Loading...
2007-04-23_Supplemental Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour supplémentaire City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, April 23, 2007 Location: Common Council Chamber Supplemental Agenda 1.2 Committee of the Whole Open - Improving Council/Staff Dialogue 9.4(c) Letter from Ian Benjamin Objecting to Re-Zoning 440-458 Rothesay Ave. Re: 11.3 Photographs Relating to North End Affordable Home Ownership 12.13 Seasonal Development - Interim Report 13.2 Pension Funding and Administration of Employment City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 23 avril, 2007 Emplacement: Salle du conseil communal L'ordre du jour supplementaire 1.2 Comite plenier - Amelioration du dialogue entre Ie conseil et Ie personnel 9.4(c) Lettre d'opposition a la modification proposee Re : 11.3 Initiative pilote relative it la possession de maisons abordables dans Ie quartier Old North End (conseiller McGuire) 12.13 Amenagement saisonnier 13.2 Financement de la caisse de retraite et gestion des ressources humaines ~ '2 c,O;:{rJ REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M&C #2007-93 The City of Saint John April 10,2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: IMPROVING COUNCIL/STAFF DIALOGUE During a recent meeting with Common Council, I made a number of suggestions and commitments to Common Council. It was acknowledged by some that I raised many of these matters previously but at least one member of Council disavowed any knowledge of my previous request or suggestions. At the end of the meeting, Mayor McFarlane in his closing remarks, asked that I bring forward in written format my suggestions for Council to consider. For my part, I committed to provide all of Council, in a City Manager Update Format, specific details of any travel plans that I might have. This would replace the customary practice of my simply informing the Mayor. I also committed to work with the Mayor and Council to address the communication challenges facing the Council and the administration. Beyond these commitments, I did make other suggestions for Council to consider. These suggestions relate specifically to the sole authority of Common Council. These suggestions were: 1. That Common Council consider reverting to meeting every week so as to ensure Council is provided ample opportunity to be fully informed on operational issues as well as to provide time to the many groups who wish to appear before Council. 2. That Common Council schedule, not regular, but periodic meetings, with the City Manager to discuss personnel issues. The scheduling of such meetings would be left to the discretion of the Mayor, but would provide both Council and the City Manager the opportunity to meet their mutual obligations to each Report to Common Council Page 2 Subject: Improving Council/Staff Dialogue other to engage in effective and direct two way communications related to any personnel issues. 3. That Common Council initiate discussions with the Common Clerk, the purpose of which would be to discuss his continued involvement in this capacity. The current arrangement has exceeded the two year period that Council had discussed when making the appointment. 4. Although not specifically discussed, on March 29th, I would suggest that all of Council, not just the Vision 2015 Committee, become actively engaged in the discussions on Governance. Should Council wish to change the current system, it is of utmost importance that all of Council be extremely knowledgeable on this topic. Council must understand and agree upon the objectives that Council is trying to achieve when considering any change. I offer this suggestion on the basis that I have previously stated that the administration is seeking clarity from Council on this matter. Once clarity of purpose is known, certain changes within the administration are going to be required. In discussion with other managers in this organization, the general consensus is that any changes should be directly in line with Council's governance system, whatever that may turn out to be in the end. RECOMMENDA nON: That this report be receive and filed and the suggestions contained therein be considered by Com n Council. q , ~ c C/o: Mayor and Common Conncil FROM: Ian Benjamin 22 Parklawn Court Saint John, NB E2K 2B8 April 23, 2007 Submission for Public Hearin2. Propozed Rezonin2 of 440-458 Rothesav Ave. I am writing on behalf of my mother-in-law, Mrs Marjorie Denton, who lives at 3 Oakland St. The rear boundary of her property adjoins the site of the proposed rezoning. We are asking that, if you approve this rezoning, that you also leave intact the additional conditions recommended bv PAC last week. particularv those in section 2). and 0. The history of recent rezoning of other nearby Northrup properties is particularly relevant here. In March 2006, council approved the massive East Point development rezoning, even though PAC had recommended against it. After the public hearings, Deputy Mayor Hooton made a statement acknowledging that this project would reduce the quality of life of the neighboring Eastmount residents. There is no doubt that this has already happened, and will continue to happen indefmitely. In a letter to PAC, we requested additional cosmetic treatment of the rear property line of the proposed rezoned area, beyond what would be normally considered in other similar projects. Our reasoning is that the Oakland St residents are now completely surrounded by Northrup commercial developments. The benefits from these developments that will accrue to both the developer and the rest of the city are achieved in part at the expense of the Eastmount residents. It is only fair and just that a tiny fraction of these profits are used to fund the additional cosmetic treatments requested by us, and recommended by the PAC. We were disappointed but not surprised to learn that the developer, yet again, has chosen to disregard conditions and zoning boundaries imposed by the city. When the King Mazda dealership was built, the developer chose to ignore the zoning of the subject property by extending the paved parking area by 33 feet into the residential portion. In 1996, the building inspector had to initiate the last rezoning of the subject properties as an enforcement action. It is clear that the city needs to increase the amount of oversight provided by the building inspector's office on projects by this developer. The above noted encroachment should have been detected in July 2005 when the existing wooden fence was required to be completed. Why was the encroachment not detected until February 2007? Please keep in mind that the Oakland St residents have been encroached upon by Northrup developments for years. They deserve some protection and some peace of mind. ThankYO~ ~ --- -"'- - -.