REVISED PUBLIC AGENDA SASKATOON ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, November 14, 2019, 11:30 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. Committee Room A, Second Floor, City Hall Committee Members: Ms. S. Harrison, Chair Ms. E. Akins, Vice-Chair Ms. A. Bugg Ms. S. Boulton Ms. K. Engele-Carter Ms. A. Garg Ms. K. Judge Dr. D. McGrane Ms. K. Palmer Mr. D. Pelly Mr. B. Sawatzky Mr. M. Velonas
Other Attendees: Councillor S. Gersher Director of Sustainability J. South Director of Transportation J. Magus Director of Building Standards K. Fagnou Metering & Sustainable Electricity Manager J. Cheruvallath A/Long Range Planning Manager T. McShane Senior Project Engineer, Water & Waste Operations M. Jelinski Committee Assistant D. Sackmann
Pages
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
Recommendation 1. That the following letters be added to Item 7.3:
1. Submitting comments along with a reference map from Joanne Blythe and Candace Savage, Wild about Saskatoon, dated November 11, 2019; 2. Request to speak from Richard Huziak, The Northeast Swale Watchers, dated November 12, 2019
3. Submitting comments from Meghan Mickelson, Chair, Endangered Grasslands Alliance, dated November 13, 2019;
2. That the items with speakers be heard first following consideration of Unfinished Business; and
3. That the agenda be confirmed as amended.
3. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES [CK. 175-9-1] 5 - 10
Recommendation That the minutes of meeting held on October 10, 2019, be approved.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. VERBAL UPDATES
6.1 REPORT OF THE CHAIR [CK. 175-9]
This is a standing item on the agenda to provide the Chair an opportunity to update on her activities since the last meeting.
S. Harrison will provide an update.
Recommendation That the information be received.
6.2 COMMITTEE OR RESOURCE MEMBER UPDATE [CK. 175-9]
This is a standing item on the agenda to provide an opportunity for a Committee or Resource member to update on issues, trends, events, etc. that pertain to the Committee's mandate.
No items were received.
7. REFERRALS FROM COUNCIL OR COMMITTEE
7.1 Low Emissions Community Plan Funding Options [CK. 375-4 x 1700-1] 11 - 16
The Governance & Priorities Committee held on October 21, 2019, considered a report of the General Manager, Utilities & Environment Department, dated October 28, 2019, and resolved, in part, that the above-noted report be forwarded to SEAC for feedback and
2 Administration be in attendance to present the report to SEAC.
Recommendation That the Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee provide feedback to the Standing Policy Committee on Environment, Utilities & Corporate Services.
7.2 Low Emissions Community Plan - Opportunities and Partnerships [CK. 17 - 39 375-4]
The Governance & Priorities Committee held on October 21, 2019, considered a report of the General Manager, Utilities & Environment Department, dated October 21, 2019, and resolved, in part, that the above-noted report be forwarded to SEAC for information.
Recommendation That the information be received.
7.3 Saskatoon Freeway Project Update – October 2019 [CK 6000-1 x 4205- 40 - 75 40]
A letter along with a reference map from Joanne Blythe and Candace Savage, Wild about Saskatoon, dated November 11, 2019 has been added to this item.
A request to speak from Richard Huziak, The Northeast Swale Watchers, dated November 12, 2019 has been added to this item.
A letter from Meghan Mickelson, Chair, Endangered Grasslands Alliance, dated November 13, 2019 has been added to this item.
City Council at its meeting held on October 28, 2019, considered a report of the General Manager, Transportation & Construction Department, dated October 7, 2019, the above-noted report is attached for the Committee's information.
Recommendation That the information be received.
8. WORK PLAN CONSIDERATION
8.1 WORK PLAN AND REFERRALS TO STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE [CK. 175-9]
This is a standing item on the agenda for the Committee, and/or any Subcommittee, to provide updates regarding items on its Work Plan and any matters being referred to the Standing Policy Committee for
3 consideration.
8.1.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - UPDATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS [CK. 375-4]
K. Palmer will provide an update.
Recommendation That the information be received.
9. BUDGET - STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR 2019 [CK. 1704-5] 76 - 76
Attached for the Committee's information is a current Statement of Expenditures.
Recommendation That the information be received.
10. ADJOURNMENT
4
PUBLIC MINUTES
SASKATOON ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 10, 2019, 11:30 a.m. Committee Room A, Second Floor, City Hall
PRESENT: Ms. S. Harrison, Chair Ms. E. Akins, Vice-Chair Ms. A. Bugg Ms. S. Boulton Ms. K. Engele-Carter Ms. K. Judge Dr. D. McGrane Ms. K. Palmer Mr. B. Sawatzky
ABSENT: Ms. A. Garg Mr. D. Pelly Mr. M. Velonas
ALSO PRESENT: Councillor S. Gersher Director of Sustainability J. South Director of Transportation J. Magus A/Long Range Manager T. McShane Senior Project Engineer, Water & Waste Operations M. Jelinski Committee Assistant D. Sackmann
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order on Treaty 6 Territory and the Homeland of the Métis People.
2. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
Moved By: K. Judge
That the agenda be confirmed as presented. CARRIED
5 Minutes Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee October 10, 2019 Page 2
3. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of conflict of interest.
4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES [CK. 175-9-1]
Moved By: A. Bugg
That the minutes of meeting held on September 12, 2019, be approved.
CARRIED
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE - SASKATOON ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE [CK. 375-4]
The Committee Assistant reported that at its meeting held June 13, 2019 SEAC resolved to task the GHG Subcommittee with drafting a feedback letter on its new Terms of Reference. The Committee is set to further discuss its feedback. A revised letter was provided for the Committee's information.
Ms. Engele-Carter and Ms. Boulton entered the meeting during consideration of the matter.
Discussion ensued. It was determined that the feedback is productive and collaborative in approach. The Committee Assistant noted that the letter could list specific recommendations for further clarification if Committee chose. The Committee discussed the Youth representative member noting that some accommodations may be required in order to better allow participation at certain times of the school year. In addition, the Committee noted its interest in having a collaborative conversation with the City Clerk's Office regarding its Terms of Reference. Councillor Gersher advised that she and Councillor Loewen are hosting a Youth Climate Action Forum, October 30, 2019 at Cosmo Civic Centre. There's been a lot of discussion on a Youth Council and SEAC's feedback on this is appreciated.
Moved By: D. McGrane
That the Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee recommend to City Council through the Standing Policy Committee on Environment,
6 Minutes Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee October 10, 2019 Page 3
Utilities & Corporate Services its Terms of Reference be changed as outlined in its letter, dated October 2019. CARRIED
6. VERBAL UPDATES
6.1 REPORT OF THE CHAIR [CK. 175-9]
This is a standing item on the agenda to provide the Chair an opportunity to update on her activities since the last meeting.
The following update was provided: A number of us had the opportunity to attend the Climate Strike on September 26, 2019. An estimated 2000+ people were out and marched through downtown. There was lots of support from passerby's. At rally, Youth Climate Advisory Group was noted. An update on the Saskatoon Freeway Project went to the Standing Policy Committee (SPC) on Transportation in October. Louise Jones, Northeast Swale Watchers reached out and also to the Chair of the Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee inquiring if there's been any updates on the matter. Received media request to comment on Police decision to move to SUVs and possibility for those to be hybrid or electric. SEAC would support the opportunity under the Low Emissions Community (LEC) Plan to move towards electrified fleets. City's Industrial Commercial Institutional organics/waste community engagement sessions took place in September. Erin attended on behalf of the University of Saskatchewan. Encouraging to see environment and climate change policy as a key Federal election issue.
Events: o 2nd Annual Senate Forum "Climate Change: Myth vs. Reality", October 15, 2019. o Rob Dumont Energy Awards, October 23, 2019 (the City has been nominated for Leadership award for LEC Plan). o Aditi is moderating a Panel on Youth Mental Health in the Climate Crisis, November 6, 2019.
Discussion followed. The Committee supports a youth advisory group, but suggested that its structure be different than the Advisory Committees and allow for more collaboration with City Council or Administration. It was noted a youth advisory group has value in its diverse thinking.
7 Minutes Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee October 10, 2019 Page 4
Director of Transportation Magus was present and answered questions of the Committee regarding the Province's Saskatoon Freeway Project. He advised that Administration presented a report on the matter to the SPC on Transportation earlier this month. He noted that the province has set up technical working groups/steering committees for the various areas involved in the project and City staff sit on these groups/committees. When a recommendation is being identified it's reported to the SPC on Transportation. In addition, Administration has provided letters regarding the considerations that have to be given to specific City Bylaws as the project unfolds. Councillor Gersher noted that at this stage of the project City Council can't revoke its endorsement of the project, however, it is mindful that its role is keeping the city's interest.
Moved By: K. Palmer
That the information be received. CARRIED
6.2 COMMITTEE OR RESOURCE MEMBER UPDATE [CK. 175-9]
This is a standing item on the agenda to provide an opportunity for a Committee or Resource member to update on issues, trends, events, etc. that pertain to the Committee's mandate.
No items were received.
7. REFERRALS FROM COUNCIL OR COMMITTEE
7.1 Approval of Triple Bottom Line City Council Policy [CK. 7550-0]
The Committee Assistant submitted a report of the City Manager, dated September 23, 2019, which was considered at the Governance & Priorities Committee at its meeting held on September 23, 2019; it was resolved, in part, that the above-noted report be forwarded to SEAC and Administration provide a presentation. The Committee was also provided with the Triple Bottom Line: Indicators and Success Measures for its information prior to the meeting.
Shannon Dyck, Environmental Coordinator, Utilities & Environment was in attendance and provided a PowerPoint presentation on Triple Bottom Line: A sustainable approach to City of Saskatoon decision making. The policy intends to outline the City of Saskatoon's general position with respect to the concept of sustainability. The Committee was advised that
8 Minutes Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee October 10, 2019 Page 5
City Council has given its support to the tool and policy. Discussion followed.
Director of Sustainability South was present and answered questions of the Committee regarding the Triple Bottom Line Policy and the Low Emissions Community projects noting that they are interconnected, but still run somewhat parallel. Next steps involve going to budget deliberations with an ask for an employee and some overhead for implementation requirements.
Dr. McGrane excused himself from the meeting at 12:32 p.m.
Moved By: K. Palmer
1. That the information be received; and 2. That the GHG Subcommittee be tasked with drafting a letter of support regarding Administration's budget ask for a staff member for the Triple Bottom Line implementation resource. CARRIED
8. WORK PLAN CONSIDERATION
8.1 WORK PLAN AND REFERRALS TO STANDING POLICY COMMITTEE [CK. 175-9]
This is a standing item on the agenda for the Committee, and/or any Subcommittee, to provide updates regarding items on its Work Plan and any matters being referred to the Standing Policy Committee for consideration.
8.1.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SUBCOMMITTEE - UPDATES AND RECOMMENDATIONS [CK. 375-4]
The GHG Subcommittee met on September 26, 2019, present were: Aditi, Angie, Brian, Kathryn, Kira, Sara, and Sydney.
The following was discussed: Eco-Hack Event - it was determined that SEAC won't be able to play a role this year, but should keep the event in mind for upcoming years. Triple Bottom Line Policy -if/when reports related to this subject are referred to SEAC, the Committee should provide comment. The Committee should consider how this may be effectively tied to the Low Emissions Community (LEC) Plan and how
9 Minutes Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee October 10, 2019 Page 6
departments without an environmental focus may easily and effectively incorporate the Policy. LEC Plan and Budget Discussions - the fiscal year 2020/2021 discussions are coming up. SEAC needs to understand how the actions in the LEC Plan will be prioritized through the budgeting process and how we may provide input on prioritization.
Sara advised the Committee that she had reached out to Director of Sustainability South in order to better understand the movements on the LEC fiscal year 2020/2021 plan through City Council to help understand the prioritization work completed and presented by Administration thus far.
Mr. Sawatzky excused himself from the meeting at 1:15 p.m.
Moved By: A. Bugg
That the information be received. CARRIED
9. BUDGET - STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES FOR 2019 [CK. 1704-5]
The current statement of expenditures was provided.
Moved By: E. Akins
That the information be received. CARRIED
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:29 p.m.
______
Ms. S. Harrison, Chair
______Ms. Debby Sackmann, Committee Assistant
10 INFORMATION REPORT
Low Emissions Community Plan Funding Options
ISSUE The current funding for the Low Emissions Community (LEC) Plan is heavily reliant on one-time funding from the Reserve for Capital Expenditures and government grants. This report is in follow up to City Council direction to report on more dedicated and sustainable funding options.
BACKGROUND At its regular meeting on November 19, 2018, when considering a report entitled “Recommendations Report for a Low Emissions Community,” City Council resolved, in part:
“3. That the Administration report back through the Standing Policy Committee on Environment, Utilities and Corporate Services on some of the strategic prioritization and financing tools available to support the future implementation plan for the Low Emissions Community Plan.”
At its regular meeting on August 26, 2019 when considering a report entitled “Preliminary Low Emissions Community Plan Initiatives,” City Council resolved, in part:
“2. That the Administration be directed to report back, either before or to the 2020-21 budget process, on dedicated and sustainable funding options to support initiatives identified in the LEC Plan, including but not limited to creation of a dedicated reserve and green revolving funds.”
CURRENT STATUS Implementation of the LEC Plan actions and achieving emissions reduction targets and other co-benefits would require sustained funding for proactive planning, management, and implementation for programs and initiatives. Substantial investment in initiatives such as renewable energy projects, electrifying transportation systems, and new service offerings for residents, as well as project management, program development, corporate coordination and data management is required.
The present funding methodology for emissions reduction and other environmental projects is unsustainable due to the following:
Typically, the City of Saskatoon’s (City) climate change projects are funded on a case-by-case basis through discretionary funding means such as the Reserve for Capital Expenditures (RCE), which provides uncertainty around future funding.
ROUTING: Corporate Financial Services – Governance & Priorities – No further routing. DELEGATION: Clae Hack October 28, 2019 – File No. CF1702-1 Page 1 of 6 11 Low Emissions Community Plan Funding Options
This funding method restricts phased planning and causes delays in project and program delivery.
Grant funding is heavily relied upon, which creates a risk to program delivery due to competition, labour intensive administration, and changing political priorities. Identifying matching funding for grant applications can cause challenges for financial planning.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS There are essentially two overarching funding strategies that could be employed in order to supply the LEC Plan with funding a pay-as-you-go funding strategy which would result in the creation of a reserve, or debt financing. The remainder of this report will provide an overview of each option and strategies that could be implemented under them.
Reserve Funding Creation of an Environmental Sustainability Reserve is a relatively easy and effective way to ensure that potential funding for LEC and other Environmental initiatives are utilized in line with the intended purpose. While setting up the reserve itself is a relatively simple step, establishing the strategies to provide the reserve with funding has a multitude of options and impacts. An overview of these options and the advantages and disadvantages are provided below.
