2007-05-07_Agenda Packet Dossier--de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, May 07, 2007 Committee of the Whole 1. Call to Order 4:30 p.m. 8th Floor Board Room City Hall 1.1 Property Matter 10.2(4)(d) 1.2(a)
Labour Matter 10.2(4)(j) 1.2 (b) Legal Advice Labour Matter 10.2(4)(f,j) 1.3 Legal Advice 10.2(4)(f) 1.4 Request for Info 10.2(4)(f) 1.5 Legal Advice 10.2(4)(b,f) 1.6 Employment Matter
10.2(4)(f,g) 1.7 Legal Session 10.2(4)(f) Committee of the Whole Open Session Council Chamber 6:00 p.m. 1. National Police Week 2. Emergency Preparedness Week 3. Saint John Community
Loan Fund 4. Local 771 and Funding Pension Deficit Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order – Prayer 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Approval of April 23, 2007 Minutes 3. Adoption of Agenda 4. Disclosures
of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Surf City Synchro Club Request for Financial Assistance (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager) 5.2 Letter of Thanks Chicken Noodle Club
(Receive for Information) 5.3 CNIB Request for Sidewalk Ropewalk Rd (Recommendation: Refer to City? Manager) 5.4 Request Citizens Advisory of Vision 2015 and Environment Committee to
Present (Refer to Clerk to Schedule) 5.5 City Environment Awards (Refer to Clerk to Schedule) 5.6 Harbour Skating Club Request for Financial Assistance (Recommendation:Refer to City
Manager) 5.7 Resignation Letter Stephen Fitzpatrick SJ Industrial Parks (Recommendation: Refer to Nominating and Mayor to Send Letter of thanks)
5.8 Health and Wellness Expo Request for Assistance (Recommendation: Refer to City Manager) 5.9 Mystical Sounds Productions Request for Financial Assistance (Recommendation: Refer to
City Manager) 5.10 Contract 2007 20 Loch Lomond Rd Street Reconstruction Municipal Designated Highways Grant Program (Recommendation in Report) 5.11 Contract 2007-5: Green Head Rd New
Storm Sewer(Recommendation in Report) 5.12 Contract 2007-28: Busby St Lift Station and Sanitary Forcemain (Recommendation in Report) 5.13 Contract 2007-15: Champlain Dr Civic #30 to
Traffic Circle Street Reconstruction (Recommendation in Report) 5.14 Provision of Compensatory Storage -Saulnier Management Ltd. 55 Majors Brook Dr (Recommendation in Report) 5.15 Legal
Expense 418 Rothesay Ave Easement Acquisition ( Recommendation in Report) 5.16 Public Hearing Dates 921 Ashburn Rd, 10 Culloden Ct and 100 Prince Edward St (Recommendation in Report)
5.17 Residential Infrastructure Assistance #39 Purdy's Corner (Recommendation in Report) 5.18 Policy -Construction Contracts (Recommendation in Report) 5.19 Auction Services (Recommendation
in Report) 5.20 Servicing 1210 Loch Lomond Rd (Recommendation in Report) 5.21 Proposed Street Closing of Portion of Retail Drive Formerly Malborough Ave (Recommendation in Report) 5.22
Appointment of Arbitration Board -Local 771 (Recommendation in Report) 5.23 Negotiations between City of Saint John and Local 771 Firefighters' Assoc (Recommendation in Report) 5.24
Berryman Investment Inc. Cost Sharing Agreement 210 Cottage Rd (Recommendation in Report) 5.25 Negotiation of Land Exchanges for Retail Drive Public Street Alignment (Recommendation
in Report) 5.26 Pension Plan Update (Recommendation in Report) 5.27 P.R.O. Kids (Positive Recreation Opportunities for Kids) Annual Report (Recommendation in Report). 6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation 7.1 Proclamation McHappy Day May 9, 2007 7.2 Proclamation Building Safety Week 7.3 Proclamation National Police Week on Organized Crime 8. Delegations /Presentations
8.1 Mayors Task Force Business Industrial Parks 9. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. 9.1(a) Public Hearing Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment -13-15 Main Street 9.1(b) Planning Advisory Committee
Proposed Rezoning -13-15 Main St 9.2(a) Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Old North End 9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Proposed Rezoning -Old North End 9.3(a) Proposed Zoning By-law
Amendment 75 Churchland Road 9.3(b) Planning Advisory Committee Proposed Rezoning 75 Churchland Rd
10. Consideration of By-laws 10.1(a) Third Reading Zoning By-law Amendment -440-458 Rothesay Avenue 10.1(b) Section 39 Conditions -440-458 Rothesay Avenue 11. Submissions by Council
Members 11.1 Taxicabs (Deputy Mayor Hooton) 11.2 Blasting and Power Outage Somerset Street (Councillor Court) 11.3 Vulnerable Neighbourhoods (Councillor McGuire) 11.4 Pilot Transportation
Committee 12. Business Matters – Municipal Officers 12.1 Watermain Cleaning and Lining A Priority for Drinking Water Quality 12.2 2006 and 2007 Water & Sewerage Utility and General Funds
Capital Program Adjustments 12.3 Policy and Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan 12.4 Rope Walk Road 12.5 Vehicle Identification 12.6 Council/Staff Relations 12.7 Transparency and Accountability
12.8 Proposal to Develop Lands Behind Gorman Arena 12.9 Provision of Life Guard Services -2007 12.10 Rural Road Upgrades Program 12.11 Design and Construction Management Latimer Lake
Fluoridation System Upgrade 13. Committee Reports 13.1 Committee of the Whole Report -Ward System Resolutions 13.2 Saint John Parking Commission Residential On Street Parking Central
Peninsula 13.3 Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Proposed Subdivision Cedar Point Anchorage 554 Woodward Avenue 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General
Correspondence 15.1 Pesticide Legislation 15.2 YMCA YWCA Request for Grant 16. Adjournment
City of Saint John Séance du conseil communal Le lundi 7 mai 2007 Comité plénier 1. Ouverture de la séance 16 h 30 Salle de conférence du 8e étage à l'hôtel de ville 1.1 Question relative
à la propriété -alinéa 10.2(4)d) 1.2a) Question relative au personnel alinéa 10.2(4)j) 1.2b) Avis juridique concernant la question relative au travail – alinéa 10.2(4)f)j) 1.3 Avis juridique
– alinéa 10.2(4)f) 1.4 Demande de renseignements – alinéa 10.2(4)f) 1.5 Avis juridique – alinéa 10.2(4)b)f) 1.6 Question relative à l'emploi – alinéa 10.2(4)f)g) 1.7 Séance juridique
– alinéa 10.2(4)f) Comité plénier en séance publique (salle du conseil) 18 h 1. Semaine nationale de la police 2. Semaine de la protection civile 3. Fonds d'emprunt communautaire de
Saint John 4. Section locale 771 – Financement du déficit de la caisse de retraite Séance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la séance, suivie de la prière 2. Approbation du procès-verbal 2.1
Approbation du procès-verbal de la séance tenue le 23 avril 2007 3. Adoption de l'ordre du jour jour 4. Divulgations de conflits d'intérêts 5. Questions soumises à l'approbation du conseil
Demande d'aide financière du club Surf City Synchro (recommandation : transmettre au directeur général) 5.2 Lettre de remerciement du club Chicken Noodle (accepter à titre informatif)
5.3 Demande de l'INCA pour l'aménagement d'un trottoir sur le chemin Ropewalk (recommandation : transmettre au directeur général) 5.4 Demande de présentation du comité consultatif de
citoyens sur la Vision 2015 et du comité sur l'environnement (recommandation : transmettre au greffier pour qu'une date de présentation soit fixée) 5.5 Prix du Comité sur l'environnement
de The City of Saint John (recommandation : transmettre au greffier pour qu'il fixe une date de présentation) 5.6 Demande d'aide financière du club Harbour Skating (recommandation :transmettre
au directeur général)
5.7 Lettre de démission de Stephen Fitzpatrick du Saint John Industrial Parks (recommandation : envoyer aux candidatures et transmettre au maire pour qu'il envoie une lettre de remerciement)
5.8 Demande d'aide financière de Health and Wellness Expo (recommandation : transmettre au directeur général) 5.9 Demande d'aide financière de Mystical Sounds Productions (recommandation
: transmettre au directeur général) 5.10 Contrat no 2007-20 : Programme de subventions pour la réfection de routes municipales désignées – Chemin Loch Lomond (recommandation formulée
au rapport) 5.11 Contrat no 2007-5 : Installation de nouveaux égouts pluviaux sur le chemin Green Head (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.12 Contrat no 2007-28 : Conduite de refoulement
et station de relèvement de la rue Busby (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.13 Contrat no 2007-15 : Réfection de la promenade Champlain, du no de voirie 30 au carrefour giratoire
(recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.14 Offre d'entreposage compensatoire – Saulnier Management Ltd., 55, promenade Majors Brook (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.15 Frais juridiques
– Acquisition d'une emprise au 418, avenue Rothesay (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.16 Dates d'audiences publiques relatives au 921, chemin Ashburn, au 10, impasse Culloden et
au 100, rue Prince Edward (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.17 Programme d'aide à l'infrastructure résidentielle relativement au no 39, Purdy's Corner (recommandation formulée au
rapport) 5.18 Politique relative aux contrats de construction (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.19 Services d'enchères (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.20 Services publics
offerts au 1210, chemin Loch Lomond (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.21 Projet de fermeture d'un tronçon de la promenade Retail, anciennement l'avenue Malborough (recommandation
formulée au rapport) 5.22 Nomination au conseil d'arbitrage – section locale 771 (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.23 Négociations entre The City of Saint John et l'Association
des pompiers, section locale 771 (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.24 Entente sur le partage des coûts de Berryman Investment Inc. relativement au 210, chemin Cottage (recommandation
formulée au rapport) 5.25 Négociations relatives aux échanges de biens-fonds pour l'alignement de la rue publique promenade Retail (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.26 Mise à jour
du régime de retraite (recommandation formulée au rapport) 5.27 Rapport annuel de PRO Kids (Possibilités récréatives positives pour les enfants) (recommandation formulée au rapport)
6. Commentaires présentés par les membres 7. Proclamation 7.1 Proclamation du Grand McDon le 9 mai 2007 7.2 Proclamation de la Semaine de la sécurité en construction 7.3 Proclamation
de la Semaine nationale de la police sur le crime organisé 8. Délégations et présentations 8.1 Groupe de travail du maire relatif aux parcs commerciaux et industriels
9. Audiences publiques 19 h 9.1a) Audience publique relative à la modification de l'arrêté sur le zonage visant le 13-15, rue Main 9.1b) Comité consultatif d'urbanisme relativement au
rezonage proposé du bienfoond situé au 13-15, rue Main 9.2a) Projet de modification de l'arrêté sur le zonage visant le quartier Old North End 9.2b) Comité consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant
le projet de rezonage du quartier Old North End 9.3 a) Projet de modification de l'arrêté sur le zonage visant le 75, chemin Churchland 9.3b) Comité consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant
le rezonage du bien-fonds situé au 75, chemin Churchland 10. Étude des arrêtés municipaux 10.1a) Troisième lecture de la modification de l'arrêté sur le zonage visant le 440-458, avenue
Rothesay 10.1b) Conditions imposées par l'article 39 visant le 440-458, avenue Rothesay 11. Intervention des membres du conseil 11.1 Exploitants de taxis (mairesse suppléante Hooton)
11.2 Dynamitage et panne d'électricité -rue Somerset (conseiller Court) 11.3 Quartiers vulnérables (conseiller McGuire) 11.4 Projet pilote du Comité de transport 12. Affaires municipales
évoquées par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Le nettoyage et du revêtement de la conduite d'eau principale – Une priorité pour s'assurer de l'approvisionnement d'eau potable de qualité
12.2 Ajustements au programme d'immobilisations du fonds des services d'aqueduc et d'égouts et du fonds d'administration pour 2006 et 2007 12.3 Politique et Plan de prévention de la
pollution (P2) 12.4 Chemin Rope Walk 12.5 Identification des véhicules 12.6 Relations entre le conseil et le personnel 12.7 Transparence et obligation de rendre compte 12.8 Proposition
pour l'aménagement des biens-fonds situés derrière l'aréna Charles Gorman 12.9 Offre de services de sauveteurs pour 2007 12.10 Programme d'amélioration des routes rurales 12.11 Gestion
de la conception et de la construction – Mise à niveau du système de fluoration du lac Latimer 13. Rapports déposés par les comités 13.1 Rapport du comité plénier relativement aux résolutions
sur le système électoral par quartiers 13.2 Commission sur le stationnement de Saint John relativement au stationnement sur rue dans le quartier Central Peninsula 13.3 Comité consultatif
d'urbanisme recommandant le projet de lotissement Cedar Point Anchorage situé au 554, avenue Woodward
14. Étude des sujets écartés des questions soumises à l'approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance générale 15.1 Projet de loi sur les pesticides 15.2 Demande de subvention reçue de YMCA/YWCA
16. Clôture de la séance
National Police Week Organized Crime Day: May 14, 2007
Organized Crime Is: • Crime committed by any group of at least three people that has as one of its main purposes or activities the facilitation or commission of one or more serious offences
where the primary motive is profit [Criminal Code of Canada]
The Face of Organized Crime • Doesn’t always reflect the popular image …look to criminal acts, not appearance
Organized Crime Activities • Dealing drugs • Grow-ops and Meth labs • Cross-border smuggling of people • Guns and tobacco • Pornography and prostitution • Sexual exploitation of children
• Counterfeiting • Stock Price manipulation • Stealing rare animals and plants • Car theft • Money laundering • Identity theft
Public Opinion about Organized Crime • 87% identified Organized Crime as ‘serious’ or ‘very serious’ • 63%+ believe is on the increase in their community • Many do not recognize how
Organized Crime affects us socially and financially • Most feel they have not been victims of Organized Crime and are not at risk Ipsos-Reid 2005 Survey
An Organized Response to Organized Crime • The RCMP, municipal police services across Canada, and Public Safety Canada are working in collaboration to support an Organized Crime initiative.
With leadership from the Canadian Association of Chief of Police (CACP), and capitalizing on the extensive reach of CACP, this initiative has the capacity to have a significant on communities
across the country.
Personal Strategies in Response to Organized Crime • Businesses and individuals can take measures to protect themselves against Organized Crime: – Check financial statements regularly
– Safeguard PIN #’s and account numbers – Install protective devices in cars – Don’t disclose personal information over the telephone, internet or email – Routinely verify security features
of all notes
Join Us in the Fight Against Organized Crime • The Saint John Police Force needs your help in fighting Organized Crime by reporting suspicious activities to the Police Force
Is Your Family Prepared? Susan D. Harris Public Information Officer Saint John Emergency Management Organization
Outline n What is Emergency Preparedness Week? n WHO does WHAT in an emergency? n Planning for your family n Shelter-in-Place or Evacuate? n Forms you can use n Other resource agencies
n Experience & Hazards Is Your Family Prepared?
n Annual, national event that takes place during the first full week of May. n To increase awareness about individual preparedness. n Reduce the risks and consequences of a disaster
by being better prepared. What is Emergency Preparedness Week? Is Your Family Prepared?
WHO does WHAT in an emergency? n Individuals: take steps ahead of time to prepare for emergencies. n You should be prepared to take care of yourself and your family for a minimum of
72 hours (3 days). Is Your Family Prepared?
WHO does WHAT in an emergency? n Local fire, police, works, water and paramedic teams are normally the first to respond. They manage most local emergencies. Is Your Family Prepared?
n Municipal Emergency Management Organizations provide support to these initial responders when an emergency requires more than they are able to coordinate on their own.
WHO does WHAT in an emergency? n Every province and territory has an EMO: q manage large-scale emergencies, and q provide assistance to municipal or community response teams as required.
n Federal departments and agencies q support provincial or territorial EMOs as requested. q manage emergencies that involve areas of federal jurisdiction, such as nuclear safety, national
defence and border security. Is Your Family Prepared?
Is Your Family Prepared? YOUR FAMILY PLAN
Why Make a Plan? n You and your family will know what to do in an emergency. n You may not be together when an emergency happens – plan how/where to meet. n Children, People with Special
Needs & Pets n Information about your home. Is Your Family Prepared?
Household Plan: Know… n Emergency exits from home n Escape route from neighbourhood q Make sure everyone knows how to get out quickly. q Practice at least 1X each year n Safe meeting
place near home q **should be on the same side of the road as your home, so you aren’t trying to cross the street around emergency vehicles Is Your Family Prepared?
n Water: 2L/person/day for 3 days n Food that won’t spoil: canned, energy bars, dried foods, etc. n Manual can opener n Flashlight and batteries Is Your Family Prepared? Preparing Your
Family Emergency Kit
n Battery-powered or winduu radio (with extra batteries) n First Aid kit n Extra keys for car & house Is Your Family Prepared? Preparing Your Family Emergency Kit
n Special items: q prescriptions q infant formula q favorite blanket or toys n Cash in small bills, such as $10, or travellers cheques n Change for pay phones Is Your Family Prepared?
Preparing Your Family Emergency Kit
Children n Name a designated person to pick up your children should you be unavailable. n Ensure their daycare or school have that information. n What is your daycare or school’s emergency
policy? n How will they communicate with you during an emergency? Is Your Family Prepared?
People with Special Needs n Establish a support network q Relatives or friends q Health-care providers q Co-workers or neighbours n Talk to your doctor to prepare a “grab-and-go” bag
with 2-WEEK medication supply n Write details of your condition, allergies, insurance, contacts, etc. Is Your Family Prepared?
Is Your Family Prepared? Pets n IMPORTANT: Many public shelters or hotels DO NOT allow pets. n PLAN AHEAD: talk to a relative or friend, locate petfrieendl hotels or pet boarding facilities
in advance.
Shelter-In-Place – Release of chemical, biological or other contaminants …if advised by authorities, remain inside your home or office and protect yourself there. q Close and lock all
windows and exterior doors. q Turn off fans, heating and air-conditioning systems. q Close the fireplace damper. q Get your emergency kit & listen to the radio. q Go to an interior room
above ground level, without windows. q Use duct or wide tape to seal cracks around door and any vents. Is Your Family Prepared?
Evacuation …Authorities will ONLY advise you to leave your home iF they believe you are in danger. n take your emergency kit, medications, copies of prescriptions and a cellular phone
(if you have one). n If you have time, call or e-mail your out-of-town contact: q where you are going q when you expect to arrive q if any family members have become separated n Once
you are safe, let them know. n If you have time, leave a note telling when you left and where you are n Close and lock you house when you leave. Is Your Family Prepared?
Is Your Family Prepared? n Emergency Contacts: q Local Emergency Numbers q Non-Emergency Numbers q Out-of-town Contact** **All family members should contact the same out-of-town contact.
**Choose someone NOT likely to be affected by the same emergency. Forms n Family & Friends: q Full name q Home phone q Work phone q Cell phone q E-mail address(es) q Home address n Family
Doctors: q Who has which doctor? q Specialists & illnesses?
Is Your Family Prepared? n Safe Home Instructions: q Have working smoke detectors and fire extinguisher. q Adequately mark your water, electricity and gas intakes. q Older children should
know how to use the fire extinguisher. q All children should know how to: n dial 9-1-1 AND n dial your out-of-town contact person AND n locate the emergency kit. n On All Shut-offs,
mark: q Shut-off instructions q Utility company name and telephone number Forms
Saint John Experience n Ground Ground Hog Gale (February 1976) n Glen Falls Flooding (February 1981) n Uptown Explosions (April 1986) n Ice Storm (January 1998) n Irving Refinery Explosion/Fire
(June 1998) n Expansion Avenue Fire (December 1999) n Year 2000 Transition (Y2K) n Saint John Weather – Snow, Ice and Other These These Events Events Aff ect Aff ect People People Is
Your Family Prepared?
Saint John Hazards n Hazardous Hazardous Material Incident n Severe Weather n Flood n Blackout/Electrical Storm/Major Power Failure n Health Threat n Ship Accident n Railway Accident
n Water Supply n Fire n LNG Is Your Family Prepared?
Saint John Hazards, Continued n Explosion n Nuclear Power Plant Incident n Transportation Disruption n Earthquake n Industrial Accidents n Slope Instability n Communications Failure
n Terrorism n Infrastructure Collapse n Air AccidentIs Your Family Prepared?
n Other Emergency Preparedness Agencies: q New Brunswick EMO (http://www.gnb.ca/cnb/emoommuindex-e.htm ) q Public Safety & Emergency Preparedness Canada (http://publicsafety.gc.ca/index-en.asp
) q Safe Canada (http://www.safecanada.ca/menu_e.asp ) q Canadian Red Cross (www.redcross.ca ) q Saint John Ambulance (http://sja.ca/english ) q Salvation Army (www.salvationarmy.ca
) Is Your Family Prepared?
n Thank you n Questions?Is Your Family Prepared?
From: Cook, Larry Sent: 2007, May, 02 9:01 AM To: Gormley, Elizabeth Cc: norman.mcfarlane@saintjohn.ca; Hickey, Charles Subject: pension agreement Ms. Gormley, Local 771 would like to
address council on Monday, May 7 prior to signing the memorandum of agreement. Please confirm with a time. Thank you. Larry Cook Recording Secretary, Local 771
92-785 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING – THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL – APRIL 23, 2007 -7:00 P.M. present Norman McFarlane,
Mayor Deputy Mayor Hooton and Councillors Chang, Chase, Court, McGuire, Tait, Titus and White -and -T. Totten, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; P. Groody, Commissioner of Municipal
Operations; J. Baird, Commissioner of Planning and Development; W. Edwards, Commissioner of Buildings and Inspection Services; A. Bodechon, Chief of Police; R. Simonds, Fire Chief, B
Morrison, Commissioner of Leisure Services; P. Woods, Common Clerk and Deputy City Manager; and E. Gormley, Assistant Common Clerk SÉANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
TENUE À L'HÔTEL DE VILLE, LE 23 AVRIL 2007 À 19 H Sont présents : Norman McFarlane, maire le maire suppléant Hooton et les conseillers Chang, Chase, Court, McGuire, Tait, Titus et White
et T. Totten, directeur général; J. Nugent, avocat municipal; P. Groody, commissaire aux opérations municipales; J. Baird, commissaire à l'urbanisme et au développement; W. Edwards,
commissaire aux services d'inspection et des bâtiments; A. Bodechon, chef de police; R. Simonds, chef du service d'incendie; B. Morrison, commissaire aux services des loisirs; P. Woods,
greffier communal et directeur général adjoint; ainsi que E. Gormley, greffière communale adjointe. 1. Call To Order Mayor McFarlane called the meeting to order. On motion of Councillor
White Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that Council convene in Regular Session of Common Council. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 1. Ouverture de la séance La séance
est ouverte par le maire McFarlane. Proposition du conseiller White Appuyée par le conseiller Titus RÉSOLU que le conseil communal convoque une séance ordinaire. À l'issue du vote, la
proposition est adoptée. 2. Approval of Minutes On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on April
10 and April 11, 2007, be approved.
92-786 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 Question being taken, the motion was carried. 2. Approbation du procès-verbal Proposition de la mairesse suppléante
Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que les procès-verbaux des séances du conseil communal, tenues le 10 avril et le 11 avril 2007, soient approuvés. À l'issue du vote, la
proposition est adoptée. 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved with the addition of
items 9.4(c) Letter from Ian Benjamin; 12.13 Seasonal Development – Interim Report and 13.2, Pension Funding and Administration of Employment. Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3. Adoption de l'ordre du jour Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que l'ordre du jour de la présente réunion soit adopté, moyennant l'ajout
des points suivants : 9.4c) Lettre reçue de Ian Benjamin; 12.13 Aménagement saisonnier – rapport intérimaire; 13.2 Financement de la caisse de retraite et gestion des ressources humaines.
À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 4. Divulgations de conflits d'intérêts 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 That the letter from Anne Gilbert requesting
the relocation of a traffic light on Crown Street, be referred to the City Manager. 5.2 That as recommended by the City Manager, the tender for the supply of self contained breathing
apparatus and accessories, be awarded to Safety Source Ltd. in the amount of $36,480. plus tax. 5.3 That as recommended by the City Manager, the tender submitted by Wallace Equipment
Ltd. for the supply of a 2007 John Deere model 770D grader c/w with quick connect system, operating hydraulics and a front plow and wing assembly in the amount of $228,500., plus tax,
be accepted. 5.4 That as recommended by the City Manager, the tender of Centennial Pontiac Buick GMC, in the amount of $31,570. plus tax, for the supply of (1) one only AWD Cargo Van,
Van, be accepted. 5.5 That as recommended by the City Manager, the tender for the supply of asphaltic concrete mixes for the 2007 season, be awarded to the lowest bidder in each case
as indicated on the submitted summary of bids. 5.6 That as recommended by the City Manager, Contract 2007-13: Bay Street – Culvert Installation, be awarded to the low tender, Fairville
Construction Ltd., at its tendered price of $123,510. as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary
contract documents.
92-787 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 5.7 That as recommended by the City Manager, Contract 2007-19: Albert Street and Elgin Street – Street Reconstruction,
be awarded to the low tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd., at its tendered price of $261,686. as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk
be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. 5.8 That as recommended by the City Manager, the proposal of Hughes Surveys and Consultants Inc. for engineering services (design
and construction management) for the Hillcrest Road – Road Reconstruction project, be accepted and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation
in that regard. 5.9 That as recommended by the City Manager, the report on Rural Road Upgrade Program, be received for information with a planned presentation to take place at the May
7, 2007 regular meeting of Council. 5.10 That as recommended by the City Manager, the City release all of its ownership in the lands conveyed to Marion C. Hughes by Deed registered in
the Saint John County Registry Office as No. 180943 in Book 374 at Page 134 upon condition that she convey to the City an easement for municipal services approximately 15 feet wide through
that portion of her lot commencing at the eastern end of the common right of way and extending eastwardly to the conventional line at the brook, and that the Mayor and Common Clerk execute
all necessary documents. 5.11 That as recommended by the City Manager, approval be granted for the City Manager to travel to Halifax to meet with representatives of Public Works and
Government Services Canada to discuss the valuation of the Coast Guard site. 5.12 That as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council schedule the Public Hearings for the rezoning
applications of Stacey Murray/Murray’s Pub (1490 Manawagonish Road) and Wayne
McGaughey (85 Hayes Avenue) for Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. 5.13 That the letter from the Canada Games Stadium Re-development Committee requesting to
make a presentation to Council, be referred to the Clerk to schedule a presentation. 5.14 That the letter from the NB Day Parade Committee requesting funding in the amount of $1,000.,
be referred to the City Manager. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Deputy Mayor Hooton RESOLVED that the recommendation set out for each consent agenda item respectively, be
adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 5. Questions soumises à l'approbation du conseil 5.1 Résolu que la lettre reçue de Anne Gilbert, voulant que la Ville déplace les
feux de circulation installés sur la rue Crown, soit transmise au directeur général. 5.2 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le contrat relatif à l'approvisionnement
d'appareils respiratoires autonomes et les accessoires connexes, soit accordé à Safety Source Ltd., au montant de 36 480 $, taxes en sus. 5.3 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur
général, la soumission présentée par Wallace Equipment Ltd., relative à l'approvisionnement d'une niveleuse dotée d'un système à branchement rapide, d'opérateurs hydrauliques, et d'un
chasseneeig avant à ailes latérales, au montant de 228 500 $, taxes en sus, soit acceptée. 5.4 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur général, la soumission présentée par Centennial
Pontiac Buick GMC, au montant de 31 570 $, taxes en sus, pour la fourniture d'un (1) seul camion de charge à traction intégrale, soit acceptée. 5.5 Résolu que, comme le recommande le
directeur général, la soumission relative à l'approvisionnement de mélanges de béton asphaltique pour la saison 2007 soit accordée au soumissionnaire moins-disant dans chaque cas, comme
l'indique le sommaire des soumissions présenté.
92-788 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 5.6 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le contrat no 2007-13, relatif à l'installation d'un
ponceau sur la rue Bay, soit accordé au soumissionnaire moins-disant, Fairville Construction Ltd., au prix offert de 123 510 $, établi à partir de quantités estimatives, et que le maire
et le greffier communal soient autorisés à signer la documentation contractuelle exigée. 5.7 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le contrat no 2007-19, relatif aux
travaux de réfection sur la rue Albert, soit accordé au soumissionnaire moinsdissant Galbraith Construction Ltd., au prix offert de 261 686 $, établi à partir de quantités estimatives
et, que le maire et le greffier communal soient autorisés à signer la documentation contractuelle exigée. 5.8 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur général, la proposition présentée
par Hughes Surveys and Consultants Inc., relative aux services d'ingénierie (gestion de la conception et de la construction) pour les travaux de réfection du chemin Hillcrest, soit acceptée,
et que le maire et le greffier communal soient autorisés à signer la documentation exigée à cet égard. 5.9 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le rapport relatif au
programme de réfection des routes rurales soit accueilli à titre informatif et qu'une présentation soit fixée au 7 mai 2007 devant le conseil en séance ordinaire. 5.10 Résolu que, comme
le recommande le directeur général, la Ville libère son titre de propriété en vertu des terres cédées à Marion C. Hughes, par acte de transfert enregistré au Bureau de l'enregistrement
pour le comté de Saint John, sous le numéro 180943, dans le livre 374, à la page 134, sous réserve d'une servitude cédée par Mme Hughes à la Ville aux fins de services municipaux, d'une
largeur approximative de 15 pieds, tracée sur la partie de son lot commençant à un point situé à l'extrémité est du droit de passage public et se prolongeant en direction est jusqu'à
la limite conventionnelle située au ruisseau, et que le maire et le greffier soient autorisés à signer la documentation exigée. 5.11 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur général,
le conseil autorise celui-ci à se rendre à Halifax afin de se réunir avec les représentants de Travaux publics et Services gouvernementaux Canada pour discuter de l'estimation du terrain
de la Garde côtière. 5.12 Résolu que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le conseil communal fixe les dates d'audiences publiques relatives aux demandes de rezonage présentées
par Stacey Murray visant Murray's Pub, située au 1490, chemin Manawagonish, et Wayne McGaughey, visant le terrain situé au 85, avenue Hayes, au mardi 22 mai 2007 à 19 h dans la salle
du conseil. 5.13 Résolu que la lettre de demande reçue du comité sur le réaménagement du stade des Jeux du Canada, voulant faire une présentation devant le conseil, soit transmise au
greffier communal pour qu'il fixe une date de présentation. 5.14 Résolu que la lettre reçue du NB Day Parade Committee [comité du défilé de la Fête du Nouveau-Brunswick], relative à
la demande d'un don en argent de 1 000 $, soit transmise au directeur général. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyée par la mairesse suppléante Hooton RÉSOLU que la recommandation
de chaque point de l'ordre du jour nécessitant l'approbation du conseil soit adoptée. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M. 9.1 Public Presentation
– Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment – Secondary Access Road to Red Head Area A Public Presentation was given amending Schedule 4-A, the Street Plan by: Deleting a section of McAllister
Drive Arterial Extension; adding a proposed Arterial Street Extension to a section of the Red Head Secondary Access Road; adding an Arterial Street link between the Red Heal Secondary
Access Road and Red Head Road;
92-789 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 and designating as an Arterial Street a portion of Old Blank River Road, and by amending part 4 by deleting paragraph
5 under the heading Saint John East Arterial Streets in Sub Section 4.3.2; and replacing paragraph 5 as detailed in the submitted document. 9. Audiences publiques à 19 h 9.1 Présentation
publique relative au projet de modification du plan municipal visant la voie d'accès secondaire en direction de la région Red Head Une présentation publique a eu lieu afin de modifier
l'annexe 4-A du plan d'aménagement des rues en : supprimant un tronçon de l'artère prolongeant la promenade McAllister; ajoutant une artère pour prolonger le chemin d'accès secondaire
Red Head; ajoutant une artère de liaison entre la voie d'accès secondaire Red Head et le chemin Red Head, désignant comme artère principale, un tronçon du chemin Old Blank River et modifiant
la partie 4 par la suppression du paragraphe 5 de l'article 4.3.2 intitulé Saint John John East Arterial Streets [artères principales dans Saint John Est]; et remplaçant le libellé du
paragraphe 5 tel qu'il est précisé dans le document présenté. 9.2(a) Proposed Section 39 Amendment – 2117 Loch Lomond Road 9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report The Common Clerk
advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed amendment to the Section 39 Conditions imposed on Dec 1, 1997, in conjunction with the re-zoning of a
parcel of land having an area of approximately 4073 square metres, located at 2117 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as being a portion of PID Number 55081756, to either extend or remove
the deadline by which a mobile home is to be removed from the site to permit the placement of a mobile home on a temporary basis. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning
Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning Staff’s report considered at its April 17, 2007 meeting at which the Committee decided to recommend approval as set out in the staff
recommendation, to amend the Section 39 conditions described above. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the proposed Section 39 Amendment with no one presenting.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favor of the proposed Section 39 Amendment with no one presenting. On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor Court
RESOLVED that Council approve the proposed amendment to the Section 39 Conditions imposed on Dec 1, 1997, in conjunction with the re-zoning of a parcel of land having an area of approximately
4073 square metres, located at 2117 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as being a portion of PID Number 55081756, to either extend or remove the deadline by which a mobile home is to
be removed from the site. Question being taken, the motion was carried, with Councillor Chase voting nay. 9.2a) Projet de modification des conditions imposées par l’article 39 visant
le 2117, chemin Loch Lomond 9.2b) Rapport du comité consultatif d'urbanisme Le greffier indique que les avis requis ont été publiés relativement à la modification des conditions imposées
le 1 décembre, 1997 en vertu de l'article 39, conjointement avec le rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain située au 2117, chemin Loch Lomond, d'une superficie approximative de 4 073 mètres
carrés et faisant partie du terrain inscrit sous le NID 55081756, pour prolonger ou supprimer l'échéance par laquelle une maison mobile doit être enlevée du site afin d'installer temporairement
une maison mobile. De plus, examen d'un rapport présenté par le comité consultatif d'urbanisme accompagné d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel du service d'urbanisme, étudié
92-790 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 lors de la séance du 17 avril 2007 au cours de laquelle le comité a résolu de recommander l'approbation, telle
qu'elle est présentée dans la recommandation, visant à modifier les conditions susmentionnées imposées par l'article 39. Le maire invite le public à se prononcer contre la modification
proposée en vertu de l'article 39, mais personne ne prend la parole. Le maire invite le public à se prononcer en faveur de la modification proposée, mais personne ne prend la parole.
Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller Court RÉSOLU que le conseil approuve la modification proposée des conditions imposées le 1 décembre, 1997 en vertu
de l'article 39 conjointement avec le rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain située au 2117, chemin Loch Lomond, d'une superficie approximative de 4 073 mètres carrés et faisant partie du
terrain inscrit sous le NID 55081756, pour prolonger ou supprimer l'échéance par laquelle une maison maison mobile doit être enlevée du site. À l’issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée.
Le conseiller Chase vote contre la proposition. 9.3(a) Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment – 1967 Manawagonish Road 9.3(b) Planning Advisory Committee – Proposed Rezoning and Subdivision
– 1967 Manawagonish Road The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed re-zoning of a parcel of land located at 1967 Manawagonish
Road, having an area of approximately 5910 square metres, also identified as being PID Number 55166177, from “R-1A” One Family Residential to “TH” Townhouse classification to carry out
a serviced residential subdivision consisting of townhouses. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning Staff’s report
considered at its April 17, 2007 meeting at which the Committee decided to deny approval as set out in the staff recommendation, to re-zone a parcel of land located at 1967 Manawagonish
Road and described above. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the re-zoning with the following presenters: Mel Mawhinney, 8 Day Drive, Shawn Hamilton, 27 Day
Drive, and Mike O’Brien, 31 Day Drive commented on their concern that property values would decrease with the addition of townhouses as described, and that the number of townhouses proposed
is too great. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the re-zoning with Stillmen Wilcox, 15 Day Drive, President of Fundy View Estates, advising that he is
willing to meet with residents to try to alleviate their concerns. On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor Tait RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, “A Law to Amend the
Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John”, re-zoning a parcel of land located at 1967 Manawagonish Road, having an area of approximately 5910 square metres, also identified as being a
portion of PID Number 55166177, from “R-1A” One Family Residential to “TH” Townhouse classification, be read a first first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried, with Councillor
Court voting nay. Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, “A Law to Amend the Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John”. On motion of Councillor Tait Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, “A Law to Amend the Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John”, re-zoning a parcel of land located
92-791 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 at 1967 Manawagonish Road, having an area of approximately 5910 square metres, also identified as being a portion
of PID Number 55166177, from “R-1A” One Family Residential to “TH” Townhouse classification, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried, with Councillor Court
voting nay. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, “A Law to Amend the Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John”. On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the Developer meet with staff and residents of Day Drive and surrounding area to resolve issues, and report back to Council before third reading of the zoning by-law amendment.
Question being taken, the motion was carried. 9.3a) Projet de modification de l'Arrêté de zonage visant le 1967, chemin Manawagonish 9.3b) Comité consultatif d'urbanisme relativement
au projet de rezonage et de lotissement visant le 1967, chemin Manawagonish Le greffier confirme que les avis requis ont été publiés relativement au rezonage proposé d'une parcelle de
terrain située au 1967, chemin Manawagonish, d'une superficie approximative de 5 910 mètres carrés et inscrite sous le NID 55166177, afin de faire passer la classification de zone résidentielle
-habitations unifamiliales « R-1A » à zone de maisons en rangée « TH », dans le but d'aménager un lotissement résidentiel desservi comprenant des maisons en rangée. Examen d'un rapport
du Comité consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagné d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel du service d'urbanisme, étudié lors de la séance du 17 avril 2007, à laquelle le comité a résolu
de rejeter l'approbation, telle qu'elle est soulignée dans la recommandation du personnel, voulant que le conseil communal procède au rezonage de la parcelle de terrain située au 1967,
chemin Manawagonish telle qu'elle est décrite ci-dessus. Le maire invite le public à se prononcer contre le rezonage et les personnes suivantes prennent la parole. Mel Mawhinney, du
du 8, promenade Day, Shawn Hamilton, du 27, promenade Day et Mike O'Brien, du 31, promenade Day, expriment leurs opinions, faisant part de leur crainte que les propriétés risquent de
perdre de la valeur si des maisons en rangée sont aménagées tel qu'il est proposé et, de plus, que le nombre de maisons projeté est trop élevé. Le maire invite le public à se prononcer
en faveur du projet de rezonage et Stillmen Wilcox, du 15, promenade Day, président de Fundy View Estates, indique qu'il est prêt à rencontrer les citoyens pour tenter d'alléger leurs
inquiétudes. Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller Tait RÉSOLU que l'arrêté intitulé « Arrêté modifiant l'Arrêté de zonage de The City of Saint John
», relativement au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie approximative de 5 910 mètres carrés, située au 1967, chemin Manawagonish, dont une partie est inscrite sous le
NID 55166177, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone résidentielle – habitations unifamiliales « R-1A » à zone de maisons en rangée « TH », fasse l'objet d'une
première lecture. À l’issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. Le conseiller Court vote contre la proposition. Première lecture par titre de l'arrêté intitulé « Arrêté modifiant l'Arrêté
de zonage de The City of Saint John ».