- -- ~ ----.- -- - -------- -------"-"-~ --- - -~~ ~ '~.-- .-,:----~- -'-,..,-..........'- - - ---.--. -""- ._~-~. ..:-,....---~- ,.-,-~....-,... ...--"" ~ --_........- .-~. .- ~.- -'" _...,""'--~- ..".-~-- ....-- ....-----....--- -_..-- ~",...--- -----' .. .. REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL I~ 1)3 M & C - 2007 - 123 April 23, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Seasonal Development - Interim Report BACKGROUND: At its meeting on October 23,2006, Common Council expressed its desire to permit and regulate seasonal recreational development (i.e. camps and cottages) . within the City of Saint John. At that time, the City Solicitor had advised Council that such an approach could be taken if: · Council is clearly of the view that such development is appropriate, notwithstanding the unavailability of emergency or road services; · Council confirms that view in an amendment to the Municipal Development Plan By-law; · Council adopts a resolution clearly stating that neither road nor fire protection services will be provided to the area or areas identified in the Municipal Plan amendment; and · the development in question be restricted to seasonal recreational properties. The issue arose as a result of an application by Mike McGraw for a building permit to construct a cottage on Kelly Lake in the northwest part of the city. The Development Officer had denied the permit application on the basis that this isolated area did not have adequate year-round access for emergency services. Mr. McGraw had appealed this decision to Common Council pursuant to Section 40 of the Zoning By-law, which states: "No building may be erected in the City in respect of which, in the opinion of Council, satisfactory arrangements have not been made for the supply of electric power, water, sewerage, streets or other services or facilities." City of Saint John Report to Common Council April 23, 2007 Page 2 ANALYSIS: Subsequent to Common Council's October 23rd meeting, several meetings were held among staff to discuss the issues as well as the policies and regulations that should be in place if seasonal development is to be permitted. A discussion paper was completed in March and distributed to various departments and agencies for further comment. The main points of the discussion paper and subsequent discussions were as follows: . Saint John's present policy of treating seasonal development in the same manner as year-round residential development is consistent with the approach of other communities across North America. Those communities that, in the past, did permit seasonal development to be developed at a lower standard are no longer doing so because of the resulting problems. . The major issue with cottages and camps located beyond the normal servicing area is that emergency response such as police, fire and ambulance service may be restricted by inadequate access. The inadequacy may be due to poor construction and/or lack of proper maintenance. Improvements are often problematic due to ownership issues or the unwillingness of property-owners to work together to carry out such work. . Even when cottage owners accept a reduced level of service initially, they or subsequent owners often seek improved service over time from the municipality. . Regardless of the level of service that is agreed to, emergency service providers have a fundamental mandate to attempt to aid citizens in crisis situations. There will always be a response despite the challenges that must be overcome to respond to an emergency situation. . There are at least three general situations that would have to be addressed by the adopted policies and regulations: - applications to construct new seasonal dwellings on existing lots; - requests to create new building lots for seasonal dwellings, both individual lots and multiple-lot developments, along existing or proposed accesses; - renovations and additions to pre-existing seasonal dwellings. . The required amendments to the Municipal Plan, Zoning By-law and Subdivision By-law would need to differentiate between cottage/camp and traditional residential development, and must establish a basic level of service and development standards that are considered appropriate for Report to Common Council April 23, 2007 Page 3 each. This would include a specific minimum standard of road construction and maintenance. · The resulting approach would consist of: - identification on Schedule 2-A of the Municipal Plan of the general areas of the city where seasonal dwellings would be permitted, together with specific policies for such development; - creation of a new zone or, alternatively, amendment to the "RF" Rural zone to permit seasonal dwellings; - a requirement that the property-owner enter into a formal agreement with the City, which would indicates that the property-owner is responsible for development and maintenance of access and other services that will not be provided by the City; - minimum access construction standards, based on the National Building Code standard