1. Dedicated Property Tax Increase Contribution An increase to the property tax dedicated to a reserve is one of the most effective and simplest options to ensure ongoing funding is available for future LEC and other Environmental initiatives. For example, a 0.25% dedicated property tax increase would be equivalent to approximately $610,000 in 2020. Some of the advantages and disadvantages to this option are as follows:
Advantages Implementation of this option could occur relatively quickly. Once implemented, this option provides ongoing and sustainable funding. Provides certainty on funding levels and enables planning and design work to continue and resourcing to make grant submissions.
Disadvantage This option would result in a higher property tax increase in 2020 and 2021 than currently projected.
2. Revolving Green Fund A Revolving Green Fund involves utilizing the savings created by initiatives and reinvesting those savings back into a reserve. The City has five outstanding Green Loans and the Energy Performance Contract which have implemented projects that have resulted in cost savings or additional revenue. Currently,
Page 2 of 6 12 Low Emissions Community Plan Funding Options
100% of the savings as a result of these projects are being utilized to repay the original capital cost and once repaid typically go to offset future property tax increases. However, if a reserve was created, one of the following two options could be implemented in order to utilize a Revolving Green Fund strategy:
a. Continue to dedicate 100% of the cost savings or additional revenue to the repayment of the borrowing, however, once repayment is complete, these savings would transition to an annual contribution to the reserve; or
b. Adjust the current allocation to dedicate only a portion of the cost savings or additional revenue to debt repayment and allocate the remainder of the funds towards a reserve.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of this funding strategy include:
Advantages Reinvests savings and revenues gained from prior projects’ successes to environmental sustainability initiatives.
Once implemented, this option provides ongoing and sustainable funding.
Disadvantages Utilizes savings and revenues that could otherwise be used to directly lower future property taxes.
Will take several years to generate meaningful funds for a reserve as saving are first utilized to repay borrowings.
3. Future Carbon Tax Allocation The City’s preliminary 2020/2021 Business Plan and Budget includes an estimated $1.5 million increase in expenditures related to the impact of Carbon Tax. While the Administration is anticipating that a significant portion of these funds will be returned via a municipal rebate, the estimated rebate amount, timing or eligible uses are not known at this time. However, once announced, the Carbon Tax rebate could potentially be dedicated to a reserve as a source of funding. This option has the following advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages Provides an ongoing and sustainable source of funding.
Could be easily and quickly implemented once program details are identified.
No increases in property taxes are required.
Disadvantage The amount, timing or eligible uses of a municipal carbon tax rebate are unknown.
Page 3 of 6 13 Low Emissions Community Plan Funding Options
4. Federal Gas Tax Contribution As part of the 2019 Federal Budget, it was announced that municipalities would receive a one-time doubling of the annual Gas Tax contribution. For the City, this meant that an additional $14.1 million would be received in 2019. Since this announcement, City Council has preliminarily directed the Administration to allocate $10.0 million of the $14.1 million towards the implementation of a city- wide organics program and associated bin purchases. However, the remaining, or part of, the $4.1 million could be allocated to a reserve to provide “start-up” funding until a sustainable source can be established. The advantages and disadvantages to this approach include:
Advantages Implemented relatively quickly and easily. Provide significant amount of funding in the short-term to advance LEC initiatives. No increase in property taxes required.
Disadvantages Only a one-time payment and does not solve the issue of long-term planning needs to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets; Allocates the remaining Gas Tax funding that could be utilized for other initiatives.
5. Reserve for Capital Expenditures Allocation The City allocates $2.87 million on an annual basis to the RCE. This reserve has historically been utilized to fund capital projects that align with City Council’s Strategic Priorities and do not have a dedicated reserve. There are two ways in which City Council could utilize RCE:
a. LEC initiatives can compete on an annual basis against other RCE eligible projects for funding; or
b. A portion of the $2.87 million annual contribution can be reallocated to the Environmental Sustainability Reserve.
The advantages and disadvantages of this option are as follows:
Advantages Provides the opportunity for funding on an annual basis. No increases in property taxes required.
Disadvantages Funding is not guaranteed as LEC projects may compete with all other projects in the corporation each year and are not prioritized.
Page 4 of 6 14 Low Emissions Community Plan Funding Options
As LEC projects are unlikely to be successful in obtaining consistent RCE funding on an annual basis, this option may likely delay the LEC implementation. RCE funding would not be sufficient for larger scale LEC projects.
Debt Funding Funding the LEC Plan through debt is another option to significantly advance the initiatives in a short period of time. While utilizing debt to advance initiatives is relatively straight forward, there are many considerations that need to be taken into account, which include:
how the borrowing will be repaid, through savings or other means; the sufficiency of the City’s current borrowing limit of $558.0 million to meet the entire corporation’s needs, including the LEC Plan; and the impact on the City’s AAA credit rating.
The following two options to utilize borrowing as a source of funding are:
1. Continued Use of Green Loans Council Policy No. C03-024, Borrowing for Capital Projects, allows for issuance of internal loans for projects that result in energy or water use reductions and demonstrate savings. To be eligible for a loan, an initiative must:
be a capital project; utilize proven energy reduction techniques and technologies; and be repaid within 10 years from savings.
The City currently has five outstanding Green Loans under this program. The City has the option to continue to utilize and grow this program based on potential LEC initiatives.
Advantages Provides a reliable source of funding for projects that have a clear pay- back schedule. Implemented quickly and easily for eligible projects.
Disadvantages Many LEC projects require detailed business cases to be completed first to determine whether they would be suitable for a green loan. This funding source would only be eligible for projects that result in current cost reductions and could not be used for projects that have future cost avoidance.
Page 5 of 6 15 Low Emissions Community Plan Funding Options
2. Traditional Debt Financing The City could provide traditional debt financing to certain initiatives under the LEC Plan. Through this funding strategy, the City could complete the design, implementation and/or construction of a variety of infrastructure initiatives under the LEC Plan. Advantages and disadvantages of this option are as follows:
Advantages Implemented quickly and easily for eligible projects. Provides a significant amount of start-up funding for the LEC Plan.
Disadvantages Future repayment of the debt will need to be determined prior to proceeding with this strategy, which could include increases in the property tax or utility rates in order to repay the debt. Significant increases in City debt could push the City beyond the currently approved debt limit of $558.0 million. Significant increase in City debt could impact the City’s current AAA credit rating. Does not provide a general allocation to the LEC Plan and must be directly linked to projects.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications are outlined under each option presented. There are no legal, environmental or social implications identified.
NEXT STEPS There is no further action required.
REPORT APPROVAL Written by: Clae Hack, Interim Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Jeanna South, Director of Sustainability Angela Gardiner, General Manager, Utilities & Environment Department Approved by: Jeff Jorgenson, City Manager
Admin Report - Low Emissions Community Plan Funding Options.docx
Page 6 of 6 16 INFORMATION REPORT
Low Emissions Community Plan – Opportunities and Partnerships
ISSUE City Council has received the Low Emissions Community (LEC) Plan, which is a detailed roadmap of the actions required to meet both community and corporate emissions reduction targets for 2023, and to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050. The Actions in the LEC Plan will impact the entire community, therefore striving for community cooperation and collaboration is essential for success. This report provides information on community engagement, as work is considered for 2020-2021. While some LEC actions are already underway, most require further funding and collaboration to move forward. City Council indicated at the August 26, 2019 meeting, that additional information is required prior to budget deliberations to assist in funding decisions for the LEC initiatives; specifically to better understand where there are opportunities for collaboration with community partners and to find those initiatives that will result in the most impactful outcomes. This report provides a summary of engagement with key stakeholders and presents opportunities over the next two years.
BACKGROUND On August 26, 2019, City Council received the Low Emissions Community Plan and the Preliminary Low Emissions Community Plan Initiatives reports and resolved, in part: “1. That engagement with the community and stakeholders is undertaken to further advance planning and to develop comprehensive implementation strategies for preliminary initiatives included in the Low Emissions Community Plan. 2. That the Administration report back on ways we can partner with the private, institutional, and non-profit sectors in order to provide opportunities for other sectors to take the lead on, and provide feedback on the initiatives they are undertaking and intending to undertake with respect to the relevant portions of the LEC Plan. 3. That the Administration report back on how we can partner and collaborate with, but not limited to, Saskatchewan municipalities, SUMA, and the provincial government with respect to the proposed LEC Plan.”
CURRENT STATUS A summary of initiatives strategically positioned for near-term implementation of the LEC Plan has been prepared for further budget consideration and prioritization. The list of LEC items relevant to the 2020/2021 Gas Tax / RCE prioritization includes:
ROUTING: Utilities & Environment – Governance & Priorities - Regular Business City Council DELEGATION: Amber Weckworth October 21, 2019– File No. 7540-003 Page 1 of 6 17 Low Emissions Community Plan – Opportunities and Partnerships
Sector Community Initiative City / Corporation Initiative Community Electric Vehicle Transportation Adoption Strategy and Charging Infrastructure City-wide Solar Strategy Utility Scale Solar Energy Energy Project: Parcel M Generation City-wide Solar Strategy Community Incentive Program for High Performance Civic Building Energy Efficiency Policy – Phase 1 - New Property Assessed Clean Energy Buildings (PACE) Financing Program Phase 2 - Viability of Enhanced Buildings and Energy Performance Standards Energy for New City Buildings, and Efficiency Green Certification for Existing Buildings Municipal Building Appliance Replacement Heat Pump Feasibility Study Implementation of Industrial, Leading by Example – City Commercial and Institutional Building Implementation of ICI Recycling and Organics waste policy for waste reduction Waste reduction policy development and Management program Kitchen catchers for Multi-family organics program
There are also items on the prioritization list administered under existing corporate projects that would impact long-term LEC outcomes including: Curbside Organics Bin Purchase; Weir Hydro Power; Corridor Planning/Infill Development; Downtown Stimulus; Corporate Adaptation Strategy Implementation; Active Transportation Plan Implementation; and The Growth Plan. The prioritization list also includes support for implementation of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Policy. Although the TBL is not outlined as an LEC action, education, quality management and support for significant City of Saskatoon (City) work using a TBL lens would support strategic sustainability principles and targets as well as broader corporate objectives.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS This report provides a summary of engagement with key stakeholders and presents the LEC initiatives, which have potential collaboration or partnership opportunities. Information is provided to clarify alignment of initiatives with what was heard from the community. Furthermore, since the LEC plan was tabled in August, feedback has been
Page 2 of 6
18 Low Emissions Community Plan – Opportunities and Partnerships
received and the Administration has made amendments to certain key terms and statements within the plan to address the items identified by the community and to provide clarity of intent, while continuing to meet the objectives of the LEC plan. Lastly, further information on the operationalization of the TBL Policy has also been provided, as it strongly aligns with objectives for greenhouse gas reduction opportunities and broader corporate social and economic co-benefits.
Stakeholder Feedback and LEC Alignment In addition to community feedback at the August 26, 2019, meeting of City Council, the Administration met with seven groups of stakeholders throughout September 2019. A summary of this feedback is included as Appendix 1 – Feedback and Opportunities for Collaboration, showing if and how stakeholders were interested in working together and ensuring coordination on LEC Actions. Opportunities for collaboration include:
Organization Opportunities for Collaboration SRHBA would continue to participate on a task force (between industry, government, and other key stakeholders) to prepare for the Saskatoon and next changes to the National Building Code. Region Home SRHBA is ideally suited to provide education and communications for Builders’ home builders and homeowners around programs such as PACE. Association (SRHBA) SRHBA will continue to support actions that lead to high standards in the home building industry (e.g. by continuing to offer its Certified Professional Home Builder Program). FCL is interested in continued conversations around waste management, electric vehicle infrastructure, alternative fuels, and solar. Federated FCL has experience with building and facility energy efficiency Co-operatives upgrades. Limited (FCL), Interested in leading and/or learning from research and development Sustainability (e.g. in the areas of electric vehicle charging networks and alternative Unit and Energy fuels such as renewable diesel and renewable natural gas). Unit FCL is pursuing government funding for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, some of which would be located in Saskatoon if the application is successful. Partnerships with / support from local municipalities would strengthen the proposal.
Nutrien would like to continue talking with the City about opportunities to support solar and renewables. Nutrien, Nutrien is targeting LEED Gold Certification for their new Saskatoon Sustainability & Headquarters. Nutrien would be interested in opportunities to share Stakeholder best practices around green buildings. Relations Nutrien is supportive of sustainability-focused educational programming and exploring collaborations.
University of Potential exists to collaborate with different academic, operational, and Saskatchewan governing bodies at USask, as per the Memorandum of Understanding. (USask), USask is interested in further discussing projects with positive business Facilities cases.
Page 3 of 6
19 Low Emissions Community Plan – Opportunities and Partnerships
Sustainability USask would like to learn more about the City’s approach to organics and diversion and water conservation opportunities, sharing lessons learned Engineering about building efficiency upgrades, and exploring cleaner energy sources.
The Chamber would like to learn more about the LEC Plan and actions. Greater Interested in staying informed around program development, working Saskatoon together, and continued communication, especially related to building Chamber of retrofits, electric vehicle charging stations, and waste management. Commerce
Downtown, BIDs are generally interested in learning more about PACE, electric Broadway, vehicle charging stations, solar, building improvements, and waste. Riversdale, and The BIDs are particularly interested in staying engaged and up to date Sutherland on any requirements and/or changes to how buildings are built, Business retrofitted, and preserved. Improvement Interested in continuing the conversation. Districts (BIDs) North The North Saskatoon Business Association is supportive of PACE Saskatoon financing. PACE removes the biggest obstacle in a business’ path Business (capital funding) in the most flexible way. Association
Throughout the engagement, common themes emerged. Consistent across all organizations was a general interest in gaining a better understanding of the plan, especially its financial impacts, and to communicate these messages more clearly. The stakeholders suggested that collaborating on approach, tools and resources would aid their stakeholders to understand and guide possible sustainable actions. Feedback from a number of the groups was concern around language that refers to “caps”, “mandating”, or implies that the City might get ahead of other regional or national jurisdictions. Details on the engagement strategy and methodology as well as more comprehensive feedback from this preliminary engagement can be found in the What We Heard Interim Report (www.saskatoon.ca/engage/climate-change). This information as well as on-going engagement will inform the strategy for continued engagement.
Opportunities for Collaboration and 2020-2021 LEC Project Alignment Based on the discussions to date, several opportunities have been identified to potentially partner with stakeholders to implement specific initiatives within the LEC Plan such as: Community Electric Vehicles Adoption Strategy; Renewable Energy – Utility Scale Solar; Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE); Community Incentives for Building Efficiencies; Waste Diversion for the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector; and Community of Practice. Appendix 2 - Information on Preliminary Low Emissions Community Plan Initiatives includes greater detail on each of these initiatives.