92-792 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 Proposition du conseiller Tait Appuyée par le conseiller McGuire RÉSOLU que l'arrêté intitulé « Arrêté modifiant
l'Arrêté de zonage de The City of Saint John », relativement au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie approximative de 5 910 mètres carrés, située au 1967, chemin Manawagonish,
dont une partie est inscrite sous le NID 55166177, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone résidentielle – habitations unifamiliales « R-1A » à zone de maisons
en rangée « TH », fasse l'objet d'une première lecture. À l’issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. Le conseiller Court vote contre la proposition. Deuxième lecture par titre de l'arrêté
intitulé « Arrêté modifiant l'Arrêté de zonage de The City of Saint John ». Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller McGuire RÉSOLU que le promoteur se
réunisse avec les employés municipaux et les résidents de la promenade Day et de la zone environnante afin de tenter de résoudre la question, et qu'il en fasse le compte rendu devant
le conseil avant la troisième lecture de la modification de zonage. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 9.4(a) Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment – 440-458 Rothesay Avenue (Rear)
9.4(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report 9.4(c) Letter of Objection from Ian Benjamin The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed
re-zoning of a parcel of land located to the rear of 440-458 Rothesay Avenue, also identified as being PID Numbers 55039341, 55039358, 55039366, 55039374, 55039382, 55039390, 55039408,
55039416, 55039424, 55039432, 55039440 and also a portion of PID Numbers 55161574 and 55177034 from “R-2” One and Two Family Residential to “I-1” Light Industrial classification to develop
the property in conjunction with the adjacent car sales lot. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning Staff’s report
considered at its April 17, 2007 meeting at which the Committee decided to recommend approval as set out in the staff recommendation, to re-zone a parcel of land located at 440-458 Rothesay
Avenue as described above, with Section 39 conditions. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the re-zoning with the following presenters: Paul Gilbride, 7 Rockwood
Avenue and Alden MacKnight, 9 Rockwood Avenue commented on their concerns with drainage and flooding. Barbara Ellenberg, 26 Retail Drive expressed her concern for children’s safety given
that there is a playground near the property in question and heavy traffic in the area. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the re-zoning with Rod Adams
representing Haldor (1972) Ltd., the applicant, advising that residents’ concerns with regard to drainage will be addressed with a detailed drainage plan, and the safety concern expressed
will also be addressed. On motion of Councillor Tait Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, “A Law to Amend the Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John”,
re-zoning a parcel of land located to the rear of 440-458 Rothesay Avenue, also identified as being PID Numbers 55039341, 55039358, 55039366, 55039374, 55039382, 55039390, 55039408,
55039416, 55039424, 55039432, 55039440 and also a portion of PID Numbers 55161574 and 55177034 from “R-2” One and Two Family Residential to “I-1” Light Industrial be read a first time.
92-793 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, “A Law to Amend
the Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John”. On motion of Councillor Tait Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, “A Law to Amend the Zoning By-law of The City
of Saint John”, re-zoning a parcel of land located to the rear of 440-458 Rothesay Avenue, also identified as being PID Numbers 55039341, 55039358, 55039366, 55039374, 55039382, 55039390,
55039408, 55039416, 55039424, 55039432, 55039440 and also a portion of PID Numbers 55161574 and 55177034 from “R-2” One and Two Family Residential to “I-1” Light Industrial be read a
second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, “A Law to Amend the Zoning By-law of The City of Saint John”. 9.4a) Projet
de modification de l'Arrêté de zonage visant le 440-458, avenue Rothesay (arrière) 9.4(b) Rapport du comité consultatif d'urbanisme 9.4c) Lettre d'opposition reçue de Ian Benjamin Le
greffier confirme que les avis requis ont été publiés relativement au projet de rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situé à l'arrière du terrain sis au 440-458, avenue Rothesay, inscrite
sous les NID 55039341, 55039358, 55039366, 55039374, 55039382, 55039390, 55039408, 55039416, 55039424, 55039432, 55039440 et une partie des NID 55161574 et 55177034, afin de faire passer
la classification s'y rapportant de zone résidentielle – habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R-2 » à zone d'industrie légère « I-1 », pour aménager la propriété conjointement
avec la concession d'automobiles adjacente. Examen d'un rapport du Comité consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagné d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel du service d'urbanisme, étudié lors
de la séance du 17 avril 2007, pendant laquelle le comité a résolu de recommander l'approbation, telle qu'elle est soulignée dans la recommandation du personnel, voulant que le conseil
communal procède au rezonage de la parcelle de terrain située au 440-458, avenue Rothesay, telle qu'elle est décrite ci-dessus, sous réserve des conditions imposées par l'article 39.
Le maire invite le public à se prononcer contre le rezonage et les personnes suivantes prennent la parole. Paul Gilbride, du 7, avenue Rockwood et Alden MacKnight, du 9, avenue Rockwood,
expriment leurs inquiétudes quant au système de drainage et au risque d'inondation. Barbara Ellenberg, du 26, promenade Retail, exprime ses inquiétudes quant à la sécurité des enfants
étant donné qu'un terrain de jeux est situé à proximité de la propriété en question et que la circulation pourrait augmenter considérablement. Le maire invite le public à se prononcer
en faveur du rezonage et Rod Adams, au nom du demandeur, Haldor (1972) Ltd., affirme qu'un plan de drainage détaillé sera présenté aux citoyens pour alléger leurs inquiétudes quant au
drainage et que la question de la sécurité des enfants sera également abordée. Proposition du conseiller Tait Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que l'arrêté intitulé « Arrêté modifiant
l'Arrêté de zonage de The City of Saint John », relativement au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain située à l'arrière du 440-458, avenue Rothesay, et inscrite sous les NID 55039341,
55039358, 55039366, 55039374, 55039382, 55039390, 55039408, 55039416, 55039424, 55039432, 55039440 ainsi qu'une partie des NID 55161574 et 55177034, afin de faire passer la classification
s'y rapportant de zone résidentielle – habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R-2 » à zone d'industrie légère « I-1 » , fasse l'objet d'une première lecture.
92-794 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. Première lecture par titre de l'arrêté intitulé « Arrêté modifiant
l'Arrêté de zonage de The City of Saint John ». Proposition du conseiller Tait Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que l'arrêté intitulé « Arrêté modifiant l'Arrêté de zonage de The
City of Saint John », relativement au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situé à l'arrière du 440-458, avenue Rothesay, inscrite sous les NID 55039341, 55039358, 55039366, 55039374,
55039382, 55039390, 55039408, 55039416, 55039424, 55039432, 55039440 ainsi qu'une partie des NID 55161574 et 55177034, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone résidentielle
– habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R-2 » à zone d'industrie légère « I-1 », fasse l'objet d'une deuxième lecture. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. Deuxième lecture
par titre de l'arrêté intitulé « Arrêté modifiant l'Arrêté de zonage de The City of Saint John ». 6. Members Comments On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor Chang RESOLVED
that Council give permission for the City to fly its flag at half mast on April 28, 2007 in honour of the workers who have been killed on the job in the Province of New Brunswick Question
being taken, the motion was carried. Council members commented on various community events. 6. Commentaires présentés par les membres Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée
par le conseiller Chang RÉSOLU que le conseil autorise la Ville à mettre en berne son drapeau le 28 avril 2007, pour commémorer les travailleurs qui ont perdu la vie au travail dans
la province du Nouveau-Brunswick. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. Les membres du conseil s'expriment sur diverses activités communautaires. 7. Proclamation 7.1 The Mayor
proclaimed the month of May to be Multiple Sclerosis Awareness month in the City of Saint John. 7. Proclamation 7.1 Le maire déclare que le mois de mai est le « Mois de sensibilisation
à la sclérose en plaques » dans The City of Saint John. 8. Delegations/Presentations 8. Délégations et présentations 10. Consideration of By-laws 10. Étude des arrêtés municipaux 11.
Submissions by Council Members
92-795 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 11.1 Question on Proposed Enhanced Retirement Benefits On motion of Councillor White Seconded by Deputy Mayor
Hooton RESOLVED that the questions submitted by Councillor Ferguson regarding enhanced retirement benefits be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried.
11. Intervention des membres du conseil 11.1 Question relative aux améliorations apportées aux prestations de retraite Proposition du conseiller White Appuyée par la mairesse suppléante
Hooton RÉSOLU que les questions soumises par le conseiller Ferguson relatives aux améliorations apportées aux prestations de retraite, soient acceptées à titre informatif. À l'issue
du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 11.2 Request of Westside P.A.C.T. to Waive Fees for New Police Office On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Deputy Mayor Hooton RESOLVED that
Common Council give Westside P.A.C.T a grant in the amount of fees for building, plumbing, asphalt breaking and water hook-up permits, for the construction of a community police office
in the lower west side. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11.2 Demande présentée par le bureau de police communautaire, Westside P.A.C.T., visant à annuler les frais relatifs
au nouveau poste de police Proposition du conseiller Court Appuyée par la mairesse suppléante Hooton RÉSOLU que le conseil octroie une subvention au bureau de police communautaire, Westside
P.A.C.T., d'un montant égal aux droits exigés pour les travaux de construction et de plomberie et les permis nécessaires pour casser l'asphalte et raccorder le réseau d'aqueduc, aux
fins de construction d'un bureau de police communautaire dans le secteur Lower West Side. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 11.3 North End Affordable Housing On motion of
Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the submitted photographs and update provided by Councillor McGuire on affordable housing in the North End be received for
information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11.3 Logements abordables dans le quartier nord Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que
les photographies et la mise à jour présentées par le conseiller McGuire relatives à la question de logements abordables situés dans le quartier nord, soient acceptées à titre informatif.
À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée.
92-796 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 11.4 Harbour Bridge Budget 2007-2008 Referring to a submitted electronic slide presentation, Chris Titus, Acting
Chair of the Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority, highlighted budget and operational items of the Harbour Bridge Authority. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor White
RESOLVED that Common Council approve the submitted 2007-2008
budget of the Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Tait voting nay. 11.4 Budget de l'Administration du Pont du port pour
2007 et 2008 Se reportant à une présentation électronique soumise, Chris Titus, président par intérim de l'Administration du pont du port de Saint John, souligne certains points relatifs
au budget et aux opérations de l'Administration du pont du port de Saint John. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que le conseil communal approuve
le budget 2007-2008 présenté par l'Administration du pont du port de Saint John. À l’issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. Le conseiller Tait vote contre la proposition. 11.5 Affordable
Housing Projects Referring to a submitted electronic slide presentation, Councillor McGuire updated Council on housing projects in the City. 11.5 Projets relatifs aux logements abordables
Se reportant à une présentation électronique soumise, le conseiller McGuire met le conseil au courant des projets de logements dans la ville. 12. Business Matters -Municipal Officers
12.1 Ward System On motion of Councillor Tait Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the report, A Ward System -Information Related to Holding
a Plebiscite, be received for information. Councillor Tait raised a point of order saying that a motion to hold a plebiscite on the issue of a mixed system of election is not on the
agenda to which the Mayor ruled that he would entertain a motion on a plebiscite at this time. On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the
report on information relating to holding a plebiscite on the Ward System, be referred to the Common Clerk to report back at the next meeting of Council, with the related resolution
made at the Open meeting of the Committee of the Whole held on April 10/11, 2007. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor White Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the meeting continue beyond 10:00 p.m. to complete the agenda items. Question being taken, the motion was carried.
92-797 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 12. Affaires municipales évoquées par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Système électoral par quartiers Proposition
du conseiller Tait Appuyée par le conseiller Court RÉSOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le rapport présenté relatif au système électoral par quartiers et à l'information
visant la tenue d'un plébiscite, soit accepté à titre informatif. Le conseiller Tait invoque le règlement en alléguant que la motion visant à tenir un plébiscite sur la question d'un
système électoral mixte n'a pas été inscrite à l'ordre du jour, mais le maire répond qu'il accueille la motion relative au plébiscite dès maintenant. Proposition de la mairesse suppléante
Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que le rapport relatif à l'information sur la tenue d'un plébiscite visant le système électoral par quartiers, soit transmis au greffier
aux fins de compte rendu devant le conseil à sa prochaine séance, et qu'une résolution sur la question soit présentée à la séance publique du comité plénier tenue le 10 avril et le 11
avril 2007. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. Proposition du conseiller White Appuyée par le conseiller McGuire RÉSOLU que la séance soit prolongée au-delà de 22 h afin
de pouvoir traiter toutes les affaires à l'ordre du jour. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.2 Community Center Needs Confirmation Study On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton
Seconded by Councillor Chase RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council approve an amount of $60,000. to the Recreation Implementation Committee with the following
conditions and /or understandings: (i) That the Recreation Implementation Committee confirm that the balance of $79,000. ($139,000. – 60,000.) has been committed to by one or more of
the neighboring communities (Rothesay, Quispamsis, Grand Bay – Westfield, Hampton), or, (ii) Should the Recreation Implementation Committee succeed in raising the remaining $79,000.
from either the private sector or other levels of government that Common Council be so advised before final approval of the City’s contribution is given, or (iii) Should the Recreation
Implementation Committee choose to scale back the scope of its work to some value less than $139,000., then Council’s approval of funding be established as being not more than 43% of
the value of this work and that the Council be advised by the Committee of any decision in this regard: (iv) and finally, the Recreation Implementation Committee be advised that the
City of Saint John is prepared to enter into discussions at an appropriate time, with respect to a fair and equitable cost sharing of this investment, that would be an obvious benefit
to the entire region. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.2 Étude sur la confirmation des besoins Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller
Chase RÉSOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le conseil communal approuve la subvention octroyée au montant de 60 000 $ au comité de mise en oeuvre des loisirs, sous réserve
des conditions et des ententes suivantes : i) le comité de mise en oeuvre des loisirs doit confirmer qu'une des collectivités environnantes (Rothesay, Quispamsis, Grand Bay-Westfield,
Hampton) s'est engagée à acquitter le solde établi au montant de 79 000 $ (139 000 $ -60 000 $); ii) dans le cas où le comité de mise en oeuvre des loisirs réussit à se procurer le solde
92-798 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 de 79 000 $ du secteur privé ou d'autres ordres de gouvernement, il doit en aviser le conseil avant que celui-ci
procède à l'approbation finale de la contribution susmentionnée; iii) si le comité de mise en oeuvre des loisirs choisit de diminuer l'étendue des travaux et que la valeur de ceux-ci
est moins élevée que 139 000 $, le conseil ne peut autoriser le financement d'un montant supérieur à 43 % de la valeur totale des travaux prévus et le comité doit aviser le conseil de
toute décision prise à cet égard; iv) le conseil doit aviser le comité de mise en oeuvre des loisirs que The City of Saint John est prête à entamer des discussions en temps opportun
relativement à une entente de partage des coûts équitable visant cet investissement évidemment avantageux pour l'ensemble de la région. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée.
12.3 Prince William Street On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council endorse the actions outlined
in the submitted report with regard to traffic flow on Prince William Street, and the report be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.3 Rue Prince
William Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le conseil communal appuie les démarches soulignées
au rapport présenté relativement à la circulation sur la rue Prince William et que ce rapport soit accepté à titre informatif. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.4 Slope
Failure – Fallsview Drive On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that notwithstanding any policy of Council to the contrary, the Mayor and Common Clerk
be authorized to enter into a contract with a contractor identified by the Commissioner of Municipal Operations to undertake the necessary slope failure work in accordance with the detailed
design that Fundy Engineering will provide. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.4 Affaissement de la pente de la promenade Fallsview Proposition de la mairesse suppléante
Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que, nonobstant toute politique contraire prévue par le conseil, le maire et le greffier soient autorisés à conclure un contrat avec l'entrepreneur
que le commissaire aux opérations municipales aura déterminé afin d'entreprendre les travaux nécessaires pour corriger l'affaissement de la pente susmentionnée conformément au croquis
de conception détaillé que doit présenter Fundy Engineering. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.5 Provincially Designated Highways Funding for 2007 On motion of Deputy
Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the report updating Council on the funding for Provincially Designated Highways Program be
received for information.
92-799 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor Tait Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED
that the Mayor and appropriate staff meet with politicians and provincial staff to advance road work on the old Rothesay Road. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.5 Financement
pour 2007 en vertu du programme des routes provinciales désignées Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur
général, le rapport de mise à jour présenté au conseil visant le financement du programme des routes provinciales désignées, soit accepté à titre informatif. À l'issue du vote, la proposition
est adoptée. Proposition du conseiller Tait Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que le maire et les employés pertinents se réunissent avec les politiciens et les employés fédéraux
afin de hâter les travaux prévus sur le chemin Rothesay. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.6 Sale of 230 Water Street to Ellerdale Investments Ltd. On motion of Councillor
White Seconded by Deputy Mayor Hooton RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager: 1. Subject to obtaining satisfactory rezoning, the City of Saint John sell the fee simple absolute
interest in Lot #05-01 shown on the submitted Tentative Plan, also known as civic #230 Water Street to Ellerdale Investments Inc. for a purchase price of $450,000. plus H.S.T. (if applicable),
on or before 30 days after the filing in the Registry office of the Zoning By-law amendment, subject to the following terms and conditions: a) a 3 metre (10 foot) wide “buffer” no building
zone be identified at the northern end of the property; b) a portion of the site adjacent to the Three Sisters Park to be retained and used in conjunction with the park design that will
be mutually agreed upon by Ellerdale Investments Ltd. and the City; c) subject to any municipal services and/or public utility easements identified prior to the sale of Lot #05-01; and
d) City staff to remove the roses and allen block retaining wall used to support the flowers. 2. That Ellerdale Investments Ltd. be authorized to apply for the rezoning of the above
noted property. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.6 Vente de biens-fonds situés au 230, rue Water à Ellerdale Investments Ltd. Proposition du conseiller White Appuyée
par la mairesse suppléante Hooton RÉSOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur général : 1. The City of Saint John procède, sous réserve de l'obtention du rezonage adéquat, à la vente
du fief simple absolu dans le lot no 05-01 délimité sur le plan provisoire présenté et connu sous l'adresse municipale 230, rue Water, à Ellerdale Investments Inc., au prix d'achat de
450 000 $, TVH en sus (le cas échéant), au plus tard 30 jours suivant le dépôt au Bureau de l'enregistrement de la modification apportée à l'Arrêté de zonage, conformément aux modalités
suivantes :
92-800 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 a) un « tampon » de 3 mètres (10 pieds) de largeur doit être prévu sur lequel il sera affiché sur le côté nord
de la propriété que la construction est interdite dans cette zone; b) une partie du site adjacent au parc Three Sisters doit être conservée et utilisée conformément à l'esthétique du
parc comme le conviendront mutuellement Ellerdale Investments Ltd. et la Ville; c) la vente du lot no 05-01 ne sera conclue que sous réserve de toute servitude de services municipaux
ou d'entreprise de service public déterminée préalablement; d) les employés municipaux doivent enlever les roses et les blocs de mur de soutènement en béton utilisés pour soutenir les
fleurs. 2. Ellerdale Investments Ltd. est autorisée à présenter une demande de rezonage relativement à la propriété susmentionnée. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.7
Sale of Land at 51-59 Metcalf Street On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the City of Saint John sell 51-59
Metcalf Street (PID Numbers 376756 and 376764) to the Saint John Real Estate Board for $5,000. (plus HST, if applicable) on or before June 29, 2007, conditional upon ONE CHANGE INC.
providing the City of Saint John confirmation of funding for the minimum two-story (four unit) development; and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign any necessary documents
required to finalize this transaction. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.7 Vente de biens-fonds situés au 51-59, rue Metcalf Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton
Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur général, The City of Saint John procède à la vente des biens-fonds situés au 59, rue Metcalf (NID 376756
et 376764) à la chambre immobilière de Saint John au montant de 5 000 $ (TVH en sus, le cas échéant) au plus tard le 29 juin 2007, sous réserve de la présentation de ONE CHANGE INC.
à The City of Saint John, de la confirmation d'obtention du financement nécessaire pour l'aménagement d'un immeuble d'au moins deux étages (quatre unités), et que le maire et le greffier
soient autorisés à signer toute documentation exigée afin de conclure ladite transaction. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.8 Fundy Bay Festival On motion of Councillor
Chang Seconded by Councillor Tait RESOLVED that Common Council advise the Fundy Bay Festival Inc, that it is not prepared to be a sponsor of this festival in 2007 based solely on the
current financial position of the festival. Councillors Chang and Tait withdrew their motion. On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by Councillor Chase RESOLVED that Common Council
approve funding of $5,000. for Fundy Bay Festival Inc, Festival in 2007, $2,500. designated for marketing and promotion, and $2,500. for insurance, and that these transactions be verified
by the City Manager’s office with receipts showing the costs. Question being taken, the motion was carried.
92-801 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 12.8 Festival de Fundy Bay Proposition du conseiller Chang Appuyée par le conseiller Tait RÉSOLU que le conseil
communal avise les représentants du Festival Fundy Bay qu'il ne prévoit pas parrainer cet organisme en 2007 et que cette décision est fondée uniquement sur l'état financier actuel du
festival. (Les conseillers Chang et Tait retirent leur proposition.) Proposition du conseiller Court Appuyée par le conseiller Chase RÉSOLU que le conseil communal approuve la subvention
financière au montant de 5 000 $ accordée à Fundy Bay Festival Inc. pour 2007, devant être répartis comme suit : 2 500 $ attribués au marketing et à la publicité et 2 500 $ destinés
aux frais d'assurance; les reçus attestant de ces transactions doivent être déposés aux bureaux du directeur général aux fins de vérification. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée.
12.9 Land Acquisition – 97 Union Street On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, The City of Saint John
acquire the fee simple absolute interest in PID Number 37390, 97 Union St., on or before May 31, 2007 under the terms and conditions as outlined in the executed offer submitted with
M&C 2007-102 and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute any document necessary to effect the transfer. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.9 Acquisition
de biens-fonds situés au 97, rue Union Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur général, The City of
Saint John acquière le fief simple absolu dans la parcelle inscrite sous le NID 37390 située au 97, rue Union, au plus tard le 31 mai 2007, conformément aux modalités prévues en vertu
de l'offre conclue et jointe au contrat no MC 2007-102, et que le maire et le greffier soient autorisés à signer toute documentation exigée afin de conclure le transfert. À l'issue du
vote, la la proposition est adoptée. 12.10 Proposal to Operate Mispec Park On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor Court RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager,
Common Council accept the proposal submitted by the Mispec Park Recreation Committee Inc. for the operation of Mispec Park for the year 2007 and that a grant in the amount of $24,100.
be provided to the Mispec Park Recreation Committee Inc. as outlined in the submitted report and the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the appropriate documents and the Mayor and
Common Clerk be authorized to sign the documents. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.10 Proposition visant l'exploitation du parc Mispec Proposition de la mairesse suppléante
Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller Court RÉSOLUE que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le conseil communal accepte la proposition présentée par Mispec Park Recreation Committee
Inc. [comité sur les loisirs du parc Mispec] relative à
92-802 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 l'exploitation du parc Mispec pendant l'année 2007 et qu'une subvention au montant de 24 100 $ soit octroyée
audit comité, telle que le précise le rapport présenté, que l'avocat municipal soit autorisé à rédiger la documentation exigée et que le maire et le greffier communal soient autorisés
à signer ladite documentation. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.11 Unauthorized Septic Offloading in the City of Saint John – Update On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton
Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, the report updating Council on the illegal and unauthorized septic offloading into the City’s sewer collection
system be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.11 Mise à jour sur la décharge septique non autorisée dans The City of Saint John Proposition de
la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur général, le rapport de mise à jour présenté au conseil visant la décharge septique
non autorisée dans le réseau d'égouts de la ville, soit accepté à titre informatif. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.12 Future Direction Tourism Department On motion
of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that Council support the contents of the submitted report on the future direction of the Tourism Department and the process
being followed by the Deputy City Manager. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.12 Orientation future du service de tourisme Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton
Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que le conseil appuie le contenu du rapport présenté visant l'orientation future du ministère du Tourisme et les démarches entreprises par le directeur
général adjoint. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 12.13 Seasonal Development On motion of Councillor White Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that as recommended by
the City Manager, 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: i) the use is limited to a cottage/camp for seasonal use ii) the access must be developed and maintained
by the applicant in compliance with the National Building Code standard for access route design iii) the applicant agrees that the City does not provide the full range of municipal services
to the property. Question being taken, the motion was carried.
92-803 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 12.13 Aménagement saisonnier Proposition du conseiller White Appuyée par le conseiller McGuire RÉSOLU que, comme
le recommande le directeur général, le conseil communal approuve, en vertu de l'article 40 de l'Arrêté de zonage, la demande de permis de construire présentée par Mike McGraw visant
à aménager un chalet saisonnier au bord du lac Kelly, sous réserve d'une entente conclue conforme aux dispositions de l'article 101 et précisant les conditions suivantes : i) l'usage
se limite à un chalet saisonnier; ii) le demandeur doit aménager et entretenir une voie d'accès conformément aux dispositions de conception prévues aux normes établies en vertu du Code
national du bâtiment du Canada; iii) le demandeur reconnaît que la Ville ne peut offrir une gamme complète de services municipaux à la propriété. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est
adoptée. 13. Committee Reports 13.1 School Zone Safety Kids On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the report from the Saint John Board of Police
Commissioners advising that a proposed School Zone Safety Kids Program would not be feasible in Saint John, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried.
13. Rapports déposés par les comités 13.1 Zone scolaire – sécurité des enfants Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que le rapport présenté
par le Bureau des commissaires du Service de police de Saint John indiquant qu'un programme relatif à la sécurité des enfants dans les zones scolaires ne serait pas viable dans Saint
John, soit accepté à titre informatif. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 13.2 Pension Funding and Administration of Employment On motion of Councillor Court Seconded by
Councillor Chase RESOLVED that Council: a. Approve the submitted Memorandum of Agreement, with each member of Management, Professional and Non-Union staff of the City of Saint John;
and b. Adopt the submitted resolution regarding administration of employment as follows: 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.
92-804 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 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 in a partnership of public service; and that Council is committed
to entering into these formal understandings with each such member of staff. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.2 Financement de la caisse de retraite et gestion des ressources
humaines Proposition du conseiller Court Appuyée par le conseiller Chase RÉSOLU que le conseil : a) approuve le protocole d'entente présenté relatif à chaque cadre et employé professionnel
ou non syndiqué de The City of Saint John; b) adopte la résolution présentée relative à la gestion des ressources humaines comme suit : ATTENDU que l'employeur et tous ses employés,
qu'ils soient syndiqués ou non, désirent obtenir une politique d'emploi habile (ou une convention collective) axée sur des résultats positifs pour influencer la prise de décisions, favoriser
la compréhension et éclaircir les attentes; ET ATTENDU que dans le but d'assurer des services efficaces au public, il importe de créer des liens solides et positifs entre le conseil
communal et les personnes qu'il nomme comme ses représentants municipaux; IL EST RÉSOLU que le conseil demande au directeur général d'étudier les politiques d'emploi en vigueur et qu'il
soumette au conseil aux fins d'examen des propositions visant la gestion des ressources humaines, y compris l'élaboration de procédures en matière de consultation avec les employés touchés
et de réexamen périodique relativement 1) au personnel de soutien administratif non syndiqué et ii) au personnel de direction et aux professionnels nommés par le directeur général; et
que le conseil s'engage à adopter de telles politiques; ET IL EST RÉSOLU que le conseil, conjointement avec le directeur général et chaque employé engagé par le conseil, élabore des
ententes qui définissent les responsabilités et les obligations, les attentes en matière de rendement, et les modalités d'emploi en tant que partenaires au sein du secteur public, et
que le conseil s'engage à conclure ces ententes en bonne et due forme avec chacun desdits employés. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée. 14. Consideration of Issues Separated
from Consent Agenda 14.1 Saint John Community Arts Board Letter of Thanks and Update On motion of Deputy Mayor Hooton Seconded by Councillor White RESOLVED that the letter from the Saint
John Community Arts Board expressing its gratitude to Council for the continuing support that Common Council gives to the Board and updating Council on new City developments and Arts
Policy Requirements be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 14. Étude des sujets écartés des questions soumises à l'approbation du conseil 14.1 Lettre
de remerciements et de mise à jour reçue du Conseil des arts communautaires de Saint John Proposition de la mairesse suppléante Hooton Appuyée par le conseiller White RÉSOLU que la lettre
reçue du Conseil des arts communautaires de Saint John, remerciant le conseil de son engagement continu et mettant à jour celui-ci sur les nouveaux développements dans la ville et les
exigences
92-805 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL APRIL 23, 2007 /LE 23 AVRIL 2007 en matière de politique artistique, soit acceptée à titre informatif. À l'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptée.
15. General Correspondence 15. Correspondance générale 16. Adjournment The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. 16. Clôture de la séance Le maire déclare que la séance
est levée à 23 h. Mayor/maire Common Clerk/greffier communal
M & C 2007-128 May 3, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: CONTRACT 2007-5: GREEN HEAD ROAD – NEW STORM SEWER
BACKGROUND This Contract consists of a project that is approved in the 2007 General Fund Program – Storm Category as follows: 1. Install approximately 125m of new 300mm and 450mm storm
sewer for separation of storm and sanitary flows, including new catch basins and all necessary appurtenances. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on April 24, 2007 with the following results:
1) Valley Excavation Services Inc., Quispamsis, NB $99,124.00 2) Galbraith Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB $112,079.02 3) Fairville Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB $114,890.00 4)
Keel Construction Ltd., Grand Bay-Westfield, NB $130,277.40 5) L. Halpin Excavating Limited, Saint John, NB $132,732.00 6) Gulf Operators Ltd., Saint John, NB . $142,917.00 7) Maguire
Excavating Ltd., Saint John, NB $143,300.00 The Engineer’s estimate for the work was $130,662.58
M & C 2007-128 May 3, 2007 Page 2 ANALYSIS The tenders were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects with the exception of a mathematical error in the
tender submitted by Galbraith Construction Ltd. and the tender submitted by Gulf Operators Ltd. The mathematical errors were corrected in accordance with Specification Section 2.18(a)
and the corrected amounts are reported herein. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of
their
tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Contract includes work that is charged against one capital work project. Assuming award of the Contract to the low tenderer, an analysis has been
completed which includes the estimated amount of work on this project that will be performed by City forces and others. The analysis concludes that a total amount of $110,000.00 was
provided in the budget and that the projected completion cost of the project included in the Contract Contract is estimated to be $97,862.74 including the City’s eligible HST rebate
-a $12,137.26 positive difference in the General Fund Capital Program -Storm Category. POLICY – TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance
with the provisions of Council’s policy for the tendering of construction contracts, the City’s General Specifications and the specific project specifications. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended
that Contract 2007-5: Green Head Road – New Storm Sewer be awarded to the low tenderer, Valley Excavation Services Inc., at their tendered price of $99,124.00 as calculated based upon
estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Terrence
L. Totten, F.C.A. Commissioner City Manager Municipal Operations & Engineering
M & C 2007-136 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: CONTRACT 2007-28: Busby Street – Lift Station and Sanitary
Forcemain BACKGROUND This contract consists of a project that was approved in the 2006 Water & Sewerage Capital Program as follows: 1. Construction of a new duplex sanitary lift station,
valve chamber and necessary piping to disconnect the sanitary laterals from the storm sewer and redirect the sanitary flow to the sanitary sewer near Church Avenue. TENDER RESULTS Tenders
closed on May 1, 2007, with the following results: 1) Galbraith Construction Ltd. $146,064.00 Saint John, NB 2) Fairville Construction Ltd. $182,000.00 Saint John, NB 3) Gulf Operators
Ltd. $242,017.00 Saint John, NB The Engineer’s estimate for the work was $118,800.00
M & C 2007-136 May 3, 2007 Page 2 ANALYSIS The tenders were reviewed by staff and the all tenders were found to be formal in all respects. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer
has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This contract includes work that is charged against a
capital work project. Assuming award of the Contract to the low tenderer, an analysis has been completed which includes the estimated amount of work on this project that will be performed
by City forces and others. The analysis concludes that a total amount of $155,000.00 was provided in the budget and that the projected completion cost of the project included in the
Contract is estimated to be $153,568.18 including the City’s eligible HST rebate -a $1,431.82 positive difference in the Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. POLICY – TENDERING
OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council’s policy for the tendering of construction contracts, the City’s General
Specifications and the specific project specifications. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Contract 2007-28: Busby Street – Lift Station and Sanitary Forcemain be awarded to the low
tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd, at their tendered price of $146,064.00 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized
to execute the necessary contract documents. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. City Manager
M & C 2007 -129 May 1, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane & Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: CONTRACT NO. 2007-15: CHAMPLAIN DRIVE (CIVIC #30
TO TRAFFIC CIRCLE) -STREET RECONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND The 2007 General Fund Transportation Capital Program includes funding for street reconstruction on Champlain Drive. The work consists
generally of the supply of all necessary labour, materials and equipment for the installation of approximately 10 m of 20 mm Æ Type “K” soft copper pipe, 17 units of 130 mm Æ service
boxes, 12 m of 200 mm Æ sanitary sewer pipe PVC, DR35, or approved equal, 52 m of 250 mm Æ, 296 m of 300 mm Æ, 2 m of 375 mm Æ storm sewer pipe PVC DR35, or approved equal, and 2 m of
300 mm Æ concrete storm sewer pipe, Class III, or approved equal, along with all necessary appurtenances. The work also includes 1,966 m³ of road excavation, 960 m³ of imported crushed
gravel base, 680 m of concrete curb, 680 m of concrete sidewalk, placement of 1,366 t of asphalt concrete base course type “B” mix, 729 t of asphalt concrete surface course type “D”
mix, 375 m² of nursery sod and other related work. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on April 24, 2007, with the following results: 1. Valley Excavation Services Inc. Quispamsis, NB $ 528,388.85
2. Fairville Construction Ltd. Saint John, NB $ 580,188.40 3. Lafarge Canada Inc. Saint John, NB $ 589,370.33 4. Gulf Operators Ltd. Saint John, NB $ 744,630.38 The Engineer’s estimate
for the work was $606,980.00.
M & C 2007 -129 May 1, 2007 Page 2 ANALYSIS The tenders were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer
has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Contract includes work that is charged against the
2007 General Fund Transportation Capital Program. Assuming award of the Contract to the low tenderer, an analysis has been completed which includes work that will be performed by City
forces and others. The analysis concludes that a total amount of $580,000.00 was provided in the budget and that the projected completion cost of the project is estimated to be $485,788.70,
including the City’s eligible H.S.T. rebate -a $94,211.30 positive difference. POLICY – TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with
the provisions of Council’s policy for the tendering of construction contracts, the City’s General General Specifications and the specific project specifications. RECOMMENDATION It is
recommended that Contract No: 2007-15: Champlain Drive (Civic #30 to Traffic Circle) – Street Reconstruction, be awarded to the low tenderer, Valley Excavation Services Inc., at their
tendered price of $528,388.85 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Respectfully
submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. City Manager
OPEN SESSION M & C 2007 – 125 April 30, 2007 His Worship Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT Provision of Compensatory Storage – Saulnier
Management Ltd., 55 Majors Brook Drive BACKGROUND In early 1999 Common Council adopted guidelines respecting the sale of flood storage which would allow developments in the flood risk
area to proceed on land parcels incapable of providing compensatory storage. Subsequent to adopting the guidelines Council has authorized the sale of compensatory storage totaling 78,270
cubic metres. The vast majority of this volume has been provided for the development of First Professionals on Westmorland Road (see attached). The sale of this compensatory storage
has facilitated development in the Westmorland Road area in excess of $30 million. The City of Saint John, in advance of selling compensatory storage, undertook construction projects
along Golden Grove Road which resulted in the creation of approximately 85,000 cubic metres of new flood storage. The retention ponds, which accommodate approximately 85,000 cubic metres
of floodwater, accomplish three important objectives: · Provision of flooding relief to the residents of Glen Falls. · Allow continued development within the flood risk area. · Provide
compensatory flood storage for residents in the Glen Falls area who may wish to improve their property or expand their building. ANALYSIS In developing suggested guidelines for Council,
staff acknowledged a fundamental principal. Although development within the flood risk area has economic benefits for the entire City, such development should not proceed if the potential
exists for a
M & C 2007 -125 -2 -April 30, 2007 negative impact on the flooding situation in the Glen Falls area. With this underlying principal, Council adopted the following guidelines: Ø The applicant
must demonstrate to the Building Inspector that it is not practical to provide any or all of the compensatory storage on the property being developed. Ø The developer (or any affiliated
company) does not own other property within or adjacent to the flood risk area upon which the necessary compensatory flood storage could reasonably be provided. Ø Compensatory storage
must be provided within the same designated flood risk area of the displaced storage. Ø Sale of compensatory storage must be approved by Council. Ø Costs per cubic unit to the developer
will vary, dependent on the specifics of each application. Ø Monies received by the City in the sale of compensatory storage will be used solely for Marsh Creek flood reduction programs.
Ø The City will at no time be in a deficit position resulting from the sale of compensatory storage with respect to flood storage capacity. Ø The City will not pre-sell any storage capacity
in anticipation of a development. Ø The City is at no time obligated to sell compensatory storage to any developer. To date the City has not deviated from these guidelines. The City
has recently been requested by Saulnier Management Ltd. to sell 713 cubic metres of compensatory storage in order that they may construct a motel at 55 Majors Brook Drive. Rock fill
was placed on the site originally and will be separately compensated by the property owner’s flood pond on Golden Grove Road. Presently the City has available 5,251 cubic metres of remaining
compensatory storage which could be made available to developers within the flood risk area. If the request is approved by Council the City will be left with 4,538 cubic metres available.
Whereas the creation of the retention ponds have played a significant role in the development of this area, and further, whereas the retention ponds have significantly alleviated alleviated
the incidents of flooding in the Glen Falls area, the City should consider locating other lands for construction of additional flood water storage. As Council will note from the adopted
guidelines, the cost per cubic unit to a developer will vary depending on the specifics of each application. As can be seen on the attachment the initial price for compensatory storage
was $4.60 per cubic metre, then $5.41 per cubic metre. These prices were based on the actual cost to the
M & C 2007 -125 -3 -April 30, 2007 City for the construction of the retention ponds. The second phase of the retention pond was smaller in scope than the initial phase, and consequently,
carried a much higher cost per unit. The Engineering Department has calculated that the best figure for unit cost is now $10.75. The developer has been advised and has agreed to this
price subject to Council approval. As shown on the attached, the City still has available 5,251 cubic metres of storage in its retention ponds. The sale of this needed 713 cubic metres
can be supported. The sale, if approved by Council, will result in revenues of $7,664.75. RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends that · Saulnier Management Ltd. be advised that
Common Council will sell compensatory storage, calculated at the rate of $10.75 per cubic metre, for each cubic metre of flood storage displaced by the development, up to 713 cubic metres,
at their development on Majors Brook Drive, and · this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Edwards, P. Eng. Commissioner Buildings and Inspection Services Terrence
Totten, CA City Manager WE/ljv Attachment
M & C – 2007 – 137 May 3, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Public Hearing Dates 921 Ashburn Road, 10 Culloden
Court and 100 Prince Edward Street BACKGROUND: As provided in Common Council’s resolution of August 3, 2004, this report indicates the Rezoning and Section 39 applications received and
recommends an appropriate public hearing date. The full applications are available in the Common Clerk’s office and will form part of the documentation presented at the Public Hearing.
The following applications have been received. Name of Location Existing Proposed Reason Applicant Zone Zone A. C. Fairweather 921 Ashburn “RF” “I-1” To permit & Sons Ltd. Road a warehouse
Saint John YMCA-100 Prince “ID” Sec. 39 To permit a YWCA Inc. Edward Street amendment facia sign F.C.S. Housing 10 Culloden “RM-2” “IL-1” To permit a Court transition house The public
hearings for these applications would normally have been scheduled for June 4, 2007. However, there is no council meeting scheduled for that date.
Report to Common Council Page 2 May 3, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council schedule the Public Hearings for the rezoning and Section 39 applications of A. C. Fairweather & Sons
Ltd. (921 Ashburn Road), Saint John YMCA-YWCA (100 Prince Edward Street) and F.C.S. Housing (10 Culloden Court) for Monday, June 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Respectfully
submitted, Jim R. Baird, MCIP Commissioner Planning and Development Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager JRB/r
M & C – 2007-141 May 3, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Residential Infrastructure Assistance #39 Purdy's Corner
ANALYSIS: On May 7, 2001, Council approved the establishment of a program to assist developers with the installation of services for residential developments. The following applications
have been received and qualify for assistance as set out in the program guidelines: Applicant Location # and Type Estimated of Units 2006 Assistance #39 W & S Holdings Ltd. Purdy’s Corner
15 $90,000 1040 Manawagonish Rd townhouses The actual amount of assistance provided will depend on the actual service costs experienced, and the phasing of the development. RECOMMENDATION:
#39 W & S Holding Ltd. development, Manchester Estates Development at Purdy’s Corner with an estimated 2007 expenditure of $90,000 Respectfully submitted, Jim R. Baird, MCIP Terrence
Totten, F.C.A. Commissioner City Manager Planning and Development JRB/mmf
M & C 2007 -139 May 3rd, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: POLICY – CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS PURPOSE OF
REPORT The purpose of this report is to request the opportunity to make a presentation to Council at the meeting of Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007 on the matter of Capital construction. BACKGROUND
On November 19th, 2003, Saint John Common Council adopted the Tendering Policy for Construction Contracts which became effective on January 1st, 2004. In conjunction with the City Manager’s
policy recommendation to Council, staff undertook an exhaustive review of the City’s General Specifications and prepared a modern and fully up-to-date version of those documents. The
tendering policy was founded on the following principles: d That the City of Saint John seeks to duly represent the public interest in the management of its public tendering process
for construction contracts; d That taxpayers/ratepayers have the right to expect the benefits of free and open competition, that is, the best goods and services at the lowest possible
prices; d That municipal tendering should duly respect the place of other stakeholders, including vendors and contractors, in the process; and d That the values of integrity, effectiveness,
due process and efficiency must be inherent in the process. In preparing the policy recommendation and the long overdue updating of the General Specifications, input was sought and received
from the Purchasing Agent, the Legal Department, as well as other staff. There was also consultation with the Competition Bureau of Industry Canada and staff participated in a workshop
conducted by the Bureau. We also sought comments from the Saint John Construction Association.
