Loading...
2006-04-24_Supplemental Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour supplémentaire City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, April 24, 2006 Common Council Chamber Supplemental Agenda 12.15 Human Rights Complaints - Public Transit - Tentative Settlement 12.16 Ratification - Settlement of Legal Proceedings 15.2(a) Clarification on Discussions with Maritimes Northeast City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 24 avril 2006 Salle du conseil communal L'ordre du jour supplementaire 12.15 Reglement provisoire relatif aux plaintes en matiere des droits de la personne 12.16 Ratification du reglement relatif aux procedures judiciaires 15.2(a) Eclaircissements sur les discussions engagees avec Maritimes Northeast 0.\ 6, City Solicitor's Office Bureau de l'avocat municipal P.O. Box/C.P. 1971 Saint John, NB/N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 www.saintjohn.ca The City of Saint John April 24, 2006 Common Council of The City of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Human Rights Complaints - Public Transit - Tentative Settlement An extensive mediation process has been followed for the purpose of resolving the complaints which have been filed with the Human Rights Commission respecting access to public transit in Saint John. The complaints focused upon access to the bus system by persons with a physical disability. While the authority and responsibility for the operation of the public transit system in Saint John lies exclusively with the Saint John Transit Commission, each complainant named the City as a respondent. While making clear the respective roles and responsibilities of the City and Transit Commission in this matter, the City participated in the mediation process in an effort to address in a mutually satisfactory manner, the concerns expressed by the complainants. A tentative resolution has now been achieved. The tentative resolution is set out in the "Minutes of Settlement" document attached to this correspondence. From the City's perspective there would be the following commitments: 1. The City Manager would annually recommend to Common Council that the Capital Budget provide for the purchase of two low entry buses consistent with the Strategic Plan of the Transit Commission. The Transit Commission has identified a plan to replace 30 buses over a twenty year period. .../2 Common Council April 24, 2006 City Solicitor Page 2 Re: Human Rights Complaints - Public Transit - Tentative Settlement 2. The City would dedicate any capital funds provided to it for the acquisition of buses, for example from other levels of government, to the acquisition of low entry buses, " ... or other such accessible buses capable of accommodating passengers with physical disabilities including wheelchair users. " 3. The City, since Saint John Transit does not have its own web site, would host on its website: a) hours of operation information relating to the Handi-Bus service, as provided to the City by Transit; and b) schedule and route information respecting fully accessible buses in the Transit fleet, again as provided to the City by Transit. And there would be the publishing of a public notification of the disposition of the complaints, in a form acceptable to all parties. The terms of the proposed settlement are satisfactory to the complainants, the Human Rights Commission and the Saint John Transit Commission. The proposed terms reflect and are consistent with the significant capital commitment which the City has made in the past few years to the Transit Commission's acquisition of low entry buses. It is also consistent with the City's providing on its web site information with respect to transit schedules. It is my recommendation that Council accept the proposed terms of settlement and authorize the execution of the settlement document, a copy of which is attached. Respectfully Submitted, / 7 .. ^ '0~(! iJft + Jo L. kgint \J Cit So licitor Attachment (Minutes of Settlement) MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT BETWEEN: KAREN KINCADE (ON BEHALF OF HER SON, JASON KINCADE), SARAH WOOLL VEN, ANN SHEA, NANCY PASCHAL, MARGARET TOTTON, JEFFREY SPARKS, AND DEBBIE COLWELL (Hereafter the "Complainants") -AND- CITY OF SAINT JOHN (Hereafter the "Respondent City") -AND- THE SAINT JOHN TRANSIT COMMISSISON (Hereafter the "Respondent Commission") -AND- THE NEW BRUNSWICK HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -AND- THE PREMIER'S COUNCIL ON THE ST A TUS OF DISABLED PERSONS (Interested Party and hereafter the "Premier's Council") WHEREAS the Complainants had filed Human Rights Complaints with the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission against the Respondent City and the Respondent Commission, with regard to services on the basis of physical disability (hereafter the "Complaints"); AND WHEREAS the Respondent City, and the Respondent Commission have, since the filing of the Complaints, been proactive in accommodating the needs of citizens with disabilities in the City of Saint John who are accessing public transit; AND WHEREAS the Complainants, before, during, and after the time of the filing of their respective complaints, were concerned about the inadequate level of accessible transportation services available in the City for persons with physical