Page 4 of 6
20 Low Emissions Community Plan – Opportunities and Partnerships
Education and Communications Stakeholders and the public alike have offered feedback about language and clarity of expectations in the LEC Plan. Many of the groups provided recommendations which involve: increased access to broader LEC communications; use of clear or plain language; and continued engagement to identify additional partnerships and alignment. Administration is developing a communications plan to increase understanding and awareness of the LEC Plan, which would likely include: An LEC backgrounder – a concise and accessible booklet that will contain key messages from the LEC Plan in an-easy-to read format; Presentations – the City will provide presentations to school groups, business partners, organizations, and residents; and Awareness Campaign – using the webpage, social media, and video, key messages about the LEC Plan will be circulated. The City currently has environmental education programs, including the Student Action for a Sustainable Future Program. This program engages grades 5 to 8 classrooms in action and inquiry projects in the areas of waste, water, energy, food, biodiversity, and transportation. This program can be used to further enhance awareness of the LEC actions and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets set by the City. Partnership opportunities are being explored to expand the program.
What We Heard – Evolution of the LEC Plan Stakeholders have brought forward concerns that certain terms within the LEC Plan actions indicate that the City will introduce more stringent municipal building codes in advance of the National Building Code (NBC) and Saskatchewan’s Uniform Building and Accessibility Standards (UBAS), and that through this, the City might mandate retrofits, energy caps, and design of new buildings that gets ahead of regulatory expectations elsewhere in Saskatchewan. While the LEC actions anticipate energy requirements increasing over time, they are meant to align and follow the NBC and UBAS requirements. In order to clarify this intent, while still meeting the objectives of the LEC Plan, amended wording of the Actions are proposed for the Plan in accordance with Appendix 3 - Low Emissions Community Plan Amendments and Clarification.
Operationalizing the Triple Bottom Line Policy City Council approved a Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Policy at their meeting on September 30, 2019. The TBL Policy will help to ensure that the GHG implications of initiatives and other connections back to the LEC Plan are considered in all decisions. This policy works to maximize the co-benefits of every initiative by shifting decision-making towards a comprehensive approach that considers environmental, social, and economic factors. The TBL Draft Project Plan (see Appendix 4 - Triple Bottom Line Draft Project Plan) outlines near, middle and longer term deliverables and resources associated with operationalization of the TBL Policy. In order to ensure consistent application of the policy, additional resources are required to: Provide support to apply a TBL framework to initiatives, including an Operating (How-to) manual for the policy, other quality management system tools for process support and mapping, a centralized web-based area for supporting
Page 5 of 6
21 Low Emissions Community Plan – Opportunities and Partnerships
information, education tools for in-person, video or PowerPoint delivery, and one- to-one support; Formalize governance framework, including oversight and auditing, support material approvals, addressing consistency issues, and reporting; Share Civic TBL processes and learnings with other organizations; Prepare reporting on status annually; and Identify success and corporate need beyond the two-year operationalizing phase.
IMPLICATIONS The City will use existing operational resources for further engagement and education associated with the LEC Plan. Specific initiatives outlined on the 2020/2021 Gas Tax / RCE list require funding in order to proceed.
NEXT STEPS As directed by City Council, the Administration will continue to engage and provide communications on the LEC Plan. A summary of the engagement strategy is available within the What We Heard Interim Report.
APPENDICES 1. Feedback and Opportunities for Collaboration 2. Information on Preliminary Low Emissions Community Plan Initiatives 3. Low Emissions Community Plan Amendments and Clarification 4. Triple Bottom Line Draft Project Plan
REPORT APPROVAL Written by: Amber Weckworth, Education & Environmental Manager Reviewed by: Jeanna South, Director of Sustainability Approved by: Angela Gardiner, General Manager, Utilities & Environment
Admin Report - Low Emissions Community Plan – Opportunities and Partnerships.docx
Page 6 of 6
22 APPENDIX 1 Feedback and Opportunities for Collaboration
The Administration met with seven stakeholders (BIDS counting as one) throughout September to gather feedback and explore opportunities for collaboration. The feedback from these meetings is provided below; for more details on the engagement process and discussions, refer to the What We Heard Interim Report.
Opportunities for Organization Feedback Collaboration There are ways to support the SRHBA would continue to home building industry beyond participate on the successful financial incentives, including task force (between improving building, development, industry, government, and and permitting processes. other key stakeholders) to Prefer performance-based building prepare for the next standards that allow for flexibility changes to the National and innovation, rather than Building Code. prescriptive standards. SRHBA is ideally suited to SRHBA does not support provide education and mandatory retrofits. communications for home SRHBA does not support builders and homeowners municipalities mandating processes around programs such as and standards that go above the PACE. National Building Code, but does SRHBA will continue to support incentives and support actions that lead to collaborations. high standards in the home SRHBA has issued a letter to the building industry (e.g. by Saskatoon and Saskatchewan Government continuing to offer its Region Home encouraging changes to Legislation Certified Professional Home Builders’ to allow PACE financing. Builder Program). Association SRHBA will be advocating for use (SRHBA) of only certified construction professionals when incentives are created and when/if PACE financing becomes available. SRHBA will be taking steps to ensure that only certified professionals are used when incentives are created and when or if PACE financing becomes available. The Certified Professional Home Builder Program is the only professional certification in the residential construction sector (they are also launching an equivalent program to certify professional renovators) and should be tapped into to ensure quality work and standards, and to ensure items are in writing, which
23 protects everyone involved and ensures tax revenues are collected.
FCL recommends that the City look FCL is interested in at what other jurisdictions are doing. continued conversations Where possible, harmonization of around waste management, regulations across different electric vehicle jurisdictions would help businesses infrastructure, alternative that have operations in multiple fuels, and solar. locations across Canada. FCL has experience with Consider how to reduce building and facility energy administrative burdens for efficiency upgrades. businesses as the LEC Actions are Interested in leading and/or designed and rolled out. learning from research and Federated FCL wants to be a part of the development (e.g. in the Co-operatives solution and believes that areas of electric vehicle Limited (FCL), collaboration is key to building a charging networks and Sustainability sustainable community. alternative fuels such as Unit and Favourable regulations and renewable diesel and Energy Unit incentives can make a business renewable natural gas). case work. FCL is pursuing government funding for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, some of which would be located in Saskatoon if the application is successful. Partnerships with/support from local municipalities would strengthen the proposal.
Nutrien is looking for opportunities Nutrien would like to learn to support sustainability and more about opportunities to interested in learning more about support solar and the LEC Actions over time, even if renewables. specific ways of collaborating aren’t Nutrien is targeting LEED known at this time. Gold Certification for their Nutrien, new Saskatoon Sustainability & Headquarters. Nutrien would Stakeholder be interested in opportunities Relations to learn about and share best practices around green buildings. Nutrien is supportive of sustainability-focused educational programming and exploring collaborations.
University of The LEC identifies an ambitious but Potential exists to collaborate Saskatchewan appropriate list of actions. Other with different academic, (USask),
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 2 of 4 24 Facilities opportunities to reduce emissions operational, and governing Sustainability exist as well. bodies at USask, as per the and MOU. Engineering USask is interested in learning about/exploring projects with good business cases. USask would like to learn more about organics diversion and water conservation opportunities, share lessons learned about building efficiency upgrades, and explore cleaner energy sources.
Create business-focused education The Chamber would like to that highlights the savings and learn more about the LEC benefits of tangible actions, and that Plan and actions. explains how the LEC Plan makes Interested in staying Saskatoon an attractive place to do informed around program business. development, working There’s general uncertainty about together, and continued the Plan. The Chamber and communication, especially business community need to related to building retrofits, understand the business impacts of electric vehicle charging the LEC actions. stations, and waste Greater Collaboration with the Provincial management. Saskatoon Government and neighbouring Chamber of municipalities is important. Commerce Remove language about mandating. Limit government regulation. The Chamber is concerned that the Plan might lead to tax increases or be prioritized over infrastructure funding. The Chamber’s membership is concerned about the potential for increased costs for retro-fits and upgrades.
The Plan is kind of overwhelming BIDs are generally interested Downtown, and challenging to understand. in learning more about Broadway, Provide more business-focused, PACE, EVs, solar, building Riversdale, and accessible education. Focus on improvements, and waste. Sutherland solutions that businesses can do The BIDs are particularly Business that have a good payback. interested in staying engaged Improvement The Plan introduces some new and up to date on any Districts (BIDs) concepts that they’re not familiar requirements and/or changes
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 3 of 4 25 with (e.g. PACE Financing) that to how buildings are built, they’d like to learn more about. retrofitted, and preserved. Make sure that actions don’t drive Interested in continuing the businesses and customers away conversation. from the BID areas. Businesses are starting to change when actions lead to a direct cost benefit. Whatever the City does, do it well. There is a sense of caution relating to the cost of the plan. There is interest in obtaining a more fulsome understanding of how this plan is to be paid for. Businesses will require an understanding of this type of information moving forward.
Pleased to see that the City has The NSBA is supportive of been showcasing leadership by PACE financing. PACE piloting some of these actions on removes the biggest their own operations first. It helps obstacle in a business’ path show that these actions work before (capital funding) in the most doing widespread implementation. flexible way. Changing standards change the economics of a project. The way the City times, communicates, and rolls out their changing standards North could be improved. Businesses Saskatoon need time to adapt. Business A gap in the Plan is that is doesn’t Association show the estimated per homeowner (NSBA) and per business costs of the LEC actions. Communicate what the LEC actions will do to and for businesses – the positives and negatives. Implementation should take place at the pace that people and businesses can afford to them. The NSBA doesn’t support a prescriptive approach or mandating.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 4 of 4 26 APPENDIX 2
Information on Preliminary Low Emissions Community Plan Initiatives
Community Electric Vehicle Adoption Strategy Scope and Budget A pilot project in 2020/2021 is being recommended for funding of $100,000 from Gas tax/RCE. The pilot project would include: 1-3 Level 2 Charging stations downtown with free on-street parking – administration would look for partnerships with businesses to encourage investment in downtown charging stations; incentives could include grants, joint marketing, or parking An education exhibit that focuses on the advantages and breaks down barriers (such as cold climate) for EVs in Saskatchewan.
The full scope of work for a Community Electric Vehicle (EV) Adoption Strategy and Charging Infrastructure initiative requires: Collaboration with the community and stakeholders to plan an EV charging network; Research and consideration for cold-climate design; Electric vehicle access incentives and education programs; and Design and installation of 4-7 EV charging stations for public use (level 2 or 3).
To complete the full strategy, additional funding would be required. Engagement and Partnerships Many municipalities have led with preliminary EV infrastructure, which functions to incentivize increased use of electric vehicles, but the municipality does not need to be the sole developer of charging infrastructure and incentives. Preliminary feedback from our stakeholder discussions has identified a number of collaboration and partnership opportunities. These could include: co-design of a comprehensive grid from public and privately run charging stations; partnering on grant applications; co-purchase of vehicles and/or charging infrastructure; sharing research and best practices; as well as, marketing and education around the benefits and availability of these types of vehicles and charging infrastructure. This community collaboration may inform parallel work slated to occur with the City EV fleet and infrastructure, and vice versa. Funding Preliminary research indicates that the federal government supports EVs through funding and incentives. Funding programs are in place for new charging stations in workplaces, public parking areas and multi-unit buildings, and incentives of $5,000 are available towards the purchase of an electric battery or hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Risks to the City with the current federal funding include the anticipated expiration of these incentive programs in 2022 or 2023, or change in Government direction resulting from the 2019 election outcome. Benefits EVs are 3-5 times more energy efficient than regular combustion engine vehicles, especially in urban environments. Although the upfront cost of an EV may be higher than a conventional vehicle in some cases, the ownership costs over the life of the vehicle are likely to be lower.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 1 of 6 27 A Community EV adoption strategy would enable Actions 21 and 22 from the LEC Plan - if the targets of 30% of new vehicle sales switching to electric by 2030, and 90% by 2050 are achieved – the cumulative reductions could be 9,624,000 tonnes of cumulative CO2e reductions by 2050.
Renewable Energy - Utility Scale Solar Scope and Background The scope of this project includes implementation of a 1 Mega Watt solar plant on Parcel M. The implementation plan will be informed by a feasibility study led by Saskatoon Light & Power (SL&P); funding for this study has been secured from the Electrical Distribution Extension Reserve (EDER), and is expected to cost $60,000. The feasibility study will outline scope; capital requirement; delivery and partnership options and recommendations; return on investment; rate impact, and greenhouse gas reductions. Budget The estimated cost if the City was to fully fund the project is $3.5M; however, details of implementation would be determined through the feasibility study including funding opportunities which might include a green loan or partnership. Based on the RCE/Gas Tax Prioritization work, Administration will be recommending $750,000 from the Gas Tax for construction of the plant. Additional funding will be required through a loan or other financing. Engagement and Partnerships During engagement, some organizations identified an interest in renewable energy resources as part of a corporate sustainability strategy and for the potential carbon offsets. Further discussions are warranted in alignment with the development of options for the Parcel M Feasibility Study, scheduled to commence in 2020. Funding Implementation of Parcel M could occur in many different ways, with different modes of collaboration and partnership, including: City-owned Parcel M could be City-funded and owned. SL&P would operate the plant and operated until the end of its life. With this model a new rate class could be introduced where customers would purchase solar electricity at a premium rate to offset their own renewable targets. Alternately, SL&P could sell offset credits at a fixed rate to help pay back the investment.
Third Party SL&P could issue a Power Purchase Agreement to a 3rd party to purchase Investment solar electricity for a predetermined number of years at a fixed price and escalation.
