approval of Agenda Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the agenda of December 12, 2022, be approved with the addition of item 17. 1 Construction Costs. Moved by Councillor Norton, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that all tabled items on the December 12, 2022, agenda be lifted from the table. MOTION CARRIED. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest Councillor Radwan declared a conflict of interest with item 5.1. 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Refer to Item 14.1. 5.2 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-376: Designation of By -Law Enforcement Officers, Common Council appoint Tim O'Reilly, Blayne Hanson, Thomas McGrath, John Mascarenhas, Chris Phinney and Barbara 2 K COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 Crawford as by-law enforcement officers for the Solid Waste By -Law, By-law Number LG- 6 with their authority more fully described in the report resolution documentation. 5.3 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-373: Designation of By -Law Enforcement Officer, Common Council appoint Christian Beaudoin as by-law enforcement officer for the Saint John Parking By-law and Saint John Traffic By-law with the authority more fully described in the report resolution documentation. 5.4 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-389: Service Agreement for John Hooper's People Waiting Common Council adopt the following: 1. The City enter into an agreement with Kathy Hooper of Hooper Studios, Darren Byers, and 703732 NB Ltd. to provide the restoration work for John Hooper's People Waiting; 2. The City enter into an Agreement with 703732 NB Ltd. for the transportation, installation, and safekeeping of John Hooper's People Waiting; and, 3. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute these Agreements generally in the form as attached to M&C 2022-389. 5.5 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-38:7 Memorandum of Understanding - The City of Saint John, the Dominion Park Community Association and The Greater Saint John Community Foundation Common Council approve that the City enter into the Memorandum of Understanding in the form as attached to M&C 2022-387 with The Greater Saint John Community Foundation and the Dominion Park Community Association Inc.to facilitate the processing of public donations in support of the "Dominion Park Master Plan — Phase 1" and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the said MOU and any other documents ancillary thereto. 5.6 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-386: Initiate Stop -Up and Closure for portion of Newport Crescent Common Council approve the following: 1. That the Public Hearing to consider the passing of an amendment to the Street Closing By-law to Close a 3,471 square metre portion of a public street known as Newport Crescent, as shown on a Plan of Survey titled, "Portion of Newport Crescent" attached to M&C No. 2022-386, be set for March 6, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber 2nd floor City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John; 2. That Common Council authorize the publishing of a notice of its intention to consider the passing of such amendment, identified above; 3. In the event Common Council gives Third Reading to the above noted By -Law Amendment, that the City sell the property to United Church of Canada for $5,000.00, and that the purchaser: a. Prepare at its sole cost any plan of survey required to initiate the process for the stop -up and closure of a portion of Newport Crescent; and b. Pay all costs related to the conveyance of the property; and K3 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 4. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the documents necessary to effect the transaction. 5.7 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-375: Proposed Public Hearing Date: 92-94 Bon Accord Drive, 157 Starburst Lane, and 661 Dever Road Common Council schedule the public hearing for the Zoning By-law rezoning applications submitted by Zhao Jian for 92-94 Bon Accord Drive (PID: 00446310), Ashley King for 157 Starburst Lane (PID: 00408021) and for the Section 59 amendment application submitted by Teneo Ventures Ltd. for 661 Dever Road (PID: 4463729) for Monday, February 6, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. at the Council Chamber, City Hall 2nd floor, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB. 5.8 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-388: ESRI Canada Consulting Service Request Order the City enter a Service Request Order (SRO) with Esri Canada for time and materials -based consulting services up to $15,100 in the form attached to M&C No. 2022-388; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute said Agreement. 5.9 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-339: Direct Engagement for Engineering Services: Market Square Parking Garage — Detailed Flood Investigation, Common Council approve the proposal from CBCL Consulting Limited (CBCL), for engineering investigation and preliminary design services for the Market Square Parking Garage — Detailed Flood Investigation in the amount of $99,820.00 including HST be accepted and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation in that regard. 5.10 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-377: Designation of Building Inspectors for the Administration and Enforcement of the Building By -Law, Common Council appoint Amy Poffenroth, Pamela Bentley, Christopher McKiel, Benn Purinton, Mark O'Leary, Denessa Pollock, Vincent Chan, Dennis Richard, Philip Mitton, Darren Brown, Brad Crowell, Jana Coes, and Katelyn Davis as either building inspectors or city inspectors with their authority more fully described in the report resolution documentation. 5.11 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-383: Contract No. 2022-085102Q — Shamrock Park Field Score Council (a) approve reallocating $50,000.00 from the funding from the 2021 Visart Street Capital Project to the Shamrock Park Field Score Clock project (Facility Renewal Fund Project) to offset the projected budget variance as outlined in this report, and, (b) Contract 2022-085102Q: Shamrock Park Field Score Clock be awarded to the low bidder, W&S General Contractors Ltd., at the bid price of $153,497.40 (including HST) as calculated based upon estimated quantities. 5.12 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-372: Common Council appoint Jeremy Clack and Brittany Estey as by-law enforcement officers for various City By-laws with their authority more fully described in the report recommendation documentation. Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the recommendation set out in each consent agenda item with the exception of Item 5.1 which was identified for debate, be adopted. C! COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Members Comments Members commented on various local events. 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations/Presentations 9. Public Hearings - 6:30pm 9.1 Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment with Planning Advisory Committee recommendation and Staff Presentation — 51 Heather Way (1st and 2nd Reading) Community Planner, Yeva Mattson presented an overview of the rezoning application to permit a day care centre at 51 Heather Way. The proposal was approved by the Planning Advisory Committee and the PAC and City staff recommendation are aligned. Mayor Noade Reardon called the Public Hearing to Order. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the proposed amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the proposed amendment with Andrew Toole Engineer with Don -More Surveys and Engineering Ltd. representing the applicant presenting. Mayor Noade Reardon closed the Public Hearing. Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Lowe: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square meters, located at 51 Heather Way, also identified as a portion of PID No. 55124341, from Two Unit Residential (R2) to Local Commercial (CL), be read a first time. MOTION CARRIED. Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." Councillor Hickey withdrew from the meeting following first reading and re-entered following the vote on second reading. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square meters, located at 61 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 51 Heather Way, also identified as a portion of PID No. 55124341, from Two Unit Residential (R2) to Local Commercial (CL), be read a second time. MOTION CARRIED. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." 10. Consideration of By-laws 10.1 Zoning By -Law Amendment with Section 59 Conditions — 200 Cambridge Drive (31d Reading) Moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 111-143 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of the City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 6914 square metres, located at 200 Cambridge Drive also identified as a portion of PID Number 55203145, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Mid -Rise Residential (RM) be read. MOTION CARRIED The by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-143 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of the City of Saint John" was read in its entirety. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Harris: RESOLVED that Common Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 6914 square metres, located at 200 Cambridge Drive, also identified as a portion of PID Number 55203145, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Mid -Rise Residential (RM): a) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle and bicycle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; i) That the proposed development incorporates walkways connecting the multi- unit buildings with the public sidewalk located on Cambridge Drive. b) The above elevation and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land; c) That the parcel of land be developed and maintained in accordance with an engineering storm water drainage plan and design report, prepared by a professional engineer on behalf of the proponent and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer, and that such approved plan and report be attached to any development and/or building permit for the proposed development; 6 C.1 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 d) Should any municipal infrastructure improvements be required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining the requirement for any municipal infrastructure improvements, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval; i) The owner/developer, at their cost and responsibility, is required to interconnect the watermain between Cambridge Drive and Leeds Crescent to provide fire flow for the proposed development. e) That prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed development, a Traffic Impact Statement be completed by an engineering consultant engaged by the owner/developer at the developer's expense to review the traffic impacts on the existing roadway network and any required improvements to the existing road network including traffic calming measures and intersection controls. Any improvements identified by the Traffic Impact Statement be the developer's responsibility and cost to complete. f) The landscaping plan mentioned in condition (a) must incorporate plantings and landscaping illustrated on the site plan that accompanied the application specifically the following; i) That the front and flankage yards of the sites be landscaped in accordance with the front yard landscaping requirements for commercial developments as required by Section 6.2 (c) of the Zoning By -Law. g) That the development of Cambridge Drive extension, including blasting for the footings of the proposed buildings adjacent to the Cambridge Drive extension, shall be completed within 3 years of the date of the rezoning coming into effect. If it is not completed within that time, Council may take steps to repeal the rezoning pursuant to Section 59(5) and 59(6) of the Community Planning Act. MOTION CARRIED. Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled "By -Law Number C.P. 111-143 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of the City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 6914 square metres, located at 200 Cambridge Drive also identified as a portion of PID Number 55203145, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Mid -Rise Residential (RM) be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. MOTION CARRIED. Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-143 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of the City of Saint John." Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Councillor Radwan: rA r� COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 RESOLVED that Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases in general accordance with the site design and Tentative Plan of Subdivision for the proposed development with respect to the vesting of the proposed Public Street and any required Local Government Services Easements and Municipal Drainage Easements to be determined during detailed design for the proposed subdivision, and FURTHER RESOLVED that Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements to ensure the provision of the required work and facilities, including any necessary temporary turnarounds for the new public street and detailed engineering, stormwater management, site and individual lot grading plans, and erosion and sedimentation control plans. MOTION CARRIED. 10.2 By -Law respecting the Construction, Repair and Demolition of Buildings and Structures (31d Reading) Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled "By -Law Number BC-1 A By-law Respecting Construction, Repair and Demolition of Buildings and Structures in The City of Saint John," be read. MOTION CARRIED. The by-law entitled "By -Law Number BC-1 A By-law Respecting Construction, Repair and Demolition of Buildings and Structures in The City of Saint John" was read in summary. Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled "By -Law Number BC-1 A By-law Respecting Construction, Repair and Demolition of Buildings and Structures in The City of Saint John," be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. MOTION CARRIED. Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled "By -Law Number BC-1 A By-law Respecting Construction, Repair and Demolition of Buildings and Structures in The City of Saint John." 10.3 Business Improvement Levy By -Law Amendment (31d Reading) Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend By -Law Number BIA-2, Business Improvement Levy By -Law" by applying a levy of 16 cents for each one hundred dollars of assessed value for 2023, be read. MOTION CARRIED. The by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend By -Law Number BIA-2, Business Improvement Levy By -Law" was read in entirety. Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: E:3 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend By -Law Number BIA-2, Business Improvement Levy By -Law" by applying a levy of 16 cents for each one hundred dollars of assessed value for 2023, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. MOTION CARRIED. Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "A Law to Amend By -Law Number BIA-2, Business Improvement Levy By -Law." 11. Submissions by Council Members 12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers 12.1 Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Update on Select Catalytic Projects and Advocacy CAO Brent McGovern provided an update on 4 catalytic infrastructure projects: • Innovative Central Peninsula Learning Commons - The province announced the location of the new Innovative Central Peninsula Learning Commons in Saint John adjacent to Rainbow Park. The school is expected to open for the fall academic year commencing September 2026. • Fundy Quay Seawall Construction Project - The seawall construction is complete. Plans are in progress to turn over the site to the developers to have construction underway in 2023. • Comprehensive Recreation Facility — This will be part of the 2023 workplan. The approved operating budget sets aside $3 million dollars annually in a reserve for the facility. • Industrial Parks Value Analysis RFP awarded to Deloitte. Key workplan item for 2023 and the creation of a 10-Year Strategic Plan. Updates on 4 catalytic advocacy projects: • Tax reform - Current focus is to understand the opportunities and challenges under the Regional Services Commission model — In 2023 recommendations will be brought forward to Council. • Bilateral projects underway for 2023. • Affordable Housing Action Plan — CMHC Rapid Housing Initiative. Further recommendations will be brought forward in 2023. • Post -secondary education partnerships to expand UNBSJ and investment in NBCC. Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Update on Select Catalytic Projects and Advocacy be received for information. MOTION CARRIED. 12.2 Winter Management Overview COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 Director of Public Works, Tim O'Reilly presented the Winter Management Overview. Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that Common Council: 1. Endorse the definition and service objective of Priority 6 streets as defined in M&C 2022-351 Winter Management Overview, and 2. Receive this report for information. MOTION CARRIED. 12.3 Demolition of Vacant, Dilapidated and Dangerous Building at 181 Bayside Drive (PID: 00343715) Manager Dangerous Building Program, Ben Purinton provided an overview of the file The Mayor read the cautionary demolition statement as follows: "The information which has been provided in the Council Agenda Packet includes the report of the Building Inspector stating that the building located at 181 Bayside Drive (PID: 00343715) is a hazard to the safety of the public by virtue of its being amongst other things, dilapidated or structurally unsound. Is there present an owner, including anyone holding any encumbrance upon this property, who wishes present evidence to the contrary, i.e., that the building is structurally sound and not dilapidated?" No one came forward to present evidence Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Ogden: RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-382: Demolition of Vacant, Dilapidated and Dangerous Building at 181 Bayside Drive (PID: 00343715), the building located at 181 Bayside Drive, PID# 00343715, is to be demolished as it has become a hazard to the safety of the public by reason of dilapidation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that one or more by-law enforcement officers appointed and designated under the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings and Structures By-law are hereby authorized to arrange for the demolition, in accordance with the applicable City purchasing policies. MOTION CARRIED 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Growth Committee: Rapid Housina Initiative (RHI Chair of the Growth Committee Councillor Killen provided an overview of the committee report entitled M&C 2022-384: Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI). Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Growth Committee in the submitted report Rapid Housing Initiative, Common Council direct staff to submit a coordinated municipal led application, in partnership with our non-profit development community for the CMHC 10 iN COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 Rapid Housing Initiative Grant program; and that $25,000 be allocated from the Affordable Action Housing Reserve to support the hiring of a consultant to prepare the City's application. MOTION CARRIED. 13.2 Finance Committee: 2022 Reserves Chair of the Finance Committee Councillor Sullivan commented on the Committee report 2022 Reserves recommendation. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Finance Committee in the report entitled M&C 2022-379: 2022 Reserves Common Council approve the transfer of funds to and from the following reserves: General Operating Reserves • $1,178,200 from the General Operating Fund to the General Operating Reserve • $367,437 from the General Capital Reserve to General Operating Reserve • $2,580,059 from the General Operating Reserve to the General Operating Fund General Capital Reserves • $4,643,398 from the General Operating Fund to General Capital Reserve • $2,073,852 from the General Capital Reserve to the General Capital Fund • $367,437 from the General Capital Reserve to General Operating Reserve Utility Operating Reserves • $455,178 from the Utility Operating Fund to the Utility Operating Reserve Utility Capital Reserves • $1,438,068 from the Utility Operating Fund to the Utility Potable and Fleet Capital Reserve • $1,005,304 from the Utility Operating Fund to the Utility Industrial Capital Reserve • $472,626 from the Utility Capital Reserve (Fleet) to the Utility Capital MOTION CARRIED. 13.3 Public Safety Committee: Verbal Update Chair of the Public Safety Committee Councillor Hickey advised that Public Safety Canada through the Building Safer Communities Fund allocated to the City of Saint John approximately $980,000 over four years to be used to address prevention or intervention of gun and gang related activity. Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Radwan: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Public Safety Committee: 11 11 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 a) Common Council provide support to the Building Safer Communities Fund Interim Steering Committee to pursue funding through Public Safety Canada as outlined in the submitted report; and that b) Common Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer through the Interim Steering Committee to conduct a Request for Proposals as outlined in the Public Safety Committee report dated December 7, 2022 MOTION CARRIED. 13.4 2023 General Fund Operating Budget Chair of the Finance Committee Councillor Sullivan introduced the 2023 General Fund Operating Budget report submitted by the Finance Committee. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED: 1. That the sum of $177,287,500 be the total General Operating Budget of the City of Saint John for 2023. 2. That the sum of $142,105,410 be the Warrant of the City of Saint John for 2023. 3. That the tax rate for the City of Saint John be set at $1.62. 4. That the City of Saint John set the property tax rate for Heavy Industrial Class at 1.7 times the residential rate. 5. That the City of Saint John set the property tax rate for Non -Residential Class at 1.7 times the residential rate. 6. That Common Council orders and directs the levying by the Minister of Environment and Local Government of said amount on real property liable to taxation under the Assessment Act with the municipality of Saint John. 7. The Common Council authorizes the Chief Financial Officer to disburse, at a time accepted to him, to the named Commissions, Agencies and Committee, that approved funds as contained in the 2023 General Operating Budget. 8. That Wage Escalation Policy apply to the Management Professional Group. 9. That Common Council approve the 2023 establishment of permanent positions at 590. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Having declared a conflict of interest, Councillor Radwan withdrew from the meeting for discussion of item 14.1. 14. Consideration of Issues Separate from Consent Agenda 14.1 Retail Drive and Ashburn Lake Road Alignment — Integrated Bilateral Funding Agreement Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-380: Retail Drive and Ashburn Lake Road Alignment — Integrated Bilateral Funding Agreement Common Council adopt the following: The City enter into the Integrated Bilateral Agreement Contribution Agreement in the form attached to M&C 2022-380 with the Province of New Brunswick for funding the Retail Drive 12 12 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 Refurbishment and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign the Integrated Bilateral Agreement Contribution Agreement and any other documents ancillary thereto; and 2. Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for Engagement of Professional Services, that staff be authorized to conduct direct negotiations with EXP to carry out engineering services for the Retail Drive Refurbishment project. MOTION CARRIED. Councillor Radwan re-entered the meeting. 15. General Correspondence 15.1 SJ Community Arts Board: 2022 Saint John Community Arts Funding Program — Winter Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that the correspondence from the SJ Community Arts Board re 2022 Arts Board Small Grant Recipient Winners be received for information. MOTION CARRIED. 15.2 S. Dearing: Canada Homes for Rent Moved by Councillor Radwan, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that the correspondence from S. Dearing re Canada Homes for Rent be received for information. MOTION CARRIED. 15.3 R. Pedersen: Housing for the Homeless Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that the correspondence from R. Pedersen re Housing for the Homeless be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). MOTION CARRIED. 15.4 Envision Saint John: Request to Present Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Lowe: RESOLVED that the Envision Saint John — Request to present be scheduled for the Common Council Meeting of Monday, December 19, 2022. 15.5 A. Johnson: Clarity of Staffs Reporting to Council Moved by Councillor Radwan, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that the correspondence from A. Johnson re Clarity of Staffs Reporting to Council -be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). 13 13 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 12, 2022 / le 12 decembre 2022 MOTION CARRIED. 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Construction Costs Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that The City of Saint John authorize initiation of legal proceedings as outlined and discussed with Committee of the Whole at its meeting held December 12, 2022. MOTION CARRIED. 18. Adjournment Mayor Noade Reardon welcomed the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Brent McGovern to his new role and acknowledged his contributions made in his former role as Commissioner of Utilities and Infrastructure. Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on December 12, 2022, be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. 14 14 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 19, 2022 / le 19 decembre 2022 The City of Saint job n MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN DECEMBER 19, 2022 AT 5:30 PM 2ND FLOOR COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL An Electronic means of communication will be used at this meeting. The public may attend the meeting in person in the Council Chamber or view the meeting on the City's Website (www.saintjohn.ca) or on Rogers TV. Present: Mayor Donna Noade Reardon Deputy Mayor John MacKenzie Councillor -at -Large Gary Sullivan Councillor -at -Large Brent Harris Councillor Ward 1 Joanna Killen Councillor Ward 2 Barry Ogden Councillor Ward 3 Gerry Lowe Councillor Ward 3 David Hickey Councillor Ward 4 Greg Stewart Councillor Ward 4 Paula Radwan Absent: Councillor Ward 1 Greg Norton Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) B. McGovern Solicitor J. Boucher Commissioner Utilities & Infrastructure Services I. Fogan Director Growth & Community Services D. Dobbelsteyn Deputy Fire Chief R. Nichol Commissioner Finance K. Fudge Commissioner Public Works and Transportation Services M. Hugenholtz City Clerk J. Taylor Administrative Officer R. Evans Call to Order 15 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 19, 2022 / le 19 decembre 2022 1.1 Land Acknowledaement Mayor Noade Reardon read aloud the Land Acknowledgement and called for a moment of reflection. "The City of Saint John/Menaquesk is situated is the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet.The Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet along with their Indigenous Neighbours, the Mi'Kmaq/Mi'kmaw and Passamaquoddy/Peskotomuhkati signed Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s that protected their rights to lands and resources." 1.2 National Anthem The Saint John Youth Orchestra performed O Canada by video. 2. Approval of Agenda Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that the agenda of December 19, 2022, be approved with the addition of item 8.1 —The 2nd Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with Cooke Aquaculture Inc. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest No disclosures. 4. Consent Agenda 5.1 RESOLVED that as recommended by the Saint John Community Arts Board, Common Council direct the Commissioner of Finance to issue cheques to be distributed to the grant recipients at a forthcoming presentation. Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that the recommendation set out in each consent agenda item, be adopted. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Members Comments Members commented on various local events. 6. Committee Reports 6.1 Growth Committee: 2023 Neighbourhood Service Agreements Chair of the Growth Committee, Councillor Killen provided a brief overview of the endorsement from the Growth Committee for approval of the service agreement renewals. Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 19, 2022 / le 19 decembre 2022 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-391: 2023 Neighbourhood Service Agreements Renewals, Common Council approve the following: RESOLVED that: 1. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $25,000 between the City of Saint John and P.U.L.S.E. (People United in the Lower South End), Inc., for a period of four (4) years, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2027, as outlined in Appendix `A' of this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 2. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $25,000 between the City of Saint John and Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc. for a period of four (4) years, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2027, as outlined in Appendix `B' of this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 3. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $25,000 between the City of Saint John and ONE Change Inc. for a period of four (4) years, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2027, as outlined in Appendix `C' of this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 4. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $25,000 between the City of Saint John and Carleton Community Centre, Inc., for a period of four (4) year, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2027, as outlined in Appendix `D' of this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 5. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $25,000 between the City of Saint John and the TRC (The Resource Centre) for Youth in Greater Saint John, Inc., for a period of four (4) years, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2027, as outlined in Appendix `E' of this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 6. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $25,000 between the City of Saint John and the Saint John Learning Exchange Ltd. (Waterloo Village Neighbourhood Association) for a period of one (1) year, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2023, as outlined in Appendix `F' of this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 7. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual grant of $22,000 between the City of Saint John and Saint John Human Development Council Inc. (Around the Block Community Newspaper) for a period of one (1) year, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2023, as outlined in Appendix `G' of this report and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. MOTION CARRIED. 6.2 Growth Committee: Community Centre Service Agreements 17 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 19, 2022 / le 19 decembre 2022 Chair of the Growth Committee, Councillor Killen provided a brief overview of the endorsement from the Growth Committee for approval of the community centre service agreements. Moved by Councillor Killen, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-390: 2023 Community Centre Service Agreements Renewals, Common Council approve the following: 1. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the sum of $ 766,959.38 (HST included) between the City of Saint John and Carleton Community Centre, Inc. for services at the Carleton Community Centre for a period of four (4) years, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2026, as outlined in Appendix `A' of this report and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 2. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the sum of $ 766,959.38 (HST included) between the City of Saint John and ONE Change Inc. for services at the Nick Nicolle Community Centre for a period of four (4) years, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2026, as outlined in Appendix `B' of this report and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 3. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the sum of $ 572,525.64 (HST included) between the City of Saint John and the Boys and Girls Club of Saint John Inc. for services at the South End Community Centre and at 1 Paul Harris Street, for a period of Four (4) years, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2026, as outlined in Appendix `C' of this report and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 4. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the annual sum of $53,572.00 (HST included) between the City of Saint John and the YMCA of Greater Saint John Inc. for services at the Millidgeville Community Centre for a period of one (1) year, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2023, as outlined in Appendix `D' of this report and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. 5. The parties renew the agreement in consideration for the sum of $ 398,568.61 (HST included) between the City of Saint John and the YMCA of Greater Saint John Inc. for community centre services at the Irving Oil Field House for a period of four (4) years, from January 1, 2023 until December 31, 2026, as outlined in Appendix `E' of this report and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation. MOTION CARRIED. 7. Consideration of Issues Separate from Consent Agenda 8. Committee of the Whole 8.1 The 2nd Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding with Cooke Aquaculture Inc. Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Lowe: iF:3 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL December 19, 2022 / le 19 decembre 2022 RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on December 191", 2022, Common Council approve that the City enter into Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Understanding with Cooke Aquaculture Inc. in the form presented to Committee of the Whole at its December 19, 2022 meeting for a potential land transaction and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Understanding. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on December 19, 2022, be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2023-007 Report Date January 05, 2023 Meeting Date January 09, 2023 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Proposed Public Hearing Date: 50 Newport Crescent, 54-58 Broad Street and a Text Amendment AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head Chief Administrative Officer Jennifer Kirchner Jacqueline Hamilton J. Brent McGovern RECOMMENDATION RESOLVED That Common Council schedule the public hearing for the Zoning By- law rezoning applications submitted by Kaleidoscope Social Impact for 54-58 Broad Street (PIDs: 55083067, 00000224, 00000232, 55086151), Kindred Works (Carly Forrester) for 50 Newport Crescent (PID: 00042531) and for the text change amendment application submitted by Iron Gate Construction Services (Stephen Brittain) for Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 6:30 p.m. at the Council Chamber, City Hall 2nd floor, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to advise Common Council of the Zoning By-law amendment applications and text amendment application received and to recommend appropriate public hearing dates. The next available public hearing date is Tuesday, February 21, 2023. These applications are associated with affordable housing projects and will be reviewed at a special meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION At its meeting of August 3, 2004, Common Council resolved that: 1. the Commissioner of Planning and Development receive all applications for amendments to the Zoning By-law and Section 39 [now referred as section 59] resolutions/agreements and proceed to prepare the required advertisements, and 2. when applications are received a report will be prepared recommending the appropriate resolution setting the time and place for public hearings and be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee as required by the Community Planning Act. 1491 -2- REPORT In response to the motion above, this report indicates the applications received and recommends an appropriate public hearing date. Details of the applications are available in the Common Clerk's office and will form part ofthe documentation at the public hearing. The following application has been received for the February 21, 2023 Public Hearing date: Name of Location Existing Proposed Reason Applicant Zone Zone Kaleidoscope Part of 54-58 Urban Centre Urban Centre To rezone and Social Broad Street Residential (RC) Residential amend the Impact (PIDs: and (RC) Section 59 55083067, Neighbourhood conditions to 00000224, Community facilitate the 00000232, Facility (CFN) development of 55086151) an affordable housing project. Kindred Portion of Upon the Mid -Rise To establish a Works (Carly Newport completion of Residential single Forrester) Crescent the road (RM) consolidated (adjacent to closure, half of residential PID: 00042531) the land will be property to zoned Mid -Rise facilitate the Residential development of (RM) and half a multi - will be zoned building, Neighbourhood mixed -income Community residential Facility (CFN) development. Name of Proposal Reason Applicant Iron Gate To establish a new land use The proposed use will facilitate Construction definition "converted- the streamlined conversion of Services accommodation" to enable accommodation structures into (Stephen the conversion of an existing dwelling units in a number of Brittian) accommodation establishment commercial zones across the city. into dwelling units. And to add This will help facilitate the the use to the CU, CBP, CC and development of new dwelling CG commercial zones. units including affordable housing units to meet the City's established housing needs. While the holding of public hearings for proposed Zoning By-law amendments and rezoning are a legislative requirement of the Community Planning Act, it is also a key component of a clear and consistent land development processes envisioned 21 -3- in the One Stop Development Shop Program. These processes provide transparency and predictability for the development community and City residents. On a broader note, the development approval process works towards fulfilling key Council priorities including: • Facilitate a mix of affordable housing in all our neighbourhoods; • Grow our population at a rate of 2% annually by the end of Council's term; • Achieve 3% annual property tax base growth and ongoing work to increase the target. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The scheduling of the public hearing and referral to the Planning Advisory Committee satisfies the legislative and service requirements as mandated by the Community Planning Act. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS N/A ATTACHMENTS None WA COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2023-004 Report Date January 03, 2023 Meeting Date January 09, 2023 Service Area Utilities and Infrastructure Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Council SUBJECT. Contract No. 2022-16: Market Place West Phase 111 Revitalization AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head Chief Administrative Officer Cameron Whitcomb Ian Fagan / Michael J. Brent McGovern Baker RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Contract No. 2022-16: Market Place West Phase III Revitalization be awarded to the low Tenderer, Fairville Construction Ltd. at their tendered price of $397,947.15 (including HST) as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council award 2022-16: Market Place West Phase III Revitalization to the low tenderer. PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS November 15, 2021: M&C 2021-303; 2022 General Fund and Utility Fund Capital Budgets. November 29, 2021: M&C 2021-334; Revised 2019-2023 Canada Community — Building Fund (Formerly the Gas Tax Fund) Capital Investment Plan & General Fund Capital Program - Revision I, approved. May 30, 2022: M&C 2022-191; Utility Fund (Revision 1) and General Fund (Revision 2) — 2022 Capital Programs. W -2- REPORT BACKGROUND The approved 2022 General Fund Capital Program includes funding for the construction services to rehabilitate the Market Place West Park. The work involves an extension of Harbour Passage through the park, park seating, the relocation of the City owned Labour Bell, landscape improvements in the square, the addition of parking spaces, and new curb, sidewalk, and asphalt. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on December 141", 2022, with the following results, including HST: 1. Fairville Construction Ltd. $397,947.15 2. L. Sanford and Sons Ltd. $430,045.16 3. TerraEx Inc. $624,122.25 The Engineer's estimate for the work was $387,754.13, including HST. ANALYSIS The tenders were reviewed by staff and Fairville Construction's tender was the only one found to be formal in all respects. The tender from L. Sanford and Sons contained an error in mathematics that was corrected in accordance with Division 2.11 u) (i). The corrected tender price is reported above. The tender from Terraex Inc. contained an error in mathematics that was corrected in accordance with Division 2.11 u) (i). The corrected tender price is reported above. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work and recommend acceptance of their tender. 19101_\0[yVAN11 1»14YAI10 0161 The Contract includes work that is charged against the 2022 General Fund Capital Program (City share and Canada Community — Building Fund) funding. Assuming award of the Contract to the low tenderer, an analysis has been completed which includes the estimated amount of work that will be performed by the Contractor and Others. -3- The analysis is as follows: Budget $ 435,000.00 Project Net Cost $ 434,164.52 Variance (Surplus) $ 835.48 POLICY - TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy for the tendering of construction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the specific project specifications. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with Council's Priorities for GROW, GREEN, BELONG, PERFORM and MOVE as the project involves upgrading the existing Market Place West Park that is currently in need of site improvements to be made. The project will also extend Harbour Passage, accentuate Market Square's features, and promote a safe and secure environment for pedestrians and cyclists. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The current condition of the park is poor and in need of rehabilitation. The renewal of the area will promote the park's use and attract residents and visitors to the area. The extension of Harbour Passage will improve active transportation along Market Place West and encourage people to use the playground and volleyball courts that are adjacent to the square. This project is the third phase of a multi -phase master plan that proposes improvements along Market Place from King Street West to St. John Street. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The Tendering process for this project was completed in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Supply Chain Management supports the recommendation being put forth. ATTACHMENTS N/A i►R COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2023-005 Report Date January 03, 2023 Meeting Date January 09, 2023 Service Area Utilities and Infrastructure Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Community Investment Fund Agreement: City of Saint John — Improvements (Design Services) — Millidgeville Boat Ramp Renewal AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head Chief Administrative Officer Cameron Whitcomb Ian Fogan/Michael Baker J. Brent McGovern RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City enter into an Agreement with the Regional Development Corporation (RDC) for funding under the Province of New Brunswick Community Investment Fund for funding to complete design services for the Millidgeville Boat Ramp Renewal project in the form and upon the terms and conditions as attached; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the said Agreement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to seek Common Council's approval to enter into an Agreement with RDC for funding under the Province of New Brunswick Community Development Fund to complete the design services for the Millidgeville Boat Ramp Renewal project. PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS October 17, 2022: M&C 2022-317 — 2023 and 2024 General and Utility Fund Capital Programs, approved. REPORT The City of Saint John has been approved for a financial contribution in the amount of 50%of the eligible expenditures or $20,000toward the design services to renew the existing Millidgeville Boat Ramp. As per the agreement, the project must be completed, and all claims received by RDC by March 31, 2023. 41-1 -2- The proposed project will result in the following benefits: • reduce maintenance costs, • improve boating access to the Saint John River for citizens, the Saint John Fire Department, and other governmental departments, and • allow the City to have this project be tender ready for when future funding becomes available to assist in paying for the construction costs. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The report aligns with Council's priority to PERFORM, as the City obtaining Other Share funding is fiscally responsible as it leverages available City funding to start the process in an effort to renew existing infrastructure that is in poor condition. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The City of Saint John will receive a total financial contribution in the amount of 50% of the eligible expenditures or $20,000 toward the project. The total design services cost for the project is approximately $45,000. The City contribution for the design services is approximately $25,000. Within the City's approved 2023 General Fund Capital program, the Millidgeville Boat Ramp Renewal design services project was anticipated to be fully funded by Other Share ($45,000.00). As a result of the proposed 50% / 50% funding model, the City will be responsible for 50% of the design costs. This projected shortfall in City Share funding for this project will be managed within the overall 2023 General Fund Capital program. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The Community Investment Fund letter has been reviewed by the General Counsel's office. ATTACHMENT 1. Project No.: 15898 - Agreement with the Regional Development Corporation for funding under the Province of New Brunswick Community Investment Fund for the Design Services of the Millidgeville Boat Ramp Renewal project. WA BNew Nouveau runswick C A N A D A December 20, 2022 Her Worship Donna Reardon Mayor of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 41_1 SUBJECT: Project No.: 15898 Project Name: City of Saint John — Improvements Dear Mayor Reardon: We are pleased to inform you that the above -noted project has obtained support from the Regional Development Corporation (RDC). A financial contribution up to $20,000 for the City of Saint John (the Applicant) has been approved for this project. Eligible costs and funding for this project are described in Appendix A. Reimbursement Procedures Claims for reimbursement of the contribution must be supported by copies of invoices and proof of payment of those invoices. All claims must be received by RDC by March 31, 2023 on forms herein- provided. Electronic copies may be obtained at: www.gnb.ca/rdc. All payments will be made by electronic funds transfer. Please complete the attached Direct Deposit Service form. Terms and Conditions No public announcement of funding or milestone events such as official openings and ribbon -cuttings shall be made by the Applicant without the prior written approval of RDC. 2. The Applicant shall not change the project scope, purpose or eligible costs without prior written approval of RDC. 3. RDC may refuse further disbursements if there is a materially adverse change in the financial position of the Applicant or status of the project. 4. The applicant will be responsible to cover any cost overruns and will not request any additional funding from RDC for this project. Regional Development Corporation/Soci6t6 de developpement regional P.O. Box/C.P. 6000 Fredericton New Brunswick/Nouveau-Brunswick E3B 5H1 Canada www.gnb.ca In 5. Project work must begin within 60 days of RDC receiving confirmation of financing. 6. The Applicant shall not sell or dispose of any assets purchased under this agreement for a period of 36 months following the completion of this project without prior written approval from an authorized representative of RDC. 7. The Applicant shall keep, for 36 months following project completion, all accounting books, records and statements pertaining to project costs and make these available for auditing and provide any statistical data required by RDC. 8. The Applicant shall allow any authorized representative of RDC reasonable access to the project site(s) and information. 9. The Applicant shall indemnify and save harmless the provincial government from and against all claims, demands, losses, damages, costs of any kind based upon any injury to or death of a person or damage to or loss of property arising from any willful or negligent act, omission or delay on the part of the applicant or its servants or agents in carrying out the contract. 10. Any costs incurred prior to April 1, 2022 are not considered eligible expenses under this offer. 11. Any unused funding committed in this fiscal year will be expired at March 31, 2023. 12. The Applicant must adhere to all labour and environmental laws and regulations. 13. No Members of the Legislative Assembly, their staff, or their immediate family members shall be a party to this project or derive any benefit arising therefrom. 14. Information and documents provided to RDC may be subject to release under Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 15. RDC acknowledges the obligation to make the required payments under this agreement. However, payment of this contribution is subject to appropriation of sufficient funds by the legislature of the Province of New Brunswick. If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions of this offer, please sign and return it and your Direct Deposit Service form to RDC at rdc-sdr(cD-gnb.ca. Please note that failure to do so within 45 days renders this offer null and void. Wee All inquiries with respect to the project are to be forwarded to Wendy Duguay at 453-5354 or wendy.duguay(cD_gnb.ca. We look forward to the successful completion of this project. Sinc ely, Cade Libby President Enc. cc: Hon. Trevor Holder, MLA Portland -Simonds Wendy Duguay, Project Officer Mayor: Clerk: Date: This offer accepted on behalf of the City of Saint John for Project: 15898 — Improvements 0] Appendix A Project 15898 City of Saint John - Improvements Total Approved Contribution 2022-2023 Community Investment Fund $20,000 Project Total: $20,000 Regional Development Corporation will reimburse 50% of eligible costs up to the total approved contribution. Eligible Cost(s) Design services Total $45,000 $45.000 The portion of Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) refunded by Canada Revenue Agency is considered ineligible. 31 Regional Development Corporation Claim No: B�au_ P.O. Box 6000, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5H1 iM Community Investment Fund Final Claim: List all eligible project costs with invoices and cheque numbers on this form. Include a copy of each invoice and proof of payment. Failure to record and support each cost will cause a delay in processing. Project Number: Project Name: 15898 City of Saint John -Improvements Description of costs Name of Supplier Cheque No. Cheque Amount Invoice Total HST Total Eligible & supported costs (total -HST refund) % of HST refunded by Canada Revenue Agency 71.43% - municipality 22.33% - university 50% - non-profit organization 100% - other 0% - none The undersigned hereby certifies that: a. the invoices above represent eligible project costs that have been paid in full and the work completed; and b. no other public financial assistance has been received or is to be received for the part of the project against which this reimbursement is claimed. Signature Print Name Date Title Company Telephone Eligible & supported costs Less: previous advance Add: current advance CITYSJ Vendor 122320-14-14 122320-14-14 Payment request For office use only Claim Reviewer Project Officer Payment Authority 4274 account Date Date Claim Auditor MA 0 z fi� 26 o v 0 ' 0 w g p o y O �O•-�. p O U .� O O a Q s� U .O t5 ac =" c4 N O N F ° 0 °�'•� A''° y by t� � 'O �' boo O •can Fil y O by ..r N cl N �s ...� coi •� a o .W +-� U Fa :r -0 p S. o a.5 a—,= Ha, p cd G U G TA mn v G c rA U ri V z au a w E-+ A A •3 � U � Q U O C •� � by -fl y � O o vi z�zro o o N L3, O C) 0 y Q O M.za�a w A w A 091 17 J err J. COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2023-003 Report Date January 04, 2023 Meeting Date January 09, 2023 Service Area Utilities and Infrastructure Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. City of Saint John Fleet Maintenance Garage Relocation to the Saint John Transit Operations Centre Building OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head Chief Administrative Officer Samir Yammine and Ian Fogan J. Brent McGovern Kevin Loughery RECOMMENDATION It is recommended: 1) The tender submitted by Bird Construction Group. for the Fleet Maintenance Garage Relocation to the Saint John Transit Operations Centre Building in the amount of $2,804,200 including HST be accepted. Further to the base tender amount, it is recommended that a contingency allowance be carried out for this project in the amount of $115,000 including HST, for a total cost of $2,919,200 including HST. 2) To amend the 2022 Capital Budget to include $ 959,913.32 from the Capital Reserve Fund to relocate the North Depot services to Rothesay Avenue and relocate Fleet Services to the Transit Building. 3) Additionally, it is recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to award the City of Saint John Fleet Maintenance Garage Relocation to the Saint John Transit Operations Centre Building to the lowest compliant bidder. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION Having met on February 7t", 2022, Common Council approved the following resolution: Recommendation from Finance Committee to Common Council to amend the 2022 Capital Budget to include $1.873 million from the Capital Reserve Fund to relocate the North Depot services to Rothesay Avenue and relocate Fleet Services to the Transit Building. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The City of Saint John Fleet Maintenance Garage Relocation to the Saint John Transit Operations Centre Building is clearly aligned with the Council's Priorities to invest in sustainable City services and municipal infrastructure as well as with the Asset Management Policy to utilize lifecycle costing principles and incorporate continuous improvement practices. REPORT Background Over the past several years, CoSJ staff have been collaborating diligently with various consultants, city departments and the Transit Commission and their staff to consolidate the City of Saint John Fleet Maintenance Garage and the Saint John Transit Commission operations under one roof. Several studies were conducted for the relocation of the various CoSJ Fleet Maintenance Garage operations presently located at Rothesay Avenue to the Saint John Transit Operation Center. The primary objectives of this relocation are as follows: • Reduce existing building infrastructure and associated operational and maintenance costs as well as GHG emissions. • Relocate/consolidate similar City fleet maintenance operation under one roof for operational sharing, efficiency, and cost effectiveness. • Fully utilize existing infrastructure presently "under-utilized', as is the current situation with the facilities within the Saint John Transit Operation Center. • Vacating the Boars Head Road Works Facility will open up the land for redevelopment. The 2020 feasibility study has investigated the following key components: Functional area requirements analysis; Existing space analysis and Opinion of probable construction cost/Relocation options. The Saint John Transit Operations Centre is located at 55 McDonald Street in Saint John, NB. The building was constructed in 2008 and consists of a single -story building. W The building consists primarily of a bus storage garage, maintenance garage, body shop, wash bay, parts storage, gymnasium, staff room and front office space. There is also a library section including number of offices, meeting rooms, and washrooms. Scope Of Work and Benefits The scope of this project consists of major upgrade of the HVAC, electrical, plumbing, structure, building envelop, mechanical, control systems, etc. to a certain area within the Saint John Transit Operations Centre building (Maintenance garage, Front office space, bus storage, etc.). The Fleet Maintenance Garage Relocation to the Saint John Transit Operations Centre Building will result in the following benefits to the city: • Reduce annual energy costs by approximately $51,000 per year • Reduce tax burden by $14,000 per year • Reduce annual GHG emissions by 100 teCO2. • Reduce Infrastructure Deficit by $1.6 million Business Case The business case for the investment was presented to Finance Committee in February of 2022 and showed a positive return of $2.9 million to the City over a 20 year period. The City's investment at the time was contemplated at $1.9 million. With investment from other levels of government, the City's investment would now be $959,913. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The total cost to complete the Fleet Maintenance Garage Relocation to the Saint John Transit Operations Centre Building, if awarded to the lowest bidder as recommended, will be $2,647,232.10 Including HST Rebate and contingency. Cost of this project is funded under the Regional Development Corporation/ Federal Government and the City's Capital Reserves. The analysis is as follows: Capital Reserves: $ 959,913.32 Regional Development Corporation/Federal Government: $ 1,873,000.00 Project net cost: $ 2,832,913.32 Variance: $ 0.00 K11-1 The Engineer's Estimate for this project is $2,695,340.52+HST = $3,099,641.60. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS —SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT A public tender call was issued on November 8, 2022, and closed on December 6, 2022. Three (3) companies responded to the tender call by submitting bids. The results are as follows (Including HST): COMPANY NAME TENDER PRICE* Bird Construction Group $2,804,200.00 Eclipse Construction Services Ltd. $2,927,045.55 Avondale Construction Ltd. $3,010,000.00 *Inclusive of HST Staff of Supply Chain Management have reviewed the tenders and have found them to be complete and formal in every regard. Staff believe that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work and recommend acceptance of their tender. The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Supply Chain Management support the recommendation being put forth. ATTACHMENTS N/A KYl Staff Recommendation for Council Resolution Property: 35 Water Street Public Hearing: January 6, 2023 Item Required: Recommendation (Y/N) Municipal Plan No N/A Amendment Zoning By -Law No Amendment Repeal of Yes That Common Council repeal the Section 59 conditions Previous s. 39/s. imposed on the January 24, 2022, rezoning of the property 59 Conditions located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113. Section 59 Yes That the City, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59(1)(b) Conditions of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 3.0 hectares, located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113 (collectively the "Rezoned Properties"): a. That the development of the site be limited to the applicant's proposal for a mixed -use development having a maximum floor area of 69,700 square metres and a maximum of 677 dwelling units as generally outlined on the plans submitted with the original application. b. That only the southeast and southwest buildings (noted as Phase 1 and Phase 2 on the plans submitted with the original rezoning) be permitted on the basis of this resolution and that prior to beginning construction on any future phases of this development, that the City shall grant further approvals and impose any additional conditions on K1:3 such future phases of this development through an amendment to these conditions. C. That the heights of the proposed buildings be between 6 storeys (25 metres) to 19 storeys (70 metres) as outlined on the plans submitted with the original rezoning application. d. That the massing of the proposed development be generally as outlined on the plans submitted with the original rezoning application. e. That the uses within the proposed development be limited to the following: • Commercial Uses, including but not limited to a Business Office, Retail, Commercial Entertainment, Personal Service, Restaurant, and Accommodation/Hotel • Multiple Unit Dwelling(s) • Community Centre • Cultural Establishment • A Parking Garage • Surface Parking as outlined in the applicant's proposal for the site • Publicly Accessible Greenspace • The following as interim uses of undeveloped areas of the site as the phased development of the overall site is occurring: o a farmers' market or seasonal retail use; o special events and festivals held on the site on a temporary basis; o work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site; o notwithstanding subsection 9.17(1) of the Zoning By -Law, the placement of any building or structure, such as, but not limited to, a construction camp with no overnight accommodation, an office trailer, a tool shed, scaffolding, or construction materials or equipment, provided that the materials stored on site for a period of longer than 14 days be screened from view from Water Street and adjacent properties by a fence enclosed with filter strips or similar means; o a commercial parking lot including the rental of parking spaces on a monthly or hourly basis or additional surface parking for the development subject to the following: • paving of the parking area complete with painted lines delineating the parking stalls; • that a landscaped area having a minimum width of 2 metres be developed at the rear of the sidewalk along the Water Street frontage to provide a visual buffer of the proposed interim parking area; and • that the layout of the parking area and associated landscaping and/or screening to be shown on a site plan approved by the Development Officer; o work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site; and o a recreational use. f. That the design considerations outlined in the Wind Study for the development to mitigate the wind impacts on the pedestrian environment around the building entrances and for the proposed upper -level terraces be implemented through the detailed design of the development and that confirmation of the effects of these mitigative measures be provided to the Development Officer with the Building Permit application(s). g. That the detailed design of the angled parking area and raised sidewalk along the west side of Water Street be subject to the review and approval by the City to ensure appropriate design measures are employed for aspects including landscaping, wayfinding, accessibility, parking operations and pedestrian circulation. h. That the following cladding materials be prohibited in the development: • Vinyl siding, • Plywood, • Exterior insulation and finish systems where stucco is applied to rigid insulation • Vinyl windows • Cinder block i. That the development incorporates the following minimum glazing percentages: • Minimum Allowable glazing percentages HI - Ground floor retail: 50-80%. • Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Above -grade: 25-60%. j. That the developer be permitted to deviate from the sequence of development of the Rezoned Properties as outlined on the phasing plan provided with the original rezoning, provided that the design of the building to be constructed has already been approved by Common Council through an amendment to these conditions, and that the developer's engineering team has confirmed that the next phase of development corresponds to the estimated water and sewer demands proposed for the site (all phases) and approved by the City at the initial rezoning stage. Water and sewer demand calculations for each phase of the development must be prepared by the Developer's engineering consultant and approved by the City prior to construction of the respective phase. k. That the developer grant any easements and/or rights -of -way requested by the City at the City's sole discretion, for all municipal infrastructure within the Rezoned Properties and the relocated sidewalk along the west side of Water Street. The suitability of the width of the easements are subject to the review and acceptance of Saint John Water and the City. That the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Study prepared by CBCL Limited be completed. These improvements include: o That a subsequent traffic assessment be completed following the initial phases of construction and the return of normal traffic conditions (after construction on the second building and prior to construction of the :1 third building) to verify the results of the submitted study. o Study recommendations related to the installation of Traffic Signals in conjunction with Phase 4 of the proposed development (construction of the northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest buildings) be updated based on the updated traffic assessment. o Construction of the elevated sidewalk associated with the southeast building to remove the need for pedestrians to walk adjacent to Water Street traffic from the angled Water Street parking spaces and the adjacent sidewalk. M. If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. Section 59 No N/A Agreement Section 131 No N/A Agreement Other No N/A !i93 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE December 14, 2022 Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Section 59 Amendment Application 35 Water Street On November 28, 2022, Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its December 13, 2022, meeting. The City of Saint John Mr. Chris Elias, of the Elias Management Group, appeared before the Committee and expressed agreement with Staff Recommendation. In response to questions from Committee members, Mr. Elias noted they are seeking to right size the parking and do not want to be required to provide a set number of parking stalls in the interior parking garages within the development. He also noted that as the buildings are proceeding to final design, they are looking to animate the portions of the buildings facing the exterior parking area in the central portion of the site with uses such as residential units as opposed to internal parking structures within the building. This is consistent with the design review prepared for the original rezoning application to provide "eyes on the internal courtyard area." Mr. Elias noted the minimum parking stall requirement was for the number of spaces within the internal parking structures on site and that they are not replacing parking originally intended to be located within the parking structures with surface parking. In response to questions from the Committee, Mark Reade, Senior Planner with Growth and Community Services, noted there is no set minimum or maximum number of surface parking spaces required for the site and that Zoning By -Law standards do not require lighting within surface parking lots. No other persons appeared before the Committee and no letters were received regarding the application. Page 1 of 6 44 Fundy Quay Developments Inc. 35 Water Street December 14, 2022 Following consideration of the presentations, and Staff report, the Committee adopted a motion recommending that Common Council adopt the staff recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council repeal the Section 59 conditions imposed on the January 24, 2022, rezoning of the property located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113. 2. That the City, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59(1)(b) of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 3.0 hectares, located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113 (collectively the "Rezoned Properties"): a. That the development of the site be limited to the applicant's proposal for a mixed -use development having a maximum floor area of 69,700 square metres and a maximum of 677 dwelling units as generally outlined on the plans submitted with the original application. b. That only the southeast and southwest buildings (noted as Phase 1 and Phase 2 on the plans submitted with the original rezoning) be permitted on the basis of this resolution and that prior to beginning construction on any future phases of this development, that the City shall grant further approvals and impose any additional conditions on such future phases of this development through an amendment to these conditions. C. That the heights of the proposed buildings be between 6 storeys (25 metres) to 19 storeys (70 metres) as outlined on the plans submitted with the original rezoning application. d. That the massing of the proposed development be generally as outlined on the plans submitted with the original rezoning application. e. That the uses within the proposed development be limited to the following: • Commercial Uses, including but not limited to a Business Office, Retail, Commercial Entertainment, Personal Service, Restaurant, and Accommodation/Hotel Page 2 of 6 45 Fundy Quay Developments Inc. 35 Water Street December 14, 2022 • Multiple Unit Dwelling(s) • Community Centre • Cultural Establishment • A Parking Garage • Surface Parking as outlined in the applicant's proposal for • the site • Publicly Accessible Greenspace • The following as interim uses of undeveloped areas of the site as the phased development of the overall site is occurring: o a farmers' market or seasonal retail use; o special events and festivals held on the site on a temporary basis; o work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site; o notwithstanding subsection 9.17(1) of the Zoning By -Law, the placement of any building or structure, such as, but not limited to, a construction camp with no overnight accommodation, an office trailer, a tool shed, scaffolding, or construction materials or equipment, provided that the materials stored on site for a period of longer than 14 days be screened from view from Water Street and adjacent properties by a fence enclosed with filter strips or similar means; o a commercial parking lot including the rental of parking spaces on a monthly or hourly basis or additional surface parking for the development subject to the following: • paving of the parking area complete with painted lines delineating the parking stalls, • that a landscaped area having a minimum width of 2 metres be developed at the rear of the sidewalk along the Water Street frontage to provide a visual buffer of the proposed interim parking area; and • that the layout of the parking area and associated landscaping and/or screening to be shown on a site plan approved by the Development Officer; o work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the Page 3 of 6 46 Fundy Quay Developments Inc. 35 Water Street December 14, 2022 site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site; and o a recreational use. That the design considerations outlined in the Wind Study for the development to mitigate the wind impacts on the pedestrian environment around the building entrances and for the proposed upper -level terraces be implemented through the detailed design of the development and that confirmation of the effects of these mitigative measures be provided to the Development Officer with the Building Permit application(s). g. That the detailed design of the angled parking area and raised sidewalk along the west side of Water Street be subject to the review and approval by the City to ensure appropriate design measures are employed for aspects including landscaping, wayfinding, accessibility, parking operations and pedestrian circulation. h. That the following cladding materials be prohibited in the development: • Vinyl siding, • Plywood, • Exterior insulation and finish systems where stucco is applied to rigid insulation • Vinyl windows • Cinder block That the development incorporates the following minimum glazing percentages: • Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Ground floor retail: 50-80%. • Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Above -grade: 25-60%. That the developer be permitted to deviate from the sequence of development of the Rezoned Properties as outlined on the phasing plan provided with the original rezoning, provided that the design of the building to be constructed has already been approved by Common Council through an amendment to these conditions, and that the developer's engineering team has confirmed that the next phase of development corresponds to the estimated water and sewer demands proposed for the site (all phases) and approved by the City at the initial rezoning stage. Page 4 of 6 47 Fundy Quay Developments Inc. 35 Water Street December 14, 2022 Water and sewer demand calculations for each phase of the development must be prepared by the Developer's engineering consultant and approved by the City prior to construction of the respective phase. k. That the developer grant any easements and/or rights -of -way requested by the City at the City's sole discretion, for all municipal infrastructure within the Rezoned Properties and the relocated sidewalk along the west side of Water Street. The suitability of the width of the easements are subject to the review and acceptance of Saint John Water and the City. That the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Study prepared by CBCL Limited be completed. These improvements include: o That a subsequent traffic assessment be completed following the initial phases of construction and the return of normal traffic conditions (after construction on the second building and prior to construction of the third building) to verify the results of the submitted study. o Study recommendations related to the installation of Traffic Signals in conjunction with Phase 4 of the proposed development (construction of the northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest buildings) be updated based on the updated traffic assessment. o Construction of the elevated sidewalk associated with the southeast building to remove the need for pedestrians to walk adjacent to Water Street traffic from the angled Water Street parking spaces and the adjacent sidewalk. M. If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. Respectfully submitted, V v Alex Weaver -Crawford Page 5 of 6 48 Fundy Quay Developments Inc. 35 Water Street December 14, 2022 Chair Attachments Page 6 of 6 49 The City of Saint John Date: December 8, 2022 To: Planning Advisory Committee From: Growth & Community Services Meeting: December 13, 2022 SUBJECT Applicant: Fundy Harbour Group Landowner: Fundy Quay Developments Inc. and the City of Saint John Location: 35 Water Street PID: 55235113,55235105 and 55221881 Plan Designation: Primary Centre Existing Zoning: Waterfront Commercial Integrated Development (CWID) Application Type: Section 59 Amendment Jurisdiction: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed amendments to Section 59 conditions imposed on a property. Common Council will consider the Committee's recommendation at a public hearing on Monday, January 9, 2023. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Fundy Quay project is a catalytic project for the City involving a key waterfront development site which has been actively pursued for many years, identified as one of the Big Moves in the Central Peninsula Secondary Plan (CPSP), and identified as a catalytic project by the City. The multi -phase mixed use development will include five buildings having a total floor area of 69,700 Page 1 of 16 50 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 square metres plus an internal parkade and 677 dwelling units. The mix of uses will bring additional residential density to the Central Peninsula, which aligns with the goals of the Municipal Plan and the Secondary Plan and will bring additional animation to waterfront on a 24/7 basis through increased density and public space improvements including an extension of Harbour Passage, publicly accessible open space and through leveraging improvements to the adjacent market slip public space. Building on the phased approach to the approval granted for the development, originally approved in early 2022, the proponent is seeking additional approvals to allow for the construction of either the southeast building, which was approved by Common Council in January 2022, or the southwest building. This approval is being sought to provide flexibility to the proponent providing them with the option to construct either of the two southern buildings to commence the development. To provide this flexibility and to also potentially provide for the construction of the building that is closest to the water first, the applicant is seeking an amendment to the Section 59 conditions to also allow for the construction of the southwest building which is approximately 30 metres in height. The applicant is also seeking amendments to the Section 59 conditions including those related to interim uses and the amount of parking to be provided within the development. Staff have assessed the proposal against the applicable policies of the Municipal and Secondary Plans and are recommending approval of the application to amend the Section 59 conditions. RECOMMENDATION 1. That Common Council repeal the Section 59 conditions imposed on the January 24, 2022, rezoning of the property located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113. 