Loading...
2012-01-03_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour4 City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Tuesday, January 03, 2012 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 5:00 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall 1.1 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0) 1.2 Agreement 10.2(4)(c) 1.3 Agreement 10.2(4)(c) 1.4 Property Matter 10.2(4)(b,d) Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order — Prayer 5:45 p.m. Council Chamber 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Adoption of Agenda Items Forwarded from December 19, 2011 Agenda 3.1 Commissioner of Finance: Safe, Clean Drinking Water Affordability Analysis 3.2 Saint John Trade and Convention Centre Need for Revitalization (Councillor Farren) 3.3 Building Proactive Policy Utilizing 2011 Citizen Survey Result (Councillor McGuire) 3.4 City Manager: Fairville Boulevard Planning Study 3.5 City Manager: Douglas Avenue — Winter Street Parking Restrictions Exemption 3.6 City of Saint John Pension Plan Board of Trustees 3.7 Mahoney Letter Regarding Winter Parking Ban on Douglas Avenue 3.8 Rodgers Letter Re Proposed Pension Act Amendments (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 3.9 Saint John Transit Building - Energy Performance and Dashboard System, MC2011 -325 (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 3.10 Public Transportation Tax Reforms, Generation of New Revenue for Transit and Innovative Transportation Solutions (Councillor Snook) 3.11 Illegal Businesses in Saint John (Councillor Court) 3.12 City Manager: 2012 Adoption Schedule for Municipal Plan 3 3.13 City Manager: Future Street between the Hillcrest Heights and Bally Desmond Subdivision 2645 and 2797 Loch Lomond Road 3.14 Planning Advisory Committee: Proposed Subdivision 1429 Loch Lomond Road 3.15 Planning Advisory Committee: Simon Subdivision 640 Hillcrest Road 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Proposed Public Hearing Date 3795 Loch Lomond Road and 67 Loch Lomond Road (Recommendation in Report) 5.2 Saint John Community Loan Fund Letter of Thanks (Recommendation Receive for Information) 5.3 Knox Letter Re By -Law Enforcement (Recommendation: Receive for Information) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations / Presentations 6:00 p.m. 8.1 Symphony New Brunswick 9. Public Hearings 7:00 p.m. 9.1 Amendment to Business Improvement Levy ByLaw 10. Consideration of By -laws 10.1(a) Third Reading - 265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension 10.1(b) Section 39 Conditions 10.2 Third Reading - ByLaw Amendment Respecting Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John 10.3 Third Reading - ByLaw Amendment Respecting Water and Sewerage 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Policy for Use of City Owned Vehicles (Councillor Farren) 11.2 New Local Government System "Plan" (Councillor Titus) 12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers 12.1 Rodney Terminal Outfall Renewal Phase 2 (Cured -In -Place Pipe), Contract No. 2011 -23 12.2 Tippett Drive - Sanitary Lift Station #33 & Force Main, Contract 2011 -34 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 16. Adjournment S City of Saint John Seance du conseil communal Le mardi 3 janvier 2012 ComW pl6nier 1.Ouverture de la seance 17 h — Salle de conference, 8e &age, hotel de ville 1.1 Question relative a 1'emploi — alin6a 10.2(4)j) 1.2 Convention — alin6a 10.2(4)c) 1.3 Convention — alin6a 10.2(4)c) 1.4 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alin6as 10.2(4)b), d) Seance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere 17 h 45 — Salle du conseil 2. Approbation du proces- verbal 3. Adoption de Fordre du jour Points report6s de l'ordre du jour du 19 d6cembre 2011 3.1 Commissaire aux finances : Analyse de 1'abordabilit6 de 1'eau potable propre et salubre 3.2 Revitalisation n6cessaire du Saint John Trade & Convention Centre (conseiller Farren) 3.3 Etablissement d'une politique proactive a partir des r6sultats du sondage de 2011 men6 auprds des citoyens (conseiller McGuire) 3.4 Directeur g6n6ral : Etude de planification portant sur le boulevard Fairville 3.5 Directeur g6n6ral : Avenue Douglas — Exemption des restrictions relatives au stationnement sur rue en hiver 3.6 Conseil d'administration de la Commission du regime de retraite de la Ville de Saint John 3.7 Lettre de Mahoney au sujet de l'interdiction de stationnement en hiver sur 1'avenue Douglas 3.8 Lettre de Rodgers concernant les modifications proposdes a la Loi sur le regime de retraite (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 3.9 Immeuble de la Commission des transports de Saint John — Systdme de tableau de bord et de rendement 6nerg6tique, M/C 2011 -325 (recommandation accepter a titre informatif) 3.10 Morme fiscale des transports en commun, production de nouveaux revenus pour des solutions en matidre de transport en commun et de modes de transport novateurs ( Conseiller Snook) 3.11 Activit6s ill6gales a Saint John (conseiller Court) 3.12 Directeur g6n6ral : Calendrier d'adoption 2012 du plan d'amdnagement 5 3.13 Directeur general : Rue future entre le lotissement Hillcrest Heights et le lotissement Bally Desmond — du 2645 au 2797, chemin Loch Lomond 3.14 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme : Projet de lotissement an 1429, chemin Loch Lomond 3.15 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme : Lotissement Simon au 640, chemin Hillcrest 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Questions soumises a Papprobation du conseil 5.1 Date proposee de la tenue d'une audience publique relativement au 3795, chemin Loch Lomond et au 67, chemin Loch Lomond (recommandation figurant au rapport) 5.2 Lettre de remerciements du Fonds de pret communautaire de Saint John (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 5.3 Lettre de M. Knox concernant 1'execution des arretes municipaux (recommandation : accepter a titre informatif) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations et presentations 18 h. 8.1 Symphonic Nouveau - Brunswick 9. Audiences publiques 19h 9.1 Modification de 1'Arrete concernant la contribution pour 1'amelioration des affaires 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 10.1a) Troisieme lecture — 265, prolongement de 1'avenue Hawthorne 10.1b) Conditions imposees par Particle 39 10.2 Troisieme lecture de la modification de 1'Arrete relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John 10.3 Troisieme lecture de la modification de 1'Arrete concernant les reseaux d'eau et d'egouts 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Politique relative a l'utilisation des vehicules appartenant a la municipalite (conseiller Farren) 11.2 Plan pour un nouveau systeme de gouvernance locale ( conseiller Titus) 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Phase 2 du renouvellement de 1'emissaire du terminal Rodney (chemisage) — Contract no 2011 -23 12.2 Installation de la conduite d'eau principale a la station de relevement no 33 de la promenade Tippett — Contrat no 2011 -34 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises it 1'approbation du conseil 15. Correspondance generale 16. Levee de la seance 0 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. 