Community The public could invest capital and receive returns equal to their investment investment portion; this model is currently being utilized through the Saskatoon Solar Coop. SL&P could operate and maintain the facility, or a third-party can retain a contractor to operate and maintain the facility. The power would be purchased at the community solar power rate for a predetermined number of years with annual escalation and eventually SL&P would take ownership of the asset.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 2 of 6 28 Benefits The plant is expected to generate 1,225 Mega Watt-hours (MWhs) of clean electricity annually, which would result in 592 tonnes of reduced CO2e annually. The development of this facility will provide jobs and help develop expertise in the clean energy industry, while generating revenue for SL&P. The project aligns with and enables Actions 30, and 34 in the Low Emissions Community Plan.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing Scope and Background The Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing Program involves development of a property tax-based loan program, provided by the municipality to residents, that can be used for renewable energy installations or energy efficiency retrofits. A PACE program is dependent upon legislative changes that are in progress and anticipated to be ratified in Q2 2020. Budget This initiative is expected to cost $80,000 over the next two years to complete the pre- work needed such as program design, establishment of administrative and financing mechanisms in alignment with City systems, understanding impacts, and pursuing financing. Funding for this initiative has been prioritized within the RCE/Gas Tax prioritization exercise. After the program is developed, further funding for marketing and education related to the new program would be required at an additional cost; as well as financing for loans. Engagement and Partnerships The Saskatoon & Region Home Builders Association (SRHBA) has issued a letter to the Government of Saskatchewan requesting legislative changes to allow PACE financing; they would like to collaborate on program design; the BIDs, North Saskatoon Business Association and the Chamber generally support incentive programs in principle, although issue caution if rate increases occur as a result of incentives. Funding PACE financing can return revenue to the City by offering a financing rate to residents higher than the municipal borrowing rate. However, the municipality may want to keep the financing rate low to encourage more participation. A full financial analysis would be required to set interest rates for the program. The 2019 Federal Government budget proposed Community EcoEfficiency Acceleration funding of $300M to enable cities to provide loans to home owners for both energy efficiency and renewable energy generation retrofits. Benefits PACE financing offers an innovative mechanism to mobilize the community to improve their homes and buildings (e.g. through energy efficiency retrofits and solar installations). This will help the City achieve its community emissions reduction targets, including enabling Actions 6 through 16 in the LEC Plan. This type of program has seen success in other cities including Halifax and Toronto. PACE financing works because it removes barriers for citizens in securing financing, by City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 3 of 6 29 incorporating repayment onto their property tax bill it keeps both the loan repayment and the property improvement with the property. Once the improvement has been paid off, the utility savings and/or energy generation credits will be passed on to the homeowner, saving them money.
Community Incentive Program for Building Efficiencies Scope and Background Administration anticipates that the National Building Code (NBC) and National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB) will target net-zero by 2030, and that a step code may be introduced as early as 2020. We will need to work closely with industry, other levels of government, and peers in neighbouring jurisdictions to ensure consistency and effectiveness of building efficiency requirements. The Community Incentive Program for Building Efficiencies initiative looks to establish a program of incentives targeted at builders to encourage voluntary water and energy efficiency retrofits in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings.
Deliverables include: Design and implement incentives to encourage improved energy efficiency over minimum standards; Training and capacity building programs, including a community of practice, for building efficiency retrofits and new constructions; Investigate certification systems for renovations already being used by industry and consider how they could be used by the City. A future phase of incentives will be targeted at homeowners, and would cost an additional $275,000; future phases will include: Energy literacy and education including audits with energy efficiency recommendations; Incentives such as grants, rebates, or direct install programs (to align or complement PACE). Budget This program is expected to cost $260,000 over two years. Engagement and Partnerships Like the PACE program, SHRBA and the business community have indicated a general support of building retrofit incentives, with some groups remaining cautious about possible impacts on the mill rate. Benefits Developing incentives and education for builders and property owners is a critical component to making future and existing buildings more efficient. It is more cost effective to build to higher standards now than to complete retrofits later. It enables action 6 through 16 in the Low Emissions Community Plan. High efficiency buildings have spaces that are more consistently the right temperature, are quieter, have improved air quality and are generally more comfortable. These programs can provide increased opportunities within the construction, renewable City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 4 of 6 30 energy, and trades. In addition to this, the products required for energy efficient buildings may also spur new and innovative types of business.
Waste Diversion for the Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Sector Scope and Background This initiative includes: Mandatory recycling and organics policies and programs for the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) sector including data tracking, education, enforcement and operations plans; and resources for preliminary intake; A multi-unit residential organics program options and recommendations that aligns where possible with ICI, and plans for any unique considerations; Recycling and organics at all city facilities, events and public spaces; and Waste reduction and increased use of recycled content through procurement. Budget The Gas-Tax/RCE list identifies $771,000 for two years; this is being recommended for funding. An additional $400,000 would be required for kitchen catchers for the multi-unit program. Engagement and Partnerships Both residents and businesses seem to agree that consistency is key in successful waste diversion. Through the ICI waste strategy engagement, we heard that businesses understand that regulations around composting and recycling are coming, and they are most interested in ensuring they are equitable between and within the sectors. Furthermore, businesses and organizations would like to understand how the City would implement reduction programs, work with other levels of government, and utilize a harmonized approach to plastic reduction. Funding In 2020, Multi-material Stewardship Westerns (MMSW) funds could be allocated for this initiatives. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund presents an opportunity to offset the cost of initiating new waste diversion or reduction projects. Benefits The Strategic Plan targets 70% waste reduction from the City landfill by 2023. The Low Emissions Community Plan’s city-wide diversion target for 2050 is 90% for organics, 95% for plastics, and 90% for paper (LEC Action 24). The City’s waste diversion rate in 2018 was 22.8%, based on waste received and diverted through City-provided services. The 2016 Waste Diversion Opportunities Report estimated that when considering all landfills around the city, the ICI sector generated approximately 100,000 tonnes of divertible waste, compared to the 39,000 tonnes generated by the curbside residential sector. This initiative is estimated to divert 7,000 additional tonnes from the City landfill and 40,000 city-wide and reduce emissions by and estimated 100,200 tonnes CO2e per year.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 5 of 6 31 Community of Practice Scope and Background The City has much to learn from our ICI partners, and they from each other, as we introduce new building efficiencies, retrofits, electric vehicles, and waste management practices. Through communities of practice, we can facilitate this transfer of knowledge. The proposed High Performance Civic Buildings (HPCB) project provides an opportunity to initiate a Buildings Group which could inform the preparation of HPCB, as well as provide a way for the City to share learnings with other organizations. Some work has been carried out toward the preparation of a HPCB Policy and further work is needed to ensure that new buildings and retrofits are carried out in a consistent and optimal manner. The work is described in three parts: Preparation of a policy for new municipal building construction. The cost is estimated at $85,000; Enhanced performance requirements to Passive House standards, estimated at $125,000; and implementation of a rating or performance system for existing buildings and retrofits, estimated at $225,000. Capital for incremental costs resulting from implementation of the new policy would need to be requested in the capital budget for any new construction project(s). Each new capital project should also carry costs for internal staff to support the policy implementation and continuous improvement of the implementation guide. Following the initiation of a High Performance Buildings Community of Practice, other areas of interest may follow with interested Stakeholders, such as electric vehicles and infrastructure, energy generation or waste management. Budget The first phase, preparation of a policy for $85,000, is being prioritized for funding from the RCE/Gas Tax. Engagement and Partnerships The City’s work toward high performance buildings creates excellent opportunities for collaboration with other institutional and corporate owner/operators, as well as the building industry, realtors and property managers, especially around topics of energy performance: commissioning, air migration, and reporting and measuring performance. Benefits Reduce energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and landfilled waste in City owned buildings; Increase employee/occupant comfort and health in City owned buildings leading to increased employee engagement, productivity, and reduced sick leave; Decreased operating costs, and overall reduced life-cycle costs of buildings; and Learn from community partners.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 6 of 6 32 APPENDIX 3 Low Emissions Community Plan Amendments and Clarifications
Stakeholders have brought forward concerns about language within the Low Emissions Community (LEC) Plan that appears to suggest that the City of Saskatoon (City) would introduce municipal codes in advance of the Canadian National Building Code (NBC), the National Energy Code for Buildings (NECB), and The Uniform Building and Accessibility Standards Act (the UBAS Act); and that through this, the City would mandate retrofits, energy caps, and design of new buildings ahead of regulatory expectations elsewhere in Saskatchewan. The City would like to clarify that this is not the intention, and that the LEC actions are meant to align with the NBC, NECB and the UBAS Act. The Government of Canada has stated it will work with provinces and territories to develop a net zero energy ready building code to be adopted by 2030.1 The next iteration of the Codes, could potentially include components of an energy step code as seen in British Columbia. For the purposes of the LEC plan projections, it is assumed that the province of Saskatchewan with continue to adopt the NBC and NECB. Energy Consumption Code Thermal energy consumption standards for energy use intensity (EUI) and thermal energy demand intensity (TEDI) are included in the British Columbia Step Code as a component of the building design. Targets in the LEC Plan anticipate EUI and TEDI improvements in a future NBC step code.
The LEC Plan anticipates that in future NBC and NECB requirements, more rigorous EUI and TEDI standards will be required in the building design. Energy modelling would be used at the design stage to demonstrate that the energy standards are being met and if they are not, design modifications would occur in order be compliant with the code. These energy design standards are relevant at the building design stage and the intent is not that an operational building would have an energy use cap and the heat or electricity would be cut off if exceeded.
Municipal Step Code A municipal step code has been effectively used in British Columbia. Stakeholders have indicated that Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) may introduce a step code as part of the NBC and NECB and that performance requirements in the later phases of the step code are likely to be similar to those outlined in the LEC Plan (e.g. Passive House standard).
Currently, the City intends to continue aligning our regulations with the provincial adoption of codes; the City does not have plans to get ahead of the code and will work with industry to build capacity and prepare for code changes.
1 Homes and Buildings, climate change, government of Canada, 2018
33
Mandatory Retrofits Current language in the plan indicates that the City might eventually mandate retrofits. The City does not intend to do this unless it is regulated at a provincial level.
Amendments to the LEC Actions As a result of this feedback, the Administration will amend language within the LEC Plan for further clarity around the role of the City and alignment with Provincial regulations. These amendments are outlined in Table 1. A revised version of the LEC Plan will be available on the City’s website. Table 1. Amendments to the Low Emissions Community Plan Actions. LEC Current Language of LEC Replace with Amended LEC Action Action Action Number 6 Create an electric and thermal In alignment with provincial legislation, energy consumption cap for plan and prepare for electric and thermal new home construction by energy consumption reductions for new utilizing a municipal step code home construction (as anticipated in future NRCan step code).
7 Require new homes to include In alignment with provincial legislation, roof solar Photovoltaic (PV) plan and prepare for the use of roof solar installations in the final year of Photovoltaic (PV) installations in new a municipal step code. homes (as anticipated in the future NRCan step code – later stages).
8 Create an electric and thermal In alignment with provincial legislation, energy consumption cap for plan and prepare for electric and thermal new Industrial, Commercial energy consumption reductions in new and Institutional (ICI) Industrial, Commercial and Institutional construction by utilizing a (ICI) construction (as anticipated in future municipal step code. NRCan step code).
9 Require new ICI buildings to In alignment with provincial legislation, include roof solar PV plan and prepare for new ICI buildings to installations. In the final year of include roof solar PV installations (as a municipal step code. anticipated in the future NRCan step code – later stages).
10 Incentivize and mandate Incentivize, and then in alignment with homeowners to perform deep provincial legislation, plan and prepare for energy retrofits homeowners to perform deep energy retrofits.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 2 of 3 34 11 Incentivize and later mandate Incentivize, and then in alignment with ICI owners and operators to provincial legislation, plan and prepare for perform deep energy retrofits. ICI owners and operators to perform deep energy retrofits.
12 Require energy efficiency Incentivize, and then in alignment with improvements residential and provincial legislation, plan and prepare for ICI building lighting systems. energy efficiency improvements to residential and ICI building lighting systems.
13 Incentivize and later mandate Incentivize, and then in alignment with homeowners to upgrade provincial legislation, plan and prepare for household appliances to homeowners to upgrade household energy and water efficient appliances to energy and water efficient models. models.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 3 of 3 35 APPENDIX 4 Triple Bottom Line Draft Project Plan
Project/Initiative Name: Triple Bottom Line Draft Project Plan Date Created: September 26, 2019 Contact Name: Shannon Dyck Department/Division: Utilities and Environment, Sustainability
Scope
The scope includes roll-out of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Council Policy and corresponding decision-making framework across the corporation through initiatives that increase employees’ understanding of the Policy, build each divisions’ capacity to incorporate a TBL approach into their work, and support uptake and compliance.
The TBL initiative is meant to position the broadly-defined principles of sustainability as a responsibility of the entire organization, whereby each division and each employee has a role to play in ensuring its success. For this reason, a set of initiatives have been identified that will support employees as they apply a sustainability lens during the planning, design, implementation, monitoring, and reporting of new and existing initiatives.
Leadership Commitment, Guiding Value, and/or Strategic Goal Alignment
This initiative will allow the City of Saskatoon to make decisions and achieve its strategic priorities in a more comprehensive, consistent, and sustainable fashion by integrating: environmental health and integrity; social equity and cultural wellbeing; economic prosperity and fiscal responsibility; and good governance.
Draft Implementation Plan
Q3-4 2019 Wrap Up Preliminary Scope of TBL Work
Task Description Complete the TBL Decision Making Finalize version 1.0 of the tool for corporate use. Lock the spreadsheet. Tool Reach out to Present information on the TBL Policy and Decision Making Tool to SMT. Highlight next steps. Invite further Directors at SMT conversations and follow-ups. Meeting Corporate Email / An email from the City Manager that includes a “staff directive” to use the tool once the TBL Council Policy Staff Directive becomes effective. Provide an update in a My City email. Complete Pilots of To ensure the TBL Tool works for a diversity of projects and incorporates employee feedback, a series of the Decision Making pilots will be conducted with existing initiatives from across the corporation. Tool Create an Internal Save the TBL Tool and Policy on SharePoint. Describe what TBL is, include opportunities to learn more SharePoint Page on about it, etc. TBL
Q1-2 2020 Formalize processes: Plan Next Scope of TBL Work
Create a New TBL Project Charter and Complete Project Management Documents Develop a New TBL The new Steering Committee will decide on governance and responsibilities; roll out; and operationalizing Steering Committee TBL. Determine role of A new Advisory Committee could support TBL Tool improvements; roll out initiatives; education and TBL Advisory capacity building; etc. Committee As a way of prioritizing which initiatives undergo a full TBL evaluation, define Tier 1, 2 and 3 initiatives (a Define Tier 1, 2 and 3 draft TBL Prioritization - Tier 1 2 3 Initiatives document is complete). Initiatives Next step: Reach out to project leads for initiatives that fall into the highest priority category (Tier 1) to conduct TBL evaluations. This could include some or all of the 180 capital projects that Council is reviewing.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 1 of 4 36
Create a visual flow-chart that maps out the TBL process including: When and how to use TBL based on Tier 1, 2 and 3 initiatives; When to use the Full or Abridged Tool; Create a Decision Who should use the tool / how TBL applies to staff; Making Tree / Process Map Tasks/steps associated with TBL; Training opportunities; How TBL is linked to other City processes, such as tracking, Continuous Quality Management System, procurement, project management, etc. Organize one-on-one meetings with division directors to discuss ways that a TBL lens may be applied/embedded into their existing processes and work plans. For example: Determine whether there are ways to integrate TBL into their operations, beyond just using the tool. Discuss how to potentially create TBL champions/ambassadors in each division. Meet with
Leadership/Directors Specific opportunities: from each Division Meet with Strategy and Transformation to discuss how to best operationalize the decision making tool – i.e. through Process Improvement Coordinators and Business Relationship Managers (as ambassadors). Work with those who lead Business Planning and Budgeting processes. Collaborate on Sustainable Procurement with Supply Chain Management. Goals and objectives How-To Guide for the Decision Making Tool Specify how often the Tool will be reviewed and updated Define when to use the full length vs abridged version of the TBL Tool Describe the role of the TBL project lead Create an Establish when and how check-ins will occur “Operating” Manual Describe reporting expectations of TBL implications (i.e. how, what, and when to report to for the Policy management, council, and committee) Provide examples of how the TBL approach can be used at different points during the project development and management process. e.g. review at the scoping phase of an initiative to refine project scope; to inform business case development; to help select and narrow down options; to inform procurement documents and scope; at each phase of a stage gate approach; to determine which initiatives or decisions proceed (go / no-go); to support grant, contract, or proposal writing; and at project closure Complete an Abridged Version of Create an abridged version of the Tool for Tier 3 initiatives. the TBL Tool Create a TBL Intake Develop an intake process for TBL assessments. Include a way of prioritizing initiatives. Process / Form Align TBL with the Add a TBL implications section to the City’s Project Management Templates, such as the Project Charter City’s Project and Business Case templates. Also include the TBL Decision Making Tool on the Project Management Management SharePoint page. Framework The purpose of this sub-committee would be to annually review X% of projects that have completed a TBL Develop a TBL Sub evaluation (e.g. one initiative from each division) to ensure compliance and completeness of the tool. They Committee to could also assess which divisions seem to have capacity for this work and where more resources might be Audit/Review Results required. They could also flag knowledge gaps and/or opportunities for further education for those filling out
the tool.
