Loading...
2011-12-19_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour4 City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, December 19, 2011 Committee of the Whole Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&e communale au 658 -2862. 1. Call to Order 4:30 p.m. 1.0 Approval of Minutes 1.1 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.2 Employment Matter 10.2(4)(b,j) 1.3 Financial Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.4 Property Matter 10.2(4)(c,f) 1.5 Property Matter 10.2(4)(c,f) 1.6 Nominating Committee 10.2(4)(b) 1.7 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) 8 Agreement 10.2(4)(c) 9 Agreement 10.2(4)(c) Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order — Prayer 6:15 p.m. Council Chamber 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of November 21, 2011 2.2 Minutes of November 28, 2011 3. Adoption of Agenda Items Forwarded from Council Meeting of December 5, 2011 3.1 Saint John Theatre Company (Councillor Norton) 3.2 Josselyn Road (Councillor Norton) 3.3 Symphony New Brunswick (Councillor Norton) 3.4 City Manager: Winter Street Parking Restrictions 3.5 City Manager: Safe, Clean Drinking Water - Progress Report 4 3.6 Commissioner of Finance: Safe, Clean Drinking Water Affordability Analysis 3.7 Josselyn Road (Mayor Court) 3.8 Saint John Trade and Convention Centre Need for Revitalization (Councillor Farren) 3.9 Building Proactive Policy Utilizing 2011 Citizen Survey Result (Councillor McGuire) 5 3. 10 City Manager: Fairville Boulevard Planning Study 3.11 City Manager: Douglas Avenue — Winter Street Parking Restrictions Exemption 3.12 City Solicitor: Overnight Winter Parking Restriction Amendment to the Traffic By -Law Lancaster and Waring Streets 3.13 City of Saint John Pension Plan Board of Trustees 3.14 Mahoney Letter Regarding Winter Parking Ban on Douglas Avenue 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Rodgers Letter Re Proposed Pension Act Amendments (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 5.2 Saint John Information Management Project (SJIM)(Recommendation in Report) 5.3 Saint John Transit Building - Energy Performance and Dashboard System, MC2011 -325 (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 5.4 Revised Program Contribution Agreement - Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program for City of Saint John Facilities, MC2011 -324 (Recommendation in Report) 5.5 Stop Up and Close Portions of Water and Prince William Street (Recommendation in Report) 5.6 Boardwalk Refurbishment and Canadian Coast Guard Expenditures (Recommendation in Report) 5.7 Fire Alarm and Ammonia Detection System Upgrades Saint John Arenas (Recommendation in Report) 5.8 Engineering Design and Construction Management: Simms Corner Retaining Wall Remediation (Recommendation in Report) 5.9 Contract 2010 -12: Visart Street/Harrington Street, Ford Avenue and Hickey Road - Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Installation and Road Reconstruction (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 5.10 Floor Drain Replacement Fire Station 4 (Recommendation in Report) 5.11 Kollen Letter re Transit Service (Recommendation: Refer to Transit Commission) 5.12 Purchase of New Firewall to Protect the City's Information Assets (Recommendation in Report) 5.13 Easements for Municipal Services (Recommendation in Report) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations/ Presentations 9. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. 9.1(a) Proposed Zoning ByLaw Amendment 265 Hawthorne Ave Extension 9.1(b) Planning Advisory Committee report Recommending Rezoning 10. Consideration of By -laws 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Public Transportation Tax Reforms, Generation of New Revenue for Transit and Innovative Transportation Solutions (Councillor Snook) 11.2 Illegal Businesses in Saint John (Councillor Court) 0 12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers 12.1 Commissioner of Finance: 2012 Insurance Renewal 12.2 City Manager: Proposed 2012 Operating Budget, Saint John Water (W &S Utility Fund) 12.3 City Manager: 2012 Adoption Schedule for Municipal Plan 12.4a) City Manager: Consultation re Prince William Parking Restriction for Fire Protection 12.4b) Third Reading - Amendment to Traffic ByLaw 12.5 City Manager: Future Street between the Hillcrest Heights and Bally Desmond Subdivision 2645 and 2797 Loch Lomond Road 12.6 City Manager: Milford Road Sanitary Lift Station #32 & Force Main Installation, Contract 2011 -33 12.7 Commissioner of Finance: Authority to Expend Funds 12.8 City Manager: YMCA Grant Funding Proposal - Provision of Recreation Programs and Services at the Forest Glen Community Centre 12.9 City Solicitor: Expropriation - Parcel SLS24 The City of Saint John Expropriating Authority 101 Kennedy St, Saint John, PID # 00377150 13. Committee Reports 13.0 Finance Committee: 2010 Audited Financial Statements 13.0(a) The City of Saint John General Fund 13.0(b) The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility 13.0(c) The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds 13.1 Planning Advisory Committee: 500 Woodward Avenue Subdivision Application 13.2 Planning Advisory Committee: Proposed Subdivision 1429 Loch Lomond Road 13.3 Planning Advisory Committee: Simon Subdivision 640 Hillcrest Road 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 16. Adjournment 7 4 The City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le lundi 19 decembre 2011 Comite plenier Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&e communale au 658 -2862. 1.Ouverture de la seance 16h30 1.0 Approbation du proc&s- verbal 1.1 Question relative a Pemploi - alin6a 10.2(4)j) 1.2 Question relative a Pemploi - alin6as 10.2(4)b), j) 1.3 Question financi&e - alin6a 10.2(4)j) 1.4 Question relative a la propri6t6 - alin6as 10.2(4)c), f) 1.5 Questions relatives aux biens -fonds - alin6as 10.2(4)c), f) 1.6 Comit6 des candidatures - alin6a 10.2(4)b) 1.7 Question relative a Pemploi - alin6a 10.2(4)j) 1.8 Convention - alin6a 10.2(4)c) 1.9 Convention - alin6a 10.2(4)c) Seance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere 18 h 15 Salle du conseil 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 2.1 Proces- verbal de la s6ance tenue le 21 novembre 2011 2.2 Proces- verbal de la s6ance tenue le 28 novembre 2011 3. Adoption de Pordre du jour Points report6s de la s6ance du conseil du 5 d6cembre 2011 3.1 Compagnie th6atrale de Saint John (conseiller Norton) 3.2 Chemin Josselyn (conseiller Norton) 3.3 Symphonie Nouveau - Brunswick (conseiller Norton) 3.4 Directeur g6n6ral : Restrictions relatives an stationnement sur rue en hiver 3.5 Directeur g6n6ral : Salubrit6 et propret6 de Peau potable - Rapport de progres no 4 3.6 Commissaire aux finances : Analyse de Pabordabilit& de Peau potable propre et salubre 3.7 Chemin Josselyn (maire Court) 3.8 Revitalisation n6cessaire du Saint John Trade & Convention Centre (conseiller Farren) 0 3.9 Etablissement d'une politique proactive a partir des r6sultats du sondage de 2011 men6 aupr&s des citoyens (conseiller McGuire) 3.10 Directeur g6n6ral : Etude de planification portant sur le boulevard Fairville 3.11 Directeur g6n6ral : Avenue Douglas — Exemption des restrictions relatives au stationnement sur rue en hiver 3.12 Avocat municipal: Modification de 1'Arret6 relatif a la circulation dans le cadre des restrictions relatives au stationnement sur rue en hiver la nuit (rues Lancaster et Waring) 3.13 Conseil d'administration de la Commission du regime de retraite de la Ville de Saint John 3.14 Lettre de Mahoney au sujet de l'interdiction de stationnement en hiver sur l'avenue Douglas 4. Divulgations de conflits d'int6rets 5. Questions soumises a Papprobation du conseil 5.1 Lettre de Rodgers concernant les modifications propos6es a la Loi sur le regime de retraite (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.2 Projet relatif a la gestion de dinformation de Saint John (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.3 Immeuble de la Commission des transports de Saint John — Syst6me de tableau de bord et de rendement 6nerg6tique, M/C 2011 -325 (recommandation: accepter a titre informatif) 5.4 Entente modifi6e de contribution du programme — Programme de modernisation de 1'efficacit6 6nerg6tique des installations de The City of Saint John, M/C 2011 -324 (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.5 Fermeture et barrage de tronrons de la rue Water et de la rue Prince William (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.6 Remise en 6tat de la promenade et d6penses de la Garde c6ti&e canadienne (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.7 Modernisation du syst6me d'alarme incendie et du systeme de d6tection de l'ammoniac — Ar6nas de The City of Saint John (recommandations figurant au rapport) 5.8 Conception technique et gestion de la construction : R&paration du mur de soutMement du coin Simms (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.9 Contrat n 2010 -12 : Rue Visart, rue Harrington, avenue Ford et chemin Hickey — Installation de la conduite d'eau principale, des 6gouts sanitaires et des 6gouts pluviaux et travaux de r6fection des rues (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.10 Remplacement du siphon de sol de la caserne de pompier n° 4 (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.11 Lettre de Kollen concernant le service de transport en commun (recommandation : transmettre a la Commission des transports) 5.12 Achat d'un nouveau pare -feu informatique pour prot6ger les ressources d'information de la Ville (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.13 Servitudes aux fins de services municipaux (recommandation figurant au rapport) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques 9 19h 9.1a) Projet de modification de 1'Arret6 de zonage visant le 265, prolongement de 1'avenue Hawthorne 9. lb) Rapport du Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage 10. Etude des arret6s municipaux 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 R6forme fiscale des transports en commun, production de nouveaux revenus pour des solutions en mati&re de transport en commun et de modes de transport novateurs ( Conseiller Snook) 11.2 Activit6s ill6gales a Saint John (conseiller Court) 12. Affaires municipales 6voqu6es par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Commissaire aux finances : Renouvellement d'assurance pour 2012 12.2 Directeur g6n6ral : Budget d'exploitation de 2012 propos6 — Saint John Water (fonds du r6seau d'aqueduc et d'6gouts) 12.3 Directeur g6n6ral : Calendrier d'adoption 2012 du plan d'am6nagement 12.4a) Directeur g6n6ral : Consultation dans le cadre des restrictions relatives au stationnement sur la rue Prince William aux fins de protection contre les incendies 12.4b) Troisi&me lecture de la modification de 1'Arr&6 relatif a la circulation 12.5 Directeur g6n6ral : Rue future entre le lotissement Hillcrest Heights et le lotissement Bally Desmond — du 2645 au 2797, chemin Loch Lomond 12.6 Directeur g6n6ral : Installation de la conduite d'eau principale a la station de rel&ement ri 32 du chemin Milford — Contrat ri 2011 -33 12.7 Commissaire aux finances : autorisation de d6pense de fonds 12.8 Directeur g6n6ral : Proposition de subventions du YMCA — Prestation de programmes et de services de loisirs au centre communautaire Forest Glen 12.9 Avocat municipal : Expropriation de la parcelle (poste de relevage des eaux us6es n° 24; NID 00377150) situ6e au 101, rue Kennedy (Saint John) par The City of Saint John, d6tentrice du pouvoir d'expropriation 13. Rapports d6pos6s par les comit6s 13.0 Comit6 des finances relativement aux 6tats financiers v6rifi6s de 2010 13.0a) Fonds d'administration g6n6rale de The City of Saint John 13.0b) R6seau d'aqueduc et d'6gouts de The City of Saint John 13.0c) Fonds en fiducie et fonds de r6serve de The City of Saint John 13.1 Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme : Demande d'am6nagement de lotissement au 500, avenue Woodward 13.2 Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme : Projet de lotissement au 1429, chemin Loch Lomond 13.3 Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme : Lotissement Simon au 640, chemin Hillcrest 14. Etude des sujets 6cartks des questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance g6n6rale 16. Lev6e de la s6ance 10 96 -496 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 201VLE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — NOVEMBER 21, 2011 - 5:30 P.M. Present: Ivan Court, Mayor Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors Farren, Higgins, McGuire, Norton, Snook, and Sullivan - and - P. Woods, City Manager; M. Tomkins, Solicitor; G. Yeomans, Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; B. Keenan, Commissioner of Municipal Operations; K. Forrest, Commissioner of Planning and Development; A. Poffenroth, Deputy Commissioner of Buildings and Inspection Services; T. Leblanc Police Staff Sergeant; K. Clifford, Acting Fire Chief; E. Gormley, Common Clerk and J. Taylor, Assistant Common Clerk. SEANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN TENUE A L'HOTEL DE VILLE, LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 A 17 H 30 Sont presents : Ivan Court, maire le maire suppleant Chase et les conseillers Farren, McGuire, Norton, Snook, Sullivan et la conseillere Higgins -et - P. Woods, directeur general; M. Tompkins, avocat; G. Yeomans, commissaire aux finances et tresorier; B. Keenan, commissaire aux Operations municipales; K. Forrest, commissaire au service Urbanisme et developpement; A. Poffenroth, commissaire adjoint aux Services d'inspection et des batiments; T. Leblanc, sergent d'etat -major du Service de police; K. Clifford, chef du service d'incendie par interim; E. Gormley, greffiere communale, et J. Taylor, greffier communal adjoint. Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Court called the meeting to order and Clayton Meisner offered the opening prayer. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere La seance est ouverte par le maire Court, et le pasteur Clayton Meisner recite la priere d'ouverture. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of October 24, 2011 On motion of Councillor Snook Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Common Council, held on October 24, 2011, be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 2.1 Proces- verbal de la seance tenue le 24 octobre 2011 Proposition du conseiller Snook Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que le proces- verbal de la seance du conseil communal tenue le 24 octobre 2011 soit approuve. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 11 96 -497 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 201VLE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 3. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor Snook Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be approved. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour Proposition du conseiller Snook Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que I'ordre du jour de la presente seance soit adopte. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest Councillor Higgins disclosed a conflict of interest with item 9.3 Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 1515 Loch Lomond Rd. Councillor Sullivan disclosed a conflict of interest with item 11.2 Provincial Assessment Results Morna Heights School (Councillor McGuire). 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets La conseillere Higgins declare titre en conflit d'interets avec le point 9.3 Projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant le 1515, chemin Loch Lomond. Le conseiller Sullivan declare titre en conflit d'interets avec le point 11.2 Resultats de I'evaluation provinciale de I'Ecole Morna Heights (conseiller McGuire). 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 That the request from the Romeo & Juliette Park Committee, as outlined in the submitted letter dated October 28, 2011, for the City to designate a green area "the Private David Greenslade Peace Park ", be approved. 5.2 That the revised proposal for Phase Two of the CGAC Roof Project be referred to the 2012 Budget Deliberations. 5.3 That the Record of Motions be received for information. 5.4 That the City of Saint John support the application of Dr. Margaret E. Walsh, of the Department of Civil Engineering and Resource Engineering of Dalhousie University to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada ( NSERC) for the proposed project "Waste Residuals & Distribution System Technology Advancements for Ion Exchange Processes in Drinking Water Treatment "; that the City complete Form 183A "Information Required from Organizations Participating in Research Partnerships Programs" required by NSERC and further should NSERC fund the said proposal, that the City of Saint John make a contribution of $25,000.00 per year for the first 2 years of the project, and $15,000.00 for the 3rd year of the project. 5.5 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 303: 514807 N.B. Inc. — City Market that the City of Saint John consent to the transfer of all the shares in 514807 N.B. Inc. by the current owner, G. Lander, to J. Lander 35% and D. Lavigne 65 %. 5.6 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 298: Brentwood Crescent Storm Sewer Project Woodward Avenue: 1. That The City of Saint John purchase a 262 square metre ± portion of the property as shown on an attached plan, identified as PID Number 55107247 from Frederick Bullock and Nancy Jemmett being the only heirs of Gaile F. Bullock in accordance with the terms 12 96 -498 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 and conditions contained in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale attached to this report (M &C # 2011 -298). 2. That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents. 5.7 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011- 299: Proposed Public Hearing Date 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension that Common Council schedule the public hearing for the rezoning application of Larry Salmon (265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension) for Monday, December 19, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, and refer the application to the Planning Advisory Committee for report and recommendation. 5.8 That the submitted report M &C 2011 -294: Contract 2010 -16: Westmorland Road (Westmorland Mall to Kervin Road) Roadway Reconstruction be received for information. 5.9 That the submitted report M &C 2011 -296: Contract 2009 -16: Market Place - Water Main, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Installation and Street Reconstruction be received for information. 5.10 That the letter from the New Brunswick Dental Society regarding the elimination of fluoride from City drinking water be referred to the City Manager and City Engineer. 5.11 That the request from Mary Kirkland to present regarding the funding cuts to the Saint John Transit Commission & petition be referred to the Transit Commission. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that the recommendation set out for each consent agenda item respectively be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 5.1 Que la demande soumise par le comite du parc Romeo & Juliet, telle qu'elle est decrite dans la lettre datee du 28 octobre 2011, voulant que la Ville designe un espace vert « Parc de la Paix prive David Greenslade », soit approuvee. 5.2 Que la proposition modifiee relativement a la phase deux du projet concernant le toit du CAJC soit soumise aux deliberations budgetaires de 2012. 5.3 Que la liste des motions soit acceptee a titre informatif. 5.4 Que The City of Saint John appuie la demande deposee par Mme Margaret E. Walsh, du Departement de genie civil et des ressources de l'Universite Dalhousie, aupres du Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en genie ( CRSNG) dans le cadre du projet propose intitule « Avancees technologiques pour le systeme de gestion des residus de dechets et de distribution dans le cadre du processus d'echange ionique relatif au traitement de I'eau potable »; que la Ville remplisse le formulaire 183A a Renseignements requis des organismes participant aux programmes de partenariats de recherche » comme I'exige le CRSNG et que ce dernier finance (edit projet. 11 est en outre resolu que The City of Saint John verse une contribution de 25 000 $ par an pendant Ies deux premieres annees du projet et 15 000 $ pour la troisieme annee. 5.5 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -303: 514807 N.B. Inc. — Marche municipal, The City of Saint John accorde son assentiment au transfert de toutes Ies actions detenues par le proprietaire actuel de 1'entreprise 514807 N.B. Inc., G. Lander, comme suit : 35 % a J. Lander et 65 % a D. Lavigne. 5.6 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -298: Croissant Brentwood — Projet d'egout pluvial sur I'avenue Woodward: 1. The City of Saint John achete a Frederick Bullock et a Nancy Jemmett, Ies deux seuls 13 96 -499 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011 /LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 heritiers de Gaile F. Bullock, une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 262 metres carres, comme cela est indique sur le plan joint, portant le NID 55107247, conformement aux modalites et aux conditions stipulees dans la convention d'achat -vente soumise avec ledit rapport (M /C 2011 -298); 2. le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer les documents necessaires. 5.7 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -299: Date proposee pour les audiences publiques visant le 265, prolongement de I'avenue Hawthorne, le conseil communal fixe la date de I'audience publique relative a la demande de rezonage de Larry Salmon (265, prolongement de ('avenue Hawthorne), au lundi 19 decembre 2011, a 19 h, dans la salle du conseil, et que la demande soit soumise au Comite consultatif d'urbanisme aux fins de presentation d'un rapport et de recommandations. 5.8 Que le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -294 : Contrat no 2010 -16 : Refection du chemin Westmorland (du centre commercial Westmorland au chemin Kervin) soit accepte a titre informatif. 5.9 Que le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -296: Contrat no 2009-16: Place Market — Installation de la conduite d'eau principale, des egouts sanitaires et des egouts pluviaux et travaux de r6fection de la rue soit accepte a titre informatif. 5.10 Que la lettre de la Societe dentaire du Nouveau - Brunswick au sujet de 1'e1imination du fluorure de 1'eau potable de la ville soit transmise au directeur general et a I'ingenieur municipal. 5.11 Que la demande de Mary Kirkland visant a se presenter devant le conseil au sujet de la reduction du financement de la Commission des transports de Saint John et de la petition soit transmise a la Commission des transports. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLLI que la recommandation formulee pour chacune des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil soit adoptee. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 6. Members Comments Council members commented on various community events. 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres Les membres du conseil s'expriment sur diverses activites communautaires. 7. Proclamation 7.1 Children's Rights Awareness Week The Mayor proclaimed November 18th -25th, 2011 as Children's Rights Awareness Week in the City of Saint John. 7. Proclamation 7.1 Semaine de sensibilisation aux droits de 1'enfant Le maire declare la semaine du 18 au 25 novembre 2011 comme la Semaine de sensibilisation aux droits de 1'enfant de The City of Saint John. 8. Delegations /Presentations 8.1 Presentation of 2011 Citizen Survey Results The City Manager advised that Heather Shuve of IPSOS Reid would be presenting the results of the 2011 Citizen Survey, noting that the survey is part of Council's commitment to openness and accountability to citizens. He explained that the survey will assist the City to be more responsive to community expectations with respect to service delivery. 14 96 -500 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 Referring to a submitted presentation, Ms. Shuve, Vice President of IPSOS Reid, updated Council with respect to the 2011 Citizen Survey and she responded to questions. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that Council suspend section 10.7 of Council's procedural by -law to allow for the finalization of matters. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the results of the 2011 Citizen Survey be referred to the 2012 budget process and to the next Town Hall meeting. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 8. Delegations et presentations 8.1 Presentation des resultats du sondage de 2011 mene aupres des citoyens Le directeur general signale qu'Heather Shuve, Ipsos -Reid, presenterait les resultats du sondage de 2011 mene aupres des citoyens et it fait remarquer que le sondage repond a ('engagement pris par le conseil, a savoir I'ouverture et la responsabilisation envers les citoyens. II explique que le sondage permettra a la Ville de repondre plus efficacement aux attentes de la collectivite en matiere de prestation de services. Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, M"1e Shuve, vice- presidente d'lpsos Reid, fait le point sur le sondage de 2011 mene aupres des citoyens, puis repond aux questions des membres du conseil. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que le conseil suspende I'article 10.7 de son arrete procedural aux fins de conclusion des activites. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que les resultats du sondage de 2011 mene aupres des citoyens soient presentes lors du processus budgetaire de 2012 et de la prochaine assemblee publique locale. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 10. Consideration of By -laws 10.1(a) Report to Common Council Re: 192 -194 St. James Street West Rezoning Application 10.1(b) Third Reading — Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 192 -194 St. James Street West 10.1(c) Section 39 Conditions On motion of Deputy Mayor Chase Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -179, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John," amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 192 -194 St. James Street West having an area of approximately 240 square metres, also identified as being PID Number 00367722, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential, be read. Question being taken, the motion was carried. The by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -179, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John," was read in its entirety. 15 96 -501 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the rezoning of the property at 192 -194 St.James Street West be subject to the condition that a building permit for the proposed third and fourth units not be issued until the applicant addresses the deficiencies outlined below to the satisfaction of the Buildings and Inspection Services Department: a. The property must be cleared of all garbage and debris, including large items such as appliances (fridges, bathtubs, kitchen appliances, etc) and construction debris (boards, lumber, construction materials from demolition, etc.); b. The elevated landing and stairs at the front right -side of the property must be removed or repaired. When the elevated landing and stairs are removed, the fencing will have to be repaired to ensure public safety; and c. All broken glass in the windows must be replaced and /or repaired. Question being taken, the motion was carried. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -179, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John," amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 192 -194 St. James Street West having an area of approximately 240 square metres, also identified as being PID Number 00367722, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto. Question being taken, the motion was carried. Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 110 -179, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 10.1a) Rapport transmis au Conseil communal au sujet de la demande de rezonage visant les 192 -194, rue St. James Ouest 10.1b) Troisibme lecture du projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant les 192 -194, rue St James Ouest 10.1c) Conditions imposees par I'article 39 Proposition du maire suppleant Chase Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que I'arrete intitule «Arrete no C.P. 110- 179 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John >), modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situ6e aux 192 -194, rue St James Ouest, d'une superficie approximative de 240 metres carres, inscrite sous le NID 00367722, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone residentielle — habitations de quatre logements « R -4 », fasse ('objet d'une lecture. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. L'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110 -179 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » est lu integralement. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU qu'en vertu des conditions prevues a I'article 39 de la Loi sur 1'urbanisme, le rezonage de la propriete situ6e aux 192 -194, rue St James Ouest, soit assujetti a la condition voulant qu'un permis de construction pour les troisieme et quatrieme logements proposes ne soit pas delivre tant que le requerant n'aura pas comble les lacunes signalees ci- dessous, a la satisfaction du Service d'inspection et des batiments : a. Aucun dechet ou debris, y compris les objets volumineux tels que les appareils menagers (refrigerateurs, baignoires, appareils de cuisine, etc.) et les dechets de construction (planches, bois, materiaux de construction provenant de la demolition, etc.), ne doit se trouver sur la propriete; 16 96 -502 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 b. les paliers et les escaliers sureleves se trouvant sur le cote avant droit de la propriete doivent titre enleves ou repares. Une fois que les paliers et les escaliers sureleves auront ete enleves, la cloture devra titre reparee pour garantir la securite publique; c. toutes les vitres cassees doivent titre remplacees ou reparees. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no C. P. 110- 179 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee aux 192 -194, rue St James Ouest, d'une superficie approximative de 240 metres carres, inscrite sous le NID 00367722, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone residentielle — habitations de quatre logements « R -4 », fasse ('objet d'une troisibme lecture, que ledit arrete soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit appose. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Troisibme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete no C.P. 110 -179 modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». the agenda. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that item 12.1 be moved forward on Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12. Business Matters- Municipal Officers 12.1 City Manager: Tender for Garbage Packer(s) Dave Logan, Manager of Materials and Fleet, outlined the content of the submitted report and he responded to questions from Council. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -297. Tender for Garbage Packers that the tender for the supply of side loading packer trucks be awarded to the Shu -Pak Equipment Ltd., in the quantity of 3 trucks with a unit cost of $181,000.00/ea, plus tax and further that funds to cover the cost of 2 of the 3 identified units be included in the 2012 Fleet Replacement Reserve Fund, for 1 and the 2012 Capital Budget, for the other. Deputy Mayor Chase stated that he is opposed to the motion as he does not support in house garbage service. Councillor Farren stated that he cannot support the motion unless the vehicles are safety hazards. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillor Farren voting nay. du jour. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que le point 12.1 soit avance dans I'ordre A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 17 96 -503 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Directeur general : Soumission relative aux camions d'ordures Dave Logan, chef de I'approvisionnement et du parc automobile, presente le contenu du rapport soumis et repond du conseil. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLLI que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -297: Soumission relative aux camions d'ordures, le contrat relatif a la fourniture de camions ordures a chargement lateral soit confie a la societe Shu -Pak Equipment Ltd., soit trois camions au coat unitaire de 181 000 $, taxes en sus, et que les fonds necessaires a I'achat de deux des trois camions identifies soient incluent dans le fonds de reserve pour le remplacement du parc de vehicules en 2012 pour I'un de ces deux camions, et dans le budget d'immobilisations de 2012 pour I'autre. Le maire suppleant Chase declare s'opposer a la motion en raison du fait qu'il n'appuie pas le service interne de ramassage des ordures. Le conseiller Farren declare qu'il ne peut pas appuyer la motion tant que les vehicules de ramassage des ordures representent un risque pour la securite. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Le maire suppleant Chase et le conseiller Farren votent contre la proposition. 9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M. 9.1(a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 876 -880 Manawagonish Rd 9.1(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Rezoning 9.1(c) Letter of Opposition The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 876 -880 Manawagonish Road, having an area of approximately 780 square metres, also identified as PID number 00403089 from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential, with no objections being received. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory committee submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its November 15, 2011 meeting at which the Committee recommended the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 876 -880 Manawagonish Road as described above. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with Dwight Cummings presenting on behalf of the owner stating that he is in agreement with the Planning Advisory Committee recommendation. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning by -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 876 -880 Manawagonish Road, having an area of approximately 780 square metres, also identified as PID number 00403089 from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential, be read a first time. 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 Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning by -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 876 -880 in 96 -504 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 Manawagonish Road, having an area of approximately 780 square metres, also identified as PID number 00403089 from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential, 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. Audiences publiques a 19 h 9.1a) Projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant les 876 -880, chemin Manawagonish 9.1b) Rapport du Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage 9.1c) Lettre d'opposition La greffibre communale mentionne que les avis requis ont ete publi6s relativement a la modification de I'annexe a A », plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en proc6dant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 780 metres carres, situ6e aux 876 -880, chemin Manawagonish, inscrite sous le NID 00403089, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone r6sidentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a habitations de quatre logements « R -4 » et qu'aucune objection n'a 6t6 reque a cet 6gard. Examen d'un rapport du Comitb consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagn6 d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme, 6tudi6 lors de la s6ance du 15 novembre 2011, a laquelle le Comit6 a decide de recommander I'approbation de la demande de rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situ6e aux 876 -880, chemin Manawagonish, telle qu'elle est d6crite ci- dessus. Le maire invite le public a exprimer son opposition quant a la modification, mais personne ne prend la parole. Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur appui quant a la modification propos6e. Dwight Cummings, qui repr6sente le propri6taire de la propri6t6, se prononce en faveur de la recommandation du Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que 1'arrete intitul6 « Arrete modifiant I'Arr6te de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en proc6dant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situde aux 876 -880, chemin Manawagonish, d'une superficie approximative de 780 metres carres, inscrite sous le NID 00403089, afin de la faire passer de zone r6sidentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone r6sidentielle — habitations de quatre logements « R -4 », fasse ('objet d'une premiere lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Premiere lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que I'arret6 intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en proc6dant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situ6e aux 876 -880, chemin Manawagonish, d'une superficie approximative de 780 metres carres, inscrite sous le NID 00403089, afin de la faire passer de zone r6sidentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone r6sidentielle — habitations de quatre logements a R -4 », fasse ('objet d'une deuxieme lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Deuxibme lecture par titre de 1'arret6 intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». 19 96 -505 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 9.2(a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 125 Gault Rd 9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Rezoning with Section 39 Conditions 9.2(c) Letters of Opposition 9.2(d) Letter of Support The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 125 Gault Road, having an area of approximately 9 hectares, also identified as PID number 00403535 from "RSS" One Family Serviced Suburban Residential and "RF" Rural to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "B -2" General Business, with no objections being received. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory committee submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its November 15, 2011 meeting at which the Committee recommended the rezoning of a parcel of land located at 125 Gault Road as described above with Section 39 conditions. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with Rick Turner of Hughes Surveys, representing the owner, indicating that he is in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Advisory Committee. He requested that Council delay third reading of the application until the property owner submits the subdivision plan, noting that the applicant is attempting to address some of the concerns of area residents with respect to water drainage. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning by -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 125 Gault Road, having an area of approximately 9 hectares, also identified as PID number 00403535 from "RSS" One Family Serviced Suburban Residential and "RF" Rural to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "B -2" General Business, be read a first time. 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 Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning by -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 125 Gault Road, having an area of approximately 9 hectares, also identified as PID number 00403535 from "RSS" One Family Serviced Suburban Residential and "RF" Rural to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and "B -2" General Business, 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." 9.2a) Projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant le 125, chemin Gault 9.2b) Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage conformement aux conditions imposees par I'article 39 9.2c) Lettres d'opposition 9.2d) Lettre d'appui La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement a la modification de I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 9 hectares situee au 125, chemin Gault, inscrite sous le NID 00403535, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone residentielle de banlieue amenagee — habitations unifamiliales 20 96 -506 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 RSS » et de zone rurale « RF » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » et a zone commerciale generale « B -2 », et qu'aucune objection n'a ete regue a cet egard. Examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme, etudie lors de la seance du 15 novembre 2011, pendant laquelle le Comite a recommande de proceder au rezonage de la parcelle de terrain situee au 125, chemin Gault, telle qu'elle est decrite ci- dessus, sous reserve des conditions imposees par I'article 39. Le maire invite le public a exprimer son opposition quant a la modification, mais personne ne prend la parole. Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur appui quant a la modification proposee. Rick Turner, de la societe Hughes Surveys, se prononce en faveur de la recommandation du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme. II demande au conseil de retarder la troisieme lecture de la demande jusqu'a ce que le proprietaire presente le plan de lotissement et it precise que le requerant tente de repondre a certaines des preoccupations des residents du quartier relativement a 1'ecoulement des eaux. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 125, chemin Gault, d'une superficie approximative de 9 hectares, inscrite sous le NID 00403535, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle de banlieue amenagee — habitations unifamiliales « RSS » et de zone rurale « RF » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » et a zone commerciale generale « B -2 », fasse ('objet d'une premiere lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Premiere lecture par titre de I'arrete intitule a Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 125, chemin Gault, d'une superficie approximative de 9 hectares, inscrite sous le NID 00403535, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle de banlieue amenagee — habitations unifamiliales « RSS » et de zone rurale « RF » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » et a zone commerciale generale « B -2 », fasse ('objet d'une deuxieme lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Deuxieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». (Councillor Higgins withdrew from the meeting) 9.3(a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 1515 Loch Lomond Rd 9.3(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Application be denied 9.3(c) Letters of Opposition The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 1515 Loch Lomond Road, having an area of approximately 15 hectares, also identified as PID number 55210413 from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential, with no objections being received. 21 96 -507 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory committee submitting a copy of planning staff's report considered at its November 15, 2011 meeting at which the Committee recommended that the proposed rezoning of a parcel of land located at 1515 Loch Lomond Road as described above be denied. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with Troy Hoar of Old Lake Trail stating that the area is not appropriate for duplexes, citing concerns with the small lot sizes. He indicated that the development would have a negative effect on home values in the area. He listed the following concerns: traffic increases; negative effects on area wildlife; and inconsistent with the city's new municipal plan. Referring to a submitted presentation, David Fischer of Ganong Road questioned why the application is before Council again as Council already held a public hearing for this property only a few months ago. He listed the following concerns: higher density; increased noise pollution; increases in traffic; and children's safety. Seamus Hanley of Old Lake Trail expressed concerns with the proposed smaller lot sizes and increased density. He listed the following concerns: increased traffic; site drainage concerns; and inconsistent with the proposed new municipal plan. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with Andrew Toole of GENIVAR, the consultant representing the developer, advising that he was in agreement with the Planning staff report. Mr. Toole noted that the developer has held community meetings and received input from area residents. He explained that the developer has revised the original development plans to include a tree buffer and 1200 square foot dwellings with 2 car garages. Gary Vincent, representing the owner, stated that the proposed development would increase the tax base of the city, noting that 97 lots would be developed with 13 duplexes. He explained that single family homes will represent the majority of the development, noting that they will be quality dwellings in the $220,000 to $250,000 price range. He noted that the developer will pay all required infrastructure costs including water, sewer, and sidewalks. The Commissioner of Planning stated that this application is entirely consistent with the existing municipal plan, noting that it is a stage1 serviced area and an area designated for low density residential development. He explained that the development would be outside of the designated suburban opportunity area in the proposed new municipal plan, noting that in both the growth strategy and new municipal plan the potential for infill development is contemplated. He explained that in the future Council will be required to use its discretion when determining whether a development would be considered infill, adding that planning staff consider the current development proposal as infill. Councillor Farren stated that his main concern regarding the proposed development is that is appears to be outside the intent of PlanSJ. Mr. Forrest stated that the "R2" zone has an 18 meter minimum lot frontage requirement, noting that the applicant has proposed that this be increase to 20 meters. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning by -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 1515 Loch Lomond Road, having an area of approximately 15 hectares, also identified as PID number 55210413 from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential, be read a first time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Farren 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." 22 96 -508 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 On motion of Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning by -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 1515 Loch Lomond Road, having an area of approximately 15 hectares, also identified as PID number 55210413 from "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential, be read a second time. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Farren 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 Councillor Sullivan Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to submit a report to Council with an additional term and condition that would restrict development to minimum frontages of 20 metres. Question being taken, the motion was carried. (Councillor Higgins reentered the meeting) (La conseillere Higgins quitte la seance.) 9.3a) Projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant le 1515, chemin Loch Lomond 9.3b) Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rejet de la demande 9.3c) Lettres d'opposition La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement a la modification de I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au zonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 15 hectares situee au 1515, chemin Loch Lomond, inscrite sous le NID 55210413, afin de faire passer la classification s'y rapportant de zone residentielle de banlieue — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales a RS -2 » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales o R -2 >>, et qu'aucune objection n'a ete regue a cet egard. Examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme, etudie Tors de la seance du 15 novembre 2011, a Iaquelle le Comite a recommande le rejet du rezonage propose visant la parcelle de terrain situee au 1515, chemin Loch Lomond, telle qu'elle est decrite ci- dessus. Le maire invite le public a se prononcer contre la modification. Troy Hoar, du sentier Old Lake, se dit inquiet au sujet de la petite taille des terrains et declare que la zone nest pas faite pour accueillir des duplex. 11 precise que I'amenagement aurait une repercussion negative sur la valeur des maisons dans ce secteur. II enumere les preoccupations suivantes : augmentation de la circulation; incidences negatives sur la faune environnante; et incompatibilite avec le nouveau plan d'amenagement de la Ville. Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, David Fischer, du chemin Ganong, se demande pourquoi la demande est de nouveau presentee au conseil alors que ce dernier a deja tenu une audience publique relativement a cette propriete it y a quelques mois. II enumere les preoccupations suivantes : plus forte densite; pollution sonore accrue; augmentation de la circulation; et securite des enfants. Seamus Hanley, sentier Old Lake, manifeste ses preoccupations relativement au projet voulant que la taille des terrains soit plus petite et que la densite soit accrue. II enumere les preoccupations suivantes : augmentation de la circulation; inquietudes Iiees au drainage du site; et incompatibilite avec le nouveau plan d'amenagement propose. Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur appui quant a la modification. Andrew Toole, de GENIVAR, la societe d'experts - conseils qui represente le promoteur, se prononce en faveur du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme. M. Toole fait remarquer 23 96 -509 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 que le promoteur a organise des reunions communautaires et qu'il a requ des commentaires de la part des residents de la zone. II explique que le promoteur a revise les plans d'amenagement originaux en vue d'inclure un ecran d'arbres et des habitations de 1 200 metres carres comprenant chacune un garage double. Gary Vincent, representant le proprietaire, declare que le projet d'amenagement augmenterait I'assiette fiscale de la Ville et it fait remarquer que 13 duplex seraient amenages sur un ensemble de 97 lots. II explique que les habitations unifamiliales representeront la majorite du projet d'amenagement. En outre, it precise qu'il s'agira d'habitations de qualite dont la fourchette de prix se situe entre 220 000 $ et 250 000 $. 11 fait remarquer que le promoteur paiera tous les frais requis associes a l'infrastructure, y compris 1'eau, les egouts et les trottoirs. Le commissaire du service Urbanisme et developpement declare que la demande respecte entierement le plan d'amenagement en vigueur et precise qu'il s'agit la de la premiere etape d'une zone viabilisee et d'une zone reservee a I'amenagement d'habitations residentielles de faible densite. II explique que I'amenagement aurait lieu en dehors du secteur prometteur suburbain designe dans le cadre du nouveau plan d'amenagement propose. De plus, it souligne que relativement a la strategie de croissance et au nouveau plan d'amenagement, la possibilite d'amenagement intercalaire est pleinement envisagee. II explique qu'a l'avenir, le conseil devra user de son pouvoir discretionnaire pour decider si un amenagement doit etre qualifie d'intercalaire ou non. II ajoute que d'apres le personnel d'urbanisme, le projet d'amenagement actuel est de type intercalaire. Le conseiller Farren declare que la principale inquietude suscitee par ce projet d'amenagement tient vraisemblablement au fait que I'amenagement ne cadre pas avec 1'esprit du PlanSJ. M. Forrest declare que conformement a la zone designee « R -2 », la fagade minimale du terrain doit mesurer 18 metres. A cet egard, it fait remarquer que le requerant a propose que la fagade minimale passe a 20 metres. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 1515, chemin Loch Lomond, d'une superficie approximative de 15 hectares, inscrite sous le NID 55210413, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle de banlieue — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS -2 » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 », fasse l'objet d'une premiere lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Le conseiller Farren vote contre la proposition. Premiere lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule a Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John », modifiant I'annexe A, plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en procedant au rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au 1515, chemin Loch Lomond, d'une superficie approximative de 15 hectares, inscrite sous le NID 55210413, afin de la faire passer de zone residentielle de banlieue — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS -2 » a zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 », fasse ('objet d'une deuxieme lecture. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Le conseiller Farren vote contre la proposition. Deuxieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John ». 24 96 -510 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 Proposition du conseiller Sullivan Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le directeur general soit charge de presenter au conseil un rapport contenant une condition supplementaire visant a limiter I'amenagement a une bordure frontale minimale de 20 metres. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. (La conseillere Higgins se joint de nouveau a la seance.) 9.4(a) Proposed Section 39 Amendment — 141 Chesley Dr 9.4(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Section 39 Amendment The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to the proposed Section 39 Amendment amending Section 39 conditions imposed on the July 3, 1973 rezoning of the property located at 141 Chesley Drive, also identified as PID number 55006043, as amended on September 25, 1978, June 7, 1993 and June 7, 2004, to permit the development of a sewage pumping station on a portion of the site, with no written objections received. Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its November 15, 2011 meeting at which the Committee recommended the amendment of the existing Section 39 conditions. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the proposed amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favor of the proposed amendment with no one presenting. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions imposed on the July 3, 1973 rezoning of the property located at 141 Chesley Drive, also identified as PID number 55006043, as amended on September 25, 1978, June 7, 1993 and June 7, 2004, to permit the development of a sewage pumping station on a portion of the site. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 9.4a) Modification proposee aux conditions imposees en vertu de I'article 39 relativement au 141, promenade Chesley 9.4b) Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la modification de I'article 39 La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies en ce qui a trait a la modification proposee des conditions imposees par I'article 39 le 3 juillet 1973, et modifiees par la suite le 25 septembre 1978, le 7 juin 1993 et le 7 juin 2004, relativement au rezonage de la propriete situee au 141, promenade Chesley, inscrite sous le NID 55006043, afin de permettre la construction d'une station de pompage d'eaux d'egout sur une partie de 1'emplacement, et qu'aucune objection ecrite n'a ete reque a cet egard. Un examen a egalement ete effectue concernant un rapport presente par le Comite consultatif d'urbanisme, accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme, qui a fait ('objet d'un examen lors de la seance du 15 novembre 2011 au cours de laquelle le Comite a choisi de recommander la modification des conditions en vigueur a I'heure actuelle en vertu de I'article 39. Le maire invite le public a exprimer son opposition quant a la modification proposee, mais personne ne prend la parole. Le maire invite le public a exprimer son appui quant a la modification proposee, mais personne ne prend la parole. 25 96 -511 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que le conseil communal procede a la modification des conditions imposees par I'article 39 le 3 juillet 1973, et modifiees par la suite le 25 septembre 1978, le 7 juin 1993 et le 7 juin 2004, relativement au rezonage de la propriete situee au 141, promenade Chesley, inscrite sous le NID 55006043, afin de permettre la construction d'une station de pompage d'eaux d'egout sur une partie de 1'emplacement. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.0 Fairville Blvd Corridor Enhancement Plan (Councillor McGuire)(Tabled on November 7, 2011) (Councillor Sullivan withdrew from the meeting) On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that item 11.0 Fairville Blvd Corridor Enhancement Plan (Councillor McGuire) be lifted from the table. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Higgins voting nay. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that through the City Manager the appropriate staff (presumably Mr. Forrest) update Council with respect to their efforts on the Fairville Blvd Corridor Enhancement Plan. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Higgins voting nay. 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.0 Plan d'amelioration du couloir du boulevard Fairville (conseiller McGuire) (point reporte lors de la reunion du 7 novembre 2011) (Le conseiller Sullivan quitte la seance.) Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que le point 11.0 Plan d'amelioration du couloir du boulevard Fairville (conseiller McGuire) soit soumis aux fins de discussion. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. La conseillere Higgins vote contre la proposition. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que, par I'intermediaire du directeur general, le personnel approprie (probablement M. Forrest) informe le conseil des efforts qu'ils ont deployes dans le cadre du plan d'amelioration du couloir du boulevard Fairville. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. La conseillere Higgins vote contre la proposition. 11.1 Coast Guard Property Opportunity (Councillor McGuire) On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that Council request a progress update from the Saint John Development Corporation every month in closed session Committee of the Whole meeting. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 26 96 -512 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 11.1 Occasion live a I'acquisition d'une propriete aupres de la Garde cotiere (conseiller McGuire) Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Norton RESOLU que le conseil demande a la Saint John Development Corporation de lui faire un compte rendu des progres realises pendant une seance a huis clos du comite plenier, et ce, tous les mois. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 11.2 Provincial Assessment Results Morna Heights School (Councillor McGuire) On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that the submitted report entitled Morna Heights School: Provincial Assessment Results, be received for information. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11.2 Resultats de 1'evaluation provinciale de I'Ecole Morna Heights (conseiller McGuire) Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que le rapport soumis intitule Resultats de 1'evaluation provinciale de 1'Ecole Morna Heights soit accepte a titre informatif. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 11.3 Contribution to Traffic Light Infrastructure (Councillor Norton) The Commissioner of Planning and Development advised that the issue of access to Rothesay Avenue was discussed in 2005 when the Planning Advisory Committee ( "PAC ") considered the retail development described in Councillor Norton's letter. Mr. Forrest stated that the PAC adopted a condition during the approval process for this development which states that the developer shall construct the access to the site including any necessary modifications to the signalized intersection of Rothesay Avenue and McAllister Drive, in accordance with a detailed plan prepared by the developer and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate. Councillor Norton explained that the current property owner recently purchased the property, noting that those conditions outlined by Mr. Forrest had not completed by the previous owner when the property was sold. Mr. Forrest suggested that if the current property owner is seeking some relief from those conditions that were imposed by the PAC, he should make the appropriate application to have the matter considered by the PAC. Ms. Tompkins stated that the conditions imposed by the PAC on the developer follow the land, noting that when the current owner purchased the property he inherited the condition. She advised that the proper forum to deal with the matter is through the PAC. Tim O'Reilly advised that he has been working with the property owner since 2008 to assist them with a design and to help determine a cost. On motion of Councillor Norton Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to advise Long & McQuade what steps are required to facilitate the installation of the necessary traffic light infrastructure near the Long & McQuade property. voting nay. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Higgins 27 96 -513 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the meeting time be extended beyond 10:00 p.m. as provided for in the Procedural By -law. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 11.3 Contribution au reseau des feux de circulation (conseiller Norton) Le commissaire au service Urbanisme et developpement signale que la question de I'acces a I'avenue Rothesay a fait I'objet d'une discussion en 2005 alors que Comite consultatif d'urbanisme (CCU) examinait le projet d'amenagement de magasins detaille dans la lettre du conseiller Norton. M. Forrest declare que le CCU avait emis, lors du processus d'approbation de ce projet d'amenagement, une condition voulant que le promoteur construise un acces a 1'emplacement et qu'il apporte toutes les modifications necessaires au croisement signalise de I'avenue Rothesay et de la promenade McAllister, conformement a un plan detaille prepare par le promoteur et sous reserve de I'approbation de I'ingenieur municipal en chef ou de son remplagant. Le conseiller Norton explique que le proprietaire actuel a tout recemment fait I'acquisition de la propriete et it precise que les conditions soulignees par M. Forrest n'avaient pas ete respectees par le precedent proprietaire lorsque celui -ci a vendu la propriete. M. Forrest suggere que si le proprietaire actuel demande a etre exempte de certaines de ces conditions imposees par le CCU, it doit en faire la demande pour que le CCU examine sa requete. M"1e Tompkins declare que les conditions imposees au promoteur par le CCU sont rattachees au terrain et elle stipule que lorsque le proprietaire actuel a achete la propriete, it a egalement herite de ces conditions. Elle signale que le recours approprie pour regler cette question consiste a passer par le CCU. Tim O'Reilly precise qu'il travaille avec le proprietaire depuis 2008 pour definir une conception et etablir un cout. Proposition du conseiller Norton Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le directeur general soit charge de preciser au magasin Long & McQuade la demarche a suivre pour faciliter ('installation du reseau des feux de circulation requis pres de sa propriete. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. La conseillere Higgins vote contre la proposition. Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que la reunion se prolonge au -dela de 22 h, conformement aux dispositions de I'arrete procedural. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 11.4 Public Transit (Councillor Norton) On motion of Councillor Norton Seconded by Councillor Snook RESOLVED that Common Council: Urge and request Saint John Transit to work with Vibrant Communities Saint John /Region 2 Community Inclusion Network to assess the impact of service cuts on users of the transit system and residents in the Saint John region through a series of community consultations and to report recommendations back to Council by April 2012. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 96 -514 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 11.4 Transport en commun (conseiller Norton) Proposition du conseiller Norton Appuyee par le conseiller Snook RESOLU que le conseil communal: exige de la Commision des transports de Saint John qu'elle collabore avec Vibrant Communities Saint John et le reseau communautaire d'inclusion de la region 2 en vue d'organiser une serie de consultations destinees a mesurer les repercussions des coupes dans les services sur les usagers du reseau de transport et sur les residents de la region de Saint John. II est en outre resolu qu'elle fasse part de ses recommandations au conseil au plus tard au mois d'avril 2012. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.2 City Manager: Demolition of a Structurally Unsound Building at 2298 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 55164826) On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Sullivan RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -284: Demolition of a Structurally Unsound Building at 2298 Loch Lomond Rd (PID 55164826) that Common Council direct one or more of the Officers appointed and designated by Council for the enforcement of the Saint John Unsightly Premises and Dangerous Buildings By -law, arrange for the demolition of the building at 2298 Loch Lomond Road in accordance with the applicable City purchasing policies. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.2 Directeur general : Demolition d'un batiment peu solide situe au 2298, chemin Loch Lomond (NID 55164826) Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -284 : Demolition dun batiment peu solide situe au 2298, chemin Loch Lomond (NID 55164826), le conseil communal mandate, par les presentes, un ou plusieurs agents nommes et designes par le conseil relativement a ('application de I'Arrete concernant les batiments et structures inesthetiques ou dangereux dans The City of Saint John, en vue de demolir le batiment situe au 2298, chemin Loch Lomond conformement aux politiques en matibre d'approvisionnement applicables de The City of Saint John. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 12.3 City Manager: 2010 -2011 Winter Management Plan Review and Update On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 —290: 2010 -2011 Winter Management Plan Review and Update that Common Council: Endorse the changes to the Winter Management Plan for Streets and Sidewalks that include: a) Winter Sidewalks — addition of approximately 1690m (or 0.7 %) to the sidewalk service inventory using existing resources. b) The addition of sidewalks that fall within the established criteria of those that should be serviced while removing an equal length of sidewalks from the current service list while maintaining the same service level standard utilizing existing resource allocations. c) Winter Sidewalk priorities and the redefined boundaries of the 14 sidewalk plowing routes. d) Street Plowing route priority changes to reflect requests based on merit. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillor Higgins voting nay. 29 96 -515 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 12.3 Directeur general : Examen et mise a jour du Plan de gestion hivernal 2010 -2011 Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Norton RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -290: Examen et mise a jour du Plan de gestion hivernal 2010 -2011, le conseil communal : approuve les changements suivants apportes au Plan de gestion hivernal pour les rues et les trottoirs : a) trottoirs en hiver — ajout d'environ 1 690 m (ou 0,7 %) a I'inventaire d'entretien des trottoirs en utilisant les ressources existantes; b) ajout a I'itineraire de trottoirs satisfaisant les critbres etablis de ceux a entretenir tout en enlevant a I'itineraire une longueur egale de trottoirs dans la liste actuelle, et respect des memes normes en matibre de service en gardant la repartition des ressources existantes; c) etablissement des priorites relatives aux trottoirs en hiver et redefinition des limites des 14 itineraires de deneigement des trottoirs; d) changement des priorites relatives aux itineraires de deneigement des rues afin de refleter les demandes fondees sur le merite. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Le maire suppleant Chase et la conseillbre Higgins votent contre la proposition. 12.5 City Manager: Rothesay Avenue Sanitary Lift Station - Replacement of Sluice Gate, Chamber and Forcemain On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -302: Rothesay Avenue Sanitary Lift Station - Replacement of Sluice Gate, Chamber and Forcemain that: The 2011 Water and Sewerage Fund Capital Program budget be increased by $400,000 to include the Rothesay Avenue Sanitary Lift Station — Replacement of Sluice Gate, Chamber and Forcemain project. 2. Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for engagement of Professional Services, Common Council authorize that the existing Engineering Services Agreement 2009 - 0836 -T with Dillon Consulting Limited for engineering design and construction management for the Rothesay Avenue Sanitary Lift Station be increased by an amount of not greater than $50,000.00 to provide engineering services for the replacement of sluice gate, chamber and forcemain at the Rothesay Avenue Sanitary Lift Station. 3. Notwithstanding the City's Tendering Policy For Construction Contracts, Common Council authorize staff to request quotations from three private construction companies who have been engaged in the type of work specified in order to expedite the completion of the Rothesay Avenue Sanitary Lift Station - Replacement of Sluice Gate, Chamber and Forcemain project with the understanding that staff will report back to Council with a recommendation for a contract award. