The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-04-06_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourAGENDA COMMON COUNCIL- as at Thursday, April 1, 1999. 1. Meeting called to order, 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 6, 1999 - prayer. 2. Approval of minutes (March 29, 1999). 3. Mayor's remarks. CITY MANAGER 4. Re Year 2000 computer problem. 5. Re system of status reporting for capital programs. 6. Re tender calls for capital projects. 7_ Re request to expend monies from Stockford Memorial Trust Fund (see also item 10)_ 8. Report re tender for collection of residential solid waste. 9. Report re tender for asphaltic concrete mixes_ CITY SOLICITOR 10_ Re proposed expenditure from the Stockford Memorial Fund. COMMON CLERK 11. Third reading of proposed Municipal Plan amendment re Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan (1St & 2 d readings given March 29). 12. Third reading of proposed Zoning By -Law amendment to re -zone property, 91 Prince Edward Street (1St & 2"d readings given March 29). 13. Re application of G.A. (Sandy) Robertson for Municipal Plan amendment and re- zoning of property at 177- 187 Manners Sutton Road (public presentation March 1, 1999). COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS 14. 1998 auditor's report and financial statements for Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission. GENERAL 15. Letter from Elizabeth Fry Society of Saint John re Police Commission membership_ 16. Letter from Eric L. Teed re policy on appointments to boards and commissions. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:30 p.m. 17. 4:30 p.m. -- Hearing of taxi license appeal. 17A_ 4:45 p.m. — Teach -in re Municipalities Act review. 18. Re agreement for Fire Fighters Museum, 25 Sydney Street (City Manager). 19_ Re proposed development at Mispec Park (City Manager). 20. Letter from Tony Rickett re land for Imax project. 21. City Manager's update. 22. Mayor's update. LEGAL SESSION 23_ Re Board of Inquiry under Human Rights Act (City Solicitor). 24. Re ownership and control of Lily Lake Pavilion (City Solicitor)_ AGENDA COMMON COUNCIL- as at Thursday, April 1, 1999. 1. Meeting called to order, 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 6, 1999 - prayer. 2. Approval of minutes (March 29, 1999). 3. Mayor's remarks. CITY MANAGER 4. Re Year 2000 computer problem. 5. Re system of status reporting for capital programs. 6. Re tender calls for capital projects. 7. Re request to expend monies from Stockford Memorial Trust Fund (see also item 10) 8. Report re tender for collection of residential solid waste. 9. Report re tender for asphaltic concrete mixes. CITY SOLICITOR 10. Re proposed expenditure from the Stockford Memorial Fund. COMMON CLERK 11. Third reading of proposed Municipal Plan amendment re Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan (1' & 2nd readings given March 29). 12. Third reading of proposed Zoning By -Law amendment to re -zone property, 91 Prince Edward Street (15' & 2nd readings given March 29). 13. Re application of G.A. (Sandy) Robertson for Municipal Plan amendment and re- zoning of property at 177- 187 Manners Sutton Road (public presentation March 1, 1999). COMMITTEES /COMMISSIONS 14. 1998 auditor's report and financial statements for Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission. GENERAL 15. Letter from Elizabeth Fry Society of Saint John re Police Commission membership. 16. Letter from Eric L. Teed re policy on appointments to boards and commissions. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - 4:30 p.m. 17. 4:30 p.m. — Hearing of taxi license appeal. 17A. 4:45 p.m. — Teach -in re Municipalities Act review. 18. Re agreement for Fire Fighters Museum, 25 Sydney Street (City Manager). 19. Re proposed development at Mispec Park (City Manager). 20. Letter from Tony Rickett re land for ]max project. 21. City Manager's update. 22. Mayor's update. LEGAL SESSION 23. Re Board of Inquiry under Human Rights Act (City Solicitor). 24. Re ownership and control of Lily Lake Pavilion (City Solicitor). REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M &C 99- March 29, 1999 Her Worship Shirley A McAlary and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Year 2000 Computer Problem BACKGROUND City of Saint John The matter of the potential impact of the Year 2000 computer problem on individuals, businesses and governments has been the source of much research, speculation and conjecture for a number of years and has received heighten public attention in the past 12 -- 18 months. Recently the City .Solicitor discussed with Council various matters related to the Y2K issue and also outlined, in broad terms, an appropriate course of action to take in response. The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the action staff is undertaking as a result of the Y2K issue. ANALYSIS In the summer of 1998, the City established a Year 2000 Project Temn. Comprised of representatives of all city departments, the Committee has held a number of meetings commencing in September 1998_ The Project Team has established an `Action Plan' which is serving as a guide to a number of initiatives: M & C 99- March 29,1999 Page 2 1.0 Objectives ® The objective has been established to be Year 2000 'Ready' not Year 2000 `Compliant'. As such corporate priorities will be addressed first, followed by departmental priorities. The following definition of `readiness' has been established:' "Software or devices utilizing dates within them will continue to perform adequately for specific business functions) during the change over to the next century. " The key words in this definition are `adequately' and `specific business function'. It is the responsibility of individual departments to define what they will accept as adequate performance in the context of a specific function. For example, the fact that a particular device will not handle dates correctly may have no impact at all on their business and they may therefore decide not to replace or fix it. • The Year 2000 Standard BSI (See DISC PD2000 --- 1:1998) A Definition of Year 2000 Conformity Requirements has been adopted; " Year 2000 conformity shall mean that neither performance nor functionality is affected by dates prior to, during and after year 2000. in particular: Rule 1 No value for current date will cause any interruption in operation ' Introduction, Year 2000 Corporate Plan, City of Calgary M &C99- March 29,1999 Page 3 Rule 2 Date -based functionality must behave consistently for dates prior to, during and after year 2000. Rule 3 In all interfaces and data storage, the century in any date must be specified either explicitly or by unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules Rule 4 Year 2000 must be recognized as a leap year. + Adopted the following as the Critical services: 1. Fire Suppression 2. Police patrols 3. Potable (drinking) water 4. Streets S. Waste Water Treatment 2.0 Vendor Management + Developed and implemented a system to determine the current or future readiness of items supplied by vendors. * Developed and implemented a system to determine the Y2K readiness of vendors that supply products or services to the City. + Developed and implemented an attachment to all tenders /requests for quotations etc. regarding Y2K compliance of vendors. 3.0 Departmental Process + Undertaken an inventory of potential Y2K sensitive items by all City departments. M & C 99- March 29, 1999 Page 4 • Developed and are implementing a departmental process for evaluating and testing the inventoried items for Y2K readiness. • A comprehensive model for the preparation of corporate and departmental contingency plans is being developed and will be implemented shortly. 4.0 Quality Assurance • A `Quality Assurance' program to monitor and evaluate departmental progress against the stated objectives for Y2K readiness is being developed and will be implemented shortly. 5.0 Communication • Developed and implemented a system to respond to requests for information regarding the state of the City's Y2K compliance. • The Executive Committee receives regular updates on the status of the project. • A plan for communicating with all City employees as well as the public is nearing completion. In conjunction with the activities of the Year 2000 Project Team, there are also a number of other ongoing activities: El The City is currently installing a new Management Information System which in part will respond to identified Year 2000 issues with existing applications such as the Local Government Financial System (LGFS). M & C 99- March 29,1999 Page 5 R1 The City's Emergency Measures Organization (EMO) has initiated steps to prepare contingency plans to respond to potential Year 2000 associated incidents- Staff is participating in a number of regular information sessions with other agencies regarding Y2K. It is important to stress to Council and to the public that while the City has made and is making efforts to identify and deal with the potentially adverse effects of the Year 2000 computer problem on its operations, the City does not, at this time, represent or guarantee that all of its operations, including the services that it provides, will not be adversely affected by the Year 2000 computer problem. We will continue to update Council on our activities on a regular basis in the coming months. RECOMAMNDATIONS It is recommended that this report be received and filed. e�spe fully Submitted, //I D. Todd Director, Information Systems and Support 4L /Altb�— An rew Beckett omm. sioner, Corpora rvices Terrence L. Totten, CA City Manager RE OR TO CONUVION COUNCIL M &C99 -103 March 22, 1999 Her Worship Mayor Shirley McAlary and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Status Reporting - Capital Programs Trans ortation/Storm/Water/Sanita BACKGROUND city of Saint John Annually, Common Council adopts Capital Programs designed to address the long -term needs (repair, reconstruction and upgrading) of the City's transportation, storm drainage, water, and sewerage infrastructures. General Fund allocations, over the period 1994 to 1998, have ranged from $5.16 million to $3.2 million. The 1999 programs in transportation, storm drainage and environment total $4.25 million. In the Water and Sewerage Fund, capital levels have remained relatively constant in the range of $6.5 million to $6.8 million. The infusion of adequate Capital resources for ongoing programs of repair and reconstruction ensures the viability of street and utility systems, and protects against premature system breakdowns and much larger expenditures over the long -term. These annual allocations are critical in maintaining standards of service. Purpose As important as sufficient allocations of resources is the need to understand how those resources are being used - at all levels of the municipal organization. To that end, this report seeks to outline a proposed method for regular reporting on the status of Capital Programs, and to provide information to date on 1998 Capital Programs. We will also review costing issues and briefly outline the project administration process. M& C99 -103 Status Reporting— Capital Programs March 22, 1999 Page 2 ANALYSIS Municipal Operations has sought to achieve two critical goals with respect to the annual Capital Programs: 1. submission of recommended project lists in conjunction with the budget preparation cycle, in the fall of each year; and 2. regular reporting on the status of programs. Budget Submission It has been our goal to advance the planning phase for development of Capital programs. We would like to see budget and program decisions made early - to allow the lead time required for engineering and design, tendering and effective project scheduling. A team of staff has worked hard to move the Capital Budget cycle ahead by about six months. The proposed 1999 project lists were available much earlier than had previously been the case. We hope that decisions can be made in September or October 1999 for Millennium Year programs. Status Reporting The Capital Programs Status Report provides a detailed budget analysis - with cost information and work status provided by project. This particular report covers 1998 programs for the period ending February 281h , 1999. It is proposed that a project status update be provided to Council on a quarterly basis for the periods ending May 315`, August 31'. November 30' and February 28' of each year. Regular and timely status reporting is an essential program management tool - for every level of responsibility. We are looking to provide a running picture on the status of approved Capital projects, with information made accessible to all stakeholders. Eventually, as our information systems develop, it should become available on -line. M& C99 -103 Status Reporting — Capital Programs March 22, 1999 Page 3 1998 Capital Programs Having established Capital Program funding levels (budget envelopes) on January 19", 1998, Common Council approved the actual project lists for transportation, storm drainage, environment, water, sanitary sewer and infrastructure on April 6"', 1998. A total of 122 projects were approved at that time, a number of which represent different parts of larger combined-jobs: • transportation - 50 • storm drainage - 9 • environment - 1 • water - 34 • sanitary sewer - 25 • infrastructure - 3 Projects for the reconstruction of McLaughlin Road and the completion of Dantes Drive were added later to the transportation program by Council, as was the installation of a new sewage lift station on Millidge Avenue to the sanitary sewer program. The additional resources required to restore the sewer outfall at Long Wharf resulted in deferral or partial deferral of seven smaller water and sewer projects. Estimated Versus Actual Costs The estimated costs put forward at the time of program approval represent the best predictions of individual project costs - from limited project information available at the time. Many factors come into play in estimating the scope and value of work required in addressing a particular need or problem. On a typical water and sewerage job, for example, these include land acquisition, type of infrastructure, soil conditions, existing storm drainage, overall length of project, replacement of service laterals, additional infrastructure required for improved service, surface reinstatement, possible engineering design fees, and work by City forces. We would emphasize the limited nature of hard data available in the earlier stages of project development. While the package of information becomes more inclusive as survey and detail design work is completed, it is unrealistic to expect that all eventualities can be predicted with certainty. Attempting to do so would be cost prohibitive - an inefficient use of limited engineering resources. M& C99 -103 Status Reporting — Capital Programs March 22, 1999 Page 4 During the tendering and construction phases of a project, circumstances can change. In addition to the influence of economic conditions and competition within the industry, the cost of a particular project can be affected by changes in site conditions, actual work units (quantities) undertaken, and necessary extra work that is required to satisfactorily complete a project. A contingency allowance in the estimate is provided for unforeseen items and other conditions, which could not be reasonably anticipated. Achieving effective results in the field requires that the project engineer exercise a reasonable degree of discretion. This flexibility ensures timely, cost - effective decisions to deal with project circumstances as they arise. These can involve such things as changes in quantities from that previously estimated and extra work to properly complete the project or to correct an unforeseen construction problem. In most cases, such changes fall within the project's contingency allowance. On occasion, they will not. On project completion, all costs incurred are identified - contract, work by City forces and other costs, such as those for land acquisition and design services. The final (actual) cost of a particular project may vary from the amount originally estimated. Through timely cost analysis, these variations are monitored to ensure that individual project fluctuations do not exceed the program total approved by Council. Added expenditures in one project must be offset by known savings in others or the elimination (with Council approval) of one or more projects from the program. On the other hand, significant cost reductions or savings in any one or group of projects could free up funding for other necessary work - not originally thought possible. Final project costs are not available until final accounting of actual quantities (units of work) has been settled. This usually occurs some time after completion of work in the field. Progress Payments - Contracts Progress payments are made as work proceeds on a project. The contractor or consultant submits a progress claim to the engineer at the end of the month for estimated values of work completed during that month. The engineer reviews the claim for completeness and accuracy. Upon approval, a payment certificate is processed and forwarded to Finance for payment. A fifteen - percent (15 %) holdback is retained on the work performed to that date. The process continues on a monthly basis for the duration of the project. M& C99-103 Status Reporting — Capital Programs March 22, 1999 Page 5 The nature of the work being carried out is such that projects often will require extra, previously unforeseen work to be undertaken during the construction phase. The contingency sum is included in contracts to cover the costs normally associated with these items. Extra work performed during any month may be included in that month's claim, however, in many cases the contractor will withhold the claim for "extras" to the end of the project. This is generally due to time restraints on the contractor during the construction season. When, in the opinion of the engineer, the project is substantially complete and any required tests have been successfully completed, a certificate of substantial completion is issued to the contractor. The contractor must then complete any finishing work expeditiously and finalize quantities with the engineer. Final quantities are based on measurements taken in the field and notes kept by City field inspectors. The "final cost" of a tendered project normally differs somewhat from the original "tender amount ". The Contractor is paid pnly for units of work actually completed (or actual quantities) in carrying out the project. These quantities may be more or they may be less than estimated in the "unit price contract" at the time of award by Council. The Contractor is only paid for the actual quantities of work performed, multiplied by the "fixed unit price" as approved by Council in the contract award. In other words, the quantity of any item in a tender award is essentially an estimate to be finalized at the end of the project. The unit price, however, is fixed for each unit of work. The "final tender amount" is the summation of actual measured quantities multiplied by the corresponding unit price and the addition of any contingency sum expended for unforeseen (extra) work performed to successfully complete the project. To that end, the final contract value can be more than that awarded by Council, but generally is less. After sixty (60) days from issue of the certificate of substantial completion, the contractor will claim the 15% holdback and payment for finalized quantities. If a deficiency in the work exists at this points, the City retains a "deficiency holdback" (equal to twice the estimated value of the deficient work). Upon corrective measures being taken, to the satisfaction of the engineer, final monies are released to the contractor by a payment certificate. M& C99— 103 Status Reporting — Capital Programs March 22, 1999 Page 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS The engineer usually manages a project from design through to completion. Along with preparing the design and specifications, project scheduling and coordination, contract administration and field liaison with contractors and City forces, is the important matter of tracking the status of work and related project costs. This is done on an ongoing basis. As early as it is feasible to do so, it is staff s intention to report to Council on individual projects and/or contracts where expenditures significantly exceed or are expected to significantly exceed the amount budgeted for that work. Doing so will minimize "surprises" and promote better understanding - of what is actually being accomplished. It will also ensure accountability and proper authorization of expenditures. Information on projects, which are within budget or only somewhat over budget, would be provided in the quarterly status reports. It is important that staff work closely with Council in ensuring that approved programs are successfully completed and responsibly managed, within the overall budget levels established by Council. A common understanding of the project management process and support for that process, combined with the regular sharing of information will ensure the best possible results over the long -term. The approach proposed for regular program updates and reports represents a significant step in that direction. As procedures develop further and full advantage is taken of automation, information sharing can be enhanced. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Common Council approve the system of status reporting for Capital Programs proposed herein, and that this report be received and filed. Respectfully submitted, J. M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. Commissioner of Municipal Operations Terrence L. Totten, C.A. City Manager PROJECT NAME TRANSPORTATION ................................... I ............. STORM SEWER -------------- - - - - -- 11.11.................... ENVIRONMENT RECOVERIES CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT 1998 CAPITAL BUDGET SUMMARY APPROVW BUDGET . ., &w CAST . 1 nat .:- ST IM REBATE 111,1. , NET COST TO CITY ... BUDGET 1#A#i�i CE 2,550,000 .................................................. 2,605,093 .. ........................ 177,305 .......................................... 2,427,788 ......... -- ................. ................................................. 122,21 700,000 ....................................................................... 639,925 . . . . .. 44,488 .................................. . ...... 595,437 ..................... .................... 104,56 ...................................... 400,000 399,327 29,762 Y 369,565 30,43 - 450,000 - 450,000 3,373,393 -450,000 RECOVERIES E l € 1 E OT NAME . APPRGVEI;7 BUDGET COST HST REBAJE M AT E Di NET COST TiOI''Y BUDGET 1�Af�Ai�JCE WATER ..,... 2,549,000 _...-. ...._.._.._.�.__.�._.._�_...... 2,310,946 150,787 2,160,158 388,842 SANITARY ....................... ......................... . . . . .. 2,251,000 ............................................................................................................................................................................... ... ......�._.__._.- .:- ..._.._.__LL. _.0 -- 2,192,141 -.k.. �._. �. _ .............._._....... -..... 146,530 -_._......_...___....: ..�....v._..__._.._- ..._.._ 2,045,611 -.:- 11.11..._- ..._.._._:......�._ 205,389 ............................... INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................ 4,075,000 ......................... . . . . .. 3,645,061 ................................................... 271,668 3,373,393 701,607 RECOVERIES - 2,200,000 - 2,200,000 ............................... - ..... ...................... ............ - 2,200,000 .... ...... - .- ................... ....._ 0 TOTAL $6,675,0001 $5,948,1481 568,986 5,379,162 1,295,838 GRAND TOTAL 1 $9,875,0001 $9,142,4931 820,541 8,321,951 $1,553,049 COMMENTS to be recovered from Prov. not reflected ................... ............................... .1111. ...1111.. ................................................... ......................... . . .... to be recovered from Prov. not reflected ----------- ------- - ----------------------------------------- - ----- ----- - - - - -- -- - -- - ------------------------------------------------ $2,200,000 to be recovered from Prov. & Fed.Gov't. not reflected .................................................................................................................. ............................... 26/03/99 'I, CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT - 1998 TRANSPORTATION (12 - 9001 NOTE P Ys U. MW WE":T1#AI+V.IE t &AR T# . = : CE}NT1' W tt� � t ER E5HWMED C�)��' TENDER AM c� WT F[ML CONT-E! T WIffRA T '1l�kR.ii� E MUM PQ P'EN€liNW COS`FS M .REBATI~ PROJECTED COAT MMIE" ti!A ANCE Ala WORK 1 9139 Bayard Drive 98 -1 55,000 43,043 41,673 1,370 950 3,153 39,470 15,530 100% Curb, sidewalk, landscaping, Paving -- ---... - --- --............- --• --. -- ------- -- --- --- ---- --- ---------------- ---- - - -- -- .. -... 2 9140 ---- - - - - -- ---------- -- -- - - - - -- -- -- -- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- -- - --- -- ......... - -- 8irchmount Road (Priv) ..........._..- ......- -- ---. 98 -9 ------------ ........................... 25,000 -- .. . - - 6,305 ................- 5,193 '1,112 18,963 2,000 1,435 24,721 279 95% Land acquisition, grading, ditching, chipsealing - - - -•. -- .................---- - - - - -- ---- ............ -.. - - - - - -- - - - - -- ............................. . .... ................... ---- - - - - -- ---.------------------------- 3 - - - - - -- 9141 --------------- ------- - - - - -- ..... --------------------------------- - - - - -- ................... ..............--- Broad Street ....---- - - - - -- 98-3 . .............. 37,000 •- •----------------- 31,382 23,843 7,539 3,545 1,954 25,434 11,566 100% Paving -- --- --- -- --- -- - --- - -- ...........................••- 4 •-•••... 9142 - - -- ---------- -- --- --- .-- ---------- --- -- - ---- -- ---- -- ------ ---.............. ............................... ----- Catherwood Street 98-3 --------- -- --- -......................... 19,000 15,469 15,502 -33 120 1,161 14,461 4,539 100% As phalt planing, paving 5 9143 Champlain Drive 98-6 69,000 19,586 121631 6,955 24,504 2,167 34,968 34,032 100% Curb & sidewalk, landscaping p------------------------------ - - - - -- --------------- ° .. ............. 6 9144 ----- . -- --•-•--------------------------- - - - - -- -- .........................- Cherry Tree Lane 98-3 4,000 4,325 3,800 525 172 292 3,680 320 100% Paving- 7 9145 - - -- -- - --- --- Chipman 98 -1 19,000 17,499 11,478 6,021 140 862 10,756 8,244 10010 Curb and sidewalk west side) ........... ....._.............. - .......... - .. -.. ._.. ....................... 8 . .... 9146 - -- - - - - -- ---------- -- - - -- ------------------------ -- - -- - -- --•--............... .. Chipseal ...................... 98-9 50,000 42,418 39,937 2,481 19,743 3,964 55,716 -5,716 100% Single and Double Coat -- - - - - 9 9147 -- - - - - -- - - - - -- ----------------------- .... - ....... ............................... City Line 8,000 0 3,784 282 3,502 4,498 100% ck' Chain link fencin o posits St Patrick's School q. .. .. . ... ..... ....................... ........ •- --- - - -- -- ............................. .... ............ -.- ........ 11 9148 ..- ...P ......... .................. Cracksealing 98-8 20,000 15,700 18,155 -2,455 1,353 16,802 3,198 100% Sealinasphalt .................................. -•-- - - - - -- -- ......................... 12 9149 •- ••-------------------- Crown Street 98 -3; 98-6 57,000 28,677 29,888 - 1,211 25,499 3,503 51,884 5,116 100% Curb, sidewalk, landscaping, pa 9-------------- - - ._......... - - --............-- .... ... . . .. .. .. .... .. .................. 13 9150 ............si ........... --- --- --- --- --- --- -- - - -- - -• Culverts 30,000 0 20,079 1,004 19,075 10,925 100% Culvert renewal 14 9151 Curb &Sidewalk Restoration 14,000 0 15,843 792 15,051 -1,051 100 /o Restoration of damaged concrete curb & sidewalk .............. 16 .......................... 9152 ...... .. ........... - - ----------------------------------- ------------------ Quck Cove Crescent 98 -3 - - 7,000 - 8,754 7,822 932 775 622 7,975 -975 100% Paving............ -- --- -- ----- - --- -- 17 - ---- -- -- °...... -•- -. 9153 ............................................. Duck Cove Lane 98 -3 14,000 14,809 17,379 -2,570 894 1,340 16,933 -2,933 100% Paving ............ I........... ..................... ........................ - -- ............ I ............... .. .... ............................. .............................. 