2. That the City, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59(1)(b) of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 3.0 hectares, located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113 (collectively the "Rezoned Properties"): a. That the development of the site be limited to the applicant's proposal for a mixed -use development having a maximum floor area of 69,700 square metres and a maximum of 677 dwelling units as generally outlined on the plans submitted with the original application. b. That only the southeast and southwest buildings (noted as Phase 1 and Phase 2 on the plans submitted with the original rezoning) be permitted on the basis of this resolution and that prior to beginning construction on any future phases of this development, that the City shall grant further approvals and impose any Page 2 of 16 51 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 additional conditions on such future phases of this development through an amendment to these conditions. C. That the heights of the proposed buildings be between 6 storeys (25 metres) to 19 storeys (70 metres) as outlined on the plans submitted with the original rezoning application. d. That the massing of the proposed development be generally as outlined on the plans submitted with the original rezoning application. e. That the uses within the proposed development be limited to the following: • Commercial Uses, including but not limited to a Business Office, Retail, Commercial Entertainment, Personal Service, Restaurant, and Accommodation/Hotel • Multiple Unit Dwelling(s) • Community Centre • Cultural Establishment • A Parking Garage • Surface Parking as outlined in the applicant's proposal for the site • Publicly Accessible Greenspace • The following as interim uses of undeveloped areas of the site as the phased development of the overall site is occurring: o a farmers' market or seasonal retail use; o special events and festivals held on the site on a temporary basis; o work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site; o notwithstanding subsection 9.17(1) of the Zoning By -Law, the placement of any building or structure, such as, but not limited to, a construction camp with no overnight accommodation, an office trailer, a tool shed, scaffolding, or construction materials or equipment, provided that the materials stored on site for a period of longer than 14 days be screened from view from Water Street and adjacent properties by a fence enclosed with filter strips or similar means; o a commercial parking lot including the rental of parking spaces on a monthly or hourly basis or additional surface parking for the development subject to the following: • paving of the parking area complete with painted lines delineating the parking stalls; • that a landscaped area having a minimum width of 2 metres be developed at the rear of the sidewalk along the Water Street frontage to provide a visual buffer of the proposed interim parking area; and Page 3 of 16 52 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 • that the layout of the parking area and associated landscaping and/or screening to be shown on a site plan approved by the Development Officer; o work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site; and o a recreational use. That the design considerations outlined in the Wind Study for the development to mitigate the wind impacts on the pedestrian environment around the building entrances and for the proposed upper -level terraces be implemented through the detailed design of the development and that confirmation of the effects of these mitigative measures be provided to the Development Officer with the Building Permit application(s). g. That the detailed design of the angled parking area and raised sidewalk along the west side of Water Street be subject to the review and approval by the City to ensure appropriate design measures are employed for aspects including landscaping, wayfinding, accessibility, parking operations and pedestrian circulation. h. That the following cladding materials be prohibited in the development: • Vinyl siding, • Plywood, • Exterior insulation and finish systems where stucco is applied to rigid insulation • Vinyl windows • Cinder block That the development incorporates the following minimum glazing percentages: • Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Ground floor retail: 50-80%. Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Above -grade: 25-60%. That the developer be permitted to deviate from the sequence of development of the Rezoned Properties as outlined on the phasing plan provided with the original rezoning, provided that the design of the building to be constructed has already been approved by Common Council through an amendment to these conditions, and that the developer's engineering team has confirmed that the next phase of development corresponds to the estimated water and sewer demands proposed for the site (all phases) and approved by the City at the initial rezoning stage. Water and sewer demand calculations for each phase of the development must be prepared by the Developer's engineering consultant and approved by the City prior to construction of the respective phase. Page 4 of 16 53 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 k. That the developer grant any easements and/or rights -of -way requested by the City at the City's sole discretion, for all municipal infrastructure within the Rezoned Properties and the relocated sidewalk along the west side of Water Street. The suitability of the width of the easements are subject to the review and acceptance of Saint John Water and the City. That the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Study prepared by CBCL Limited be completed. These improvements include: o That a subsequent traffic assessment be completed following the initial phases of construction and the return of normal traffic conditions (after construction on the second building and prior to construction of the third building) to verify the results of the submitted study. o Study recommendations related to the installation of Traffic Signals in conjunction with Phase 4 of the proposed development (construction of the northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest buildings) be updated based on the updated traffic assessment. o Construction of the elevated sidewalk associated with the southeast building to remove the need for pedestrians to walk adjacent to Water Street traffic from the angled Water Street parking spaces and the adjacent sidewalk. M. If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. DECISION HISTORY On January 24, 2022, Common Council rezoned the site to Waterfront Commercial Integrated Development (CWID) and imposed the following Section 59 conditions related to the proposed Fundy Quay development: a. That the development of the site be limited to the applicant's proposal for a mixed -use development having a maximum floor area of 69,700 square metres plus an internal parkade including a minimum of 350 parking spaces and a maximum of 677 dwelling units as generally outlined on the plans submitted with the application. b. That only Phase 1 (the southeast building) of the development be permitted on the basis of this resolution and that prior to beginning construction on any future phases of this development, that the City shall grant further approvals and impose any additional conditions on such future phases of this development through an amendment to these conditions. Page 5 of 16 54 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 C. That the heights of the proposed buildings be between 6 storeys (25 metres) to 19 storeys (70 metres) as outlined on the plans submitted with the application. d. That the massing of the proposed development be generally as outlined on the plans submitted with the application. e. That the uses within the proposed development be limited to the following: • Commercial Uses, including but not limited to a Business Office, Retail, Commercial Entertainment, Personal Service, Restaurant, and Accommodation/Hotel • Multiple Unit Dwelling(s) • Community Centre • Cultural Establishment • A Parking Garage • Surface Parking as outlined in the applicant's proposal for the site • Publicly Accessible Greenspace • The following as interim uses of undeveloped areas of the site as the phased development of the overall site is occurring: o a farmers' market or seasonal retail use; o special events and festivals held on the site on a temporary basis; o work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site; and o a recreational use f. That the design considerations outlined in the Wind Study for the development to mitigate the wind impacts on the pedestrian environment around the building entrances and for the proposed upper -level terraces be implemented through the detailed design of the development and that confirmation of the effects of these mitigative measures be provided to the Development Officer with the Building Permit application. g. That the detailed design of the angled parking area and raised sidewalk along the west side of Water Street be subject to the review and approval by the City to ensure appropriate design measures are employed for aspects including landscaping, wayfinding, accessibility, parking operations and pedestrian circulation. h. That the following cladding materials be prohibited in the development: • Vinyl siding, • Plywood, • Exterior insulation and finish systems where stucco is applied to rigid insulation • Vinyl windows Page 6 of 16 55 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 Cinder block That the development incorporates the following minimum glazing percentages: • Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Ground floor retail: 50-80%. Minimum Allowable glazing percentages - Above -grade: 25-60%. That the development of the Rezoned Properties be in accordance with the provided Phasing Plan and proposed water and sewer demands provided per phase. Any proposed changes to the master Phasing Plan must be provided to and approved by the City, including any proposed changes to the water and sewer demands. Prior to the start of each Phase of development, the developer's engineering team shall confirm that the next phase of development corresponds to the submitted master Phasing Plan and the estimated water and sewer demands proposed for the site (all phases). If the proposal has changed (phasing or demands), the Developer shall not proceed to the next proposed phase until they have re -submitted their engineered water and sewer demands to the City to compare against the overall master site development plan. Prior to proceeding with each phase, the developer's engineering team must confirm the proposed flows are within the proposed master development plan submitted to the City during this re -zoning. k. That the developer grant any easements and/or rights -of -way requested by the City at the City's sole discretion, for all municipal infrastructure within the Rezoned Properties of and the relocated sidewalk along the west side of Water Street. The suitability of the width of the easements are subject to the review and acceptance of Saint John Water and the City. That the recommendations from the Traffic Impact Study prepared by CBCL Limited be completed. These improvements include: o That a subsequent traffic assessment be completed following the initial phases of construction and the return of normal traffic conditions (after Phase 2 and before Phase 3) to verify the results of the submitted study. o Study recommendations related to the installation of Traffic Signals in conjunction with Phase 4 of the proposed development be updated based on the updated traffic assessment. o Construction of the elevated sidewalk during Phase 1 to remove the need for pedestrians to walk adjacent to Water Street traffic from the angled Water Street parking spaces and the adjacent sidewalk. M. If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. Page 7 of 16 56 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 Common Council also amended Schedule G of the Zoning By -Law to permit building heights up to 70 metres. In conjunction with the rezoning application, the Planning Advisory Committee, at their meeting of December 14, 2022, granted a variance to Section 15.2(a) of the Central Peninsula Building Height and Massing Overlay (CPO) zone to allow for the proposed southeast building to be developed without the provision of 3-metre facade step backs at the 14 metre and 24 metre elevations. ANALYSIS Proposal In 2019, the Elias Management Group (EMG) was selected as the successful proponent in response to a call for expressions by Envision Saint John (formerly Develop Saint John). In conjunction with the selection of EMG, significant federal/provincial funding was secured, more than $18 million, to address the major challenges in redeveloping the site. In addition to the repair and raising of the seawall and site remediation activities, tri-lateral funding will provide for a complete refurbishment of the adjacent Market Slip public space and extension of Harbour Passage around the perimeter of the Fundy Quay site. Work is proceeding on the redevelopment of the City -owned public space formerly labelled as Loyalist Plaza. This work is scheduled to be completed by early 2023 and the associated extension to Harbour Passage before the end of 2023. Through the lease agreement, EMG is required to purchase the property by no later than the 25th year of the lease. Subdivision of the Harbour Passage extension lands will be required to ensure these lands are maintained under city ownership. Five buildings are proposed for the site, with four of the buildings (referred to as the SE, SW, NW, and NE buildings) incorporating a mix of uses including residential, office, retail, personal service, restaurant, and accommodation. A fifth building, located proximate to the Waterfront, is envisioned to house uses such as a community centre, cultural establishments, and commercial entertainment. Structured parking will be incorporated into the buildings and publicly accessible green space will be provided. The proposed total gross floor area of the buildings is 69,700 sq. m. (750,000 sq. ft) including residential, commercial, and cultural uses, not including parkade areas. The development is anticipated to be constructed in five phases as follows. Page 8 of 16 57 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 Table 1. Anticipated Development Phasing (2021 Application) Phase Building Building Use 1 SE Building 165 Apt. Units + 11,384 ft2 Retail 2 SW Building 111 Apt. Units + 18,875 ft2 Retail 3 NW Building 173 Apt. Units + 16,653 ft2 Retail + 66,613 ft2 Office 4 NE Building 188 Apt. Units + 10,799 ft2 Retail + 52,891 ft2 Office 5 Community/Cultural 34,657 ft2 Cultural Space (Potential for 40 units') Totals 637-677 Apartment Units 57,711 ft2 Retail 119,504 ft2 Office 34,657 ft2 Cultural Space The proposed southwest building will be 6 stories in height and incorporate ground floor retail with parking within the podium and residential uses on upper stories. Commercial space will have a floor area of 1858 m2 (20,000 ft2) and 110 residential units will be provided within the building. A total of 98 parking spaces will be provided in conjunction with the building (68 internal, 30 surface). Cladding materials will incorporate brick, pre -cast concrete or masonry on the first storey with upper stories incorporating architectural tile or panels and glazing. This aligns with the existing Section 59 conditions which provide approved options for cladding materials within the development. The applicant is currently working on the site and is completing the necessary civil works for the site servicing for the overall development. Plans of the southwest building are provided in the Appendices. Site and Neighbourhood The subject site is in the Uptown area of Saint John, abutting Water Street and a slip controlled by Port Saint John. A portion of the site was occupied by a four -storey office building and garage, used by the Coast Guard as an administration building. Following the City's acquisition of the site from the Federal Government, portions of the site were used for parking. The site was rezoned to Waterfront Commercial Integrated Development (CWID) in early 2022. The applicant has been actively working on installing the site services to support the development. A slip is located south of the site with Port lands further to the south along Water Street being developed into a container village for future event programming including the Area 506 Festival. Market Square, Market Slip, and Loyalist Plaza are located north of the site, with Public Space improvements planned for Loyalist Plaza and the Market Slip area. A mix of residential and ' Should no public entity come forward with interest in this site, a small mixed -use building is proposed to take its place. Page 9 of 16 58 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 commercial uses are located along the west side of Water Street and in the surrounding Uptown area. Municipal Plan, Zoning, and Section 59 Amendment Municipal Plan and Central Peninsula Secondary Plan (CPSP) The site, and the surrounding area, is located within the Uptown Primary Centre as designated by the Municipal Plan. This area is the City's highest intensity mixed -use development area and contains a mix of uses including major office and government developments and a wide range of other commercial uses, including specialty retail and the region's arts, cultural, and entertainment facilities. Development of high -density residential uses are also strongly encouraged in this area. Development on the site is also governed by the Central Peninsula Secondary Plan (CPSP) adopted in 2020. The CPSP guides development and investment to ensure the area continues to function as the Greater Saint John Region's major mixed -used centre. With regards to the Secondary Plan, the site is in the Uptown Core and Central Waterfront area, with the CPSP establishing key directions for development in this area including the following: • Mid -rise and tall buildings to accommodate full build -out and to capitalize on market and zoning provisions for commercial and residential density. • Where appropriate, buildings will incorporate non-residential ground floor uses to maintain and enhance a vibrant, pedestrian -oriented urban environment, animating the public realm. • Street wall heights are regulated through setbacks and stepbacks to maintain a comfortable, human -scaled built environment. • Existing civic spaces are strengthened to support green space and recreation amenities in the core; new civic spaces along the waterfront will support increased access to the waterfront. • New infill development will feature a mix of uses and high -quality design which will maintain and enhance urban form. • A mix of structured and dense, on -street parking to accommodate residents, employees, and visitors. Big Moves are also identified over the horizon of the CPSP for catalytic projects that would define key areas of the Central Peninsula. Two Big Moves relate to the proposed development: • Develop the Central Waterfront as a key mixed use educational and cultural destination: Key components of this are the incremental development of the Coast Guard Site as a mixed -use cultural destination on the waterfront, and an enhanced streetscape along Water Street between King Street and the south end of the Marco Polo cruise terminal. • Reinforce east -west connections between the two core anchors of the Waterfront and King's Square: This includes enhancing Loyalist Plaza as a contemporary public space through the installation of imaginative seating, planting, and other landscaping elements. Page 10 of 16 59 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 A detailed assessment of the proposal with respect to the policies of the Municipal Plan and CPSP is provided in Attachment 2. The proposed development introduces a mixed -use concept on a key waterfront development site on the City's Central Peninsula. The increased residential density and commercial uses provide additional development and population within one of the City's key Primary Centres and conform to many key directions and policies in the Municipal Plan and Central Peninsula Secondary Plan. Based on the assessment provided in Attachment 2, Staff are of the opinion the proposed development conforms to the Municipal Plan and Secondary Plan. Zoning and Section 59 Amendment The applicant has requested amendments to the Section 59 conditions imposed on the earlier 2022 rezoning of the site. These focus on the following aspects: • approval of Phase 2 of the development (the southwest building); • removal of the minimum requirement for on -site parking; • provision for interim uses associated with construction, laydown area, materials storage, surface parking and site offices; and • provision for the developer to deviate from the phasing plan provided the phase being constructed has already been approved and that the City has determined that the estimated water and sewer demands are within the proposed flows are within the proposed master development plan. These requested amendments are discussed in more detail below. Approval of Phase 2/Southwest Building The January 2022 rezoning and associated Section 59 conditions only permit the construction of the Phase 1 building in the southeast corner of the site fronting onto Water Street through condition b) of the current Section 59 conditions: b. That only Phase 1 (the southeast building) of the development be permitted on the basis of this resolution and that prior to beginning construction on any future phases of this development, that the City shall grant further approvals and impose any additional conditions on such future phases of this development through an amendment to these conditions. The applicant is seeking approval to allow for the construction of either the southeast building or the southwest building, originally anticipated to be constructed as the second phase of the development. The southeast building would be 16 storeys (60 metres) in height, with the southwest building having a height of 6 stories (approximately 30 metres) and would involve less complexity in construction owing to its lower height. To provide additional flexibility in the overall project, the developer has requested an amendment to allow for the construction of either of the southernmost buildings as the initial phase of the development. This would provide Page 11 of 16 60 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 for the construction of the building closest to the harbour as the development's initial phase. This would provide the developer with flexibility through allowing construction of two sizes of buildings in different locations of the site. Staff recommend that condition b) be amended to allow for the construction of either Phase 1 (southeast building) or Phase 2 (southwest building). Drawings of the southwest building are provided in the appendices. The building will have commercial uses on the ground floor oriented to the northeast, south and southeast which will provide animation along the future extension of Harbor Passage and the internal area of the development facing the proposed cultural building. Interior parking will be oriented towards the internal surface parking and circulation area in the centre of the development with the upper floor residential units providing "eyes on the street" into the internal surface parking area. Section 59 conditions imposed relating to cladding materials, allowable glazing (window) percentages on building facades, overall building massing and design elements from the wind study would remain in force as originally imposed in January 2022. Minimum Required On -Site Parking A minimum of 350 parking spaces located in an internal parkade are required in accordance with condition a) of the existing Section 59 conditions: a. That the development of the site be limited to the applicant's proposal for a mixed -use development having a maximum floor area of 69,700 square metres plus an internal parkade including a minimum of 350 parking spaces and a maximum of 677 dwelling units as generally outlined on the plans submitted with the application. The developer has requested the requirement to provide a minimum of 350 parking spaces within internal parking areas be removed from the Section 59 conditions. The developer is still intending to provide parking for the development through structured parking within the four main buildings and surface parking in the area between these four buildings but is seeking flexibility through not being required to provide a specific number of parking spaces. Staff note the overall concept approved by Common Council has structured parking provided within the development which is a best practice aligning with the policy direction of the Municipal Plan. The site is in the City's Uptown Core close to amenities which reduces reliance on vehicle ownership. In addition, the site is located within the Uptown Parking Exemption Area established on Schedule C of the Zoning By -Law and as a result vehicle parking is not required. This approach of not requiring parking in central areas of a City is intended to support intensification, transit, and active transportation goals. The requirement for a specific number of parking spaces was based on information provided with the initial rezoning application that had a set number of parking spaces. Page 12 of 16 61 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 Removal of the requirement to provide a minimum of 350 parking spaces to be housed in a parkade in the development would place the onus on the developer to provide enough parking to meet market demands associated with leasing of the residential units and commercial space within the development. In addition, Staff note that continued investment in transit and active transportation, will provide alternate transportation modes beyond the private automobile within Saint John and the Uptown Core. These improvements, in alignment with MoveSJ and the CPSP, will serve residents of this development, the broader Central Peninsula, and City. As the Uptown and City continue to develop, alternative travel modes beyond the personal, and often single -occupant vehicle such as transit, walking and cycling, will require increased reliance to meet future travel demand. Eliminating the specific requirement for a set number of parking spaces within the development serves to "future proof' the development from the anticipated future trend of decreased reliance on the personal automobile and potential for decreased vehicle ownership from future residents of the South Central Peninsula. For example, the empty nester cohort that could relocate to the residential component of the proposed development from a more suburban location may not necessarily require more than one vehicle. In addition, as continued intensification of the Uptown occurs and population increases, the critical mass to support the location of additional services, such as a grocery store, in the Uptown also increases which can further reduce vehicle reliance and associated parking demand. Should parking not be required in the future, the proponent has indicated that areas originally devoted as structured could be converted to residential or commercial uses. Given this, Staff recommend condition a) be modified to relieve the developer from providing a minimum number of parking spaces within the development. Interim Uses Provision of interim uses related to construction uses such as a laydown area, materials storage, and site offices along with surface parking have also been requested by the developer. Condition e) of the Section 59 conditions provides for a range of permanent and interim uses on the site: e. That the uses within the proposed development be limited to the following: • Commercial Uses, including but not limited to a Business Office, Retail, Commercial Entertainment, Personal Service, Restaurant, and Accommodation/Hotel • Multiple Unit Dwelling(s) • Community Centre • Cultural Establishment • A Parking Garage • Surface Parking as outlined in the applicant's proposal for the site • Publicly Accessible Greenspace • The following as interim uses of undeveloped areas of the site as the phased development of the overall site is occurring: o a farmers' market or seasonal retail use; o special events and festivals held on the site on a temporary basis; Page 13 of 16 62 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 o work associated with the replacement of the existing seawall along the waterfront frontage of the site and siteworks including the associated placement of fill on the site, and o a recreational use. Subsection 9.17(1) of the Zoning By -Law provides for temporary buildings and structures associated with construction activity on a project site, however it also requires that those temporary buildings and structures be removed within 14 days following completion of the work. The intent of this is to allow for the placement of structures such as office trailers on a project site to support construction activities. In the case of the proposed development, it is a much larger project involving the construction of five buildings. Given this, the potential exists for materials to be stored on the subject site for a period exceeding 14 days such as during the period between the completion of one building and the commencement of construction of the subsequent building. Staff are of the opinion that this is reasonable, provided that the materials stored on site for a period of longer than 14 days be screened from view from Water Street and adjacent properties by a fence enclosed with filter strips or similar means. The proponent has also requested that surface parking of the undeveloped areas of the site be permitted as an interim use during the overall development of the project. In discussions between the developer and planning staff, the developer has noted that the highest and best use of the site is not surface parking and Staff note this can provide flexibility in meeting overall parking demands for the development and the Uptown Core. Interim surface parking on the development site can serve as overflow parking for the development as reliance shifts from the private automobile to other travel modes. Staff are of the opinion this is a reasonable approach on an interim basis subject to conditions requiring the following: • paving of the parking area complete with painted lines delineating the parking stalls; • that a landscaped area having a minimum width if 2 metres be developed at the rear of the sidewalk along the Water Street frontage to provide a visual buffer of the proposed interim parking area; and • that the layout of the parking area and associated landscaping and/or screening to be shown on a site plan approved by the Development Officer. Staff note these conditions align with past conditions imposed in association with commercial parking areas within the Uptown Core. Phasing Plan The developer has requested an amendment to the condition related to the phasing plan to allow for the developer to deviate from the phasing plan and construct components of the overall development provided the building to be constructed has already been approved by Common Council, and that the City has determined that the estimated water and sewer demands are within the proposed flows approved by Infrastructure Development. Page 14 of 16 63 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 Staff are of the opinion this request is reasonable and proposed an amendment to condition j) to allow for this approach. An amendment to condition 1) is also recommended to tie the assessment for traffic signals at the Water Street/Site Access to the completion of the second building and completion of the northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast buildings on site. Development Timeline Staff are not recommending a condition to impose a timeline on the development as the developer is subject to an agreement with the City that governs the timeline of the development and the associated lease and eventual purchase of the site by the developer. Conclusion Staff recommend approval of the application as it conforms to the overall intent of the Municipal Plan and Secondary Plan and supports mixed -use intensification of a strategic development site in the Central Peninsula. Given the analysis provided in this report, amendments to the Section 59 conditions are recommended. ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS No alternatives were assessed. ENGAGEMENT Proponent On September 27, 2021, the proponent presented the development concept, in conjunction with a public engagement event held in the Market Square Atrium on the refurbishment of the adjacent Market Slip public space. Public In accordance with the Committee's Rules of Procedure, notification of the proposal was sent to landowners within 100 metres of the subject property on November 30, 2022. Notice of the Public Hearing will be posted on the City of Saint John website prior to December 19, 2022. APPROVALS AND CONTACT Author Manager/Senior Planner Commissioner Mark Reade, P.Eng., MCIP, RPP Jennifer Kirchner, MCIP, RPP Jacqueline Hamilton, MCIP, RPP Contact: Mark Reade Telephone: (506) 721-0736 Email: Mark.Reade@saintjohn.ca Application: 22-0235 Page 15 of 16 64 Fundy Harbour Group 35 Water Street (South Market Wharf) December 8, 2022 APPENDIX Map 1: Aerial Photography Map 2: Future Land Use Map 3: Zoning Attachment 1: Site Photography Attachment 2: Municipal Plan Policy Review Submission 1: Site Plan Submission 2: Initial Phasing Plan from Rezoning Application Submission 3: Southwest Building Plans and Renderings Page 16 of 16 65 co Y0 o o 0 0 0 LO (M N o v o � o O N m o 0 0 U co 0 0 m Z 0 O (7 ca N L a 0 E CL 0 0 0 cu E �L 0 L '(^D cu VJ Q N O CN co 0- N 0 N I0 0 0 c) o 0 o 0 Tu a) N a) N C a) L N 2 c N O a) U E 2 as Lco aa) J � d LL L6 a) Q C a) N Q � O i a) ns > � N N H c E U a a N O N IF, -9 Lki a 0 o o c' ro o ©� a O O Co a `G O m e C U7 E R. O o � E co ma LL U 1 r O a 0 ❑ L) 1 2 f U 1 1 CC U U N U a) g o CL X m _ N N a C 0 m rn C o N is [¢ O - cn C N N m O - U O U CV r� O 7 U rn N zd W 4- Q) Q) Q) u CLO C u L�2 Q) 4- 0 Q) 0 U 4- Ul co 4- 0 V) 4- LI) Ul Ul Q) E 0 Ln O , 7 Q) c 0 u ro U� -53 0 Ln 4— ro Cap 0 Ln 4- 0 0 u ro 0 Ln O p C C O O 5` O p Q) O p 4 bA bA ro co N N N N d ro L L c3 co 2 2 4-1 _ l , i a f ti e r I O t ro � p cr a-1 O ) — ro ro O Ln Q a--" a--" Q) Q O ro 4 L Q a N ro cf. r ro �I i C'i m 4'�LL' O 3 a� (A m O +� ao > ° w -a 'a) 3 co vi a w a 2- > 4, c o o 4� a) a �, a) a) u CL a � ,an In s E a� c c oO a) +, C O u = o s s E � a ace 3 °�°> a +� o f o� a c+' °o o s ° a) c c c co s i 7 a) s c a) > Q O oo -a " o co — c co ao �s a) C� ��� ° �c�� O a) ° `° an _�� c`o Q0 a�ss� �� � 0 f6 C 4 o��a �.� �� 0O � o� 4, a) E t O 4' T a 0 N a) C O co dA — C 1 4- a) O 'a N Q s O c f u °c° i s a) x ' o s ° - o a) u c E a) u E s 4-1 ao 4-1 o 3sso a = c Qo c 3 0 o c° o o ° 4-1 3 ; +1 -a o an c c— o u 4 a c •� ° .� Q- N a) s— s C '�, C �' U o 4 m 41 m o �=� -a E ELO s 4-1 p a aco U -0+� U c O i c c Quo E� �� �+6 a) Q�� v� O _ �� > o O_ s m o Q 3> > a) O v� a) u Q+ s a> co u Q •� s •> a) s a CL c a O s O° E E 41 �� sao m s s as H a a) 41 O4-1 a� — ca -0 O - ca 7 C: C > } a +° f6 c4-1 s ao E 776 O O u � E Q � -a m +�+ C C O 4 E C O c0 u - V) " a) w O o c a) s s N O a� c ° .O c O a) °- ,, N O c v E Q C -Cx 4-17 a) d O E H o O . O u s aA C m u 4, u O cC v a O c 3 c i a o ao c o U toi a C co c a) GEC ao ° a � 3 c s c c C s s C a) c co a) 3 4-1c`o -a E c c s cco Q o a) a) c a) = 4-1 o a a,C c-0 4� c a -0 a)3 -as E O — C a) Q O i = U a) a) co a) E mO a � s '� (v E O a) a`) s °) c 3 c ao x E-a aa)) ti +� -a ti aUla E a o O .� z a Q • cf 6) • 0 w O • 'a • ti a) O a) C �7 4-13 C —s3 4-1 O s L a) 4 a) a) -C 4� U U s m �" s o s coo o(A C 4-�O O +� fu O LwC cL7o 0-o u O o co Ua � pf 3 20 r- a) 0O CL a 'a 7 7 _ U - C U a) a) >� ° s N 4s .� N 4� O - a-, C 3 CA CL O 0-0 7 Q s l0 H o -a +' •U N co ° 'n a)C s a) C� a) 4' ob N O o a to i C co CA -a U a O s ,� 4�C: -0 u a ri s a) UO an 7 a) s a) E co ° co s 4- a) 4; to bo co ` — — m u 4' 7 n s +' O E O U 7 a) ,X 4' C .O O m vai �Up a) O 4' 7 -aij 7 O 4� E .4 � -C 4� a) 4.Cf m O O 7 m 0 O a) 'a p +Co,0 Cv� � O QC p �'aC CLhC0 U sa) O Cp a) s 4� O 4, C CL X-0 p + a +' co' +' 'CLs aa) ap 4,O O �Qa_O CO i Z 0O N OOd +aC ' 0 S S ( 7 C -a N � C a) v`ni U C a) u m CAA i w v� U ) O �_ 4. 4 Q -a s a) a) C a) ao Q co — s � U Co m a) s ao o x s �� Q) s � �, �, a C c s �, s �, U s E 16 E o a r m a) — 4' a) O u +' C c co w 'u C w s ° E C s U O s p m co O 3 u s a o c o 0 C 4' -0 a a) s s C 3 0 a) a) 73 o E o o .� aC) �a) •° ICaaan —o U O p °) ° s o °> °; E a) c° I4� 4 a) ° )))o -a U" 3 + p p O X a O a +� O O p O —Hg°o 7 xp p C j O 4 Y O C c CL 4� p E +� E C > w CL CL CL E a a s : ° 'oCss s a Sa) p ° 4, C X a) v m s i CL O U m U a) a m E n � E U 6 s a 4� -0 +O + O C O x 4� O U V a) 0 C C 'a co C p s a) L E O ca f6 j O a) a a O po C C a) Fu p -0 a) a) > sC0 ca > C 4' � a) U u 3 U Z s (U an C L.L C a) C .W +, 0) o co -C3 s � co a+ C:O 4O CC: U E D = 4- +, c o O C E s a�i i > a 7 O - a) s O -0 (1) � C f6 � -0 U U • V a-C 4' -C4- co 3 s m a) O au a) a) 4 @ C a) a) C p CL co 41 E C O O O a) uo a .c - a) 4� -Cm E �, a co U c O� o s a) '� a) E o � � N � +� +� �-� O m a) CL Obi 4te1 CL C CA a) M C o i +�+ f6 = a) a) N L 4, C m CL C a-+ ° u m 0 i ,N a) � -a p O N a 0 � -a m C9 M Sri U m �.o =3 N ti 4 a) c + O a) 4 aci O co 3 > O U n N� a) a) co a) +' CU 4� O O co C > +� -a s wN Q N co m+J s '� 3 co Q 0 > a) a) co u O OC: 41 •� N 4s i a) _ NN ate, O O -a f6 w 4* -i,In =3 N (/) O Q VI Q O C C � C 0 s C a� M ca c0 -0 m v�i +� N -0(0 a) > vai -O Q 4�S �_ O > O a) C •i >' N dA a) 'a d '7 C 4O O � u c O c a) s 4- c O O co a) 0 'A c0 a (0 + U dA +' > 4- C n U UO do O a E +' s +' U N a) U a) m 'a - 11 ` co a) a) a) ,� O C d Q O 7 +, O a) .� U m c0 s Q a) 4' N> O a) w U M' c 3 `n x dA > v� __ E a) O O a) a) i 7 4 J c6 = i (6 i a) s a) Q~ Q (0 v� C =a 3 > s a) 4' — .� ca Q i O_ f0 W a) a) _ U N —_ s co d> a) a) C O s p i+ s 4� cv N Q_0-a Q N +, s M 3 0 _ 'p (6 > s U Q u 0 o M� c c m E 3 c O s E O 2 7 0 O .� a) VI U VI O (n 7 Q i C -6 ,� O _ Q s Q 0 p f6 O E Q E a) .� Q c U Q M J O -� 7 3 s +, O •O + -p E y/ E a) ao VI C Q O a) � a E a) S `° Q 4 � 4 � 0 N a) S �, 4 , C -p co Q m O Q > a) �' a) � as-� f0 v� co fa v� dA 0 U v� f6 C f0 co C N -a C m d ~ O C C -a co N -a a) Q co f6 a-+ x > a) U S O U O U _ �_ C >� VI 1� Q +�+ 3 C o `° s v a) co +' a) � s c O co ha o c0 ai c3o J aci s C p a) c> C +� C Q U N N 4 In co Q> 7 3 Co a) 4� O U Z- +' \ Q a) Q a) a) 'O U O0 4, a) +� ._ O a) -C a) � dA > a) ` 3 O O 4 ' 'a U � O +� O m O CO L a) S a) s a) O m a) E c U >, 4 N Q 3� N� Q co 2 N U U -a U -a 3 H I� H cn H .- .E H .E cn ao -a U f6 a•' VI ._ •i � (6 dA C c: Q d a� x s a) Ea (6 p s N ao CL L - on —4� a) N p,a �n E C _r s s ; a) s o O CL •c _ 3 O U a) O -a s > a) cn a) a C a) 4� Q • • > to �n U a a) c2 U 7 s m U •a) a) i s s O a ax) c � tw a) 41 M > U Q 4-1'E m O N s U co an s a C U w +' Q Q x C to N VI a) c ao o c Ln C -a _ s E `�° a) + M o o c O 3 of 6i i a) a) +� C Q a) > — p 'a -a co to (0 O w C `(u U a) Q C Y_ L s a) 4' CO ca 0 L C s Q E o -a C +' o -a 4 j 4' -a n n E SE aa) os m �� s�sao o -0 O a) '� 3 c> _w Q a) c c3o U O Q ) s co -0 M Q Q > U O s a Q N — a) 4� -a a) -a C _ m — a) i) _ 01 0 4- a) S 0 U N 4' c v� Q a Q c as-, O� Q C -a O O 3 U CO c a) i U VI u at c -a ,� — O a c CA Q- s > �, o � (D 0 ( U c O _ Z 0 v -a a) H • Q c0 H • c6 o a) O U a) m N C m j 2 N c � a) I a>i ti 6 0_ N 6 E O s I, -a M co 0 M m m m u co 3 m ti � @ G f 2 .\ / § k 4� / ƒ } ƒ / % \ / § ; f o)»ƒ{ o / E w 0 0 3» G*& e e 4/ E E e° / 4 % m d \ LO Eƒ\/ \ J m ƒ x •� / / . 0/ 0 0 § = - e / / \ $ / / 4 1_4 & c e = s R M _ n e 9 0 S.g ƒ { . \ \ \ \ / UO . \ / / m ± % \ 0 § ƒ / e / E /\ 2 u-r e\ % y§ u 2 § G 2 3% Z 7� E ƒ g G/ / % 2 : / 2 f / 7 Eƒ ®# -C e Q $ E& o e 2 \ / / I o \ / •- u $ R G 4 / E t � ®� / ¥ 2 / & / k \ / � 2 76 $ ) .- 7 ƒ J ��f/(� o R o . �/ �k�\t m 7 $ G# ° a e 4\ / G @•E / 2° = e G* I o .0 E o u » s 2 G 0 & § 5 / 0 \ § ) � \ /\ \/.