disabilities; and have been proactive in the resolution to this matter; AND WHEREAS the Complainants, the Respondent City and Respondent Commission are eager to resolve this matter in order that all citizens with disabilities of the City of Saint John can benefit from the final resolution of this matter; AND WHEREAS the Complainants, the Respondent City, and the Respondent Commission intend to resolve these Complaints; AND WHEREAS the parties wish to evidence the terms of settlement in these Minutes of Settlement; NOW THEREFORE, THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that, m consideration of the premises and agreements herein contained and for good and valuable consideration the parties agree as follows: 1. The Respondent City agrees that the City Manager will recommend annually to Common Council that provision be made in the Capital Budget for the acquisition of two low entry or other such accessible buses capable of accommodating passengers with physical disabilities including wheelchair users consistent with the long term strategic plan of the Respondent Commission. 2 2. The Respondent City and the Respondent Commission agree and acknowledge that any capital funds provided by the City or any other levels of government for the acquisition of any new permanent buses will be used to purchase low entry or other such accessible buses capable of accommodating passengers with physical disabilities including wheelchair users. 3. The Premier's Council has agreed that it will provide the Respondent City, the Respondent Commission, and the Handi-Bus Service with appropriate information pertaining to other available funding sources from both the Provincial and Federal governments with regard to improving the transit service to the citizens with disabilities in the City of Saint John. 4. The Parties acknowledge that during the period of time that the Respondent Commission in its discretion provides the Handi-Bus service to the citizens of the City of Saint John: a. The Respondent Commission and the Complainants agree that the target for the advance notice required to be able to provide service to eligible users of the Handi-Bus system will be within 24-48 hours; b. The Respondent Commission agrees that the Handi-Bus serVice will create and maintain a tracking system that will include at least such monthly information as the number of trips provided and the number of any trips not accommodated and the reasons why not. Such reasons could be grouped under such headings as the client was not eligible; the client called too late; the vehicle was not in operating condition; the client did not show up, etc; c. The Respondent Commission agrees that the Handi-Bus will compile this information and track it on a monthly basis and will provide such information, within three weeks from the date of request by the Premier's Council, the Human Rights Commission, or any of the Complainants; d. The Respondent Commission agrees that with regard to first time callers who are not registered, the target of service would be the same as it is for registered clients. However, if an issue should arise concerning the 3 nature and extent of the non registered client's disability and thus their eligibility to utilize the Handi-Bus Service, the client must provide medical documentation confirming the nature of the disability before a subsequent ride is provided by the Handi-Bus. Further, the Handi-Bus, at this time, has the right to request that a client be registered for the service and the client must take the appropriate steps to register for the serVice; e. The Respondent Commission agrees that with regard to the Handi-Bus service, priority booking on the basis of need will continue. However, the Respondent Commission agrees that once a client has booked the Handi-Bus, this client cannot be bumped, for other clients with a perceived higher priority, without his/her consent. The Respondent Commission agrees that the Handi-Bus service will make every effort not to request, on a regular basis, that a booked client give his/or her consent to be bumped to accommodate the needs of other clients with a perceived higher priority as the Respondent Commission recognizes that recreation is just as important to one's quality of life, as are work commitments and medical appointments; f. The Respondent Commission agrees that with regard to the Handi-Bus service, it will accommodate the needs of the client with regard to scheduled return trips within the service hours of the Handi-Bus service; g. The Respondent Commission agrees that with regard to the Handi-Bus service, the Handi-Bus will use both voicemail and call forward as a means to allow clients to make booking requests during and after hours of operation for service during hours of operation; h. The Respondent Commission acknowledges the need to expand the Handi-Bus service and agrees that it will work towards a target of having a schedule that includes Friday and Saturday evening service without reducing any of its other evening service; 1. The Respondent Commission agrees that it will provide, in all future annual reports to the City of Saint John, information pertaining to the 4 operation of the Handi-Bus service. This information will include, but is not limited to, the following: financial commitment, the total