agenda - city of st. john's...the watershed” with measurable metes and bounds coordinates...

Agenda Public Works Standing Committee

Thursday, October 13, 2016

12:00 p.m.

Conference Room A, 4th floor City Hall

1

NOTES

Public Works Standing Committee

October 12, 2016 – 12:00 p.m. – Conference Room A, 4th Floor, City Hall

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of the Agenda

3. Adoption of the Minutes

a. Minutes of July 21, 2016

4. Business Arising

a. Decision Note dated June 13, 2016, re: Watershed/ Municipal BoundaryDelineation prepared by the Director of Public Works.

b. Decision Note dated October 3, 2016, re: Automated Garbage Collection prepared by the Director of Public Works.

5. New Business

a. Decision Note dated September 27, 2016, re: St. John’s DowntownBusiness Area Maintenance Funding Request prepared by the Mangerof Parks and Open Spaces.

b. Information Note dated September 28, 2016, re: Downtown StreetSweeping prepared by the Operations Supervisor of Roads.

c. Information Note dated October 4, 2016, re: Waterford River FishMortality prepared by the Manager of Open Spaces

d. Decision Note dated September 28, 2016 re: Bi-Weekly GarbageCollection prepared by the Director of Public Works

e. Decision Note dated October 5, 2016, re: Collection of Recycling atMulti-Story Condominiums prepared by The Manager of Waste andRecycling and the Director of Public Works.

f. Decision Note dated October 7, 2016, re: Century Park Redevelopmentprepared by the Manager of Parks and Open Spaces.

6. Other Business

a. For Discussion – Storm Sewer backup policy ( W. Collins)

2

7. Date of Next Meeting 8. Adjournment

Minutes Public Works Standing Committee July 21, 2016, Conference Room A, 4th Floor City Hall

Present: Councillor Danny Breen, Chairperson Deputy Mayor Ellsworth

Councillor Wally Collins Councillor Jonathan Galgay Councillor Sheilagh O’Leary Kevin Breen, City Manager Jason Sinyard, Deputy City Manager of Planning, Development and

Engineering Lynnann Winsor, Deputy City Manager, Public Works Steve Colford, Manager of Waste & Recycling Brian Head, Manager of Parks & Open Spaces Jason Philips, Manager of Roads Brendan O’Connell, Director of Engineering Stacey Fallon, Legislative Assistant

ADOPTION OF AGENDA

Moved – Councillor O’Leary; seconded – Councillor Galgay That the agenda be adopted with the addition of a request from councillor William Tulk from Port Union.

ADOPTION OF MINUTES

Moved – Deputy Mayor Ellsworth; seconded – Councillor Collins That the minutes of May 27, 2016 be approved as presented.

BUSINESS ARISING

Decision Note dated July 14, 2016, re: Multi Material Stewardship Board – 2016 Community Waste Diversion Fund Pilot Project for Clear Bag Mandatory Curbside Recycling The committee considered the above noted approved by The Deputy City Manager of Public Works. Discussions took place and the committee agreed to hold the above in abeyance, pending a further look at the Automatic Garbage Collection.

P a g e | 2

Decision Note dated July 14, 2016, re: Multi Material Stewardship Board – 2016 Community Waste Diversion Fund Proposal to change Waste App to Allow Leaf Collection by appointment. The committee considered the above noted decision note approved by The Deputy City Manager of Public Works. The MMSB has approved $10,000 for the initiative. $8,750 is for the changes to the Waste app and $1,280 is for advertising. There would be no additional cost to the City.

Moved – Councillor Galgay; seconded – Deputy Mayor Ellsworth

The committee Recommends council approve the above noted which will allow the $10,000 in approved funding from the Multi Material Stewardship board to be used.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

NEW BUSINESS

Decision Note dated July 14, 2016, re: Decorative Street Lighting in Galway The committee considered the above noted decision note approved by the Deputy City Manager – Planning, Development & Engineering. They considered the key considerations outlined in the decision note as well as human resource implications.

Moved – Deputy Mayor Ellsworth; seconded Councillor Breen

That Council approve the proposed decorative lights in the Galway and Glencrest Developments.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

OTHER BUSINESS

Crack Sealing Program Councillor O’Leary referenced an e-mail she had received regarding the amount of “crack sealing” that is being done. The Director of Engineering explained the process the City follows with street rehab and advised that outside of that process of assessing, it’s a case by case basis. The Director of Engineering agreed to respond to the gentleman who was inquiring on this matter.