Q1-4 2020 Operationalize: Run Year 1 Trial of TBL Program
Continue to Pilot the Decision Making Tool until a More Complete TBL Program is Launched The Sustainability Division will assist employees, project teams, and project leads by guiding them through Support Staff to the completion of the TBL Tool (i.e. for decision making, initiatives, business planning, multi-year Complete TBL Tool budgeting).1 Completed TBL evaluations will be reviewed for thoroughness and compliance, while Evaluations improvements and additional considerations may also be recommended.
1 Does not include the creation of business cases, data gathering, or analysis. City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 2 of 4 37 The Sustainability Division will develop and deliver employee training (online and in-person) as part of the City’s Learning and Development Opportunities calendar. Specifically, the training will: Provide a broad overview of what TBL/sustainability is Develop and Deliver Provide an overview of the TBL Policy Employee Training Outline how and when to use the TBL Decision Making Tool Specify Council reporting and internal reporting requirements Showcase relevant and meaningful linkages of how a TBL framework can support employee work plans and initiatives Provide Staff To ensure TBL outcomes are reported on correctly and consistently, review the TBL Implications of Council Support for Council Reports and provide one-on-one support to staff as necessary. Reporting Identify what data the City is already measuring and collecting in each of the TBL areas. Identify targets set by the City that relate to TBL. TBL Data and Assess where TBL data and target gaps exist. Targets – Alignment Link existing (and relevant) City data and targets to the TBL Decision Making Tool. Identify and Gap Analysis whether additional data and/or targets should be considered. Determine how TBL links to / supports existing plans and reports Link TBL to World Council on City Data (WCCD ISO 37120) Align TBL with Explore how TBL might link with Research Junction selection criteria, as well as other research projects and Research partnerships. Publish a Public- Provide a high level overview of the City of Saskatoon’s commitment to TBL by creating a page on the Facing Webpage City’s existing website. Evaluate the Year 1 Trial Program in Q4 and Adjust /Strengthen as Necessary
Q3-4 2020 Quality Management: Develop Enhanced Supports, Tools, and Processes
Develop a Toolkit using Continuous
Quality Management System Templates Develop Train the
Trainer Packages Develop a TBL Team
Talk Lead an internal Community of Practice that offers opportunities for employees to learn, share knowledge, Develop a TBL collaborate, and develop cross-divisional initiatives that achieve the City’s TBL objectives. Opportunities to Community of learn about specific TBL indicators and success measures will be provided (e.g. through World Café style Practice workshops), as will “open” learning opportunities where employees may go through the TBL Tool on their own with subject matter expert(s) on hand to answer questions. Determine ways to work with the community and external partners to enhance and improve upon the TBL Work with External approach. Possible approaches: Develop a TBL Community of Practice; share best practices; add external Partners to Enhance partners/agencies to the Contacts column of the TBL Tool; explore where related subject matter expertise the TBL Approach exists in the community for indicators and success measures. The Sustainability Division will work with a policy professional / consultant to map out how the TBL Policy aligns (or does not align) with the City’s existing Council Policies in order to identify: Policy Alignment - Which Council Policies already incorporate one or more TBL principle; Conduct Council Which individual policies might benefit from being updated using a TBL lens; Policy Analysis Whether the suite of existing Council Policies support a holistic TBL approach, or if changes need Research Policy to be made to better support the City’s sustainability objectives; and Whether any existing policies should be removed or new policies added in order to better support a TBL approach.
2021 Roll Out Enhanced Features of the TBL Program
Run Year 2 Trial of Evaluate the Year 2 Trial Program TBL Program Identify and Prepare Find Opportunities to “Automate” Implementation (where possible) e.g. Develop a central for Next Steps (Q3-4 repository to upload TBL evaluation results 2021)
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 3 of 4 38 Transition Ownership of Tool. The TBL approach encompasses four principles that, while mutually supportive, require varied content and context expertise. Near the end of the 2-year trial, project stakeholders should determine which division(s) the TBL Tool and portfolio of work make the most sense to be housed within. Identify Resources for 2022+ if needed
2022+ Future Opportunities
Secure Staff Support Identify and designate City staff/divisions to provide support, expertise, and data for each TBL success for Each TBL Area measure. Identify and Secure Resources for Seek resources and build capacity internally to measure and track each of the TBL success measures. Ongoing While some divisions may already have people assigned to conduct data measurement, monitoring, and Measurement and analysis, some divisions will need additional support. Monitoring
Third Party Review of Seek a third-party Decision-Making and/or Applied Sustainability consultant to review the effectiveness and Decision Making uptake of the TBL decision making framework. Framework
Run an education and awareness program that promotes sustainability frequently and widely by: Communicating sustainability messages through internal channels; Develop and Deliver Hosting speakers, workshops, book clubs, and other engagement and learning opportunities; a TBL Education & Providing support for employees to make sustainability decisions in their personal lives; Awareness Program Recognizing employees and/or holding celebrations for their contributions; and Including sustainability messages in day-to-day procedures, such as in press releases, newsletters, and meetings. To support continuous improvement and learning, provide employees (such as project managers, Provide Third-Party / coordinators, and members of leadership) with opportunities to gain TBL training from a third party Professional Training sustainability professional / organization.
Costs
Budget - Estimate: The capital budget prioritization process City Council is currently completing includes an estimated $130,000 in 2020 and an additional $130,000 in 2021 to operationalize the TBL Policy.
Cost Management Plan: The Project Manager will be responsible for managing and reporting on the project’s cost throughout the duration of implementation. The Project Manager is responsible for accounting for cost deviations and presenting the Project Sponsor and Director with options for getting the initiative back on budget. The Project Sponsor and Director have the authority to make changes to the project to bring it back within budget.
Approvals for budget/cost changes must be approved by the Project Sponsor and Director.
Quality
Quality Management Plan: The Project Manager will be responsible for managing and reporting on quality management throughout the duration of implementation, including updates to the Project Team, Steering Committee, Project Sponsor, Director and Key Stakeholders with items that are (or are at risk of becoming) below minimum required quality standards.
The Project Team, Steering Committee, Project Sponsor, Director, and Key Stakeholders may make suggestions for quality improvements at any time. Each suggestion will be reviewed to determine the benefit of implementing the improvement, and how the improvement will impact the project. If an improvement is implemented, the Project Manager will update all associated documentation to include the improvement.
City of Saskatoon, Utilities & Environment, Sustainability Page 4 of 4 39 INFORMATION REPORT
Saskatoon Freeway Project Update – October 2019
ISSUE This report provides an update on the progress of the Province’s Saskatoon Freeway project.
BACKGROUND The Government of Saskatchewan, through the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure, is engaging in a functional planning study that will finalize the right-of-way plan, produce project cost estimates, and determine the interchange locations and configurations. The freeway is expected to be a four-lane, 55-kilometre long divided highway that begins at Highway 11 south of Saskatoon and connects with Highway 7 west of the city. The functional planning study will consider the placement of 16 interchanges, five railway overpasses, at least two flyovers, and one major river crossing. The study is scheduled to be completed in 2021. Currently, there is no timetable for a final decision regarding the freeway’s construction.
The study is broken into three phases: Phase 1 – Highway 16 northwest of Saskatoon to the South Saskatchewan River Phase 2 – South Saskatchewan River to Highway 11 south of Saskatoon Phase 3 – Highway 7 west of the City to Highway 16 northwest of Saskatoon
The study’s organization chart is shown in Appendix 1. It consists of two committees, six Technical Working Groups (TWG) and one Sub-TWG. Each of these committees and TWGs, except for the Executive Management TWG, have at least one City representative. Councillor Randy Donauer is a member of the Steering Committee. The report below provides a progress update for each TWG.
CURRENT STATUS Stakeholder Engagement & Communications TWG The project website is live and has seen a steady growth in visitors. Regular updates are made to the website and also sent via email to subscribers. The stakeholder registry is complete and consultation continues. Public open houses are planned for later this year. Throughout the functional planning study process, a wide range of stakeholders and members of the public will be asked to share their input. A survey is available at saskatoonfreeway.org to better understand how stakeholders and members of the public would like to be engaged as the functional planning study progresses.
Structural, Geotechnical & Pavements TWG Phase 1 of the Bridge Option Study is almost complete. This evaluates the type of bridge that will be constructed.
ROUTING: Transportation & Construction – SPC on Transportation - No further routing. DELEGATION: Jay Magus October 7, 2019 – File No. CK 6000-1 Page 1 of 4 40 Saskatoon Freeway Project Update – October 2019
Geotechnical borehole testing is planned once the Bridge Option Study is complete. Pavement review will begin after geotechnical investigation and traffic projection modelling is complete.
Transportation Planning & Utilities TWG Phase 1 (Appendix 2 - Figure 2) is the most complex of the three phases. It is the north section of the Saskatoon Freeway and includes Highways 11, 12, and 16, as well as Wanuskewin Road, Millar Avenue, and the bridge over the South Saskatchewan River. This phase also contains proposed crossings of the South Saskatchewan River and a Canadian National Rail line.
The study team held a Design Workshop on June 27 and June 28, 2019 (Appendix 2). The purpose of this workshop was to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders to select a framework to address Phase 1 of the study. Agencies and associations with strong local knowledge of the area as well as members of the design team were invited to participate.
The Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure invited the following stakeholders to attend the Design Workshop: City of Saskatoon Rural Municipality of Corman Park Partnership 4 Growth Wanuskewin Heritage Park Meewasin North Saskatoon Business Association Saskatoon Tribal Council
The specific goals of the Design Workshop were for the participants to: Review four alternatives developed by the design team; Provide input from the perspective of individuals who work and live in the community; Identify best value performance criteria and evaluate which alternative will provide the best value; and Provide considerations for the design team to consider during development of future options based on the preferred alternative.
Based on the evaluation process in the Design Workshop, Alternative 4: Highway 11 Flyover (Appendix 2 – Appendix B) is the preferred alternative for the design team to develop further. The preferred alternative was selected as it best addressed the numerous technical challenges, including interchange spacing and access requirements, while ensuring the future Saskatoon Freeway meets all road design standards for safety, and future capacity needs for the community of 750,000 people.
Page 2 of 4
41 Saskatoon Freeway Project Update – October 2019
Key features of Alternative 4: Highway 11 Flyover include: Realignment of Highway 11 to Wanuskewin Road; Interchange connection to Penner Road at Highway 11; Interchanges at Highway 12 and Wanuskewin Road (Highway 11) with the Saskatoon Freeway; Connector from Millar Road to Wanuskewin Road; and A flyover across the Saskatoon rFreeway at an extension of Millar Avenue approximately at the old Highway 11 location.
After the selection of the preferred alternative, the Design Workshop participants provided some design considerations for the design team. These design considerations are being reviewed and incorporated into the options being developed for the next iterations of the preferred alternative. These options are expected to be finalized by late fall 2019 and presented to stakeholders and the public prior to the end of 2019.
Environmental & Heritage TWG The Desktop Baseline Heritage Resource Study is drafted. The wildlife and vegetation field surveys are to be completed in fall 2019. Meewasin is also conducting wildlife and vegetation field studies for the project, collecting information in the Northeast and Small Swales. These studies are expected to be completed in October 2019.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS The outcome of the transportation planning work to date will require the City to consider the transportation network to the south of the Saskatoon Freeway, and specifically plan for: The streets that will connect to the freeway; The streets that will flyover the freeway and provide regional connectivity; and The internal streets in the Riel Industrial Sector Plan.
IMPLICATIONS The information provided in this report does not result in any financial, legal, social, or environmental implications at this time.
NEXT STEPS The City will continue to work with the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure and study consultants on the Saskatoon Freeway project.
Planning required for the transportation network south of the Saskatoon Freeway will continue.
APPENDIX 1. Saskatoon Freeway Functional Planning Study – Organization Chart 2. Letter - Saskatoon Freeway Functional Planning Study Design Workshop for Phase 1 – Dated September 4, 2019
Page 3 of 4
42 Saskatoon Freeway Project Update – October 2019
Report Approval Written by: Sheliza Kelts, Senior Transportation Engineer, Transportation Reviewed by: David LeBoutillier, Engineering Manager, Transportation Jay Magus, Director of Transportation Approved by: Terry Schmidt, General Manager, Transportation & Construction Department
Admin Report - Saskatoon Freeway Project Update – October 2019.docx
Page 4 of 4
43 Appendix 1
Saskatoon Freeway Functional Planning Study – Organizational Chart
Ministry Executive
Steering Committee
Technical Committee
Executive Management TWG
Stakeholder & Structural, Transportation Geometric & Environmental & Communication Geotechnical & Planning & Drainage TWG Heritage TWG TWG Pavements TWG Utilities TWG
Utilities Sub- TWG
TWG – Technical Working Group
Page 1 of 1 44 Appendix 2
Ministry Highways and Infrastructure Design #18 – 3603 Millar Ave Saskatoon, Canada S7P 0B2
Phone: 306-933-5966
September 4, 2019
Jay Magus, P.Eng. Director of Transportation City of Saskatoon 2223 3rd Avenue North Saskatoon SK S7K 0J5
Dear Jay Magus,
Subject: Saskatoon Freeway Functional Planning Study Design Workshop for Phase 1
1. Introduction SNC Lavalin, AECOM and Praxis Consulting were retained by the Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (the Ministry) to undertake the Saskatchewan Freeway Functional Planning Study, which includes 55 km of freeway, 16 interchanges, 5 railway crossings, at least 2 flyovers and 1 major bridge crossing. The study area is included in Figure 1. Each phase will take approximately one year to complete with the project estimated for completion in late 2021.