% 7 \/k(fƒe & E2/ f / / / / k / ƒ ± \ ƒ' / \ � < \ \ / 2 0 & / 7 \ •° e \ �55 2 / 2 '� \ $ E u \ § o & / / � k 2 k E 2 IA'e ) 2 $ * 2 ƒ 3 ° CL / / •c / \ ° ° / § 7 \ 0 \ $ / / k E e § E ( e & f E / f 2 5 B g m { E _ { t / \ / / \ \ } / § \ m 3 $ E 3 \ . cn = E E _ •_ 'IT rl- 3 .'I s 6 U � 7 dA co C f6 -Cto 4�'�, _ f 6 Q -Co u C ao c co a) s } 4� 4 � o s m -0 c �, O CL 70 > ` ° 0 75 N C O CL i O i a) U m a) 4� 4= E dA a) C c E Q p ° a) .> 4� c O s CL aoE ° s __ O > co > a) E a) O s 3 V� N p u ° 4� Q s (Q `� s 7 +� •� vi dA O a) O -a H C 4� 4� O +� U CL=_ M i U (6 (u 4� O 3 O c CE a .4U E OE E u, o > avo UO ° o ) c- E o c Q a c E U u o �u �o ss� s ° a c s CL vas 3 a) co 3 c f6 c s a) 4� c u O 4� o 0 aE� E O +, 3 O O p CL O a) ai a°� � a76 s CL a) u i i p Q E > O p n () l0 a) -0 p— CLi a s a) O a) ca a) E a) > M -0a) i i a) O s 0 'i () .� -Cp -Ca) CLC -C a 0 -Cp H B O >, > H U H 'a 0 m H o Q H U 'a U VI > a L 3 a)a) -0 LEa O s 0 3 U 4 p s C- Q � VI a) � f6 +� 3 41 VI �, ao s a) E c � i � C u +' 7 O a) ca m CL3 C a) 7 U m CL of C O to Q a) X i 3 .c -Co o to u :a' —_ _ E o> -CN H cco u c U a- ao O > ado 4�oss 4; a)s.0 -a 4, 4 , a) 4, c C f0 a) 3 a) a � o c o �' +, o C 4� (0 > C 4-J U (0 O -a 4i 4s ao 4� Q - C a) a) c 4, Q an c a) s to C f6 E C a) s s o a) E s a s Q of U of CLm C:of p a a) ^ O � cc>� co a) O O CL'a 4� c a) +� +� > CL}? c a) a) p O +, ao c co v, ao a) E co +� 'E ° c`o `) c CL u +� s c = -a c 3 O a) c Q a) 3 a s Q u Q� 0 o C: u ao co c O 4, a .X ° E +, U a) .i f6 a 3 c co a) (i + s +, � Q } c Q aco 4 s 4, c M C 4� C +� C Op a) a0) 01 as M 4� C dA 7 -Ca) v c`o E E E a a) c ° c N ao E a) a) � .c a) c CL 3 U (0 (6 t�i� a) i p : i> .E 4� � +'O 7 E a) CLa) u a a) u a -a -Cc V O a) co a) O O 'c a) O c c c O C >..� f6 O 'a E a u a u_0 ai " a w a) m a w s -CE Lcu: a w :5 LO ti 3 N U f 6 C C dA i 4�+� C C O 'c c0 in � CC0 0 O co c 3 C E ro , O aic O -C o 0-C nsU� sg o so : a� s c v 4' a u 3s aaCL coo a) > 4 � a) O ° o' - o ao _� > cs o > 4� c -0 a) 4 `° � a) Caro O o .N a) "M E 4�a) > -C O 2p 4�0 a 2o ° Ouu a - ca a) + � 7 a) N p > N > '6 d n > a) u ca Q O Q > C a) O E c��6 7 =. n M� 2 in p O -p s 4-1 co O ,l C > O aj c�0 a) Q i > O 4-1 a) a) +' Q — -0+, L c0 4� X > a) Ou O c6 2 s Q C cL '� O 7 c�0 -a u N C p N 'O ° p 7o +'4-1 ° O O a) � +� 'i a) dA 3 .3 N > 0 •o > > a) a) s 3: E 'O O .2 'a � � +, p °� U U co -C 4-1+ O O s U co -0 O ° 7 C ° CL c u O — � c6 a) > X a) O N coo u w a) a) _ O - -0 Q 4 -0 a i 3 a M4�Cp Q c vi N a)O a) Q = -CdA i 3 ^ O E 'a E +' v� 4-1 co LL E Q L 0 a) Q (V L =3_ U c6 a) E a) O - >> C a) +� C 0 s H p v� 7 S C O> i Q -C O C p 0 O Q S d S u co H u �n H +S c -° � s -p a) U O E u '6 > O as- > s 4 u E O> s s two a) 0c0 4 X C s 0 +' a) a0 LE u -a c s -0 u 03 E o a) E c ai 1 �°`ac o .0 O s. uiO � o c �� O +,O c a O ul a) +1 C p a) �> 4-1 (A U O a ' ° o . E U C u3 �, a -a) CL o o +� � M 4-13 O° ) c a -0 E a U .c 0=+ O>• —p � oc 4-1 N o -0 > o a) -0 u O a uE c da)A C,OQ C ° a) a CL a- a) +CL Q) !E E a) O 4-1� ) E co +' a) co O 0 > Q -0 4-1U � a) ao 4-1 a -0 -p C c�6 a) > (a U a) O � u 4S 4-1 to u U v�i 'U VI 7 C p 4-1� i pp p i c6 c6 >- O i 'a Q ,m 0a u a) > 'a C > 4, i O C coo a) C 4� 4' i 7 a) a) 3 C 7 s U a) 2 E f 6 0 o �� uu t � O a� 0 a) E > aci E � c ° ° Ou a CL co 4 -_ -a Z) co 2� u o C a) N o a) o v' a) ° c �O o an C } vi > CD } c a>i o o E' ao c O c ,� c c c +� o c v C V (7 O j N C O s 'E i s . O 41 S co u 'p a) C C C C N > a) O v� +� � a) 4 , U C w O Q) Q co Q O -0+_r_+ O O V a) a) [F cCo a) Ln O 0 o a) 01 ) .0 a) Q �O u ECL O E� J J a) a) Q U s s dA E N -0a) U p a) a) i Q U =3 a) 'a in C 4-1 -0 C O a) � V `� s � C s -p a) +� O u O 0 a) C w C C LU r4 4� O O s > m a C" w Q a C w a p u p— ,� u m a O cvi 4� a U O 4� C C a) M U a) 0 3 ti 3 a� LLO c 0 — f6 c O o a) s � a) () 3 E �, a) s co a u O + o o ai w ua) -0 c ao co co a) }? _u U p a) � •i + O i co c U s c 0 co a) cp v> > 'co� > a cvL aU a7p CL O OO a n �v a) 2 0 � +' U C- �_ s u vi 7 i >� -6 co C 0- .0 7 O dA s 7 4� co O co ate+ a v 0 co 2 >, c 0 Q C s VI VI U a) 0 Q C (o ° Q CL 0 oE0 a) � O 'O o E oo CL C � �fo � � s o Ln (U oo > u 'F O 4' sb � 16 E 4' C a u Co nO s � oQ ' C O s� o s a) 3 U> — w s 3 Q o .� a a i Q i vL p C ;_ -6 u pp p n 4s : O O •� in co O U n CO n > 6 is � y' =3 co U u W d�0 va)i co s uo O "-a to s+� +� OO a- c � ai ao as 4i , U O O"Ts i E a p4 u s � o a) 4�E 4��a o i E a),_X a) o u Q> Q E Q a- 0- O Q i a) -6 u a) • • • • • co O O C 7 6 oa 'N O i '6 a) 'i u a) c a) 2 i i O O a) a) coo O s H> co co s O H E u s H O to 2 to 2 s p a) H u '6 Q O w s H > O s 4� i Q c U s c 0 co O °° }� a 4 � a) s 'i 4' i a�i a) " c .c U co dA C 4_ a) -6 C C O 4� 4. 4' N a) dA C C Q co co C '6 _ i dA 0-co Z Q Q u Ul a) O CL 4�i a 4s � O o -6 '6 6 s 0 Q +' ur c—co O � S C co +� U 4� c: vL sw +w+ a a) a) ao c s a) 4' -6 x s 4 a) an E u s> E a) E a Q a) a) 4� co f6 s 'c a) oCL o —aoi 0 > u a a) a � O u cco +� O a (1) 1a) — nN � 4 fu O N `- a� > O uu 0c s U dA a) _6 Q ua) > Q6 c c6 Q O u !E O 4' "Ca' C- co a- U a) s u7too C U fo O C co " 0 a) s aA v dA i dA co •� O C X a a) a) N u a s c +, Ul io in u Oi O ) aai; o) o a co co 3 �O aaa s +E+, 3 n nu U O 6L p u C Ou Q Q CL 4� p cUo +' Q c:_ u 7 co O + — 3 4' C a u a) p 7 4� a) + O i u cco 3 sao acL o uo aco 0 : � wo ° o O 4� a) > u> ao E 4a � z °) >� o C .41 E > 01 -6 co •_ 7 (o a� C O ? a) N, . nO dA •CcavLo O 7a) co C Ul`�73 Q c >2 Eo + cox cEO u a) ~ vi C _6 -a C enO 0 s+ H C •� O 0 o Es E m a s 3 m a C w( a) u s E-a ti ti a�76N 3 0 v, 0 u+ N 4, N c O s °° c o o " i o 4 � � co p C aA U 'p c 7 a Q O U -C Q N O` +�+ m fc6 2 7 U Q s 4, Q dA f0 u p •� a)7 O 1 N s i' N C ate, 4�cp w O O �' 4. p f6 dA O 4, f0 C O Q _ 4, N 7 U s Ln S �, U m Qj � Q N a..� dA 7 VI i N S +� of O 7 +' > N E O N pp dA p 'a f0 � N p dA C i N O 0 w o ._ a� > C a) 0 4� m 0 _ r_ s > N C cp U Q O c +' Q a 7 (0 C C p 4s U O Q N U aA U p s a= `n ca ,2 O O p aA C C u o �n 'a dA O O 'a O p 7 C O s c +� C c6 C Q +� E s v� C .Q OU Q m 7 o 4n N O — u c 4f�_76' N u c a) 'o O a cu U 3 CL 0� fNv° s U O E 3 C p � 'a O � '> ," C S s soO O 4� o' a s 4� c u X c a o 'a > aM > O 3 QNn p E ao i w u N 4� CL Q,s > U s = = a E m w • • • • s -0 u � a) 4� a� a� s a� O a� E a� a� a� s o 2 w w 0" o s s m O m s p O a s p s s s 3 4, co a s c co a N s O 4� � 1 u ._ w C O C � C N N C u p — +' 7 v� s +' (a ` o > O v c ai c -0 O i co — C O +, N +, 7 U +, > 0 U 4� 4� c 0 U " m dA O U N \ -, N as dA 4, f6 � C (AdA C Eo >-In -p C C co i E > p co °° i C O u O p_ Q 4, O f6 4� (a '7 U Q a a� s C E 4�E s 1� m > c (A a3 E � 4 v, O C U > -�6 p s O > � (0 +� +� c s U a� c c U >— O s � a c a� a c — > CC: s s p co > +� u o ao p a � °' o ° o `�° c E Q o '� acso aco O u E N 4� c6 -° � c c a� s c a � — a� c a� U . p N ai 4� ao N 0 s C s 7 � @ e ( u ® u e k� 3 ' G� 2 n f k S / } \ C u % u u 2 (Ae ° ƒ ) (A ) u $ 2 k } \ \ % E n t C: °CL t e E \ r•e £ § / ƒ / -r— \ = E $ 9 3 ± § / � E / § / \ \ k ƒ M 2 ) "u 2 $ / $ 0 & C }'/ t { / = \ \ E \± /•- } 2 0 o e 7 = 0 \/ 3 . / u= u o d &{ E m f�•��._> m e /ƒ / t§ u 2 f u E n.= t s m E E = m$ 9 2 E% }$ �u '/ƒ�222 (ƒ e m- E ° o 2 6 2 / t/± o a) 2 / § ƒ 2 f 7 \ E } ƒ ° f ƒ \ § }co E 5* k § e 5/ am $CL o m®/ c 3£ n o •Q 5 e & e / $ 5 2 o a) &,§ -0.§ a)± e $ { _ § e = /.[& /� /.Ef)25 /Z / / c c ) / f » / � \ 5 e \ $ c / ± }ek > § \ -a5 .§ n u / u / � & & .E u f o \ E ¥ / & 5 2 ° E § \ n 2 § §\ t 2 0 m _ 2 = CL # ° e £ ± o.@§ �'§ ƒ c /§ u t e e 2% o n._ CL = o / u G % $ ƒCL _ / / ( ) � } lu $ f fC: E E 2\ $ \ E .S t 2 E 2 2 e »'3 < CL \/ n 2 \ = e e /tf -a - �k\\'\ /4 § 9 § § ) 7 ( y \ ) / \ / / % ® G / § 2 .S ƒ � 2�/ & E& a)e ° 2 e 'S 2 •= c e / G±$ 2> 3 2 E 2 u/ k �% < e\ f £ 2 m rl- �, a) c ° c 3 c co � ° 0 + a) 'E-ac O a) ° s �° c f6 = c o o 4- °� .° O o a) o = °' a; O a�i c E u c c �s o c°Ao 3 to Ln+° � a) otA } c to 0 N O a• 4 uOi a2 wQaco O m vi u C O O 4C Oc_o c �i ' a 2 p c O > -4�E c M cQ o QQ � Q O c6 , +as c 0 c n=j a 4a) Q 0 QpQ Q c- c sd =u s a) -0, U p (U-a p ~ JO a_ 3 0 +' _ C U ° m c a-+ O Q M O a) 4' O 4� u° W e O a c i O O E u n v� a) o 0" a) u i n ca Q a a) c a) a0 c 4�O — c co > s __ i .4, M 2 a) 4. 7A O Q a) 41 co u v� s a) S 41 Q VI Q a f6 a) ,�.- a — N � c O +J c u c � 3 O f6 uj u °°� M a) 3 a M ao a a') .o a a) 4 _CL o u '6 ° -0 c 0 vi O 3+ O 2 c O c O 7> - 0 u a c c a) m u a) U 7 > 4O > OCA X > u .2.7 c a) Q o -a c -a a) s f 6 u •� +' n coo u Q O a) a) °) co c f6 s 4' = .� Q a) Saco a a) .0 CL o a) Q� o � � o o� ao� �� cs, 0O m Q Q Q +' Q M U Q c s O a0 U c u a) u 3VI + > a Q O -a _aa) O a) a o 1 > ca H> Q 4, O O s Q H-0 M } sO N H U (1) Q s H 7-0 is Q s 2 vA a� to 4J i a) U a o s +' co 4. +' f6 u c ao c 4� O c -° c =_ u -a c U 4� s a) f6 c > : u 4O 4� •� u 41 s c+'0 asp N a) O Q a) E dA 0 E ca _ — + O c p 3 Q" s c�0 7 = u v� c N c 0( s m o U w �O 4-1 7° 0 N c0 c6 M 0 c a) = o m c '� + Q a) 4-1 6 OO Q Q c E o s °) O 0 a mO N O M R U 4-1 cr 3 Zu N � ma) 2co c > NL O. u s u c NO Q CO 3 +� a � Qs 3 " M O cr � a) +J E a) O > 0 a) 3 '0 a) a) O a) N 0 � 'a > O - � p c M> Q Q s-0 4, Q C mtW � � 0 Q u � co > a) as � Q M � +� C pA a) U i O ,U � s M0 m > (0 -c ca U 0 4-1 ^' Q) L i •� C C•' •� 7 c > •c mN 4-10 C c C VI Q f0 a)L 3 0 -1 C 0 i 4-1O O a0 c 41 = O a M 3 `0 c asi d�0 u s +6 � � � o +� a) c IA p N O Q O Q Q 3 s N c c> s Q u s c a c � c O u M co c su Q) -a N co ° avcon c C V ° o a) 3 a) °Q u a ap a OO M c O �� O 3 a CL > p co M u u 4�U c M c a � i c c p -0O Q a O •� O M > 'a Q ca aac) o M M s3 a Q�+1Q iM jaUO n cc c CL c c4 N+� a(0) M a) 4-1O O o 0 .— c ° 2 4-1 o +V' M 2 � 4-1u° op s+Lano �)0 u 0 p n u c Q -a S 4-1 aaO i s 4-1 'ac O S c p a) 3c 'a c c M c a p X'> s E w u L5 m a0 m > tab 0 u a) m - s • •• o a) E � c c 0 — a) c a) 0 co a) a c cmo -� . o 41 o u� aco 0 0 o 3° 3 s `�° a) o a) s 0 a - i i Q a) C: '� co ,a) c 0 vi CO a) � 0 � 0 7 Q u u U 4= Q� O 7� C� dA �_ 3 C 4 2 ao c6 7 Q � a) 0 4 co aui ° co _ co �_ s 0 +, � +, E C � uo 4• VI fo dA -0 co () � Ou C _ S 4• c6 co dA 7 U u C O +' 1� M -0 co = O° U +� a) co u co c6 v� a) — 7 i C: 0 � 0 Q C s c6 _ ° s s u6°o E o u ° 3 o °' co 0 0 +, .� s s 4 + o Ou u C m E a) > _ 0 c_0 u co u 0 -0 E a c s a u 0 > a) 3 c to co = v� 0 0 0 = co a O .o p -C co a) -a 4� 0 u Q— u w o o— c .ao -a 0 -a c c +� 4, c " a) s +� 3 cow O a 4 N 4 J a) 0 co dA o 0 N co > +- co CL > CL a) a) U U a� a `° °o co 0 0 0 s 4— i a) 0 0 �, u s o c s° C a) s a o C +' -° a ao > 0 O 00 a) 7A a) •� s s 0 O a) c o Q .� 4, c) ° u `��° 4, au' H O =3 c 0 -p s �° -0 M U, a) p -0 -a i pa O ° 0 •E E s s � m a CL °° o6 s co o CL •°° 0 a) cco a cco a) > C) o s c 1O CL 0- a) a) Z s E co w0 Q w c` U 4' — co a) U co E 7 s �_ > u a) —_ > a) 41 E a) U -0 a) C a) s > a) N a) +° o s +� s _ a) -a s v� p s _ s O C a) Q 'a s° s a 'i Q Q Q s° v� s i Q H +J a) U H co H co H> H1� 04� a) H a) � co 7 v� C C 0 � v`ni 0 u 0 _ a) co p V U i — (o > a) co co U C OU � a) _ co � U a) �. S Q U m a) co 7 4, u a; w Q n � o c C W 4s 0 u E a) > +� -a 0 4� 0 C 0 E C co a) u .3 0-4 u c s E a) +' 4� coo — 0 0° 0 m-0 c m 72 c 3 s co a) —= -C >, s �_ c co -a = Q- E U O 4' a) u o ;. M C a) > a' a — E 4� Q co 0 s U C U 4, coo a) Vf U co 7 N 5 O> s 0O w E +� Q i a) ) O U C a) w C > a) a an +1 41 co E W o -0— N Q O s .c �� C �O Q a U Q cos +, a) ai u 4� -a co 4, s a) E c o 3 o s C E c E c a)� 0 °c° aci a°>i a>i -0" 0 0 It a s cco a o a) tea) E a) c a) s U� m 0 ,, c >,, a) -a aa) � C coo ° 7 +' +' a) a) cio Z ° > co > C > c6 >, a) C a) O dA '� C= co s i N Q ° S > c 'u C o a) s m -0 co ao u t c s E ° C Q C-C +� co m c 3 0 `~ aco a) ) a) c6 U ° E 0 —" a 7 s a 3 ° a) C ca) oa) +� C a) � +' o aM E a) " c C u -a a_ 3s E o E c +� 3 s> c Q 0 a) a) Q 0 E s s E co a v> a) > Q c �O C an E c 7 4� O U C 00 O > _ Q a m V O _ > J a) s c o -° a) -a cr c Q c c co Q O v� O a c W c a) co co °) co a +� v� U 3 a� -a c c p s .� -a 4 c 4� c _ '� E Q s a) 4' s-Z i o O Q p �_ 3 O 7 E dA a) E � � 3 cr ,> = O > a) Q Q u u a0 cs6 Q c6CL ` a) +, 'a c '> +� O c6 vi +� v� i ° 4�C U C s �O 0> Q CL -a m d 0 •ate—_, — dA u co���oc� i u v = `° c O oc o �� a) o s c Z O o �� cNo E ��_ s Q O �._ co s(uU > s o a) C: i u 7 U4 i C a c s O -p s 4� > Q 4� s a) a� VI U > a) a) = u 4' a) a) ~ c ° = a) a> 3 o •� -0 E a a u wcL U -a u °' a a) o a) — —_ a � a) o •� s s C4=5 � � s U > o •X ai +' 'u s +' a u a) u 41 Q O CL O c 7 = 7 0 u Q Q- 4' -0 p 000 Q a) E U — (6 i E U +�' Q a) O C� a) i -a 7 Q a) N = E +� C a) E i 7 O a) v� a) i O a) c •c i °U i , U_ H 7 0°U Q U H U (6 H as� > Q 4� a) _ > — (U C c6 c6 c6 s cs6 a) c 6A a) c o a) > s `° O > u 'u 4� O a,,, s u vi U a) 7 C a) U vi E 3 C a) a) 7 :EU (6 N_U c_ V s +, v, f6 -a O °u 0 ma� S � > C Q ° 4' O s a c6 •� > c6 c6 a) ao � f6 � 7 � c6 o Q n L) C dA c6 C a� c c c� O 3 o 'a c6 Q -a c (U0 � a• a) M c6 VI a) u m a) o 4� s w a 4' s ao n a N o c 4, c ao aci o O 0 -a 7 'a E Q u a) m a) O vi c6 X 0 'a O dA O c C c6 C c6 n O ° U s O a) .0 3> C u 0 O C Q o O 7 O Q O w c _ � c6 •i Q U O s N +' a� a) a) 7 C U i) N 0 �6.0 7 .M C Q- 41 O '> s S C- C Q- O" N i a) C N- L 7 O O 3 O u O C O f6 () a) a -a a) 4 � > s to a-� o f6 O E oC > 0 s ao ao a) _ •� O C C i 0 ° L m 60 a)a� O O O c O a) O+ Q u to �= c 'Z = a) N ui r i cc6 cc6 c i w vai m a c od a w a a) m a •• Z W w a a W L9L W W wa U 1 oE �oE s9� w 6E 13381S 831VM ,ea W6 w6 WZL6 slivil W6LL W8E9 w 6 W6 d 1S Sf19 6 NLJVd8 SllV1S`JNNdVd 9L — ♦V q L � � 3.o=.�a.s3a3aa3.n�3,3 00 00 �3a3aa3.n�3,3 O -1 l y wa \ ,omsnnN,3 om N = — _� � — ersn3,3 noN3,3 -- � cn �m E o �N s w Ilk— � y o m = s w d� rc w I - a UNRS �V m �i r oum \\ u b� 62 /r \ o d GE W Z epUPQp55P p �pP O — LL to o �w U so 0 o M 1 o o 0 0 1 v / / N d O } O z o O U U 11 l N � Y U c� Q LtfLLL- _. - I O 9 If � ICI II II II I (/J� cc 5 T N ILLdn, w I N � O v I I I TF Ff /\V T o ID S, O -2 _ _T th c Y U A Q � _T Vi 1 � V Z Q N L p N � o N cc a� wIr ao L > m m LLZ u1 'i�b'i LL y � n cc 00 flT- I 009££ m 1/22N �3AItl0 1tlAltld So -----_--, oU' c I II 1 a o I I > I I Z � Y � _ 90b£I 089 0099� 0099 0001 0099 a +r OOz[� 2191 > > o w V oz a = m D �,� I � 11� II II ou, I ♦ � III m I I I r � C7 `m - a LLZ I I 11 -0 -0 w lLo z d (� vwai n lo o N �/ V) t ! o 0 pO \ o H W � W Q p,� rAA ,�� e � IQ W J z wO N z _ > cL P oPR¢ o�. CC L O EEL m r �P w AESP� Q Q W :LLa p0 ULiI Q , (n (n c / J w g0 y�9 - n . z 0 N N_ m m 7 N w Q 0 d 7 z - LU CJJ loLU o �w =-o m LL,ma __a / , Q (n H aao z s N.N aad-� � z o a a LU W O o�� la o", �o O z O Boo in Q as - o as LL (n C7 (n + _ .e e ,., m a +. o - � U CN 009E 00£E 00£E 00£E OOEE 006E OOZE � z �'2 J � d 1 O MNCN W — Q m � ®mm� m LU W oa m U Li��� ; ® m m a L w o \J - o I //\\ \_/ _ w ® A ® ® ®CD O N In 1VM133i11S 009E MCC 0. OOEE OOEE m9 iHzeH zlvlallne 0 O O O _ i 7 O O N O ON _ L 09ozo W O 4t� CD N W W Q :� - EL -z C - LL �O LU Q U lc� J O Ik LU Q LL W -1Z V N Ocm o m® m L=-U o� p � N M 4(� O ®®Em cm 0 - U) C - c 0 16 0 O I�W �1 w z wo V a 0 1VM133 1 o a - 009E 00££ 00£E 00£E 00. 0906 lHzeH DNIGIIne sozz - w CD - - o- Z _ N c� - m < o< �LL <o coz o 00000 � - N � CN L c�i Q Q z w � N IV� cc �N3� cc � m — O �o llVM133 1 t }� 009E 00£E 00£E 00£E 00£E 0986 m t 06 v N m N O � Y a U Boa z 0 wL w U ® m®® O z C ) I I C IJ U U L_ _ m O N w� o CLuLL N CLU 46,j U 4>% N LL > O N V i a o 0 15 — 1 �00 r r r H w 0 wL 0 Q EL = w� wz 999E 00£E 00£E 00£E 00£E 007E 0f O 0 1HzeH ZNlaIIn 0 ozzLL O EL p Q LU O j�l CII NN N I j o� O 0 009E OOEE OOEE OGEE I OGEE I 006E I Oda 1H913H `JNIGlin O 0 ozz z C O +_� cm) N LU w� LLCJJ w oI- lolo - - o - o � - 00000 tAll WAR A A wu JIM" 0 m LIIRFL UW�WV-= M r - ��Uv �-�Ww q bi z r 1x L li f W z r C ?7 f 091 0 CL 0 L a ism Nun -C=� R : ._ OEM MMM all MEM [ � [ \ [ ( ( \ [\ ( § q® ( 0 CL 0 L a Aw ,y �da WAVC— �M I mil ��I E1�Uwl wlmw-m�Ml 0 CL 0 L a Ni Ll 1 I n l l a F O u OIrT t r J I L O f 1�1 3 Z '1 08 i nl I .�t; Ilk, f +k I n a N E 0- 0 N N a N O N O m N > O Q tch CD Q N a) O L- O N E N cr N E E .C: .E N O E N N cn •U N O U c CU O cn N 0 .L m a) cn � L O 0- � U O `-- ch N O Q CD cn Q }' O U T � L O 7 O 70 c� � a) O � l+QL 1 . m TO 0 _M > 70 O �D QL m Q Q Q .� O C: ' 4-0 � a) a) O 4-0 'c/) =3 � 15 C/) � a E i N a) � a)L O O C 70 Cfl � �_ U cn E O a O a)O O O .0 U Q Q N Q Cn Cn 0 0 0 I m E cn C U -a Q N C c O a) � • co ' O O O cn Q +� a)O CD +� O O Q 4-0 x E a) a)Lu c: cn I O CDC: iu a . (6 J .O tu � p 4-0 E C OU N — .9 O O Q a) •� O U CDL � ° o � 0 cn E CIO a) C: 4-0 U c� 0 c� N N (a C/) N Q U O 0 O N m 'O N E 0 O ) Q U L cn 0 E (� a)•� m c 4_' � '� 'Q O ' Z3 Co cu ca U •� O U � O N � � 70 CD E > I N a 0 O B E E O� U O U 0 U N cUn > '� 0 0 W Q m L '� O L O UE C: 42 E N O a) Q ca > N cn (a Q a E o a)a� N '^ cn C }, 4— � ` . � . . O ccu m U U) a) a . O C/) L a) a-�+ O Q L Q (� � -a a) _O N a) N � Q � c N CDc� L � L � cu m c a) (6 Q p O x L Q 0 `~ 0) M >O 4 .� � Q a Q O � m �� Q .O .> Q a)♦- 0 j U) 4- o Cl) o W •� W o � O }+ cn Cl) 4-0 0 0 �: o4--j L Cl) LU ca °' 0 DL o E �o �--+ ; a r a 0 0 cn Z c Cl) E 0 4--+ j a) Q 0 c 0 c m E E 0 m U a 4) L U a 0 .CD C� O U O U) cn O 0- 0 0 O') LO 0 CL 0 L a mil ��I E1�Uwl wlmw-m�Ml �rrmimpp- ■i O eeaq'p utS,Shop Council Application GROWTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF SAINT JOHN CIVIC ADDRESS I APPLICATION # I FEE PAID I Y I N TYPE OF APPLICATION Land for Public Purposes Release Application Fee: $350 Section 59 Amendment Application Fee: $2,650 Non -Conforming Use Application Fee: $250 Zoning By-law Amendment Application Fee: $2,650 Satisfactory Servicing Application Fee: $350 Zoning By-law Amendment with Municipal Plan Amendment Application Fee: $3,700 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION Where applicable, indicate the changes to existing Section 59 conditions, zoning, or Municipal Plan designation being requested. Attach site plans, building elevations, floor plans, and other documentation to fully describe the application. The submission of a preliminary proposal and a Pre -Application Meeting is encouraged prior to seeking approval. Please contact the One Stop Development Shop at (506) 658-2911 or OneStop@saintjohn.ca for further information. ENCUMBRANCES Describe any easements, restrictive covenants, and other encumbrances affecting the land. AUTHORIZATION As of the date of this application, I, the undersigned, am the registered owner of the land described in this application or the authorized agent thereof, and I have examined the contents of this application and hereby certify that the information submitted with the application is correct insofar as I have knowledge of these facts, and I hereby authorize the applicant to represent this matter and to provide any additional information that will be necessary for this application. Registered Owner or Authorized Agent Date Additional Registered Owner Date The information contained in this application and any documentation, including plans, drawings, reports, and studies, provided in support of this application will become part of the public record. Council Application Form 2021 06 01 110 N O o 0 Q L- NU LL �I� i�i LL f 1\y ill o� J Op / flT � I soh 009££ m — --------- c IIIIF I II 1 a oU' o I I > I I Z � got £I 0689 0099� 0099 I OOOL 0099 K w w m II I II OOZ6� I ail li 8696 a w z^moo -0 d III l vwai lL o (/5n -0 V N, o - n V s - 6 N ` o o U U H W � LU d O S J z wO N z _ > cL P oPR¢ o�. CC L O EEL m r �P w AESP� Q Q W :LLa p0 Uw Q (n (n � � J 0 aiom w g0 y�9 - n . z O N N_ m m 7 N w Q 0 d 7 z - LU O o� --= �� o� W W o o =o COma 1-H Q n aao z s N.N aad-� z o a a W O o�1 1a o1110 , 1a cm 10 O n Q as — o as LL (n C7 (n + _ .e e ,., m a +. _ .e a ,., ooeE ooeE ooeE ooeE ooEE ow ooac Li Q _ ail �II�I - 0 _ _w 1VM133a18 009E 00. OOEE 00£E OOEE 0986 O O iHDeH DNialInO O 0907 < w w� o - o z w o -- o oDo �— zm < o< LL <o 0 00000 No -- i I. iHDeH DNialInO I. U15 C O O H U U N � � o ~~ N W W � $ O S J z W O � w Q L U � J O EL LL r-) Q W 0 0 U) V Z � z E3 O N O CN m QU_ Q z c� Il�VMilldi8� ` �N3� m � J � O. llVM133 1 t 009E OOEE OOEE OOEE OOEE 0986 m Z oa Q m Q o c Y a U m Boa z wU �w o , O U U � C �uu — o >o >� W� N W - n LL o N OLL oN _ N LL15 I I C H W O W Q a - -- -- _s = W ® w Z 009E ooEE ooEE ooEE ooEE oo" o ` /�` ;��1J - w o M� � U iHzeH ZNla]In 307 O EL p Q LU CII NN F N I j o� 0 009E 00£E OOEE OGEE I OGEE I 006E I Oda 1H913H `JNIOIIn O 0 ozz z C O +_- cm) N LU w� LL w o- - oDo �o- co o � - 00000 tAll WAR A A wu JIM" 0 m LIIRFL UW�WV-= M r - ��Uv �-�Ww q Approvals Parcel X Part 2' Plan 1532 228\ PID 55026 Subject to Navigation Rights See plan 1532 See plan 29301794 Title Data PID 552D9159 & 55209167 Owner: The City of Saint John Document 31649172 Registered: 2012-06-28 PID 552 1899 & 55221907 Owner: The City of Saint John Not Land Titles Document 33263410 Registered: October 30, 2013 Detail �00- 2411011 MAVIN "'Al IN The City of Saint John Document 315100, Volume 1045, Page PID 55024442 The City of Saint John Document 32064678 PID 55151351 Signature of Owners for. The City of Saint John Title Data �m 3m 3C ~' ,s ¢t p Ed E-1 No B.IlBuiltl Zane Wh (halchedana) Key Plan / 81 South Matk'Is, 5 2�''sa\ o�1on o4 "asement A" p-asemsnt 5 ;ai V om&2\ 25 wide EasomontmtavDr oS sB Detail 43:142 ���T 552p1 I ' O 4 5T" .Municipal Services \ Easement % o \ 18-1 fi88]m'Y o, cl G � 3 \ a 3 3 \\\p gt41 piD 55209159 p1D 5520916T ' Bement and 9 0 whdEaso+naUfE � n'a{avot of 1& PID 55011894 The Market Square Corporation to The City of Saint Jahn Document 351723, Volume 1327, Page 567 Dated: December 30, 1988 Registered: January 11, 1989 Scats = 1'20.p00 Legend The City of Saint John op SMS- Standard aurvay markeraat Document 315100, Volume 1045, Page 440 BQ SMF- Standard survey marker found Sea Plan 891 PID 55006886 Q CALC - Calculated point p RIB - Round iron bar found ■ SGIB- Square iron bar found O IP - Iron pipe found Tabulated coominute reference Lands dealt with by this plan Notes 1. All 5 d computations performed and coordinates shown are based on the NB stenographic double i v g w projection and the NAD83(CSRS) ellipsoid as reallzed by Send- New Brunswick's Adjusted Old Monument iX = - m (p n System. 2. All distances shown are grid distances calculated (D m using a combined scale factor utilizing geoid model HT2.0. 3. All directions are NB grid azimuths established ing GNSS. Document and plan numbers referred to are those of the land titles or county registry office. - 5. Certification is not made as to legal title, being the domain of a lawyer. nor to the -ming & setback bylaws 256"4128' ' ' ' ' p�D 55�Zh9p1 0 or regulations, being the domain of a developm— p1Qofficer 5522�gp7 6. CadIlpstID r Is not mads as to cove Tanta set out In PlD 5520916T ' \ om In tlohumerus) and the location ofany underground and or fixtures permanent or otherwise 18-2 1.88he Lot 05-1 Plan 25342206 PID 55190268 Public Utility Easements These easements vest in Bell Canada and Saint John Energy pursuant to Section 88(7)(b) of the Community Planning Act and Regulation 84-217. The easements shown on this plan conform to the requirements of the following Utility Companies: For: Bell Canada For: Saint John Energy FM. Peripheral information and adjacent owner o a Ot N y \ Jv Information was derived from SNB records. 8. Field survey was completed in April, 2018. oPurpose of Plan -� N \ a ' . To create Lots 18-1 and 18-2. • To create Public Utility Easements. �- \ • To create Municipal Services Easements. 260°2901" 1 39T • To show Easement E-1, a No Build Zone. • To show Easement E-2, a 3.000 wide easement to be released. • To show Easement E-3, a 9.0 wide easement in favor of 18-1. • To show Easement E4, a 2.5 grid, easement in The C favor of 18-1. • To show Easement E-5, a 2.5 wide easement in Saint hn fa orof 18-1. • To show Easement E6, a 2.5m wide easement in Document 15100, Volume 104 favor of 18-2. Municipal Services Easements These easements vast In the City of Saint John pursuant to Section 87(6)Pd of the Community Planning Act and Regulation 84-217. a L Subdivision Plan City of Saint John Subdivision Water Street City of Saint John Saint John County, NB 0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5 73 Scale =1:75D Proposed Section 59 Amendment RE: 35 Water Street Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider amending The City of Saint John Zoning By-law at its regular meeting to be held in the Council Chambers on Monday, January 9, 2023, at 6:30 p.m., by: 1. Amending the Section 59 conditions imposed on the January 24, 2022, rezoning of the property located at 35 Water Street, also identified as PID Numbers 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113, to permit a revised proposal. REASON FOR CHANGE: Amend the conditions imposed on the mixed -use development, including changes to the phasing plan. For details on how to inspect the amendment, or to register to participate, please contact the Office of the Common Clerk at CommonClerk(a)saintiohn.ca. Written objections to the amendment may be provided in writing and/or verbally at the Public Hearing to be held by Common Council. To register for participation in the hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office in advance at commonclerk(a)saintiohn.ca If you require French services for a Common Council meeting, please contact the office of the Common Clerk. Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk (506) 658-2862 Projet de modification de I'article 59 Objet : 35, rue Water Par les presentes, un avis public est donne par lequel le conseil communal de The City of Saint John indique son intention de modifier 1'arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John, lors de la reunion ordinaire qui se tiendra dans la salle du conseil le lundi 9 janvier 2023, a 18 h 30, en apportant Ies modifications suivantes : 1. Modification des conditions imposees en vertu de I'article 59, le 24 janvier 2022, relativement au rezonage de la propriete situee au 35, rue Water, et portant Ies NIDs 55221881, 55235105 and 55235113, pour permettre la presentation d'une proposition revisee. ..-.4a w- War r RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION: Modifier Ies conditions imposees a I'amenagement a usage mixte, y compris des changements au plan de phasage. Pour plus de details sur la fagon d'inspecter la modification ou pour vous inscrire pour participer, veuillez contacter le Bureau du greffier commun a CommonClerk@saintjohn.ca. Les objections ecrites a la modification peuvent titre fournies par ecrit et/ou verbalement lors de I'audience publique qui sera tenue par le conseil municipal. Pour vous inscrire a I'audience, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier municipal a l'avance a commonclerk@saintjohn.ca Veuillez faire part de vos objections au projet de modification par ecrit a I'attention du soussigne a ('hotel de ville. fiIll F:3 Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau du greffier communal. Jonathan Taylor, greffier communal (506) 658-2862 `f1�7 Staff Recommendation for Council Resolution Property: 51 Heather Way Public Hearing: Completed December 12, 2022 Item Required: Recommendation (Y/N) Municipal Plan No Amendment Zoning By -Law Yes That Common Council give 1s' and 2" reading to an Amendment Amendment to the Zoning by-law which rezones a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square metres, located at 51 Heather way, also identified as a portion of PID Number 55124341: from Two -Unit Residential (1112) to Local Commercial (CL). Other No 3rd Readina: January 9. 2023 Item: Required: Recommendation (Y/N) Municipal Plan No Amendment Zoning By -Law Yes That Common Council give 3rd reading to an Amendment to Amendment the Zoning by-law which rezones a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square metres, located at 51 Heather way, also identified as a portion of PID Number 55124341: from Two -Unit Residential (1112) to Local Commercial (CL). Recission of Yes That Common Council rescind the conditions imposed on the Previous s. 39/s. March 17, 2008 rezoning of the property located at 51 59 Conditions Heather Way, also identified as PID 55124341: a) Prior to any blasting taking place on the property, inspections must be performed on all homes adjacent to the development and those separated from the development by a street; and a) Blasting only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday to Friday; and b) Testing of wells before and after the development be carried out. We] Section 59 Yes That Common Council impose the following conditions: Conditions a) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle and bicycle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; i) That the proposed development incorporates pedestrian connections between the building and the parking lot and between the building and the public sidewalk located on Heather Way; ii) That the proposed development include the installation of directional signage to establish the traffic flow allowed at each of the two proposed street accesses; iii) The above elevation and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land. b) That the parcel of land be developed and maintained in accordance with an engineering storm water drainage plan and design report, prepared by a professional engineer on behalf of the proponent and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer, and that such approved plan and report be attached to any development and/or building permit for the proposed development; c) Should any municipal infrastructure improvements be required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining the requirement for any municipal infrastructure improvements, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval; Section 59 No Agreement Section 131 No Agreement Other Yes That Common Council assent to the submitted subdivision plan, in general accordance with the submitted tentative plan 121 with respect to any required Local Government Services Easements. That Common Council accept money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purpose dedication. `PA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 16, 2022 Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision 51 Heather Way On October 17, 2022, Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its November 15, 2022 meeting. The City of Saint John No members of the public appeared to speak in favor or opposition. Though the committee was supportive of the application, some had questions about details of the daycare center. Some members of the committee including the chair noted that the applicant should have been present to address questions. They recommend that city staff get in touch with the applicant to encourage them to be in attendance at the council meeting's public hearing should questions arise, and also to show their support. One letter was received in support regarding this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square metres, located at 51 Heather Way, also identified as a portion of PID Number55124341, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Local Commercial (CL). 2. That Common Council, rescind the conditions imposed on the March 17, 2008, rezoning of the property located at 51 Heather Way, also identified as PID 55124341. Page 1 of 3 123 Andrew MacDonald 51 Heather Way November 15, 2022 3. That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square metres, located at 51 Heather Way, also identified as portions of PID Number 55124341; a) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle and bicycle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; i. That the proposed development incorporates pedestrian connections between the building and the parking lot and between the building and the public sidewalk located on Heather Way. ii. That the proposed development include the installation of directional signage to establish the traffic flow allowed at each of the two proposed street accesses. iii. The above elevation and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land. b) That the parcel of land be developed and maintained in accordance with an engineering storm water drainage plan and design report, prepared by a professional engineer on behalf of the proponent and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer, and that such approved plan and report be attached to any development and/or building permit for the proposed development; c) Should any municipal infrastructure improvements be required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining the requirement for any municipal infrastructure improvements, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval; 4. That Common Council assent to the submitted subdivision plan, in general accordance with the submitted tentative plan with respect to any required Local Government Services Easements. 5. That Common Council accept money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purpose dedication. Page 2 of 3 124 Andrew MacDonald 51 Heather Way November 15, 2022 Respectfully submitted, Alex Weaver Crawford Chair Attachments Page 3 of 3 125 The City of Saint Jahn Date: November 10, 2022 To: Planning Advisory Committee From: Growth and Community Development Services Meeting: November 15, 2022 SUBJECT Applicant: Andrew MacDonald Landowner: 629248 N.B. LTD Location: 51 Heather Way PID: 55124341 Plan Designation: Stable Residential Existing Zoning: Two -Unit Residential (R2) Proposed Zoning: Local Commercial (CL) Application Type: Rezoning, Subdivision, Jurisdiction: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law Common Council will consider the Committee's recommendation at a public hearing on Monday, December 12, 2022. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide approximately 3583 square meters from the lot identified as PID Number 55124341, and to rezone the proposed lot from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Local Commercial (CL) to facilitate the development of a new Day Care. Assent from Common Council is required with respect to money -in -lieu of Lands for Public Purposes (LPP). The development also requires Council's assent to a Local Government Services Easement, which will vest upon filing of the Final Plan of Subdivision. Page 1 of 7 126 Andrew MacDonald 51 Heather Way November 10, 2022 Staff recommend approval of the rezoning and subdivision, subject to recommended Section 59 conditions. Staff also recommend Common Council grant the required assents to the proposed subdivision and money -in -lieu of land for public purposes. . RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square metres, located at 51 Heather Way, also identified as a portion of PID Number 55124341, from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Local Commercial (CL). 2. That Common Council, rescind the conditions imposed on the March 17, 2008, rezoning of the property located at 51 Heather Way, also identified as PID 55124341. 3. That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square metres, located at 51 Heather Way, also identified as portions of PID Number 55124341; a) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle and bicycle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; i. That the proposed development incorporates pedestrian connections between the building and the parking lot and between the building and the public sidewalk located on Heather Way. ii. That the proposed development include the installation of directional signage to establish the traffic flow allowed at each of the two proposed street accesses. iii. The above elevation and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land. b) That the parcel of land be developed and maintained in accordance with an engineering storm water drainage plan and design report, prepared by a professional engineer on behalf of the proponent and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer, and that such approved plan and report be attached to any development and/or building permit for the proposed development; c) Should any municipal infrastructure improvements be required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining the requirement for any municipal infrastructure improvements, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval; Page 2 of 7 127 Andrew MacDonald 51 Heather Way November 10, 2022 4. That Common Council assent to the submitted subdivision plan, in general accordance with the submitted tentative plan with respect to any required Local Government Services Easements. 5. That Common Council accept money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purpose dedication. DECISION HISTORY In January 2008, Common Council amended the Zoning By -Law by rezoning the subject property to Two -Unit Residential (from the previous Zoning By -Law One and Two Family Suburban Residential to One and Two Family Residential). This rezoning was part of the now - defunct Hart to Hart Subdivision that was to be located at 50 & 51 Heather Way and would have comprised of approximately 20 hectares. The following Section 59 conditions were imposed as part of the rezoning: • Prior to any blasting taking place on the property, inspections must be performed on all homes adjacent to the development and those separated from the development by a street; and • Blasting only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday to Friday; and • Testing of wells before and after the development be carried out. Proposal The applicant is proposing to construct a Day Care in the form of a newly built single building with surface parking, which will have a capacity of sixty-five children and ten workers. The proposed facility will be on a new 3583 square -metre lot that is proposed to be rezoned from Two -Unit Residential (R2) to Local Commercial (CL). Site design elements include thirteen parking spaces for staff and five spaces for use as a drop- off location for parents. Two fenced -in play areas are accessed directly from the building. The site also includes separate accesses for entering and exiting the property, with the access for entry being located off Heather Way on the north end of the site and an exit from the site onto Heather Way located 20 metres to the south. The proposed development will require a variance for number of stories. The minimum number of stories required for Local Commercial development is two while the average height of the proposed building would be an average of one and a half storeys. This variance can be granted by the Development Officer prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition to the requirement to rezone the site, the applicant will have to satisfy all requirements established by the Province in New Brunswick as part of the required licensing and approvals. The province analyses the internal size of the proposed Day Care as well as the outside play area. The space provided by the applicant for the Day Care will determine the maximum number or children as well as the corresponding ages of the children. The requirements from the province also determine how many staff are required for the Day Care, which is derived from the age profiles of the children attending the Day Care. Page 3 of 7 128 Andrew MacDonald 51 Heather Way November 10, 2022 Site and Neighbourhood The 2.6-hectare parcel is located to the northwest of the intersection of Grandview Avenue and Heather Way. Heather Way is a four -lane collector street with a grass median separating the two directions of traffic. A separated sidewalk is located along the western side of Heather Way, adjacent to the proposed development. This sidewalk also leads to a bus stop that is 125m south of the property on Heather Way. The site is vacant but contains woodland remnants with a large portion of the site having previously been cleared. Curb cuts along the concrete sidewalk already exist for the two proposed access locations, as does a median break on Heather Way. The closest developed property, located to the north of the site contains a series of multi -unit apartment buildings, both built and under construction. The site is located in excess of 100 metres from lower density residential units to the west along Hedley Street and Jimegal Lane. West of the site, on the opposite side of Heather Way a series of single unit dwellings are located along Grandview Avenue. The closest Day Care Centers to this property are Cochran's Home Away From Home Daycare at 1433 Loch Lomond Road, 3km from the proposed site, and Cheryl's Home Away From Home Daycare at 185 Loch Lomond Road, 5km from the proposed site. These Day Care Centers have a capacity of sixty-one spaces between them, but no available spaces this year. Across the city there are only forty available Day Care spaces and some of those are only for after -school care'. The proposed Day Care is a use which complements a growing residential area such as the Heather Way neighbourhood while also adding to the capacity of child care spaces across the city. Municipal Plan and Zoning Municipal Plan The subject property is designated Stable Residential by the Municipal Plan. Neighbourhoods under this designation are within the Primary Development Area, generally are municipally serviced, and have the potential to accommodate additional development at a scale and density consistent with the surrounding context and character. An analysis of the proposal with respect to the relevant policies of the Municipal Plan is provided in Attachment 2. The proposal is considered infill development of a vacant parcel of land and conforms to the policies established within the Municipal Plan. Given the mix of densities found in the surrounding area, the proposed development is considered appropriate and would provide a much -needed childcare service for existing and future residents of the neighbourhood. The proximity to residential areas is considered an important location criterion for childcare facilities. 