Policy – Construction Contracts May 2nd, 2007 Report to Common Council Page 2 ANALYSIS Council’s policy and the City’s specifications for construction contracts are fundamentally sound;
however, the City remains open to dialogue with the public and stakeholders towards enhancing the process and policies and procedures related thereto. In fact, a regular review and consultation
process is built right into the General Specifications and Council is aware that recommendations for changes are made from time to time. Staff requests the opportunity to submit a report
and make a presentation on several matters related to the tendering and management of construction contracts in order to inform Council, the construction industry and, most importantly,
the public: 1. Provide a summary of the many important projects completed in recent years; 2. Outline the tendering and construction contract schedule for 2007; 3. Present a reporting
tool for the ongoing information of Council and the public on tracking progress of projects and related costs in a particular program year; and 4. Provide a brief overview of the City’s
Tendering Policy for Construction Contracts. Council is also aware that there has been dialogue with the Saint John Construction Association and that further meetings have been scheduled.
RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council support the scheduling of a presentation at its meeting of May 22nd, 2007 and this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted,
J.M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, FCA City Manager
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C – 2007-133 4 May 2007 His Worship Norman McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Auction Services BACKGROUND: The
most accepted method for the disposal of surplus or replaced assets is by means of public auction. While other methods such as trade-in or Sale by Public Tender might have some limited
application, by and large the most effective method employed by public entities is the auction. Traditionally the City of Saint John holds two public auctions per year. In June we hold
the Annual Bike Auction and in late October or early November we hold the Annual Fleet Auction. The bike auction is an opportunity for the Saint John Police Force to dispose of the bicycles
it accumulates as stolen property or turned in as found. As well, some evidence no longer required to support criminal proceedings is removed from storage and sold. At the same time
the City of Saint John, the Town of Grand Bay, the Saint John Free Public Library and others use use this opportunity to dispose of surplus or replaced office equipment and furniture.
The Fleet Auction is the City’s only opportunity to dispose of surplus or replaced vehicles and equipment. Every 24 months the City calls a proposal for the provision of auctioneering
services required to facilitate both of these auctions. Once the best proposal is accepted the auctioneer is required to undertake both events.
Page Two ANALYISIS: The purpose of this report is to bring Council’s attention to the fact there have been and continue to be problems with this approach to engaging auctioneering services
and to make recommendations that staff believe will positively address these concerns. The following is a list of the issues that directly impact on the effectiveness of the auctions
and there ability to generate the maximum benefit to the City; · The present proposal method is used to engage auctioneering services at a fixed percentage fee, for both auctions and
for a 24 month period. This approach results in the elimination of potential auctioneers as this is becoming a specialized field. Auctioneers that specialize in fleet disposal for example
are not as effective when disposing of other assets while the reverse is the case with auctioneers that specialize in smaller assets. · The pool of available auctioneers who specialize
in fleet disposal is very limited with the three main auction houses being located in Fredericton. There are no fleet auctioneers located in Saint John. · Only the fleet auctioneers
submit proposals for the provision of this service and as a result the Bike Auction suffers for a lack of professional expertise on behalf of an auctioneer that specializes in fleet
items. · The City has insufficient assets available on an annual bases to warrant more than one vehicle auction per year, as a result certain vehicles that cannot be used until the fall
auction must be stored. This is a problem due to a lack of available storage space available. · Auctioneers complain that the Bike auction generates too little revenue. The annual revenue
generated from this auction is normally in the area of $12,000.00 per year, however the auctioneer who is working on a fee of 4.5% of revenue has to incur the same operating costs to
provide this auction as he would to do the fleet auction which generates significantly more revenue. · Both auctions are held in Saint John and due to the fact that only fleet specialist
bid and they are all located in Fredericton, they are required to mobilize their operations and set up shop in Saint John for a minimum of 3 days. · The City’s role in preparing to dispose
of its inventory of surplus assets, whether small items for the bike auction or vehicles and equipment for the fall auction is time consuming and costly. The City is required to provide
a site, prepare the items for transfer and then move and secure the items until the auctioneer assumes control. · Over the years the City has experienced some very good auction sales
and has realized greater revenues than anticipated, however there have been years when the outcomes were not so satisfactory. Feed back from staff and purchasers have lead us to one
conclusion, the level of acceptance and the quality of services provided varies greatly between auctioneers.
Page Three ANALYSIS….Cont’d; Fleet Administration, with the continued support of Council has, since initiating the Fleet Replacement Program, made continual and progressive improvements
in the residual value of vehicles available at auction. This has resulted in increased reinvestment into the program and has contributed to efforts to hold the line and eventually reduce
the amount of departmental investment. However, if steps are not taken to improve the quality of auctioneering services and this impacts negatively on the revenues anticipated from sales
then the gains realized will be lost. Staff wishes to propose a change in the City’s approach to the disposal of these assets. The following recommendations are being presented for Councils
review and approval; · That staff cease the practice of issuing one proposal call for both auctions and issue separate bid requests for each auction; · That Council allow staff to consider
sending vehicles and equipment to the auctioneers location for disposal rather than than requiring the auctioneer to mobilize his operation to Saint John, · That unless a vehicle has
a cost effective application within the fleet pool, as an internal rental vehicle, that it be disposed of as quickly as possible after replacement, · That staff continue to pursue, where
it is deemed economically feasible to do so, alternative methods of asset disposal outside the auction method. These recommendations are supported by a pilot project undertaken by Fleet
Administration in March 2007. At that time the City was in possession of nine vehicles which were turned in after the previous year vehicle auction. Included were 4 one tonne trucks
of various configurations, 3 intermediate size dump trucks, 1 1985 fire pumper truck and a 1999 Ford Taurus sedan. None of these vehicles were deemed to be in appropriate condition to
be moved into the fleet pool and reused as internal rentals.
Page Four ANALYSIS….Cont’d; Staff had two options available; 1) hold these vehicles over until the fall vehicle auction or 2) send them to Fredericton for disposal by one of the specialized
fleet auctioneers. Staff contacted Jardine Auctioneers and requested a proposal from them to assume responsibility for these vehicles and to dispose of them at their next on site auction.
Jardine auctioneers were chosen for this pilot project for 2 reasons; 1) the City is very familiar with this company, who were the official auctioneers to the City on 2003 and 2004,
the two years that generated the most revenue from sale and 2) Jardine is under contract as the official auctioneer to the Government of Canada until 2011 and as a result has Government
of Canada vehicles available for auction at least four times per year. Staff has analyzed the results of the pilot auction with the following results; · Expenses incurred by the City,
not withstanding that the vehicles had to be transported to Fredericton for sale, were 10% less for the pilot project than those incurred for the same types of vehicles during the fall
vehicle auction of 2006, · The fee structure used by the auctioneer was the same as their contract prices with the Government contract auction and slightly higher than the prices paid
by the City to the auctioneer employed for the previous vehicle auction. Given this, it was anticipated that the revenue share to the City would be lower, however, overall the revenue
to the City for these vehicles was 20% higher($6,062.00) than that realized for the same types of vehicles as sold in Saint John during the previous fall auction, · The effort and cost
incurred by the City, to dispose of the nine pilot project vehicles compared to that experienced for the previous fall auction, was greatly reduced. The auctioneer was found to be efficient,
professional and prompt in all his dealings with the City. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Whereas, the sale of surplus materials, vehicles and equipment generates revenue which is reinvested
into the Fleet Replacement Program, and these recommendations, if adopted, are anticipated to increase revenues and reduce operating costs, there are no negative financial implications.
Page Five RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended; · That staff cease the practice of issuing one proposal call for both auctions and issue separate bid requests for each auction; · That
Council allow staff to send vehicles and equipment to the auctioneers location for disposal rather than requiring the auctioneer to mobilize his operation to Saint John, · That unless
a vehicle has a cost effective application within the fleet pool, as an internal rental vehicle, that it be disposed of as quickly as possible after replacement, · That staff continue
to pursue, where it is deemed economically feasible to do so, alternative methods of asset disposal outside the auction method, and · That for the balance of the 2007 Fleet Replacement
Program year, staff continue to engage the services of Jardine Auctioneers for the disposal of surplus or replaced fleet assets. Respectfully submitted, _____________________ David Logan,
CPPB Purchasing Agent/Manager Materials and Fleet Management _____________________ T.L. Totten, FCA FCA City Manager
M & C – 2007-146 May 4, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Servicing -1210 Loch Lomond Road BACKGROUND: On November
6, 2006 Common Council rezoned the above noted property to permit the development of a commercial building to accommodate Galbraith Florist. Section 39 conditions required that the development
be serviced via the sanitary sewer located at the rear of the large property. ANALYSIS: The engineering consultant for the developer proposed a 229 m (751 ft) of 200 mm (8in) sewer extension
along their east property line. The building would then be connected to this new line. (The alternative was to connect the building directly to the building with a building service line).
The proposed sewer extension would provide for the future servicing of the adjacent land and the extension of services
along this portion of Loch Lomond Road. (The Irving service station and area homes are presently serviced by on site septic facilities). Discussions at the staff level centred on the
potential for, and appropriateness of, cost sharing. As the sewer extension provided for services to other properties, cost sharing was discussed with the developer. It was staffs’ intention
to seek Council approval when the costs were finalized. The developer understood the discussion as a commitment and proceeded to have the line installed. No payments have been made to
the developer.
Report to Common Council Page 2 May 4, 2007 The installed line is located completely on the applicant’s property. If there is to be future service extensions, a municipal service easement
must be secured. This area of Loch Lomond Road would naturally be serviced via the newly installed line. Although no service is provided to existing homes or businesses, the sewer line
does allow for service extensions that were not possible before. Given the above circumstance, it is recommended that The City contribute $23,725.50 (50% of the cost) to the developer
in exchange for a municipal services easement along the east property line between Loch Lomond Road and the Little River trunk sewer. Funds would be provided from the Economic Development
Capital Budget allocation for cost sharing. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That $23, 725.50 be provided to Galbraith Florist Ltd. as cost sharing of the construction of the sewer extension on condition
that a municipal services easement containing the line is provided; and 2. That Council Council assent to proposed municipal services easement along the east property line of the property
at 1210 Loch Lomond Road. Respectfully submitted, Jim R. Baird, MCIP Commissioner Planning and Development Terrence Totten, F.C.A. City Manager JRB:lll
Report to Common Council Page 3 May 4, 2007
M & C – 2007 – 145 May 4, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Street Closing of a Portion of Retail Drive
(formerly Marlborough Avenue) ANALYSIS: The construction of Retail Drive is now nearing completion and will soon be ready to be opened to the public. The portion of Retail Drive extending
from Rothesay Avenue to the northwest corner of the Home Depot property is already within a public street right-of-way (formerly called Marlborough Avenue). A small area at the end of
this existing public street right-of-way has not been utilized for the construction of the street and is therefore not required for street purposes. It would be appropriate at this time
to initiate the process of closing this small area. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council authorize the publishing of a notice of its intention to consider the passing of a by-law to stop
up and close that portion of the Retail Drive (formerly Marlborough Avenue) public street right-of-way that is not required for street purposes. Respectfully submitted, Jim R. Baird,
MCIP Terrence Totten, F.C.A. Commissioner City Manager Planning and Development JRB/r
R E P O R T T O C O M M O N C O U N C I L 3 May, 2007 M & C – 2007-148 HIS WORSHIP NORMAN MCFARLANE AND MEMBERS OF COMMON COUNCIL YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCL: SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT
OF ARBITRATION BOARD IN THE MATTER OF A GRIEVANCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN AND THE SAINT JOHN FIRE FIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION, I.A.F.F., LOCAL 771 BACKGROUND: A grievance related to
Statutory Holidays being considered pensionable earnings was submitted to Common Council. A grievance hearing was held on Tuesday April 10, 2007 and Common Council declined jurisdiction
on this grievance. Local 771 subsequently referred this matter to arbitration pursuant to Article 20:07 of the Local 771 Collective Agreement. The City of Saint John is required to appoint
a nominee to this Arbitration Board. ANALYSIS Staff have considered a variety of options and put forward the name of Gerald M. (Gary) Lawson of the firm Lawson & Creamer. Mr. Lawson
was the City nominee on previous Arbitration Boards. Mr. Lawson has practiced law in Saint John John for approximately twenty eight years and has specialized in the fields of labour
and commercial/business law. He has acted for employers as an appointee and appeared for the employer in labour arbitration matters.
Report to Common Council Page 2 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES This matter has been discussed with the Fire Chief and the City Solicitor. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Mr. Gerald M.
(Gary) Lawson be named as the City’s nominee on the Arbitration Board in the matter of this grievance between the City of Saint John and the Saint John Fire Fighters’ Association, Local
771, I.A.F.F. Respectfully submitted, Terrence Totten FCA City Manager John McIntyre Manager, Human Resources
R E P O R T T O C O M M O N C O U N C I L M&C #2007-4 May, 2007 HIS WORSHIP NORMAN MCFARLANE AND MEMBERS OF COMMON COUNCIL YOUR WORSHIP AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL SUBJECT: NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN AND THE SAINT JOHN FIRE FIGHTERS’ ASSOCIATION, I.A.F.F., LOCAL 771 BACKGROUND: The collective agreement between Local 771 and the City of Saint John will expire
on June 30, 2007. Local 771 submitted a request to negotiate a replacement collective agreement pursuant to Article 27:01 of the current collective agreement. This written submission
was submitted to Common Council on April 17, 2007 and it is incumbent upon the parties to commence collective bargaining. ANALYSIS: Management contemplated outsourcing the role of chief
negotiator, but concluded this would not reduce the workload associated with negotiations, and could jeopardize the good working relationship between Local 771 and management. Negotiations
could be difficult due to the impact of a number of external issues. Given these factors, it is preferred to have internal resources conduct the negotiations. Prior to exchanging proposals
with Local 771, staff will brief Common Council on the management proposals.
Report to Common Council Page 2 John McIntyre, Manager Human Resources, will lead these negotiations and will report to the City Manager. Senior staff of the Fire Department will also
play a critical role in these negotiations. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES This matter has been discussed with the Fire Chief. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that staff brief Common Council
at an appropriate time on the management proposals and commence collective bargaining with local 771. Respectfully submitted, Terrence Totten FCA City Manager John McIntyre Manager,
Human Resources
M & C – 2007-143 May 4, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Berryman Investment Inc. Cost Sharing Agreement 210
Cottage Road The purpose of this report is to update Council on the discussions regarding the development of this subdivision. BACKGROUND: In July 2003, approval was given to rezone
this property to “RSS” One and Two Family Suburban Residential recognizing that service extension would be required. Extensive discussions occurred with developers and potential development
partners on servicing options. In November 2006, Council approval was given to a revised proposal and rezoning of the area to “R-2” One and Two Family Residential. The first phase consists
of 49 lots. Each lot would have a two family semi-detached building for 98 units. Ultimately, there would be 158 lots for 316 units. Mr. Berryman and his development partners have engaged
engineering consultants to design a trunk sewer and trunk water line extension to bring services to the edge of the subdivision. These plans have been reviewed by City engineers and
are acceptable. They are also in the process of negotiating required easements, but for the most part the services would be extended from the services on Old Black River Road. The extension
would service approximately 20 existing homes. Small extensions could lead to the development of 20 additional lots. A larger (45 acres) undeveloped parcel owned by the province would
also be serviceable if the extension proceeded.
Report to Common Council Page 2 May 4, 2007 The extension is estimated to cost approximately $400,000. Costs are still being finalized. However, if these costs are allocated to the existing
and proposed lots only (not future lots) it would represent between $1,200 and $1,500 per lot. Negotiations are continuing, however the basis of discussion to date is that the developer
would design and build the trunk extensions in accordance with approved plans. The developer would pay a proportion of the cost associated with the first 49 lots (approximately 25%)
and commit to pay a pre-lot levy as additional lots are developed. The City would pay for the remaining costs but in time would be repaid by the developer, except for the existing 20
lots. This type of arrangement has been undertaken in Drury Cove and to a lesser extent in Cedar Point. The cost per unit is reasonable, but the development is providing housing that
is more modest. As indicated earlier, this development has been under discussion for nearly four years. The developer and his partners feel that the market is ready for the development
of this type of housing in this part of the City. When negotiations are complete, a final report with a proposed agreement will be prepared and presented for Council approval. RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Manager finalize an agreement based on contents of this report. Respectfully submitted, Jim R. Baird, MCIP Commissioner Planning and Development Terrence Totten, F.C.A.
City Manager JRB/mmf
Report to Common Council Page 3 May 4, 2007
M & C – 2007 – 144 May 4, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Negotiation of Land Exchanges for Retail Drive Public
Street Alignment BACKGROUND: On July 18, 2006, Common Council assented to the vesting of Retail Drive as a public street. As part of the development agreement, the parcel in which the
street is being constructed was subsequently created and conveyed to the City so that the City would have ownership of the improvements being undertaken by the developer. The terms of
the agreement with the developer (East Point Inc.) provide that the vesting as a public street will occur once the street is fully completed and open to traffic. On October 23, 2006,
Common Council also approved easement agreements between East Point Inc. and Clear View Mobile Homes Ltd. and the City to ensure that the City can maintain the significant sloped areas
adjacent to Retail Drive on East Point and Clear View’s properties. ANALYSIS: As Council is aware, late last year the design of Retail Drive in the area where it connects with the former
Marlborough area was adjusted slightly in order to provide a better curve and gradient. As a result, the inside of the curve of the travelled road actually cuts across the corner of
land that East Point Inc. still owns, while the outside of the curve does not utilize a significant portion the former Marlborough Street right-of-way as well as a portion of the parcel
that the
Report to Common Council Page 2 May 4, 2007 City acquired from the developer. The attached map illustrates the present property ownership pattern. As noted in the Background, once the
street is fully constructed the Development Officer will be approving a plan that will vest it as a public street in accordance with Council’s July 18, 2006 assent. This will result
in some remnant parcels, as well as a portion of the former Marlborough Street right-of-way, that are not required to be part of the public street right-of-way. With respect to the land
that is currently a public street, but not being utilized, formal closure will be required. A separate report is provided on this matter. The remnant parcels will remain in the City’s
ownership. However, the developer has expressed an interest in reacquiring these surplus portions of the City-owned land and former Marlborough Street right-of-way in exchange for the
parcel on the inside of the curve that will need to be vested in the City. Municipal Operations and Engineering is agreeable to closing a portion of the street and conveying the parcels
to the developer. However, the City would retain an easement protecting the sloped areas that would be outside of the resulting Retail Drive public right-of-way. At this point a final
agreement has not been concluded as the exact nature and extent of the proposed land exchange has not been determined. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Manager continue to negotiate an
appropriate exchange of land with the developer for the Retail Drive street alignment. Respectfully submitted, Jim R. Baird, MCIP Commissioner Planning and Development Terrence Totten,
F.C.A. City Manager JRB Project No.
R E P O R T T O C O M M O N C O U N C I L May 7, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norman McFarlane And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: RE: PENSION PLAN FUNDING UPDATE BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to provide Common Council with an update on various actions that are being taken to address the pension funding matter. SOLVENCY FUNDING EXEMPTION As Common
Council is aware one of the key issue facing the City in dealing with the funding shortfall in the Employee Pension Plan is getting an exemption from the solvency funding requirements
of the Pension Benefits Act. The process for seeking an exemption from this funding requirement is detailed in Regulations to the Pension Benefits Act. The most significant requirement
is that all members (both retired and active) be polled to determine if they support the request for exemption. At least 51% of the individuals who respond to the polling must support
the application in order for it to be considered by the Superintendent of Pensions. In accordance with the Regulations the polling of members is initiated by the administrator of the
Pension Plan, in our case the Board of Trustees of the City of Saint John Employee Pension Plan.. At a meeting held on April 28, 2007 at the request of the City, the Board approved the
initiation of the polling process. The accounting firm of
Report to Common Council Page 2 Subject: Pension Plan Funding Update Grant Thornton has been appointed to oversee the polling process and count the returned ballots. Notices were sent
out to all active and retired members of the Pension Plan on Monday April 30, 2007. The deadline for returning of the ballots is Thursday, June 14 and the returned ballots will be counted
on June 15. With the polling of members completed, and assuming that we get the required 51% support, we will then be able to proceed with an application to the Superintendent of Pensions
for exemption from the solvency funding requirements. The application would be submitted prior to the end of June. INCREASED EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS As a result of the management/non-union
employees’ agreement to change their agreement related to pension funding, the City has been advised that the Firefighters Union will now sign a similar agreement. With this in place
the City will be in a position to start collecting an additional 2% of earnings from all employees to offset the city’s costs associated with funding the goingconncer deficit in the
Pension Plan. These deductions will commence as of May 1, 2007. These additional contributions will raise total employee contributions to 10.5% of pensionable earnings. The Federal Income
Tax Act prescribes that employee contributions to a defined benefit pension plan cannot exceed 9% of earnings. There are provisions however that allow for an exemption to be granted
to this limit. An application is being prepared to submit to the Federal Government and the approval process is anticipated to take approximately three (3) months. One of the items that
will be required is that the Plan text be amended to incorporate the new funding arrangements. This can be done with a retro-active effective date. Accordingly the appropriate amendments
for the City’s Pension Act are being drafted for consideration by the Pension Board of Trustees and Common Council that will then be submitted to the Provincial Legislature this Fall.
RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted,
Report to Common Council Page 3 Subject: Pension Plan Funding Update ____________________________ Andrew P. Beckett C.A. Deputy City Manager Programs & Priorities ____________________________
Terry L. Totten FCA City Manager
M&C -2007 April 30, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane And Members of Common Council: SUBJECT: P.R.O. Kids (Positive Recreation Opportunities for Kids) Annual Report BACKGROUND: In
January 2002, P.R.O. Kids officially launched its program. P.R.O. Kids is a program offered by Leisure Services, adopted by Council on September 5, 2001 and is designed to assist financially
challenged children to participate in the leisure pursuit of their choice. (For further information on the P.R.O. Kids program, please see pages 3-5 of the 2006 Annual Report.) Presented
with this report is the P.R.O. Kids 2006 Annual Report. It is a requirement that P.R.O. Kids report to Council the activities of the program each year prior to April 30. RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the 2006 Annual Report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, Bernie Morrison Commissioner of Leisure Services Terrence L. Totten, C.A. City Manager
~ 2 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Table of Contents What is P.R.O. Kids? ................................................................................3 · Vision Statement
............................................................................3 · Mission Statement............................................................................3 How is
P.R.O. Kids Different from Other Programs?..............................4 Why is P.R.O. Kids Essential? ..................................................................4 What are the
Benefits of Recreation? ......................................................5 How Does P.R.O. Kids Link Children to Leisure Opportunities? ..........5 P.R.O. Kids Statistics for 2006...............
..................................................6 · Municipality Breakdown.............................................................. 7-8 · Type of Support Provided .............................
.................................9 · Gender Ratio...................................................................................10 · Age Breakdown ................................................
.............................10 Financial Results 2006.............................................................................11 Fundraising Events and Activities in 2006 .......................
.............. 12-15 Sponsors in 2006................................................................................ 16-19 Advisory Committee ........................................................
.......................20 Conclusion................................................................................................21
~ 3 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 P.R.O. Kids Positive Recreation Opportunities for Kids What is P.R.O. Kids? The Vision All children and youth in Greater Saint John have
the opportunity to participate in the arts, cultural, recreation, and sport activity of their choice. The P.R.O. Kids’ Mission is. . . To provide assistance to as many children and youth
as possible who, due to lack of funds, are unable to participate in sport, art, recreation or cultural activities. P.R.O. Kids is a service that matches children and teens up to the
age of 18 with organized, registered recreation activities. P.R.O. Kids receives support from organizations, businesses and service providers who donate spaces in their programs, provide
financial or “in kind” assistance, and/or donate supplies, equipment and transportation to and from activities and programs. P.R.O. Kids is a proactive and confidential service offered
by the Leisure Services Department of the City of Saint John to all children and youth in Saint John, Quispamsis, Grand Bay-Westfield and Rothesay. All administration costs are covered
by the City of Saint John and the Towns of Grand Bay-Westfield, Quispamsis and Rothesay, allowing 100% of the funds received through donations, grants and fundraisers to go directly
to the children and youth of our community. Healthy Children and Youth ~ Healthy Communities Working Together ~
~ 4 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 How is P.R.O. Kids Different from Other Programs? P.R.O. Kids has a wide interest in providing opportunities for children and youth in
a variety of activities beyond sports. The program addresses the following issues that often arise without such a program: Often families do not know who to ask for assistance within
the organization. Families are not aware that assistance is available. Many families are uncomfortable requesting financial assistance. It was difficult to determine whether the children
who really need the support were getting the support. P.R.O. Kids is distinguished from other programs in that all money received goes directly to program participants. The City of Saint
John and the towns of Rothesay, Quispamsis and Grand Bay-Westfield cover all overhead costs associated with the program, which means 100% of all donations, grants and fundraising proceeds
go directly back to the children and youth of greater Saint John. Why is P.R.O. Kids Essential? Poverty is a social issue that impacts a significant portion of our community, shown by
Saint John’s staggering poverty rate of 24.5% (Saint John Vibrant Communities Leadership Roundtable’s 2004 Poverty Reduction Strategy for Saint John). If we ever hope to overcome it,
we must break the cycle by assisting the next generation. Financial barriers are not limited to people defined in the official poverty statistics. For a variety of reasons, hardship
is being experienced by a growing number of families. Placing applicants
~ 5 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 through the P.R.O. Kids program assists in reducing these negative statistics and helps to better our community. What are the Benefits
of Recreation? According to the Canadian Parks & Recreation Association, becoming involved in a positive past time has great benefits to all citizens. It is important to instill this
notion in people at a young age. P.R.O. Kids is committed to assist in providing this opportunity. Recreation… Builds healthy communities and a healthy lifestyle Is an investment in
the future of our young people Fosters cooperation and good citizenship Promotes positive behaviours Encourages community involvement Develops leadership skills Develops physical and
creative skills Provides fun and enjoyment Is an important tool in crime prevention Strengthens families Promotes healthy development Builds social skills Lowers rates of illness and
associated costs Results in higher grades and children and youth who stay in school longer How Does P.R.O. Kids Link Children to Leisure Opportunities? Children and youth, their parent/guardian,
or an agency working with the child apply to P.R.O. Kids for help placing the child/youth in an activity of their choice. A reference is required with each application. References verify
that the child would benefit from a program/activity and could not afford to participate on their own. A reference can be a teacher, Community Police Officer, coach, clergy, social worker,
neighbour or leader in recreation and/or cultural programs. After receiving an application, the P.R.O. Kids Manager then matches the applicant with an activity by providing funding or
matching the child/youth with a donated space. The P.R.O. Kids team fully respects the sensitivities, preferences and individuality of the client in making these critical decisions.
~ 6 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 P.R.O. Kids Statistics for 2006 2006 PLACEMENT SUMMARY -OVERALL Age Breakdown Gender Activity Participants Additional Assist. <6 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 M F Equip. Transport. Air Cadets 1 1 1 1 Ball Hockey 3 1 1 1 3 1 Baseball 5 1 1 2 1 5 Basketball 9 1 3 1 1 3 4 5 1 Bowling 3 2 1 2 1 Boxing 2 1 1 2 1 Cheerleading
39 1 1 1 3 1 6 3 3 5 5 1 9 1 38 5 2 Choir 1 1 1 Dance 27 4 5 4 4 1 2 2 2 3 2 25 14 4 Day Camp 9 1 3 3 1 1 6 3 2 Diving 1 1 1 Fitness Membership 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 5 5 7 Football 2 2 2
Gymnastics 21 5 3 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 18 1 Hockey 33 1 4 4 2 2 2 8 3 4 2 1 30 3 9 Horseback Riding 5 2 1 1 1 1 4 Lacrosse 5 1 1 2 1 5 4 1 Kindermusik 8 8 3 5 8 Martial Arts Ju Jitsu 14 1
3 3 2 1 1 1 2 9 5 5 2 Karate 1 1 1 1 Kung Fu 1 1 1 Tae Kwon Do 42 2 8 10 6 4 4 1 4 1 1 1 30 12 38 15 Music Lessons Clarinet Lessons 1 1 1 Guitar Lessons 3 1 1 1 3 1 Piano Lessons 5 1
1 1 1 1 1 4 1 Vocal Lessons 3 3 3 Scouts/Guides 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 Skating 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 Soccer 25 3 4 1 2 5 2 5 1 2 19 6 6 1 Soccer -Indoor 2 1 1 2 Summer Camp 122 1 7 14 15
29 18 9 17 6 3 2 1 55 67 98 Swimming Lessons 77 27 5 7 5 11 9 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 45 32 1 9 Theatre Arts Camp 1 1 1 Total Applicants Placed 492 53 30 47 54 61 57 29 59 24 29 18 8 19 4 248
244 98 147 Assistance no longer needed 40 Did not attend 5 Not eligible 12 Unable to Contact 61 Total Applicants Not Placed 118 TOTAL APPLICATIONS RECEIVED & PROCESSED 610
~ 7 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 PLACEMENT SUMMARY -GRAND BAY-WESTFIELD Age Breakdown Gender Activity Participants Additional Assist. <6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 M F Equip. Transport. Day Camp 1 1 1 Hockey 2 1 1 2 Soccer 2 1 1 1 1 Total Applicants Placed 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 PLACEMENT SUMMARY -QUISPAMSIS Activity Participants
Age Breakdown Gender Additional Assist. <6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 M F Equip. Transport. Basketball 2 2 2 Dance 1 1 1 Fitness Membership 1 1 1 Hockey 5 1 1 2 1 5 1 Scouts/Guides
2 1 1 1 1 Soccer 4 2 1 1 3 1 Soccer -Indoor 2 1 1 2 Summer Camp 2 1 1 1 1 Swimming Lessons 2 2 2 Theatre Arts 1 1 1 Total Applicants Placed 22 3 0 2 2 3 3 0 5 1 1 0 1 0 1 13 9 1 0 PLACEMENT
SUMMARY -ROTHESAY Activity Participants Age Breakdown Gender Additional Assist. <6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 M F Equip. Transport. Day Camp 1 1 1 Diving 1 1 1 Hockey 3 1 1 1
3 Horseback Riding 1 1 1 Soccer 2 1 1 2 Swimming Lessons 4 2 1 1 1 3 Total Applicants Placed 12 2 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 6 6 0 0
~ 8 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 1%4% 2% 93% Grand Bay-Westfield (10) Quispamsis (25) Rothesay (15) Saint John (344) PLACEMENT SUMMARY -SAINT JOHN Age Breakdown Gender
Activity Participants Additional Assist. <6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 M F Equip. Transport. Air Cadets 1 1 1 1 Ball Hockey 3 1 1 1 3 1 Baseball 5 1 1 2 1 5 Basketball 7 1 1
1 1 3 4 3 1 Bowling 3 2 1 2 1 Boxing 2 1 1 2 1 Cheerleading 39 1 1 1 3 1 6 3 3 5 5 1 9 1 38 5 2 Choir 1 1 1 Dance 26 4 5 4 4 1 2 2 1 3 2 24 14 4 Day Camp 7 1 2 2 1 1 5 2 2 Fitness Membership
9 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 7 Football 2 2 2 Gymnastics 21 5 3 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 3 18 1 Hockey 23 2 3 2 1 2 6 2 2 2 1 20 3 8 Horseback Riding 4 2 1 1 1 3 Kindermusik 8 8 3 5 8 Lacrosse 5 1 1 2 1 5
4 1 Martial Arts Jujutsu 14 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 9 5 5 2 Karate 1 1 1 1 Kung Fu 1 1 1 Taekwondo 42 2 8 10 6 4 4 1 4 1 1 1 30 12 38 15 Music Lessons Clarinet 1 1 1 Guitar 3 1 1 1 3 1 Piano
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 Vocal 3 3 3 Scouts/Guides 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 Skating 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 Soccer 17 3 3 3 2 4 2 13 4 6 1 Summer Camp 120 1 7 14 15 28 18 9 16 6 3 2 1 54 66 98 Swimming
71 23 5 6 4 11 9 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 44 27 1 9 Total Applicants Placed 453 48 29 42 50 57 52 29 51 22 27 18 7 19 2 225 228 97 147 Applications received according to municipality:
~ 9 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Type of Support Provided: Percentage of placements who received help with equipment 20% Percentage of placements who received help with
transportation 30%
~ 10 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Gender Ratio: Applications processed according to gender: 49.59% 50.41% Male (248) Female (244) Age Breakdown: Applications processed
according to age: 11% 6% 10% 11% 11% 11% 6% 12%5% 6%4% 2% 4% 1% <6 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 years 12 years 13 years 14 years 15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years
90 % of the participants in the P.R.O. Kids program for 2006 were children age 14 and under.
~ 11 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Financial Results for 2006 P.R.O. Kids -Special Purpose Fund Statement of Receipts and Disbursements For the year ended December 31,
2006 prepared on
April 25, 2007 Opening Balance, forward from December 31, 2005 $26,507.04 Receipts Personal & Corporate Donations 19,862.33 Grants 18,625.00 Fundraisers 28,548.47 Other 1,088.63 $68,124.43
Disbursements Ball Hockey 100.00 Baseball 1,592.50 Basketball 659.78 Baton Twirling 150.00 Bowling 287.90 Cheerleading 15,040.00 Choir 62.50 Dance 6,310.70 Equipment Cheerleading & Dance
3,146.27 Hockey 2,360.37 Lacrosse 1,454.08 Martial Arts 8,043.97 Other 713.54 Fitness Membership 1,030.96 Football 150.00 Gymnastics 4,310.00 Hockey 8,120.00 Horseback Riding 2,476.11
Kindermusik 185.00 Martial Arts (Jujutsu, Karate, Kung Fu & Taekwondo) 9,506.83 Music Lessons (Clarinet, Guitar, Piano & Vocal) 3,957.46 Scouts/Guides 1,051.80 Skating 221.34 Ski Lessons
365.70 Soccer 1,365.00 Summer Camp 7,030.57 Swimming (Lessons, Diving & Synchronized Swimming) 1,353.86 Transportation 6,629.00 Other Disbursements 464.44 $88,139.68 Ending balance $6,491.79
~ 12 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Fundraising Activities and Events in 2006 Curry Night Out: Curry Night Out was an exciting evening of good food, entertainment and great
company. This was the fourth annual fundraising dinner for P.R.O Kids, held at the Delta Brunswick Hotel in April. Close to 200 people were in attendance to enjoy the delicious East
Indian cuisine. U.C.T. Neigh-Day Run: The second annual “Neigh-Day Run” was held at Exhibition Park Raceway in conjunction with the Saint John Harness Horsemen Association’s Family Fun
Day. The event was sponsored by U.C.T. and all proceeds raised went to P.R.O. Kids. Saint John Irving Oil Christmas Hockey Tournament: P.R.O. Kids received a donation of $1,000.00 from
the organizers of the Saint John Irving Oil Christmas Hockey Tournament. Saint John Real Estate Board Community BBQ’s: The Saint John Real Estate Board held a series of BBQ’s throughout
the community during the year. They raised money and awareness for P.R.O. Kids through the sale of of hot dogs, hamburgers and pop. The Dickie Crossman Memorial Golf Tournament: This
annual golf tournament, held at Rockwood Park Golf Course, was started by the friends and family of the late Dickie Crossman. In 2004, P.R.O. Kids was chosen as the charity to benefit
from the proceeds of this event on an annual basis. In 2006, a total of $6,000.00 was raised in support of P.R.O. Kids.
~ 13 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Marathon by the Sea – Community Partner: The Board of Directors for Marathon by the Sea decided to choose a Community Partner every two
years to benefit from the funds raised by their event. In 2005, P.R.O. Kids was chosen as their first Community Partner to received proceeds for 2005 and 2006. The P.R.O. Kids Advisory
Committee served dinner at the event’s annual Pasta Party and received a donation in the amount of $5,000.00. Old Paint for P.R.O. Kids: The first annual “Old Paint for P.R.O. Kids”
was held in September of 2006. Volunteers collected cans of old paint from residents of Greater Saint John at the seven Saint John fire stations. Donations of $2.00 per can were collected
and all proceeds went to P.R.O. Kids. The cans were then transported to the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission’s Crane Mountain Landfill to be properly disposed of. Transportation was
provided by Midland Transport and Armour Transportation Systems. Due to the wonderful response of of residents in our community, just over $4,700.00 was raised during this successful
event. P.R.O. Kids Pumpkin Challenge: The Saint John Sea Dogs volunteered again this year to carve pumpkins for the 2006 P.R.O. Kids Pumpkin Challenge. The pumpkins were displayed for
silent auction during one of their regular season games in October. Patrons bid on their favorite pumpkins to raise money for P.R.O. Kids. The Sea Dogs also sold tickets to P.R.O. Kids
for this game at a discounted price, which were then sold to P.R.O. Kids supporters at regular season price, bringing in more money for the program.
~ 14 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Brent Kelly Memorial Five Miler: The Brent Kelly Memorial Five Miler is held each spring. All money raised is used to benefit youth in
the Saint John area in memory of the late Brent Kelly. In 2006, P.R.O. Kids received a donation of $1,000.00 from the Brent Kelly Memorial Fund to benefit the program. Canadian Tire
JumpStart Program: Canadian Tire JumpStart is a charitable program created by the Canadian Tire Foundation for Families to help kids in need participate in organized sports and recreation.
The program is delivered through local Chapters located in communities across the country. P.R.O. Kids is one of seven recipients in the Saint chapter to receive funding through the
JumpStart program. Winter Lights – Decorate-A-Door Challenge: As part of the 2006 Winter Lights competition, P.R.O. Kids issued the “Decorate-A-Door Challenge” to employees and departments
of the City of Saint John. Participants donated $5.00 to enter a door decorating contest. They decorated the doors to their offices, which were judged by a panel of P.R.O. Kids volunteers.
The top three winning doors received prizes. The Greater Saint John Community Foundation: In 2006, P.R.O. Kids was fortunate enough to be chosen to benefit from a total of $10,000.00
in grants from the Greater Saint John Community Foundation. Holiday Inn Express Fundraisers: The staff of the Holiday Inn Express in Saint John held numerous fundraisers throughout the
year, with all proceeds going to the P.R.O. Kids program.
~ 15 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 The New Brunswick Children’s Foundation: In December of 2006, P.R.O. Kids was awarded a $5,000.00 grant from the New Brunswick Children’s
Foundation (formerly known as the New Brunswick Protestant Orphans’ Home). Mayor’s Reception: In December, Mayor Norm McFarlane hosted a reception in the Red Room of City Hall to thank
all of our major sponsors in 2006. The event was well attended and much appreciated by the supporters of P.R.O. Kids. * For a complete list of our generous sponsors in 2006, please see
the Honour Roll on pages 16-19.