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 12.5 Directeur general : Station de relevement de I'avenue Rothesay — Remplacement des vannes registres, de la chambre des vannes et de la conduite de refoulement Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Norton RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule M/C 2011 -302 : Station de relevement de I'avenue Rothesay — Remplacement des vannes registres, de la chambre des vannes et de la conduite de refoulement: 30 96 -516 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 le budget du programme d'immobilisations relatif au fonds du reseau d'aqueduc et d'egouts pour 2011 soit augmente de 400 000 $ pour inclure le projet de remplacement des vannes registres, de la chambre des vannes et de la conduite de refoulement de la station de relevement de I'avenue Rothesay; 2. nonobstant la politique d'approvisionnement de la Ville pour 1'embauche des services professionnels, le conseil autorise que le montant de la convention en vigueur relative aux services d'ingenierie no 2009 - 0836 -T conclue avec la societe Dillon Consulting Limited pour la conception technique et la gestion de la construction de la station de relevement de I'avenue Rothesay soit augmente de 50 000 $ au plus en vue de fournir des services d'ingenierie destines a remplacer les vannes registres, la chambre des vannes et la conduite de refoulement de la station de relevement de I'avenue Rothesay; 3. nonobstant la politique d'appel d'offres de la Ville relative aux contrats de construction, le conseil communal autorise le personnel a demander des propositions de prix aupres de trois entreprises privees de construction qui ont deja fait ce type de travail afin d'achever rapidement le projet de remplacement des vannes registres, de la chambre des vannes et de la conduite de refoulement de la station de relevement de I'avenue Rothesay avec 1'entente que le personnel presentera un rapport au conseil suivi d'une recommandation permettant I'attribution du contrat. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13. Committee Reports 13.1 (a) Uptown Saint John — 2012 Budget 13.1 (b) Minutes — Nov 17, 2011 Uptown Saint John Membership Meeting On motion of Councillor Farren Seconded by Councillor Higgins RESOLVED that the letter from Uptown Saint John Inc. submitting its 2012 budget be accepted, and that advertising be authorized with a date set for a public hearing for the Business Improvement Levy. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 13.1a) Presentation du budget 2012 relatif a Uptown Saint John 13.1 b) Proces- verbal — Assemblee des membres d'Uptown Saint John du 17 novembre 2011 Proposition du conseiller Farren Appuyee par la conseillere Higgins RESOLU que la lettre regue de Uptown Saint John Inc., accompagnee du budget 2012, soit acceptee, que les avis publicitaires soient autorises et qu'une date soit fixee pour la tenue d'une audience publique relativement a la taxe sur la zone d'amelioration des affaires. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13.2 Planning Advisory Committee: Subdivision — 515 -519 Westmorland Rd On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that Common Council assent to the submitted McAllister Place Ltd. tentative subdivision plan to vest an area of approximately 435 square metres from PID 00285932 as part of the Consumers Drive and Westmorland Road public street right -of -way. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 31 96 -517 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 13.2 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme : Lotissement aux 515 -519, chemin Westmorland Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLU que le conseil communal approuve le plan de lotissement provisoire presente par McAllister Place Ltd., qui vise la devolution d'un terrain d'une superficie d'environ 435 metres carres provenant d'une parcelle inscrite sous le NID 00285932, afin de I'integrer au droit de passage sur la promenade Consumers et le chemin Westmorland. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13.3 Planning Advisory Committee: Cash -In -Lieu Land for Public Purposes 33 Crowley Rd On motion of Councillor Higgins Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that Common Council accept a cash - in -lieu Land for Public Purposes dedication for the attached Agnes E. Crowley, Joseph F. Crowley, Mary Ellen Crowley & Thomas G. Crowley Subdivision (Lot 11 -03). Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.3 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme : Compensation pour un terrain utilise a des fins publiques situe au 33, chemin Crowley Proposition de la conseillere Higgins Appuyee par le conseiller Norton RESOLU que le conseil communal accepte une compensation monetaire contre I'affection d'un terrain d'utilite publique pour le lotissement Agnes E. Crowley, Joseph F. Crowley, Mary Ellen Crowley et Thomas G. Crowley (lot 11 -03). A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 13.4 Committee of the Whole: Appointment of Arbitration Board of a Grievance Between The City of Saint John and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local #18 On motion of Councillor Higgins Seconded by Councillor Norton RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on November 21, 2011, that Ms. Laurann Hanson be named as the City's nominee on the Arbitration Board in the matter of the dispute between the City of Saint John and CUPE Local #18. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 13.4 Comite plenier : Nomination au conseil d'arbitrage relativement au grief entre The City of Saint John et le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 18 Proposition de la conseillere Higgins Appuyee par le conseiller Norton RESOLU que, comme le recommande le Comite plenier, s'etant reuni le 21 novembre 2011, Mme Laurann soit nommee candidate de la Ville pour sieger au conseil d'arbitrage en vertu du litige opposant The City of Saint John et la section locale 18 du SCFP. A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 32 96 -518 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 21, 2011/LE 21 NOVEMBRE 2011 15. General Correspondence 15. Correspondance generale Items Forwarded to Council Meeting of December 5, 2011: 11.5 Saint John Theatre Company (Councillor Norton) 11.6 Josselyn Road (Councillor Norton) 11.7 Symphony New Brunswick (Councillor Norton) 12.4 City Manager: Winter Street Parking Restrictions 12.6 City Manager: Safe, Clean, Drinking Water — Progress Report 4 12.7 Commissioner of Finance: Safe, Clean Drinking Water Affordability Analysis 16. Adjournment The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Points reportes de la seance du conseil du 5 decembre 2011 : 11.5 Compagnie theatrale de Saint John (conseiller Norton) 11.6 Chemin Josselyn (conseiller Norton) 11.7 Symphonie Nouveau - Brunswick (conseiller Norton) 12.4 Directeur general : Restrictions relatives au stationnement sur rue en hiver 12.6 Directeur general : Salubrite et proprete de 1'eau potable — Rapport de progres no 4 12.7 Commissaire aux finances : Analyse de I'abordabilite de 1'eau potable propre et salubre 16. Levee de la seance Le maire declare que la seance est levee a 22 h 20. Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffiere communale 33 96 -519 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 28, 2011/LE 28 NOVEMBRE 2011 COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN CITY HALL — NOVEMBER 28, 2011 - 5:00 P.M. Present: Ivan Court, Mayor Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors Farren, Higgins, McGuire, Norton, Snook, Sullivan, and Titus - and - P. Woods, City Manager; J. Nugent, City Solicitor; G. Yeomans, Commissioner of Finance; K. Clifford, Acting Fire Chief; E. Gormley, Common Clerk and K. Tibbits, Administrative Assistant. SEANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN TENUE A L'HOTEL DE VILLE, LE 28 novembre 2011 A 17 H Sont presents : Ivan Court, maire le maire suppleant Chase et les conseillers Farren, McGuire, Norton, Snook, Sillivan, Titus et la conseillere Higgins -et - P. Woods, directeur general; J. Nugent, avocat municipal; G. Yeomans, Commissaire aux finances; K. Clifford, chef du service d'incendie par interim; E. Gormley, greffiere communale et K. Tibbits, adjointe administrative. 1. Call To Order — Prayer Mayor Court called the meeting to order and Councillor Snook offered the opening prayer. 1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere La seance est ouverte par le maire Court, et le conseiller Snook recite la priere d'ouverture. 2. Approval of Minutes 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 3. Approval of Agenda 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 That as recommended by the Commissioner of Finance in the submitted report Gas Tax Fund (GTF) - 2010 -2013 Capital Investment Plan that that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the Agreement Contract (Reference No. 6932.078.000) under the Canada -New Brunswick Agreement on the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues for Cities and Communities, which Agreement Contract is attached to November 23, 2011 correspondence in this regard from the City's Commissioner of Finance, the latter having been received by Common Council in open session of November 28, 2011. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that the recommendation set out in the consent agenda be adopted. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 34 96 -520 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 28, 201VLE 28 NOVEMBRE 2011 5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 5.1 Que, comme le recommande le commissaire aux finances dans le rapport soumis intitule Fonds de la taxe sur /'essence (FTE) — Regime d'investissement de 2010 -2013, le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer le contrat n° 6932.078.000 presente en vertu de 1'entente sur le transfert des revenus provenant de la taxe sur 1'essence pour les villes et les collectivites conclue entre le gouvernement federal et la province du Nouveau - Brunswick, lequel est joint a la lettre adressee par le commissaire aux finances en date du 23 novembre 2011 a cet egard et reque par le conseil communal lors de la reunion publique du 28 novembre 2011. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que la recommandation formulee relativement a chacune des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil soit adoptee. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 6. Members Comments Council members commented on various community events. 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres Les membres du conseil s'expriment sur diverses activites communautaires. 7. Proclamation 7.1 World AIDS Day The Mayor proclaimed Thursday, December 1, 2011 as World AIDS Day in The City of Saint John. 7. Proclamation 7.1 Journee mondiale du sida Le maire declare le jeudi 1 e decembre 2011 Journee mondiale du sida dans The City of Saint John. 8. Delegations /Presentations 8.1 Cherry Brook Zoo Inc. 2012 Budget Request 8.1(a) Cherry Brook Zoo Inc. 2012 Budget Request (Revised) Alice O'Neill and Lynda Collrin, referring to the submitted presentation, provided an overview of the Cherry Brook Zoo and addressed questions from members of Council. Ms. Collrin noted that after reviewing the audited financial statement, they were able to reduce the submitted budget by approximately 20 %. Ms. Collrin explained that the Cherry Brook Zoo is an accredited zoo, adding that in order to maintain this status, financial support from the city is critical. She stated that if the zoo were to lose its accreditation, it would result in the closure of the zoo and the displacement of the animals. She stated that all accredited zoos receive financial support from either the province or the municipality. Responding to a question, Ms. Collrin stated that ideally they would like to have a financial contribution of approximately $100,000 from the City of Saint John. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that Item 8.1 Cherry Brook Zoo Inc. 2012 Budget Request be referred to the 2012 budget deliberations. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 35 96 -521 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 28, 2011/LE 28 NOVEMBRE 2011 8. Delegations et presentations 8.1 Demande de credits budgetaires de Cherry Brook Zoo Inc. pour 2012 8.1 a) Demande de credits budgetaires de Cherry Brook Zoo Inc. pour 2012 (demande modifiee) Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, Alice O'Neill et Lynda Collrin brossent un tableau du zoo Cherry Brook et rypondent aux questions posses par les membres du conseil. Mme Collrin fait remarquer que 1'examen des etats financiers verifies a permis de rsduire le budget soumis d'environ 20 %. Mme Collrin explique que le zoo Cherry Brook est un zoo accredits et elle ajoute que pour conserver ce statut, un soutien financier de la Ville est indispensable. Elle dsclare que si le zoo venait a perdre son accreditation, it serait oblige de fermer ses portes et les animaux devraient titre transferes ailleurs. EIIe precise que tous les zoos accredites regoivent un soutien financier de la part de la province ou de la municipality. En reponse a une question posse, Mme Collrin dsclare que I'idsal serait que le zoo regoive une contribution financiere d'environ 100 000 $ de la part de The City of Saint John. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyye par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le point 8.1 Demande de credits budgetaires de Cherry Brook Zoo Inc. soit soumis aux deliberations budgetaires de 2012. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptse. 8.2 River Road Community Alliance, Inc. Jim Stubbs, Chair of the River Road Community Alliance Inc., provided an overview of the submitted report and he responded to questions from members of Council. He indicated that the River Road Community Alliance is asking Council to approve the completion of Phase A and the design study for Phase B. He added that they are asking for Council's continued financial support year by year until completion of the project. On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that Item 8.2 River Road Community Alliance Inc., be referred to the 2012 budget deliberations. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 8.2 River Road Community Alliance Inc. Jim Stubbs, prysident de la River Road Community Alliance Inc., donne un apergu du rapport soumis et repond aux questions des membres du conseil. II indique que la River Road Community Alliance Inc. demande au conseil d'approuver I'achsvement de la phase A et de 1'etude de conception pour la phase B et qu'elle requiert de ce dernier un soutien financier continu chaque annee, et ce, jusqu'a ce que le projet soit termine. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyye par le conseiller McGuire RESOLU que le point 8.2, River Road Community Alliance Inc., soit soumis aux dslibsrations budgetaires de 2012. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptse. 8.3 Saint John Community Arts Board "State of the Arts" Report to Saint John Common Council 8.3(a) Saint John Community Arts Board Presentation dated November 28, 2011 David Adams, Chair of the Saint John Community Arts Board, reviewed the activity report for 2010 and 2011 and the Board's 2012 funding request. Mr. Adams emphasized the importance that cultural activities have on the overall well -being of the community and he responded to questions from Council members. 36 96 -522 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 28, 2011/LE 28 NOVEMBRE 2011 On motion of Councillor Titus Seconded by Councillor McGuire RESOLVED that Item 8.3 Saint John Community Arts Board "State of the Arts" Report to Saint John Common Council, be referred to the 2012 budget deliberations. Question being taken, the motion was carried. 8.3 Conseil d'administration des arts de la communaute de Saint John Presentation du rapport sur « 1'etat des arts » au conseil communal 8.3a) Presentation du Conseil d'administration des arts de la communaute de Saint John effectuee le 28 novembre 2011 David Adams, president du Conseil d'administration des arts de la communaute de Saint John, passe en revue le rapport sur les activites pour 2010 et 2011 et la demande de financement adressee par ce dernier pour 2012. M. Adams insiste sur le role primordial que jouent les activites culturelles dans le bien -titre general de la collectivite et it repond aux questions des membres du conseil. Proposition du conseiller Titus Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire RESOLLI que le point 8.3, Conseil d'administration des arts de la communaute de Saint John : Presentation du rapport sur « 1'etat des arts >), soit renvoye aux deliberations budgetaires de 2012. A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. 9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M. 9. Audiences publiques a 19 h 10. Consideration of By -laws 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 11. Submissions by Council Members 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 12. Business Matters- Municipal Officers 12.1 Common Clerk: Committee System form of Governance (Tabled on September 19, 2011) Ms. Gormley, referring to the submitted presentation, outlined the proposed committee system form of governance. She noted that the presentation is supported by research based on the Chartwell report and prior staff reports on the subject. Ms. Gormley suggested that the committee system form of governance provides more opportunity for citizen input /participation and it allows Council to focus more on policy issues, noting that it also aligns with the recently approved organizational service based re- alignment process. Responding to a question, Mr. Woods commented that the Chartwell report described a committee system form of governance in which the committees were comprised of both elected official and citizens, noting that such a model is not consistent with what he would consider to be good governance. He explained that under the system proposed in the Chartwell report, non - elected members of the public could hold the deciding vote in policy making decisions, adding that councillors are elected by the community and should be ultimately accountable for decisions. Mr. Woods stated that a change to a committee system form of governance is a fundamental change in the governance system of the community. He explained that a recommendation from a standing committee is not binding on the council, noting that council would continue to receive the benefit of professional advice throughout the process. 37 96 -523 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 28, 2011/LE 28 NOVEMBRE 2011 Responding to a question, Ms. Gormley noted that the standing committee meetings would be open to the public unless there is a reason, as identified in the Municipalities Act, to discuss an item in closed session. Mr. Nugent, responding to comments from members of council regarding the transfer of responsibility to a committee and a diminished role of the city manager, explained that the committee system form of governance is designed to avoid those possibilities. He stated that one of the fundamental principles of the committee system is that it could not affect or erode the role of the City Manager. He added that the City of Saint John has a City Manager form of government, noting that any changes to that would require a review of the City Government Act. Mr. Nugent advised that all recommendations from the standing committee to council will be required to include a recommendation from the senior city staff member who provided the information or recommendation to the committee. He noted that it is the responsibility of the members of the standing committee to assess the recommendations provided to them from City staff. Mr. Woods, responding to concerns of transparency and citizen engagement, noted that citizens will not be bound by the rigidity or legal formality as seen in the current format, adding that it would be within the role of the standing committee to have as much community engagement as desired. On motion of Councillor McGuire Seconded by Councillor Titus RESOLVED that Common Council move forward with the recommendation to proceed with the Committee System form of Governance. The question was not taken as a referral took precedence over the main motion. On motion of Councillor Norton Seconded by Councillor Farren RESOLVED that the Common Clerk be directed to send a request to representatives from the City of Fredericton to provide a short briefing on the Committee System form of Governance. Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Higgins, McGuire, Sullivan and Titus voting nay. 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Greffiere communale : Mode de gestion du systeme des comites (point reporte a la reunion du 19 septembre 2011) Faisant reference a une presentation anterieure, Mme Gormley met I'accent sur le mode de gestion du systeme des comites propose. Elie fait remarquer que la presentation s'appuie sur un travail de recherche reposant sur le rapport Chartwell et sur les precedents rapports du personnel dans ce domaine. Mme Gormley suggere que le mode de gestion du systeme des comites offre aux citoyens davantage d'occasions de donner leur avis et de participer et qu'il permette au conseil de mettre I'accent sur les questions d'ordre politique. Elie ajoute que cette demarche s'inscrit dans le cadre du processus de restructuration base sur les services qui a ete approuve. En reponse a une question posee, M. Woods precise que le rapport Chartwell fait etat d'un mode de gestion du systeme des comites dans lequel les comites sont composes de representants elus et de citoyens. En outre, it fait remarquer qu'un tel mode de gestion ne reunit pas les criteres d'une bonne gouvernance. II explique qu'en vertu du systeme propose dans le rapport Chartwell, les membres du public non elus ont une voix preponderante dans le processus decisionnel politique. En outre, it ajoute que les conseillers sont elus par la collectivite et que ce type de decision devrait leur revenir. M. Woods declare que toute modification apportee au mode de gestion du systeme des comites entraine un changement fondamental du systeme de gouvernance de la collectivite. II explique qu'une recommandation emise par le comite permanent n'a pas force executoire aupres du conseil et it fait remarquer que le conseil continuerait a beneficier des conseils de professionnels tout au long du processus. IN 96 -524 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 28, 2011/LE 28 NOVEMBRE 2011 En reponse a une question posee, Mme Gormley souligne que le public pourrait assister aux reunions du comite permanent, sauf en cas de raison valable, comme le precise la Loi sur les municipalites, pour qu'un point fasse ('objet d'une discussion lors d'une seance a huis clos. Repondant aux commentaires des membres du conseil au sujet du transfert de responsabilite a un comite et au role amoindri du directeur general, M. Nugent explique que le mode de gestion du systeme des comites est justement conqu pour eviter ce genre de situation. II declare que l'un des principes fondamentaux du systeme des comites est de faire en sorte que le role du directeur general soit preserve en toute circonstance. II ajoute que The City of Saint John possede une « structure administrative dirigee par un directeur general » et it souligne que toute modification de cette structure necessiterait une revision de la City Government Act (loi sur les gouvernements municipaux). M. Nugent signale que toutes les recommandations faites par le comite permanent au conseil devront etre accompagnees d'une recommandation du haut fonctionnaire municipal qui est a I'origine de ('information ou de la recommandation transmise au comite. II fait remarquer que c'est aux membres du comite permanent qu'incombe la tache d'evaluer les recommandations qui leur sont faites par le personnel municipal. En reponse aux preoccupations a 1'egard de la transparence et de 1'engagement des citoyens, M. Woods fait remarquer que les citoyens ne seront pas concernes par la rigidite ou la formalite juridique du format actuel. En outre, it ajoute que la decision relative au niveau d'engagement communautaire reviendra au comite permanent. Proposition du conseiller McGuire Appuyee par le conseiller Titus RESOLLI que le conseil communal valide la recommandation voulant que I'on aille de ('avant avec mode de gestion du systeme des comites. On ne procede pas au vote etant donne que le renvoi a preseance sur la proposition principale. Proposition du conseiller Norton Appuyee par le conseiller Farren RESOLLI que la greffiere communale soit chargee d'adresser une demande aux representants de la Ville de Fredericton pour qu'ils presentent un court expose sur le mode de gestion du systeme des comites. A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Les conseillers McGuire, Sullivan, Titus et la conseillere Higgins votent contre la proposition. 13. Committee Reports 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda. 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil. 15. General Correspondence 15. Correspondance generale 16. Adjournment The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 16. Levee de la seance Le maire declare que la seance est levee a 20 h 15. 39 96 -525 COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL NOVEMBER 28, 2011/LE 28 NOVEMBRE 2011 Mayor / maire Common Clerk / greffiere communale .N City Hall 15 Market Square November 17, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councilors: P.O. Box 1971 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 RE: Saint John Theatre Company Overview: T. iii; City of Saint John The Saint John Theatre Company is contemplating some exciting initiatives in the near future that have the potential to significantly benefit our community. The Theatre Company, through its Executive Director, Stephen Tobias, would like the opportunity to brief Council, in Committee of the Whole, on these initiatives. There is no request for funding from the City in relation to these initiatives at this time. Motion: That the Common Clerk schedule an appropriate date and time for Council, sitting as Committee of the Whole, to hear a brief presentation from the Theatre Company prior to the end of 2011. Yours very truly, (Received via Email) Mel K. Norton Councillor Saint John City Council 41 City Hall P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 November 17, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councilors RE: Josselyn Road Context: .2-117 City of Saint John Councillor Mott was considering bringing a motion regarding concerns raised by residents in the Josselyn Road area. It is uncertain as to whether Councillor Mott will be in a position to return and bring the within requested motion. Overview: Previously Council approved connecting Josselyn Road with a property being developed by the Knight's of Columbus. Some residents have expressed that this connection will endanger the residents of Josselyn Road (despite a staff report addressing those concerns). Motion: That the City Manager direct the appropriate staff members to report on whether an interim connection to Josselyn Road, such as a biking and walking path, would be more appropriate than the proposed road until such time as Josselyn Road can be upgraded to include sidewalks and associated infrastructure. Yours very truly, (Received via Email) Mel Norton Councillor Saint John City Council 42 City Hall P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 November 17, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councilors: RE: Symphony New Brunswick Overview :(A4r1�1s City of Saint John Symphony New Brunswick has been headquartered in Saint John since approximately 1950. Its mission is to make a significant contribution to the cultural richness and economic prosperity our community by promoting symphonic music through live performance and educational programs. Symphony New Brunswick strives to bring a high level of live classical music to all. Motion: That the City Manager through the Office of the Common Clerk schedule an appropriate date and time for Council to hear a brief (approximately 15 minutes) presentation from the Symphony New Brunswick in open session prior to the approval of the budget for 2012. Yours very truly, (Received via Email) Mel K. Norton Councillor Saint John City Council 43 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL November 16, 2011 M &C 2011 - 289 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: WINTER STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS PURPOSE The City of Saint john The purpose of this report is to update Council of regarding the Winter Street Parking Restrictions, the Contingency Plan for an Overnight Parking Ban in the South Central Peninsula and as an update to a Council motion to investigate more flexible overnight on- street parking in the Uptown area. BACKGROUND At its October 24, 2011 meeting, Common Council resolved by way of submission by Councillor Norton "that Council refer to the City Manager, for review and provision of a brief report from the appropriate staff person, as to what, if any, amendments are possible so as to allow for greater or more flexible overnight on- street parking in the Uptown area ". This report updates Council with the results of staff's review. M &C 2011 -08 outlined an Amendment that prohibited overnight parking on most City streets from November 15 to April 15 and that Council considered and adopted a further Amendment that shortened the dates when the overnight parking restriction would apply from December I to March 31. This change assists in achieving snow clearing service objectives adopted by Council within an updated Winter Management Plan for Streets and Sidewalks. The change also followed a period of public consultation, including 5 meetings by staff in the 4 City wards. In response to a previous Council request, staff submitted M &C 2010 -25 that outlined the criteria used to evaluate requests to consider exemptions to this overnight parking restriction. In addition to engineering judgment, the City's Traffic Engineer completes a site visit to identify if off - street parking is available at the property in question or land is available to convert to off - street parking, if near -by business or institutional properties have excess parking available to share, if near -by street blocks are already exempt for the SAINT JOHN ... A LIVEABLE WINTER CITY ii Winter Streets Parking Restrictions November 16`", 2011 Report to Common Council, M & C 2011- 289 Page 2 Restriction, and if near -by residential properties have a similar capacity issue suggesting a systemic problem. Space for one vehicle per residential unit at a property (i.e. three spaces for a 3 -unit building) is generally considered sufficient parking demand. ANALYSIS There is a significant amount of background to Winter Street Parking Restrictions since 2009. The increased level of requests, to staff, from citizens and Council for second evaluations and an increased inventory of exempted streets and sidewalks is leading to increased inefficiencies in Municipal Operation's ability to provide quality and cost effective service. Since October 2009, the Traffic Engineer has completed 25 second evaluation requests. These requests involve Site visits (usually overnight), discussions and a polling, in one case, with affected residents, an evaluation process including establishing off and on street parking demand and supply, and report writing and presenting are involved. 11 additional streets were exempted and 3 removed in Amendments to the Traffic By -law. In some situations (Champlain Street and Lancaster Street), public input to staff resulted in the `shifting' of streets for exemptions based on a better solution for that neighbourhood. Staff continues to receive requests from citizens and Councillors to complete second evaluations for streets or neighbourhoods that have already had a second evaluation completed (Douglas Avenue & Lancaster Street). This practice severely undermines the integrity of the Winter Management Plan for Streets and Sidewalks adopted as policy by Common Council. Each added evaluation diverts limited resources from focusing on ensuring winter maintenance operations are as efficient as possible. Minimizing the number of streets exempted from the Winter Street Parking Restrictions is important to achieve quality and cost effective service to the community through execution of the deliverables outlined within the Winter Management Plan for Streets and Sidewalks. Systemic changes to on- street parking in the South Central Peninsula occurred after a comprehensive study was completed in 2003 and an update completed in 2009 which included community consultation. 77% of street blocks are currently exempt from the Winter Street Parking Restrictions mostly in residential areas. Persons utilizing the Uptown business and entertainments areas have many parking options available at nearby parking garages and Saint John Parking Commission lots. There are many transportation options (Saint John Transit, taxis, designated driver, etc.) that people can use to be able to enjoy these areas rather than parking on Uptown streets during the Winter Street Parking Restrictions period. Leadership on managing Winter Street Parking Restrictions This winter season, the Halifax Regional Municipality is piloting a new approach to their Winter Parking Ban in the South Central portion of their downtown area. This approach SAINTJOHN ... A LIVEABLE WINTER CITY 45 Winter Streets Parking Restrictions November 16`", 2011 Report to Common Council, M & C 2011 - 289 Page 3 mirrors the City of Saint John Contingency Plan for An Overnight Parking Ban in the South Central Peninsula. While many communities take an unwavering position by not allowing any parking on their city streets in the winter, Saint John is a leader when it comes to managing winter on- street parking and citizen expectations through a direct consultation process and a policy that has been approved by Council. Saint John has a successful model that is being adopted or used as context by other communities such as Halifax to provide their own balance between meeting the service requirements and citizen expectations. It has been determined that the entire length of Waring Street is too narrow to permit any on- street parking even on alternate sides and is recommended to be removed from Schedule `H' and `R' of the Traffic By -law. It has been discovered that the street running between Lancaster Street and City Line is actually call Suffolk Street and not Sutton Street; the street was broken when Digby Ferry Road was constructed but the two broken sections kept the same name. Therefore, changes to Schedule `H' and `R' of the Traffic By -law will be required to reflect this. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council: 1. Consider the integrity of the City of Saint John Contingency Plan For An Overnight Parking Ban and not allow more flexible overnight on- street parking in the Uptown area. 2. Consider the integrity of the Winter Management Plan for Streets and Sidewalks and to minimize second evaluation requests and the subsequent endorsement of additional exempted streets to Schedule `R' of the Traffic By -law. 3. Amend the Traffic By -law as follows and request the City Solicitor place it in the proper form and translate: a) Delete Waring Street with Limits Entire from Schedule R (too narrow to permit any on- street parking, even alternate sides) b) Delete Waring Street with Limits Cunard Street to Dead End from Schedule H (too narrow to permit any on- street parking, even alternate sides) c) Delete Lancaster Street with Limits Sutton Street to Clarence Street from Schedule R d) Delete Lancaster Street with Limits Sutton Street to Clarence Street from Schedule H SAINT JOHN ... A LIVEABLE WINTER CITY M Winter Streets Parking Restrictions November 16`", 2011 Report to Common Council, M & C 2011 - 289 Page 4 e) Add Lancaster Street with Limits Suffolk Street to Clarence Street to Schedule R f) Add Lancaster Street with Limits Suffolk Street to Clarence Street to Schedule H Respectfully submitted J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager SAINT JOHN ... A LIVEABLE WINTER CITY 47 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C 2011 - 295 November 16`', 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 INTRODUCTION The City of Saint John Achieving the assurance of safe, clean drinking water will be an historic accomplishment for the people of Saint John. Safe clean drinking water, consistently and reliably delivered to the people and economy of our community, involves much more than a large outlay of dollars and a very large infrastructure construction program. It must also mean having a thorough understanding of: People are utterly dependent on water [a] the vital nature of "public water" to basic for their lives ..., for their livelihoods, human needs; [b] increasingly stringent their food, and, increasingly, their regulatory standards; [c] the matter of paying industry. Humans can live for a month for the service; [d] the huge monetary value of without food, but will die in less than a utility infrastructure assets; [e] the economics week without water. Humans consume of water and its significance to the wellbeing of water, discard it, poison it, waste it, and society, [f] the importance of the water service restlessly change the hydrological cycles, to the region's industry, and [g] requirements indifferent to the consequences. for the effective governance and management ... Water, Marq de Villiers, Stoddart Publishing of the business and operations of a public Co. Limited, Toronto, 1999, p15 water utility. The decisions before Council and the community on this most essential of services will be of great consequence. PURPOSE OF REPORT This progress report will touch on four topics: • Value of Public Water System Assets (Utility Inventory 2010) • Engagement of Expert Advisor (Professional Engineering Services) • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) - Drinking Water Treatment Facility • Discussion on Program Delivery Alternatives �c`Jphn wdi W r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 2 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN VALUE OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSETS Quality of life in a community and the vitality of its economy depend very much on reliable, well maintained and efficient infrastructure systems through which essential municipal services are provided. Unfortunately, these tangible capital assets are too often taken for granted and, in some jurisdictions, do not receive the attention and investment required for long-term sustainability. When this happens, systems breakdown, services are compromised and costs rise steeply. In 2007, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) estimated the cost of the municipal infrastructure deficit across Canada at $123 billion.' Four years later, this "debt" is likely much higher. Saint John has made major advances in its municipal infrastructure and this is no more notable than in its water and wastewater utility. In addition to very significant improvement programs, ratepayers of the utility are investing annually in infrastructure renewal - on a "pay as you go" basis in every annual operating budget. This proactive investment policy positions the community well for its future. The public should also understand the monetary worth of their utility assets: more than $1 billion overall in 2010. Water System 1% 4% o% 5% ° 3% 3% 2� ° 4% 32% Total Water System Assets Water Assets Replacement costs of water infrastructure alone was estimated in 2010 at just over $600 million (60% of current utility assets). Table 1 itemizes quantities of various infrastructure types and replacement costs for each of those. Additionally, there is the value of utility lands owned for watershed protection. ' Danger Ahead: The Coming Collapse of Canada's Municipal Infrastructure, Saeed Mirza, PhD., Ing., A Report for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, November 2007 .• ■ Water Transmission Mains .Water Distribution Mains $700,000,000 a Water System Fire Hydrants $600,000,000 4 . Wastewater r Pressure Reducing Valves $500,000,000 System r Water System Valves $400,000,000 ■ Water Storage Reservoirs $300,000,000 r Water Pump Stations $200,000,000 Dams (Earth & Concrete) Libb Wells $100,000,000 Water Treatment Facilities $0 , Total Water System Assets Water Assets Replacement costs of water infrastructure alone was estimated in 2010 at just over $600 million (60% of current utility assets). Table 1 itemizes quantities of various infrastructure types and replacement costs for each of those. Additionally, there is the value of utility lands owned for watershed protection. ' Danger Ahead: The Coming Collapse of Canada's Municipal Infrastructure, Saeed Mirza, PhD., Ing., A Report for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, November 2007 .• r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 SAINT JOHN PAGE 3 NOVEMBER 16 -, 2011 TABLE 1: WATER SYSTEM ASSETS Infrastructure Type Quantity Replacement Cost Water Transmission Mains 117.5 km $192,542,492 Water Distribution Mains 392.1 km $278,212,368 Fire Hydrants 2080 $16,011,902 Pressure Reducing Valves 26 $5,354,578 Water System Valves 6575 $28,333,090 Water Storage Reservoirs 7 $24,191,048 Water Pump Stations 11 $22,887,091 Dams (Earth and Concrete) 14 $19,054,067 Wells 2 $826,828 Water Disinfection (Treatment) Facilities 1 2 $14,149,178 Total $601,562,641 Wastewater Assets Replacement cost of existing wastewater infrastructure was estimated at about $400 million in 2010. New facilities yet to come on line, such as the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility and various lift stations, are yet not included. TCA Initiative The Tangible Capital Assets initiative, being led by Finance, is critically important. Based on Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) standards, it will change fundamentally how Council and its administration understand the value of infrastructure assets and, further, how those assets need to be managed and cared for over time. ENGAGEMENT OF EXPERT ADVISOR William J. Hargrave, Ph.D., P. Eng., is a leading and highly respected Canadian drinking water expert. With over 40 years of experience across the country, his long association with the City of Saint John has been very beneficial for the community. He provided invaluable knowledge and guidance to our Action Plan for Safe, Clean Drinking Water and has been an important contributor to the value engineering review, and preparation of the overall Safe Clean Drinking Water Program and its associated Program Structuring and Implementation Plans. He has also worked with Saint John Water, the Saint John Fire Department, and the Fire Underwriters' representative to fully analyze the water storage needs of the community. As earlier indicated, Dr. Hargrave effectively represents the interests of the City and has a genuine commitment to our community. It is proposed that the previously accepted proposal for his professional services be updated for 2012, with an option to renew in future years, as required. 50 SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 4 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN EIA - DRINKING WATER TREATMENT FACILITY The City of Saint john is planning to construct its new drinking water treatment facility in the area south of the Little River Reservoir. O1 r� Goidrn jinn. ' Road' IG 1 r I ✓ "� .7� Latimer •1 t. k, i l I �1 Construction of the new treatment facility is the cornerstone project of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program. The 100,000 m3 /day facility, to be designed generally in accordance with the Preliminary Design Report prepared by R.V. Anderson Associates, and related site works, include a treatment building, parking lots, access roads, culverts, pipelines, high lift pumping stations, drying bed, finished water storage reservoir(s) and waste treatment ponds with outfalls to Little River. There will be large transmission mains connecting the facility to existing and new water transmission mains in the area. The New Brunswick Department of Environment (NBEnv) has determined that development of this drinking water facility would require an environmental assessment (EA) under the Provincial Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation 87-83 under the Clean Environment Act. As a result of a public call for proposals, the City of Saint John retained Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) on May 4`h, 2011 to provide environmental assessment and approvals services for the treatment facility project. 51 \ SAWFJOHN �1 Construction of the new treatment facility is the cornerstone project of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program. The 100,000 m3 /day facility, to be designed generally in accordance with the Preliminary Design Report prepared by R.V. Anderson Associates, and related site works, include a treatment building, parking lots, access roads, culverts, pipelines, high lift pumping stations, drying bed, finished water storage reservoir(s) and waste treatment ponds with outfalls to Little River. There will be large transmission mains connecting the facility to existing and new water transmission mains in the area. The New Brunswick Department of Environment (NBEnv) has determined that development of this drinking water facility would require an environmental assessment (EA) under the Provincial Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulation 87-83 under the Clean Environment Act. As a result of a public call for proposals, the City of Saint John retained Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) on May 4`h, 2011 to provide environmental assessment and approvals services for the treatment facility project. 51 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 5 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN Regulatory Framework The NB Clean Environment Act provides the statutory basis for EIAs in the province. Regulation 87- 83, under the Act, is the New Brunswick Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation. Under Section 5(1) of the EIA Regulation, individuals, private firms or government agencies proposing certain undertakings or projects must register details of the project with the Department of Environment prior to commencing construction. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) is the legal basis for the federal environmental assessment process. It outlines responsibilities and the methodology for environmental assessments of proposed projects which involve federal government departments or decision making. The project has triggered a federal EA under Section 5 of CEAA. The triggers include: requirement to obtain authorization under Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act for the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction (HADD) of habitat within fish bearing watercourses, and the potential commitment of funding to help construct the project by Infrastructure Canada (INFC). Transport Canada will likely be asked to issue an approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the construction of the water transmission pipeline through Little River. Federal authorities with an interest in the Drinking Water Treatment Facility project could likely include the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), Infrastructure Canada (INFC), Transport Canada, Environment Canada and Health Canada. Project activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable federal and provincial acts and regulations, which may include: • New Brunswick Clean Environment Act; • New Brunswick Clean Water Act; • New Brunswick Fish and Wildlife Act; • New Brunswick Endangered Species Act; • New Brunswick Forest Fires Act; • New Brunswick Petroleum Storage and Handling Regulation; • Species at Risk Act (SARA); • Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA); • Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA); • Canada Water Act; and • Canada Wildlife Act. 52 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER — PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 6 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN Construction of the Drinking Water Treatment Facility must also adhere to the most recent versions of DFO Guidelines and the relevant NBEnv guidelines and specifications. Environmental Assessment Methodology2 and Submission This EA meets the requirements of the New Brunswick EIA Regulation 87- 83 and Section 16(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The report submitted by Dillon on behalf of the City of Saint John seeks to: • Consider the potential for positive and negative changes on the environment; • Outline mitigation and impact management measures; • Assess residual and cumulative environmental effects; and • Identify compliance and effects monitoring needs associated with the WTP. The approach focuses on issues directly relevant to a water treatment plant construction and operation in general and the proposed project in particular. Consistent with standard EA practices, the assessment includes a number of components: • Description of project; • Scoping of issues; • Identification of valued environmental components (VECs); • Establishment of boundaries (spatial and temporal); • Description of the existing environment; • Assessment of environmental effects; • Proposed mitigation measures, prediction of residual effects; • Prediction of cumulative effects; and • Proposed compliance, effects monitoring, and follow- up programs. An extensive draft report on the environmental assessment for the drinking water treatment facility has been submitted to NBEnv on behalf of the City of Saint John. Feedback on that submission is expected very soon. Complete copies of the EIA document can be reviewed at the NBEnv Region 4 office at 8 Castle Street, Saint John. The EIA process is expected to be finalized early in 2012. Public Meetings There have been consultations with the public; with public information sessions on June 22 "d (Lakewood Heights School), September 28`h (Simonds High School) and, most recently, on November 16`h (Simonds High School). z Environmental Assessment Saint John Drinking Water Treatment Facility Little River Reservoir, Saint John, New Brunswick (Draft), September 2011, City of Saint John, 11 -4979, Dillon Consulting Limited 53 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 7 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN DISCUSSION ON PROGRAM DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES The method selected to provide modern water treatment for Saint john needs to reflect what is in the overall best interest of stakeholders - ratepayers of the utility and the public generally. It will be important for Council to be fully informed and knowledgeable of the alternatives and to ensure a balanced and thorough evaluation of those. THE PUBLIC- PRIVATE SPECTRUM Public Private Ownership Ownership Organization Outsourcing of Project Contract Private Asset Development Services Delivery Operations Financing Transfer Every infrastructure project of major significance undertaken by the City involves some level of partnership between the public (City on behalf of citizens /ratepayers) and the private sectors. Upon identifying the service need, the City plans for, finances and owns the facilities /systems involved; while private sector engineering consultants typically design the works and the contracting industry constructs those works on behalf of the City. The positive economic impact of municipal investment in infrastructure is very significant for the region, generating many direct and indirect jobs for local workers. Consideration of the public- private model to be followed should ensure a balanced, well informed decision- making process - designed to identify, understand, evaluate, and compare options that would be of benefit to utility customers. The approach should be structured to evaluate possible outcomes and the risks associated with decisions. A 7- step decision process developed by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation is illustrated below.' It was outlined for the previous Council back in 2008. 3 Balanced Evaluation of Public /Private Partnerships (P3s), a project of the AWWA Research Foundation, in collaboration with CH2M HILL, May 1999 54 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE H REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN Step 1 Understand the business environment and the factors driving the municipality to evaluate public-private partnership options. Key objectives are to establish a common understanding of the considerations influencing decision-making and education of policy- makers about the need for a balanced decision process. Step 2 Raise awareness of available options. Before conducting an unbiased evaluation of alternatives, decision- makers need to understand those alternatives - what structures are available, what might be appropriate in light of this utility's drivers, and what issues should be considered relative to the alternatives. Step 3 Public involvement is critical to successful implementation of any decision. Stakeholders to the outcome of the evaluation should be identified; an understanding of their priorities and perceptions developed; and a strategy defined to appropriately involve those stakeholders in any P3 evaluation. Step 4 Define the basis for evaluation of alternatives; critical for establishing a level playing field, with limits and ground rules confirmed by stakeholders. Any biases need to be made explicit, and the measures for evaluation of alternatives defined. This requires a great deal of self- evaluation and intensive stakeholder involvement. Step 5 Define the decision scenario (alternatives or packages of alternatives to be evaluated), identify the evaluation techniques to be used (based on research relevant to water utility decisions), and conduct a comparative (legal, financial, and operational) evaluation of alternatives (involving stakeholders and decision- makers). Step 6 A decision on delivery is the objective. It takes a great deal of organizational energy to undertake such a major evaluation, and sometimes the process can develop a momentum of its own. This step brings the process to closure with formulation of a recommendation, endorsement by Council, and communication of the decision. Step 7 If Council decides to pursue a P3 alternative, it must be prepared to implement and effectively monitor that contractual arrangement. It is important to understand and anticipate the tasks that should be part of the implementation; with a detailed implementation plan and the needed professional support. A successful decision process will have four key attributes :4 1. Follows a logical path; 2. Integrates the different stakeholders into the process; 3. Considers risks and uncertainties; and 4. Exposes biases 4 Balanced Evaluation ofPublic /Private Partnerships (P3s), a project of the AWWA Research Foundation, in collaboration with CH2M HILL, May 1999 (brochure) 55 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 9 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN In the end, the decision must be sound from service, financial, and sustainability perspectives, be well documented, and be fully communicated to the Saint john public. Value Engineering (VE) Recommendations - 2009 A joint team of Robinson, Stafford & Rude (RSRI) and NCE Value Engineers (NCE) was engaged by the City in January 2009 to undertake a value engineering (VE) review of the water treatment and system improvement program being considered for the assurance of safe, clean drinking water. This systematic, function- based evaluation sought to enhance overall performance and help achieve best value for the investments being made. The review had been envisioned in the Action Plan for Safe, Clean Drinking Water. All critical aspects of the overall program were subjected to analysis; water treatment requirements, capacity and location of treatment facilities, needed pipeline upgrades, project delivery options, risk considerations and detailed technical issues. The VE process sought well informed, innovative and practical solutions that would satisfy performance expectations and offer lower program life cycle costs. Three multi- disciplinary teams of North American experts in their disciplines, working with staff and preliminary design consultants, applied formal value engineering methodology in three phases of review. • Workshop #1 System- Wide / Major Issues: looked at the "big picture ", as well as a range of strategic questions; including capacity and location(s) of treatment facilities, separate potable and industrial systems East, essential transmission and water storage upgrades, and east- west interconnection. • Workshop #2 Program Delivery Strategy focused on program delivery; assessing alternative ownership and project delivery options, including risks associated with the different approaches. ■ Workshop #3 Detailed Technical Review, Treatment and Infrastructure: an analysis of the improvement program's technical considerations. Stakeholder input was sought in advance and there was consultation with elected officials prior to VE #2. This consultation was designed to understand the various perspectives of elected officials, the benefits they sought from alternative program delivery, criteria important in ultimately making the decision, and specific alternative delivery options to be evaluated. The VE Team synthesized 18 program delivery options and developed a list of eight (8) potentially viable options for Saint John. Through the initial phases of consideration, the team selected four (4) alternatives that would best serve the interests of Saint John. An objective weighted matrix evaluation was then undertaken and a risk assessment conducted for those final shortlisted options: 56 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 10 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN ■ CF- 3 Design- Build Plant, City Operate ■ CF- 4 Design- Build- Operate Plant, Design- Build Remainder ■ CF- 7 Optimized Traditional Design- Bid- Build ■ AF- 3 Design- Build- Finance- Maintain Plan, Design- Bid- Build Remainder People making the decision (Council) determined what the evaluation criteria should be and the relative importance of each (weighting). The 11 elected officials were asked to weigh their preferences with respect to the seven consolidated performance criteria identified. Each member of Council, working individually, was required to distribute 100 weighting points against the criteria. The aggregate weight was determined by summing up the total assigned weights and normalizing these to a base- 100 scale. Council members' weightings of evaluation criteria are shown in Table 2. Table 2: Council Weighting of Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria Total Points - 1 100 Weight (Norm) - 100 Ease of implementation 48 4 Speed of implementation 53 5 Dependability of water quality 366 33 Rate impact 208 19 Public acceptance /support 118 11 City control 187 17 Risk of failure 120 11 The VE Team experts separately determined the performance of options against those criteria (rating) to determine relative scores. WEIGHTING x RATING = WEIGHTED SCORE From this review process, it was determined that the preferred program delivery strategy to be recommended by the Value Engineering Team of experts was an "optimized traditional design- build- bid (D /B /B) "approach. 57 r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 11 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN Table 3 summarizes the ranking of the shortlisted program delivery options. Table 3: Delivery Recommendation Option Shortlisted Alternative Weighted Score Rank CF- 3 Design- Build Plant, City Operate 66 2 CF- 4 Design- Build- Operate Plant, Design Build Remainder 63 3 CF- 7 Optimized Traditional Design- Bid- Build 80 1 AF 3 Design- Build- Finance- Maintain Plant, Design- Bid- Build Remainder 62 4 The preferred Optimized Traditional Design- Bid- Build alternative would use the traditional D- B- B approach for improvements at the reservoirs, the treatment plant, pipelines, storage, and pumping stations. Leak detection and correction would be accomplished through a combination of slightly increased staffing, plus contracting to specialty firms to augment resources in the short- term. The strategy would also include development of an expanded program management team, a strong value engineering program, and optimized operations of the treatment plant, based on a business model similar to that used by DBO contractors. Union contracts would be renegotiated to be in alignment with the business model, with incentives for efficient plant operations. Treatment plant contractors would be pre- qualified, and major treatment plant equipment and pipe pre- purchased by the City. The qualitative risk assessment conducted during the workshop confirmed that strategy CF- 7 appeared to also have the lowest total risk. The Value Engineering team of experts recommended the following: "... that the City move forward using an optimized traditional design- bid- build approach (CF- 7), provided that traditional public financing can be obtained for the program. If the needed funding cannot be obtained, then the City should give further consideration to AF- 3 in association with an optimized traditional design - bid- build approach (CF- 7) to determine if alternative financing will benefit the City." The VE Team made five further recommendations: ■ Finalize the value engineering process and define the final projects to be constructed in the City's water system improvement program; r SAFE, CLEAN DRINKING WATER - PROGRESS REPORT #4 PAGE 12 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M & C 2011 - 295 NOVEMBER 16- 2011 SAINT JOHN ■ Finalize the planning documents for the new treatment facilities and the collection and distribution system improvements; ■ Formalize a decision about the strategy to be used to implement the program; • Begin steps to create an expanded program management team to manage the implementation of the water system improvement program, including a value engineering component; and • Step up efforts to obtain supplemental funding from the federal and provincial governments. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council: 1. Recognize the substantial monetary value of the City's water infrastructure and continue its proactive policy of an ongoing renewal program for these assets; 2. Notwithstanding the City's procurement policy for professional services, authorize the engagement of Hargrave & Company in 2012 to provide professional engineering services related to the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program (to an annual maximum of $150,000), with an option to renew the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services in future years, and authorize the Mayor and the Common Clerk to execute the appropriate documentation; 3. Be prepared to receive the final results of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process early in 2012; 4. Establish a balanced, well informed decision- making process for consideration of the public- private model to be used in delivering the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program - designed to identify, understand, evaluate, and compare options that would benefit utility customers (system users and ratepayers); appropriately staffed and structured to evaluate the possible outcomes and the risks associated with decisions; and 5. Be mindful of the 2009 Value Engineering recommendations. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. J. Patrick Woods, CGA Commissioner, City Manager For Saint John Water 59 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL November 18, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: The City of Saint John SUBJECT: Safe Clean Drinking Water Affordability Analysis Background: On November 7th, 2011Common Council adopted the following resolution: "RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, that Common Council: 1. Endorse the Program Structuring and Implementation Plan Version 2, as outlined in this report, at an estimated cost of $164,480,000 for delivering the highest priority elements of the program to assure safe, clean drinking water; 2. Refer this report to the Commissioner of Finance for an affordability analysis of the PS &I Plan Version 2 and financial recommendations; 3. Subject to the advice of the Commissioner of Finance, adopt the 4 -year schedule (2012 to 2015) for the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program (Highest Priority Elements) as the preferred implementation scenario; 4. Be prepared to consider recommendations on the resource requirements for direction and oversight of Safe Clean Drinking Water Program implementation; 5. Authorize adjustment of the preliminary submission to PPP Canada, approved by Council on July 4th, 2011, to reflect the scope and estimate changes outlined herein, and submission of updated documentation to PPP Canada. 6. In recognition of the vital importance of proceeding with implementation of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program in a timely and complete manner, continue efforts to secure the essential cost sharing agreements with the Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada for equal shares of funding — approximately $54,827,000 from each funding partner — over four years from 2012 to 2015. •1 Report to Common Council Page 2 November 18, 2011 SUBJECT: Safe Clean Drinking Water Affordability Analysis Recommendation 2 referred the report to the Commissioner of Finance for an affordability analysis of the PS &I Plan Version 2 and financial recommendations. The Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word afford as follows: 1 a: to manage to bear without serious detriment (you can't afford to neglect your health) b: to be able to bear the cost of (he can't afford to be out of work long) (afford a new cost) 2 : to make available, give forth, or provide naturally or inevitably (the sun affords warmth to the earth). In order to prepare an affordability analysis staff would like to have a discussion with Common Council to gain an understanding of what Common Council would consider the definition of affordability to be. We would like to request a meeting of Common Council to discuss the affordability issue and for Council to provide direction as to their interpretation of the term affordability. Recommendation: That Common Council schedule a time to have a discussion with staff to provide their interpretation of the term affordability in order for staff to perform the affordability analysis approved at the meeting of November 7tn 2011. Respectfully subm Gregoryomans, CGA, MBA Commiss4b,Ker of Finance 61 Dec 1, 2011 To: Deputy Mayor and Members of Common Council From: Mayor Ivan Court Re The Josselyn Road If the proposed Knights of Columbus housing project off of Loch Lomond Road should receive funding, I would request that the City Manager bring forward a report identifying the cost of upgrading the existing portion ofJosselyn Road to the current municipal standard. Mayor Ivan Court 62 City Hall P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Re: Saint John Trade & Convention Centre need for Revitalization :16-1,1; City of Saint John Approximately 7 years ago Common Council was advised that our Trade & Convention Centre was starting to lose business to the other Atlantic Provinces because of their attractiveness of their modern, or in some cases new, Trade & Convention Centres. The number of bookings for next year is even worse than 2011 and so far 2013 is not looking very positive either. It is common knowledge that our Trade & Convention Centre used to bring approximately $240 million dollars each year into our local economy by supporting the hotels, restaurants, bars, art & craft shops, taxis and the many people they employ. These are very important dollars invested in our City that keep a large number of our citizens employed and therefore able to stay in our City. The many people who work and invest in our City need the work that the Trade & Convention Centre brings to our City and they count on Common Council to do everything in its power to keep a modern facility in order to attract such business. This Council has earmarked its share of the upgrade to the tune of over $3 million dollars and is waiting for the other 2 levels of government to agree to do the same. Since the Trade & Convention Centre is such an important economic driver for our City that needs an upgrade to be done sooner rather than later, I move that Council agrees to fund the much needed upgrades to our Trade and Convention Centre if the Province and Federal Governments agree to cost share their portion over a two to four year period. further move that the Mayor, City Manager, Commissioner of Finance and any interested member of Common Council meet with the other two levels of Government to express the importance of the Trade and Convention Centre upgrade to our City and our willingness to commit to fund the T &CC upgrade "up front" at the earliest time possible. Respectfully, (Received via email) Bill Farren Councillor The City of Saint John 63 City Hall 15 Market Square December 5, 2011 Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council: P.O. Box 1971 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 Issue: Building Proactive Policy Utilizing 2011 Citizen Survey Result Context: rE City of Saint John • The most significant issue identified by citizens within the 2011 Citizen Survey was the condition of our road infrastructure system. • Citizen "satisfaction" with road conditions is a "satisfaction" variable which is trending down. • Obviously during our upcoming 2012 Budget deliberations, Council has the ability to address this citizen issue in a more aggressive fashion. • That the possibility of new tax revenue generated from the newly established Provincial Justice Complex be directed to road enhancement be considered. Motion: That during the upcoming 2012 Budget deliberations, Council utilize the data identified by the 2011 Citizen Survey and aggressively support a strong financial investment into our road infrastructure system. WMGuir y s b itted, r Councillor — City of Saint John E REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C -2011 - 315 December 2, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Fairville Boulevard Planning Study INTRODUCTION At the November 21, 2011 meeting of Common Council, the City Manager was asked to provide an update with respect to the Fairville Boulevard planning exercise. DISCUSSION C City of Saint John Now that the Plan SJ process is winding down, staff have had the opportunity to work on a scoping document for the Fairville Boulevard planning exercise over the past few weeks. The attached Project Scope document outlines how staff propose to develop a "Golden Mile Corridor Plan." The project schedule includes public engagement as well as all of the required technical work and yields a final product for the consideration of Common Council in the summer of 2012. The 2012 operating budget has not yet been approved by Common Council but the resources necessary to undertake this work is included in the budget submission from the Planning and Development Department. 65 M & C — 2011— 315 - 2 - December 2, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report and direct the City Manager to proceed with the preparation of the "Golden Mile Corridor Plan" in general accordance with the submitted Project Scope document provided that adequate funding is available within the 2012 budget of the Planning and Development Department. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP RPP Commissioner of Planning and Development J. Patrick Woods, C.G.A. City Manager Project Scope: Fairville Boulevard Corridor Study I. Purpose The purpose of the "Golden Mile Corridor Plan" (GMCP) will be to address land use planning issues currently impacting the corridor and capitalize on existing assets and potential investments to improve the viability and attractiveness of Fairville Boulevard for new enterprise and Saint John residents. The input of community residents and business /property owners on Fairville Boulevard, as well as other City Departments will be sought during the preparation of the Plan through a public engagement process and will be analyzed and presented to Common Council. The report submitted to Council will summarise the input from these sources and contain recommendations outlining Planning staff s professional opinion regarding the future design, development and use of Fairville Boulevard to help it succeed as a viable, sustainable, and user - friendly hub of activity for the west side of Saint John and beyond. II. Background: Plan Initiation On August 4, 2009 Common Council received and filed a letter from Councillor McGuire regarding an initiative to build on the recommendations that emerged from the West Side Retail Business Forum hosted by the City of Saint John and Enterprise Saint John. Councillor McGuire advised Council that a meeting had been convened between City staff, Enterprise Saint John and Ward One Councillors to begin a dialogue and generate ideas to turn the recommendations of the Retail Forum into actions for Fairville Boulevard. Further updates were promised as the project continues to develop. Previous commitments such as PlanSJ and other priorities that involved significant time investment for staff have been largely completed, meaning the resources required to undertake the planning study for Fairville Boulevard are now available. III. Proposed Process 1. Information Gathering The Golden Mile Corridor Plan will involve extensive information gathering and analysis from various sources in order to arrive at an optimal plan for enhancing the function, appeal and development opportunities for the Boulevard. The Plan will enable the Boulevard to fully capitalize on planned and future investment happening along the Golden Mile corridor by providing a comprehensive plan for redevelopment that is crafted to ensure that private investment is coupled with public works in a coherent and productive manner. The scope of this work can be divided into four broad categories of analysis: 67 (a) Technical Background Report A technical background report will be developed to analyze the existing Municipal Plan designation, future Plan designation, zoning, transit use and amenities, traffic and pedestrian flows, existing land uses, development trends and aesthetic details of the Boulevard. This analysis will be critical in providing the background information necessary for understanding the current conditions of the boulevard as well as the areas of greatest opportunity for enabling the Boulevard to enhance its performance as a Commercial/Service Corridor. (b) Policy and Best Practice Review The Golden Mile Corridor Plan will be informed by a review of existing best practices from other communities both in the region and across the country. Proven strategies and policies used in other municipalities to successfully redevelop commercial corridors will be reviewed in order to develop appropriate strategies for the Golden Mile. (c) SWOT Analysis A SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis will be conducted for the Boulevard to better understand the existing assets and challenges that should be considered when contemplating the redevelopment of the corridor. 2. Public Engagement Public feedback will be a critical component in the development of the Golden Mile Corridor Plan. The public will play a key role in reviewing the Technical Background Report at an open house /workshop, which will be scheduled for early 2012. The goal of the workshop will be to engage the public in a meaningful manner and solicit input for the development of the Golden Mile Corridor Plan that will contribute to the final vision. Information from this session will be reviewed by staff and will help form the policy recommendations for the GMCP. The final recommended policies contained in the staff report will be presented to the public for a final open house session in late spring, 2012. The purpose of this open house session will be to give the public the chance to review the draft plan for the Golden Mile and collect any feedback before the document is finalised. The report will be revised based on the feedback given at this session and finalised for Council's review in early summer, 2012. IV. Financial Implications The Golden Mile Corridor Redevelopment Plan is proposed to be undertaken during 2012, and appropriate funds will need to be allocated to this project through the 2012 Workplan for the Planning and Development Department. Most of the work will be conducted in- house, thus capitalising on existing staff resources and effectively minimising the overall cost of the planning study. However, it is anticipated that at least two public engagement sessions as well as other minor expenses will be needed to fulfill the needs of the project. .: V. Project Deliverables Fairvilie Boulevard is identified as a "Regional Retail Centre" within the new municipal plan ( "P1anST ), and is identified as a location for intensified retail development. Therefore, the project deliverables will inform future capital and service budgets for the City. The scope of the work required for the Golden Mile Corridor Plan will result in clearly defined deliverables that can be targeted for redevelopment in order to realise the stated goals of the Plan. The deliverables will be presented in one document and include the following eight categories: 1. Optimum future land use 2. Future road transportation requirements 3. Pedestrian, cycling, and public transit improvements 4. Linkages to adjacent neighbourhoods 5. Streetscaping Plan 6. Urban Design Guidelines 7. Recommended amendments to the Municipal Plan and Zoning Bylaw 8. Phased implementation plan .• Appendix A: Outline I. Purpose II. Background: Plan Initiation III. Process 1. Information Gathering (a) Technical Background Report (b) Policy and Best Practice Review (c) SWOT Analysis 2. Public Engagement IV. Financial Implications V. Project Deliverables VI. Technical Background Report 1. Description of Study Area 2. Land Use Survey (a) Historical Land Use of Boulevard (b) Current Municipal Plan Designation, PlanSJ Vision, and Existing Zoning (c) Actual Land Use (d) Existing Building Stock • Assessed Value and Age • Aesthetic Description (e) Transportation Amenities and Constraints • Pedestrian • Cycling • Vehicular • Transit (f) Surrounding Population • Density • Age 70 • Distance to key destinations (linkages) (g) Existing Urban Design Components • Street furniture • Lights • Landscaping • Signs • Architecture • Parking Areas 3. Policy and Best Practice Review VII. Design Plan VIII. Phased Implementation 71 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -307 November 30, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, The City of Saint john SUBJECT: Douglas Avenue — Winter Street Parking Restrictions Exemption BACKGROUND Council endorsed the current Winter Management Plan for Streets and Sidewalks (M & C 2009 -352) on October 26, 2009. At that time, Douglas Avenue was given a one year exception provision so a more detailed analysis of on- street parking needs could be identified. Council endorsed the 2009 -2010 Winter Management Plan Review and Update (M &C 2010 -207) on October 12, 2010. Council approved the exemption, and addition to Schedule R of the Traffic By -law, of a portion of Douglas Avenue from Main Street to Bentley Street. Council endorsed the recommendations outlined in M &C 2011 -08 — Overnight Parking Restriction to not amend the Traffic By -law to exempt Douglas Avenue South of Bentley Street and North of Brunswick Place. Staff were assessing other off - street options in the place of further exemptions. Council rejected a motion on February 14, 2011 to exempt Douglas Avenue, East Side, from Main Street to Bridge Street. ANALYSIS The Winter Management Plan is subject to ongoing review; encouraging ideas and suggestions, and allowing staff to work with citizens to assist in dealing with particular challenges over the winter season. As outlined in M &C 2011 -08 — Overnight Winter Parking Restriction, it was determined there was a requirement along Douglas Avenue, in the vicinity of Brunswick Place, to accommodate tenants needs. The driveways are too short to accommodate tenant parking. SAINT JOHN ... A LIVEABLE WINTER CITY 72 Douglas Avenue — Winter Street Parking Restrictions Exemption November 30, 2011 Report to Common Council, M & C 2011 - 307 Page 2 Owners of land across from and including the Harbourview High School property were contacted to explore the possibility of vehicles parking on these properties. Both property owners replied in November 2011 that this request would not be possible. During discussions with School District 8 personnel, it was discovered that the traffic patterns for Brunswick Place have been changed to reflect bus traffic entering and exiting through a driveway at the other end of the property. This change in policy would effectively eliminate bus traffic along Brunswick Place that would allow for the opportunity to provide on- street parking (approximately 4 to 5 spaces) that would alleviate these concerns. Options were considered. It was determined that overnight parking should be permitted on the south side of Brunswick Place from Douglas Avenue to Dead End (4 -5 on- street spaces). Required Traffic By -Law Amendments are as follows: Add Brunswick Place from Douglas Avenue to Dead End to Schedule R Add Brunswick Place from Douglas Avenue to Dead End (North Side) to Schedule B The south side of Brunswick Place provides more on- street spaces. The whole north side contains the school access as well as the sidewalk Council has approved for winter service. 3 a, o o �Q oco 3 �o � oc oc A u„Sw c% p' �p44 Q N A 0 0 Prom, su mm°njme or. In general, when more on- street parking is made available through amendments to the Traffic By -law, there is no guarantee that the intended users who truly require this parking space will actually benefit from it. It has been noticed that people that currently have available off - street parking gravitate towards on- street parking for various reasons related to the convenience of not having to clear snow from their driveway or `shuffle' vehicles within their driveway. It is absolutely vital that citizens who have off - street parking available use it. Meeting street plowing SAINT JOHN ... A LIVEABLE WINTER CITY 73 Douglas Avenue — Winter Street Parking Restrictions Exemption November 30, 2011 Report to Common Council, M & C 2011 - 307 Page 3 performance standards on exempted sections of streets also becomes more difficult, expensive or not possible. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Common Council amend the Traffic By -Law and request the City Solicitor place in proper form and translate the following: 1. Add Brunswick Place from Douglas Avenue to Dead End to Schedule R 2. Add Brunswick Place from Douglas Avenue to Dead End (North Side) to Schedule B Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations and Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager SAINT JOHN ... A LIVEABLE WINTER CITY 74 The City of Saint John November 24, 2011 Common Council of The City of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Overnight Winter Parking Restriction Amendment to the Traffic By -law Lancaster and Waring Streets City Solicitors Office Bureau de Pavocat municipal In a report dated November 16, 2011 (M &C 2011 — 289), the City Manager recommends that Common Council amend the Traffic By -law to remove Waring Street from Schedules R (Streets exempted from Overnight Winter Parking Restriction) and H (Alternate Side Parking) because said street is too narrow to permit any on- street parking. The City Manager also recommends to delete Lancaster Street with limits of "Sutton Street to Clarence Street" from Schedules R and H because staff discovered that the proper limits are "Suffolk Street" (as opposed to Sutton Street) to Clarence Street. The above -noted recommendations of the City Manager are in keeping with the Overnight Parking Restriction Policy adopted by Common Council at its meeting on October 26, 2009. This Department prepared amendments to the Traffic By -law in 2009 to give effect to the Overnight Parking Restriction Policy which resulted in prohibiting the parking of vehicles on any street in the City except those listed in Schedule R between the hours of midnight and 7:00 am. Since 2009, and in response to the citizens' input, Council enacted further amendments to the Traffic By -law in order to add to Schedule R. Pursuant to subsection 11 3(l) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, C. M -17, and amendments thereto, a municipality may make by -laws for regulating the standing or parking of vehicles (see section 113(1)(a)). In anticipation of Council adopting the City Manager's recommendations, and in order to expedite the process, we prepared an amendment to the Traffic By -Law which will result in removing Waring Street from both SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintiohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 41 75 2 Common Council November 24, 2010 Schedules R and H, thereby making said street subject to the Overnight Winter Parking Restriction. The amendment will also replace the Lancaster Street limits in Schedules R and H from "Sutton Street to Clarence Street" to "Suffolk Street to Clarence Street ". Should Council adopt the City Manager's recommendations, it would be in order for Council to give first and second reading to the attached amendment. Respectfully Submitted, John L. u t City Solicitor Attachment 76 A LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING TRAFFIC ON STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1973, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ARRETk MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF A LA CIRCULATION DANS LES RUES DANS THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN EDICTS CONFORMEMENT A LA LOI SUR LES VEHICULES A MOTEUR (1973) ET LES MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une rdunion du conseil municipal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a d6cr&6 ce qui suit: A By -law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Traffic On Streets In The City of Saint John Made Under The Authority of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and Amendments Thereto ", enacted on the 19th day of December, A.D. 2005, is hereby amended as follows: 1 Schedule R — List of Streets Excluded from Winter On- Street Parking Restriction - is amended by deleting the following words under the following headings: Street Limits Waring Street Entire Lancaster Street Sutton Street to Clarence Street 2 Schedule H — Alternate Side Parking November 15 — April 30 - is amended by deleting the following words under the following headings : Street Limits Waring Street Cunard Street to Dead End Lancaster Street Sutton Street to Clarence Street 3 Schedule R — List of Streets Excluded from Winter On- Street Parking Restriction - is amended by adding the following words under the following headings : Par les prdsentes, Parretd de The City of Saint John intituld « Arrdtd relatif a la circulation dans les rues dans The City of Saint John ddictd conformdment a la Loi sur les vehicules a moteur (1973) et les modifications affdrentes », ddcrdtd le 19 ddcembre 2005, est modifid comme suit : 1 L'Annexe R — Liste des rues exemptes de la restriction de stationnement sur rue pendant Phivers — est modifide par la suppression des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : Rues Limites rue Waring en entier rue Lancaster de la rue Sutton a la rue Clarence 2 L'Annexe H — Stationnement unilatdral alternd du 15 novembre au 30 avril — est modifide par la suppression des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : Rues Limites rue Waring de la rue Cunard au cul de sac rue Lancaster de la rue Sutton a la rue Clarence 3 L'Annexe R — Liste des rues exemptes de la restriction de stationnement sur rue pendant 1'hivers — est modifide par Padjonction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : 77 IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the day of , A.D. 2011 signed by: Mayor /Maire EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau municipal sur le pr6sent arrete le 2011, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/greffiere communal First Reading - Premiere lecture Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture W s Y . The City of saint John November 30, 2011 Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase and Members of Common Council Deputy Mayor and Councillors: RE: 2010 Annual Report of the City of Saint John Pension Plan INTRODUCTION On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the City of Saint John Pension Plan I am providing the following report on the activities of the Board of Trustees during the 2010 calendar year. The Board of Trustees administers the City's Pension Plan in accordance with the provisions of the City of Saint John Pension Act, the Provincial Pension Benefits Act and the Federal Income Tax Act. To guide the administration of the Pension Plan, the Board of Trustees has adopted the following: "it is the mission of the City of Saint John Pension Fund to provide the defined benefit(s) on retirement or disability, through prudent investment, cost effective management, clear communications and service to members." The City's Pension Plan is a defined benefit program with employee contributions set at 8.5% of gross earnings. In an effort to assist in funding the Going Concern Unfunded Liability of the Plan the employees have agreed to increase their contribution by an additional 2% for three years or until such time as the Plan's going - concern funding shortfall is eliminated whichever is sooner. In addition at no time during the three year period shall employee contributions be greater than contributions from the Employer. In May of 2010 the employee's contributions returned to 9.0% of gross earnings. The employer contributions to the pension fund are an amount equal to the excess of the total current service cost of the pension plan for the year over the aggregate contributions made by members for that year and such additional amounts as are required to amortize AINT J014K P.O. Uox 1971 Sairi� john, NB Canada E2L4L1 ) y WW.Sairlijohn.ca I C.6? 1971 Saintjohn, NA. Canada E2 ki -�� 79 2010 Annual Report of the City Saint John Pension Plan Page 2 any unfunded liability in equal annual installments over a period of not more than fifteen years commencing on the later of January 1, 1992 and the date of the actuarial valuation which establishes the unfunded liability. Based on the 2009 Actuarial Valuation as of December 31, 2009 the Going Concern Unfunded Liability of the Pension Plan was $129,206,000 (2006 - $31,014,900). The contributions required to fund this liability under the Pension Benefits Act for 2010 were $12,271,800 (2009 - $3,379,180). The current service cost for 2010 was 20.60% (2009 — 20.32 %) of payroll. The Pension Benefits Act requires an evaluation to be done on an annual basis when the plan solvency ratio is less than 90 %. The solvency deficiency ratio as of the December 31, 2009 Actuarial Valuation was $201,261,000 (2006 - $106,832,800). Effective August 31, 2007 and according to section 42 of the General Regulation of the Pension Benefits Act, the Plan has been exempted from the solvency deficiency funding requirements. The next formal valuation for the plan is required to be completed as at December 31, 2010. A copy of the 2010 Audited Financial Statements is attached with this report. The net assets of the Plan at December 31, 2010 were $372,228,065 (2009 - $332,653,005). These funds are invested by the Board in accordance with an established investment policy and in consultation with the Board's investment consultant API Asset Management Inc. In 2010 the net assets of the Plan increased by $39,575,060 (2009 - $50,178,634). The rate of return earned by the plan in 2010 was 12.4% (2009 - 20.9 %). While this was certainly positive for the Plan, the economic climate continues to very unsettled. It can be anticipated that consistent returns for the Plan will only be achieved when global economic stability returns. As of the writing of this report the investment climate continues to be volatile. In terms of the 2010 audited financial statements an extrapolation of the 2009 actuarial valuation was completed by the actuary based on the assumptions in effect at the time the valuation was completed. The extrapolation was updated for changes in the plan in the current year related to increases in the liability based on additional service earned by the employees along with investment earnings and payments to pensioners. The result of the extrapolation is an estimated going - concern unfunded liability of as at December 31, 2010 $110,089,935 (2009 - $121,035,995). It is important to note that these are extrapolations only and the actual results of the actuarial valuation ma} vary based on changes in the assumptions used to complete the valuation. INVESTMENT POLICY The Funds assets are managed by eight investment managers with an asset mix of 25% Canadian Fixed Income and short- term/cash, 30% Canadian Equities, 5% US Equities, 5% International Equities, and 35% in Alternative Investments. M 2010 Annual Report of the City Saint John Pension Plan Page 3 The Board constantly reviews and, when appropriate, updates its Investment Policy to ensure that the long -term funding needs of the plan can be achieved. As has been the case over the last few years' one area of continued attention of the Board is the increasing popularity of alternate investments that offer more stable returns. The desirability of these types of investments is that they have the potential to offer reasonable investment returns that are not normally affected by the ups and downs in the equity or other investment markets. This approach has the potential to add to the diversity of the Fund's Investments thereby reducing the volatility of the returns. INVESTMENT MANAGER PERFORMANCE As previously stated in this report the plan experienced a 12.4% return on its investments which exceeds the long -term targeted return of CPI plus 3.85% and is higher than our actuarial funding assumption of 6.5% (the actuarial funding assumption for the 2009 actuarial valuation was 6.75 %). The Pension Plan's assets are managed by nine professional investment firms as follows: Fixed Income Real Estate Canadian Equity Canadian Equity US Equity EAFE Equity Hedge Funds Private Equity Private Debt — Addenda Capital - Standard Life — Kingwest and Company - Letko Brosseau & Associates — Steinberg Asset Management — Philadelphia Investments - Performance Market Hedge Fund - Clairvest Equity Partners IV Limited Partnership - Wellington Financial Fund III Limited Partnership The Board of Trustees meets with each of the Investment Managers twice a year to review their performance and discuss emerging trends in the investment markets. The Board also retains API Asset Performance Inc. to provide an analysis of our manager's performance in comparison with other managers with similar holdings. ACTIVE AND RETIRED PARTICIPANTS The number of active participants in the Plan was 878 (2009 - 882) while the number of retired participants stands at 812 (2009 - 796). The impact of the high percentage of pensioners in relation to active members is reflected in the current fund balances as detailed in the Pension Fund's Annual Financial Statements. In 2010 the total contributions into the Plan from employees were $5,809,391 (2009 - $6,242,565) and 2010 Annual Report of the City Saint John Pension Plan Page 4 from the employer $19,140,782 (2009 - $9,655,488). Total pensions paid in the year were $21,759,119 (2009 - $20,144,606). BOARD OF TRUSTEES The members of the Board of Trustees as at December 31, 2010 were as follows: Trustee Appointing Body Councillor Bruce Court Common Council Michael Meahan Outside Workers — CUPE Local 18 Kevin Fudge Management/non -union staff Bill Buckley Inside Workers — CUPE Local 486 Frederick Slipp Firefighters — IAFF Local 771 Andrew Belyea Saint John Police Association J. Claude Mackinnon Saint John Retired Members Association Mayor Ivan Court (Chair) Ex-officio, Mayor Elizabeth Gormley (Secretary) Ex- officio, Common Clerk Gregory J. Yeomans (Treasurer) Ex- officio, Commissioner of Finance J. Patrick Woods Ex- officio, City Manager Respectfully submitted, ,�` di't Mayor Ivan Court Chair Board of Trustees City of Saint John Pension Plan Financial Statements The City of Saint John — Pension Plan December 31, 2010 illllllll I Ill��i,,. fifERN T &YO(JIVC, Quality in EveryWng We Do CONTENTS Independent Auditors' Report Statement of Net Assets Available for Benefits Laic- 1-2 Statement of Changes in Net Assets Available for Benefits 4 Notes to Financial Statements Schedule of Administrative Expenses 5 -12 13 =r ERNST & YOUNG R n.ember lb" of Ernst & y&M GttbW UMtod 01 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To the Board of Trustees of The City of Saint John — Pension Plan We have audited the accompanying of net assets available for benefits of The City of Saint John — Pension Plan [the "Plan "] as at December 31, 2010 and the statement of changes in net assets available for benefits for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. Management's responsibility for the financial statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors' responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the. financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditors consider internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. �"' ERN l & /bu AIL; AmemberArmMerwr :vwflgG:o.alL :wmted 85 -2- We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained in our audit is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Plan as at December 31, 2010 and the changes in its net assets available for benefits for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles. ve Saint John, Canada, t May 26, 2011. Chartered Accountants MER S & Y `^' ` G 4 member lum of Ernst b vbusg GMA LWWd 0 The City of Saint John — Pension Plan STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR BENEFITS As at December 31 Investments, at market Bonds and Fixed Income Pooled Funds; 68,834,003 66,998,290 (Cost 2010 - $65,330,952; 2009 - $65,985,098) Stocks and Equity Pooled Funds; 252,148,166 221,757,182 (Cost 2010 — $223,987,189; 2009 - $221,459,831) Real Estate Funds 36,896,383 34,081,204 (Cost 2010 — $32,002,568; 2009 - $323,283,530) Net assets available for benefits 372,228,065 332,653,005 ,See accompanying notes On behalf of the Trustees: Trustee 91 INERNST &YOUNG pmembcvfumOfEmyt &YOUP9r balC -Rea 87 2010 2009 Cash and short term notes 3,900,023 8,215,410 Due from the City of Saint John 115,087 58,817 Funding due from the City of Saint John 870,150 726,683 Special Funding due from the City of Saint John 8,701,402 Accrued interest and dividends 762,851 815,419 Investments, at market Bonds and Fixed Income Pooled Funds; 68,834,003 66,998,290 (Cost 2010 - $65,330,952; 2009 - $65,985,098) Stocks and Equity Pooled Funds; 252,148,166 221,757,182 (Cost 2010 — $223,987,189; 2009 - $221,459,831) Real Estate Funds 36,896,383 34,081,204 (Cost 2010 — $32,002,568; 2009 - $323,283,530) Net assets available for benefits 372,228,065 332,653,005 ,See accompanying notes On behalf of the Trustees: Trustee 91 INERNST &YOUNG pmembcvfumOfEmyt &YOUP9r balC -Rea 87 The City of Saint John -- Pension Plan STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR BENEFITS Year ended December 31 See accompanying notes � I ERf s [ QC I ©u Rlf _ _ .. _ A member Orm of ey4t & vamq GIM01 tkr*ed 88 2010 2009 $ $ Increase in assets Contributions The City of Saint John 19,140,782 9,655,488 Employees 5,809,391 6,242,565 24,950,173 15,898,053 Investment income Interest 2,826,802 3,174,565 Dividends 5,303,877 4,857,459 8,130,679 8,032,024 Unrealized gain in market value of investments 26,215,406 45,862,340 Realized gain (loss) in market value of investments Hedging gain realized 4,830,039 567,849 (4,685,080) 8,513,532 Hedging gain unrealized 84,383 73,232 Current period change in market values of investments 31,697,677 _ 49,764,024 64,778,529 73,694,101 Decrease in assets Pensions paid Contributions and interest refunded to participants 21,759,119 369,670 20,144,606 485,367 Administrative expenses (schedule) 3,074,680 2,885,494 25,203,469 23,515,467 Net increase in net assets available for benefits 39,575,060 50,178,634 Net assets available for benefits, beginning of year _ 332,653,005 282,474,371 Net assets available for benefits end of year 372,228,065 332,653,005 See accompanying notes � I ERf s [ QC I ©u Rlf _ _ .. _ A member Orm of ey4t & vamq GIM01 tkr*ed 88 The City of Saint John — Pension Plan NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As at December 31, 2010 1. PLAN SUMMARY The City of Saint John — Pension Plan [the "Plan'] is the accumulation of Plan assets used to fund pensions under the revised City of Saint John Pension Act [the "Act"] as enacted on May 12, 1994, as amended to June 18; 2008. The Act is administered by a Board of Trustees representing Common Council of the City of Saint John ( "the City', management, unionized employees, non - unionized employees and retired employees. The Plan is also subject to the provisions of the New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act which became effective January 1, 1992. The assets of the Plan are held by RBC Dexia Investor Services which acts as custodian of the Plan. The assets of the Plan are managed by nine different investment managers who have discretionary investment authority within the investment mandates given to them by the Board of Trustees. The performance of the Plan relative to others is measured on a regular basis by API Asset Performance Inc. Significant features of the Plan are as follows: • The Plan provides for pensions on the defined benefit basis at the rate of 2% per year of service times the average of the three consecutive years of service having the highest salary. The Plan also provides for disability allowances and survivor benefits. • The Plan provides indexing at the rate of 1% per year on the basis of service between January 1, 1975 and December 31, 1992 and at the rate of 2% after January 1, 1993. • The Plan is funded by eligible employees contributing 50% of the current service cost to the plan to a maximum of 9% of aggregate salaries and the employer contributing the balance of the current service cost. Based on the 2009 actuarial valuation, the current service cost of the Plan was 20.6% of payroll. At no time can the overall employer contribution rate be less than 7.5% of aggregate salaries. The employer is obligated to make additional contributions, if necessary, to adequately amortize any unfunded liability or solvency deficiency. In 2010, required employer contributions to amortize the unfunded liability were $12,271,800. • Contributions become vested after two years. AVER sT &Yo ' `G — Amgnher firm *fErfttffiWUngftoofLlrmco 89 The City of Saint John -- Pension Plan NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As at December 31, 2010 2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Basis of presentation These financial statements are prepared on the going concern basis and present the aggregate financial position of the Plan as a separate financial reporting entity independent of the sponsor and plan members. They are prepared to assist in reviewing the activities of the Plan for the fiscal period but they do not portray the funding requirements of the Plan or the benefit security of individual plan members. Basis of valuation of investment assets Investments are stated at market value which approximates fair value, using published market valuations, where applicable, or market- related determinations. Pooled fund and earnings Certain of the Plan's investments are held via units of pooled funds. Income earned on these funds is retained within the fund and reflected as part of the current period change in market values of investments. Market value approximates fair value. Foreign currency translation Investments denominated in United States [ "US "] dollars are translated at the year-end rate of exchange. Foreign exchange gains and losses are included as a component of the current period change in market value of investments. Hedging The Plan utilizes currency hedges to offset market fluctuations in its investments denominated in US Dollars. At year end, the hedges are fair valued and recorded in an increase or decrease in the change in the value of market value of investments. Cash and short -term notes Cash and short -term notes are net of accounts payable and accounts receivable. 6 MERNST &YOUNG Am Ift*C firM o!Er"A &YouigWbalUaftd 90 The City of Saint John — Pension Plan NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As at December 31, 2010 3. ACTUARIAL VALUATION (a) The 2009 actuarial valuation indicated the present value of accumulated plan benefits was $461,859,000 and the market value of net assets available to provide benefits was $332,653,000 with an estimated unfunded liability of $129,206,000 on a going concern basis. As of December 31, 2009 the liabilities on a solvency basis were $201,261,000 greater than the solvency assets. The significant actuarial assumptions adopted for purposes of the going - concern funding valuation in the 2009 report were as follows: • Retirement will occur at the earlier of age 65 or attainment of combined age and service of 88 years. • Valuation assets were taken as the market value of assets. • The following are the assumed rates used in the valuation: Investment earnings rate 6.50% per annum after investment fees Inflation rate 2.50% per annum Real rate of return 3.90% per annum for 10 years & 5.4% thereafter Salary increases 3.00% per annum The projected unit credit actuarial cost method was used for purposes of the going - concern funding valuation. The benefit at retirement is projected for each member based on the assumed increases in earnings. Equal units of this projected benefit are assumed to accrue in each year of service. The present value of the portion of the projected benefit deemed to be accrued for service to the valuation date is calculated for each member based on the assumptions outlined above. The total accrued liability is the aggregate of the accrued liabilities determined for each individual member. The total accrued liability is then compared with the assets as at the valuation date to determine the surplus or unfunded liability at that date. 7 HE& YbuAfG i rgember fjrm or wilt s Ywttq aoOet,.uriteat 91 The City of Saint John — Pension Plan NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As at December 31, 2010 3. ACTUARIAL VALUATION (continued) Similarly, the present value of the portion of the projected benefit deemed to accrue in respect of the years of service following the valuation date is determined for each individual member. The total normal actuarial cost is equal to the sum of the individual normal actuarial costs so calculated for each member. The residual normal actuarial cost is the excess of the total normal actuarial cost over the member's required contributions. (b) AON Hewitt conducted an extrapolation of the Plan as of December 31, 2010. The extrapolation indicated an estimated present value of accumulated plan benefits of $482,318,000 compared to market value of net assets of $372,228,065 available to provide benefits, creating an estimated unfunded actuarial liability of $110,089,935. The cumulative changes in the present value of benefits, on a going concern basis during 2010 were as follows: Actuarial present value of benefits at December 31, 2009 461,859,000 Estimated value of benefits accrued in 2010 12,868,000 Pensions paid and lump -sum refunds and transfers in 2010 (22,129,000) Net interest accrual 29,720,000 Estimated actuarial present value of benefits at December 31, 2010 482,318,000 Market value of assets at December 31, 2010 372,228,065 Estimated unfunded actuarial liability at December 31, 2010 $110,089,935 (c) During 2010, the City of Saint John paid the Plan $3,723,252, which represented special contributions toward the unfunded liability (2009 - $2,721,547). Since the required contributions related to the unfunded liability for 2010 were $12,271,800, the City owes the Plan an amount of $8,701,402, which consists of deficit contributions and interest owing on the contributions not made to the Plan in accordance with the New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act and its Regulations. The City of Saint John is required to make special going concern payments until 2024. (d) On December 21, 2007, the Regulations to the New Brunswick Pension Benefit Act were modified with the intention of requiring pension plans with a solvency ratio below 90% to file actuarial valuations annually (from the current triennial requirement). The 2010 actuarial valuation is in the process of being prepared. AERNsT& `ou `G A, member ifrmofErn %t $ Young Cdc'jigU bd 92 The City of Saint John — Pension Plan NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As at December 31, 2010 4. SOLVENCY FUNDING EXEMPTION The New Brunswick Pension Benefits .4ct requires that a solvency deficiency be funded over a period of five years unless an exemption from making solvency special payments is granted by the Superintendent of Pensions. In 2007, this exemption from making solvency special payments to the Plan was sought and received. 5. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS The Plan's financial instruments consist of cash and short -term notes, accounts receivable, temporary and long -term investments, accounts payable and amounts due from related parties. All items except investments are recorded at cost which, due to their nature and short -term maturities approximate fair value. The Plan is subject to financial risks as a result of its investment activities. These risks include market risk, credit risk and liquidity risk. The Plan manages these financial risks in accordance with the New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act, applicable regulations, and the Plan's investment policies and procedures. The investments of the Plan are managed utilizing a balanced approach, where the Plan invests in bonds, stocks, pooled funds and real estate funds. Market Risk Market risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of an investment will fluctuate because of changes in market process. In accordance with the Plan's policies, the Plan manages market risk by investing in diversified investments and utilizing fund performance managers. Market risk is comprised of the following: (a) Foreign currency risk Foreign currency risk arises from investments that are denominated in foreign currencies. Fluctuations in the relative value of foreign currencies against the Canadian dollar can result in a positive or negative effect on the fair value of investments. As at December 31, 2010, the Plan has equity investments denominated in foreign currencies through investments of pooled funds and direct equities. `0 ERNS[ &YVVI G Amember firm ofMy* &Yaung41DW1UmiW 93 The City of Saint John — Pension Plan NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As at December 31, 2010 5. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS (continued) The plan utilizes currency hedges to minimize this risk to an approved percentage of these investments. The Plan's underlying currency exposures in Canadian dollars consist of the following: Impact of 1% absolute change in foreign exchange Fair value rates on net assets Foreign equities and pooled funds 74,462,161 744,622 Approximately 21% of the Plan's investment funds are invested in foreign securities. (b) Interest rate risk Interest rate risk refers to the effect on the fair value or future cash flows of an investment due to fluctuations in interest rates. The Plan's interest rate exposure arises from its investment in bonds and in fixed income pooled funds, where those funds have underlying investments in fixed income securities which are all denominated in Canadian dollars. The following table demonstrates the sensitivity of the Plan's bonds and fixed income pooled funds to possible change in bond yields. The impact was determined using the average rate expected on instruments that are exposed to interest rate risk. The duration measures the sensitivity of the price of financial instruments for every I% change in interest rates. Impact of 1% absolute change in bond yields Fair value on net assets Bonds and fixed pool 68,834,003 688,340 10 �f ERNSi & IkJVN Amemwr firm o!EmstarpunaAaium4 9 The City of Saint John — Pension Plan NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As at December 31, 2010 5. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS (continued) (c) Price Risk Price risk is the risk that the fair value of an investment will fluctuate because of changes in market prices (other than those arising from foreign currency or interest rate risk), whether those changes are caused by factors specific to the individual investment or factors affecting all securities traded in the market. This applies to all of the plan's investments, The following table demonstrates the sensitivity of the Plan's net assets to a 1% absolute change in the fair value of the Fund's investments which are exposed. to price risk: Impact of 1% absolute change in fair value Fair value on net assets Total investments, at market 357,878,552 3,578,786 (d) Credit risk Credit risk on financial instruments is the risk of financial loss occurring as a result of default or insolvency of counterparty on its obligations to the Plan. The Plan's exposure to credit risk is limited to its investments in bonds and fixed income pooled funds where those funds have underlying investments in debt securities. Approximately 19% of the Plan's investment funds are invested in debt securities. (e) Liquidity risk Liquidity risk is the risk of being unable to settle or meet commitments as they come due, These commitments include payment of the Plan's pension obligations. Liquidity risk is managed by ensuring the Plan invests in high quality investments which can be easily disposed of in an active market. 11 LRNST& IOC/iYLf arocmttert nn of E nst a murg c�obat umaea 95 The City of Saint John — Pension Plan NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS As at December 31, 2010 6. COMPARATIVE FIGURES The comparative figures for 2009 haN a been reclassified from statements previously presented to conform to the presentation adopted in the 2010 financial statements. 7. CONTINGENCIES In accordance with the Excise Tax Act, the Plan is defined as a selected listed financial institution (SFLI). As such, the Plan is subject.to special attribution rules that require it to account for Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) in each participating province in which it has beneficiaries. The plan will also be required to register for GST/HST and to file an annual SFLI return in 2010. Management believes it is likely that the Plan will have an HST liability associated with administrative expenses that were either not assessed full HST or were imported from outside Canada for previous years. An estimate accrual for the period 2007 -2009 has been set up in the Financial Statements for 2010 and will be adjusted once confirmation is received. There is a potential that an amount for sales tax previous to 2007 might also be assessed. 12 99 ER ST& YOUNG — A member Jlrm Of Emst t Young MOW tirrWd M The City of Saint John — Pension Plan SCHEDULE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES Year ended December 31 13 A E RN (& YOU N(1 q member firm N Emst a Ydmq GbbW Um.ted 97 2010 2009 $ S Investment management fees 1,569,192 1,353,392 Administration fees paid to the City of Saint John 143,601 163,367 Performance measurement services 94,527 93,185 Custodian fees 130,041 116,250 Conference and seminar expenses 52,380 30,478 Actuarial and consulting services 263,464 269,574 Legal fees 308,582 782,653 Audit fees 15,525 18,040 Consultants' fees 8,475 24,323 Miscellaneous 15,512 16,826 Insurance 25,400 17,406 Harmonized Sales Tax Accrual 2007 -2009 447,981 3,074,680 2,885,494 13 A E RN (& YOU N(1 q member firm N Emst a Ydmq GbbW Um.ted 97 Dear Mayor and Common Council, I am writing this letter in regards to the parking ban on Douglas Ave from Bentley St. to the reversing falls bridge. I own a 2 unit at 358 -360 Douglas Ave and last year I lost over $3000 in rental income because my tenants did not think it was reasonable for them to have to park over 1 km away every cold winter evening and morning. I cannot understand why the other side of Douglas Ave is exempt and the portion where I reside is not. I was told last winter by city employees that they were looking into alternative parking for residents such as myself, yet nothing has still been done about this. 1 believe that council should use alternate side parking as was done for residents of the uptown /South end region or completely remove the parking ban on all of Douglas Ave. You cannot expect me to continually have higher taxes when I cannot provide parking for tenants during the winter months. I have spoken to many of my neighbors and last winter and we are all in agreement. While I understand that snow clearing is very important, I don't think expecting myself or my tenants to have to walk that distance each night /morning. I would like to see this issue brought before council once again as I don't think many of the councilors realized that there was no alternate parking provided for residents such as myself and that some are forced to walk in the snow and slush each evening to avoid parking tickets. If there was an exception made for uptown residents there definitely should be an exception made for ALL of Douglas Ave. When I purchased my building it was with the understanding that I could provide on street parking and I feel that it's been unjustly taken away from me. Douglas Ave is far wider than any street in the uptown region and so I cannot fathom why it is not exempt from the parking ban. It's neither fair nor does it make sense to have a parking ban on this portion of the street as it has only caused the market value of properties to be less valuable. It would be hard for me to ever sell now as I would not get full market value for a 2 unit building that cannot provide parking for its tenants. I would like to address Council if this is discussed during a meeting and would appreciate if you could advise me if and when this happens. Regards, Jamie Mahoney .; December 12, 2011. The Common Council of Saint John. Your Worship and Councillors. The Common Council has decided that the pension benefits of City retirees should be looked at to deal with the dire consequences related to the Pension deficit concerns. While there have been reports that the Superintendent of Pensions is insisting on certain provisions to the proposed Pension Act amendments, it is not true that the Superintendent of Pensions has the last word on the matter of retirees' pensions. Municipal budgets of local governments fall under the control of local government Councils. Consequently, it should be clear that Common Council is taking this action with the full knowledge that it is a local decision with respect to the specific detail of interfering with the pledges and promises underlying the pensions of retirees. With respect to the recent report from the City Manager, I am surprised that he would allude to the potential circumstances for a loss of further benefits and possibly frighten the retirees into submission. The City Manager knows that any amendments to private legislation do not originate with the province, and subject to legality, the final decision regarding the provisions of any amendments and the specific details of a municipal budget rests with the Common Council. During the provincial controversy over pensions several months ago, the Premier recognized and spoke publically about the justice and his support for legitimately earned pensions. It is now very troubling to see the attempts being made by the Common Council to meddle with the benefits of retirees. The trouble is not diminished either when we remember the dark and obscure 2002 Council resolution approving a supplementary pension for the former City Manager and the resolution being subsequently formalized into a 2009 agreement, and explained away as not pension funds but taxpayer dollars from the general revenue. More than troubling, it is disgusting to see what I believe is the greed and shameless attitude of entitlement surrounding the topping up of legitimate pensions with little or no public debate, and also read about the enhanced benefits in a confidential agreement at the provincial level under a veil of top secrecy. This raises the question of how many more unearned supplementary pensions under no valid Pension Plan have been granted to individual government officials at both the provincial and municipal levels including local Boards and Commissions? .. It seems unfair that unearned supplementary pensions including cost of living provisions are untouchable and protected when contained in a resolution and formalized into a contract without legislation. But rights or benefits of retirees coming into existence through a Council resolution and put into valid Pension legislation are open to the discretion of government officials through the use of amending legislation. To deal with a financial crisis, imagine for a moment the outcry and what would happen if the City and the Province attempted to take away rights by changing private legislation containing an agreement between the City and an Irving Company dealing with water rates. Another concern is the City Manager's very brief comment that the City Solicitor had "input into the report and recommendations." What is the meaning of input into the report? Traditionally, any proposed legislating originating from the Common Council has always been on solid legal grounds. Has the City Solicitor distinguished the recent Court of Queens Bench decision of Mr. Justice Grant on the significant question of vested rights and what constitutes a "deal ?" Has the City Solicitor satisfied himself that there is no legitimate claim, in his opinion, against the City by the retirees? What is the meaning and application of the rescinding restrictions in the City's Procedural By -Law governing Council and its power to take away rights and change resolutions? Finally, I trust that Common Council is not proceeding on the basis that the retirees as a loose organization are vulnerable, powerless and not organized well enough to question this action. That would be compounding the injustice, if any existing rights of the retirees disappear by inaction, or default or from the fear that might exist over the expense to any legal action against the City and the province. Yours truly, (source verified) Frank Rodgers. 100 City Hall 15 Market Square December 19, 2011 P.O. Box 1971 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 His Worship Mayor Court, Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors City of Saint John Subject: Saint John Information Management Project (SJIM) Your Worship, Deputy and Councillors, Common Council has been supportive of the Saint John Information Management Project (SJIM) being sponsored by the Clerk's office in an effort to bring the City's record keeping up to date, comply with legislation and reduce the City's risk of liability, by approving a total of $210,000 for the project. As part of the project, LNW Consulting Services has developed a proof of concept implementation plan which will be deployed to the City of Saint John SharePoint 2010 site early in the first quarter of 2012. Having created and tested the system for the past several months, LNW Consulting is in the unique position of having in -depth knowledge to write a governance policy for users and provide the training based on this policy. The expense of $24,850 for both the policy and the training would be taken from the Council approved amount above, and is budgeted for in the Clerk's office 2011 budget. Recommendation: that notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for engagement of professional services, LNW Consulting be engaged as a sole source provider for training related to the implementation of the City of Saint John's enterprise content management system and for preparation of a SharePoint Governance Policy for information management at a cost of $24.850 excluding HST. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Gorn&y Common Clerk 101 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL OPEN SESSION M &C2011 -325 December 14, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT Saint John Transit Building — Energy Performance and Dashboard System BACKGROUND City of Saim John The purpose of this report is to advise Common Council on the energy performance of the Saint John Transit Building, and the launching of a new Dashboard System to provide the public with information about the actual energy performance and savings of the building. The Transit building was fully commissioned in July 2010, and is designed to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Standards (LEED). The building incorporates many Energy Conservation Measures and is expected to use 45 percent less energy than a conventional building of the same size. The following Energy Conservation Measures were implemented at the new transit building: High efficiency lighting system; Heat recovery systems for the entire building; Daylight harvesting; High efficiency condensing boilers; In -floor heating system; Solar wall heating system; Rainwater harvesting and water conservation measures to reduce the use of potable water; Energy Management Control System; and High performance building envelop. 102 M &C2011 — 325 - 2 - December 14, 2011 ENERGY SAVINGS ANALYSIS A Measurement and Verification Plan (M &VP) was developed and implemented as part of the project to monitor the energy performance of the facility and calculate the energy savings. The energy savings were calculated by comparing the actual 2011 energy consumption to the baseline energy data of a similar size building designed to the Model of National Energy Code for Buildings. Other factors, such as weather and energy rates, were also considered in the calculation. Initial analysis and calculations indicated that the building's energy performance in the first few months was below the energy savings target. A detailed energy audit and an energy optimization program was performed to determine the cause of the lower than expected energy performance, and identify measures to meet or exceed the energy savings target. It was determined that the building's energy systems were not performing as per the design requirements mainly because adjustments were required with the energy management control system, scheduling and set points parameters. The required adjustments were made as well as low cost measures to ensure the systems performed as expected. After the energy optimization program was implemented, the energy performance of the facility was measured again. The analysis indicated that the annual energy savings is expected to be over $300,000 or a 58 percent energy reduction. The annual energy savings will exceed the City of Saint John initial energy savings target of 45 percent. The following graph depicts the electrical consumption comparison of a conventional building of similar size (Blue), the energy savings target (Green) and the actual energy savings achieved in 2011 after the energy optimization program was completed on the building in February 2011 (Red). Also, the graph shows a significant increase in energy consumption in January and February of 201 1prior to implementation of the energy optimization program. 103 M &C2011- 325 -3 - 1ro.WOO 140,000 120,000 100.000 80,000 60.000 40,000 20,000 December 14, 2011 Electrical Consumption Comparison (KWH) 1a °�a comma era�r P �S �v� 1 PJ��� coo O``Oo�` m Conventional Building • Actual m Target The following graph depicts the natural gas consumption comparison of a conventional building of similar size (Blue), the energy savings target (Green) and the actual energy savings achieved in 2011 after the energy optimization program was completed on the building in February 2011 (Red). 4, ;an 4,000 3.500 3.000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Natural Gas Consumption (GJ) Comparison e, JycA ■ Conventional building W Actual Target 104 M &C2011 — 325 - 4 - December 14, 2011 DASHBOARD SYSTEM Currently, the City of Saint John and the Saint John Transit Commission, in cooperation with Shift Energy Inc, an energy consulting firm, is working on a pilot project for the development of a Dashboard System that will provide the public with a real -time energy savings display of the Transit building. The Dashboard System will use a 42 inch LCD screen, and will be located at City Hall on the Mall level in front of the Visitor Information Centre. It will display real -time annual, monthly and daily water and energy savings data for the building. The following is a sample of the public view display of the Dashboard System: UmmeTIUM �. �nargy from I �$ �n�rgl�s 125 feflovvfWol 12% mn"Ible scum" ra nnaa l0rrroa .. .............. , ...... ................. cd�ivl�lll +anal sdlr��s sources Nnventionnellas $120 $1640 48 600 Iitrae litres SAINT 10HN TK1l+r AT Salmt John Transit is cammMcd to our cammunIty, off cring high Standards ut envir on menial I y irl end ly 1p dhIle transParteti01t Staff is looking into implementing the Dashboard System to display energy performance of other City facilities for the public to view. Council will be advised when other buildings may come online and what information will be displayed. 105 M &C2011 — 325 - 5 - December 14, 2011 RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends that this report be received and filed. Respectfully Submitted, Amy Poffenroth, PEng MBA Deputy Commissioner Patrick Woods, CA City Manager 1: REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL OPEN SESSION M &C2011 -324 December 14, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: City of Saim John SUBJECT: Revised Program Contribution Agreement — Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program for City of Saint John Facilities BACKGROUND At its meeting on May 11, 2009, Common Council resolved to enter into a Contribution Agreement with Efficiency NB to participate in an incentive program for implementation of Energy Conservation Measures for City facilities, Water & Sewage plants and Commission buildings. Under this incentive program, the City has undertaken Energy Conservation Measures at the Lancaster Lagoon, Canada Games Aquatic Centre, Harbour Station, Stu Hurley Arena, and Peter Murray Arena, resulting in $66,100 in financial incentives to the City under this program. Recently, Efficiency NB has made some changes to the Contribution Agreement; the modified Agreement was submitted to staff and reviewed by the Legal Department. The most significant change to the Agreement is the increase of the incentive contribution from "$10 /Gega- Joules (GJ) saved up to a maximum of $50,000 per building" to "$30 /Gega- Joules (GJ) saved up to a maximum $75,000 per building" for Class II buildings. The new change is positive and will increase the amount of financial incentives that the City of Saint John will be eligible for. The purpose of this report is to seek Council's consent to enter into the new revised Contribution Agreement in the form as attached to this M &C 2011 -324. Financial Implication The Program Contribution Agreement will not bind the City of Saint John to any financial, technical and work obligation. The City of Saint John will have the option whether to implement all or none of the Energy Conservation Measures as 107 M &C2011 — 324 - 2 - December 14, 2011 indicated in the statement of work. However, payment will only be provided for work completed within the thirty -six (36) months term of the Agreement. Legal Implication The Legal Department has already reviewed the revised Program Contribution Agreement and the Agreement in the form as attached is acceptable to them. RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends: 1. That The City of Saint John enter into the revised Contribution Agreement substantially in the Form as attached to M &C 2011 -324 with Efficiency NB for each of the Buildings listed in Schedule "A" attached to said M &C 2011 -324; subject to review and approval of the City Solicitor or his designate. 2. That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign the revised Contribution Agreement for each of the buildings listed in Schedule "A" attached to M &C 2011 - 324. Respectfully submitted, Amy Poffenroth, P. Eng., MBA Deputy Commissioner Buildings and Inspection Services Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 1: ll;/� if Lnergy Smart Program Program Agreement Efficiency A.IB Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program THIS PROGRAM CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT made as of this day of > 20 (Dated by Efficiency NB) BETWEEN: ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY OF NEW BRUNSWICK, a crown corporation under the laws of New Brunswick, doing business as Efficiency New Brunswick, (hereinafter called "Efficiency NB ") AND: (Company name City of Saint John, The City is a "body corporate by Royal Charter and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assemblv of the Province of New Brunswick" hereafter called the "participant ". WHEREAS Efficiency NB is seeking to assist existing commercial building owners and operators to make their buildings more energy efficient; WHEREAS Efficiency NB will be providing assistance to Participants by way of an incentive program; WHEREAS Efficiency NB is willing to provide financial assistance toward the eligible costs of the energy efficient retrofit measures in the manner and upon the Terms and Conditions hereinafter set forth; WHEREAS The Participant operates facilities ( "Facility ") located at (Civic address) Hilton Belyea Arena- 390 Lowell Street Saint John _, NB, and those facilities meet the requirements hereinafter set forth; AND WHEREAS both parties agree with the Terms and Conditions outlined in this Agreement, the Program Guide, attached as Schedule A, Efficiency NB shall provide a contribution to the Participant to help offset the cost of an Energy Audit as well as costs associated with implementing energy efficiency measures as submitted in the Statement of Work form. THEREFORE, Efficiency NB and the Participant agree as follows: i. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Efficiency NB will provide incentive support to the Participant, subject to the detailed Terms and Conditions as defined in Schedule A: Energy Smart Program Guide to assist the Participant in funding Eligible Costs as further defined in Schedule A: Energy Smart Program Guide. The specific incentives available are generally described as: s.3. Energy Audit Incentive Efficiency NB will contribute 50% of the cost of the comprehensive energy audit to determine the potential for energy efficiency improvement measures to the following maximums per building class: Class I (small) Class II (medium) Class Ill (large) 1,394.— 6,968 m2 > 6,968 m2 (75,000112) < 1,394 mZ (< 15,000 ftZ) (15,000 - 75,000 ftz) *Max $1,000 *Max $2,000 *Max $3,000 1 866 643 °8833 www.efficiencynb.ca Advice financial incentives Energy Efficient 1.2. Energy Efficiency Measure Implementation Incentive Efficiency NB will offer performance based financial incentives toward costs incurred for implementation of pre- approved Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs) as recommended by your Energy Management Service Provider (EMSP). All EEMs chosen by the Participant for implementation must be submitted in the Statement of Work form. Incentives are calculated as a dollar per energy unit basis of energy consumption avoidance. The unit of energy is measured in Giga- joules (GJ). The maximum EEM Implementation Incentive Contributions are $3o /GJ saved up to a maximum of $75,000. 2. PAYMENT CLAIMS -2.1 Ph�-sa I - Energy Audit Incentive Prior to the issuance of the Energy Audit Incentive the Participant must comply with the Terms and Conditions outlined herein: a) The subject building must be owned and /or occupied by the Participant. b) The Program Agreement must be signed, witnessed, dated and returned to Efficiency NB. c) The Release of Information form must be completed, signed and returned to Efficiency NB. d) The Participant must provide a minimum of 12 months of historical energy consumption and one month's copy of utility bills for each energy source used in the building. e) The comprehensive Energy Audit must be conducted by an Energy Management Service Provider (EMSP) registered with Natural Resources Canada or approved by Efficiency NB (view list: http: / /oee.nrcan.gc.ca/ providers). f) The comprehensive Energy Audit Report must be received by Efficiency NB from the EMSP along with the completed two (2) page Efficiency NB Summary Report Form. g) The EMSP must submit proof of payment by the Participant for services rendered. f) No retrofit or upgrade work associated with the recommended Energy Efficiency Measures outlined in the Energy Audit Report has commenced. 1- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ,- -- -111 Energy Smart Program Program Agreement Efjcienc4 A'S Comwerciel Buildings EneigyEfficiencyRetrafftPragrarn z.a Phase II — Energy Efficiency Measures Implementation Prior to the issuance of the Energy Efficiency Measures Implementation Incentive the Participant must comply with the general Terms and Conditions outlined herein: a) Inspections: Participant agrees to provide Efficiency NB representatives with access during normal working hours to the Project site and to Project records as reasonably requested, both pre and post retrofit, in order to verify equipment characteristics, quantities, and performance. b) Option to Terminate: If no demonstrable progress has been made toward implementing the EEMs during any period of 18 months following the execution of this Agreement, Efficiency NB retains the right to terminate the Agreement and shall be under no further obligation to make any payment to the Participant under the Agreement. If this occurs, written notice shall be issued to the Participant. c) Accuracy of Savings Estimates: Participant acknowledges that, due to the variability of factors affecting energy consumption and demand within a building and /or facility, it is not possible to predict energy conservation and demand reduction with absolute accuracy, and that by providing information in good faith concerning the benefits and energy saving strategies and by entering into this Agreement, Efficiency NB is in no way liable or responsible for the actual energy cost avoidance realized by the Participant as a result of a retrofit project. d) No Guarantee /Warranty: Participant acknowledges that Efficiency NB does not endorse any particular product, system, manufacturer, consultant, contractor, supplier, or installer of products. All decisions regarding the selection, design, installation, use, and operation of equipment or system associated with the retrofit project shall be made at the sole discretion and are the sole responsibility of the Participant. e) Information Requirements: Participant agrees to provide Efficiency NB permission to access future utility and other energy consumption data upon written request where these results and /or the Energy Audit results may be used for reporting quality assurance and /or promotional uses. Efficiency NB will manage Participant information according to the requirements of the Protection of Personal Information Act. f) Audit: Payments made to the Participant by Efficiency NB under the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement are subject to financial and technical audit by Efficiency NB: Upon request by Efficiency NB, the Participant will provide to Efficiency NB, or its assigned representative, access to all relevant financial and technical records related to the EEMs for which contributions were received. Such information may include, but not be limited to: Financial information such as invoices, receipts and vouchers incurred by the Participant and proof of payments made to substantiate the incurring costs; Technical information such as drawings, energy data, and reports required to assess the implementation and environmental performance of the EEMs; and Physical access to implemented EEMs The Participant shall maintain proper books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Such records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years from the date of this Agreement and shall be made available to Efficiency NB for audit purposes for the same duration. If, at any time, any discrepancy is identified between the amounts paid by Efficiency NB and the amounts actually payable under this Agreement, the appropriate adjustments shall be promptly made between the parties. If there has been an overpayment by Efficiency NB, the amount of the overpayment shall constitute a debt due to Efficiency NB and may be so recovered. 866 643-8$33 www.efficiencynb.ca Advice . ,,r financial incentives Energy Efficient 3. PAYMENT TERMS Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, following receipt of a claim, acceptable to Efficiency NB, Efficiency NB will pay the Participant in accordance with the payment terms outlined in Section 1: Financial Assistance, Section 2: payment Claims and Schedule A: Energy Smart Program Guide, attached to this Agreement. 4. 1 ERM OF AGkEEhAEN i The term of this Agreement will be for eighteen F36 onths from the date of final signature. A ca 31TRATI ON The parties agree that all matters in difference between the parties in relation to this Agreement that cannot be resolved will be referred to the arbitration of a single Arbitrator and will be conducted pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1992, Chapter A -so.s. The decision of the Arbitrator will be binding upon the parties, their heirs, executors and assigns. If, in the opinion of Efficiency NB, there has been a misrepresentation or the Participant fails to proceed diligently with the Statement of Work, or is otherwise in default in carrying out any of the terms, conditions, covenants, or obligations of this Agreement, or if the Participant becomes bankrupt or insolvent, or has a receiving order made against it (either under the Bankruptcy and lnsolvencyAct or otherwise), or a receiver is appointed, or the Participant makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, or if an order is made or a resolution passed for the winding up of the Participant, or if the Participant takes the benefit of any statute for the time being in force relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors, Efficiency NB may, by giving notice in writing to the Participant, exercise any or all of the following remedies: a) Terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement; b) Terminate the obligation on the part of Efficiency NB to pay any monies in respect of the Statement of Work, including monies due or accruing due; and c) Direct the Participant to repay forthwith all or any part of monies paid by Efficiency NB pursuant to this Agreement and that amount is a debt due to Efficiency NB and may be so recovered. In the event of the termination of this Agreement by Efficiency NB under paragraph 6.1, Efficiency NB may, at its own discretion, pay to the Participant the share of the eligible costs of the Statement of Work completed to the date of termination. The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this contract: Schedule A — Energy Smart Program Guide Schedule B — Program Steps 113 Energy Smart Program Program Agreement k ciencyNSCammercial5w(di:-gs l mergb fj ide: ;cy <'r :,fitProyrarl 8. FORMS The following forms to be completed and submitted independent of this Agreement. The forms do not form part of this Agreement. Release of Information Statement of Work (Step 3) Request for Payment (Step 5) g. ASSIGNMENT This Agreement shall not be assigned in whole or in part by the Participant without the prior written consent of Efficiency NB and any assignment made without that consent is void and of no effect. io. NO AGENCY OR PARTNERSHIP Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to constitute one party as an agent, associate or partner of the other party. 