18 9154 ----------------- Duke Street West 98 -3 60,000 55,351 51,616 3,735 1,421 3,918 49,119 10,881 100% Pavin- - -- 19 .. -- -- 9155 ----- -- ------------- - - - - -- - - - - --- ----- ... ... ...... ................. Ford Avenue 98-3; 98 -6 43,000 28,015 28,334 -319 11,269 2,675 36,928 6,072 100% Curb, landscaping, paving " Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT -1998 TRANSPORTATION ( 12 - 900 T ;Pi r�,kECfi ` PROJECT NAME 7 ZlPTIOd: GtDNTRA T E1R EST 1 ?I 1=I GO TENDER Ei AMOUNT FTi1(# N R I Ct h1Tt A T VARIANCE -SOT ' 005T. P 1 ill NO CQ$n ' HST RERAW . P I (;#EOTE#3 9W PROJECT #NUMBER �Rt 20 *9156 Fort La7our 10,000 0 20 1 19 9,981 0% G adi for arkin area �.....g.........P......... - - - - -- ......... - - ......... -------- - - - ._............ - - -- - --- ---------------------------- --.............------ ......- -- Deferred ......----......--------- 22 9157 _.. - ------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- -- -- - - -- ............ General Specifications .......... -- ------ 101000 0 10,526 526 10,000 0 00/0 Revises specifications, including Design services - -- -- - - - -- -- . ' - - -- -- --- ----- --55,OOD --- .............. •-•- -------- ----- -- - -- - -. ....---- ----- - - - - -- - -..........- - - -- -- .................... ................. ---- ........................ ....................... - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- 24 - - -- *9158 ---- ie.n--.....1?.................. ----•------------- Glen Road . . ... ........... ...... 98-25 55,000 ,099 5D,901 09.9 0% Excavation, paving base onl 25 15, 9 Golden Grove Raad 98 -3 49,000 42,628 34,531 8,097 4,225 2,785 35,971 13,029 100% Paving . . . .. 26 ........ - - - - - -. - 9160 - - - -. Guiderail 10,0Oo 0 12,157 608 11,549 -1,549 100% Installation of new uiderails 27 9161 Hazen Street 98 -1 86,000 86,644 78,902 7,742 6,200 6,191 78,911 7,089 100% Road excavation, curb, sidewalk, paving ............. - 28 9162 Jack3treet - -- .. . . .. .. 48,000 0 23,177 1,159 22,018 25,982 100% Cul- de-sac construction, aving 29 ----- -- ------ *9963 --- ------------- -----------------------------P......-------------------------------- King Street 20,000 0 512 20,541 1,053 20,000 0 0% Brick sidewalk renewal -- ---- --- ---- - - -- -- - --.........- ----- - --- -- -- --- --------- - - - - -. - -- ----- - - - - -- -- -- -- --- --- -- ------ .............- --- --. - _.... 30 - 9164 - -- - lung Street - --- --- --- --- -- --- -- 98 -5 ------------------------ - - - - -- 23,000 - ---- --- -- --- --- ---- - - - - -- 22,705 •- --- ---- --------- -- --- - - - - -- 20,119 - .- ••--- --- ------ ------------ 2,586 - --- 1,499 18,620 4,380 100% Drivewa ntrance raising Y. entrance _ _ 31 9165 -- - - - -- King Street East 98-1; 98 -3 41,000 35,005 30,486 4,519 10,483 2,796 38,173 2,827 100% Curb, sidewalk, landscaping, paving --------- -------........ . ... 32 9166 Ki sville Road ....... 98 -3; 98 -6 ......... •- •- ----------- - - - - - -- 83,000 ............................ 33,775 34,998 -1,223 24,775 3,847 55,926 27,074 100% Curb, sidewalk, landscaping, paving - - - - -- -- ---- .----- - -_ - -- -------------- - -_- -- - - - -- ....................... ------------------ - - - - -- ------- . ---------------- .................................. ------------------------- .... ............................ ------------ - - - - -- 34 ------------------ -• - - -- 9167 - - - -- -------- - - - - -- -- ------- 1- 11- 1--------------- - - - - -- --•- ............ - - - -- Main Street - -- ---........ --------------- ---- ------ - - - - -- 10,000 -- .......................... 0 7,870 394 7,477 2,524 100% Stainnray re�sfiaction ......------------------- - - - - -. ............................ ------ 1111--........... . ----- ----------------------- - - - - -- ..................... .......................... ........................ .................................. ............................ ............................ ..... ...... ................. 35 9168 ... -------......... ................................... .----------- Main Street West ---------........... 98-1 92,000 80,908 66,377 14,531 15,868 5,741 76,504 15,496 100% Curb, sidewalk (north side) ............................. ----------------- .........---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - -• -- --- -------- - - - -._ ._.._ ........-------------- ......... ---------- - - - - -- 36 -- ---------------- - - - - -- 9169 1 111- ------------------------- - - - - -- ._...... ................... . Manawagonish Road ------------------------ ..............--•........ 98-6 --- - - - - -- 61,000 ---------- ............... . 22,480 ............................. 20,812 1,668 29,503 3,026 47,289 13,711 100% Curb, sidewalk, landscaping -----------------------.......•-----------------............•--------------- --.......- _-- --- ---- --- -- -- - --- ..............- ------ --- ---- --- ----- ...... - - - - -- ---- --- --- --- -- ------ --- --- --- ---- ... .------------------------ ---------------------------- . --11 37 -----11 ...... ............................... 9170 . ... ...... ... ......... ---- ................... - ........................ McAllister Drive ....................... 55,000 0 62,119 3,106 59,013 -4,013 100% Asphalt pavement rehabilitation (various locations -- -------- ---------- --- --- ....... . -------------------- - - ----- 11 ...... ................. - --- -- .............-- - - -- - -- ...................... ....................... ......------ - - -- -- .........-- •-- ....- ........... - - -- - --- -- .............. - - - -- -----.................---- - -• ... ........... 39 .. ......... .. ........._ 9171 .._.._._....._.._.. ............................... ................--------- -- - --- 1111 -- .............. Metcalf Street - .........- ---- 1111- ...... 98-1 14,000 11,903 8,420 3,483 619 658 8,381 5,619 1000A Sidewalk -------- -- --- ............- •1111 -- -- 1111 --- 1 ---- ----- ......... - ....................... ................ 1 111 - --- 1111- --- .............- 1111- - 1111 -- - - - -- - - -- -- -- 1111 1111 .. 40 .......... ........ .... - 9172 - - - - - - - -- - - - ........................... Metcalf Street _..._..... 98-6 ...... .. -- 1111 -- -- 1111 1111 -- 50,000 -- -- -------- -............... 14,172 ........................... .- ------ - - -- -- 11............... 38,826 2,998 50,000 ° Retaining wall removal, curb, sidewalk, landscaping * Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT - 1998 TRANSPORTATION (12 - 900 ) NOTE PROJECT' PROJECT l�fiRNi:E CONTRACT Et EMA M TENDER FINAL CONTRACT 4THE� PE#tfIIlN�- HST PROJECT,-E-04 PROJECT NUMBER )7 &CptI:P`fl ]lt# NUMBER +~tM Al4tir?1lW , :CANTFtA�7 U�rR# kl�[�� COSTS COSTS IREBATI COST 1��1Rti4i�l�� .. MAW 41 9173 Milford Road 98-1; 98-3 194,000 136,709 114,057 22,652 17,741 9,388 122,410 71,590 100% Curb, sidewalk, landscaping, paving - - .............. - -- -- 42 ......... 9174 ------------------------- ..._......... ° ..................... Montreal Avenue - - -- - - - -- 98-1; 98-3 ..................- 86,000 59,402 54,352 5,050 13,825 4,742 63,435 22,565 100% Curb, sidewalk, landscaping, paving p-------- p------------------- - - - - -- ............ .............. ....... .. - ----- - - - - -- ........I------- ---------- ............. ...... ------------ ---- ..... ..... - - - -- ---- ......- ..--- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - -.. - - - -- 43 ------------- - - - - -- 9175 - - - -- ------------ ..._.............. - - --- - - - - -- ------ ................... Mount Pleasant Avenue ------- - - - - -• 98-3,,98-6 ------ ..........-------- 134,000 74,039 84,455 - 10,416 56,007 9,095 131,367 2,633 100% Curb, sidewalk, landscaping, paving P 45 9176 .. Old Slack River Road 4,000 0 798 3,000 190 3,608 392 0% Land acquisition for drainage easement ...... 46 - ----- - - - - -- 9177 ----------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------------------------ .....-------------------- Pleasant City Street - - - - -- 98-3; 98-6 -------- ........... 77,000 30,246 28,163 2,083 18,567 3,027 43,703 33,297 100% Curb, sidewalk, landsca ing, paving ------------ ... -- - ----- -- ------------------------ _ ......................... 47 9178 ------------ ------------ ..................P Queen Street -------- --- -- - --- 98 -1 ........... 90,000 79,630 80,939 -1,309 5,051 6,285 79,705 10,295 100% Road excavation, curb, sidewalk, paving p - - - - -- ---------- •-------- ..... -.... - .............. -- -- - -- • ........... 48 9179 Ready Street ---------- - - - - -- 98 -3 ------------------------- 29,000 25,356 27,904 -2,548 1,327 2,146 27,085 1,915 100% Paving- - - - - -. ----------- ..........-- - - - - -- .-------- .......I- - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - -- ----------------..........------------ ......------- - - - - -- .----- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - 49 - - -- 9180 ............ -- ------------------------------------------------ ----------------- Rothesay Avenue (PDH#100) - -- 98-3 ------------------------ - - - - -- 280,000 ------ -------------- - - - - -- 301,575 -- ..........- 506,123 - 204,548 19,036 38,673 486,486 - 100°0 Curb & sidewalk repairs, asphalt planing, pavi m..... --- - - - -- ............-------------- -...----------- -- ---- --- - ------ ---- --------- -•- --- --- -- --- -- - --..........- - - - - - -- ------ --------- - --- -----.-------- - - -- -- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ -- ----- -- --- --- ---- ---------•- •------------------..._..- ................. 50 .. .. ..... 9181 ---... .. Russell Street ............................................. 98 -3 82,000 70,930 69,394 1,536 2,366 5,290 66,470 15,530 100% Asphalt planing, paving ...... ............. .......... -2,215 ...................... ............ ' .............. ........- ....... -100% - .............................. . Sherbrooke Street 98 3....... 18,000 12,285 i 0,070 g� 799 10233 ,767 Paving 54 - - -- 9183 - - -- -- Somerset Street 98-6 110,000 54,999 89,587 - 34,588 13,376 7,346 95,617 14,383 100% Road widening, curb, avin (base only) - - - - -- -------- ----------------- - - - - -- - -- -- - _..... ---- 57 --- - - - - -- 9184 ......P........9.. - - - -- -- - - - - -- Traffic Signage & Signals --------------------- 60,000 0 47,212 2,361 44,851 15,149 100% Upgrade controllers, arms, signs, etc 58 "9185 Transportation Study 125,000 163,245 160,800 2,445 11,984 148,816 - 23,816 900/0 Study of traffic Pattems add9 $75,000 approved in 1997) ........... ._.._.._._._............. -- ............................. ..••-------------------.... .......--------- --- --- ......... --- ----- --- ...._.......- - ........ ...........- 59 9186 - ... ................................... Vey Road (Priv) _........ ... 6,000 0 232 3,000 162 3,070 2,930 0% Land ac uisition for drainage easement 61 9187 Westfield Road 2,000 0 3,000 150 2,850 - 0 % Retainin wall repairs 62 9188 Westvlew Drive 5,000 0 5,000 250 4,750 250 0% Retaining wall construction ............... ------- ......... ........................ - -- .... ........................ ........---- ................. ...........-------------- -- 15 9199 - -- --------- - - - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- ------------- Dantes Drive -- .................................................. 0 ------...........----------------------.... 0 7,402 370 7,032 -7,032 100% grading, ditchin , pavin 38 "9200 --- ---.9..........9. .......................•--------------------------- ................ McLaughlin Road 98-9 0 17,354 17,354 0 52,803 3,000 4,084 69,073 - 69,073 95% grading, ditching, chipsealing TOTAL $2,550,000 1 $1,762,323 $1,845,094 -$151,9431 $601,9341 $88,8931 f177,3051 $2,427,7881 $122,212 " Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT -1998 STORM ( 12 - 904 ) 11iC3►TE : PROJECT' PIROJI T MME C(]�1TRA#'T E, TIMMED TENDER FINAL �.'ONTRA". OT#�ER PENDING. FIST PFWJ, TED PRi ,I EC7 NUMBER I��wi�E'TI41� :. R+�U MBER COST /t[�O��IT ' Gf�l��"f�A" IhWa IT ��Q�T«*'► 00��T� :REBATE P�tF►� �t�R #ANC:: ., �RI<C 10 4544 City Road 98 -14 70,000 81,530 71,608 9,922 404 5,357 66,655 3,345 100% Install 190m of new 450mm storm sewer °..................-- - - --... --- --- ................ -- ---- -- ---- ........... - ....-- --- --- ................ ...... ............................. 21 ........................ *4545 ----- - - - - -- -- --- --- -- - - - - -- . -- -- -............................ ---- - - - - -- Francis Street - -- ......_._._------ ---. 98-16 --------- --- --- -................... 40,000 - - -. - 8,577 ............ 1,739 726 9,590 30,410 100% Install a orx. 80m of 300mm storm sewer ------------- - - - - -- 23 --- - - - - -- ------ --- ----- *4546 -------- •--•--pP Glen Road 98.25 125,000 186,976 6,000 14,235 178,741 - 53,741 10% Renew 400m of 2---5-- 0...n...m with 375mm storm sewer ............. ............. ........................ - - - -- ...... • .............. ....... .... .------------------- - - - - - -. -. 33 4547 Local Drainage ................ I - ...... ............... ............. ........ 70,000 ... 0 .... ......- ----- ...... -------- 54,620 19,064 3,684 70,000 0 78% Correcting small existing drainage problems �....... _______ ............................... 44 4 8 ................... *4548 - ----------..--.. ...........- •--- -- --- --- -- --- -- Oakiand Street ......... 96 -16 95,000 44,261 29,955 4,797 69,419 25,581 100% Install 150m of new storm sewer Rehab. Rockwood Ave storm sewer ------ --- -.. -.. .......... . . ....................................................... . -- ........... ..- ............. ........... . 52 ........... . . . . .. 4549 .......... ............................ .......... •----- - - - - -- - - - -- ......... Simpson Drive ............................ 98 -15 ............ -- - ------- - - - - -- 95,000 ----- ----.................. 70,742 ----------- .............. - - -- 62,387 ... --------- --......... 8,355 594 4,679 58,302 36,698 100% Renew 140m of 450mm storm sewer & regrade ditchfor drainage, . .................. ... .... . . .. .. .. .. ............ •- - - - - -- ----- -. ........... -- --------- ------ ------ ---- --- -....- - - - --. - -- --- -- -- -- - - - -. - - - -. 53 4550 . - - --- Somerset Street . - -- 98 -11 - -- -- --- --- ----------------- 65,000 - ----- -- - - -- - - - - - -- 37,867 37,867 0 2,797 2,962 37,702 27,298 100% Install 90m of 600mm storm sewer, including de si 0n_ ser' - - -. ---- --- --- - - - - - -- .....--- ----- ----- - - - - -. ............. ------ --- -.- ...... - - --- -- --- -- -- ---- ----- -- - - -- - - - - -- ..... .. - - - - - -- _ ------------------------------ 56 4551 ykes------------------------ --------------------- •--- - - - - -- Tippett Drive 98 -18 75,000 60,519 55,143 5,376 15,413 4,880 65,676 9,324 100% 150m of 300mm dia. Storm; (easement req'd) - - ....._ ..... ... . ..... ............ ... .._.__._.. W 4552 --- - - - - -- - Walter Street -- --- 98 -15 ............ 65'a ..... 51,006 42,435 8,571 85 3,167 39,353 25,647 100% Renew 100m of 300mm storm sewer TOTALI $700,000 1 $541,478 !F26-9,4401 $32,2241 $111,6071 $19,0641 $44,4881 $595,4371 $104,563 Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT -1998 ENVIRONMENT (12 - 940 ) NOTE ': R IF T NUMBER Af L7,iEET "NAi if 13�S�R�PTlQ(� CONTRACT: N.U.MSER :. tMATED CQ�`I' TEEN 3ER A�1(3UI�Ff FINAL" �QA17'RA�'` �GOP�T �� 1TAR)##NGE ; OT E.R �4� P`E Uik�l1� STS ��T _:Rf�RilT�' Ff�O,EEGTt Q : COST PI�tJ�,tEGT - VA .1 qfo WORK 55 450 Spruce Lake Landfill Site 400,000 329,000 329,646 - 646 69,681 29,762 369,565 30,435 100% .......... ..................... .... . . . . .. Site Restoration ................. ......................... . . . . .. .. . . . . .. .............. .............................. ... ................. ........I .............. - -- .......................... ........................ - -- ..................- - - - - -- - -- - --.._...--- - - - - -- ---- .- ..-- ................ -- --- .............- ......- - - - - -. -- -- --- ..........----- - - - - -- --------------------------- $29,7621 $369,5651 $30,435 TOTALI $400,000 $3291000 $329,646 -$6,461 $69,681 $0 k Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 * Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT -1998 e WATER f 22 - 945 NUTS PROJECT. PROJEU NAME f;t: MIUk" EST[NhUMD - TI+140ER VINAL G�lMRWZt T t�THI -R ' PENDING HST PRt3,l�#�TE�? f�Ri3J��T : °lam NUMBER (3 R1RT[ 3t fi�lE1C1AB Ft CST AMOUNT GA�1 �7 �ARfA�iGE GETS, � Tu .. R AT-f QW WORK 64 *8088 Belgian Road 98 -22 55,000 74,621 1,092 5,616 70,097 - 15,097 4% Install P.R.V. & Chamber, including design services ....... I... -- ---- --- --- .............. - -- ------- --- -................. --- ..................... --- -----° -- ........... .......................... ........... ...... -- -- ---- ....................... .. ............ -- ------ ........._.. 64 - *8089 16-1 - .... ..... ............... ........... . n Accord Drive --- - - - - -- ........ -- 98 -22 --- - - - - -- -------------- - - -11- 55,000 ---------- -- --- - 79,815 3,852 6,141 77,526 - 22,526 3 °10 Renew P.R.V. & Chamber,including design services ...... --- ................ ............................ ................... ........................ -- ---- - _.................................. ........ ............. ...... ....... --- ------ - - - - -- - -. 65 -- --- --- ----- 8090 ----- - -- - - - - -- ................ -- ........ -- --- --- ..... -- --- -.. CAD System ...................... .- -•-.. ........... .... 15,000 ............................. 0 991 50 941 14,059 7% Software/Hardware/Training .. ............... ........ ............... . . . . .. ... ............... . . . . .. . .. ........ --------- - - - - -- .......... ......... ---- - - - - -- ............. -- ...... - - - - -- - -- - -- .- .............. 66 ... ... ...... 8091 ........... ....... ................... ......... Church Avenue ---.......................-..................... .......................--- 60,000 - - --• 0 12,057 51,101 3,158 60,000 0 v 43 /0 Supply & Install 1500mm meter & power -- 67 8092 City R oad 98-14 150,000 127,192 117,211 9,981 21,260 9,799 128,672 21,328 100% Renew 240m of 375mm transm. Main with 400mm transmission main ............................. --- --- --- --- ------.---- ........................ ... - .................. - -- --------------------------- . -•- ---......-- ---- -- --- -. -- ---... - - -- 69 -- - .. ... ... ................ - 8093 .. -- . ------------- --- ...... ---- ...... .......................... ......... Filler pipes ............................ ................ - 20,000 ........................... 0 .................... ---- 9,076 11,977 1,053 20,000 0 50% 4 filler i required for flusher trucks p 70 8094 - ...... .............. --------------------------- ............. -- • Fire Hydrant Markers 15,000 0 850 6,872 386 7,336 7,664 12% Install fire hydrant markers ......- --- --.....--- --......... ............................. --- --- .--- -.- ......... ..................... .. -------- - - ..... 71 ..... -._.._ - -- -- - 8095 - ---- - - -- -- - - ..............---------------------------- - ........... --- ................ Fire Hydrant Relocation --------------------............------------------.._...............------------.... 20,000 0 29,120 1,456 27,664 -7,664 100% Relocate existing fire hydrants ........................... -.. ---------- --- ----- ......... -- ............................ ..................... ---- ........... . ..... ---- ................ ---------------------- .....---- - - - - -- --- ---- -- -11-1 .1--- -................... ................................... -- - -- 73 ------- ----------- - - - - -- 8096 - "I-,,,,,, ........ ............... - - - - -- -- - - - - -- General Specifications ------------- ......... I.... 10,000 0 10,526 526 10,000 0 0% Revises ecifications, including desi n services p---------- -- -- -- ......- •-- -................ -- --- -- --- -- ........ -• -- .... --- -- --- -.................. --- --- .............. ----------------- ..- ........... - ..... _................. ......... 75 - - *8097 --- --- ----- --cl.u.--ing.- ---.....g . ..........--as................. Glen Road -- -...............- •...... 98-25 185,000 105,402 26,000 9,156 122,246 62,754 10% Renew 400m of 150mm C. I. With 200mm watermain .....- - - - - ..........- --- --- -- -1-1-1-1- -1-1-1-1--............... - -- - - -- - - ------ -------- ----.- ......-- -- --- --- --- -- ---- -1-1-1-1- .......... .....- .... -..- - . -o . ----- --- --- -- - ----- 75 - --- -- ------ -1-1-1-1 -1-1-1-1-...................... *8098 - - ----------------------------- ---.............--•--------- --- -1-1-1-1 -- -1-1-1-1-- - -1-1-1-1- --- Glen Road -1-1-1......-1 ..- --•- -- ---- -1-1-1-1-- 98-25 -- -------•--.......-- --- -- -1-1-1-1- 50,000 --- -1-1-1-1-- .......--- --- -1-1-1-1-- 50,000 -- -----.......---- --- -- ----- --........................... 3,727 46,273 3,727 1010 Renew 50m of 150 mm C. I. With 200mm watermain under creek --- ---............... - -- - --- - - -- -- ..............---------------------- .................. •........ - --- --- --...................... ......... --- - ......... ..........o.. ------- 76 --- --- --- -- - ---- 8099 - - - - ........................................ --------- ---- ........... - .................. .--------- Haymarket Square ................ ................................ 98-14 90,000 ............................. 90,000 .......................... .. 90,000 --- - ......................... 0 8,095 7,112 90,983 -983 100% Extend 500mm H rescon to City Rd, install valves 78 .... *8100 ............ .... ..........Yp...... Hunter Lake Dam ........................ 98-24 60,000 0 3,869 59,289 3,158 60,000 0 6% Replace exist. Concrete dam, including design _ ............... 82 - - - - -- 8101 services - - - - - - - -- ... ..-.. ............................................ --- ............ .................... Lead Services ------ -- ................ - ............................. -- 150,000 ........... -- -1-1-1-1--- -....... 0 --- --- --- -1-1-1-1---........ - - .......- -- -1-1-1-1- -1-1-1-1.............. - 136,673 - ----------- - - - - ....... 6,834 - - - ...- .._.- .._.._ 129,839 ......... ................ 20,161 ................ ---- 1000/0 Renew lead services with copper .............. -......... - --- ........ -1-1 -------- --•- - - - - - -- .......................... 83 8102 ......... Little River ........................... ......... ... ,..0... 3000 0 0 0 30,000 0 °k(Qeferred) ( Re ce valves and eliminate old intakes - -- ...-------------- .............. I._.. - -- --- ......- •------- - - - - -- ... -- ......... -------- .- ... ..... ------------ - - - - -- ........--- ---- - - - - - -- ----- ......... I......... ---------- .................. . ................. . ------------ 84 '8103 .....I ......... - Lloyd Street - •-- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 98-16 ------ - - - 160,000 63,474 30,060 6,234 87,300 72,700 1000A Eliminate dead end services, connect 2 mains with 200mm wm - - --- •-- --- - - - - -- ---- ----- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - -------------------- - - - - -- - -- - -- - - -- .... .. .. .. .............. 85 8104 - - - - ....- ............. ............. --- .............. - ...................... Loch Lomond Road -..... _._......................... 50,000 0 ...... - ------------ - - - - -- -- ...................... .... 991 51,641 2,632 50,000 0 096 Cross connect 300mm watermain from #3 to #2 transmission * Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT -1998 WATER ( 22 - 945 ) I�#O7°I= P [fir, l=# T i 41 EiCT l fA 1 E " Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 NUMBER ' 7E RiPTItJN : CONTRACT IrflfliilBER ESTI MAMD ': GOST TENQER' ti11At(ltW7 FINAL : C4hdTRA�: TA#tN -C ONT MT : OTHER C!t)$TC�.Q,,4`T PENDING: HST R>✓BAI PROJECTED PROJEUT VI/tNG; % .QR(C 87 8105 Manners Sutton Road 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 0/o(Deferred) Renew & Lower 35m of 200mm watermain -- ------------------ - - - - -- - -- -- .............. - - -- -------...-----....... ...-- •-- --- --- ------- ,-- - - --- -- -- - - - - -. - - - -- --- - - --••- - - ......... 88 - - 8106 - - - - A v e nu e - .............................. Marlborough Avenue 98 -18 ---- - - - - -- 60,000 --- --- -- -- ---- ........... 46,153 --------------------...... .......- 44,500 --------- --- ----- - - - - 1,653 19,054 4,269 59,285 715 100% Install 120m of 200mm watermain ................... ----- ----- ............. ..... ........................ .. — ....... ................. -----•--•- --- --- ---- -•-- .. .... ....... .. .. ..... . ... ............................ 92 "8107 ............ - -----....... ....__._.._.._.................................. ................ .... ...... Oakland Street ............... 98 -16 ............................ 65,000 ............................. 41,429 ......... ---------------•--. ............................. 10,537 3,615 48,351 16,649 100% Install 130m of 200mm watermain ------ ................... - - - - -- ........ --------.......... ............................. -- ....................... 93 ................. .. 8108 ......................................... -------------•----•-----..... ................... Pipeline Road East ............................. 98-2; 98-10 --- ..............-------- - - - - -- 200,000 ------------------ ................---------------------- 244,665 ........--- 240,979 •------------ ------ 3,686 ........................ 5,750 18,248 228,481 - 28,481 100% Rehabilitate main transmission line - - - - -- -- ...........----- - - - - -- ........... ............. . --------- -------------------------- 94 - - - -- - 8189 --- - - - - -- --------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------- - - - - -- --------------------- -------------- Rothesay Avenue •---------- - - - - -. ................... 75,000 0 ..-------------- - - - - -- ............------------ 3,427 75,520 3,947 75,000 0 20% Replace 400x500x500x600mm cross and install gate valves, includin desi n services 9 .............. .... .......................5,0 °-................. 95 8110 .. ............................... -- ot------ -Iay....ve- ................... --......9........ Rothesay Avenue 75,000 D 1 60,000 3,000 57,000 18,000 0% Cross connect 900/6001400mm watermains, include (18,000 Deferred) Design services ................ 96 8111 --- ------------ ----- ---------------- - - -- -- --- ---- -- - --- Rothesay Avenue 98-13 250,000 179,830 169,830 10,000 53,186 15,317 207,699 42,301 1OD% Seals for 900mm dia. Watermain ............................. ...... .............. ...................... ........................ ........... - 1----------------- -- .._.. - - -- -- ---- -- - ---- ----......... .-- - -- --- --- --- --- 97 97 --- ---- --- ------- - ---- 8112 ------------... ---------------- ... ---- ....... --------•- ........ ................... ......... ................ Rothesay Avenuecotnplex -------- -------------------. ........... I -------- ----....... 20,000 ............................ 0 .............. .............. 21,053 1,053 20,000 0 0% Office � out, HVAC, retainin wall, window shading. Y - ---- ........- -- - - - - - -- - -- - -- -- - ----------------------------- 100 8113 .......... ................................ ......9........................ Seawood Lane 98-7 209,000 183,605 196,032 -2,427 27,278 16,643 206,667 2,333 1000/0 New watermain, includi desi services - ---- --- -- ------ -------------------- ---- -- --- --- -------- ---------- - - - - -- ---- --- --- --- -- ---- - --- --- ---- ------- ------------------------ 103 "8114 Simpson Drlve 9 &1fi 50,000 27,250 9,131 2,488 33,893 16,107 1000/0 Renew 40m of 200mm watermain under the creek ............... ..... .... ........ - -----. ........................ ........................ - - ------------------- --.......... -- ------------------------- 8115 ..... ........................ ....... ....... . .......... --•---- ............................................ Spruce Lake ......- --................... --- --- --- - - ---- 20,000 ----......................... 0 --- ---...................... ................. 0 0 20,000 0 %(Deferred) Chkuinate 1500mm main ......... ...----- ------------------ .... _._......00/ 108 1 .................................ir"e"...--•---•------.....---•------------------------------------------------------ 8116 -- ......................... Suffolk Street ---- 98-17 --- --- --- - -- - -- - -- - -- --- --- ---- 50,000 -...............5 --- 56,083 ..0, --- 50,609 5,474 ,4 - 9,041 4,224 5, 55,426 x,426 100% Re lace 95m of 200mm watermain p 109 8117 .... . .. . .. .. . . ... .. ................. Transmission Mains (East) 45,000 0 12,280 614 11,666 33,334 25% Remove gate valves on #2 & 93 mains; ......... ----------------------- .....----------------------- ......32 -------------------------------- -------------------------- ..