Figure 1: Saskatoon Freeway Functional Planning Study Area
45 The study limits for Phase 1 (i.e. north section), which was the focus of the Design Workshop, are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Phase 1 Study Limits from West of Highway 12 to East of Wanuskewin Road
Phase 1 of the Saskatoon freeway is perhaps the most complex of the three phases. It is a busy corridor with Highways 11, 12 and 16, as well as Wanuskewin Road and Millar Avenue. This phase also contains proposed crossings of the South Saskatchewan River and a CN Rail line.
The purpose of the Design Workshop was to bring together a diverse group of stakeholders in an innovative atmosphere, to collaborate, deliberate and select a framework to address this complex section of Saskatoon Freeway in the north. Agencies and associations with strong local knowledge of the area, as well as members of the design team, were invited to participate. The Ministry invited the following stakeholders to attend the Design Workshop:
• City of Saskatoon • Rural Municipality of Corman Park • Partnership 4 Growth • Wanuskewin Heritage Park • Meewasin Valley Authority • North Saskatoon Business Association • Saskatoon Tribal Council
The Design Workshop for Phase 1 was held on June 27th and June 28th, 2019. The objective of the workshop was to help the Ministry of Highways determine the best alignment and interchange layout for the north section of the Saskatoon Freeway. The Design Workshop enabled participants to provide input towards a suggested layout that addresses local needs, meets all road design standards for safety, and meets the future capacity needs for the community of 750,000 people.
The specific goals of the Design Workshop were for the participants to:
• review the four (4) alternatives developed by the design team; • provide input from the perspective of individuals who work and live in the community;
46 • identify best value performance criteria and evaluate which alternative will provide the best value; and • provide considerations for the design team to consider during development of future options based on the preferred alternative.
Design Workshop participants were asked to share issues, concerns, and requirements with respect to the Phase 1 section of the project. This allowed the group to gain an understanding of issues from each participating stakeholder’s perspective.
2. Alternatives for Phase 1 To enable the design team to focus on the most complex area of Phase 1, the following project elements were outside the scope of the Design Workshop:
• Alignment is fixed at Highway 12 and at the Saskatchewan River crossing. Only minor alignment changes will be considered between the fixed points; • South Saskatchewan River Crossing; • Interchange ramp configurations; • Developing Service Road and Local Road network; • Interchange at Highway 16; and, • Phase 2 (east) and Phase 3 (west).
The design team developed and presented four (4) alternatives for Phase 1. The following key design challenges were factors in the development of the four (4) alternatives, which were presented to the Design Workshop participants:
• Closely Spaced Interchanges o 2.2 km between Highway 12 and Highway 11 o 2.1 km between Highway 11 and Wanuskewin Road o Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure desirable interchange spacing is 8 km; minimum spacing is 3.2 km o Interchanges between the Freeway and Highways (System Interchanges) require larger footprints (i.e. at Highway 12 and 11) o Close spacing will result in weaving concerns and poor operations in the future • Communities of Warman and Martinsville o Two rapidly growing communities close to Saskatoon will create high peak hour commuter traffic that must be accommodated with expected provincial highway traffic • CN Rail Crossing o Potential sight line concerns crossing over the railway • Proximity and access to Wanuskewin Heritage Park • Compatibility with City of Saskatoon and RM of Corman Park existing and future infrastructure.
2.1 Alternative 1: Three Interchanges
Alternative 1 is illustrated in Figure 3 and is based on previous transportation planning studies. The key features of this alternative include:
• Closure of Highway 11 from Highway 12 to the Saskatoon Freeway; • System Interchange at Highway 12; • Partial System Interchange at Highway 11; • Service Interchange at Wanuskewin Road; • Wanuskewin Road connection to Penner Road; and, • Potential connection from Wanuskewin Road / Penner Road to Warman Road (North).
47 Figure 3: Alternative 1: Three Interchanges
A critical concern with this alternative is the close spacing of interchanges and the risk of weaving movements between interchanges that may seriously impact traffic flow. One way to address this issue is the use of a core collector system. Figure 4 illustrates a typical freeway cross-section compared to a typical core collector system.
Figure 4: Typical Core Collector System Cross-Section
48 2.2 Alternative 2: Two Interchanges Alternative 2 shown in Figure 5 meets the Ministry’s minimum spacing requirement between interchanges. Spacing between interchanges is 4.3 km exceeding the minimum spacing of 3.2 km. The key features of this alternative include:
• Realignment of Highway 11 to Wanuskewin Road; • Closure of Highway 11 from Highway 12 to east of the CN railway; • System Interchange at Highway 12; • Hybrid Interchange at realigned Highway 11 and Wanuskewin Road; • Partial Service Interchange at Penner Road; • Millar Avenue to Wanuskewin Road Connector; and, • Potential connection from Penner Road to Warman Road (North).
Figure 5: Alternative 2: Two Interchanges
2.3 Alternative 3: Millar Flyover Alternative 3 is illustrated in Figure 6. The key features of this alternative include:
• Realignment of Highway 11 to Wanuskewin Road; • Closure of Highway 11 from Highway 12 to east of the CN railway. New Highway 11 relocated eastward; • Millar Avenue connection with flyover to Penner Road to provide additional access across the Freeway; • System Interchange at Highway 12; • Hybrid Interchange at realigned Highway 11; • Partial Service Interchange at Penner Road; • Millar Avenue to Wanuskewin Road Connector; and,
49 • Potential connection from Millar Avenue / Penner Road to Warman Road (North).
Figure 6: Alternative 3: Millar Flyover
2.4 Alternative 4: Highway 11 Flyover Alternative 4 shown in Figure 7 was developed to match the preliminary findings from the City of Saskatoon’s North Saskatoon Network Planning Study. The key features of this alternative include:
• Realignment of Highway 11 to Wanuskewin Road; • Reverting old Highway 11 to an arterial with flyover to Penner Road; • Hybrid Interchange at Highway 12 (based on Highway 12 south of Freeway classified as major arterial); • Hybrid Interchange at realigned Highway 11; • Partial Service Interchange at Penner Road; • Millar Avenue to Wanuskewin Road Connector; and, • Potential connection from Highway 11 Arterial / Penner Road to Warman Road (North).
The following key elements from the draft North Saskatoon Network Planning Study are incorporated in this alternative:
• Conversion of Highway 12 and Highway 11 to arterial roads with intersections; and, • Grade separation of Highway 11 at Saskatoon Freeway (no interchange).
50 Figure 7: Alternative 4: Highway 11 Flyover
3. Evaluation of Alternatives
3.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of the Alternatives
After the technical advantages and disadvantages of the four (4) alternatives were presented by the design team, the Design Workshop participants brainstormed other advantages, disadvantages, opportunities, potential risks and items for the design team to consider for each of the alternatives as the design proceeds. Appendix A includes the complete summary of the design team’s technical advantages and disadvantages for each alternative as well as the results of the Design Workshop participants’ discussions.
3.2 Performance Criteria and Measures
By consensus, the Design Workshop participants identified the performance criteria and measures by which the four (4) alternatives would be compared to each other in order for the participants to identify which alternative will provide the best value. Table 1 provides the performance criteria and their measures used by the Design Workshop participants to identify a preferred alternative.
Performance Criteria Measures Access Inside Freeway Access to industrial lands Access Outside Freeway Access to industrials, residential and First Nation lands Access to Wanuskewin Heritage Park Potential to provide full access from provincial Highway system Alternative Modes of Transportation Flexibility to integrate all modes of transportation, including transit and active transportation Connectivity to Municipal Infrastructure Aligns with future, planned, and existing infrastructure Interchange Spacing Meets Ministry interchange spacing requirements
51 Environmental/Heritage Impact Noise, view shed and sound scape impacts to Wanuskewin and Meewasin Valley Highway to Highway Connectivity Travel time passing through the city of Saskatoon Access Across Freeway for Intercity Travel Travel time and distribution of traffic across multiple points in and out of the City of Saskatoon
Table 1: Performance Criteria Measures
3.3 Performance Criteria Weighting
Each Performance Criteria required a weight to assist the Design Workshop attendees to more objectively evaluate subjective criteria (or attributes). Two evaluation techniques were used to determine the relative importance of the performance criteria relative to the requirements of the Design Workshop participants.
The first, is the Paired Comparison Method, which provides a simple, balanced approach for comparing multiple criteria. The Design Workshop participants evaluated the relative importance of the performance criteria that would be used to evaluate the four (4) alternatives to determine a preferred alternative. The weighted Paired Comparison Method table and its weights are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Paired Comparison Table
52 It is important to note that a low assigned criteria weight does not indicate that the criteria is not important, but rather that the criteria is not a significant discriminator between the alternatives.
The second evaluation technique is the 100 Point Allocation, in which all participants are given 100 points to distribute over the performance criteria based on their own opinion of the importance of each criterion to the project. Once all of the Design Workshop participants provide their weights for each criterion, the average of the weights for each criterion was calculated. The results of the 100 Point Allocation Method are provided in Table 3.
Table 3 also provides the weights for each criterion based on the Paired Comparison Method. The average of the two evaluation techniques is calculated and shown in the “Average of the Two Methods” column. The workshop participants agreed by consensus that the “Average of the Two Methods” weights highlighted in yellow in Table 3 were the most representative of the relative importance of the criteria and would be used to compare the alternatives.
Table 3: 100 Point Allocation Method and Selected Performance Criteria Weights
3.4 Alternative Evaluation Matrix
All participants of the Design Workshop then evaluate each of the alternatives against the performance criteria by using a rating scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is the worst and 10 is the best. The performance criteria rating is multiplied by the weighting of the particular performance criteria and summed with all other criteria ratings to provide an overall total performance score for each alternative. The results of the evaluation of the alternatives is provided in Table 4.
53 Table 4: Alternatives Evaluation Matrix
Based on the results of the evaluation, Alternative 4: Highway 11 Flyover has the highest performance score of 804. All participants of the Design Workshop agreed that Alternative 4 was the best value alternative and is the preferred framework for the design team to develop further.
3.5 Design Considerations for the Preferred Alternative
After the selection of the preferred alternative, the Design Workshop participants marked up the alternative display boards to provide design considerations for the design team to take into account in the next iterations of the preferred alternative. These design considerations are being reviewed and incorporated into the options being developed for the preferred framework. One example is the need to provide all movements at the interchange at Highwy11 / Penner Road to provide easy access into the Wanuskewin Heritage Park. These options will be presented to stakeholders and the public in Fall 2019 in order to gain additional input.
4. Conclusions
Phase 1 is the most complex of the three phases of the Saskatoon Freeway study, given the proximity of Highway 11, Highway 12, Wanuskewin Road and existing developments. The Design Workshop was required to quickly evaluated and select an alternative for further development. The preferred alternative was selected because it best addressed the numerous technical challenges, including interchange spacing and access requirements, while ensuring the future Saskatoon Freeway meets all road design standards for safety, and meets the future capacity needs for the community of 750,000 people.
The key features from the highest rated framework include:
• Realignment of Highway 11 to Wanuskewin Road; • Providing an interchange connection to Penner Road at Highway 11;
54 • Interchanges at Highway 12 and at the realigned Highway 11 with the Saskatoon Freeway; • Connector from Millar Road to Wanuskewin Road; and, • A flyover across the Saskatoon Freeway at the old Highway 11 location. The realignment of Highway 11 into Wanuskewin Road is a major component of the preferred framework. This change eliminates an existing high collision intersection (Highway 11/Wanuskewin Rd) and follows the flow of the majority of existing Highway 11 users turning onto Wanuskewin Rd.