3i. NOTICES Wherever in this Agreement notice is required or permitted to be given or served bye ither party to or on the other, the notice shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally to the authorized designate or sent by prepaid, registered mail, or by facsimile or email addressed as set forth herein, and each such notice shall be deemed given on the date of delivery namely three (3) days after mailing in the case of mail and two (2) hours from receipt of the facsimile transmission or email. No notice may be given by mail during a real or apprehended mail strike in Canada. The specified addresses may be changed from time to time by either party by notice as above provided. To Efficiency NB: Susan Ainsworth Efficiency NB 35 Charlotte Street, Suite soi Saint John, NB E21- 21-13 To the Participant: Client name: Samir Yammine Company name: City of Saint John Client address 1: P. o. Box 7200 Client address 2: Saint John, NB E2L 4S6 1 866 643 -8833 wv:w.efficien cynb.ca Advice . financial incentives Energy Efficient The Participant agrees to allow Efficiency NB to promote and /or make public announcements related to their participation in the Program. Neither party will issue or approve a news release or other public announcement concerning the transactions contemplated hereby without the prior written approval of the other party as to the contents of such announcement and its release except as required by law. 13. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws in force in the Province of New Brunswick. ?r:.. ANIENDMIFNT5 No amendment of this Agreement or waiver of any of its Terms and Conditions shall be deemed valid unless effected by a written amendment signed by the Parties. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties (Participant and Efficiency NB) with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all previous negotiations, communications, and other agreements, whether written or verbal between the parties. Efficiency NB is under no obligation to provide payment of funds for Energy Efficiency Measures installed prior to the approval and signing of this Agreement. Please sign and return to Efficiency NB the attached copy of this Agreement where indicated below to signify your agreement with the Program Guidelines, Conditions and Incentive and Payment Terms herein mentioned. Please note that failure to return a sign copy of this Agreement within 3o days, or any form of conditional acceptance, renders this offer null and void. 115 cneirgy Smart Program Program Agreement Efficiency NS CommervialSueidir ,gs.EherpyEffider ;c },Re *3r;t ff-°rugram 16. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Participant acknowledges that he /she has read this Agreement and the following Schedules: Schedule A — Energy Smart Program Guide Schedule B — Program Steps The Participant acknowledges that the officer signing this contract is the authorized signing officer to execute documents in the name and on behalf of The Participant. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf as of the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED ) In presence of: ) Witness ) Date SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED ) In presence of: ) Witness ) Date 1 866 643 -8833 www.efficiencynb.ca T, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY OF NEW BRUNSWICK per: Douglas Holt Date Company name: per: MAYOR Date Per: Common Clerk Date Common Council Resolution: e f ficiency NB E� 35 Charlotte Street, Suite lot Saint John, New Brunswick, E21- 2H3 Canada s 866 643-8833 www.efficiencynb.ca EfficiencyNB Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program Schedule Energy Smart Program Guide Table of Contents 1.0 PROGRAM INTRODUCTION ...................................................... ..............................1 2.0 ELIGIBILITYAND REQUIREMENTS .......................................... ............................... 1 2.1 Elieible Buildin.g Tvi)es ................................................ ..............................1 2.2 Ineligible Building Types .............................................. ..............................2 2.3 Mandatory Building Requirements ............................... ..............................3 2.4 Eligible Measures ........................................................ ..............................3 2.5 Ineligible Measures ..................................................... ..............................4 2.6 Mandatory Application Requirements .......................... ..............................4 2.7 Related Workshops ...................................................... ..............................5 3.0 FINANCIAL INCENTIVES .......................................................... ..............................5 3.1 Efficiency NB Audit Incentives ...................................... ..............................5 3.2 Efficiency NB Implementation Incentives ...................... ..............................6 4.0 PROGRAM STEPS ................................................................... ..............................6 Step1 Schedule Your Energy Audit ......................................... ..............................6 Step 2 Submit Program Agreement and Release of Information .............................. 7 Step 3 Submit the Statement of Work ..................................... ..............................7 Step 4 Receive Approval to get Started .................................... ..............................8 Step5 Submit Request for Payment ........................................ ..............................8 Step6 Site Inspection ............................................................ ..............................8 Step7 Receive Incentive Payment ........................................... ..............................8 5.0 AUDIT REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... ..............................9 6.0 GET STARTED! .................................................................... ............................... 10 1 866 643 -8 833 www.efficiencynb.ca Advice and financial incentives to become more Energy Efficient 1.0 PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Efficiency NB offers the Energy Smart Commercial Buildings Retrofit Program (Energy Smart). The primary objective is to assist owners and operators of commercial buildings to implement energy efficiency projects in order to reduce energy consumption, increase competitiveness, and produce a healthier and more comfortable workspace. The Energy Smart Program provides financial incentives to assist Commercial Buildings to identify projects and to offset the capital cost of the implementation of the eligible upgrades. These incentives are: a) Up to $3000 towards an audit to determine the potential for energy efficiency upgrades in a commercial building; and b) Up to $75,000 towards the implementation of the energy efficiency upgrades chosen. The implementation funding is on a `per gigajoule saved' basis and is intended for projects that have not yet been started. This incentive encourages the implementation of multiple measures in projects that would not proceed or which would proceed on a significantly smaller scale without assistance. More details are outlined in Section 3 — Financial Incentives. Important Note: Please do not start the retrofit project or incur eligible costs until all parties have signed a Program Agreement and notification of approval from Efficiency NB has been received. The current Energy Smart Program is available to all qualifying buildings on a first -come, first - serve basis. More specifically, requirements for participation in the Energy Smart Program will be considered as they are received, and approval and allocation of qualified incentive funds will occur on a first -come, first -serve basis. 2.0 ELIGIBILITY AND REQUIREMENTS It is important to read all the requirements in this section. Both building types and mandatory building requirements must be met in order to be eligible for the program and the subject building must contain eligible measures. Buildings that have previously received incentives through the Energy Smart Program are not eligible to apply for incentives for the same building through this program. Efficiency NB Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program Schedule Energy Smart Program Guide 2.1 ELIGIBLE BUILDING TYPES The following types of buildings are eligible: • Commercial or institutional buildings such as, but not limited to; agricultural buildings, arenas, grocery stores, health care facilities, hotels, institutional buildings (colleges, hospitals, schools, universities, nursing homes), office buildings, places of worship, recreational facilities, restaurants, retail buildings, stand alone warehouses, water and wastewater treatment plants and pumping stations. • Municipal buildings. • Multi -unit residential buildings that • have a common entrance and are at least four stories above ground, or • have a common entrance with a ground -floor footprint of at least boo square metres (6,458 square feet). • Mixed -use commercial /residential buildings, including houses that have been modified for commercial use. Mixed residential /commercial buildings for which at least 50% of the floor area is used as one or more permanent residences and meeting the size definition of Part 9 buildings under the National Building Code may be eligible for financial incentives with the Efficiency NB Existing Multi -Unit Residential Program. Please contact Efficiency NB to determine whether the building is a better fit for the Residential Program or Commercial Program. • Occupancy changes within a building. Efficiency NB will accept any building type where a change in occupancy will be occurring during the renovation. Special audit requirements for buildings changing their occupancy type are detailed in Section 5 - Audit Requirements. • Added capacities within a building are acceptable as long as the addition will save energy in comparison to the current common equipment that would have been installed without an energy consult. An example of adding capacity: A building currently does not have air conditioning but energy efficient air conditioning will be added to the building post energy audit. Special audit requirements for buildings adding capacity are detailed in Section 5 - Audit Requirements. 2.2 INELIGIBLE BUILDING TYPES The following types of buildings are not eligible for this program but may be eligible for other Efficiency NB programs. More information can be found at http• / /www efficiencynb.ca /enereysmart. • Manufacturing facilities (including attached warehouses and facilities) where 50% or more of the energy consumed at the facility is used in the manufacturing process. These facilities may be eligible for the Efficiency NB Small and Medium Industrial Program or the Efficiency NB Large Industrial Program. • Residential buildings such as houses, duplexes and townhouses with 50% or less commercial space and multi -unit residential buildings that are three - and -a -half stories or less and have less than a 60o mZ footprint. These buildings may be eligible for the Efficiency NB Existing Homes Energy Efficiency Upgrades Program or the Existing Multi Unit Residential Building Upgrades Program. • Provincial or federally owned buildings 866 6 43-8 833 www.efficiencynb.ca 2 Ad vice and financial incentives to become more Energy Efficient 2.3 MANDATORY BUILDING REQUIREMENTS Eligible buildings as listed in Section 2.1 must also meet other requirements as follows: • The building must be 2 years old or more. • The building(s) must have a permanent address in New Brunswick. • The organization must own, manage or lease the buildings. • A one year summary or baseline of the utility bills must be provided. • A copy of one month's utility bill for all energy sources must be provided regardless of whether or not a tenant is responsible for the utility bills. • If a building is connected to another structure, the following requirements apply: • If the space is connected to another structure such as through a pedway or if it is served by a district heating or cooling plant, it must be clearly distinguishable as an independent unit and have a separate utility meter or a detailed engineering analysis to support the current energy use and consumption profile • A building consisting of two wings with a common wall and a common heating system will be considered as one building. • Multiple eligible buildings served by a central heating plant with the same owner are eligible 2.4 ELIGIBLE MEASURES Efficiency NB will accept all proven measures (measures that have been tested and /or approved by a recognized third party such as Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) or similar organizations that lead to a reduction in non - renewable energy use. To maximize potential savings and incentive amount, multiple measures in each building are required in the energy audit report. Section 5 — Audit Requirements provides further information. The following are some common examples: • Interior and exterior lighting including compact fluorescent lighting, electronic and /or electromagnetic ballasts, reflector systems, controls, efficient lamps (ex HPT8 or T5 fluorescents), lighting - emitting diodes (LED), photoluminescent exit signs, and high- intensity discharge (HID) lighting. • Building envelope, including insulation, air -gap sealing, glazing, roof insulation and basement/ slab floor insulation. • Energy Management Controls Systems (EMCS), including direct digital controls (DDC), occupancy/ motion sensors, thermostats, photocells and direct load controls. • Water heating, including high efficiency water heaters, heat pumps, solar - assisted technology, heat traps and repairs. • Motors, including high- efficiency motors and variable speed /variable frequency drives (VSD /VFD). • Heating, ventilation and air - conditioning (HVAC) systems, including chillers and boilers, economizers, control systems, variable air - volume (VAV) systems, load control, pipe insulation, heat pumps, space heaters, air conditioners, systems for thermal storage and heat recovery systems. • Replacement equipment or major appliances that are essential to your operations such as commercial refrigeration equipment, process equipment, commercial dishwashers or commercial washers and dryers. 3 Efficiency NB Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program Schedule Energy Smart Program Guide • Biomass projects that meet ECOLOGO certification requirements. • Geothermal projects such as ground source heat pumps designed and installed by "Canadian GeoExchange Coalition (CGC) Accredited Professional" companies (found at www.geo- exchange. ca and according to CAN -CSA C448• • Renewable energy including solar, wind , and methane capture where the electricity generated will displace electricity currently supplied by the utility company. Or, if net - metering with a utility, the utility bills must reflect the amount of electricity generated on -site. Efficiency NB will consider other proven energy - saving measures with verifiable costs that result in a net reduction in non - renewable energy consumption. 2.5 INELIGIBLE MEASURES The following are examples of ineligible measures: • Projects or measures that are already in progress or that have already been completed. • Projects in new buildings or new additions to buildings. A new building is defined as a building where construction was completed less than 2 years ago. • New or unproven technologies not yet substantiated by a recognized third party such as the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) or similar organizations. • Demand reduction where total energy consumption is unaffected. • Household appliances that are designed for residential use such as residential refrigerators, residential ranges, residential clothes washers and dryers and residential dishwashers. • Portable equipment such as lamps and desk fans. • Electronic equipment such as desktop computers and fax machines. • Measures which take the equipment outside its operating range and that can negatively impact equipment life (e.g., voltage reduction). 2.6 MANDATORY APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS When submitting applications, the following information and materials must be included: • As described in Section 4 of this guide, schedule an energy audit (Step i) and have the Energy Management Service Provider complete and submit the application form electronically in its entirety. • The application must be for a building two years of age or older. The retrofit project must not incur any eligible costs until all parties have signed the Program Agreement and Efficiency NB has sent notification of approval. The notification of approval will be sent once ENB has reviewed and approved the Statement of Work. Incurred costs refer to eligible costs for goods that have been received and /or services that have been rendered related to procurement or installation of the proposed measures. • The proposed project(s) must have a simple payback period that is at least one year in order to be eligible for an implementation incentive; where the proposed project is defined as all recommended energy efficiency measures being implemented. Individual energy efficiency measures within the proposed project are permitted to have paybacks of less than one year and, if necessary, the eligible incentive amount will be limited to ensure that the total simple payback 1 866 643-8833 www.efficiencynb.ca 4 Advice and financial incentives to become more Energy Efficient period is not less than one year. The simple payback per measure and the total simple payback should be detailed in the energy audit report. • The audit may include multiple buildings, but a separate Application for each building is required. • All implementation of approved energy efficiency projects must be completed within 18 months of the date Efficiency NB signed the Program Agreement. o Implementation of approved energy efficiency projects for Municipalities and campuses must be completed within 36 months of the signed Program Agreement. ® Municipalities and campuses are eligible to apply for implementation incentives once per year up to a maximum of three (3) implementation claims within the aforementioned 36 months. • Buildings that have previously received incentives through the Energy Smart Program are not eligible to apply for incentives for the same building through this program. 2.7 RELATED WORKSHOPS To learn more about energy efficiency measures, there are Dollars to $ense workshops available from NRCan. To register — www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca /workshops 3.0 FINANCIAL INCENTIVES 3.1 EFFICIENCY NB AUDIT INCENTIVES 3.1.1 Buildings Class I (small) Class II (medium) Class'lll (large) 1,394 - 6,968 m2 < 1,394 m2 (< 15,000 ftz) (15,000 - 75,000 ftz) > 6,968 m2 (75,000W) *Max $1,000 *Max $2,000 *Max $3,000 * 50% of audit up to maximum shown 3.1.2 Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants and Pumping Stations Efficiency NB has developed a custom approach for Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP) and their respective pumping /lift stations. WWTPs are eligible to receive 50% of their energy audit costs up to $2,000. Pumping /Lift stations are considered part of their respective treatment facility and are eligible for an additional audit incentive of 50% of audit costs up to $1000 maximum total for all associated pumping stations. Efficiency NB Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program Schedule A Energy Smart Program Guide 3.2 EFFICIENCY NB IMPLEMENTATION INCENTIVES 3.2.1 Buildings The incentive is $30/GJ saved, up to a maximum of $75,000, for all building sizes. 3.2.2 Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants and Pumping Stations The incentive for the implementation of energy efficiency measures is based on amount of energy saved. Each water and wastewater treatment plant and its associated pumping stations are eligible for an incentive of $30 /GJ saved up to a maximum of $75,000. 4.0 PROGRAM STEPS STEP 1 SCHEDULE YOUR ENERGY AUDIT Contact an Energy Management Service Provider (EMSP) to schedule an energy audit. The EMSP will perform the audit, discuss potential projects with you, prepare an audit report and submit an application on your behalf to Efficiency NB. See our website for a list of qualified service provider's that has successfully entered our program and or a list of questions to ask EMSPs. Acceptable Qualifications for Service Providers: Unless there is someone within the Participant's organization with the required qualifications and experience in evaluating the energy efficiency in buildings described below, an outside EMSP will need to be retained at the Participant's expense. It is the Participant's responsibility as the applicant to ensure that the professional selected has the necessary training, credentials and experience. Retaining the services of a competent energy professional throughout the project will help realize the estimated energy savings. EMSP Qualifications for all buildings: Either a Professional Engineer (P Eng), a Professional Technologist (P Tech), a Certified Engineering Technologist (CET), an Architect or a Certified Energy Manager (CEM) must perform the energy audit; this individual must have at least two years experience evaluating energy systems in commercial buildings. An Engineer -In- Training under the supervision of a P Eng., a P Tech or a CET with the two years experience is acceptable, but the supervisor must certify and sign the audit report. 1 866 643 -8833 www.efficiencynb.ca 6 Advice and financial incentives to become more Energy Efficient STEP 2 SUBMIT PROGRAM AGREEMENT AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION The Energy Smart kit will be sent to the Participant once the application has been received by Efficiency NB. All necessary forms and information required to successfully participate in the program can be found in this kit. Please return to Efficiency NB: Program Agreement: complete these forms, sign, and return the two copies to Efficiency NB within 3o days. Release of Information: complete and send in to Efficiency NB within 3o days. After the EMSP has submitted proof of payment, the audit rebate will be received within 6o days. Acceptable proof of payment is a copy of a paid invoice or a submittal by the EMSP indicating the audit amount and that the participant has paid the EMSP in full. Efficiency NB requires that a signed Program Agreement, Release of Information and the Audit Report be sent to Efficiency NB before an audit incentive cheque is issued. if payment has not been received and a signed Program Agreement and Release of Information has been submitted please contact your EMSP. See Section 3.1 for a detailed look at audit incentives available. STEP 3 SUBMIT THE STATEMENT OF WORK Once the audit report has been received, the Statement of Work can be submitted to Efficiency NB. The audit report provides detailed information on potential energy efficiency projects along with their estimated costs, energy savings, and an estimate of the time it will take for the investment to be paid back as a result of energy savings. The Statement of Work documents the energy efficiency projects that will be implemented. When the decision has been made to go ahead with some, or all, of the recommended measures in the audit report, enter these in the Statement of Work. Please send Efficiency NB: Statement of Work: can be found in your Energy Smart kit. It will inform Efficiency NB of the measures that will be implemented to upgrade the building's level of energy efficiency. Once the measures have been selected (the complete list is in the audit report), complete the form indicating the intended projects and send the signed original to Efficiency NB for approval a minimum Of 45 days before construction is scheduled to start. 7 Efficiency NB Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program Schedule A Energy Smart Program Guide STEP 4 RECEIVE APPROVAL TO GET STARTED Efficiency NB will receive and review the completed Statement of Work and notification will be sent when the projects have been approved. Once the approval from Efficiency NB is received, the participant can commence implementation of the energy efficiency measure upgrades. Important: No project work can begin prior to receiving approval of the Statement of Work from Efficiency NB. STEP 5 SUBMIT REQUEST FOR PAYMENT At this point all the upgrades have been completed. Congratulations. Now it is time to request the incentive payment. Please send Efficiency NB: Request for Payment: describes the work that was completed. Complete and send an original, signed Request for Payment along with copies of invoices, receipts, etc. Please send this within go days of completion of construction to ensure the payment is received in a timely manner. STEP 6 SITE INSPECTION A member of Efficiency NB's staff may perform a site inspection to verify the energy efficiency measures that have been completed. STEP 7 RECEIVE INCENTIVE PAYMENT Once Efficiency NB has approved your Request for Payment, the incentive for your energy efficient upgrades will be received within 6o days of ENB receiving the claim and invoices. Please see Section 3.2 for more information on energy efficient upgrade incentives available . s 866 643 -8833 www.efficiencynb.ca 8 Advice and financial incentives to become more Energy Efficient 5.0 AUDIT REQUIREMENTS Efficiency NB requires a comprehensive energy audit for all buildings entering the program. A comprehensive audit is an onsite audit and subsequent report that investigates all possible building potential measures to reduce energy consumption. These measures can include but are not limited to; • building envelope • heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAQ • process equipment • plug loads • electrical equipment • commercial kitchen equipment • hot water • refrigeration • lighting • motors Efficiency NB requires the energy audit to be comprehensive so that all options can be considered and the potential to increase savings is made available. For example, where more efficient lights create less heat, it is beneficial that the audit report should indicate the extent to which this affects the building's heating load in winter and cooling load in summer. The comprehensive energy audit should include the following: • A written description of the physical characteristics of the building, as well as its current condition, age and construction type. • A description of the major existing equipment including lighting, all sources of heating and cooling, their energy consumption and fuel type as well as the manufacturer, model number, physical condition and years of service. • A complete breakdown of the building's current energy consumption by end -use type such as lighting, space cooling, space heating, water heating, ventilation, refrigeration and plug loads. • An analysis of the recommended energy saving measures and their resulting net effect on energy consumption of other systems in the building. The audit should describe both the current equipment and the recommended measures. The audit report needs to provide enough information for Efficiency NB's technical staff to evaluate the proposal without requesting further details. Include the recommended measures from the audit report that will be implemented on the Statement of Work form received in the Energy Smart Program Kit. If capacity is being added (ex: adding air conditioning during the retrofit), a very small addition is being added, or the occupancy will be changed (ex: changing a building from a restaurant to apartments) a modelled approach is required. A baseline model as well as the intended equipment model must be included in the report. All the baseline assumptions must also be submitted. 6 Efficiency NB Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program Schedule A Energy Smart Program Guide 6.0 GET STARTED! If you still have questions about the Energy Smart Retrofit Program after reading this guide and reviewing the accompanying forms, please contact us at: Efficiency NB 35 Charlotte St., Suite ioi Saint John, NB E2L 2H3 5o6 -643 -7826 (Telephone) 1- 866 - 643-8833 (Toll -Free) 5o6 - 643-7835 (Fax) custom enservice agnb.ca (Email) www.efficiencvnb.ca Office hours: Monday to Friday from 8:3o a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Atlantic) ,. 866 643. -8833 www.efficiencynb.ca 10 Efficiency NB Commercial Buildings Energy Efficiency Retrofit Program Schedule e Energy Smart Program Steps Advice, financial incentives to become more Energy Efficient 1 866 6 4 3 - 8 8 3 3 extension 128 ; wwvv.efficiencynb.ca V W RT E > o �: d a o "U -0 CN C o, � d C O o o y o 3 3 d c E a, o a c Q E v i TOC .� E cu nEt o rz c Y v q o ao+ C to E►. v v 'tM .L1 00 d o` d y C bn A c R L wvNi d o a � m a 7 o ct w c d � m d Z y n c y,4 > .N+ axi 0 3 d •o 'u T E C: �n � vi � ter~ > uJ 'n •> m — R Cr m �+ y° .� o G' __ Z i a V .D •d 4i ui Vi 0ti d d E i r:_, G d y vi ° d u CL N — O 7 o O v >` 31 C >C u +-� Q} E d O N E Q N W fu .� E Ly o a w ::3 E zw N (v N E C Oci a a E 01 C. t� Ell F-I w m d c y C o Z 0 E O G C d u E Z R v o E o W c N =41 Z �' ° �' d E E b O N N O C R c d fC6 C a C y d '� •u Y =EE —0 C Li! o cu E v oY T� �. 0 v •C m In °—' d d N R C d GJ y u . �nR• >E� O 7. G1 R O u vi E s a d L C d o o d o L w cu W aL+ T T_— N a � O E CJ �+ ya E Q O E C E cyCF � C M Ci t� G S� LU � � C LA c3 0 f' 1 i__.._j bn cEo _c '= o a N Y CU •O c c. d .3 'R a o T �p a Y 7• i w R N E in V) u u N c o W v � d >. a c = O: w w Z O U Q E � c ° N d � d R t d d N � d a °—' • E CL o 0 E u v 0 u 3 � c d a d Y F c Q � � O O b h i � c rnai i0 bn y 4 'n Cc 0 cL C1 � y > 'C 'O � d CL >_ ° m E E d d o �: d a o "U -0 CN C o, � d C O o o y o 3 3 d c E a, o a c Q E v i TOC .� E cu nEt o R c d O m C) > i.,7 O q o ao+ C to E►. c a 'tM .L1 00 d R R >• a.. o y C bn A c R L 3�•a o ca z O> m E � m a ro � 3 �• c y,4 > .N+ axi � U a .9 'u M o R !' > O d N i o •� O op x uJ 'n •> � c O an d Vii a > ' 3 Q -L'` .�'' C. d d `y>j w d p c >' Vi 0ti d d E 0 { L j .''' T d L Qj E 3 E ^ C 0 d : > ` E a R m =E 'C 'O � d CL >_ ° m E o N O O E d d o �: d a o "U -0 CN C o, � d C O o o y o 3 3 d c E a, d:3 ;,? c a c Q E v i TOC .� E cu nEt o R c d O m C) > i.,7 O q o ao+ C to E►. > c u CL •Yi 'tM .L1 00 d R R >• a.. o y C bn A c R L 3�•a C > e ca z O> m E � m a o m 0 en G t O a c y,4 > .N+ u a+ •V � U a .9 dJ H W V) C. Y £ y W' N i O a. o w C 3 N Q= °p bn E C C O R >, o Z ,o 'o� c m ro> o y > a cce d c o rs o m 0 en (v .'0 > bb uj k >, !' > O d N i o •� O x d o � `° u E i � c O an d Vii a > ' 3 Q -L'` .�'' C. d d `y>j w d p c >' Vi 0ti d d E y� O L j .''' T d L Qj d 3 E ^ C 15 d : > ` E a R m =E Efficiency NB offers sound advice and practical solutions to help New Brunswickers use energy more efficiently, make better energy choices, manage energy expenses and lessen the impact of energy use on the environment. To fully assess the energy performance of any house or facility, it is necessary to review the monthly energy consumption before and after any energy conservation measures are implemented. The most effective way to conduct this review is to obtain energy records in the form of billing statements directly from the energy utilities (NB Power, Saint John Energy, Superior Propane, Irving Oil, etc.). The attached authorization forms are required to be completed before the utilities can legally provide billing statements to a third party and provide the necessary authorization for Efficiency NB to obtain billing statements directly from the energy utilities. Efficiency NB will obtain energy consumption and peak demand levels (if applicable) from the utility provided data. Such data will be kept confidential and only reported publicly in aggregate ornon- identifiable forms. By signing the attached authorization forms you consent that the peak demand levels and consumption data obtained from the utility companies can be used by Efficiency NB to evaluate the performance of their programs and for statistical analysis purposes. The information obtained by Efficiency NB as a result of exercising its rights under this Release of Information on Energy Consumption shall be used only in the manner and for the purposes set forth above and shall be subject to the protections and limitations on disclosure of personal information provided for in the New Brunswick Protection of Personal Information Act and Right to Information Act. Please fill in the following information about the building for which authorization to access the utility records is being provided: Address: City: _ Electricity: Postal Code: Please fill in the following fields for the company that provides you with electricity: Providing Company Name: Account Number: Account Name: I If you have additional fuels used in your facility please check the appropriate field and enter the corresponding information from j your bills in the fields below. Natural Gas: Propane: Fuel Oil: Providing Company Name: Account Number: Account Name: If you have additional fuels used in your facility please check the appropriate field and enter the corresponding information from your bills in the fields below. Natural Gas: Propane: Fuel Oil: Providing Company Name: Account Number: Account Name: The undersigned hereby consents to and authorizes and directs the energy suppliers listed above to release to Efficiency NB, its representatives, agents and employees, any and all information (including confidential information) in the form of billing statements, consumption records and demand records, regarding energy consumption and energy producing fuels and supplies sold to or purchased for use at the above address on the accounts listed above. This consent and authorization shall apply and extend to all such information (including confidential information) covering or relating to the five year period immediately preceding and the ten year period immediately following the date hereof appearing below. Name of Authorized Person (please print): Position of Authorized Person: Signature: Date Signed: �., 1 Schedule A - List of Buildings for the Efficiency NB program Building Name Civic # Street Name PID# Fire Station #5 35 Adelaide Street 55155717 Fire Station #4 36 Courtenay Avenue 00347880 Fire Station #6 286 King Street West 00361428 Fire Station #1 47 Leinster Street 00018622 Fire Station #2 850 Loch Lomond Rd 55157184 Fire Station #7 7 Manchester Avenue West 04519962 Fire Station #8 608 Millidge Avenue 00048454 City Market 47 charlotte Street 00039420 North End Community Center 195 Victoria Street 00375980 Hilton Belyea Arena 390 Lowell Street 00394940 Stu Hurley Arena 1500 Hickey Rd 00313098 Peter Murray Arena 701 Dever Rd 00036590 Charles Gorman Arena 80 University Avenue 00042036 Carnegie Building 20 Hazen Avenue 00037499 East Garage 525 McAllister Drive 55148001 Central Garage 175 Rothesay Avenue 00019232 Municipal Operation Complex 175 Rothesay Avenue 00019232 Harbor Station 99 station street 00040048 Canada Games Aquatic Center 50 union Street 00039222 McAllister Park Waste Water Pumping Station 60 White Bone way 00434175 Beach Crescent Waste Water Pumping Station 11 Beach Crescent 55013973 Pauline Street Waste Water Pumping Station 27 David Street 55001721 "Y" STN Denver Road Waste Water Pumping Station 736 Denver Rd 00407866 "A" STN Dominion Waste Water Pumping Station 657 Dominion Park Rd 00422642 Westgate Drive Waste Water Pumping Station 47 Downsview Drive 55118731 "C" STN Russell Hill Road Waste Water Pumping Station 515 Greenhead Rd 00405951 "X" STN Green Head Road Waste Water Pumping Station 375 Greenhead Rd 00407031 Hickey Road Waste Water Pumping Station 1501 Hickey Rd 00436584 Kennebecasis 1 Waste Water Pumping Station 1099 Kennebecasis Drive 55153209 Lorneville Waste Water Pumping Station 801 Lorneville 55161541 Market Place Waste Water Pumping Station 240 Market Place 00380196 Woodlawn Park Waste Water Pumping Station 1335 Red Head Rd 55005987 Major Brook Waste Water Pumping Station 534 Rothesay Ave 00306787 Rothesay Avenue Waste Water Pumping Station 223 Rothesay Avenue 00417899 Carpenter Place Waste Water Pumping Station 1608 Saint John Throughway Wes- 55114524 Churchill Blvd Waste Water Pumping Station 283 Samual Davis Drive 55112478 Simpson Drive Waste Water Pumping Station 18 Simpson Drive 00298505 Lakewood Heights Water Pumping Station 31 Fish Hatchery Rd 00331330 Golden Grove Water Pumping Station 200 Golden Grove Rd 00373399 Park Street Water Pumping Station 1 Mitchell Street 00024042 Musquash Water Pumping Station 1107 Route #7 00419481 Spruce Lake Water Pumping Station 2524 Ocean West Way 00286559 Somerset Street Water Pumping Station 510 Somerset Street 55038913 University Avenue Water Pumping Station 399 University Avenue 00047688 Champlain Heights Water Pumping Station 21 Champlain Drive 55108070 Hazen Creek Treatment Plant 441 Red Head Rd 00337956 Lancaster Lagoon Treatment Plant 1091 Saint John Throughway 00403733 March Creek Treatment Plant 180 Thorne Avenue 00411710 Millidgeville Treatment Plant 700 Woodward Ave 00051771 Monte Cristo Treatment Plant 62 Dantes Drive 55059380 134 3��.E fjr[Dr.T]�C'T TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C —2011 -322 December 15, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: STOP -UP AND CLOSE PORTIONS OF WATER AND PRINCE WILLIAM STREETS BACKGROUND: City of Saint john In 2010, Council stopped -up and closed a 36 M 2 portion of Water Street and subsequently sold the parcel to Harbourfront Residence At Three Sisters Inc. The purpose of that street closure was to accommodate the encroachment of stairways from the condominium project into Water Street. That land transfer has been completed. The developer is now near completion of Phase 1 of the same condominium project, located at 230 Water Street. In a letter dated December 8, 2011 (see attached) from the developer to Mr. Ken Forrest, Commissioner of Planning and Development, the developer explains reasons for a further stairway encroachment of 29 M 2 into Water Street. The developer is again requesting that the City stop - up and close this portion of Water Street, as shown on an attached Plan of Survey, prepared by Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc. In addition, there is an encroachment of a retaining wall and planter into the Prince William Street right -of -way by 1.0 square metre (see attached survey plan). The developer has also stated he also wishes a street closing for this encroachment, and a subsequent transfer. City Engineering has indicated they do not object to any closure and subsequent sale of the two parcels of property. Staff has not discussed with the developer a sale of property should the streets be stopped -up and closed. Staff will provide a further report to Council for consideration on this matter if street closings are completed and a purchase price is determined. If Council is prepared to consider the requests noted above, the recommendation contained in this report will facilitate the process to initiate the street closures for the noted portions of both Water and Prince William Streets. 135 M & C — 2011 -322 - 2 - December 14, 2011 RECOMMENDATION: That the Public Hearing for the consideration of the passing of a By -law to Stop Up and Close a 29 square metre -L portion of a public street known as Water Street and a 1.0 square metre ± portion of Prince William Street, be set for Monday, January 16, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, and 2. That Common Council authorize the publishing of a notice of the intention to consider passing of such By -law. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development J. Patrick Woods, C.G.A. City Manager CL /c Attachments 136 1190 Fairville Boulevard, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, E2M ST7 Tel: (506) 635 -3064 Fax (506) 635 -0510 Email: jproccaAnbnet.nb.ca www.elleTdaleinvestments.com December 8, 2011 Mr. Ken Forrest MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Development City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, N.B. E2L 4L1 Dear Mr. Forrest Re: Purchase of encroachments on Water Street Further to our meeting in your office of Monday, December 5, 2012 this is to formally request the City consider selling us the lands referred to above and shown in the plans submitted to you by Hughes Surveys Limited. As I mentioned to you, Mr. Rick Turner informed us late last week that the all the stairs into the townhouses encroach slightly on Water Street. The cause of the problem is entirely unrelated to the City. Regrettably, a decision was made by the contractor and the designer to add a fifth riser to e stairs to make them function properly without consulting us to ensure we owned the land. Had we been consulted, this problem could have been solved by reducing the size of the stair landing in front of the entrance door to each townhouse. At this stage the direct and indirect cost to do so would exceed $50,000.00. There are eight townhouse stairs. These stairs were pre manufactured and bolted in place. We would need to remove each stair then saw cut the landing by 0.25 metre and replace the railings at the landing. It would cost approximately $ 1 0,000.00,weather permitting, to do this work, substantially more if the stairs need to be taken indoor to change them. Unfortunately, the indirect costs are substantially higher than the direct costs. Every month delay in completion of the project means an extra $50,000.00 in interest and other costs to the project. Given this significant cost and the resulting delay in the occupation date of the townhouses, we would ask the City consider selling us at market value the 0.25 metre of land needed to remove the encroachment. We ask this on the basis that conveyance of a 0.25metre piece of the land does not materially restrict or limit the use or enjoyment by ' 137 __ OA the public of the very generous existing sidewalk or the road itself nor does it hinder the Gity's ability to meet future pedestrian and vehicular demands on Water Street. If Common Council looked favorably on our request, we would ask Council consider a resolution approving the sale of the land at the same meeting when it refers the matter for advertising of the street closure without prejudice to Common Council's unfettered right to vote on the street closure as it sees fit. We would be pleased to supply you with whatever additional information you may require or to appear before Council if this was their wish. IDENCES AT THREE SISTERS INC. 138 a > i, still fit u s a ••• •1•• N N �'! ♦ W h q Y Y I� n �� �w �h .off. �Y�i��l• _� ^� V• 1 emo flit X41 �� NNN NMNN :i Rile 3 l lilt 4 61411 A l-11f 4s di Mdn x �b Y y n I IV 'Naar Iff A- P M rwi 7 «' mow' Int 1°hn j � 1� is" NOW P 139 wr PAO + s� t}i 3 m r2- Alt j3t2 C Q'Z o IE a a p -A zgE 1C5$�i9v °s.uo�s -� g+� ��mNm�o J.f I ER '. S: ���� 4Z•c,m 8 m ��ge a Y�iv.v83?gm {� it L'°am c 3 °c SS�S e - ^V? a e� N �a otR n g $ NaprC c S 11 � °a �e9 3Q0c � cfn 9 °. I E a $ O � � g pp$ Y .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ♦ nn.. .. .. r �� Ug d 1 � y e s 1 a r_ r —� r , m o e 18,47 1 � a 1 � ✓' W1�i501n � m • �� c ;1 f.Y-� Prince -e Willis street/ The 1 6) d � � 1 ..,r� °.� Prinwe.�a a !.�• tBS r ✓ P %41 20 g l iB. 4 c\ A Ase ,BE Z9 -✓ o5'O� EL N I R O P r j M i f. ✓'�� rbiiz''nn jj�Yf�� �. pi.9JN 01 oav° 0:20 S 2 kGK n ca y o�� _r $ a ;z 1 a i ass Run =__ ✓ a ab g Streew/ , WO �� a '�� 11 F "�'�10 mi ����g � " *�»" Wote ��U„�;wt t �✓ f�.✓ J r ���������s�E��d 8 - 1!}1}! II 4 NN NN N gg ✓r O ir 140 December 14, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Member of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: RE: Boardwalk Refurbishment and Canadian Coast Guard Expenditures Boardwalk Refurbishment: At a meeting of Common Council held on March 8th, 2010, Council adopted the 2010 General Fund Capital Budget in the net amount of $15,911,100. Included in the approved Capital Budget was a Waterfront Development capital project named Boardwalk Refurbishment in the amount of $400,000. In 2011, Saint John Waterfront Development invoiced the City of Saint John for cost incurred relating to Phase 2 of the Boardwalk Refurbishment. The total cost for mariner lighting and railing cap lighting was $147,239. The process used by the Saint John Waterfront Development to acquire the lighting did not comply with the City's procurement policy. Attached is a correspondence dated December 12, 2011 from the Saint John Waterfront Development explaining the process used to select the successful contractor. Through discussion with the project committee members, Staff is of the opinion that although the process utilized by the Saint John Waterfront Development did not meet all the specifics required by the City's procurement policy, it was fair and transparent and the project was completed on time and on budget. The Saint John Waterfront Development has paid for the lighting and installation and is requesting the reimbursement of $147,239. SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 40 I wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, NA. Canada EA 4L1 141 Coast Guard Expenditures: Saint John Development Corporation is requesting the reimbursement of $25,801.10 for costs incurred relating to the Coast Guard site re- development. The claim includes legal fees, engineering services and artist renderings. On October 9, 2007, Council adopted a resolution to approve funding for the Saint John Development Corporation to hire outside expert advice (principal negotiator and legal advice), this amount not to exceed $200,000 without prior approval from Council. Since that resolution does not clearly extend to engineering services or the artist renderings, Council authority for reimbursing the expenditure by the Saint John Development Corporation should be obtained. Recommendation: RESOLVED that the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to reimburse the Saint John Waterfront Development $147,239 for the Boardwalk Refurbishment Phase II and the Saint John Development Corporation $25,801.10 for legal fees, engineering services and artist renderings relating to the Canadian Coast Guard site re- development. Respectfully submitted GregoV. Yeomans, CGA, MBA Commissioner of Finance 142 Saint John Waterfront h W Development Capital Projects Reimbursement - 2010 -2011 December 12, 2011 Boardwalk Mariner Lighting and Railing Cap Lights - $147, 239 The Boardwalk Refurbishment Project is a Four Phase endeavour that will see the implementation of a series of planned improvements that will provide a professionally designed and interactive space providing significant public access to the water's edge. As of 2012, we will be entering the final phase of improvements. Phase 1 & 2 capital budget planning allowed for the design, supply and installation of mariner lighting and railing cap lighting. These were the largest single expenditures associated with the first two phases. In Phase 2 the cost for both types of lighting was $147,239. I "v4%" By design, the mariner lights are the standard pole lighting for Harbour Passage and the Boardwalk, complete with banner arms and solar sensory turn -on /off capability. The railing cap lights are low voltage highlighted directional lights for added safety for evening and nighttime pedestrian walking. 143 The Harbour Passage mariner lights were specially designed and fabricated by Lumec Inc. and during Phase 1 of the Boardwalk Refurbishment Project (an extension of Harbour Passage) the decision was made to ensure consistency of look /feel and functionality of lighting for each continued phase. It is interesting to note that it was discovered during Phase 1 that re- ordering mariner lights from Lumec Inc. eliminated the added cost of creating new fabrication templates. For Phase 2, a 5- person Expense & Planning Committee was formed to address all project expenditures and planning —the committee included the following: 1. Sid Lodhi — Project Engineer /Manager SJWD 2. Samir Yammine — City Engineering 3. Theresa Ellefsen — Project Co- coordinator SJWD 4. Charles Swanton — Committee member 5. Kent Maclntyre — Committee member This capital project was completed on -time and on- budget. Regarding the mariner pole lights and railing cap lighting, three companies with specific expertise and experience were contacted to submit a quotation. The quotations were reviewed by the Project Engineer and resulted in a recommendation to the committee. The three contractors were; ICR Construction, New Wave Lighting and Security Electric. The quotations from New Wave Lighting and Security Electric were not complete and /or were disqualified for obvious reasons; for example, price was high and did not include installation and /or pole lighting base modifications (for installation). ICR Construction provided a detailed quotation and best price. As well, after deliberation and consideration of this contractor's experience, (in -house engineering capabilities, known construction effectiveness, background knowledge of this product installation and familiarity with the Phase 1 aspect of the Boardwalk) including extended warranties /guarantees similar to Phase 1, the Expense and Planning Committee awarded the lighting contract ($147,000) to ICR Construction. (Note: ICR Construction was the successful contractor for Phase 1 following a City of Saint John issued tender process. This included product and installation warranties /guarantees that were subsequently carried over into Phase 2.) Upon final inspection and completion of identified corrective actions ICR Construction was paid (90 day hold -back in effect). SJWD proceeded to invoice the City of Saint John and discovered the process utilized for procurement of the lighting did not comply with the City Of Saint John's policy. Although a fair and transparent process was used, it was not formalized to the extent it met all the specifics of the City approval process. SJ Waterfront Development has paid for the product and installation and is requesting the reimbursement of $147,239. 144 Canadian Coast Guard Expenditures - $25,000 Saint John Development Corporation (SJDC) has been acting as agent for the City of Saint John for the re- development of the Canadian Coast Guard site since 2005. There have been five Common Council Resolutions pertaining to the administration, negotiation and management of the site. One of the Council Resolutions (October 9, 2007) authorized expenditures of up to $200,000 for outside expert advice (principal negotiator and legal advice). Only $160,000 of the approved $200,000 was expended. The $25,000 expended in 2011 included; Legal fees - $12,000 Engineering - $10,000 Artist renderings - $3,000 Although SJDC was operating under the understanding outside expertise (engineering and renderings) was covered both by Resolution and within the approved $200,000, it now appears, based on a legal review by City legal that Council should approve the expenditures for 2011 - $25,000. 145 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2041 -333 16 December 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Fire Alarm & Ammonia Detection System Upgrades — Saint John Arenas BACKGROUND: The City currently has four arenas (Peter Murray, Charles Gorman, Hilton Belyea and Stewart Hurley) containing outdated fire alarm panels and ammonia detection systems. In addition, these systems are not monitored by any offsite alarm monitoring system. As such, in the event of a fire, the police or fire department would not be automatically notified. The new system, as covered under the scope of work of this project, will provide the City with an upgraded system that will be monitored and will also include additional sensing and warning devices. ANALYSIS: A public tender call was issued on November 22, 2011, closing on December 14, 2011. One (1) company responded by submitting a bid. The results are as follows: JDA Electric Ltd. $93,580.00 (Above is plus tax) The Engineer's estimate for the work was $127,061.00 plus tax. Staffs of Facilities Management and Materials Management as well as the City's consultant on this project (RJ Bartlett Engineering Ltd.) have reviewed the tender and have found it to be complete and formal in every regard. Despite the fact that only one vendor chose to submit a tender, staff is fully confident in this vendor's ability to handle all aspects of the scope of work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. 146 Page Two.. ANALYSIS CONT'D... The City's consultant has verified with JDA Electric Ltd. that the entire scope of work has been taken into consideration. The primary reason for the discrepancy between the tender amount and the Engineer's estimate is that the equipment cost for this project came in lower than the consultant's estimate. In addition, the total installation on site will take approximately 3 or 4 days, which is less time (and cost) than allotted by the consultant. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If awarded as recommended, the total cost to the City of Saint John for the upgrading of the fire alarm panels and ammonia detection systems at the four Saint John arenas as detailed in this report will be $93,580.00 plus tax. This is a planned expenditure for which funds have been allocated in the Building and Facilities Management Division's 2011 capital budget. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tender for the upgrading of the fire alarm panels and ammonia detection systems at the Peter Murray, Charles Gorman, Hilton Belyea and Stewart Hurley arenas be awarded to the bidder, JDA Electric Ltd., at the tendered amount of $93,580.00 plus tax. Respectfully submitted, M5 - Cindy Calvin Assistant Purchasing Agent Patrick Woods City Manager 147 Greg Yeomans Commissioner of Finance REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -331 December 15, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Engineering Design and Construction Management: Simms Corner Retaining Wall Remediation BACKGROUND The City of Saint )ohn On November 7, 2011 Common Council approved a recommendation to add the Simms Corner Retaining Wall Remediation project to the 2011 General Fund Capital Program in the amount of $400,000. Design and tendering will take place over the next three months with construction to follow in early spring 2012. The project includes funding necessary to engage engineering design and construction management services to complete the following: • Part A - Site Surveys, Preliminary Investigation and Data Collection • Part B - Preliminary Design, Cost Estimates and Design Report • Part C - Notification • Part D - Detailed Design • Part E — Tender Period Services, Materials Testing & Inspection, Red Books and Record Drawings • Part F — Construction Management PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to make a recommendation for consulting engineering services for this project. ANALYSIS On November 8, 2011, with a detailed scope of work document developed by staff, a proposal for consulting engineering services was requested from GENIVAR Inc. In response to this request, GENIVAR Inc. submitted a proposal on December 2, 2011. Staff was previously authorized to conduct negotiations with this consultant for engineering services for the Simms Corner Retaining Wall Remediation project. am M &C2011 -331 December 15, 2011 Page 2 A Review Committee consisting of the following staff completed an analysis of the submission: • Brian Keenan, P.Eng. Engineering Manager, Municipal Engineering • Jeff Hussey, P.Eng. Operations Manager, Stormwater Management • Kevin Rice, B.Sc., C.E.T. Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Operations • Cindy Calvin, CPPB Assistant Purchasing Agent, Materials and Fleet Management Each member completed an independent review of the submission and, subsequently, a Review Committee meeting was held to jointly discuss the information presented in the GENIVAR Inc. proposal. The submission from GENIVAR 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 for GENIVAR Inc. to provide design and construction management services is $66,598 including the City's eligible HST rebate based on an estimated 4 week construction management period. An amount of $400,000 is included in the 2011 General Fund Capital Program to cover the cost for design, construction and construction management. Engineering fees to cover the cost of design and construction management generally range between 12 -17% of the total overall project cost, depending on the nature of the project and the engineering services required. The upset fee for this proposal is approximately 16.6% of the total overall project cost, which is considered appropriate for this type of project based on size and complexity. POLICY — ENGAGEMENT OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for engagement of Professional Services, Common Council has authorized staff with the approval of M &C 2011 -285 to conduct negotiations for the engagement of an engineering consultant for this project. The costs incurred by the consultant will be paid in accordance with the terms of the Request For Proposal at the rates submitted and accepted in the consultants proposal not to exceed the Recommended Minimum Hourly Rates as contained in The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies — New Brunswick fee guideline. The Construction Management component of this project fee is based on an estimated construction period. The final fee will be calculated based on the actual construction management period. 149 M &C2011 -331 December 15, 2011 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposal from GENIVAR Inc. for engineering services (design and construction management) for the Simms Corner Retaining Wall Remediation 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 J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 150 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -323 December 14, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: The City of Saint John SUBJECT: Contract 2010 -12: Visart Street/Harrington Street, Ford Avenue and Hickey Road — Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Installation and Road Reconstruction PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to update Council on the status of the Visart Street/Harrington Street, Ford Avenue and Hickey Road — Water, Sanitary and Storm Sewer Installation and Road Reconstruction project and associated costs. BACKGROUND This Contract consists of projects that were approved in the 2009 and 2010 General Fund and Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Programs as follows: Visart Street /Harrington Street — Renewal of approximately 205m of 200mm diameter watermain, 185m of 200mm diameter sanitary sewer and the installation of approximately 185m of new 300mm, 375mm and 450mm diameter storm sewer. Also included is the road reconstruction of Visart Street from Churchill Boulevard to Harrington Street and other related work. • Ford Avenue — Renewal of approximately 60m of sanitary sewer and other related work. • Hickey Road — Installation of approximately 35m of 300mm diameter storm sewer, 100m of concrete curb and sidewalk, and other related work. Common Council, at its meeting of July 19, 2010, awarded Contract 2010 -12 (M &C 2010 -246) to Debly Enterprises Ltd. at a tender price of $729,731.40. Funding approved for this project totaled $875,000.00 ($235,000 in the 2009 General Fund and $405,000 in the 2009 Water & Sewerage Fund Capital Programs as well as $235,000 in the 2010 General Fund Capital Program). 151 M &C2011 -323 December 14, 2011 Page 2 ANALYSIS The majority of the work under Contract 2010 -12 has been completed. The final quantities and summary of change orders for the project have not yet been finalized, however the project is nearing completion and the majority of the quantities and change orders have been agreed upon between the City and the Contractor. The additional work on the project thus far along with the associated costs have been compiled into seven categories as follows: 1. Change Orders associated with the making of $3,718.04 adjustments to piping in the field due to unforeseen piping conflicts. 2. Change Orders associated with the installation of $7,722.15 traffic light pole and traffic light control loops in intersection of Visart Street and Churchill Boulevard. 3. Change Orders associated with items not included $7,464.89 in the contract. 4. Change Orders associated with revising the $2,645.79 watermain chlorination procedure. 5. Change Orders associated with painting traffic $1,988.80 control markings on Visart Street and Churchill Boulevard. 6. Change Orders associated with mobilization costs $1,551.35 when the contractor was delayed on Visart Street when due to unforeseen circumstances the water could not be shut off as scheduled. 7. Additional quantities including rock excavation, $98,870.67 backfill material and concrete sidewalk on Harrington Street. Majority of additional quantities due to extra rock excavation — additional services were installed on Harrington Street and the existing trench for the new watermain and sanitary sewer main on Visart Street and Harrington Street had to be widened to accommodate the new infrastructure. Total Change Orders & Additional Quantities: $123,961.69 Minus: Contingency Allowance: -$ 50,963.00 Net Additional Cost: $ 72.998.69 152 M &C2011 -323 December 14, 2011 Page 3 COST SUMMARY Original Contract Value: Minus: Contingency Allowance: Value of Original Estimated Work: Summary of Change Orders & Additional Quantities : Estimated Final Contract Value: $ 729,731.40 -$ 50,963.00 $ 678,768.40 +$ 123,961.69 $ 802,730.09 The estimated final construction cost of the project based on projected change orders and additional quantities is $802,730.09. The difference between the estimated final contract value and the original tendered price is $72,998.69 ($802,730.09 - $729,731.40). The combined approved budget for the project is $875,000.00. The estimated final net cost of this project including construction costs, engineering services and after considering the City's eligible HST rebate is $864,250.68 resulting in a positive variance of $10,700.83 in the Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program and a positive variance of $48.49 in the General Fund Capital Program. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering J. Patrick woods, CGA City Manager 153 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2041 -328 16 December 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Floor Drain Replacement - Fire Station # 4 BACKGROUND: The garage at Fire Station # 4 has four floor drains which drain by gravity to the municipal sanitary system. Over time some of the drains have stopped functioning, allowing substantial amounts of water to pool on the floor. The drains were video reviewed to determine their condition and routing. It was determined that only two of four floor drains are still connected to the main. Additionally, the pipe main is sheared and/or blocked which is prohibiting free drainage of the floor drains. The City's most feasible course of action involves using a horizontal hydro - vacuum to excavate an area under the slab to create a crawl space for a contractor to work in. The contractor will then be able to replace the existing piping, hangers, and floor drains complete with sediment baskets to facilitate easy access for preventative maintenance. A tender was developed to solicit bids to complete this work. ANALYSIS: A public tender call was issued on November 9, 2011, closing on November 23, 2011. Two (2) companies responded by submitting bids. The results are as follows: John Flood & Sons (196 1) Ltd. $54,980.00 Mark Campbell Plumbing & Drain Services Ltd. $38,400.00 (Excluding Tax) The Engineer's estimate for the work was $50,000.00 plus tax. Staff believes that the difference in price between the two bidders as well as the difference between the Engineer's estimate and the low bidder is primarily attributed to the fact that the highest bidder is a general contractor, who would sub - contract with a plumbing contractor to 154 Page Two ANALYSIS ... CONT'D complete the majority of the work resulting in additional costs associated with general conditions, mark -up, and overhead. The low bidder is a plumbing contractor who has the equipment and resources to complete the work within its own forces. Staffs of Facilities Management and Materials Management have reviewed the tenders and have found them to be complete and formal in every regard. Staff believes that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If awarded as recommended, the total cost to the City of Saint John for the floor drain replacement at Fire Station # 4 will be $38,400.00 plus tax. It is further recommended that a 10% contingency allowance be approved to address unforeseen conditions. This contingency allowance would only be expended if authorized in writing by staff of the Facilities Management Division. This is a planned expenditure for which funds have been allocated in the Building and Facilities Management Division's 2011 capital budget. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tender for the floor drain replacement at Fire Station # 4 be awarded to the low bidder, Mark Campbell Plumbing & Drain Services Ltd., at the tendered amount of $38,400.00 plus a 10% contingency allowance, totaling $42,240.00 (excluding HST). Respectfully submitted, M5 - Cindy Calvin Assistant Purchasing Agent Patrick Woods City Manager 155 Gregory Yeomans Commissioner of Finance Roberta Kollen His Worship Mayor Ivan Court Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, CO .LC1 VEL -- �ON C�FRK�3 OFFICE DEC 4 5 2011 C ~` F_ AI-OHN I am writing to you today to let you know that I am against the recent cuts to the Transit Services and also that there should be weekend bus service to my area (32 Loch Lomond Road). Thank you, ce A len �( 156 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL i December 151h 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors City of Saint John SUBJECT: Purchase of new network firewall to protect the City's information assets. BACKGROUND: The City's services and infrastructure are distributed across 25 sites and are connected to City Hall via a backbone network or Local Area Network (LAN). This LAN connects all sites to core information services such as email, file shares, databases, and City records. A number of these sites also use the public internet to connect to City Hall and therefore the traffic must be encrypted. This data and infrastructure must be secure and protected; a key piece of this security is provided by a Firewall. The purpose of this report is to inform Common Council of the need to purchase a new Cisco ASA5580 -20 Firewall to upgrade the current infrastructure. ANALYSIS: The City firewall is the primary component in a multilayer defense system. The system protects all the City's information systems and the data stored on them. Firewalls are highly available devices that should not be overloaded as an overloaded firewall can fail open and allow unencumbered access to the City's systems. The current Firewall was installed 5 years ago when the City had a 1Mb internet connection, no internet based remote access for staff, and only 530 Personal Computers (PCs). Today the City's internet connection is 30Mb, there are over 200 users with remote internet based access from a laptop, and 630 PCs. Furthermore, the firewall supports Emergency services (Police and Fire), the communication system, 110+ mobile devices, and a content rich saintjohn.ca website. The LAN has also grown and the firewall provides the end point for 4 encrypted tunnels that terminate in City Hall (encrypted tunnels require a lot of fast computations to encrypt decrypt traffic). The City's dependency on its network and the internet is expected to continue to grow and the current firewall is not capable of providing securing this future volume. 157 The IT department The City of Saint John has researched solutions within the City's current standing offer for Network Equipment. This research concluded that a duel Cisco ASA 5580 -20 Firewall system will meet the current needs of the City and the future needs over the life cycle of the system. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This is a planned expenditure and as such funds to cover the $60,000 + HST cost to upgrade the firewall are available in the 2011 Capital Budget. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council approve the purchase of two Cisco ASA 5580 -20 firewalls from Bell Aliant, the official supplier under contract to the City of Saint John for this type of computer equipment, at a total cost of $60,000 + HST. Respectfully submitted, Brian Woods, M.Sc. Manager of Information Technology 1 J. Pa ftager Woods, C.G.A. City 158 f '�1 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL December 16, 2011 Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: EASEMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES The attached letter from the Solicitor's Office to the City Manager is self - explanatory. As a result it would be appropriate for Council to adopt the following resolution: RECOMMENDATION: Recommended that the City of Saint John acquire easements upon the same terms and conditions as set out in the agreements submitted with M& C 2011 -171 and M &C 2011 -170 save and except as to the "Closing Date ". Respectfully su fitted, J P trick Woods, CGA C MANAGER ENC. 159 Rn. The City of Saint john Lynda D. Farrell Direct Line: 506.658.4096 Direct Fax: 506.649.7939 Email: lynda.fa rrell @sai ntjohn.ca December 16, 2011 J. Patrick Woods City Manager City of Saint John Dear Mr. Woods: Re: Easements for Municipal Services Common Council meeting on July 4, 2011, authorized the acquisition of two (2) easements in connection with the "Milford Drainage Basin Stormwater System Improvement" Project. The terms and conditions of these easement acquisitions provided a closing date, August 31, 2011, which has passed. The easements are still required. The following recommendation is appropriate: Recommended that the City of Saint John acquire easements upon the same terms and conditions as set out in the agreements submitted with M &C 2011 -171 and M &C 2011 -170 save and except as to the "Closing Date ". Yours truly, Lynda D. Farrell LFD/bm �4 - - - %V SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 411 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 41-1 160 6�' � �a) BY -LAW NUMBER C.P.110- A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY -LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN ARRETE No C.P. 110 - ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors dune reunion du conseil John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a follows: The Zoning By -law of The City of Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of December, A.D. 2005, is amended by: 1 Amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 3600 square metres, located at 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension, also identified as being PID No. 00023424, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential - all as shown on the plan attached hereto and forming part of this by -law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2012 and signed by: Mayor/Maire d6cr&6 ce qui suit : L'arr&6 sur le zonage de The City of Saint John, d6cr&6 le dix -neuf (19) d6cembre 2005, est modifi6 par: La modification de Vannexe <<A>>, Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, permettant de modifier la designation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 3 600 metres carr6s, situ6e au 265, avenue extension Hawthorne, et portant le NID 00023424, de zone rdsidentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamitiales «R -2» a zone rdsidentielle — habitations de quatre logements <<R -4» - toutes les modifications sont indiqu6es sur le plan ci joint et font partie du pr6sent arret6. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le pr6sent arret6 le 2012, avec les signatures suivantes Common Clerk/Greffiere communale First Reading - Premiere lecture Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture 161 ON1 Advertiser Name: SAINT JOHN COMMON CLERK Advertiser Code: S71206 Size: 4.00 x 6.00 in. Sales Rep: Elizabeth Cook PUBLIC NOTICE: Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider amending The City of Saint John Zoning By -law at its regular meeting to be held in the Council Chamber on Monday, December 19, 2011 p at 7:00 .m., by: Rezoning a parcel of land with an area of approximately 3600 square metres, located at 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension, also identified as P1D No. 00023424, from "R -2" One slid Two Family Residential to "R4" Four Family Residential. REASON FOR CHANGE: To recognize an existing three- family dwelling as a permitted use. The proposed amendment may be inspected by any interested person at the office of the Common Clerk, or in the office of Planning and Development, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. Written objections to the amendment may be sent to the undersigned at City Hall. If you require French services for a Common Council meeting, please contact the office of the Common Clerk. Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk 658 -2862 Ad Number: 5152497R Current Date: Nov 16 2011 11:10AM Start Date: 11/22/2011 End Date: 12/13/2011 Color: B/W Client Approval OK ❑ AVIS PUBLIC Par leg presentes, un avis public eat donn6 par lequel le Conseil communal de The City of Saint John indique son intention d'Rudier la modification suivante 61'arrite sur le zonage de The City of Saint John, lots de la r6union ordinaire qui se tiendra daps la salle du Conseil le lundi 19 decembre 2011619 h Rezonage d'une pareelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 3 600 metres carris, situ6e an 265, avenue extension Hawthorne, et portant le NID 00023424, de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et hifamiliales <aR -2» 6 zone risidentielle — habitations de quatre logements «114». RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION: Reconnaitre Putilisation permisc d'tm Edifice i irois logements existant. Toute personne intdress6e peut examiner ie projet de modification an bureau de la greffriire communale ou an bureau do Purbanisme ct du ddveloppement i I'h6tel de ville au 15, Market Square, Saint John, N. -B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 It 30 du lundi an vendredi, sauf les fours f6ries. Neuillez faire parvenir vos objections an projet de modification par 6crit i l'attention de la soussign6e A I'Mtel de ville. Si vous auriez besoin des services en frangais pour tme reunion de Conseil Communal, vcuillcz contacter le bureau de la greffi6re communale. Elizabeth Gormley, Greffiere communale 658 -2862 109% Corrections ❑ d CAO--m w 163 - t Ae-o- bra n __ 6�se�ne�fi __ �-dto 0--ol 164 ?. C- t N " Doc. 19107846 Vol. 2028' Pg. Eric G.. and Judith Cannon ProPQrtY 7 315 40 O da.Fdad45 No. 55aement 9 ' f I \' N 1 bow �» O,p,rgp.d,lnr A4�w I AISo See "AM} i 1 seoo }. �io fi 0 G. 9 SI Plan No. 2251 ; ! 87 -2 I I 1 I , :I I ! !N �n 1N N 41 U 1•T .fAt R i I-- Doc. 41 i r ea�aswar I. 'Registration Data 1 end ftc. 371316 daa•Ph O" C11oee 111 ,� Vat SSM P'i•314 ►b7 Iqq. July 2, 1112. Edgar SOHO Gordw Q,or Sell He 48 NO. 73 n Notes Lot B Nt. , je i 7 � 2) AV naa on 1R mobw - to 00"Wt d aripvid aa,dvaMnte didd• erdlnad thou e��0 • dal Nd•m,olion 7 1 ..p:d tree n various emweee 4) d*Wmn br PMn r 14MM92 ra 16.11e11lialry OMW far S 5 ) Field Survey owmPktod On don. 30• IOOt - Ram•d and madn - tift On tree File 4B Mo. 73 PM plyc " Motion and Lot Aa 4) a,. NAD/i(CidS) IJIPeold oaas radud 4r Servfoa Nn BNMaek Adler - old p 1* mar ianenb C Lin d FStructureua rO `' ..... Contra L'0 T B Round lren ar dln4 C e calculated ce Ordtnata Polnl u : Standard Survey Marker Placed ..... .:........'.... N.B. deal CoItk by ttamlan b y� a Lend dealt with by thla Plan bounded thug C' — ...... ...... Tabuiot•d C.-0rdl Rota Point I t Otl tlty Eaa•aent 0.� . ............... Standard Sorvar Marker Found If 379318 Vol. 1584 Pg. 316 4 O .....................• Iran Vlps Found _ Wore Iron /or Found J. G. Chose Property " Troveree Control Point i Fdn. •.........;;....... Foundation I lilf Q% . > ic) calculated Value I ...�.'........ derived free other aalrcae 7 365 40 New Brunswick Grid C0 ^Ordinate Values 4) 401 2 534 390.657 7 365 - 388,908 Fd. S.M. 434 2 534 319.333 7 365 393.888 Colo. Pt. 5 L 435 2 534 321.300 7 365 407.915 Cale. Pt. O 436 2 534 323.836 7 365 435.924 COIC. Pt. i 437 2 534 329.823 7 365 435.504 Colo. PI. ++ 438 2 534 327.282 7 365 407.227 Colo. Pt. 3: 439 2 534 325.333 7 365 393.467 Calc. Pt. 135 Vol. 1920 Pg. 1B9 26327 2 534 213.967 7 365 108.467 N.B. Mon. f. and Carole A. = 25328 2 534 070.058 7'364 909.753 N.B. Mon. 28329 2 534 232.584 7 385 232.584 N.B. Mon, e Property Sears racier A vw 1.00003' P4an ....Of ' Surve 's Showing Easement for Municipal Services "3 Vol. 771 Pg. 851 „,,_,_.... requirements crossing }I�yp i — a i Edgar J ;, Chase Property , perty Howthorne Avenue Extension �c ;$ City of Saint Jahn , A Saint John County , New , Brunswick . AU6HE3 SLT_ =4r �O,1491ULTANT9 INC. �Er �Presrs a ( ' $ yb by Fab. 2L 90” ftu 11 :1:' Robinson JUN 13 2114 16 24 32 µo• /S 1:400 e111C�1 / lb ' • -,g- -- zlz-am: R lMp. Ha. 90•,11M small f)hA NI 2003 ima l Planning Advisory Committee December 14, 2011 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension Rezoning Application City of Saint John On November 21, 2011 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its December 13, 2011 meeting. Larry Salmon, the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting and was in favour of staff's recommendation. No one else appeared before the Committee to speak in favour or against the application. One letter was received expressing concern regarding off - street parking on Hawthorne Avenue Extension. After considering the report, the letter received and comments made by the applicant, the Committee recommended approval of the rezoning of the property from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential, subject the conditions set out below. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 3600 square metres, located at 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension, also identified as being PID Number 00023424 from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential. 2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the proposed rezoning of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 3600 square metres, located at 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension, also identified as being PID Number 00023424, be subject to the following conditions: a) That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposal, a detailed off -street parking plan for the subject site be prepared by the proponent subject to the approval of the Development Officer; 166 -2- b) That the work shown on the off - street parking plan be completed by the proponent within one year of the rezoning of the subject site; and c) That the use of the property be limited to a maximum of three dwelling units. Respectfully submitted, i Col urray Chairman Project No. 11 -318 167 .--) 1 J'. c ;�a •x •d The city of Saint John DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2011 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Jody Klif& Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Planner Commissioner SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: Larry Salmon Name of Owner: Larry Salmon Location: 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension PID: 00023424 Municipal Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: Existing: "R -2" One and Two Family Residential Proposed: "R -4" Four Family Residential Proposal: To rezone an existing three unit dwelling. Type of Application: Rezoning Application l�1 SAINT JOHN P.©. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I wwwsaintjohn.ca I C.F. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 168 Larry Salmon 265 Hawthorne Extension JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: Page 2 December 9, 2012 The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed amendments to the Zoning By -law. The Committee recommendation will be considered by Common Council at a public hearing on Monday, December 19, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: 1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 3600 square metres, located at 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension, also identified as being PID Number 00023424 from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential. 2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the proposed rezoning of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 3600 square metres, located at 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension, also identified as being PID Number 00023424, be subject to the following conditions: a) That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposal, a detailed off - street parking plan for the subject site be prepared by the proponent subject to the approval of the Development Officer; b) That the work shown on the off - street parking plan be completed by the proponent within one year of the rezoning of the subject site; and c) That the use of the property be limited to a maximum of three dwelling units. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering has no objection to the proposed zoning as it is understood there are no servicing, site or driveway changes proposed, only a rezoning. All parking is to be provided for on site. Buildings and Inspection Services has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments: • Buildings and Inspection Services' files indicate that the subject property is a two -unit dwelling. • Prior to any permission being granted for the increased number of units, the property should be inspected for Building Code compliance. If there are three units in the building there may be shared exit paths and other life safety issues. 169 Larry Salmon 265 Hawthorne Extension ANALYSIS: Site and Neighbourhood Page 3 December 9, 2012 The subject site is located on 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension, near the intersection with Arrow Walk Road and adjacent to the southwest corner of Rockwood Park. This is a residential area largely populated by one and two unit dwellings, although interspersed with a number of land uses that range from varying residential densities, community facilities and park uses. The surrounding neighbourhood contains a mix of dwelling ages that stretch from the 19n' Century to 2009, with the average building age being approximately 1950. Our files show that the dwelling at the subject site was first constructed in 1975. The subject site appears typical of several others in the immediate neighbourhood, being a two- storey structure with a driveway. The building contains three dwelling units, one three - bedroom and two one- bedroom units. The driveway extends for approximately 21 metres (69 feet) from the curb to the side of the house, providing sufficient space for three parking spaces. However, three units in the "R -4" zone requires a minimum of four parking spaces. As such, it is recommended that approval for the rezoning be subject to the requirement that the applicant submit a parking plan for the subject site, illustrating sufficient space for the required minimum four parking spaces. History of the Use of the Proper The Planning and Development Department's files do not contain any information to indicate when the building on the site became a three - family dwelling. According to the present owner, the building has been in the family for a number of years. Proposal The present owner recently purchased the property and is seeking a rezoning so that the existing land use becomes a legal use. The proposal is to rezone the site from the present "R -2" One and Two Family Residential zone to a zone that recognizes the existing use as a three - family dwelling. The City's Zoning By -law does not have an "R -3" zone category; therefore an "R -4" Four Family Residential zoning is being proposed. However, Common Council may limit the use to a three- family dwelling as a condition of the rezoning pursuant to Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, if it decides to approve the application. Proposed Rezoning As noted above, the subject neighbourhood contains a variety of zones that permit differing degrees of residential density. While most of the houses in the neighbourhood are either one - family or two - family dwellings, there are several multi -unit dwellings. The dwellings that contain more than two units do not appear particularly out of place in the overall neighbourhood context. A mix of residential densities in a neighbourhood is often supported in planning theory as it tends to enhance the character and diversity of a community. A three -unit dwelling can easily coexist in a neighbourhood containing predominantly one and two -unit dwellings, as it is unlikely to cause any land use conflicts. The existence of the third unit in the subject site, apparently for several years, with no record of any formal complaints, suggests that the use of the property has not caused any major land use conflicts in the neighbourhood. 170 Larry Salmon 265 Hawthorne Extension CONCLUSION: Page 4 December 9, 2012 The existing use of the building appears to fit in with the overall neighbourhood. Approval of the proposed rezoning can be recommended on the basis that the third unit has existed for some time with few or no apparent problems and with no known complaints. While rezoning to "R -4" Four Family Residential is being recommended, it is also recommended that the use be limited to a maximum of three units. Furthermore, it is recommended that the applicant submit a parking plan for the subject site that illustrates sufficient space for no fewer than the required four off -street parking spaces. JK Project No. 11 -318 171 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT /URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT Y,(w1b`t ts� / ,. i Y.., Y'., Y'•, t Jt — oodAv. av- p"WW v Av t ± s A�TOw Walk Rd. •s4 c" 1 w R- I A A � ' w • • � n m • v • « � Subject Site /site en question: -� Location: 500 Woodward Avenue Date: November 21, 2012 Scale /6chelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'echelle 172 l • c PID(s) /NIP(s): 55107247 a '° • .,C 0 ^' 4 9A w w � m m � • s • n ■ w. a Jt — oodAv. av- p"WW v Av t ± s A�TOw Walk Rd. •s4 c" 1 w R- I A A � ' w • • � n m • v • « � Subject Site /site en question: -� Location: 500 Woodward Avenue Date: November 21, 2012 Scale /6chelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'echelle 172 l • c PID(s) /NIP(s): 55107247 t��sfai�s e(i bra n 173 en �ranc e evi�r4nc 6a5ern ent- erg Iran c e- 174 s-Av,e o( )-Vt �Ia /I C- el .e xt "-r Jody Kliffer Planning Advisory Committee City of Saint John Planning and Development P.O. Box 1971 Saint John N.B E2L -4L1 (Ph # 506 -632 -6846) December 6, 2011 Dear Jody Kliffer: Re: 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension Rezoning Application Eric Cannon 283 Hawthorne Avenue Extension Saint John N.B E2K -3T1 (Ph# 506 -642 -2035) As to our phone conversation, I'm sending in this letter. Its for the application to rezone the above property (265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension) from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential. Over a decade, the previous owner has used the building on the above - mentioned property as a three -unit rental building. This has been brought to the City staff attention, but fell to deaf ears. The building being used as a three -unit rental building in the past has caused the City snowplow operator problems. The problem was and still ongoing, is on street parking. With on street parking on Hawthorne Avenue Extension during winter months cars are parked on both sides of the road. This would cause problems for the City snowplow operators to clean the snow from the street. The same goes if the vehicles were parked on one side of the street. Also on street parking made a problem for on coming vehicles to pass each other safely. Not only during winter months was the passing on coming vehicles a concern but also any time of the year. I'm not against the new owner of the property wanting to rezone from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "114" Four Family Residential. It's not the new owner fault that they bought into a problem., a broken by -law which City staff has known about for over a decade. The new owners are trying to go by the by -law and that is to have the property rezone so to be able to rent out the third unit. I was told by you that the building is not going to be added onto. You also told me that the on street parking is a concern of yours also. Nothing against the new owner of the property, but could you please make sure there will be no more on street parking on Hawthorne Avenue Extension. Maybe a City staff once in awhile needs to show up on the street to check for on street parking. As I was told by you there should not be any on street parking on Hawthorne Avenue Extension. Sincerely, 't_4�D dt_�� Eric Cannon 175 City- Hall 15 Market Square December 14, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 Saint john New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 i(1- City of Saint john Subject: Public Transportation tax reforms, generation of new revenue for transit and innovative transportation solutions Tax relief and reforms We must advocate for progressive reforms which will provide more favorable conditions in New Brunswick for the establishment of an enhanced and sustainable public transportation system which meets the current and projected needs of citizens. In light of cuts being proposed this year for Saint John Transit, City Council should immediately request the Provincial Government to: 1. Eliminate the tax on fuel for transit. 2. Offer relief on property taxes for transit owned facilities. 3. Help create innovative solutions /strategies with regard to promoting a more sustainable public transportation system in New Brunswick. Generating new streams of revenue City Council should immediately explore potential new sources of funding for Saint John Transit by creatively looking at new ways to provide additional revenue. Let's consider things such as: 1. Creating a congestion tax. Some City governments are turning to a tax on vehicles entering their municipality (or at least the inner part of the city) when traffic congestion is most serious. For example, London created a congestion tax in 2003 which charged 176 each vehicle entering the "charge zone" $8 between 7 am and 6:30 pm. The tax not only generated additional revenue but reduced the number of vehicles by 24 %, increased the use of public transportation, created better traffic flow while cutting down on pollution and noise. We should investigate the implementation of a similar tax in Saint John during peak traffic, when there is a high volume of people commuting from other communities. This congestion tax will target people commuting to work from outlying areas with a possible exemption for people who live and pay taxes in the city of Saint John. This additional revenue can be allocated for transit and our City's infrastructure. 2. Charging higher parking rates for our new parking garage. Many will argue that we provide very inexpensive parking compared to other communities for people who choose to drive their own vehicles to work in our Uptown area. Increasing parking rates for city owned parking garages /lots, which would mostly affect people commuting to work from outlying communities, will provide further revenue for our city's aging infrastructure and transit system. Many will see this as a step towards correcting a situation where commuters' daily use city roads /infrastructure without contributing to the costs associated with infrastructure maintenance. Explore innovative public and "shared" transportation options It is critical to explore innovative solutions for shared forms of transportation by creating an enhanced public transportation service while encouraging more diversity in options. We could investigate potential partnerships to establish: 1. A water bus service that connects the West Side to our city's uptown. This will not only connect west side residents to our City's uptown but provide a new and exciting direct link to the lower west side. This could potentially stimulate new residential and retail growth and development for the lower west side! It would be a tourist attraction, as well! 2. A car sharing program that will encourage especially uptown residents to choose a more cost effective and environmentally friendly form of transportation. 3. A bike rental service that would encourage people to stay active while increasing the demand for active transportation routes as we reduce the volume of vehicle traffic. All these options are better for the environment, people's health and our city's infrastructure. Also, we should request that the Transit Commission provide Council with more information with regard to the viability of the purchasing of less expensive and more fuel efficient vans /small buses for appropriate routes. 177 Motion: Direct the city manager to: 1. insure that necessary and appropriate steps are taken to communicate Council's support with regard to the above mentioned tax relief measures for public transportation systems in New Brunswick 2. to investigate and subsequently provide Council with information with regard to establishing a congestion tax 3. bring forward possible amendments to parking rates for the new parking garage 4. explore potential partnerships /funding for the creation of innovative transportation options Respectively Submitted, (Received via email) Councillor Snook 178 City Half 15 Market Square December 19, 2011 Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council: P.O. Box 1971 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 Subject: New Illegal Businesses in Saint John I have noticed a growing number of new illegal businesses in Saint John. Motion: That the City Manager be directed to submit a report outlining the tools or requirements that are needed to enforce the relevant by -laws. Respectfully submitted, Bruce Court Councillor — City of Saint John 179 City of Saint John J Z, l REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL 15 December 2011 His Worship Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: 2012 Insurance Renewal BACKGROUND: The City's, "Agent of Record" with assistance from BFL Canada Risk and Insurance Services Inc. (a specialty municipal insurance broker) has approached his markets and has obtained a renewal quote from Chartis and Argo ( a Lloyd's Syndicate) in the amount of $969,260 for the 2012 term. This procedure is in keeping with the resolution approved by Council at the Open Session meeting of December 10, 1990. It is the responsibility of the agent to obtain quotations on all insurance requirements for the City, and to provide this insurance at cost, without any commissions. The "agent of record" is paid an annual fee for his services, which has been specified until January 1, 2015. The fee for the 2012 term is $18,900. Our Agent received only one quote on our entire Insurance package and that was from our present insurers, Chartis Insurance Company and Argo in a package policy put together by BFL. The initial cost of insurance coverage for the year 2012 is quoted as $969,260, plus the agency fee of $18,900 for a total 2012 cost of $988,160. This compares to an initial cost of $914,479 for insurance coverage plus the agency fee of $18,000 for a total 2011 cost of $932,479. The insurance premiums increased by 6 percent and the Agency Fee increased by 5% for an overall increase of 5.9 percent. :m 2 ANALYSIS: The following will illustrate the loss ratios for the past five years on our major coverage as of December 1, 2011. Year Premium Losses to date Loss Ratio (% 2007 813,448 228,713 0.2812 2008 814,663 359,492 0.4413 2009 1,010,129 256,100 0.2535 2010 1,130,142 163,977 0.1451 2011 914,479 620,414 0.6784 Totals 4,682,861 1,628,696 0.3478 ., FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: - -t -Tota l losses — *—Premiums Once approximately $31,500 of recoverable premium, from Harbour Station, and The Parking Commission, is removed from the total cost, the City is left with approximately $956,600 in overall insurance cost for 2011. (Not including Deductible projections.) The City is just completing its first year with our broker and insurers. In 2011 we received a substantial savings in our premiums from going through the tendering process. It was anticipated that in the years following we would likely have increases in premium but with a low loss ratio that we can keep those increases to a minimum. In the past 5 years our loss ratio has been fairly steady and our losses are trending downwards thanks to more proactive Risk Management strategies. We will still see fluctuations from year to year in losses as evidenced in 2011 year to date. The 2011 numbers include a large reserve in relation to two separate fire losses, one at the Musquash Pump Station and the other a damaged garbage packer which also damaged the garage at the Municipal Operations Building. For 181 3 that reason it is important to look at loss ratios on at least a 5 year average and evaluate overall trends using regression analysis. The following are five sections which set out the various coverage, deductibles, and premiums. The City's Insurance & Claims Officer and the City's Agent of Record have analyzed the information and provide the following highlights; 1. GENERAL LIABILITY: years premium 2007 345,138 2008 345,138 2009 553,600 2010 664,742 2011 545,621 2012 1545,621 58,993 This coverage includes our Errors and Omissions coverage along with our Excess Liability policy and the premium remains unchanged and is really a significant N, success on behalf of the city. Almost 60% of our insurance premiums are related to liability coverage and our loss history shows a decline in the both the quantity and severity of claims in this category. Often the losses under other insurance coverage are unavoidable while liability is the target for Risk Management. The unchanged rate should be encouragement that the City is moving in a more proactive manner to reduce our exposures and Iiabilities. The deductible for this coverage is $ 25,000. 2. Environment Impairment Liability: years premium 2007 9,000 2008 9,000 2009 9,000 2010 9,000 2011 58,993 2012 58,993 The premium for this coverage is unchanged for the 2012 renewal. This type of coverage is a more specialized coverage and generally follows General Liability trends. We increased our coverage significantly in 2011 to reflect greater exposures and awareness in the general public but our loss experience has been minimal to date. The deductible for this coverage is $ 10,000. :. 4 3. years premium 2007 172,050 2008 169,665 2009 155,949 2010 164,724 2011 95,138 2012 137,466 Our total premium increase is 44.5% for two main reasons: our property value v increased by 32% and with a 10% rate increase applied to that new total, it sums up to a 44.5% increase. Our property values and list were reviewed and changes were made to both, the added values better reflect a true rebuild cost and our current actual infrastructure. The total value for property coverage has increased from approximately $193,164,631 in 2011 to $254,567,395, an increase in value of $61,402,764 for 2012. Some of this increase in values is as a result of a revised evaluation on building values and adding some new properties such as the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Plant. The other factor increasing the rate is the two large fire losses from this past year at Musquash and the Rothesay Avenue Garage. Both those losses combined are approximately 4 times the amount of premium we paid for this coverage specifically in 2011. It is also noteworthy that the original proposal had a 20% increase in the rate itself before applying the new property value but this was negotiated down to a 10% increase for property. Also note that our 2012 premium for property is still over $27,000 less than our 2010 property insurance premium even with the increase in overall property owned by the City. The deductible for this coverage is $ 25,000. 4. AUTOMOBILE: years premium 2007 277,110 2008 280,710 2009 281,430 2010 281,526 2011 208,648 2012 220,751 The premium for this coverage has increased by 5% to reflect the recent large loss of the garbage packer vehicle. Because of the large value compared to the premium, the original proposal had a 20% increase but this was negotiated down to a 5% increase as noted. With the cap on soft tissue injury amounts, the A -1 183 Direct Compensation coverage, and our $ 2,500 Deductible, the numbers of claims being presented to our insurers continue to decrease and we would not have likely had any rate increase were it not for the fire loss. The rating structure used by our insurers is based on the type of vehicle and they've all increased by the same rate. The numbers of vehicles will be reviewed and adjusted for January 1, 2012. The actual premium may rise or fall slightly depending of the number of vehicle acquisitions or removals from the quotation list sent out on November 1. The premium still shows a significant discount from the 2010 rates. The City carries All -Peril coverage with a deductible of $2,500. 5. ALL OTHER COVERAGE: years premium 2007 10,150 2008 10,150 2009 10,150 2010 10,150 2011 6,079 2012 16,079 The premium for this coverage includes Crime and Garage Liability Policy. "Other Coverage" is provided in conjunction with, and, as an enhancement to, our major coverage. Their premiums will generally correspond to the rise and fall of our major coverage premiums. INPUT FROM OTHERS: Our Agent of Record has approached BFL who act on behalf of Chartis and Argo in an attempt to get some reduction in the 2012 premium based the City's pro- active approach to reducing the risk of claims, the continuing in -house claims handling procedure used by the City and the opportunity to possibly recover some of the cost associated with the fire to the garbage packer. If the insurer is able to recover some of their funds paid to the city, it will result in a reduction to our loss ratio. Although the City's pro - active approach is appreciated, loss ratios are the driving factor behind premium charges. Our Agent have also approached its other markets and had some interest in portions of our coverage, but no interest in providing the entire City portfolio, at present. They have advised that the 2012 premium being offered by our present insurer is the best value in their market place at this time. ., :1 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council accepts the insurance package offered by our Agent of Record, Huestis Commercial Insurance, and approves payments as follow: Insurance Premiums of $ 969,260 Agreed Agency Fee of $18,900 Payable to Huestis Commercial Insurance: $ 988,160 Respectfully submitted, Ian Fogan, BBA Insurance an lai s Officer Yeomans, CGA MBA 10er of Finance 185 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL r M &C2011 -318 December 15th, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER (WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) The City of Saint John provides water and wastewater services to homes, businesses, industry and institutions through its utility Saint John Water. These services, essential to the community's health, environmental protection, quality of life and economy, are regulated under the Province's Clean Water Act and the Clean Environment Act. This report outlines the 2012 Operating Budget for the Water and Sewerage Utility Fund, along with associated user rates for services. As required by the Municipalities Act, these are services paid for by users (ratepayers). Budgets must be balanced; zero -sum, such that "revenues in" must equal the "costs of operating" the utility. REGULATED SERVICES Drinking water and wastewater services are authorized through formal certificates of approval to operate, issued by the Minister of Environment. NB Environment, in collaboration with Health, set out specific operating requirements for treatment facilities, distribution and collection systems, and sampling. Drinking Water Common Council (the Approval Holder) provides drinking water services under Approval to Operate W -254 Drinking Water Distribution & Treatment Facilities. Its terms and conditions are based on a multi - barrier water quality protection philosophy. The Approval Holder shall keep the operation of the Facilities in compliance with the Water Quality Regulation 82 -126 under the CleanFnyiMnmeniflcland the Potable Water Regulation 93 -203 under the Clean Wales flcl of the Province of New Brunswick. Violation of this Approval or any condition herein stated constitutes a violation of the Clean,nvi�-onmeniflclandlor the Clean Xalel-,.&I Saint John Water prepares an Annual Water Report each year. Presented early in the year following, this comprehensive overview provides a wide range of analytical, operational, water production and system management information pertinent to the service. :. cti,ohn Warms a� PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 SAINT JOHN WATER (WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) PAGE 2 Wastewater Wastewater services are currently authorized through six separate approvals to operate, one for each treatment facility and the associated collection scheme: • S -1538, Millidgeville Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) • S -1313, Lancaster WWTF • S -1709, Hazen Creek WWTF (pending change to the Eastern WWTF) • S -1708, Marsh Creek WWTF (to be decommissioned with Harbour Clean -Up) • S -1705, Greenwood WWTF • S -1707, Morna Heights WWTF Each certificate directs that: The Approval Holder shall operate the wastewater works in compliance with the Water Quality Regulation 82 -126 filed under the Clean Fm h- onme1z1A'aof the Province of New Brunswick. Violation of this Approval or any term and / or condition herein constitutes a violation of the Clean Cnv,�-onme1z1A'&. All municipal wastewater works must also abide by the Federal Fisheries Act F -14 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. As well, the City is required to regularly submit environmental impact data to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). With Harbour Clean -Up, wastewater services in Saint John will be organized around three geographically based wastewater schemes, each supported by a modern, secondary -level treatment facility: West - Lancaster WWTF; North - Millidgeville WWTF; and East /South Central - Eastern WWTF. The two small local plants should be replaced; Morna upgraded and the Greenwood area connected to the larger municipal system for treatment at the new Eastern WWTF. The old Hazen Creek plant has been decommissioned and demolished, and the Marsh Creek facility will be eliminated with completion of Harbour Clean -Up projects now underway. The Canada -wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluents, endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), has been made policy in New Brunswick. The Strategy sets out a framework for management of municipal wastewater; one designed to protect human health and the environment. In March 2010, related regulations under the Fisheries Act were published. Among other things, these regulations establish new National Performance Standards for wastewater effluent quality. While Saint John is well prepared for these higher standards, there remain significant and costly sewer separation and overflow control challenges ahead. Saint John Water also prepares an Annual Wastewater Report. 187 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) PLANNED OPERATING EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE SUMMARIES DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 3 Planned expenditures for 2012 total $36,927,000; about a 4.1 % increase overall. Operating costs of utility are projected to rise by 6.4% to $21,489,000 (largely in the wastewater service) and fiscal charges by about 1.0% to $15,438,000. TABLE 1: UTILITY OPERATING EXPENDITURE SUMMARY Utility Service / Expense Item 2011 2012 2013 2014 Operating Expenses $15,483,991 $16,605,000 $17,039,000 $17,211,000 • Drinking Water Service $8,358,000 $8,374,000 $8,463,000 $8,482,000 • Industrial Water Service $1,372,000 $1,402,000 $1,417,000 $1,439,000 • Wastewater Service $7,660,000 $9,015,000 $9,097,000 $9,221,000 • Infrastructure Management $1,599,999 $1,306,000 $1,304,000 $1,327,000 • Internal Finance Department Charges $505,222 $509,000 $513,000 $523,000 • Net Pension Costs $699,776 $883,000 $883,000 $883,000 Total Operating Expenses $20,194,997 $21,489,000 $21,667,000 $21,875,000 Fiscal Charges • Debt Servicing $8,858,813 $9,833,000 $11,479,000 $11,508,000 • Capital from Operating $6,421,500 $5,605,000 $5,605,000 $5,605,000 Total Fiscal Charges $15,280,313 $15,438,000 $17,654,697 $17,113,000 Total Projected Expenditures $35,475,310 $36,927,000 $38,761,000 $38,988,000 Revenues for 2012 must, therefore, provide $36,927,000 to operate the utility; an increase of $1,451,690 (or about 4.1 %) over 2011. The largest percentage change (12.4 %) is in the storm/combined sewer levy — the result of increased wastewater service costs overall. TABLE 2: PROJECTED REVENUE SUMMARY Revenue Source 2011 2012 2013 2014 Flat Rate Accounts $15,483,991 $16,605,000 $17,039,000 $17,211,000 Metered Accounts $16,623,664 $17,377,000 $18,117,000 $18,162,000 Fire Protection Levy $2,200,000 $2,200,000 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 Storm/Combined Sewer Levy $942,655 $1,060,000 $1,080,000 $1,090,000 Other Revenues $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 Total Projected Revenues $35,475,310 $36,927,000 $38,761,000 $38,988,000 cti,ohn war t,1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) PROPOSED 2012 WATER AND SEWERAGE RATES Residential Flat Rate DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 4 The residential rate would rise by $36 to $972 in 2012 or 3.8% (Table 3). Residential customers (3 units or less) pay for services on a flat rate basis - regardless of the amount of water used. The flat rate assumes household water consumption of 318 m3 per year. The wastewater (sanitary sewer) portion of this rate is 122% of the water portion. TABLE 3: RESIDENTIAL FLAT RATES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES Assumed Water Consumption Residential Flat Rate 2011 2012 2013 2014 (m3 /year) $936 $972 1,030 1,041 318 (3.8 %) (6.0 %) (1.1 %) Cost of water + wastewater services 1.0562 1.0974 1.1632 1.1749 2nd $2.94 $3.06 $3.24 $3.27 combined per 1,000 litres of water 3Yd Over 250,000 0.2373 0.2466 Metered Rate Structure Water charges consist of an industry standard two parts: a measured volumetric component that varies with usage and a fixed portion to cover utility costs irrespective of the amount of water used. All water supplied to Saint John properties for purposes other than three or less dwelling units are metered. The volumetric rate component (consumption/usage) for metered customers would change as shown in Table 4. TABLE 4: BLOCK RATES FOR METERED ICI CUSTOMERS (VARIABLE COMPONENT) Metered Rate ($ per cubic metre) Usage Range Block (m /bimonthly) 2011 2012 Projected 2013 2014 1 St 0 to 100 1.0562 1.0974 1.1632 1.1749 2nd 101 to 250,000 0.6726 0.6988 0.7407 0.7481 3Yd Over 250,000 0.2373 0.2466 0.2614 0.2640 (3.9 %) (6.0 %) (1.0 %) cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) STRUCTURE OF USER RATES DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 5 Pricing is based on Saint John conditions; the costs involved with delivering services here. Sufficient revenues need to be generated to cover the full cost of operations and maintenance, regulation, asset construction and related debt servicing costs, environmental protection and emergency response. User -rates that reflect the true value of services distribute costs fairly and equitably among the diverse family of utility customers. Utility customers range from individual households to businesses to hospitals and very large industrial enterprises; approximately 16,850 residential ratepayers and 2,930 ICI (industrial, commercial and institutional) metered accounts. The City of Saint John General Fund also pays for services related to fire hydrants, firefighting flow capacity and the storm drainage component of combined (sanitary and storm) sewers. Comprehensive Rate Studies The 2002 Water and Sewerage Business Plan Review and the 2008 Review of Rates and Rate Structure Options, both undertaken for the City of Saint John by RV Anderson Associates, provided the basis for the current utility rate structure. The 2008 report highlighted a variety of rate features: • Two -part rates; a "fixed" l�us a "volumetric" component • Fixed charges by meter size (as applicable) • Declining 3 -block rate (DBR) structure for metered customers • Flat rate consumption component estimated at 318 m3 /household/year • Sewerage surcharge at 122% of water cost (cost of wastewater service) • Common Council is the rate setting authority (Water and Sewerage By -Law) • Sustainability; "Capital from Operating" to fund infrastructure renewal • Watershed costs recognized in both potable and raw water charges • Various miscellaneous charges to ensure cost recovery New Facilities It is important to recognize that investments made to improve services, to renew and build new infrastructure, will mean debt servicing costs and, generally, higher operating costs. The impact of upgraded facilities, such as the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility, will begin to be felt in 2012. As other Harbour Clean -Up works come on line, rates will need to cover the increased operating costs for those facilities. Value How valuable are these life - critical services? The proposed 2012 residential rate reflects a water and wastewater service cost of $3.06 for each 1,000 litres of water used. How does that compare to cable TV, telephone, internet, fuel, electricity or bottled water? 190 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) 10 WATER RATE PRINCIPLES OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Equity (Fairness and User Pay) ... for all customers DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 6 Revenue Adequacy ... provide fully for utility revenue requirements Legality ... in accordance with statutes and regulations Water Use Efficiency ... meet actual user needs, minimize waste Water Source Sustainability ... ensure safe yield of source supplies TechnicaUAdministrative Feasibility ... straightforward to apply Affordability ... enhance access and cost control for all customers Public Acceptance ... reflect actual system costs, simple to explain Same Service, Same Price ... same price for same level of service Sustainable Development ... capacity of resources to support growth (Established by Common Council) STRATEGIC Focus The history of this community's water and sewerage utility goes back to 1837, when the first public water system was established to protect people from waterborne disease (cholera) and as a water supply for fire protection. Large transmission mains, still in service today, were constructed just before and after Confederation. There are also sewer lines that have served the community for generations. In recent times, we have seen tremendous change and modernization; a transformation that should continue. A better informed public, advancing science and increasingly rigorous regulatory standards, for both health and environmental protection, mean higher expectations for utilities like Saint John Water. There is clear understanding of what constitutes safe healthy drinking water; it is no longer acceptable to dump raw sewage into rivers and streams; and the vital importance of infrastructure renewal or, alternatively, the consequences of neglect of those assets are becoming very evident indeed. Core Goals Council established, in November 2004, three goals fundamental to the future of our community and its water and wastewater obligations. These gave clear focus to priorities and guided progress towards realizing much needed service improvements for the people of Saint John. 1. 100% treatment of collected wastewater effluents (Harbour Clean -Up) 2. Full treatment /filtration of drinking water (for Safe, Clean Drinking Water) 3. Transition to adequate levels of investment in infrastructure renewal 191 cti,ohn Warms a� PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET DECEMBER 15T", 2011 SAINT JOHN WATER (WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) PAGE THE "BUSINESS" OF SAINT JOHN WATER Effective delivery of public water and wastewater services, within the context of strict regulatory standards and constrained revenues, involves much more than technical and operational considerations. Governance provides all- important direction; and management develops plans and policy recommendations, administers policies and by -laws, and develops the innovation, productivity and business culture necessary for success. Summarized below are considerations that will be given particular focus in 2012. Water and Sewerage By -Law Update Several administrative aspects of the Water and Sewerage By -Law require update and/or clarification. A robust set of policies and procedures are needed to ensure service to all users is managed fairly and equitably. Within the policy framework, the obligations of the utility and its customers need to be clearly set out. A particular concern relates to non- payment and the suspension of water service related thereto. Experience has shown that when suspension of service is not strictly enforced there is a dramatic rise in arrears. There will also be an analysis of service charges, covering considerations from the fixed portion of the metered charge to the various miscellaneous fees covered in the By -Law. An inter - departmental staff committee will be formed to undertake the comprehensive review. Led by Saint John Water, the committee would include legal, financial, planning, operational, and engineering representatives. The goal is to complete this work and present recommendations for revisions to Council late in 2012. Multiple Systems — Separate Rate Structures Saint John Water operates four distinct water systems, two of those provide only untreated industrial water. Two other industrial systems are being contemplated for the future. The structure of water rates needs to better reflect this more accurate picture of reality. CITY OF SAINT JOHN - MULTIPLE WATER SYSTEMS West Industrial ... serves two large customers west Municipal Potable ... drinking water to users across city East Spillage ... as required /available overland to industry Harbourview Potable ... potable for Red Head subdivision East Industrial* ... key part of Safe Cleanll- llihng IWalel- Treated Wastewater Effluent* ... from Eastern WWTF ( *future industrial systems) A "multiple systems" perspective would consider the different infrastructure and facilities that make up each system, the particular water quality characteristics of each, distinct operating and capital cost factors, and the specific needs of customers. The ten principles established to guide policy and rate setting would continue to apply, and pricing would be established by Council (System Operator) on a sustainable cost -of- service basis. 192 cti,ohn Warms a� PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) Musquash lroer East roir Resery oir �V Men-, es Lae 1 Ludgate Lake I I I� I� I I V 0 West Side Spruce Lake f' Saruce f Lae Chlorine & Fluoride Added Coleson Cover NBEPC Iry ng issue Pr 1p —U a' G rev Flog * Mocse�he`ad Lower West Sid: & Purl/ Bay of Pindy DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 8 Loch East Side Lurnund Chlorine & Fluoride Loch Lomond Added Latimer Ljke �`oyy Fs Little ['liver Prrv3t� .... Water System ruing Oil East Side Treated IWaL, $ Special Rates Irving Raw W atef Paper Treated Water Bayside ONBEPC Cost Allocation Some costs (e.g. watershed, intakes and shared transmission) would be fittingly shared across the various systems, while those specific to a system would be passed on only to users drawing water through that system. The cost of drinking water, for example, would be the responsibility only of customers that use treated potable water. The cost of supplying raw water to West Industrial System users, on the other hand, would be allocated entirely to current system customers (until others come on line). Differences in rates would be found in the actual costs to supply water and operate each system. Simple Rate Structure Water rates for the various systems would be based on equitable distribution of operating costs for that system. The rate structure for each should be kept simple; a single unit rate of consumption to best achieve fairness and equity for all users. Transition There should be a gradual transition to a "multiple systems" management and costing approach; with a timeline reflective of Safe Clean Drinking Water Program implementation and the overall transformation taking place in water services. Industry East The Irving Oil Refinery pays fully at By -Law rates for most of the water it draws from the municipal system. Some 20% or so of its consumption, however, falls outside that standard rates structure. As the City moves towards establishing a separate East Industrial System (as part of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program), it would be in the interest of both the utility and this large volume user to address the inconsistency. 193 y �S Irving & Pap Pumpin` Station West Side Treated Water lI DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 8 Loch East Side Lurnund Chlorine & Fluoride Loch Lomond Added Latimer Ljke �`oyy Fs Little ['liver Prrv3t� .... Water System ruing Oil East Side Treated IWaL, $ Special Rates Irving Raw W atef Paper Treated Water Bayside ONBEPC Cost Allocation Some costs (e.g. watershed, intakes and shared transmission) would be fittingly shared across the various systems, while those specific to a system would be passed on only to users drawing water through that system. The cost of drinking water, for example, would be the responsibility only of customers that use treated potable water. The cost of supplying raw water to West Industrial System users, on the other hand, would be allocated entirely to current system customers (until others come on line). Differences in rates would be found in the actual costs to supply water and operate each system. Simple Rate Structure Water rates for the various systems would be based on equitable distribution of operating costs for that system. The rate structure for each should be kept simple; a single unit rate of consumption to best achieve fairness and equity for all users. Transition There should be a gradual transition to a "multiple systems" management and costing approach; with a timeline reflective of Safe Clean Drinking Water Program implementation and the overall transformation taking place in water services. Industry East The Irving Oil Refinery pays fully at By -Law rates for most of the water it draws from the municipal system. Some 20% or so of its consumption, however, falls outside that standard rates structure. As the City moves towards establishing a separate East Industrial System (as part of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program), it would be in the interest of both the utility and this large volume user to address the inconsistency. 193 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 9 West Industrial System (Current Users) A detailed revenue requirement analysis and a cost of service analysis have been conducted for a West Industrial (Water) System - to develop a framework for equitable allocation of system costs to users. These analyses, undertaken by specialists from HDR Engineering working with staff, were based on industry recognized principles and concepts of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) M -1 Manual, Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges. With designation of the West Industrial System as a distinct and separate municipal water system that supplies untreated water to specific utility customers, it is anticipated that outstanding water charges for Irving Pulp & Paper Limited could be resolved. HDR has recommended implementing rates that will recover the fully allocated revenue requirements for the system. Tangible Capital Assets The monetary value of publicly owned water and wastewater utility assets in Saint John was estimated at slightly more than $1 billion in 2010; replacement costs of water infrastructure at just over $600 million and wastewater assets at about $400 million. TABLE 5: UTILITY WATER AND WASTEWATER ASSETS Infrastructure Type Quantity Replacement Cost WATER Water Transmission Mains 117.5 km $192,542,500 Water Distribution Mains 392.1 km $278,212,400 Fire Hydrants 2080 $16,011,900 Pressure Reducing Valves 26 $5,354,600 Water System Valves 6575 $28,333,100 Water Storage Reservoirs 7 $24,191,000 Water Pump Stations 11 $22,887,100 Dams (Earth and Concrete) 14 $19,054,100 Wells 2 $826,800 Water Disinfection (Treatment) Facilities 2 $14,149,200 Total Replacement Value Water $601,562,700 WASTEWATER Sanitary Sewers 243.0 km $164,474,700 Combined Sewers 155.5 km $105,250,300 Manholes (Sanitary and Combined) 7680 $64,440,100 Wastewater Lift Stations 44 $24,770,700 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 6 $41,207,400 Total Replacement Value Wastewater $400,143,200 194 �c��ohn warp `• ®'PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 SAINT JOHN WATER (WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) PAGE 10 New facilities to come on line after 2010, such as the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility and new sanitary lift stations, are yet not included in these amounts. 1.3% Water System 1% 4% 0% 5% 3 %� jI 2% ° 4/° 32% • Water Transmission Mains • Water Distribution Mains r Fire Hydrants • Pressure Reducing Valves • Water System Valves • Water Storage Reservoirs • Water Pump Stations • Dams (Earth & Concrete) W Wells ■ Water Treatment Facilities Water systems infrastructure has a replacement cost of about $600 million (2010); 78% of which represents the value of transmission and distribution mains. 16% 1 Adequate and sustained investment in infrastructure renewal is essential to sustainability, cost control, and optimizing return on the investment made in those assets. Effective asset management helps Council set aside the right amounts for the right things at the right time; a 'pay as you go" policy in every annual Operating Budget. Debt financing for the ongoing care of tangible assets is neither viable, nor fiscally prudent. Wastewater System 6% 10% • Sanitary Sewers • Combined Sewers Manholes (Sanitary and Combined) W Wastewater Lift Stations . Waste Water Treatment Facilities Wastewater infrastructure has a replacement value of about $400 million (2010); 68% of which is in the cost of sanitary and combined sewers. 195 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) Metering Technology DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 11 Water metering is something both users and the utility have an important stake in; especially as the cost of water rises and the need for greater water use efficiency becomes more compelling. Modern automated systems for reading those meters assure accuracy, support efficient billing, and help users and the community in their water conservation efforts. The utility will be exploring opportunities to improve its ICI metering program. New and emerging technology offers many benefits. First, it will support updating the current inventory of in- service devices; close to 1900 of the 3050 active meters are over 20 years old (and in need of replacement) or their technology does not support efficient reading. Updating meter technology will substantially improve accuracy of measurements and, with that, revenues to reflect the amount of water actually being consumed. It will also build a foundation for the future; a system that can take on additional meters with ease and help lower the future implementation costs of universal metering. Public and School Facility Tours Citizens should have an opportunity to see firsthand the operations of their utility and the improvements being made on their behalf. A program of facility tours is being planned, with an initial focus on the new Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility (EWWTF) and other Harbour Clean —Up upgrades. Tentatively set to begin in the spring, tours would be offered on Saturdays (or weekdays) depending on interest and operational considerations. A typical tour would begin at the new Harbour Station lift station. Visitors would then board a bus to the EWWTF for a showing of its processes and laboratory. Visitors would be asked to sign up in advance through an advertised number. DRINKING WATER SERVICE Good physical and mental health depends on taking in adequate quantities of good quality drinking water. Water is essential for life and it plays a key role in the prevention of disease. The quality of drinking water provided for the Saint John public must be assured. The Drinking Water Service involves management of source supplies, treatment (currently only disinfection and fluoridation), an extensive system of transmission and distribution pipelines, water quality testing, and administration of service delivery and the revenue stream. The Approval to Operate drinking water facilities requires the City to assure drinking water safety through a series of six protective barriers: source (watershed) protection; drinking water treatment; operations and maintenance (including employee training and development); monitoring and alarms; distribution system management; and emergency response. 196 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) Safe, Clean Drinking Water DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 12 Work on Council's first priority is ongoing. The Safe Clean Drinking Water Program is a multi- faceted initiative to assure high quality potable water for Saint John. The absence today of facilities to adequately treat drinking water is the central deficiency; one that seriously compromises our capacity to protect against known waterborne hazards. Needed upgrades include a 100 MLD conventional water filtration treatment facility located south of Little River Reservoir, a series of related infrastructure projects necessary for treatment implementation, and East industrial separation (for service to heavy industry). On November 7th, 2011, Council endorsed Program Structuring and Implementation Plan Version 2 at an estimated cost of $164,480,000 for delivering the highest priority elements of the program to assure safe, clean drinking water. With that it also referred the matter to the Commissioner of Finance for an affordability analysis and recommendations. Subject to the advice of Finance, a 4 -year schedule (2012 to 2015) for the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program (Highest Priority Elements) is the preferred implementation scenario. Council also authorized adjustment of the preliminary submission to PPP Canada, earlier approved on July 4th, 2011, to reflect Program scope and estimate changes. Further, in recognition of the vital importance of proceeding with implementation of the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program in a timely and complete manner, the Mayor and members of Council have continued efforts to secure cost sharing ... equal shares of funding - approximately $54,827,000 from each government partner over four years. With respect to the P3 submission, staff has recommended that Council establish a balanced, well informed decision - making process for consideration of the public - private model to be used in delivering the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program. It should be designed to identify, understand, evaluate, and compare options that would benefit utility customers (system users and ratepayers); appropriately staffed and structured to evaluate the possible outcomes and the risks associated with decisions to be made. The SCDW Program is a candidate for the P3 Canada Fund (up to 25% of eligible costs); in fact, P3 funding might be the only federal option presently available. The next step is development of a P3 business case. We understand P3 Canada is prepared to cost -share the costs of that process. Partnerships New Brunswick (the agency that coordinates P3 projects for the Province) has indicated it could assist the City in carrying out that analysis — at a cost of not more than $100,000 all inclusive. A proposal for professional advisory services (work plan) has been forwarded to us, and staff is working with PNB to finalize documentation and confirm the cost estimate earlier provided. A full P3 process, should Council ultimately decide on that course of action, would be much more involved and costly. Dedicated legal, financial and engineering resources would be essential, and the time needed to carry out the process and to finalize an agreement that fully protects the interests of the City of Saint John and its water utility ratepayers could take up to two years to complete. 197 cti,ohn Warms a� PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET DECEMBER 15T", 2011 SAINT JOHN WATER (WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) PAGE 13 For now, the "P3 Business Case" process would generally follow eight steps: 1. Review work plan and costs with representatives of PNB; 2. Final draft of an agreement for professional advisory services and cost estimate; 3. Legal, finance, Saint John Water, and purchasing staff meet with PNB (and possibly PPP Canada) on the exact "Business Case" process to be undertaken; 4. Legal representatives (City and PNB) review the agreement and finalize wording; 5. Report to Common Council to seek approval to engage PNB to assist the City; 6. Clerk and Mayor sign the documentation; 7. "P3 Business Case" work would begin, for completion by March 31St; and 8. Report back to Council on a decision to submit the Business Case to PPP Canada for consideration at its June 2012 board meeting. PNB has indicated the process is fairly involved and would be resource consuming. To enable the process to begin, a recommendation follows for Council to authorize expenditure of up to $50,000 (2012 SCDW Capital Budget), subject to equal cost - sharing from PPP Canada. In addition to clear definition of technical requirements, legal and financial prudence is crucial to the interests of the City and utility ratepayers. Cleaning and Lining Program Unlined cast iron mains (installed up to mid- 1900s) are subject to tuberculation, a rusting or oxidization build -up on the inside pipe wall. Over time, internal diameter is reduced, affecting water pressure and available fire flows. Tuberculation is also a major contributor to water quality problems such as colour, elevated iron and reduced chlorine residual. The program to renovate sections of unlined cast iron pipe (that exhibit good structural integrity) was initiated in 2006; appreciably extending service life at a much lower cost than replacement. To date, almost 40 kilometres of pipe have been cleaned and lined; cost - effectively improving water service in neighbourhoods across the city. ■ Pilot 2006: small area near intersection of Manchester Avenue and Carl Street ■ Phase 12006: neighborhood bounded by Church Avenue, McKiel Street and Main Street West; and Parkwood Avenue and Park Street Extension ■ Phase 2 2007: Anglin Drive and Thornbrough Street, as well as the Cranston Avenue and Mount Pleasant Avenue neighborhoods ■ Phase 3 2007: Fundy Heights from Sand Cove Road to Beaconsfield Avenue ■ Phase 4 2008: Old East Saint John streets above Bayside Drive, bounded by Courtenay Avenue and Mount Pleasant Avenue East .; cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER (WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 14 ■ Phase 5 2009: various areas in Fundy Heights and other Saint John West neighbourhoods ■ Phase 6 2010: Bleury Street area and continued projects in Saint John West ■ Phase 7 2011: Gault Road, Duncraggen Court, Charles Street East, Summit Drive and Cornell Street Unidirectional Flushing (UDF) Unidirectional flushing is an essential preventive maintenance process; a scientifically planned and modelled method of cleaning water mains. The water system, across the city, has been gradually modelled since UDF was introduced in 2005; adding areas each year. The last remaining part of the city (Millidgeville) will be incorporated in 2012. The key benefits of UDF are its effectiveness, efficiency of water use, and valuable data collected on water quality and system problems (e.g. broken valves, undersized mains). It also supports maintenance and renewal planning. Future unidirectional flushing will involve only updates, fine tuning and execution - at a lower annual cost than has been the case. Backf7ow Prevention and Cross Connection Control An element of the multiple barrier approach to clean, safe drinking water is protection of the system from biological contamination or chemical hazards introduced through cross connections with other sources or external equipment. Once water has been distributed to a user, its purity cannot be assured if a backflow into the system occurs (back - pressure or back - siphon). This risk requires some users to install backflow prevention devices. A specially focused by -law and related procedures are needed to support effective backflow prevention and cross - connection control. Potential risks to drinking water would be identified and those customers that pose the risks would be compelled to provide necessary protection. Annual testing of devices would be required and compliance oversight would be established. Such programs are an industry best practice and in place in most large Canadian communities. Formalizing the program in Saint John is important to meeting the City's obligations under its certificate of approval to operate. A draft by -law will be brought forward in 2012 for legal and technical consideration. The City's Plumbing Inspector and Building Inspections have key roles to play. Rothesay Road Water Quality A mini treatment system (utilizing an anion exchange resin) is being designed for the Rothesay Road area of the city. Early this year, the Town of Rothesay, in contravention to a water supply agreement with the City, disconnected its Kennebecasis Park and Hastings Cove neighbourhoods from the Saint John system. Taking such a large number of users and their associated consumption off the municipal water system has serious water quality implications for users that remain serviced off the large watermain that runs along Rothesay Road. The main was installed specifically to serve Kennebecasis Park in 1996. 199 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) Watershed - Forest Management Plan DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 15 Council has referred the question of a forest management plan for watershed lands to staff for review and consideration. Work is in the preliminary stages; terms of reference will be developed for a public call for proposals for specialized expertise to help prepare a plan. It is anticipated that a company would eventually be engaged for implementation, likely on a 3 to 5 -year contract basis, with revenue generation for the utility. A report to Council will outline a recommended approach. INDUSTRIAL WATER SERVICE The Industrial Water Service provides untreated process water from the Spruce Lake source to heavy industry located west of the St. John River. The West Industrial System currently serves two users: the NB Power Generating Station at Coleson Cove and Irving Pulp & Paper (IPP). Water for Coleson Cove flows through a separate intake and dedicated 4.9 kilometre pipeline. IPP is provided raw water through a shared intake with the municipal potable system and a dedicated 8.5 kilometre 1500mm pipeline. The West Industrial System involves inter -basin transfers from the Musquash watershed via the East Musquash pumping station, a 4.5 kilometre pipeline, Menzies Lake and then overland by natural watercourse to Spruce Lake. In addition to establishing an appropriate system of charges for raw water users, it should be understood that two major pieces of infrastructure are in need of Capital investment. The most critical situation involves the East Musquash pumping station, where a station electrical fire earlier this year took the station out of service. Temporary repairs got one of the two pumps back into operation, with full refurbishment of the other planned for the upcoming winter /spring. Even with that work, this early -1970s era facility needs an extensive upgrade; a cost that is the responsibility of system industrial users. A thorough inspection of the 1500mm pipeline to IPP is also necessary; a relatively costly undertaking that has to coincide with a maintenance shutdown at the mill. The cost of "water" associated with inter -basin transfers are also increasing, with more water being pumped to support the industrial demand on Spruce Lake. Again, responsibility for these costs rests with users of the industrial system, in this case IPP. WASTEWATER SERVICE The Wastewater Service treats domestic sewage; wastewater collected from residential and commercial sources and conveyed to treatment facilities through sanitary and combined sewers, lift stations and forcemains. Wastewater is treated to meet standards set out in approvals to operate issued by the Minister of Environment and applicable statutes. The Canada -wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluents is another consideration beginning to have a major influence on service delivery and its costs. 