for access route design. The details of this proposed approach have not been finalized at this time. A full report setting out the required amendments to the Municipal Plan By-law, Zoning By-law and Subdivision By-law will be prepared and submitted to Council for its consideration as soon as possible. In the meantime, it is recognized that the 2007 construction season has now arrived and that Mr. McGraw is anxious to proceed with his specific proposal. It is anticipated that the area where Mr. McGraw wishes to establish his cottage would be included in the areas identified on Schedule 2-A of the Plan as being appropriate for seasonal development and it is currently zoned "RF" Rural. In addition, a staff site visit to the Kelly Lake area indicates that the access in this particular case is well-built compared to many other private roads (and even some public roads). There are also other existing seasonal dwellings on Kelly Lake. The applicant has indicated his willingness to enter into an agreement setting out his responsibilities with respect to access and other services. If Council is satisfied with the provision of services to Mr. McGraw's property, his proposed development could be approved at this time on the basis that Mr. McGraw enters into an agreement with the City pursuant to Section 101 of the Community Planning Act. RECOMMENDATION: That, pursuant to Section 40 of the Zoning By-law, Common Council approve the application for a building permit by Mike McGraw for the proposed construction of a seasonal cottage at Kelly Lake, subject to a Section 101 agreement setting out the following: Report to Common Council April 23, 2007 Page 4 . the use is limited to a cottage/camp for seasonal use; . the access must be developed and maintained by the applicant in compliance with the National Building Code standard for access route design; . the applicant agrees that the City does not provide the full range of municipal services to the property. Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager JRB/r ~ \ 3 \ ON BEHALF OF MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL AND NON-UNION STAFF OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN April 23rd, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm MacFarlane And Members of Saint John Common Council Your Worship and Members of Common Council, RE: PENSION FUNDING AND ADMINISTRATION OF EMPLOYMENT We ask that Common Council consider the suggestions made herein - towards resolving the pension funding impasse and strengthening the essential bond between you, the Employer, and your responsible staff. We thank Council for its willingness to work with employee groups. We have asked staff to stay focused on their work, to remain professional in that work and dedicated to the public they service. Your management, professional and non-union staff people are very good people, public service professionals who recognize well their obligations to citizens. PENSION FUNDING Management, Professional and Non-Union (MPNU) staff members have a full stake in our pension plan and, as emphasized in our communications with you, we seek a real and lasting solution, with safeguards that protect all stakeholders. We also believe that the fundamental principles of sustainability, adequacy, affordability, equity, security and effective management should guide the plan and its funding policies. During our first opportunity to respond to the latest "turn of events" in the matter of plan funding, MPNU staff told you on April loth that we will not allow the shared funding solution to fail. Weare, in fact, committed to ensuring that does not happen. This group of employees was first to offer pension assistance to Council (on October 16th). In fact, our submissions were more generous (on the part of employees) and more complete than anything else proposed. Our views were documented and we clearly explained in public what we thought needed to be done. We know the issues, understand all actuarial numbers and are most sensitive to the public interest in this matter. On Behalf of Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Of the City of Saint John Re: Pension Funding and Administration of Employment April 23rtl, 2007 The principles we defined recognized not only the interests of plan members, but also those of taxpayers and ratepayers (of the water utility). Our underlying theme was "balance". MPNU staff recognized that systemic problems with existing pension laws. A mutual agreement was properly negotiated with the Employer on behalf of 90+ individuals - taking into account the interests of both individual and employer. We know principled negotiation, respect the interests of the various stakeholders and approach all of our dealing with others in good faith. Weare willing to contribute significantly to the pension funding shortfall. We have not been and will not be an obstacle; we are not the problem. We acknowledge and appreciate the respect shown for the rights of our group by CUPE Local 18 (outside workers), CUPE Local 486 (inside workers) and CUPE Local 61 (police officers), and their spokespeople. Our agreements were negotiated in good faith between legitimate employment parties. We initially met with representatives of IAFF Local 771 to better understand the reasoning behind their position. Weare not swayed by the stance they have taken. However, at the request of Council, we met on two additional occasions, most recently on Saturday evening past, in an effort to work towards consensus. Although the dialogue was positive and respectful, we were unable to agree jointly on a satisfactory resolve to the "impasse". We also discussed the matter with representatives of other civic locals. Memorandum of A2reement We have reviewed the current circumstances, be they just or otherwise, and considered how best to proceed in the interest of all concerned. Weare ever mindful of the larger public