P a g e | 3

Water Street Infrastructure Project Councillor Breen requested an update for the committee on the above noted. The Director of Engineering updated the committee on where the project stands. He advised that they are in the process of cleaning the lines for a clear enough Video to be obtained which will be the extent of the project this year. It was noted that staff met with the local business last week and they were happy with the outcome of recent work being completed with regard to the roads and sidewalks still being open with very little disruption. Accessibility and Inclusion at Robin Hood Bay Deputy Mayor Ron Ellsworth brought the above up for discussion. After a brief conversation it was decided to leave with staff for now. Request from Councillor William Tulk – Port Union Councillor O’Leary had presented the committee with the above noted request she had received. The Manager of Parks and Open Spaces advised the committee that we have no equipment that would be suitable to gift because the equipment is used to its full life with the substantial capital costs in replacement. Councillor O’Leary will respond. Contractors Using Residential Section at Robin Hood Bay Councillor Galgay advised the committee on the amount of contractors he saw in the lineup for residential usage at Robin Hood Bay the last few times he was there. The manager of Waste and Recycling advised staff that they believe 30% of usage is from contractors, he advised that staff do their best to minimize it but without specific rules in place it is hard to police. He spoke to the fact that a recommendation had gone to Council a few years ago to try an implement rules that would help mitigate the problem but Council rejected it. Conversations took place and the Deputy City Manager of Public Works advised the Committee they would review the memo that when to Council and bring it forward at a future Committee meeting. George Street Road Standards Councillor Galgay brought up the condition of George Street to the committee for discussion, noting we need to look into whether the standards are being met. Ongoing parking issues in Quidi Vidi Councillor Galgay brought up for discussion a memo that was brought forward by a past Director of Public Works, outlining some possible solutions to the above noted which

P a g e | 4

included one solution in particular at a cost estimate of $170,000. Staff advised they would look at it and have it brought back to the committee for review. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 12:56 p.m. Councillor Danny Breen Chairperson

City of St. John’s PO Box 908 St. John’s, NL Canada A1C 5M2 www.stjohns.ca

Title: Watershed / Municipal Boundary Delineation

Date Prepared: June 13, 2016

Report To: Public Works Standing Committee

Councilor and Role: Councilor Danny Breen, Chair

Ward: N/A

Decision/Direction Required:

To approve the proposed modifications to the City of St. John’s municipal boundary along areas where it is legally described as the “watershed”.

Discussion – Background and Current Status:

Newfoundland & Labrador Regulation 38/98, “City of St. John’s Boundary Order”, (1998) under the authority of the City of St. John's Act, 1990 RSNL c-C.17, as amended (hereinafter called "the Act") provides the legal description of the Municipal Boundary for the City of St. John’s. Within this regulation, some segments of the municipal boundary are described as “following the watershed boundary”.

Although the watershed boundary is a definitive landmark, the ability to define this feature on a map has improved through the years with advances in Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technology. These improvements have led to discrepancies between the current watershed boundaries and historically accepted municipal boundaries. These discrepancies create a legal dilemma in areas where municipal boundaries are defined as the watershed boundary. In some instances, the updated watershed boundary may “take in” residences or areas which are currently located in a neighbouring municipality.

After consultation with the City Solicitor and the Corporate Information Services (CIS), the Water & Wastewater Division would recommend that Council approve modifications to the current municipal boundary by replacing any segments of the boundary that are described as “following the watershed” with measurable metes and bounds coordinates (see attachment).

As can be seen in the attachment, the proposed modifications will result in a very minor net loss of land area for the City of St. John's. However, this will not have a negative impact on the City though as all of these lands fall within the protected watershed boundaries and are not developable. Additionally, the City of St. John’s will still maintain development control of these lands as per Sections 104 and 106 of the Act.

Adoption of these modifications will result in a well-defined municipal boundary that can be easily located in the field by a Registered Land Surveyor.

DECISION/DIRECTION NOTE


Key Considerations/Implications:

1. Budget/Financial Implications N/A

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders

Adoption of these changes to the City of St. John’s Municipal Boundary will impact the municipal boundaries of our neighbouring municipal partners in Paradise and Portugal Cove–St. Phillip’s (PCSP). The City will need to garner the support of Paradise and PCSP in adopting the proposed boundaries before presenting to the NL Provincial Department of Municipal Affairs. It is anticipated that there will be agreement as the watershed boundary has been a source of frustration in the past.

NL Provincial Department of Municipal Affairs will need to amend the appropriate Municipal Boundary Orders for the City of St. John’s, the Town of Paradise and the Town of Portugal Cove-St. Phillip’s.

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans This aligns with the “Culture of Cooperation” strategic direction by bolstering Inter-Regional relationships and collaborations.

4. Legal or Policy Implications Adoption of the proposed new municipal boundaries will require acceptance by the NL Provincial Department of Municipal Affairs and amendments to the appropriate Municipal Boundary Orders for the City of St. John’s, the Town of Paradise and the Town of Portugal Cove-St. Phillip’s. A Memorandum of Understanding from the Provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs will suffice for the interim until the appropriate Legislative Orders have been amended.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations Communication and engagement efforts would be directed towards the Towns of Paradise and PCSP in order to garner their support with this proposal.