200 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) Saint John Harbour Clean -Up DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 16 Real progress is being made to improve Saint John's wastewater service and, with that, the health of waterways. The lower end of Marsh Creek (One -Mile House to Courtney Bay), Dutchman's Creek, the St. John River, the harbour and other watercourses that in 1993 received some 23.5 million litres of raw sewage per day are being cleaned up. Progress and higher standards, however, bring with them added costs. New treatment and pumping facilities coming on line with Harbour Clean -Up have an impact on overall operating costs. Although Saint John Water is reducing its permanent staff by two going into 2012, higher costs for property taxes, goods and services for wastewater are the primary factors pushing the overall utility budget higher. Although not yet receiving all planned wastewater flows, the new Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility has come on line and is treating wastewater from the catchment areas previously serviced by the old Hazen Creek plant. Operating Cost Increases - Wastewater Operating expenses related to the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility alone have increased by over a million dollars; these have been incorporated into the 2012 budget for the wastewater service. Specific increases have been included for the EWWTF: • Electricity + $518,000; • Chemicals + $74,000; • Property taxes + $118,000 • Equipment rental (for hauling of biosolids to approved facilities) + $60,000; • Tipping fees for biosolids + $35,000; and • Fuel Oil / Gas (for the facility) + $239,000. These higher operating costs have also contributed to an increased General Government change from the General Fund of $164,000. Fleet fuel costs are also higher. 201 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) Management of MWWE / Sewer Use By -Law DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 17 With the extensive changes to environmental regulations resulting from the Canada -wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluents, discharge standards for wastewater need to be established. Sewers can be seriously misused. Management of sewage requires interventions ranging from source control to treatment to end of pipe diffusion. Controls on what goes into the system ensure sewers function reliably, treatment processes are not compromised, and the environment and public health are protected. Based on a model developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), Saint John Water is developing a Sewer Use By -Law in conjunction with the City Solicitor's office. This is intended to support a municipal regulatory framework that will enable the City of Saint John meet its obligations under the Canada -wide Strategy. It will set standards for discharges, with a "phasing in" period to give businesses (primarily) time to adapt and change inappropriate waste discharge practices. Development of the By -Law involves a substantial staff commitment from both Saint John Water and Legal. The new Sewer Use By -Law will be finalized for translation early in 2012 to support planning and public consultations in the spring. After these public sessions and time for feedback, the document would be updated and ready for Council's approval in the fall, with sufficient time for its full implementation in 2013. In addition to the By -Law itself, there are training and preparation milestones to be met. For example, staff will require by -law enforcement training, including sample chain of custody experience. We will also need to set up a system of documentation and permits. Two technical positions have been reassigned to provide a combined function of sewer inspection (for preventive maintenance) and enforcement of the Sewer Use By -Law. Trained chemical technologists will be earmarked for this role. Sewer Inspection Program The Sewer Inspection Program involves the CCTV inspection of the 400 kilometres of sanitary and combined sewers across the city. The goal is to establish a 5 -year continual cycle of inspection. The program will provide for structured video assessment of the underground sewer pipe infrastructure, with a record of sewer condition maintained electronically. This and help focus operational resources and capital expenditures. The inspections will also aide sewer by -law enforcement personnel, helping locate offenders. Getting Wastewater to Treatment Saint John has distinct challenges in getting its collected wastewater from system users to a treatment facility. With Harbour Clean -Up and development currently taking place, we will be operating 66 sanitary lift stations to pump sewage though many kilometres of forcemain to get wastewater flows over our varying elevations, hills and rocky terrain; a Saint John reality that adds significantly to the cost of our wastewater service. 202 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) UTILITY CAPITAL BUDGET DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 18 The Saint John Water 2012 Capital Budget will be submitted for Council consideration and approval early in 2012, concurrent with the Capital Budget for the General Fund. Utility Capital highlights will include the last push on Harbour Clean -Up projects, a clear and ongoing commitment to Council's Safe Clean Drinking Water priority, and continued renewal of assets, some in conjunction with area or neighbourhood improvement work. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council adopt the following resolutions: 1. RESOLVED that the estimated revenue for the Water and Sewerage Utility for the year 2012 in the amount of $36,927,000 be adopted (Appendix "A "); 2. RESOLVED that the estimate of expenses for the Water and Sewerage Utility for the year 2012 in the amount of $36,927,000 be approved (Appendix `B "); and 3. RESOLVED that the By -Law entitled A By -Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Water & Sewerage (Appendix "C ") be given first and second reading; and 4. RESOLVED that an amount up to $50,000 (from the 2012 Capital Budget - Safe Clean Drinking Water) be authorized to undertake a P3 Business Case analysis for the Safe Clean Drinking Water Program (Highest Priority Elements), with the professional advisory services of Partnerships New Brunswick and subject to equal cost - sharing from PPP Canada, as outlined in this report. Respectfully submitted, J.M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations and Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager Gregory J. Yeomans, CGA, MBA Commissioner of Finance 203 cti,ohn Warms a� PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER (WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 19 APPENDIX "A" SAINT JOHN WATER - EXPENDITURE BUDGET 2012 $20,194,997 $21,489,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 Budget Proposed Outlook Outlook OPERATING EXPENSES 11,479,000 11,508,000 Capital From Operating 6,421,500 Drinking Water Service 5,605,000 5,605,000 Total Fiscal Charges $15,280,313 Watershed Management 245,000 249,000 253,000 253,000 Water Treatment 2,142,000 2,092,000 2,112,000 2,113,000 Water Pumping & Storage 971,000 996,000 1,006,000 1,013,000 Water Trans & Distribution 4,397,000 4,370,000 4,415,000 4,416,000 Customer Metering 603,000 667,000 677,000 687,000 Industrial Water Service Watershed Management (Industrial) 465,000 476,000 481,000 486,000 Water Pumping & Trans (Industrial) 806,000 822,000 830,000 845,000 Customer Metering (Industrial) 101,000 104,000 106,000 108,000 Wastewater Service Wastewater Pumping 1,799,000 2,097,000 2,118, 000 2,156,000 Wastewater Collection 2,218,000 2,520,000 2,549, 000 2,578,000 Wastewater Treatment 3,643,000 4,398,000 4,430, 000 4,487,000 Infrastructure Management Infrastructure Development 343,999 - - - Municipal Engineering 1,256,000 1,306,000 1,304,000 1,327,000 Other Internal Charges 505,222 509,000 513,000 523,000 Net Pension Costs 699,776 883,000 883,000 883,000 Total Operating Expenses $20,194,997 $21,489,000 $21,677,000 $21,875,000 FISCAL CHARGES Debt Servicing 8,858,813 9,833,000 11,479,000 11,508,000 Capital From Operating 6,421,500 5,605,000 5,605,000 5,605,000 Total Fiscal Charges $15,280,313 $15,438,000 $17,084,000 $17,113,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $35,475,310 $36,927,000 $38,761,000 $38,988,000 204 cti,ohn Warms a� PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) REVENUES Flat Rate Accounts Metered Accounts Fire Protection Levy (General Fund) Storm Sewer Levy (General Fund) Other Revenues DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 20 SAINT JOHN WATER — REVENUE BUDGET 2012 2011 2012 2013 Budget Proposed Outlook APPENDIX "B" 2014 Outlook 15,483,991 16,065,000 17,039,000 18,106,449 16,623,664 17,377,000 18,117,000 19,076,905 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,300,000 2,400,000 942,655 1,060,000 1,080,000 1,090,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 TOTAL REVENUES $35,475,310 $36,927,000 $38,761,000 $38,988,000 205 cti,ohn war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) PROPOSED 2012 CHANGES DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 21 APPENDIX "C" BY -LAW NUMBER M -16, A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE (WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND • BY -LAW TO AMEND UN ARRETE POUR MODIFIER • BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER ARRETE CONCERNANT LES RESEAUX D'EAU AND ET D'EGOUTS SEWERAGE Le conseil communal de The City of Saint Be it enacted by Common Council of the John edicte : City of Saint John, as follows: Par les presentes, Farrete de The City of Saint A by -law of the City of Saint John entitled John intitule « Arrete concernant les reseaux "A By -law Respecting Water and d'eau et d'egouts », edicte le 7 juin 2004, est Sewerage" enacted on the 7t'' day of June, modifie comme suit: A.D. 2004, is hereby amended as follows: 1. Les annexes « A » et « B » sont abrogees 1. Schedules "A" and `B" are repealed et sont remplacees par celles qui figurent aux and the following are substituted presentes. therefor. Mayor or the member of the Council who Maire ou membre du conseil qui presidait la presided at the meeting at which it was reunion A laquelle Farrete a ete edicte enacted; and/ Common Clerk Greffiere communale First Reading Premiere lecture Second Reading Deuxieme lecture Third Reading Troisieme lecture 206 cti,ohn Warms a� PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE ARRRTE CONCERNANT LES RESEAUX D'EAU ET D'EGOUTS DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 22 SCHEDULE "A" ANNEXE << A >> Effective January 1St, 2012 / En vigueur le 1 er janvier 2012 Flat rate customers Tarif forfaitaire pour les clients Flat rate customers Tarif forfaitaire pour Yearly $438.00 les clients 438,00$ Water charge � anue l nnue 1 Redevance sur eau 207 cti,om war 1 PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE Effective January 1St, 2012 DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 23 SCHEDULE "B" METERED CUSTOMERS - WATER SERVICE CHARGE Meter Size Yearly ($) Monthly ($) Bi- Monthly ($) 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm & up 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 METERED CUSTOMERS - CONSUMPTION CHARGE Monthly (by m) Bi- Monthly (by m) Consumption (m) Rate ($ /m3) Consumption (m) Rate ($ /m3) For the first 50 1.0974 For the first 100 1.0974 For the next 124,950 0.6988 For the next 249,900 0.6988 For all in excess of 125,000 0.2466 For all in excess of 250,000 0.2466 Spillage 0.1100 Spillage 0.1100 1: cti,ohn Warms a� PROPOSED 2012 OPERATING BUDGET SAINT JOHN WATER WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY FUND) ARRETE CONCERNANT LES RESEAUX D'EAU ET D'EGOUTS En vigueur I" janvier 2042 DECEMBER 15TH, 2011 PAGE 24 ANNEXE << B >> CLIENTS AVEC COMPTEUR - TARIF DES SERVICES D'EAU Dimension du compteur Tarif annuel ($) Tarif mensuel ($) Tarif bimensuel ($) 15mm 216.36 18.03 36.06 20mm 264.84 22.07 44.14 25mm 361.68 30.14 60.28 40mm 475.56 39.63 79.26 50mm 948.72 79.06 158.12 75mm 1,971.48 164.29 328.58 100mm 3,428.52 285.71 571.42 150mm 5,388.24 449.02 898.04 200mm 7,742.40 645.20 1,290.40 250mm et plus 10,485.96 j 873.83 1,747.66 CLIENTS AVEC COMPTEUR - FRAIS DE CONSOMMATION MENSUEL ET BIMESTRIEL Mensuel (par m) Bimestriel (par m) Consommation (m) Frais ($ /m3) Consommation (m3) Frais ($ /m3) Pour les 50 premiers m3 1,0974 Pour les 100 premiers m3 1,0974 Pour les 124 950 m3 suivants 0,6988 Pour les 249 900 m3 suivants 06988 ' Pour toute consommation au -delA de 125 000 m3 0,2466 Pour toute consommation au -delA de 250 000 m3 0,2466 Renversement 0,1100 Renversement 0,1100 209 Saint John Water Services Overview The City of Saint John provides water and wastewater services to homes, businesses, industry and institutions through its utility Saint John Water. These services, essential to the community's health, environmental protection, quality of life and economy, are regulated under the Province's Clean Water Act and the Clean Environment Act. Organizational Goals To establish the City of Saint John as a service - based, results oriented, high performance public service organization. Service Based • Considering the needs of the community as a whole • Creating opportunities for citizen feedback and input • Responding effectively and efficiently to address community needs December 16, 2011 Results Oriented • Clean, safe drinking water, ensuring adequate supply • Quality, fiscally responsible maintained infrastructure • Clean, healthy natural environment High Performance • Collaborative, strategically minded workforce • Culture focused on contributing to community goals through service delivery • Resource conscious and accountable for results 04 4 Drinking Water Service Industrial Water Service Wastewater Service Utility Business Management Water & Sanitary Engineering 1 Saint John Water Services Summary December 16, 2011 211 2011 2012 2013 2014 Approved Expenditures Revenue FTE Projected Projected Drinking Water Service Watershed Management 245,000 249,000 2.00 253,000 253,000 Water Treatment 21142,000 2,092,000 11.50 2,112,000 2,113,000 Water Pumping and Storage 971,000 996,000 5.50 1,006,000 1,013,000 Water Transmission and Distribution 41397,000 4,370,000 26.00 4,415,000 4,416,000 Customer Metering 603,000 667,000 6.25 677,000 687,000 Total Service $8,358,000 $8,374,000 $8,374,000 51.25 $8,463,000 $8,482,000 Industrial Water Service Watershed Management 465,000 476,000 2.50 481,000 486,000 Water Pumping and Transmission 806,000 822,000 3.50 830,000 845,000 Customer Metering 101,000 104,000 1.00 106,000 108000 Total Service $1,372,000 $1,402,000 $1,402,000 7.00 $1,417,000 $1,439,000 Wastewater Service Wastewater Pumping 1,799,000 2,097,000 12.00 2,118,000 2,156,000 Wastewater Collection 2,218,000 2,520,000 15.00 2,549,000 2,578,000 Wastewater Treatment 3,643,000 4,398,000 22.75 4,430,000 4,487,000 Total Service $7,660,000 $9,015,000 $9,015,000 49.75 $9,097,000 $9,221,000 Water & Sanitary Engineering $1,599,999 $1,306,000 $1,306,000 11.00 $1,304,000 $1,327,000 Saint John Water Budget $18,989,999 $20,097,000 $20,097,000 119.00 $20,281,000 $20,469,000 December 16, 2011 211 Drinking Water Service The Drinking Water Service provides quality drinking water to all users within the community. This service includes the supply of water, treatment, testing, transmission and distribution, administration of the service, and billing and collections. The service is provided under the Approval to Operate W -254 Drinking Water Distribution & Treatment Facilities. The operation of the facilities shall be kept in compliance with the Water Quality Regulation 82 -126 under the Clean Environment Act and the Potable Water Regulation 93 -203 under the Clean Water Act of the Province of New Brunswick. Service Delivery Saint John Water delivers several programs as part of its disinfection and distribution of drinking water to the Community. The chart below identifies these programs and the proportional allocation of resources required to deliver a defined level of service for 2012. Drinking Water Service Programs i Watershed Management H Water Treatment V Water Pumping & Storage U Water Transmission & Distribution U Customer Metering December 16, 2011 - Service Drive • Expectations for clean, safe drinking water and adequate supply Regulatory and legislative requirements Advancements in technology and system upgrades Economy and increasing costs of goods and services Focus on sustainable asset management; aging infrastructure Ratepayers control usage Focus on environmental sustainability and conservation Organizational capacity 212 2011 Drinking Water Service Accomplishments and Performance • Saint John Water Asset Management Team estimated the replacement costs for all water assets at the end of 2010 at just over $600 million. Water assets are approximately 60% of all current utility assets. • Approximately 90% of the entire water distribution system in 2011 was flushed by unidirectional flushing (UDF). In 2012 the entire City water distribution system will be flushed utilizing unidirectional flushing methods. • Approximately 1.2 km of cleaning and lining work was completed in 2011. Approximately 31.8 km of unlined cast iron watermains were cleaned and lined since 2006. • Saint John Water operations staff repaired 86 watermain breaks in 2011. • Saint John Water Operations Staff continue to achieve higher Water Certification levels. It is recognized that training of staff is integral to improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the water service. • The annual Water shed clean -up day was held June 15 2011. • Average daily potable water production is 110 million litres per day in 2011. • Average daily industrial water production is 120 million litres per day in 2011. • Renewal through Capital of water transmission and distribution mains to support Safe, Clean Drinking Water. • Environmental site assessment for the new water treatment plant is underway and scheduled to be completed early in 2012. 2012 Initiatives, Major Projects and Drinking Water Service Delivery Highlights • Initiate preliminary design of the new water treatment facility. • Renewal through Capital of water transmission and distribution mains to support Safe, Clean Drinking Water. • Construction of facilities to protect watersheds from runoff from highway hazards and condition assessment of existing structures. • Acquisition of land for watershed protection. December 16, 2011 213 4 Watershed Management Program Service Levels and Resources Maintain the area of Loch Lomond and Spruce Lake watersheds including inspections of dams and other infrastructure and repairs as required. • Regular inspection of dams (14 earth and concrete dams) • Daily inspection at each watershed intake Patrol the City's two watersheds regularly • Regular site visits Investigate and act as necessary to reports of questionable activities in the watershed Watershed clean -up days December 16, 2011 • Notify appropriate authorities as required • 12 Clean Water Act Inspectors on staff currently • Clean -up days as required • Protects drinking water sources from adverse influences of human beings and nature, and to maintain the environmental sustainability of those watersheds through sound management of water, land, forests and infrastructure within each watershed. • Designated watersheds are protected, reducing the risk of contaminated water entering the drinking water system • Watershed clean -up days promote the importance of protecting the watersheds 214 Wages & Benefits $148,332 Goods & Services 100,668 Total Expenditures $249,000 Revenue $249,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 0.75 Administration / Technical 0.25 Outside Workers 1.00 Total FTE 2.00 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • Real Estate — support land purchase process in watershed • Legal — support land purchase process in watershed • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements 5 Water Treatment Program Service Levels and Resources Treat water to meet regulatory standards, safety requirements and customer demand 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Maintenance and repairs as necessary on water treatment facilities. Weekly water samples collected across the three water systems and microbiologically analyzed. Quarterly water samples collected across the three water systems and analyzed for organic parameters Semi - annual water samples collected across the three water systems and analyzed for inorganic parameters. Continuous sampling and monitoring of chlorine levels through SCADA. Response to citizen requests for water quality testing (e.g., colour, odor, taste) within one week (80% of time). December 16, 2011 • Approximately 110 ML /day of treated water • Maintenance varies each facility • 31 sampling sites weekly (1,612 annually) for total coliforms and e.coli and 31 sampling sites monthly (372 annually) for heterotrophic plate count • 18 sampling sites quarterly (72 annually) for organic parameters • 18 sampling sites semi - annually (36 annually) for inorganic parameters • 9 locations (Latimer Lake, Lakewood Heights Pump Station, Somerset Street Pump Station, Spruce Lake, Gault Road PRV Station, Churchill Heights Water Storage Reservoir, Lancaster Water Storage Reservoir and Ocean Drive Well) are monitored continuously. • Number of requests varies annual (average is 75 calls per year) The service strives to deliver safe, clean drinking water that protects and enhances the health of the community, help sustain the economy and provide for growth and development in the community and enhance the quality of life in the community. • Water treated to meet demands of residential, commercial & institutional customers 04U Wages & Benefits $825,295 Goods & Services 1,266,705 Total Expenditures $2,092,000 Revenue $2,092,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 0.75 Administration / Technical 1.25 Outside Workers 9.50 Total FTE 11.50 Part -Time Positions 0.50 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements Water Pumping & Storage Program Service Levels and Resources Operate and maintain water pumping stations and water storage reservoirs Examples of work (as required) include: • cleaning, inspection and maintenance • Continuously monitor and control through SCADA • Maintenance of pumps and associated control systems December 16, 2011 • 11 pumping stations • 7 water storage reservoirs (tanks) • Pumping of treated water to meet demands of residential, commercial and institutional customers as necessary • Water storage reservoirs (tanks) store water to meet the peak water demands and for fire flows during an emergency. Storage reservoirs provide water during emergency and planned maintenance at treatment facilities. 04 Wages & Benefits $412,836 Goods & Services 583,164 Total Expenditures $996,000 Revenue $996,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 0.75 Administration / Technical 0.25 Outside Workers 4.50 Total FTE 5.50 Part -Time Positions 0.05 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements 7 Water Transmission & Distribution Program Service Levels and Resources Maintain water transmission and distribution piping and associated appurtenances (e.g., valves, hydrants, chambers) Response to service interruptions and service leaks (80% of time): • Within 2 hours for evaluation • Within 48 hours for emergency repairs • Within 2 weeks for less urgent repairs Response to frozen services within 48 hours, 80% of the time. Annual (June— October) uni- directional flushing (UDF) of all water distribution pipes of sizes 12" and less. Conventional flushing is executed on dead ends and in response to areas where water quality problems are reported. December 16, 2011 Maintenance requirements vary annually: • Over 500 km of pipe • 6,575 valves • 2,080 fire hydrants • Number of service leaks or breaks varies annually depending on weather conditions and age of infrastructure. • Number of frozen service varies depending on weather conditions. • 1,072 sequences in 2011 • 861 sequences in 2010 • 566 hydrants involved • 212 total length of pipe flushed • 933 valves used • Safe clean drinking water is available to users at adequate pressures and in sufficient quantities to meet customer demand and fire flow requirements. • Flushing moves fresh water through areas of low flow and expels sediment and loose particles out of the distribution system. In areas that can't be flushed, problems compound with the inability to introduce fresher water 04rl Wages & Benefits $1,906,585 Goods & Services 2,463,415 Total Expenditures $4,370,000 Revenue $4,370,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 1.00 Administration / Technical 2.00 Outside Workers 23.00 Total FTE 26.0 Part -Time Positions (PTE) 0.05 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing - procurement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements I Customer Metering Program Service Levels and Resources Provide water meters for qualified customers as and when required; Advise on the proper installation of water meters Read water meters on a bi- monthly cycle (ICI and residential) and detect anomalies in consumption that point to leakage or a meter malfunction; identify malfunctioning water meters. Replace malfunctioning and obsolete water meters as and when required • Approximately 50 new meters issued for installations annually • Approximately 50 follow -up inspection and installation of remote reading equipment • 3,066 meter reads bi- monthly • Replace approximately 140 malfunctioning or obsolete water meters per year. Provide notification and inspection • services to customers experiencing excessive water use. Respond to customer concerns with meter and plumbing fixture inspections. December 16, 2011 Issue approximately 550 high consumption notices annually, regarding higher than normal water consumption. • Number of customer concerns varies annually (average 340 /year) • Ensures qualified customers are billed based on measured quantities • Ensures the accuracy and designed operation of the water meter • Ensures proper installation as well as accurate and efficient meter readings • Fair and equitable billing of water use. • Accountability and control of consumption data for drinking water. • Reduce the waste of water and associated costs. • Safeguards the accuracy of measured water • Improves efficiency by utilizing modern meter reading methods • Customer service follow -up on abnormal consumption. • Identify possible causes of excessive water consumption OAR] Wages & Benefits $390,150 Goods & Services 276,850 Total Expenditures $667,000 Revenue $667,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 0.75 Administration / Technical 0.50 Outside Workers 5.00 Total FTE 6.25 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing - procurement of water meters • Finance — billings and collections, customer service related to water meters • IT — support meter reading software and equipment • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements I Industrial Water Service The Industrial Water Service is a public service that provides industry west of the St. John River with raw process water. The service includes the supply of untreated water, operation and maintenance of related infrastructure, administration of the service, and billing and collection for water volumes used. Service Delivery Saint John Water delivers several programs as part of its Industrial Water Service. The chart below identifies these programs and the proportional allocation of resources required to deliver a defined level of service for 2012. Industrial Water Service Programs W Watershed Management LA Water Pumping & Transmis on H Customer Metering December 16, 2011 Efficient needs of industry Regulatory and legislative requirements Advancements in technology and system upgrades Economy and increasing costs of goods and services Focus on sustainable asset management; aging infrastructure (East Musquash Pumping Station Ratepayers control usage Focus on environmental sustainability and conservation Organizational capacity 219 10 2011 Industrial Water Service Accomplishments and Performance • On August 1", 2011 an electrical fire at the Musquash Pumping Station damaged equipment that pumps water from Musquash to Spruce Lake. Interim repairs began on August 3rd and the station was returned to service August 8`". As a result of efforts by Saint John Water staff, there was no service disruption while interim repairs were being completed. A detailed revenue requirement analysis and a cost of service analysis have been conducted for a West Industrial (Water) System —to develop a framework for equitable allocation of system costs to users. 2012 Initiatives, Major Projects, and Industrial Water Service Delivery Highlights • Planning for Capital replacement /renewal of the Musquash Pumping Station • Establishment of a West Industrial System for management and costing of service to users • Structural evaluation of the 1500mm raw water transmission main that serves IPP. December 16, 2011 V-0 11 Industrial Watershed Management Service Levels and Resources Maintain the area of Loch Lomond and Spruce Lake watersheds including inspections of dams and other infrastructure and repairs as required. Investigate and act as necessary to reports of questionable activities in the watershed December 16, 2011 • Regular inspection of dams (14 earth and concrete dams) • Daily inspection at each watershed intake • Notify appropriate authorities as required • Protect the supply of industrial water to support business. • Adequate supplies of industrial water, at fair and equitable rates, supports development and growth in the community. 221 Wages & Benefits $202,105 Goods & Services 273,895 Total Expenditures $476,000 Revenue $476,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 0.25 Administration / Technical 0.25 Outside Workers 2.00 Total FTE 2.50 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • Real Estate — support land purchase process in watershed • Legal — support land purchase process in watershed • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements 12 Industrial Water Pumping & Transmission Program Service Levels and Resources Meet raw water demands of heavy • industrial users 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Maintain water pumping station • (Musquash), screen building (Spruce Lake) and flume (Latimer Lake) and Coleson Cove Screen Building Pumping water from Musquash to Menzies Lake to ensure adequate supply (high electrical charges and purchase of water from the Province of New Brunswick) December 16, 2011 Approximately 120 ML /day of industrial water 13 km of transmission piping and all associated appurtenances • Rate of 150ML /day when operating (usually 3 to 4 months per year) • Involves pumping to Menzies Lake (from Musquash) in order to maintain optimum water levels at Spruce Lake during periods of high consumption or low precipitation, to maintain facility and grounds. • Delivery of industrial water to meet demands of industrial customers 222 Wages & Benefits $317,916 Goods & Services 504,084 Total Expenditures $822,000 Revenue $822,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions Management 0.50 Administration / Technical 0.50 Outside Workers 2.50 Total FTE 3.50 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements 13 Industrial Customer Metering Program Service Levels and Resources Read meters for large industrial water • 3 customers (IPP, Coleson Cove, Irving users. Paper) December 16, 2011 • Provide accurate and timely measurement of water consumed by industrial water users to calculate consumption for billing and examine opportunities for conservation. 223 Wages & Benefits $79,920 Goods & Services 24,080 Total Expenditures $104,000 Revenue $104,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 0.25 Administration / Technical 0.25 Outside Workers 0.50 Total FTE 1.00 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing - procurement of water meters • Finance — billings and collections, customer service related to water meters • IT — support meter reading software and equipment • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements 14 Wastewater Service The Wastewater Service treats domestic sewerage; wastewater collected from residential and commercial sources is conveyed to treatment facilities through sanitary and combined sewers, lift stations and forcemains. Wastewater is treated to meet standards set out in the Approvals to Operate as issued by the Minister of Environment and applicable statutes. Service Delivery Saint John Water delivers several programs as part of its Wastewater Service to ensure protection of the environment. The chart below identifies these programs and the proportional allocation of resources required to deliver a defined level of service for 2012. Wastewater Service Programs U Wastewater Pumping J Wastewater Collection o Wastewater Treatment December 16, 2011 Environmental health Management of municipal wastewater effluent -CCME Saint John's varying elevations, hills and rocky terrain Regulatory and legislative requirements Advancements in technology and system upgrades Economy and increasing costs of goods and services Focus on sustainable asset management; aging infrastructure Focus on environmental sustainability and conservation Organizational capacity 224 15 2011 Wastewater Service Accomplishments and Performance • Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility began treating wastewater on August 17, 2011. Achieved effluent quality objectives within first week of operation. • Decommissioned Hazen Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility in August, 2011 after approximately 40 years in service. • Six new wastewater pumping stations commissioned as part of ongoing work in the Harbour Cleanup project. • Treatment of just under 12,000 ML of wastewater at just over $604.00 per ML. • 79% of effluent quality samples taken at treatment facilities were in compliance; 1085 samples, 852 in compliance. • 23 bypass events. Total wastewater bypassed: 16.7 ML (0.14% of treated total). • Automated sanitary sewer video unit purchased. 2012 Initiatives, Major Projects and Wastewater Treatment Service Delivery Highlights • Treat 100% of collected wastewater from serviced areas of the City. • Commission approximately 20 new wastewater lift stations as part of the Harbour Clean -Up Project and new developments. • Operating expenses relating to the Eastern Wastewater Facility alone have increased by over a million dollars (2012 Operating Budget). • A new Sewer Use By -law will be finalized for translation in early 2012, planned public consultations in the Spring, and the By -law will be ready for Council approval early in the Fall. • The Sewer Inspection Program provides video inspection of underground sewer pipe infrastructure with a record of the sewer condition maintained electronically. A new goal to establish a 5 year continual cycle of video inspection of all sewer pipe infrastructure will be implemented in 2012. December 16, 2011 18ni 16 Wastewater Pumping Program Service Levels and Resources Maintenance, inspection and safe operation of wastewater pumping facilities December 16, 2011 • 44 wastewater pumping facilities in 2011 • 21 wastewater pumping facilities being added in 2012 as part of Harbour Clean -up • 3 additional wastewater pumping facilities added due to property development • Preventative maintenance and repairs as required • The service strives to transfer wastewater from the collection system to the treatment facilities, to provide protection for the pumping mechanical systems and maintain facilities and grounds 012• Wages & Benefits $891,787 Goods & Services 1,205,213 Total Expenditures $2,097,000 Revenue $2,097,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 1.00 Administration / Technical .50 Outside Workers 10.50 Total FTE 12.00 Part -Time Positions 0.05 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements 17 Wastewater Collection Program Maintain sanitary and combined sewer • Over 400 km of pipe • piping along with all associated • Repairs based on video results, breaks appurtenances. and back -ups varies annually Response to sewer -back ups once made aware of issue within the following timelines (80% of the time) • Evaluate within 2 hours • Repair or flush line within 24 hours, providing the problem is the City's responsibility • Provide for courtesy clean (property owners convenience if City line is surcharged) Video maintenance program - annual System flushing December 16, 2011 • # back -ups varies annually • System completed in 5 years (annual cycle) • Requirements for flushing based on video results Within the City's service areas 100% of wastewater is collected and delivered to treatment facilities for treatment contributing to the protection of public health from waterborne diseases, the natural environment including aquatic life and wildlife that depend on it. NIXI Wages & Benefits $1,235,115 Goods & Services 1,284,885 Total Expenditures $2,520,000 Revenue $2,520,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions Management 0.75 Administration / Technical 2.75 Outside Workers 11.50 Total FTE 15.00 Part -Time Positions 0.05 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Legal - by -law enforcement support • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements M Wastewater Treatment Program Service Levels and Resources Maintenance, inspection and safe operation of wastewater treatment facilities to provide for wastewater treatment 24 hours per day, 365 days per year Collect and analyze samples of influent entering the facilities, the effluent leaving the treatment facilities and at various strategic locations within the process December 16, 2011 • 6 wastewater treatment facilities (one to be decommissioned in 2012) • Preventative maintenance • Repairs vary annually • 11,963 ML wastewater treated annually • 9,000 wastewater samples annually (consistently collects and analyzes more samples than required by the Approvals to Operate) • Protect public heath from waterborne disease • Protect natural environment including aquatic and wildlife • Preserve shorelines for recreational use • Safety reuse nutrients found in wastewater biosolids on. *] Wages & Benefits $1,366,851 Goods & Services 3,031,149 Total Expenditures $4,398,000 Revenue $4,398,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE) Management 2.25 Administration / Technical 4.50 Outside Workers 16.00 Total FTE 22.75 Part -Time Positions 0.80 Critical Administrative Service Support • Fleet — equipment availability • Purchasing — procurement of materials and contracted services • IT — support SCADA and other performance tracking software • Human Resources — staffing and training requirements 19 Water & Sanitary Engineering The goal of the Water & Sanitary Engineering program is to provide professional engineering and technical staff resources for engineering support, design and construction management for projects related to capital programs for the improvement of municipal infrastructure and to ensure the integrity of that system through the implementation of sound engineering standards. 2011 Engineering Accomplishments and Performance • Harbourview Subdisision — New well house and chlorination system placed into operation • Harbour Clean -Up Program — Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility and Marine Outfall completed and placed into operation; collection and pumping component construction projects completed and /or underway including Spar Cove Road LS #22, Harbour Station LS #10, Riverview Avenue LS #30, Crown Street LS #81 Bridge Street LS #23 and Marsh Creek collector sewer. Harbour Clean -Up Program is on schedule with 80% of program projects committed by award of contracts. 2012 Initiatives, Major Projects and engineering Service Delivery highlights • Continue with Combined Sewer Separation Strategy (North End will be focus for 2012) • Continue with Phase 8 of Watermain Cleaning and Lining • Detailed design of Water Treatment Facility (funding dependent) • Construction of remaining sanitary life stations /forcemains /collection sewers to complete Harbour Clean -Up Program by end of 2012 December 16, 2011 PAM%; 20 Engineering Service Levels and Resources Provide design and construction management for the annual Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital program Support annual review and revisions to general specifications. Coordinate with the City's Finance Division and the province and /or Federal Government on water and wastewater infrastructure funding agreements • Infrastructure projects designed and constructed • Updated general specifications • Funding agreements established to finance infrastructure upgrades • Sound engineering design and construction management is essential to provide safe, clean drinking water and to protect the environment by providing infrastructure that is built properly using sound engineering standards. • The development and application of sound engineering standards ensures the long -term integrity of the City's water and sanitary systems. Wages & Benefits $936,723 Goods & Services $369,277 Total Expenditures $1,306,000 Revenue $1,306,000 Full Time Equivalent Positions Management 1.00 Engineers 5.00 Administration /Technical 4.00 Total FTE 10.00 December 16, 2011 21 PAN RICEPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C 2011- 326 December 14, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: 2012 Adoption Schedule for the Municipal Plan BACKGROUND: The City of Saint john On December 12, 2011 Common Council held the public hearing as part of the formal adoption process for the Municipal Plan. More than 16 oral submissions and 4 written submissions were received from members of the public as part of the hearing and this is in addition to all of the other public submissions received as part of the Public Presentation and Planning Advisory Committee rex iew of the proposed Bylaw. Council directed that staff prepare a supplementary report providing responses to all of the submissions received including recommendations on further changes to the Plan arising from the public feedback Plan before Council gives final adoption. PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a final schedule for the completion of the supplementary report and for the adoption of the Municipal Plan. ANALYSIS: As a follow -up to the Public Hearing, staff is preparing a supplementary report for Council which will provide the following information: • a summary of all issues raised by the public during the formal adoption process including the Public Presentation period, the Planning Advisory Committee review and the Public Hearing; a summary of issues raised by Common Council during the hearing as well as any housekeeping issues identified by staff; • a discussion of the issue in the context of the Plan and options to address it; 231 z • recommendations from staff and the P1anSJ Citizen Advisory Committee on proposed amendments to the Plan. The report and any required amendments will be prepared for Council's consideration in the new year. The following dates are proposed for Council adoption: January 16'h, 2012 - staff will report back to Council with a supplementary report including any required amendments and recommend that Common Council give first and second reading of the Municipal Plan Bylaw. January 30"', 2012 - it is recommended that Common Council proceed with third reading and final adoption of the Municipal Plan Bylaw. Section 66(1)(b) of the Community Planning Act requires that Common Council seek the views of its Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) on any changes to be considered to a Municipal Plan during the adoption process. It is proposed that PAC review any recommended amendments during its regular meeting on January 17, 2012. This will give time for Council's consideration of these views prior to Plan adoption. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Common Council: As required by section 66(1)(b) of the Community Planning Act, request that the Planning Advisory Committee express its views with respect to any proposed amendments to the Municipal Plan prior to Common Council giving third reading to the Municipal Plan Bylaw. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP RPP Commissioner Planning and Development J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 232 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL December 15, 2011 M &C2011 -330 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: The Cite of Saint John SUBJECT: CONSULTATION RE PRINCE WILLIAM PARKING RESTRICTION FOR FIRE PROTECTION Common Council is asked to consider approving 3rd Reading of an amendment to the City's Traffic By -Law that would restrict on- street parking on a portion of Prince William Street in front of the new Harbourfront Residences development. Council approved 1" and 2nd Readings at its December 5, 2011 meeting. M &C 2011 -311 was presented with background information. A question was raised by Council at this meeting whether consultation with the development owner had occurred as part of this process prior to consideration of 3rd Reading. Consultation with City staff had occurred. In fact, the architect of the development owner approached the Parking Commission about such a parking restriction to assist in satisfying the fire protection requirements for the development itself. The Parking Commission, City staff and the City Solicitor's Office worked together to expedite preparation of the required by -law amendment to permit this restriction by providing both the City Manager's report and the translated amendment in proper form for Council's consideration at its last meeting. Approval of 3rd Reading of this amendment is required prior to the installation of the appropriate No Parking signs on- street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council receive and file this report and to refer to this report when considering adoption of 3rd Reading of the above - mentioned Traffic By -Law Amendment. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner Municipal Operations & Engineering 233 J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager P A LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING TRAFFIC ON STREETS IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN MADE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1973, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF A LA CIRCULATION DANS LES RUES DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN EDICTS CONFORMEMENT A LA LOI SUR LES VEHICULES A MOTEUR (1973) ET MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une reunion du Conseil municipal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a d6cr&6 ce qui suit : A By -law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By -law Respecting Traffic On Streets In The City of Saint John Made Under The Authority of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and Amendments Thereto ", enacted on the 19'h day of December, A.D. 2005, is hereby amended as follows: 1 "Schedule A -1 — Parking Times 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m." is amended by deleting the following words under the following headings: Street Side Limits Time Pr. William Both Queen St. to 2 hrs. St. St. James St. 2 "Schedule B — No Parking Anytime" is amended by adding the following words under the following headings: Street Side Limits Pr. William St. West 45 meters South of Queen St. to 64 meters South of Queen St. 3 "Schedule A -1 — Parking Times 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m." is amended by adding the following words under the following headings: Par les prdsentes, 1'arrdtd de The City of Saint John intitu16 « Arretd relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John 6dict6 conform6ment a la Loi sur les vehicules a moteur (1973) et modifications affdrentes », d6cr&6 le 19 d6cembre 2005, est modifi6 comme suit: 1 o L' Annexe A -1 — Durdes de stationnement de 8 h a 17 h » est modifi6e par la suppression des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : Rues Cote Limites Dur6e Rue Prince des deux de la rue Queen 2 h William c6tds A la rue St. James 2 « L'annexe B — interdiction de stationner en tout temps » est modifi6e par Padjonction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : Rues Cote Limites Rue Prince Ouest d'un point situ6 a 45 William metres au Sud de la rue Queen A un point situ6 A 64 metres au Sud de la rue Queen 3 «L'annexe A -1 Durdes de stationnement de 8 h a 17 h» est modifi6e par Pa.djonction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : Street Side Limits Time Rues C8t6 Limites Duree Pr. East from 2 hrs. rue Est de la rue 2 h William Queen St. Prince Queen a la St.. to St. William rue St. James St. James 234 Pr. West From 2 hrs. rue West de la rue 2 h William Queen St. Prince Queen A un St. to a point William point situe located 45 a 45 mares meters au Sud de South of la rue Queen St. Queen rue Prince West D'un point 2 h Pr. West From a 2 hrs. William situe a 64 William point m6tres au St.. located 64 Sud de la meters rue Queen a South of la rue St. Queen St. James to St. James St. IN WTTNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said apposer son sceau municipal sur le present arret6 City to be affixed to this by -law the day of le 2011, avec les , A.D., 2011 signed by: signatures suivantes : Mayor /maire Common Clerk/greffi &e communale First Reading - December 5, 2011 Premiere lecture - le 5 decembre 2011 Second Reading - December 5, 2011 Deuxieme lecture - le 5 decembre 2011 Third Reading - Troisieme lecture 235 IRE PORT RT TO, C OMT'40l\ COUNCIL M &C- 2011 -327 December 15, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Future Street between the Hillerest Heights and Bally Desmond Subdivisions - 2645 & 2797 Loch Lomond Road ANALYSIS: l.t�'Y��9L City of Saint John The purpose of this report is to inform Common Council of a conclusion reached by staff concerning the necessity to construct a public street through two existing Future Street parcels. By way of background, in recent years Council has rezoned and given assent to two rural residential subdivisions at 2645 & 2797 Loch Lomond Road (see attached location map). The Hillcrest Heights Subdivision at 2645 Loch Lomond Road was developed by Jovin Construction Ltd. In Phase 3 of this development a Future Street (FS -3) was vested to the City (see attached Hillcrest Heights Subdivision, Phase 3 registered plan). This plan also vested two other Future Streets. As there was no development activity known to occur in the foreseeable future of adjoining lands, the developer was not required to undertake any improvements to these Future Streets. Later, the Bally Desmond Subdivision was approved and is currently under development on the immediately adjoining property at 2797 Loch Lomond Road. In addition to other public street accesses, the developer (A.J. Mallette & Sons (1985) Ltd.) was also responsible to vest a Future Street in order to allow for the construction of a street between these two subdivisions through the two mentioned Future Street parcels highlighted on the attached location map. The registered plan that vested this Future Street is attached for your information. 236 M & C— 2411 —327 - 2 - December 15, 2011 City staff (Planning and Development and Municipal Operations and Engineering) has further examined the necessity of constructing a public street through these Future Street parcels. As illustrated on the attached Bally Desmond Subdivision, Phase 3 tentative plan, there will be three public street connections provided for this subdivision to Loch Lomond Road, Hillcrest Road and Greenhill Road. With respect to the adjoining Hillcrest Heights Subdivision, in addition to its current connection to Loch Lomond Road, it will have a second public street connection when Mattro Street to the north is constructed. There may even be a third public street access for Hillcrest Heights with the eventual public street extension to Sheila Avenue in the Greenwood Subdivision to the west. The construction of a street through these Future Street parcels was not vital to the approval of either of these subdivisions, and was not specifically included in the subdivision assents by Council. In light of the mentioned public street accesses for both these low density subdivisions, staff has concluded that the construction of a further public street through the subject area is not warranted. If Council concurs, a further report dealing with the disposal of these two City parcels is expected in the future. As these parcels were acquired as Future Streets an amending subdivision plan in accordance with Section 57 of the Community Planning Act will be required. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council concur that a Public Street is not required through the existing Future Street parcels situated between Jadvo Street and Meredith Avenue, also identified as being PID numbers 55181226 & 55206213. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager We] 237 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENVURBAN ISM E ET DEVELOPPEMENT RR C RR RR t / \: V k \ RR 11K v; RR . �.` RR+ RS,I T y. RR RS-1 PID(s) /NIP(s): Subject Site /site en question: 55181226 55206213 Location : 2645 & 2797, ch. Loch Lomond Rd. Date: December 15 decembre 2011 Scale /echelle: Not to scale /Pas a Mchelle 238 k' tl 3, 3 ;1, fill 6s ����T�, =� 3EFg7� •!$ ;11 �t1�Y .1 $ }a iy {� l T ���'f�St6; T� �2 .g6e�,Ey51, �.1 ; ��A��� s ro� �N� a 1 s � ��• + aµxgl V ouugJ i� Ppwp 9 i S yb � cgpgppi: ^3ggA_g tyi ' +' ��y •. rosl , 'F4EL0 n � �!D .R tt <9('° .. : _ . ^ i 7� L++E(C Eb _ 99 gggg ppppxxyyRR � +1'•y'CY RG .y ^Efryrye�F?til g5 i;- �L „gg3lyqg C %C�Cpqpq Ham' -tlXiiP �� R� .• '° -�Y � _ _._ ALL • 1 � A � — sMag- �� -�� � � § R- des NO, • e a _ __ M7_ IAA g 9 xTk�r� d3RNE i ea+k .! , 8 Ay7_A9AR _882690 % %� ' � a �gig $? =.ae ���x#����M g�p! Ee.�6�9 �L B # ^j _ 1 9 ^o88R�'T.GGI(R8Ce0 ^Rx a Alf @$ ID a aa 'KPA - - -wYU Rv° YEY+.nrr.a (uY. rliu L —RRA gg d2ya gg �}�}yy y REDS:AS.iJ6��Ci�� 9W, r360og g , %$ee % %yiAy�gid %yy%3i6A'in%� - R _ g47daRS9 � . '� �88-� _6.RARR79 :.9R2AAxARAR9:82Z� •... Eat 3 Y 9� I' ux<AIiEO ' .......................... ..... s 1 (J1 ry� 7v ml At.K.t9 9 ( � •Tangy. o-e a�i L dg �: ' III-tt -YEW Rmf ww 971 uEllengnEn °a �fEif' 8 F J `• ( a� d 48Lb 24U o* Eat$ px 3��F,y Jf( E y�Q$ s fib j . Rai s jk {EBB7j gp�p 552 t i 3 4 Ey3& 9 S {ltl Ig,p ° �- � sje� 0 PA 1111il 6. �ooa af@' t% E mQ ME4 3a ° T k.7CYRpa $3ia s .aP,QA FE; $i ��R n 6� s Fw S3 myE i ne< auoP. 3 s aDz � d E mn N1.RA . �•• ° -� ��m Tj � lPSPy. d �e sssSi d x N�EES�F 9iNp t WHIS!ssssNIsssssis � sssa a °s :s asgz�sa P � i kSE886RB7:67C��RF79a� i n � � sic IGO &P�R�l�R7�R�9 z �• ° °pQLAe Ai i ^S�4YS 48Lb 24U qt JPAUn i lid LO i lei, EWW- Ini01 9 Jo C-4 04 7f ibl \C4 00 x- cd CY -4 IF E. ca co 241 — � � REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2011 -321 December 12, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: [Z l`j The City of Saint John SUBJECT: Contract 2011 -33: Milford Road — Sanitary Lift Station #32 & Force Main Installation INTRODUCTION Saint John Harbour Clean -Up is about good health, clean waterways and quality of life. City of Saint John wastewater treatment and collection systems are being enhanced to protect people and the natural environment, and to help sustain institutions and the economy. Substantial progress has been made in the wastewater service. The purpose of this report is to recommend award of the contract for the construction of Milford Road — Sanitary Lift Station #32 & Force Main Installation. BACKGROUND The Harbour Clean-Up Program is comprised of two major project components, the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility and a Wastewater Collection System. Construction on the Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility is substantially complete and the facility is in operation. The design work for the Wastewater Collection System is continuing with the following projects tendered and constructed: Bayside Drive Sanitary Forcemain Phase 1 and Phase 2, Monte Cristo Lift Station #34, Red Head Road Lift Station #1, Red Head Road Lift Station #50, Bayside Drive Lift Station 42, Newmans Brook Sewer Separation, Spar Cove Pumping Station 422, Harbour Station Lift Station #10 and Riverview Avenue Lift Station #30. Crown Street Lift Station #8 and Bridge Street Lift Station #23 are scheduled to be completed by June 2012. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on December 7, 2011, for the Milford Road — Sanitary Lift Station #32 & Force Main Installation with the following results: 1. Galbraith Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB $1,237,796.35 2. Fairville Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB $1,298,429.33 3. Gulf Operators Ltd., Saint John, NB $1,346,489.92 4. Dexter Construction Company Ltd., Bedford, NS $1,463,609.90 The Engineer's estimate for the work was $1,360,144.84 242 M &C2011 -321 December 12, 2011 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 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund 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 $2,690,850.00 was provided in the budget to complete the construction of Lift Stations 32 and 33, force mains and gravity sewer work. The projected completion cost of this Contract is estimated to be $1,327,420.82 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate. There will be a future tender for the Tippett Drive Lift Station #33 and force main that will utilize the remaining available budget amount for the project ($1,363,429.18). To date, the cumulative amount committed through award of Harbour Clean-Up Program projects is $80,851,564.56 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate. The overall total estimated cost of the Harbour Clean-Up Program as reported to Council on September 28, 2009 (M &C 2009 -318) is $99,400,000 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate. 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 No. 2011 -33: Milford Road — Sanitary Lift Station #32 & Force Main Installation be awarded to the low tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd., at the tendered price of $1,237,796.35 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. ResperAfally submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. J. Patrick Woods, CGA Commissioner City Manager Municipal Operations & Engineering 243 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL December 19, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Authority to Expend Funds The City of Saint john In as much as this is the last meeting of Common Council in 2011, and the 2012 Operating Budgets have not yet been approved, certain resolutions are required in order that day to day operations can continue until such time as the budgets are approved. In light of these requirements the following resolutions would be in order. Resolved that the following resolution be adopted, namely: WHEREAS the 2012 Operating and Capital Budgets for the City of Saint John have not yet been approved by Common Council; and WHEREAS expenditures will be required in the normal course of the Municipality's continuing operation prior to the approval of the 2012 Operating and Capital Budgets; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED as follows: a) That the City Manager is hereby authorized to approve expenditures not exceeding $25,000 where provision for such expenditures would normally be contained in the Municipality's Operating or Capital Budget; and 244 Report to Common Council Page 2 December 19, 2011 b) That the Treasurer is hereby authorized to make payments: i) as required to meet the City's pre- existing or continuing obligations; ii) to boards, commissions or other organizations to which the City has pre- existing or continuing obligations or which in the Treasurer's opinion are necessary to ensure the continued fiscally prudent and efficient day to day operations of such boards, commissions or organizations; during the period concluding with the Council's approval of the 2012 Operating and Capital Budgets. Respectfully submitteeY, +J egor;91 Y96mans, CGA, MBA Commi sio er of Finance 245 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C 2011 December 19, 2011 His Worship Ivan Court And Members of Common Council: Your Worship and Councillors: "Ina I The City of Saint John SUBJECT: YMCA Grant Funding Proposal — Provision of Recreation Programs and Services at the Forest Glen Community Centre BACKGROUND: The Forest Glen Community Centre (FGCC) is owned by the Province of New Brunswick, School District 8. It was directly operated by the City of Saint John as a Community Centre until the fall of 2006, at which time the City of Saint John entered into an agreement with the YMCA to provide programs and services at the centre. The YMCA currently has a direct agreement with School District 8 to occupy this facility for the purpose of providing child care services and recreational programs for the community. The City of Saint John continues to provide funding in support of the YMCA's programs and services at the Forest Glen Community Centre. The YMCA has submitted a proposal to the City of Saint John requesting additional financial support for recreational programming and operations at the Forest Glen Community Centre for 2012 and 2013. ANALYSIS Leisure Service is presently engaged in the P1aySJ process for the purpose of establishing a Recreation and Parks Strategic Plan. This plan will provide the policy, framework and operational guidelines for recreation and parks services over the next 10 —15 years. One of the anticipated outcomes of the P1aySJ process is to clarify the expectation of the public with respect to the role of Leisure Services in program and service delivery. The Play SJ process will be completed in the spring of 2012 and at such time will be presented to Common Council for approval. Once approved by Common Council, staff will begin the process of aligning services with P1aySJ recommendations. 246 In 2012 Leisure Services will work towards completing a comprehensive review of Community Centres operations and agreements based on the P1aySJ recommendations. This process will seek to standardize the approach to these agreements with a focus on: • Clearly defined outputs and results • Analysis of programming needs and value for money • Accountability and reporting mechanisms Leisure Service staff have met with the YMCA earlier in 2011 to identify service gaps and requested that an updated proposal be submitted to include additional programming to improve the level of service to the local community. Leisure Service staff supports the 2012 proposal and is working closely with the YMCA in program and service development to meet the needs of this community. The YMCA will continue to offer recreation programs and child care services to this community as per the following terms outlined; 1) The agreement shall be for the period of January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. 2) The YMCA shall provide the program and services in a timely, competent manner. 3) The YMCA shall hire, train and supervise competent staff and volunteers to carry out the program and services. 4) The YMCA shall conduct a survey to determine the needs of the community and will modify programs and services as community needs change. 5) The YMCA shall provide the necessary insurance policy as per the City of Saint John requirements and will provide the City with a certificate of insurance. 6) As School District 8 and the YMCA have entered into a direct agreement for occupancy and use of the Forest Glen Community Centre, city staff recommends the proposed grant from the City to the YMCA will remain in force for the term outlined or such time that the YMCA and School District 8 direct agreement is no longer in place. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The proposal from the YMCA outlines the level of service provided in 2011 at a cost of $49,000; and the proposed enhanced level of service in 2012 at a cost of $63,000 (an additional $14,000). Staff have prepared 2012 Operating Budgets based on a 0% increase which will make it challenging to offer the same level of service as in 2011. An increase in the budget would be necessary to give the YMCA the additional funding they have requested. 247 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1) Common Council accept the YMCA proposal for the Forest Glen Community Centre for 2012 under the terms outlined in this report; and 2) Refer to the budget process the increase to the annual grant from $49,000 to $63,000 as requested in the proposal; and 3) The City Solicitor be directed to prepare all necessary documents outlining the terms and conditions for a new agreement; and 4) That the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign any required contract documents. Respectfully submitted, Michael Hugenholtz, Acting Commissioner Leisure Services J. Patrick Woods, CGA Deputy City Manager KW NM /y City Solicitors Office Bureau de Pavocat municipal ThP f itv of SainT inhn SAINT JOHN December 14, 2011 Common Council of The City of Saint John Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Expropriation — Parcel SLS #24 The City of Saint John Expropriating Authority 101 Kennedy Street, Saint John — PID No.: 00377150 On April 26, 2011, Common Council authorized proceedings under the Expropriation Act to acquire the unencumbered freehold title to a portion of lands at 101 Kennedy Street for the purpose of constructing Sanitary Lift Station #24. A Notice of Intention to Expropriate (Notice of Intention) dated May 6, 2011 was filed with the Expropriations Advisory Officer (EAO) on May 9, 2011 with registration of Notice in the New Brunswick Land Titles Office (Saint John) on May 10, 2011. A Notice of Objection dated June 9, 2011 was given by the owner, Applied Pressure Inc., and was filed with the EAO on June 9, 2011. Discussions took place between the owner and the City in an effort to accommodate the wishes of the owner and still meet the City's operational needs. As a result of these discussions on October 11, 2011 Common Council authorized Applications to the EAO to amend its Notice of Intention and to extend time under section 19(12) of the Expropriation Act. An Order under sections 14(1) and 19(12) of the Act was made October 13, 2011 by the EAO. The Order was filed in the New Brunswick Land Titles Office (Saint John) on October 19, 2011. Further, the owner and the City reached agreement in the matter of the expropriation and Common Council authorized Minutes of Settlement at their meeting on November 14, 2011. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1 249 2 Common Council December 14, 2011 In accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, the owner consents to the expropriation of the lands and the withdrawal of its Notice of Objection. On December 9, 2011 correspondence was received from the EAO advising that the municipality may now confirm its Amended Notice of Intention to Expropriate in the manner provided in section 19 of the Expropriation Act. Attached to this correspondence is a photo- reduced copy of the Plan of Survey filed with the City's Amended Notice of Intention to Expropriate. Section 19 of the Expropriation Act says, among other things: "19(1)(b) an expropriating authority (in this case the City) may confirm its notice of intention... ,... by registering in the Registry Office [Land Titles Office] for the county in which the land is situate a Notice of Expropriation where the expropriating authority is a municipality, signed by the Clerk of the municipality." If Common Council wishes to proceed, I would recommend adoption of the resolution set out below. Upon its adoption and the subsequent registration of the Notice of Expropriation, title to the lands will vest in the City of Saint John. I would recommend that the following resolution be adopted: "Whereas Common Council, by resolution dated April 26, 2011 authorized the commencement of expropriation proceedings and the filing with the Expropriation Advisory Officer a Notice of Intention to Expropriate the lands and premises hereinafter described; and Whereas a Notice of Intention to Expropriate the hereinafter described lands and premises was filed with the Expropriation Advisory Officer on May 9, 2011; and Whereas Common Council by resolution dated October 11, 2011 authorized an amendment to the said Notice of Intention to Expropriate and an extension of time pursuant to section 19(12) of the Expropriation Act; and 250 3 Common Council December 14, 2011 Whereas the requested amendment and extension were given by the Expropriation Advisory Officer on October 13, 2011; and Whereas the Notice of Objection of the proposed expropriation was filed with the Expropriation Advisory Officer within the time prescribed by Statute and has subsequently been withdrawn; and Whereas Common Council now wishes to confirm the amended Notice of Intention to Expropriate; Now therefore be it resolved that Common Council does hereby confirm its Amended Notice of Intention to Expropriate and does hereby authorize the expropriation of lands and premises described as Parcel /Parcelle SLS #24 (PID 377150) and the registering of a Notice of Expropriation of the lands and premises hereinbefore described in the Land Titles Office New Brunswick (Saint John)." Respectfully Submitted, John L. Nugent City Solicitor Enclosure 251 U-) pp t 'y,• Oig E �. 89 6 €S 8 .6 p .� °" $ S 18 ..e �. U d ui Z E J• C�;•2 I'::,a '� S�YEO��ve SIC 3 �'E o'� E•77 d > cLZ c = �..�. < a a$ $ e � es aF 0.0 0 ea c ac o o d0 m s m €� c " � '2 g :'� � �'� ¢a v E - ♦x t 8 °oa omWO�v?� ONc�o« n QQWi� • ",m Q v °g Tsai -` w¢« oo.c° - = \(n��n v°f HpZ Wo ���'G N °' 2' — _ a "D c N �`ovL aJ c0 0 0� �e sR >�� :'$ € �'�v¢¢ .5E'°' s u1c °vn.:_ m UN �v g d' ° -I U o $ ,.E E?` - €et�� "yam s oc e c L.N LJA� c �a vi °'�' g.� 34 egg _ ° o =�g $ e $ �° �•_ °ocav E'v O USo� Ym'� Ro 9N s3S° o § "FS �PaC y dos 0 owe S 'Pall � s. �6.��t'Q62 �� 'o59n _ �Eo :E E M = U O N Z O m d i U rua U 0 M m 01 n � Ua o� aN rue Kennedy Street ILI, R s�sT. " F A 166'26'40' U O.S. a2 ` m m� n $ M mN .a zvE od° a o° a PID /NID 380535 Saint John Power Boat Club N U E U) N � II m d L �u a° \ N a) d o a CL c _ 88 4888 i I Np U Nmmm ME 8 ' e w y z s :�aNmmbdSd & E w s °�ammm zzzz z m mL3,^nn�on _ o - € .t\ I1 n lit w 'd 2Nd ni p ° 5 $ ° u u ssYbu a ..1 5' B. GO.�`nm�nna ,n°n`�•� ° °o E "E' cEC nCvoioc t cP v y Qom. o n n n n nn it E gc�$o�a�E op9map� g ou U 2 I c.4 '�P E A L z A a m ... roo°°,o'm°S ° °��'�m�e�9oo£d °g .g pN NN�NNNm - `pEp`opE° " N�ri NNNNN� �Nmm OUd�S "- QaBO�n W ry N NunsNnH 1 1 � I ��EI I �C o nnun�oi vi m U v �n°°i'^m 3 E: m N°rD�npq,o$m°0fm�n i gyUqyEa z 6 NNN °NO�Mn / Ea -c $ F KKK 8SLi: 252 i \ \\ ; o \II C II C ill p Il �� l \\ 1 VIII II� III I III I 'l J/ I� 1 `\ \\ 11 jll I I� \` \ \ II c _ 88 4888 i I Np U Nmmm ME 8 ' e w y z s :�aNmmbdSd & E w s °�ammm zzzz z m mL3,^nn�on _ o - € .t\ I1 n lit w 'd 2Nd ni p ° 5 $ ° u u ssYbu a ..1 5' B. GO.