~ 16 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Sponsors in 2006 Sponsorship from local businesses, companies, organizations and individual citizens is a key factor for the success
of the P.R.O. Kids program. The P.R.O. Kids Advisory Committee gratefully acknowledges the generous support of our program partners, volunteers and sponsors from 2006: A.D. Garland Professional
Corporation Action Auto Glass Ltd. Adrian Adams Alexa Gauthier -Kindermusik Aliant Alternative Measures Program Amie Walton Amy Schnare Annie MacDonald Armour Transportation Systems
Atlantic Chip Event Timing Atlantic Health Sciences Corporation Baton New Brunswick Bernie Morrison Bernie Regenbogen Beth Marr-Ernst Beverly Day Bikes & Beans Bonnie McGraw Books Are
Fun Boston Pizza Bowl More Lanes Bowlarama West AYB Program Boys & Girls Club of Saint John Brenda Buckley Brenda MacCallum Brent Kelly Memorial Fund Business Community Anti-Poverty
Initiative Camp Glenburn Camp Medley Canada Games Aquatic Centre Canadian Diabetes Association Canadian Tire Foundation for Families Cathy Simon Caton's Island CBC Radio, Saint John
(CBC Radio 1) Centenary Queen Square United Church of Canada Centennial Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd. Centre Stage Dance Studio Champion Spirit Athletics All-Star Cheerleading Gym Champlain
Heights Students & Staff 3C & 5J Chang Yong Tae Kwon Do Chang Yong Tae Kwon Do -West Chito-Ryu School of Karate Chris Hoyt Chris Mabey Christa Skinner Chuck Edison Chuck McKibbon Circle
Square Ranch City Laundry Limited City of Saint John City of Saint John Mayor's Office Cleve's Source for Sports Coldwell Banker Coles Boiler Service & Repair (1998) Ltd. C. & E. Refractories
Colleen Knudson Cora's Breakfast & Lunch Crowe's Place Ltd. Dan MacPherson Dan Thornton Dana A. Martin Dance Encore Dance Zone Danceability Danny Jardine David & Wendy Keirstead David
Beardmore David Dow -Clarinet and Saxophone Studio David Somerville Dawn C. Carpenter-Burley Salon D.C. Dawn Maillet Deborah Ryan Deloitte Delta Brunswick Hotel Department of Pediatrics,
Saint John Regional Hospital Dickie Crossman Memorial Foundation Doiron's Sports Inc. Donna Crossman Dr. Edward J. Doherty Dr. Lisa Sutherland Dr. Prakasha Joshi Duncan's D.J. Service
East Coast Spirit Cheerleading
~ 17 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 East Saint John Minor Basketball Association East Suburban Little League Ed Coleman Elaine B. Willis Eugene Mercer Evergreen Riding Centre
Forest Hills Intermediate School Fundy Gymnastics Club Fundy Lacrosse Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Fundy Soccer Association FUSION Future Shop Gary Lawson Geoff Britt Gibson Creek
Canoeing Girl Guides of Canada Golden Gloves Boxing Club GoodLife Fitness Club Grand Bay Home Hardware Greco Pizza -Somerset Green Hill Lake Camp H. Diana Aske H.E.L.P. Educational Services
Healthy Touch Massage Heather Acker Henry Flood Holder's Canvas & Embroidery Holiday Inn Express IDE Studio Investors Group Financial Services Inc. Irving Oil Limited Isles Foundation
Incorporated J.D. Irving, Limited Janet Towers Jason Kelson Jason Stephen -Royal LePage Atlantic Jay Chang Jocelyn T. Bichard John McLean Jolene Clark Joyce's Ultramar Judo Kai Kan Jujutsu
JVK Taekwondo Karen McManus Kelly Ring Kennebecasis Lions Club Inc. Kent Building Supplies Kerry Craig Kevin & Giselle Watson Kevin Flanagan Key Industries Keystone Kelly's Grill & Taproom
Kim's Academy of Dance Kindermusik with Lexi KV Men's Orthodox League KV Minor Basketball Association KV Minor Hockey Association KVHS Student Union Labatt Breweries Lancaster Little
League Lancaster Minor Hockey Association Laureen Craft Learn-To-Skate Leisure Services Department – City of Saint John Lester Trophies Lisa Frechette Local 1418 CUPE Local 771 Fire
Fighter's Union Local Union 1888 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Loch Lomond Villa Lyn King M.O. Iype MacDonald Crane Service Ltd. Mahogany Manor Bed and Breakfast Marathon
By The Sea Inc. Margaret Willow Edwards Marice Rooney Mariflex Mario's Framing Mark Palmer Martha Beardmore Martha MacLean Matthew Pugsley MBS Radio Stations -CFBC /C-98 /K-100 McGrath
School of Dance Midland Transport Mike Doyle Milford Community Centre Inc. Minister of the Environment -Trevor Holder Monica Chaperlain Moosehead Breweries Mr. Andrew Chase Mr. David
P. McLean Mr. Jeff Warren Mrs. Joy Crosby Mrs. Karen Welch and Mr. Chris A Welch Mrs. Susan Thomas Murphy Restaurants Ltd. Murray Driscoll Music From the Heart -Elaine Boulanger NAPA
Auto Parts -Saint John National Bank of Canada NB Bantam Xtreme New System Laundry Norrad Chrysler Ltd. North End Little League
~ 18 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Okuden Mixed Martial Arts O'Leary's Entertainment Ltd. Orthopaedics Plus Ltd. Pam Iype Patrick Beamish Peter J. MacDonald Pete's Frootique
Phoenix Dinner Theatre Planning & Development Department Poley Mountain Resorts Ltd. Prince Charles Karate Club Princess Elizabeth School Quispamsis Tae Kwon Do Ray McCaskill RBC Foundation
Rev. Ed Coleman Rev. Richard McConnell River Valley Female Hockey Association River Valley Soccer Association Rob Crowe's Auto Body Ltd. Rob Scott Rob Scott Insurance Agency, Ltd. Robert
Craft Rockwood Stables Rocky's Tap -Deli Roly MacIntyre Ron Young Ross Leavitt Running Room Canada Inc. Ryan McHugh Saint John Airport Saint John Fire Department Saint John Fundy Diving
Club Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority Saint John Harness Horsemen's Association Saint John Irving Oil Christmas Hockey Tournament Saint John Minor Hockey Association Atom 'AA' Flames
Saint John Portland Liberal Association Saint John Real Estate Board Inc. Saint John Rotary Boys Choir Saint John Sea Dogs Hockey Club Saint John Skating Club Saint John Soccer Club
Saint John Wanderers Saint John YM-YWCA Saint John Youth Minor Hockey Association Sandra Roy School District 8 -District Education Council Scouts Canada Se'ramik -Your Pottery Painting
Place Shelley Foster Sherwood & Flanagan Simonds High School Simonds Taxi Inc. Sisters of Charity of the Immaculate Conception Soccer Plus Somerset Community Centre South End Little
League St. Joseph's Retirees' Group St. Luke's Group Committee St. Malachy's High School St. Mark's United Scout Troup Surf City Synchro Susan Harris Tamara Steele Tammy Page-Dauphinais
Tapps Brewpub The Box Sporting Goods The Children's Foundation of the NB Protestant Orphans' Home The Employees of IBM The Fisher Foundation The Greater Saint John Community Foundation
The Office of Paul Zed, MP for Saint John The Studio Dance School The Westfield Golf & Country Club Inc. Theresa Giddings School of Dance Thomas Construction Limited Thomas Keaveney
Thruway Convenience Tifani Cooke Tim Hortons Run Through History Tim Isaac Antiques & Auctions Timothy Damon -Certified Foot Reflexologist Tomas Peiser Town of Grand Bay-Westfield Town
of Quispamsis Town of Rothesay Tracy VanWart Tri-Athlete Event Timing UNBSJ Athletics Department UNBSJ Science and Sports Camp UNBSJ Sea Chicks -UNBSJ "Friendly Games" Women's Champs
United Commercial Travelers of America -Jack Kidd Council #755 United Way of Greater Saint John Inc. Veronica's Music Vitos Waterside Soccer Club -UNBSJ "Friendly Games" Men's Champs
Wayne Harrison Wayne Wolfe WinterLights Celebrations -Saint John Yerxa Hockey School
~ 19 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 P.R.O. Kids would like to extend a special thank you to the following major sponsors in 2006 for their generosity and support: The Greater
Saint John Community Foundation Dickie Crossman Memorial Foundation The Children's Foundation of the N.B. Protestant Orphans' Home Marathon by the Sea Canadian Tire Foundation for Families
– JumpStart Program Saint John Real Estate Board Inc. Alternative Measures Program United Commercial Travelers of America – Jack Kidd Council #755 Investors Group Financial Services
Inc. Brent Kelly Memorial Fund The Fisher Foundation Saint John Irving Oil Christmas Hockey Tournament Holiday Inn Express Isles Foundation Incorporated 2006 U.C.T. Neigh-Day Run Old
Paint for P.R.O. Kids 2006 Curry Night Out Thank you to the City of Saint John and the Towns of Quispamsis, Grand Bay-Westfield and Rothesay for covering the administration costs of
P.R.O. Kids, allowing 100% of donations from our generous sponsors to go back to the children and youth of Greater Saint John.
~ 20 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 2006 Advisory Committee The success of P.R.O. Kids is greatly due to the volunteer efforts of its Advisory Committee. The committee is
assembled to ensure we have representation from youth, recreation/sport/culture participants and volunteers, P.R.O. Kids financial supporters, marketing expertise, social/health services,
parent, fundraising expertise, and community leaders. NAME AREA OF REPRESENTATION 1. Patrick Beamish – Chair Student -UNBSJ 2. Monica Chaperlin Business Community Anti-Poverty Initiative
3. Murray Driscoll Deputy Mayor – Town of Quispamsis 4. Rob Scott State Farm Insurance 5. Jason Stephen Royal LePage Atlantic 6. Chris Hoyt Saint John Fire Department 7. Adrian Adams
Investors Group 8. Danny Jardine Member of FUSION 9. Chuck McKibbon Department of Public Safety 10. Beverley Day Member of Common Council – Grand Bay-Westfield; AHSC 11. Heather Acker
Kent Building Supplies 12. Bernie Regenbogen United Commercial Travelers of America – Jack Kidd Council #755 13. Thomas Keaveney Athletics Director – Saint John High School STAFF Julie
Keirstead P.R.O. Kids Manager
~ 21 ~ P.R.O. Kids Annual Report 2006 April 2006 Conclusion P.R.O. Kids enjoyed another successful year in 2006. Close to $100,000 was raised for the program through the hard work and
dedication of the P.R.O. Kids Advisory Committee and incredible community support. These funds allowed 492 applicants to participate in positive recreation activities over the past year.
Over 1,600 placements have been made since the inception of P.R.O. Kids in 2001 but there is still much work to be done. Since the regionalization of the P.R.O. Kids program in February
2005, awareness of the program has continued to grow, leading to a significant increase in the number of applications received. The issue of poverty continues to threaten the future
of our community. With the good will and support of our sponsors, we will continue to break this vicious cycle, one child at a time. Mayor’s Reception ~ December 2006
May 2, 2007 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Rezoning Application -13-15 Main Street On March 26, 2007 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee
for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its May 1, 2007 meeting. Mr. Philip Huggard, President of Philip Huggard Properties Ltd., appeared to
speak in support of the application. Mr. Huggard noted that he was in agreement with staff’s recommendation, but pointed out that his company manages approximately 186 apartments throughout
Saint John, not 186 properties as was stated in the report. After considering the attached report and Mr. Huggard’s statements the Planning Advisory Committee adopted the recommendation
as detailed below. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 370 square metres, located at 13-15 Main Street, also identified PID Number
00374694, from “IL-1” Neighbourhood Institutional to “BR” Business Residential. Respectfully submitted, Stephen Horgan Chairman SKH Attachments Project No. 07-112
DATE: APRIL 27, 2007 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF MAY 1, 2007 Sarah Herring Planner SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: Philip Huggard Properties
Ltd. Name of Owner: Philip Huggard Properties Ltd. Location: 13-15 Main Street PID: 374694 Municipal Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: “IL-1” Neighbourhood Institutional
Proposed: “BR” Business Residential Proposal: To establish a business office on the ground floor. Type of Application: Rezoning. JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act
authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed rezoning applications. The Committee’s recommendation will be considered by Common
Council at a Public Hearing on Monday, May 7, 2007.
Phillip Huggard Properties Ltd. Page 2 13-15 Main Street April 27, 2007 STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 370
square metres, located at 13-15 Main Street, also identified as being a portion of PID Number 374694, from “IL-1” Neighbourhood Institutional to “BR” Business Residential. BACKGROUND:
On April 21, 1993 Common Council rezoned the property at 113-115 Main Street from “BR” Business Residential to “IL-1” Neighbourhood Institutional and imposed a condition restricting
the use of the property to a church and parsonage. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering has no objections to the rezoning application. Building and Technical
Services has no concerns with the proposal at this time, and will address any potential Building Code issues during the permitting process. Fire Department has no objection to the rezoning
application but notes that any renovations must be done in accordance with the appropriate building permits and must comply with National Building and Fire Codes. ANALYSIS: The subject
site is located at the western end of Main Street in the City’s Old North End. The property currently contains a three storey brick building formerly used as a church and parsonage for
the Shekhinah Temple. The surrounding neighbourhood contains a mixture of residential, commercial and light industrial uses as well as a local park, Robertson Square. There are also
several vacant lots in the vicinity of the subject site, including the adjacent lot at the corner of Main Street and Bridge Street (9 Main Street) which is owned by the applicant and
is currently used for parking. The applicant wishes to establish a business office for his property management company on the ground floor of the building (approximately as shown on
the attached interior site plan) and maintain the existing dwelling units in the remainder of the building. Prior to the 1993 rezoning to permit the Shekhinah Temple and parsonage, the
subject site was zoned “BR” Business Residential, and it is to this zone that the applicant is requesting to return. The nine adjacent properties on Bridge Street and Main Street have
all retained “BR” Business Residential zoning. The 1978 North End Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Zoning document recommended that the corner of Bridge and Main Streets be rezoned from
“B-1” Local Business to “BR” Business Residential to provide for business
Phillip Huggard Properties Ltd. Page 3 13-15 Main Street April 27, 2007 uses on the ground floor or lower levels with residential uses above to provide shopping facilities and retain
a residential character in the neighbourhood. The “BR” Business Residential zone permits the proposed uses, provided that the business office is located on the ground floor level of
a building four storeys in height in less, as is the case in the current proposal. This proposal will not require a Municipal Plan Amendment as commercial or business uses serving the
local area are acceptable in residential zones, and the applicant has noted that approximately 100 of the 186 properties managed by his company are located in the Old North End. The
requested rezoning is supported as the property was previously zoned “BR” Business Residential, the proposed zoning is supported by the North End Neighbourhood Plan, and the properties
immediately adjacent to the subject property are zoned “BR” Business Residential. SKH Project No. 07-112
May 2, 2007 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Rezoning -Old North End On March 26, 2007 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report
and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its May 1, 2007 meeting. Mr. Richard Turner appeared to speak in support of the proposed rezoning. Mr. Turner noted
that he represents Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc. on behalf of many development proposals in the City, and that he is also a member of the Saint John Marketers Group and volunteers
with Rehabitat Inc. and the ONE HOME group, as noted in the report. He voiced his support for the proposal as a mechanism to facilitate and encourage compatible development and reinvestment
in the Old North End. Ms. Kit Hickey also appeared to speak in support of the proposal as a representative of Housing Alternatives, Rehabitat Inc., and the ONE HOME group. Ms. Hickey
agreed with statements made by Mr. Turner on the positive effect that they proposed rezoning is expected to have on public and private investment and development initiatives in the Old
North End. The Committee favourably considered the attached report and comments in support of the recommendation, but expressed concern that not all affected property owners in the Old
North End may have read the Public Notices published in the newspaper regarding this proposal. As a result, the Committee adopted an additional recommendation as detailed below. RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Common Council rezone various properties in the Old North End, as shown on the attached map, from “RM-1” Three Storey Multiple Residential and “RM-2” High Rise Multiple Residential
to “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill. 2. That Council postpone third reading of the proposed rezoning until individual notification can be mailed to affected property owners. Respectfully
submitted, Stephen Horgan Chairman SKH Attachments, Project No. 07-109
DATE: APRIL 27, 2007 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF MAY 1, 2007 Sarah Herring Planner SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: City of Saint John Location:
Old North End Municipal Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Current: “RM-1” Three Storey Multiple Residential and “RM-2” High Rise Multiple Residential Proposed: “RM-IF” Multiple
Residential Infill Proposal: To place properties in a zone with standards more reflective of the type, scale and character of the existing built form. Type of Application: Rezoning JURISDICTION
OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed rezoning applications. The Committee’s recommendation
will be considered by Common Council at a Public Hearing on Monday, May 7, 2007.
City of Saint John Page 2 Old North End Rezoning April 27, 2007 STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That Common Council rezone various properties in the Old North End, as shown on the
attached map, from “RM-1” Three Storey Multiple Residential and “RM-2” High Rise Multiple Residential to “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill. BACKGROUND: Common Council adopted the “RM-IF”
Multiple Residential Infill Zone as a new land use classification under the City of Saint John Zoning By-law on February 5, 1996. The “RM-IF” Zone was developed to better reflect the
existing physical characteristics of older areas in the City and assist new development in being more compatible with the existing built form. As well, the new Zone was intended to reduce
the number of variances required to achieve compatibility with historic development patterns. On October 15, 1996, Common Council applied the new zoning and rezoned various properties
in a larger portion of the Saint John Peninsula area from “RM-1” Three Storey Multiple Residential and “RM-3” Central Area Multiple Residential to “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill.
INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering has no objections to the proposed rezoning. Building and Technical Services has no concerns with this matter. ANALYSIS:
History and Creation of the “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill Zone A comprehensive study led by a steering committee with representatives from the housing and development industry
and City staff led to the creation of the Infill Housing and Rehabilitation Design Guidelines and Zone Standards (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines) in December of 1994. The document
provides illustrative guidelines and prescriptive standards for the development of new infill housing and the rehabilitation of existing housing stocks in the Lower West Side, the Valley
Area, the Old North End and the South Central Peninsula. The document intended to encourage housing development which would respect and complement the character, scale and detailing
of the surrounding historic neighbourhoods. Recommendations made in the Guidelines were adopted as the “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill zone in February of 1996, and the zone was
applied to a variety of properties in the Peninsula area in October of 1996. This rezoning of Peninsula neighbourhoods from “RM-1” Three Storey Multiple
City of Saint John Page 3 Old North End Rezoning April 27, 2007 Residential and “RM-3” Central Area Multiple Residential to “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill was prompted, in part,
by an increase in development pressure in the area and a resultant proliferation of variances being requested. A staff report at that time reported that the rezoning and implementation
of the “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill standards were successful in providing for compatible development with fewer variances. Development in the Old North End Rezonings were not
initiated in the other areas identified in the Guidelines as similar development pressure and residential reinvestment was not occurring to the same extent in the Lower West Side, the
Valley Area, or the Old North End at that time. For the most part, these neighbourhoods exhibit the same dense pattern of development as the South Central Peninsula, with older dwellings
situated on or close to the front lot lines on long, narrow properties. For the Old North End in particular, the Guidelines note that the residential area is primarily characterized
by three-storey, flat-roofed, wood-framed buildings, tightly grouped together on long narrow lots. A few scattered masonry buildings can be found within the former commercial districts
of the neighbourhood. The street pattern is defined by loosely gridded blocks, roughly parallel with a meandering Main Street. The hilly topography and shoreline have greatly contributes
to the evolution of the neighbourhood. The general character of the neighbourhood, as defined by the building forms, is very homogenous with minor variations at the commercial areas.
Large, box-like
buildings containing flat-type dwelling units, dominate. They are generally situated on or close to the front lot line (i.e. no setback), and are closely spaced. Recently, development
pressure and reinvestment has begun to increase in the Old North End, likely prompted by a variety of community improvement and revitalization projects begun at the local, grass-roots
level. The ONE Change community group was formed in 2000 by a group of active, committed community members working to improve the quality of life in the Old North End. In 2005, the ONE
Change group partnered with the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Commission (CMHC) and the Dalhousie Faculty of Architecture and Planning to hold a five-day community design charette. The
charette and partnerships arose out of discussions regarding serious housing issues in the area, but the focus of the charette was expanded to be a forum where community members could
get together to discuss local issues, community ideas and goals and a common vision for the future of the neighbourhood. Results of the charette included design and policy ideas for
new and renovated housing and short, medium and long-term action housing action plans. Part of the long-term plans included increasing home ownership to at least 50% in the next ten
years and establishing “rent to own” housing units where partners could assist community members in achieving their homeownership goals. This action plan has led to the recent creation
of the ONE HOME (Home Ownership Made Easy) group which includes representatives from the North End community, CMHC, municipal and provincial
City of Saint John Page 4 Old North End Rezoning April 27, 2007 government, the Saint John Development Council, Rehabitat Inc., Vibrant Communities Saint John, and Saint John Non-Profit
Housing. The ONE HOME group has begun a pilot project to increase home ownership in the Old North End through affordable housing and community investment. The multi-unit developments
being proposed, in concept, by this group are compatible with the existing neighbourhood and would be better facilitated by the application of “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill standards,
as would other development and rehabilitation projects (both public and private) which will hopefully become more numerous as community reinvestment continues. Rezoning appropriate residential
areas in the Old North End from “RM-1” Three Storey Multiple Residential and “RM-2” High Rise Multiple Residential (zonings more appropriate for lower-density suburban areas of the City)
to “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill will better facilitate redevelopment while ensuring that physical reinvestment in the community is sensitive to the existing historical context,
site layout, building form and architectural details. Existing mixed-use buildings and those with institutional, industrial or commercial zoning will retain their existing zoning, as
will newer residential developments more suited to “RM-1” Three Storey Multiple Residential zoning standards. “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill Zone Standards The standards laid out
in the “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill zone were intentionally created to help new development mimic the historic development patterns and building forms of the older areas of the
City and thus preserve important built heritage. The reduced minimum lot sizes, minimum lot widths and increased maximum densities permitted by the “RM-IF" zone are more reflective of
the existing Old North End than those in the “RM-1" or “RM-2" zones. As well, these changes will permit more compatible and contextually sensitive new development with fewer variances.
Similarly, the “RM-IF" zone bases the front and side yard and building height and width requirements on what is seen on the adjacent properties, allowing new development to appropriately
mimic and retain the existing streetscape. CONCLUSION: Rezoning the properties shown on the attached map (not those shown in black) from “RM-1” Three Storey Multiple Residential and
“RM-2” High Rise Multiple Residential to “RM-IF” Multiple Residential Infill will provide zoning standards more reflective of the type, scale and character of the existing development
pattern and built form while facilitating new development and rehabilitation of the housing stock in the Old North End. As such, the proposed rezoning is supported. SKH Project No. 07-109
May 4, 2007 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning Katherine J. Clark Subdivision 75 Churchland Road On March 26, 2007 Common Council referred the above matter to the
Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its May 1, 2007 meeting. The applicant, Jennifer Peacock of Hughes Surveys
and Consultants Inc., appeared before the Committee in support of the application and staff recommendation. Ms. Peacock did indicate that their client may wish to acquire the existing
Land for Public Purposes dedication at 149 Churchland Road, and that there may be a further request to reconsider the recommended cash-in-lieu dedication. The applicant was made aware
by the Committee that such a request would involve a further application with additional public notification and participation. There was also presentation made by an area resident (Gary
Aiton of 145 Churchland Road). Though Mr. Aiton indicated that he was not opposed to the requested requested rezoning and proposed subdivision, he did express concern regarding any negative
impact that the development may have on the existing drainage course(s) running over the subject area. Staff indicated that any alteration of a watercourse would require approval from
the N.B. Department of Environment, and that the recommendation for the subdivision includes a condition that a detailed drainage plan must be approved by the Chief City Engineer for
the proposed development. Mr. Aiton also expressed concern with regards to the sale of the existing L.P.P. parcel, but seemed satisfied that such a matter would have to come back to
the Committee before being approved by Common Council. In addition to the notification City staff would provide, the applicant also indicated that they would consult with Mr. Aiton on
the matter. There were no other presentations made at the meeting concerning this application, but there were two letters received from area residents (including a letter from Mr. Aiton).
Planning Advisory Committee Page 2 May 4, 2007 After considering the matter the Committee resolved to adopt staff recommendation, which is set-out below for your convenience. This recommendation
would have third reading of the requested rezoning postponed until such time that confirmation is received from the N.B. Departments of Public Health Services and Environment that the
proposed lots are acceptable with regards to private on-site services. The Committee also favourably recommended the proposed subdivision, and granted the requested variance and approved
the revised street name. These subdivision matters are contained in a separate letter by the Committee, which would be considered at the time of third reading. RECOMMENDATION: That Common
Council give first and second reading to the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 75 Churchland Road, having an area of approximately 14 hectares (35 acres), also identified as being
PID No. 00352112, from “RS-1” One and Two Family Suburban Residential to “RR” One Family Rural Residential, but not give third reading to the rezoning until confirmation is received
from N.B. Department of Public Health Services and N.B. Department of Environment that the proposed subdivision is acceptable with regards to private on-site services. Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Horgan Chairman MRO Attachments Project No. 07-120
DATE: APRIL 27, 2007 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF MAY 1, 2007 Mark O'Hearn Planning Officer SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: Hughes Surveys
and Consultants Inc. Name of Owner: Katherine Clark Location: 75 Churchland Road PID: 00352112 Municipal Plan: Unserviced Residential Zoning: Existing: “RS-1” One and Two Family Suburban
Residential Proposed: “RR” One Family Rural Residential Proposal: To undertake a rural residential subdivision consisting of a new public road and eighteen (18) unserviced residential
lots. Type of Application: Rezoning, Subdivision and Variance that would increase the maximum cul-de-sac street length standard from 105 metres (344 feet) to approximately 170 metres
(558 feet).
Katherine J. Clark Subdivision Page 2 75 Churchland Road April 27, 2007 JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views
to Common Council concerning proposed rezoning applications. The Committee’s recommendation will be considered by Common Council at a Public Hearing on Monday, May 7, 2007. The Act also
authorizes the Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed subdivision developments, including the location of public streets and easements, land for public purposes
dedications, and the authorization of City/Developer Subdivision Agreements. The Act further authorizes the PAC to grant reasonable variances from the requirements of the Subdivision
By-law. Conditions can be imposed by the Committee. The Subdivision By-law authorizes the Committee to approve the name of new streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: 1. That Common
Council give first and second reading to the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 75 Churchland Road, having an area of approximately 14 hectares (35 acres), also identified as being
PID No. 00352112, from “RS-1” One and Two Family Suburban Residential to “RR” One Family Rural Residential, but not give third reading to the rezoning until confirmation is received
from N.B. Department of Public Health Services and N.B. Department of Environment that the proposed subdivision is acceptable with regards to private on-site services. 2. That, if and
when third reading is given to the rezoning application, Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the attached photo-reduced
Katherine J. Clark Subdivision tentative plan, including the proposed public streets, and any necessary municipal services and public utility easements. 3. That Common Council not assent
to the proposed Land for Public Purposes dedication, but instead accept a cash-in-lieu dedication for the proposed Katherine J. Clark Subdivision. 4. That Common Council authorize the
preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and drainage plans for
the approval of the Chief City Engineer. 5. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant a variance from the requirements of the Subdivision By-law that would increase the maximum cul-de-sac
street length standard
Katherine J. Clark Subdivision Page 3 75 Churchland Road April 27, 2007 from 105 metres (344 feet) to approximately 170 metres (558 feet) for the proposed street (Lakecrest Court). 6.
That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the new street name “Alanna Court.” BACKGROUND: On June 30, 1987 the Planning Advisory Committee favourably considered a subdivision application
from Katherine Clark seeking permission to create seven (7) unserviced residential lots along Churchland and Hillcrest Roads. This subdivision also involved the acceptance of a 5419-square
metre (58,332-square foot or 1.3 acres) Land for Public Purposes dedication at 149 Churchland Road. It should be noted that three of the previously approved lots were not created, and
are basically proposed Lots 07-01, 07-12 & 07-11 on the recently submitted Katherine J. Clark Subdivision tentative plan. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering
has no objection to this proposed subdivision. A 6-metre (20-foot) wide strip of land between proposed Lots 07-08 & 07-09 is required in order to facilitate drainage of the subjection
towards the lake. A municipal services easement is not acceptable as it gives the City no rights to the surface for the necessary drainage course. Building and Technical Services has
no concerns with this application. Saint John Transit has indicated that service is provided along Loch Lomond Road in close proximity to the subject property. A parking lot somewhere
near the intersection of Churchland Road and Loch Lomond Road for a “Park and Ride” may lessen the demand for parking in the Uptown area. Saint John Energy has overhead facilities in
the area to service the proposed subdivision development. Discussion with the developer with respect to servicing details and costs will need to occur as the project proceeds. Aliant
Telecom has indicated that overhead utilities can be extended to service the proposed subdivision. Details and costs can be discussed with the developer when servicing plans are prepared.
Rogers has been advised of this application. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline has no concerns with regards to this development.
Katherine J. Clark Subdivision Page 4 75 Churchland Road April 27, 2007 Leisure Services has recommended that a cash-in-lieu Land for Public Purposes dedication be accepted instead of
the proposed land dedication. Fire Department has no objection to the proposed residential subdivision provided that the new street is constructed to acceptable public standards. N.B.
Department of Public Health and Wellness has been advised of this application. N.B. Department of Environment and Local Government has been advised of this subdivision. School Board
has been advised of this matter. ANALYSIS: Subject Property and Neighbourhood The subject property is situated near the Hillcrest and Churchland Road intersection in East Saint John
(see attached location map). The property has an area of approximately 14 hectares (35 acres) with frontage along the Churchland Road. The subject area is primarily covered with trees.
A stream running from existing Land for Public Purposes parcel (149 Churchland Road) towards Hillcrest Road (in the vicinity of 1227-1269 Hillcrest Road) is present. There are six (6)
residences abutting the subject property along Churchland Road. On the other side is the Long Lake Estates Subdivision undertaken in the late 1990s. This adjoining rural residential
subdivision has 13 lots with 6 residences abutting the subject property. To the north is Long Lake and to the immediate south are 3 more residences along Hillcrest Road. Further south
is the Loch Lomond Road. Development Proposal and Requested Variance The applicant is seeking permission to rezone the subject property from “RS-1” One and Two Family Suburban Residential
to “RR” One Family Rural Residential in order to carryout an unserviced residential subdivision of 18 new lots along a new public road (see attached Katherine J. Clark tentative subdivision
plan). Vehicular access would be provided from Churchland Road, with a secondary connection (Jamus Street) to an adjoining rural residential subdivision (Long Lake Estates Subdivision).
The proposed subdivision can satisfy all applicable Zoning and Subdivision By-law requirements, except that the new cul-de-sac street (from the intersection of Jamus Street to the turnaround
Katherine J. Clark Subdivision Page 5 75 Churchland Road April 27, 2007 area) would be approximately 170 metres (558 feet), whereas only a maximum length of 105 metres (344 feet) is
normally allowed. As this Subdivision By-law standard would allow for the development of about 16 serviced residential lots, the Planning Advisory Committee has granted variances for
other proposed culddesac streets in rural residential subdivisions that meant this density. In this particular case the proposed cul-de-sac would only have 7 (or less) properties abutting
it. Therefore, approval of the requested variance can be readily recommended. Municipal Development Plan and Rezoning The Municipal Development Plan has designated the general area as
Unserviced Residential. This Plan designation supports the development of rural residential subdivisions, which are planned subdivisions with new streets and unserviced residential lots.
Rural residential subdivisions are approved on the basis that they are permanent features of the outlying areas of the city. Therefore, it’s vital that the suitability for private on-site
facilities (i.e., septic disposal systems and wells) is carefully considered. Both the Provincial Departments of Public Health and Environment are consulted in determining this suitability.
Unfortunately, at the time of preparing this report no comments have yet been received by the N.B. Department of Public Health Services, though the applicant has indicated that an application
has been sent to their local office. Also, the N.B. Department of Environment has not commented on whether there is likely to be sufficient quality and quantity of water for the necessary
drilled wells for each proposed lot of this new subdivision. These comments were not expected as the applicant (landowner) will have to engage an appropriate engineering firm in order
to forward a report to the Province for their review. In light of the cost for such a report, the applicant has requested that the City consider giving first and second reading to to
the requested rezoning, but delay its decision concerning third reading and the subdivision itself until such time that the comments from these provincial departments are favourably
received. This would allow the landowner to proceed with the confidence that the City is in favour of a rural residential subdivision being developed on the subject property in the general
manner illustrated on the submitted tentative subdivision plan. Under the circumstances this request seems appropriate. The subject property is situated in the area of the city where
municipal sewer and water are not planned to be extended, and, therefore in an area where rural residential subdivisions are supported. Therefore, the requested rezoning has been recommended
for first and second reading. Third reading could be given when favourable comments are received from these provincial departments. As mentioned, in order to obtain comments from Environment
the proponent needs to have a suitable report prepared for their review. Third reading to this rezoning would have to be given by October 10, 2007, six months
Katherine J. Clark Subdivision Page 6 75 Churchland Road April 27, 2007 from the date that the first advertisement appeared in the local newspaper. Otherwise the rezoning application
would be lost. Provision of Street Work and Facilities The Developer will be responsible to construct the proposed new streets to Country Road Standards, which involves an asphalt surface,
ditching and overhead public utilities. No sidewalks or curbing would be involved. There will also be a requirement for street lighting. Municipal Operations and Engineering has indicated
that a 6-metre (20-foot) wide City-owned strip of land will be needed in order to provide a drainage course between proposed Lots 07-08 & 07-09. Instead of creating a separate parcel
of land, the surveying consultant will be instructed to extend a portion of the public street right-of-way between these two lots. The adjoining lots will still satisfy all applicable
by-law requirements. The proposed subdivision should have at least two means of public access. This could be accomplished by looping the proposed new street back onto Churchland Road.
However, the proposed connection to the Long Lake Estates Subdivision (i.e. Jamus Street) is acceptable, especially since it will provide the adjoining subdivision with a secondary public
access. The Developer will be responsible to construct the street (Jamus Street extension) to where the existing asphalt presently ends. This work will also involve the removal of the
paved turnabout area. In light of the concerns some local residents have expressed with regards to surface drainage, it should be noted that the Developer is required to submit a detailed
drainage plan for the approval of the Chief City Engineer (in addition to the engineering plans for the street construction and ditching). Through this approval process and inspection
service the City will ensure that the existing drainage system is not adversely affected by the proposed subdivision development. Should there be any alteration of the existing watercourse(s)
the developer would also need to obtain a Watercourse Alteration Permit from N.B. Department of Environment. The recommendation includes all the necessary assents and approvals for the
proposed development. Land for Public Purposes The Subdivision By-law requires a Land for Public Purposes dedication of either 10 percent of the subject area (not including public street
rights-of-way) or 8 percent if a cash-in-lieu dedication is required instead.
Katherine J. Clark Subdivision Page 7 75 Churchland Road April 27, 2007 A large central Land for Public Purposes dedication is proposed, which would be adjacent to an existing L.P.P.
parcel at 149 Churchland Road (see attached tentative subdivision plan). This dedication is approximately 13,610 square metres (1.36 hectares) or 146,502 square feet (3.36 acres). A
7,205-square metre (77,553-square foot or 1.8-acre) dedication would normally only be required for this subdivision proposal. However, when the landowner had subdivided the original
property back in 1987, a L.P.P. credit of 3,927 square metres (42,271 square feet) was obtained. Therefore, only a land dedication of 3,278 square metres (35,285 square feet or 0.8 acres)
is actually required. The proposed L.P.P. dedication is primarily treed and has a portion of an existing watercourse running through the area. It is adjacent to another L.P.P. dedication
adjacent to Churchland Road, and would provide a buffer from the proposed new residential development and the existing residences along Churchland Road. While the proposed dedication
is much more than required, it does not provide any appreciable benefit for the City. Like the existing L.P.P. dedication, which was acquired almost 20 years ago, it too would remain
unused. And while a portion of an existing stream does cross over the proposed L.P.P. parcel, the majority of the stream would still remain over other properties. Leisure Services does
not support the vesting of the proposed L.P.P. dedication, and has recommended that a cash-in-lieu dedication be required. Such a cash dedication would recognize the existing L.P.P.
credit. If the proposed L.P.P. was along the Long Lake, or would protect an important environmental feature it could be recommended for approval. Since it does not, a cashiinlieu dedication
is being recommended in this particular case. Street Naming The originally requested street name “Lakecrest Court” was not sufficiently different from other existing street names in
the Saint John area. Upon further discussion with the applicant the name “Alanna Court” has been accepted. This new name is recommended for the Committee’s approval. CONCLUSION: The
applicant is seeking permission to rezone the subject property in a manner that would allow for the development of a rural residential subdivision. The proposed lots can satisfy (or
exceed) the “RR” One Family Rural Residential zone standards. The design of the subdivision is acceptable, and the necessary variance to allow the cul-de-sac to be longer than normally
allowed is considered reasonable.
Katherine J. Clark Subdivision Page 8 75 Churchland Road April 27, 2007 All the necessary approvals and assents have been recommended. However, the proposed Land for Public Purposes
is not recommended. Instead, it would be more appropriate to accept a cash-in-lieu dedication. MRO Project No. 07-120
April 25, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Taxi By-law BACKGROUND Recently, I was contacted by a citizen
concerning the Taxi By-Law. The experiences outlined in his e-mail have raised concerns with respect to inequities in fares when travelling equal distances, lack of compliance with the
by law, enforcement of the by law and the existence of an active Taxicab Advisory Committee. MOTION: I move we refer this matter to the Taxi Advisory Committee for examination and a
report back to Council. Respectively submitted, Deputy Mayor Michelle Hooton
To: <mhooton@rogers.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Saint John City By-Law (Taxi) > Good day Mrs. Hooton, > Thank you for returning my call. This whole ordeal began
in November > when my wife was returning on a late flight and had to take a cab home. > She came into the house in tears because it just cost $26 to come home using > University cabs.
The distance from the airport to my front door is 6.2 km > and this company has a contract with the airport so there is always a > vehicle available in the taxi stand. > The whole issue
was that these prices are unreasonable and there is never > any fares posted in any cab.(required by the by-law. Section 12(c) pg8) > If the fares were posted there would be no surprise
as to what you are > required to pay and there would also be some consistency. Nobody, including the > Taxi inspector can produce a fare sheet and nobody can explain why it cost > between
$15 and $26 to go the exact same distance every time. In fact as > a test i mapped out three 7km trips in various areas of saint john and they > were all different prices. How is this
possible? > > I had initially made a complaint in January of 2007 to the Taxi inspector > and nothing had been done It was as i was told "not a priority" till the > City manager called
the Chief of Police to find out what the problem was. > I had a meeting concerning the issue on april 5th with W. David Parks, O i/c > Patrol division and SGT. William J Crowley, Traffic
unit/Taxi inspector. > They said they have a plan of action, but i will believe it when i see it. > I was complaining for three months. I had reported the place, the time, > the company,
and the law that was being broken and they did nothing. It was > not a priority to enforce the law. If it was not a priority to enforce the > law, then what was the By-law enforcement
department doing? > Since the initial complaint i have spoke to many people trying to get > assistance including Dept. of Transportation, Commercial Vehicle > Enforcement, Saint John
City clerks office, Public Safety, Local > Government, Taxi owners and operators,The better business bureau, Consumer affairs, > Times columnist (News room), Consumer protection, the
Saint John city > manager, Saint John Police chief, MLA Stewart Jamisons office, Patrick > Russell(ass. to Paul Zed)The ombudsman for New Brunswick and the list goes > on. It had taken
the discussion with the City Manager to finally have > someone listen with the intent of action. The committee that was to be in > place to help regulate the by-law was non existent
until i brought it to > the attention of the Police. Since everyone that was on the committee had > technically resigned under the conditions of the by-law, a new committee > has to
be formed. > > We use the taxi service only because of early departure and late arrivals > and we don't think it fair to drag our 1 year old out of bed for less than > a 15 min round
trip. The airport is exactly 6.2 km from my driveway to the > departure entrance of the Saint John Airport. The taxi's charge $26 to go > this distance, yet they advertise $28 to go
almost 3-4 times the distance. > Travel to and from the airport cost is over $200 for the month to go less > than 25 km. I do not understand how these companies can justify their > prices.