6. Human Resource Implications N/A

7. Procurement Implications N/A

8. Information Technology Implications N/A

9. Other Implications


Once adopted, CIS will distribute the amended Municipal Boundary to all of our neighbouring municipalities so all municipalities will have identical and consistent reference data.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

1. Council adopt the modifications to the City of St. John’s Municipal Boundary 2. Council approach the Towns of Paradise and Portugal Cove-St. Phillip’s and garner their

support for these modifications. 3. All three Towns collectively submit the proposed municipal boundary changes to the NL

Provincial Minister for Municipal Affairs for final approval and have the appropriate Legislative Orders be amended.

Prepared by/Signature:

Andrew Niblock, B.Sc. Director – Public Works

Approved by/Date/Signature:

Lynnann Winsor, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Deputy City Manager – Public Works

Attachments: Proposed Boundary Changes (6)

&

&&

&&

&& &

&

&&

&

&

&&&

&

&&

&

&

&&

&&&&

&&&&

&&&&

& &

& & &

&&&&

&

&

&&

&

&

&

&

&

&

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,,

,

,

,, ,,

,,,

,,

,

,

)))

))))

)

) ) )

)

)

)))

PNT 55

PNT 54

PNT 45

PNT 46

&&

&

&

&&

&&&&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,,,,

,,

PNT 55

PNT 54 CURRENT BOUNDARYAREA #1

1:10,000

LegendCity of StJohns WatershedsName

BAYBULLS BIGPONDBROAD COVELITTLE POWERS PONDPETTY HARBOURTHOMAS PONDWINDOR LAKECURRENT CITY BOUNDARY

&&

&

&

&&

&&&&

&

&

&

&

&

&

&,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,,,,

,,

PNT 55

PNT 54 BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONAREA #1

1:10,000

LegendPROPOSED CITY BOUNDARY

City of StJohns WatershedsName

BAYBULLS BIGPONDBROAD COVELITTLE POWERS PONDPETTY HARBOURTHOMAS PONDWINDOR LAKE

&

&

&

&&

&

&&&&

&

&

&&

&&

&,

,,

,

PNT 45

PNT 46

CURRENT BOUNDARYAREA #2

1:12,500

LegendCity of StJohns WatershedsName

BAYBULLS BIGPONDBROAD COVELITTLE POWERS PONDPETTY HARBOURTHOMAS PONDWINDOR LAKECURRENT CITY BOUNDARY

&

&

&

&&

&

&&&&

&

&

&&

&&

&,

,,

,

PNT 45

PNT 46

BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONAREA #2

1:12,500

LegendPROPOSED CITY BOUNDARY

City of StJohns WatershedsName

BAYBULLS BIGPONDBROAD COVELITTLE POWERS PONDPETTY HARBOURTHOMAS PONDWINDOR LAKE

Road, at co-ordinates 5,268,535 metres and east 313,980 metres, that point being on the BroadCove River Watershed;

Then in a general northerly direction along the watershed boundary to a point on the southern bankof Broad Cove River at co-ordinates north 5,269,932 metres and east 315,460 metres;

Then in an easterly direction along the southern bank of Broad Cove River to and along anunnamed indefinite stream to the western extremity of Barking Kettle Pond;

Then in an easterly direction along the northern shoreline of the pond to the mouth of an unnamedindefinite stream;

Then in an easterly direction along the stream to the southern tip of an unnamed pond;

n in a northerly direction along the western shoreline of the pond to a point on the northernshoreline at co-ordinates north 5,269,984 metres and east 316,451 metres;

Then north 86 00’ east 947 metres, more or less, to a point on the northwest shoreline of PowersPond at co-ordinates north 5,270,046 metres and east 317,397 metres;

Then in an easterly direction along the northern shoreline of the pond 45 metres, more or less, to thewestern bank of an unnamed stream;

Then in a northerly direction along the western bank of the stream to the southern shoreline of GullPond;

Then in a westerly direction along the southern shoreline of the pond to a point at co-ordinatesnorth 5,270,369 metres and east 316,882 metres;

Then due south 20 metres, more or less, to the northern sideline of Thorburn Road at co-ordinatesnorth 5,270,349 metres and east 316,882 metres;

Then in a westerly direction along the northern sideline of the road to a point at co-ordinates north5,270,300 metres and east 316,504 metres;

Then due north 10 metres, more or less, to a point at the southeastern extremity of Healey’s Pond atco-ordinates north 5,270,310 metres and east 316,504 metres;

Then following the shoreline of the pond in a westerly and northerly direction to a point on itsnorthern extremity at co-ordinates north 5,270,956 metres and east 316,710 metres;