1 New Brunswick Government. (2020). "Facility Search: licensed Early Learning and Childcare facilities in New Brunswick". Accessed on November 3, 2022, at https://www.nbed.nb.ca/parentportaI/en/search/elc/ Page 4 of 7 129 Andrew MacDonald 51 Heather Way November 10, 2022 Policy LU-125 allows for the proposed daycare centre within the Stable Residential Area, as the policy provides latitude for larger childcare centres to be situated in locations that are deemed acceptable to Common Council. As the rezoning of the proposed daycare site to Local Commercial (CL) is at the discretion of Common Council, compliance with this policy is provided through the successful completion of the rezoning process. The proposal represents an opportunity to introduce local services into a suburban context and meet the demands of future population growth and childcare in this area of the City and the broader community. From the analysis of conformance with the Municipal Plan Policies (Attachment 2), staff are of the opinion that the proposed development achieves the intent of the Municipal Plan based on the proposed uses and the building forms in the application. Zoning By -Law The site is currently zoned Two -Unit Residential (R2) and the applicant is seeking a rezoning to Local Commercial (CL) to allow for the development of the Day Care. The CL zone accommodates limited daily commercial convenience needs for nearby residential neighbourhoods. These developments are characterized by similar built -form and scale to the buildings in the surrounding area. The proposed Day Care would provide a necessary service for those residents with children, and the design renderings of the building indicate a residential building typology to ensure compatibility with the surrounding built form. The front yard of the site along Heather Way is subject to the by-law requirements for a specific amount of plantings based on the area of the front yard and screening between parking areas and adjacent residentially zoned property. Infrastructure and Traffic A Traffic Impact Statement was completed by a professional engineer and submitted by the applicant at the request of the City of Saint John. The results indicated that the intersections will operate efficiently into the future with the future increased traffic from the Day Care and no operational or safety issues arose regarding turning into and out of the proposed site. Due to these results, no infrastructure upgrades are required for the roadway. The site is located along Transit routes 30 and 33. The nearest bus stop is only 125 to the south of the property along the sidewalk. Transit Route 33 serves as a connector to the Uptown area while Route 30 connects to the Mcallister Mall area. There was a recommendation to improve pedestrian connectivity. While a crosswalk was not merited nor possible due to sight distances of the location, it was suggested that there be better connections between the Day Care, the drop-off/pick-up zone, and the existing sidewalks. Section 59 conditions suggested around pedestrian connectivity have been recommended for this proposal. If the developer proposes to cross through the adjacent land to connect water and sewer into the existing municipal piped system on Dunnett Drive, the developer shall secure all necessary Page 5 of 7 130 Andrew MacDonald 51 Heather Way November 10, 2022 private service easements and is advised that the servicing from the proposed Day Care to the municipal mains will be private. All connections (including any proposed force mains) to the municipal system are to be approved by the City. Subdivision By-law The provision of the Subdivision By -Law which applies to the proposed subdivision is the requirement for money -in -lieu of land for public purposes and the dedication of any required government easements. Land for Public Purposes Money -in -lieu requirements are calculated based on the assessed value of the land prior to its development where funds collected are placed in a trust account in accordance with the Community Planning Act. These funds are only to be used for acquiring or developing lands for public use for future needs of citizens as the city grows. Conclusion Due to the alignment of the proposed development with the goals established within PlanSJ, staff recommend that Common Council approve the proposed rezoning subject to Section 59 Conditions. And that assent be given to the proposed subdivision including the creation of a Developers Agreement, money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes and to any necessary government easements. ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS No other alternatives were considered. ENGAGEMENT Public In accordance with the Committee's Rules of Procedure, notification of the proposal was sent to landowners within 100 metres of the subject property on November 1, 2022. Notice of the rezoning will be posted on the City of Saint John website on or before November 18, 2022. APPROVALS AND CONTACT Author Manager I Director Yeva Mattson Jennifer Kirchner, RPP, MCI I David Dobbelsteyn Contact: Yeva Mattson Telephone: (506) 721-8453 Email: yeva.mattson@saintjohn.ca Application: 22-0214 Page 6 of 7 131 Andrew MacDonald 51 Heather Way November 10, 2022 APPENDIX Map 1: Aerial Photography Map 2: Future Land Use Map 3: Zoning Attachment 1: Site Photography Attachment 2: Municipal Plan Policy Review Submission 1: Tentative Subdivision Plan Submission 2: Floor Plans Submission 3: Elevations Page 7 of 7 132 E Y Y� N _ O E 2 U m O UU � U o Q U Y j U U) U �U U sU � O 0 m¢ Q .0 O O Q Z o¢ N LL c� O O N O p 7 W LLI m W m W O O ` N N W W N N U U O O U) U) m n Q .0 .C: 7-5 d� O Heather Way Heafiher Way' m E Y Y� N _ O E 2 U m O UU � U o Q U Y j U U U �U _U) a� LO p 0 �Q Q .0 O O Q Z O 20 o¢ 0 LL c� O p N O p 7 W LU W W O O N N W W N N U U O O U U E 7 co N N N N O N M O c J N LL E cn cn cn ycn L N 0- 0 N N cn N c� aD U L O cn NN(D L.L 'id cn L L - L N 0- 0 n co cn NN(D L.L ,id 0) C: .C: O N t f} \f 3 \ /\ : /\ m0 \ \\ % f/ / \« 7 9 {( ° $ ® ° �\ /{ G 7 )f 6 0 {7 \( ° ° t3 � ± ) c -i § � 2 k § N k \ k A e \ \ o q 2 2 / \ \ Attachment 1: Site Photography Photo: Proposed site (looking North Photo: Proposed site (largely wooded on boundary line but clear cut past that) Photo: Looking South along Heather Way to Grandview Ave Photo: Looking North along Heather Way (proposed site to left) ` Y111 3 a) o C 0 s O a co s 4, a) vi O +40 °; s.C: sU a U �,3 0 s a) O a) co 'O i 4O ° Ln u - 0 (o 0 u s N a) s O O Q(6 E a) Uc a)CU} a 'O7 Ca +, a) 7 a0 O s s pu u O a u -p s sOOdA u 4�so+ p oflJ0 -c w •� c s a) 4� tOs+� a) 4- O O � aco) O +� -_ U Oc U sO +E> s aO cN ° os cO +c6� O s N s } C -6 a) +' s a) d 0 .4a) Q o E s,�c6 a) a) > 7 O Q E sco aL c . a) o -g a o ) 3 0 O-0 s c u U N ° O ..--Q , � U >cao�) +� > � E >s� ' .—E > s> O c 0O ° N E +o O a Ua c s ° a) Q) CL p s 0 4�30 ' ° 'a>- Nc� > QU ' ° s O _a E a) O a) QO0 6 +ps4� Q o u (Ua� LnQ O E c n 4,N c 0 s O +� U+, 0 O u O c i s � v >QN a) Q Qp cou p O +-. 4� 0U +O Q O ` p U Q u � O -a E> s Ln c v 7 o (u a- c o +' Q N ' 0a' a) 6 OOO 'Aa ��a0 c Oa v O o sO N co �s'6 O Qu -0v u 'p 0 o +� s• o 6 — a N co O O °;�.-os co Q- 7 > O 0 p ac a 4 oa> M QaQN 'a c6 a) ss 4� Q > c Q NT s a-j o `� Qu O 4 4 4� 'O 7 Qs CL -4� co O Q CQ 0+� N u -0 Q i a) c > a) v� 'a s i O s 7 N a) s O u i >O Q O n a) O O E L" c as, ,dA i as, c J a) •� ri s s i i p s o 0 N a) 7 O +, � O U 0 s co c H 4 J CL Q u H U 4 J c cn U U Q H w a co co s + O u E 0 7A c E m 4� i i p v N U U s ao dA c a'.' O i� � a) i C i W O� a > n O 4J i a) a) vi j O i a) Q QX_ - O =s> a) 4 W a r Q) s > a) 0� o O0 Q — -0 oa 4 O -0 m + > Nc O > �Q O a) n Ln O m c vi a) 'a U O c U u E O c +�+ O O a) m 0) co +� 7 'O .� M .co '6 c N Q O 3 -0 c Z 7 -0 Q a0 c s u U � co CL a) ._ a) co O O c a)- u n >u s 7 co E > i i ao p0 0 C C U O 'a O a) �.D s u Q) O +� -0 p s u c 3 a) s E s E c > a `—m° N � c O 7 O s s — s a) E o c s Ln s a) u a) .o a) `�° E c o coo E w o ° ._ 4, = �' a) � �' a ° � u o 4. 'X 4� v a) s 4 s a) a) co — s O O a) a O aa) a) c co s co a) c c cos co o a) c 1° > co o u a) +� E +� +� E v a co u s E a) a �, 4� 3 s d 0 `n N � V) u � s s � �O w a) O� V � a) ° � C � a) o o � 0) •Q -0 .° Zn c a) a S a o x c o a) u Q v E c-0 0 u �, E �, .O u a) u a 0 3 _0 s o 0 +� o s c +' cco a) T a) U a) a) a) a) U s 3 - 3 4 c o s 'a) o-0 u o u U� c ao coo u o o 41 cUo m �n 0 a� `n m � >. c 00+ O O � c'o m s ;° oOoo 4� ° Q c a) a s a is Q- s° E +� }' c a) E co a) s a) s _� N > +� v cn co co s a) +, a) .� a) J 41 >}° m w +' w 'E E a) a) c E w co c a) H e H :: Q" E� u� ° +� u o �_ 3 o u c s pp EO '0 '0 a c •O 3 }>' O W O E (o 0 0O a) O O 7 >, S a) 4' c a) N N co a> U Q 'a u co d co 7 Q d� a) Q .� � m 4� U .� a w -a C7 >. f6 >- +' w O +, +� s ao c U" '3 cco > aA c a) c _0 � CL+o +, a) c ° +� c s c s 2 a) � n3 ss u co p � a co s U O + � 0 +' O c a a) Q�' u e i 0 ao 0 c 0 v o o i— sa) o c�co W O u ) > o us p �m U-0 +co U c f6 c C o c c a° LO o CL CL 4 a a c a) os , +a c � u _ c c °a o s = s o a E a oo >, 3 a) a) co aCL c> .LO Q c C a O .Q 0 -a 3 a) s O > co } O co E +, +; � = +' s a) O CL EO aA E — c co +, c �' ccv co � o s° c° o O u o ao u c 1 -� 0� al 0 � CL ,CL " � c :E0 U L c sao ° f6 c " c 'c > " a) i c a) a) i s +, em a) o v, c ao c s co u a) s co U s co a +, a a) a) ._ s O +, M a an ao s} +, co o +� +� a c +, c s ° c a) + a; o o � a) c an u c o .c c E> o s o co a) a a) a +' a) � a) s cn o c cUo O a) a O aco U E E a) s E s -° a -a - s -a -a W +, Q- a) O a ; +' c CL co c a +, w e a c- a) c c O s p o co O c a m u c co a O a) c° u p a) a) s > c c n c '� CL a) -a ) � co ss c a) co o s c o a) a) co E a a) +, � ao a m' a a O -a �" s� c a a) _a ° E 'n ao > °° a °Q) � a)a vi .c 2a) � a) O a O co O -a U 'n ° c +'c O a Ca) u0 c-a4, Q a u c O a) 4;o a u co a an a) a cp- a a ° c a)a) a) o � ° a �a u ac 1 a) a) a3a) +, N c s s LE s p a) a) .00 a) s a) +, s O a s U a +, +, -0 +, cn m +, -0 H s f6 U \ U -0 a) a) w c E a) 4, c +�, E s + c 4, o a) Q) a) CLM 0 a) u 7 _ -0 7 U ate, v� (7 Q O U Q O O 4, dA 3 p cC:0 Q" v w _0 i s U� 4' +�•' ' vi u c O +,QC U a o uo V Q f6 -0ca +,c E +� O s a) E c °° a 4' a) o O fu s x a) 4 , a) > co u u v� co fu O a) °) E E +� u a a) f6 fu +, a) co E a) a +, s io U a v� O � -" +, co a) ` ° " " .- >O 0 E a) ` � O w 4` cn � s � co s 0 dA c >' c'n Q ate, +a), c i O U i O E +, O O +' dA U — i +, n Q O.o c c -a cfu 3 Q cO O dA 7 dA 7 +�, m a) m E O c Q c-0 c U N 7 O co CL n s c s s �O s h0 s a) aEo E c as-, • 3 U 4' .E 6 s> o c a) E O 'a ca '> c a) ado a) c +, s a) U -0 a) +, V a) 7 io a) O a , O c0 Q a) U — U � as-, a) -0 In c0 a) -0 7 w m 73 Q) +� Q c -p Q ca U a) z a) v� co c +� .7 > U U O a) 'a n io N +�, +�, Q c s a) i s 'i +, (�6 -0 a i U a) N S c� c $ s s s c p s M i c Q c vi a) i O + a) a c w CL E a) o � co E +) c > o f6 s a) p c u N 4' a) 7A c .7 a) CL E +' c O 4' U c a) O m c O a m s +, c U ` 7 a) X +, � a a) +, 'a co O � dA o c Z m > i a) N 4, do N c a) O s U _ m a) a) ca O c c O u to 'i � co +� co E s -a .c ) c E _a a) s E c> a) s N a) ac—o c Q E CL O `° C } U a) -a 3 an w a) -0 " 7 } a) c o c io c c �_ a) co n s }, o a) o Q > f6 �° -0 " s a) —aoi a 3 'Q -° c •- u ao uo c 4 -a a 3 cco +� > c a c c x u v N > '— c E a o °) a) s a>) ub axi a� -a o s — co c fo 4, Q a a u Q ° c a� s -a s " a)fu c c 0 s p cu c s O °' 0 O c a s > '� c H a-, (n c6 Q T � c H U c6 vA O ._ 4- 4- a-, > O c0 U U a) L CL w a) O Ol C O -C� 4� a) o aci -Cu � O 'Z 3 �_ O a) N 7 U a) 4s O �O CO i � O 4s 00 N v�i 4+ 4s U C c o 3 C a) -a 4• Q u 4O � O � f6 O" ° Ln da0 > a) U co c s co -C o > Q a) O m N + cco � N s s Q 4� 40 0 a) ` n a) 4, U Li a, i (n E O Ms ao O a) _ O m a) >, O Q -0 ° aC 7 C O c i a) (UN 'u -Ca -a Q O co i i 7 a) s +� u.� ° C C:O O 4� '5 3 m C i v� -a O O O n C 4� 4� d a) _C � a) _ 4�j 3 ° 3 c a 0 0 4J m -a -a a) 4�c OCL 'c 0 3 -Co+ -0 U C: � o 4 an °s cu s o 5 c a. s 4- U O a do E-a a) E O C m co s 4' f6 Vf > U - f6 0) Ln C VI C CO ao a +� i C CO Q do a) 0 i to � a) Q O do 'ZI Q 0O 4i � a) C a) Q 7 C co a) -a O E> m a) a C c () U O a) 4 - Ou V°] N H-0 cn Q Z dA ,' — E \ O Q C 4„ fa U C +� a) o o c c C a c a) a) i -0 � Q — c 3 c a) a) an Fo M 4� C aj O m s co O 4. m 7 E m X c Q s s C O > > O C i -a vi a) a) U a) +, 7 do u a) M O 4' 4- O (D E as- C N u 7 0 a) S 1 i O •m d O O � +U—, O s s c0 �6 Q a) c co a) do ca +", Uo u co a) 4� 0 E O C Q 6 U z aC �-0 > +� ,a an SU 0 cu O u > � s co co U c o m a) a o >+_ E3 0 a u °O Q C u O(Caa C s EQ O -0 °C lu 0yU p Q C C 04- s o O " °4�u oo o o- °o c LU �° aa)) aU v>co� u i s -_CO4, O c O� HaU C`° E o m 0 u-C a 4 Q s°aa , oO 3 c c s s FU 'u a) o +� c co > o c c a) o a) aEi c o> c v a0 } a) a) 3 ° > aco � s M c c ' o co ° 3 u u o U Q o a o ao a) s— O => an > a) -0 4� 4� C a) co c C: a) c s a"i c �°aci > 0 1° +, °c° s u ao o c O a) E 0 a) s °° '> +� = •Q co ai a) 3 a) o c o a°A) E u aci c ° s c co � s � s O U 4� > c c f6 a c c f6 U O O C 4� +' a) c a) co U 3 > °� � > o ao ao E °c_n ° an c > > �>-, +� •� � °o c s •3 +' ° aco aco an a .c c 'C a) +.; w .c p coo c c c c s ° pa io do — pn a) C w O c C co pa M W C c"o C �, C —_ ,� N ao do ao E_ O C ao C s >' O o C c Q a' c c a) — s .0 �, C o +� C do .� c co s co ao U ao ao s +� O 3 a) o a) o E co > o a� to i a) s w a aco n vi C �, co a s c s 43 O a U a) a) C Q- a) o a) a) U, c c _ __ '> a) U 0 a)E a) co O U -a c0 W ._ ._ ._ .> > > 4� Vf do Z J t�/I 0 +, t�/f 6 a) 4� ao a) c s a o O C O o •s 4' s a) � s 4� •� 0 N vi f6 .c a) ++ c > c a) s =_ 3 ate, a) a) U a) (1) 4� O ) s 4 �O c tab f6 c ao =3 M s +� s a) co — a-' `- co .X E i c a)CL co O w O s O E oCL 0 s 4 � .� s > +� ° �4, c o ot +� -a s 4 � c O ao (Ua) CL O c CL m m o s 4� � o O co a v O u dA (a O 4� 0� c u 40 c�6 � O s c CL c � m 0 ca O u 'a Q- ° a) > CL o �° ao co E CL -0 O Q u s o u s a u cco =3 a n ° > co aco a) Q i o a s m E c — — o o +� u co �• c v, M s c 0 =p 'p = o > co s Q s a0 n O n3 N O co a) 4- O0 do '� c l�n c6 Q w f6 0 S Q ° ° c CL Q "4. �_ i 4� f6 > Q v _ CL Q 2 s c '- s cn CL s E s 0 0 a) s a Q Q 4+ N bA f6 u (p c i -a () 4' c s a) c ao s 4� v, a) a) +� c 4� O U ao c O i. V 4s E Q sd0 a) i 'O c O 7 c c O 7 O CL a) O > ao c a o 4� o c s c O c 'c s c o o •2 a) 4� O 4� -a U a) a) a) •E a) OCU c Q c > ° 0 o s O c Ln E ai o E ,, 3 Q) `M °' ao c a) co vi c n3 > a) ao c u so 4� a) o +� � O a � 4�p O co Q) O CL O i CL c a) c co vi a) O 4� U V — i u V a) u o u -0 ° ms o a) s�, O4� M o �° Q-0 co v� an ° co c a) c u s +' c c o o +� o +� E a) EO i dA E > c 4� 4� X 0 N a) s 0 3 o a) v> U Q- ) u '� O c '� c OU x 4� O '7 ( a) i O v� > c 4' c s +� i co s 7 4� s a) -0 m c o s CL-0E ao u ° o aa0i E � +� cco u c a) ° aci ao _ CL cc +� c s ao c +� 0 a) a0 c +� c a) 4�+� c E s U -0 +' ° -0a) -0 co +' 4� a) ao c s co • c c c c cco aco ° > o> 4�U U o p a) c C: .E v� n O co a.c 'cu +� co s ao-0 m a) E ac O O ac) c u c c u a w c c'v CL u° aa 4�os 0 CL 16 a)co >i O O Q� c i o o a> v� c ' a) a) °eV-°O CL s (D ° 'Q) 0 H Hm z m E s s T" 0 s T c u a) H H W as co L; a) ab LJ ou C o c O w o c c� co CL w 4�c a m 0 2 ƒ § k /2 ° %/ \ / / % § $ E Sf ± k § ( / t > E ( E.g e E e E § u � / 2 t \ ƒ / '\ n u / : § u 0 6 E$ a) -a 2 ° e*/ s ECL f \ CL / a) 0 a / � r ( e $ ) E E = e o f e° '/ E 2« * ± / % $ f / 9 / c E -a E / 2 e .(U E © ) \ \ e -0 _ J a) u C: R 5 § { \ E 2 0 @ e $ @ * $ / [ _ / e e E g± 2 4e \ n < m G .2 / e e ¥ > § L & 0 / / ') f / 2 k/ 2$// 0ƒ 0\ 0 CL & ® & � 7 � $ a \ e e/ e% '- O E) �±/ / 2 / 0 2 2 2 a- u 5 3 2 E G E \ § e o 2 u -ae 2 $ : 0 f ƒ } § [ # e } f 7 \ � / % � 2 0 $ J c 0 # ° \ / ± \ \ / / / u / 0 0 \ > \ $ 2 / 0 m \ LE .� / ƒ / / _ \ / \ \ \ § \ / j / / u & .a u t u 5 •� -C \ 2 § 0 \ § { •g \ 3 � $ E \ § / / / \ \ G u \ 0 % / 0 /_ - / R k E $/ u k E/ 3 E> 9 [ % ± e / a ƒ >- \ § / e .g / 2 c e ' S n » 2 m G % 2 ®\ E >- \ 2 ® ƒ e = u / Q ƒ m § E / £ & c \ — ' _ § — o n n g� 5 / u / & 2 ) \ \ \ \ ¢ \ .- - ƒ C % ° \ % a / t & ± e f % t ® e k / ƒ / § u $ f § \ ƒ IS t E f G \ 0 _ ; = 0= o f/& n 0 \ u t g \ \ g _ = s ) G - » e r c^ e/> ° E e 2 ° E E °� E e> e\ \ & q =. e o\ M E.m = o• u. m o o m e < 2< > e I&% O 2< &\} 2 & 2 & 2 2 $ - e CL u G 3 / i < } � 6 t % \ / j / / / \ u u d 5 3 N � ■ �������||■ � � � ��_� � � Q a | | |& c !� ��■�•�a� .� � � ■ � � 2■ lu �$,. U n 40 O ƒ » ' ■■| ! i | | | § ■ - | It a- � §|55 :; ®! Q ] • §@ ,): HI 94 %§|§ ���•��)�'�|�A� £- (- ) \. |) ]§ � �a' ��� $ r• § h , §| §, •r . 2 !} § ) | 0 | LL I 2 _| a:. ,/ . o 3 wp fflffi leyODOR;: O 4`��y33�� a o Z U c a Q F Q Z 3 w E e�ii w J a m LU 4) IL LL 0 0 az� 4j 4 iJ f �y•�2 :�wZ 9 - E r � a � 2�e��e ,srON g; � ypy g. Hill ix.��Y,�6'-a�-' Y W LLI Ix Hall I HIM IN Wtij � �� |' A S An IN C4 LU < LLI. I \ \ M I I )�\ LU 4n } ��� { � BY-LAW NUMBER C.P. 111-OXX A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN ARRETE NO C.P. 111- ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE DE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors d'une reunion du conseil John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a follows: decrete ce qui suit : The Zoning By-law of The City of L'arrete sur le zonage de The City Saint John enacted on the fifteenth day of of Saint John, decrete le quinze (15) December, A.D. 2014, is amended by: decembre 2014, est modifie par: Amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3583 square meters, located at 51 Heather Way, also identified as a portion of PID No. 55124341, Two Unit Residential (R2) to Local Commercial (CL) - all as shown on the plan attached hereto and forming part of this by-law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by- law the ' day of', A.D. 2022 and signed by: Mayor/Maire modification de I'annexe «A», Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, permettant de modifier la designation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 3 583 metres carres, situee au 51, chemin Heather, et portant une partie de NID 55124341, de zone residentielle bifamiliale (R2) a Zone commerciale locale (CL) - toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur le plan ci-joint et font partie du present arrete. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete le 2022, avec les signatures suivantes Common Clerk/Greffier communal First Reading - December 12, 2022 Premiere lecture — 12 decembre 2022 Second Reading — December 12, 2022 Deuxieme lecture — 12 decembre 2022 Third Reading - Troisieme lecture - 151 GROWTH & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SERVICE DE LA CROISSANCE ET DU DEVELOPPEMENT COMMUNAUTAIRE REZONING / REZONAGE Amending Schedule "A" of the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John Modifiant Annexe «A» de I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John �OxNett Dr. Q FROM / DE Two -Unit Residential Zone residentielle R2 ® CL bifamiliale TO / A Local Commercial Zone commerciale locale Pursuant to a Resolution under Section 59 of the Community Planning Act Conformement a une resolution adoptee par le conseil municipal en vertu de I'article 59 de la Loi sur I'urbanisme Applicant: Andrew MacDonald Location: 51 Heather Way PID(s)/NIP(s): 55124341 (portion) Considered by P.A.C./Considers par le C.C.U.: November 15 novembre, 2022 Enacted by Council/Approuve par le Conseil: Filed in Registry Office/Enregistre le: By -Law #/Arrete #: Drawn by/Creee par: Andrew Pollock Date drawn/Carte creee: January 4 janvier, 2023 152 Received Date January 03, 2023 Meeting Date January 09, 2023 Open or Closed Open Session Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council Subject: Guaranteed Livable Basic Income Background: There is an effort across Canada to have the federal government look at a guaranteed livable basic income in Canada. Municipal councils are sending letters to all level of government members to keep them aware of the ask and get support. Fredericton and Moncton have each passed the resolution below and I would request that the City of Saint John support the motion. Motion: WHEREAS the growing social crisis and impacts of poverty have downstream effects on our municipality, putting unsustainable pressure on our limited resources to deliver necessary public services and social infrastructure supports as we struggle to keep up with the evolving needs of our community. WHEREAS Basic Income addresses key social determinants of health, such as income and housing, it can alleviate pressures on municipalities to address poverty and fill gaps in social supports, such as shelter, housing, food security and mental health. Research and pilots show that when people have a sufficient and secure income their mental and physical health improves; they have the capacity to secure more affordable, suitable, and safe housing, childcare, healthy food, and transportation; and poverty rates decrease. WHEREAS the provision of a guaranteed livable basic income would benefit individuals, families and communities and protect the most vulnerable in society, it would also support community resilience by facilitating the transition to a local economy that responds to the climate crisis and other major challenges. Evidence shows that a federally funded basic income that improves people's financial stability is possible, as successful income transfer programs already exist in Canada for seniors (Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement) and for parents (Canada Child Benefit (CCB). THEREFORE be it resolved that the Council of the City of Saint John directs the Office of the Mayor to write a letter to the Prime Minister, New Brunswick Members of Parliament and the Senate, the Premier of New Brunswick, Members of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick, and the Fundy Regional Service Commission, calling on these orders of government to work towards implementing a Guaranteed Livable Basic Income to eradicate poverty and homelessness, and ensure everyone has sufficient income to meet their basic needs." SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4LI `V Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) John MacKenzie Deputy Mayor City of Saint John SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L411 I vwwvsaintjohn.ca I C.R 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L4L1 W151j OBIN 6os o de 6as� ONTAR1O BASIC INCOME NETWORK RESEAN ONTARI EN OE REVENN OE BASE The Case for Basic Income and Municipalities Prepared by Bruce Knox, with input from municipal politicians and staff across Canada' Municipalities are taking extraordinary measures to support their residents and address poverty and inequality.' Poverty has a downstream effect on municipalities, and places additional pressures on the delivery of necessary public services (e.g., maintaining essential infrastructure, clean water, and waste diversion) and social programs (e.g., housing and income supports), which may vary across jurisdictions." Municipalities are frequently responsible for funding many public services and social programs, and must rely on their limited revenue streams to do so. This includes taxation (e.g., property taxes), service fees, and government funding (e.g., grants)."' A basic income is an unconditional cash transfer from governments to individuals to enable everyone to meet their basic needs, participate in society, and live with dignity — regardless of work status. A federally -funded, income -targeted basic income could help alleviate pressures on municipalities to address poverty, manage services, and support people to invest in their local economy and community. Whv Municipalities Support a Federally -Funded Basic Income Municipalities are struggling to keep up with the downloaded responsibility of providing essential public and social support services. Over the years, the responsibility for maintaining essential public and social support services has been increasingly downloaded onto municipalities from other levels of government.'" Combined with limited options for revenue streams and the inability to run deficits, municipalities are struggling to keep up with the rising costs of public and social support services.' Meanwhile, they are seeking the means to provide residents with the flexibility to be able to afford necessary services — including electricity, heat, and water — regardless of their economic status, and without compromising their wellbeing." The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated municipal constraints, leaving them to deal with the exposed flaws in our social safety net as well as growing economic, racial, health, and other inequities."' Municipal governments and service providers are often on the front lines supporting residents' wellbeing: when people are struggling to meet their needs, it is at the community level where the impacts can be felt most strongly.'X As we move toward a post-COVID recovery, municipal leaders are looking for ways to improve wellbeing and livability, all while balancing budgets and supporting a strong quality of life." By supporting residents to be able to afford the necessary services provided by municipalities, the fiscal strain on local governments is reduced. A basic income could help municipal services remain sustainable and affordable for everyone. 1 This discussion paper was created in consultation with municipalities across Canada, and recognizes that there are jurisdictional differences across the country with regards to the services for which municipalities are responsible. Thanks to the following individuals and their staff for their input: Dale Bass, Gian-Carlo Carra, Hilary Gough, Jesse Helmer, Alanna Jankov, Jeff Leiper, Mairin Loewen, Waye Mason, Catherine McKenney, Shawn Menard, Wayne Potoroka, Keith Riel, Mike Savage, and Arjun Singh. IIII.1199 Basic income can alleviate pressures on municipalities to address poverty. When people have a sufficient income, municipalities are better equipped to ensure that everyone has access to the public and social services they need, from affordable utilities to subsidies for programs and services. Importantly, many of the services and supports provided by municipalities have direct implications for the social determinants of health: the social and economic factors that determine individual and population health.X' Due to jurisdictional differences, municipalities have varying degrees of influence on the range of social determinants that can shape health outcomes. That said, a basic income could meaningfully affect several determinants, with positive knock -on effects for municipalities. For instance, income represents perhaps the most important social determinant of health.X",X"' Evidence from basic income pilots shows that providing people with a sufficient and secure income results in improved mental and physical health, decreased poverty rates, and greater access to medication and supplements, nutritious food, and transportation.X'v,Xv,Xv' Another core social determinant with clear relevance for municipalities is housing.Xv",Xv"' Research from the Ontario Basic Income Pilot found that access to a guaranteed income supported participants to find and secure more affordable, suitable, and safe housing.X'X By helping people to become and remain housed, a basic income could alleviate the downloaded pressure on municipalities to meet their residents' housing needs, as well as prevent homelessness. While a basic income would ideally replace provincial, territorial, and municipal income assistance programs, it should complement other services and supports that disproportionately support low-income individuals. That said, providing people with sufficient income could conceivably reduce the demand for supportive programs and services. In addition to offering greater dignity and autonomy, providing a basic income at a livable level might help address what is often a major driver of demand for housing, food security, mental health, and other programs: a lack of income.XX,XX' As such, a basic income could help alleviate the pressures municipalities face in providing these crucial social supports. This is not to say these supports would no longer be needed: however, implementing a basic income could support municipalities' capacity to provide more effective, affordable, and high -quality services that work in tandem with those under provincial, territorial, and federal jurisdiction.xx" As an income security program, basic income would work in concert with necessary social services to better support low-income individuals — while helping municipalities to do the same. Basic income builds communities. A permanent basic income could stimulate economies, boost consumer spending, and encourage individuals to shop locally.XX"',XX'v Improved financial stability makes it easier for residents to participate, contribute, and invest in their local economies and communities. In this way, basic income represents an exciting opportunity for municipalities to harness the sense of security and belonging that it might offer. Rather than responding to crises, municipalities might be better placed to explore and support innovative and forward - looking solutions that enhance livability and wellbeing: for instance, developing culturally - appropriate services, building sustainable and environmentally -friendly infrastructure, and pursuing more inclusive and accessible urban planning solutions. When residents can participate, contribute, and invest in their local communities, everyone is better equipped to help build a strong and just social fabric. In addition to supporting people to live their lives with dignity, a basic income can help remove barriers to active community engagement, enabling individuals to participate more meaningfully in society. `&V 9 Conclusion Evidence suggests that a federally -funded basic income is not only feasible in Canada, but could bring significant benefits at the municipal level. Basic income is not new to Canada: similar cash transfer programs already exist for seniors (e.g, Guaranteed Income Supplement) and children (e.g., Canada Child Benefit), with evidence demonstrating their widespread positive impacts.xxv,xxvi Research supports the financial feasibility of a basic income in Canada, along with its capacity to foster diverse social, health, and economic benefits.xxvii,xxviii,xxix Evidence from basic income pilots in both Manitoba and Ontario clearly demonstrates that a basic income benefits both municipalities and their residents.xxx,xxxi Municipalities represent an important voice in social policy discussions at all levels: they are often on the front lines, working to ensure that residents and communities lead happy, healthy, sustainable, and productive lives. A federally -funded basic income, complemented by other social support services, is well -positioned to support municipalities in achieving this. 'AMO Response to Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy Consultations," Association of Municipalities of Ontario, published May 8, 2020, https://www.amo.on.ca/sites/defauIt/files/assets/DOCUMENTS/Reports/2020/AMOResponseMCCSSPovertyReduction StrategyConsultation202005O8.pdf. 'AMO Response to Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy Consultations." "'How Local Government Works," Association of Municipalities Ontario, accessed February 1, 2022, https://www.amo.on.ca/about-us/municipal-101/how- local-government-works. 'v Enid Slack and Tomas Hachard, "Let's empower municipalities, too often the little siblings of federalism" Policy Options, published June 9, 2021, https:Hpolicyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/ u ne-2021 /I ets-empower-m u n ici pal i ties -too -often -the -I i ttl a-s i bl i ngs-of-federal ism/. "In It Together: Clarifying Provincial -Municipal Responsibilities in Ontario," Ontario 360, published January 23, 2020, https:Hon360.ca/policy-papers/in-it- together-clarifying-provincial-m unici pal-responsibilities-i n-ontario/. -'Building back better together: Municipal recommendations for Canada's post-COVID recovery," Federation of Canadian Municipalities, published November 2020, https:Hdata.fcm.ca/documents/COVID-19/fcm-building-back-better-together.pdf. 'AMO Response to Ontario's Poverty Reduction Strategy Consultations." "'Building back better together: Municipal recommendations for Canada's post-COVID recovery." "'Ending poverty starts locally: municipal recommendations for a Canadian poverty reduction strategy," Federation of Canadian Municipalities, published July 2017, https:Hfcm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/resources/submission/ending-poverty-starts-locally.pdf. "Building back better together: Municipal recommendations for Canada's post-COVID recovery." "'What are the Social Determinants of Health?," Canadian Public Health Association, accessed February 1, 2022, https://www.cpha.ca/what-are-social- determinants-health. "' Juha Mikkonen and Dennis Raphael, "Social Determinants of Health: A Quick Guide for Health Professionals," York University School of Health Policy and Management, accessed February 1, 2022, https:Hkidsnewtocanada.ca/uploads/documents/Social Determinants of Health.pdf. "'Living Wages Are Good for Your Health," Living Wage For Families Campaign, accessed February 1, 2022, http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/livingwageforfamilies/legacy url/216/Living-Wages-Are-Good-For-Your-Health.pdf?1459972130. "" Mohammad Ferdosi, Tom McDowell, Wayne Lewchuk, and Stephanie Ross, "Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience," McMaster University, published March 2020, https:Hlabourstudies.mcmaster.ca/documents/southern-ontarios-basic-income-experience.pdf. '" Evelyn L. Forget, "The town with no poverty: The health effects of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment," Canadian Public Policy 37, no. 3 (2011): 283-305, https:Hdoi.org/10.3138/cpp.37.3.283. "" Evelyn L. Forget, "New questions, new data, old interventions: The health effects of a guaranteed annual income," Preventative Medicine 57, no. 6 (2013): 925-928. https:Hdoi.orq/10.1016/I.ypmed.2013.05.029. '" Frances Bula, "B.C. Municipalities say they need more help from province to tackle housing crisis," The Globe and Mail, published September 11, 2021, https://www.theg lobeand m ai I .com/canad a/briti s h-col u m bi a/article-bc-m u n i ci pal iti es-say-th ey-need-more-hel p-from-province-to-tackle/. ""' "Municipalities and affordable housing," Canadian Union of Public Employees, published May 27, 2019, https:Hcupe.ca/municipalities-and-affordable- housing. " Ferdosi, McDowell, Lewchuk, and Ross, "Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience." "A Snapshot of Food Banks in Canada and the COVID-19 Crisis," Food Banks Canada, published 2020, https://www.foodbankscanada.ca/FoodBanks/MediaLibrary/COVID-Report 2020/A-Snapshot-of-Food-Banks-in-Canada-and-the-COVID-19-Crisis EN.pdf. 'Valerie Tarasuk, Joyce Cheng, Craig Gundersen, Claire de Oliveira, and Paul Kurdyak, "The Relation between Food Insecurity and Mental Health Care Service Utilization in Ontario," Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 63, no. 8 (2018): 557-569, https:Hdx.doi.orq/10.1177%2F0706743717752879. "Ending poverty starts locally: municipal recommendations for a Canadian poverty reduction strategy." Michalis Nikiforos, Marshall Steinbaum, and Gennaro Zezza, "Modeling the Macroeconomic Effects of a Universal Basic Income," Roosevelt Institute, published August 2017, https:Hrooseveltinstitute.orq/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RI-Macroeconomic-Effects-of-UBI-201708.pdf. 