interest. Management, Professional and Non-Union (MPNU) staff have been the leaders in encouraging a shared solution to the pension plan funding shortfall; we will not allow the shared funding solution to fail. The MPNU group continues to maintain that an appropriate balance must exist between the interests of taxpayers/ratepayers and those of plan members, with due recognition of legal obligations. We continue to encourage a balanced solution. We ask that the intent and spirit of the 90+ agreements reached, in good faith, with our individual members be respected. These were properly negotiated between legitimate parties, based upon the interests put forward publicly, after much thought and deliberation. Each and every person in the MPNU group was asked to support the resolution negotiated with his or her "Employer"; we did not have the luxury of a simple majority. Page 2 On Behalf of Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Of the City of Saint John Re: Pension Funding and Administration of Employment April 23rd, 2007 Management, Professional and Non-Union (MPNU) staff will not allow the shared funding solution to fail. To that end, we will approach the issues that we believe require attention as follows: a. Amend the Memorandum of Agreement between each member of staff and the Employer to make them equivalent with those reached with each of the .. . CIVIC unIons. b. Notwithstanding our strongly held beliefs on the principle of equity, amend the Memorandum of Agreement by removing the clause concerning the current restriction on equitable benefits (2% per service year up to 35 years) and pursue resolution of that essential issue through the Board of Pension Trustees. It has been our clear intent, from the outset, to raise this legitimate issue and work towards addressing it in time, as the actuarial status of the Pension Plan permits. c. As indicated on April loth, we will amend the Memorandum of Agreement by removing the clause pertaining to contributions to a "person's RRSP or other account", notwithstanding that such provision is one that is proper and fitting. d. We want to add the following clause that is found in all the other agreements, but not that with MPNU staff: "The parties are committed to commence discussions no later than September 30, 2007 to look at the long-term funding aspects of the Plan including development of a detailed funding policy." This has never been about getting something, or getting more of something. It is about understanding valid issues, about working towards real solutions and about involving those who must be part of those solutions. It is about legitimate interests, doing what is right, and having meaningful dialogue in an employment relationship. The proposed Memorandum of Agreement is attached hereto. The parties need to get on with the "solvency exemption" process and settle on sharing in the funding solution. We understand that the "additional" employee contributions will be income tax deductible. We will encourage all MPNU staff to individually support the resolution proposed. PENSION PLAN EQUITY Our group of staff believes that it is treated inequitably and, with that, actually cross- subsidizes others. Denying the incumbents of the most demanding jobs (for individuals and their families) the ability to earn a pension based on 2% per year of service, like every other plan member, is not acceptable. For 25 years or more, staff pay at a level for Page 3 On Behalf of Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Of the City of Saint John Re: Pension Funding and Administration of Employment April 23rd, 2007 the same benefit as everyone else - 2% per service year - only to have it taken away after long years of service to the community. In the end, for this Plan to work and, in fact, sustainable, it must offer a schedule of benefits that reflects the contribution of service and dollars of all members. Conditions cannot arbitrarily and systemically discriminate against one sub-group or another. Assets of the Plan belong to all members; they are earned assets, paid for and entitled to. The letter from the Pension Board's actuary (Morneau Sobeco), dated January 18th, 2007, on pages 3 and 4 speaks to the issue and the costs associated with addressing it. The MPNU group will present its submission in writing to the Board of Pension Trustees. ADMINISTRA nON OF EMPLOYMENT Like employees with collective agreements, these responsible women and men should reasonably expect to have their employment interests properly and fairly administered. We propose a process towards building positive and healthy employment relationships We ask that Council define the principles that you believe should guide the work of your staff, identify the interests of the public (your interests) in the relationship, become knowledgeable of the "whole picture" and understand how various sub-systems interact in the larger scheme of things; then, be open to the views and interests of the other party. Sound employment policy, focused on positive outcomes, helps attract, motivate and keep good people. Good policy guides decisions, promotes shared understanding, clarifies expectations and helps ensure mutual fairness and equity. We believe it important to "connect" with your staff - in a relationship focused on positive outcomes, with expectations clear (and always ethical) and rights respected. Success - in guiding our community forward and delivering quality service to the public - demands clear and common objectives, understanding and diligence - with all energies aligned. Respect for management responsibility in that dynamic is critical to effectively serving the Saint John public. We are prepared to act immediately on the proposals made herein, to make this presentation publicly and to put forward a revised Memorandum of Agreement in Open Session of Council this evening. We are one team, a team moving forward! Thank you. Page 4 On Behalf of Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Of the City of Saint John Re: Pension Funding and Administration of Employment April 23rd, 2007 OUR SUBMISSION Your management, professional and non-union staff respectfully requests that Council consider the following: a. Approve the attached Memorandum of Agreement, with each member of Management, Professional and Non-Union staff ofthe City of Saint John; and b. Adopt the attached resolution regarding administration of employment. Respectfully submitted, Paul Groody On behalf of Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Of the City of Saint John c. Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff of the City of Saint John Page 5 ~ On Behalf of Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Of the City of Saint John Re: Pension Funding and Administration of Employment April 23rd, 2007 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN: The City of Saint John (the Employer) and AND: Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Member of the City of Saint John (the Employee) Whereas an actuarial valuation of the City of Saint John Employee Pension Plan (the Plan) as at December 31, 2003 has shown a significant funding shortfall on a going- concern and solvency basis; and Whereas in accordance with the Pension Benefits Act of the Province of New Brunswick the Employer has legal responsibility to make special payments over a period of up to 15 years to pay for this funding shortfall; and Whereas the parties to this Agreement recognize the importance of the Plan in the overall compensation of city employees; and Whereas in an effort to protect the provisions of the Plan and in recognition of the significant financial challenge being faced by the Employer, Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff of the City of Saint John (MPNU Staff) have recognized the importance of finding a shared solution with the Employer in addressing this funding shortfall. Therefore it is agreed that: There will be no reduction or enhancement of benefits provided for in the Plan during the three year period to December 31, 2009; and MPNU Staff, individually and collectively, will support the Employer's application to the Superintendent of Pensions for exemption from the solvency funding payments requirements of the Pension Benefits Act; and Notwithstanding the provisions of the Plan, employee contributions to the Plan will be increased by 2% of Pensionable Earnings effective March 1, 2007 to offset a portion of the contributions otherwise required from the Employer to fund the going-concern funding deficiency; and The increased Employee contributions will continue for a period of three years or until such time as the Plan's going-concern funding shortfall is eliminated whichever is sooner; and Page 6 On Behalf of Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Of the City of Saint John Reo' Pension Funding and Administration of Employment April 23rd, 2007 At no time during the three year period shall employee contributions be greater than contributions from the Employer; and The City will initiate amendments to the Plan so that commencing in 2010 employee contributions will be set at 50% of current service cost with a minimum contribution rate of7.5% to a maximum of9% of pensionable earnings; and The Employer will be responsible for making funding payments over and above the amount contributed by employees sufficient to satisfy the going-concern funding requirements of the Plan as required under the Pension Benefits Act with a minimum contribution rate of7.5% of pensionable earnings commencing in 2DID; and The Employer will correspond with the Board of Trustees of the City of Saint John Employee Pension Plan requesting that serious consideration be given to the suggestions made by MPNU Staff and the Civic Unions regarding actuarial assumptions to be used as part of the valuation of the Pension Plan to be completed as at December 31, 2006; and MPNU Staff (Employees) will support all amendments required to be made to the City of Saint John Pension Act to effect implementation of the terms of this agreement; and The parties are committed to commence discussions no later than September 30, 2007 to look at the long-term funding aspects of the Plan including development of a detailed funding policy. Dated this _ day of April 2007. To BE SIGNED BY EACH EMPLOYEE FOR THE EMPLOYER Employee Mayor Witness for Employee Common Clark Page 7 On Behalf of Management, Professional and Non-Union Staff Of the City of Saint John Re: Pension Funding and Administration of Employment April 23'd, 2007 ADMINISTRATION OF EMPLOYMENT ASK THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: Whereas the Employer and all its Employees, organized or not, want sound employment policy (or collective agreements) focused on positive outcomes to guide decisions, promote understanding and clarify expectations. And whereas achieving effective service to the public involves a sure and positive bond between Common Council and the people it appoints directly as its municipal officials. Be it resolved that Council ask the City Manager to review current employment policies and bring forward comprehensive proposals for the consideration of Council on the administration of employment, including processes of consultation with staff concerned and periodic renewal, for (i) non-union administrative support staff and (ii) management/professional staff appointed by the City Manager; and that Council is committed to adopting such policies. And, that Council, in conjunction with the City Manager and each member of staff appointed by Council, formulate joint understandings that define responsibilities and obligations, performance expectations, and terms of employment III a partnership of public servIce; and that Council is committed to entering into these formal understandings with each such member of staff. Page 8