> When speaking to one of the owners of a cab company here in town he had > expressed that they do not work by the by-law that states that fares are > to be posted on the cabs in plane
view. The reason they do not do this is > because they are still working off a system that was in place prior to the > by-law. I do not believe that any cab company that advertises airport
> service in the phone book and has taxis available should have the right to > charge $26 to travel 6.2 km. > The more questions I ask the more questions arise. The cab companies > blame
the inspector and say the law has not been enforced in years and the > inspector calls them a bunch of liars. To be honest i do not believe it > has been enforced in a long time and
if this is the case what else is not > being done. Who is accountable.
Right now it seems that by not enforcing the > bylaws we are in fact enabling, or giving permission to the public to > break the law. > > I have attached copies of some receipts, as
well as the Oshawa and Saint > John city by-law. > > Thank-you for your time > > sincerely, > Jamie Pogue
Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire M & C 2007 -132 April 26th, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of
Council, SUBJECT: WATERMAIN CLEANING AND LINING A PRIORITY FOR DRINKING WATER QUALITY Council has made safe, high quality drinking water one of its foremost priorities. This report is
about a serious water quality (and fire flow) issue that needs attention. Saint John has good water sources, both East and West, and the City has been diligent in protecting those sources.
Water quality is tested regularly, following a strict and approved protocol for that testing. Saint John Water personnel are responsible and well trained, and the water system is managed
with public health and safety considerations always foremost. Despite these positive features of our public water system, two serious and major deficiencies remain, both of which are
in urgent need of attention: d Absence of adequate treatment (filtration) facilities; and d Some Some aging infrastructure that requires replacement or rehabilitation. Council recently
adopted a resolution asking staff to develop an “Action Plan” for securing needed water treatment facilities. Necessary water treatment is one of the six essential barriers identified
for water quality protection in New Brunswick. Drinking water safety, however, goes far beyond construction of a water treatment plant. Essential to optimizing and assuring drinking
water quality is a continuum of multiple barriers. At each layer of this integrated protective system, strict operating standards enable delivery of safe, high quality water to the public.
Pressing Need The replacement or the cleaning and lining of unlined cast iron watermain has been identified as the single most urgent priority for the improvement of the municipal water
system in Saint John. MULTIPLE BARRIERS Source (Watershed) Protection Necessary Water Treatment Operations and Maintenance (including Staff Training/Development) Monitoring and Alarms
Distribution System Emergency Response (Contingency Planning and Preparation)
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 2 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose
of this report is to highlight the need for action and a greater investment in the cleaning and lining of unlined cast iron watermain beginning immediately (2007), to ask Common Council
to make the rehabilitation or replacement of unlined cast iron watermain a high priority for Saint John Water, and to recommend that Council preappprov cleaning and lining funding for
the 2008 Capital Program. The matter of funding for this program year will be covered in a separate report. BACKGROUND Tubercular Corrosion Corrosion is an electrochemical interaction
between a metal and its environment that results in changes in the properties of the metal. It occurs because the metal in distribution system piping (e.g. cast iron) is not in equilibrium
with the water it comes into contact with. Internal corrosion in the mains of a water distribution system leads to at least two major problems. The first and most obvious is the failure
of pipes -leakage or occlusion (blockage or closing off). The second problem is an unwanted change in water quality as the water is carried through the distribution system. The release
of corrosion products has implications for both public health and consumer satisfaction. In localized corrosion the anodic processes are fixed in one location on the pipe surface. Metal
oxidization occurs in that area, with the surrounding area serving as the site of cathodic reactions. In cast iron pipes, penetration of the pipe wall is of concern, but an even greater
problem is the tuberculation that accompanies the localized corrosion processes. Tuberculation results from the accumulation or build-up (over time) of corrosion products in the immediate
vicinity of localized corrosion -on the inside wall of the pipe. The tubercles generally have a distinctive structure, can be quite large, and can ultimately restrict the pipe dramatically,
dramatically, seriously reducing the rate of flow through the main.
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 3 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire Unlined cast iron mains are particularly
vulnerable to this phenomenon; not only in Saint John, but around the world. Over the years, the formation or build-up of tubercles reduces the functional (internal) diameter of the
pipe, leading to decreased water pressure and available fire flows. Tuberculation is also a major contributor to water quality problems such as colour, elevated iron content and reduced
chlorine residual. The above map is a representation of the water distribution system in 1936. Cast iron was used for watermain installations in Saint John from 1837 to about 1970. Except
for about the last 10 or so of those years, the cast iron pipes were not lined. It is estimated that approximately 175 kilometres of unlined cast iron watermain remains in service. These
mains, distributed across the serviced area, need to be either cleaned and lined or replaced with new pipe.
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 4 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire Water Quality and Flow Problems
How serious is the problem? Many, if not most, of the calls received from customers with water quality concerns can be attributed directly to unlined cast iron mains. Although flushing
is used to try to clear the system of “dirty” water, the procedure offers only temporary relief at best. Flushing also wastes large volumes of water and does not provide a permanent
solution. Beside the fact that the tuberculation build up in water mains can colour the water flowing through and reduce its aesthetic appeal, pipes in this condition also consume the
available chlorine residual from the water and release higher than acceptable levels of iron. Testing of water in cast iron mains and at homes/businesses serviced by such piping reveal
generally elevated levels of iron and depressed chlorine residuals. These characteristics are inversely related and neither is acceptable. Another consequence of tuberculation in the
mains and the resulting constriction of the available cross-section is reduced fire flows. Studies and testing undertaken indicate that some areas of the city do not have recommended
fire flow rates. The picture to the left shows a crosssecctio of watermain on McKiel Street prior to the work on Phase 1 of the Watermain Cleaning and Lining Program undertaken in 2006.
The picture below shows that very same pipe (McKiel Street) after it was cleaned and lined with a safe, approved coating. The coating with a thickness of 1mm has excellent abrasion resistance
and provides for durable and long-term performance. In fact, it is expected that renovating a watermain in this fashion will significantly extend the service life of the main by many
years (at least 30 to 35 years, and likely more). The coating will also prevent reoccurrence of the tuberculation (corrosion) process.
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 5 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire ANALYSIS As of last year (2006),
when the Watermain Cleaning and Lining Program was initiated, staff estimated there was about 175 kilometres of unlined cast iron watermain in the distribution system. Much of that piping
will need to be replaced, for one reason or another. However, rehabilitation through cleaning and lining is an option for many of those kilometres; the cost of which is considerably
less than full replacement. Staff will be working to solidify inventory quantities – as infrastructure inspection, digital mapping and engineering records enhancement move forward. For
the purposes of this analysis, we will assume that the cleaning and lining process can be applied to at least 50% of the subject cast iron watermain. That is, a minimum of 87.5 kilometres
of cast iron main can be renovated to improve water quality in distribution pipes, boost flow rates and pressures, and extend the service life of those mains. In 2006, the Watermain
Cleaning and Lining Program transformed two (2) kilometres of distribution system piping at a cost of about $400,000, or about 2.3% of the total eligible inventory. If the City continues
at that rate of renovation, the 87.5 kilometres of watermain will be completed in about 44 years. Given the nature of this problem, its very significant and adverse impact on water quality,
its effect on fire flows in the neighbourhoods concerned and the deterioration of our water distribution system, a timeline of 44 years is not acceptable. This is a problem that we can
do something about; the water system can be improved and its service life extended at a very reasonable cost. In turn, the quality of life for citizens can be impacted in a positive
way in the relatively near term – if Common Council and its utility, Saint John Water, adopt a proactive approach to addressing this need. Green Municipal Fund (GMF) Application As Council
is is aware, the City sought funding support from the GMF for an expanded cleaning and lining program ($1,000,000) in 2007 for Phase 2. That application was not successful and, as a
result, the funding currently available in the approved 2007 Capital Program for Saint John Water is only $340,000 (Utility Share). Applying that amount against a need that is so great
and so urgent would be a virtual “drop in the bucket”. In a report to Council in early April, staff advised that we would be “reviewing the approved 2007 Capital Program (Saint John
Water) and will return to Council with recommendations for changes that would allow this all-important priority work to go ahead in 2007.” Therefore, staff will propose that a further
$660,000 be approved by Common Council to reinstate the $1M commitment for Phase 2 of the Watermain Cleaning and Lining Program. That formal approval will be sought in a separate report
to Council (also to be considered on May 7th, 2007).
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 6 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire Water Quality Considerations1
The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, published by Health Canada, set out microbiological, chemical and physical, and radiological parameters for drinking water in Canada.
In the matter of unlined cast iron mains, two considerations are particularly significant: maintenance of an adequate chlorine residual in the part of the distribution system affected;
and the level of iron found in the water flowing though these unlined mains. Chlorine A disinfection residual should be maintained throughout a public drinking water system -at all times.
A trace of chlorine maintained in distribution mains will suppress the growth of organisms within the system and may offer some protection against some external contamination. A chlorine
residual in the system also acts as a monitor; its absence indicating possible water quality problems in the distribution system. d Objective for free chlorine residual: currently 0.1
mg/l, expected to rise to 0.2 mg/l Iron There is no evidence to indicate that concentrations of iron commonly present in drinking water constitute a hazard to human health. Therefore,
Health Canada has not set a maximum acceptable concentration. However, the presence of iron in drinking water may produce undesirable taste, stain laundry and plumbing fixtures, and
promote microbial growth in water distribution systems. d Aesthetic Objective for iron in drinking water: less than or equal to 0.3 mg/l Staff recognizes that highlighting the issues
related to unlined cast iron watermain may create a stir. However, it will also demonstrate that Common Council and Saint John Water are acting on a matter of concern to water consumers.
Major progress has been achieved over the past decade in improving the state of the City’s public drinking water system; this is another step in that effort to make our water quality
“number one”. More Proactive Commitment – 2007 and Beyond The urgency associated with this issue calls for an expanded commitment this year and into the future. In fact, we recommend
that the total financial allocation for 2007 be more than doubled to $2.5M, allowing a Phase 3 to be programmed. The formal approval for Phase 3 at an estimated cost of $1,500,000 will
also be sought in a separate report to Council (to be considered on May 7th, 2007). The overall Capital Program budget will remain within the envelope already approved by Council. Further,
we will ask Council to formally commit funding for 2008 in the amount of $2.3M by pre-approving projects for Phase 4 ($1,100,000) and Phase 5 ($1,200,000). 1 Source: Guidelines for Canadian
Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada) and the Province of New Brunswick (Department of the Environment)
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 7 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire Again, it would be staff’s recommendation
to stay within the overall Capital Program budget projected for 2008. Beyond 2008, staff anticipates that we will be recommending a continuance of about a $2.5M per year allocation -until
all cast iron mains eligible for the cleaning and lining process have been renovated. Projected “Cleaning and Lining” Synopsis – 2006 to 2008 Following is a synopsis of the initial Watermain
Cleaning and Lining Program phases. Phase 1 (2006) Undertaken in October and November of 2006, Phase 1 saw the cleaning and lining of about 2 kilometres of previously unlined cast iron
watermain. Areas of improvement included several streets in Greendale, and the neighborhood bounded by Church Avenue, McKiel Street and Main Street West. Also cleaned and lined were
mains on Parkwood Avenue and Park Street Extension. The value of this work was approximately $400,000 and 2.3% of the eligible inventory was renovated. Before and after flow testing
showed a doubling in available fire flows. Cumulative Completed: 2 km /2.3% Remaining: 85.5 km /97.7% Phase 2 (2007) The tender for the next phase, soon to be advertised, will renovate
about 4.6 kilometres of distribution watermain this year in the area of Anglin Drive and Thornbrough Street, as well as along streets off of Cranston Avenue and Mount Pleasant Avenue.
The estimated value of the work is $1,000,000. Water samples in this area show depressed chlorine levels, ranging from 1.39 mg/l down to 0.0 mg/l. Low chlorine levels necessitate more
frequent flushing of the lines to raise the chlorine residual in the water. Iron measurements taken on Mount Pleasant Avenue were twice the 0.3mg/l level recommended by the Guidelines
for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Cumulative Completed: 6.6 km /7.5% Remaining: 80.9 km /92.5% Phase 3 (2007) This phase will strive to address a particularly problematic area: Fundy
Heights from Sand Cove Road to Beaconsfield Avenue. It is proposed to clean and line about 7 kilometres of cast iron watermain in 2007/2008 at an estimated cost of $1,500,000. Many customers
along streets in this area are experiencing water quality problems. Testing reveals low residual chlorine levels at various locations, sometimes approaching zero. Measurable chlorine
levels along some streets can only be maintained though regular flushing of hydrants along the streets. As is normally the case with tuberculated pipe, iron levels are well above recommended
levels -even after flushing. Iron levels measured at Windsor Street and Dunn Avenue was 0.89mg/l. At two locations on Elmore Crescent iron readings were found to be 1.09 mg/l and 1.10
mg/l on March 26th, with free chlorine levels at these homes being only 0.01mg/l and 0.01 mg/l. Cumulative Completed: 13.6 km /15.5% Remaining: 73.9 km /84.5%
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 8 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire Phase 4 (2008) The fourth phase
will move to Old East Saint John, an area that would include streets above Bayside Drive, bounded by Courtenay Avenue and Mount Pleasant Avenue East. We propose that 5.9 kilometres of
cast iron watermain be cleaned and lined at an estimated cost of $1,100,000. The area and its watermain inventory is illustrated in the map on page 10 of this report. Cumulative Completed:
19.5 km /22.3% Remaining: 68.0 km /77.7% Phase 5 (2008) Work plans for the following phase have yet to be finalized, however, we are proposing at this time that a further $1.2M be approved,
for an expected scope of 6 kilometres of cleaning and lining (in an area to be determined). Cumulative Completed: 25.5 km /29.1% Remaining: 62.0 km /70.9% The commitment being proposed
would begin real progress towards eliminating a serious problem; addressing by the end of next year, or at latest early 2009, almost 30% of the eligible unlined cast iron watermain in
the distribution system. We believe that such an initiative on the part of Council would clearly demonstrate its determination to deal with a long standing issue, the resolution of which
will have an immediate and direct impact on the quality of life of citizens. The map on page 9 shows the water distribution system in West Saint John (as of early 2006), highlighting
the amount of unlined cast iron watermain in that part of the city, other mains constructed of superior materials and some remaining unclassified pipe (much of this latter amount belonging
to others). The map on page 10 zeros in on Old East Saint John. INPUT FROM OTHERS The input received from others is primarily from customers of the City’s water utility, people who have
called or talked to our customer services staff, the Mayor, members of Council, the City Manager and other staff. The Saint John Water operations staff directly responsible for managing
water quality, those who test the water of individual households and the engineers working to improve the overall system have strongly urged that the matter of unlined cast iron mains
be given priority attention. Accordingly, with the added experience of recent months and the success of the first phase of the Program, we are proposing a refocusing of drinking water
priorities at this time.
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 9 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 10 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire
Water Main Cleaning and Lining April 27th, 2007 A Priority for Drinking Water Quality Page 11 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It would
be the intention of staff to remain within the Capital Budget envelopes already approved for 2007 and projected for 2008. Priorities and projects would be reordered to reflect the increased
emphasis on the Watermain Cleaning and Lining Program. Program Phase Scope Investment 2006 Phase 1 2 km $400,000 2007 Phase 2 4.6 km $1,000,000 Phase 3 7 km $1,500,000 2008 Phase 4 5.9
km $1,100,000 Phase 5 6 km $1,200,000 Totals 25.5 km $5,200,000 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council: 1. Make the cleaning and lining of unlined cast iron watermain
a high priority for its utility, Saint John Water; 2. Support the adjustment of the 2007 Capital Program (Saint John Water) as presented in a separate report (also on May 7th, 2007);
and 3. Pre-approve for the 2008 Capital Program (Saint John Water) an amount of $2,300,000 for Phases 4 and 5 of the Watermain Cleaning and Lining Program. Respectfully submitted, J.M.
Paul Groody, P. Eng. Terrence L. Totten, FCA Commissioner, City Manager For Saint John Water
M & C 2007 -130 May 3, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: 2006 and 2007 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund and
General Fund Capital Program Adjustments PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval for proposed adjustments to the 2006 and 2007 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund
and General Fund Capital Programs. BACKGROUND Common Council approved the 2006 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program on January 30, 2006 (M&C 2006-18), the 2006 General Fund
Capital Program on January 16, 2006 (M&C 2006-16), the 2007 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program on January 29, 2007 (M&C 2007-17) and the 2007 General Fund Capital Program
on January 15, 2007 (M&C 2007-15). ANALYSIS It is proposed to add four new projects to the 2006 and 2007 Capital Programs, defer three approved projects to future programs, increase
the budget for eleven approved projects, decrease the budget for four approved projects and transfer the ‘City Share’ over to ‘Other Share’ in accordance with the approved Gas Tax Agreement
for two projects. The overall program envelope (City Share) for the 2006 General Fund Capital program will remain at the original level approved by Council. The overall program envelopes
for the 2006 and 2007 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital program will increase by the corresponding ‘Other Share’ amounts approved under the Gas Tax Agreement (2006 Watermain Cleaning
and Lining, 2007 Pipeline Road East). In addition, the 2006 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program – Wastewater Treatment Category will be reduced by $7,870,000 Other Share and
$3,935,000 City Share as a result of reallocating the funding to 2007 as part of the approved 2007 Capital Programs.
M & C 2007-130 May 3, 2007 Page 2 A project summary for each proposed revision to the 2006 and 2007 Capital Programs is attached to this report as Appendix “A”. The tables on pages 2,
3 and 4 summarize the proposed adjustments to the 2006 and 2007 Capital Programs. 2006 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS Item Program Project Change Approved Amount Proposed Amount
A Transportation Millidge Street – Street Realignment Increase Budget $ 100,000 $ 235,000 B Transportation McAllister Drive – Street Reconstruction Additional Project 0 $ 95,000 C Storm
Gault Road – Storm Decrease Budget $ 250,000 $ 180,000 D Transportation Evergreen Avenue – Reconstruction Increase Budget $ 120,000 $ 170,000 E Transportation Rothesay Road – Street
Reconstruction Increase Budget *(Other Share -$ 110,000) City Share -0 *(Other Share -$ 180, 000) City Share -$ 80,000 F Transportation Simms Corner – Design for Intersection Realignment
Decrease Budget $ 400,000 $ 170,000 G Transportation Rural Road Upgrades Defer Project $ 60,000 60,000 0 TOTALS: $ 930,000 $ 930,000 * The amounts contained in brackets in the table
are shown for information purposes only and are not included in the addition to arrive at the TOTALS.
M & C 2007-130 May 3, 2007 Page 3 2006 WATER & SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND CAPITAL PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS Item Program Project Change Approved Amount Proposed Amount A Infrastructure Renewal
– Sanitary Millidge Street – Sanitary Additional Project 0 $ 35,000 B Infrastructure Renewal – Water Watermain Cleaning and Lining, Phase I Church Avenue Area – Water City Share To Other
Share *(Other Share -0) City Share – $ 400,000 *(Other Share -$ 400,000) City Share -0 C Infrastructure Renewal-Sanitary Old Black River Road – Sanitary Increase Budget $ 620,000 $670,000
D Infrastructure Renewal – Sanitary Sydney Street – Sanitary Increase Budget $ 185,000 $ 375,000 E Infrastrucutre Renewal – Water Latimer Lake – Water Increase Budget $ 830,000 $1,030,000
F Wastewater Treatment Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility Defer Project *(Other Share -$7,870,000) (City Share -$3,935,000) Other Share – 0 City Share – 0 G Water Service Needs Flow
Monitoring Increase Budget $ 80,000 $ 120,000 H Infrastructure Renewal – Water Millidgeville Millidgeville Water System Increase Budget $ 350,000 $ 380,000 I Watershed Protection Land
Acquisition Decrease Budget $ 200,000 $ 45,000 J Infrastructure Renewal – Sanitary City Road – Sanitary Defer Project $ 60,000 0 K Infrastructure Renewal – Sanitary Busby Street – Sanitary
Increase Budget $ 85,000 $ 155,000 TOTALS: $2,810,000 $2,810,000 * The amounts contained in brackets in the table are shown for information purposes only and are not included in the
addition to arrive at the TOTALS.
M & C 2007-130 May 3, 2007 Page 4 2007 WATER & SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND CAPITAL PROGRAM ADJUSTMENTS Item Program Project Change Approved Amount Proposed Amount A Infrastructure Renewal
– Water Watermain Cleaning and Lining, Phase II, North End Area -Water Increase Budget *(Other Share -$ 660,000) City Share – $ 340,000 *(Other Share – 0) City Share -$1,000,000 B Infrastructure
Renewal – Water Watermain Cleaning and Lining, Phase III, Fundy Heights Area – Water Additional Project 0 $1,500,000 C Infrastructure Renewal-Water Latimer Lake – Upgrades to Fluoridation
System Increase Budget $ 250,000 $315,000 D Water Service Needs Pipeline Road East – Water City Share To Other Share *(Other Share – 0) City Share – $ 860,000 *(Other Share -$ 860,000)
City Share -0 E Water Service Needs Reversing Falls Bridge -Water Decrease Budget $2,500,000 $ 565,000 F Infrastructure Renewal -Sanitary McAllister Drive – Sanitary Additional Project
0 $ 570,000 TOTALS: $3,950,000 $3,950,000 * The amounts contained in brackets in the table are shown for information purposes only and are not included in the addition to arrive at the
TOTALS. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council approve the revisions to the 2006 and 2007 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund and General Fund Capital Programs, as outlined in
this report. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. Commissioner, City Manager Municipal Operations & Engineering
Appendix “A” M & C 2007-130 May 3, 2007 Page 5 REVISIONS TO 2006 AND 2007 WATER & SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND AND GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROGRAMS PROJECT SUMMARIES The following revisions are
proposed for the 2006 Capital Programs: ¨ Millidge Street – Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer and Street Realignment During detailed design of the Millidge Street project, it was determined
that the scope of the project would have to be increased to include a 40 m long retaining wall behind the sidewalk on the east side of Millidge Street. In addition, it was determined
that the sanitary sewer required renewal including the installation of a section of storm sewer for separation of storm flow from the sanitary. Based on this information, it is proposed
to increase the budget for the project prior to tendering. ¨ McAllister Drive – Street Reconstruction The reconstruction of McAllister Drive was completed in 2006 and included the installation
of a new storm sewer. Final quantities and costs have been agreed upon and the additional project costs have been reported to Council. It is proposed that an additional project be included
in the 2006 Capital Program to cover the extra costs related to the storm sewer and street reconstruction. ¨ Gault Road – Storm Sewer Construction of the Gault Road – Storm Sewer project
has been completed and the project costs have been finalized with final costs less than budgeted. It is proposed to utilize the budget surplus to offset additional costs on other projects.
¨ Evergreen Avenue – Street Reconstruction Tenders closed in 2006 for the Evergreen Avenue – Street Reconstruction project with construction scheduled for the summer of 2007. It was
reported that there was a budget shortfall for this project. Offset are identified in this report to cover these amounts. ¨ Rothesay Road – Street Reconstruction Construction of the
Rothesay Road – Street Reconstruction project has been completed and the project costs have been finalized with final costs exceeding the budget. It was reported that there was a budget
shortfall at the time of tender award. The Province has increased their contribution from $110,000 to $180,000 and an offset has been identified to allow increasing the City’s contribution
also.
Appendix “A” M & C 2007-130 May 3, 2007 Page 6 ¨ Simms Corner – Design for Intersection Realignment Funding for the design for intersection
realignment at Simms Corner was originally included in the 2006 Capital program. The project design was not started in 2006 and was relisted in the 2007 Capital program. The 2006 funding
is available to be reallocated to other 2006 projects that have incurred additional costs. ¨ Rural Roads – Upgrades It has been reported to Council that the City was not going to be
in a position to carry through with design or upgrade work to Rural Roads until such time that the property owners in the areas recommended for upgrade work were all in agreement to
convey the necessary property to the City to allow work to proceed. The City did not proceed with design work in 2006 on the Rural Roads project as all the required properties could
not be obtained. The 2006 funding is available to be reallocated to other 2006 projects. ¨ Watermain Cleaning and Lining – Phase I Church Avenue Area Area The first phase of watermain
cleaning and lining was completed in 2006 in the Church Avenue area of the City. The recent Gas Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement included $400,000 to cover all the costs of the 2006 project.
This funding commitment from the Gas Tax Agreement will allow the original City Share of $400,000 to be reallocated to other projects. ¨ Old Black River Road – Sanitary Reconstruction
of Old Black River Road including the installation of a new sanitary sewer was completed in 2006. There were additional costs incurred relating to the sanitary sewer installation and
offsets are identified in this report to cover these amounts. ¨ Sydney Street – Sanitary Construction of the sanitary sewer on Sydney Street was completed in 2006. It was reported that
soils contaminated with fuel products were encountered during construction that required special treatment and disposal. There were additional costs incurred relating to the contaminated
soils and offsets are identified in this report to cover these amounts. ¨ Latimer Lake – Water The construction work is continuing for the electrical, mechanical and architectural upgrade
of the existing Latimer Lake Water Treatment Facility. There have been some change orders issued to carry out necessary additional work on the project to ensure a final product that
provides the expected level of service. Offsets are identified in this report to cover these amounts.
Appendix “A” M & C 2007-130 May 3, 2007 Page 7 ¨ Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility The Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility project was included in the 2006 Wastewater Treatment
category. Funding from other levels of government was not secured in 2006 so the project was relisted for 2007 and the necessary funding commitments have been made to allow the project
to proceed in 2007. Therefore, it is appropriate that this project be removed from the 2006 Capital Program. The 2006 funding has not been reallocated to other projects and the overall
2006 program envelope will be reduced by the amount of this project. ¨ Flow Monitoring The Flow Monitoring project has been completed with final costs that exceeded the original approved
budget. It is proposed to increase the budget for this project utilizing offsets identified in this report. ¨ Millidgeville Water System Work on the Millidgeville Water System is continuing
and the final project costs will exceed the original approved project budget. It is proposed proposed to increase the budget for this project utilizing offsets identified in this project.
¨ Watershed Protection – Land Acquisition Land is acquired within the Loch Lomond watershed as the opportunities present themselves. There remains a budget surplus for this 2006 project.
This is an ongoing project with funding provided annually and land acquisition opportunities will be pursued in 2007 utilizing 2007 project funding. It is proposed that amounts from
the 2006 project be utilized as an offset for other projects identified in this report. ¨ City Road – Sanitary During the preliminary design phase for this project, it was determined
that the project could not proceed as originally envisioned due to the numerous utilities and obstructions in the area. Other solutions are being contemplated and the project in an alternate
format will be relisted to a future program. It is proposed to reallocate this budget capacity to other projects as outlined in this report. ¨ Busby Street – Sanitary Tenders closed
on on May 1, 2007, for the Busby Street – Lift Station project and there is a budget shortfall being projected. Offsets are identified in this report to cover those amounts.
Appendix “A” M & C 2007-130 May 3, 2007 Page 8 The following revisions are proposed for the 2007 Capital Programs: ¨ Watermain Cleaning and Lining – Phase II North End Area As was reported
to Council, the $660,000 “Other Share” under the Green Municipal Fund for Watermain Cleaning and Lining was not approved. The rehabilitation of unlined cast iron pipes is a critical
program to ensure the provision of safe drinking water to the City’s customers. For this reason, it is proposed to reallocate surplus funds from other 2007 projects to allow this important
project to proceed. ¨ Watermain Cleaning and Lining – Phase III Fundy Heights Area The Fundy Heights area of the City has a large amount of unlined cast iron mains and a major watermain
flushing initiative is necessary to maintain minimum water quality. To that end, staff has prepared a report and briefing to more fully inform Council and the public on the watermain
cleaning and lining program and the requirement to proceed aggressively with the initiative. It is proposed to reallocate surplus funding from other 2007 projects to allow a third phase
of watermain cleaning and lining to proceed in the amount of $1,500,000. ¨ Latimer Lake – Upgrades to Flouridation System The detailed design is well underway for the Latimer Lake –
Upgrades to Fluoridation System project and a more detailed engineer’s estimate has been prepared in conjunction with the detailed design that identifies a requirement to increase the
project budget. It is proposed to utilize surplus funding from other projects identified in this report to allow this project to proceed. ¨ Pipeline Road East -Water The Pipeline Road
East project scope and budget remains as approved in the 2007 Capital Program. The recent Gas Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement included $860,000 to cover all costs associated with this
project. The funding commitment from the Gas Tax Agreement will allow the original City Share of $860,000 to be re-allocated to other projects. ¨ Reversing Falls Bridge – Water Transmission
Mains The 2007 Capital Program includes a project for the design and construction of the Reversing Falls Bridge – Water Transmission Mains. The design work for the project is proceeding.
Staff have been having ongoing dialogue with the Harbour Bridge Authority and the best ‘window of opportunity’ to carry out the construction of this project is during the 2008 season
perhaps in conjunction with the Simms Corner Realignment project. Therefore, it is proposed that adequate funding be maintained in the budget for the design component only with the remainder
of the funding reallocated to other important projects – primarily to watermain cleaning and lining. The Reversing Falls Bridge – Water Transmission Mains construction project will be
relisted in the 2008 Capital Program.
Appendix “A” M & C 2007-130 May 3, 2007 Page 9 ¨ McAllister Drive – Sanitary The reconstruction of McAllister Drive was completed in 2006 and included the installation of a new sanitary
sewer. Final quantities and costs have been agreed upon and the additional project costs have been reported to Council. It is proposed that an additional project be included in the 2007
Capital Program to provide supplemental funding for the extra costs related to the sanitary sewer construction.
Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire M & C 2007 -124 April 26th, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of
Council, SUBJECT: POLICY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) PLAN INORGANIC CHLORAMINES & CHLORINATED WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS The City of Saint John wastewater service exists to provide the public
with wastewater collection, treatment and safe release of effluents into receiving waters. The effective management of wastewater enhances public health, safety, and protection of the
environment. Specifically, the benefits of the service include prevention of waterborne diseases, elimination of contaminants that can accumulate in the natural environment and threaten
aquatic and wild life, and opening up water sources for tourism/recreational use. PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to advise Common Council that a Pollution Prevention
(P2) Plan has been prepared for the Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in accordance with the requirements of Environment Canada and, further, to recommend adoption of Pollution
Prevention (Wastewater Treatment) Policy for the City of Saint John. BACKGROUND The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA 1999) is administered by the federal Minister of the Environment
and the federal Minister of Health. With regard to municipal wastewater effluents (MWWE), substances such as ammonia, inorganic chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluents have
been assessed and determined to be ‘toxic’ under CEPA 1999. Across Canada, the use of chlorine for the disinfection of municipal wastewaters has led to the proliferation of chlorinated
wastewater effluent released to receiving waters. Residual chlorine has been shown to have a negative impact on the fish and other aquatic fauna exposed to it. On December 4, 2004, Environment
Canada (EC) published in the Canada Gazette Part 1, two instruments related to municipal wastewater effluents: 1. A P2 Planning Notice requiring the preparation and implementation of
pollution prevention plans for inorganic chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluent (chlorines), and
Policy and Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan April 26th, 2007 Inorganic Chloramines & Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents Page 2 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire
2. A guideline for the release of ammonia dissolved in water found in wastewater effluents. The pollution prevention (P2) planning instrument is intended to initiate early action from
owners of identified wastewater systems. Actions to be implemented will be based on system specific audits. To assist affected municipalities in developing the necessary pollution prevention
plans, a P2 plan template was developed under the direction of Environment Canada, Municipal Wastewater Effluent Division. Environment Canada funded and managed this project under contract
to the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention (C2P2), in association with Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. The P2 plan template was developed by the project team and tested with three
municipalities: ·d City of Summerside, PE ·d City of Saint John, NB ·d City of Hamilton, ON The objective of the P2 Planning Notice is to significantly reduce or eliminate the quantity
of inorganic chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluents, which will be monitored as total residual chlorine (TRC), in the effluent discharged from a wastewater treatment facility.
ANALYSIS City of Saint John provides a wastewater collection service (raw sewage or with treatment) to approximately 65,000 residents, along with numerous businesses and industries.
Only 56% of collected effluent is treated by one of five wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF): Hazen Creek, Millidgeville, Lancaster, Marsh Creek and Monte Cristo. Each of the facilities
provides for secondary level treatment, however, only two have an Approval to Operate (issued by the Province of New Brunswick) that requires disinfection of the wastewater effluent:
Millidgeville and Hazen Creek. The Millidgeville WWTF utilizes ultra-violet disinfection and, as such, does not pose a hazard for receiving waters. It is, therefore, exempt from the
P2 Notice. Among Saint John Water WWTFs, only Hazen Creek is affected by the P2 Notice, for the following reasons: d The City of Saint John had ownership of the Hazen Creek Wastewater
Treatment Facility (WWTF) on December 4, 2004; d The City of Saint John discharges wastewater effluent to surface waters known as Saint John Harbour; d The average flow rate of the effluent
from the Hazen Creek WWTF during the preparation year (2005) was 5,109 m3/day, which is greater than the minimum flow rate of 5,000 m3/day as stated in the P2 Planning Notice; and,
Policy and Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan April 26th, 2007 Inorganic Chloramines & Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents Page 3 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire
d The maximum concentration of total residual chlorine (TRC) in the wastewater effluent released to surface water in any sample during the preparation year 2005 was determined to be
0.71 mg/L; this value exceeds the Risk Management Objective of the P2 Notice, which is 0.02 mg/L. The Hazen Creek facility serves an area of 7,000 residents. With expected growth in
the area, and redirection of collection system outfalls to treatment, the Hazen Creek facility will be decommissioned and will be replaced by 2009 with the larger, more advanced Eastern
Wastewater Treatment Facility (EWWTF). During the design of the new facility and in preparing the P2 Plan, staff have considered alternative disinfection processes in order to meet the
Risk Management Objectives in the P2 Planning Notice. The EWWTF will use an ultraviolet system for disinfection of effluent, eliminating the use of chlorine. Other technologies considered
to reduce or eliminate chlorine releases included ozone disinfection, membrane technology or chlorination followed by de-chlorination. Pursuant to the P2 Planning Notice, the City of
Saint John is required to prepare a Pollution Prevention Plan for Inorganic Chloramines and Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents on or before June 15th, 2007. The plan is to be implemented
no later than June 15th, 2010. The plan document is now complete and a copy is attached to this report. The actual date estimated to finalize implementation of the P2 plan is December
2009. Once the plan is implemented, a Declaration of Implementation containing all required information will be submitted to Environment Canada on or before July 15th, 2010. The City
of Saint John recognizes that pollution prevention has become the preferred option of environmental and health protection by governments at all levels and increasingly in the business
community. The City is committed to achieving a hundred percent treatment of collected municipal wastewater, the elimination of all raw sewage outfalls, and the alignment of the community’s
environmental responsibilities with its vision for a sustainable future. The goal to achieve this consists of a five year plan of action for the clean-up of Saint John Harbour. The City
of Saint John and its utility Saint John Water are also committed to reducing energy consumption at each of its water and wastewater facilities. With the approval of Common Council in
early 2007, Saint John Water under the guidance of the City’s Building Inspector and Energy Manager has engaged a consulting engineering firm to review and assess current infrastructure
with the objective of reducing energy consumption by 25%. Given the increasing focus on these issues by the public and by the various levels of government, it is important that Common
Council demonstrate clear leadership for our community by adopting a pollution prevention (wastewater treatment) policy. Such a policy would provide a foundation from which to address
the technical and administrative requirements necessary to protect our environment from municipal wastewater effluents released from treatment facilities.
Policy and Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan April 26th, 2007 Inorganic Chloramines & Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents Page 4 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire
A recommended policy is attached to this document. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS With support from the Government of Canada and the Province of New Brunswick, Common Council’s Capital and Operating
budgets for Saint John Water provide funding for the projects necessary to address the City’s environmental responsibilities. Completion and submission of the P2 Plan represents no additional
expense. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council: 1. Adopt the attached Pollution Prevention (Wastewater Treatment) Policy for the City of Saint John (Saint John Water);
2. Receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering For Saint John Water Terrence L. Totten, FCA City
Manager
Policy and Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan April 26th, 2007 Inorganic Chloramines & Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents Page 5 Our Business is Your Water /Votre eau, c’est notre affaire
City of Saint John Pollution Prevention (Wastewater Treatment) Policy Environmental Protection The City of Saint John, through its utility Saint John Water, seeks to protect human health
and the natural environment in the provision of environmental protection services (wastewater collection and treatment). It is the goal of the City of Saint John to: d Provide efficient
wastewater collection and treatment services that include long-term planning and investment strategies to improve treatment capacities and enhance treatment procedures; and, d Comply
with all applicable federal, provincial, and municipal environmental legislation, regulatory and other requirements to which Saint John Water subscribes. All reasonable efforts will
be taken to reduce impacts to the natural environment through initiatives to reduce resource consumption and waste production, including but not limited to the following: reducing energy
consumption; reducing extraneous flows (inflow and infiltration); and encouraging the most efficient use of potable water by residences, businesses, institutions and industry. The City
of Saint John is committed to educational initiatives that further reduce impacts to the natural environment. Wastewater collection and treatment services will be monitored, measured
and documented to promote system efficiency, to protect human health and to protect the natural environment. The City of Saint John will periodically review and update if necessary,
the pollution prevention plan(s) to ensure continual improvement. Service operations and management will reflect commitment to pollution prevention. Saint John Water is responsible for
the implementation and communication of pollution prevention (wastewater treatment) plans. This Pollution Prevention Policy will be posted at each Saint John Water wastewater treatment
facility and will be available to the public. Adopted by resolution of Saint John Common Council on May 7th, 2007. _________________________ _________________________ His Worship Norm
McFarlane J. Patrick Woods, CGA Mayor Common Clerk
The City of Saint John Pollution Prevention Plan In response to Environment Canada’s “Notice Requiring the Preparation and Implementation of Pollution Prevention Plans for Inorganic
Chloramines and Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents” 2007/04/26
Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 2.0 Facility Information..............
.....................................................................................................3 3.0 Corporate and Facility Support for P2 Planning..............................................
......................4 3.1 Statement of Support from Management......................................................................................4 3.2. Corporate Policy, Principles
and Commitments..........................................................................4 3.3. Status of Environmental Management System .............................................................
..............4 3.4 P2 Planning Team.........................................................................................................................6 4.0 Scope and Objectives
of the P2 Plan .........................................................................................7 4.1. Activities and Pollutants Covered by this P2 Plan.......................................
...............................7 4.1.1 Other Initiatives .......................................................................................................7 4.2. Timing..........................
..............................................................................................................7 4.3. Overall Objectives ...............................................................
.......................................................9 4.4. Risk Management Objectives and Targets ..................................................................................9
5.0 Baseline Review.........................................................................................................................10 5.1 Identification of Information from
Preparation Year..................................................................10 5.1.1 Identification of of Preparation Year ......................................................................
..10 5.1.2 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facility Characteristics ................................10 5.1.3 Releases of Inorganic Chloramines and Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents .........11
5.1.4 Results of the Process Audit for Chlorine..............................................................12 5.2 Site Map and Process Flow Diagram..................................................
.......................................12 5.3 Other Relevant Legal Requirements…………………………………………………………...16 5.4 Summary of Possible Stakeholder Concerns ...............................................
..............................17 5.5 Current Costs ..............................................................................................................................17 6.0
Identification, Evaluation and Selection of Pollution Prevention or Environmental Protection Methods...................................................................................................
............18 6.1. Identification of Pollution Prevention or Environmental Protection Methods ..........................18 6.2. Evaluation and Selection of Methods ..................................
.....................................................18 6.2.1 Summary of Costs to Implement the Proposed P2 Plan Methods .........................19 6.2.2 Summary of Proposed Resources
and Funds to Implement the P2 Plan ...............19 6.2.3 Evaluation of Proposed Methods ...........................................................................20 6.2.4 Selection
of Method(s) to Meet the Risk Management Objective.........................20 6.3 Detailed Anticipated Results Using the New Method(s) to Address the Risk Management Objective in this
P2 Notice ...............................................................................................................20 7.0 Implementation Plan ...................................................
............................................................22 8.0 Monitoring and Reporting .......................................................................................................25
8.1. Monitoring Program and Data ...................................................................................................25 8.2 Reporting Progress on the P2 Plan...........................
..................................................................26 9.0 Review and Evaluation.........................................................................................................