7 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 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 D 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 10 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. 11 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 12 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: 13 (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. 14 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 15 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 16 • 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 17 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 in 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 19 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 20 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 -�� 21 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. 22 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 23 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 24 Financial Statements The City of Saint John — Pension Plan December 31, 2010 illllllll I Ill��i,,. fif ERN T& YO JIVC, Quality in Every�i`ng 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 26 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 27 -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 i 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 29 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 29 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 30 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 30 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 31 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 32 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 33 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 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 i 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 39 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 39 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 W 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? 41 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. 42 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. 43 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 $300,000 or a 58 percent energy reduction. The annual energy savings will exceed the City of Saint John initial energy savings target of 45 percent. The following graph depicts the electrical consumption comparison of a conventional building of similar size (Blue), the energy savings target (Green) and the actual energy savings achieved in 2011 after the energy optimization program was completed on the building in February 2011 (Red). Also, the graph shows a significant increase in energy consumption in January and February of 201 1prior to implementation of the energy optimization program. .. M &C2011- 325 -3 - 1ro.WOO 140,000 120,000 100.000 80,000 60.000 40,000 20,000 December 14, 2011 Electrical Consumption Comparison (KWH) 1a °�a comma era�r P �S �v� 1 PJ��� coo O``Oo�` m Conventional Building • Actual m Target The following graph depicts the natural gas consumption comparison of a conventional building of similar size (Blue), the energy savings target (Green) and the actual energy savings achieved in 2011 after the energy optimization program was completed on the building in February 2011 (Red). 4, ;an 4,000 3.500 3.000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 Natural Gas Consumption (GJ) Comparison e, JycA ■ Conventional building W Actual Target 45 M &C2011 — 325 - 4 - December 14, 2011 DASHBOARD SYSTEM Currently, the City of Saint John and the Saint John Transit Commission, in cooperation with Shift Energy Inc, an energy consulting firm, is working on a pilot project for the development of a Dashboard System that will provide the public with a real -time energy savings display of the Transit building. The Dashboard System will use a 42 inch LCD screen, and will be located at City Hall on the Mall level in front of the Visitor Information Centre. It will display real -time annual, monthly and daily water and energy savings data for the building. The following is a sample of the public view display of the Dashboard System: UmmeTIUM �. �nargy from I �$ �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 10Hhl TKWIT 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. 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 47 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 .• 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. 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 50 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 51 City of Saint John 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; 52 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 53 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. 54 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] 55 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 56 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 , %$ee % %yiAy�gid %yy%3i6A'in%� - R _ g47daRS9 � . '� �88-� _6.RARR79 :.9R2AAxARAR9:82Z� •... Eat 3 Y 9� I' ux<AIiEO ' .......................... ..... s 1 (J1 ry� 7v ml At.K.t9 9 ( � •Tangy. o-e a�i L dg �: ' III-tt -YEW Rmf ww 971 uEllengnEn °a �fEif' 8 F J `• ( a� d bb KLb fib j a @µ p E �Q$ s It ` i S 4 E3 95 S ` Ig'pi gg° o c o fi� 0 PA 1111il 6. �ooa alk t% E mQ MEg 31 $3ia s ��R 6� s Fw myE S aDz a � d E mnN1.RA �•• ° -6i Wiim *i � �PSq � d �a sssSi d x N�EES�F ��Y t WHIS!ssssNIsssssis � sssa � °s :4 asgz�sa P � i kSE886RBi:67C��RFC9a� i n � � sic aeAeate��P��1�8��� IGO &P�RAAR7SR�9 z �• ° °pQLAe Ai i ^S�4YS bb KLb 71:zr qt <.-. iY -. 1 / it R � JPAUn 7T- Jt 1, S i lid �6 LO f COE' P to. i lei, OAV RRE EWW- In i 01 9 )148 J X,4 Jr) E Jo C-4 ?iv :j.1, A", C-4:R 7f ibl P 04 \C4 q 00 x- -p p. d j 0 V)jgr I a, Jt' 7 j 4 cd 0 CY -4 IF A 3:a 2 W c °3 r= CL L 17J ca co �Ad-glv LO-i IN < 59 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 M -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 61 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 62 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. 63 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. Z 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. 65 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. 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. 67 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. .: 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. .• 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. 70 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. 71 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 72 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 73 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 74- 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 75 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 76 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 77 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. 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 79 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. :1 Sincerely, Jacqueline and Scott Donaldson 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 -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 i 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 83 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. ., 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). 