--------------------------------- - --- --- - - - - -- - - -- 110 ---------- --- -- -- -- - -- -- 8118 ---6-i- .._..... -------............................................. .....---------- --- ------- -- - - -- Walter Street -- --- - - - - - -- ---.. ..............................- 98-15 110,000 66,270 6 58,153 8,117 25,956 5,632 78,477 , 7 3 52 31,523 100% Extend 200mm watermn to Roth. Ave to elim. Dead end; elim. 150mm watermn. In easemt, renew 140m Of 150mm with 200mm watermain ........................ ................. - ------ - ------................. ............................. .. ........................................................... 113 8119 -•-•--.. .....I ................._....... .................................... ---._ Water Pump Stations ............................. --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ - - - - -- 50,000 ---- ------ ................ 0 - --- --- -- --- --- --..... - -• -- -- --- ----------.............. 57,369 2,868 54,501 -4,501 100% Upgrade equi ment and faces P.................... ------ - - - - - -. .......... -. ---- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- 114 ----------------- - - - -•- 8120 ........................ ............................... Water Treatment Plant 50,000 0 32,163 3,227 1,770 33,621 16,380 100% U grade a ui ment and facilities cili... - - - - -- .............-•- ••-•----- - - - - -- ... ........... -- - - - - -- ---- ....................- - - - - -- ..... - ------ - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- 115 8121 . .. ......... ....q...P...................... ...... .................. •------ .. Watersheds - - -- - ---------............ 15,000 0 1,277 64 1,213 13,7$7 100% Land acquisition for watershed protection TOTALI $2,549,000 1 $1,445,7891 $967,3141 $36,4841 $550,4351 $351,2061 $150,7871 $2,160,158 $388,842 " Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT -1998 SANITARY 22 - 953 NOTE :FI flJ C7 il#IiiIBR : PROJECT NAME 0E21WTf4ftl:_ OONTRACT` IIiMEI :, E _ IMATi~f� . Ct?ST ! "dMR 1tM0U FINAf� GOttitTl?i'T#ANCE 00INTRAC. 1'JTH:ER -STS F) _ IE31i�I?fa : 10.00010.0O10.01ST S -' REBATE.,: PRO.JE!t~i E[} COST PROJECT �tAR--Afct_. VU?UR 63 8458 Bay Street 267,000 0 266,500 19,862 246,638 20,362 100% New Wastewater Pump Station -- -- -.... ----•----....................--- . ... .. ................. 65 . . . . . .. 8459 . . . . --.......................................... ........................- - - - - -. ---- - - - - -- CAD System ............................. ............................... 1,000 .................- 0 10,134 507 9,627 5,373 100% Software/Hardware/Trainin ..................... - -- -- ---------------- - -• - -- ........... ........... .. . . . . .. .... .............. .. . . . .. .. ........................... . . .. .......... ........................... - - 67 8460 ................................................................ ......................... . . . . .. City Road 98-14 110,1300 110,505 113,454 -2,949 76,578 12,285 177,747 - 67,747 100% Renew 240m of 375mm Sanitary Sewer ---------- - - - - -• •-- ........------------- - - - - -- --- ........ ---- ----- ....................... --------------- •----------- - - - - -- -------------------------- -------- --------------------•------- ..... 68 - - -- 8461 --------------------------------------------•-•--- ............................ Egbert Street ------------------ - --- - - - - -- - - - - -- .............. ...- - ----- 100,000 ............................ 0 0 0 100,000 0%(Deferred) Renew twin 375mm sewers with 150m of 600mm sewer to outfall .............. 72 ............................ 8462 ............................... ------------- -- ............................... Forest Hills ................... ...------ 25,000 0 26,316 1,316 25,000 0 0% Study of sewer facilities in area, including des! n services 73 8463 General Specifications 10,000 0 10,526 526 10,000 0 0% Revise cifications, including esign services .............. •-- ------ -- -- .................. ........... --•---- - -- ---- - ............ -•--------------- --- --. ....................... ................................. .................. - --... ........................... • --------- 74 8464 ............................... Germain Steet West Sewer 9817 ............................. 50,000 54,950 62,168 -7,218 14,434 5,355 71,247 - 21,247 100% Renew 20m of 375 T.C. with 450mm sanity sewer ------------------ - - - - -- ------------------------- - * - - -- -•------------------------- *........-------------- - - - - -- -- .......--- •-------- - - - - -- -- .........----- - - - - -- -------------- ...... - -- ----- - - - - -- --------- ........--------- - - - - -- ........ .......------------------ - - - - -- -..........--•----- ------ - - - - -- - - - -- 75 `8465 Glen Road 98-25 222,000 159,236 11,868 147,368 74,632 15% Renew 450m of 200mm sanity sewer -• -•- --- --- - - -- - -- ...-- --- -t------- 77 -- --- - -- ....... 8466 --._......................... ............................�i! -------------------------------------------- Hazen Creek STP - •-- ----------------- - 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 0% Improvement re: comprehensive evaluation, including desi n services ....................I.......... ........................ ........................ .... .... ......................... ............ . .............. ........................ ...- -- --•- 79 ........ ..............................-........ 8467 ............................... --•- - - - - -- --- - -• - -- ......................... Irving Pulp & Paper Sewer ....... ................. -.. 98-21 ----...................................--..-----..............................-------................--. 75,000 78,215 77,172 1,043 1,531 5,828 72,875 2,125 100% approx 40m of 200mm sanitary sewer...._............. _ u`75.500 _ - w �0 _ y18% 80 --- _ 8468 _Line Kennebecasls Drive 250,000 0 194,633 20,133 250,000 Install 2 sewage pump stations, forcemain, & gravity sanitary sewer, include. Design services .......... ...................... 81 .... . .... 8469 - •----_...._-................................... ...9................_.._., - -- -. Lancaster STP .............------------ 80,000 0 4,370 219 4,152 75,849 5% Dred in of cell 0 g -------------------- ..._........-------------------- .... ........................ .................. _......... - 86 8470 - - -- --- - -•--- --- --- --- ---- - - - - -- -. Lon Wharf 98 -20 22,000 295,501 285,746 9,755 100,000 26,297 359,449 - 337,449 100% Investigate and design - collapsed outfall * Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT -1998 SANITARY ( 22 - 955 ) NOTE PM &O KHMER BE} _ : ti< T tMM : _ QESCRIf**TICJN: tONTRNOt NUM ;6)rFt _; ESTIMATED - GAT TENDE-IR _ 1:DUNT rINAL Q NT�tit;i OGNTRACT 3t�tRl� f� OT %i3�TF #xENDI N01 STS = ST I 3�T�. P{. OJECTED G�i�.r.T - :. O CT .11�RIA�t�E` n . LiataQRK. 87 8471 Manners Sutton Road 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 %(Deferred) Extend sanitary sewer with 55m of 200mm sewer --- --- --- -- - -- --- ---- -- ............... - -- ------- - - - - -- - ------------ ------ --- --- -- ---- -- --- --- --- --- --- -- -•• - -• -•--•- -..........._..---------- ...... .. ... .. ..... 89 . 8472 - -- - - - - -- - - - -- ------------------------- --- -- -- - --- ----------------- --- ---- --- -- --- --- Mlllidge Avenue - ---- --- -- -- - - - - -- ......................................... 98 -18 30,000 9,936 - ...................... 7,766 2,170 597 609 7,754 22,246 20% Renew 35m of 300mm sanity sewer ry------------------------------------------ .......------------------ - - - - -- ------------ ..........- ------ . --------------- .......... -• .-------------------- ....... - - - - - -. -- - - ... 98 8473 - - - - ------ - - - - -- Russell Street ---........ 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 0 %(Deferred) Renew 190m of 300mm T.C. and 25m of storm sewer ----------- ...... ........ 8474...... .Saint John Throughway........................ ............................... 100,000...... 0 ............ -... 200 105,063 5,263 100,000 0 0% . .......8475 Renew95m of 900mm tru ........................... ------------..... .......................-- - - - - -- ........................... ............................. ........................ 100 Seawood Lane 98 -7 210,000 116,000 109,918 6,082 18,192 9,548 118,562 91,438 1006 New sanitary sewer, including design services ------------ ---- I............. - -• -- --- --- ---- --........... ---- --- --- - -.... ................ -- -- -- ---- .............. .._.._.........-------------------- 101 --- - -- 8476 ------------ - ---------------- ---- --- --- --- -- ---- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - - ---- - - -- - -- Service Lateral Renewal --- -- •--- • - --•- ........ 98-1; 98-6 ..... ..-- ------------ ....................................... 150,000 0 --- -- -... -- --- -...-.. ...... . ......................... .. ......... 82,952 5,000 4,398 83,554 66,446 60% Renew water services &sewer laterals to Line PPh! . - (70,000 Deferred). . ..... 102 ................ 8477 ................... •--------------•---------------------------------- - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- Sewer Cleaning ............................. 20,000 0 3,346 167 3,179 16,821 18% Clean main trunk sewers and video ... ................ ............... ............................. .-------- •• - - -- - - - - -- 8478 - - - -- - -- ------ ------ -------------- - - - - -- -•--•------••---------------------------- - - - - -- Sludge Design ----------------------- - - - - -- •- •-- .................... - - -- 40,000 ----------------- .........6 0 ............................ ........................................ I- 13,053 653 12,400 27,600 33% Final n, include. Design services - - - - -- --- ----- - ...................... -------- ------------- - - - -- -- - - - - -- ..1-1--- ---------- ._.._...- .....---- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -•- 105 8479 - -g Sludge Trailer 90,000 113,275 113,275 0 8,442 104,833 - 14,833 100% New sludge trailer required ..................................... .. - -- - ------- - - - - -. .............------- - - - - -. ---------- •............ ----------------- ._. ... ....... ........ ....- - •----------------- - - - - -- - ------------ ....................... 108 8480 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Suffolk Street 98-17 •. - ......... ......... 15,000 22,018 21,645 373 15,551 2,391 34,805 - 19,805 100% Renew35m of 200mm sanitary - - ----------------- - - - - -- --------- -..... -- -- ----- ._----------- ---- -- --- --- ---- -- ---- --------------- --- --- --- -------------------------- -- --- --- ----------- --- --- -- ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 111 ------------------ - - - - -- 8481 - - -- --- ------------------ - ----------------------- ------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Wastewater Pump Stations ------------------- ........... - -- 15,000 0 23,881 1,194 22,687 -7,687 100% Upgrading safety standards P - - - - -- ----------------------- - - -- -- --------------- - - - - -- -- -- ----- - - - - -- -- .._ - - -1- .. - - - -- - -- ----------- ._........... ------- - - - - -- -------- ............... - - - -- 112 -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- 8482 -- - -- - -- - - -- -- --------------------...-..-.......---•-•----- •-------------------- - - - - -- WasterwaterSTP ---------------------- - - - - -- ............ "........ 150,000 0 111,404 5,570 105,834 44,166 100% Upgrading mechanical equipment, include design n services ..................... i iidge Avenue .. ..................... ....•..... 98-23 0 0 9,430 72,570 4,100 77,900 - 77,900 10% I.Mif New Sewerage Lift Station TOTALI 1 $2,251,000 1 $959,6361 $791,1441 $9,2561 $827,6531 $414,1081 $146,5301 $2,045,6111 $205,389 * Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 CAPITAL PROGRAMS STATUS REPORT -19 INFRASTRUCTURE - SANITARY (22 - 955 ) 10 NOTE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME (DESCRIPTION) CONTRACT NUMBER ESTIMATED COST TENDER AMOUNT FINAL CONTRACT CONTRACT VARIANCE OTHER _ COSTS PENDING COSTS HST REBATE PROJECTED COST PROJECT VARIANCE % WORK 80 8483 Kennebecasis Drive 525,000 0 0 0 525,000 0% Install 2 Sewerage pump stations, forcemain, & gravity sanitary sewer, include. Design services 91 *8484 North End Sewerge Scheme 98-11; 98-12; 3,300,000 3,427,885 217,176 271,668 3,373,393 - 73,393 70% Install sewage pump station, 575m of 350m 98 -19 forcemain, & 650m of 600mm & 750mm gravity sanitary sewer 106 8485 Somerset Street 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 0% Install 450m of 350mm forcemain, including design services TOTALI 1 $4,075,000 3,427,885 0 0 $217,176 $0 1 $271,6681 $3,373,3931 701,607 * Contract quantities not finalized 26/03/99 i 11 NI! � r ti r�� CCA4.1V_. N C+✓ UN iii M &C 99 -107 March 31, 1999 Her Worship Mayor Shirley McAlary UM & Members of Common Council City of Saint John Your Worship and Members of Council, SUBJECT: Tender Calls for Capital Projects BACKGROUND Council has requested an update on the timing of tender calls for Capital Works projects. ANALYSIS Please find attached a tentative schedule for tender calls, covering some very significant projects. The list is a partial one. We will be reporting on the remainder of the work to be tendered in a few weeks. A number of projects are also being programmed for construction by City forces. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. espee submitted, y J.M. Paul Gy&dy, P. Eng. ommissidner of Municipal _Operations Terrence L. Totten, C.A. City Manager ANE Tentative Schedule (Partial) for Tender Calls L.sntract9 Descri tp ion Program(s) Tender Comments 98 -28 Hunter Lake Dam Water May 99 Reconstruction of control dam 99 -1 Curb and Sidewalk Construction (1) Transportation Nov 98 Seven (7) projects 99 -2 Asphalt Street Paving Transportation May 99 All Capital and Maintenance resurfacing projects 99 -3 Chip Sealing Transportation May 99 Various locations 99 -4 Crack Sealing Transportation May 99 Various locations 99 -5 Spruce Lake Landfill Closure Environment Apr 99 Phase Vlll 99 -6 Curb and Sidewalk Construction (2) Transportation May 99 Sixteen (16) projects 99 -7 Rothesay Avenue Transportation Jun 99 Major street reconstruction (PDH) 99 -8 Ravenscliffe Court Transportation Jun 99 Retaining wall construction 99 -9 Sherbrooke Street - W &S Construction Water /Sanitary/Storm May 99 Water, sanitary and storm sewer projects 99 -10 Millidge Avenue Sewage Pumping Station Sanitary Apr 99 Upgrade /replace existing 99 -11 Oakland St/Rockwood Ave Water /Sanitary Jun 99 Two (2) water /two (2) sanitary sewer projects 99 -12 Kennebecasis Drive Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Apr 99 Gravity sewer and force main 99 -13 East Water Transmission System Water Apr 99 Sealing joints, 900mm watermain 99 -14 Kennebecasis Drive Lift Stations Infrastructure Apr 99 Construction of two (2) sewage lift stations 99 -15 Churchill Boulevard Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure May 99 North End Sewerage Scheme 99 -16 Glen Falls Floodway Flood Control Apr 99 Construction of flood retention areas March 39, 1999 R M &C 99 —106 April 6, 1999 HER WORSHIP MAYOR SHIRLEY MCALARY AND MEMBERS OF COMMON COUNCIL YOUR WORSHIP AND COUNCILLORS: SUBJECT: Request to Expend Monies from the Stockford Memorial Trust Fund BACKGROUND: c- City of Saint John At the meeting of Common Council on March 15, staff requested Council to approve an allocation of monies from the Stockford Memorial Trust to purchase a sweeper attachment for a tractor used for maintenance in King's Square and the Uptown area. The Stockford Memorial Fund was established in December 28, 1939 from a bequest of $3,000 from Fannie M. Stockford of Boston Massachusetts. This amount was to be invested and the annual income was to be used for the upkeep and maintenance of King's Square. In subsequent discussions with staff of the Legal Department it is understood that use of funds from the Stockford Memorial Trust must be used for maintenance items exclusively in King's Square. The sweeper attachment was to be utilized primarily in King's Square, however, staff would acknowledge that at times it would be used in other areas of the Uptown. In order to adhere strictly to the terms of the Trust staff has identified other maintenance items exclusive to King's Square and request Council to approve monies to be allocated from the Stockford Memorial Trust for this purpose. The most recent use of funds from the Stockford Memorial Trust was to rebuild the entrance to King's Square, including new stairway and flower beds at the entrance. This work was completed in 1993 at a total cost of $53,191.28. M & C 99 -106 April 6,1999 Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS: 1. Strategic Plan Conformibo Existing City Policy Common Council must approve any expenditure of funds from the Stockford Memorial Trust. 2. Input From Other Sources Staff of the Parks Division has identified the following items which qualify for funding from the Stockford Memorial Trust: - bedding plants for flower beds - $2,000 - mature trees to replace trees lost in the ice storm of 1998 - $4,000 - park benches and waste receptacles - $4,000 3. Financial Implications The Stockford Memorial Trust fund currently has a reserve of $69,770. Any withdrawals from the Stockford Memorial Trust will be supported by invoices. RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that Common Council authorize the expenditure of an amount not greater than $10,000 to purchase bedding plants, mature trees, benches and waste receptacles for use in King's Square and further that monies for these expenditures be provided from the Stockford Memorial Trust fund as supported by invoices. . Respectfully sub fitted, f Bernie Morrison, Director & Parks (/\l , P.Eng. Terrence Totten, C.A. City Manager 111,"AlI REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL M & C — 99 -104 29 March, 1999 Her Worship Shirley A. McAlary and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Tender for the Collection of Residential Solid Waste BACKGROUND: Formal bids have been received from two companies in response to the City's tender call for the collection of residential solid waste. While City forces collect residential solid waste from the majority of it's citizens, there are certain areas where, due to location or population, it is not economically feasible for the City to use it's existing resources to collect. In these instances, the City has established a system of collection which employs private contractors. Tenders have been received for the provision of this service for a 12 month period to commence on May 3, 1999. ANALYSIS: The tender for the collection of residential solid waste is broken down into 7 zones based primarily on geographical location. Zone 1 for example includes the area around the Saint John Airport while zone 5 includes the KBM and Lorneville areas. Within each zone there may be a combination of year round residences and seasonal camps. Bidders are instructed to quote one price for year round dwellings and a price equal to 50% of the year round price for camps. PAGE TWO Staff of Municipal Operations and Materials Management have reviewed the bids which have been found to be complete in every regard. Staff are familiar with both respondents and are confident that either can provide the services required as each has had an opportunity to provide some or all of these services in the past. A summary of the bids is enclosed for Council's consideration. FINANCIAL IMPLICATION: Staff are recommending that this tender be split between both bidders on the basis of the lowest cost per zone to provide the service. If awarded in this manner, the total cost of this tender for a 12 month period will be $444,202.62 plus HST tax. However, where this service agreement will transcend the budget calendar, i.e. two thirds in 1999 and one third in 2000, the actual cost for 1999 will be a combination of the 1998 prices for the first 4 months and the 1999 prices for the remaining 8 months. The total cost of this service for 1999 therefore will be $412,658.13, plus tax. This is an annual requirement and as such, funds to cover the cost are identified in the annual operating budget. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tender for the collection of residential solid waste for a period of 12 months commencing on May 3, 1999, be awarded to the lowest bidder in each case as indicated on the enclosed summary and in general terms as follows; 1) zones number 1, 2 and 3 to Mr. Dumpster Inc and 2) zones 4,5,6 and 7 to Dominion Refuse Collectors Ltd. David Purch Beckett, CA T. L. Totten, ( City Manager HIM ZONE �o 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 SUMMARY OF B11DS COLLECTION OF RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE 99- 084001T Closing: March 24, 1999 NVAIDER I3014M(J1ai.b[EMISE. CDI;UCTORb M& DL Nf1)..KfER::INC. 1;ggg OF LNIF S (L'NI t (>�'I M TQ'r AL . #:'LIOL'N I) ro1 TR?af.T (L iI I CAST -TOTAL hf L 1 {TJ_Q I COST = IM-1-AL 239 - Houses $120.00 - $28,680.00 $114.95 $ 27,473.05 ( *) 22 - Camps $ 60.00 - $ 1,320.00 $ 57.48 - $ 1,264.56 (* 791 - Houses $120.00 - $94,920.00 $II4.95 -$ 90,925.45 ( *) 27 - Camps $ 60.00 - $ 1,620.00 $ 57.48 - $ 1,551.96 ( *) 546 - Houses $120.00 - $65,520.00 $114.95 - $ 62,762.70 ( *) 4 - Camps $ 60.00 - $ 240.00 $ 57.48 - $ 229.92 ( *) 278 - Houses $115.00 - $31,970.00 ( *) $121.00 - $ 33,638.00 0 - Camps - - - -- __ -- DOMINION 1168 - Houses $110.00 - $128,480.00 ( *} $112.95 - $131,925.60 28 - Camps $ 55.00 -S 1,540.00 ( *} $ 56.48 - $ 1,581.44 741 - Houses $110.00 - $ 81,510.00 ( *} $114.95 - $ 85,177.95 3 - Camps $ 55.00 - $ 165.00 ( *) $ 57.48 - $ 172.44 142 - Houses $115.00 -S 16,330.00 ( *) $121.00 - $ 17,182.00 0 - Camps - - -- -------- Cost for 8 months: $173,330.00 Cost for 8 months: $122,805.08 Cost for 4 months: $ 86 665.00 Cost for 4 months: $ 61.402.54 ( *) Indicates Recommendation 1998 SITPLIER $93.75 $ 22,406.25 DOMINION $46.88 - $ 1,031.36 REFUSE $92.75 - $ 73,365.25 DOMINION $46.38 - $ 1,252.26 REFUSE $86.75 $ 47,365.50 DOMINION $43.38 - $ 173.52 REFUSE $93.75 - $ 26,062.50 DOMINION REFUSE $85.75 - $100,156.00 DOMINION $42.88 - $ 1,200.64 REFUSE $85.75 - $ 63,540.75 DOMINION $ 42.88 - $ 128.64 REFUSE $90.75 - $ 12,886.50 DOMINION REFUSE REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL �, M & C — 99 -105 29 March, 1999 Her Worship Shirley A. McAlary and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Tender for Asphaltic Concrete Mixes BACKGROUND: Each year the City of Saint John calls a tender for the establishment of a supply agreement for the provision of asphaltic concrete mixes. The purpose of this supply agreement is to establish a fixed price for this product for the term of the agreement ie; the 1999 construction season. This product is employed by the Works and Water and Sewerage departments for a variety of tasks, including asphalt restoration of water cuts, roadway and sidewalk repairs and miscellaneous maintenance projects. ANALYSIS: Three suppliers responded to the City's tender call by submitting bids. A summary is enclosed for Council's consideration. Staff of Municipal Operations and Materials Management have reviewed the tenders received and have found them all to be complete in every regard. PAGE TWO FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The total estimated cost of this supply agreement, for the 1999 construction season, if awarded as recommended, will be $610,750.00 plus tax_ This is a planned expenditure and as such, funds to cover the cost are included in both the operating and capital budgets of the Works and Water and Sewerage departments. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the tender of Lafarge Canada Inc, for the establishment of a supply agreement for asphaltic concrete mixes for the duration of the 1999 construction season, be accepted in accordance with the unit prices included on the enclosed summary of bids. Re ' ectfully sub ' ed avid Log�B Purchasing Agent T. L. Totten, CA City Manager Summary of Bids Asphaltic Concrete Mixes Tender - 99- 561001T ITEM NO, DESCRIPTION ll NY11' EST, QTY CLASSIC GALBRAITH LAFARGE 1998 CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CANADA PRICES LTD. LTD. INC. Saint John N. B. Saint John, N. B. Saint John, N. B. (LAFARGE) 1 BASE TYPE B, TONNE 2,000 25MM BASE (97,400.00 ) (98,100.00) (96,000.00) $48.70 $49.05 $48.00 ( *) $45.00 SURFACE TYPE D, TONNE 8,000 2 12.5 MM SURFACE (405,600.00) (397,920.00) (388,000.00) $50.70 $49.74 $48.50 ( *) $45.90 3 SURFACE TYPE E, TONNE 2,500 9.5 MM SURFACE (129,250.00 ) (125,300.00) (121,250.00) $51.70 $50.12 $48.50 ( *) $45.90 4 CURB= TONNE 100 (5,570.00) (5,770.00) (5,500.00) $55.70 $57.70 $55.00 ( *) $50.00 5 TOTAL TENDER PRICE $637,820.00 $627,090.00 $610,750.00 ( *) PIT LOCATION: Garnett Settlement 90 Paddy's Hill Dr. 50 Old Black River Rd. �� incucates xecommenaarion Legal Department John L. Nugent r City Solicitor l� April 1, 1999 P.O. Box 1971 Tel.: 506 658 -2860 Saint John Fax: 506 658 -2802 New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 Her Worship Mayor Shirley McAlary And Members of Common Council City Hall Saint John, NB Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Proposed Expenditure from the Stockford Memorial Fund City of Saint John Council meeting on March 15, 1999 received the City Manager's recommendation: "... that Council approve the expenditure of an amount not greater than $ 10,000 to purchase a sweeper attachment, with the funding to be provided from the Stockford Memorial Fund." The correspondence accompanying that recommendation stated in part: "Staff wish to access this fund to purchase an attachment for a piece of maintenance equipment for the Uptown area .... The staff who maintain King Square are finding it continually challenging to be able to provide the same level of services each year with reducing resources. To assist in keeping the same level of service staff wish to purchase a sweeper attachment for the Kabota tractor already in service in the King's Square area." The Stockford Fund was established by Common Council in 1939 as a result of the bequest of $3,000 from the Estate of Fannie M. Stockford. The Council minutes of December 28, 1939 contain the following: ... /2 Mayor and Council April 1, 1999 Page 2 "RESOLVED that the Common Council of the City of Saint John express to the executors of the Estate of Fannie M. Stockford, late of Hyde Park District, in the City of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts, its sincere appreciation of her generous bequest of $3, 000.00 to the City of Saint John or the purpose of the up-keep and maintenance of Kin mare in the City of Saint John: AND FURTHER that such legacy be invested and set aside as a special fund to be known as the `Hugh J. Stockford Memorial Fund', the annual income from which shall be used towards the up -keep and maintenance of King Square in the City of Saint John: AND FURTHER that the Executors be requested to convey the appreciation of the Common Council of the City of Saint John to the members of Miss Stockford's family." [underlining added] In my view it would be improper to expend money from that fund to purchase a piece of equipment which is intended from time to time to be used other than for the upkeep and maintenance of King Square. Mr. Butler, Commissioner of Community Services, and I have discussed this matter and as a result a revised recommendation has been prepared. In my opinion the revised recommendation would, if adopted, result in a proper expenditure from the Stockford Fund. Respectfully submitted, i John L. Nugent City Solicitor : cd \ \ City of Saint John INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER For City of Saint John use only: Budget Number: 1100000442-1010 Department: COMMON CLERK Contact: NL RY L. MUNFORD Phone: 658 -2862 Fax: 658 -2802 Special Instructions cif any): Newspaper Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (SJTG—Saint John Times Globe; T -J= Telegraph Journal) SJTG City Information Ad SJTG Independent Placement SJTG Classifieds T -J Independent Placement T-J Classifieds Date(s): Tuesday, November 9,1999 Date(s): Date(s): Date(s): Date(s): Information for Ad (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc.) Section Headline: ❑ Tender(s) ❑ Proposal(s) ✓ Public Notice(s) ❑ Mayor's Message ❑ General Notice(s) Sub - Headline (if applicable): Text: ' INSERT ATTACHED Call to Action: Mary L. Munford, Common Clerk Contact: Telephone: (506) 658 -2862 ENACTED BY -LAWS Public Notice is hereby given that the following by -laws enacted by the Common Council of The City of Saint John have been approved by the Minister of Municipalities and Housing if required, and have been filed in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for