�`nm�nna ,n°n`�•� ° °o E "E' cEC nCvoioc t cP v y Qom. o n n n n nn it E gc�$o�a�E op9map� g ou U 2 I c.4 '�P E A L z A a m ... roo°°,o'm°S ° °��'�m�e�9oo£d °g .g pN NN�NNNm - `pEp`opE° " N�ri NNNNN� �Nmm OUd�S "- QaBO�n W ry N NunsNnH 1 1 � I ��EI I �C o nnun�oi vi m U v �n°°i'^m 3 E: m N°rD�npq,o$m°0fm�n i gyUqyEa z 6 NNN °NO�Mn / Ea -c $ F KKK 8SLi: 252 December 14, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court And Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: RE: 2010 Audited Financial Statements The 2010 audited financial statements for the following funds will be presented to Common Council on December 19, 2011: 1. City of Saint John General Fund 2. City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility 3. City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds Ernst & Young have audited these financial statements and their Auditor's Report is attached to each set of statements. Any questions related to the audit should be directed to the representatives of Ernst & Young who will be in attendance. As in previous years, it is suggested that questions relating to the operating results or financial position of the General Fund, the Utility or the Reserve and Trust Funds be directed to the Commissioner of Finance, Mr. Yeomans. This procedure will recognize management's responsibility for the finances of the City and the preparation of the financial statements. Your Finance Committee reviewed the financial statements with Finance Department staff and Ernst & Young representatives on December 14, 2011. Upon completion of the presentation of these statements I will move the following motion: That the audited financial statements of the City of Saint John General Fund, Water and Sewerage Utility and the Reserve and Trust Funds for the year ended December 31, 2010 be approved as presented. Respectfully submitted, T0-' Deputy Mayor Stephen Chase Chair Finance Committee CL�11 WNT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, N8 Canada L2L 41.1 wwwsaingohn_ca C.P. 1971 Saint John, NA. Canada E2L 4L1 253 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The City of Saint John General Fund December 31, 2010 DRAFT 254 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To His Worship The Mayor and Members of Common Council of The City of Saint John We have audited the accompanying financial statements of The City of Saint John General Fund, which comprise the balance sheets of the Operating Fund and Capital and Loan Fund as at December 31, 2010 and the related statements of revenue and expenses, deficit, equity and source and application of capital financing for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. The financial statements have been prepared by management of The City of Saint John General Fund using the basis of accounting described in Note 1. Management's responsibility for the consolidated financial statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with the basis of accounting described in Note 1; this includes determining the basis of accounting used is an acceptable basis for the preparation of the financial statements in the circumstances, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors' responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditors consider internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting 1 255 policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained in our audit is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The City of Saint John General Fund as at December 31, 2010 and the results of its operations and the source and application of its capital financing for the year then ended in accordance with the basis of accounting described in Note 1 to these financial statements. Basis of Accounting Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 1 to the financial statements, which describes the basis of accounting. The financial statements are prepared to comply with the requirements of the Department of Local Government of New Brunswick for municipalities. Our report is intended solely for the information and use of His Worship The Mayor and Members of Common Council of The City of Saint John, and the Minister of Local Government of the Province of New Brunswick, and is not intended to be and should not be used for any other purpose. Saint John, Canada, December XX, 2011 256 Chartered Accountants 2 CONTENTS Independent Auditors' Report Operating Fund Balance Sheet Paze 1 -2 Operating Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenses a Operating Fund Statement of Equity Capital and Loan Fund Balance Sheet 6 Capital and Loan Fund Statement of Equity 7 Statement of Source and Application of Capital Financing Notes to Financial Statements 9 -18 Operating Fund Schedule of Revenue Items 19 -20 Operating Fund Schedule of Expense Items 21 -26 257 The City of Saint John General Fund As at December 31 OPERATING FUND BALANCE SHEET 2010 2009 Page $ $ ASSETS 12,259 I2,259 Accounts receivable 7,535,350 7,699,479 Due from associated entities 8,603,131 700,840 Water and Sewerage Utility Capital and Loan Fund 21,574,206 8,423,735 Water and Sewerage Utilit) Operating Fund 3,703,246 3,274,070 Saint John Transit Commission - 208,958 6 General Capital and Loan Fund 3,653,945 13,280,032 Inventory of materials and supplies, at the 3,360,000 5,040 000 lower of cost and replacement cost 761,516 772,562 15 Deferred expense - Pension [note 4] 6,513,861 3,227,724 Prepaid expenses 121,890 433,470 18 Long -term receivable [note 11] 556,887 335,684 44,420,901 37,655,714 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY Bank overdraft 267,689 302,389 Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 14,586,347 13,522,653 11 Other payables [note 2] 8,377,620 8,570,880 Interest payable on long -term debt 474,996 540,363 Due to associated entities Saint John Parking Commission 4,455,766 4,461,018 Power Commission of the City of Saint John 12,259 I2,259 Harbour Station Commission 130,889 22,021 The City of Saint John - Pension Fund 8,603,131 700,840 Saint John Transit Commission 250,658 - Deferred revenue 1,027,243 888,202 Computer replacement fund 565,237 828,737 Fleet replacement fund 1,722,248 1,719,572 12 Long -term debt [note 3] 3,360,000 5,040 000 43,834,083 36,608,934 5 Equity 586,818 1,046 780 44,420,901 37,655,714 .See accompanying notes Approved by: Mayor 258 Chair of Finance Committee The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual 2010 2010 2009 Unaudited Page $ $ $ REVENUES Property taxes 104,621,717 104,621,717 98,306,534 Unconditional grant Province of New Bnmsvick 19,499,823 19,499,823 19,499,823 19 Sale of goods and services 1,252,200 1,216,084 1,222,541 20 Other revenue from own sources 5,429,076 5,639,707 5,390,829 20 Conditional grants from other governments 300,000 274,666 282,133 Miscellaneous revenue 1,107,425 3,740,177 2,137,987 Total revenues 132,210,241 134,992,174 126,839,847 EXPENSES 21 General government services 12,421,646 11,215,393 12,312,312 22 Protective sen•ices 50,631,813 51,169,154 48,732,077 23 Transportation services 27,483,336 28,504,647 26,781,492 Environmental health services 4,233,745 4,112,265 3,906,587 24 Environmental development services 10,919,168 10,366,726 9,293,007 25 Recreational and cultural services 9,070,994 8,860,843 8,596,585 26 Fiscal services 17,832,027 21,223,108 16,484,200 5 Excess of expenses (revenues) second previous year (382,488) (382,488) 69,000 Total expenses and fiscal services 132,210,241 135,069,648 126,175,260 Excess of revenues over expenses (expenses over revenues) for the year - (77,474) 664,587 See accompanying notes 259 4 The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND STATEMENT OF EQUITY Year ended December 31 2010 2009 Equity, beginning of year 1,046,780 313,193 4 Excess of revenues over expenses (expenses over revenues) for the year (77,474) 664,587 969,306 977,780 4 Excess of expenses (revenues) second previous year (382,488) 69,000 3 Equity, end of year 586,818 1,046,780 See accompanying notes 260 5 The City of Saint John General Fund CAPITAL AND LOAN FUND BALANCESHEET As at December 31 2010 2009 See accompanying notes Approved by: Mayor Chair of Finance Committee 261 6 ASSETS Due from associated entities Water and Sewerage Utility Operating Fund 7,664 7,664 Water and Sewerage Utility Capital and Loan Fund 83,557 83,557 Saint John Parking Commission 19,947 19,947 Saint John Transit Commission 7,001,498 9,829,954 7,112,666 9,941,122 Investments in shares of wholly -owned company, Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd., at cost 994 994 13 Land, buildings, plant and equipment and engineering structures [note 37 512,073,356 475,220,176 519,187,016 485,162,292 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 17 Bank loans [note 9] 20,000,000 - 12 Debenture debt [note 31 79,864,000 73,364,000 12 Other long -term debt [note 31 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 1,372,674 1,445,000 Saint John Parking Commission 73,570 147,140 Deferred contributions 2,875,496 6,044,094 Due to associated entities 3 General Operating Fund 3,653,945 13,280,032 107,839,685 94,280,266 7 E ui 411,347,331 390 882,026 519,187,016 485,162,292 See accompanying notes Approved by: Mayor Chair of Finance Committee 261 6 The City of Saint John General Fund CAPITAL AND LOAN FUND STATEMENT OF EQUITY Year ended December 31 2010 2009 Page $ $ Equity, beginning of year 390,882,026 376,092,488 Debt repaid by the General Operating Fund 94,289 394,085 Debenture debt 81500,000 7,862,600 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 72,326 942,391 Saint John Parking Commission 73,570 73,570 General Operating Fund 8,645,896 7,936,170 Contributions in aid of construction - 1,307 988 Provincial government 2,151,907 3,788,511 Federal government 4,281,766 21,443 Other 962,402 1,623,044 7,396,075 5,432,998 Proceeds of land sales in excess of estimated cost 94,289 394,085 Capital projects financed b) the General Operating Fund 1,552,673 942,391 Fixed assets purchased by the General Operating Fund 2,776,372 1,391,882 Contribution to Saint John Transit Commission - 1,307 988 6 Equity, end of year 411,347,331 390,882,026 See accompanying notes 262 The City of Saint John General Fund STATEMENT OF SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF CAPITAL FINANCING Year ended December 31 Actual Actual 2010 2009 Source Bond issue 15,000,000 23,945,000 Bridge financing 20,000,000 - Contributions in aid of construction Federal government 4,281,766 21,443 Provincial government 2,151,907 3,788,511 Other 962,402 1,623,044 Fixed assets purchased by the General Operating Fund 2,776,372 1,391,882 Capital projects financed by the General Operating Fund 1,552,673 942,391 Proceeds of land sales in excess of estimated cost 94,289 394,085 Debt repaid by the General Operating Fund 8,645,896 7,936,170 Deferred contributions (3,168,598) 3,991,888 52,296,707 44,034,414 Application Capital expenditures 36,853,180 29,886,260 Debt repayment 8,645,896 7,936,170 Net decrease in amounts due to associated entities 6,797,631 4,903,996 Contribution to Saint John Transit Commission - 1,307,988 52,296,707 44,034,414 ,See accompanying notes 263 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES These financial statements have been prepared to conform in all material respects to the accounting principles prescribed for New Brunswick municipalities by the Department of Local Government. Financial statement presentation The General Fund financial statements of The City of Saint John (the "City ") have been prepared in accordance with the fund basis of accounting. The Operating Fund reflects the City's working capital and results of operations and the Capital and Loan Fund reflects its investment in fixed assets and outstanding long -term debt. Fixed assets and depreciation Fixed assets are initially recorded at cost. Funds received through capital assistance programs, cost - sharing arrangements or loan forgiveness are treated as additions to equity in capital assets, except where the asset was acquired under the Urban Renewal Program. In these cases, the funds received arc netted against the asset cost. The City does not record depreciation on its fixed assets, but an amount equal to annual debt repayment is charged to operations and credited to equity in capital assets. The City also charges to operations all capital projects that are financed in the current year from operating funds. Accrual accounting The City follows the accrual method of accounting for revenue and expenses. 6 264 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 3I, 2010 1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES [Cont'd] Accounting for second previous year's operating results Section 89 of the Municipalities Act of New Brunswick requires that the excess of revenue over expenses for a fiscal year be included in revenue in the second ensuing year and that similarly, the excess of expenses over revenue for a fiscal year be included in expenses in the second ensuing year. Accounting estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with the accounting principles prescribed for New Brunswick municipalities by the Department of Local Government requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Financial instruments The carrying value of the City's financial instruments other than long -term debt approximate fair value because of their short-term maturity and normal credit terms. The City's accounts receivable do not represent significant concentration of credit risk because the accounts are owed by a large number of ratepayers on normal credit terms. As long- term debt is arranged with the Province of New Brunswick and is not renegotiable, the fair value of long -term debt, affected by possible changing interest rates, has not been determined. At year -end, the City did not have any exposure relating to derivative instruments. 10 265 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 2. OTHER PAYABLES 2010 2009 Page $ $ Heart and lung liability 3,082,701 3,362,000 Vacation pay 2,507,919 2,480,880 Retirement allowance 2,787,000 2,728,000 8,377,620 8,570,880 The City pays certain amounts to disabled firefighters and their spouses as a result of the provisions of an Act of the Legislature, known as the Heart and Lung Act. An actuarial review of this plan was completed as at December 31, 2010 . The estimated actuarial present value of benefits at December 31, 2010 amounts to $3,082,701. This review only covers current claimants and does not include possible future claims. The City has provided for vacations earned but not paid. Employees upon retirement from the City of Saint John are entitled to a retirement pay allowance equal to one month's pay, to a maximum of six months, for every five years of service. The program has been amended to provide certain employees with a payout option prior to retirement. Accepting the early payout option eliminates further accumulation of retirement allowance entitlement for those employees. Employees of Local 18 hired after June I, 1998 and Management employees hired after March 23, 2009 are not eligible for retirement allowance, now or in the future. These policies are established in the Local 18 collective bargaining agreement and the Management terms and conditions of employment. 11 266 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 3. DEBENTURE AND OTHER LONG -TERM DEBT Debentures consist of the following: Year of Interest Term 2010 2009 Issue Rate Years Balance Balance % $ $ 2000 6.100 to 6.400 10 - 664,000 2001 2.450 to 5.500 10 505,000 1,010,000 2002 3.375 to 5.750 10 1,592,000 2,388,000 2003 3.050 to 5.000 10 3,402,000 4,536,000 2003 2.750 to 5.125 10 1,782,000 2,376,000 2004 2.750 to 4.800 10 7,088,000 7,875,000 2005 3.750 to 4.375 10 4,735,000 5,208,000 2006 4.150 to 4.450 10 8,068,000 8,801,000 2007 4.450 to 4.850 10 4,560,000 4,940,000 2008 3.300 to 4.850 10 7,366,000 7,933,000 2008 2.100 to 5.550 15 4,766,000 5,133,000 2009 1.000 to 4.500 10 7,933,000 8,500,000 2009 0.950 to 5.000 10 13,067,000 14,000,000 2010 1.500 to 4.550 10 15,000 000 - Debenture debt 79,864,000 73,364,000 Other long -term debt consists of the following: Year of Interest Term 2010 2009 Issue rate Years Balance Balance $ $ Province of New Brunswick 2007 4.36 5 3,360,000 5,040,000 Saint John Parking Commission 2005 3.20 7 73,570 147,140 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 2009 3.97 15 1,372,674 1,445,000 Other long -term debt 4,806,244 6,632,140 12 267 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 3. DEBENTURE AND OTHER LONG -TERM DEBT [Cont'd] The aggregate amount of principal payments required in each of the next five years is as follows: 2011 10,664,767 2012 10,089,183 2013 7,616,286 2014 9,831,514 2015 7,477,869 Fixed assets include an amount of $27,510,891 (2009 - $19,106,726) for which financing has not been arranged at year -end. 4. PENSION PLAN A. OVERVIEW The City provides pension benefits to employees in accordance with the provisions of the revised City of Saint John Pension Act as enacted on May 12, 1994 and last amended on June 18, 2008. The plan is administered by a Board of Trustees, representing Common Council, management, unionized employees and retired employees. Prior to May 1994, the plan was governed by The City of Saint John Pension Act, 1970. The plan is also subject to the provisions of the New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act which became effective January 1, 1992. The plan is a defined benefit plan which provides for pensions based on length of service and rate of pay. Both the City and the employees make contributions to the plan. The plan is funded by eligible employees contributing 50% of the current service cost to the plan to a maximum of 9% of aggregate salaries and the employer contributing the balance of the current service cost. Based on the 2009 actuarial valuation, the current service cost of the plan was 20.6% of payroll. At no time can the overall employer contribution rate be less than 7.5% of aggregate salaries. The employer is obligated to make additional contributions, if necessary, to adequately amortize any unfunded liability or solvency deficiency. The City charges all of its contributions to expense in the year the contribution is made. The amount contributed for employees, other than those funded by the Water and Sewerage Utility, for 2010 amounted to $16,920,452 (2009 - $8,530,624). 13 .: The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 4. PENSION PLAN [Cont'd] B. ACTUARIAL INFORMATION The 2010 actuarial valuation indicated the present value of accumulated plan benefits was $495,380,000 and the market value of net assets available to provide benefits was $372,228,000 with an estimated unfunded liability of $123,152,000 on a going concern basis. As of December 31, 2010, the liabilities on a solvency basis were $218,007,000 greater than the solvency assets. This valuation relates to the entire plan, which includes employees funded through both the General Fund and the Water and Sewerage Utility. Current costs and special funding payments are allocated to each fund on the basis of a percentage of payroll. C. DUE TO THE PENSION PLAN The New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act requires that a solvency deficiency be funded over a period of five years unless an exemption is requested to fund over a period of no more than fifteen years, or the period to December 31, 2018, whichever is shorter, or an exemption from making solvency payments is granted. In 2007, the exemption from making solvency special payments to the pension plan was sought and received. As a result of receiving this exemption, there is no longer solvency funding due from the City as at December 31, 2010. During 2010, the City paid the plan an amount of $12,424,654, which represented special funding on a going concern basis (2009 - $2,721,547). The General Fund's share of this amount for 2010 is $10,993,330, of which $6,093,330 was expensed in 2010 leaving an unamortized balance of $4,900,000. The City received approval to amortize this expense over an eight year period beginning in 20I2. The amortization is to be calculated at 10% per year for the first seven years with the balance being recognized in year eight. The City is required to make special going concern payments until 2024. 14 269 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 4. PENSION PLAN [Cont'd] During 2006, the City of Saint John paid the plan an amount of $12,553,100, which represented required special funding and interest on a going concern basis for the years 2004 to 2006. The General Fund's share of this amount was $10,759,262, of which an amount of $1,200,000 was expensed in 2005, $1,489,949 was expensed in 2006, and $1,613,863 was expensed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 leaving an unamortized balance of $1,613,861. The City received approval to amortize this expense over a period ending in 2011. 5. COMMITMENTS Saint John Transit Commission During 1979, the Saint John Transit Commission [the "Commission "] was created by an Act of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. Under provisions of the Act, the Commission has the authority to maintain and operate a public transit system within the City of Saint John, with all operating losses and debt charges being funded by the City. The City is also liable for the debentures issued on behalf of the Commission which at December 31, 2010 amounted to $9,511,000 (2009 — $10,399,000). The Greater Saint John Economic Development Commission, Inc. During 1998, the Greater Saint John Economic Development Commission, Inc. was incorporated. The Articles of Incorporation provide a funding formula for costs to be shared by the participating municipalities. The participating municipalities are the Town of Quispamsis, the Town of Rothesay, the Town of Grand Bay - Westfield and the City of Saint John. Greater Saint John Regional Facilities Commission During 1998, the Greater Saint John Regional Facilities Commission [the "Commission "] was created by an Act of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. Under the provisions of the Act, the Commission has the authority to determine the annual amount of the total municipal contribution to be made towards the operation of five regional facilities: the Canada. Games Aquatic Centre, Harbour Station, the Saint John Trade and Convention Center, the Imperial Theatre and the Saint John Arts Centre. Under the provisions of the Act, the City's contribution is its pro rata share of the Commission's operating budget based on the tax bases of the participating municipalities. The participating municipalities are the Town of Quispamsis, the Town of Rothesay, the Town of Grand Bay - Westfield and the City of Saint John. 15 270 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 5. COMMITMENTS [Cont'd] Market Square Central Building Complex - Lease Agreements The Central Building Complex of the Market Square Project was opened to the public in May 1983. This complex includes the library, trade and convention centre, parking garage and retail and commercial space. Under the terms of three sixty -six year leases, the City is responsible for the proportionate share of the complex's common area operating expenses, including property taxes, related to the library, trade and convention centre and parking garage. Collective agreements There are provisions within a number of collective agreements between the City and bargaining units representing its employees that commit the City to the future expenditure of funds. The Agreement with CUPE Local 18, representing the City's outside workers, commits the City to employ a minimum of 293 employees at an approximate annual expenditure of $13,600,000. This Agreement expired on December 31, 2010 and negotiations are still pending. The Agreement with CUPE Local 486, representing the City's inside workers, has a no -lay -off provision related to all employees hired prior to August 9, 1985, resulting in an approximate annual expenditure of $1,800,000. This Agreement expires on December 31, 2011. In addition, the Collective Agreement between the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners and the Saint John Police Association, representing the City's Police Officers, contains a no- lay -off provision resulting in an approximate annual expenditure of $10,059,000. This Agreement expired on June 30, 2010 and is currently being re- negotiated. University funding In June of 2005, the City approved a grant of $2,000,000 to the University of New Brunswick, Saint John campus [the "University "]. This funding to the University's campaign "Forging Our Futures" is paid in cash and/or in kind over a period of 10 years commencing in 2006. The City has made annual contributions of $200,000 in the years 2006 to 2010, with $1,000,000 of the commitment remaining as at December 315`, 2010. Police Headquarters In 2010, the City entered into an agreement with Pomerleau Inc. for the construction of the Saint John Police Headquarters in the amount of $20,675,000 plus HST. As of December 31, 2010, costs of approximately $2,300,000 related to this project have been incurred. The project is due for completion in 2012. 16 271 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 6. CONTINGENCIES The City is liable for the debentures and other long -term debt issued on behalf of its self - supporting entities: The Water and Sewerage Utility has outstanding debt as of December 31, 2010 in the amount of $45,832,000 (2009 - $46,279,000). In accordance with the Clean Environment Act, the City is also liable for a pro rata share of the debentures and other long -term debt issued on behalf of the Fundy Solid Waste Commission. The portion attributable to the City is determined on the basis of its percentage of total population within all participating municipalities and unincorporated areas. The total of such debt outstanding at December 31, 2010 amounted to $7,681,000 (2009 - $9,530,000). Based on 2003 population figures, the City is liable for approximately 55% of the Commission's debt. The City may be, from time to time, subject to various investigations, claims and legal proceedings covering various matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business activities. Management believes that any liability that may ultimately result from the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position or operating results of the City. 7. RESTRICTIONS ON MUNICIPAL BORROWINGS Section 89 of the Municipalities Act of the Province of New Brunswick restricts a municipality's borrowings for operating purposes to less than 4% of the operating budget of the municipality, and to less than 2% of the assessed value of real property in the municipality for capital purposes. Borrowings by the General Operating Fund and the General Capital and Loan Fund are within these legislative restrictions. 8. INTER -FUND ACCOUNTS All inter -fund accounts at December 31, 2010 represent current transactions and are in compliance with the policy established by the Department of Local Government. 9. BANK LOANS The City has credit facilities set up with the Bank of Nova Scotia. According to the terms and conditions of the Commitment letter signed between the City and the Bank of Nova Scotia, the City can borrow up to $5 Million to fund general operations and $25 Million to assist in financing capital expenditures pending fall -in of long -term financing. The interest rate for the credit facilities is the Bank's Prime lending rate from time to time less 0.5% per annum with interest payable monthly. As of December 31, 2010, the balance of the bridge financing credit facility was $20 Million. 17 272 The City of Saint John General Fund NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 10. TRANSACTIONS WITH THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN WATER AND SEWERAGE UTILITY [the "Utility "] The General Operating Fund reimbursed the Utility Operating Fund an amount of $2,200,000 (2009 - $2,045,000) for water supply for fire protection and $910,000 (2009 - $910,000) for storm sewerage charges. The General Operating Fund charged the Utility Operating Fund an amount of $1,425,000 (2009 - $1,551,000) for its share of general government operating costs. Charges for the provision of direct services between funds are not reflected in these amounts. Interest is charged on the balances between the General Fund and the Utility on a monthly basis. 11. UNRESTRICTED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT The City and its employees participate in a group life insurance plan which has a potentially refundable component, the Unrestricted Deposit Account ( "UDA "), based on actual plan experience. Annually, a portion of any excess of premiums paid over claims experience is eligible to be refunded to the City and its employees. Both the City and employees pay premiums into this plan. The UDA has accumulated $1,705,437 of eligible refundable premiums during the years 2004 to 2010. The City has collected an amount of $1,148,550. The remaining amount of $556,887 is recorded as a long -term asset as the City intends to hold this amount to fund future potential premium increases. Of the eligible refundable premiums accumulated, $165,902 and 1,113,176 were used to reduce payroll costs in 2010 and 2009 respectively. The remaining $426,359 is recorded as due to employees, which was subsequently distributed to employees in August of 2011. The City will review the balances in the UDA annually. 12. COMPARATIVE FIGURES The comparative financial statements have been reclassified from statements previously presented to conform to the presentation of the 2009 financial statements. 18 273 The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUE ITEMS (1 of 2) Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual 2010 2010 2009 Unaudited Page S $ $ Sale of Goods and Services Protective services Point Lepreau 40,000 40,000 40,000 Training - 48,043 43,489 Regional Hazmat 70,000 70,000 78,258 Mass Decontamination 80,000 - - Garbage collection and disposal 5,000 200 140 Recreational and cultural 808,700 825,369 799,287 Administrative service Pension Fund 150,000 133,472 163,367 Housing Operations 46,000 46,000 46,000 Saint John Transit Commission 45,000 45,000 45,000 Industrial Parks 7,500 8,000 7,000 4 1,252,200 1,216,084 1,222,541 19 274 The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND SCHEDULE OF REVENUE ITEMS (2 of 2) Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual 2010 2010 2009 Unaudited Page S $ $ Other Revenue from Own Sources Licenses and permits Business and other 117,250 117,125 101,220 Building 1,400,000 1,181,255 1,522,894 Plumbing 96,500 89,546 99,392 Gas pipeline 16,500 138,995 97,522 1,630,250 1,526,921 1,821,028 Fines and parking Parking and traffic violations 766,000 1,030,303 765,062 Parking meters 1,007,500 933,603 783,138 Market Square Parking Garage 1,135,201 1,096,479 1,094,041 2,908,701 3,060,385 2,642,241 Rentals A4arket 485,625 530,279 540,417 Land and buildings 204,500 176,165 161,838 690,125 706,444 702,255 18 Short-term interest [note 91 200,000 345,957 225,305 4 5,429,076 5,639,707 5,390,829 Conditional Grants from Other Governments Provincial government and agencies Transportation services - highways 300,000 274,666 282,133 4 300,000 274,666 282,133 20 275 The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENSE ITEMS (I of 6) Year ended December 31 Page Budget 2010 Unaudited $ Actual 2010 $ Actual 2009 $ General Government Services 1,456,474 1,364,092 1,474,983 Legislative 1,237,789 1,253,279 1,161,877 Mayor's Office 220,200 212,105 188,883 Common Council 565,000 476,736 561,431 General Administrative City Manager 717,824 545,825 934,445 Corporate Development 536,965 404,902 617,417 Common Clerk 826,711 819,735 799,429 Solicitor 791,307 826,418 904,795 Corporate Services Finance I,711,504 1,436,148 1,630,533 Human Resources 1,456,474 1,364,092 1,474,983 Materials Management 1,237,789 1,253,279 1,161,877 Information Systems & Support 1,958,191 1,940,214 1,868,762 Communications 527,989 497,842 459,883 Common Services City Hall Building 1,573,460 1,043,424 1,583,686 Other General Government Services Property Assessment 1,172,232 1,137,065 1,101,474 Public Liability Insurance 737,000 682,608 575,714 14,032,646 12,640,393 13,863,312 18 Deduct administrative costs allocated to the Water and Sewerage Utility Operating Fund [note 91 (1,611,000) (1,425,000) (1,551,000) 4 12,421,646 11,215,393 12,312,312 21 276 The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENSE ITEMS (2 of 6) Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual 2010 2010 2009 Unaudited Page $ $ $ Protective Services Police Protection 22,672,700 23,865,018 23,041,110 Fire Protection Salaries and other operating costs 21,268,240 20,992,263 19,939,971 18 Water supply [note 91 2,300,000 2,200,000 2,045,000 Emergency Measures Emergency Measures Organization 320,000 330,298 243,097 Emergency Dispatch Centre 2,231,000 1,999,442 1,769,364 Other Protection Building Inspection 1,676,873 1,633,559 1,549,533 Animal Rescue League 163,000 148,574 144,002 4 50,631,813 51,169,154 48,732,077 22 277 The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENSE ITEMS (3 of 6) Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual 2010 2010 2009 Unaudited Page $ $ $ Transportation Services Common Services Mechanical 769,775 1,122,664 1,087,502 Administration 235,277 213,208 1,789,196 Engineering 599,260 501,166 413,373 Road Transport Roads and Sidewalks 13,451,369 13,900,240 13,875,051 Street Lighting 1,000,000 1,012,109 994,116 Traffic Services 1,567,917 1,734,905 1,499,593 Parking 527,817 563,851 482,316 18 Storm Sewer [note 9] 3,321,432 3,240,666 1,814,697 15 Public Transit [note 5] Operating Subsidy 4,451,050 4,910,666 4,033,963 Interest expense and capital debt retirement 1,559,439 1,305,172 791,685 a 27,483,336 28,504,647 26,781,492 23 278 The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENSE ITEMS (4 of 6) Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual 2010 2010 2009 Unaudited Page $ $ $ Environmental Development Services Research and Planning 1,992,212 1,922,639 1,120,330 Administration and GIS 745,629 605,794 614,123 Real Estate Management 1,444,040 1,284,341 1,203,849 Market Square Corporation 280,000 280,000 280,000 Environment Committee 4,520 17,066 1,465 Heritage Development Board 224,953 202,738 239,221 15 Greater Saint John Economic Development [note S] 432,750 432,750 427,319 Saint John Industrial Parks 322,875 322,875 315,000 16 Market Square Common Area [note 5] 1,992,360 1,873,125 1,853,057 Growth Strategy Initiative 40,000 25,000 25,000 15 Regional Facilities Commission [note 51 1,557,350 1,502,994 1,512,207 Tourism and Communications 1,000,706 997,963 963,267 City Market 881,773 899,441 738,I69 4 10,919,168 10,366,726 9,293,007 24 279 The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENSE ITEMS (5 of 6) Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual 2010 2010 2009 Unaudited Page $ $ $ Recreational and Cultural Services Recreational Administration - 941,083 Pro Kids 78,321 87,039 70,040 Community Centres 1,759,325 1,640,216 1,265,156 Sports and Recreation 3,010,761 3,083,825 2,740,909 Parks 2,194,493 2,124,188 1,816,045 Cultural Saint John Free Public Library 433,233 433,215 409,190 Cultural Services 110,000 88,655 95,945 Grants 1,484,861 1,403,705 1,258,217 4 9,070,994 8,860,843 8,596,585 25 WE The City of Saint John General Fund OPERATING FUND SCHEDULE OF EXPENSE ITEMS (6 of 6) Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual - 580,376 2010 2010 2009 254,783 Unaudited 300,000 221,043 176,767 Page $ $ $ Fiscal Services 886,824 Interest on long -term debt Debenture debt 3,694,598 3,460,512 2,974,894 Other long -term debt 62,076 61,726 11,891 Principal installments Debenture debt 8,500,000 8,500,000 7,862,600 Other long -term debt 145,896 145,896 73,570 Capital projects financed by the General Operating Fund - 580,376 - Other debt charges 300,000 184,978 254,783 Short -term financing 300,000 221,043 176,767 13 Funding of Pension Fund [note 41 4,829,457 8,068,383 4,242,871 Other miscellaneous - 194 886,824 4 17,832,027 21,223,108 16,484,200 FM 281 Financial Statements The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility December 31, 2010 e 282 CONTENTS Page Independent Auditors' Report 1 -2 Operating Fund Balance Sheet 3 Operating Fund Statement of Revenues and Expenses 4 Operating Fund Statement of Surplus (Deficit) 5 Capital and Loan Fund Balance Sheet 6 Capital and Loan Fund Statement of Equity 7 Statement of Source and Application of Capital Financing 8 Notes to Financial Statements 283 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To His Worship The Mayor and Members of Common Council of The City of Saint John We have audited the accompanying financial statements of The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility, which comprise the balance sheets of the Operating Fund and Capital and Loan Fund as at December 31, 2010 and the related statements of revenue and expenses, deficit, equity and source and application of capital financing for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. The financial statements have been prepared by management of The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility using the basis of accounting described in Note 1. Management's responsibility for the consolidated financial statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with the basis of accounting described in Note 1; this includes determining the basis of accounting used is an acceptable basis for the preparation of the financial statements in the circumstances, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors' responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditors consider internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting 1 ., policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained in our audit is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility as at December 31, 2010 and the results of its operations and the source and application of its capital financing for the year then ended in. accordance with the basis of accounting described in Note 1 to these financial statements. Basis of Accounting Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 1 to the financial statements, which describes the .basis of accounting. The financial statements are prepared to comply with the' requirements of the Department of Local Government of New Brunswick for municipalities. Our report is intended solely for the information and use of His Worship The Mayor and Members of Common Council of The City of Saint John, and the Minister of Local Government of the Province of New Brunswick, and is not'ijitended to be and should not be used for any other purpose. Saint John, Canada, December XX, 2011 285 Chartered Accountants 2 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility OPERATING FUND BALANCE SHEET As at December 31 Page 2010 2009 ASSETS Accounts receivable 18,294,630 16,419,412 Due from associated entities 6 Water and Sewerage Utility. Capital and Loan Fund 3,193,650 - -- 15 Long -term receivable [note 91 73,432 44,264 21,561,712 16,463,676 LIABILITIES AND (DEFICIT) EQUITY Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 15,889,800 9,765,107 6 Due to associated entities ,, General Capital and Loan Fund 7,664 7,664 General Operating Fund 3,703,246 3,274,070 Water and Sewerage Utility Capital and Loan Fund - -- 2,723,372 City of Saint John — Pension Fund 1,100,859 - -- 12 Other payables [note 3] 589,017 671,657 Interest payable on long -term debt 229,447 264,187 21,520,033 16,706,057 5 Surplus (deficit) [note 4] 41,679 (242,381) 21,561,712 16,463,676 See accompanying notes Signed on behalf of the Council: Mayor Chair of Finance Committee :. The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility OPERATING FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES Year ended December 31 Budget Actual Actual 2010 2010 2009 (Unaudited) Page Revenues Charges to customers 30,523,000 30,665,805 29,196,493 Charges to General Operating Fund [note 5] 250,000 61,659 56,449 13 Water supply for fire protection 2;300,000 2,200,000 2,045,000 13 Storm sewerage 970,000 910,000 910,000 Short-term financing costs [note 5] 3,270,000 3,110,000 2,955,000 Total revenues 33,793300.0 33,775,805 32,151,493 Expenses 24,500 24,500 24,500 Water supply 14,798,050 15,090,967 14,020,8 86 Purification and treatment 2,105,000 1,887,353 2,168,903 Transmission and distribution 6,277,000 6,334,935 4,889,485 Pumping 921,000 1,155,280 869,570 Sewerage collection and disposal Sewerage collection system 2,162,000 2,221,889 1,824,231 Sewerage treatment and disposal 5,242,000 4,683,287 3,684,959 Billing and collection 491,000 565,680 494,295 Operational support 454,000 253,569 279,519 Engineering 1,276,000 1,298,785 915,756 Administration and general government services - -- - -- 2,865,415 18,928,000 18,400,778 17,992 133 Fiscal services Interest on long -term debt Debenture debt 2,644,932 2,208,148 2,160,790 Principal installments Debenture debt 5,447,000 5,447,000 5,725,000 Discount on debentures issued 250,000 61,659 56,449 Capital projects financed by the General Operating Fund 5,605,000 5,605,000 5,605,034 Short-term financing costs [note 5] 399,618 313,336 132,053 13 Funding pension fund [note 6] 427,000 1,431,324 317,060 Infrastructure agreement reserve 24,500 24,500 24,500 14,798,050 15,090,967 14,020,8 86 Total expenses and fiscal services 33,726,050 33,491,745 32,013,019 Excess of revenues over expenses 66,950 284,060 138,474 5 Excess revenues (expenses) of previous years (66,950) (66.950) 11.822 revenues over expenses for the year - -- 217,110 150,296 See accompanying notes 287 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility OPERATING FUND STATEMENT OF SURPLUS (DEFICIT) Year ended December 31 Page 2010 2009 Deficit, beginning of year (242,381) (380,855) 4 Excess of revenues over expenses for the year 217,110 150,296 (25,271) (230,559) 4 Excess revenues of previous years 66,950 (11,822) 12 Surplus (deficit), end of year [note 4] . 41,679 (242,381) See accompanying notes The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility CAPITAL AND LOAN FUND BALANCESHEET As at December 31 See accompanying notes Signed on behalf of the Council: Mayor Chair of Finance Committee 2010 2009 Page $ $ ASSETS Accounts receivable 10,000 - -- 3 Due from associated entities Water and Sewerage Utility Operating Fund - -- 2,723,372 11 Fixed assets [note 21 333,568,727 273,972,932 333,578,727 276,696,304 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 11 Debentures [note 21 45,832,000 46,279,000 3 Due to associated entities General Operating Fund 21,574,206 8,423,735 Water and Sewerage Utility Operating Fund 3,193,650 - -- General Capital and Loan Fund 83,557 83,557 15 Deferred contributions [note 8] 1,510,063 1,510,062 72,193,476 56,296,354 7 Equity 261,385,251 220,399,950 333,578,727 276,696,304 See accompanying notes Signed on behalf of the Council: Mayor Chair of Finance Committee The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility CAPITAL AND LOAN FUND STATEMENT OF EQUITY Year ended December 31 2010 2009 Page $ $ Equity, beginning of year 220,399,950 194,498,823 Debt repaid during the year by the Utility Operating Fund Debenture debt 5,447,000 5,725,000 Contributions in aid of construction Federal and provincial government 29,477,517 14,238,209 Fixed assets purchased by the Utility Operating Fund 39,456 26,780 Capital projects financed by the Utility Operating Fund 6,021,328 5,911,138 6 Equity, end of year 261,385,251 220,399,950 See accompanying notes 290 7 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility STATEMENT OF SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF CAPITAL FINANCING Year ended December 31 2010 2009 Source Debenture issue 5,000,000 6,500,000 Government contributions 29,477,517 14,23 8,209 Fixed assets purchased by the Utility Operating Fund 39,456 26,780 Debt repaid by the Utility Operating Fund 5,447,000 5,725,000 Capital projects financed by the Utility Operating Fund 6,021,328 5,911,138 Net increase in due to associated entities 19,067,493 3,517,994 65,052,794 35,919,121 Application Debt repayment 5,447,000 5,725,000 Capital expenditures 59,595,794 30,194,121 Increase in accounts receivable 10,000 - -- 65,052,794 35,919,121 See accompanying notes 291 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES These financial statements have been prepared to conform in all material respects to the accounting principles prescribed for New Brunswick municipalities by the Department of Local Government. Financial statement presentation The fmancial statements of the City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility [the "Utility "] have been prepared in accordance with the fund basis of accounting. The Operating Fund reflects the Utility's working capital and results of operations and the Capital and Loan Fund reflects its investment in fixed assets and outstanding long -term debt. Fixed assets and depreciation Fixed assets are recorded at cost. Funds received through capital assistance programs, cost - sharing arrangements or loan forgiveness are treated as additions to equity in capital assets. The Utility does not record depreciation on its fixed assets, but an amount equal to annual debt repayment is charged to operations and credited to equity in capital assets. The Utility also charges to operations all capital projects that are financed in the current year from operating funds. Accrual accounting The Utility follows the accrual method of accounting for revenue and expenses. Accounting for a surplus or deficit at the end of a fiscal year Section 189(4) of the Municipalities Act of New Brunswick requires that the Utility establish rates which result in a quadrennially balanced budget. Further, Section 189(5)(b) states that should a surplus or deficit exist at the end of a year, it must be spread over a four -year period commencing with the second ensuing year. 292 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 1. ACCOUNTING POLICIES [Cont'd] Accounting estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with the accounting principles prescribed for New Brunswick municipalities by the Department of Local Government requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Financial instruments The carrying values of the Utility's financial instruments, except for long -term debt, approximate fair value because of their short -term maturity and normal credit terms. The Utility's accounts receivable do not represent significant concentration of credit risk because the accounts are owed by a large number of ratepayers on normal credit terms. As long -term debt is arranged with the Province of New Brunswick and is not renegotiable, the fair value of long -term debt, affected by changing interest rates, has not been determined. At year -end, the Utility did not have any exposure relating to derivative instruments. 293 10 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 2. DEBENTURES Debentures consist of the following: Year of Interest Term 2010 2009 Issue Rate Years Balance Balance 2000 6.100 to 6.400 10 - -- 313,000 2001 2.450 to 5.500 10 424,000 848,000 2002 3.375 to 5.750 10 1,540,000 2,310,000 2003 3.050 to 5.000 10 1,962,000 2,616,000 2003 2.750 to 5.125 10 3,804,000 5,072,000 2004 2.750 to 4.800 10 6,552,000 7,020,000 2005 3.750 to 4.375 10 2,625,000 2,800,000 2006 4.150 to 4.450 10 6,400,000 6,800,000 2007 4.450 to 4.850 10 5,950,000 6,300,000 2008 3.300 to 4.850 10 2,250,000 2,375,000 2008 2.100 to 5.550 15 3,150,000 3,325,000 2009 1.000 to 4.500 10 4,750,000 5,000,000 2009 0.950 to 5.000 10 1,425,000 1,500,000 2010 1.500 to 4.550 10 5,000,000 � -- - 45,832,000 46,279,000 The aggregate amount of principal payments required on the Utility's long-term debt in each of the next five years is as follows: 2011 5,384,000 2012 4,960,000 2013 4,190,000 2014 6,948,000 2015 3,550,000 Fixed assets include an amount of $26,954,215 (2009 - $7,896,725) for which financing has not been arranged at year -end. 294 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 3. OTHER PAYABLES 2010 2009 Vacation pay 310,017 259,657 Retirement allowance 279,000 412,000 589,017 671,657 The Utility has provided for vacations earned but not paid. Employees upon retirement from the City of Saint John are entitled to a retirement pay allowance equal to one month's pay, to a maximum of six months, for every five years of service. The program has been amended to provide certain employees with a payout option prior to retirement. Accepting the early payout option eliminates further accumulation of retirement allowance entitlement for those employees. Employees of Local 18 hired after June 1, 1998 and Management employees hired after March 23, 2009 are not eligible for retirement allowance, now or in the future. These policies are established in the Local 18 collective bargaining agreement and the Management terms and conditions of employment. 4. OPERATING FUND SURPLUS OR DEFICIT The surplus or deficit for each year is taken back into income over a four-year period commencing with the second ensuing year. The balances remaining at the end of each year are as follows: 12 295 2010 2009 2005 — 98,028 2006 (33,682) (67,364) 2007 (203,672) (305,509) 2008 (88,373) (117,832) 2009 150,296 150,296 2010 _ 217,110 --- 41,679 (242,381) 12 295 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 5. TRANSACTIONS WITH THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN GENERAL FUND The Water and Sewerage Utility Operating Fund reimbursed the General Operating Fund an amount of $1,425,000 (2009 - $1551,000) for its share of general government operating costs. In addition, the General Operating Fund is charged for storm sewerage costs $910,000 (2009 - $910,000) and water supply for fire protection for an amount of $2,200,000 (2009 — $2,045,000). Interest is charged on the balances between the General Fund and the Water and Sewerage Utility on a monthly basis. The Utility's water cost transfer is within the maximum allowable by regulation based on the applicable percentage of water system expenditures for the population, 6. PENSION PLAN A. OVERVIEW The City provides pension benefits to employees in accordance with the provisions of the revised City of Saint John Pension Act as enacted on May 12, 1994 and last amended on June 18, 2008. The plan is administered by a Board of Trustees, representing Common Council, management, unionized employees and retired employees. Prior to May 1994, the plan was governed by The City of Saint John Pension Act, 1970. The plan is subject to the provisions of the New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act AN became effective January 1, 1992. The plan is a defined benefit plan which provides for pensions based on length of service and rate of pay. Both the City and the employees make contributions to the plan. The plan is funded by eligible employees contributing 50% of the current service cost to the plan to a maximum of 9% of aggregate salaries and the employer contributing the balance of the current service cost. Based on the 2009 actuarial valuation, the current service cost of the plan was 20.6% of payroll. At no time can the overall employer contribution rate be less than 7.5% of aggregate salaries. 13 296 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 A. OVERVIEW (Cont'd) The employer is obligated to make additional contributions, if necessary, to adequately amortize any unfunded liability or solvency deficiency. The City charges all of its contributions to expense in the year the contribution is made. The amount contributed for employees funded by Water and Sewerage Utility for 2010 amounted to $2,220,330 (2009 - $1,124,864). B. ACTUARIAL INFORMATION The 2010 actuarial valuation indicated the present value of accumulated plan benefits was $495,380,000 and the market value of net assets available to provide benefits was $372,228,000 with an estimated unfunded liability of $123,152,000 on a going concern basis. As of December 31, 2010, the liabilities on a solvency basis were $218,007,000 greater than the solvency assets. This valuation relates to the entire plan, which includes employees funded through both the General Fund and the Water and Sewerage Utility. Current costs and special funding payments are allocated to each fund on the basis of a percentage of payrolls. C. DUE TO THE PENSION PLAN The New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act requires that a solvency deficiency be funded over a period of five years unless an exemption is requested to fund over a period of no more than fifteen years, or the period to December 31, 2018, whichever is shorter, or an exemption from making solvency payments is granted. In 2007, this exemption from making solvency special payments to the pension plan was sought and received. As a result of receiving this exemption, there is no longer solvency funding due from the City of Saint John as at December 31, 2010. During 2010, the City of Saint John paid the plan an amount of $12,424,654, which represented required special funding and interest on a going concern basis (2009 — $2,721,547). The Utility Fund's share of this for 2010 is $1,431,324. The City of Saint John is required to make special going concern payments until 2024. 14 297 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 7. INTER -FUND ACCOUNTS All inter -fund accounts at December 31, 2010 represent current transactions and are in compliance with the policy established by the Department of Local Government. 8. DEFERRED CONTRIBUTIONS The Province of New Brunswick ( "Province ") established the Saint John Harbour Clean-Up Trust in the amount of $26.6 million to provide for the Province's one - third share of the Harbour Clean-Up Project cost. These Trust funds will be released to the City as costs of the project are approved. As of December 31, 2010, an amount of $12,592,837 of trust funds has been released to the City. According to the terms and conditions of the Deed of Settlement and Trust Agreement, interest income shall be distributed to the City annually. The amount of interest distributed to the City as of December 31, 2010 is $1,510,063, which has been deferred and will be applied to the project in the future. There are no specific terms on the usage of the interest deferred. 9. UNRESTRICTED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT The City and its employees participate in a group life insurance plan which has a potentially refundable component, the Unrestricted Deposit Account ( "UDA "), based on actual plan experience. Annually, a portion of any excess of premiums paid over claims experience is eligible to be refunded to the City and its employees. Both the City and employees pay premiums into this plan. The UDA has accumulated $224,882 of eligible refundable premiums during the years 2004 to 2010. The City has collected an amount of $151,450. The remaining amount of $73,432 is recorded as a long -term asset as the City intends to hold this amount to fund future potential premium increases. Of the eligible refundable premiums accumulated, $21,876 and $146,786 were used to reduce payroll costs in 2010 and 2009 respectively. The remaining $56,220 is recorded as due to employees, which was subsequently distributed to employees in August of 2011. The City will review the balances in the UDA annually. 15 The City of Saint John Water and Sewerage Utility NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 10. COMPARATIVE FIGURES The comparative financial statements have been reclassified from statements previously presented to conform to the presentation of the 2009 financial statements. 11. COMMITTMENTS In 2009, the City entered into an agreement with Pomerleau Inc. for the construction of the Wastewater Treatment facility at Hazen Creek in the amount of $51,805,878 plus HST. As of December 31, 2010, costs of 39.9 Million related to this project have been incurred. The project is due for completion in 2011. 16 299 Financial Statements The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds December 31, 2010 0111 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To His Worship The Mayor and Members of Common Council of The City of Saint John We have audited the accompanying financial statements of The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds, which comprise the balance sheet as at December 31, 2010 and the statement of changes in. equity for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information. The financial statements have been prepared by management of The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds using the basis of accounting described in Note 1. Management's responsibility for the consolidated financial statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with the basis of accounting described in Note 1; this includes determining the basis of accounting used is an acceptable basis for the preparation of the financial statements in the circumstances, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditors' responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditors' judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditors consider internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by 0111 management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained in our audit is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds as at December 31, 2010 and the changes in it's equity for the year then ended in accordance with the basis of accounting described in Note 1 to these financial statements. Basis of Accounting Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 1 to the financial statements, which describes the basis of accounting. The financial statements are prepared to comply with the requirements of . the Department of Local Government of New Brunswick for municipalities. Our report is intended solely for the information and use of His Worship The Mayor and Members of Common Council of The City- of Saint John, and the Minister of Local Government of the Province of New Brunswick, and is not intended to be and should not be used for any other purpose. Saint John, Canada, December XX, 2011 01 Chartered Accountants The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds As at December 31 BALANCESHEET Reserve Funds Trust Funds Airspace Land Tucker Stockford O'Connell L.R. A. Carle Bi- S.J.N.P.H 2049 Sub- Fund Memorial Fund Ross Smith Centennial Future Fund Division Fund Fund Fund Fund Development 47,614 Fund 566,484 Term deposits, at cost - - Fund - - - 1,468 - 1,468 Total Total 2010 2009 ASSETS Cash 6,355 63,946 239,049 64,926 92,982 23,059 36,486 47,614 574,417 566,484 Term deposits, at cost - - - - - - 1,468 - 1,468 1,411 Marketable securities, at market 85,665 - -- - - - - - 85,665 79,242 92,020 63,946 239,049 64,926 92,982 23,059 36,486 1,468 47,614 661,550 647,137 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY Accounts payable - - - - 193 -- - 193 71 Equity 92,020 63,946 239,049 64,926 92,789 23,059 36,486 1,468 47,614 661,357 647,066 92,020 63,946 239,049 64,926 92,982 23,059 36,486 1,468 47,614 661,550 647,137 See accompanying notes Signed on Behalf of the Council Mayor: Chair of Finance Committee 0119] The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY For the year ended December 31 Reserve Funds Trust Funds Contributions to other Airspace Land Tucker Stockford O'Connell L.R. A. Carle Bi- S.J.N.P.H 2049 Sub- Fund Memorial Fund Ross Smith Centennial Future Fund Division Fund Fund Fund Fund Development Total Total Fund 8,707 2,477 1,773 482 - 171 271 57 353 14,291 Fund 2010 2009 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Increase in equity Investment income 2,388 480 1,773 482 693 171 271 57 353 6,668 5,805 Contributions - 11,997 --- - - - - - - 11,997 3,330 Increase in value of securities 6,319 - - - - - - - - 6,319 7,880 - 8,707 12,477 1,773 482 693 171 271 57 353 24,984 17,015 Decrease in equity Contributions to other entities - 10,000 - - 693 - - - - 10,693 10,650 - 10,000 - 693 - - - - 10,693 10,650 Increase in equity during the year 8,707 2,477 1,773 482 - 171 271 57 353 14,291 6,365 Equity, be innin of year 83,313 61,469 237,276 64,444 92,789 22,888 36,215 1,411 47,261 647,066 640,701 Equity, end of year 92,020 63,946 239,049 64,926 92,789 23,059 36,486 1,468 47,614 661,357 647,066 See accompanying notes 917! 2 The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 1. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICY These financial statements have been prepared to conform in all material respects to the accounting principles prescribed for New Brunswick municipalities by the Department of Local Government. Accrual accounting The City follows the accrual method of accounting for revenue and expenses. 2. RESERVE FUNDS Machinery and Equipment Depreciation Fund Under Section 90(4) of the Municipalities 14ct, Council by resolution can create an equipment replacement reserve. Contributions to this fund are made through the operating budget of the General Fund. Di:4bursements from this fund may only be made for the acquisition of equipment and require the approval of Common Council. Airspace 2049 Fund This fund was estabhghed in 1985 with respect to the development of Market Square and in particular the condominium development. Upon the sale of airspace to allow for the construction of the project, the proceeds were invested to allow for the reacquisition by the City of this airspace in the year 2049 when the ownership of the 4omplcx reverts to the City of Saint John. 01.7 The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 3. TRUST FUNDS Land Subdivision Fund Section 43 of the Community Planning Act requires that monies received by Council in lieu of land for public purposes be paid into a special account. Council may expend these funds for the acquisition or development of land for public purposes as defined by the Community Planning let. Tucker Fund By an Act of the Legislature enacted on April 20, 1427, securities with a par value of $10,000 were vested with the City of Saint John. This Act provided that the income and a portion of the principal from this Traz�t, with the approval of Common Council, should be used for the maintenance and improvement of Tucker Park. Stockford Memorial Fund This fund was established an December 28, 1939 as a result of a bequest of $3,000 from Fannie M. Stockford of Boston, Massachusetts. This amount was to be inverted and the annual income was to be used towards the upkeep and maintenance of King Square. O'Connell Fund This fund was established on March 22, 1939 with a contribution of $2,000 from J.D. O'Connell. The contribution was to be invested and the income distributed among the orphanages of the City on the prorata basis of the children cared for by each, to be given by way of a Christmas gift to each child. In October 2004, this agreement was amended to allow the Trustees to disburse the income arising from the trust investments yearly to the Empty Stocking Fund. 4 01101 The City of Saint John Reserve and Trust Funds NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2010 3. TRUST FUNDS (continued) L.R. Ross Fund This fund was established in 1921 through the gift of $1,250 and the "Ross Memorial Cup ". The Cup was to be competed for annually by amateur single scullers, aged twenty -one years or under who are residents of the Maritime Provinces. The income from this Trust was to be used to provide a duplicate cup for the winner of each race held. Changes to the Trust in 1986 now allow for the funds to be used to promote the sport of rowing within the City of Saint John and its suburban communities, provided that an Amount of $4,000 remains in the farad to enable the "Ross Memorial Cup" to be duplicated when necessary. A. Carle Smith Fund Established in September 1976, funds were received from the estate of A. Carle Smith. These funds are to be used for the maintenance of a wildlife sanctuary in the South Bay area. Bi- Centennial Funds These funds are to be used for ceremonies marking the 200'h anniversary of Canada in the year 2 -067. Saint John Non - Profit Housing [ "S.J.N.P.H. "] Future Development Fund This fund was established in 1987, on the sale by the City of the Rockwood Court Complex. By resolution of Common Council, the proceeds in excess of the amount required to meet the outstanding obligations of the Complex, amounting to $470,726, were to be set aside and administered by Saint John Non - Profit Housing Incorporated. This fund is to be used for new housing initiatives subject to restrictions set out by the City of Saint John. 5 9111 Planning Advisory Committee December 14, 2011 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: 500 Woodward Avenue Subdivision Application P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 City of Saint John The Committee considered the attached report at its December 13, 2011 meeting. Ken Forrest appeared on behalf the City of Saint John, the applicant, and spoke in favour of staff's recommendation. No one else appeared before the Committee to speak in favour or against the application. After considering the report and comments made by the applicant, the Committee recommended approval of the subdivision of the subject property. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council assent to the submitted City of Saint John tentative subdivision plan that would vest a total area of approximately 262 square metres (2,820 square feet) from PID number 55107247 as part of the Woodward Avenue public street right -of -way. Resp ctfully submitted, Color urray �... Chairman ri -114 Project No. 11 -317 1: The City of Saint John DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2011 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Jody Kliffer Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Planner Commissioner SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: City of Saint John (Real Estate Division) Name of Owner: Frederick Bullock and Nancy Jemmett Location: 500 Woodward Avenue PID: 55107247 Municipal Plan: Major Community Facilities Zoning: "IL -2" Major Institutional Proposal: To vest a portion of the subject property to form part of Woodward Avenue Type of Application: ;F„�iLNT JOHN Subdivision P.O. Fk)x 1971 Saud: jrAwn NB Ca wJd EA 411 ! I C-11 1971 Riint john, N. -B. Canada L2L 4L1 309 City of Saint John 500 Woodward Avenue JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: Page 2 December 9, 2012 The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to advise Common Council concerning the vesting of public streets and land for public purposes in conjunction with the subdivision of land. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That Common Council assent to the submitted City of Saint John tentative subdivision plan that would vest a total area of approximately 262 square metres (2,820 square feet) from PID number 55107247 as part of the Woodward Avenue public street right -of -way. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering has no concerns with this application. Buildings and Inspection Services has been notified of this application. ANALYSIS: The subject area is situated on Woodward Avenue in the City's north end. The site is located at the intersection of Woodward Avenue and Ragged Point Road. The portion of the above property that is subject to this application has been used as part of the public -of -way for several years. The applicant, which is in this case the City of Saint John, has recently discovered that this land is not owned by the City. The City proposes to continue to use the 262 square metres of property as part of Woodward Avenue. It should be noted that the surrounding neighbourhood was not notified of the proposed subdivision as there is no perceived land use impact that will result from this application. Approval for the proposed subdivision is recommended. JK Project No. 11 -317 310 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT/URBAN ISM E ET DEVELOPPEMENT look m ...,.,.r.......... m IL I 4 a � -' R- 1B M- 1 • y 6 a - Subject Site /site en question: PID(s) /NIP(s): � ':€ 155107247 Location: 500 Woodward Avenue Date: November 21, 2012 Scale /echelle: Not to scale /Pas A 1'6chelle 311 p 2' R -LB rs Hd1he a • p, i • I�lObcYis��s [t " f t ^c AW04 Q 1 312 ark 9 ry {]] Q. �a t is 9� 3 Ill f � ['ill■ UG rr 7a �P3A� rr� r al A tm, Planning Advisory Committee December 14, 2011 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: Proposed Subdivision 1429 Loch Lomond Road 1 City of Saint John The Planning Advisory Committee considered the attached report at its December 13, 2011 meeting. On behalf of the property owner 651413 NB Limited, Richard Turner of Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc. addressed the Committee and expressed agreement with the staff recommendation. He noted the positive letter from a neighbourhood resident that was received and he spoke to the two letters received that opposed the subdivision application. In response to the opposing letters, he spoke of the increased connectivity this subdivision will provide in future phases for area residents. The Committee inquired about why the proposed Gemini Court ends in a cul -de- sac at the location it does and what the intention is for the balance of the lands. Mr. Turner advised that due to site topography, the cul -de -sac was necessary in the proposed location and that the intention is for the balance of the lands on the site to be developed in the future. No persons addressed the Committee. However, one letter in favour and three letters of objection were received (copies attached). After considering the matter, the Committee decided to adopt the staff recommendation that the application be approved. This recommendation included variances to reduce the lot depth of two proposed lots and reduce the required lot area and lot width for another proposed lot. The Committee also approved the proposed street names, Gemini Court and Kobe Street. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council: a. assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the submitted 651413 N.B. Ltd. Tentative Plan of Subdivision, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, with respect to the 313 -2- vesting of the proposed public streets and any required municipal services easements and public utility easements, except that Gemini Court shall be extended to the northern edges of the proposed Land for Public Purposes parcels, and Kobe Street shall be extended to the full lot depths of proposed Lots 1 -G and 1 -F; b. authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements to ensure the provision of the required work and facilities, including temporary turnarounds for Gemini Court and Kobe Street and detailed engineering and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; c. assent to the two proposed parcels, totalling approximately 1540 square metres, of Land for Public Purposes, and in addition to this, provide one metre wide reserve strips of Lan d for Public Purposes along the Loch Lomond Road frontage of proposed lots 1 -A and 1 -B; and d. under the authority of Section 57 of the Community Planning Act, authorize the release of an approximately 113 square metre portion of the existing Land for Public Purposes of the Folkins Estates Inc. Subdivision, Phase 3, being that portion of PID 55168801, which will become a portion of proposed Lot 1 -C, as illustrated on the submitted Tentative Plan of Subdivision. Respectfully submitted, Colin Murray Chairman SF Project No. 11 -319 314 The City of Saint John DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2011 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR: MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Stwe� ar, MCIP, RPP Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Planner Commissioner SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc. Name of Owner: 651413 NB Ltd., Folkins Estates Ltd. and the City of Saint John Location: 1429 Loch Lomond Road PID: 00312900,55183727,55168801 Municipal Plan: Low Density Residential and Open Space Zoning: "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential Proposal: To develop a residential subdivision consisting of approximately 27 residential lots in three phases Type of Application: Subdivision and Variances, as follows: rlo__ SAINT JOHN i. reduce the lot depth of lot 1 -G from 30 metres to 23 metres; ii. reduce the lot depth of lot 8 -B from 30 metres to 22 metres; iii. reduce the required lot area and lot width under the Hillside Provisions of the Subdivision By -law for lot 1 -F from 1.5 times the minimum requirement to 1 times the minimum requirement; and P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4LI I wwwsaingohn.ca i C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 40 315 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 2 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to advise Common Council concerning the vesting of public streets and land for public purposes in conjunction with the subdivision of land. The Act also authorizes the Committee to grant reasonable variances from the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws. The Committee can impose conditions. The Subdivision By -law authorizes the Committee to approve street names in conjunction with new subdivisions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: 1. That Common Council: a. assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the submitted 651413 N.B. Ltd. Tentative Plan of Subdivision, located at 1429 Loch Lomond Road, with respect to the vesting of the proposed public streets and any required municipal services easements and public utility easements, except that Gemini Court shall be extended to the northern edges of the proposed Land for Public Purposes parcels, and Kobe Street shall be extended to the full lot depths of proposed Lots 1 -G and 1 -F; b. authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City /Developer Subdivision Agreements to ensure the provision of the required work and facilities, including temporary turnarounds for Gemini Court and Kobe Street and detailed engineering and drainage plans for the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate; c. assent to the two proposed parcels, totalling approximately 1540 square metres, of Land for Public Purposes, and in addition to this, provide one metre wide reserve strips of Land for Public Purposes along the Loch Lomond Road frontage of proposed lots 1 -A and 1 -B; and d. under the authority of Section 57 of the Community Planning Act, authorize the release of an approximately 113 square metre portion of the existing Land for Public Purposes of the Folkins Estates Inc. Subdivision, Phase 3, being that portion of PID 55168801, which will become a portion of proposed Lot 1 -C, as illustrated on the submitted Tentative Plan of Subdivision. 