Then north 28° 00’ east to and along a bearing of alignment with a cut line 517 metres, more or less,to a point on the Broad Cove River Watershed at co-ordinates north 5,271,414 metres and east316,952 metres;

Then in a general northerly direction following the Broad Cove River-Windsor Lake Watershedboundary to a point on the southern sideline of Old Broad Cove Road at co-ordinates north5,273,512 metres and east 317,596 metres;

Then in an easterly direction along the southern sideline of the road to a point having co-ordinatesnorth 5,273,685 metres and east 317,908 metres;

Then north 31° 00’ west 218 metres, more or less, to a high point, spot elevation 180.9 metres andon the Windsor Lake Watershed boundary;

Then in a northeasterly direction along the watershed boundary 230 metres, more or less, to a highpoint, Crown Lands, control monument No. 029006, elevation 180.41 metres;

gkeating

Typewritten Text

point 55

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Typewritten Text

point 56

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Typewritten Text

point 54

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Highlight

gkeating

Highlight

gkeating

Highlight

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Highlight

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Typewritten Text

POINT 45

gkeating

Typewritten Text

POINT 46

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Typewritten Text

gkeating

Highlight


Title: Automated Garbage Collection

Date Prepared: October 3, 2016



Ward: All Wards


Approval to proceed with implementing an Automated Garbage Collection Program.


Automated garbage collection consists of specially designed wheeled carts and collection vehicles equipped with automated arms. Residents place these carts in designated spots on the curb and a single operator picks up and dumps the carts using an articulated arm controlled from the truck cab.

Automated garbage collection has been adopted in many municipalities across Canada, and is becoming the industry standard. There are many advantages to moving towards an automated collection program:

Greater efficiencies than traditional manual collection means more households can be serviced by one vehicle and operator.

Significant reductions in physical effort required by operators equates to decreased instances of workplace injuries and associated compensation costs.

Specially designed carts reduce litter, odour and wildlife problems associated with traditional methods of leaving garbage in bags at the curb.

Anticipated higher resident satisfaction

There are significant costs associated with the start-up of an automated garbage collection program; specifically, fleet requirements and purchase of bins. Offsetting these costs are savings that can be achieved through a reduction in fleet and staff requirements.

An automated garbage collection program in the City of St. John’s will not include the downtown core or recycling. The downtown core and recycling will continue to be collected as it is today.

Purchase of Garbage Collection Trucks

The Waste & Recycling Division presently maintains a fleet of twenty-seven (27) garbage and recycling trucks that were purchased between 2005 and 2010. The accepted life cycle for these



vehicles is 8 years, so all of our current fleet will be due for replacement in the coming years. Therefore, the cost to replace the actual trucks cannot be considered a cost to implement an automated program; however, to outfit those trucks with the automated components is a direct cost of automation implementation. These components will cost approximately $60,000 per truck. Only trucks to be used in the automated garbage collection program will require these components.

Fleet Requirements

The number of trucks we presently maintain allow our Division to collect garbage and recycling throughout the City of St. John’s: The collection schedule runs from Monday to Friday and involves up to twenty-three (23) daily collection routes:

15-16 garbage collection routes 7 recycling routes

One of the advantages of moving towards an automated garbage collection program is the increased efficiencies achieved by each individual truck and operator. Through these efficiencies, staff have determined that our fleet requirements upon full implementation would be reduced by four (4) trucks. This four truck reduction in our fleet represents a savings of approximately $1,600,000 through the fleet replacement cycle and an overall reduction in fuel consumption and emissions.

Staff Requirements

Tied to a reduction in fleet requirements is a reduction in staff requirements. The present operations varies seasonally and ranges between 27-33 operators. With the efficiencies realized by adopting an automated garbage collection program, staff have determined that our staffing requirements could be reduced down to 24 operators throughout the year with an additional 4 operators seasonally (May-November). The seasonal employees will help cover during vacation periods and carry out special programs such as leaf collection in the fall.

We will also require a new position that will maintain and repair the inventory of bins throughout the city. It is expected that this position would be included in the CUPE 1289 bargaining unit as it would require administrative skill sets.

This adjustment to staffing levels equates to a 3.47 FTE reduction and an annual reduction in personnel costs of approximately $268,000 once fully implemented (based on 2018 salary and benefit scale).

Purchase of Bins

The primary expense of an automated garbage collection program is the purchase of bins. These bins are constructed of high quality materials and are normally fully warrantied from manufacturer defect for 10 years. The expected life of each bin ranges between 15 and 20 years. The City of St. John’s will require approximately 41,000 bins once the program is fully implemented. These bins will be the property of the City of St. John’s and will be issued to each


property served through this program. The City of St. John’s will maintain and repair the inventory of bins.

The approximate cost of purchasing all the bins will be $3,750,000. This cost represents the largest bin available (similar to what has been supplied in Mount Pearl and Paradise). Simply supplying the next largest sized bin (33% smaller in volume) will equate to an approximate $800,000 reduction in costs of purchasing.