The preferred alternative will provide the framework for all future options that will be developed and reviewed. The Ministry will continue working with its consultants and stakeholders to develop numerous options that will be shown to stakeholders and the public to receive additional input. These options are expected to be finalized by late Fall 2019 and presented to the public prior to the end of the year.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Meinert, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager
Enclosure
55
Appendix A Advantages and Disadvantages of the Alternatives
56
Advantages, Disadvantages, Potential Risks and Items to Consider for Each Alternative Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Opportunities Potential Risks Items to Consider
Alternative 1: Three Interchanges • Least amount of change to the existing • Larger property impacts near Wanuskewin Heritage • None identified • Early congestion, early failure • Potentially leave Wanuskewin Road where network; therefore, public opinion Park in traffic movement system it is located now may approve of maintaining continuity o cuts into their buffer the most (due to weaving between • Potentially, 10 lane wide crossing-core • Easy to add on more pieces without o possible to re-alignment to have less impact interchanges) collector complete redesign • Interchange spacing doesn’t meet Ministry’s • Penner Road gets more traffic • Consider impacts to TLE Lands • More points of access to Saskatoon minimum standards of 3.2 km’s between than model suggests • High speed ramp bulging out Freeway interchanges (3 interchanges in 4.3 km’s) • Land purchases required in • Potential right-of-way provisions may be • Opportunity to provide arterial • Highway 11 traffic enters a high-speed road on a East Cory Industrial Park required for Wanuskewin and trail along connection between Wanuskewin and curve, which is a potential safety risk the river Warman Road via Highway 11 • Increased capital and maintenance costs • Green network provisions (i.e. maintain overpass • Costs due to purchasing property within the corridors and consider future phases) • Basic Service interchange at industrial park • Residential future development northeast Wanuskewin o encroachment onto existing developed (NE) along the river; therefore, consider property future connections for alternative modes of • Additional structure required to separate railway transportation • Traffic accommodation during construction will be • Drainage network from Warman and difficult Martinsville needs to be considered • Connectivity north-south (N-S) is not as easily • City transit implications and accomplished compared to other alternatives accommodations potential for high • Less potential for active or alternative modes of occupancy vehicles such as LRT/BRT transportation, particularly at structures • SaskWater line / SaskPower lines to be • TWS Road 380 unable to maintain current considered connection • Consider Hudson Bay Swale impact • Concerns with complex and confusing overhead • Provision of N-S cycling routes for directional signing commuter cyclists • Ultimately may require core-collector lanes • Driver education and confusion due to core collector • Core collector would require additional property requirements and higher cost • Direct connection from Highway 11 into Saskatoon removed, results in out-of-way travel i.e. traffic must backtrack to Highway 12 or ‘zig-zag’ to Wanuskewin via Saskatoon Freeway • Requires 2.5 km closure of Highway 11
13/18 57
Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Opportunities Potential Risks Items to Consider Alternative 2: Two Interchanges • Eliminates an at grade rail crossing at • Provides less access to city compared to Alternatives • Potential north / • Crossing discussions with CN • Full access on Penner Road Highway 11 and CN 3 and 4 south flyover at • Potential risk with Penner • More traffic distributed to Wanuskewin • 2 interchanges spaced 4.3 km’s apart • Less traffic on Millar Avenue Millar Avenue Road vertical alignment Road inside City limits from Highway 11 • Allows for possibility of N-S flyover for • Abandoning infrastructure due to the 6 km closure • Land purchase for relocated • Consider impacts to TLE Lands at Warman Millar Avenue of Highway 11 Highway 11 Road north and west of existing Highway • Travel time reduced for Highway 11 • No provision for flyovers 11 • Opportunity to provide arterial o less access to city • Potential right-of-way provisions may be connection between Penner Road and o less connectivity required for Wanuskewin Heritage Park and Warman Road • Poor connectivity of local roads north and south of trail along the river • Millar-Wanuskewin Connection Road Saskatoon Freeway • Green network provisions (i.e. maintain provides opportunity to better • Less potential for active modes corridors and consider future phases) distribute northbound and • Lack of access from East Cory Industrial Park • Residential future development NE along southbound traffic • No direct access to Wanuskewin Heritage Park from river; therefore, consider future • Establishes north-south orientation of the north connections for alternative modes of roads to and from Saskatoon • Tight spacing between partial interchange at transportation • Reduced staging impacts at existing Highway 11/Penner Road and Highway 11/Saskatoon • Drainage network from Warman and roads (i.e. Wanuskewin Interchange) Freeway Martinsville needs to be considered • Speed transition from Highway 11 • Realignment of Highway 11 has the potential to • City transit implications and (Freeway) to Wanuskewin (arterial) draw more traffic to Wanuskewin accommodations potential for high provided through curvilinear • Poor connectivity of local roads north and south of occupancy vehicles such as LRT/BRT alignment with traffic signals at ramp Saskatoon Freeway • SaskWater line / SaskPower lines to be terminals • Poor access to Penner Road and Wanuskewin considered Heritage Park from the north • Consider Hudson Bay Swale impact • Provision of N-S cycling routes for commuter cyclists Alternative 3: Millar Flyover • Eliminates an at grade rail crossing at • Loss of infrastructure on Highway 11 due to using • City to take over • Crossing discussions with CN • Full access on Penner Road from all Highway 11 and CN Millar Avenue Highway 11 and use • Land purchase for relocated directions • More suitable for pedestrian • Poor access to Penner Road as arterial Highway 11 • Consider impacts to TLE Lands crossovers and alternatives modes of • No direct access from Freeway to Wanuskewin • Allow for • Potential right-of-way provisions may be transportation Heritage Park municipalities to required for Wanuskewin and trail along • Better accommodates future city • Poor access to East Cory Industrial Park (Highway 12 determine the road the river transit is freeway) network south and • Green network provisions (i.e. maintain • Safety due to interchange spacing • Wanuskewin Road access to Penner Road from the north of Freeway corridors and consider future phases) • Flyovers in-between interchanges to south is closed; access from south via Millar Avenue • Residential future development NE along allow for traffic in north industrial to • Realignment of Highway 11 has the potential to river; therefore, consider future exit/enter city easily draw more traffic to Wanuskewin Road connections for alternative modes of • Flow is simpler and less stoppages to • Requires 5 km closure of Highway 11 transportation keep flow higher for drivers; therefore, • Drainage network from Warman and less chance for driver error Martinsville needs to be considered o safer option as it allows drivers • City transit implications and to correct in a more spacious accommodations potential for high area occupancy vehicles such as LRT/BRT • 2 interchanges spaced 4.3 km’s apart • SaskWater line / SaskPower lines to be • Millar Avenue connection to Penner considered Road provides continuity with local • Consider Hudson Bay Swale impact road system • Provision of N-S cycling routes for commuter cyclists
14/18 58
Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Opportunities Potential Risks Items to Consider • Opportunity to provide arterial connection between Penner Road and Warman Road • Millar-Wanuskewin Connection Road provides opportunity to better distribute northbound and southbound traffic • Reduced staging impacts at existing roads (i.e. Wanuskewin Interchange) • Speed transition from Highway 11 (Freeway) to Wanuskewin (arterial) provided through curvilinear alignment with traffic signals at ramp terminals Alternative 4: Highway 11 Flyover • Eliminates an at grade rail crossing at • More out of way travel due to access to Wanuskewin • Allow for • Land purchase for relocated • Move Penner Road intersection north to Highway 11 and CN • No direct access from Freeway to Wanuskewin municipalities to Highway 11 accommodate for interchange to provide • Aligns with current City of Saskatoon Heritage Park determine the road • Crossing discussions with CN direct access to Wanuskewin sector planning for everything inside • Realignment of Highway 11 has the potential to network south and Rail • Consider impacts to TLE Lands Freeway, including not yet approved draw more traffic to Wanuskewin north of Freeway • Millar Avenue could be a signalized plans • Requires 2.5 km closure of Highway 11 intersection to continue to connect to • Existing Highway 11 staying near the Highway 11 railway • Leave Highway 11 parallel to railroad to not • Safety due to interchange spacing affect connectivity • Flyovers in-between interchanges to • Transition from high speed Freeway to allow for traffic in north industrial to interior city arterial roads exit/enter city easily • Spacing of Highway 11 to rail line may need • Flow is simpler and less stoppages to realignment keep flow higher for drivers; therefore, • Full access on Penner Road less chance for driver error • Potential right-of-way provisions may be o safer option as it allows drivers required for Wanuskewin and trail along to correct in a more spacious the river area • Green network provisions (i.e. maintain • Better utilizes existing Highway 11 corridors and consider future phases) infrastructure • Residential future development NE along • More suitable for pedestrian river; therefore, consider future crossovers and alternative modes of connections for alternative modes of transportation transportation • Better accommodates future city • Drainage network from Warman and transit Martinsville needs to be considered • Good access to East Cory Industrial • City transit implications and Park (Highway 12 is arterial) accommodations potential for high • 2 Interchanges spaced 4.3 km’s apart occupancy vehicles such as LRT/BRT • Compatible with preliminary • SaskWater line / SaskPower lines to be recommendations from North considered Saskatoon Network Planning Study • Consider Hudson Bay Swale impact (Highways 12 and 11 converted to • Provision of N-S cycling routes for arterial roads with intersections south commuter cyclists of Saskatoon Freeway)
15/18 59
Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages Opportunities Potential Risks Items to Consider • Generally, maintains original road network • High level connectivity on local roads • Opportunity to provide arterial connection between Penner Road and Warman Road • Millar-Wanuskewin Connection Road provides opportunity to better distribute northbound and southbound traffic • Hybrid interchange at Highway 12 requires fewer complex moves, lower costs to construct • Reduced staging impacts at existing roads (i.e. Wanuskewin Interchange) • Speed transition from Highway 11 (Freeway) to Wanuskewin (arterial) provided through curvilinear alignment with traffic signals at ramp terminals
16/18 60
Appendix B Alternative 4: Highway 11 Flyover
61
Preferred Alternative
62 l~, o0 0 --
~ 4c~D ~"L-t'O
From: Candace Savage
Submitted by anonymous user: 142.165.170.143
Submitted values are:
Date Monday, November 11, 2019 To His Worship the Mayor and Members of City Council First Name Candace Last Name Savage Email [email protected] Address City Saskatoon Province Saskatchewan Postal Code Name of the organization or agency you are representing (if applicable) Wild about Saskatoon Subject Update on Saskatoon Freeway Meeting (if known) Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC) Nov. 14 Comments I would like to submit the attached comments and map to SEAC, in reference to the update on the Saskatoon Freeway that has been refereed to them from SPC Transportation. This submission comes from myself and Joanne Blythe, on behalf of Wild about Saskatoon. Attachments map wetlands affected by freeway.~ng re saskatoon_freewa~update.docx
The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.saskatoon.ca/node/3 98/submission/348915
i63 Figure 4 -Land Use Plan Math Sector Plan
ab:HT.S - MranuNwr.~~6urrr Legerxi c ~~~1 PoMn.~ ~wa~y+ Mw ¢IR) :'`• ca~w..~, c~Mnrw •~ t ■ F4.~pa.aic cR~r t~r+Mi hiUH~~' ~~iW ~BS~$~OOI! YYA Ct►~~vK•5+~ tcrr~ ~ (,iriln g~r~r i a+~a.~ . ►te ~~, tb~ir+►]s r • .+a.rt,w r+w 1dn. - Wr~+i~rl4~lrs~y _ NMM/ C~+~rcO tkxie+ _ l.ne u1. to er C4~Mrwr.d ~ Pkwo~er' 1~Awiaf Raans 4YAan imp lanl~ c~..~ k,~..~.F p r~.~a cis+»
64 Re Update on Saskatoon Freeway. Submitted to SEAC by Joanne Blythe and Candace Savage, Wild about Saskatoon, Nov. 11, 2019
Four years ago (November, 2015), city council approved an official plan for the
North Sector of Saskatoon. Section 6.5 of that Plan reads as follows:
Inclusion of Wetland Complex: As part of the North/Northwest Natural Area
Screening Study, the Wetland Complex [better known to most of us as the
Hudson Bay Slough] was studied in detail determining the ecological significance of each of the wetlands that make up the drainage channel....Two wetlands were identified as Preserve (5060 and 5364), and two other wetlands were identified as Manage 1 areas (5061 and 5360). [See attached map.] Wetlands identified as Preserve should be minimally impacted by development and preserved in (or improved to) their most pristine or highest functional capacity, while wetlands identified as Manage 1 areas are high quality wetlands that should be protected from development, where appropriate.
Development adjacent to and within natural features should [among other things] ... respect the ecological value and integrity of the resource; and feature ecological protection that may include the use of a buffer area that provides a transition between the natural area and the built environment.
The proposed Saskatoon Freeway cuts right through the Wetland Complex, compromising both 5364, identified as Preserve and 5360, Manage 1. And yet the only "environmental" issue considered in the current Update is disturbance to
Wanuskewin. The threat to the Wetland Complex is not even mentioned in the
65 The Ministry of Highways has been tasked with planning a highway, which it is proceeding to do. The City of Saskatoon, by contrast, has broader and more encompassing goals. Have your representatives on the steering committee or the
Environment and Heritage Technical Working Group insisted that the City's development guidelines, as specified in the North Sector Plan, be followed? Have you questioned the criteria that are being used to make decisions? It is past time for the City of Saskatoon to advocate for its own stated goals.
66 ~oc~c~- ~ ~' ~~os~~
From: Richard Huziak Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 12:24 PM To: City Council Subject: Form submission from: Write a Letter to Council ~~~~~~~~ Attachments: seac_14_nov_swalewatchers.pdf NOV 12 2019 Submitted on Tuesday, November 12, 2019 - 12:23 (CITY C ERK'S OFFICE i B~SKAT04N Submitted by anonymous user: 204.83.154.189
Submitted values are:
Date Tuesday, November 12, 2019 To His Worship the Mayor and Members of City Council First Name Richard Last Name Huziak Email Address City Saskatoon Province Saskatchewan Postal Code Name of the organization or agency you are representing (if applicable) Northeast Swale Watchers Subject Commenting in regard to Item 7.3, Saskatoon Freeway Project Update —October 2019 [CK 6000-1 x 4205-40) Meeting (if known) SEAC November 14, Item 7.3, Saskatoon Freeway Project Update Comments RICHARD HUZIAK WISHED TO SPEAK TO THE Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee regarding Item 7.3 on Nov. 14. Comments are attached. I understand I will be given 5 minutes. Attachments seac 14 nov swalewatchers.pdf
The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.saskatoon.ca/node/3 98/submission/349000
i 67 12 November 2019 CE~VED Northeast Swale Watchers NOV 1 2 2019 (CITY CLERK'S OFFICE To: ~ SASKATOON Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee
RE: SEAC Meeting, November 14, 2019
In regard to Item 7.3, Saskatoon Freeway Project Update —October 2019 [CK 6000-1 x 4205-40)
Richard Huziak requests to speak at this meeting and to submit this brief.
Chair, Ms. Harrison, Committee members,
Information attached to the SEAC agenda for item 7.3 contain the same reports that were presented to the October 28 City Council meeting. We are unaware if SEAC is aware of the speakers at the Council meeting who did not support the Traffic Report. In the Minutes of the Oct 28 meeting, you will find that 8 groups spokes, and 6 more people submitted lettersz, in opposition to accepting the destruction of the Small and Northeast Swales that would result from the acceptance of the freeway alignment in Phase 1 & Phase 2 Freeway planning. Acceptance of Phase 1 will doom the Swales that will be reviewed in Phase 2 planning.