316 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 3 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 That the Planning Advisory Committee: a. approve the proposed street names of Kobe Street and Gemini Court; and b. grant the following variances to: i. reduce the lot depth of lot 1 -G from 30 metres to 23 metres; ii. reduce the lot depth of lot 8 -B from 30 metres to 22 metres; and iii. reduce the required lot area and lot width under the Hillside Provisions of the Subdivision By -law for lot 1 -F from 1.5 times the minimum requirement to 1 times the minimum requirement. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering provided the following comments, revised from the earlier submission of June 9, 2011. The following comments are based on the most current proposal as provided: • Detailed engineering drawings from the developer's engineering consultant must be submitted to the City for review and approval. • There is an existing watercourse on this parcel. The site will be subject to review /comments of New Brunswick Department of Environment. • The developer's engineering consultant must provide a detailed development storm water drainage plan and design brief indicating how storm water collection and disposal will be handled. • Upgrades to existing infrastructure by the developer may be required. Detailed engineering plans must be submitted prior to determining this. • All grades for existing water and sewer systems must be verified by the developer's engineering consultant. • For any proposed wastewater flows being directed towards Loch Lomond Road and the Hickey Road wastewater pumping station, the developer's engineering consultant must verify that the existing infrastructure to the station as well as the station itself can accommodate the proposed flows. • The developer's engineering consultant must verify water capacity and fire flow requirements and include them with the detailed drawing submission. The City must have from the developer's engineering consultant what the expected average and peak water consumption flows will be from this proposed development and confirmation that there is sufficient capacity to support this proposed development. Any new watermains installed must be interconnected with existing mains; there are to be no dead -ended watermains. • There should be consideration for pedestrian accesses in this development. 317 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 4 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 • The design and extension of Norman Drive and Old Lake Trail to interconnect with this proposed development is the full responsibility and cost of the developer. • The existing Old Lake Trail was approved to have an asphalt cul -de -sac that will need to be redesigned, configured and constructed by this applicant to provide a straight through access to meet Kobe Street. • Lots 1 -A and 1 -B (proposed Phase 3) should have a reserved strip of LPP to prohibit access directly onto Loch Lomond Road with access only onto the proposed Gemini Court. • The northern portion of the proposed Gemini Court should be fully constructed by the applicant to the northern edges (full lot depth and LFPP depth) of the proposed Land for Public Purposes and not stop 5 metres beyond the corner of Lot 8 -B. A temporary gravel turnaround must also be provided for by the developer at the far end of the Lots. • The northern portion of the proposed Kobe Street should be fully constructed by the applicant to the northern edge (full lot depth) of the proposed Lot 1 -G and Lot 1 -F. A temporary gravel turnaround must also be provided for by the developer at the far end of the Lots. Buildings and Inspection Services have stated that there are no Building Code issues raised by the proposed subdivision. Saint John Fire Department have no objections to the proposed development provided all National Fire Code of Canada 2005 and National Building Code of Canada 2005 requirements are complied with; and when the property requires, ensure the owners submit all plans to the Office of the Fire Marshal in accordance with section 18 of the Fire Prevention Act. Saint John Transit have stated that Saint John Transit currently provides service along the Loch Lomond Road in this area however the frequency of the service in this area will be reduced significantly in the new year when our reduced schedule goes into effect. Leisure Services has been notified of this application. Geographic Information Systems (Planning and Development) have stated that the proposed street names, Gemini Court and Kobe Street are acceptable and have been reserved for this tentative development. GIS has also stated that if Gemini Court ever connects with Kobe Street, it may be necessary to rename one of the streets. N.B. Department of Environment has been notified of this application. School District 8 has been notified of this application. Saint John Energy has stated that there are existing underground facilities on Old Lake Trail that can be extended to service the proposed five residential lots for phase 1. For phase 2, Saint John Energy's underground infrastructure can be extended to service the proposed six lots. For phase 3 of this proposed development, service will have to be extended from Loch Lomond Road up the new Gemini Court. Any more development on this property outside of the three phases will have to be serviced off of Gemini Court so that the electrical requirements can be met. Any cost for the proposed development will be dealt with by the developer at a later date. 318 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 5 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 Bell Aliant have stated the developer needs to be aware that they should contact Bell Aliant as they may be responsible for placing the infrastructure if utilities are required to be placed underground. Rogers has been notified of this application. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, Enbridge Gas, and Brunswick Pipeline have been informed of the application. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline and Brunswick Pipeline have advised this area is clear of their infrastructure. BACKGROUND: In July 1993, the Planning Advisory Committee considered an application from Thomas Construction Limited and Paul Folkins to subdivide a large area of land situated at 1429 -1433 Loch Lomond Road. This subdivision application involved the creation of approximately thirty -three (33) serviced residential lots and two new public streets. In August 1993, Common Council assented to the overall subdivision plan, and authorized the preparation and execution of a City/Developer Subdivision Agreement to ensure provision of the required work and facilities. In addition, Common Council authorized the preparation and execution of a Section 101 Agreement to regulate the substantial excavation of the subject lands, which involved the re- grading of the large site with the removal of approximately 100,000 cubic yards of gravel prior to subdivision development. Since this time, the Committee has favourably considered additional phases of the adjoining Folkins Estates Incorporated subdivision at 1433 Loch Lomond Road. On June 27, 2000 the Committee considered an application to create three serviced residential lots along Loch Lomond Road from the subject parcel at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. The Committee recommended in favour of the application and Common Council assented to the tentative subdivision plan on July 4, 2000 however the lots were never created. On June 17, 2011 the Committee considered an application to rezone the subject lands to "R -2" One and Two Family Residential and subdivide the subject site for the creation of 76 serviced lots. Considering the staff recommendation to approve the proposal, the Committee recommended denial to Common Council. Common Council agreed with the Committee and denied the application. ANALYSIS: Subject Site The subject site has an area of approximately 8.3 hectares and is located on the north side of Loch Lomond Road, east of the Bon Accord subdivision. The vacant site, which is mostly treed, has approximately 100 metres of frontage along Loch Lomond Road. The elevation of the site ranges from 90 metres in the northwest corner to 52 metres along the Loch Lomond Road in the south -east corner of the site. 319 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 6 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 Proposed Development The applicant is seeking to develop 27 lots over three phases on portions of the subject site, under the existing the "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential zone. The balance of the land on this site is being reserved for future development at this time; however, the conceptual road network, showing linkages to the adjacent subdivisions, has been provided on the tentative Plan of Subdivision. As proposed on the Tentative Plan of Subdivision, phase 1 proposes the creation of five residential lots along an existing stretch of Old Lake Trail; phase 2 proposes the creation of six residential lots, four of them on an extension of Old Lake Trail and the remaining two on the proposed Kobe Street; phase 3 proposes the creation of 16 residential lots through an extension of Norman Drive to the proposed Gemini Court. Land for Public Purposes, totalling approximately 1540 square metres, is proposed to be located in the southern portion of the subject site along the existing watercourse, to the rear and/or side of proposed lots 7 -A, 8 -13, 9 -13 and 1 -C. The required amount of LPP is 6% of the developed land which totals approximately 1349 square metres, thus the 1540 square metres proposed exceeds the minimum requirement. The proposed location, along the existing watercourse and connecting to the adjacent parcels of LPP in this area, is a desirable location and considered acceptable. In addition, Municipal Operations and Engineering have requested that reserve strips of LPP be vested to the City along the side of proposed lots 1 -A and 1 -B to prohibit access directly onto Loch Lomond Road. The proposed development includes a portion of Land for Public Purpose (LPP) previously vested to the City as part of the adjacent Folkins Estates Inc. Subdivision LPP dedication. The applicant is requesting that this portion of LPP (part of PID 55168801), be de- vested by the City and returned to this developer to be a part of proposed Lot 1 -C. The Folkins Estates Inc. Subdivision dedicated more LPP than was required for the development, meaning the proposed de- vesting of this portion of LPP for Lot 1 -C, totalling approximately 113 square metres would not affect the minimum requirement for LPP as part of that subdivision. The removal of this portion of LPP does not negatively affect the entrance to the contiguous sections of LPP that border the existing watercourse. From a land use planning perspective, de- vesting this portion of LPP will not have a negative effect on the neighbourhood's access to the existing or proposed LPP. Surrounding Area The adjacent properties are zoned "R -2" One and Two Family Residential although this parcel and other lands further away from the site are in the "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential zone. The area contains a mix of single and two family residential dwellings and vacant lands. Several parcels of land with "RM -1" Three Storey Multiple Residential zoning are also located in the vicinity of the proposed development. Institutional and industrial zoning are also located along Loch Lomond Road in the area of the proposed development and include a church, care home, automobile dealership and gas station and convenience store. 320 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 7 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 Municipal Plan Direction The majority of the subject site is designated Low Density Residential in the Municipal Plan with a portion of the site designated as Open Space. The Open Space portion coincides with a watercourse on the property where the applicant is proposing the Land for Public Purposes dedication. The overall intenl of the Plan from a residential land use perspective is to ensure that residential areas are used for a range of residential densities and building types. In addition, the Plan allows for commercial uses that have the local residential population as their primary focus to be located in area designated as residential. Density of the various residential areas and the overall net residential density of the development are within the maximum established in the Municipal Plan with a net density of approximately 11 units / hectare proposed, which is below the 38 units/hectare maximum established in the Plan for low density areas. In terms of servicing, this property is within Staging Area 1 of the City's serviced areas in the Municipal Plan, which means any development in this area is required to be fully serviced by municipal water, sewer and storm water services. Under Policy 2.4.10.1 of the Municipal Plan, it is a policy of the City to designate Open Space lands along watercourses to encourage measures to protect the quality of water and maintain access for the public, wherever feasible. The provision of Land for Public Purposes along the watercourse in the tentative Plan of Subdivision is consistent with this policy of the Municipal Plan. City staff acknowledges that the development proposal is consistent with the provisions of the existing Municipal Plan. Proposed Municipal Plan (2011) A new Municipal Plan (2011) is currently before Council in the formal approval process, and will be before Common Council on December 12, 2011 for a Public Hearing. Until such time that this proposed Municipal Plan is approved, the existing Municipal Plan remains in full force and effect. The following is intended to provide information to the Committee with respect to how the proposal would be considered using the proposed Municipal Plan. The area of the development is located within the Primary Development Area boundary and to the east of the Forest Hills / Lakewood Suburban Neighbourhood Intensification Area, established in the proposed Municipal Plan. While the development is outside of a Suburban Neighbourhood Intensification Area, staff note that the development is surrounded by existing development and thus represents, on an albeit larger scale, an infill proposal. The proposed development will improve pedestrian connectivity in the area and provide additional street connections to serve existing and future development. For these reasons planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed development meets the intent of the new Municipal Plan. 321 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 8 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 After the Committee and Council recommendation to deny the application for rezoning and subdivision in July 2011, staff proposed the lands be designated as Urban Reserve in the proposed Future Land Use map in the proposed Municipal Plan, as this is consistent with the previous Council decision for this property. The Urban Reserve designation permits development on the lands in the future, beyond the 25- year timeframe for the proposed Municipal Plan. Because of this, a housekeeping amendment to the proposed Future Land Use map (in the proposed Municipal Plan) to acknowledge this change in land use would be necessary if this project proceeds. Such a change would be undertaken by City staff to ensure the proposed Municipal Plan mapping is consistent. It should be noted however that from a land use planning perspective, staff continue to support development on these lands as their ultimate development will provide secondary access to the existing subdivisions on either side of the subject site, providing greater connectivity for residents between these currently isolated neighbourhoods. This area is also serviced with existing water and wastewater services, providing better utilization of infrastructure for the City. From a land use planning perspective, this proposal is considered infill as it proposes to join two existing, isolated neighbourhoods improving pedestrian connectivity in the area, provides additional street connections to service existing and future development, and is within an area with existing water and wastewater services. Zoning Bylaw Zone Standards The site is zoned "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential which permits one - family and two - family dwellings. The development proposal is for serviced lots which require a minimum lot area of between 690 square metres for one - family lots and 930 square metres for two - family lots. The applicant has not indicated the intended mix of residential dwelling types however the proposed plan of subdivision proposes 21 lots that meet the minimum required lot area of 690 square metres for one - family dwellings, and 6 lots that meet the minimum required lot are of 930 square metres for two - family dwellings, assuming the variances are granted. Subdivision By -law General Layout As the proposed street layout meets the requirements of the Subdivision By -Law, assent with respect to the proposed public streets and future streets can be recommended. Detailed phasing of the development will be determined when infrastructure capacities are reviewed at the engineering design stage. Provision has been made for roadway linkages to the adjacent developments and requirements for their construction and extension will be components of the Subdivision Agreement entered into between the Developer and City. 322 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 9 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 Proposed Land for Public Purposes The Subdivision By -law requires that six percent of the area of the lots zoned as "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential, or six percent of the market value of the land be dedicated as land for public purposes (LPP). Approximately 1349 square metres of LPP is required in total. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a total area of approximately 1540 square metres in the southern portion of the site along a watercourse which exceeds the required limit. In addition to this, the City is requiring reserve strips of LPP to be dedicated along the Loch Lomond Road frontage. Taken together, the proposed LPP requirement is acceptable. Staff note that a de- vesting of a portion of the existing Land for Public Purposes in the Folkins Estates Inc. Subdivision (PID 55168801) must be authorized to allow for this land to be incorporated into proposed Lot 1 -C, as illustrated on the submitted tentative plan of subdivision. Authorization of this exchange is recommended as the adjacent Folkins Estates Subdivision has contributed Land for Public Purposes in excess of the requirement of the Subdivision By -Law, thus the proposed de- vesting will not negatively impact the overall requirement for the Folkins Estates Subdivision. Servicing and Access The proposed subdivision will be provided with municipal water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, underground utilities and paved streets with curb and sidewalk in accordance with the Subdivision By- law's servicing standards. The recommendation provides for the necessary City /developer subdivision agreement to ensure the required services and facilities are provided. Detailed engineering plans and design reports will be required for the approval of the Chief City Engineer, with the detailed engineering drawings attached to the Subdivision Agreement. The required reports will need to address the issues raised in Municipal Operations and Engineering's input to the Staff Report. Municipal Operations and Engineering note the applicant's engineering consultant must provide a detailed site storm water drainage plan for the site and design brief indicating how storm water collection and disposal will be handled and a verification of sanitary sewer capacity and water supply availability and pressures. For any proposed wastewater flows being directed towards Loch Lomond Road and the Hickey Road wastewater pumping station, the developer's engineering consultant must verify that the existing infrastructure to the station as well as the station itself can accommodate the proposed flows. The development may require upgrades to existing infrastructure by the developer and detailed engineering plans must be submitted prior to determining this. The developer must design and construct, at their cost, the un -built portions of Norman Drive and Old Lake Trail to interconnect with this proposed development. The developer must also design and construct, at their cost, the temporary gravel turn- arounds as required by Engineering and Operations for Gemini Court and Kobe Street. This requirement will be incorporated into the Subdivision Agreement that will be entered into by the City and Developer. 323 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 10 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 The existing Old Lake Trail alignment was approved to have an asphalt cul -de -sac. This cul -de -sac will need to be redesigned, configured and constructed by this developer to provide a straight through access to intersect with Kobe Street. The northern portion of the proposed Gemini Court should be fully constructed by the applicant to the northern edges (full lot depth and LFPP depth) of the proposed Land for Public Purposes and not stop 5 metres beyond the corner of Lot 8 -B. A temporary gravel turnaround must also be provided for by the developer at the far end of the lots. The northern portion of the proposed Kobe Street should also be fully constructed by the applicant to the northern edge (full lot depth) of the proposed Lot 1 -G and Lot 1 -F. A temporary gravel turnaround must also be provided for by the developer at the far end of the lots. Street Names The developer has provided the proposed names, Gemini Court (originally submitted as Charmaine Crescent) and Kobe Crescent (originally submitted as Kensington Drive) for the new Public Streets in the subdivision. These names have been reviewed by the GIS division. It is recommended that the names Gemini Court and Kobe Street be accepted." Variances Three variances have been identified for the proposed development, described as follows: a. Reduce the lot depth of lot 1 -G from 30 metres to 23 metres; b. Reduce the lot depth of lot 8 -B from 30 metres to 22 metres; c. Reduce the required lot area and lot width under the Hillside Provisions of the Subdivision By -law for lot 1 -F from 1.5 times the minimum requirement to 1 times the minimum requirement; and Staff support the reduction in the required lot depth for lot 1 -G from 30 metres to 23 metres and lot 8 -B from 30 metres to 22 metres. The variances for these lot depths are required due to the overall width of the parcel of land being developed. Staff are of the opinion this is a reasonable request and support the variances for lot depth. Staff also support the reduction in the required lot area and lot width as required from the Hillside Provisions of the Subdivision By -Law for proposed lot 1 -F, as shown on the Tentative Plan of Subdivision. Staff are of the opinion this is a reasonable request as a potential house design can be chosen to suit the proposed lot. There are no servicing implications as these lots will all be provided with Municipal water and wastewater services. 324 Hughes Surveys & Consultants Ltd (for 651413 NB Limited) Page 11 1429 Loch Lomond Road December 9, 2011 CONCLUSION: This is an application for Subdivision under the existing "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential zone and is consistent with the existing Municipal Plan. The "RS -2" zone permits a lower density form of residential development that utilizes existing infrastructure less efficiently than the "R- 2" One and Two Family Residential zone, however, the applicant is entirely within their right to apply for this Subdivision under the zone standards for the existing "RS -2" zone. The jurisdiction in this case is limited to the review of three issues related to this application: the proposed Public Street names, the proposed location of Land for Public Purposes, and the requested variances. Staff recommend that Common Council assent to the proposed Public Street names, the proposed location of Land for Public Purposes and the requested variances. It is further recommended that Common Council authorize the preparation of any required City /Developer Subdivision Agreement and any required Municipal Services or Public Utility Easements. SF Project No. 11-319 325 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENVURBANISME ET DtVELOPPEMENT R- 2 RS. 2 RS- 2 d.• It -�-- %; -2 V 77 Subject Site/site en question: Location: 1429 ch. Loch Lomond Rd. Date: November 21 novembre 2011 Scale/dchelle: Not to scale/Pas it Vdchelle 326 RS- 2 PID(s)/NIP(s): 00312900, 55183727, 55168801 mss_ 6 51 FE 1Z 47— , X,, rz C7 err)ONi � rl" 7 1 ;t f f 7—j y � � r,, -pry -° ',� •�._,/�' -=,yam ��. � ,- � Y� fi- Mi 327 Forfar, Stacey_ From: External - Planning Sent: December -01 -11 3:28 PM To: Forfar, Stacey Subject: FW: Planning Advisory Committee From: JHUNTER [ mailto:jhunter @nb.svmpatico.cal Sent: December -01 -11 3:25 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Planning Advisory Committee Dear Sir /Madam: Re: Subdivision and Variances 1429 loch Lomond Road My wife & I have resided at 7 Strathorne Avenue fot the past 18 years. We love this area as we are only minutes away from all the ammenities. We are seniors now and often think about down sizing to a one level or garden home.There are not many to choose from on the east side. We are very much in favour of this application. Sincerely, Derek and Juanita Hunter 328 December 9, 2011 Planning and Development P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB E21- 4L1 Attention: Planning Advisory Committee Subject: Subdivision and Variances 1429 Loch Lomond Road We object to Proposed Plan for 1429 Loch Lomond Road because Gemini is proposed as a Court. As a result, homes in the future development phases will not have direct access to Loch Lomond Road. An earlier proposal planned 53 homes directly behind Gemini Court. Access to Loch Lomond was via Inverness to Bon Accord. As residents of Bon Accord, we do not believe our street can accommodate that additional traffic. We sent our safety concerns on that proposal in June. Those concerns apply to this `phase one' proposal as well. Email is enclosed. If Gemini is a through fare to Loch Lomond that will give direct access to the residences of the future phases of development, we have no issue with the proposal. Thank you in advance for considering our concerns. A Zd Paul and Susan uckley 73 Bon Accord rive Saint John, NB E2J 3V7 329 I rage , w , Paul Buckley From: "Paul Buckley" <paulbuckley @rogers.com> To: <planning@saintjohn.ca> Sent: June 13, 20119:05 PM Subject: Proposed Subdivision - 1429 Loch Lomond Road The proposed subdivision plan does not provide direct access from Kensington Drive to Loch Lomond Road. As a result, Bon Accord Drive will be the primary route. We reside at 73 Bon Accord and will be negatively affected by an estimated 25% increase in traffic and the safety issues to which it will contribute. Bon Accord is currently the only access to Loch Lomond Road for approximately 200 homes and apartments including Edinburgh, MacNaughton, McGregor, Strathome, Inverness and Lomond Court. It is already a busy street. Traffic from an additional 53 residences will make it unsafe. Please consider the following existing conditions: - Bon Accord is a very steep hill with two sharp turns in it. Despite the posted speed limit, vehicles cannot help but accelerate. - Driveways on the blind turns have a vey short view of vehicles traveling down the hill - School buses stop at the crest of the hill at Inverness and at both turns on the lower section - Bon Accord empties onto Loch Lomond at a turn that limits visibility of the 60 -70 kmh traffic. In winter the snow banks and ploughing at the church on the corner reduce visibility even further. - The bottom of Bon Accord is a hill that makes It challenging to exit or enter in snow or ice conditions. - Turning left up Bon Accord from the center lane of Loch Lomond is scary. Vehicles careen around the corner of Loch Lomond over a heave in the west bound lane that brings them to the center of the road. Direct access to Loch Lomond for Kensington Drive residents would have the following advantages: - Improved visibilty at Kensington and Lociy Lomond for exiting or entering traffic. - Kensington will meet Loch Lomond at a flat section of each road. - Bon Accord will not incur an increase in traffic as it will be distributed over two streets. In our opinion, eliminating the Cresent from the subdivision and extending Kensington to Loch Lomond is a safer option. Paul and Susan Buckley 73 Bon Accord Drive Saint John, NB E2J 3V7 Phone: 696 -2158 330 09/12/2011 Forfar, Stacey From: External - Planning Sent: December -13 -11 8:20 AM To: Forfar, Stacey Subject: FW: 1429 Loch Lomond Road From: Gwenn Bartlett [mailto:gwennsie@hotmail.coml Sent: December -12 -11 10 :32 PM To: External - Planning Subject: 1429 Loch Lomond Road We are against the application as there are currently enough existing lots available for development at 1429 Loch Lomond Road. There was also approval granted last month for an additional 97 lots next to Ganong Road. These areas are also outside the PlanSJ boundaries. There is enough infill lots now available so there is no current need for an additional 27 residential lots. Let's put the focus within the PianSJ boundaries. There will be more traffic, noise & clear cutting of trees. At the back end of Lakewood now many acres have been clear cut, which we can see from our home and there has been no construction activity over the last few months. With recent job losses at Irving Oil, Moosehead and Bell Aliant, I don't expect a great deal of construction activity in the spring & summer of 2012 for houses in the $220,000 to 250,000 range. If development does proceed, the city should ensure phase 1 is totally completed before proceeding to phase 2 of the plan. Chris & Gwenn Bartlett 223 Bon Accord Drive Saint John N.B. 331 DEC -13 -2011 12:20P FROM: 95066581529 Tn:95066582837 P,1 racf-I f0pnollci school 25 Evergreen Avenue Saint John, N. B. E2N 1 H3 FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIONS COVER SHEET TO: 1a17 f W Ye, ATTIlk FAX #:�~ g -o?S3 FROM:�C4ll� i!1 na %dSQru DATE: TIME. TOTAL NUMBER OF PA GES INCLUDING THIS PAGE): �� �, A, II/ a iii ♦ I� IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED OR FOR FURTHER INFORIvIaTION, PLEASE TELEPHONE (306) 653 - 5330 OR FAX (505) 353 - 3981 332 DEC -13 -2011 12:20P FROM: 95066581529 TO:95066592e37 P.2 December 12, 2011 To Whom It May Concern, We are residents of Bon Accord Drive and are writing to express our opposition to the application for a subdivision of 27 residential lots at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. We are opposed to this development due, in part, to the fact that the parcels of land which would be developed into housing lots do not fall into the areas earmarked for growth by the City of Saint John. This proposed subdivision does not align with the growth strategy for the city (Plan SJ). Plan SJ does allow for "infill" development. However, our understanding is that in order to be considered "infill," the proposed development would need to create better connectivity within subdivisions. The proposed subdivision at 1429 Loch Lomond Rd. does not accomplish this, and therefore, should not be permitted to proceed under the "infill clause" of Plan SJ. We value the peaceful surroundings of our home, as Bon Accord is a relatively small subdivision, surrounded by wooded areas. Please take the existing residents' quality of life into consideration. Many of us chose to live here because of the relative seclusion and quiet, while still remaining within the limits of the city that we love. Please don't destroy this quality of life by allowing on -going construction for years and possibly chasing away some neighbours of mine, who have talked about having to move to the Valley or to Hampton, if construction is going to be happening all around us for years on -end. Finally, please take into consideration the fact that recent approval was given by Saint John Common Council for several housing lots to be developed at 1515 Loch Lomond Rd. As well, several lots are still available to be developed In the Ganong subdivision, and many lots are still available in a new subdivision In neighbouring Lakewood Heights. Is there really sufficient demand for this many new houses in this area of the East side? We would say not, as the aforementioned new subdivision in Lakewood Heights has been clear -cut and left basically barren, as people are not buying the lots to build new homes. We ask that the Planning Advisory Committee recommend to Common Council that this subdivision application be denied. Sincerely, Jacqueline and Scott Donaldson 333 Planning Advisory Committee December 14, 2011 Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Simon Subdivision 640 Hillerest Road P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 C, 1 � 1 City of Saint John The Planning Advisory Committee considered the attached report at its December 13, 2011 meeting. The applicant, Sierra Supplies Ltd. (Wes Debly), appeared along with his surveying consultant in support of the application and staff recommendation. There were no other presentations made at the meeting concerning this matter, but there was one letter received from an area resident (see attachments). After clarification concerning some of the requested variances, the Committee resolved to adopt the staff recommendation, which is set out below for your convenience. The Committee also granted all the requested variances with the recommended conditions, deemed the property only suitable for residential development on the basis outlined in the staff report and recommendation, and approved the proposed street names. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council assent to one or more subdivision plans, in one or more phases, in general accordance with the submitted Simon Subdivision with respect to the proposed public streets and any necessary public utility easements. 2. That Common Council assent to the proposed land for public purposes dedication of approximately 4.9 hectares in the vicinity of Graham's Brook along the southern portion of the proposed Simon Subdivision. 3. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements in order to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and stormwater 334 -2- drainage plans of the property for the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate. Respectfully submitted, Colin 4&a4yy Chairman MO Attachments Project No. 08 -151 335 P The City of Saint John DATE: TO: FROM: FOR: PREPARED BY: M)ak-K Mark O'Hearn Planning Officer SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: Name of Owner: Location: PID: Municipal Plan: Zoning: Proposal: Type of Application: SAINT JOHN A rowe Am DECEMBER 9, 2011 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMUNITY PLANNING t PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2011 REVIEWED BY: Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Sierra Supplies Ltd. (Wesley Debly) Sierra Supplies Ltd. 640 Hillcrest Road 00310615 & 55062053 Unserviced Residential "RR" One Family Rural Residential To undertake a rural residential subdivision with approximately 46 lots along new public streets. Subdivision and Variances that would: (a) Reduce the minimum lot depth requirement of 40 metres to approximate varying depths between 9 -19 metres for portions of lots; P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4LI I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B, Canada E2L 4L1 336 Simon Subdivision Page 2 640 Hillcrest Road December 9, 2011 (b) Allow for the creation of a new lot with frontage onto two streets; (c) Reduce the hillside provisions of the Subdivision By -law that would require 1.5 times the normal lot area and width requirement to 1 times for proposed lots deemed hillside land; (d) Allow a four way street intersection within a new residential subdivision when only T- intersections are permitted; and (e) Reduce the minimum street right of way width of 23.1 metres to 20 metres. JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to advise Common Council concerning the vesting of public streets and land for public purposes in conjunction with the subdivision of land. The Act also authorizes the Committee to grant reasonable variances from the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws. The Committee can impose conditions. The Subdivision By -law authorizes PAC to ascertain the suitability of land for the intended purpose it is being subdivided, and 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 Simon Subdivision with respect to the proposed public streets and any necessary public utility easements. 2. That Common Council assent to the proposed land for public purposes dedication of approximately 4.9 hectares in the vicinity of Graham's Brook along the southern portion of the proposed Simon Subdivision. That Common Council authorize the preparation and execution of one or more City/Developer Subdivision Agreements in order to ensure provision of the required work and facilities, including detailed site and stormwater drainage plans of the property for the approval of the Chief City Engineer or his designate. 337 Simon Subdivision Page 3 640 Hillcrest Road December 9, 2011 4. That the Planning Advisory Committee grant the following variances from the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning By -laws with respect to the proposed Simon Subdivision that would: (a) Reduce the minimum lot depth requirement of 40 metres to approximate varying depths between 9 -19 metres for portions of proposed Lots 9 -10, 12, 25 -26 & 31; (b) Allow the creation of proposed Lot 1 with double frontage on the condition that vehicular access is restricted to Paula Crescent, and that a prominent note regarding this restriction be placed on the subdivision plan; (c) Reduce the hillside provisions of the Subdivision By -law that would require 1.5 times the normal lot area and width requirement to 1 times for proposed Lots 4 -11 & 27 -31; (d) Allow the proposed four way street intersection of Simon and Lily Street when only T- intersections are permitted; and (e) Reduce the minimum street right of way width of 23.1 metres to 20 metres for the future street connection of Paula Crescent to Meahan Crescent, and for that portion of Peri Crescent to Hillcrest Road adjacent to existing Lot 77 -1 (480 Hillcrest Road). 5. That under the authority of Section 25(8)(a) of the Subdivision By -law, the Planning Advisory Committee deem the subject property only suitable for residential subdivision development on the following conditions: (a) A maximum of ten residential lots may be created by subdivision until such time that written confirmation from N.B. Department of Environment recommends the approval of the remaining proposed lots with respect to the suitability of potable water; (b) Lots 22, 39, 46, 35 & 36 not be created until such time that NBDOE has provided written confirmation that any necessary wetland compensation has been completely satisfied; and (c) A soils report by a qualified engineer has been received attesting to the suitability of Lots 22, 39 & 36 with regards to the construction of a dwelling with a full basement. 6. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the following names for the proposed streets: Paula Crescent, Peri Crescent and Lily Street. BACKGROUND: On July 2, 2008 the Planning Advisory Committee considered an application by Sierra Supplies Ltd. 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 carry out a rural residential subdivision. A tentative subdivision plan illustrating the manner how the eastern portion of the property could be subdivided was received at that time. However, only an incomplete street layout for the rest of the property was illustrated on the tentative plan (see attached Simon Subdivision 2008). 338 Simon Subdivision 640 Hillcrest Road Page 4 December 9, 2011 The proposed rural residential subdivision satisfied the relevant Municipal Plan policies, and in light of the approval of other rural residential subdivisions in the area, staff supported the rezoning which was recommended by the Committee and approved by Common Council. However, given the incompleteness of the tentative plan, and certain concerns that the design raised with regards to a second street connection to Hillcrest Road, no recommendation was provided with respect to the subdivision of land. This arrangement was acceptable to the developer, who has since been consulting with the staff of N.B. Department of Environment and the City on a revised design that is more reflective of the topography and the existing watercourses and wetlands situated on the subject property. INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Municipal Operations and Engineering has provided the following comments concerning the proposed Simon Subdivision: (a) The area is not serviced by municipal services. Therefore, all proposed lots must be serviced by private on -site septic disposal systems and drilled wells in accordance with the requirements of the Province of New Brunswick (Departments of Health and Environment). (b) All proposed public streets must be constructed in accordance with engineering plans approved by Municipal Operations and Engineering (i.e., the Chief City Engineer or his designate). Such plans must satisfy the requirements of the Subdivision By -law and the General Specifications of Engineering. It should be mentioned that recently the Subdivision By -law was amended in order to require a minimum 23.1 metre right of way width for new rural residential streets. Notwithstanding, there is no objection in allowing that portion of proposed Peri Crescent to be reduced to 20 metres between the existing lots on Hillcrest Road. Also, there is no objection in allowing for the eventual connection of Paula Crescent to Meahan Crescent, located on the adjoining Jovin Construction Limited property, with a 20 metre wide public street right of way. (c) The developer must submit an overall stormwater drainage plan for the entire property. This plan must be prepared by a qualified professional engineer for the approval of Municipal Operations and Engineering, and this approved plan must be attached to the required City/Developer Subdivision Agreement(s) for the proposed subdivision. Furthermore, the overall stormwater drainage plan should be illustrated on the final subdivision plan(s) with regards to any necessary private drainage easements over certain proposed lots (i.e., Lots 44, 45 & 46). Such drainage systems should be protected from the development activities of future lot purchasers via private easements and restrictive covenants. The City of Saint John will not be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage system within such private easements. (d) All necessary approvals from N.B. Department of Environment for this subdivision must be obtained by the developer before proceeding. This includes the acquisition of necessary permits in order to allow for street construction within the 30 metre buffer zone of any watercourse or wetland (particularly the wetland in the vicinity of the Ped Crescent and Lily Street intersection). 339 Simon Subdivision Page 5 640 Hillcrest Road December 9, 2011 It is recognized that after further consultation and permit approval by NBDOE, some changes to the submitted tentative subdivision plan may occur. Such changes must be reflected on engineering plans to be later submitted for approval by the City. (e) It should also be mentioned that watercourses and wetlands located on the subject property are not the responsibility of the City of Saint John. These features should also be identified on the final subdivision plan(s) and restrictive covenants imposed on the applicable lots in order to protect these natural features. (f) It is understood that the initial phase of the Simon Subdivision will commence with the construction of Peri Crescent off Hillcrest Road, and that Paula Crescent cannot be undertaken until such time Meahan Crescent is constructed. It is further understood that a portion of the storm water drainage of the adjoining Jovin Construction Limited property may be directed through the Paula Crescent right of way (i.e., ditch/swale) and into the Graham's Brook to the south. If so, this will need to be included in the stormwater design for this portion of the Simon Subdivision. (g) It is understood that informal pedestrian access could be facilitated by the street rights of way and walking trails through the proposed land for public purposes. With regards to LPP, the 20 metre wide dedication between Lots 29 & 30 seems unnecessarily wide. (h) Access for proposed Lot 1 should be restricted to Paula Crescent and not directly to Hillcrest Road in order to avoid the construction of a driveway onto this curved portion of the existing public street. (i) The proposed terminus of Lily Street near Lots 19 & 38 must include a permanent asphalt turnabout in accordance with the standards for cul -de -sac streets contained in the Subdivision By -law. Buildings and Inspection Services has no building code concerns at this point in the process. Saint John Fire Department has no objection to the proposed subdivision provided all National Fire Code of Canada (2005) and National Building Code of Canada (2005) requirements are satisfied. Saint John Transit has indicated that there is no bus service along Hillcrest Road. Leisure Services has provided the following comments concerning this subdivision: (a) The proposed land for public purposes around the wetlands provides an important buffer zone that serves a role in conservation while allowing limited potential recreational use of this area (i.e., informal walking trails). (b) In the context of the location and size of the development, the City should not be seeking lands for other purposes (i.e., playgrounds or sports fields). 340 Simon Subdivision Page 6 640 Hillcrest Road December 9, 2011 (c) To support increased integration of neighbourhoods and active transportation, we would look to provide a future link between this development and the subdivisions to the south through either a street linkage or the provision of LPP lands that could be used to develop trail linkages. (d) With regards to trail development, the manner Paula Crescent is proposed would preclude the linking of streets. Therefore, the LPP proposed in the southeast corner of the development should be considered for the possibility of a walking trail linking these two areas. Geographic Information Systems (Planning and Development) indicated that Paula Crescent, Peri Crescent and Lily Street are acceptable. N.B. Department of Health has been advised of this application. N.B. Department of Environment has provided the following comments: Potable Water — (a) An Abbreviated Water Supply Assessment (AWSA) was reviewed by our department on September 28, 2008 for the original design of the Simon Subdivision. While the developer was proposing to develop about a 46 lot subdivision, based upon this report only an initial 10 lot development phase was approved (b) As indicated in the Guideline for the Review of Subdivisions Serviced by Individual Private Wells, a Comprehensive Water Supply Assessment (CWSA) report must be completed for subdivision plans that would create 25 or more lots (including a remnant). A CWSA must be completed under the direction of a qualified hydrogeologist registered as a professional engineer or geoscientist with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of New Brunswick. Therefore, it is recommended that a CWSA be undertaken for the remainder of the Simon Subdivision in order to ascertain whether it is prudent to create additional lots beyond what the AWSA supported. Watercourses and Wetlands — (c) It appears that the landowner is avoiding the large wetland along the south of the property, as well as the smaller wetland near Hillcrest Road, and incorporating a buffer along the unnamed watercourse that connects between these two wetlands and into Graham's Brook. Please be advised that all three wetlands are controlled under the Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Regulation (WAWA). While activity within Provincially Significant Wetlands and their 30 metre buffers are generally not approved, that is not the case with these types of wetlands. (d) It is assumed that the dotted lines on the tentative subdivision plan around the watercourses and wetlands represent the 30 metre regulated buffer zone. It is understood that Lots 4 -11 & 27 -31 have been designed to avoid the steep slopes and the watercourses. If development occurs outside of the 30 metre buffer no WAWA permit would be required. However, a permit would obviously be required for any activity within the buffer area. 341 Simon Subdivision Page 7 640 Hillcrest Road December 9, 2011 (e) Please be advised that activity within 30 metres of the wetland on Lots 08 -1, 1, 3, 4 & 26 will require a WAWA permit, however it appears that the wetland itself can be avoided. Development activity on Lots 30 & 31 and Lots 9, 10 & 11 (and the Lands for Public Purposes) within the 30 metre buffer of the larger wetland along the south will require a WAWA permit. Development would also likely trigger the Environmental Assessment Regulation (ELI) due to the size of this wetland ( >2 hectares), and the potential impact development would have on this wetland. (f) With regards to proposed Lots 21, 22, 39, 40, 46, 35, 36 & 37 and associated street rights of way, a WAWA permit will be required prior to any development. In discussing this matter with the developer and his consultants, it is understood that this regulated wetland is proposed to be removed. Note that this wetland is less than 2 hectares in size, and therefore will not trigger EIA review. In this case, it is reasonable for the City to approve the tentative subdivision plan assuming that the landowner will be able to receive a WAWA permit for the street work. The landowner will be required to compensate for any removal of wetlands at a ratio of 2:1 (2 hectares of compensation for every 1 hectare of wetland removed). The size of the wetland is approximately 1.27 hectares (to be confirmed by the proponent), so approximately 2.54 hectares of compensation would be required. A compensation plan will have to be submitted along with the WAWA permit application, reviewed and completed prior to the issuance of the permit. The department will continue working directly with the developer and his consultants with regards to this matter. (g) It is understood that the developer for this subdivision is only constructing the proposed streets and not necessarily developing the proposed lots. If so, future lot owners will be responsible for obtaining necessary WAWA permits. Perhaps it would be prudent to include a suitable notation regarding this matter on all final plans for this subdivision. School District 8 has been advised of this subdivision. Saint John Energy has indicated (2008) that there are overhead facilities along Hillcrest Road that can be extended in order to service the proposed lots. Bell Aliant has no servicing issues with the proposal, however depending on the distance this project may fall within our line extension policy. Rogers has been advised of this subdivision application. Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, Enbridge Gas, and Brunswick Pipeline have no concern with regards to this proposed subdivision. 342 Simon Subdivision 640 Hillcrest Road ANALYSIS: Subject Property and Neighbourhood Page 8 December 9, 2011 The subject property is situated along the south side of Hillcrest Road in East Saint John (see attached location map). The site is comprised of two large undeveloped properties with a total area of about 3 8.5 hectares. The area is mostly covered by trees with a watercourse running perpendicular from Hillcrest Road through the area. There is a more significant watercourse (Graham's Brook) along the southern portion of the property. The area has an undulating terrain with steep slopes, especially in the vicinity of Graham's Brook and the other mentioned watercourse from Hillcrest Road. As illustrated on the submitted tentative subdivision plan there are also three wetlands located on the subject property. There are nine residential properties adjacent to the subject property on Hillcrest Road. The MacDonald Subdivision (Marilyn Drive) is located to the north on the other side of the public road. This rural residential subdivision was developed some years ago with a long cul -de -sac street and 14 lots. The Greenwood, Secord and Sunrise Park Subdivisions are to the south abutting Loch Lomond Road. In February of this year the Planning Advisory Committee favourably considered a second phase of the Secord Subdivision (Abigail Place) north of Gibbon Avenue for approximately 18 additional lots. A linear land for public purposes dedication along Graham's Brook was also dedicated. That property also shares some of the same characteristics as the subject site (i.e., undulating terrain with steep slopes, watercourses and wetlands). Back in 2004 (and in 2006) the Hillcrest Heights Subdivision was approved involving 4 new public streets with approximately 59 residential lots. A portion of this rural residential subdivision is immediately to the east of the subject site. Only about half of this adjoining rural residential subdivision (Meahan Crescent) has been completed. The tentative plan for this subdivision illustrates a Future Street connection to proposed Paula Crescent. In recent years there have also been other rural residential subdivisions approved along Hillcrest Road and Loch Lomond Road. Development Proposal and Requested Variances As mentioned in the Background section of this report, an application to rezone the subject area to "RR" One Family Rural Residential was recommended by the Planning Advisory Committee in July 2008. While a tentative plan was submitted at that time, the plan was incomplete and raised certain concerns with regards to a proposed street access on a curved section of Hillcrest Road, as well as concerns with regards to development in close proximity to watercourses and wetlands. Since that time the developer and his consultants have been revising the subdivision plan in consultation with Provincial (N.B. Department of Environment officials) and City staff. Recently the attached plan was submitted for tentative approval. The revised tentative Simon Subdivision consists of 46 unserviced residential lots along new public streets. The design has been modified to satisfy, except as discussed further in this section of the report, the new lot size standards of the "RR" One Family Rural Residential zone, and the new rural residential road width standard of 23.1 metres contained in the Subdivision By -law. The revised design is considered by Provincial and City staff to be much more considerate of the topography and watercourses and wetlands on the subject property. 343 Simon Subdivision Page 9 640 Hillcrest Road December 9, 2011 The "RR" One Family Rural Residential zone requires a minimum lot area of 5350 square metres, a minimum lot width of 60 metres, and a minimum lot depth of 40 metres. The proposed lots can satisfy or exceed these requirements, except that the following lots technically cannot satisfy the minimum depth requirement: Lots 9 -10, 12, 25 -26 & 31. These lots require the consideration of variances due to the short jogs in one of their side lot lines. These variances are recommended as all these lots actually have much greater depths in which to provide suitable building envelopes. Variances are necessary in order to allow for the creation of Lot 1 with frontage onto two public streets, and to allow Lots 4 -11 & 27 -31 to be created as proposed when the hillside provisions of the Subdivision By -law would require their areas and widths be 1.5 times that of the normal standards. Lot 1 is recommended for approval provided vehicular access is restricted to Paula Crescent, and that a prominent note regarding this condition be placed on the subdivision plan for registration. With regards to the variance for the hillside provisions, the affected lots have been designed in such a manner that building sites can avoid the steeply sloped areas. Furthermore, any disturbance of these sloped areas will be regulated by N.B. Department of Environment as they are near watercourses and wetlands. This variance is also considered reasonable under the circumstances and is recommended. The proposed street layout can satisfy the requirements of the Subdivision By -law, except that streets in new residential subdivisions are limited to T- intersections. The applicant is seeking a variance in order to create a four way intersection between Peri Crescent and Lily Street. The intent of this provision is to avoid the necessity of installing traffic lights within new residential subdivisions. In this particular case, there are only really two streets involved, and given the low density of the development the traffic volumes are expected to be insignificant. The general overall subdivision design is acceptable, and with respect to the street layout in particular, access is limited to only one possible location to Hillcrest Road. Approval of this variance is recommended under these mentioned circumstances. Finally, the street right of way widths will need to narrow to 20 metres along the Future Street to Meahan Crescent located on the adjoining property (yet to be vested but already tentatively approved by the City), as well as adjacent to existing Lot 77 -1 (480 Hillcrest Road) where proposed Peri Crescent would intersect Hillcrest Road. Variances have been recommended to acknowledge these situations. Site Constraints and Suitability The subject property is affected by three provincially regulated wetlands: one adjacent to Hillcrest Road, one at the intersection of Peri Crescent and Lily Street, and one along the southern portion of the property (see attached tentative plan). In addition, there are two watercourses with steeply sloped areas: one parallel with Lily Street and Paula Crescent, and another along Graham's Brook to the south. As previously mentioned, the subdivision design has been revised since the original submission in 2008 to better reflect the topographical realities of this property. While the design can essentially avoid two of these mentioned wetlands, however, in order to construct the street from Hillcrest Road one of the wetlands will need to be removed. Presumably this will be accomplished with the importation the suitable fill material for street construction and associated residential lot development. N.B. Department of Environment has indicated that wetland compensation will be required in addition to obtaining the necessary permit(s). 344 Simon Subdivision 640 Hillcrest Road Page 10 December 9, 2011 Section 25(8)(a) of the Subdivision By -law prohibits the Development Officer from approving a subdivision plan, or any phase thereof, if in his opinion and in the opinion of the Committee, the land is not suited to the purpose for which it is intended, or may not reasonably be expected to be used for that purpose within a reasonable length of time after the subdivision plan is approved. N.B. Department of Environment has recommended that only a maximum of ten lots be approved at this time based upon the submission of an Abbreviated Water Supply Assessment favourably considered in 2008. In light of this comment, it is recommended that the Planning Advisory Committee deem the subject property only suitable for the development of a maximum of ten residential lots until such time as written confirmation from NBDOE recommends the approval of the remaining proposed lots, which would occur when a Comprehensive Water Supply Assessment supporting these further lots is prepared by the applicant and accepted by the Province. It is also recommended that Lots 22, 39, 46, 35 & 36 not be approved until such time that NBDOE has provided written confirmation that any necessary wetland compensation has been completely satisfied, and that a soils report by a qualified engineer has been received attesting to the suitability of Lots 22, 39 & 36 with regards to the construction of a dwelling with a full basement. These matters should be dealt with by the developer and not individual lot purchasers. It is recognized that Watercourse and Wetland Alteration Permits will also be necessary for other lots in this subdivision which are within 30 metres of the existing watercourses and wetlands. These permits may be obtained by the developer or future lot purchasers. As suggested by NBDOE, the following notation will be required by the Development Officer on all final subdivision plans for this subdivision: "Necessary approval from N.B. Department of Environment must be obtained prior to the development of any lot within 30 metres of a watercourse or wetland " In order for this notation to be helpful, the final subdivision plan(s) will also need to show the watercourses and wetlands as indicated on the submitted tentative subdivision plan. Also, with respect to notations, the Subdivision By -law now requires the following notation to be included on all final plans for this subdivision: "The approval of this Subdivision Plan by the Development Officer does not constitute and shall not be construed as warranty or representation that any lot shown hereon is suitable or can economically be made suitable for any manner of on site sewage disposal" Finally, concerns have been expressed by NBDOE with regards to certain lots (9 -11 & 30 -31) adjacent to the wetland along the south. It may be that not all these lots will be approved as illustrated on the submitted tentative plan. Anticipated Phasing It is anticipated that the Simon Subdivision will commence with the development of Peri Crescent. Once the western portion of the area is developed, the proponent would then proceed with the Paula Crescent area provided the street can be connected to Meahan Crescent, which is yet to be developed by another developer (Jovin Construction Limited) on the adjoining property. The applicant has been made 345 Simon Subdivision Page 11 640 Hillcrest Road December 9, 2011 aware that the Development Officer cannot approve the Paula Crescent area until Meahan Crescent is available. The Future Street (already tentatively approved) between Meahan Crescent and proposed Paula Crescent will also need to be part of the street work for this portion of the Simon Subdivision. Provision of Work and Facilities The applicant will be responsible to construct the proposed new public streets to Rural Road Standards, which includes an asphalt driving surface, ditching and overhead public utilities. No curbing or sidewalks are associated with streets in rural residential subdivisions. The recommendation includes all the necessary assents and approvals for the proposed streets. Included with the required City/Developer Subdivision Agreement will be a detailed site and stormwater drainage plan for the approval of the Chief City Engineer. Part of the drainage system will be a private drainage easement over Lots 44 -46. This private easement will need to be shown on the engineering plans and included as part of the obligations of the developer with respect to the Agreement. Also, this easement will need to be shown on the final subdivision plan for these lots, and restrictive covenants ought to be imposed on these lots to ensure future development does not adversely affect the private drainage system. Land for Public Purposes The tentative plan would vest a 4.9 hectares land for public purposes dedication along the southern portion of the site immediately adjacent to Graham's Brook. Only a LPP dedication of 2.3 hectares is required by the Subdivision By -law for the Simon Subdivision. If accepted, this would provide the developer with a 2.6 hectare credit should further subdivision development ever be approved by the City (see Growth Strategy section in this report). The requested dedication will protect a significant wetland adjacent to a major watercourse. A very similar LPP dedication was acquired along the other side of this brook with respect to the approval of a rural residential subdivision (Abigail Place) south of this the area. The proposed LPP dedication may also provide an opportunity for the development of informal walking trails for local residents in the surrounding area. As the Municipal Development Plan supports a linear park dedication along Graham's Brook, the proposed LPP dedication is recommended to be accepted by the City. Growth Strategy The subject property is situated within a Green Area of the Growth Strategy. Green lands include undeveloped rural areas, parks, cemeteries, protected natural areas, and Crown lands. These areas may also be used for resource extraction/development purposes. As mentioned in the Background section of this report, under the current Municipal Development Plan the City rezoned the subject property in 2008 in order to carry out a rural residential subdivision. The applicant has been working towards obtaining tentative subdivision approval since that time. The pending new Municipal Plan has not selected this property for this type of subdivision development. Please note that the submitted tentative plan incorrectly indicates that the proposed LPP is 5.4 hectares in area. 346 Simon Subdivision 640 Hillcrest Road Page 12 December 9, 2011 Therefore, should the Simon Subdivision be tentatively approved, and should the proposed Municipal Plan be adopted, it will be necessary to amend the new Plan in order to recognize this subdivision. CONCLUSION: The applicant is seeking permission to carry out a rural residential subdivision consisting of approximately 46 residential lots and 3 new public streets. For the most part the application can satisfy the applicable requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision By -laws except as discussed in this report. The variances that are necessary are considered reasonable under the circumstances and are recommended. The subject property contains watercourses and wetlands with steeply sloped areas. The submitted tentative subdivision plan is a considerable revision to the plan received in 2008 when the property was rezoned. The revised tentative plan is a result of discussions between the developer and his consultants and with staff from N.B. Department of Environment and the City. The recommendation includes specific conditions of approval with regards to development over the area of one of the existing wetlands that will need to be removed. The remainder of the recommendation is more typical of the approval of rural residential subdivisions. It is understood from the comments received by NBDOE that further consultation and Hermit review will be required, and that there may need to be some changes to the subdivision with respect to lots in close proximity to the wetlands. MO Project No. 11 -284 347 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTlURBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT PQ its A RF AR / w _kit `T R8- 1 >s RR po Subject Site /site en question: PID(s) /NIP(s): 00310615 55062053 Location : 640, ch. Hillcrest Rd. Date: October 24 octobre 2011 Scale /echelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'6chelle 0 2�z u jr. R5 4 > 060004j. L. go faiz LZ Mo. r gal No,, lzz=z z ..Czz z3W WAR" CRESCENT JovIj CONS-TRUCTION LIMITED I It v. EF .ID tl 01 ti If 14 J, C3 V .64 CQ S-il i 3 1 8 3 d N0113MISNOD NNWJ J-1 tA 0 0: CL CL 349 In 45D zz zj 10 C I Eq Ax iL S I r I .11 Its < r g - f Gam_✓ °• � ° \ � \ LD 46 Mll 0' ..... ..... .. . ............... . 2-e 'S w I M 01 ;Y $ - �� 0 0 /0 0 0 ��. 0 LL CD UA M cr CD IL e CD M 1 IL 350 O'Hearn, Mark From: External - Planning Sent: December 13, 20114:48 pm To: O'Hearn, Mark Subject: FW: Council Meeting Dec 13- 7pm... Proposed Simon Subdivision Attachments: Stars jpg From: Bannister, Tanya [mailto :tanya.bannister @ws- ts.nb.ca] Sent: December -13 -11 3:22 PM To: External - Planning Subject: Council Meeting Dec 13- 7pm... Proposed Simon Subdivision Good afternoon. This is regarding the proposed Simon Subdivision, 540 Hillcrest Road. I am a resident of Abigail Place, which backs the Graham Brook. I am strongly ORRosed to this proposal. The acres of greenery surrounding the Graham Brook need to be preserved & kept as is. As a tax payer in the City of Saint John, I hope my opposition will be heard and considered. Tanya Bannister E -MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE This e -mail and the information contained in it is confidential, may be privileged and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). Any other person is strictly prohibited from using, disclosing, distributing or reproducing it. If you have received this communication in error, please reply by e-mail to the sender and delete or destroy all copies of this message. CLAUSE DE CONFIDENTIALITE POUR LES ENVOIS PAR COURRIEL Le present courriel et les renseignements qu'il contient sont confidentiels, peuvent titre proteges par le secret professionnel et sont a ('usage exclusif du (des) destinataire(s) susmentionne(s). Toute autre personne est par les presentes avisee qu'il lui est strictement interdit d'en faire ('utilisation, la diffusion, la distribution ou la reproduction. Si cette transmission vous est arrivee par erreur, veuillez en aviser immediatement 1'expediteur par courriel, puis effacer ou detruire toutes les copies du present message. 1 351