...27 9.1. Review and Evaluation Plan ......................................................................................................27 9.2. Record of Corrective Actions Taken
.........................................................................................27 9.3. Record of Target Revisions Made ......................................................................
......................27 10.0 Addressing the Risk Management Objectives with this P2 Plan........................................28 11.0 Factors to Consider in Response to the P2 Notice
...............................................................29
12.0 Completion..............................................................................................................................31 Appendices.............................................
........................................................................................32 Appendix 1: Notification of Non-Engagement..................................................................
..33 Appendix 2: Request for Waiver of the Requirements to Consider a Factor ……………..39
List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Facility Information ........................................................................................3 Table 2: P2 Planning Team Members ...................
..........................................……………………..6 Table 3: Dates Specified in the P2 Notice and Key Reporting Deadlines for the City of Saint John8 Table 4: Minimum Risk Management
Objective, Reduction Target and Timeline for the City of Saint John ......................................................................................................................9
Table 5: Summary of Wastewater System Processes at the Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility in the City of Saint John for Preparation Year..................................................10
Table 6: Average Flow of Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility Effluent and Maximum Total Residual Chlorine Concentrations During the Preparation Year .........................11
Table 7: Quantities and Locations of Chlorine Used at the Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility and Wastewater System .............................................................................
...12 Table 8: Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Processes for New WTF.........................................18 Table 9: Sample Summary Table of Cost Estimates .....................................
............................. ..19 Table 10: Summary of Proposed Resources and Sources of Funding to Implement the P2 Plan.20 Table 11: Proposed Implementation of Pollution Prevention
Method to Meet the Risk Management Objective……………………………………………………………………………………………………21 Table 12: Action Plan.............................................................................................
..................... ..23 Table 13: Quantities and Locations of Chlorine Used in the New Eastern WWTF After Implementation of UV System……………………………………………………………………………25 Table 14: Summary
of Monitoring Activities to be Undertaken by the City of Saint John .......... …25 Table 15: Summary of Municipal Reporting Reporting Activities.......................................................
............26 Table 16: Summary of Reporting Deadlines to Environment Canada by the City of Saint John ...26
List of Figures Figure 1: Pollution Prevention Policy for the City of Saint John Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities .......................................................................
................................ 5 Figure 2: Site Map Showing Location of Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility within the City ...................................................................
...........................................................13 Figure 3: Expanded Site Map Showing Location of Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility Proximity to other Facilities,
and Significant Discharge Locations to Surface Water ...14 Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram for Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility Showing Chlorine Use and Discharge from the Wastewater
System for Preparation Year........15 Figure 5: Aerial Photograph of Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility……………………..16
Page 1 1.0 Introduction The City of Saint John is required to prepare and implement a pollution prevention (P2) plan as set out by the P2 Planning Notice published by Environment Canada
in Canada Gazette, Part I on December 4, 2004 entitled: P2 Planning Notice Requiring the Preparation and Implementation of Pollution Prevention Plans for Inorganic Chloramines and Chlorinated
Wastewater Effluents. In particular, the P2 Planning Notice applies to the City of Saint John
due to the following activities: • The City of Saint John had ownership of the Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) on December 4, 2004; • The City of Saint John discharges
wastewater effluent to surface waters known as Saint John Harbour; • The average flow rate of the effluent from the Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility during the preparation year
(2005) was 5,109 m3/day, which is greater than the minimum flow rate of 5,000 m3/day as stated in the P2 Planning Notice; and, • The maximum concentration of total residual chlorine
(TRC) in the wastewater effluent released to surface water in any sample during the preparation year 2005 was determined to be 0.71 mg/L, and this value exceeds the Risk Management Objective
of the P2 Notice, which is 0.02 mg/L. The objective of this P2 Planning Notice as it applies to the City of Saint John is to significantly reduce or eliminate the quantity of inorganic
chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluents, which will be monitored as TRC, in the effluent discharged from the wastewater treatment facility. The P2 Planning Notice defines inorganic
chloramines as “three chemicals that are formed when chlorine and ammonia are combined in water: monochloramine (NH2Cl), dichloramine (NHCl2) and trichloramine (NCl3); total residual
chlorine (TRC) as “the concentration of free chlorine and combined chlorine (including inorganic chloramines), expressed as Cl - ; and wastewater as “a mixture of liquid wastes primarily
composed of domestic sewage that can also include other liquid wastes from industrial, commercial and institutional sources”. Inorganic chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluents
were found to be toxic under Section 64 of CEPA 1999 and were added to the List of Toxic Substance in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999. The use of chlorine for the disinfection of municipal wastewaters
has lead to the proliferation of chlorinated wastewater effluent released to receiving waters. Residual chlorine is toxic and has been shown to have a negative impact on the fish and
other aquatic fauna exposed to it. To address the concerns related to the negative environmental and health impacts of the release of chlorine into aquatic environments, CEPA has designated
inorganic chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluents as priority toxic substances. As a result of this designation, the City of Saint John will need to consider alternatives to
the current disinfection processes in order to meet the Risk Management Objectives in the P2 Planning Notice. Potential technologies to reduce or eliminate chlorine releases releases
include ultraviolet disinfection, ozone disinfection, membrane technology or chlorination followed by dechlorination.
Page 2 The City of Saint John recognizes that pollution prevention has become the preferred option of environmental and health protection by governments at all levels and increasingly
in the business community. In Canada, CEPA 1999 defines pollution prevention as: “the use of processes, practices, materials, products, substances or energy that avoid or minimize the
creation of pollutants and waste, and reduce the overall risk to the environment or human health.” It is the goal of this P2 Plan to identify and outline the steps and actions the City
of Saint John will take to meet the Risk Management Objective set out in the P2 Planning Notice, which is to achieve and maintain a concentration of TRC that is less than or equal to
0.02 mg/L in the effluent released to surface water by December 15, 2009.
Page 3 2.0 Facility Information The City of Saint John wastewater infrastructure is among the oldest in Canada, dating back to the early 1800’s. Saint John has a population of 69,000
residents, 65,000 of which are served by a wastewater collection system (raw sewage or with treatment). 56% of collected effluent is treated by five treatment facilities. The five facilities
include: Hazen Creek, Millidgeville, Lancaster, Thorne Avenue, and Monte Cristo facilities. Each of the facilities provides for secondary level treatment, however, only one of the facilities,
Hazen Creek, is affected by this P2 Notice. The Hazen Creek facility serves an area of 7,000 residents. With expected growth in the area, and redirection of collection system outfalls
to treatment, the Hazen Creek facility will be decommissioned and is slated for replacement by the end of 2009 with a larger wastewater treatment facility. Construction is slated to
begin in 2008. Table 1 provides a summary of the facility contact information for Hazen Creek WWTF and this P2 Notice. Table 1: Summary of Facility Information Type of Information Summary
of Facility Information Name of Persons or Class of Persons Subject to the P2 Notice The City of Saint John Name of Facility subject to the P2 Notice Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment
Facility Street Address 441 Red Head Road Contact Information at Site Plant Operator: Frank Hebert Phone: 506 658 4798 Email: frank.hebert@saintjohn.ca Mailing Address (if different
from street address) PO Box 1971 Saint John NB E2L 4L1 Name: J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Position at Facility: Commissioner of Municipal Operations and Engineering Contact Information
of person with signing authority for the Declarations Contact Info: Phone: 506 658 4435 Fax: 506 658 4740 Email: paul.groody@saintjohn.ca Name: Brent McGovern, P. Eng. Position at Facility:
Manager, Water and Wastewater Operations, Municipal Operations and Engineering Accountable Manager for P2 Plan: Contact Info: Phone: 506 674 4264 Fax: 506 658 4740 Email: brent.mcgovern@saintjohn.ca
Name: Kevin Rice, B. Sc., CET Position at Facility: Operations Manager, Environmental Protection Technical Contact: Name Contact Info: Phone: 506 658 4477 Fax: 506 658 4740 Email: kevin.rice@saintjoh
.ca North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 2002 221320 National Pollutants Release Inventory Identification Number (NPRI ID) 006001
Page 4 3.0 Corporate and Facility Support for P2 Planning 3.1. Corporate Policy, Principles and Commitments The City of Saint John is committed to achieving a hundred percent treatment
of collected municipal wastewater, the elimination of all raw sewage outfalls, and the alignment of the community’s environmental responsibilities with its vision for a sustainable future.
The goal to achieve this consists of a five year plan of action for Saint John Harbour clean-up. The City of Saint John is also committed to reducing energy consumption at each of its
water and wastewater facilities. With the approval of Common Council, in early 2007, the City of Saint John engaged a consulting and engineering firm to review and assess its current
infrastructure with the objective of reducing energy consumption by 25%. The following policy statement has been adopted by the Common Council of the City of Saint John. 3.2. Statement
of Support from Management The City of Saint John is committed to meeting the requirements of the P2 Notice, as illustrated throughout this P2 Plan. The Commissioner of Municipal Operations
and Engineering at the City of Saint John has directed that the pollution prevention policy statement be posted at the City of Saint John Municipal Operations building and the following
staffed wastewater treatment facilities: Millidgeville, Marsh Creek, Hazen Creek and, Lancaster Lagoon. 3.3. Status of Environmental Management System The City of Saint John does not
have an Environmental Management System in place at this time.
Page 5 Figure 1: Pollution Prevention Policy for the City of Saint John Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities City of Saint John Pollution Prevention (Wastewater Treatment)
Policy Environmental Protection The City of Saint John, through its utility Saint John Water, seeks to protect human health and the natural environment in the provision of environmental
protection services (wastewater collection and treatment). It is the goal of the City of Saint John to: ?? Provide efficient wastewater collection and treatment services that include
long-term planning and investment strategies to improve treatment capacities and enhance treatment procedures; and, ?? Comply with all applicable federal, provincial, and municipal environmental
legislation, regulatory and other requirements to which Saint John Water subscribes. All reasonable efforts will be taken to reduce impacts to the natural environment through initiatives
to reduce resource consumption and waste production, including but not limited to the following: reducing energy consumption; reducing extraneous flows (inflow and infiltration); and
encouraging the most efficient use of potable water by residences, businesses, institutions and industry. The City of Saint John is committed to educational initiatives that further
reduce impacts to the natural environment. Wastewater collection and treatment services will be monitored, measured and documented to promote system efficiency, to protect human health
and to protect the natural environment. The City of Saint John will periodically review and update if necessary, the pollution prevention plan(s) to ensure continual improvement. Service
operations and management will reflect commitment to pollution prevention. Saint John Water is responsible for the implementation and communication of pollution prevention (wastewater
treatment) plans. This Pollution Prevention Policy will be posted at each Saint John Water wastewater treatment facility and will be available to the public. Adopted by resolution of
Saint John Common Council on May 7th, 2007. _________________________ _________________________ His Worship Norm McFarlane J. Patrick Woods, CGA Mayor Common Clerk
Page 6 3.4 P2 Planning Team The pollution prevention planning team was developed as a result of the commitment from senior management at the Municipal Operations and Engineering Department
(Saint John Water) of the City of Saint John. Table 2 lists the members of the P2 Planning team and their areas of responsibility. The P2 Planning team has the authority to undertake
activities in relation to this P2 plan and to utilize resources to achieve appropriate results. The manager accountable for the P2 plan is indicated in the Pollution Prevention Policy.
Table 2: P2 Planning Team Members P2 Planning Team Designation Contact Person/Contact Information Current Role in the City of Saint John Accountable Manager for P2 Plan Brent McGovern,
P. Eng. Manager, Water and Wastewater Operations Engineering, water and sewerage capital programs Brian Keenan, P. Eng. Engineering Manager, Municipal Engineering Manager responsible
for WWTF operations Kevin Rice, B. Sc., CET Operations Manager, Environmental Protection Hazen Creek WWTF operator Frank Hebert Certified Operator II Wastewater Treatment Laboratory
support Rob Hamilton, CET Laboratory Services Senior Advisor Peter J. Hanlon, P. Eng. Chief Water Quality Inspector
Page 7 4.0 Scope and Objectives of the P2 Plan The scope and objectives of this P2 plan have been laid out in the P2 Planning Notice published by Environment Canada. 4.1. Activities
and Pollutants Covered by this P2 Plan This P2 Plan is developed in relation to the use of chlorine or chlorine compounds in our collection and wastewater systems and the release of
chlorinated effluents to surface water. 4.1.1 Other Initiatives The City of Saint John supports the vision that an overall P2 approach for a facility is environmentally sound and potentially
economically viable and has initiated other pollution prevention activities in relation to the wastewater treatment system. These initiatives include: • Treatment of all collected wastewater
by 2011; • Transition capital program to adequate levels of infrastructure renewal; • Continued separation of combined sewers; • Phased movement to stronger demand management measures
for potable water; • Communications plan aimed at improving public understanding of water and wastewater issues and what needs to be done in Saint John, including the benefits of water
conservation and reuse; • Inflow/infiltration study and reduction program; • Updating sewer use bylaw to address requirements of CEPA, Fisheries Act and the Canada Wide Initiatives of
the CCME; • Development of a preventative maintenance system; • Establishing in conjunction with the New Brunswick Community College -Saint John a “Centre of Excellence in Water & Wastewater”
for training and research; • Video inspection of sewers; and • Facilities energy efficiency study 4.2. Timing The P2 Planning Notice specifies the dates for which various activities
must be completed, objectives must be met as well as declarations submitted to Environment Canada with respect to the preparation and implementation of the P2 Plan. The dates of specific
concern for the City of Saint John are listed in Table 3. The City of Saint John is committed to meeting these deadlines.
Page 8 Table 3: Dates Specified in the P2 Notice and Key Reporting Deadlines for the City of Saint John Completion Date (on or before) Activity January 1 – December 31, for the year
2005 Preparation Year -Monitor values for effluent flow and TRC • Daily effluent flow • TRC levels in effluent measured using representative sampling June 15, 2006 Complete process audits
• Chlorine audit performed Data from this audit will be used to identify how much chlorine is used in the system and where it is used. June 15, 2007 Deadline for the P2 plan to be prepared
and implementation initiated. The P2 plan must be prepared and implementation initiated by June 15, 2007 July 15, 2007 Deadline for filing the Declaration of Preparation (Schedule 1)
• This is a declaration to the federal Minister of Environment that a P2 Plan has been prepared and is being implemented. The Declaration includes monitoring data from the preparation
year in relation to chlorine use and identifies anticipated actions and results to meet the Risk Risk Management Objective. December 15, 2008 Deadline to implement actions identified
by the process audit (see Appendix 2) January 1 – December 31, 2009 Monitor results of actions implemented resulting from the process audit (see Appendix 2) December 15, 2009 Achieve
and maintain a concentration of TRC in the effluent less than or equal to 0.02 mg/L June 15, 2010 Deadline to have the P2 Plan implemented • The P2 plan must be implemented by June 15,
2010 • The Declaration of Implementation must be filed within 30 days thereafter. July 15, 2010 Deadline for filing the Declaration of Implementation (Schedule 5) • The Declaration of
Implementation includes monitoring information from the year 2009 (or earlier) as well as a summary of the results achieved once the P2 plan has been fully implemented. If required Filing
amended declarations Persons submitting false or misleading information must file an amended declaration to the Minister within 30 days after the time that the information became false
or misleading, using the appropriate forms (declarations for preparation of declaration of implementation) If required May request information treated as confidential The Minister of
the Environment intends to publish, in part, the information provided in response to the P2 Planning Notice on Environment Canada's Green Lane Web site. All persons providing information
to the Minister are entitled to submit a written request under section 313 of CEPA 1999 that specific information be treated as confidential. Persons submitting such a request may include
the reasons of that request. If required May send in a Request for Waiver of Factors to Consider (Schedule 2) • Prior to June 15, 2007, or before the expiry of any extended period (the
end of the time period specified in the P2 Planning Notice for preparing a P2 plan) If required May request time extensions (Schedule 3) • For preparing or implementing a P2 plan: prior
to the end of the time period specified in the P2 Planning Notice.
Page 9 4.3. Overall Objectives The overall objective of this P2 Plan is to reduce or eliminate inorganic chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluents. 4.4. Risk Management Objectives
and Targets The P2 Planning Notice states that the Risk Management Objective, which is the minimum pollution prevention target to be achieved, will be met by achieving and maintaining
a concentration of TRC in the effluent less than or equal to 0.02 mg/L. The timing for implementing the Risk Management Objective is provided in Table 4. Table 4: Minimum Risk Management
Objective, Reduction Target and Timeline for the City of Saint John (Hazen Creek WWTF) Risk Management Objective and Reduction Targets Reduction Timeline Achieve and maintain a concentration
of TRC in the effluent less than or equal to 0.02 mg/L December 15, 2009 (or earlier)
Page 10 5.0 Baseline Review The City of Saint John undertook a baseline review of the wastewater system. The following tables and diagrams summarize the data and information. 5.1 Identification
of Information from Preparation Year 5.1.1 Identification of Preparation Year The P2 Planning team identified that sufficient information was available from our records during the period
January 1 – December 31, 2005 to establish the Preparation year as 2005 for the purposes of this P2 Plan. 5.1.2 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facility Characteristics Table 5 provides
a detailed summary of the WWTF processes Table 5: Summary of Wastewater System Processes at the Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility in the City of Saint John for Preparation Year
2005 Description of Wastewater System Types of Processes at Facility No Treatment i.e. collection system with release to surface water Preliminary Treatment None Skimming Grit removal
Screening Other (describe) Physical/Chemical Primary Treatment None Chemical flocculation Primary Sedimentation/clarification Other (describe) Biological or Secondary Treatment -Mechanical
Systems (some systems may have more than one kind of treatment) None Conventional Activated Sludge Extended Aeration Activated Sludge Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge Other Activated Sludge
Oxidation Ditch Trickling filter Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Other (describe) Advanced Tertiary Treatment None Polishing ponds Ammonia stripping
or air stripping Biological nutrient removal (Nitrogen and phosphorus) Biological Nitrogen Removal –Nitrification and Denitrification Biological phosphorus removal Chemical Precipitation
(Phosphorus) Filtration Biological ammonia removal – Nitrification only Other (describe)
Page 11 Description of Wastewater System Types of Processes at Facility Effluent Disinfection None Chlorination only Disinfection: All year Disinfection seasonal or intermittent specify
which months: or specify frequency: Ozone UV Other (describe) Other Information Name of the surface water body that effluent is released to: Saint John Harbour Freshwater, or Saltwater
5.1.3 Releases of Inorganic Chloramines and Chlorinated Wastewater Effluents The City of Saint John obtains effluent flow rates from the influent measurements via the Parshall Flume.
Bypass events at the facility are rare. TRC is measured on daily grab samples throughout the year. TRC measurements are carried out using a Hach pocket colourimeter (catalogue number
#46760-88) with a detection limit of +/-0.02 mg/l. Table 6 provides the results from these measurements for the Preparation Year 2005. Table 6: Average Flow of Hazen Creek Wastewater
Treatment Facility Effluent and Maximum Total Residual Chlorine Concentrations During the Preparation Year Preparation Year: (2005) Month Average Flow Rate of Effluent from WWTF (m3/day)
Maximum Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Concentration (mg/L as Cl-) January 5253 0.55 February 4838 0.53 March 5139 0.64 April 5858 0.65 May 5800 0.49 June 4972 0.42 July 4106 0.47 August
3435 0.60 September 3769 0.71 October 5938 0.40 November 6322 0.33 December 5871 0.40 Yearly Average Flow Rate of Effluent from WWTF (m3/day) Yearly Maximum TRC Concentration (mg/L as
Cl-) 2005 Yearly Values 5109 m3/day 0.71
Page 12 The facility effluent flow rate is currently at 75% of the capacity of the facility and is expected to increase due to development and with the redirecting of numerous outfalls
to the facility. Flow rates have been reduced over the past few years due to focused efforts on identifying and addressing inflow and infiltration. It is noteworthy that in 1999 the
average effluent flow rate was 6,800 m3/day. 5.1.4 Results of the Process Audit for Chlorine The Hazen Creek Facility, which currently uses chlorine disinfection, will be decommissioned
and replaced with a larger secondary facility which will use an ultraviolet disinfection system. Therefore a detailed process audit for chlorine at the Hazen Creek facility is considered
irrelevant, and a Request for Waiver of the Requirements to Consider of Factor or Factors (Schedule 2) will be submitted to Environment Canada by June 15, 2007(see Appendix 2). A nominal
process audit was completed, with results provided in Table 7. This table lists the locations and quantities of chlorine used during the Preparation Year. The chlorine is delivered in
150 lb cylinders and in 2005, 36 cylinders were used. Table 7: Quantities and Locations of Chlorine Used at the Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility and Wastewater System for the
Preparation Year Processes in Wastewater System that Use Chlorine Purpose of Chlorine Use Type of Chlorine Used Quantity of Chlorine Used in each Process Annually (Kg/yr) Final Effluent
Disinfection Unit Disinfection of effluent Gaseous chlorine 2455 Total Mass of Chlorine used in 2005 (Kg/yr) = 2455 5.2 Site Map and Process Flow Diagram Wastewater Treatment Facility
Site Maps The wastewater treatment facility site map is provided in two figures. Figure 2 provides a detail of the site facility and shows proximity to the discharge location and neighbouring
boundaries. Figure 3 shows the serviced areas with treatment in Saint John and shows the location of the facility with respect to the general area.
Page 13 Figure 2: Site Map of existing Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility
Page 14 Figure 3: Expanded Site Map Showing Location of Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility in Proximity to other Facilities, and Discharge Location to Surface Water
Page 15 Process Flow Diagram The process flow diagram is provided in Figure 4 which shows the WWTF processes schematically including the specific areas for chlorine use and quantities
of chlorine used in the Preparation Year. Figure 4: Process Flow Diagram for Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility Showing Chlorine Use and Discharge from the Wastewater System for
Preparation Year 2005
Figure 5: Aerial Photograph of Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility 5.3 Other Relevant Legal Requirements The City of Saint John has identified other potential legal requirements
or government initiatives which may affect any business decisions related to responding to this P2 Notice as follows: i. Province of New Brunswick: • Clean Environment Act • Water Quality
Regulation (N.B. Reg. 82-126, as am. by 85-86; 91-136; 92-177; and 95-60) • Clean Water Act • Fees for Industrial Approvals Regulation (N.B. Reg. 93-201 as am. By 96-9) • Occupational
Health and Safety Legislation • includes OH&S risk hazards of employees at wastewater treatment facilities exposed to chlorine
Page 17 ii. Federal: • Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 • Other CEPA: Schedule 1, List of Substances Declared Toxic Under CEPA Includes the substances listed under Factors
to Consider of this P2 Notice. • National Pollutants Release Inventory (NPRI): The City of Saint John is subject to the NPRI requirements. • Environmental Emergency Plans Requires development
of emergency plans by organizations using specific types of chemicals. The City of Saint John is subject to the Environmental Emergency Plan requirements. • Fisheries Act: (Section 36(3))
o prohibits the discharge of deleterious substances to water frequented by fish 5.4 Summary of Possible Stakeholder Concerns The City of Saint John has identified various stakeholders
who may be affected by how the City of Saint John responds to this P2 Notice and their possible concerns. These are summarized as follows: • Medical Officer of Health (Region 2) o Concern
for public health and safety • Atlantic Coastal Action Program o Concern for environmental protection • City of Saint John City Environment Committee o Concern for the environmental
aspects of effluent discharges 5.5 Current Costs The chlorine disinfection system was added to the Hazen Creek facility a number of years ago. The process requires minimal maintenance
and annual costs of operating the system (chlorine, residuals testing, cylinder change over, cylinder shipments, chlorinator maintenance) are in the order of $8000 annually. Given the
current Hazen Creek facility will be decommissioned within the timeframe to which this P2 Notice applies, and a new treatment facility built, capital cost information was not obtained.
Page 18 6.0 Identification, Evaluation and Selection of Pollution Prevention or Environmental Protection Methods 6.1. Identification of Pollution Prevention or Environmental Protection
Methods The City of Saint John has developed a comprehensive plan to serve the wastewater treatment needs of the existing and growing community. A new, much larger secondary treatment
facility will be built and the current Hazen Creek WWTF will be decommissioned. This new facility will be designed with an ultraviolet disinfection system which will be designed to meet
the Risk Management Objective. The target date for the commissioning of the new plant is December 2009. 6.2. Evaluation and Selection of Methods As part of the evaluation process to
assess the proposed options, the City of Saint John reviewed the economic, environmental, technical and social implications. Beginning in 1993 a series of reports addressed wastewater
treatment in Saint John, including the various options for the future of the Hazen Creek WWTF: “A Wastewater Strategy”, February 1993 “Eastern Wastewater System – Evaluation of Wastewater
Treatment Options”, May 2003 “Wastewater Strategy – Three Plant Option versus Four Plant Option”, November 2003 “Eastern Wastewater Treatment System Expansion and Pump Station Upgrades
– Design Report No. 1: Basis of Design”, November 2004 “Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility – Receiving Water Quality Study”, January 2005 “Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility –
Project Description”, February 2005 The first of these reports recommended the new treatment facility be a chemically assisted primary process. However as the design progressed and through
consultation with the New Brunswick Department of Environment, as well as Environment Canada, the decision was made to proceed with a secondary level process with the ability to expand
to tertiary. In the May 2003 report, the following secondary treatment processes were evaluated: Table 8: Evaluation of Secondary Treatment Processes for New WWTF Process Capital Cost
Annual O&M Costs 30 Year Life Cycle Cost Conventional Activated Sludge $49.97M $982,000 $65.1M Sequencing Batch Reactors $50.55M $1,060,000 $66.8M On-Site Lagoon $55.46M $662,000 68.6M
Irving Paper Aerated Stabilization Basin $64.86M $662,000 $78.0M Rotating Biological Contactors $62.25M $982,000 $77.3M Biological Aerated Filters $50.77M $1,300,000 $70.8M
Page 19 From that report, the decision was made to proceed with the design of a Conventional Activated Sludge WWTF to replace the existing Hazen Creek facility. In commenting on the
disinfection process to be considered, the report states: “There has been concern in recent years with respect to the health risk and impacts on the environment associated with the biochemical
products that are formed when chlorine and organic materials are mixed (Trihalomethanes). Current provincial regulations require dechloriinatio to remove any free chlorine if chlorine
is used for disinfection.” “Based on the issues discussed and on current trends in the industry and in the City, it is recommended that UV disinfection be considered if disinfection
of the effluent is required.” The estimated costs of the channels, UV equipment including controls and building area required for a complete system are included in the prices listed
in the above table. 6.2.1 Summary of Costs to Implement the Proposed P2 Plan Methods A detailed evaluation of costs to purchase and use the proposed methods identified is required as
part of this evaluation process. A summary of the costs associated with each of the proposed methods being evaluated is presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Sample Summary Table of Cost Estimates Method Description Cost Estimate Notes Status Quo Chlorination $ 0 (except ongoing maintenance) Does not satisfy P2 Notice requirements
or corporate commitment Decommissioning Hazen Creek WWTF and Commissioning New Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility with UV disinfection system Concrete UV Equipment & Controls Piping
Building Mechanical Electrical Miscellaneous UV Disinfection Total $ 188,250 $2,000,000 $ 325,000 $ 750,000 $ 425,000 $ 450,000 $ 300,000 $4,438,250 -New facility development to align
with Risk Management Objective target deadline in late 2009 These costs are only those associated with the disinfection system 6.2.2 Summary of Proposed Resources and Funds to Implement
the P2 Plan The resources have been identified to construct the new Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility (as well as decommission the Hazen Creek WWTF) thus implementing this P2 plan,
and sources of funding, are outlined in Table 10. These figures are from “Eastern Wastewater Treatment System Expansion and Pump Station Upgrades – Design Report No. 1: Basis of
Page 20 Design”, they represent the costs associated with the entire project and not just the UV component. Table 10: Summary of Proposed Resources and Sources of Funding to Design,
Construct and Operate New WWTF Including Implementation of the P2 Plan Resource Required Description of Activity which Needs Resources Funding Estimate Funding Source Engineering design
In-house and external resources $1,850,000 -User rates Capital installation External contractor $49,467,708 -User rates -Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Staff – management, and
operations Oversee operations; operator in charge, operations of new facility $240,000 -User rates Materials and services to operate Power, sludge disposal, chemicals, repairs, etc.
$742,000 -User rates 6.2.3 Evaluation of Proposed Methods The City of Saint John has evaluated the long term policy directions for wastewater treatment in Canada and has determined that
a new facility should be built such that future requirements will be met. Therefore, the City of Saint John did not undergo an evaluation of alternate disinfection but determined that
ultraviolet disinfection was the preferred approach, to avoid using chlorine entirely for disinfection. Social and environmental factors were the predominant factors which guided this
corporate decision after consultation with the New Brunswick Department of Environment and Environment Canada. 6.2.4 Selection of Method(s) to Meet the Risk Management Objective As part
of the ongoing strategy of eliminating untreated wastewater discharges and to meet the Risk Management Objectives of this P2 Notice, the method selected by the City of Saint John is
to decommission the existing facility and build a new larger facility with ultraviolet disinfection. Therefore eliminating the use of chlorine as an effluent disinfectant. 6.3 Detailed
Anticipated Results Using the New Method(s) to Address the Risk Management Objective in this P2 Notice The selected option will be used to meet the Risk Management Objective in this
P2 Notice. The table below summarizes the anticipated change to the maximum concentration of total residual chlorine in the effluent released to surface water, in mg/L and as a percentage
relative to the Preparation Year. The planned completion date for this activity is: December 2009. It is anticipated that the maximum concentration for the TRC in the effluent in the
Implementation year would be 0.0 mg/L, which is the value obtained from option #4 in the Template Table #11 (an alternative disinfection technology is replacing chlorination).
Page 21 Table 11: Proposed Implementation of Pollution Prevention Method to Meet the Risk Management Objective Maximum Concentration of TRC in the Preparation Year 2005 (mg/L) Anticipated
Maximum Concentration of TRC in the Implementation Year (mg/L) Anticipated change* in Maximum Concentration (%) 0.71 0.0 -100% * A decrease is indicated with a negative sign (“-“) and
an increase with a positive sign (“+”) in front of the reported quantity.
Page 22 7.0 Implementation Plan Timelines for the P2 plan, specific actions, targets, persons responsible to carry out these actions and specific resource required have been identified
in Table 12, the Action Plan.
Table 12: Action Plan Method Selected: Decommissioning existing facility and building larger new facility with UV disinfection system Objective: Protection of the environment by eliminating
untreated discharge of wastewater and reduce levels of inorganic chloramines and chlorinated wastewater effluents, (which will be collectively measured as TRC) to meet the Risk Management
Objectives in the P2 Notice. Target: Treat collected wastewater to secondary level and achieve and maintain a concentration of total residual chlorine that is less than or equal to 0.02
mg/L in the effluent released to surface water by December 2009. Measure: Build a larger, new treatment facility. Install a UV process and ensure process is operating as intended. Report
no chlorine used on site. Benefits: Minimize impact of collected/treated wastewater on the environment. Collect and treat significantly more wastewater by eliminating and redirecting
raw sewage outfalls. Task Responsible Party Target Date Monitoring Technique Resources Needed Council approval for design funding of Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility Commissioner
of Municipal Operations & Engineering (through City Manager) July 19, 2004 Council Approval of Funding $1,850,000 Consultant Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility -Design of new sewage
treatment plant and outfall extension including design services Engineering Manager – Municipal Engineering November, 2007 Design Timeline in Accordance with Agreement $1,850,000 Consultant
Council approval for construction funds -based on receiving funds from other government sources – Capital Program Commissioner of Municipal Operations & Engineering (through City Manager)
January, 2007 Payment Certificates $15,840,000 Approval of Infrastructure monies to supplement City of Saint John funds for construction of the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility
Province of New Brunswick March, 2007 Payment Certificates $15,840,000 Approval of Infrastructure monies to supplement City of Saint John funds for construction of the Eastern Wastewater
Treatment Facility Government of Canada March, 2007 Payment Certificates $15,840,000 Develop Contract Documents for construction of new facility and decommissioning of existing Engineering
Manager – Municipal Engineering November, 2007 Completed Contract Documents ready for Tender Call Internal & Consultant
Page 24 Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility -Construction of new upgraded sewage treatment plant, outfall extension, including construction management services (Phase i) Engineering
Manager – Municipal Engineering 2008 Award of Contract $23,760,000 Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility -Construction of new upgraded sewage treatment plant, outfall extension, including
construction management services (Phase ii) Engineering Manager – Municipal Engineering December 2009 Award of Contract $23,760,000 Reporting to Environment Canada -Submit Declaration
of Preparation (Schedule 1) Accountable Manger for P2 Plan July 15, 2007 or before Submission by deadline Internal Select and hire Contractor Engineering Manager – Municipal Engineering
December, 2007 Contract Awarded Internal & Consultant Substantial completion – construction of new & decommissioning of old facility Site Engineer December 2009 Process operational Internal
& Contractor Report on TRC in effluent after implementation Operations/laboratory December December 31, 2009 Report no chlorine used Internal Process fully commissioned Site Engineer
On or before December, 2009 Achieve and maintain a concentration of TRC in the effluent less than or equal to 0.02 mg/L Internal & Contractor Reporting to Environment Canada Declaration
of Implementation (Schedule 5) Accountable Manger for P2 Plan July 15, 2010 or before Submission by deadline Internal Review and evaluation -ongoing Accountable Manger for P2 Plan 2005-2010
Action plan items completed on time Internal
8.0 Monitoring and Reporting The City of Saint John will undertake monitoring and reporting activities in relation to the P2 Plan. Monitoring and reporting will become integrated into
the normal reporting practice. The City of Saint John P2 Team will meet every six months, minutes of the meeting will be taken, and a report will be issued annually to the Commissioner
Municipal Operations & Engineering. 8.1. Monitoring Program and Data The Accountable Manager for the P2 Plan will be the person overseeing and ultimately responsible for monitoring the
progress of the P2 plan. Detailed monitoring activities will be shared amongst the P2 Planning team members as outlined in the Action Plan. The P2 Planning activities will be standing
items for discussion on the semi-annual P2 Planning Team Members Agenda. Chlorine use at the wastewater treatment facility after implementation of the UV system will be summarized in
Table 13. Table 13: Quantities and Locations of Chlorine Used in the New Eastern WWTF After Implementation of UV System. Processes in Wastewater System that Use Chlorine Purpose of Chlorine
Use Type of Chlorine Used Quantity of Chlorine Used in each Process Annually After Implementation (kg/yr)* none n/a n/a 0 Total Mass of Chlorine used in Implementation Year (kg/yr) =
* to be completed after implementation Table 14 provides a summary of the activities which will be monitored. Table 14: Summary of Monitoring Activities to be Undertaken by the City
of Saint John Activity Monitored Performance Indicators to Track Progress How it Will be Monitored UV process UV system installed Chlorine use will be reported as 0. Progress on P2 Plan
action items Progress on each Action Plan activity Through P2 planning updates. Recorded in meeting minutes. Expenditures related to P2 Plan action items Expenditure summary from Action
Plan Through management of engineering project. Legal requirements required within the P2 Planning Notice As required (see following tables) Following reports from P2 planning updates
Page 26 8.2 Reporting Progress on the P2 Plan A summary of the reporting activities to be carried out by the City of Saint John is provided in Table 15. These activities will be shared
amongst the members of the P2 Team, under the direction of the Accountable Manger for the P2 Plan. Table15: Summary of Municipal Reporting Activities Activity Reported Where it will
be Reported UV process To P2 Planning Team, Subsequently to Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering Progress on P2 Plan action items To P2 Planning Team, Subsequently to Commissioner
Municipal Operations & Engineering, City Manager Expenditures related to P2 Plan action items To P2 Planning Team, Subsequently to Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering, City
Manager, Common Council Required reporting on P2 Plan preparation and implementation (i.e. the Declarations) To Environment Canada Ensure all other Legal requirements required within
P2 Notice have been met To P2 Planning Team, Subsequently to Commissioner Municipal Operations & & Engineering, City Manager, Common Council Ensure a copy of the P2 Plan is retained
at the site for which it was prepared For Environment Canada staff in the event of an inspection Reports to Environment Canada will be required as part of the P2 Notice. The reporting
timeline and information required by the P2 Notice are presented in Table 16. The City of Saint John is committed to these timelines. Key reporting deadlines are provided in Table 3.
Table 16: Summary of Reporting Deadlines to Environment Canada by the City of Saint John Date Activity July 15, 2007 or before Deadline for filing the Declaration of Preparation (Schedule
1) July 15, 2010 or before Deadline for filing the Declaration of Implementation (Schedule 5)
Page 27 9.0 Review and Evaluation 9.1. Review and Evaluation Plan Semi-annual progress reports will be completed after the P2 Team Members meet to discuss action status. The progress
report will then be shared with appropriate employees at Saint John Water facilities. The City of Saint John undertook a nominal process audit for chlorine at the Hazen Creek WWTF during
2005. Significant findings are included in this P2 Plan. Because the City of Saint John will be dismantling the existing Hazen Creek WWTF which uses chlorine gas as an effluent disinfectant
and replacing it with a new and larger WWTF which uses a UV system for disinfection, a more thorough process audit for chlorine was not undertaken. The City of Saint John will be submitting
a written Request for Waiver of the Requirements to Consider a Factor or Factors (Schedule 2) to Environment Canada by June 15, 2007. The City will be using the form provided in Schedule
2 of the P2 Planning Notice. 9.2. Record of Corrective Actions Taken Corrective actions undertaken to ensure that the P2 Plan addresses all the required elements of the P2 Notice will
be detailed in the semi-annual reports to the Commissioner of Municipal Operations and Engineering. 9.3. Record of Target Revisions Made P2 team Members will record any target revisions
made and they will be detailed in a monthly report to the Manager, Water & Wastewater Operations. Where the information in the Declarations have become false or misleading, an amended
report will be filed to the Minister of the Environment within 30 days after the time that the information becomes false or misleading.
Page 28 10.0 Addressing the Risk Management Objectives with this P2 Plan The Risk Management Objective for the P2 Planning Notice is to achieve and maintain a concentration of total
residual chlorine that is less than or equal to 0.02 mg/L in the effluent released to surface water by December 15, 2009. The City of Saint John is committed to meeting this Risk Management
Objective by decommissioning the existing Hazen Creek WWTF, which currently utilizes chlorine for disinfection of wastewater effluent, and building a new larger facility with UV disinfection.
Page 29 11.0 Factors to Consider in Response to the P2 Notice The P2 Notice for the preparation of Pollution Prevention Plans lists a number of factors to be considered when developing
P2 Plans. These Factors to Consider’, and how the City of Saint John proposes to address, them are as follows: 1. From the P2 Planning Notice subsection 4.2: “Pollution prevention”,
as defined in section 3 of the Act, means the use of processes, practices, materials, products, substances or energy that avoid or minimize the creation of pollutants and waste and reduce
the overall risk to the environment or human health. Pollution prevention planning is a means of addressing the release, to the environment, of toxic substances or other pollutants.
The result of pollution prevention planning is the implementation of preventive and/or control actions. In order to achieve the risk management objective set out in subsection 4(3),
persons subject to the P2 Planning Notice shall consider the following activities when preparing and implementing their pollution prevention plans: a. Conducting process audits for chlorine
by June 15, 2006, and implementing actions based on the audit findings by December 15, 2008, that minimize the use and release of chlorine or chlorine compounds. Refer to section 15
of the P2 Planning Notice for links to technical guidance. b. Implementing dechlorination or alternative disinfection technologies. Refer to section 15 of the P2 Planning Notice for
links to technical guidance. a. The City of Saint John undertook a nominal process audit for chlorine at the Hazen Creek WWTF during 2005. Significant findings are included in this P2
Plan. Because the City of Saint John will be dismantling the existing WWTF and replacing it with a new and larger WWTF which uses a UV system for disinfection, a more thorough process
audit for chlorine was not undertaken. The City of Saint John will be submitting a written Request for Waiver of the Requirements to Consider a Factor or Factors (Schedule 2) to Environment
Canada by June June 15, 2007. The City will be using the form provided in Schedule 2 of the P2 Planning Notice. b. The City of Saint John will be decommissioning the existing Hazen Creek
WWTF and building a larger facility which uses UV disinfection.