number of accommodated trips, and the total number of trips; J. The Respondent Commission agrees that it will inform its passengers of the changes in the Handi-Bus service; k. The Respondent City agrees that since the Respondent Commission does not currently have its own web-site, it will provide on the Respondent City's web-site information pertaining to the hours of operation of the Handi-Bus service as provided to the Respondent Commission by the Handi-Bus, and that the Handi-Bus will have, at its disposal, information sheets that would be available to the public relaying information pertaining to the hours of operation; 1. The Respondent Commission agrees to be proactive with regard to notification of the public with respect to the changes and improvements in the Handi-Bus service by notifying the public via the standard means of notification which exist with the Respondent Commission and which may vary from time to time. 5. The Respondent Commission agrees that it will, whenever reasonably possible, place and maintain in a consistent manner, the fully accessible buses on a set route and provide a schedule of such to the public. 6. The Respondent City agrees that since the Respondent Commission does not currently have its own web-site, it will provide on the Respondent City's web- site information to the schedules and routes of the fully accessible buses in the Respondent Commission's regular transit fleet and as provided by it. 7. The Respondent Commission agrees that it will inform its passengers of the schedules and routes of the fully accessible buses in its regular transit fleet. Upon request, the Respondent Commission agrees to provide the Complainants with the set schedule and route of the fleet of accessible buses following the finalization of this settlement. 5 8. The Respondent Commission agrees to be proactive with regard to notification of the public with respect to the changes and improvements in the regular transit service by notifying the public via the standard means of notification which exist with the Respondent Commission and which may vary from time to time. 9. The Respondent City and the Respondent Commission agree to publish a public notification that deals with all of the complaints that have been filed with respect to the public transit system in the City and which is mutually agreed to by the Respondent City, Respondent Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Complainants. lO. The Complainants agree to sign a General Release, which includes a waiver of all actions and causes of action relating to any alleged incident of discrimination on the basis of physical disability that allegedly occurred. 11. The parties acknowledge that they have received independent legal advice in this matter or that they waive this right. 12. The Complainants agree to withdraw their respective complaints. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed these Minutes of Settlement on the dates indicated below their respective signatures. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) ) Witness ) ) KAREN KINCADE Date: SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) ) Witness ) ) ) ) JASON KINCADE Date: 6 SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) ) NANCY PASCHAL ) Witness ) ) Date: ) SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) ) MARGARET TOTTON ) Witness ) ) Date: ) SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) ) Witness ) ) ) SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) ) Witness ) ) ) SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) ) ) Witness ) ) ) SARAH WOOLLVEN Date: ANN SHEA Date: JEFFREY SPARKS Date: 7 ) THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN ) ) Per: Witness ) ) Date: ) ) ) . QjYVVl~;Z7~7" ) ~y~ ) Per: Witrtess ( ) \ ) 19;1N) 6 , ) ) NEW BRUNSWICK HUMAN ) RIGHTS COMMISSION ) ) Per: Witness ) ) Date: ) AND ) THE PREMIER'S COUNCIL ON ) THE STATUS OF DISABLED ) PERSONS ) ) Per: Witness ) ) Date: ) SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED ) ) ) ) Witness ) ) ) 8 DEBBIE COLWELL Date: \d\~ City Solicitor's Office Bureau de l'avocat municipal P.O. Box/C.P. 1971 Saint John, NB/N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 www.saintjohn.ca The City of Saint John April 24, 2006 Common Council of The City of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Ratification - Settlement of Legal Proceedings Settlement of three legal proceedings identified as Cause Numbers S/C/463/00, S/C/500/00, and S/C/441102 was concluded in the spring of 2004. The plaintiff in each of the three cases received $10,000 from the City in exchange for a filed Discontinuance of Action and a Release in the City's favour. Settlement occurred following the matters having been addressed in Legal Session of Common Council. Inadvertently, the settlements were not authorized by the required resolution of Common Council adopted in Open Session. Consequently, that must occur and the following is the text of the appropriate resolution: Whereas settlement was concluded in the spring of 2004 with respect to three actions brought against the City of Saint John identified as Cause Numbers S/C/463/00, S/C/500/00 and S/C/441102; and Whereas the aforesaid settlements were inadvertently concluded without their having been authorized by resolution of Common