Implementation Scenario

If given approval to proceed with the initiation of an automated garbage collection program, the first phase of the program is proposed to start in the Spring of 2018 and full implementation able to take place by the second quarter of 2019.

Some aspects of the implementation to be considered include:

Procurement of equipment Collection route development Updates to the City of St. John’s Sanitation Regulations Comprehensive communication strategy Accessibility planning Planning surrounding distribution and documentation of bins Policy development

It is important to note that this program only involves garbage collection. Recycling collection will continue to be done by hand.


1. Budget/Financial Implications Upfront costs to initiate an automated garbage collection program include the automated components on the trucks and the purchase of bins. It is estimated that this total cost will be approximately $4.0 - $4.8 million depending on the size of bins supplied. It is anticipated that these costs may be fully recovered within approximately 10 years through fleet and staff reductions. Garbage trucks with automated collection components will be financed through the existing Fleet Acquisition Fund. Not all Capital out of Revenue has been allocated for 2017/2018 and thus these funds could be used to purchase the bins with no added cost to users. Alternatively, the cost to purchase the bins can be fully recovered through user fees.

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders Residents of the City of St. John’s.


3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans Responsive and Progressive, Effective Organization, Fiscally Responsible.

4. Legal or Policy Implications The Sanitation Regulations will need to be updated.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations Comprehensive communications and strategy plans will have to be developed.

6. Human Resource Implications Adoption of this program could result in a 3.47 FTE reduction. It is anticipated that the Waste and Recycling Division will also experience fewer worker injuries.

7. Procurement Implications Garbage trucks and bins will be purchased through the tendering process.


9. Other Implications It is anticipated that program approval will result in a reduction of litter, odour and wildlife problems associated with garbage collection.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council approve adoption of an Automated Garbage Collection Program based on the following:

1. Greater efficiencies will be achieved than with traditional manual collection meaning more households can be serviced by one vehicle and operator.

2. Significant reductions in physical effort required by operators equates to decreased instances of workplace injuries and associated compensation costs.

3. Specially designed carts reduce litter, odour and wildlife problems associated with traditional methods of leaving garbage in bags at the curb.

4. Initial capital costs to implement the program may be fully recovered in approximately ten years through fleet and staff reductions or can be recovered within five years by initiating a user fee for the supply of bins.

It is also recommended that Council approve cost recovery of the bin purchase through user fees.

Once approval is granted, staff will bring forth an Information Note detailing the full implementation schedule and plans.






Attachments: N/A


Title: St. John’s Downtown Business Area Maintenance Funding Request

Date Prepared: September 27, 2016

Report To: Council

Ward: Ward 2


City of St. John’s to undertake a maintenance program to address maintenance issues and improve the appearance of the downtown core.


During recent years, the Downtown Business Area (Harbor Dr. to New Gower St. / Duckworth St) has begun to show it’s age in relation to; scaling paint from litter containers, hand rails, light poles and arches; inappropriate vegetation growing from gaps in sidewalks, curbs and building foundations; graffiti on retaining walls, signs, and litter containers; sand on sidewalks; and various items that detract from the overall appearance.

Litter collection and cleaning is currently addressed through a combination of City employees and contract services, however maintenance to improve the appearance of the streetscape is lacking.

In an effort to improve the overall condition and appearance necessary to promote the City as a tourist destination, enhance downtown business support, as well as foster civic pride, an increased maintenance commitment is required. As a result, a financial allocation to support a dedicated Downtown Maintenance Crew is necessary.

This resource will: paint hand rails, decorative light poles, laneway arches, multi – stream litter containers remove tall grass/sods/weeds from sidewalks/curbs and small open spaces remove tree seedlings from gaps in sidewalk and base of retaining walls remove graffiti supplement existing contracted litter collection crews


1. Budget/Financial ImplicationsThe estimated cost of the maintenance crew is as follows;

Option 1: City Employees (May 1 – September 1)

2 employees @ $27.89 x 1.29(ben.) x 40hrs/week x 18 weeks $51,808

Truck/tools 4 x $1500/month $6000

Total cost $57,808

DECISION/DIRECTION NOTE DECISION NOTE


Benefits Employees will be supervised and assigned tasks by a Parks and Open Spaces Division

supervisor. Materials, and equipment can be readily sourced Increased emphasis can be placed on areas utilized by special events, ceremonies,

conferences, cruise ships Greater flexibility with task assignment Crew can be supplemented for “on demand” issues

Constraints Greater cost than contracted service

Option 2: Contracted Services

2 employees / truck @ $25.00 x 40hrs/week x 18 weeks $36,000

Tipping Fees/Tools $2,500 $38,500

Administration @ 15% $5,775

Total $44,275

Benefits Lower cost than City employees Increased flexibility in adapting to weather events Direct supervision is the responsibility of service provider

Constraints Contract management by City required for oversight Less responsive to “on demand” task requirements Less responsive to additional requirements for resources, personnel, materials,

equipment

2. Partners or Other StakeholdersThe initiative will provide benefits to the residents, visitors and business community. Consultationwill involve all partners.