the County of Saint John and became effective on the dates noted below, namely: 5. A By -law To Amend The City of Saint John Flood October 22, 1999 Risk Area By -law B. By -law Number C.P. 100 -513 A Law To Amend The October 1, 1999 Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 27 Paradise Row) 7. By -law Number C.P. 100 -514 A Law To Amend The October 22, 1999 Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 900 Ashburn Road) 8. By -law Number C.P. 100 -515 A Law To Amend The October 22, 1999 Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 477 Millidge Avenue) DATED FILED 1. A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By -law October 22, 1999 (amended Part One, Two and Nine) 2. A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By -law October 22, 1999 (amended Neighbourhood Plan - Part 10) 3. A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By -law October 22, 1999 (amended Schedule 2 -A, Future Land Use Plan re 945 Old Black River Road) 4. By -law Number C.P. 100 -498 A Law To Amend The October 22, 1999 Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 945 Old Black River Road) 5. A By -law To Amend The City of Saint John Flood October 22, 1999 Risk Area By -law B. By -law Number C.P. 100 -513 A Law To Amend The October 1, 1999 Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 27 Paradise Row) 7. By -law Number C.P. 100 -514 A Law To Amend The October 22, 1999 Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 900 Ashburn Road) 8. By -law Number C.P. 100 -515 A Law To Amend The October 22, 1999 Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 477 Millidge Avenue) Municipalities MunicIpalites and Housing et Habitation Nou eau Q Brunswick October 6, 1999 Mary Munford, Common Clerk City of Saint John P. O. Box 1971 Market Square Saint John, N.B. E2L 4L1 Dear Ms. Munford: Please find enclosed one copy each of the following By -laws which was approved by the Minister, pursuant to Section 69 of the Community Planning Act: 1) Municipal Plan Amendment (Amendment to Parts 1, 2 and 9); 2) Municipal Plan Amendment (Neighbourhood Plan - Part 10); 3) Municipal Plan Amendment (945 Old Black River Road); and 4) Flood Risk Area By -law Amendment. After the Minister's approval, it is necessary under the Community Planning Act, to: (a) file in the Registry Office a certified, true copy of the by -law which has been signed by the Minister; (b) publish in a newspaper which is circulated in your community, a notice indicating: (i) the action taken by the Minister, (ii) the information relative to the filing as described in paragraph (a); (c) send to the Minister a copy of the notice as described in paragraph (b). Please note that the by -laws come into effect as soon as they are filed in the Registry Office. Yours truly, i Bernie Hoganson Regulations Administrator Land Use Planning Branch Enclosures RECEIVED OMON MERKS OWE OCT 12 IM P.O. Box Woo Case postale 6000 Fredericton Fredericton New Brunswick Nouveau - Brunswick Canada E3B 5H1 Canada E3B 5H1 Office of the Mary L_ Munford Common Clerk Common Clerk October 29, 1999 Mr. Jim Baird Manager Community Planning 1 0th Floor - City Hall Dear Sir: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2862 Saint John New Brunswick Canada P2L 4L1 Re: Municipal Plan Update - re Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan Enclosed is a copy of an amendment to the Municipal Plan By -law with respect to the above noted. City of Saint John Pursuant to the provisions of the Community Planning Act, the By -law was filed in the Registry Office on October 22, 1999 and became effective on that date. Yours very truly, 7/ur rr,�nF�/ Mary L. unford Common Clerk MLM /jaf encl. office of the Common Clerk April 22, 1999 Mary L. Munford P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2862 Common Clerk Saint John New Brunswick Canada E21, 4L1 The Honourable Marcelle Mersereau Minister of Municipalities and Housing Province of New Brunswick P.O. Box 6000 Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5H1 Dear Madam Minister: City of Saint John Enclosed are two copies of an amendment to the Municipal Plan By -law of the City of Saint John for your approval under the provisions of the Community Planning Act. Yours truly, Mary L. Munford Common Clerk MLM /jaf encl. PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN I, MARY L. MUNFORD, of the City of Saint John in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:- 1. That I am the Common Clerk of the said City of Saint John and as such have the custody of the minutes and records of the Common Council of the said City of Saint John and of the Common Seal of the said City. 2. That hereto attached and marked "A" is a copy of "A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By -law" enacted by the Common Council of the City of Saint John on the sixth day of April, A.D. 1999. 3. That I have carefully compared the said by -law with the original and the same is a true copy thereof. D A T E D at the City of Saint John on the twenty- second day of April, A.D. 1999. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I, the said Common Clerk of the City of Saint John have hereunto affixed the Common Seal of the said City the day and year first hereinbefore written. Mary L. Munfor Common Cler A LAW TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL PLAN BY -LAW Be it enacted by the City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as follows: - The Municipal Plan By -law of the City of Saint John enacted on the twenty -- second day of May, 1973 is amended by: 1, Adopting the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10 attached hereto as Schedule "A" and forming part of this by -law. 2. Deleting the existing Schedule 2 -C and substituting Schedule 2 -C "Central Peninsula Land Use Plan ", attached h2ratc as Schedule "B" 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 sixth day of April A.D. 1999 and signed by: Athe me er of C ncii whop ided at eting at which it was enacted; and / / First Reading - March 29, 1999 Second Reading - March 29, 1999 Third Reading - April 6, 1999 ■ ■■• Err■ r■■■r ■a■■a■rr■■■■■■ Sy T ■R■■ ■■ur ■■■ ru■■ s�RRrr■ar■r ■ ■ ■r ■■ ■ ■R •■ouaauur iure onv■rrrr.�R sr *■ uu■ ■ !:a,: a2 :MO ■■ u■■■uuanu ssrErr■ ■R ■■■■ ■R � uar uar ■aarrrrrr ■s�RRR■a■■_., women r Ga■rrr•■■■■■■■■■rRRR■ar u■■eau uiu ■uu• ■■■■■RnR■R■■■■n■u■uu . rrr■r ■■u ■■ i ■ ■ ■RR ■aM■■ ■ ■R ■a ■r■u■ x•1911: a■ 0 �1.— 3 ■!: !■■MINI ., .. ■!!■i wagon ! ■!!� ! ■# ■■ k ■■! ■E ■ 0 k' ■!MINE! ■■ HUMP am ■ al !n IlirliliIiiiii" ■ S10- ■' ` antral Peninsula Land Use Ple A LAW TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL PLAN BY -LAW Be it enacted by the City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as follows: m The Municipal Plan By -law of the City of Saint John enacted on the twenty- second day of May, 1973 is amended by: 1. Adopting the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10 attached hereto as Schedule "A" and forming part of this by -law. 2. Deleting the existing Schedule 2 -C and substituting Schedule 2 -C "Central Peninsula Land Use Plan ", attached hereto as Schedule "B" 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. 1999 and signed by: *, the member of Council who presided at the meeting at which it was enacted; and Common Clerk First Reading - March 29, 1999 Second Reading - March 29, 1999 Third Reading - PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT RE: PENINSULA NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider amending the Municipal Development Plan at its regular meeting to be held on Monday, March 29, 1999 at 7:00 p.m., which would: 1. Adopt the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10, which sets out additional policies to guide the development of the peninsula area surrounding the Uptown; 2. Amend Schedule 2 -C "Central Peninsula Land Use Plan ", as illustrated below. (INSERT MAP) REASON FOR CHANGE: to adopt a neighbourhood plan as an amendment to the Municipal Plan. The proposed amendments may be inspected by any interested person at the office of the Common Clerk, or in the office of the Planning Department, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. Written objections to the amendment may be sent to the undersigned at City Hail. MY City of Saint John INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER For City of Saint John use only: Budget Number: 110 0000 442 20 10 Department: Common Clerk's Office Contact: Mary Munford Phone: 658 -2862 Fax: 658 -2802 Special Instructions (if any): Newspaper Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (ETG = Evening Times Globe; T -J = Telegraph Journal) X ETG City Information AD 173 ETG Independent Placement ETG Classifieds Date(s): Tuesday, March 2, 1999 Tuesday, March 23, 1999 Date(s): Date(s): 171 T -J Independent Placement Date(s): 17 T -J Classifieds Date(s): INFORMATION FOR AD (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad) Section Headline: 173 Tender(s) 0 Proposals(s) X Public Notice(s) 13 Mayor's Message 173 General Notice(s) Sub - Headline (if applicable): Text: INSERT ATTACHED Call to Action: Mary L. Munford Common Clerk Contact: Telephone: (506) 658 -2862 k � 9, Will i4, �e 1�' MORE E l ■ ■i#■■■rFai!? mom IMME MORE momra3 "t l REM fY'A ■>■ ■L+IIY,r r • Jeiiir ♦�� ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■,� r5 .rr , mai t f - ■� ::"::a 0 .r ■■ ■■ \ 4 .ilara N p1y or 0 oma■II■amaaa■ 1 ..r......... ■ ■ ■x Emmons ■ :113UNN: OMAN*. ■ � ■► u■ae■■■■'1■u Pm!:w■ �� umrmaaaa■ ■a iu o a uu!x:■■r■ ++ ■■i !!■r. ■ ■! ■aa ■ ■rsign; ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■!■■ lrj ■ ■!ir ■l ■ ■ ■mmm r ■ ■i ■ ■ ■ ■L ■mmra ■ ■m ■!a ■■ I .arraa■■■1■!■ Y., ■ ■ ■rr ■.rla memo m rrr.erl ■ ■f ■■ ■m ■aa ■ ■ ■■ ■■.�. . limouaall vm t iem■ o i.■ ■m ' i.o■■il .■r■ i■GoilO ■ui■iri a s■ ■ N rr■ u■ ■ ■ ■■raul .■, Swl r■ Y■■'�mrl• mf a■ ■ f ■■f ■fil ml r ■ m■ ■!.■■ rrr U■ ■lr■m ■ ■ ■■m u ■■ a maR ■■ala .■l /i unl..... uu.... on r.,:: aff ■rmavl■ ■maar f ......... ■ ■ . ■Nall ■m ■u 0■ rlwe ....... o rr ■ ■ 0. - iNii:iiiMi � ■ • ■■l■■o.o■o■ ur■r_s.mamnao■ua■ u■Rw.e.■a■mmrum■ ■■■■........alai ■ ■■■■■ ■a■ ■ ■■m.e mormcGoo !■■ula■u.......rruue�u■■aar ffr.^.rulija ■a!r•r■■ rr■ r■ r■■■■ ■l ■aarrera ■mll ■m ■amaa ■Jaaarr■■! ■l.....m■l■ummuurf oo■m:auuirUru■u■u■u■umo u■u■ ■rno■ ■■mnluea■rr..uu■■u. u....... ruo■uu� `Imumuuuoa■ ■i■u■ ■■ ■■ ■ll■m■e.rau Mom . !our ■a..' loom uurr■ruauu+u■mrorecrauaunu ■carer ■rm..• rwr iiiei� ■a ■a■■■■■faa■■■a!■■a■la■a■lrl ■ ■� -"�r ■r P'a ■ ■a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■Ila ■all ■r ■ ■ ■ ■ ■lll ■ ■ ■ ■m ■o ■■■■■mao■■■i■ ■rR■ ■0R' ■we:� ■ ■ll ■mfrY'r ■fa ■ ■a� � Y ' ■u■mr■irr■■■ r■�uw:rumao■m■uuuuar�r - ■r■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■mfaam nlo■ oo!■u■■r ■■ ■ ■a ■ ■ ■■..:ra ■ma as rr rl ■ ■r. Illm mom&.oaf ■a!! ■..irllrr .•��l .. ........a..�y, ■naa. ... . si,. mitt ■ ■ ■G■ ■ ■a ■ ■ ■R ■ on.... utru■ # �mi PrmrY ■fNN ■u■■ ra�urr 1�.a roe■■■ a ■u ■■ ■� marl:■ ■am■■ f uar■■ ■I ■■Foam ■■ ■■rum I■ y - - ■ ■L Namm Yri ■ !.!{f I N. fqq�a■■ ■rr■ 7 \\+ AL Office of the Mary L. Munford Common CIerk Common Clerk 1 February 19, 1999 Her Worship Mayor Shirley McAlary and Members of Common Council City of Saint John Saint John, NB Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2862 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 City of Saint John Following the procedure for amendments to the Municipal Plan, the necessary advertising and public presentation have been completed with regard to the attached request of the City of Saint John for a Municipal Plan amendment to adopt the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan, and a written objection has been received from Eric L. Teed. Council, it it so wishes, may now authorize the necessary advertising for the proposed Municipal Plan amendment, schedule a public hearing for Monday, March 29,1999, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., and request the views of the Planning Advisory Committee Yours truly, MhLunford Common Clerk attachment Eric L. Teed, U.C., C.D., Q.C. 127 Prince William Street, Saint John, New Brunswick, E21, 2134 Tel.: (506) 634 -7320 Fax: (506) 634 -7423 February 11, 1999 Common Council City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E21, 4L I Your Worship and Councillors: Rc: Peninsula Nei hbourboo Plan - Municipal Develo m nt Plan Amendment I wish to register my objection to the proposed Amendment to the Municipal Development Plan for which the City has given advertised notice, on the ground this proposed Amendment is premature at this time. It will restrict this Council from making required changes by reaffirming the existing Plan, particularly when the proposed amendment is not needed for any realistic reason. Council is basically being asked to reaffirm the present policies as established in the existing Plan, a Plan which at present may not be in the best interests of the City, before the Council has been given an opportunity to consider what are the real problems facing the Peninsula area and the City as a whole. The Amendment to the Plan is basically cosmetic. It is not based on resolving what are the problems facing the City and Peninsula area in particular. It ignores the facts that the Peninsula as a commercial shopping area has been shrinking; that schools have closed; churches are being closed; that stores are continually relocating elsewhere; that the population has been, if not shrinking, then static. The proposed Amendment addresses none of these serious concerns. A City with a failing central peninsula core is a City with a difficult future. Affirming a cosmetic plan which does not deal with fundamentals, i feel is a retrogressive step. I suggest that this Council, before committing itself to reaffirmation of the existing policies, particularly when such reaffirmation is not needed, refuse to approve the proposal at this time and direct a different approach. ERIC L. TEED Common Council February 12, 1999 Page 2 1 submit this Council should seek answers to some fundamental questions concerning the Peninsula area. "I1iis will then enable Council members to properly deal with the Municipal Plan based on policies of substance rather than policies of cosmetics. Council should give direction at least to have the following questions, questions which have great relevance to the future of Saint John, answered. The relevant questions could be: 1. Why have business assessments in the City core decreased? 2. Why have so many businesses relocated to outside the City Center? 3. What is a desirable population base for the Peninsula area? Should there be any particular categories of population such as senior citizens, single persons, families, or youth, and if so, what percentage of the desired Peninsula population should exist in each category? 4. How can such a desirable population base best be achieved? 5. What percentage of the land in the area presently zoned or designated as residential is vacant being public playgrounds, parks or other unused land, and is this an acceptable percentage? If not, what is? These, of course, are only examples of questions which could assist in determining what is desired and what is needed. When these basic questions, or such other questions as Council members may feel appropriate, have been answered, I suggest this Council may then reasonably decide to review the zoning and Municipal Plan to determine what, if any, changes need to be made to ensure a vibrant, positive, progressive City, which I assume is an objective of this Council. Yours truly, FEB 15 19QQ 7 PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT Re: Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider an amendment to the Municipal Development Plan which would: 1. Adopt the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10, which sets out additional policies to guide the development of the peninsula area surrounding the Uptown; 2. Amend Schedule 2 -C "Central Peninsula Land Use Plan ", as illustrated below. (INSERT MAP) REASON FOR CHANGE: to adopt a neighbourhood plan as an amendment to the Municipal Plan. A public presentation of the proposed amendment will take place at a regular meeting of Common Council on Monday, January 18, 1998 in the Council Chamber, Lobby Level, City Hall. Written objections to the proposed amendment may be made to the Council, in care of the undersigned, by February 17, 1999. Enquiries may be made at the office of the Common Clerk or the Planning Department, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. n /vIl City of Saint John INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER For City of Saint John use only: Budget Number: 11 120 1212 2211 Department: Common Clerk's Office Contact: Mary Munford Phone: 658 -2862 Fax: fi58 -2802 Special Instructions (if any): Newspaper Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (ETG = Evening Times Globe; T -J = Telegraph Journal) X ETG City Information AD Date(s): Tuesday, January 5, 1999 1711 ETG Independent Placement Date(s): 173 ETG Classifieds Date(s): C3 T -J Independent Placement Date(s): f3 T -J Classifieds Date(s): INFORMATION FOR AD (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad) Section Headline: a Tender(s) 0 Proposals(s) 0 Mayor's Message 0 General Notice(s) X Public Notice(s) Sub - Headline (if applicable): Text: INSERT ATTACHED Call to Action: Mary L. Munford Common Clerk Contact: Telephone: (506) 658 -2862 ..1 ■ ■■ r■■ ■r■ mgmems ■ ■uruvsiru/f ■ ■ru e.ro oo ■■■ rra ■///■ //■/rrr.: .ruuuao•:.u■ ■■ ■v.r//u/f■u■ ■/sen,f■u■■un■■ ■n■■■r■■uu ■■oi■r ■rrr■ ■u■u■os:ro■ou■u■uuu• ■■ua•:ou■o!uouu■u•:•rr ■ ■rR /// /■Sir ■11■ ■ ■ / / / / ■ „ / / / / ■■ ■■u ■n■■uuu o■uuu ■u ■■■ ■...... :r ■■■■■■\r■•:r■r■ ■aur■r.,■f■f ■■■aura ■ ■ ■ ■. ra:r■UNUM o UM: ufuo ■rrrr■ ■ ■ru ■ ■ ■■.�. ■■■vu■ro■/■re:., n■ar■ ■ ■rre.■ ■urn■■ ■r■■ memo uuu rr. /rue e■ ■■url ■. �up■1 '■ uuu ■ ■uo■ ■ ; .neauie , antral Pe ik.■a ■ ■'� . ■qua ■pry. - ■■l1 ■ ■ ■:,r OEM ■ ■a ■ ■ka■■�4■■■� ■■!��■■M,•” • 7 w • aILTV-11 J F 1� 'EdPORT TO COMMON COUNC-11-4 OPEN SESSION M & C -98— 380 December 4, 1998 Her Worship Mayor Shirley McAlary and Members of Common Council Your Worship and Councillors: SUBJECT: Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan BACKGROUND: *k N City of Saint John During the later part of 1996 and 1997 a neighbourhood planning process was undertaken in the South End peninsula. This was a joint effort between Uptown Saint John, the South Central Citizens Council, area residents and the City. There were numerous meetings in the community with residents, business, and other interested organizations. The attached report is the result of this consultative process. It was presented to Common Council at its December 22, 1997 meeting. The purpose of this report is to recommend the appropriate step for this neighbourhood plan to be officially adopted as part of the Municipal Plan. It is worth noting that an earlier adoption, while desirable, would not have resulted in any specific development being considered differently. A. Reaffirmation of Municipal Plan The Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan is substantially in agreement with the existing Municipal Plan for the area. As is appropriate for a neighbourhood plan, it refines and adds to the policies and proposals contained the Municipal Plan. For example the peninsula plan: y Re- affirms the boundary of the Uptown Area I= ■ J -- =-I Report to Common Council December 4, 1998 Page 2 i> Re- affirms the medium density residential designation of the majority of the central peninsula. ➢ Re- affirms the nature and extent of the port and industrial areas. i> Re- affirms the extent of major community facilities (including institutional uses). ➢ Re- affirms the services in the commercial area along City Road. ➢ Re- affirms the neighbourhood commercial areas. i' Re- affirms the significant open space (green space) areas. ➢ Re- asserts the desire for public access to the waterfront. B. Policy Initiatives It should be noted that there are also items, which are new initiatives. These policies or designations add to or refine existing policies in a number of areas. ➢ Commercial uses will only be permitted in specifically designated areas, and in specific circumstances. This policy is a significant tightening of existing City -wide policies, which presently only require designation of larger scale (over 1,000 -sq. m) commercial uses. In addition new commercial areas are prohibited in situations which abut residential properties on two or more sides. The community desires this extra degree of "protection" for existing residential areas. This can be supported with the understanding that the approval process for future changes will be somewhat longer. ➢ Two areas are designated "Neighbourhood Mixed Use Area — Residential/Commercial" area bounded by Carmarthen, Queen, Wentworth, and St. James the Old General Hospital site. This proposal is consistent with the existing commercial designation in these areas, which also permits mixed use. However, it should be noted that the peninsula plan does not contain any policy direction as to the nature and/or extent of mixed use that is expected. This omission is not Report to Common Council December 4, 1998 Page 3 fatal but normally a neighbourhood plan is an opportunity to provide detailed guidelines for key areas of re- development. When proposals are reviewed for these sites, the public views will be solicited. C. Recommended Corrections It is important that prior to adopting the plan with the accompanying Future Land Use map those earlier Council approvals and proposed policies are accurately reflected. There are also a number of oversights, which need to be corrected prior adoption. a) The Future Land Use Plan contains both a "Community Facility" and "Institutional" designation. These were combined in the recent Municipal Plan Update. As there is no separate or new policies suggested for the individual designations, they should be combined to reflect the terminology used in the Municipal Plan. b) The Crown Street area is discussed on page 8 as being designated Business Park, which is in keeping with the Municipal Plan Update. The Future Land Use Plan erroneously designates the area Neighbourhood Commercial. The Future Land Use Plan should indicate the Business Park designation. c) Two areas adjacent to the Lower Cove Loop (Crown at Broad, and between Charlotte and Sydney Street) are designated Neighbourhood Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan. The existing designation is industrial and the text of the document suggests that existing industrial areas will not be changed. Light Industrial designation is proposed. d) Further to c) above, a number of smaller existing industrial uses, which have been the subject of specific approvals by Council, also need to be recognized. - 215 Wentworth Street (NBGIC # 5207) - 53 -55 Britain Street (Ross Street) (NBGIC #1602 & 1792) - 40 St. Andrews Street (NBGIC #5298 and 55021463) - 60 Ross Street (NBGIC #55101190 part) 7 -9 Britain Street (NBGIC #1701) C) In addition there are a number of small commercial uses, which need to be recognized in light of the proposal policy that commercial uses only occur on designated locations. - 74 Carmarthen Street (NBGIC #943) Report to Common Council December 4, 1998 Page 4 - 78 Orange Street (NBGIC #7450) - 73 Duke Street (NBGIC #7187) - 263 Germain Street (NBGIC #5868) - 39 -45 Broad Street (NBGIC #2204 & 786) 16 -20 Richmond Street (NBGIC #12849 & 55034045) 75 Coburg Street (NGBIC #15669 & 15214) 327 Charlotte Street (NBGIC #2297) - 32 -34 Paddock Street (NBGIC # 14209, 14217 & 55028351) 115 -123 Hazen Street (NBGIC # 15412, 15420, 15156, 55119689 & 55119697) f) The Salvation Army facility developed at St. James Street was not included as a Community Facility as previously approved. g) The extent of the Institutional (Community Facility) designation adjacent St. Joseph's Hospital is not extensive enough and has inadvertently excluded the parking areas north of Bayard Drive and the former Red Cross building. The effect of not including these specific properties noted above would be to revert their specific designation to residential not withstanding Council's earlier approval of the Industrial /Commercial /Community Facility designation. D. General Policies Notwithstanding the above - suggested changes, the basic thrust of this Peninsula Plan is to support and encourage the residential areas adjacent to the Uptown. Policies are suggested to ensure that development has appropriate regard for: - urban design standards - improved recreation and green spaces - transportation and parking - safety and security concerns - community services - education system and facilities This Plan, or any plan, cannot be implemented in the short term or by the City alone. The final section of the Peninsula Plan is therefore directed at building partnerships. Report to Common Council December 4, 1998 Page 5 Many issues identified in the Plan are presently being addressed (Waterfront Plan, transportation improvements, pedestrian trails) and the nature of the implementation will only be known through those additional studies. Other issues such as street upgrading are continuing efforts. This plan will provide a framework for future action. E. Adoption Process: The Community Planning Act sets out the nature of the adoption process. It would include: (with potential dates) i. initial advertisement of public presentation (December) ii. Public Presentation (early January) i. Receiving of written comments (early February) ii. Set public hearing date (early February) iii. Advertisement of public hearing (February/March) iv. Planning Advisory Committee meeting (early March) V. Public hearing by Council (mid March) vi. Adoption (end March) vii. Approved by Minister and filing in Registry Office (April) The adoption of a neighbourhood plan such as this is a logical next step in the process. Concern has been expressed as to the funds necessary to implement the Plan. Section 27 of the Community Planning Act addresses this issue directly. Section 27 "The adoption of a municipal plan shall not commit the municipality or the Province to undertake any proposal therein suggested or outlined, but shall prevent the undertaking of any development in a manner inconsistent or at variance with, in the case of the municipality, any proposal or policy so outlined or suggested..." In fact much of the "implementation" would occur as a shaping of influencing the nature of activity and projects that would normally be undertaken within the Central Peninsula. This particular Plan process appears to have recognized much of the existing situation as valid and only refines and adds to the existing policies in specific areas. As a result, this document cannot "stand on its own" and relies upon numerous concepts and policies already outlined in the existing Municipal Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that this document be adopted as an addition to (and not a replacement of) existing plan policies. Where the Report to Common Council December 4, 1998 Page 6 Peninsula Plan policies or land use designations are more specific or stringent (as outlined in Section B Policy Initiatives) they would prevail. CONCLUSION: The community has participated in a planning process leading to the enclosed document. The Plan primarily re- affirms the policies and proposals that have been in place for some time. Its policies are complementary to existing Municipal Plan policies (with the corrections proposed in Section Q. Adoption, with the noted corrections, is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council initiate the formal adoption process for the attached Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as an addition to the existing Municipal Development Plan, with the corrections noted in Section C. Respectfully submitted, dim R. Baird, MCIP Manage Community P ng Terrence Totten, C.A. City Manager A Planning 1 Advisory Committee t OPEN SESSION March 25, 1999 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada P2L 4L 1 SUBJECT: Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan City of Saint John On February 22, 1999 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its March 23, 1999 meeting. Mr. David O'Brien, of Uptown Saint John, spoke in support of the Plan. Uptown Saint John was a partner in the process of developing the Plan with the area residents. Mr. Eric Teed spoke in opposition to Plan. He expanded on the points outlined in the attached letter that he also submitted. The Conunittee considered the presentations and adopted the recommendation contained in the attached report. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council amend the Municipal Development Plan by: Adopt the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10, which sets out additional policies to guide the development of the peninsula area surrounding the Uptown. 