'v "The Renewed Business Case for Universal Basic Income," Surrey Board of Trade, published May 2021, https:Hbusinessinsurrey.com/wp- conten t/u pl oads/2021 /05/U pdated-20210308-1445-Su rrey-TH E-RE N EW ED-B US IN ESS-CASE-FO R-U N I VE RSAL-BAS I C-I NCO ME. pdf. v Lynn McIntyre, Cynthia Kwok, Herbert Emery, and Daniel J. Dutton, "Impact of a guaranteed annual income program on Canadian seniors' physical, mental and functional health," Canadian Journal of Public Health 107, no. 2 (2016): el76-e182, https://www.lstor.org/stable/90006452. `Erika M. Brown and Valerie Tarasuk, "Money speaks: Reductions in severe food insecurity follow the Canada Child Benefit," Preventive Medicine, 129 (2019): 1-8, https:Hdoi.orq/10.1016/I.ypmed.2019.105876. Ferdosi, McDowell, Lewchuk, and Ross, "Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience." Chandra Pasma and Sheila Regehr, "Basic Income: Some Policy Options for Canada," Basic Income Canada Network, published 2019, https:Hbasicincomecanada.orq/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Basic Income- Some Policy Options for Canada.pdf. '" Evelyn L. Forget, Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All (Toronto: Lorimer, 2020). Ferdosi, McDowell, Lewchuk, and Ross, "Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience." Forget, "The town with no poverty: The health effects of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment." iiRYA C Coalition Canada � basic income revenu de base Basic Income: Frequently Asked Questions f What is a basic income? A basic income is a periodic, unconditional cash payment provided by government to individuals. It ensures recipients can meet their basic needs and live with dignity regardless of their work status. Different terms are used for similar policy proposals to emphasize different key characteristics of basic income: i) a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) creates an income floor, preventing people from falling into poverty. It is unconditional, and (like health care) universally available, but income tested and so delivered only to those who need it, regardless of their work status. ii) a Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI) GLI and BIG are essentially the same. Many Canadian advocates have adopted the use of GLI to emphasize the importance of the benefit's sufficiency. It must be high enough not just to survive, but to live with dignity. The sufficiency requirement is also part of all detailed definitions of BIG, but not highlighted. This document uses the phrase livable BIG throughout to keep sufficiency to the fore. iii) a Universal Basic Income (UBI) In terms of its definition, a UBI is an unconditional payment made to all adults, rich or poor, and is not clawed back. It contrasts directly with income tested models. In Canada, however, UBI has come to be used often to refer to any kind of basic income program. This leads to confusion exploited by opponents to attack BIG's affordability. Q2: What program do we propose for Canada? The Coalition advocates for an income tested livable BIG for adults aged 18-64 functioning as part of a com- prehensive array of social supports. The benefit for a single adult should be set at or above the chosen poverty line and indexed to the cost of living. The reduction rate for paid work should be set at a level which will make working always worthwhile — certainly no higher than 50%. The Coalition proposes a lower reduction rate, but the precise reduction rate will depend on various aspects of the final design. Disabled people with exceptional costs due to their disability should receive additional monetary support to allay those costs. Q3: How high should a livable BIG be set? Since the purpose of a BIG is to address income insecurity and poverty, the guarantee should be set at or above the poverty line. There are a number of ways to define that line. Three that Statistics Canada uses are the Low Income Cut Off (LICO), the Low Income Measure (LIM), and the Market Basket Measure (MBM). All are adjusted for family size. But since they are calculated in differing ways, each can be applied easily to some regions/communities but not to others, and they render up different poverty rates. As a result, experts disa- gree which to use for what purposes, although Canada recently adopted the MBM as its official poverty line. With respect to basic income, the best measure to use will depend on various aspects of the ultimate design. As can be seen from the Parliamentary Budget Office's 2021 report, basic income has the potential to com- pletely transform the rate of poverty in Canada. To be effective, the benefit level of a livable national BIG must be high enough to lift everyone out of poverty. Q4: What existing income support programs should be replaced by a national livable BIG? A national livable BIG must replace Provincial, Territorial, and Indigenous income assistance programs (wel- fare). Currently, welfare benefits are conditional, accessing them is humiliating and stigmatizing, and interactions with multiple intermediaries leave applicants vulnerable to racism, sexism and other biases. Welfare rates vary widely across the country, but all are far too low to meet basic needs. Struggling to subsist on too little income is time consuming and exhausting. It causes stress and ill health. Additionally, current welfare programs are counterproductive because they create barriers to employment. The federal government has the wherewithal to administer a consistent, fair and more robust income security program set at a livable benefit level across the country. Pagt5&f 6 C Coalition Canada � basic income revenu de base Basic Income: Frequently Asked Questions f Q5: What existing income support programs should be retained with a livable BIG? Together with a livable BIG, the federal programs below should be retained, ensuring that income security is accessible and equitably delivered to everyone in need. A livable BIG would work effectively with the Canada Child Benefit, Old Age Security and the Guaranteed In- come Supplement (GIS). Both resemble basic income programs targeted to particular populations and should be retained. That is why we advocate for a program focused on people 18-64. Contributory programs like The Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance should also be continued. The GIS may need an upward ad- justment to ensure fairness and El surely needs redesigning in light of the radically changing world of work if it is to be effective with respect for people engaged in precarious work and gig economies. To address the ex- traordinary costs of having a disability, the federal disability tax credit should be made fully refundable and the definition of disability adjusted to make the credit available to a less restricted group of people. Q6: What are the benefits of a livable BIG? There are many benefits of a well -designed national livable BIG program. It will provide a reliable and steady income for people currently receiving welfare, others struggling with multiple low paying or gig economyjobs, those who farm and fish and do other seasonal work, and those working in the creative arts. A livable BIG will also bring about a reduction of the high costs to taxpayers of poverty's impacts. Once people know they can meet their most basic needs for food, shelter, transportation, etc., the stress of living on a low income is imme- diately reduced. As a result, accidents decrease, hospitalizations, health and mental health costs decrease, crimes and incarceration due to desperation goes down, general health and educational outcomes improve, community participation increases, and alternative living possibilities for abused family members are created. Since people living on low incomes tend to spend their money locally, BIG offers predictable benefits to the lo- cal economy and improves community cohesion, safety and security. The resulting financial stability in the lives of recipients both restores their dignity and autonomy and increases well-being. Altogether, the cost of remedial programs is reduced, saving taxpayer money. Finally, as we strive to meet Canada's environmental protection goals, individuals, businesses and whole communities will need financial support to undertake the many changes required for the transition. A livable BIG, together with an improved Employment Insurance program, will provide the community resilience needed to move Canada toward an environmentally sustaina- ble economy. Q7: Should provincial programs, other than welfare be displaced, by a livable BIG? In general, no. Both income security and a comprehensive array of social supports and services are necessary for people with unique challenges and vulnerabilities to live with dignity. Income alone cannot address fac- tors such as disability, mental health or addiction. Provincial employment and training programs, counseling and rehabilitative services and supports must remain and should be updated or expanded where needed. A federal BIG should be designed to harmonize with other provincial, territorial, and indigenous social support and service programs. A recent study showed that when people have a reliable livable income, fewer calls on other social support services can be expected. Federal, provincial and Indigenous governments must determine collaboratively which programs, if any, should be replaced and which continued once a livable BIG is imple- mented. Q8: Will people stop working if they get a BIG? No. Canadian research has identified only two reasons people leave the workforce when receiving a basic income: mothers who stay home with very young children and youth who stay in school to graduation. Re- search on Mincome - a basic income pilot program in Manitoba in the 1970s - showed that most people contin- ued to work. There was no change at all in labour force participation rates and extremely little change in total hours worked except for those two groups of people. Research on the truncated Ontario Basic Income Pilot by Pagt39Pf 6 C Coalition Canada 4V basic income - revenu de base Basic Income: Frequently Asked Questions i =" a group from McMaster showed similar results - most recipients who had jobs continued to work after receiv- ing a basic income and more than a third of them reported that basic income helped them find higher -paying jobs with better working conditions. This Canadian evidence accords with evidence from basic income trials conducted throughout the world and at various time periods. The livable basic income program we propose for Canada explicitly provides incentives to work. This is ensured by a gradual reduction in benefit level as earned income increases. For example, a reduction rate of $.25 means that the basic income benefit will be reduced by only 25 cents of each dollar earned. So, it will always pay to work. This contrasts directly to the work disincentive built in by design to the CERB (see Q9) which worked very well. CERB recipients were allowed to earn only $1000 a month before losing the entire $2000 CERB benefit. As the economy started to reopen, there were complaints that businesses could not get their employees to return to work. Also, people were concerned about returning unsafe workplaces or travel conditions and bringing the virus home to their families. Finally, many families continued to lack childcare as schools had not yet opened. The CERB enabled people to remain at home to avoid the risk of contagion, as designed. In contrast, basic in- come is designed to foster engagement with the job market. Q9: How is a basic income different from CERB? Unlike BIG, CERB designed to slow the progress of COVID-19, was temporary, conditional, and deliberately designed to support people so they would NOT risk contagion by going to work. CERB support payments were conditional on applicants having lost their jobs, had their hours reduced, or had childcare responsibilities associated with school closures due to the pandemic. In addition, applicants had to have earned at least $5,000 in the previous 12 months. Because of its conditions, CERB failed to reach all those in need as the Gov- ernment's frequent extensions of the program indicated. In contrast, a livable BIG would be permanent and unconditionally available to those whose income fell below the benefit level. CERB did have some similarities to BIG, however. It recognized that an adequate monthly income was essential both for individual financial security and to keep the economy going. It was easily accessible and the stigma associated with welfare was eliminated. In these ways, CERB was like BIG, and provided a direct contrast to provincial welfare programs. Q10: How much would a national income -tested livable BIG cost? BIG is clearly affordable and a more effective use of tax dollars than current income support systems. Pre- cisely because it is income tested, the livable BIG we propose costs a fraction of the amount a Universal Basic Income (UBI) would cost (which goes to everyone, see Q1). Over the last three years, there have been three PBO calculations of the cost of a BIG with total costs ranging from $76-85 billion, and a Policy Options Report from the Basic Income Canada Network which models three different funding options. In these studies, certain federal refundable and non-refundable tax credits are used to pay for a basic income. Together with savings from federal transfers to provinces for welfare, much of which would no longer be needed, the net cost would come closer to $23 billion. If tax loopholes useful only to higher income earners were eliminated, that would offset the net cost still further. Q11: How do we pay for a national income -tested livable BIG? The program could be paid for by harmonizing the provincial/territorial social transfer with the new national basic income program and by replacing federal refundable and non-refundable tax credits. There are other ways to pay for a basic income program no matter how it is designed. However, the data needed to model ways to finance a basic income program are available only for modeling based on the income tax code only. Therefore, other options, such as new taxes (e.g., wealth, inheritance, financial transaction, robotics and Al productivity taxes), or resource licensing or dividend payments could not be modeled in any of the studies. They could potentially be additional or alternative resources for financing a livable BIG but they are not re- quired. Pagt6Df 6 ,� C���e Basic Income: Frequently Asked Questions SOURCES There are many evidence -based sources for the information contained in these FAQs. Only a few are provided below. Most of the sources we list contain references to still more sources for the material. Q1: What is a basic income? Coalition Canada What Is Basic Income? Coalition Canada UBI vs. BIG Q2: What program do we propose for Canada? Aldridge, H. (2017). Backgrounder: How do we measure poverty? Maytree. Boadway, R., Cuff, K., & Koebel, K. (2018). Can Self -Financing Redeem the Basic Income Guarantee? Disincentives, Efficiency Costs, Tax Burdens, and Attitudes: A Rejoinder. Canadian Public Policy, 44(4), 447- 457. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.2018-044 Forget E. (2020). Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All. Lorimer. Segal, H., Forget, E., & Banting, K. (2020). A Federal Basic Income Within the Post COVID-19 Economic Reco Plan. Royal Society of Canada. Q3: How high should a livable BIG be set? Coalition Canada —The basic income we want LICO — Low Income Cut-offs LIM — Low Income Measure MBM — Market Basket Measure Q4: What existing income support programs should be replaced by a national livable BIG? Boadway, R., Cuff, K., & Koebel, K. (2018). Implementing a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada: Prospects and Problems. Collaborative Applied Research in Economics Initiative. Forget E. (2020). Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All. Lorimer. Q5: What existing income support programs should be retained with a livable BIG? Boadway, R., Cuff, K., & Koebel, K. (2018). Implementing a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada: Prospects and Problems. Collaborative Applied Research in Economics Initiative. Boadway, R., Cuff, K., & Koebel, K. (2018). Can Self -Financing Redeem the Basic Income Guarantee? Disincentives, Efficiency Costs, Tax Burdens, and Attitudes: A Rejoinder. Canadian Public Policy, 44(4), 447- 457. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.2018-044 Forget E. (2020). Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All. Lorimer. Saulnier, C. & Plante, C. (2021). The Cost of Poverty in the Atlantic Provinces. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Nova Scotia. Q6: What are the benefits of a livable BIG? Ferdosi, M., McDowell, T., Lewchuk, R.S. (2020). Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience. McMaster University, Department of Labour Studies. PagtelDf 6 ,� C Coalition Canada basic income - revenu de base Basic Income: Frequently Asked Questions f Forget, E. (2011). The town with no poverty: The health effects of a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment. Canadian Public Policy, 37(3), 283-305. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.37.3.283 Ontario Basic Income Network & Coalition Canada. (2021). Health Case for Basic Income. Ontario Basic Income Network. (2020). Rethinking Work and Income Security in the 21st Century: The Case for Basic Income and Work. Coalition Canada. (2021). A Basic Income Guarantee for a Just Transition to a Net -Zero Canada Ontario Basic Income Network & Coalition Canada. (2021). Addressing Food Insecurity Through a Basic Income Guarantee Segal, H., Forget, E., & Banting, K. (2020). A Federal Basic Income Within the Post COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan. Royal Society of Canada. Ontario Dieticians in Public Health (2020) ODPH Position Statement on Responses to Food Insecurity Basic Income Canada Network. Primer Series. West, S., Baker, A.C., Samra, S., Coltrera, E. (2021). Preliminary Analysis: SEED's First Year. Q7: Should provincial programs, other than welfare, be displaced by a livable BIG? Boadway, R., Cuff, K., & Koebel, K. (2018). Implementing a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada: Prospects and Problems. Collaborative Applied Research in Economics Initiative. Ferdosi, M., McDowell, T., Lewchuk, R.S. (2020). Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience. McMaster University, Department of Labour Studies. Forget E. (2020). Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All. Lorimer. Q8: Will people stop working if they get a BIG? Basic Income Canada Network. (2019). Signposts to Success: A survey of Ontario Basic Income Pilot recipients. Ferdosi, M., McDowell, T., Lewchuk, R.S. (2020). Southern Ontario's Basic Income Experience. McMaster Uni- versity, Department of Labour Studies. Forget E. (2020). Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All. Lorimer. Segal H, Forget E, Banting K. (2020). A Federal Basic Income Within the Post COVID-19 Economic Recovery Plan Royal Society of Canada. West, S., Baker, A.C., Samra, S., Coltrera, E. (2021). Preliminary Analysis: SEED's First Year. Q9: How is a basic income different from CERB? Because CERB was created very recently as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is no research available yet to compare it to basic income. Below are a few citations which lay some ground work for this comparison. Forget E. (2020). Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All. Lorimer. Swift, J. & Power, E. (2021). The Case for Basic Income: Freedom, Security, Justice. Between the Lines Swift, J. & Power, E. (2021, April 30). How Covid-19 and CERB proved that basic income is not only possible — It works. Canadian Dimension. Pagt@2bf 6 Coalition Canada basic income - revenu de base Basic Income: Frequently Asked Questions f Macdonald, D. (2020) 1.8 million Canadians better off with a higher El and CRB floor. The Monitor, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Macdonald, D. (2020). Transitioning from CERB to El could leave millions worse off. The Monitor, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Q10: How much would a national income -tested livable BIG cost? Forget E. (2020). Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All. Lorimer. Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2018, April 17). Costing a National Guaranteed Basic Income Using the Ontario Basic Income Model. Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2020, July 7). Costing a Guaranteed Basic Income During the COVID Pandemic. Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2020, November 5) Update: Five -Year Cost Estimate of the Guar- anteed Basic Income. Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2021, April 7) Distribution and Fiscal Analysis of a National Guaran- teed Basic Income. Pasma, C. & Regehr, S. (2019). Basic Income: Some Policy Options for Canada. Basic Income Canada Network. Q11: How do we pay for a national income -tested livable BIG? Boadway, R., Cuff, K., & Koebel, K. (2016). Designing a Basic Income Guarantee for Canada. Queen's Economics Department Working Paper No. 1371. Boadway, R., Cuff, K., & Koebel, K. (2018). Can Self -Financing Redeem the Basic Income Guarantee? Disincentives, Efficiency Costs, Tax Burdens, and Attitudes: A Rejoinder. Canadian Public Policy, 44(4), 447- 457. https://doi.org/10.3138/cpp.2018-044 Forget E. (2020). Basic Income for Canadians: From the COVID-19 Emergency to Financial Security for All. Lorimer. Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. (2021, April 7). Distribution and Fiscal Analysis of a National Guaranteed Basic Income. Pasma, C. & Regehr, S. (2019). Basic Income: Some Policy Options for Canada. Basic Income Canada Network. Pag 63?f 6 • SPP r,_ 1 :\ Volume • r PlJune 2022 -A A GUARANTEED BASIC INCOME FOR CANADIANS: OFF THE TABLE OR WITHIN REACH? Wayne Simpson, Harvey Stevens, Lee Stevens and Herb Emery EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pilot projects in the past that have experimented with a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) in Manitoba and Ontario, and a recent study of the feasibility of a GBI in British Columbia, indicate that provinces are not in an ideal position to successfully implement an affordable and effective GBI. However, a GBI implemented by the federal government, financed by eliminating the GST credit and lowering personal tax exemptions, could be both effective and affordable. It could also do so without requiring the elimination of those provincial social assistance programs that are more deeply targeted toward people's needs. By using its revenue powers, the federal government could create more fiscal capacity for the provinces to provide other cash and in -kind social supports, allowing for greater provincial benefit targeting. The federal government's centrality in designing and implementing tax structures and collecting tax revenue make it singularly suitable for administering and delivering a GBI. Financing the GBI by eliminating the modest GST credit and lowering the current basic personal income tax exemption could provide a significant reduction in the rate, depth and intensity of poverty in Canada, without imposing an excessive tax burden on Canadians. If provinces use the GBI as a replacement for certain less -targeted provincial social assistance income transfers, the freed -up payments and reduced caseloads could also allow provinces to target more effectively those needs not addressed by the GBI. The recent COVID-19 pandemic exposed longstanding gaps in Canada's income - support frameworks, with lower -income workers facing exceptional economic vulnerability. At the same time, the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit proved edifying in terms of how to best design a basic -income program. In addition, the federal government's experiences with the poverty -reducing impacts of the Canada Child Benefit, the Old Age Supplement and the Guaranteed Income Supplement have moved Canada closer than ever to a workable GBI. While it comes with additional costs, those costs will be less burdensome than many GBI skeptics might believe. They must also be put into perspective, by comparing them against the costs of current and, in many cases ineffective income transfers and, just as importantly, against the human cost of leaving more Canadians living in poverty. 1. INTRODUCTION The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed weaknesses in income -support systems across the world, and Canada is no exception. Public health restrictions to combat the disease and protect the health system have hit low-income workers and small businesses exceptionally hard. Canada's federal government has responded with emergency measures to protect employment and support incomes, including with the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy, targeted at businesses, and the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), targeted at lower -income workers, although direct transfers to lower -income families have also been utilized. The popularity of CERB as a short- term income support and criticisms of CERB as a longer -term support added fuel to arguments over the design of a potential guaranteed basic income (GBI) that would protect the incomes of all Canadian families. Against this backdrop of rising popular support for a GBI, there was also a lack of support and often opposition from influential bodies and empowered decision makers. The April 2021 federal budget outlined a new set of priorities for the economic recovery from the pandemic that excluded any mention of a GBI. The federal Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report that showed a federal GBI with benefit rates estimated at $16,989 for a single person could reduce poverty rates by 50 per cent, but at a high cost (close to $90 billion).' The Fraser Institute also highlighted the costs of a universal basic income as prohibitive for the federal government to take on (Fuss, Palacios and Eisen 2020). Prior to the April 2021 federal budget, a thorough vetting of the issue by the British Columbia Expert Panel on Basic Income (Green, Kesselman and Tedds 2020) led to the conclusion, widely reported, that the province should not adopt a basic income and should concentrate instead on addressing poverty and advancing social justice in the province through reforms to the myriad existing supports and services provided by the province.2 Are we to conclude that the momentum for a basic income is declining and welfare reform and social policy should move on to other, more promising initiatives for addressing the prevalence and depth of poverty? We think that conclusion is premature and that, in fact, the case for a federal GBI has grown stronger in the context of the B.C. Task Force report. In the remainder of this paper, we set out reasons for this contention.' In this paper, we take on the task of investigating the feasibility of a tax -administered federal basic income (BI) with the purpose of making life better for working -age Canadians. If the goal of the paper looks familiar, then that is because we have adapted the 2019 terms of reference for the B.C. Expert Panel on Basic Income to the federal 7 https://www.pbo-dpb.cac.ca/en/blog/news/RP-2122-001-S--distributional-fiscal-analysis-national- guaranteed- basic-income--analyse-financiere-distributive-un-revenu-base-garanti-echelle-nationale. 2 Wayne Simpson was the author of a research paper commissioned by the expert panel (Simpson 2020) but was not involved in the writing of the final report. 3 Boadway, Cuff and Koebel (2019) and Koebel and Pohler (2019) also discuss why a provincial basic income is likely not feasible. context, where consideration of a BI makes more sense than for a single province.4 In particular, we consider the viability of a basic income for working -age Canadians through simulations of a range of basic income models to identify impacts and financial implications. We then consider how a federal BI transfer to individuals can support provincial poverty -reduction goals with the aim of reducing incidence of low income and improving health, housing and employment in Canada. The idea here is that the federal government uses its revenue powers to provide income transfers to individuals to create more fiscal capacity for provinces to do the other cash and in -kind social supports and allow for greater provincial benefit targeting. This has been done with federal pensions for seniors and with cash benefits to households with children. The cost-effectiveness of this BI approach could be evaluated in comparison to an alternative federal cash transfer to provinces to support poverty -reduction goals. We see our work focusing on a federal GBI as consistent with the recommendations of the 2020 report of the B.C. expert panel and supporting the goals and preferred approaches of that panel in advancing social justice in British Columbia. Our study seeks to answer complementary questions to those posed to the expert panel around how to leverage the greater revenue power of the federal government to support provincial poverty -reduction goals. We do consider how a federal basic income can allow for different purposes and targets for provincial income and social supports once some portion of income needs is met with a federal BI. The provinces would be responsible for residual needs under a federal BI, but also, depending on the details of the plan, have "spending room" created with the social assistance "savings" arising from the federal BI. The remainder of the paper and our argument is organized as follows. In the next section, we set out the principles of a GBI and discuss the options both in terms of standalone plans and as a guiding principle in developing effective income -support systems. Section 3 then sets out the challenges and options for advancing a GBI, and Section 4 provides illustrative microsimulations of possible plans. Section 5 summarizes the argument and sets out our recommendations. In 2018, the B.C. government created an expert committee to "Test the feasibility of a basic income in BC and help make life better for British Columbians." The terms of reference for the panel addressed "Making life more affordable... (and therefore to) Design and implement a province wide poverty reduction strategy that includes addressing the real causes of homelessness, including affordable accommodation, support for mental health and addictions and income security." One goal for the poverty -reduction strategy was to design and implement a basic -income pilot to test whether giving people a basic income is an effective way to reduce poverty and improve health, housing and employment. In 2019, the terms of reference for the panel had two tasks: "consider the viability of a basic income in BC and support the simulation of various basic income models in BC to identify impacts and financial implications," and "look at BC's existing income and social support system and how elements and principles of a basic income could be used to transform and enhance it" (Green, Kesselman and Tedds 2020). Similar goals framed two earlier studies: Boadway, Cuff and Koebel (2019) and Koebel and Pohler (2019). 2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES: THE ABCS OF A GUARANTEED BASIC INCOME A guaranteed basic income is often conceived as a grand standalone plan, a plan "in and of itself" and "as a policy tool on its own." Modern history of the basic income often begins in the United States, with Friedman's (1962) comprehensive proposal for a negative -income-tax plan to address poverty, which received strong support from prominent American economists and former president Johnson's Council of Economic Advisers, leading to then president Nixon's bold but ultimately unsuccessful proposal for a Family Assistance Plan to reform U.S. welfare in 1971 (Simpson 2021). Subsequent development of the concept of a universal basic income in Europe to address social inequality more broadly was also conceived in these terms as a separate and distinct new program. Yet the GBI can also be conceived as a set of modern guidelines for the development of income -support policy, which may have a more practical application to the reform of income -assistance programs today. A GBI can be conceived to be generous enough to displace the need for other income and social supports creating a single program, or it can be established as a component of a system of supports. What are the GBI guidelines? A GBI creates a universal income floor, or minimum income, with consideration for poverty thresholds, and with transfers that are not means -tested but may be income -tested. A means test typically involves the assessment of a person's employability, skills, assets and level of education, but can include other factors, such as an assessment of other adults in the family, as a way for program administrators to target income assistance more deeply. Conversely, an income test involves only the determination of a person's or family's income. The majority of provincial income and in -kind supports are means -tested, and eligibility may be conditional on expectations to work, if able.5 A federal tax -administered GBI would solely be tested through income, with no explicit requirement or condition to seek work.' This is the source of a GBI's administrative simplicity and its reduction of stigma for assistance recipients. The Basic Income Canada Network refers to two models, the universal -basic -income (UBI) model of a taxable benefit payable to every individual regardless of income, and the guaranteed -basic -income model (GBI), which provides a maximum benefit to those with the lowest incomes and gradually reduces the benefit as incomes rise, such that those with higher incomes receive no benefit.' The GBI model is more familiar to Canadians in its origin as the negative income tax and its inspiration for the design of two major Canadian social experiments, the Manitoba Basic Annual Income Experiment (Mincome) and the Ontario Basic Income Pilot. The GBI model seems most appropriate for addressing poverty, as the UBI model directs its benefits to the wider population 5 Ontario historically had legislation obligating adult children to support parents. Provincial and local "relief' to indigent elderly was tested on the children's ability to pay, or the abrogation of responsibility of children (Struthers 1995). 6 The decision must still be made as to whether the income test is based on an individual's income or the income of the individual's household. httos://basicincomecanada.org/what is basic income/. and therefore provides much smaller benefits to those with lower incomes for a given budget (Honkanen 2014). While the GB I model is generally preferred in North American discourse on a basic income, it is not as simple as the UBI model. The origins of the GBI model in the negative -income-tax schema are motivated by poverty defined in family terms: an individual is poor if the individual lives in a family that has insufficient income to purchase the basic necessities of life. In Canada, this was articulated in the development of the Low Income Cut -Offs by Statistics Canada in the 1960s, which determined the level of income at which family expenditure on the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter would exceed 70 per cent of income on average (Podoluk 1968), and which constituted an unofficial poverty standard until recently. Thus, while the UBI would pay a common taxable benefit to everyone, the GBI model would need to define what is meant by a family and what is meant by income, and would need to establish a negative tax or benefit -reduction rate on the maximum benefit. As the income - maintenance experiments in the U.S. and Canada illustrated, these decisions are neither straightforward nor inconsequential, and design matters (Simpson 2021). These, then, are the principles of a guaranteed or GBI model, generally borrowed from the U.S. and Canadian basic -income websitess: (i) universal eligibility for regular, by which one would mean at least monthly, government payments (ii) with a guarantee or minimum income floor based on family size and composition, in accordance with poverty standards that would (iii) decline or taper according to a negative income tax or benefit -reduction rate applied to family income, and (iv) would not have any employment conditions. To this list of principles might be added some other considerations. First, the benefit - reduction rate on family income should not provide a strong disincentive to work. Often, this consideration for a GBI is framed in terms of the introduction of a new disincentive for work when, in practice, incentives for work under a GBI need to be considered in the context of the work disincentives of existing transfers, such as social assistance. Although weak work -disincentive effects were found in the income - maintenance experiments and in subsequent basic -income pilot projects (Simpson 2020), it is difficult to argue that the marginal effective tax rates of close to 100 per cent associated with social assistance programs such as B.C. Income Assistance do not constitute a significant barrier to labour force attachment for welfare recipients. The income -maintenance experiments of the 1970s addressed this question by restricting consideration to rates between 30 and 80 per cent around a consensus midpoint of SO per cent, in line with Friedman's (1962) original proposal. In the absence of further experimental clarification, it seems that a useful heuristic would be to aim for a rate of SO per cent that would provide stronger employment incentives than current Canadian social assistance programs do. a httos://usbig.net/about-big/ and httos://basicincomecanada.org/what is basic income% A second consideration for the development of a GBI should be its simplicity for the end user. Current provincial income -assistance programs, or welfare more generally, are administratively complicated, with hundreds of rules and corresponding benefit rates and dozens of specialized benefits. People in these programs are also regularly profiled and it is up to the discretion of the income -support worker to refuse, discontinue or suspend eligibility if they determine a person has refused to seek or to accept employment, training, or rehabilitative measures, or if the person has failed to comply with any of the myriad terms or conditions of the program (Human Services Alberta 2021). The attractiveness of a GBI lies in its simplified structure to address income poverty in comparison with current income -assistance programs that also provide regular benefits. Part of that simplified structure is the elimination of work conditions, but there are also issues around the ease of access to benefits. In addition to the administrative burdens imposed by current income -assistance programs, there are also barriers to employment through high benefit -reduction rates and low maximum thresholds. There is also little opportunity for people on income assistance who want to work, but have mild barriers or are unsuited for full-time standard employment, as they can never earn enough to leave the program entirely. The B.C. expert panel provides an extensive discussion of the myriad federal and provincial programs that comprise the current income- and social -support system in B.C., the various departments and points of access to these programs, and the complexity of the benefits and services provided. To that end, basic -income proposals from the time of Friedman (1962) have assumed a payments system derived directly from the system of income taxation to sidestep these bureaucratic layers. Mirrlees (1971) and successors formalized a system of optimal taxation that, under certain reasonable conditions, included a negative income tax in the form of a refundable tax credit for those with low market incomes. Subsequent technological advance and program development have made the case for delivery of a GBI through the tax system even stronger. A tax -system -based GBI would need to be administered and delivered by the federal government in Canada, given the centrality of the federal government in designing and implementing tax structures and collecting tax revenue in Canada. Further, the federal government's revenue powers must generally be balanced against the lower revenue powers and greater spending responsibilities of the provinces. Although there should be universal eligibility for a GBI, we also need to consider that successful and popular targeted basic -income programs for the elderly and for families with children already exist in Canada. While these programs might be folded into a new, comprehensive, federally supported GBI, an attractive alternative would be to introduce a basic -income program for those non -elderly adult Canadians not covered by existing arrangements. The GBI need not fully displace the need for provincial social supports and other targeted transfers for many practical reasons, including responsivity of supports to short-term changes in circumstances. At the same time, we see a federal GBI as a potential change to the income -support system that complements and enhances the capacity of provinces to pursue more comprehensive welfare reforms. We see several advantages to this approach, and the options we consider adopt this incremental approach to the completion of a GBI for Canada. A GBI will need to exist along with a wide array of other in -kind and targeted social supports and cash transfers. For example, Canadians aged 65 and over have a GBI through a (largely) universal demogrant benefit through Old Age Security (OAS), and an income -tested benefit through the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). The combined value of OAS and GIS exceeds the maximum benefits available to Canadians under age 65 through social assistance. In 2018, 6.5 per cent of Canadians aged 55-64 reported social assistance benefits on their tax forms, for an average benefit of $10,300. In the same year 6.7 per cent of Canadians 65 and over reported social assistance benefits averaging $2,200. Canada's most generous BI can be seen as reducing reliance of low-income households on provincial social assistance, but it has not replaced it.9 3. WHY A GBI SHOULD BE FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED Since a significant portion of current taxation authority and income benefits lies under federal jurisdiction, federal participation is an important, perhaps essential, part of any discussion of a basic income in Canada. First, as Boadway, Cuff and Koebel (2019) and Koebel and Pohler (2019) argue, a provincial basic income is likely not feasible. The B.C. expert panel report provides comprehensive explanations for the weakness of the case for a GBI implemented by that province on its own. Part of the panel's concern was that the likely best way to introduce a GBI through the tax system would provide limited capacity to deliver a basic income. B.C.'s tax structure has a low personal disposable amount and a low initial tax rate, which means that elimination of nonrefundable provincial tax credits would finance only a very modest basic income. As Stevens and Simpson (2017, Table 13) show, the current provincial tax structures in other provinces would provide a more generous basic income, especially in Alberta, if a GBI were funded by the conversion of nonrefundable tax credits to refundable tax credits. But given the much larger role of federal taxes, it follows that more could be done to create a GBI through federal tax restructuring (Simpson and Stevens 2019). The B.C. expert panel recommended that the province "add its voice to calls for reform" of the federal tax and transfer system that would be necessary to facilitate a basis for a GBI for the working -age population (Green, Kesselman and Tedds 2020, 37). The federal government also has a longer track record than the provinces do in creating and administering GBI transfers, working in partnership with the provinces. OAS and GIS for Canadians 65 and over are a prominent example, but Canada also has a viable model for federal -provincial -territorial co-operation in BI-type transfers with the National Child Benefit Initiative (NCBI). Arising from the parliamentary motion to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000, the NCBI working group was formed during the first Chretien Liberal government, with three objectives that translate well to a discussion of a more comprehensive basic income: to decrease poverty, encourage labour market participation and improve the efficiency of the federal and provincial/ territorial child benefit programs, especially monetary and administrative barriers to 9 Author's calculations from Statistics Canada, Table 11-10-0039-01, "Tax filers and dependants, seniors with income by source of income and age." work that constitute what is termed a "welfare wall." By 1997, the governments agreed to replace provincial and territorial child -welfare benefits with a national platform of income -tested child benefits, while allowing provinces to reinvest any savings in social assistance in complementary programs targeted at improving work incentives, benefits and services for low-income families with children. Ensuing federal budgets increased the benefit levels and income -eligibility thresholds for both the child tax benefit and the National Child Benefit Supplement, an earnings -supplement program intended to support families with children but structured to provide the greatest support to low- income families. Evaluations of the NCBI indicated that it had reduced the incidence and depth of poverty among both lone -parent and dual -parent families with children. The NCBI design, which had focused on a reduction in the welfare wall and other barriers to employment, had succeeded in making work more financially attractive than social assistance for families with children, such that dependency on social assistance among families with children had declined (Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services 2005). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development singled out the NCBI for improving efficiency and co-ordination in federal, provincial and territorial programming. Clientele surveys and focus groups lauded the administrative simplicity of the NCBI payments. While it must be noted that reducing poverty for children is less contentious than reducing poverty for working -age Canadians, the success of the federal -provincial -territorial negotiations that paved the way for the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), a simple, more generous and income -tested refundable tax credit, can only encourage further dialogue on a more comprehensive GBI plan for all Canadians. The federal government should be encouraged to initiate that dialogue in the context of the glaring gaps in income support exposed by the pandemic, and of the passage of the Poverty Reduction Act in 2019, which sets an ambitious goal to reduce the poverty rate from 12 per cent in 2015 to six per cent in 2030. The provinces, in turn, should welcome discussions that address social assistance benefits and caseloads, if they are accompanied by federal funding directed at reducing poverty, enhancing employment incentives and harmonizing income -support programs in the spirit of the successful NCBI. A second set of considerations important for the design of an effective GBI for working -age Canadians should be addressed by a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial authorities. We would note that many of the issues would be similar to those encountered by the NCBI working group, so we have experience with resolving them. First, any GBI scheme relying on refundable tax credits, which many see as the most effective poverty -reduction model, must address the question of barriers to tax filing. An important research highlight from the B.C. expert panel was that perhaps one in eight Canadians do not file taxes in any one year, although the percentage who never file is likely much smaller, in the range of three to six per cent. While this is an important consideration in the development of a GBI, we do not see it as prohibitive. Whatever the federal government and provinces can do to reduce barriers to tax filing, including the development of an identification and verification platform for non -filers to increase access to benefits through the tax system, should be part of any federal -provincial - territorial discussions on a GBI. Tax filing does not constitute a greater barrier to benefits than the provincial benefit -enrollment systems already in place, and the barriers can be addressed by motivated participants in the GBI design process. Indeed, the federal government may have already taken an important step to increase tax -filing rates. Following initiatives in countries such as Germany, Japan and the U.K., the April 2022 federal budget announced plans to introduce free automatic tax filing for simple returns.10 The proposed policy change would see CRA complete simple returns using the income data and other data already transmitted to the agency by employers and other government agencies. Individuals who currently miss out on benefits because they do not file, principally low-income Canadians, would be most likely to benefit from this undertaking. An issue associated with the distribution of benefits through the Canada Revenue Agency is the slow response of the current tax system to changes in family economic circumstances. The current social assistance system is more responsive than annual reconciliation of benefits administered through the tax system, although the responsiveness comes with the costs of "barriers to access associated with complexity and lack of respectfulness associated with the eligibility testing inherent in focused supports" (Green, Kesselman and Tedds 2020, 22-23). Any meeting of federal, provincial and territorial authorities to institute a GBI would have to pay serious attention to this issue. Some accommodations to tax reconciliation might be possible, if only to improve the sharing of tax information with the provinces as the panel suggests, but here is where the role of the provinces would be particularly important in streamlining their own processes to provide emergency funding to families whose circumstances change within the taxation year. An understanding, not now present in the CCB arrangements, would have to be reached on the responsibility of provinces to continue to provide what was once termed emergency relief, along with guidelines as to the adequacy, rates of taxation and conditions that could be applied. These emergency benefits might require provincial distribution outside the tax system, as income assistance is currently provided, but might also be delivered as adjustments to the benefits provided within the tax system through federal -provincial co-operation. Variation, already present among the different provinces' social assistance systems, could provide lessons for better management of this challenge. Once the pandemic recedes and other economic and social issues move to the public forefront, a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial authorities could be convened, provided that the federal government was willing to put significant new money on the table to improve the well-being of those in poverty, or to reduce poverty and its adverse effects, while at the same time enhancing employment incentives and harmonizing income -support programs in the spirit of the successful NCBI. The outline of a proposed agenda of issues for consideration at this meeting should reflect at a minimum both the principles of a GBI covered in Section 2 and the taxation issues discussed in this section. The issues start with regular payments to a wider spectrum of Canadians that would significantly enhance the accessibility and adequacy of current federal, provincial and territorial income support and plug current gaps. They then ire https://budget.gc.ca/2022/report-rapport/chaP9-en.htmI#wb-cont. extend to a consideration of the trade-off between guarantee levels that address adequacy and benefit -reduction rates that target low-income families and provide work incentives. Arrangements need to be made to reduce barriers to eligibility for receipt of benefits, including work conditions. Similarly, arrangements need to be made to reduce barriers to tax filing to make the payment of benefits as inclusive as possible. And work needs to begin to ensure that the responsiveness of existing provincial assistance programs is improved and not compromised. As in the past, provisions would likely be needed for provinces to opt out of the plan, provided that their plan adhered to national standards to be eligible for federal funding. 4. OPTIONS FOR THE THIRD GBI PHASE FOR CANADA The concept of a basic income delivered by refundable tax credits is neither new nor untried in Canada, at least in a targeted sense. Well ahead of its time, the federal government instituted the GIS in 1967 to address poverty among the elderly. The GIS was initially developed with a guarantee of a 40-per-cent supplement to OAS for those with no other source of income, and a benefit -reduction rate of 50 per cent to target the lowest -income seniors. A very popular program, the GIS has ensured that poverty among elderly Canadians is low relative to non -elderly Canadians and the elderly in other nations (Osberg 2001). A second targeted phase of basic income, the CCB, was instituted in 2016 for low-income families with children. The CCB is more complex, and less targeted to those with low incomes than the GIS, but its design is consistent with GBI principles for families with children. The CCB offers a guarantee in the range of $500 per child per month, depending on age, with benefit -reduction rates that vary from three to 23 per cent, depending on the age and number of children." The CCB has been credited with lifting 300,000 children out of poverty during the Liberals' first term (Baker, Messacar and Stabile 2021). Both the GIS and the CCB provided vehicles for emergency COVID-19 relief to low-income families and seniors in 2020. While the GIS and CCB may be considered the first two phases of a basic income, a tentative foray into a third phase already exists in the form of the federal refundable sales tax credit. The credit, introduced in 1986 as a modest annual payment for low- income families, became the Goods and Services Tax credit (GSTC) shortly thereafter. The new GSTC was paid quarterly but remains modest: scheduled annual payments are $456 for single Canadians, $598 for couples, and $157 for each child under 19 in 2021-22, with a benefit -reduction rate of five per cent for family incomes exceeding $38,892.11 The options discussed below cancel the GSTC and incorporate its budget of $5.4 billion into the new GBI options we study. This third phase of basic income would have to be the product of federal - provincial - territorial negotiations along the lines discussed in Section 3. The GBI would be 77 Government of Canada, Canada Child Benefit (2016), at https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/ programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/federal-government-budgets/budget-2016-growing-middle- class/Canada-child-benefit.html. 72 https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/child-family-benefits/goods-services-tax-harmonized- sales-tax-gst-hst-credit/goods-services-tax-harmonized-sales-tax-credit-calculation-sheet-iuly-2021-iune- 2022-payments-2020-tax-year.html. designed for non -elderly adults 18 to 64 years of age, although the payments (probably monthly, like the CCB and OAS/GIS benefits) would be combined with other benefits paid through the tax system, such as the CCB for families with children. Discussions of a GBI for non -elderly adults should be assisted by microsimulation evidence on the impacts and costs of proposed plans. This section provides illustrative evidence from the latest version (version 28.1) of the Social Policy Simulation Database and Model (SPSD/M) for options that are consistent with our discussion in Section 3. This version of SPSD/M is based on 2016 income data, thus capturing the impact of the CCB on incomes and poverty in Canada, with the results projected to 2022.13 It is also the first version that offers the opportunity to measure poverty using the Market Basket Measure (MBM), now Canada's official poverty measure, as laid out in the Poverty Reduction Act. The options that we consider differ in terms of whether a federal GBI supplements or replaces provincial social assistance (SA) benefits. For each option, the federal GBI is financed by a reduction in the federal basic personal nonrefundable tax credit and cancellation of the GSTC. The SA supplementation options are achieved by the provincial SA programs not clawing back their benefits by the value of the GBI. Full supplementation is achieved by the federal government not including the value of SA benefits in the definition of family income used to claw back the GBI while partial supplementation occurs when SA income is included in the definition of family income used to claw back the value of the GBI .14 By comparison, the SA replacement options feature the provinces clawing back their SA benefits by the value of the federal GBI and the federal government excluding SA benefits in its definition of family income used to claw back the GBI. With the clawback of SA benefits, provincial SA programs will diminish in caseloads and in cost, as was the case for many provinces when CERB was introduced. To respond to those whose income fluctuates and who do not file a tax return, however, some form of a provincial last -resort income support will have to exist temporarily until appropriate reforms are made to improve the accessibility of benefits through the tax system. How the federal and provincial governments decide to use the savings accruing from the clawback of SA benefits distinguishes the sub -options. The full set of options is as follows: SUPPLEMENTATION OF SA BENEFITS (RECIPIENTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THEIR ENTIRE SA BENEFIT AND A GBI BENEFIT) • A.1 The GBI program excludes SA benefits in its definition of family income to claw back GBI benefits. • A.2 The GBI program includes SA benefits in its definition of family income to claw back GBI benefits. 73 To the extent that the projections reflect the impact of COVID-19 on the economy, they may underestimate the recovery and labour market outcomes beyond the pandemic. 74 A valid concern with plans involving supplementation of SA benefits is that the benefit -reduction rates for SA and the GBI are combined and the work -disincentive effects of SA, the so-called welfare wall, are exacerbated. This should be a topic of conversation in any discussions between the federal government and the provinces and territories, but only a small proportion of SA recipients work and earn income beyond the monthly income exemption level and the effect on our simulations is negligible. REPLACEMENT OF SA BENEFITS (SA IS REPLACED BY THE GBI) • B.1 Provinces retain the SA program savings and invest them in programs of their choosing. This was the arrangement initially negotiated by the National Child Benefit program in 1998. Later, most provinces switched to option A.2 by ending the clawback of the benefit. • B.2 Provinces and the federal government agree to a reduction in the sizes of the Canada Health Transfer and Canada Social Transfer equal to the savings achieved by the clawback of the SA benefits. Those savings are reflected in lower federal expenditures to fund the GBI. Within these options, there are an infinite set of options for defining the GBI, depending on the level of generosity (the income guarantee) and level of targeting (the benefit -reduction rate) selected. While the B.C. expert panel provides a very large set of simulations that explore some of these options for the B.C. case, we adopt a more limited approach that allows us to explore the federal -provincial arrangements embedded in our four options above. Recognizing that the GBI will provide support in addition to provincial social assistance and other existing federal and provincial income supports, we choose an income guarantee of $12,000 for a single adult and $16,970 for a two -adult family that is 51 per cent of the national weighted MBM.15 We also set the benefit -reduction rate at 34 per cent to establish an exit level for the GBI, the income level at which benefits are phased out, that is 150 per cent of the MBM threshold; i.e., $35,294 for singles and $49,912 for a two -adult family. This rate also recognizes that our GBI overlays existing programs and tax structures and aims to keep marginal effective tax rates (METRs) moderate. As we show below in our simulation results, these parameters deliver significant poverty reduction without burdensome taxation. The simulated options are financed by the elimination of the GSTC and by reductions in the personal -income-tax basic exemption. The elimination of the GSTC provides revenue of $5.38 billion. The remainder of the revenue required is provided by reduction of the basic exemption: a reduction to $352 to generate $45.53 billion for options A.1 and B.1, a reduction to $1,811 to generate $40.21 billion for option A.2, and a reduction to $3,010 to generate $35.91 billion for option B.2. Table 1 considers these options and their impact on incomes by quintile and on poverty without behavioural response. The impact on poverty is shown in terms of the percentage reduction in the rate of poverty, the percentage reduction in the depth of poverty, and the sum of the changes in the rate and depth of poverty, which we refer to as the intensity of poverty. Using the intensity of poverty as our metric, the results in Table 1 show that, in terms of their cost effectiveness, the SA -supplementation options A.1 and A.2 are superior to the SA -replacement options B.1 and B.2: The costs per percentage -point reduction in the intensity of poverty are $810 million for supplementation option A.1 and $740 million for A.2, compared to $940 million and $930 million for replacement options B.1 and B.2. 75 The additional $4,970 for the second adult is based on the square -root -equivalence scale that is commonly used for family -size adjustment (httos://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD-Note-EquivalenceScales.r)df). Since children in the family receive the CCB, which is not included in the definition of net family income used to claw back the GBI, only adults in the family are used to determine the size of the GBI benefit. A significant problem with these estimates is that they assume no behavioural response to receipt of the GBI. The income -maintenance experiments of the 1970s provided careful and extensive evidence of a limited labour -supply response to negative -income- tax treatments and contributed to an emerging consensus around the likely size of this response in other circumstances (Simpson 2020 and 2021). More recent reviews of the evidence by McClelland and Mok (2012) for the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, and by Green (2020) for the B.C. expert panel, among others, confirm the consensus around small, but non -zero labour -supply elasticity estimates. There is also evidence that labour -supply response is the principal component of the more general response to benefits encapsulated in the elasticity of taxable income (Stevens and Simpson 2018). Using the elasticity estimates in McClelland and Mok, which we have used before (Stevens and Simpson 2017), we readjust the results for our four options based on the labour -supply response to the GBI. These results are shown in Table 2. Table 2 presents the post -labour -supply impacts of the GBI. Table 2 tells the same story as Table 1, but at a slightly higher cost as a result of higher GBI benefits arising from lower earnings among low-income earners. Federal revenue is also higher, mainly because of higher earnings among higher -income adults, as shown in Table A.2 in the appendix. Those higher revenues are not sufficient to offset the higher GBI benefits, resulting in a small deficit, indicated as the "federal revenue gap" in Table 2. Nevertheless, the supplementation options continue to be a bit more effective than the replacement options in reducing the rate and depth of poverty for the least cost, using our cost per percentage -point reduction in the intensity -of -poverty measure. The least expensive options are A.1 and A.2, which cost $1.07 billion and $920 million, respectively, per percentage -point reduction in the intensity of poverty. Table 1. Pre -Labour -Supply Impacts of the Options for Nuclear Families - Canada 2022 - Using Reductions in the Federal Basic Exemption, Cancellation of the GSTC and Reductions in SA Benefits as the Revenue Sources Performance Criteria Gross Cost of GBI ($Billions) • Average benefit per family ($) • Per cent receiving a benefit Supplement SA Replace SA AA A.2 B.1 B.2 $50.91 $7,491 40.9% $45.59 $6,771 40.4% $50.91 $7,491 40.9% $50.91 $7,491 40.9% Total Revenue ($Billions) $50.91 $45.59 $50.91 $50.915 Personal income tax + GSTC savings ($Billions)' $50.91 $45.59 $50.91 $41.29 SA Savings ($Billions)2 $0.00 $0.00 $9.62 $9.62 % Change in Disposable Income by Adjusted Family Disposable Income Quintiles' • Quintile 1 (<$19,003) • Quintile 2 ($19,003-$32,071) • Quintile 3 ($32,072-$46,647) • Quintile 4 ($46,648-$67,487) • Quintile 5 ($67,488+) +54.497 +50.4 +43.7 +45.3 -0.9 -1.6 -2.5 -1.3 -4.7 -4.3 -4.8 -3.9 -3.6 -3.2 -3.6 -2.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.8 -1.5 • Total +1.0 +0.9 +0.1 +0.8 Per Cent Change in Poverty • Rate -53.6 -50.0 -40.0 -42.6 • Depth -20.1 -23.5 -23.5 -22.6 • Intensity of poverty° -63.0 -61.7 -54.1 -54.4 Cost ($Billions) Per Percentage -Point Reduction in the Intensity of Poverty $0.81 $0.74 $0.94 $0.93 Notes: 1. For each of the options, the cancellation of the GSTC provided additional revenue of $5.38 billion and a top -up of $6,000 was provided to persons claiming the disability benefit. For option A.1, the basic exemption was lowered to $352 to generate tax revenues of $45.53 billion. For option A.2, the basic exemption was lowered to $1,811 to generate tax revenues of $40.21 billion. For option B.1, the basic exemption was lowered to $352 to generate tax revenues of $45.53 billion. For option B.2, the basic exemption was lowered to $3,010 to generate tax revenues of $35.91 billion. 2. For option B.1, the savings accrue to the provinces. For option B.2, the savings accrue to the federal government. SA savings were calculated as the lesser of: GBI benefit x 10.4 months of the year; or the SA benefit. The average length of time an adult is on SA during the year is 10.4 months. 3. After tax and transfer, nuclear -family income is adjusted by the square root of family size. 4. The intensity of poverty is measured as the per cent change in the adjusted depth of poverty, which includes all those who left poverty due to the GBI, and counts their depth of poverty as zero. It captures the impact of the change in the rate and depth of poverty. 5. The coincidence of figures for total revenue and gross cost of GBI indicates that the options are fully funded. Table 2. Post -Labour -Supply Impacts'°2 of the Options for Nuclear Families - Canada 2022 - Using Reductions in the Basic Exemption, Cancellation of the GSTC, and Reductions in SA Benefits as the Revenue Sources Performance Criteria Gross Cost of GBI ($Billions) • Average benefit per family ($) • Per cent receiving a benefit Supplement SA Replace SA A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2 $52.93 $7,775 41.0% $47.59 $7,055 40.5% $52.93 $7,775 41.0% $53.01 $7,783 41.0% Total Revenue ($Billions) Personal income tax + GSTC savings ($Billions) $51.49 $51.49 $46.49 $46.49 $51.49 $51.49 $52.00 $42.38 SA savings ($Billions) $0.00 $0.00 $9.62 $9.62 Federal Revenue Gap Per Cent Change in Disposable Income by Adjusted Family Disposable Income Quintiles • Quintile 1 (<$19,003) • Quintile 2 ($19,003-$32,071) • Quintile 3 ($32,072-$46,647) • Quintile 4 ($46,648-$67,487) -$1.47 41.10 -$1.47 41.01 +53.2 +48.6 +42.0 +43.4 -2.4 1 +3.2 -4.0 -2.9 -4.8 -4.3 -4.9 -4.0 -3.6 -3.1 -3.6 -2.9 • Quintile 5 ($67,488+) -1.8 -1.4 -1.8 -1.0 • Total +0.8 +0.7 -0.1 +0.7 Per Cent Change in Poverty - Rate - Depth - Intensity of poverty Cost ($Billions) Per Percentage -Point Reduction in the Intensity of Poverty -48.6 -45.1 -35.3 -38.4 -1.5 -12.2 -7.9 -15.5 -49.4 -51.8 -40.4 -48.0 $1.07 $0.92 $1.31 $1.10 Notes: 1. The labour -supply effects were estimated assuming earnings were obtained when not on SA for two reasons. First, very few SA recipients earn income while on SA; and second, the SPSD/M does not record when an adult is on or off SA during the year. 2. The appendix presents the impact of the GBI on the marginal effective tax rates (METRs) and on wage earnings. The post - labour -supply family income was then calculated and used to determine the outcomes presented in this table. The exploration of options in tables 1 and 2 involved the establishment of a specific income guarantee (51 per cent of the MBM) and benefit -reduction rate (34 per cent), corresponding to a specific exit level for the GBI (150 per cent of the MBM). An extension to our approach would be to fix one of these parameters and allow the other two to vary systematically, to identify response patterns and ultimately to identify those plans with the greatest impact on poverty for the money spent. A problem with this approach is that our results in tables 1 and 2 assume that the cost of the options would be covered by elimination of the GSTC and reductions in the basic exemption. Some of the new options to be considered would require additional revenue, such as eliminating other nonrefundable tax credits, raising personal income tax rates, and raising the federal Goods and Services Tax. Since the results of these simulations would depend on the method of financing them, they would not be comparable to our results in tables 1 and 2, and we have not pursued this line of enquiry further for this paper. S. MAKING THE VALUES EXPLICIT FOR GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS In public, the debate over basic income (BI) as a policy tool to achieve the objective of reducing poverty usually rests on costs and labour -supply disincentives. Costs require a normative benchmark to evaluate if they are large or affordable, and labour - supply disincentives could be addressed as an empirical issue to resolve with evidence. For both costs and labour -supply concerns with a BI, rarely are the underlying value positions made explicit. It's important to distinguish the value positions from the empirical policy issue for a more open and transparent discussion. On the cost of a BI, the total expenditure is often shown as a standalone number, comparing that expenditure for reducing poverty with the alternative of spending nothing to reduce poverty, which is not the case in Canada. For a more accurate cost comparison, we argue that the cost of a BI should be considered against alternative expenditures of existing means -tested poverty -reduction transfers and programs, so decisions can be made to determine which is the better approach for reducing poverty. Regarding concerns over labour disincentives of a BI, too often the "precautionary principle" is applied, which often supports remaining with the status quo. Labour disincentives would appear to be resolvable as an empirical issue, as the standard for sufficient evidence on BI and labour supply has been met, but here the challenge BI proponents face is what more can be done amid the lack of political will to run pilot programs or demonstration projects to generate the evidence desired. This leaves the debate stuck, and the policy discussion turns to one of risk management. The perceived risk then justifies adherence to the precautionary principle of avoiding introducing a new risk to the economy, the public treasury and society. This is not objective and rational decision -making, but a values -based objection to basic income, grounded in risk management. The continuation of the status quo and the higher -than -necessary prevalence and depth of poverty comes with costs for individuals in poverty rather than risks. How does the reduction in those human costs get balanced against a labour market risk other than values? We can even place a value on how much we value protecting labour market incentives using the required expenditure on a BI, the mortality reduction that comes with reduced poverty, and different assumptions of how large the labour disincentives are using a value -of -statistical -life approach. Even if we value the labour - supply disincentives, we still need to state the values that allow us to compare, and prioritize, benefits, expenditures and risks with a BI versus the status quo. Concern over labour -supply effects is also often a pretense for a value position common to the design of most welfare programs, but rarely made explicit, that government benefits are best directed towards the "deserving poor," that being children, the elderly and those with disabilities. This value position also holds that those of working age are better served through efforts to increase employment. As this objection to basic income is ideological, efforts to counter this objection with evidence is pointless, but when the values are hidden, this is often the case. Sometimes, hypothetical questions are a way to help distinguish the value positions from valid empirical concerns. For example, regarding the tension over labour disincentives and BI, certain positions must be clarified. Is the government obligated to help everyone meet their basic needs? If no, then who should be helped to meet their basic needs? What should the form of help or support look like? On concerns over cost, at what point is the cost too high for providing a BI that drops poverty rates to historic low levels? Why is BI as a tax -transfer scheme framed as a cost rather than an expenditure, like pensions and other desirable programs such as health care? The answer to these questions provides the kind of nuance needed to have a healthy and more productive debate about basic income. 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS In response to calls for a stronger, more efficient income -support system that addresses gaps made obvious during the pandemic, this paper illustrates how a guaranteed basic income delivered by the federal tax system for working -age Canadians can provide significant poverty reduction without significant work disincentives or burdensome taxation. We discuss how federal -provincial negotiations would provide a roadmap for delivering a GBI in partnership with the provinces and what issues would have to be considered. Anticipating how these negotiations might proceed in broad terms, we simulate two options that supplement provincial social assistance and two options that replace social assistance. We assess the impact of these options on disposable incomes and poverty reduction, their cost, and their likely effect on labour supply. We argue that the cost of our recommended GBI options, one that supplements provincial social assistance and does not allow SA income to be clawed back by the GBI, and another that claws back SA benefits to assist in funding the GBI, should be judged in comparison with the required federal transfers associated with alternative policy instruments that would be necessary to achieve comparable reductions in poverty. We urge policy -makers to consider a GBI of the sort we outline here that streamlines and simplifies the income -support system but exists alongside other important social supports already in place at the provincial level. A GBI is not a panacea for ending poverty, but it can make Canada more resilient by ensuring that low incomes do not prevent families from paying the rent and putting food on the table. APPENDIX Table A.1 shows the impact of the options on the marginal effective tax rates, while Table A.2 calculates the labour -supply effects of the changes in METRs on earnings using the methodology in Stevens and Simpson (2017). Table A.1. Average Percentage -Point Change in Marginal Effective Tax Rates for Adults 18 to 64 with Wage Earnings Over $1,000, Canada 2022 Wage Income Pre-GBI Percentage -Point Change in the METRS1,2 Decile METRs2 A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2 1 12.5 +34.9 +27.5 +34.9 +36.7 2 21.9 +33.2 +29.7 +33.2 +33.5 3 37.0 +21.7 +19.3 +21.7 +21.4 4 39.0 +17.2 +16.2 +17.2 +16.4 5 41.0 +5.5 +4.2 +5.5 +3.8 6 41.1 +0.9 +0.9 +0.9 +2.1 7 46.7 -5.1 -5.8 -5.1 -5.2 8 39.6 +2.3 +2.9 +2.3 -0.2 9 41.8 -0.3 -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 10 51.8 -2.9 -2.9 -2.9 -2.5 Total 37.2 +10.7 +9.2 +10.7 +10.5 Notes: 1. These are the combined effects of the financing of the GBI and the benefit -reduction rate. 2. As calculated by the SPSD/M Marginal Tax Rate Facility. SPSD/M is not sufficiently detailed with respect to SA monthly income to allow the calculation of METRs for individuals on SA, but few SA recipients work beyond the income exemption. Table A.2. Average Per Cent Change in Wage Earnings' of Adults 18 to 64 with Wage Earnings Over $1,000 Due to the Change in the METRs, Canada 2022 Wage Income Pre-GBI Wage Decile Earnings Options A.1 A.2 B.1 B.2 1 $4,447 -2.9 -3.8 -2.9 -0.9 2 $12,034 -6.3 -5.9 -6.3 -6.5 3 $20,787 -3.8 -3.4 -3.8 -3.9 4 $30,632 -2.8 -2.6 -2.8 -2.8 5 $40,330 -0.9 -0.6 -0.9 -0.6 6 $50,628 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.4 7 $61,443 +1.5 +1.7 +1.5 +1.4 8 $77,434 -0.5 -0.7 -0.5 +0.3 9 $99,978 +0.1 0.0 +0.1 +0.1 10 $181,789 +0.4 +0.4 +0.4 +0.3 Total $57,954 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2 Note: 1. As calculated by equations A.6, A.7, A.8 and A.9 of Stevens and Simpson (2017). REFERENCES Baker, M., D. Messacar and M. Stabile. 2021. "The Effects of Child Tax Benefits on Poverty and Labor Supply: Evidence from the Canada Child Benefit and Universal Child Care Benefit." National Bureau of Economic Research. DOI 10.3386/w28556. Boadway, R., K. Cuff and K. Koebel. 2019. "Designing a Basic Income Guarantee for Canada." In Federalism and the Welfare State in a Multicultural World. Eds. E. Goodyear -Grant, R. Johnston, W. Kymlicka and J. Myles. Kingston: McGill -Queen's Press, pp. 101-129. Canada. Parliamentary Budget Officer. 2027. Distributional and Fiscal Analysis of a National Guaranteed Basic Income. httr)s://www.r)bo-dob.ac.ca/en/blog/news/RP- 2122-001-S--distributional-fiscal-analysis-national-guaranteed-basic-income--analyse- financiere-distributive-un-revenu-base-garanti-echelle-nationale. Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Social Services. 2005. Evaluation of the National Child Benefit Initiative: Synthesis Report. Cat. No.: SD34- 5/2005E. February. Accessed online at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/esdc- edsc/documents/programs/child-benefit/papers/evaluation-report/eval ncb.pdf. Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fuss, Jake, Milagros Palacios and Ben Eisen. 2020. "How Much Could a Guaranteed Annual Income Cost?" Fraser Research Bulletin. Vancouver: Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/how-much-could-a-guaranteed- annual-income-cost.pdf. Green, David A. 2020 "Labour Supply Issues Related to a Basic Income and income Assistance." Paper prepared for the British Columbia Expert Panel on Basic Income. December. httr)s://bcbasicincomer)anel.ca/wr)-content/uploads/2021/02/ Labour Supply Issues Related to a Basic Income and Income Assistance.odf. Green, David A., Jonathan Rhys Kesselman and Lindsay M. Tedds. 2020. Covering All the Basics: Reforms for a More Just Society. Final Report of the British Columbia Expert Panel on Basic Income. December. https://bcbasicincomepanel.ca/wp- content/uploads/2021/O1/Final Report BC Basic Income Panel.pdf. Honkanen, P. 2014. "Basic income and negative income tax: A comparison with a simulation model." Basic Income Studies 9 (1-2): 119-135. Human Services Alberta. 2021. Expected to Work/Barriers to Full Employment Policies and Procedures. Alberta Works Policy Manual. January. http://www.humanservices.aberta.ca/AWOnline/IS/4799.html. Koebel, K. and D. Pohler. 2019. "Expanding the Canada Workers Benefit to design a guaranteed basic income." Canadian Public Policy 45 (3): 283-309. McClelland, Robert and Shannon Mok. 2012. "A Review of Recent Research on Labor Supply Elasticities." Congressional Budget Office Working Paper 2012-12. October. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office. Mirrlees, James A. 1971. "An Exploration in the Theory of Optimal Income Taxation." Review of Economic Studies 38: 175-208 PBO. 2017. "Federal Cost of a National Pharmacare Program." Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Ottawa. September 28. https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/Pharmacare/ Pharmacare EN 2017 11 07.pdf. Podoluk, J. R. 1968. Incomes of Canadians. Census Monograph. Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Simpson, Wayne. 2020. "Basic Income Experimentation Yesterday and Today: Challenges, Achievements and Lessons." Paper prepared for the British Columbia Expert Panel on Basic Income. May. https://bcbasicincomer)anel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Basic Income Experimentation Yesterday and Today Challenges Achievements and Lessons.pdf. Simpson, Wayne. 2021. Is Basic Income Within Reach? Building the Case Amidst Progress and Poverty. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Simpson, Wayne and Harvey Stevens. 2019. "An Alberta Guaranteed Basic Income: Issues and Options." University of Calgary School of Public Policy Research Paper 12. April. Stevens, Harvey and Wayne Simpson. 2017. "Toward a National Universal Guaranteed Basic Income." Canadian Public Policy 43 (2): 120-139. Stevens, Harvey and Wayne Simpson. 2018. "Is Canada Ready for Real Poverty Reduction through a Universal Guaranteed Basic Income? A Rejoinder to Kesselman's `Can `Self -Financing' Redeem the Basic Income Guarantee? Disincentives, Efficiency Costs, Tax Burdens, and Attitudes'." Canadian Public Policy 44 (4): 438-446. Struthers, James. 1995. The Limits of Affluence: Welfare in Ontario, 7920-7970. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. About the Authors Wayne Simpson is a Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Manitoba and a Research Fellow in the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. His areas of specialization include labour economics, urban and regional economics, applied microeconomics, quantitative methods and social policy. He is the author of Urban Structure and the Labour Market: Analysis of Worker Mobility, Commuting and Underemployment in Cities and Is Basic Income Within Reach? Building the Case Amidst Progress and Poverty and co-author (with D. Hum) of Income Maintenance, Work Effort and the Canadian Mincome Experiment and Maintaining a Competitive Workforce. He has published more than 60 refereed articles in economics and policy journals as well as numerous technical and research reports, book chapters, and other articles. He received the 2014 Mike McCracken Award for Economic Statistics from the Canadian Economics Association and the 1999 John Vanderkamp prize for the best article in Canadian Public Policy. His recent research interests includes basic income, redistributive taxation, social assistance, and provincial fiscal arrangements. Harvey Stevens is a retired senior policy analyst with the Department of Family Services and Housing in the Government of Manitoba. During his 19-year career, he managed major evaluations and policy analyses related to low-income families and children. He has expert knowledge of social assistance programming and its impact on client groups. Most recently, he has been engaged in analyzing the impacts of an enriched early childhood program on readiness to learn Lee Stevens works at Vibrant Communities Calgary as a Policy and Research Specialist. Lee has worked as a Social Worker in Calgary since 2006, for organizations such as the Calgary Drop -in Centre, CUPS, and Alberta Health Services. Lee has completed her Bachelor and later her Master of Social Work at the University of Calgary. She has provided leadership and support to several groups advancing the Enough for All strategy such as the Indigenous gathering place, Basic Income Alberta, the Alberta Living Wage Network and the Calgary social policy collaborative. She has expert knowledge of basic income, living wage, and the impact of social assistance programs. Herb Emery is the Vaughan Chair in Regional Economics at the University of New Brunswick ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY The School of Public Policy has become the flagship school of its kind in Canada by providing a practical, global and focused perspective on public policy analysis and practice in areas of energy and environmental policy, international policy and economic and social policy that is unique in Canada. The mission of The School of Public Policy is to strengthen Canada's public service, institutions and economic performance for the betterment of our families, communities and country. We do this by: • Building capacity in Government through the formal training of public servants in degree and non -degree programs, giving the people charged with making public policy work for Canada the hands-on expertise to represent our vital interests both here and abroad; • Improving Public Policy Discourse outside Government through executive and strategic assessment programs, building a stronger understanding of what makes public policy work for those outside of the public sector and helps everyday Canadians make informed decisions on the politics that will shape their futures; • Providing a Global Perspective on Public Policy Research through international collaborations, education, and community outreach programs, bringing global best practices to bear on Canadian public policy, resulting in decisions that benefit all people for the long term, not a few people for the short term. The School of Public Policy relies on industry experts and practitioners, as well as academics, to conduct research in their areas of expertise. Using experts and practitioners is what makes our research especially relevant and applicable. Authors may produce research in an area which they have a personal or professional stake. That is why The School subjects all Research Papers to a double anonymous peer review. Then, once reviewers comments have been reflected, the work is reviewed again by one of our Scientific Directors to ensure the accuracy and validity of analysis and data. The School of Public Policy University of Calgary, Downtown Campus 906 8th Avenue S.W., 5th Floor Calgary, Alberta T2P 1H9 Phone: 403 210 3802 DISTRIBUTION Our publications are available online at www.policyschool.ca. DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in these publications are the authors' alone and therefore do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the supporters, staff or boards of The School of Public Policy. COPYRIGHT Copyright © Simpson, Stevens, Stevens, Emery 2022. This is an open - access paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license CC BY -NC 4.0, which allows non-commercial sharing and redistribution so long as the original author and publisher are credited. ISSN ISSN 2560-8312 The School of Public Policy Publications (Print) ISSN 2560-8320 The School of Public Policy Publications (Online) DATE OF ISSUE June 2022 MEDIA INQUIRIES AND INFORMATION For media inquiries, please contact Dana Fenech at 403-210-6508.. Our web site, www.policyschool.ca, contains more information about The School's events, publications, and staff. RECENT PUBLICATIONS BY THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY RESPONDING TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN ALBERTA'S ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TRENDS: HOMELESS SERVING SECTORS https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/SPT-May,pdf Ronald Kneebone, Gres Wilkins, Margarita I May 2022 AN OVERVIEW OF MAJOR ENGINEERING CHALLENGES FOR DEVELOPING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IN NORTHERN CANADA https://www.policyschool.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2022/05/NC30. OvvwAssMajEnginChall.Stephanie.Lepage.Dore.pdf Eva Stephani, Julie Malenfant-Lepage, Guy Dore I May 2022 ORGANIZING CANADIAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT https://www.policyschool.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2022/05/AM OrgCdnLocGovt.Spicer.pdf Zachary Spicerl May 2022 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM CANADIAN AGRICULTURE: POLICIES AND REDUCTION MEASURES https://www.policyschool.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2022/05/JSC21_ GreenHGasEmissions.Fouli_.Hurlbert.Krobel.pdf Ymene Fouli, Margot Hurlbert, Roland Krobel I May 2022 SOCIAL POLICY TRENDS: FAMILY HOMELESSNESS https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/SPT-April.pdf Ronald Kneebone I April 2022 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TRENDS: WHY ARE POWER PRICES SO DARN HIGH? https://www. pol icysc hoo I.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/EEP_ Power_ Prices_april.pdf Blake Shaffer, David Brown & Andrew Eckert I April 2022 CARBON -CREDIT SYSTEMS IN AGRICULTURE: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/JSC14_ CarbCredSystemsAgric.Lokuge.Anders.pdf Nimanthika Lokuge, Sven Anders I April 2022 REDUCING TRANSACTION COSTS ON INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR PROJECTS IN CANADA https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NC32. ReducTransCosts.pdf Andre Le Dressay, Jason Calla, Jason Reeves I March 2022 SOCIAL POLICY TRENDS: MATERIAL DEPRIVATION AND LOW INCOME https://www. pol icyschoo l.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/S PT- Marchpdf.pdf Geranda Notten I March 2022 THE SENSITIVITY OF FOOD BANK VISITS TO SOCIAL ASSISTANCE, HOUSING AND LABOUR MARKET CONDITIONS IN TORONTO https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Foodbank. Kneebone.Wilkins.pdf Kneebone, Ronald, Gres Wilkins, Margarita I March 2022 THE ACCELERATING PACE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE ADOPTION https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/EPT-Electric- Vehicles-March.pdf Sara Hastings -Simon I March 2022 AN OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF KEY CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELEVANT TO THE CANADIAN NORTHERN CORRIDOR https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NC29. OvviewKeyConstitutional.Newman.pdf Dwight Newman I March 2022 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TRENDS: MAKING SENSE OF ALBERTA'S FUEL TAX HOLIDAY AND ELECTRICITY BILL CREDIT https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/EFL-33- Alberta-Fuel-Tax-Holiday.pdf Tombe, Trevor, Jennifer Winter I March 2022 INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY TRENDS: GLOBAL RARE EARTH ELEMENTS MARKET https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NC22-REE- MUNZUR.pdf Alaz Munzur I March 2022 SOCIAL POLICY TRENDS: FALLING FERTILITY IN CANADIAN CITIES https://www.policyschoo1.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SPTFertility- FEB.pdf Robert Falconer I February 2022 HOW GOVERNMENTS COULD BEST ENGAGE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS TO CO -DESIGN COVID-19 PANDEMIC POLICIES FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/HSP9]_ Disabilities_ Seth-et-al.pdf Ash Seth, Meaghan Edwards, Katrina Milaney, Jennifer D. Zwicker February 2022 A PROPOSAL FOR A "BIG BANG" CORPORATE TAX REFORM https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/FM K3_Big- Bang-Corporate-Tax_Mintz.pdf Jack Mintz I February 2022 SOCIAL POLICY TRENDS: TYPES OF HOMELESSNESS https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/January-SPT- Kneebone.pdf Ronald Kneebone I January 2022 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TRENDS: WHAT'S DRIVING THE COST OF DRIVING? https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/EFL33_EEPT_ Jan2022.pdf G. Kent Fellows and Gregory Galay I January 2022 ■ r a v� O E H O S N � p N s E a; O z z C z co co ftwmq.-� m V a 0 M, 0-4 Qo z z r� z I--�I C/] m co 1F1 f- rmM U N b.0 +-' N O U O E i 41 O •� I O NA i O V 41 i U Q a- + C aN+ C U E .N L E O N Q U O ++ N N U L U •U i _ O � L N i i E O •FM i C MEO 0 0- O N N O .�.v U O Q � > i C +�+ N U L w O i N U c 41 w CA }i L N �--� C6 a--+ 41 Q N L L C6 N - 0 E Cr6 u a- Q 2 V bD N m U 0; v 2 0 J LAU W W W U codC Li- m • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] 0 rn CL V i L Mo M CL L- N u � O N O l0 N '} O O LD ++ U f6 iJ !E N O > -r- U E c .- ++ O O O C: " m N M U a0 a-'' E w Q (B L O c� O N 0 N N o f6 N � •i U_ 0)ate+ O U U Q GJ 0 c= E N— .> Q � a"r .i O 00 O +-+ GJ O N O Ln N a..+ o pp o +, O U 0 0 N+s-+ c6 N o U ca o = }, N N rl O U o a--+ a--+ o � E +� ca o 0) C: i i o o Q ii oon > 0 0 N 5 _0 Q Q = 0 O N Z -0 o O — N -0 -1-- 0 � o N i a--+ a--+ 4-0 U :3 N CL N N N N O i f6 0 \\ 0 m N L. i N N m C: N N O I� 0-4 (/) z 9 z z I—i rn •CL V L Mo m CL O t1A � N U c i O •0 f6 N � O N � � N � •N •N O O U Q N >. a_+ ate-+ � •N 0 N U U U Cr 4-J U O tf U 0 U f6 �. i f6 Ln O 4-1 �_ S U N � •on N �+ N tw •0- •GJ o •V i .N N 0 aN•+ ai 0 a O - •N ++ ca OJ O C C6 i _N [6 � � O N L O 'E O E O U_ U •� � O � N N a--+ > N Cp > 4- ° f6 L O U O •� UN c O O aJ Ecr a--+ 0aj N t1A O II pLn Q) N � o N 0 O Z U N _O O N N c E •E X X 2 W W 0-4 (/) z 9 z I� z I—i C/] 00=% E L tw m co V, Well E O • N ^O W Ln O 0 0 N m E 1 0 • 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] M 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] Mo CL LW T rn V i w CA m tw — a-+ O OC z M t 0-4 Qo z z z LO m N O N N C co E N C 0 U K z� rn O 4-j 4-j LU co rn 4—j u O o O m ;� Cl CD Ln -C: ro C: N 0 ro >- 4-J O N O �.v U a)(/'� 0 G i L. z X W J LPL Y 1 V L m Mo O z 0 o 2 c_ o N t t 3 v � O O 3 75 vi � vi ' O o � c c S a vi 3 v o v a C i C O ON f0 CO f0 m• 0-4 (/) z 9 z z 0 0 N x `Y. �I m LM a s 0 MOMI c� L 4- CL CL a m L C W Q _U � � N 4-J� U N � +_+ C6 hL _0 � 4-0 dJ 0 J C6 L }+ m N � 4-j I.J� _ Ln I-1 (%) z 9 z z r� V J O N LU 0 x LL zt m E 0 0 0 co Q) Q) i7 31 F-4 Lq z 0 z (N C) (N m N 0 - - mh�_- I■ C i; „40.), 'llil cn U O a-J N Q i N f6 N N L N Q f6 4.1 � N m O ci m oc m u M O N U dJ D U O � L 0 LL v 0 N 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] t= Ln +' c Ln O u E O O Q E U L �O _ N 'n cB s Q N ca o CL � cco J f� �O G d CL \ . . . . G a cn LL d U c O E Ln CL O O Q oi w --I-0 Q V o a..i o° +-' a..i o f6 LL N *Z; N-0 - v a-J O O LL O `~ u C S }a N 'r CVZ3 O m oc N O cv O can O CVJ a� V o N +, U • • co • • • N N LL cn cn • O V • • 4J p • • GJ S 0 0 LL F- a LO O N 0 N 7j= me w O O w �T N N m w m N m -i m N m m m .-i .-i .-i N m .-i .-i N c c c c m m -- c c c c c c c c c c Ln m E E E E E E E in o o Ln o o o o o Ln o Ln qT w w qT m w w w w w rl qT qT co O N m N m N m I, O w m N h m m qT qT N .-i .-i .-i .-i m .-i .-i m N co N m .i O .i qT m m m qT m ci .-i .-i .-i .-i .-i Q CO Q CO Q CO m m O ci m O ci m N m� Lfl N ci ci m m Ol Ol .-i .-i N N N m m m .-i .-i ci N m m 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] O (N O O co O tL0 N ca _4-J ,--, U a) Cl U . L- to to W • /�/\�y� � 01l O � W U •V) U � Ca O � Cl O •�, a Cl .> � •ro v \ U :3 U E C: O _ro EL U � buo 4-J a)O § • U Ca +-+ U U /C�: �V //��1 v/ • O � O a-J v U -0v 4 v 0 •(a C: (B �--� bn N Q bn U) )' C^^/' Ca " 4A C W 0 b iO Cl (1) 4-0 N N cn z 0 Q> m m o°c 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] I- C) N m N O N L i v 0 V) U � a a 0 0 c a ^' W a a > t N L ; U U N •N v - 7 E c: �••+ a o Q o L v tn L In 0) Lee -T3 V v a •� a�i v o c C •� m o L r _ V V > LL s V cn Lo, . i--e (/) z 9 z z Q« C/] co O N M N O N L ca ul ) buo ca a- ca ca a �J Q� V U v to E u') a 3 � � ° 0 o o ca a V ,; N cL- i o a E G •V +-0 ca wo o .- •� • .bAlA a Ate' a-+ a C: 4•u U V r o o Z •E �' a a S V a cc a U V- ci V 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] 0 N 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] V i _0 I Ln N r- M •N M E 0 > 0 m N i N M -0 •� Z •v 0 ca ® E .® o6 .E J V E xJ .� Q 0 N ate+ A� -0 i O W CL V) • • • • • _ • • 0 N 0-4 (/) z 9 z O z C/] i O N .� E a 0 = r •- o � � c� 4A Vi �v> �cnz O ca _0 _0 4-J O > � X o � • .N 4 �, � o C� r L Q 0 _0 O u N 4-J C: ca D C v }' Q O +, > 0 O u .v O > ca X U ca Clro O 4-J C: U U > O N 4 O ro Clv cn F3 v _I_— Q aJ a--' O C O � u - aJ � uo � C: O Q a-J � O •� � O a a Q -0 U D U -0 Q v a-+ i L 0 Ca 0 Ca CdA (B v Up -0 -0 w E 0 H v -0v Ca ate--+ � 1 O Ul E t/) _ /� (a � A O Q 1 Q aJ -01 O />�, V O a)u •� _I_—ro to Q fa U U 0- - V -0 4A Ca Qt C 4-J C - C: O O NU U. cN "� a-J °'`- OA L c%i •> a..+ 0 bn 0 . V N 'to : G C t/) � .— L Q r— s N O C � s u -0 Cl �. C •N � •� +-+ o O D O U Lq N z x 0 z N_ N LM m m Mo a • f'�w Y 1 O V m V CL LL cc a V O L a- O i 4-+ 0 -0 E o a� o U E ra -C N O .� U C Ca UU cn p i C6 _ � aA U N O L C) -L 4-1 t p N " I O C: o � '.0 N z O z v J - M N Y 1 CL O ■ ■ f d A W Ln 4-1 N L Ecu N > _ O E O4-1 N 2 Ln 9 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] N LD N C' ' i■ 4s, II I! II• 11 I \@�� — 0 oLL ca o z A Q. Q N o c CL > }� � N N i C u V N t1A OCA U C: +J N ram' U w Q:� CO N LL m fa LL 0-4 (/) z 9 z z C/] a O • MEMO m �N FEN m LM m V ate-+ N ryp O C6 -0 U U O Q N O _m a-J _> .0 O 42 O }' a--+ N N GJ � i C X L U � w V O Q O O 0 i qt ca O CL O 4-1 i M 3 z �3E N ^E W U O Qj s N L ra U 0 0 N CL C6 N Q N Q .CL U L- C6 i O C6 i U • LL LU N c� E i O Ln O U s U U dJ dJ bLo O i O LLLL O Vf O U El • 0-4 (/) z 9 z z Q« C/] N N (3) L (3) O V aJ N o cn ; a- J `~ O U � � E O CZO +_+ ca L � CZO / I +- LQ � U � N E .O � p aA a) o }, o b U u ra -r— 'J DL '� .� (� cn E O oC m _ m 'O w 5� N 0-4 (/) z 9 z z Q« C/] co N M N 0 N L W N •� W ^� CL4-0 N }+ W 0 =3 E Q) 4-0 Q X A' i N Q) •� 0 N W E N txo Q .� - O Q •� N i N aN-+ .V Q f6CL a-+ Or N Ln vLnQ v U ■ r 0 N N �U i 3 V � O � s V O � M N * � O O N 01 •� � fC ftwljq.-� COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2023-001 Report Date January 03, 2023 Meeting Date January 09, 2023 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Community Enhancement Project AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Chief Chair of Head Administrative Growth Officer Committee Benn Purinton J Hamilton/A Poffenroth J. Brent Councillor McGovern Joanna Killen RECOMMENDATION Growth Committee recommends that Common Council: 1. Receive and file the attached report and presentation slides on the Community Enhancement Project. 2. 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. b. An improved Tax Sale process that better addresses abandonment. The Mayor prepare on behalf of Common Council a letter to be directed to each of the appropriate Provincial Ministers to begin the pursuit of these changes. 3. 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 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 both Grow and Belong. 221 -2- 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 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. 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 0% -3- 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 being implemented beginning in 2023: • 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 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 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. 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. 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 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. NOW -4- 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 Community Enhancement Project Report Community Enhancement Project Presentation Slides p0zl 2 . ATTM 1 - 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 WOU 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 NOW 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 PIM] 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. Wel 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 P49191 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 231 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. P19% 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. P49191 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. WE11 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 P49191 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, 091.1 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. P49YA 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. ENHANCHED 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 P4c1:3 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 0910.1 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 PZ1IK 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 Pz1i 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. P►z191 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. 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, 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 who can repurpose it. If any properties become abandoned, it is important that the tax sale process is 22 working 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. fPzVA 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. fPz1:3 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 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 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 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 PIR191 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/ 251 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: PM 28 137(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 NX 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. 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 is 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 K&I 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 be residential and range from single family homes up to four units. The table below shows the financial limits 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. P47.1 Un E bNJ +-+ p L 0 � � i (n U E C E t�A O N ULn N O N N ca O cn j N W cn C: (� U +.+ 'C: Co C O E E E E •� O O UU �cn E 0 O 1 le- wM W co O N E E O O M U can cu Ln X � N ate-+ ca C: O O CD 'CD 'Q Q � � 4A .0 c6 O U � � ca I }' 2 > p _O +_+ fi z r z ri a O +j O L U ate-+ ('� • � � L � � Q � • a✓ O � � � Q vi � O U' _ •U � m � � U O O U E U 0 � O hA � • fa fa U O cn w w ca O a-J O O Q a-J >� a-j C: a--i O _O }' O U i O 0 a--+ O ate--+ ca i, � .� a_+ Z3 L U U v 0 O w -0 C: = C N 4-j a� O O O — 4 ca S-. N U � j a N }' O fV U C: O O N }' N " E N Li w N O N a �EE� 4--r h to •U a) E ' � N 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 Li E ca tti0 O Goo CL O J- l N E E N N Q U � � U 0 L � Q O O U O }, L U (� N +N., ca C6 U O O ca O � � O - Q Q DC � Lu N c% I,. M �N E m o 0 C o }' C: r1rm LV C�0 N _I_— O 'i i N O z � o 4-J cn a-J O O C m U C�0 E O > o M � C6 i L U N O O Q U N aj > _0 .� U -0 Q O E O O N i ca 0 N N O O Q W • 0 • N I 'C: ` E O U E c: cr -1-j = N C: 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: Mo 0 =3 m cu > t O O Q Q .5 }, (A M O J - I,. Q) E Q) L- 0 W c O .— 0 fB -0 L � L Ln E E b .— _0 a--+ N U C6 w V c co V 'T • 10 • • +j w E O all 'T .C: N L H • I,. I E 0 _0 N E '� - U '� U � � � 0 U -0 N N 0 +, ca o cn 0- 0-0 w 0 O -con 0 ca O O ca a) p O V E� at U-0 m w ._ ao w cn U Q� Q� N N � ZZ - - > ._ :6 O 4 -' �. N O Q� m te--+ ' � .p � O N i a O a.:+ U N — Q ca N U i Q p a.., 4 N N(1) -0 U N>. U +_+ cpii >• -0� U p_ :jU LC: .a --' O 6 U_' a 0U te Nvi O • > u CL U a- a- >.§CD 1 W n ' W J- l v O ow O O +-' a)+-+ N ' O a-J UD Q� � a..+ > �--+ 4—J O O � F � N '> � N N O ca U _ N N C6 cn Q U • cn N O� U; O 2 • — -0 cn aA _N U N — O O }' N +•' O N' Q vi O w'� N �_ ca O � _� v E "w >' '�> -0 N +_+ - N '> c6 i O 4-J = cn U cn N U vi i O D �O Q O +�-+ = 0 0 CAA O� •— ca N ca N —_ m U� `~ m E> U N N cn O ` Z O -0 cn " � O N %` E N 0 - i � 0 a-J u � U L c/) N � � � � O bA cn U N Co ro N O N O N U N cn CAA N U U � 0 � .� = c6 O E cn cn Q f6 C: O N U_0 Q O O v p O O — ca U b.0 4-J _ 0 •M cn � vi o a) - aA 0 w � N 'C -0 a"+ 'N ro -0 Q N •— N O N — •� •L J 0 O cn U '� vi fu E N 0 N U L O N 0 0 Ll 0 O U N Q � C6 E CAA }, � N � � U Q Q U •N a—+ N `•� cn ca Q ' •U N O cn � � O 2 N � N X N C 4 z cm N O N .C: E Q E Ln ca ca E E .— C: . - 2 Q) V c W E O Q E _w co Ln X co N N f6 f6 U U O O N N DC DC O U') N N c6 N O >- N U') N N U U _0 _0 a) a) O O N bA N N ca DC DC � O > m co 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 Z E $ 41 � � k41 \ .@ o f / � : E k 0 § .o D .g @ c E b » \ G o y ƒ / �� D/ J p & u o E \ : ? % - •- � m m •§ w o .E E x o u E E E E Cm ƒ E ; —a § , § MU 2 3 3 % � a)% ° f f E ` fca:k \ % /a) k \ - - " w » » 2 / / 3 q v COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2023-002 Report Date January 05, 2023 Meeting Date January 09, 2023 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Grant Program AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner Chief Chair of Growth Administrative Committee Officer Andrew Reid Jacqueline Hamilton Brent Councillor Joanna McGovern Killen RECOMMENDATION 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 Pxr� -2- 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. Staff have developed a formal application in accordance with the policy, created a grant agreement template for successful applicants, and will roll out the program for applicants in January of 2023. Staff are recommending the first funding cycle to be 30 days to align with a municipal -lead application approach to CMHC's Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI). 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). PAW-13 -3- 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. - 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 30-day cycle by a staff Grant Committee in accordance with an evaluation criteria. - 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. At the same time as developing the Affordable Housing Grant Program, staff have also been working to support a municipal -lead application approach to CMHC's Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI). Given the timelines of this Federal Program, a small change is recommended with respect to the AHGP first grant cycle to provide greater alignment with the RHI Program. The First Grant Cycle is now proposed to be 30 days in duration as opposed to 90 days to enable potential RHI projects to take advantage of the grant program for the purposes of cost -sharing. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Common Council has established five priorities for their 2021-2026 term. Affordable Housing aligns with the following Council Priorities. Grow: • Population Growth PAW61 -4- 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 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). 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. ATTACHMENTS 1. Affordable Housing Grant Program Presentation 2. Affordable Housing Grant Program Policy 3. Affordable Housing Grant Program - Grant Application Form 4. Affordable Housing Grant Program - Grant Agreement Template W-11i1 4-j M A I am n EEM--', an I Nil N N � � •— O a--+ a-J NO U N _ O E aA 4-0O O .N O >. N _O o U Q Q N a") ca O Q. m _0 O� O ca N N O O E C�0 _0 O Q a_., 4= O' p p o o 0 +� N C6 }' O Q a- J i =L E CD O E N C .0 — OQ U�� cam 0O U N N O p O L7 _� O Q oO O a_, � = 0 0 p 0 0 N4- cn N�� fV ca C: N 2 U= E O O 'gin N p Q N N •— U >' O O N O U O E O O U m -0 Q N N tu0 O �r co N �,}'� a--+ m SEE N a=+ .NO � °C U - �O� �o o �cn 0 < OUV O oU N co N _N •E 0 0 C6 Ln E J- l ^' �A .N Ln 0 0 _ 2 � W 0 0 Ln W O 0 t�: " n , W Q W CU 4-1. EEW -32 �+ CU +—j 0 E h ^ N 4-1 0 (� Ln �=3,� C6 0 U ca O�� 4-j 4- 1 U ca M co N _ I O A�A (3 A •� O c O O � /0� rol l � V / rAA C6 V L— Ln 4-J 0 V O 4—J •0 •� Q O cn c 4-J 7 � M w Ln ca -0 .N •> 0 0 O Ln J O N C ca � _ _ O .� \ • E (6 Q V C6 QJ n, ro N U v }+ E^ E` v O Q E O / - O Q O ! L � Q T N � O O 00 O 00 ` O O O •- N -V/ lD r-I O ll)' Q O f6 •> O CL 4-) N ll a� O •— L vi O O U � o " o }, - Lori 0 CL v ru 4-j 0 - aj M o 0 o 00 -0 ru Q Q LO 00 N m N O O -0 o j cn O (V — ca a--� ca O � cn O N cn U _O }' um •Q O � N � •O J C 0 4 -+ > O O'n � U v � _ ,� Q O C6 -0 U BE 808 — U �O -0Q� O N b- O 4-j 4- oL N U -0:3 a) O NE O Uo _O = .N OU a--+ _O E �_ c u U N N U ro •N N U .Nbn U " O Om �'�� "� E� _0 �� O N O N p = c O C6 i Q -0 U LL C6 ai co N U U V) U T O N N N N 0 • a� ate-+ a--+ E N E }' U ca � ca N L j � N O N U N N O � O O � U U O +_+ 4- N N O . U -0 V) H L- O N N N N 0 J- l � C: -0 . I `v : � E^ C •O � ii U M U E O +., cn i O }; N �O O U C: .N �53 NC6 U � 7' E O 4-+ >,•� Ln N U Z Q co co N N i _ O m O Q O i a E 0 ,i N N N a_ E \� •U � N f6 •� a--+ L U Q c ' +-+ 0 ate-J O j O L •C E O O N U t1A N 4-j 004-1 O U 00 • • • • • s F+ rn co N r °®® � U 41 5. U L p E v �� O i O p — o � Q U eeeoe N O o -o-o � — Q Q a) D 41 � O � 3 41 U � a) N U �� a) O N U v v .; � o 0 0 0 N 4 E - o N cn cis cis cis o c� v� N E —O O vi N Q 3 � o _N U N _N N E 0 0 0 O u 0 U U 5.0 u U < U N ■ LI low y� • N a� Q eee Q�� N E V Q E] ., eeeoa � •— 0 M N p m =3 E LM •Q� E 0+ �r 0 L u V 'N cn O O p M DC Q Lu N i1 n� r •� ^/I P1 i1 'o •o � O '� •- � •� 0 i NO w m • • 0 c O LLJ a� ca -j Ln E N E 4-j U 888 QP� >. U � � _O eeeoa c: �: v Ov �7 �7 _0o i�O O Ln 4-1 N N � O � N O v i . > O aO-+ � C6 C6 � Q N '> Q ate-+ N U Q 0 Q � • m • w • 0 N o E E V O .— U —0 0 Ln bnh�h�� W c r- `— 0 0 V O E O +-+ E � 0 Q U ' `n V 0 0 .- c��o I Ln c 0 N M m N rn N 70A 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. 2. Policy Statement The City of Saint John supports the development of affordable housing throughout the City's Primary Development Area, as defined by the Municipal Development Plan. The purpose of the Affordable Housing Grant Program (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). CMHC programs range in depth of affordability. In the case of CMHC's Rapid Housing Initiative, 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. Affordable unit must meet, at minimum, the definition of CMHC's Co -Investment Fund, where affordable housing unit means a unit that must be less than 80% of the Median Market Rent and be maintained 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. P"01 "For -profit developer" means a registered corporation that develops and provides housing. "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; • Incentivizing the use of the Province's Affordable Rental Housing Program; and, • Incentivizing deeply affordable housing units 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. W-1.1 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 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 30 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 30 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. P4%tl 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. 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; !9 f841.11 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/or 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. 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 of Growth and Community Services. 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) P %k7 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 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 an application form (Attachment 1 —Application Form). 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. C: [MM g. Once a building permit has been applied for, the developer shall enter into a grant agreement with the City that outlines the terms of the grant disbursement. The agreement may consider additional requirements the City determines to be necessary to secure the long-term affordability of the eligible dwelling units (Attachment 2 — Grant Agreement Template). 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. 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 unique 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 [till PROPERTY & CONTACT INFORMATION Civic Address: Property ID (PID): Applicant Name: Email Address: Phone: Mailing Address: Postal Code: Building Permit #: I am applying on behalf of a registered: ❑ Non -Profit Organization ❑ Corporation Non -Profit Organization/Corporation: Preferred Method of Contact: ❑ Email ❑ Phone Are you the legal owner of the property? ❑ Yes ❑ No — Please indicate the legal owner's contact information below Owner: Email Address: Phone: Mailing Address: Postal Code: TO BE COMPLETED BY PROPERTY OWNER Are you currently in good standing with the City of Saint John, meaning you have no unpaid taxes, water/sewage fees, or outstanding property -related by-law violations? ❑ Yes ❑ No Owner's printed name Owner's signature DD/MM/YYYY 302 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Number of Units: Number of Affordable Units: Cost of Construction: Cost of Construction Prepared by: Describe the Project, including the target population, duration of affordable units (years), and any community partners: PROJECT INNOVATION DESCRIPTION: Please provide a description for how your project will meet one or more bonus evaluation criteria. Note: Energy Efficiency supporting documents are to be provided after project completion. All bonus criteria may be subject to audit upon project completion. Supporting documentation is required. FEDERALJPROVINCIAL FUNDING PARTNERS Please describe which funding sources you are pursuing through Federal/Provincial Programs. Supporting documentation is required to provide proof of funding sources through the Province of New Brunswick's Affordable Rental Housing Program or a CMHC Funding Program. 1919191 AFFORDABLE HOUSING GRANT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Please ensure your application is complete and includes the following supporting documents: ❑ Confirmation that the owner, if different from the applicant, is aware of the grant application ❑ Signature of the applicant and legal owner of the property ❑ Building Permit Number (if you have not obtained a building permit, please indicate anticipated date of application): ❑ Site Plan and Floor Plans ❑ Letter from the Province of New Brunswick or CMHC ❑ Confirmation of funds from a Canadian banking institution M[cl►l_rLei ::&1 I hereby request that this application be considered under the Affordable Housing Grant Program of the Growth & Community Services Department of the City of Saint John. By signing below, I certify that all information included on this application form is truthful and accurate. Applicant's printed name Applicant's signature DD/MM/YYYY General Collection Statement This information is being collected in order for the City of Saint John to deliver an existing program/service; the collection is limited to that which is necessary to deliver the program/service. Unless required to do so by law, the City of Saint John will not share your personal information with any third party without your express consent. The legal authority for collecting this information is to be found in the Municipalities Act and the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For further information or questions regarding the collection of personal information, please contact the Access & Privacy Officer. City Hall 15 Market Square SaintJohn, NB E2L 1E8 commonclerk@saintjohn.ca (506) 658-2862 19191111 GRANT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made in duplicate this day of [2023]. BY AND BETWEEN: of the and Province of New Brunswick a body corporate duly registered under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick (hereinafter called the "Developer") OF THE FIRST PART And THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed and amended by Acts of the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick (hereinafter called the "City") 0]11111111111.I�yxiZU0loil U_1:i1 WHEREAS the City supports the development of new affordable housing units through its Affordable Housing Action Plan and acknowledges the need for additional financial support for this form of development; and WHEREAS at its meeting held the the City adopted an Affordable Housing Grant Program Policy ("Policy") to support the development of affordable housing in the City; and WHEREAS the Developer has applied for a: [Tier 1 / Tier 2] affordable housing grant for a property bearing PID (the "Property") and the proposed development meets the eligibility requirement for the said program; and WHEREAS the Policy requires that an applicant who meets the eligibility requirement of a given Program under the Policy enter into a Grant Agreement in order to receive the Grants contemplated in a given Program; NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that the parties hereto covenant and agree each with the other as follows: 1. The development for which the grant contemplated in this Agreement shall be paid is outlined in the prescribed application form and all required supporting documents attached hereto as Schedule "A" (hereinafter the "Project"). 2. The Affordable Housing Grant Program is established by the Policy which is attached hereto as Schedule "B" and forms part of this Agreement. 305 `a 3. The Project must be completed and in receipt of a final occupancy permit in accordance with the building permit. 4. The City shall, pursuant to the terms and conditions identified herein, pay to the Developer a total grant amount of [$ 1. 5. The City's obligation to pay the Grant to the Developer is conditional upon: a. the City completing a final inspection which confirms that the relevant incentive program eligibility criteria have been met; b. the Project being completed in compliance with all City By-laws and terms and conditions of the Building Permit; c. the Developer being in receipt of an occupancy permit or a certificate of successful completion pursuant to the City's Building By -Law; and d. availability of sufficient resources in the Reserve Fund, as provided in the City's annual operating budget and/or replenished per the mechanism set out in the Policy. 6. The City and the Developer acknowledge and agree that the City may choose at its sole and absolute discretion to amend or cancel the Policy at any time and that funding provided to the Affordable Housing Grant Fund by the City may change in future years or be cancelled altogether. Accordingly, the City and the Developer also acknowledge and agree that funding for projects outside of the first year could be reduced or not applicable at all depending on the resources that Common Council decides to allocate to the Affordable Housing Grant Fund in any particular year. Should this occur, the Developer acknowledges that it shall have no legal recourse against the City. 7. Prior to the payment of any grant contemplated in this Agreement and identified in this Policy, the City has the right to withhold payment should it be determined that the property taxes and/or water and sewerage fees for the Property have not been paid in full. 8. Prior to the payment of any grant contemplated in this Agreement, the City may require an audit of required supporting documentation submitted with the application to ensure its validity at the expense of the applicant. Termination 9. The City may terminate this Agreement without notice upon the occurrence of one of the following events: a. changes are made to the design of the building during construction that do not comply with the eligibility criteria of the relevant incentive program for the grants contemplated in this Agreement; b. Common Council, by resolution, rescinds the Policy. 10.This Agreement may not be assigned without the written consent of the City. 11.This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Province of New Brunswick. CI. 3 12.No amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of each of the City and the Developer. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing, and any such waiver has effect only in respect of the particular provision or circumstance stated in the waiver. No representation by either of the parties with respect to the performance of any obligation under this Agreement is capable of giving rise to an estoppel unless the representation is made in writing. 13. Each party shall be responsible for paying its own costs and expenses incurred in connection with the execution and delivery of this Agreement. 14. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed by the properly authorized officers and their respective corporate seals affixed hereto the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: Per: Name: Title: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Mayor City Clerk Common Council Resolution: 307 SCHEDULE A (Application Form) SCHEDULE B (Affordable Housing Grant Program Policy) SCHEDULE C (Affidavit of Corporate Execution) KII-13 From: City of Saint John, New Brunswick To: Common Clerk Subject: Webform submission from: Submission to Council Farm Date: December 12, 2022 1:39:09 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 549-6047. * * Submitted on Mon, 12/12/2022 - 13:39 Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: About Person/Group Submitting First name Adam Last name Pottle Name of organization./group (where applicable) Tidal Heritage Development Ltd. Mailin. Address Email If you do not wish to have your personal information (address, phone number, email) become part of the public record, please check this box. Yes About your Submission Ki91'7 Topic of submission Affordable Housing Grant Program Purpose for submission (what is the ask of council): Tidal Heritage Development is pleased to see that Saint John Common Council has selected the'Lump Sum Per Unit' option for affordable housing construction. We endorse this decision as an affordable housing developer. Tidal Heritage Development would like to apply for a portion of this funding in Cycle One as we intend to start construction spring/summer 2023 for early 2024 occupancy. Executive summary Tidal Heritage Development has secured a substantial provincial grant commitment from the Department of Social Development, and has acquired land to construct a 46-unit mixed - income development in the Waterloo Village area. 23 of these units are affordable. This project would benefit greatly from this municipal funding program. From my review of the funding formula, we score 55 points. Base criteria: 9 of units: 23 points Location: 5 points Readiness: 5 points Total: 33 points Bonus criteria: Accessibility: 9 points Energy efficiency: 3 points Bonus points: 12 This project is shovel -ready. It requires no zoning variances, is directly in front of a Saint John Transit stop, and is in the Primary Development Area. As both Council and the Growth Committee discussed, private developers like Tidal Heritage Development are playing a key role in the creation of affordable housing in the Saint John area. We look forward to exploring this grant program with you, and hopefully securing a portion of it. Thank you, Adam Pottle & Doug Stephen Tidal Heritage Development Ec11to]