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). 0 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). 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. 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. 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. M 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). 91 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 92 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. 93 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 91 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'echelle 95 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 i 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 97 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. S" ( REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C- 2012 -1 December 21, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing Date 3795 Loch Lomond Road and 67 Loch Lomond Road BACKGROUND: City of Saint john As provided in Common Council's resolution of August 3, 2004, this report indicates the rezoning and Section 39 amendment applications received and recommends an appropriate public hearing date. Details of the applications are available in the Common Clerk's office and will form part of the documentation presented at the public hearings. The following applications have been received. Name of Location Existing Proposed Reason Applicant Zone Zone Dan Estey 3795 Loch Lomond "RS -1" "RR" To permit a Road rural residential subdivision Comeau 67 Loch Lomond "R -2" MacKenzie Road Architecture (for Brian Burley) RECOMMENDATION: "R -4" To permit a new three- family dwelling That Common Council schedule the public hearings for the rezoning applications of Dan Estey (3795 Loch Lomond Road) and Comeau MacKenzie Architecture (for Brian Burley) (67 Loch Lomond Road) for Monday, January 30, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in 99 M & C —2012 —1 - 2 - December 21, 2011 the Council Chamber, and refer the applications to the Planning Advisory Committee for report and recommendation. Respectfully submitted, Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP Commissioner Planning and Development P k Woods, CGA nager 100 S. Z Saint John BOARD OF DIRECTORS President Louise Beland Beland Conference I nte rpreters Abby Colwell Vice- President Abby's Mortgages Treasurer Beverly Zirobwa Ernst & Young Secretary Kathryn Asher Human Development Council Past President Bob Boyce Robert L. Boyce Architect Pauline Cosgrove Retired Administrator Adam Dickinson de Stecher Appraisals Brian Duplessis Longshoreman Local 271 Marge Hamilton Retired Community Developer Don LeBlanc Century 21 INVESTOR CHAMPIONS Gerry Pond Leslie Oland Margaret -Anne Blaney Making a Difference One Investment at a Time Community Loan Fund Investing in People — Imfesrin,- in Community December 13, 2011 133 Prince Edward St. Saint John, NB E2L. 3S3 Tel 506 652 5600 - Fax 506 652 5603 E -mad loanfund(cbribnet nb.ca Website www.loanfund.ca Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council City of Saint John 15 Market Square, 8th Floor Saint John, NB E2L 1E8 Dear Mayor and Members of Common Council: Thank you for re- investing $50,000 in the Saint John Community Loan Fund. This is a sizable investment which provides stability in our pool, enabling us to get behind good ideas that make a difference in Saint John. We will continue to provide you with updates on our efforts to help individuals create income, build assets, and attain greater self - reliance. I have forwarded to Greg Yeomans a cheque for $6,275.44 representing the interest earned on the first term of your investment (October 23, 2007 to October 23, 2011) and also your Certificate of Investment for this renewal. Thanks again for your support. My best, Seth Asimakos General Manager Saint John Community loan Fund 101 wa -z- w A c- r -- -k ,�' 1Gi 5 -4- J %z k en f S � C o r i C. r� °� �% i c� � � C-4 � � a �rc%�i�rc� d ru IIA t% c5 r I_C"l �- �i lyq 2pnri ,°�"{- ± N5 C -L C (T � n 1 1j ,, C ilJ5 t !� a Cj1 ;II i/ lA 6' I l tie &t n C( � �' (� 1 � r �i d ry �1 c� co F iry rll -� I s im ;� t -e c� �1 . 6ti S e� LCD �Cti l d C�`5 �l�C C Gw ci �'?Lt-� j1 AAA/ k, �.J h e ),�-) - ,nv c i_ b (c� t,�% C�c v f1� - �� �� j� c� v 5 c v�j :W t I ccc 102 gc Symphony New Brunswick Presentation to Saint John Common Council January 2011 103 Agenda Opening remarks and introductions Contextual information about Canadian orchestras Contextual information about Municipal funding of Canadian orchestras Discussion of overall funding of Symphony New Brunswick, and history of operational funding with the City of Saint John Request to Council Background information on the: Role Symphony New Brunswick as an organization and its relationship to economic prosperity, its place in the province and on the national stage SNB's significance to the City of Saint John SNB's Foundation SNB's String Quartet SNB's financial model and track record Closing Remarks W111 SNB is one of the smaller Canadian orchestras Budget >$5M ■$1 M - $5M $500K - $1 M <$500K 8 orchestras ■ 11 orchestras 12 orchestras 22 orchestras Largest Toronto SO Kitchener- Newfoundland Prince George Smallest Winnipeg SO Waterloo SO Chebucto SO Symphony NS Symphony NB Saskatoon SO Vancouver Island Serving area 4.6M 600K 400K 100K population 700K 100K 100K 40K Largest Smallest Artistic Standard International Professional Semi -pro Community Strong semi -pro Community Amateur Core players 50 -100 10 -50 4 -15 0 -10 illl. ", Comparator group - orchestras serving similar markets I[IZ• Kitchener- Orchestra Victoria Symphony Windsor Regina SO Saskatoon Symphony Waterloo London SO Nova SO SO New SO Scotia Brunswick Approximate 300,000 348,000 350,000 400,000 325,000 300,000 200,000 350,000 serving area Budget $5.2M $2.8M $4.2M $3.9M $1.9M $2.1M $1.4M $522K Artistic Professional Professional Professional Professional Professional Semi- Semi- Semi - Standard professional professional professional Core players 52 29 34 37 38 12 10 4 Admin. Staff 14 6 11 10 10 5 4 1 Total hosted 258 76 102 70 95 64 39 44 concerts 2010 I[IZ• Municipal Funding for Orchestras in Canada To provide some context the chart below, based on the current Orchestras Canada Comparative Report, summarizes Municipal funding for orchestras serving similar populations in Canada Municipal Municipal Municipal Funding Funding Funding 2009 2010 2011 1 SNB 5,000 - - 2 Nova Scotia 12,500 30,000 22,000 3 Lac Saint -Jean 31,667 62,667 44,000 4 Newfoundland 65,833 50,000 50,000 5 Saskatoon 49,874 49,247 51,205 6 Kingston 20,000 80,000 75,000 7 Regina 93,500 142,500 125,000 8 Thunder Bay 154,481 175,000 215,000 9 Windsor 265,000 300,000 305,250 10 Victoria 357,900 375,250 395,000 11 London 426,918 472,435 482,688 Notes: The above peer group serve a population of less than 500,000 SNB has the lowest level of municipal funding 107 SNB Funding History With City of Saint John 2005 -2011 Summary �7 1 1 2006 - 0 - 2007 - 0 - 2008 $5,000 2009 $5,000 2010 -0- 2011 -0- Operating Grant Operating Grant Note: Since the establishment