2. Amend Schedule 2 -C "Central Peninsula Land Use Plan ", as attached below. Resper fully submitted, / > f X�- A. (Sandy) Robertson ce- Chairman Attachments Community Jim Baird MCIP P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2835 Planning Manager Saint John 506 658 -2837 (Fax) New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 DATE: MARCH 19, 1999 TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR: MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1999 R. �iird, MCIP gager, Community Planning SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: City of Saint John C"'►? City ofjS�iint John C- r/ Proposal: To adopt the Central Peninsula Plan as an amendment to the Municipal Development Plan Type of Application: Municipal Plan Amendment JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to advise Common Council concerning proposed amendments to the City of Saint John Municipal Development Plan. Common Council will consider the Committee's recommendation at a Public Hearing on Monday, March 29, 1999. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That Common Council amend the Municipal Development Plan by: 1. Adopt the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10, which sets out additional policies to guide the development of the peninsula area surrounding the Uptown. 2. Amend Schedule 2 -C "Central Peninsula Land Use Plan ", as attached below. City of Saint John Page: 2 Municipal Plan Amendment Date: March 19, 1999 BACKGROUND: During the later part of 1996 and 1997 a neighbourhood planning process was undertaken in the South End peninsula. This was a joint effort between Uptown Saint John, the South Central Citizens Council, area residents and the City. There were numerous meetings in the community with residents, business, and other interested organizations. The attached report is the result of this consultative process. It was presented to Common Council at its December 22, 1997 meeting. On December 4, 1998 Council initiated the process of formally adopting the plan, with a number of adjustments, as a part of the Municipal Development Plan. ANALYSIS: The Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan is substantially in agreement with the existing Municipal Plan for the area. As is appropriate for a neighbourhood plan, it refines and adds to the policies and proposals contained the Municipal Plan. For example the peninsula plan: � Re- affirms the boundary of the Uptown Area Re- affirms the medium density residential designation of the majority of the central peninsula. ➢ Re- affirms the nature and extent of the port and industrial areas. Re- affirms the extent of major community facilities (including institutional uses). ➢ Re- affirms the services in the commercial area along City Road. Re- affirms the neighbourhood commercial areas. ➢ Re- affirms the significant open space (green space) areas. ➢ Re- asserts the desire for public access to the waterfront. New Policy Initiatives It should be noted there is an item, which is a new initiative. These policies add to or refine existing policies for commercial areas. ➢ Commercial uses will only be permitted in specifically designated areas, and in specific circumstances. City of Saint John Page: 3 Municipal Plan Amendment Date: March 19, 1999 This policy is a significant tightening of existing city -wide policies, which presently only require designation of larger scale (over 1,000 -sq. m) commercial uses. In addition it is proposed that new commercial areas be prohibited in situations which abut residential properties on two or more sides. The community desires this extra degree of "protection" for existing residential areas. This can be supported with the understanding that the approval process for future changes will be somewhat longer. Recommended Changes to the Original Proposal Prior to adopting the plan with the accompanying Future Land Use map, the following important changes were made so that earlier Council approvals and proposed policies are accurately reflected. a) The original Future Land Use Plan contains both a "Community Facility" and "Institutional" designation on the map. These were combined in the recent Municipal Plan Update. As there is no separate or new policies suggested for the individual designations, they were combined on the proposed Schedule 2 -C to reflect the terminology used in the Municipal Plan. b) The Crown Street area is discussed on page 8, of the proposed plan, as being designated Business Park, which is in keeping with the Municipal Plan Update. The original Future Land Use Plan erroneously designates the area Neighbourhood Commercial. The proposed Schedule 2 -C utilizes the Business Park designation. C) Two areas adjacent to the Lower Cove Loop (Crown at Broad, and between Charlotte and Sydney Street) were designated Neighbourhood Commercial on the original Future Land Use Plan. The existing designation is industrial and the text of the document suggests that existing industrial areas will not be changed. Light Industrial designation is proposed on Schedule 2 -C. d) Further to c) above, a number of smaller existing industrial uses, which have been the subject of specific approvals by Council, are also recognized in Schedule 2 -C. - 215 Wentworth Street (NBGIC # 5207) 53 -55 Britain Street (Ross Street) (NBGIC #1602 & 1792) - 40 St. Andrews Street (NBGIC #5298 and 55021463) - 60 Ross Street (NBGIC #55101190 part) 7 -9 Britain Street (NBGIC #1701) City of Saint John Page: 4 Municipal Plan Amendment Date: March 19, 1999 (e) In addition there are a number of small commercial uses that have previously been approved, and also need to be recognized in light of the proposed policy that commercial uses only occur on designated locations. The following locations are also designated on the proposed Schedule 2 -C. - 74 Carmarthen Street (NBGIC #943) - 78 Orange Street (NBGIC #7450) - 73 Duke Street (NBGIC #7187) - 263 Germain Street (NBGIC 45868) - 39 -45 Broad Street (NBGIC #2204 & 786) - 16 -20 Richmond Street (NBGIC #12849 & 55034045) - 75 Coburg Street (NGBIC #15669 & 15214) - 327 Charlotte Street (NBGIC #2297) - 3 2-3 4 Paddock Street (NBGIC # 14209, 14217 & 55028351) - 115 -123 Hazen Street (NBGIC # 15412, 15420, 15156, 55119689 & 55119697) e) The Salvation Army facility developed at St. James Street was not included as a Community Facility as previously approved. fl The extent of the Institutional (Community Facility) designation adjacent to St. Joseph's Hospital was not extensive enough and inadvertently excluded the parking areas north of Bayard Drive and the former Red Cross building. (h) There were two areas designated "Neighbourhood Mixed Use Area — Residential /Commercial" on the original Future Land Use Plan: the area bounded by Carmarthen, Queen, Wentworth, and St. James the Old General Hospital site. This proposal is consistent with the existing commercial designation in the Municipal Plan which also permits mixed use. However, the proposed Peninsula Plan does not contain any policy direction as to the nature and/or extent of mixed use that is expected. The Neighbourhood Commercial designation is proposed on Schedule 2 -C for these areas. The effect of not including the specific properties noted above would be to revert their present designation to residential not withstanding Council's earlier approval of the Industrial /Commercial /Community Facility designation. City of Saint John Page: 5 Municipal Plan Amendment Date: March 19, 1999 General Policies Notwithstanding the above - suggested adjustment to the proposed Schedule 2 -C, the basic thrust of this Peninsula Plan is to support and encourage the residential areas adjacent to the Uptown_ Policies are suggested to ensure that development has appropriate regard for: - urban design standards - improved recreation and green spaces - transportation and parking - safety and security concerns - community services - education system an.l facilities Implementation: This Plan, or any plan. canny i he implemented in the short term or by the City alone. The final section of the Peninsula Plan is therefore directed at building partnerships. Many issues identified in the Plan are presently being addressed (Waterfront Plan, transportation improvements. pedestrian trails) and the nature of the implementation will on1% he known through those additional studies. Other issues such as street upgrading are continuing efforts. This plan will provide a framework for future action. Concern has been expressed as to the funds necessary to implement the Plan. Section 27 of the Community Planning Act addresses this issue directly. Section 27 "The adoption of a municipal plan shall not commit the municipality or the Province to undertake any proposal therein suggested or outlined, but shall prevent the undertaking of any development in a manner inconsistent or at variance with, in the case of the municipality, any proposal or policy so outlined or suggested..." In fact much of the "implementation" would occur as a shaping or influencing the nature of activity and projects that would normally be undertaken within the Central Peninsula. City of Saint John Page: 6 Municipal Plan Amendment Date: March 19, 1999 CONCLUSION: This particular Plan process appears to have recognized much of the existing situation as valid and only refines and adds to the existing policies in specific areas. As a result, this document cannot "stand on its own" and relies upon numerous concepts and policies already outlined in the existing Municipal Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that this document be adopted as an addition to (and not a replacement of) existing plan policies. Where the Peninsula Plan policies or land use designations are more specific or stringent they would prevail. The community has participated in a planning process leading to the enclosed document. The Plan primarily re- affirms the policies and proposals that have been in place for some time. its policies are complementary to existing Municipal Plan policies with the changes outlined in this report and incorporated in the proposed Schedule 2 -C. Adoption, is recommended. ■ 4. ■■ ■!! MEMO ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�u ■!■ ■■■ Emmaus ■■!■■■■ ' ■■■!■ ■■ N o■■®so■■ ■■u■■■! ■■um■se X9191[: PPnlnsilla Land Use P ra Mi. n mmina Ne* '•.'j ION IN T C, 11,00d FXwp, E MAR IYAY Nc,vemherl997 Prepared by Uptown Saint John Inc The Cmit,,-o[ Saint john ey r 69 iWN JOBN city of Saint J1 hn TO T e process to develop the Peninsula Plan began in the spring of 1996 with the establishment of a eering committee comprised of representatives from Uptown Saint John Inc., the community, and ity staff. Co— Chairs: Tom Horrocks, Carla lsnor, Members: Stephen Carson, Keith Raynes, Libby Shackleron, Christopher Waldschutz. Sterling Brown, Ralph Stephen Jr_, Dominick Eden, Kent Grass, Stephen Smith, Judith Meiners, Eileen Cullen, Peter Asimakos, Uptown Saint John Inc_ Resident Resident Resident Resident Councillor Councillor Resident South Central Citizens Council Resident and Business Owner Resident Resident Manager, Uptown Saint John Inc. City staff, Community Planning ........ .... -t� CONTm. -TABLE OF Introduction I Purpose 2 Plan Area 2 Residential 3 Commercial Uses G Industrial Pon & Busincss nark Uses S Urban Design 10 Recreation and Green Space 17 Transportation & Parking 14 Safety and Security 16 Community Services 18 Education System & Facilitics 20 Building Partnerships 22 Environment 23 i s planning document provides the policy framework for decisions made for the study area and is to be adopted as an amendment to the Municipal Plan. The area covered by this plan is described as being the peninsula, that land mass lying south of the Throughway (highway #1) and to the water on all sides, excluding the Uptown area or commercial downtown core. The map on page two illustrates the area. The peninsula is geographically located at the centre of the City. Historically and to the present day the Uptown commercial area continues to be the centre of commerce for the city and now occupies approximately one third of the land mass of the peninsula. Approximately 10,000 people live on the peninsula with roughly 2,300 of those living in the Uptown area. The typical age distribution over each of the census periods from 1971 to 1991 illustrates that young people in the twenty to mid — thirties age group live on the peninsula before having children and then move away to raise families, only to return when they are in the fifty plus age group. one r NTRODUC'z` ON s planning document provides the policy framework for decisions made for the study area and is to be adopted as an amendment to the Municipal Plan. The area covered by this plan is described as being the peninsula, that land mass lying south of the Throughway (highway #1) and to the water on all sides, excluding the Uptown area or commercial downtown core. The map on page two illustrates the area. The peninsula is geographically located at the centre of the City. Historically and to the present day the Uptown commercial area continues to be the centre of commerce for the city and now occupies approximately one third of the land mass of the peninsula. Approximately 10,000 people live on the peninsula with roughly 2,300 of those living in the Uptown area. The typical age distribution over each of the census periods from 1971 to 1991 illustrates that young people in the twenty to mid — thirties age group live on the peninsula before having children and then move away to raise families, only to return when they are in the fifty plus age group. one Historically the peninsula has had a lower than average percentage of owner occupied homes than the urban centres of other Canadian cities, seven percent as compared to fourteen percent. Over the past ten years there has been a consistent visible trend of a more affluent baby boomer segment of the population moving to the peninsula buying older and new houses. A continued increase in these baby boomers moving to the peninsula may change the recent statistics on home owners versus renters to be more in line with the national average. With the rising age of baby boomers and .a resurgence in the desirability of living downtown in other cities, it is realistic to project a stabilization in population on the peninsula in the short term with the possibility of an increase in the next fifteen years. As children grow up and leave home, mature adults will have time to enjoy the various amenities offered in the Uptown. Younger people will continue to move to the peninsula to enjoy ease of access to jobs and entertainment. The increase in boomers living on the peninsula will only happen if the quality of life is high and good quality housing is available. A major incentive for efforts to improve the quality of life on the peninsula is that most of the required infrastructure and services already exist. Streets and City services such as water and sewerage, garbage collection and snow ploughing are already provided. Investment in the peninsula will be economically rewarding to the City as it will take advantage of existing infrastructure. Physical improvements made to the living environment will make the peninsula more attractive for people to live and raise families. two - RESIDENTIAL . y e central location of the peninsula with its acc to a number of transportation networks will c access to to be desirable for a variety land uses. While it is important that we maintain a mix of uses adjacent to the residential neighbourhoods of the peninsula, it is equally important to have a strong residential area as part of the land use mix. Compatibility among diverse uses within close proximity to each other will be key to the success of the peninsula experience. The strength of the peninsula residential neighbourhoods is critical to the strength of the Uptown or central business district. The policies of this plan set the framework for the development of actions which will help enhance the living environment in the residential areas of the peninsula. There are a few higher density multi --unit residential buildings constructed during the nineteen fifties and sixties however, the great majority of residential development on the peninsula is medium density in older buildings. Renovation of single and multi —unit buildings and new construction of owner occupied housing has driven the housing market for the past ten years_ The recent construction of new single family housing is now providing a wider variety of housing options on the peninsula. The convenience of living adjacent to work and entertainment coupled with a safe and physically pleasing living environment will result in more people choosing to locate on the peninsula. three QBj]EcrjM 1.1 Residential neighbourhoods on the Peninsula which are maintained and developed in a manner which is highly desirable for housing people from all demographic profiles. POLICIES: 1.1.1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to strengthen the residential areas of the peninsula through: Development a) the development of land uses which are compatible with, and help to strengthen existing residential areas of the peninsula; b) measures 'including the use of buffers, scale and orientation of buildings and structures and quality of site development to achieve a high degree of compatibility among land uses; c) development standards requiring a high degree of quality for existing and future land uses. Housing 1.1.2 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to improve the quality of existing housing stock in the peninsula through: a) the review and revision of by-laws and regulations to achieve higher minimum standards; b) the use of design guidelines which enhance the historic character of the area for buildings outside heritage preservation areas; c) the adoption of a revised Saint John Building By Law which contains a code of equivalences for older buildings. Quality 1.1.3 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to encourage the construction and maintenance of quality housing in the peninsula_ Partnerships 1.1.4. It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to work with the development community towards the establishment of partnerships, development opportunities and incentive programs in housing. Group Homes 1.1.5 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to regulate special care homes and group homes to locations and densities which do nor negatively affect the surrounding neighbourhood. four Development Standards 1.1.6 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to encourage high quality design standards for infill developments which address scale, organization of building elements, materials and siting in a manner which is compatible with the character of the older areas of the peninsula. The newly adopted RM —IF "Multiple Residential Infill" zone of the Zoning Bylaw and design guidelines are considered appropriate measures to address the design and compatibility issues. Density 1.1.7 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to ensure that the medium density residential areas shown on the Future Land Use plan be maintained through low rise development and the requirements of the RM -IF zone_ Parking 1. 1.8 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to discourage the development of surface parking lots or parking garages in residential areas where the primary users are not the immediate neighbourhood residents. Alternatively, parking lots for neighbourhood use should be encouraged in areas deficient in parking. These lots should be designed with landscaping sufficient to screen vehicles from the street and adjacent properties and with adequate lighting to provide safety. Consultation 1.1.9 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to ensure public consultation involving neighbourhood residents is undertaken for City or private development proposals which may significantly impact a neighbourhood. Signs posted on the subject site notifying in sufficient derail of proposed developments should be considered in this regard. five a + 3� ,. -_ Col s I�iE RCIAL USE . S Ehe sting commercial development is comprised primarily of corner stores within the residential eas and a variety of service uses on Crown, Charlotte, and Waterloo Streets and City Road. block bounded by Carmarthen, Queen, St_ James and Wenrworth suects is also a commercially designated area. While this block has experienced a decline since the loss of a full service grocery store in the late 1980's, it remains a good central location for commercial development. It is proposed that the land use classifications for commercial areas not change. six OBJEMVE, 2.1 The development of commercial uses on existing commercially designated sites in a manner compatible with the adjacent residential areas. POLICIES: 2.1.1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to encourage the development of commercial enterprises only in areas of the peninsula designated commercial on the future land use plan. Site Development 2.1.2 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to require that existing commercial operations maintain property in good condition and use landscaping with trees and shrubs in site development wherever possible Mobile signs shall not be permitted where commercial development abuts residentially developed or designated lands. Commercial 2.1.3 it shall be the policy of the City of Saint John not to designate Development individual parcels of land for commercial uses where the parcel is adjoining a residentially designated land on two or more property lines. seven PORT & BUS t SS PARKII nduscrial and port development exists primarily in the area between the Saint John Harbour, Courtenay Bay and the Lower Cove Loop. Broad Street and Water Street. Specific changes are not proposed to the land use designation of industrial and port areas with the possible exception of the Crown Street area now designated light industrial. This commercial area particularly on the East side of Crown Street would be more appropriately designated as "Business Park". Additional Business Park lands could be designated on lands to the south of Broad Street. Measures to improve the compatibility of industrial uses with residential uses have been identified. The development of Port lands for mixed use development is encouraged. There is a need for the preparation of a comprehensive Waterfront Development Master Plan to address issues of future land use on the port lands. issues of future land use and public access to the water have been raised on a number of occasions by the community. The Uptown Strategy which was adopted in 1994 also supports this initiative. eight OppciwE: 3.1 Maintain industrial uses in existing areas designated Industrial and Port while improving compatibility with adjacent land uses. 3.2 Develop the peninsula waterfront in a manner which creates a compatible mix of uses and greater public access. P011CIES: 3.1.1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to ensure land use planning decisions do not restrict the ability of industry to operate in a responsible manner compatible with the adjacent residential neighbourhood. Buffers 3.1.2 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to ensure that measures to buffer industrial areas using landscaping, fencing, distance, orientation and location of buildings and structures from residential areas are implemented. 3.1.3 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to restrict Industrial and Porn development to those areas so designated on the Future Iand Use Plan. Design Standard 3.2.1 It shall be the policy of the Cin• of Saint John to ensure that the design of structures and sites in industrial and port lands incorporate significant landscaping and employ design standards which enhance the historic character of the peninsula. 3.2.2 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to encourage and facilitate the use of underutiiixcd port lands to achieve mixed use development and greater public access to the waterfront. nine = URBAN DESIGN - e many historical buildings, compact urban form, %-ater vinv5, squares and pedestrian orientation combine to make the residential arcs, and to pan the commercial area, of the peninsula an attractive and unique place. Many of the buildings on the Peninsula are located %%%thin two Preservation Areas. The Triniry Royal Preservation Area includes some twenty blocks of buildings south of King Street, both commercial and residential. The Orange Street Preservation Area includes all blocks of Orange Street, a residential area. These designated areas have helped to preserve the unique character of the peninsula for future generations. The City has taken great strides in recent years to improve strccuupcs and enhance the quality of life on the peninsula through the planting of trees and grass boulevards A continuation of these initiatives and a variety of new projects ,,vill advance the peninsula as a show place and the envy of most cities. Improving our image Here will go a long way towards improving the image of the city. ten The following objectives and policies reflect a desire to build and enhance on these physical assets. OBJECrNES: 2.1 Maintain and enhance the physical features which make the peninsula an attractive and unique living environment. Water Access & Views 2.2 Take advantage of the physical location of the peninsula by increasing public access to the waterfront, maintaining water vines from streets and capitalize on water views in the design of new developments. InM Development 23 Ensure infill development on vacant lots, existing buildings, public lands and streetscapes will be sensitive to the surrounding character and scale of the built environment so as to enhance the quality of life for residents of the peninsula. POUQFS: 21 1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to ensure that private and public developments increase public access to the waterfront through private and public developments_ Sueetscaping 2 1.2 It shall be the policy of the Ciry of Saint John to: a) continue improvements to the physical environment through continued streetscape upgrading with concrete sidewalks, tree planting, the sodding of strccr boulevards and street right -of -ways; and Parks b) ensure the development of a quality living environment through the enhancement of existing and proposed open spaces, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities in the peninsula with landscaping. Design Regulations 2.1.3 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to encourage the retention and maintenance of the buildings and structures which give the peninsula its special character. 2.3.4 It shall be the policy of the Ciry of Saint John to regulate scale and character of infill development and structures through a variety of methods including the Preservation Areas Bylaws and the design guidelines associated with the RM —IF zone. eleven ,� GREEN- � "Recreation, Open Space and Parks a e i,rral cos►iponnr:I of the Gry i physical and social environment and conrribute to the overril qua y r�life for every SaInr John resident" Recreation and Open Space Strarep-. City of Saint John, 1994. eninsula residents are fortunate to be �sithin dose proximity to the Loyalist Burial Ground and Kings' Square, two high quality green spacers in the Uptown or central business district. Queen Square located within the residential neighbourhood pro%ides a another passive green space in the southern portion of the peninsula. These green spaces help to define the character of the residential neighbourhoods of the peninsula. Active recreation areas are in adequate supply with the exccpcion of local neighbourhood play areas for young children. Existing active recreation facilities for older children and adults require upgrading. Improvements in these tvo areas will enhance the quality of life on the peninsula and provide an alternative to those who have chosen the suburban lifestyle as child rearing becomes a priority. A key recommendation of the plan is to initiate the development of a trail system linking green spaces and other parts of the city. twelve pgJECM 4.1 Enhance development potential and quality of life on the peninsula through the provision of both active and passive recreation and green spaces. 4.2 Recreation and green spaces shall be in sufficient supply, quality and variety to meet the needs of peninsula residents. POUCIES: 4.2.1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to build and maintain a high quality living environment in the peninsula by. Green Spaces a) enhancing existing public recreation and green spaces; and b) ensuring the continued maintenance and safety of recreation and green spaces; and c) using vacant lots for small pocket parks and physical features such as the waterfront for recreation and green spaces. Linkages 4.2.2 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to pursue the development of linkages connecting existing recreation and green spaces. 