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted PlansNeighbourhoods Build Our CityA Culture of CooperationA City for All Seasons

4. Legal or Policy ImplicationsNA

5. Engagement and Communications ConsiderationsNA


6. Human Resource ImplicationsProject management by the Parks and Open Spaces Division

7. Procurement ImplicationsThe Material Management Division will be required for support and to tender various materials.

8. Information Technology ImplicationsNA

Recommendation:

It is recommended the City of St. John’s undertake Option 1 in order to create an atmosphere of pride and to enhance the business and tourism opportunities in the Downtown core. The benefit from the additional cost will be achieved through an enhanced focus on priority issues.


Brian Head Manager Parks and Open Spaces



Title: Downtown Street Sweeping

Date Prepared: Sept. 28, 2016

Report To: Danny Breen – Chair of Public Works Standing Committee

Councillor and Role: All

Ward: 2 – Downtown Area

Issue: Parked cars obstructing the overnight street sweeping process


The City has an overnight street sweeping program for the Downtown core that occurs annually between April and October. The sweeping takes place between 12:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M on the specified dates during these months. Each street is scheduled to be cleaned three times during this period unless the weather or mechanical issues hinder the process. A street sweeping schedule is established each year and residents are required to determine the dates that street sweeping will occur on their street and remove their vehicles from the street. Any vehicles that remain on the streets are issued a $20.00 ticket by Parking Services.

Vehicles that remain parked on the streets impede the street sweeping process and prohibit the entire street from being cleaned. The sweeper has to maneuver around these vehicles leaving the area where the vehicles are parked uncleaned. These areas are not cleaned again until the next scheduled sweeping (if the vehicle is moved) leaving the portion of the street uncleaned for several weeks.

Residents are required to follow the sweeping schedule on-line at the City’s web site or they call 311 and request a pamphlet which is sent to them through the mail. Residents can also sign up for daily e-mail reminders, which provide a list of streets scheduled to be cleaned each night. Information on the downtown street sweeping process is also communicated through the City Guide’s summer edition.

The City does not place signs (similar to those used for snow removal operations) on the streets that are scheduled for sweeping due to the following reasons:

Costs for the signs are significant, each sign would require a base or stand and a sand bag tosecure it in place, unlike winter operations when the signs can be placed directly into a snowbank.

Typically there are 25-30 streets scheduled for street sweeping each night, and each streetwould require 6-10 signs to provide adequate coverage. This could potentially require 150-300signs to be placed each day, the labour costs to set up and retrieve these signs would besignificant.

INFORMATION NOTE


1. Budget/Financial Implications

It is estimated that a minimum of 4 additional employees and one vehicle would be required toplace and retrieve these signs each day, two employees to place the signs during the day andtwo employees to retrieve the signs at night. This would be a significant labour cost to providenotification to the residents.

In addition the notification signs and associated bases/stands would need to be purchased.

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders

N/A

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans

N/A

4. Legal or Policy Implications

N/A

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations.

Currently information on the street sweeping process is communicated through the followingmeans:

City’s website; Social Media, such as Twitter; Daily e-mail reminders; City Guide; Mail-out pamphlet and schedule upon request.

6. Human Resource Implications

The placement of notification signs for street sweeping activities would require a minimum of 4additional employees which are currently not included in the operating budget.

7. Procurement Implications

The placement of notification signs for street sweeping activities would require the purchase of150-300 signs and the associated bases/stands and sand bags.

8. Information Technology Implications

N/A

9. Other Implications

N/A

Conclusion/Next Steps:

Promote the current methods of notification for the street sweeping process in an effort to improve compliance with the on-street parking ban to ensure that all of scheduled streets can be cleaned in their entirety. In addition, we are currently reviewing the possibility of including an image showing the streets to be cleaned with the daily e-mail reminders and notices on social media.


Jim Moore – Operations Supervisor - Roads


Jason Phillips – Acting Manager - Roads

Attachments:


Title: Waterford River Fish Mortality



Ward: 5

Issue: The Parks and Open Spaces Division was advised on September 10, 2016 that a quantity of dead fish were observed floating and submerged in the Waterford River.

A second episode of fish mortality was observed approximately two weeks later, following a period of heavy rainfall and significant runoff.


Timeline; September 10, 2016

The City was advised several dead fish were observed in the Bowring Park Duck Pond.