In the video of the October 28 Council meeting, presentations are as follows, if you would like to view them:
00:14:20 Start of Traffic Report discussion 00:15:55 Jay Magus (City Admin)
Eight speakers in opposition: 00:24:45 Warrick Baijius 00:31:05 Louise Jones 00:35:50 Keith Bell for Patricia Albers 00:40:50 Jan Norris 00:45:45 John Egnatoff school - 2 great Kids 00:52:00 Max Abraham
1 See October 28 Council Meeting Minutes for 9.4.1. https://pub- saskatoon.escribemeetin~s.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=3bba2079-1c5d-49f7-b504- 656ae93c1e59&A~enda=PostMinutes&Ian =English&Item=46 z Letters submitted do not seem to appear on the October 28 agenda or Minutes. They can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c58v532gnaz0ewv/AAC3 BsZVyYZfJ n Baq nT71 68 00:57:45 Marcus Comfort 01.03:00 Candace Savage/Joanne Blythe Speaking in favour: 01:09:00 Andrew Shaw (NSBA) 01:12:30 Council discussion Evaluating the Phases of construction one at a time cannot be done, since decisions on any phase will affect decisions on previous phases. For example, severe destruction of the Swales that will be identified in Phase 2 will require a re-evaluation of Phase 1alignment and design. This project must be looked at as a whole and not in chopped sections. Some of the speakers' concerns are: 1. Swale Watchers is fully aware that the City wants to relieve truck traffic on 42"d Street, but this can be achieved by a roadway built anywhere, and not only by a road built over the Small Swale and Northeast Swale. The City of Saskatoon apparently believes the route of the Freeway is immovable. But the alignment of the freeway is a human-drawn line on a map for a plan apparently a decade away, whereas the Swale is geological feature thousands of years old that is immovable on the map. The human- created line is drawn over the worst possible location that causes the maximum destruction to the swales and will certainly affect the 100 animal and 200 plant species that reside in the swales. 2. The alignment severs the Swale, and there is no plan presented for an eco-friendly bridge or roadway design, though Keith Moen of the North Saskatoon Business Association has mentioned this in a CBC Radio interview3. Yet Highways has not proposed any such thing as far as we Know. A 1101 3. The environmental assessment of species is limited to the E-W area identified as the route of the Freeway and is of a limited time period of only a few months, so species' seasonal activities out of study period will not be identified. And the Swale has to be evaluated for impact for the entire N-S route of the Swale since animal migration is along the length of the Swale, 4. The Freeway route adds approximately 30 km of distance to travel around Saskatoon. This increases travel time and creates more GHG emissions. The distance issue has been seen on the Regina Bypass'. 5. Better and shorter routes won't even be discussed by Highways, such as a South and West bypass. This has apparently been excluded from consideration, even though a Highways report indicated the City would prefer this route or some parts of this routes. It also leaves an incomplete ring road, repeating the errors of Circle Drive. 6. The Freeway route continues to reduce the 3% of existing natural grasslands in Saskatchewan. 3 8-minute mark of https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-88-saskatoon-morning/clip/15740465-north- end-councillor-businesses-welcome-perimeter-highway 4 https://re~ina.ctvnews.ca/ring-rd-or-the-bypass-here-s-the-fastest-routes-around-retina-1.4663215 5 Saskatoon Highways Needs Assessment, Department of Highways 69 7. Even though the City has sent a request to the Ministry to respect City policiesb, such as the Wetlands Policy C09-041, Official Community Plan Bylaw 8769 (OCP), Civic Heritage Policy C10-020 & Triple Bottom Line Policy, there is no commitment by Highways to respect these policies. 8. That the weighing of the Environmental Impact for Phase 1at 3% is an indication of how poorly the Triple Bottom Line policy will be applied, even in Phase 2 where clearly the most important element will be the least amount of environmental destruction of the most sensitive area of the Swales. We do not feel that the poor showing for the environment in Phase 1 will get any getter weight in Phase2 since the incorrect make-up of evaluators occurred in Phase 1and will certainly be incorrect in Phase 2. There are many more points made, too numerous to include in this presentation. Please also note the several articles in the past two weeks regarding the issues surrounding the North Commuter Parkway'-$~9 where many comments regarding the performance of the roadway are being publicly discussed. These articles clearly point out the struggle between urban development and the desire to integrate with and to preserve the environment in urban settings. Seventeen animals (of which 14 were deer) have been killed on the NCP since it opened. This is huge kill-per-kilometre ratio on a poorly designed 3 kilometres of the NCP roadway when compared to the 139 animals killed on all other city roadway during the same time period. The problem will be far worse on the 110 I Please oppose the current planning for the Saskatoon Freeway, and please send a message back to Council that the environment needs protection, and that the Small and Northwest Swales need to be maintained in a functional state, close to the pristine nature that they are currently in. Sincerely, Richard Huziak For the Northeast Swale Watchers E-mail: 306 day, 306- evening 6 See 00:15:55 address by Mr. Magus in the October 28 presentation listed on Footnote 1. https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/mobile/we-will-took-like-geniuses-a-generation-from-now-council-asks-for-speed- limit-changes-on-chief-mistawasis-bridge 8 httgs://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/i-throw-up-mv-hands-as-a-driver-councillors-order-review-of- speeds-near-chief-mistawasis-bridRe- 1.5347853?fbclid=lwAR2pIr~6r~kppLTclYYngarrdlufC98iux6p2nKR 9Yg012wm56bJwklJlc 9 https://Saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/we-will-look-like-geniuses-a-generation-from-now-council-asks-for-speed-limit- chan~es-on-chief-mistawasis-bridge-1.4670167 70 From: Meghan Mickelson < > ~~C~~~E Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 10:12 AM To: City Council NOV 13 2019 Subject: Form submission from: Write a Letter to Council Attachments: 2019-09-petition-factsheet.pdf; 2019-09-petition-saveofsSgSKATOONF Submitted on Wednesday, November 13, ZQ19 - 10:12 Submitted by anonymous user: 71.17.233.235 Submitted values are: Date Wednesday, November 13, 2019 To His Worship the Mayor and Members of City Council First Name Meghan Last Name Mickelson Email Address City Saskatoon Province Saskatchewan Postal Code Name of the organization or agency you are representing (if applicable) Endangered Grasslands Alliance Subject Letter of concern -Northeast &Small Swale Meeting (if known) SASKATOON ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Comments Below is what I submitted to council on Oct 28 2019, along with an attachment of the Save Our Swales petition. Unfortunately it did not get sent along to you with the Saskatoon Freeway package, so I am resubmitting it for your information. I have also attached our fact sheet that gives more information about what is stated in our petition. To date, we have the signatures of 500 people who are concerned about this issue. I am writing in on behalf of the Endangered Grasslands Alliance. As a group seeking to protect native grassland, we are concerned about continued development pressures impacting the Northeast and Small Swales. With regard to the Phase I update for the Saskatoon Freeway, we would like to remind Councillors that no alternatives to this highway have been seriously explored, no long-term climate impacts have been considered, and no assessment of ecosystem function and value has been conducted. The types of questions that the City might ask about developments like this (guided by the Triple Bottom Line) are not being asked by the Province. For the Swales, as with Project Albany southeast of Regina, development is being prioritized over the protection of increasingly rare grassland habitat. Further south, our grasslands commons are being privatized, leaving it at risk and removing it fiom the public realm. Repeatedly, the Province has neglected the protection of at-risk and endangered wild species and habitats, and continues to neglect them through the planning of the Saskatoon Freeway. The City of Saskatoon also plays a role in this through its lack of commitment to legally protecting the Northeast Swale and Small Swale from development. 71 And so, for your information, I submit to Council a copy of apetition—addressing the freeway as well as continued urban development in and around the Swalesthat we are circulating. To date we have collected over 400 signatures from residents of Saskatchewan, most from Saskatoon, and will continue to our fight to save the Swales. Meghan Mickelson Chair, Endangered Grasslands Alliance endangeredgrasslandsalliance. ca Attachments 2019-09-petition-factsheet.pdf 2019-09-petition-saveourswales.pdf The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.saskatoon. ca/node/3 98/submission/349120 72 What are the swales? • Only 5.9% of Canada's prairie ecozone is to contain species at risk...areas of high scenic • Old river bed, with hills, valleys, wetlands and protected; value and unique physical native prairie grasslands • Estimated decline from 21% of historical features...recreational, educational and research • Greater swale (including Northeast Swale): 26 extent in 1994, down to 13.7% from 2015 opportunities" "` km long, about 2800 ha • On average, Canadian grassland bird • Grassland conservation typically achieved • Small Swale: core still being delineated populations has dropped 40%since 1970"' through Parks (national, provincial; ~6% of • Northeast Swale: southern 4-51an of the greater Information about the Acts protected area), ecological reserves (RAN and Swale (~ 300 ha), within Saskatoon city limits Wildlife Habitat Protectio~t Act (1981) other), special management areas, and managed • Could become one of the largest urban • 2014 — gov't decided to reduce crown land public pastures. grassland "reserves" in Canada' holdings, offered protected land for purchase; • Biodiversity Ac[ion Plan target of 12% in each • 200+ species of plants, including rare crowfoot • no consistency in requirement for continued of the it ecological regions"'; 2005 update: violet, rare plains rough fescue, and other ecological protection 5.9% of moist mixed grassland protected culturally significant species • Of 3.5 million acres originally protected • figures include former public pasture lands, • 100+ species of birds, including threatened and • 1.7m high value acres retained which are not technically protected, nor open at risk species, short-eared owl, common night • 1.3m moderate value acres eligible for sale to public. hawk, Sprague's pipit, loggerhead shrike Fvith easements. Limited connectivity between areas • Mammals, including deer, coyotes, jackrabbits, • 5m0 low value, for sale without restrictions Wildlife Act (1998) weasels, ground squirrels, and more! • Concurrent loss of public pasture protections Wild Species at Risk Regrilatio~:s (1999) • Amphibians, including rare northern leopard with Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration •Legislation meets 4 of 15 previously agreed- frog, vulnerable western tiger salamander (PFRA) divestment by province, though still upon criteria for species protection (National • Food and home for migratory and regional counted in RAN as `protected' area.'" Accord) birds, a dancing ground for sharp tailed grouse National Accord for Protection of • No other legislation for endangered species Why do they matter? E~adangered Species (1996) • 15 species protected; no changes since introduced, even though federal committees • Globally, temperate grasslands are most • 15 principles for species at risk laws, including added over 65 species, 18 in the last 6 years. endangered ecosystem (less than 5%protected, active designation and protection of species and •Federal listing does not mean provincial usually converted to agriculture) habitat, develop and implement recovery plans, protection, lack of listing means no protection: also "contain 18% of global soil carbon cooperation with other jurisdictions, "Species that are not listed [in the Regulations] reserves, more than any other ecosystem consideration of species needs in development, are not protected on Saskatchewan lands, except for forest ecosystems"" monitoring, awareness, enforcement. including public and private lands...have [no] • In 2015, Canada committed to protecting 17% Representative Areas Network (—I996) habitat designated or recovery plans written and of terrestrial area by 2020 • "network of ecologically important land and implemented on their behalf in the province."""` • 2016 —10.5% protected, half federally water areas across the province"" • Prairies, boreal and taiga plains least • "sample or piece of a particular landscape continues on other side protected which has been set aside to preserve natural and/or cultural features....reservoirs of biological diversiry...protection of areas known 73 Species listing comparison Some NE Swale species that are listed federally but not provincially: Birds -Threatened Sprague's pipit, barn swallow, loggerhead shrike, common nighthawk Birds —Special Concer~z Horned grebe, short-eared owl, rusty blackbird An:phibiarts Northern leopard frog, western tiger salamander Mamn:als American badger and maybe more we don't realize yet! i Vegetation Survey of the University Chemical Landfill Remediation Site and Adjacent Ciry of Saskatoon Buffer Lands, Mazch 2004, Meewasin Valley Authority ii SK Prairie Conservation Action Plan 2003-2008, ~~c;//www,gSan-ck.ore/docc/PGAP ActionPlan 2003 8.odf-200 iii Canadian Centre For Policy Alternatives (CCPA), Sustainable Future for SK, 2015 Highway information • No assessments of long or short term ecosystem ]gyp://environ mentalsoc i e (y.c~p-conten du nl oad s/2015/ • Planning from 1999 or before, multiple impacts, valuation of environmental goods and 03/Sust~nahle Futare for SK.odf `functional' studies since to `validate route' but services; iv Trevor Herriot, "Protected area targets", 2017, • No discussion of balancing costs and benefits ~://~revorherriot.bl og~oLcom/2017/02/how-is- did not predict actual development in NE. ~askatchewan-doing-on-iL.html for GHG emissions from construction vs traffic • 4lanes, 110kmlh, connects 11S to 16W as a v kepresentativeArea Ecological Reserve Fact Sheet, bypass, and relief of Circle Dr. truck traffic • No modelling of impacts from pollution (noise httn~pnhlica'onc.c kat h wan. /#/nroducts/92915 • $2b price tag could rise to $3b if P3, to include and exhaust) on natural areas, wild species, or vi SK Environment, Saskatchewan Area Network FAQ, maintenance; much of this goes to land owners home owners mah ://~:aw.endm mentg~vsk. fa alt. sox? DN=f6946hd6-174f-437f-8269-14bbbee9dh8d of to purchase right way vii RAN land use planning update for mining • No business case for the highway; planning is fact sheet assembled by ]~•//p ~bli adonc~ackat h wan. /#/nroducL/82718 endangered grasslands alliance driven only by traffic modelling and `needs' of viii CCPA, Andrea Olive, "Under Threat", 2018, https://endangeredgrasslandsalliance.ca/ httns://www,policyalt rna iv c. /sit a/d fa ~l lfil c/ud h~ucking. follow on facebook or instagram Dads/publi a 'one/ ackat h wan%200ffi /2018102/ map from saskatoonfreeway.org, Under%20Threatodf modified for clarity, 74 PETITION CALLING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SAVE OUR SWALES We, the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, wish to bring to your attention the following: • The Ministry of Highways is planning a 4-lane, high speed highway around part of Saskatoon and through the Swales; • The Northeast and Small Swales of Saskatoon provide food and habitat to a number of endangered and declining species, and many others not listed as endangered; are part of our shared natural heritage; and include rare fescue grassland and high quality functional wetlands; • The Provincial government is neglecting its environmental protection duties to adequately protect wild species, habitats, and ecosystems of local, regional, national, and global significance. This includes failing to develop legislation according to the principles agreed to in the National Accord far Protection of Endangered Species; failing to uphold and honour the intent of the Wildlife Act, Wildlife Habitat Protection Act, and the Wild Species at Risk Regulations by not protecting endangered species and their habitats through appropriate designation and listing; • Lack of adequate protection is leading to a decrease in many types of wildlife habitat—particularly grassland habitat declines in species populations and health, and a loss of local, regional, and national biodiversiry. Highways impact ecosystems through fragmentation, but assesssments of their environmental impacts are only done for site-specific boundaries, ignoring• their regional and cumulative impacts; We, in the prayer that reads as follows, respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan: Call on the Provincial government to: (1) suspend planning for the Saskatoon Freeway and development around the Swales until a regional cumulative effects assessment has been completed, (2) update the Wildlife Act and expand the list of wild species protected by Provincial regulation, (3) recognize the Swales as important ecological habitat and designate them as protected areas, and (4) ensure adequate long-term funding for research, management, and enforcement to protect the Swales for generations to come. Name (print) Address (print) Signature Email Please note: The name and address of the persons who sign this petition may be made available to the public if the petition is in proper form to be presented in the Legislative Assembly. TO ENSURE THIS PETITION IS TABLED IN THE LEGISLATURE, please: MAIL TO NDP CAUCUS OFFICE: 2405 Legislative Drive, Room 265, Regina, SK S4S OB3 (Phone: 306-787-7388) OR MAIL TO/DROP OFF: 621Main St, Saskatoon, SK S7H OJS (Phone: 306-6646101) 75 01-5536-103 - SASKATOON ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 2019 BUDGET - $7,800 TOTAL BUDGET DATE NUMBER DESCRIPTION DEBIT CREDIT BALANCE GL SPENT REMAINING Beginning Balance $7,800 Support to Student Action for a Sustainable Future 3/20/2019 22503 (SASF) for 2019/2020 $1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 6,000.00 EECOM 2019 Conference Sponsorship: Red Tailed 4/5/2019 1340 $500.00 $500.00 $2,300.00 Hawk $5,500.00 SEAC Social Media Plan 2019 - M. Van Buskirk 6/3/2019 3 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $4,800.00 Contract $700.00 2019 Budget Sponsored social media promotion 500 Student Action for a Sustainable Future (SASF) Program 1800 Public Education/Information Gathering 5,500 2019 Total 7800 2019 Forecast 2019 Forecasted Variance 7800 2019 Actuals 4800.00 2019 Budget 2019 Variance (Under) 4800 76