of the Saint John Community Arts Fund, SNB has been the recipient of several project grants. MI-01 SNB Request to Council ■Recognize that SNB is an important asset of the city that enhances its cultural make up, compliments its profile as a tourism and migration destination, and is a significant contributor to its local economy. ■Requests that the City consider a 3 year funding model similar to that of our Federal and Provincial funders. Such a multi -year model would assist SNB's planning process significantly. ■In recognition of the current economic environment, and the many other important demands on the City's resources. SNB requests that the annual instalment under the 3 year program be a modest $5,000. M10-J, SNB has a major role to play 110 No major urban centre in North America is without a symphony orchestra, and no province in Canada without at least one symphonic orchestra. Live classical music fills a social need in all sophisticated populations An intrinsic part of our European heritage which has taken root everywhere Platform for emerging local artists Star of New Brunswick Music Festival often featured in season programming Local musicians and composers are often featured in our annual programming Co- operative undertakings with other local performing arts groups; e.g. NBYO and Saint John Theatre Company Principal string musicians are Artists in Residence at UNBSJ Saint John's cultural infrastructure is vital to its economic prosperity Economic growth in the City is in part dependent on its social environment Southern New Brunswick has a growing deficit of workers Intense competition nationally for available workers and immigrants New high- skilled and educated workers want educational diversity and opportunity for their children To meet the competition, the area must have a vibrant arts community Aging and more affluent population will demand growth, diversity and quality in their leisure activities Increasing media attention to the arts recognizes its growing importance as a vital part of a mature and attractive communities for attracting new entrants 111 Symphony New Brunswick is New Brunswick's only symphony orchestra Largest performing arts organization in N.B. in scale 40 — 50 performances per year Employs up to 50 musicians Six full -time professional musicians under contract Since 1987, SNB has been directed by a professional Music Director as its principal conductor. Nurhan Arman — 1987- 2003 St6phane Laforest — appointed 2006 Michael Newnham — appointed 2009 Regularly introduces acclaimed guest artists, and features many prominent or rising stars from N.B. Committed to supporting works of Canadian Composers, including those from N.B. — Richard Kidd, Richard Gibson,Kelsey Jones, Eldon Rathburn 112 SNB makes it home base in Saint John Saint Johners' have embraced the Symphony as its own: 21 of the 28 members of the orchestra living in Saint John, as do many of the call list members Saint John has the largest annual subscription base of its 3 tour cities 80% of individual donations given by residents of the greater Saint John area Great potential for cost - effective co- productions with Saint John -based dance schools and theatre groups Is a valued customer of both the Imperial Theatre and the Saint John Arts Centre where it performs regularly and provides a dependable revenue source _ Supports local businesses such as hotels and restaurants, as it's conductor, guest artists, and guest musicians use Saint John as their home base while on tour. Approximately 80% of SNB's annual budget is recycled into the local community in the form of goods and services, or wages and fees. 113 i' The secret of SNB's success - low fixed costs and a program attuned to audience needs 4 SNB is a "professional" orchestra but employs many part -time musicians Cost of employing a full complement of full - time contract or "core" players is prohibitive SNB employs a small "core" of professionals Since 1987, the principal strings positions were filled by professional musicians (violin 1, violin ll, viola, cello) In 2011 two professional wind players were added Remaining players are under per - service contracts Some local players; some professionals imported from other provinces. Flexibility in sizing the orchestra using per- service players: Permits SNB to operate with low fixed costs Enables SNB to schedule a program matched to the needs of its market 114 Symphony New Brunswick Foundation Is located in Saint John An independent charitable foundation serving as SNB's endowment fund, incorporated in 1990 and registered with CRA. It has a six member Board with a majority independent of SNB and current assets of $1.1 Million Since inception, has contributed over $375,000 to SNB, making it the largest private sector donor to SNB and demonstrating the power of endowment funds. Normal annual grant to SNB is $20,000. Has used its "capital" on two occasions to significantly aid SNB in managing its financial affairs: (1) assumed responsibility for $125,000 of Symphony debt, 2001 to 2004 and (2) provided matching funds in 2007 to secure funds from Arts Stabilization Program of the NBFA which enabled repayment of SNB's remaining debt. Initiated its first public fund - raising campaign `VIVO' in 2008 and has raised almost $1 Million in endowed funds, despite recent economic down turn. This campaign's goal is to raise $2.5 M to endow 5 new professional chairs in the orchestra, which will significantly enhance artistic quality, allow increased touring options, allow further development of outreach programs, and will alleviate significant funds in SNB's annual budget. 115 SNB's String Quartet has celebrated 24 years as a Canadian cultural institution Originally created by SNB 24 years ago. Recognized as ambassadors for the City of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick on many occasions. Have performed internationally, most recently completing an 8 concert tour in France is the Fall of 2011 Have a successful performance record outside of SNB as the `Saint John String Quartet, who have just produced their 4t" CD, and have one East Coast music award to their credit All members have played a very important role in the province as private teachers, many of their students have _ gone on to start their own musical careers. 