Council adopted in Open Session; .., /2 Common Council April 24, 2006 City Solicitor Page 2 Re: Ratification of Settlement Now therefore be it resolved that Common Council does hereby ratify the payment of $10,000 to the plaintiff in each of the said actions respectively, in full, final and conclusive settlement of their actions against the City of Saint John. Respectfully Submitted, /2N~~~~r Jorn/L. Nugent / City Solicitor REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL April 21, 2006 The City of Saint John INFORMATION OF COUNCIL His Worship Mayor Norm McFarlane and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION ON DISCUSSIONS WITH MARITIMES NORTHEAST I noticed that there has been some public comment from elected officials with regards to a decision I made to obtain further information from Maritimes Northeast with respect to the proposed Brunswick Pipeline. Let me clarify what has transpired so that there is no confusion as to the steps I have taken and the reasons for doing so. · Common Council adopted a position that they were not in favour of a proposed pipeline through Rockwood Park. · Questions were asked with respect to whether or not the City should seek "intervener status" before the NEB. I did indicate to Council that such a decision may require tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the material contained in Maritimes Northeast's application. If the ''under water route" was not part of MNE' s application, the City of Saint John would have to make the case for this route. Conceptual designs, detailed designs, construction schedules and specific cost estimates would need to be prepared by the City of Saint John as part of its obligation to "present facts and evidence" . If, on the other hand, MNE's application contains much of this information (albeit not the preferred route) then perhaps Council can avoid incurring some of these costs. · I attended the NEB public presentation at the Delta Hotel so that I would be adequately informed of the options available to Council. Report to Common Council Page 2 Subject: Discussion with Maritimes Northeast · The first person I met with was Mr. David Thompson. The purpose was to discuss his position, to understand his proposed under water route and to perhaps gain from his experience as an intervener. · I have read all the public commentary with respect to "demanding community benefits, negotiating with MNE, responsibility for the Park and so on". In the end, I have concluded that there is more rhetoric surrounding this issue then fact. As a result, when Council is asked to approve tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to advocate the under water route, I fully expect to be asked a whole series of questions, some of which can only be obtained from MNE. Rather than wait until they file their application, I want to have answers to questions such as; A) Is your application going to clearly indicate the route is through Rockwood Park? B) Will your application address in any detailed way, the proposed "under water route". If so, can you provide the City with any of that technical data? C) Will your Business Plan, which I presume will form part of your application before the NEB, identify in specific terms the revenues that; 1. shall accrue to the City of Saint John in the form of municipal taxes. 11. may accrue to the City of Saint John by way of a "toll". 111. may be provided to the City of Saint John for the purposes of improving services to the general public or perhaps specifically earmarked for improvements to the Park. D) Is MNE obligated to negotiate with other owners of private property over which a pipeline may pass? Is the approach to a municipally different than that to a private landowner? E) Has MNE had any discussions with anyone else, other than the City of Saint John with respect to the ownership of Rockwood Park? F) Is it customary for MNE, or any other pipeline company "to provide community benefits?" If so, would MNE share this information or should the City do its own research? G) I understand that a portion of the Shamrock Grounds is to be used as a "lay down" area. When will this occur? Is MNE assuring the City that the grounds will be appropriately reinstated or even improved? H) If the City succeeds in its attempt to have the pipeline placed underwater, what does this mean to the entire "Brunswick Pipeline" project? Report to Common Council Page 3 Subject: Discussion with Maritimes Northeast I) Does MNE ever intend to make a presentation to Common Council with respect to its plans? Now, admittedly, I do not have the answers to these questions. In order to get them, I did ask Andrew Beckett and Bernie Morrison to do some work to get the answers. In addition, I asked Mr. MacMurray of the Horticultural Association and Mr. Manning of the Board of Trade if they were prepared to work with Andrew and Bernie. My view is that the City might as well ask such individuals to be at the table when answers are provided in the first place, as opposed to discussing the answers with them at a later date. As to not informing the Mayor, or Councillors, no slight was intended at all. I routinely ask staff and citizens to do work for me every week and I saw this as no different than my having m with David mpson. errence L. Totten, FCA CITY MANAGER