4.2.3 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to provide and encourage the development of recreational facilities which cater to a %aricry of age groups. Recreation 4.2.4 It shall be the polity of the City of Saint John to ensure that recreational facilities are developed, located and maintained to serve neighbourhood and peninsula needs. thirteen tIZANSPORTATIONT T e pedestrian orientation of the peninsula is very attractive to residents. Easy access to work and ntertainment is a big incentive to living on the peninsula. A multi —modal transportation system ncluding highway, rail, and ocean going vessels also makes the peninsula attractive to business and port uses. The policies regarding transportation have been developed to continue to serve the needs of the city while at the same time minimize any negative impacts transit routes may have in the residential neighbourhoods on the peninsula. Simple traffic calming measures can be implemented while maintaining a satisfactorily functioning transportation system for the distribution of goods and people. Reductions in through traffic and reducing speed through neighbourhood streets have been identified as priorities. fourteen QgJECITM 5.1 A transportation and parking system on the peninsula that meers the needs of peninsula residents and businesses and provide a framework for future growth and development. POLICIES 5.1 -1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to minimize through traffic in residential areas of the peninsula. Through Traffic 5.1.2 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to identify alternatives to the Lower Cove Loop and Crown Street for through truck traffic. Public Transportation 5.1.3 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to ensure public transit is convenient for residents of the peninsula and provides access to other areas of the city. 5.1.4 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to provide for the efficient movement of goods on the peninsula to all parts of the city. Parking 5.1.5 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to encourage and facilitate the development of parking for peninsula residents on vacant and under utilized parcels of land. fifteen r_. fiv r - do Aft S -FETY & SEC -L x} eeling safe and secure in our living emzronmcnt is a Ivey factor in determining the desirability of a place to live. While safety and securin• is an issue, residents of the peninsula consider the peninsula a safe place to live. The perception held by non — residents of how safe it is in the residential neighbourhoods on the peninsula is influenced greatly by the crime reports from the commercial core - Currently the entire commercial core of the city is included when reporting crime for the peninsula. There are a number of initiatives which if implemented could improve the sense of safety for existing and potential residents and visitors. The following initiatives propose a community based approach to increasing the sense of safety on the peninsula. sixteen OBJECTIVE: 6.1 Develop a public understanding that the residential areas of the peninsula are safe areas to live. POLiCIF_S: 6.1.1 It shah be the policy of the City of Saint John to adopt Community Policing community policing. Development Review 6.1.2 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to consider the issues relating to safety and security of the urban environment in the review of all development proposals and applications. Lighting 6.1.3 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to ensure adequate lighting levels on streets, crosswalks, sidewalks, parks and recreational areas to promote a sense of safety and security. Parks 6.1.4 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to develop and maintain public parks and open spaces giving consideration for public safety and security. 6.1.5 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to encourage property owners to create a safe environment on their property. 6.1.6 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to separate the residential area of the peninsula from the uptown commercial area when reporting crime statistics. seventeen +- r. S W� [✓E8- s . Ry iden& expectations of services provided by the City have changed markedly over the past few e ars. For the most part there is an understanding char the days of big budgets and wish lists are one. There is an acceptance that more of what the City has done in the parr is no longer available. While there are expectations for essential smices, a greater number of residents are willing to accept responsibility for items such as the maintenance of grass boulevards and snow removal from sidewalks. To gain ownership of the neighbourhood, residents need to be involved in the decision malting process for the various projects and initiatives that affect their neighbourhood. Recognition of their voluntary efforts will go a long way towards achieving a sustainable commitment to neighbourhood development. eighteen nineteen OBJECTIVE: 7.1 Community services will be maintained, developed and delivered in a manner which enhances the quality of life on the peninsula and responds to the needs of residents. POLICIES: 7.1.1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint john to continue with revitalization efforts on the peninsula. Recognition 7.1.2 It shaU be the policy of the City of Saint John to recognize the efforts of those residents and businesses who contribute to the betterment of their neighbourhoods and community. Promotion 7.1.3 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to promote the positive quality of life, unique historic character and other lifestyle benefits of the residential areas of the peninsula. nineteen esidents of the peninsula who are familiar with the education system and facilities are satisfied With the quality of education. With the exception of the three high schools there is a perception eld by some that the school system on the peninsula is unsatisfactory. This perception is held by those who are perhaps nor familiar with the actual programs but may be influenced by the appearance of the schools. People who have lived on the peninsula have relocated elsewhere in the city or metro to start young families area because of this perception. There is work to be done to change this perception and build on the high quality of existing educational facilities and curriculum. twenty QgJECMrF: 8.1 Maintain a high quality of public education in the schools on the peninsula. POLICIES: 8.1.1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to request that the Provincial authorities having jurisdiction consult, as a matter of course, with the City and residents of the peninsula on significant decisions which may affect the desirability of family living on the peninsula. twenty -one rearing partnerships will continuo to be a successful method of achining specific actions identified now and in the future Examples of the achievements of partnerships surround us. Every person, group or company occupying or enjoving the benefits of life on the central peninsula are prime candidates for partnering on a pro)ect. The City has and will continue to assist in the development of partnerships to achieve mutual objectives OBJECIIVE: 9.1 Develop community "buy -in° through partnerships as a method of achieving the numerous actions identified in the Peninsula Ncighbourhood Plan. POUCCIESS: 9.1.1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint to encourage and facilitare where appropriate the development of partnerships to complete the actions in this plan. twenty -two e southern tip of the peninsula is home to a number of significant industrial uses including the railway lines, sugar refinery, porash terminal and petroleum products storage tanks. Environmental concerns include air and water emissions, noise, odours and aesthetics. It is proposed that improvements be made to address environmental concerns and maintain a compatible relationship with other adjacent land uses on the peninsula. OBJECMT: 10.1 Maintain a high degree of environmental responsibility for industrial uses. 10.2 Achieve the highesr possible level of environmental quality on the Peninsula. POLI[IF-S: 10.1.1 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to facilitate where possible the improvement of environmental conditions. 10.1,2 It shall be the policy of the City of Saint John to treat all sewage discharged into the Saint John Harbour and Courtenay Bay. twenty -three ERIC L. TEED, O.C., Q.C. PETER E. L. TEED Planning Advisory Committee P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 Dear Sirs: TEED & TEED Barristers & Solicitors TELEPHONE (506) 634 -7320 FACSIMILE (506) 634 -7423 March 18, 1999 Re: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan 127 PRINCE WILLIAM STREET P.O. BOX 6639, STATION "A" SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK CANADA E21- 4S1 MAR 18 ©�SAII� I notice with concern the proposal to adopt the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10 of the Municipal Development Plan. I suggest the promotion of this plan is premature in that;. 1) it is not needed at this time. 2) it fails to address pertinent problems which I feel should be addressed prior to it's adoption. The principle problem facing the Peninsula area appears to be the lack of population in the Peninsula area. As far back as 1850 the population of Central Peninsula was somewhere around 20,000 persons. Today it is has dropped to 10,000. This is resulting in an emigration of shops, stores and businesses to other areas of the City and the closing of churches. A most recent example is the proposed closing of Shoppers Drug Store on Charlotte Street and the closing of Centenary Queen Square Church. There has been a failure of property owners to utilize second, third and fourth floors of central businesses buildings. The basic reason for this appears to be lack of population. This should be addressed and an optimum population should be determined before the adoption of the plan which for practical purposes is a land use freeze. Further the proposed principle land of in fill I suggest it is not in the best interest of this area of the City. The only way in which there can be a population increase is to effect some encouragement of high rise developments. To approve and adopt the plan as an amendment at this time I suggest would be to recognize that this Peninsula area is to have a frozen population basis. Any substantial population increase cannot take place under the proposal. The old adage might be applied "if the wheel isn't broken why fix it" and further before "fixing it see if the wheel can be taken out of the mud in which it has unfortunately fallen." To adopt TEED & TEED March 18, 1999 Page 2 the plan at this time which in effect is a reaffirmation of what exists would be to condemn the Peninsula area of the City to a slow erosion of needed growth and population. I suggest there are several pertinent questions to be first addressed, such as: (a) why has the assessed value of the central Peninsula dropped? (b) What steps are needed to raise the assessed value? (c) What is an optimum population? (d) What steps are needed to encourage or allow such population to be attained? Until these are answered I oppose any adoption of the proposed amendment, Yours truly, TEED & TEED " c � is e ELT/bh 1.* 1 Eric L. Teed, O.C., C.D., Q.C. 127 Prince William Street, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 2B4 Tel.: (506) 634 -7320 Fax: (506) 634 -7423 March 24, 1999 Common Council City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan - Municipal Plan Amendment I herewith make my objection to the Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment by adopting the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10. As was stated to Council by Staff on January 18th, the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan substantially reaffirms the existing Municipal Plan for the area. While the objective of reaffirmation by the Amendment may be well intended, I submit the reaffirmation will limit the development of the City both commercially and residentially, and in effect continue to maintain a land use freeze in the Central Peninsula, contrary to the best interests of the City as a whole, and the merchants and businesses in the Peninsula area in particular. There is already a development plan covering the Peninsula area. This was adopted by a prior Council. You are members of a new Common Council. You are not expected to blindly follow the development plans accepted by prior Councils. This is your opportunity to reconsider development plans based on information which has become pertinent since the development plan was accepted. I suggest relevant information now available will show many of the objectives and policies upon which the existing plan was formulated are no longer valid and are no longer in the best interests of the City. For this Council to accept the proposed Amendment by adopting the revised Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan as Part 10, which is substantially a reaffirmation of the existing plan, will effectively tie this Council's hands during the remainder of your term. You will be declaring to the public that not only is the existing plan proper, but you are ratifying the policies set out in the Plan. Once you reaffirm the basic Plan, it would be illogical to make any significant changes in the PIan for the remainder of your term. However, if you leave the present Plan as it is, you are then free to revise it and direct new policies beneficial to the City, should the occasion arise. In short why should this Council commit itself now and literally tie its hands from making changes when there is no real-or pressing need to do so. What is the benefit and what is the harm? These are the two questions you should first answer. I suggest there is little real benefit in adopting the Amendment at this time. I suggest there can be substantial harm in adopting this proposed Amendment. WHAT IS THE HISTORY A short review of the history of the City indicates that in the City, the Central Peninsula was the first area for city development. The City itself was laid out in building lots and the Central area started to progress. It was initially intended there be two commercial areas. The first area was in the South being Broad Street (then called Main Street), leading to Lower Cove, a Lower Cove in which I have worked unloading lumber from barges, a Lower Cove which no longer exists. The second area was in the north along King Street, leading to Upper Cove, presently Market Slip, which also has substantially disappeared. Over a period of time, commercial developments developed in the Market Slip and King Street area. The intended development of the Broad Street or Lower Cove areas did not evolve to the same extent. URBAN RENEWAL Three concentrated residential areas in this City developed south of City Road, being popularly termed the South End, south of Duke Street, Central or Uptown, south of Coburg Street to Duke Street, and the East End areas, south east of Waterloo Street and Prince Edward Street. -2- In the late 1950's it became recognized that many of the residential buildings in the City, particularly in the East End area, had deteriorated and in effect bad become residential slums. The City, to its credit, undertook the first Urban Renewal Program in Canada under a Federal/Provincial/Municipal cost sharing arrangement. The Urban Renewal Program consisted of acquiring and demolishing slum residences. This to a degree meant relocating part of the population. The economic theory advocated by the promoters of Urban Renewal was in part that the money paid for acquiring properties would be reinvested as equity in new building construction, thus generating real growth and an improved tax base in the City. Unfortunately, this theory did not turn out to be the fact. The money received by the former property owners to a large degree was not reinvested within the Urban Renewal area or even in the City core, but was expended either for development elsewhere or kept for investment in securities. Perhaps the most blatant example of this flow of Urban Renewal money to outside the City is the case of the then Barbour's manufacturing facility on Union Street. This enterprise sought the extension of the initial Urban Renewal established boundary limits to include its manufacturing facility then on Union Street, an area which had been left out of the original plan. The boundary limits extended and the Barbour's manufacturing facility was acquired at considerable public expense. Much to the dismay of the City and probably the other Urban Renewal partners, the facility, instead of relocating on newly made available property within the Urban Renewal area or even elsewhere within the City, relocated to Sussex where it still is. Ilowever, that does not detract from the overall improvements in social concepts resulting from the Urban Renewal program, notwithstanding the economic benefits did not materialize as anticipated. The end result was a large number of families and persons who lived in the Urban Renewal area, particularly in the East End and South End were relocated outside the Peninsula area_ As a direct result of this, the population in the Peninsula declined. It is self - evident that as the crowded slum conditions cannot be allowed to be repeated, large areas of land formerly filled with densely populated housing are no longer available for any housing, in part due to green space, improved roadways and playgrounds. Having a plan which proposes to confine housing in the Peninsula to medium density can only result in the Peninsula having a population frozen in size. Medium density housing should n.ot be allowed to be the form of housing within the remaining residential areas in the Peninsula if the Central Core of the City is to survive. The concept of high density housing through high -rise development must be encouraged. -3- HIGH RISE AND LAND ASSEMBLY - PRESENTLY DISCOURAGED This concept of developing high -rise residences was recognized for a period after the Urban Renewal program was completed. The City then entered into a program of acquiring vacant properties as they became available in the Peninsula for the purpose of land assembly and ultimate economic beneficial development when sufficient land became available. This would mean larger lots of land could be made available for developers of high -rise housing developments of a modern style with appropriate green space and parking, which would provide a greater assessment base and desirable accommodation. It is of interest to learn that as far back as 1790 a policy of land assembly off Germain Street was instituted by Benedict Arnold. Unfortunately, this policy of land assembly or land banking, re- established in the 1960's, has during the past two decades been reversed. A program of so- called infill development has been implemented and the City is endeavouring to dispose of any vacant land it may have in the Peninsula area. The result of infill means that the required land assembly for large housing units becomes uneconomical and the property continues to be frozen for a limited residential development. The proposal to continue the zoning freeze of a large area of the City Center as medium density residential means that the development of the City has to take place on the outskirts, as in fact has been happening. This is manifested by the shrinkage of the City population from close to 100,000 population in the late 1960's after amalgamation to a reduced population in the low 70,000's today. Areas such as Quispamsis with a relatively new population of 20,000, (largely of former City residents) as well as other adjacent suburban areas, have developed to the chagrin of Saint John. The housing policies of the City over the years do not appear to have encouraged persons to live within the central area of the City. The concept of the proposed central peninsula land use plan, through the land use freeze, results in the stifling of needed population growth in the Peninsula area. FULFILLING A HARMFUL SLOGAN Some years back the slogan "greatest little city in the East ", a takeoff of a then popular western movie, was promoted by the then Mayor. Unfortunately, it is still used occasionally as a slogan, one which usually evokes a laugh or a snide comment. I suggest a slogan which draws -4. laughter or derision should not be continued. If the slogan had been the "greatest City in the east ", things might be different Who wants a little City? Unfortunately, the City policies appear to be designed to fulfill this slogan. Saint John, instead of continuing to grow in population and become a great City, has seen its population shrink and shrink closer and closer to the apparent goal of becoming a little City, a trend I fervently hope this Council will take steps to reverse. That is why I am here to express my concerns over the proposed Amendment, which I feel is intended to reaffirm a position which will lead to the stagnation and the continued deterioration of the Central core of our Municipality. TWO MAJOR ERRORS The two major items of reaffirmation which I feel improper and detrimental to the future development of the City are: 1. The Peninsula Plan reaffirms the medium density residential designation of the central peninsula. This can only be detrimental to the City as a whole in the long run as it will continue the deterioration of the central core of the City through lack of population. 2. The Peninsula Plan reasserts the desire for public access to the waterfront. This indeed is questionable. There is ample public access at present which is neither promoted nor used. It is inconsistent with the overall development of the City as a major transportation center, and appears to conflict with the reaffirmation of the extent of the port and industrial areas. The Plan states the basic thrust is to support and encourage the residential areas adjacent to Uptown. However, what is proposed will not encourage the residential areas but on the contrary prevent needed residential expansion. It is important to recognize that commercial assessments have dropped because of the lack of population. The development of some high -rise commercial enterprises to the north of King Street produce sufficient worker population to maintain some commercial establishments for shopping and restaurants, but it is disturbing to see the continued movement of commercial stores away from the Peninsula. -5- One local merchant recently observed the commercial center of the City is moving to the East. I can only hope he is wrong or if correct, the trend will be halted. However, the observation needs immediate study before any reaffirmation by the adoption of the proposal before Council takes place. I suggest City planners have failed to appreciate that once a person who may work in the City Center leaves the City Center for home, he generally does not come back into the City for shopping, but does his shopping in the area closest to his home. This is evidenced by the growing expansion in the McAllister Mall area in the eastern area of the City which is the fastest growing commercial in contrast to commercial areas in uptown Saint John or Centre in the Peninsula which are closing. Uptown Saint John can make all expenditures it wants as cosmetic improvement, but if people don't live in the area or live within walking distance, the so- called uptown shopping area of the City will continue to face dispersion leading the its decline. One only has to come to the City Center after 6:00 o'clock and see the prevailing emptiness. Even the uptown Theater Centre has relocated to the East. The South Central Citizens' Committee should be commended for its interest, but if the report is correct, it appears to be dedicated basically to maintaining the status quo. If this is accepted, it means the City of Saint John cannot progress the way it should. I must confess the apparent approval of Uptown Saint John to the Peninsula Plan is not only surprising but indicates a major fault in failing to analyze the real problems which are now facing and will continue to face the City and Uptown if the Development Plan is reaffirmed. A most recent example of out- movement is the fact that Shoppers Store on Charlotte Street is now closed, due to lack of population, and Centenary Queen Square Church has closed its church building due to lack of population. NEED FOR MORE POPULATION TO IMPROVE LIFESTYLE "The remedy for improving the lifestyle of the Peninsula and to preserve or increase the assessment base is more population. With stores closing and moving out, the life style of area residents is clearly adversely affected. Stores are to serve residents and form an important function in our society./ To get more population there must be a change in the planning. I suggest Council should set as a goal a population base of 25,000 in the Peninsula area. Then Council should ask the Q planners what type of residential buildings are needed to accomplish this goal. I am sure you will find it is not medium density housing as is proposed. It is more than interesting to learn that in 1850 the population of" Saint John City was 25,000. inhabitants. The City then was bounded by City Road and on the west side by City Line. This meant approximately 5,000 lived on the West Side and 20,000 people lived in the Peninsula area. Now, 150 years later, approximately only 10,000 people live in the Peninsula. Unfortunately, this present 10,000 population which is recognized under the proposed plan will continue to be only 10,000 in perpetuity. The Peninsula cannot exist with a population basis of 10,000 persons. The proposal states "Historically, and in the present day, the uptown commercial area continues to be the center of commerce for the City ". If by commerce is meant "business offices ", this may be correct. However as a commercial center related to shopping this is no longer the case. The suggestion that people wanting to return are from the 50+ age group may be correct, but limiting housing to medium density type of residences will not allow them to do this. The proposal overlooked the fact many seniors no longer wish to maintain their own homes. High -rise residential units are of growing popularity, yet none could be developed in the Peninsula area notwithstanding ideal locations. The question of home owners versus renters as mentioned is immaterial as long as people are living in the Peninsula. It is a basic flaw in planning to assume every home must be personally owned, as is suggested in the Introduction of the proposal. To accept this concept leads to Urban sprawl, a situation which not only the experts in Town Planning, but common sense, concludes is undesirable. POPULATION WITH NO GROWTH The PIan correctly indicates there has been a stabilization in population on the Peninsula of some 10,000 for several years. Unfortunately the Plan nowhere states that this is good for the City. Younger people can only move to the Peninsula to enjoy ease of access if they either displace older people or if there is a different form of housing. It is correct that builders should take advantage of the existing infrastructure, but this reaffirmation plan does not allow such to be done. A freeze to 7- medium density residences will prevent the needed population growth. It will also inhibit needed assessment growth. This freezing of population is clearly indicated by the fact that churches are closing and schools are closing and vendors are moving. The needed central population is no longer there. "There is a major difference between locations for work, and locations for living. While jobs within the City are valuable, if all workers live outside the City, the benefit is substantially diminished. NEED FOR STRONG RESIDENTIAL AREA I fully agree with the statement it is important to have a strong residential area as part of the land use (Page 3). However, this is not what the plan visualizes. It correctly states "The strength of the Peninsula residential neighbourhoods is critical to the strength of the Uptown or the central business district ", but the Plan does nothing to strengthen the Peninsula residential neighbourhood. It correctly states there are a few high density multi-unit residential buildings constructed during the 50's and 60's but few have been constructed since. The only positive step is the conversion of the Admiral Beatty Hotel to residences and the construction at York Point some 20 years ago. Otherwise, high -rise construction has been discouraged by the Zoning Laws and the overall Plan. Adoption of the proposed Plan will continue to discourage needed high -rise high density development. PARTICULAR OBJECTIONABLE POLICIES To highlight a few of the policies which are objectionable, I can note Policy 1.1.1 in particular, "the proposed development of land uses which are compatible with and help strengthen the existina residential areas ". This could prohibit and will continue to prohibit the development of needed high -rise, high density residential buildings. Policy 1. 