City officials inspected the Duck Pond and Waterford River. Several dead fish were observed in thepools and less turbulent waters from the Bowring Park Duck Pond to stream sections west ofEdison Place.

Officials removed the dead fish and inspected outfalls and stream banks for a cause. None wasfound.

September 12, 2016 City officials continued the investigation in to potential sources and learned that on September 9,

2016 the City of Mount Pearl had a water main break at Dunn’s Road. It has been estimated that up to 13,000 cubic metres (13,000,000 litres) of chlorinated drinking water may have been deposited in to a tributary of the Waterford River.

September 12 - 14, 2016 Representatives of Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada were contacted to

discuss whether the chlorinated drinking water may have been the cause of the of the fish mortality.

Representatives of Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada investigated stormwater outfalls and other sources of possible contamination inputs and subsequently concluded thelikely cause was the chlorinated water impacting the large number of fish heading upstream tospawn. Samples were collected for analysis.

September 15- 22, 2016 Representatives of Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada were contacted to

discuss findings to date. Information pertaining to the use of farm pesticides and fertilizers in the vicinity of the Waterford River, was provided to the investigators.

City officials were advised testing was ongoing and it could be several months before additionalinformation was available. It was also mentioned investigators may require another fall season ofWaterford River input information to enable conclusions.

INFORMATION NOTE


September 22 -29, 2016

Additional fish mortality was observed in the Bowring Park Duck Pond following several days of runoff.

Representatives of Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada continued to collect samples for analysis.

Officials once again removed the dead fish and inspected outfalls and stream banks for a cause. None was found.

Investigators concluded the latest evidence of mortality may have become apparent as a result of high water levels dislodging fish previously killed up stream. It was also noted that all fish impacted did not die upon contact. Many may have succumbed over time.

Fish populations have been observed in the pools and streams throughout the Waterford River.


1. Budget/Financial Implications Na

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders Residents Environmental groups

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans A Culture of Cooperation

4. Legal or Policy Implications Policy implications may include an amendment to development regulations regarding development and control of activities in proximity to watercourses.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations City of St. John’s Office of Strategy & Engagement – Marketing and Communications Division could be utilized to provide an update on the findings of the investigation in to the fish mortality when known.

6. Human Resource Implications Na

7. Procurement Implications Na

8. Information Technology Implications Na

Conclusion/Next Steps: Evidence obtained to date indicate the fish mortality was as a result of a large volume of treated drinking water being deposited in high concentration in to a tributary of the Waterford River. Treated drinking water is toxic to most fish, trout in particular. The impact was particularly detrimental due to the large volume of water deposited in to the water course during a period when the fish were schooled and heading upstream. The event appears to be an unfortunate and non - negligent. Prepared by/Signature:

Brian Head Manager, Parks and Open Spaces Division Approved by/Date/Signature:


Title: Bi-Weekly Garbage Collection

Date Prepared: September 28, 2016



Ward: All Wards


To defer further review or adoption of a bi-weekly garbage collection schedule until such time that organics collection has been implemented.


Some municipalities across Canada have adopted a bi-weekly garbage collection schedule in order to reduce the cost of curbside collection programs. The premise behind Bi-Weekly Collection is waste is collected bi-weekly meaning weekly routes are cut in half and financial savings can be achieved.

The City of St. John’s currently follows a weekly garbage collection schedule and a bi-weekly recycling collection schedule. The current collection schedule involves fifteen collection vehicles on a five day cycle (Monday-Friday) equaling an approximate total of 75 routes.

The Waste and Recycling Division has considered what effects adoption of a bi-weekly garbage collection schedule would have on the operations and have determined that there would be no financial savings achieved with bi-weekly collection at this time. The tonnage of waste collected will not change with bi-weekly collection, so residents will have to store two weeks’ worth of garbage. This will result in the City having to add twice as many trucks to collect from only half of the residents every week netting in no operational savings.

Bi-weekly garbage collection would be a possibility if the City were able to achieve a 50% waste diversion rate. In order to achieve this level of diversion, organics waste collection would likely need to be implemented.


1. Budget/Financial Implications N/A

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders N/A



3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans N/A.

4. Legal or Policy Implications N/A.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations N/A.


7. Procurement Implications N/A


9. Other Implications N/A.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council defer further review of bi-weekly garbage collection until such time that City surpasses 50% waste diversion rates and/or adopt a waste organics collection program.






Attachments: N/A


Title: Collection of Recycling at Multi-Story Condominiums




Ward: All Wards


The Committee is requested to approve a change in our present policy with respect to collection of recycling at multi-story condominiums. The change will allow the condominiums to set out to the street curb an unlimited number of recycling bags on collection day.


The Waste & Recycling Division’s collection staff picks up recycling at a number of single story condominiums that have frontage on public streets. As a pilot program, the Division has already began to collect recycling from some multi-story condominiums under the following conditions:

Vehicle entrances to the condominium must be on a street that the City garbage trucks can travel

Maximum of 10 bags per entrance will be picked up on the appropriate collection day.