116 1= The Members of the String Quartet have made a major contribution As principals in SNB, they have contributed to a much higher standard of string - playing in the Orchestra. Filled a teaching void in southern N.B., which for years forced gifted students to travel out -of- Province for private instruction. The Quartet frequently performs for children Performs over 20 school concerts each year. Performs in public libraries for young children in multiple cities Coaches for the New Brunswick Youth Orchestra "...1 think how fortunate we are to have such people in our midst. " — Peter Buckland, Telegraph - Journal 117 SNB delivers a lot for a little SNB is a traveling orchestra Serves Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton with occasional performances in smaller communities. Annual travel costs $80,000, 16 % of budget Serves a market the size of metro Halifax with 23% of Symphony Nova Scotia's budget 12 -15 orchestral productions annually; more than 30 community outreach concerts; more than 10 chamber music presentations in multiple cities Annual budget of $500,000 (2011 -2012) 27% of SNB's budget financed at the box office in 2010 -11 will improve 47% of SNB's budget financed by private sector gifts, an acknowledgement of SNB's importance to the community 26% government financing very low 77% of all costs directly related to concert production Fees 48% ■ Travel • Admin Venues • Mktg • Other 23 42% Earned ■ Government ■ Private 35% 118 SNB has developed a strong fiscal management model Historically, SNB was plagued for years with a large accumulated debt Focus was on survival Cost containment at the expense of quality and artistic growth However, SNB has earned an operating surplus for eight consecutive years, unprecedented results in the orchestra world. SNB received substantial help from Symphony New Brunswick Foundation Inc. to eliminate all of it's past debt in 2007, and now remains debt -free Operationally, SNB is extremely lean with only one full -time administrative staff member SNB relies heavily on support from its volunteer groups in each of its 3 tour cites for event planning, and community marketing and fundraising 119 Recent Reduction in Operations SNB has had to reduce its operations, number of orchestral performances, and overall budget in recent years to remain financially viable during the recent economic downturn: # Orchestra 6 6 5 5 5 4 series Size of 645 K 550 K 530 K 520 K 513 K 480 K Budget SNB cannot reduce operations any further and remain a viable performance organization: Musicians need to play together regularly to maintain quality Subscribers and regular concert attendees want more season options New audience attraction is hindered by limited concert -style offerings Sponsor development is hindered by limited exposure opportunities With 1 administrative staff there is no overhead to reduce Note: during this period of contraction, SNB has not reduced any of its community outreach or educational programs for youths. 120 In closing: SNB wants to work with the city of Saint John and continue to add to its vibrancy. SNB recognizes the considerable number of requests the City has for its resources. SNB requests that council consider a 3 year funding model whereby an annual operating grant of $5,000 per year is agreed to for 2012, 2013, 2014. In the third year of this agreement a formal application to renew this agreement will be made. We thank you for your time. We are happy to take any questions you may have. 121 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT LEVY Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John has been requested by the Board of Directors of Uptown Saint John Inc. and intends to consider approving a budget for the designated Business Improvement Area, at its regular meeting to be held in the Council Chamber on January 3rd, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. TAXE SUR L'AM1✓LIORATION DES AFFAIRES Par les prdsentes, un avis public est donne par lequel le conseil communal de The City of Saint John, A la demande du conseil d'administration de Uptown Saint John Inc., indique son intention d'approuver un budget pour la zone d'am6lioration des affaires d6sign6e Tors de la r6union ordinaire qui se tiendra le 3 janvier 2012 A 19 h. The proposed budget for the Business Improvement Le budget propos6 pour la zone d'am6lioration des Area is as follows: affaires se r6partit comme suit : REVENUE BIA Levy $389,316.16 Employment Grants 3,500.00 Bad Debts Recovered 2,000.00 Capital Interest Waterfront Dev. 15,000.00 Events 6,000.00 Co- operative Marketing Campaigns 27,000.00 Miscellaneous Revenue 2,000.00 Total Revenue $444,816.16 Urban Design & Planning $28,900.00 Waterfront Development 15,000.00 Marketing 70,000.00 Environment 13,000.00 Events 26,000.00 Communications 14,500.00 Annual Meeting and Awards 12,500.00 Program Delivery 0 Operations 264,044.37 Non - Recoverable 871.79 Total Expenditures $444,816.16 The proposed levy to be imposed on non- residential property within the designated business improvement area is 16 cents per $100.00 of assessment for 2012. Pursuant to the Business Improvement Areas Act the said proposed budget shall not be approved if objections in writing are filed with the undersigned not later than December 29, 2011 jointly or independently by one -third or more of all non- residential users or by non - residential users who would together be liable to pay one -third or more RECETTES Taxe sur la zone d'am6lioration des affaires 389,316.16$ Subventions a 1'emploi 3500.00 Recouvrement de mauvaises creances 2 000.00 Participation au capital visant 15 000.00 1'am6nagement riverain Communications Ev6nements 6000.00 Campagnes de mercatique symbiotique 27 000.00 Recettes diverses 2000.00 Recettes totales 444,816.16$ DEPENSES Conception et planification urbaine 28900.00$ Amdnagement nveram 15 000.00 Marketing 70 000.00 Environnement 13 000.00 Ev6nements 26 000.00 Communications 14 500.00 Assemblde annuelle et prix 12 500.00 R6alisation de programmes 0 Exploitation 264 044.37 D6penses non recouvrables 871.79 D6penses totales 444816.16$ La taxe prdvue sur les biens -fonds non r6sidentiels situ&s dans la zone d'amdlioration des affaires d6signee sera de 0,16 $ par tranche de 100 $ d'6valuation pour Fan 2012. En vertu de la Loi sur les zones d'amelioration des affaires, le budget prevu ne doit pas titre approuv6 si des objections par 6crit sont ddposdes au soussign6 au plus tard le 29 decembre 2011, conjointement ou ind6pendamment, par un tiers ou plus de tous les utilisateurs non r6sidentiels ou par un groupe d'utilisateurs non rdsidentiels qui 122 of the amount to be raised by a levy. Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk 658 -2862 seraient responsables de payer un tiers ou plus du montant a prelever au moyen d'une taxe. Elizabeth Gormley, Greffiere communale 658 -2862 123 A LAW TO AMEND BY -LAW NUMBER BIA -2 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT LEVY BY -LAW Be it enacted by the Common Council of the City of Saint John as follows: The Business Improvement Levy By -law of The City of Saint John enacted on the third day of January, 2006, is amended by: ARRETE MODIFL4NT ARRtTE No BIA -2 ARRETE CONCERNANT LA CONTRIBUTION POUR L'AMELIORATION DES AFFAIRES Le conseil communal de The City of Saint John d6crete ce qui suit : L'arret6 concernant la contribution pour l'amdlioration des affaires de The City of Saint John d6crdt6le 3 janvier 2006 est modifi6 par: 1 Repealing section 2 thereof and inserting 1 1'abrogation de Particle 2 aux pr6sentes et the following: 1'ajout du texte qui suit : 2 A levy of 16 cents for each one hundred dollars of assessed value is hereby imposed for 2012 upon non - residential property within the Business Improvement Area established by By -law No. BIA -1 Business Improvement Area By -law enacted on the 5t' day of January, 2004. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2012 and signed by: Mayor /maire 2 Par la pr6sente, une contribution de 16 cents par tranche de cent dollars par rapport a la valeur fix6e est impos6e pour 1'ann6e 2010 sur les immeubles non r6sidentiels situ6s a l'intdrieur de la zone d'am6lioration des affaires dtablie en vertu de 1'Arret6 n BIA -1 relatif a la zone d'amdlioration des affaires 6dict6 le 5 janvier 2004. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le pr6sent arretd le *, * 2012, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffi&e communale First Reading Premiere lecture - Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture Third Reading Troisieme lecture 124 BY -LAW NUMBER C.P. 110 -186 A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY -LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as 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 PH) No. 00023424, from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential pursuant to a resolution adopted by Common Council under Section 39 of the Community Planning Act. - 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 ARRETE No C.P. 110 -186 ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Lors dune reunion du conseil communal, The City of Saint John a decret6 cc qui suit : L'arrete sur le zonage de The City of Saint John, d6cr6t6 le dix -neuf (19) d6cembre 2005, est modifi6 par: 1 La modification de 1'annexe <A», Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, permettant de modifier la d6signation pour une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 3 600 m6tres carr6s, situ6e au 265, avenue extension Hawthorne, et portant le NID 00023424, de zone r6sidentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales <<R -2» A zone r6sidentielle — habitations de quatre logements <<R -4» conformement a une resolution adoptee par le conseil municipal en vertu de Particle 39 de la Loi sur l'urbanisme. - toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur le plan ci joint et font partie du pr6sent arrdt6. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le pr6sent arrete le 2012, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffiere communale First Reading - December 19, 2011 Premiere lecture - le 19 decembre 2011 Second Reading - December 19, 2011 Deuxi&me lecture - le 19 decembre 2011 Third Reading - Troisi6me lecture - 125 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT / URBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT REZONING 1 REZONAGE Amending Schedule "A' of the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John Modifiant Annexe «A» de I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John 4j0m�� 1l ly b FROM / DE b o •' e1 �e yam. e e• s r M e b 0 a R AitOr, Walt IL a� °y. a s 0 TO / A R -2 R -4 One and Two Family Residential Four Family Residential / / zone residentielle- habitations zone residentielle- habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales de quatre logements Pursuant to a Resolution under Section 39 of the Community Planning Act * Conformement a une resolution adoptee par le conseil municipal en vertu de I'article 39 de la Loi sur Purbanisme Applicant: Larry Salmon Location: 265 avenue extension Hawthorne Avenue Extension P1D(s) /NIP(s) 00023424 06N89NE Drawn By /Creee Par: David Couture Date Drawn /Carte Creee: December 22 decembre, 2011 Considered by P.A.C. /considers par le C.C.U.: December 13 decembre, 2011 Enacted by Council /Approuvs par le Conseil: Filed in Registry Office /Enregistrs le: By -Law #/Arrete #: 126 Section 39 Conditions -265 Hawthorne Avenue Extension That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Plonning Act, the proposed rezoning of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 3600 square metres, located at 26S Hawthorne Avenue Extension, also identified as 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. 127 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 DANS THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN EDICTE 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 reunion du conseil municipal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a ddcretd 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 "' 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, 1'arret6 de The City of Saint John intitule « 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 », ddcrdte le 19 decembre 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 unilateral 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 Phivers — est modifide par Padjonction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants : 128 Street Limits Rues Limites Lancaster Street Suffolk Street to Clarence rue Lancaster de la rue Suffolk a la rue Street Clarence 4 Schedule H -- Alternate Side Parking November 15 — April 30 - is amended by adding the following words under the following headings Street Limits Lancaster Street Suffolk Street to Clarence Street 4 L'Annexe H — Stationnement unilateral alterne du 15 novembre au 30 avril — est modifiee par 1'adjonction des mots suivants sous les titres suivants Rues Limites rue Lancaster de la rue Suffolk a la rue Clarence IN WITNESS 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 arrete City to be affixed to this by -law the day le 2011, avec les signatures of , A.D. 2011 signed by: suivantes : Mayor /Maire Common Clerk/greffie communale First Reading - December 19, 2011 Premiere lecture - le 19 decembre 2011 Second Reading - December 19, 2011 Deuxieme lecture - le 19 decembre 2011 Third Reading - Troisieme lecture 129 BY -LAW NUMBER M -16 A BY -LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW RESPECTING WATER AND SEWERAGE Be it enacted by the Common Council of the City of Saint John as follows: ARRETE No M -16 ARRETE MODIFIANT VARRETE CONCERNANT LE RESEAU WEAU ET D'EGOUTS Le conseil communal de The City of Saint John 6dicte : A by -law of the City of Saint John entitled Par les pr6sentes, Farr&6 de The City of "A By -law Respecting Water and Sewerage" Saint John intitul6 « Arretd concernant les r6seaux enacted on the 7t` day of June, A.D. 2004, is hereby d'eau et d'6gouts », 6dict6 le 7 juin 2004, est amended as follows: modifi6 comme suit: 1 Schedules "A" and "B" are repealed and 1 Les annexes <A» et «B» sont abrogdes et the following are substituted therefor: sont remplac6es par celles qui figurent aux pr6sentes. SCHEDULE "A" Effective January 1", 2012 Flat rats: customers Flat rate customers Yearly $438.00 Water charge SCHEDULE "B" Effective January 1St, 2012 METERED C'USTOMER.S - WoO ER SE S V IC£ MA RGE Meter Size Yearly ($) Monthly ($) 1 Bi- Monthl $ 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 1 158.12 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 ME,7 ER£D a US'IUMERS - C ONSLMPI ION CHARGE monthly (b m) Bi- Monthly (by m Conswnption (1,13) Rate ($/m) Consumption (m) Rate ($!