1.3 is commendable. Encourage construction and maintenance of quality housing. Unfortunately however, "quality housing" to the planner means medium density, which I suggest is wrong. -S- POLICY OF DISCRIMINATION Policy 1. 1.5 appears to be a policy of outright discrimination against a class of citizens. Special care homes and group homes for persons who are in need are to be regulated to locations and densities which do not negatively affect the surrounding neighbourhood, whatever that may mean. It clearly sets out as a policy that special care and group homes are to be considered as negative bow . Can this Council actually accept such a concept? Can any of you as an individual publicly subscribe to a proposition that special care homes have a negative connotation? This means there will be no special care homes in the Peninsula area. Surely you as Councillors cannot support this negative and discriminatory proposal. I will not raise the question of it being a policy contrary to Human Rights legislation, or possibly the Charter of Rights. INFILL DEFEATS NEEDED DEVELOPMENT Policy 1.1.6 is the policy to develop the standards and encourage high duality design standards for infill development. I suggest this is again contrary to any possibility of land assembly. Council is asked to confirm infill policy which is contrary to needed land assembly. I suggest this policy is detrimental to the development of the City and in particular the City Center, unless this City Council agrees that it really does not want any increase in population in the Peninsula area. Policy 1. 1.7 is most harmful and should not be adopted. It should not be the policy of the City to ensure that medium density residential areas should be maintained through low -rise development. If the City of Saint John is to progress in accordance with progressive urban planning standards and concepts, there needs to be high -rise developments. When one travels to other cities one finds apartments or condominiums 10 or 15 stories high or higher. The south end of the City is ideally situated for high -rise with magnificent views. Practically anywhere south of Duke Street, one can see beautiful sites suitable for high -rise development with magnificent views. Such cannot take place if this Council reaffirms Policy 1.1.7. If the City Council reaffirms medium density residences for the entire area of the south end, then I again suggest the future of the area unfortunately will be curtailed. We will see the City core -9- become a frozen area and development will take place in other areas of the City, if not outside the City. It is unfortunate in my view that high -rise apartment development has been. consistently resisted by City Planners and City Councils over the years. Buildings like Prince Edward Square Apartments or the buildings on the waterfront at York Point are delightful for those persons who are fortunate enough to reside in them. More of these would result in greater population increase. in the Central area. Parking under Policy 1.1.8 again avoids the real question. It states: "It shall be the policy of the City to discourage the development of surface parking lots." This is sound although the Parking Commission may not be aware of it. Yet there is nothing to suggest there should be a development of underground parking lots as is done in other progressive cities. A city with nothing but surface parking lots creates a substantial waste of valuable land space. Policy 2. 1.1 again presents a freeze on commercial development to reaffirm what now exists. 1 suggest this is a dangerous policy. This prevents any change to commercial land for the foreseeable future. When one comes to Port and Industrial Parks, there are Policies 3.2 and 3.2.2 regarding Industrial Import Business Park which I feel are improper at this time. They are policies that say that there must be an encouraged residential development on the waterfront lands in the central Peninsula land use plans. This can only be done in the uptown regional center on a very restricted area. The public has access to the waterfront at present, but with the City's present policies a lot of this is underused. Pugsley Park is neither used nor promoted. The Boardwalk which gives a beautiful view of the City is underused and the City has taken no steps to encourage its use. Market Slip itself, which could be a delightful waterfront area of activities, has been turned into a sand playground for the enjoyment of some, most of who do not reside in the South End. URBAN DESIGN Urban Design Policy 2.2 on Page eleven could be supported provided it allows for high -rise. -10- It set out maintaining water views from streets and capitalizing on water views for the design of new developments. This cannot be done with medium density or low density buildings. High -rise would have an excellent opportunity if such was encouraged. An example of what I feel is poor planning is the recent housing development near the southern end of Prince William Street. There could be a magnificent view over the Harbour for a high -rise rather than the pleasant row housing. I commend the builder as the row housing is very pleasant, but I suggest it is unfortunately a waste of land when related to water areas and view. Medium density or low density are not productive tax bases when compared with the tax base provided by high density units. As stated, commercial residences provide substantially more taxes than private residences. Policy 2.3 on Page eleven deals with infill. It is suggested the present inf ll developments defeat the concept of a major development of high -rise. To develop public lands with a frozen population is not only wrong in principle but wrong in expenditure of monies. Policy 2.1.2 is not understood. How can one ensure that private public development increases public access to the waterfront and what does this mean? I am concerned that a recent spokesperson of the Citizens' South End group took the position that there should be low density houses on the waterfront. Surely this is not a serious position. It would certainly be of little benefit to the City as a whole. Policy 2.1.2( b) to ensure the development of quality living environment is an excellent concept, but it first needs the people to enjoy this quality living environment. For example, Queen Square North has little residential development on the north side. Instead of indicating this should be a delightful high -rise concept facing an open green and a view of the harbour, it is proposed to freeze land development. Policy 3.2.1 says "employ design standards which enhance the historic character of the Peninsula ". What does this mean? Do you know what you are asked to adopt? What is the historic character of the Peninsula. North of King Street we have buildings built before 1877. `Mien the Central area has brick buildings built in the period after the fire of 1877. To the east we have wooden buildings which are, in too many cases, converting to slums and deteriorating. To the north - 11 - of Waterloo Street, we have a large area of now vacant land which has no historical character whatsoever. One could say the historic character was a large population. If this is the concept, then high density must be encouraged. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING Policy 5.1 A major concern regarding transportation is through traffic. This Policy states it sball be the policy of the City to identify alternatives to the Lower Cove Loop and Crown Street. These are wide streets and of great value. To serve the port area and the central commercial area, the South End Loop was developed to take truck traffic in the most expedient way and with the least inconvenience for the major areas of the town. Truck traffic does not want to go into the internal parts of the City. Bypassing traffic need not go through the City but should be using the Throughway or City road. There should be no trucks travelling through King Street if it can be avoided. This was primarily the idea of having the Lower Cove Loop which was put in there deliberately to take the heavy traffic off the Central core and it has worked. What is the real objective of this proposed policy? South of the Lower Cove Loop there are few houses. Possibly that area should be considered as commercial and developed as such. Otherwise again we will have a Peninsula of low assessed value, a Peninsula which contains failing forms of businesses because there are insufficient residents to maintain the same, and a Peninsula area which will not be the basis of a vibrant developing city but an area frozen in time and space. There is reference to the educational system facilities with the objective of maintaining a high quality of public education in the schools. What has been completely neglected is the reason why so many schools have closed and so many churches have closed. The basic reason of course is lack of population. Yet, the overall plan is to freeze the population -- in effect freeze the amount of accommodation available for population. The present educational system, particularly high schools, are not for residents of the Peninsula but are for residents of the City as a whole. This appears to have been completely overlooked. WHY THIS OBJECTION? Perhaps you may ask why I object to the reaffirmation of the existing policy. I have a -12- continuing interest in the City as a whole. I have lived in the north end, the south end and on the west side. I have gone to school in the Peninsula area. I work in the Peninsula area. I am involved in ownership of five different properties, four in the Peninsula area. I would like to see the City developed as a place where people can live and work with a viable City Center or what has been to date the City Center. Yet I am afraid that the entire concept of the Peninsula area plan proposed in the Municipal Plan Amendment is to literally freeze the Peninsula for posterity. This will have an indirect and adverse effect upon the development of the City as a whole. The City Manager recently stated that the assessments of the center of the City- have decreased. That is a fact, but the question which has not been answered or even asked, is why have they decreased. Unfortunately, I suggest this proposed Municipal Plan Amendment, if adopted as it is proposed, will do nothing to increase the assessments but rather will continue their devaluation, allowing other areas of the City to develop and have a vibrant life at the expenses of the present City core. It apparently has not been appreciated that rental apartments result in 50% more in Municipal real estate taxes than individual homes of the same assessment value. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? The fact the City's population has shrunk by nearly twenty -five percent since 1970 has not been addressed as to why nor how to stop it. One would think this is a basic question to be asked before a major area of the City is subject to a reaffirmation plan. A number of consultants' reports made over twenty years ago projected that Saint John's population would be substantially over 100,000 by the year 2000. Upon these projections, certain developments were proposed. These projections have proved erroneous. If this Council wishes to abandon the Central core and allow the City to develop with the business center being located in the McAllister Drive area, then by all means adopt the proposed amendments forthwith. I acknowledge that the Municipal Plan may already restrict development but for City Council to now reaffirm these concepts disregards what is best for the City as a whole. The decision -13- is in your hands. If that is Council's wish of course you will vote for adopting the proposed initial Plan Amendment forthwith. If on the other hand you feel that this should be fiu they reviewed and, if you ask yourself why there should be a freeze in population or why there has been the population shrinkage, and shouldn't these be first addressed, then you should reject the amendment until the pertinent questions have been asked and answered. There is no urgent need to adopt the so- called central Peninsula Land Use Plan at this time. To do so at this time would in effect be giving notice to the general public and the Province as a whole that the present Saint John Common is quite content with a frozen area of the City. Section 27 of the Community Planning Act points this out. The adoption shall not commit the Municipality to undertake any proposal but shall prevent the undertaking of any development in a manner inconsistent or at variance with any proposal or policy so outlined. Possibly the Council members have asked themselves where is the hoped for growth in population in the City going to take place. If your answer is outside the central Peninsula and you are fully satisfied with that, so be it. One can only hope your answer will prove to be beneficial to the citizens as a whole. However, I suggest that a careful review will indicate that any population growth of the City must also in fact be encouraged to take place within the central Peninsula. If such is to be the policy of this Council, then the proposed Municipal Plan Amendment should not be adopted without major changes. In summary, I suggest before any action is taken on the Plan, Council should seek and obtain answers to the following questions: 1. Why has the assessed value of business assessments in central Saint John decreased? 2. What is required to have business assessments increase in value? 3. Why are so many business relocating outside the Peninsula area? -14- 4. What is a desirable population for the Peninsula area? 5. What steps need to be taken to acquire such desirable population for the Peninsula area? 6. What locations should be zoned and be available for high -rise residential buildings taking advantage of the wonderful harbour view, if such is found to be beneficial to the Peninsula area? These basic questions should be answered before planning concepts are promulgated. The Peninsula Plan unfortunately does nothing to determine, nor is it directed to, what is a desirable or needed population., nor does it meet or answer any of the above questions. Until these or similar questions are first answered, there is no reason why the proposed amendment should be adopted at this time. Some may say it won't hurt. I suggest this is incorrect. When Council adopts by reaffirming, a policy which cannot be in the best interests of the City, it clearly sends a public message that residential progress is to be limited in the Central area of the City. In closing, I reiterate my suggestion that the Council could properly set a central population goal for the Peninsula area of 25,000 residents. Then Council should determine what changes in planning should be made to attain such population goal. Appropriate staff should be requested to determine the answers before any further action is taken on the proposed Amendments to the Municipal Plan. Thank you for allowing me to present my views. Yours truly, ELVemw '' 1 y AR 25 1999 -15- OF March 26, 1999 4 Mayor McAlary & Council 8t' Floor, City Hall PO Box 1971 Saint John, NB E21, 4L1 RE: MUNICIPAL PLAN AMENDMENT Your Worship & Common Council: On March 23`d, the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan was presented to the Planning Advisory Committee as an amendment to the Municipal Plan. The development of the Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan was made possible through a partnership between Uptown Saint John Inc, the City of Saint John, Peninsula residents, and the business community. The strength of the peninsula neighbourhood is critical to the vitality of the 40 KING STREET uptown central business district. It is my understanding that this amendment SAINTIOIIN is being heard on Monday, March 29P at the Council Meeting. On behalf of NEW G3wlc 1. Uptown Saint John Inc., I would like to express our intention to attend this meeting and make a short presentation in favor of the adoption of this TELEPHONE amendment. 506.633.9797 FACSIMILE Please contact me at 633 -9797, if you have any questions. 506-652-3525 1 -888 - LIPTOViJ'NSJ Yours truly, z 'r0,Pcor IcuR r„3 ' ° D C'g; jR, i 506-652-3525 44AR 26 " 0 40, RU li Kl N6 SAIN'rJOIIN NOUVEAU- BRUNSWICK E21- 1G3 Susan Harley, President '14-1 ,IIIIONE Uptown Saint John Inc. 506-633-9797 z 'r0,Pcor IcuR r„3 ' ° D C'g; jR, i 506-652-3525 44AR 26 " 0 Nna% City of Saint John INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER For City of Saint John use only: Budget Number: 11000004421-010 Department: COMMON CLERK Contact: MARY L. MUNFORD Phone: 658 -2$62 Fax: 658 -2802 Special Instructions (if any): Newspaper Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (SJTG —Saint John Times Globe; T -J= Telegraph Journal) " SJTG City Information Ad SJTG Independent Placement '- SJTG Classifieds ' T -J Independent Placement " T -J Classifieds Date(s): Tuesday, June 29, 1999 Date(s): Date(s): Date(s): Date(s): Information for Ad (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc.) Section Headline: ❑ Tender(s) ❑ Proposal(s) d Public Notice(s) F] Mavor's MessaLye n General Nntirefcl Sub- Headline (if applicable): Text: INSERT ATTACHED Call to Action: Mary L. Munford, Common Clerk Contact: Telephone: (506) 658 -2862 ENACTED BY -LAWS Public Notice is hereby given that the following by -laws enacted by the Common Council of The City of Saint John have been approved by the Minister of Municipalities and Housing if required, and have been filed in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in and for the County of Saint John and became effective on the dates noted below, namely: DATED FILED 1. By -law Number C.P. 120 -3 A By -law To Amend A By- law To Regulate The Subdivision Of land Within The City of Saint John May 12, 1999 2. By -law Number C.P. 100 -477 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 450 -500 Westmorland Road) June 15, 1999 3. By -law Number C.P. 100 -494 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -[aw Of the City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 91 Prince Edward Street) April 27, 1999 4. By -law Number C.P. 100 -495 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 556 Woodward Avenue) May 12, 1999 5. By -law Number C.P. 100 -496 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 101 Boars Head Road) May 12, 1999 6. By -law Number C.P. 100 -497 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 333 -335 Main Street) May 12, 1999 7. By -law Number C.P. 100 -499 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 33 Magazine Street) May 12, 1999 8. By -law Number C.P. 100 -500 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 120 McDonald Street) May 12, 1999 9. By -law Number C.P. 100 -501 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 1022 Miilidge Avenue) June 15, 1999 10. By -law Number C.P. 100 -502 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 1360 Manawagonish Road) June 15, 1999 11. A Law To Amend The Municipal Plan By -law (amending Section 3.4.1 of the Millidgeville Secondary Plan re 177 -187 Manners Sutton Road) 12. By -law Number C.P. 100 -503 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 177 -187 Manners Sutton Road) 13. By -law Number C.P. 100 -504 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City of Saint John (amending Schedule "A" re 111 -113 McAllister Drive) June 15, 1999 June 15, 1999 June 15, 1999 s Office of the Mary L. Munford Common Clerk Common CIerk May 4, 1999 E & P Holdings Ltd. 1303 Greene Avenue, Suite 402 Westmount, PQ H3Z 2A7 Dear Sirs: Re: 91 Prince Edward Street P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2862 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 :; City of Saint John Enclosed is a copy of an amendment to the Zoning By -law of the City of Saint John with respect to the above property. Pursuant to the provisions of the Community Planning Act, the By -law was filed in the Registry Office on April 27, 1999 and became effective on that date. Yours truly, A ,9,&t X 'A I Mary L. unford Common Clerk MLMljaf encl. cc: Jim Baird, Manager, Community Planning PENDING REZONING F ERTY LOCATION: - CP 100 -494 - 91 Prince Edward Street SUBJECT: Amend Zoning By -Law REGISTRY OFFICE: - * *certify 2 copies of Rezoning By -law Amendment - letter size - attach "A" (a signed copy of By -law) - attach the street map (which is part of the By -law ** margins for these documents only - 2" top margin, 1.5" side margins Common Clerk's Office will file the By -law, returning 1 copy the Office To John Nugent - April 15, 1999 Copy to - - Applicant - copy of By -law and all attachments - cc: J. Baird - copy of By -law and all attachments BY -LAW NUMBER C.P. 100 -494 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 fourteenth day of November, A.D. 1983, is amended by: Amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of the City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 91 Prince Edward Street, having an area of approximately 850 square metres (9,150 square feet), also identified as being NBGIC #12427, from "IL -'I" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General Business classification - 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 sixth day of April A.D. 1999 and signed by: ayor, the mem r of Council who pre d at the meeting at vfhjch it was enacted; and MON ( *4-1 - =do! First Reading - March 29, 1999 Second Reading - March 29, 1999 Third Reading - April 6, 1999 �l1 COMMUNITY PLANNING REZONING AMENDING MAP SHEET 124 SCHEDULE "A" OF THE ZONING BY --LAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN O`� OC k i � / 1 � � l r FROM TO IL -1 Neighbourhood Institutional B -2 General Business Applicant: E & P Holdings Ltd. Date Drn.: March 30, 1999 Location: 91 Prince Edward Street Drn. By: T. Duke Recommended by P.A.C.: March 23, 1999 File No.: 06N -98NW 00012427 Enacted by Council: Filed in Registry Office: Office of the Mary L. Munford Common Clerk Common Clerk April 12, 1999 E & P Holdings Ltd. 1303 Greene Avenue, Suite 402 Westmount, PQ H3Z 2A7 Dear Sirs: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2862 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 At a meeting of the Common Council, held on the 6th instant, the following resolution was adopted, namely:- City of Saint John "RESOLVED that the by -law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 100 -494 A Law To Amend The Zoning By -law Of The City Of Saint John ", insofar as it concerns re- zoning a parcel of land located at 91 Prince Edward Street, raving an area of approximately 850 square metres (9,150 square feet), also identified as being NBG1C Number 12427, from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General Business classification, be read a third time and enacted and the Corporate Common Seal be affixed thereto." Pursuant to the Community Planning Act, the said by -law will not become effective until it is filed in the Registry Office. You will be notified when this procedure has been carried out. Yours truly, Az"W k, "T /61;1W Mary L. Wunford Common Clerk MLM:sc BY -LAW NUMBER C.P. 100-m* A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BYLAW OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by the City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as follows: - The Zoning Bylaw of the City of Saint John, enacted on the fourteenth day of November, A.D. 1983, is amended by: Amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of the City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 91 Prince Edward Street, having an area of approximately 850 square metres (9,150 square feet), also identified as being NBGIC #12427, from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General Business classification - all as shown on the plan attached hereto and forming part of this by -law. First Reading -- March 29, 1999 Second Reading - March 29, 1999 Third Reading - 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. 1999 and signed by: *, the member of Council who presided at the meeting at which it was enacted; and Common Clerk PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW AMENDMENT RE: 91 PRINCE EDWARD STREET Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider amending the City of Saint John Zoning By -law at its regular meeting to be held on Monday, March 29, 1999 at 7:00 p.m., by: Rezoning a parcel of land located at 91 Prince Edward Street, having an area of approximately 850 square metres (9,150 square feet), also identified as being NBGIC #12427, from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General Business, as illustrated below. (INSERT MAP) REASON FOR CHANGE: To develop the site in conjunction with an adjacent property (formerly St. Joseph's School) for commercial use. The proposed amendment may be inspected by any interested person at the office of the Common Clerk, or in the office of the Planning Department, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. Written objections to the amendment may be sent to the undersigned at City Hall_ o�/ztA' / 3-11W.1 41 L,�� 4W City of Saint John INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER For City of Saint John use only: Budget Number: 110 0000 442 20 10 Department: Common Clerk's Office Contact: Mary Munford Phone: 658 -2862 Fax: 658 -2802 Special Instructions (if any): Newspaper Insertion Dates (Check as applicable) (ETG = Evening Times Globe; T -J = Telegraph Journal) X ETG City Information AD Date(s): Tuesday, March 2, 1999 Tuesday, March 23, 1999 ETG Independent Placement Date(s): ETG Classifieds Date(s): T -J Independent Placement Date(s): (� T -J Classifieds Date(s): INFORMATION FOR AD (Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad) Section Headline: 0 Tender(s) 0 Proposals(s) X Public Notice(s) 0 Mayor's Message Q General Notice(s) Sub - Headline (if applicable): Text: INSERT ATTACHED Call to Action: Mary L. Munford Common Clerk Contact: I Telephone: (506) 658-2862 Office of the Mary L. Munford Common Clerk Common Clerk March 2, 1999 E & P Holdings Ltd. 1303 Greene Avenue, Suite 402 Westmount, PQ H3Z 2A7 Dear Sirs: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2862 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 At a meeting of the Common Council, held on February 22, 1999, the following resolution was adopted, namely:- City of Saint John " RESOLVED that the application of E & P Holdings Ltd. for the re- zoning of property at 91 Prince Edward Street be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation and that the necessary advertising be authorized in this regard, with the public hearing to be held on Monday, March 29, 1999, at 7:00 o'clock p.m." Enclosed is a copy of the Public Notice in this regard. Yours truly, c�h IC.U/i -�cOi Mary L. Munford l/ Common Clerk MLM:sc Enc 01/15/99 13 :57 COMPROP INC (506)638 -9676 P. 006 jApplication for a Zoning By -law Amendment Applicant Related Information Name of Applicant oL-nl N6S 1 _1 b Mailing Address of Applicant 130 3 6QEEJV E AEI E STL 1-1 0-2- WeSTMOU►sf . D_QC 8C Postal Code R3 2 2A---�- Telephone Number Home - Busines S l y q33- y 7 11 Fax Number (if any) . 51 q 9 3 3 3y30 _ Name of property Owner (if different) Mailing Address of Owner Property Information Postal Code — ',,.o, - Athirr, W_ h6ni242 7 Civic# Street NBGIC# Lot Area 50 K��, treet Frontage Z�' LL t: Existing Use of Property Municipal Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Requested Present zoning M Change zoning to and/or p Text Amendment (indicate particulars) f e is 9% amcw t� 01/15/99 13:58 COMPROP INC (506)648 -9676 P. 008 1 Development Proposal DeDescription of Proposal n n 7 i � 7.t�i1r % - XC n You must provide a scaled site plan that illuftrates your proposal, You may also provide photographs, building plans, elevation drmvings and any other form of lnformattoJt The plan must show the dimensions of the property, the location of all buildings. driveway,; parking areas, landscaping and signs _ It is important that the distance between the property boundary and buildings are show. Provide reasons why this amendment should be approved Pal //C 'l Provide any other information about your proposal that would be helpful &P H=NGS LTD. Signature of Applicant Date --M R3 +'5 j Itp t�, Wrf4Q0 Application Fee Enclosed If you are nor the owner of the land In question please have the owner sFgn below The signature from the owner is authorizing this application to proceed for consideration by Common Council, Signature of Owner (if applicable) Date New i� Rri i n.wi ek Corporation d'information geographigve © NBGIC /CIGNB I:I000 Echelc 0 20 40 60 metres Date printed I Date imprimcc Wed JuI 23,1997 Time/L'Heure 09:53:28 AM tAI.J. this m.P may net be frw ftom .erar a amoaian, ha ban tak u to c and h>otian op rlrla �Hty. This map is ■ 6raphieal r.pry neation of ptop.NYbeaedarin whieh>ppaF kW d� aa•. oon to w- W k w not a sa n .y and b rot idand.d to W mil Fx 4pl mPt,rnf ar to aku4h ea�7 dmwuwn ar aesa A inn• si nsw. avom P win da.sarw h m+itlaen �a1RJ poanbL o.na , P� n• pa WO —" d.n:wra ae donrisiana. Oii. Ell. pr1.