All recycling must be set out to the public street curb by 8:00 am and be in blue transparent bags.

Recycling must be sorted properly.

Any bags with improper materials will be left behind.

One individual must be identified (name and contact information documented) as the main point of contact for the condominium complex and must take responsibility for the recycling materials that are set out.

The main contact is responsible for the education of their residents and ensuring that the recycling bags are put out at the proper time. If any bags are left behind by the City, that individual is responsible for taking them off the street.



It has been the experience of this Division that recycling participation rates at multi-story condominiums is low. One of the contributing factors could be the limitation on bags allowed to be placed at the curb. Staff are proposing that there be no limit to the bags allowed for recycling with the hopes that this will further promote waste diversion. It is not expected that this change will impact operations.

The City will not collect garbage from these multi-story buildings as we do not have the proper equipment to carry out that work.


1. Budget/Financial Implications It is not expected that the increase in recycling received will have any significant financial or budgetary implications.

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders Various Condominium Associations throughout the City of St. John's.

3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans Responsive and Progressive, Effective Organization.

4. Legal or Policy Implications Corporate policy 08-03-02 will require updating.

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations The various condominium associations will be contacted informing them of the change.


7. Procurement Implications N/A.


9. Other Implications N/A.

Recommendation:

The Waste and Recycling Division has found the approach employed in the pilot testing has worked and is recommending to move forward with city-wide implementation of recycling collection at condominium complexes that meet the following conditions:


Vehicle entrances to the site must be on streets that can be serviced by a City garbage truck

All recycling must be set out to the public street curb by 8:00 am and be in blue transparent bags.

Recycling must be sorted properly.

Any bags with improper materials will be left behind.

One individual must be identified (name and contact information documented) as the main point of contact for the condominium complex and must take responsibility for the recycling materials that are set out.

There will be no limit on recycling bags allowed to be placed at the curb for collection.


Andrew Niblock, B.Sc. Stephen Colford, P.Eng., MBA Director, Public Works Manager – Waste and Recycling



Attachments: N/A


Title: Century Park Redevelopment

Date Prepared: October 7, 2016 Report To: Public Works Committee Ward: Ward 2 Decision/Direction Required: City of St. John’s to undertake the redevelopment of Century Park, Hayward Avenue.


The residents of the Georgestown neighbourhood have been requesting the upgrade of the open space adjacent to civic # 85 Hayward Avenue, known as Century Park, for several years. It is currently an under-utilized parking lot, small green space and basketball court that appears run down and unused. During the Open Space Master Plan consultations, the neighbouhood association requested an upgrade and repurposing of the site. It was anticipated the area could be redeveloped to provide, green space, sitting areas, a basketball court and an area for social events ie garden party. At present the neighbourhood uses a small secluded open space at the rear of civic #s 44 – 56 Hayward Avenue. This area is unlit and unused for much of the year. In an effort to improve the overall condition, function and appearance of the neighbourhood, the Grand Concourse Authority was engaged to develop a modest concept for the redevelopment of Century Park. The resultant proposal was a plan worth $361,000. It was felt the proposal was inappropriate for the site and no action was taken. In recent weeks a second opinion has been sought from Trace Planning and Design, the author of the City of St. John’s Open Space Master Plan. The firm has been given the criteria of a modest redevelopment to meet a budget of $75,000 – 100,000. The initial concept is anticipated within two weeks. It is expected the concept will more closely relate to the discussions held during the Open Space Master Plan consultations. Key Considerations/Implications:

1. Budget/Financial Implications The estimated cost of the redevelopment of Century Park is $100,000

2. Partners or Other Stakeholders The initiative will provide benefits to the residents, visitors to the neighbourhood.

DECISION/DIRECTION NOTE DECISION NOTE


3. Alignment with Strategic Directions/Adopted Plans Neighbourhoods Build Our City A Culture of Cooperation A City for All Seasons Open Space Master Plan

4. Legal or Policy Implications NA

5. Engagement and Communications Considerations Close consultation will be required with the residents of the area.

6. Human Resource Implications Project management by the Parks and Open Spaces Division. Design by Trace Planning and Design.

7. Procurement Implications The Material Management Division will be required for support and to tender various materials.

8. Information Technology Implications NA

Recommendation:

It is recommended the City of St. John’s; - Engage Trace Planning and Design to develop the concept and design the park. - Project be funded from the Open Space Reserve Fund created to provide open spaces and

parks in areas that are deficient and have no large scale development taking place. Prepared by/Signature: Brian Head Manager Parks and Open Spaces Approved by/Date/Signature:

agenda - city of st. john's...the watershed” with measurable metes and bounds coordinates...

Documents