Page 30 2. From the P2 Notice subsection 4.5: In order to ensure that the overall risk to the environment or human health is reduced, the pollution prevention plan prepared for this
Notice should include, where relevant, prevention and control actions that address risks posed by other substances that may be found in municipal wastewater effluent, in particular,
the following substances which are specified in Schedule 1 of the Act: a. nonylphenol and its ethoxylates; b. effluents from textile mills that use wet processing; c. mercury; d. lead;
e. hexavalent chromium compounds; f. inorganic cadmium compounds; g. inorganic arsenic compounds; and h. ammonia dissolved in water. . The City of Saint John has considered pollution
prevention opportunities for the additional activities and substances as referenced in the Factors to Consider: 1. Sewer Use Bylaw: The City of Saint John is in the process of updating
a sewer use bylaw so that it is flexible and provides reference back to Schedule 1 (CEPA toxics) including metals (mercury, lead, hexavalent chromium compounds, inorganic cadmium compounds,
inorganic arsenic compounds) as well as nonylphenol and its ethoxylates which are mentioned in the P2 Notice. There are currently no local textile mills discharging effluents from textile
mills that use wet processing to the WWTF. 2. Nonylphenol and its ethoxylates The City of Saint John notes that Environment Canada has released a P2 Planning Notice to manufacturers
and importers of products containing nonylphenol and its ethoxylates to reduce the quantity of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates in products sold to consumers. To additionally encourage
manufacturers and importers to reduce nonylphenol and its ethoxylates content in products, the City of Saint John will investigate the development of a purchasing policy to purchase
soap and cleaning products without nonylphenol and its ethoxylates. 3. Ammonia dissolved in water The new WWTF which will replace the existing Hazen Creek WWTF will have future capabilities
to reduce ammonia levels. The City of Saint John is committed to continuing to explore the Guidance document issued by Environment Canada on Ammonia Dissolved in Water within the context
of the new WWTF.
Page 31 12.0 Completion As per the requirements of the P2 Notice, the plan will be implemented no later than June 15, 2010. The actual date estimated for the City of Saint John to finalize
the implementation of this P2 plan as required by the P2 Notice is December 2009. Once the plan is implemented a Declaration of Implementation will be submitted to Environment Canada
containing all the required information on or before July 15, 2010.
Page 32 Appendices Appendix 1: Notification of Non-Engagement Appendix 2: Request for Waiver of the Requirements to Consider a Factor
Page 33 Appendix 1
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39 Appendix 2
Page 40
M & C 2007 -138 May 2nd, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: ROPE WALK ROAD PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose
of this report is to follow-up on a letter from Byron Thomas, on behalf of Newport Village of the United Church of Canada Inc., to the Mayor regarding “Extension to Sidewalk on Rope
Walk Road”. BACKGROUND The Newport Village issue involves the ability of several disabled members of the community to safely navigate their way from their homes to service locations
and businesses on Somerset Street – via Rope Walk Road. The matter of pedestrian safety along Rope Walk Road, particularly the section closest to Somerset Street, was also raised by
citizens of the Crescent Valley area in various public meetings. In their case, it is a question of safety for their children accessing facilities at the old Crescent Valley School.
The facility is used for several purposes. ANALYSIS Our Safe Sidewalk inspector, Randy Gerawh, met with Mr. Thomas on April 23rd regarding sidewalk conditions on Rope Walk Road. Mr.
Thomas relayed that the prime concern is the lack of a sidewalk on the lower end of Rope Walk extending from the NBCC driveway down to Somerset Street. Staff took the opportunity to
walk this stretch with him and besides the lack of a sidewalk or a suitable walking surface, there is a serious visibility issue associated with walking up and over a knoll towards the
NBCC driveway. Mr. Thomas indicated that the Portland United Church is looking to expand its housing complex on the property in the very near future, specifically for the disabled and
elderly. Currently three disabled individuals from his housing group (two people in wheelchairs and a gentleman who is blind) use Rope Walk Road as part of their route to Robins
Rope Walk Road May 2nd, 2007 Report to Common Council Page 2 Donuts or the Superstore Mall and CNIB offices. We indicated to Mr. Thomas that needed work had already been identified,
but to this point was tentatively slated for 2011. The work identified involves four components: renewal of the sanitary sewer, a new watermain, installation of storm drainage, and full
street reconstruction. After the meeting, our inspector stayed behind to look at pedestrian and traffic patterns as well as to take photos of the area. He observed two individuals coming
down over the knoll towards Somerset Street at the same time as two opposing vehicles. As these individuals got closer it became apparent that one of them was visually impaired. This
gentleman was one of the three disabled individuals who reside in the Portland United housing complex. The gentleman and our inspector talked at length about the lack of sidewalk in
this area and of the apparent dangers. He informed us that he frequently uses this road to go to Robbins Donuts, the Superstore and the CNIB offices on the corner of Ropewalk and Somerset,
and never feels safe when passing this “forgotten stretch”. His biggest concern is the lack of a sidewalk on the lower end of Rope Walk Road and the fact that he has to walk along the
road because the gravel shoulder is so badly deteriorated. They walked the stretch together and the gentleman showed how he uses the gravel edge and road asphalt line to keep himself
on a fine line between the passing vehicles and the broken shoulder. While in the area, the inspector noted the volume of traffic and the variation of vehicle types. In the short time
he was there, several tandem dump trucks went by, as well as cube vans and even a tractor trailer (short trailer), along with dozens of cars. He also observed approximately 20 young
adults exiting NBCC at or near 3 p.m. Our inspector touched base with the administration at the NBCC North End Center and was informed that not only is the adult learning center there,
but also the Somerset Community Center, an after-school program, and a day care for pre-school aged children. He also spoke with the lady who runs the daycare to get her thoughts on
sidewalks. She informed us that up to 58 pre-schooled aged children walk this section two abreast, with some in double wide strollers. The concern of the Crescent Valley citizens was
for the safety of their children walking to and from the facility. Infrastructure – Rope Walk Road The need to reconstruct Rope Walk Road was already identified by staff with projects
in four Capital Program categories identified for two construction years. Initially planned for later on, the recent inspections and communication with the public make it apparent that
work in the area needs to go ahead sooner. Attached is a summary of eight (8) projects, in both the General Fund and Water and Sewerage Utility Fund, that staff suggest be moved ahead
to 2008 and 2009.
Rope Walk Road May 2nd, 2007 Report to Common Council Page 3 Maintenance Servicing of the Street We have also directed Operations to pay particular attention to maintenance along Rope
Walk Road pending the actual reconstruction. Possible Traffic Restrictions The new Traffic Engineer has been asked to review traffic along the street and consider the need for and the
appropriateness of restrictions for truck traffic along Rope Walk Road. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES Input from the public, both recently and though community/town halls meetings, has made
the urgency of the reconstruction work along this street very apparent. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The estimated costs of the projects involved in the reconstruction are provided in the
attachment. In the Capital Programs for Saint John Water (Utility Fund), staff intends to remain within the projected envelopes; priorities will need to be adjusted. We expect a similar
approach for General Fund financed projects. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council endorse the actions outlined herein, preappprov the four Capital Program projects listed
in the attachment for 2008, and receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, FCA
City Manager
Location Description Other Share City Share Category Year Rope Walk Road THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING PROPOSED CAPITAL PROJECTS 01-May-07 MDH: MUNICIPAL
DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS PDH: PROVINCIALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS RDH: REGIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHWAYS w&s: WATER AND SEWER RELATED PROJECTS C-**: PROJECTS CARRIED OVER FOR COMPLETION THE FOLLOWING
YEAR *: PROJECTS DEPENDANT ON FUNDING FROM OTHERS Somerset Street to NBCC location (upper entrance) Renew approx. 230m of 300mm concrete with new 200mm sanitary sewer, including design
and construction management services Infrastructure 0 200,000 Renewal -Sanitary 2008 Somerset Street to NBCC location (upper entrance) Renew approx. 255m of 200mm with new 250mm watermain,
including design and construction management services Infrastructure 0 240,000 Renewal -Water 2008 Somerset Street to NBCC location (upper entrance) Install approx. 230m of new 375mm
storm sewer, including design and construction management services w&s Storm 2008 0 160,000 Somerset Street to NBCC location (upper entrance) Road reconstruction (excavation including
knoll removal, backfill, pole relocation, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, paving), including design and construction management services w&s Transportation 2008 0 220,000 NBCC location
(upper entrance) to Millidge Avenue Renew approx. 245 m of 225mm T.C. and 300mm concrete with new 200mm sanitary sewer, including design and construction management services Infrastructure
0 220,000 Renewal -Sanitary 2009 NBCC location (upper entrance) to Millidge Avenue Renew approx. 265m of 200mm with new 250mm watermain, including design and construction management
services Infrastructure 0 250,000 Renewal -Water 2009 NBCC location (upper entrance) to Millidge Avenue Install approx. 135m of new 300mm storm sewer, including design and construction
management services w&s Storm 2009 0 90,000 NBCC location (upper entrance) to Millidge Avenue Road reconstruction (excavation, backfill, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, paving), including
design and and construction management services w&s Transportation 2009 0 240,000 Page 1 of 1
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C – 2007-134 4 May 2007 His Worship Norman McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Vehicle Identification BACKGROUND:
At its regularly scheduled meeting of Monday May 15, 1995, Common Council adopted a resolution which saw a change to the City’s Vehicle Policy as it related to the identification of
vehicles within the fleet. At the time of the change all cars and light trucks, with certain exceptions, were painted the same colour as the larger trucks and construction equipment,
ie School Bus Yellow. A review of this practice illustrated the additional cost incurred by the City to have these vehicles painted prior to delivery. At the time the successful bidders
would order the cars and trucks awarded to them to be delivered white. Upon delivery these vehicles would be painted, inside and out, yellow. Once delivered to the City the necessary
city crest decals, departmental identifiers and numbers would be applied by City forces. The additional cost per vehicle for this
level of standardization was estimated, given the size and configuration of the vehicle, to be between $800.00 and $1,500.00. The adopted change saw the elimination of the need for
all vehicles to be supplied in the standard yellow colour and be replaced with vehicles which were in keeping with the manufacturer’s standard fleet colours. Individual departments were
to be identified by their chosen colours, for example; Municipal Operations vehicles in this category were to be delivered with a standard manufacturers fleet dark blue, Leisure Services
vehicles were to be manufacturers green and so on.
Page Two ANALYSIS: In recent years it has become obvious that there is no consistency between the manufacturer’s for colour tones. The dark greens and blues of the late 90’s and early
2000’s have given way to more pastel colours. In addition the Ford blue, the GM blue and the Chrysler blue are all different. This has, in recent years, lead to a rainbow effect within
the fleet and little consistency within departments. In addition, staff has experienced, in 2006 and again in 2007, situations where the low bidder, in 2 cases, and the next low bidder
have been unable to meet the City’s fleet colour needs, neither one manufactures a green car! Staff has spent considerable time exploring alternatives as a means of addressing what is
quickly becoming a major problem. We believe the following solution to Fleet Identification will prove to have more longevity than the previous recommendation and will be a very cost
effective approach. It is recommended that the City’s Vehicle Policy be amended, on a go forward bases, to eliminate any reference to various departmental colours and that a consistent
colour, white, be applied to all new vehicles purchased within this category. All new cars and light trucks, with the exception of larger construction vehicles and those noted in the
attached recommended revised policy statement, will be purchased as manufacturer’s standard fleet white. No vehicles presently in the fleet will be repainted unless major body repairs
require a complete repainting job. WHY WHITE? There are a number of reasons for this recommendation but some of the more important ones are; · A white vehicle shows off vehicle numbers
and decals better than a coloured vehicle will. This has been a problem for years. The present decals do not show up well on dark coloured vehicles. · According to some industry representatives
a white vehicle will recover more upon resale. There appears, on resale, to be a higher demand for white cars and light trucks. It is suggested this may be due to the fact that white
vehicle are easier and less expensive to repaint. · There are more white vehicles produced annually, for the commercial market, than any other individual colour and therefore delivery
times may be shortened as a result. · Other City related agencies and large vehicle fleets have already switched to white vehicles, Saint John Energy and Aliant for example. · A large
number of City owned vehicles are already purchased white, Sanitation Packers, Building Inspection vehicles, Saint John Police Force patrol units.
Page Three VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION: In addition to a change in fleet colours the enclosed proposed policy change also addresses the way in which the fleet is presented to the public.
At present all vehicles purchased by the City and employed by city forces in the delivery of services to the public are identified through the application of the official City of Saint
John Crest decal. It is proposed that this decal be replaced, for general fleet application, with the Explorer logo. There will of course be some exceptions to this as outlined in the
enclosed proposed policy and including as noted below, Saint John Water. INPUT FROM OTHERS: 2015 Committee – “The Explorer Logo was developed as a visual representation of the brand
for Saint John. The brand proposition was developed as part of the regional growth strategy in 2003. The brand is built on one of Saint John’s core values, its pioneering spirit and
the logo was meant to be an expression of this. It is rooted in the sense of self that comes from being the the oldest incorporated city in Canada. As natural merchants, Saint Johners
have always thrived in the spirit of entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation. Also, as an international seaport, Saint John welcomes people from around the world to live in a cooperative,
caring social network that provides the foundation for a better way of life. The expanded use of the Explorer Logo is an effort by the City to promote this brand proposition and building
a unified focus on growing our community” Saint John Water – “As noted in a Communications Plan of 2005 that was completed for Saint John Water; it is important the public understand
clearly who is delivering their water and wastewater services, and how the rates they pay are allowing staff to make a difference for the community of Saint John. There is a particular
need to establish this identity given the rates/funds paid are separate and distinct from the general property tax rate funds. Considering this, it is recommended that a recognizable
identity be established for Saint John Water by placing the new Saint John Water logo on the drivers and passengers side doors of the vehicle. This new identity would support Saint John
Water’s place within the City’s operation but distinguish the unique services it provides.”
Page Four FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Cost should not be a determining factor as the focus of the proposed changes is to standardize on one colour for the City’s fleet of cars and light
trucks, and since the recommendation is to purchase one manufacturers fleet colour, as opposed to purchasing a variety of manufacturers fleet colours, there will be no financial impact.
As well, the supplier of City Crest Decals was contacted in order to provide a comparison between the cost of the crests and the Explorer logo. It has been determined that the Explorer
logo, given it requires only two colour printing, compared to the 5 colours in the City Crest, is 30 % cheaper. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City of Saint John Vehicle
Policy be amended in order to better provide for vehicle identification, and specifically articles 4.2 and 4.3 of section 4.0 GUIDELINES be replaced with the recommended articles as
contained in the attached statement. Respectfully submitted, _____________________ David Logan, CPPB Purchasing Agent/Manager Materials and Fleet Management _____________________ T.L.
Totten, FCA City Manager
SUBJECT: CITY of SAINT JOHN VEHICLE POLICY SECTION 4.0 GUIDELINES Whereas; there presently exists an administrative procedure that addresses specifically the colours of certain vehicles
as departmental identifiers, and Whereas; the existing procedure has become difficult to administer given changes in the market place, and Whereas; the 2015 initiative supports a common
or standardized image for the City of Saint John, and Whereas; the stakeholders support a change in fleet identification; the following change to the City of Saint John Fleet Policy
– Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Guidelines are proposed; 4.2 All vehicles will be appropriately identified as follows; 1) Cars and light trucks, up to and including the 1 tonne range of
vehicles, shall be purchased to a standard manufacturer fleet colour of white, 2) The City of Saint John crest presently applied to vehicles, shall be replaced with the official “Explorer
Crest”. This crest must be prominently displayed on the front driver’s, and passenger’s doors, and include the words “Saint John” which are to be placed directly under the crest, 3)
Each vehicle in this category shall be identified with a 3 digit “vehicle number” in the form of a numeric decal clearly displayed on each of the front fenders and in an appropriate
location at the rear of the vehicle as determined by its configuration. This vehicle number is assigned by the user departments and may change throughout the life of the vehicle, 4)
Each vehicle in this category shall be assigned a 4 digit “Equipment Number” which will be displayed in the form of a self adhesive tag applied in close proximity to the fuel fill pipe.
This number is assigned by Fleet Administration upon registration of the vehicle and shall remain unchanged throughout the life of the vehicle, 5) Vehicles in this category, shall, as
deemed necessary by the Fleet Administrator, be affixed with a high intensity, reflective stripe down each side and across the rear of the vehicle. This high intensity stripe is to be
white so as not to act as a department identifier or to add to or detract from the appearance of the vehicle, 6) Vehicles in this category and purchased for use by Saint John Water may
deviate from the policy as it relates to the application of the “Explorer Crest”. Saint John Water may replace the “Explorer Crest” with the Saint John Water Logo.
-2-4.3 Exemptions from section 4.2 of this guideline are; 1) Vehicles purchased for use by the Saint John Police Force and the Saint John Fire Department, 2) Vehicles assigned to the
Mayor, the City Manager and any unmarked vehicles assigned to specific senior management staff, as approved by the City Manager, 3) Commercially rented vehicles, 4) The paint colour
of trucks of a size greater than the 1 tonne range of vehicles shall remain unchanged, 5) The paint colour of construction equipment, trailers and floats, attachments and miscellaneous
equipment shall remain unchanged.
1. Car – side view
2. Truck – side view
3. Van option 1 – side view
R E P O R T T O C O M M O N C O U N C I L M&C #2007-142 May 07, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: COUNCIL/STAFF
RELATIONS On Wednesday, March 2nd, 2007, an article in the Telegraph Journal stated the following: “At the same time, the Council member would not speak on the record, because of the
poisoned atmosphere among Council and senior staff” City staff do not at all believe this to be the situation and therefore it should be stated so. Staff experience, when dealing with
this Council when convened in Session, has been extremely positive. Yes, we would acknowledge that Council does not always agree with staff’s recommendation; however that is how the
system is supposed to work. As I have indicated, many times, City staff has always been totally committed to supporting Common Council, to implementing any decisions that Council should
make and working with Council on achieving their priorities. Staff believes that Council and staff have made tremendous strides on a number of files, particularly where individual Councillors
have stepped forward and provided the political leadership that is so often required. Files related to Harbour Clean Up, Waterfront Development, Police/Justice Complex, improved By-law
Enforcement, Economic Development, Housing Initiatives, Arts and Cultural Initiatives, Tourism Promotion and Immigration have all been greatly advanced by elected officials and staff
working together toward a common goal and purpose. The public should not be left with any impression that there exists a poisonous relationship between Council and staff. The fact is
that staff and Council when sitting in session have always engaged in respectful debate and dialogue. Furthermore, staff’s interaction with by far the vast majority of individual Councillors,
who share the same objective of moving our community forward, has been nothing but positive and welcomed by your staff.
Report to Common Council Page 2 Subject: Staff/Council Relations RECOMMENDATION: That this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, Terrence L. Totten, FCA CITY MANAGER
R E P O R T T O C O M M O N C O U N C I L M&C #2007-147 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY On Wednesday, May 2nd, the local newspaper published an editorial under the headline “Scrap the Secrecy at City Hall.” This editorial, coincidentally, has followed a number
of articles over the last while implying that there is a lack of transparency or accountability by this Council and the Administration. Such continual accusations and the impressions
that they may leave with citizens should not go unaddressed by Council. The comments are not factual; they are simply part of an ongoing agenda to discredit this Council and the Administration.
Furthermore, as all of you know, because I have said it to Council many, many times; “There are no Secrets at City Hall.” The public should be aware that under the Municipalities Act
of the Province of New Brunswick, all regular and special meetings of a Council shall be open to the public, except as provided under very specific circumstances. This Council has adhered
to these legislative requirements each and every time that they have chosen to sit in Session and exclude the public from those discussions. When there has been any doubt at all, staff
have witnessed Common Council asking for a legal opinion from their Solicitor as to the appropriateness of doing so. This was not always the situation. The added clarity to the Municipality
Act was as a result of concerns being expressed by citizens that decisions were being made by their elected officials behind closed doors. This was not just a concern being expressed
here in Saint John, but rather throughout the Province. The interpretation of “Land, Labour and Legal” was becoming far too subjective by many elected bodies. Your City Manager would
have first hand experience and knowledge as to the fairly broad interpretation given to these terms by Common Council prior to the latest changes to the Act. Things have changed. Not
only are there very specific criteria as to when Council can exclude the public from discussions for reasons that could in essence, amongst other things, increase the potential liability
of taxpayers, violate the confidentiality of certain taxpayers or employee information that is protected by law, or seriously harm the negotiating position of the Council when dealing
with the Civic Unions, with Developers and with other levels of government, the Legislation also limits what Council can do during these sessions. The Act states that when the public
is excluded from discussion, all that Council can do is;
Report to Common Council Page 2 Subject: Transparency and Accountability 1. Make decisions with respect to procedural matters, 2. Make decisions related to directions to an officer of
the Corporation, (City Manager, Common Clerk, Commissioner of Finance). 3. Make decisions related to directions to a solicitor for the Municipality. Once again, this Council has followed
a very strict interpretation of this language. It is in these sessions that I and other officers of the Corporation are provided direction by Council as to how Council believes it is
best to proceed on those items which the City Solicitor has already advised Council as being appropriately discussed in such a session. Without the ability to seek out the will and direction
of Council in such a session, the interests of taxpayers in this community would seriously be harmed. Having said this, it must be made clear that directions given to officers of the
corporation as to how best proceed on certain files and are not final decisions of Common Council. Upon following Council’s direction, staff must always return to Council, in Open Session,
to seek Council’s approval of the final terms of any legal disputes, negotiations or personal matters. TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Approximately two weeks ago, I had the opportunity
to meet with the members of the senior management team. During that meeting I shared with staff my observations with respect to Accountability and Transparency at City Hall. I subsequently
used these notes simply as a “preamble” to a discussion with Council, a discussion on which Council was provided legal advice that the topics were appropriately discussed without the
public being present. Given the suggestions that are being made, it would seem reasonable to table my observations publicly. STAFF MEETING – SPEAKING NOTES “Accountability and Transparency:
Recently, I have read or heard repeated comments regarding the lack of transparency and accountability at City Hall. I suspect that each of you have also read these comments and no doubt
become uneasy when doing so. From the City Manager’s perspective, being responsible for the Administration, these comments are unfounded. Let me take a moment to explain the basis upon
which I have come to this conclusion with respect to each. First with Respect to Transparency: I can sit here today and emphatically state that since I have been employed by the City
of Saint John, I am not aware of any significant decision or action that has been taken by the Administration that has not been totally transparent. I say “significant decision”, simply
because there are day to day operational decisions that by necessity need to be made, but even those are always made consistent with the Policies publicly approved by Common Council.
Let me be more specific. Common Council, sitting in “public” and therefore “ a transparent forum,” a) approves every Policy under which the Administration must operate.
Report to Common Council Page 3 Subject: Transparency and Accountability b) approves every capital project in which taxpayers’ money is invested. c) approves an Operating Budget which
dictates the work plan for the administration. d) approves every wage settlement with every employee group. e) approves every tender in excess of $25,000. f) approves each and every
land transaction including those related to easements. g) appoints departments heads h) authorizes only the Mayor and Common Clerk to enter into contracts on behalf of the City. I could
go on, but the reality is that there is, in my view, no other organization, public or private, nor any other level of government that is as transparent as the Corporation of the City
of Saint John. Secondly, With Respect to Accountability I will not comment on the concept of accountability as it relates to elected officials, however, I will make the following observation
with respect to the position of the City Manager, and by affiliation, of department heads. Since Since being appointed as City Manager, I would have attended no less than 600 meetings
amounting to no less than 2,500 hours with Common Council in Open Session, the body to which I am accountable. During these meetings, I suspect that I would have made no fewer that 6000
recommendations to Council for their consideration. It is at these public meetings that I am held accountable for the recommendations that I make, supported by analysis prepared by department
heads and their staff. At the same time, it is at these same public meetings that I respond to concerns expressed by elected officials and to any and all concerns of citizens that are
placed on the agenda of the Council. The point that I am making is that by any comparison, the degree of accountability for the position of City Manager, and those of Department Heads
in this organization is far greater and far more public than any other. In my view, to suggest that this administration lacks accountability and transparency is just false. We should
be taking every opportunity we have to say so.” CONCLUSION: From staff’s perspective, this Council has always strictly adhered to the intent and purposes of the Municipalities Act. Council
has always kept the interest of citizens and taxpayers as being of paramount importance when having any discussions the public has been excluded. As for the administration, we will continue
to seek direction from Council in whatever session Council deems most appropriate. At the same time, we will be totally transparent and accountable to the Council each and every time
Council meets in Open Session. We will continue to provide facts and quality advice on any matter that Council may be considering. In the end, we will sign our recommendations, be totally
transparent and be held accountable by Council for the recommendations.
Report to Common Council Page 4 Subject: Transparency and Accountability Respectfully submitted, Terrence L. Totten, FCA CITY MANAGER
M & C – 2007 May 4, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane And Members of Common Council: SUBJECT: Proposal to Develop Lands Behind Gorman Arena BACKGROUND: Recently staff was approached
by representatives (John McNeil and Guy Barbara) of the Saint John Soccer Association (SJSA) who is interested in developing soccer fields for youth ages 6 to 12 in the area behind the
Gorman Arena. So far this group has invested funds to have concept plans developed for this site and is seeking permission to enter phase I of the development of their plans. Their plans
are to finance and construct six mini-soccer fields immediately behind Gorman Arena as per attached concept plan. Specifically, the SJSA is requesting the following: 1. That permission
is given to further investigate the site behind Gorman Arena as a potential site to develop a soccer centre. 2. That an agreement is entered into that would give the SJSA exclusive rights
to the area for one year to allow opportunities to raise funds, seek partners and finalize the plans. 3. That the City provide any in house expertise available with respect to site drainage
issues. 4. That the City provide maintenance to the fields after construction. 5. That the City provide assistance with a parking lot 6. That the group be given permission to investigate
the development of a trail around the fields for walking/running, etc 7. That once the fields are constructed, the City enter into a long term agreement with the SJSA for use of the
fields. 8. That the City work with SJSA to explore any “Facility Naming Oppurtunities”.
ANALYSIS: For a number of years, staff has received numerous requests to develop the lands behind Gorman Arena off University Avenue. To date none of these proposals have been realized.
This is the first time a group has invested funds in the project and is formally seeking permission from Council to proceed. Staff views this as a positive indication of these lands
being developed. The SJSA has asked for permission to hold the field against any other interests for one year pending their ability to seek partners and funding for the project. Staff
is not entertaining any other interests at this time and do not see this as an issue. In the 2007 Leisure Services Capital budget funds have been provided to reconstruct the parking
lot at Gorman Arena and this will happen over the next few months. It is the plans of staff to relocate the parking lot behind arena instead of in its present location in front (beside)
of the arena. This will provide a sizeable piece of land to be available for development for other uses, such as apartment building, etc. with a University Avenue address. This parking
lot would then be available to service both the arena and the soccer fields if they are built. At the time the testing is done for drainage for the parking lot and soil stability, staff
can also test specified areas to accommodate the proposed field sites. The development of a walking/running trail would be welcome with the ever increasing interest in safe place to
walk/run away from vehicles, especially for seniors. The request to have the City maintain the fields as well as give SJSA exclusive rights to the use of the fields will have to be negotiated
considering funding of the maintenance will be a municipal responsibility. Staff feels confident some sort of agreement can be reached to accommodate all users but more discussion is
needed. As for rights to name the field, the only concern staff would have, seeing that it is a youth focused project is that alcohol and tobacco companies not be considered and that
approval must be obtained from the City once a name is proposed. Staff supports the project to proceed with the understanding that a full long term use agreement will have to be negotiated
at a later date. FINANCIAL: The parking lot will be developed under the Leisure Services Capital program for 2007. This parking lot needs to be developed to service the arena regardless
of any other developments on the site. The change of location of the parking may be best to service any future development and to free up land potential for other uses. To date all financial
investment in this project has been private resulting in the attached concept plan. It is not know at this time what the City’s costs will be. Once preliminary plan are completed a more
accurate coasting can be done. RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that; 1. the City enter into a one year agreement with the Saint John Soccer Association to allow them to seek funding, partnerships and further develop plans for a
soccer complex behind the Gorman Arena, and that; 2. the City Solicitor be directed to draw up the appropriate agreement, and that; 3. the Mayor and Common Clerk be given authorization
to sign the agreement. Respectfully submitted, Bernie Morrison Commissioner of Leisure Services Terrence L. Totten, C.A. City Manager
M & C 2007 April 25, 2007 HIS WORSHIP MAYOR NORM McFARLANE AND MEMBERS OF COMMON COUNCIL YOUR WORSHIP AND COUNCILLORS: SUBJECT: PROVISION OF LIFEGUARD SERVICES -2007 BACKGROUND: For
the past number of years the Canada Games Aquatic Centre (CGAC) has provided lifeguard supervision at City beaches. For the 2007 season the CGAC has submitted a proposal for lifeguard
supervision at three beaches: Dominion Park; Lakewood Reservoir; and Fisher Lakes. These are the same beaches at which the CGAC provided lifeguard supervision in 2006. The total cost
to provide this service is $65,000 plus $9,100 HST for a total of $74,100. However, this season there is an opportunity to re-open the beach at Lily Lake through a partnership with Lily
Lake Pavilion Inc. A separate proposal has been submitted by CGAC for the Lily Lake Beach. ANALYSIS: The CGAC has proposed to supervise three beaches: Dominion Park, Lakewood Reservoir,
and Fisher Lakes daily from June 23 to August 26, 2007. Attached is the proposal from The Canada Games Aquatic Centre for the upcoming 2007 season as well as a report on the activities
of the 2006 season for Council’s information. The period of lifeguard supervision will be from 11:00 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. seven days a week at the three beaches. Notices will be posted
at each beach to inform the patrons about the hours of supervision. As Council is aware there has been much effort made by a private group to restore the Lily Lake Pavilion for multiple
usage. Staff has been approached by the Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. seeking a partnership to enable the beach to be supervised this season. If Council wishes to enter into an agreement for
the 2007 season a summary of terms is as follows:
Lily Lake Pavilion will; 1. provide the sum of $12,000 as a contribution towards the cost of lifeguarding services at Lily Lake Beach, such funds to be paid on August 31, 2007; 2. provide
a new lifeguard chair; 3. provide space in the pavilion for lifeguards and associated equipment. In return the City will: 1. provide the balance of funding needed to cover the costs
of lifeguarding the Lily Lake Beach; 2. landscape the area of the beach and dress the beach with new sand; 3. provide garbage receptacles and daily garbage removal from such. The letter
from the Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. is attached for Councils consideration. Staff is certain that Lily Lake Beach will once again be popular this summer. A number of daycares groups have
contacted staff to inquire into the supervision of the beach for this season. The Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. understands that the Lily Lake beach supervision is their responsibility under
the terms of their contract with the City. However, they are concerned that they are not yet fully operational and are not prepared to or can fully afford to provide these services this
summer. Staff feels that meeting the group half way on the expenses for this season will provide an important service as well as assist the pavilion operators in setting up their operation.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: The proposal presented by the Canada Games Aquatic Centre has a service fee of $65,000 plus HST. Funds are provided in the 2007 Leisure Services Department budget
for this purpose. The Lily Lake beach will be an additional amount required for the 2007 that is not included in the Leisure Services Budget. The estimate provided for this service by
the
Canada Games Aquatic Centre is $25,080 including HST. The Lily Lake Pavilion Inc. has agreed to provide $12,000 and a lifeguard chair (valued at $750). Staff will require permission
from Council to overspend the Leisure Services budget by $13,080. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: 1. Common Council authorize staff to engage the Canada Games Aquatic Centre
to provide lifeguard supervision at City beaches in 2007, as outlined in the attached proposal at a cost of $65,000 plus HST, and that; 2. The engagement will be extended to cover the
cost of lifeguarding Lily Lake Beach for the amount of $25,080, and that; 3. Common Council accept the $12,000 contribution from the Lily Lake Pavilion Inc., and that;
4. Leisure Services be authorized to provide $13,080 as the City’s share towards lifeguarding the Lily Lake Beach, and that; 5. the City Solicitor be directed to prepare all necessary
documents, and that; 6. the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign these documents. Respectfully submitted: Bernie Morrison Director of Leisure Services Terrence Totten, C.A. City
Manager
Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! M & C 2007 – 131 May 3, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT:
RURAL ROAD UPGRADES PROGRAM PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to update Common Council on the Rural Roads Upgrade Program and to request Council’s endorsement of recommended
improvements and a policy position on Council’s future direction regarding these roads. BACKGROUND The Rural Roads Upgrade Program was developed by staff and approved by Council as a
means to address a 40 year old problem of servicing substandard rural lanes and by-roads inherited by the City of Saint John at the time of amalgamation in 1967. At amalgamation there
were a number of these “private” roads, so-called, mainly in the outlying areas of the Parishes of Lancaster and Simonds. The transportation and storm water infrastructure that made
up these roads were built with a much lower standard, if any, than other roads in the city. Typical examples include narrow and steep driving paths, gravel or chip seal driving surfaces
in poor condition, and drainage paths that do not tie together into a reliable system. The existing infrastructure on these roads was not designed as a sustainable system. The organized
and consistent method of vesting public streets was not used when these private roads were developed. Typically, these roads were developed in an ad-hoc nature partially or completely
on private land to provide access to dwellings, mostly cottages, when larger plots of land were sold off to individual property owners.
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Page 2 Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! Minimal summer maintenance and winter plowing services
were provided by the New Brunswick Department of Transportation primarily, or by parish staff. Most residents accepted lower standards, occasional inconveniences and lower levels of
service delivery given the rural nature of these areas. Since amalgamation, more and more citizens of these roads expect fair delivery of services as they are now part of and pay taxes
to the City of Saint John. This demand has continued to grow over the years as seasonal dwellings have been converted into primary homes. Succeeding City Councils and staff have been
presented with numerous calls and petitions for upgrades and improvements to the travel surfaces and improved winter and summer servicing from these taxpaying residents. Most recently,
Council had on their meeting agenda a report on the status of one of these former “private” roads roads -Greenwood Lane, off Loch Lomond Road near the airport. Prior to the advent of
the Rural Roads Upgrade Program, the City’s stance regarding these by roads and lanes has essentially been to preserve the status quo – i.e. continue road maintenance services traditionally
provided. Many improvements have been made on the roads over the years in response to poor conditions and citizen requests, through installation of ditching and culverts, catch basins
and storm piping, and chip sealing of gravel surfaces. These are most often found on the wider more accessible inherited roads where private land ownership has not precluded such arrangements.
On many of the narrower lanes with worse conditions, private land ownership issues have made sustainable upgrading untenable. In some cases, the status quo of minimal summer and winter
servicing has been interrupted -City services have been terminated, sometimes at the request of property owners(s), sometimes by a decision of staff, reinstated, suspended and resumed
again. For years the various stakeholders have struggled with service issues related to this group of substandard access lanes. The City has sought to respond to service issues, maintaining
status quo at the very least, but also adopted a policy whereby any of the serviced “private roads” could be upgraded with the participation of residents. This policy is based on a “local
improvement tax” model and was approved by Common Council in 1972. The policy theoretically provides an avenue for all the residents on a lane to come together and “share” with the Municipality
in the costs to upgrade the access. The City would underwrite the costs of the improvement and the residents would agree to a local improvement tax surcharge until the improvement was
paid for. In practical terms the policy has proved ineffective – it has never been utilized. Improvements have occurred through maintenance efforts and the occasional capital upgrading
on many of the inherited rural roads. For the majority however, improving the infrastructure on these roads through maintenance activities is difficult. Sufficient city-owned land or
easements to install improved infrastructure are often not available. Physical constraints such as existing private structures, dense rock and the lay of the land are prominent. Saint
John Works crews have worked hard and spent a lot of time to resolve citizens’ requests but solutions are often short term and isolated and sometimes new problems are created in the
process. Without underlying sustainable transportation and storm systems, required results are not produced. A number of these access lanes are in basically the same condition as they
were at amalgamation, despite intervening growth and increased usage.
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Page 3 Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! Rural Road Upgrades Program The Rural Roads Upgrade
Program was initiated and approved by Council as an attempt to resolve, finally, the totally unsatisfactory situation that has existed on substandard “private” lanes inherited by the
City in 1967 – unsatisfactory for the residents who live on and use them daily, unsatisfactory to Council and staff who receive numerous requests for help, and unsatisfactory to front
line City staff charged with delivering services. Staff recognized that to provide satisfactory and lasting solutions fundamental improvements to the overall transportation and storm
water systems on these rural roads were required. The goal of the Rural Roads Upgrade Program was to design, acquire necessary land and reconstruct rural roads in the city that possess
such systemic flaws so that services can be delivered in a more consistent and sustainable way on land that is owned by the City. Capital upgrading projects had occasionally been approved
for individual roads (eg Birchmount Road, Owens Road) but the Rural Roads Upgrade Program represents a comprehensive approach to this group of roads as a whole. Rather than dealing with
issues and concerns on a street by street basis and spending time ineffectively, the Rural Roads Upgrade Program provides an approach to deal with all of the substandard lanes in a prioritized
fashion. The first road reconstructed within this program was McLaughlin Road. Capital improvements were made, however portions of the public infrastructure were built on private property.
Accessing infrastructure meant to serve the public on private property presents legal challenges so a lesson was learned through this experience. MacLeod Road was then upgraded in 2004.
Prior to construction beginning, private property that needed to be acquired was recognized. Initial agreements with all except one of the adjacent property owners to turn over the necessary
land to the city were obtained. The engineering design had to be changed to accommodate the one property owner that did not agree, resulting in an increased construction cost. Construction
was completed before fully completing the land acquisitions. The city has still not acquired all the land. Another lesson was learned. The program continued with designs for By Road
#2, By Road #3, By Road #4, By Road #5/Poplar Lane and Olsen Road commencing in 2004. Staff learned from the MacLeod and McLaughlin Road projects that land needed from adjacent properties
to complete the upgrades must be acquired prior to construction. In February 2006 (M&C # 2006-43) Common Council approved the Rural Road Upgrades Program: Land Acquisition Policy, which
laid out the terms of agreement for land transfers from adjacent property owners to the City. The policy also specified that construction on such roads would not commence until all necessary
land was acquired. Not all of the property owners on any one of the five road road projects have agreed to turn over the necessary land. Real Estate Services communicated via a City
Manager’s Updated to Council in November 2006 that an impasse with one property owner on Olsen Road could not be overcome, thereby preventing the upgrade to that road. Many of the property
owners adjacent to By Road #2, By Road #3 and By Road #4 communicated to staff at a November 2006 Public Meeting their concerns regarding relinquishing portions of their to support the
project; staff believe the
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Page 4 Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! successful upgrades to these three roads are unlikely
under the current policy. Initial agreements with most of the property owners adjacent to By Road #5 and Poplar Lane have been obtained, however communications with a few remaining owners
continue. Staff believes construction on this project may be able to commence in 2007 but this will depend on timely and successful land acquisitions. ANALYSIS The Rural Road Upgrades
Program has continued to improve but the required results have not been delivered. Staff has recognized that the program needs to be reassessed so that the citizens who live on these
roads can receive consistent and reliable services. Identification of Roads in Program Staff has re-evaluated the status of all roads in the City to identify the candidates for this
program. This first step was necessary to accurately identify the full scope of this program and and to communicate the full extent of the issue to Council and the public. A road classification
system that was established as part of the 2001 Transportation Study allowed a large portion of the roads to be immediately struck from the program. Arterials, collectors and local roads
are, for the most part, built to minimum infrastructure standards, are contained on land owned by the city and are properly vested as public streets. Roads that remained to be considered
were rural and private roads. Roads classified as ‘private roads’ include private accesses and lanes, entrances for trailer parks and garden homes and some public right-of-ways that
are currently adjacent to undeveloped land. This classification was developed by Saint John Works staff to clearly identify those accesses that do not receive transportation and storm
water system services and infrastructure improvements from the City of Saint John. There are 200 roads, totaling 60 kilometers in length that are classified as ‘Private’. These roads
are not included for upgrading in the Rural Road Upgrades Program. Staff’s intention is to have Common Council reconfirm the policy that transportation and storm water services should
not be provided to such ‘private roads’ unless these are developed by the owner to minimum standards acceptable to the Chief City Engineer. Private Road – an access that does not receive
transportation or storm water system services because it is on private land and does not meet minimum infrastructure standards or is on publicly owned land but, due to the undeveloped
nature of surrounding land, would not require such services. Left to be considered for this program are roads classified as ‘Rural’. These roads are currently serviced and maintained
by the City of Saint John but infrastructure on some of these roads is anticipated to be on privately-owned land.