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 IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Common Seal of the said City to be affixed to this by -law the * * ** day of * * * * * ** A.D. 2012 and signed by: First Reading Second Reading Third Reading Mayor /maire ANNEXE «A» En vigueur le 1 of j anvier 2012 Tarif forfaltaire pour le. clients Tarif forfaitaire pour Tarif 438,00$ les clients annuel 216.36 Redevance sur Feau 36.06 20mm ANNEXE <d3» En vigueur le 1" janvier 2012 CLIENTS AN EC C:OAIPTEUR- TARIFDIS SLRVIi:FS D'F_y[ Dimension du com teur Tarif annue] $ Tarif mensuel $ Tari 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 100rnm 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 10,485.96 873.83 1,747.66 CLIENTS P.N E.0 COIVIPIEUR - FRAIS DE CONSONIMATION MENSUEL ET BIMESTRIEL Mensuels (par m) Bimestriels (par m ) Consommation Frais Consommation Frais m3 $ /m3 m3 $/m3 Pour les 50 1,0974 Pour les 100 1,0974 premiers m3 premiers m3 Pour les 0,6988 Pour les 0,6988 124 950 m3 249 900 m3 suivants I suivants Pour toute 0,2466 Pour toute 0,2466 consommation consommation au -delh de au -deli de 125 000 m3 250 000 m' Renvetsement 0,1100 Renversement 0,1100 EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le pr6sent arretd le * * ** * * * * ** 2011, avec les signatures suivantes : Common Clerk/Greffidre communale - December 19, 2011 Premi6re lecture - December 19, 2011 Deuxieme lecture - Troisieme lecture 130 - le 19 decembre 2011 - le 19 decembre 2011 City Hall P.O. Box 1971 15 Market Square Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 Dec 22, 2011 Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Re: Policy for use of City owned Vehicles A" City of Saint John Council has asked for and has been given a report by an outside consultant who conducted an overview of the City's fleet. The report outlined a number of items that staff are doing effectively and a couple of areas that need more attention. Staff reported at that same meeting, that they have already begun taking steps in some of the areas identified in the report that need attention. One of the areas identified in the report is the lack of a policy that governs the use of City owned vehicles. It is not only good business sense to have such a policy, it also makes sense to let employees know what they can and cannot do while using a City owned vehicle. Over the years there have been many reports by Citizens who believe they have seen City vehicles used inappropriately. I believe it is overdue for our City to have a policy on the appropriate use of City owned vehicles. To this end, I move that Council direct the City Manager to have the appropriate staff draft a governance policy on the appropriate use and non - appropriate use of City owned vehicles. And be it further resolved, that this draft report be presented to Council no later than the first Council meeting of March 2012. Respectfully, (Received via email) Bill Farren Councillor The City of Saint John 131 City Hall 15 Market Square January 3, 2012 Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court & Members of Common Council: P.O. Box 1971 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 Re: New Local Governance System "Plan" f�S�it l- City of Saint John As Council's representative on Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission ( "FRSW "), please be advised that the Action Plan /New Local Governance System in New Brunswick will impact and shift the way this commission is administered. There are clear actions outlined which will transition FRSWC into a new Regional Service Commission effective January 2013. As I understand the new "plan ", (12) multi - purpose regional service commissions will have the initial responsibility for planning, solid waste management, regional policing collaboration, regional EMO planning and regional sport, recreation and cultural planning and cost - sharing. This plan has general information as it relates to FRSWC however very limited details. As your representative, I will attempt to keep Council updated on changes and the path forward once this is provided by the Provincial Government. Motion: Receive for information Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) Chris Titus Councillor — Saint John 132 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2012 -3 December 20, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Contract No. 2011 -23: Rodney Terminal Outfall Renewal Phase 2 (Cured -In -Place Pipe) BACKGROUND rn 7 The City of Saint lolu The City of Saint John has a major stormwater outfall sewer that runs from near Market Place on the Lower West Side, through an easement under a series of railway tracks and across Port Authority property to the harbour. The sewer, constructed at different times [ 1930s, 1970s] and of various materials [timber, corrugated metal, concrete] was in poor condition and in urgent need of renewal. The sewer also serves as an overflow line for the Market Place Lift Station, constructed as part of the initial implementation of the 1993 Wastewater Strategy [Harbour Clean -Up] in 1995. The sewer is equipped with a tidal gate approximately 80 metres back from the outfall. This metal flap gate is designed to allow stormwater flows from high ground to pass when tide levels allow, but to hold back seawater during higher Bay of Fundy tides. The gate, which has been refurbished twice over the last five years, can malfunction. The project to replace this major storm sewer has been organized into three parts: ■ Phase 1: removal of approximately 180 metres of 1.2 metre by 1.8 metre timber sewer [1930s] and replacement with a 2100mm diameter concrete sewer by open cut. ■ Phase 2: rehabilitation [structural lining] of about 390 metres of 2100mm corrugated metal pipe [CMP 1970s] across Rodney Terminal by cured -in -place method. ■ Phase 3: installation of a check valve, as a second mechanism for holding back seawater during high tides. The 2011 General Fund Capital Program includes a project for renewal of the Rodney Terminal outfall sewer. Phase 1 was completed under Contract 2010 -26. Structural lining of the 2100mm corrugated metal pipe from the end of Phase 1 to the outfall at the harbour will be undertaken in Phase 2. 133 Contract No. 2011 -23: Rodney Terminal Outfall Renewal — Phase 2 December 20, 2011 M & C 2012- 3 Page 4 Phase 2 consists generally of the rehabilitation of approximately 390m of 2100mm diameter corrugated metal pipe sewer; a section that extends from the corner of the American Iron & Metal employee parking lot, across the Terminal property, to the outfall into the harbour. A resin impregnated BUNE flexible tube will be inverted into the existing CMP by use of a hydrostatic head or air pressure. The cured -in- place pipe [CIPP] lining method will follow ASTM Standard F1216 -09 [Standard Practice for Rehabilitation of Existing Pipelines and Conduits by AFTER Inversion and Curing of Resin Impregnated Tube]. The work to be performed shall include all labour, equipment /tools, materials, engineering design and supervision to structurally rehabilitate the sewer, including reinstatement of service connections. It also includes all sewer cleaning, preparation, CCTV inspections and any required flow control and/or flow bypass necessary. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on December 14, 2011 with the following results: 1. Insituform Technologies® Limited, Hamilton, ON $3,459,775.24 The Engineer's estimate for the work was $2,488,163.95. ANALYSIS The tender was reviewed by staff and found to be formal in all respects. Staff is of the opinion that the tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to perform the work. The company has successfully completed similar projects throughout North America [including an 1800mm sewer pipe lined in late 2000 /early 2001 at Long Wharf]. In accordance with Section 2.9.02 of the General Specifications, the City engaged in post -bid negotiations with the tenderer seeking to reduce contract costs. Given that only one bid was received, staff sought to ensure best value for the funds being allocated. The submitted Schedule of Quantities and Unit Prices was reviewed with the tenderer in an effort to identify areas where agreed upon scope changes could provide cost savings. Changes agreed upon are as follows: • Renewal with concrete pipe of a 30m section by open cut excavation and elimination of the corresponding length of lining. This section presented a risk for lining as its condition was compressed into an `oval' shape. The contractor would have had to incorporate a second "inversion" to line this section. • For liner design purposes, the project specification identified the design ground water table to be at ground surface. Closer review determined that the extreme 134 Contract No. 2011 -23: Rodney Terminal Outfall Renewal — Phase 2 December 20, 2011 M & C 2012- 3 Page 4 high water level was actually at an elevation of one metre below ground level. As a result, design thickness of the liner could be reduced to correlate with the actual extreme high water level - with a corresponding cost reduction. By incorporating these changes into the project, savings of $363,801 were identified, bringing the negotiated tender price to $3,095,973.89. Phase 1 open cut excavation cost approximately $7,382 per metre. Using this value and assuming all other conditions equal, the replacement of 390m of pipe in Phase 2 by open cut excavation would cost about $2,878,980; in the range of the new negotiated tender price. Another important consideration for this project, however, is that open cutting this section would require working around extensive underground and above ground infrastructure. This would mean a higher unit price cost than Phase 1. Also, Port activity would be significantly impacted by an open cut as the pipe runs directly through Rodney Terminal. The sewer is approximately 6.5m deep and, as such, would require an extensive shoring system (additional costs) for the entire length of construction. In summary, it is the opinion of staff that it would be very risky and more expensive to attempt an open cut for rehabilitation of the Phase 2 portion of outfall pipe. The critical location, deteriorating condition of this outfall sewer and risk of failure make rehabilitation an urgent matter; the project needs to proceed. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The Contract includes a project approved under the 2011 General Fund Capital Program — Storm. Assuming award of the Contract to the tenderer, an analysis has been completed which includes the estimated amount of work to be performed by City forces and others. The 2011 Program includes $3,336,528 for this project [$1,721,528 under the Gas Tax Fund and $1,615,000 City Share]. The projected completion cost for the entire Rodney Terminal Outfall Rehabilitation program is estimated at just over $4,982,000. This amount includes the cost of recently completed Phase 1 [$1,640,780], Phase 2 at a net cost of $2,975,229 and Phase 3 projected at $366,000. The final piece involves a new inline check valve on the sewer to provide additional flood protection (from seawater) for the Lower West Side. Prior to tendering Phase 2, a $975,000 supplemental funding project was submitted under the proposed 2012 General Fund Capital Program — Storm. It will be further required to redirect Gas Tax funding [$860,000] planned for the Lorneville Road drainage improvements project at Mill Creek, to the Rodney Terminal Outfall Renewal bringing funding for that program to a total of $5,171,528. The deferral of Lorneville Road project arises from a recently received preliminary design report that indicates a bridge structure would be more appropriate than a large culvert at Mill Creek. Construction of such structures is the jurisdiction of the NB Department of Transportation. We also understand that DOT had removed an earlier structure some time prior to it turning over responsibility for Lorneville Road to the City. 135 Contract No. 2011 -23: Rodney Terminal Outfall Renewal — Phase 2 December 20, 2011 M & C 2012- 3 Page 4 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. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. Contract 2011 -23: Rodney Terminal Outfall Renewal — Phase 2 [Cured -In -Place Pipe] be awarded to the tenderer, Insituform Technologies° Limited, at a negotiated tender price of $3,095,973.89 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents; 2. The Supplemental Funding project proposed under the 2012 General Fund Capital Program — Storm Category in the amount of $975,000 be approved; 3. The Lorneville Road project at Mill Creek (drainage improvements) in the amount of $860,000 Other Share under the 2005 -2009 Gas Tax Funding Agreement be replaced with a Rodney Terminal Outfall Renewal project. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng. Commissioner, Municipal Operations and Engineering J. Patrick Woods, CGA City Manager 136 REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C2012 -2 December 22, 2011 His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council: The City of Saint )ohn SUBJECT: Contract 2011 -34: Tippett Drive — Sanitary Lift Station #33 & Force Main 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 Tippett Drive — Sanitary Lift Station #33 & Force Main. 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 #2, Newmans Brook Sewer Separation, Spar Cove Pumping Station #22, Harbour Station Lift Station #10 and Riverview Avenue Lift Station #30. Crown Street Lift Station #8, Bridge Street Lift Station #23 and Milford Road Lift Station #32 are scheduled to be completed by June 2012. TENDER RESULTS Tenders closed on December 21, 2011, for the Tippett Drive — Sanitary Lift Station #33 & Force Main project with the following results: 1. Fairville Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB 2. Valley Excavation Services Inc., Quispamsis, NB 3. Galbraith Construction Ltd., Saint john, NB 4. Gulf Operators Ltd., Saint John, NB 5. Dexter Construction Company Ltd., Bedford, NS 6. Maguire Excavating Ltd., Saint John, NB The Engineer's estimate for the work was $989,342.12 137 $817,870.00 $862,117.68 $977,925.73 $1,008,065.09 $1,129,276.80 $1,242,982.94 M &C2012 -2 December 22, 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 $1,363,429.18 was provided in the budget to complete the construction of Lift Station 33 and force main. The projected completion cost of this Contract is estimated to be $830,206.22 including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate, a $533,222.96 positive difference. To date, the cumulative amount committed through award of Harbour Clean-Up Program projects is $81,681,770.78 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 -34: Tippett Drive — Sanitary Lift Station #33 & Force Main be awarded to the low tenderer, Fairville Construction Ltd., at the tendered price of $817,870.00 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groo y, P. Eng. J. Patrick Woods, CGA Commissioner City Manager Municipal Operations & Engineering 138