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Page 5 Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! Infrastructure on a small portion of these rural
roads was believed to be fully on publicly-owned land and there was no concern with the level of service being provided to the citizens living on these roads. These roads were also struck
from the program. The remaining 104 roads, totally over 30 kilometers in length, were considered candidates for the Rural Road Upgrades Program. To summarize, the 104 roads to be considered
for the program are in various states of condition and land status. Some roads need improvements to the transportation and/or storm water system and associated land acquisition. The
systems on other roads were considered to be in relatively fair condition but some of the infrastructure is on private property; the scope of these road projects would be limited to
the acquisition of land that contains existing transportation or storm water infrastructure. The The list of 104 roads considered candidates for this program is appended. Note: Staff
used their experience and the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) to estimate the status of land ownership for each road considered and struck from the program. A detailed title
search and land survey would be necessary (and is planned as part of this program) to confirm the actual land ownership status for each road. Prioritization of Roads in Program Once
identified, the candidates for the Rural Road Upgrades Program were prioritized. Infrastructure system condition was the main criteria used for prioritization. Roads that have provided
the most maintenance challenges due to poor design or condition and land ownership barriers were identified as high priority projects. A proposed ten-year program containing the list
of roads with the highest priority is appended. Land Acquisition Staff has also re-evaluated the process of acquiring land necessary for this program. Clearly, from the recent history,
attempts to gain gain agreements with all individual property owners have been unsuccessful. Following is a series of options available for Common Council to consider on a go-forward
basis. Staff has considered the benefits and challenges of each option; one option is recommended as it is believed to best produce the required results most effectively. Option 1: Cancel
the Upgrades Program and Maintain Status-Quo in Service Delivery This option involves cancelling the current program, thus stopping all future efforts to acquire land, halting upgrade
projects and continuing to attempt service delivery to citizens of these roads as has continued since amalgamation. Citizens in these rural areas would need to accept the continuation
of a reduced level of service delivery. Clearly, provided continued inquiries from citizens to staff and Council members and recent media coverage regarding Greenwood Lane, this option
is not acceptable to home owners along these roads.
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Page 6 Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! This option is also not sustainable. As described,
continued maintenance efforts become very expensive because most solutions are short-term and isolated, and sometimes created more problems. Maintaining the status-quo does not produce
a successful investment. Option 2: Maintain the Program As-Is This option involves maintaining the program as it currently stands. Staff would continue to prioritize roads requiring
upgrades, complete engineering designs, approach property owners to turn required land to the city according to the current policy, and complete the upgrades only if and when all land
is acquired. A reduced level of service delivery at a high cost to the city would continue if an upgrade project could not proceed. As indicated, the current program has not been successful.
Funds for contracted engineering design services and staff time (from Saint John Works, Real Estate Services and the Legal Department) has been invested without achieving the necessary
goals. Inefficient and reducedleeve of service delivery would continue to citizens in these areas. Option 3: Maintain the Current Program with a Commitment to Stop Service Delivery This
option is similar to the processes of Option #2. The difference is the implications associated if the upgrade to the road could not occur. Under this scenario the City would cease to
deliver services, including snow/ice control services and road and storm system infrastructure maintenance services, should one or more of property owners not agree to relinquish the
required land according to the existing policy. The goal of this program is to be able to effectively deliver a standard of service to citizens living on these roads. Under status-quo
conditions this goal cannot be expected to be achieved. This option clearly demonstrates that the City is not interested in sub-standard and inefficient service delivery; either the
infrastructure infrastructure gets upgraded to a minimum standard or service delivery ceases. Option 4: Maintain the Current Program with a Procedural Improvement This option involves
completing a survey of all property owners on a given road very early in the design process. A preliminary design would be completed so that a rough estimate of the land required from
each property owner would be established. The property owners would be asked if they were willing, in principle, to relinquish the identified parcel(s) of land according to the established
land acquisition policy. The detailed design and land acquisition process would proceed if positive responses from all property owners were received. Staff also recommends under this
option that, similar to Option #3, services should cease if a positive result was not received from all property owners. Under the current program staff does not have the opportunity
to identify whether property owners are willing to turn over their land until late in the process. Significant staff time and funds for contracted engineering design services are invested
before property owners are approached to obtain sign-off agreements. This option reduces the risk of significant investment
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Page 7 Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! without achieving the required outcome by focusing
on the roads where acquiring the needed land is more probable. Option 5: Expropriation (Recommended Option) Options #2, #3 and #4 rely on each property owner agreeing to relinquish their
land according to a consistent policy in return for necessary upgrades to their road. Clearly, from the history of the existing program, not all property owners agree; the owners that
are willing to contribute to a solution for their community are left with receiving sub-standard services. Is this fair? Option #5 involves expropriating the land necessary for the upgrades.
The processes of the current program would continue as indicated in Option #2. However, an expropriation process would be undertaken instead of approaching each property owner to obtain
an agreement. Section 8(1) of the Municipalities Act provides that the City may expropriate “for the purpose of carrying out any of its powers or providing any of its services”. Under
this option, the City would need to compensate each property owner with the fair market value for their land. Additional legal resources would also need to be allocated to the program
to follow-through with the expropriation process. (Note: significant additional legal resources will be required to deal with land ownership issues regardless of which option is chosen,
other than canceling the program or terminating service delivery – any option which involves acquisition of land will require legal resources). Staff anticipates external Legal representation
would be required due to the time commitment anticipated; the cost of this service is reflected in the program costs. A general policy of engineering standards for pre-existing sub-standard
rural roads would need to be established prior to the expropriation process being initiated for the first roads in the improved program. This policy would focus on a standard right-of-way
width necessary to accommodate the road surface, shoulders and storm water system. Staff will develop this policy and present it to Council for approval if Council approves the recommendations
in this report. Each year, staff will request Council’s authority to expropriate the land necessary to achieve the standard right-of-way width for the roads on that year’s program. There
will be some rural roads where physical constraints, such as existing buildings, will prevent the developed engineering standards from being achieved. Council will need to deal with
these cases on an individual basis. Staff will develop a policy that is specific for each of these roads based on the constraints in place and request Council’s authority to expropriate
based on the specific standard. This option provides the greatest opportunity to achieve the results requested from the citizens who live on these roads. Unlike attempting to receive
approval from each property owner under the existing program, the expropriation expropriation process guarantees the City would obtain the required land as long as the project is considered
to be in the public interest.
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Page 8 Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! Staff from Saint John Works, the Legal Department
and the Planning Department has collaborated in developing the approach as outlined herein for Option #5. This option is recommended by staff. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff has estimated
the costs associated with completing the program via Option #5 (expropriation). Costs for engineering design services, land acquisition, contracted legal services and construction are
included in the estimates. The estimated cost to complete the entire Rural Road Upgrades Program, which includes the 104 roads identified as being part of the program, is approximately
$16,000,000. The cost of a ten-year program, which includes the twenty-two highest priority roads, is $3,700,000. The appended program indicates the estimated cost for each road. CONCLUSIONS
The City of Saint John has been providing services to citizens along sub-standard rural roads since maintenance responsibilities were downloaded to the City with amalgamation forty years
ago. Delivering these minimal services is very costly as Saint John Works crews spend much time correcting isolated problems with short-term solutions. As indicated by recent and historic
input, citizens on these roads are not accepting the status-quo situation. The Rural Road Upgrades Program was initiated so that capital upgrades to transportation and storm system infrastructure
can be completed for more sustainable and effective service delivery and so that private land that often contains existing or needed public infrastructure is acquired. Since its inception,
several policy and process improvements have been developed. It is clear, however, that this program needs even further refinement. Presented in this report are five (5) options available
to Council on a go-forward basis. Each option has positive and negative aspects. Staff believes one of the options (Option #5) has the most opportunity to achieve successful results
in a more timely and controlled basis. This option involves expropriating the necessary land from property owners. Staff has concentrated efforts on investigating and describing the
recommended option. If Council chooses an alternative direction, staff is prepared to investigate that option further and report back to Council with a more in-depth analysis. Achieving
results through effective investment and sound policy and process would allow citizens who live on these roads to receive fair services and will allow these services to be delivered
in a more cost-effective manner, which is appreciated by all citizens.
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Page 9 Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council:
1. Direct staff to proceed with the Rural Road Upgrades Program according to Option #5 and the scope as described in the Appendix, and 2. Direct staff to develop a general policy of
engineering standards for pre-existing substanndar rural roads for Council’s subsequent consideration and approval, and 3. Re-confirm the City’s policy of not providing transportation
and storm water services to roads classified as ‘Private’. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A.
City Manager
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Appendix Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! List of 104 Rural Roads included in the Proposed
Future Program Acamac Backland Road Acamac Beach Road Allen Road Ann Avenue Anthonys Cove Road Arthurs Road Ashgrove Crescent Atkins Roadway Avery Lane Bardsley Court Battery Road Baywatch
Lane Beach Road Birch Hill Lane Birchmount Road Blue Rock Court Bolton Lane Buckley Road By Road No. 2 By Road No. 3 By Road No. 4 By Road No. 7 Clairmont Street Clark Road East Clark
Road No. 1 Clark Road No. 2 Cooks Lake Road Cosy Lake Road Cove Roadway Crawford Road Crows Nest Lane Douglas Lake Road Dutch Garden Lane Edgewater Lane Erdine Lane Essex Street Farry
Cove Lane Field Road Fort Dufferin Road Foulds Lane Fox Hill Road Gerry Drive Green Head Road Green Lake Crescent Greenhill Road Greenwood Lane Hatheway Crescent Highview Roadway Hill
Top Lane Jacks Road West Johnston Road Juniper Lane Keating Road Kerr Road Likely Road Maple Hill Lane Matthew Lane Maxwell Lane McGivney Roadway McLaughlin Road Mount Loyal Roadway
Nature's Way New North Road Nicolle Road North Road Old Anthonys Cove Road Old Orchard Lane Old Westmorland Road Olsen Road Owens Road Oxford Place Patricia Lane Peggy's Lane Penny Roadway
Pipe Line Road West Popple Avenue Post Office Road Rebecca Avenue Red Bridge Lane Revere Street Rideau Street Riverside Lane Roberta Avenue Rock Hill Roadway School Bus Road Seawood
Lane South Road Spring Garden Road Stevens Road Studio Road Sullivan Road Sunview Road Sutton Road Thomas Road Twilight Avenue Vair's Cove Road Vey Court Vey Road Walsh Place Walsh's
Road Westmount Road Willis Road Willow Roadway Worden Drive
Rural Road Upgrades Program May 3, 2007 Report to Common Council, M&C 2007-131 Appendix Saint John Works… for all citizens of this city! Prioritized List of Roads to be included in a
Ten-Year Program and Summary of Costs Road Proposed Year to Design* Proposed Year to Construct Cost Estimate** Beach Road 2008 2009 $344,000 Buckley Road 2008 2009 $57,000 Bolton Lane
2009 2010 $45,000 Foulds Lane 2009 2010 $109,000 Greenwood Lane 2009 2010 $181,000 Johnston Road 2010 2011 $615,000 Douglas Lake Road 2010 2011 $267,000 Cooks Lake Road 2011 2012 $181,000
Walsh’s Road 2011 2012 $206,000 Gerry Drive 2012 2013 $150,000 Willow Roadway 2012 2013 $152,000 Fox Hill Road 2013 2014 $114,000 Olsen Road 2013 2014 $98,000 Clark Road No. 1 2014 2015
$136,000 Clark Road No. 2 2014 2015 $90,000 Penny Roadway 2015 2016 $103,000 Rideau Street 2015 2016 $220,000 Twilight Avenue 2016 2017 $161,000 Ann Avenue 2016 2017 $46,000 Rebecca
Avenue 2016 2017 $69,000 Farry Cove Lane 2017 2018 $216,000 North Road 2017 2018 $187,000 Total Cost of 10-Year Program $3,700,000 * Includes year used to acquire land ** Includes
design, construction, acquisition and external legal services costs (assuming expropriation process is used) before HST
M&C 2007-135 May 4, 2007 His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Design and Construction Management: Latimer Lake
Fluoridation System Upgrade BACKGROUND The approved 2007 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program – Water Service Needs category includes a project for the design and construction
of upgrades to the drinking water fluoridation system at the Latimer Lake Water Treatment Facility. The project includes the funding necessary to engage engineering services to complete
the following: · Preliminary investigation and data collection, · Preliminary design, and design report with cost estimates, · Detailed design, · Construction management and inspection
services · Record drawings in digital and hard copy format PURPOSE OF THE REPORT The purpose of this report is to make a recommendation for consulting engineering services for the project.
M&C 2007-135 May 2, 2007 Page 2 ANALYSIS On April 25, 2007 with a comprehensive and detailed scope of work document developed by staff, a proposal for consulting engineering services
was requested from Ralph Smith Engineering Inc. In response to this request, Ralph Smith Engineering submitted a proposal on May 2, 2007. Staff was previously authorized to conduct negotiations
with this consultant for engineering services for the Latimer Lake Fluoridation System Upgrade project. A Review Committee consisting of the following staff completed an analysis of
the submission: Brian Keenan, P. Eng. Engineering Manager, Municipal Engineering Brett L. McLean, P. Eng. Municipal Engineer, Municipal Engineering Nicole Taylor, P. Eng. Operations
Manager, Water Quality & Resources Dave Logan, CPPB Purchasing Agent/Manager, Materials and Fleet Management Each member completed an independent review of the submission and a subsequent
meeting of the Review Committee was held to jointly discuss the information presented in the Ralph Smith Engineering proposal. The upset price contained in the proposal was also evaluated
by the committee and was determined to be acceptable for submission to Council for approval. The submission from Ralph Smith Engineering Inc. met all of the requirements of the request
for proposal in a manner acceptable to the committee, with a cost effective bid for the project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposed cost of the work from Ralph Smith Engineering Inc.
to provide design and construction management services is approximately $38,054.72 including the City’s eligible HST rebate. An amount of $250,000.00 was included in the 2007 Water and
Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program – Water Service Needs category for design, construction management and construction. Engineering fees to cover the cost of design and construction
management generally do not exceed 12-17% of the total project cost, depending on the nature of the project and the engineering services required. This upset fee is approximately 15.2%
of the total overall project cost, which is considered appropriate for this type of project.
M&C 2007-135 May 2, 2007 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposal of Ralph Smith Engineering Inc. for engineering services (design and construction management) for the
Latimer Lake Fluoridation System Upgrade project be accepted and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the appropriate documentation in that regard. Respectfully submitted,
J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering Terrence L. Totten, F.C.A. City Manager
May 2, 2007 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Subdivision Cedar Point Anchorage (Project File: 554 Woodward Avenue) The Planning Advisory Committee considered the attached
report concerning a proposed 166-lot expansion of Cedar Point Anchorage at its May 1, 2007 meeting. Mr. Ladds Batten attended the meeting on behalf of the applicant and expressed agreement
with the staff recommendation. Mr. Batten indicated that the expanded area was recently rezoned to “RSS” One Family Serviced Suburban Residential to permit expansion of the subdivision
in a manner that is compatible with the existing Cedar Point development (i.e. overhead wires, ditches for storm drainage and paved streets with no curb/sidewalk). He pointed out that
this suburban standard was adopted by the city in the 1980s in order to compete with similar developments in neighbouring municipalities. The standard allows the creation of large lots
to be financially viable. He also advised that the developer is working with the City to resolve issues with respect to the proper installation and functioning of the surface water drainage
system. Mr. Batten acknowledged that it would be desirable to have a second access into the Cedar Point area; however, the cost of constructing a road across the provincial land to Ragged
Point Road would be prohibitive. He pointed out that the additional 166 lots being proposed would be developed over a long period of time, possibly twenty-five years, and that a second
access may become feasible at a later date in conjunction with development of the provincial land. In the meantime, he noted that City staff are discussing the possibility of providing
an emergency-only access via the Centre Samuel de Champlain property. A number of Cedar Point residents attended the meeting, including Ed Keyes, Laurel Comeau, Bob Manning and Kevin
and Cynthia King, all of them addressing the Committee with objections and concerns about the proposed subdivision. The opinion was expressed that notice of the application should have
been mailed to everyone in Cedar Point as well as to property-owners on Woodward Avenue and in the mobile home park, rather than only to those within 100 metres of the site. The concerns
of the speakers included their dissatisfaction with the serviced suburban residential development standard of open ditches and no sidewalks, the lack of a second, permanent access to
the subdivision, traffic on Cedarwood Drive
Planning Advisory Committee Page 2 May 4, 2007 (including construction traffic), possible damage to houses due to blasting, and the unsuitability and lack of access points to the proposed
land for public purposes. The speakers all indicated that, in their opinion, the proposed subdivision should not be approved at this time but, rather, the developer should prepare a
revised proposal that addresses the concerns. One speaker suggested that approval of the developer’s initial phase along the shore could be supported, but that there should be a revised
plan prepared and more people notified. The Committee also received three letter expressing objections to the proposal as submitted. Copies of these letters are attached. After considering
the report, letters and presentations, the Committee decided to recommend Council’s assent to only a portion of the subdivision at this time, consisting of a maximum of 51 lots along
the proposed extension of Anchorage Avenue and on Compass Court (to be renamed) and the portion of Windward Way (to be renamed) that runs parallel to the shoreline. The Committee also
adopted resolutions recommending that the developer negotiate a temporary access over the provincial land for construction vehicles, and that the applicant negotiate a permanent access
if they wish to develop more than 51 lots. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with only that
portion of the submitted subdivision plan consisting of a maximum of 51 lots on an extension of Anchorage Avenue, Compass Court (to be renamed) and a portion of Windward Way (to be renamed),
with respect to the vesting of the proposed public streets, land for public purposes and any required municipal services easements and public utility easements. 2. That Common Council
authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/developer subdivision agreements to ensure the provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and
drainage drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate, and the required contribution to the pumping station and potential forcemain upgrades. Respectfully
submitted, Carl Killen Third Executive Member RGP/r Attachments Project No. 07-138
DATE: APRIL 27, 2007 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF MAY 1, 2007 Randall G. Pollock, MCIP Planner SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: 512531 N.B.
Ltd. Name of Owner: 512531 N.B. Ltd. Location: Cedar Point Anchorage (Project File: 554 Woodward Avenue) PID: 55156954 and 55180558 Municipal Plan: Low Density Residential/Development
Area C Zoning: “RSS” One Family Serviced Suburban Residential Proposal: To develop an approximately 166-lot extension of the Cedar Point Anchorage subdivision Type of Application: Subdivision
JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning the creation of public streets and land
for public purposes (LPP) in
512531 N.B. Ltd. Page 2 Cedar Point Anchorage (Project File: 554 Woodward Avenue) April 27, 2007 conjunction with the subdivision of land. In addition, the Subdivision By-law authorizes
the Committee to approve the names of new streets in a subdivision. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: 1. That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more
phases, in general accordance with the submitted 166-lot (approximately) extension of the Cedar Point Anchorage Subdivision, located at 17 Admiralty Drive and 66 Anchorage Avenue (PID
Nos. 55156954 and 55180558), with respect to the vesting of the proposed public streets, future street, land for public purposes and any required municipal services easements and public
utility easements. 2. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/developer subdivision agreements to ensure provision of the required work and facilities,
including detailed site and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate, and the required contribution to the pumping station and potential forcemain
upgrades. 3. That Common Council authorize cost sharing outside of the limits of the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 26 of the Subdivision By-law. 4. That the Planning
Advisory Committee approve the proposed street name Commodore Court. 5. That the Planning Advisory Committee not approve the proposed street names, Lighthouse Lane, Tidewater Terrace,
Privateer Place, Windward Way and Compass Court. BACKGROUND: On December 4, 2006, Common Council rezoned the majority of the subject site from “RS-2” One and Two Family Suburban Residential
to “RSS” One Family Serviced Suburban Residential (a small portion of the site had been rezoned previously in conjunction with an earlier phase of Cedar Point Anchorage). The Committee
had recommended approval of the rezoning at its meeting on November 14, 2006. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering advises that it has concerns that this subdivision
is becoming too large to have a single point of entry for both water supply and vehicles. A significant incident or failure on Cedarwood Drive will cause serious inconvenience and risk
in
512531 N.B. Ltd. Page 3 Cedar Point Anchorage (Project File: 554 Woodward Avenue) April 27, 2007 this very large cul-de-sac. A second road access and water feed should be included in
the approval of this subdivision. It is also noted that the existing sewer lift station at the intersection of Leeward Lane and Rivershore Drive currently serves approximately 70 homes
and was built nearly twenty years ago. The City is finalizing upgrading plans and has budgeted funds in this year’s budget. A cost sharing agreement is required. Finally, Municipal Operations
had previously that it does not support the expansion of the Cedar Point subdivision using the “RSS” One Family Serviced Suburban Residential standard (i.e. the use of ditches and driveway
culverts instead of curbs and piped storm sewers). In this high quality area the property owners often want to landscape to the edge of the street and in the process partially fill in
the ditches and raise the shoulders so water cannot drain off the street and driveway culverts are more easily blocked. Building and Technical Services has noted that there are no Building
Code issues at this time. GIS Division/Civic Addressing has provided the following comments on the proposed street names: · Commodore Court is acceptable; · Lighthouse Lane is not acceptable
as it is similar to the existing Lighthouse Road. In addition, the tentative plan indicates two streets with this proposed name; · Tidewater Terrace is not acceptable as it is similar
to the existing Tideview Lane; · Privateer Place is not acceptable as the name Privateers Quay has already been reserved for the Highlands of Drury Cove development; · Windward Way is
not acceptable as it is similar to the existing Woodward Avenue; · Compass Court is not acceptable as the name Compass Point has already been reserved for the Bentley Crossing development.
In addition, the two cul-de-sacs in the proposed development (labelled as Compass Court and Commodore Court) should have the same name as the street from which they extend. Saint John
Energy previously advised that the existing three phase overhead lines will need to be extended to and through the proposed subdivision to provide adequate services. Easements will be
required on this extension and costs will be addressed with the developer at a later date. Aliant Telecom advises that it is co-ordinating with Saint John Energy and is aware that a
line extension will be required. Rogers has been advised of the proposal. Leisure Services has been advised of the proposal.
512531 N.B. Ltd. Page 4 Cedar Point Anchorage (Project File: 554 Woodward Avenue) April 27, 2007 Fire Department previously indicated that it has no objection to the subdivision provided
that the street construction meets the National Building Code minimum standards for access route design. However, the department does have a concern that a large portion of the new subdivision
(Compass Court, Windward Way, Privateer Place and extension of Anchorage Avenue) only has one point of egress and access. This situation is further complicated in that the overall Cedar
Point development also has only one point of access and egress. Consequently, there are two locations at which the new subdivision can be rendered inaccessible in the event of an emergency.
School District 8 has been advised of the proposal. ANALYSIS: Site and Area The subject site is a 42-hectare (104-acre) parcel of undeveloped land located on the shore of the St. John
River, south of Ragged Point Road and northwest of the existing Cedar Point Anchorage subdivision. Much of the undeveloped parcel is heavily treed and has rugged terrain with a steep
ridge running through the approximate centre of the parcel, northwest of the existing Admiralty Drive. The area is underlain by solid bedrock and will require blasting to facilitate
development. The waterfront areas of the parcel are steeply sloped toward the water, topographically similar to the waterfront of the existing developed subdivision. The New Brunswick
Department of Supply and Services owns a 27-hectare (67-acre) parcel of undeveloped land between the subject site and the privately-owned, partially developed parcels on the south side
of Ragged Point Road. The applicant has requested that the Province turn this large parcel into park land for the City of Saint John; however, no plans to this effect have been submitted
to the City. Proposal The applicant proposes to develop approximately 166 new residential lots in an extension of the Cedar Point Anchorage subdivision. The proposed lots would front
on extensions of Admiralty Drive and Anchorage Avenue, and on several new public streets. The proposed lot sizes and character of the development would be similar to that of the existing
Cedar Point Anchorage neighbourhood1. This is known as the “serviced suburban residential” (RSS) standard, which provides for large suburban-style lots on paved streets with overhead
utilities and ditches for storm drainage, rather than the full urban standard of underground wires, piped storm sewers and streets with curbs and sidewalks. The RSS standard was created
in the mid-1980s in order to 1 A few of the lots on the tentative plan have slightly less than the minimum required lot width of 30 metres and/or minimum lot area of 1400 square metres.
The developer’s surveyor has confirmed that this will be corrected in the final subdivision plan.
512531 N.B. Ltd. Page 5 Cedar Point Anchorage (Project File: 554 Woodward Avenue) April 27, 2007 provide, within the City, a similar housing alternative to that being developed in neighbouring
municipalities. The proposed layout of the subdivision is illustrated on the attached tentative plan. As noted in the Background, the site has been rezoned to “RSS” One Family Serviced
Suburban Residential, which permits the proposed subdivision. The policies of the Millidgeville Secondary Plan for Development Area C, of which the subject site is a part, call for a
high-quality mix of single family and duplex dwellings on large lots served with municipal water and sewers. The proposed subdivision for the development of one-family dwellings is consistent
with these policies and is in character with the existing pattern of development in Cedar Point. The proposal requires Common Council’s assent to the subdivision plan with respect to
the location of streets, land for public purposes (LPP) and necessary easements for municipal services and utilities. In addition, the Planning Advisory Committee’s approval of the proposed
street names is also required. Proposed Streets and Access to the Development As noted above, the developer proposes to extend both Anchorage Avenue and Admiralty Drive into the subject
site, and to develop several new streets to provide access to the proposed lots. Admiralty Drive would be extended to the northerly boundary of the site to provide for future extension
and servicing of the adjacent provincial lands. A temporary turnaround will be required at the boundary of the site until such time as Admiralty Drive is further extended. A second connection
to the provincial lands, located closer to the shoreline, would be provided in the form of a future street off proposed Windward Way. The Subdivision By-law requires such connections
in order to provide for the future subdivision and development of adjacent lands. The proposed internal street layout is logical and appropriate for the development of the site, providing
frontage on a public street for all of the proposed lots. There are no proposed doublefronntag lots or four-way intersections in the design. Assent with respect to the proposed public
streets and future street can be recommended. While the internal street layout can be recommended, concerns have been raised with respect to the lack of an alternate access to the proposed
development and to the Cedar Point neighbourhood as a whole. At present, the only entrance to Cedar Point consists of Cedarwood Drive off of Woodward Avenue. The proposed development,
when fully completed, will add approximately 166 lots to the existing 179 lots from previous phases, for a total of 345 dwellings accessed from this single point. Increased traffic on
Cedarwood Drive is a concern of residents who have homes on that street. The City’s traffic engineer has indicated that the expected increase in traffic at full build-out can be accommodated
by Cedarwood Drive. However, the concern is with respect to emergency access access to the subdivision in the event that an incident occurs that makes the initial portion of Cedarwood
Drive (i.e. between Woodward and Rivershore) impassable.
512531 N.B. Ltd. Page 6 Cedar Point Anchorage (Project File: 554 Woodward Avenue) April 27, 2007 An extension of Admiralty Drive across the provincial land to some point on Ragged Point
Road would provide a suitable alternative access to the area. In the longer term this may, in fact, occur. However, after further investigation by staff and the applicant, this option
appears not to be feasible at this time mainly due to the costs involved (estimated at approximately 2.7 million dollars). It would have to occur in conjunction with development of at
least a portion of the provincial land. A more feasible alternative is to provide an emergency access only, connecting the end of Commodore Court with the Centre Communautaire Samuel
de Champlain. This would be opened only in emergencies when the area cannot be accessed via the Cedarwood Drive entrance. At other times, it would function as a gated pedestrian link.
Westgate Park is a similar example of a large subdivision development that currently has only one permanent public street access from the external street system. That development was
approved to have up to 400 dwelling units before a permanent second public street access would be required. Until that time, the Pipeline Road would be available as a gravel driving
surface for emergency access. It should be noted that, unlike Westgate Park, the Cedar Point development has a much wider variety of alternate internal circulation routes available once
beyond the first 400 feet of Cedarwood Drive. At the time of writing this report, discussions between staff and the province have been initiated with regard to arrangements for an emergency
access to the Cedar Point area via the school property. However, a suitable arrangement has not yet been finalized. Given this situation, the Committee may wish to recommend Common Council’s
assent to only a portion of the subdivision. Proposed Land for Public Purposes The Subdivision By-law requires that six percent of the area of the lots in a subdivision be dedicated
as land for public purposes (LPP). In this case, a dedication of approximately 2 hectares (4.9 acres) is required in conjunction with the proposed development. Consistent with the policies
of the Municipal Plan and Millidgeville Secondary Plan, the applicant has proposed that the required LPP be in the form of an extension of the linear open space area along the shore
of the river. The total area of the proposed LPP dedication is approximately 3 hectares (7.4 acres), which exceeds the minimum requirement by one hectare (2½ acres). The proposed LPP
dedication is supported and can be recommended. Servicing The proposed subdivision will be provided with municipal water and sewer, surface storm drainage system (i.e. ditches and swales),
overhead wiring, and paved streets with no curb/sidewalk, all in accordance with the Subdivision By-law’s servicing standard for RSS developments. The recommendation provides for the
necessary City/developer subdivision agreement to ensure the required services and facilities are provided. provided. Detailed engineering plans will be required for the approval of
the Chief City Engineer, which will be attached to the
512531 N.B. Ltd. Page 7 Cedar Point Anchorage (Project File: 554 Woodward Avenue) April 27, 2007 agreement. These will need to address the issues raised in Municipal Operations and Engineering’s
input concerning looping of the water system. The Subdivision By-law automatically provides for cost sharing of piped services within the subdivision. In addition, the recommendation
includes approval of similar cost sharing arrangements for any work that may be required outside the limits of the subdivision, as is normally done for residential developments. The
lift station that serves much of the Cedar Point development was built in the 1980s and the developers of Cedar Point contributed to its cost on a per lot basis. This arrangement will
need to continue. The City has recognized its responsibility to undertake upgrade based on the age of the facility. However, the developer also has a responsibility to share in the cost
of capacity increases to accommodate the additional development. This could potentially include upgrading of the forcemain’s capacity. Detailed negotiations will be required to arrive
at an equitable cost sharing agreement and, once finalized, will be the subject of a separate report to Council. Street Names The developer has provided the proposed names, Commodore
Court, Lighthouse Lane, Tidewater Terrace, Privateer Place, Windward Way, and Compass Court for the new streets that will be developed in the subdivision. These names have been reviewed
by the GIS/Civic Addressing division, who advise that all except Commodore Court are unacceptable due to similarity in sound and/or spelling to existing or already-approved street names.
The applicant will need to submit alternative street names to be approved prior to filing of the final subdivision plan. Staff will work with the applicant in this regard. CONCLUSION:
The proposed subdivision is an extension of the existing Cedar Point Estates/Cedar Point Anchorage development into an area that was recently rezoned for this purpose. The proposed development
is consistent in character with the existing residential neighbourhood. The manner of providing a secondary or emergency access to the development has not been fully resolved at this
time, although staff have initiated discussions with the province regarding a possible connection to the Centre Communautaire Samuel de Champlain for use in emergency situations. The
recommendation provides for Common Council’s assent to the plan with respect to the internal street layout, LPP and any necessary service or utility easements, as well as Council’s authorization
of the necessary agreement(s) and cost sharing of piped services. RGP/r Project No. 07-138
1 May 3, 2007 Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council We need your help – urgently -in our pesticide reduction efforts. To assist us, we ask that you endorse the following
resolution, and forward it to government through normal channels: “As a positive step in environmental responsibility and pesticide usage reduction, we respectfully request that the
New Brunswick Government require IPM Accreditation as a prerequisite for issuing a pesticide application license in the landscape sector in our province.” We would also ask for your
help in moving the item forward on the agenda of the upcoming AGM of the Cities of New Brunswick Association, as well as conveying the intent to as many MLA’s as possible. We will be
presenting a training session at the upcoming Cities Association meeting, and introducing the request for the same resolution to be considered. From information received on May 2, Minister
of Health Murphy is planning to introduce a bill into the legislature to enable municipalities to ban pesticide use – within the next couple of weeks. We understand he has considerable
support in cabinet to move the issue forward. We feel such a move would be chaotic for the municipalities around the province, having to grapple with the issue one on one, devoting a
great deal of council and staff time (and money) to attempt to resolve the issue. We feel that tightening current regulations at provincial level, introducing mandatory Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Accreditation, would be a much more practical approach. This will continue the positive momentum generated by education, industry training in IPM, and the introduction
of the industry’s IPM Accreditation program. The Department of Environment reports industry reductions of 50% in herbicide, and 20% in insecticide usage, since 2000. These figures become
even more significant when you consider that the areas under professional management have increased by probably 50% over the same period. The IPM Accreditation program focuses on increasing
the professionalism of firms engaged in turf care, by emphasizing sound cultural practice, using chemical tools as only one component of the management process. The program requires
that chemical
2 applications be reduced, with a mandatory 50% reduction from labeled application rates for the areas managed, through monitoring and spot treatments only where required. While ensuring
higher levels of environmental responsibility, the program requires more management input and training, and raises costs as a result. About 50% of the firms in the industry are now enrolled
in the program voluntarily, along with staffs of Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton
parks departments. The provincial golf courses are now moving into the program as well. The companies now in the program are operating at a competitive disadvantage, and we would like
to level the playing field by requiring mandatory participation by all applicators. The Department of the Environment has indicated its willingness to require IPM Accreditation from
all applicators, if it receives endorsement from the key municipalities. Landscape New Brunswick has been meeting with members of city and municipal councils to move the initiative forward,
and is now moving to contact MLA’s provincewiid with the same request. Respectfully submitted, (Verified by telephone) Jack Wetmore, P. Ag., for Landscape New Brunswick Horticultural
Trades Association Box 742, Saint John NB E2L 4B3 357-6324, or 1-866-752-6862 -As a footnote, there is an area in which municipalities can contribute to a dramatic reduction in pesticide
use at homeowner level. Most homeowners want to do the right thing for their homes, and for the environment, if they have sound information rather than advertising to guide them. The
Accreditation program does not directly address the issue of homeowner usage, but the examples set by the professionals does result in some positive movement downward. The combined fertilizer-herbici
e products are the primary area of homeowner misuse. These products are best sellers at local home and garden outlets, and a single application
3 applies 300 to 500 times as much herbicide to a lawn as a properly applied liquid herbicide, using IPM approaches. The attached news release has been submitted to the press, and may
help you in your communication with the public; Environmentally friendly lawn care – combined fertilizer-herbicide products The third in a series presented as a public service by the
Landscape New Brunswick Horticultural Trades Association, prepared by Jack Wetmore, P. Ag. Fertilizers – continued. Would you deliberately apply 300 to 500 times more herbicide than
needed to your lawn? I don’t think so! And yet, that’s what happens when using the best selling lawn fertilizer products at local outlets. These are the combined fertilizer-herbicide
products – lawn fertilizers that contain weed killers along with the fertilizer. At labeled application rates, they apply an average of twice as much herbicide to an area as the common
liquid herbicides. Not only is there more active ingredient in the application rates, but the product is almost always applied over the entire lawn, regardless of weed density or distribution,
as the fertilizer component needs even and widespread distribution. With liquid herbicide-only products, spot spraying of individual weeds or patches can be done without blanketing the
entire lawn. 2,4D is the major herbicide component in most lawn weed killers. A review of the formulations in 15 combined fertilizer-herbicide products by different manufacturers showed
labeled application rates for the 2,4-D active ingredient ranging from 1.5 to 2.45 kilograms per hectare. The labeled application rate for 2,4-D in the commonly used commercial liquid
formulations is 1.05 kg/ha, while the domestic formulation of Killex™ is 1.14 kg/ha. (An interesting note: the application rate for the domestic formulation is about 10% higher than
the commercial equivalent.) On a typical 5000 square foot home lawn, then, a single application of the combined products applies 300 to 500 times more herbicide than using a liquid product
to spot spray 100 weeds on that same lawn. A lot of folks like to have a weed-free lawn. This is a North American phenomenon, a direct result of several decades of intense and very effective
marketing. Indeed, Terry O’Reilly (a CBC marketing guru) would probably consider it one of the most effective campaigns in world history! European lawns look great – and most have 25%
or more broadleaf (aka weed) content. The technical term is biodiversity – a big plus in Chinch bug resistance, among other benefits.
4 Weed-free lawns are not a natural growth pattern, and require chemical inputs to keep them that way. There are currently no organic products to remove broadleaf content selectively
and effectively on larger areas. If a lawn stays green naturally through the summer, the healthy turf growth will suppress weed-invasion, and a chemical touch-up every five years will
provide the desired result. Weeds are more common in the lawns that turn brown in the summer, and require treatment annually or more often. In any event, most lawns do not require treatment
of the entire area. Weeds are generally concentrated in patches of poorer soil, or scattered here and there around the lawn. IPM suggests treating only the affected areas, using an approach
that works, and acting within the optimal control window. Manual weed control is a practical option in light weed infestations. With lawn herbicides, the preferred application window
falls when the weeds are growing rapidly -in late May or June, or in September. If dandelions are the target, they should be controlled before they go to flower. Treating after flowering
guarantees a repeat crop! The seeds ripen quickly. Some fall to the ground, ready to take hold in the bare ground left as the plant collapses. Herbicides work by absorption through the
plant leaves. Applied at the right time, a liquid application to the leaves at labeled rates assures complete control. The weeds become more resistant to chemical control when growth
is slower – in early spring, or through the dry periods in summer as the plants close their pores to conserve moisture. Applications at these times are less effective, requiring more
treatment and therefore increasing chemical usage. As mentioned in an earlier discussion, fertilizer is applied to the soil, not the leaves. Even if applied at the proper time, herbicide
on the soil surface does not work. Most of the granules in the combined products drop to the soil surface, with very little remaining on the leaves – so the herbicide component cannot
do the the intended job of killing the weeds. The particles can stick to the leaves – if applied when the plants are wet. But most people avoid spreading fertilizer under wet conditions.
There are further drawbacks to the combined products. Applied in dry weather, the herbicide-coated granules can remain on the soil surface for several days before dissolving, providing
additional unnecessary exposure to people and pets on the lawn surface, and possibly tracking into the house. Liquid products dry and stabilize quickly, minimizing this exposure. The
granular products are difficult to control when applied. Even with the most careful applications, we see fertilizer granules on sidewalks and driveways after an application. These granules
can be tracked into homes and cars, and are carried into drains with the next rain event, eventually reaching watercourses -adding to chemical contamination in streams and rivers.
5 While people tend to be careful handling hazardous liquid products, they are less concerned about spilling granular fertilizers. We often see torn bags in the garage or store with
fertilizer spilled on the floor. A typical 9 kg bag of the combined products contains about the same amount of herbicide as a liter of a typical liquid domestic herbicide. That spilled
fertilizer-herbicide isn’t nice to leave lying around! The combined products can work – if applied at the right time, and applied when the granules stick to the leaves – when the plants
are wet. Most people do not apply fertilizers under wet conditions. If there is one application per year, it’s reasonable to assume that is early in the season, when everybody does it,
and the herbicide will not be effective. If there is a second application in an attempt to improve control, the 300 to 500 figure doubles…… not a good scene! Whether they work or not,
the products apply herbicide to the entire lawn – an average of twice as much as liquid equivalents at every application. This approach is totally out of step with the IPM practice of
using a control product only where needed. Leading by example, the lawn care companies in the industry’s IPM Accreditation program do not use these products. Those firms that provide
weed control services use herbicide products that work. They apply them only when they work effectively and only where needed. If there’s a single action to be taken by municipalities
and homeowners to reduce pesticide usage in lawn care and improve environmental responsibility, these products should be avoided. These points are summarized as “Ten Commandments for
Healthy Lawn Care” in English and French on the Landscape New Brunswick Horticultural Trades Association website http://nbhta.ca/. A complete in-depth discussion is included in the Association’s
“Sustainable Turf” manual, found on-line at http://nbhta.ca/english/sustainable_turf_manual.html, and in French at http://www.nbhta.ca/french/sustainable_turf_manual.html.