•nb hra lin a.� d.w 6i•n••fwda sous form• da'Phitur w a done. h aerfaw. h owfigw.tw at [•mphewnMl.pprwcimt Ell. u• --t. 1 u LPu rs t..d w n• doit itr• u¢li.d. Poor w+ d.r a—ipri- jeridpw A Pawn ca[atiiw lr dines — ae [grin w1n O•n.ru.d by CAMS far window. Soft— (V3 W r• DRAFT BY -LAW NUMBER C.P. 100-* 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 fourteenth day of November, A.D. 1983, is amended by: 1. Amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of the City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 91 Prince Edward Street, having an area of approximately 850 square metres (9,150 square feet), also identified as being NBGIC #12427, from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General Business classification - 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. 1999 and signed by: *, the member of Council who presided at the meeting at which it was enacted; and Common Clerk First Reading - Second Reading - Third Reading - Planning Advisory Committee OPEN SESSION March 25, 1999 Your Worship and Councillors: P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L 4L1 SUBJECT: Rezoning Application 91 Prince Edward Street City of Saint John On February 22, 1999 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee considered the attached report at its March 23, 1999 meeting. Mr. Fred Dixon appeared at the meeting on behalf of the applicant and indicated he was in favour of staff s recommendation. No other person appeared at the meeting regarding this matter and no letters were received for this application. The Committee adopted staff's recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: That Common Council rezone a parcel of land, located at 91 Prince Edward Street, having an area of approximately 850 square metres (9,150 square feet) also identified as NBGIC number 12427, from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General Business. Respec lly submitted, 'A. (Sandy) Robertson ;'s ice - Chairman CL/ Attachments Community Jim Baird MCIP PO. Box 1971 506 658 -2835 Planning Manager Saint John 506 658 -2837 (Pax) New Brunswick Canada E2L 41-1 DATE: TO: FROM: FOR: SUBJECT: Name of Applicant: Name of Owner: Location: NBGIC: Municipal Plan: Zoning: Proposal: Type of Application: MARCH 19, 1999 PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMUNITY PLANNING MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1999 ¢urtis Langill--' Planning Officer E & P Holdings Ltd. E & P Holdings Ltd. 91 Prince Edward Street 12427 Uptown Regional Centre City of Saint John Existing: "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional Proposed: `B -2" General Business To develop the site in conjunction with an adjacent property (formerly St. Joseph's School) for commercial use. Rezoning E & P Holdings Page: 2 91 Prince Edward Street Date: March 19, 1999 JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE: The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning proposed amendments to the Zoning By --Iaw. The Committee's recommendation will be considered at a public hearing on Monday, March 29, 1999. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That Common Council rezone a parcel of land, located at 91 Prince Edward Street, having an area of approximately 850 square metres (9,150 square feet) also identified as NBGIC number 12127, from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General Business. BACKGROUND: In January of this year, Council approved an application to rezone an adjacent parcel, known as 28 Richmond Street (formerly St. Joseph's School) to `B -2" General Business. The applicant, E & P Holdings Ltd. have purchased this property in addition to the property at 91 Prince Edward Street. The applicant intends to develop the two parcels in conjunction with one another and therefore, is requesting to have the subject property placed in the same zone category as the former St. Joseph's School property. JNPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES: Engineering has no objection to the proposed rezoning of this property to a commercial zone category. Building and Technical Services has no objections. ANALYSIS: Site and Nei hbourhood The subject property is located in the City's Peninsula, across the street from Prince Edward Mall. The site is surrounded by a number of commercial businesses. The Waterloo /Richmond/Prince Edward Street area is a neighbourhood of mixed commercial, residential and institutional development on the fringe of the Uptown area. E & P Holdings Page: 3 91 Prince Edward Street Date: March 19, 1999 The site is presently vacant and is illustrated on an attached photograph. The site slopes upward from Prince Edward Street, towards the former St. Joseph's School property. Proposal The application is to rezone the parcel of land from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to `B -2" General Business. The subject site was formerly owned by N.B. Supply and Services and is presently vacant. The new owner, E & P Holdings Ltd. purchased both the subject property and the adjacent property to the rear, formerly known as the St. Joseph's School. The applicant plans to develop both lots for commercial use in conjunction with one another. Rezonin All of the surrounding area is already zoned `B -2" General Business. The rezoning of this property will nearly complete the commercial zoning along Waterloo/Richmond/Prince Edward Street area. Redevelopment of this property for commercial use would be compatible with the surrounding properties. Rezoning of this property is supported. CONCLUSION: Rezoning this property to `B -2" General Business would be in keeping with the properties presently zoned the same category in this neighbourhood. Approval of rezoning to `B -2" General Business is recommended. COMMUNITY PLANNING 4 124 29 OJ ^4 91 ; 12140 �C� 30 • 16 18 28 11 17 22 15 18 • 110 • 1 16 3 9 ld 139 ,•�• �• 2 7 IL 1113 3 �• 13513 Q 9 10 6 15 • I3, 3 • f� 12 f +!�Pi 31 • •� 4 •� 179 • / 14 16 �� • i /wa•� 2 7 0 18 +•+ 10: • • 12 5 2 0 26 •' a�• oa 30 4 g 4 �1,� / 9 d �• 0 , 117 t? G 0 4 2 • •�•� •�� , 2 8 ,��• 27 1 13 �� ll_ ., 4 6 •� • M- f •.� i +'�► X6''7%• :J I to ... / w Fundy -Coble {` 7 7A 76 \ 0^44446 I Oil � •� % 2 ss �5 0 72 39 Ty • O •0.;�!_`:F nce -_ .v ar z 2 4 o I• ~•T .0 Q Div Q 38 6u � i • 62 ", • I Q9 58 ~ •, 64 6163 27 79 3! • n : 4B ID 37 • + 1 � 33 5 • �N" Q2 Q9 •� 2D 2 •�S • \ y 3n • M RM, r 6Q 5 G 54• +• +•: 3 7 ` 10 � � +��•` j•B� • I� at•/• 15 S VI 2d5 � `� • • n3 j 223 233 737 237 21 3 -• +•� : ?.0 1 2 21 :a 23, •4p �` 6 219 • •�•• z 6 + l �• 7 11 � t 21-1 8 1 -•-• _n {d °11 � 1 1 .J r��• NBGIC Number (s): Subject Site: 00012427 Address: 91 Prince Edward Street { Map Number: 06N -98NW Date: March 10, 1999 Scale: N.T.S. .1..... , � U N D Y .... , . . Region ,Solid Waste Commission Memorandum To: City of Saint John Town of Rothesay Town of Quispamsis Town of Grand Bay - Westfield Town of Hampton Village of St. Martins Minister of Municipalities & Housing Minister of the Environment From: John King, Chairman FRSWC Date: March 31, 1999 Subject: Auditor's Report and Financial Statements for the Year 1998 Please find enclosed the Auditor's Report and Financial Statements for the Commission for the Fiscal Year 1 January to 31 December, 1998, pursuant to Section 7.1 in N.B. Regulation 96.11 under the Clean Environment Act. Yours very truly, John King Chairman, FRSWC Encl. �z.c' COV "M QLRM ON= APR i iM cfrv(p Page 1 of 1 PRX"ATERHOUSECOOPERS 0 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Financial Statements December 31, 1998 PMEWATERHOUSECOOPER5 I February 5, 1999 Auditors' Report To the Shareholders of Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Chartered Accountants 401 Brunswick House 44 Chipman Hill PO Box 789 Saint John New Brunswick Canada EM 4B9 Telephone +1 (506) 632 1810 Facsimile +1 (506) 632 8997 We have audited the balance sheets of the Operating Fund, the Capital Fund, and Special Funds of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission as at December 31, 1998 and the related statements of revenue and expenditure, investment in capital assets and capital financing for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Commission's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Commission as at December 31, 1998 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted for New Brunswick municipalities. zz 19 Chartered Accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is a Canadian member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, an English company limited by guarantee. Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Operating Fund Balance Sheet As at December 31, 1998 Assets Cash Accounts receivable Due from Capital Fund GST/HST recoverable Prepaid expenses Liabilities Accounts payable Security deposits Due to Perpetual Care fund Due to Recreational Fund Due to Capital Fund Surplus Balance - Beginning of year Transfer previous surplus (note 7) Excess revenue over expenditure for the year Approved on behalf of the Commission Members 1998 1997 S S 9,093,642 403,352 380,891 298,673 - 809,628 763,160 638,779 29,134 90.485 10,266,827 2,240,917 1,703,271 2,181,505 36,224 31,424 146,543 16,027 66,285 8,013 8,310,992 - 10,263,315 2,236,969 3,948 27,433 (3,245) (24,188) 2,809 703 3,512 3,948 10,266,827 2,240,917 Commission Mcmbey. -- =�"- �,`1� Commission Member RICE WATERHOUSECOOPER5 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Operating Fund Statement of Revenue and Expenditure For the year ended December 31, 1998 1998 1997 Budget Actual Actual Revenue Tipping fees 4,845,000 4,213,759 457,231 Interest - 42,812 11,002 Other - 11,074 2,756 Previous surplus (note 7) - 3,245 _ 24,188 4.845,000 4,270.890 495.177 Expenditure Office and administration 70,500 97,200 13,601 Public consultation 90,000 32,956 5,344 Landfill operating costs 1,216,000 1,807,464 324,668 Personnel 246,500 201,867 16,714 Technical 3,000 10,147 1,183 Fiscal services 3,189,000 2,046,927 110,991 Professional services 30,000 71,520 21.973 Excess revenue over expenditure for the year pR10EWATERHOUSECCnPERS 4,845,000 4 268 081 494,474 2,809 703 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Capital Fund Balance Sheet As at December 31, 1998 Assets Due from Operating Fund Deferred financing charges Receivable — Province of New Brunswick, Department of Environment (note 6) Capital assets Land Buildings Landfill site improvements Landscaping Leachate Pre Treatment Highway intersection improvements Landfill cells Furniture and office equipment Preliminary studies Landfill equipment Light equipment Liabilities Long -term debentures (note 4) Due to Operating Fund Interim financing bank loans (note 3) Investment in Capital Assets ftICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS 1998 1997 $ $ 8,310,992 115,670 6,660,634 4,162,314 15,087,296 4,162,314 1,173,460 1,173,460 1,347,130 414,099 5,869,117 5,234,655 1,035,820 349,217 3,829,056 8,113 1,265,823 1,255,985 6,416,276 3,678,134 77,308 65,648 3,448,557 3,112,557 1,332,524 1,11 1,804 103.864 25,898,935 _ 16,403,672 40,986,231 _ 20,565,986 8,900,000 - 809,628 19, 050,000 11,550,000 27,950,000 12,359,628 13,036,231 8,206,358 40,986;231 20,565,986 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Capital Fund Statement of Investment in Capital Assets For the year ended December 31, 1998 Balance — beginning of year Transfer from Operating Fund for capital expenditures Contributions from Department of Environment Balance — end of year PRICEW TERHOUSECGOPER5 a 1998 1997 S � 8,206,358 1,570,011 1,001,553 25,963 3,828,320 6 610 384 13,036,231 _ 8,206,358 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Capital Fund Statement of Capital Financing For the year ended December 31, 1998 Source Unapplied from previous year Receivable from Department of Environment Contributions from Department of Environment Contributions from Operating Fund Temporary financing at end of year Due to Operating Fund Interim financing bank loans Lone -term debenture Application Temporary financing at end of previous year Due to Operating Fund Interim financing bank loans Deferred contributions from Department of Environment Capital expenditures Capitalization of Pre - operating period expenditures Unapplied at end of year Receivable from Department of Environment Deferred financing charges Due from Operating Fund PR I CEWATERHO USECQOPERS 1998 1997 4,162,314 171,144 3,828,320 6,6I0,384 1,001,553 25,963 809,628 19,050,000 11,550,000 8.900.000 - _ _36,942,187 19,167,119 809,628 200,723 11,550,000 1,050,000 - 1,578,270 12,359,628 9,495,263 2,828,993 12,022,072 153,740 6,660,634 4,162,314 115,670 8,310,992 - 362942,187 19,167,119 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Special Funds Balance Sheet As at December 31, 1998 1998 1997 Assets Perpetual Care Fund (note 9) Cash 16,027 Due from Operating Fund 146,543 16,027 162,570 16,027 Recreation Fund (note 10) Due from Operating Fund 66,285 8,013 228,855 24,040 Equity Perpetual Care Balance - beginning of year 16,027 - Transfer from Operating Fund during the year 146,543 16,027 Balance - end of year 162,570 16,027 Recreation Balance - beginning of year 8,013 - Transfer from Operating Fund during the year 73,272 8,013 Payment to Fundy Future Environment and Benefits Council (15,000) - Balance - end of year 66,285 8,013 228,855 24,040 pR10EWATERHOUSECQ7PERS a Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 1998 Commission mandate and commencement of operations The Commission's mandate is to develop and implement an environmentally and socio- economically acceptable 25 year strategy for managing solid waste in the Fundy Region. The Commission is comprised of representatives from each municipality and the Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing for unincorporated areas. During the previous period, the Commission constructed a landfill facility at Crane Mountain, which commenced operations on November 10, 1997 when it began receiving solid waste- 2 Significant accounting policies a) Financial statement presentation The financial statements of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission have been prepared to conform in all material respects to the accounting principles prescribed for New Brunswick municipalities by the Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing. b) Basis of accounting These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with fund basis accounting. The Operating Fund reflects the Commission's operating assets and liabilities and results of operations. The Capital Fund reflects the Commission's investment in capital assets and related debt. Special Funds reflect assets, liabilities and changes in fund equity relating to any specific purpose funds established by the Commission in accordance with its mandate and regulatory requirements. c) Deferred financing charges Deferred financing charges related to long -term debentures are being amortized over the terms of the debentures_ d) Capital assets Capital assets are recorded at cost. Funds received through capital assistance programs, cost sharing arrangements or loan forgiveness are treated as additions to investment in capital assets. The Commission does not record amortization on its capital assets, but an amount equal to annual debt repayment is charged to operations and credited to investment in capital assets. The Commission also charges to operations all capital projects that are financed in the current year from operating funds. e) Revenue and expenditure recognition Revenue and expenditures are recorded on an accrual basis. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS {1) Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 1998 3 Interim financing bank loans — Capital Fund Bankers acceptance, maturing January 5, 1999 at 5.11 % plus stamping fee of _35% Bankers acceptance, maturing February 23, 1998 at 4.02% plus stamping fee of .35% Demand loan at prime minus .75% 4 Long -term debenture N-B. Municipal Finance Corporation serial debenture, yearly repayment of principal and semi - annual interest of 5.125% — 5.375 %, expiring December 15, 2003 N.B. Municipal Finance Corporation serial debenture, yearly repayment of principal and semi - annual interest of 5.125% — 5.5 %, expiring December 15, 2008 Aggregate principal payments required over the next five years are as follows: 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 PR I CEWATERW USECOW ERS 1998 1997 10,000,000 7,500,000 9,050,000 4 050 000 19,050,000 11,550,000 1,400,000 7,500,000 8,900,000 614,000 646,000 679,000 715,000 752,000 (2) Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 1998 5 Borrowing authority The Commission was granted borrowing authority by the Municipal Capital Borrowing board for $14,942,500 of long -term financing and $6,127,000 of short-term financing relating to the design and construction of the Fundy Region Solid Waste management facilities. Repayment terms for the long -term and short-term financing are not to exceed fifteen years and three years respectively. The Commission purchased a long -term debenture on December 15, 1998 in the amount of $8,900,000. Proceeds from the debenture will be used to reduce interim financing bank loans which mature on January 5, 1999. 6 Project funding A portion of eligible costs incurred to construct the waste management system, including all costs incurred to date by the Commission and its predecessor committee which were funded by the Provincial Government, are being covered by government grants. Funding received to date from the Provincial Government, in the amount of $5,348,081, has been applied as payment on account of those grants, totalling $12,008,715. The grant outstanding at December 31, 1998 has been calculated with reference to the Commission's understanding of eligible costs. The Provincial government must approve all claims under this funding arrangement. Any adjustments required, as a result of this process, will be recorded in the year in which they become known. 7 Previous surplus The Municipalities Act requires that a second previous year surplus or deficit must be included in the operations of the current year. 8 Inter -fund accounts All inter -fund balances at December 31, 1998 represent current period transactions and are in compliance with the policy established by the Department of Municipalities, Culture and Housing. 9 Perpetual Care Fund As set out in the approved application to the Municipal Capital Borrowing board, two dollars per tonne of solid waste received by the facility is being allocated to the Perpetual Care Fund. These funds and the accumulated income thereon will be used for on -going monitoring and maintenance of the site after the facility is closed. (3) ft ICEWATERHOUSECQOPERS Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 1998 10 Recreation Fund In order to meet the Provincial Government requirement for "public access to, and enjoyment of, portions of the site not dedicated to waste management ", the Commission is allocating one dollar per tonne of solid waste received by the facility to the Recreation Fund. The allocation will continue until such time as this condition of approval of the Crane Mountain site has been adequately addressed. 11 Contingency A law suit has been brought against the Commission for breach of contract with unspecified damages. The amount of liability, if any, cannot be determined at this time. 12 Operating leases The minimum annual lease payments under operating leases are as follows: 1999 4,092 2000 2,500 2001 1,250 13 Capital commitments The cost of work to be completed under capital contracts outstanding at year end is approximately $786,000. 14 Year 2000 Issue The Year 2000 Issue arises because many computerized systems use two digits rather than four to identify a year. Date- sensitive systems may recognize the year 2000 as 1900 or some other date, resulting in errors when information using year 2000 dates is processed. In addition, similar problems may arise in some systems which use certain dates in 1999 to represent something other than a date_ The effects of the Year 2000 Issue may be experienced before, on, or after January 1, 2000, and, if not addressed, the impact on operations and financial reporting may range from minor errors to significant systems failure which could affect an entity's ability to conduct normal business operations. It is not possible to be certain that all aspects of the Year 2000 Issue affecting the Commission, including those related to the efforts of customers, suppliers, or other third parties, will be fully resolved_ ftICEWATERHOUSECCOPERS ® (4) PRICAVATERHOUSECOOPER5 01 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Chartered Accountants 401 Brunswick House 44 Chipman Hill PO Box 789 Saint John New Brunswick Canada EM 4139 Telephone +I (506) 632 1810 Facsimile +1 (506) 632 8997 February 5, 1999 Additional Comments of Auditors The accompanying schedule of expenses is presented as supplementary information only. In this respect, it does not form part of the financial statements of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission for the year ended December 31, 1998 and hence is excluded from the opinion expressed in our report dated February 5, 1999 to the Commission members on such financial statements. The information in this schedule has been subject to audit procedures only to the extent necessary to express an opinion on the financial statements of the Commission and, in our opinion, is fairly presented in all respects material to those financial statements. '?i,r u c, - Z p Chartered Accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is a Canadian member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, an English company limited by guarantee. Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Operating Fund Schedule of Expenses For the year ended December 31, 1998 Office and administration Conferences Office furnishings Meetings Memberships Photocopying Postage and courier Rent Supplies Telephone and fax Insurance Members' expenses Members' meeting allowance Bad debts Other Less: Capitalized as Preliminary Studies Public consultation Communications Co- ordination Advertising Models and displays Supplies Newsletter Public events Christmas Tree Mulch Community Liaison Less: Capitalized as Preliminary Studies PRlCEWA7ERWUSECCt9PER5 1998 Ms&j Budget Actual Actual 1,300 8,199 236 1,200 4,647 - 6,000 7,000 5,755 1,000 2,119 1,774 3,500 4,052 2,455 4,000 3,584 2,717 17,000 18,531 13,929 6,500 4,233 2,549 9,000 12,809 7,453 8,000 6,000 4,777 2,500 6,340 6,618 8,000 15,720 12,480 - - 49,401 2,500 3,966 1,236 70,500 97,200 111,380 - - 97,779 70,500 97,200 13,601 13,810 40,000 11,019 25,637 20,000 - 1,905 - - 813 5,000 2,467 - 5,000 4,002 3,441 - 1,658 - 20,000 - - 90,000 32,956 31,796 26.452 90,000 32,956 5,344 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Operating Fund Schedule of Expenses (continued) For the year ended December 31, 1998 Landfill operating costs Lab services Security services Office supplies Landfill labour Landfill staff benefits- Leachate management labour Leachate management benefits Special waste handling Vehicle /equipment maintenance Property taxes Landfill power /phone Miscellaneous supplies and other Technical consultants Safety equipment Small load handling Construction and demolition waste management Daily operations 1998 1997 Budget Actual Actual - - 19,140 - 90,737 16,218 - 6,267 7,034 330,000 520,926 - - 18,952 39,104 - 21,694 - - 2,620 Leachate management 37,000 10,675 11,493 375,000 238,068 1,807,464 - 26,814 - 11,489 - 110,005 - 40,000 - - - 4,420 - - 34,734 - - 10,764 - - 127,865 782,000 1,108,165 170,257 Cover material trials - 60,584 - Cover material 65,000 289,984 118,012 Environmental monitoring 80,000 108,378 5,753 Site maintenance 75,000 39,104 14,977 Site insurance 37,000 37,548 4,176 Leachate management 177,000 163,701 11,493 1,216,000 1,807,464 324,668 Personnel Administrative wages and benefits Administrative expenses Supplementary staff Worker's Compensation Staff training Challenge wages and benefits Less: Capitalized as Preliminary Studies [)k10EWATERHOUSECGOPERS 0 241,000 160,242 42,581 1,500 15,945 1,343 - 18,824 14,952 2,000 5,287 482 2,000 1,569 225 - - 2,494 246,500 201,867 62,077 45 -363 246,500 201,867 16,714 Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission Operating Fund Schedule of Expenses (continued) For the year ended December 31, 1998 Technical Compost demonstration site Management studies Waste reduction Less: Capitalized as Preliminary Studies Fiscal services Interest on interim bank financing Transfer to Capital Fund Transfer to Perpetual Care Fund Transfer to Recreational Fund Professional services Legal Financial management Less: Capitalized as Preliminary Studies PRICEWATERHOUSEC60PEP6 M 1998 1997 Budget Actual Actual 3,000 2,342 2,366 - 7,690 - - 115 - 3,000 10,147 2,366 - - 1,183 3,000 10,147 1,183 1,069,529 825,559 60,988 1,864,471 1,001,553 25,963 170,000 146,543 16,027 85,000 73,272 8,013 3,189,000 2,046,927 110,991 15,000 12,959 15,000 58,561 34,815 - - - 12,842 30,000 711520 21,973 1h Elizabeth Fry Society of Saint Johm P.O. Box 23012, Saint John, N.B., E2J 4M1 Tel: (506) 635 -8851 Common Council City of Saint John P.Q. Box 1971 Saint John, N-B. E2L 41_1 fax 506- 635 -8851 March 22, 1999 Your Worship and Members of Common Council: Re: POLICE COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP The question of appropriate representation of citizens on the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners has been the subject of some public discussion, and in particular, it was the topic of a recent letter to the Editor in the Saint John newspaper. At present, there are no female city appointees on the Board. The Elizabeth Fry Society of Saint John has an interest in the operation of our City Police Force as it affects many women. Should Council feel that there should "be some changes on the Board by the addition of new members to ensure female representation as well as regional representation, the Elizabeth Fry Society would like to submit for consideration the name of Miss Sharon Nesbit. Miss Nesbit is a graduate of the University of New Brunswick in Saint John with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, as well as a Master of Arts in Criminal Justice Administration from Boston University. She resides at 68 Creighton Avenue in East Saint John. The appointment of Miss Nesbit could assist Council in solving the problem of not having made any female appointees, as well as not having any resident from the eastern region of the City. It is understood that Council has full power to add more members to the Police Commission as it sees fit, and if the Council feels there should be an even number of City appointments, this would provide an opportunity for Council to consider the inclusion of someone who represents a minority group in the City. Yours truly, Marianna L. Stack, B.T., B-A., M. Ed. President WAR Eric L. Teed, O.C., C.D., Q.C. 127 Prince William Street, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 2B4 Tel.: (506) 634 -7320 Fax: (506) 634 -7423 April 1, 1999 Common Council City of Saint John P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L 1 Your Worship and Councillors: Re: Policy Appointments of Residents I wish to commend Council's decision to adopt a policy that appointments to it's official boards and commissions be Saint John City residents. Apparently some persons who live outside the City do not understand the concept. Even the recent newspaper editorial is based on a wrong premise namely payment of taxes gives a right to be appointed to Civic Boards. It is not payment of taxes that is the present criteria. At one time the payment of taxes gave a right to vote irrespective of residence. That was changed. Provincial policy respecting municipalities is now based on residence. For example, in order to be a Municipal Councillor one must be a resident of the municipality. It is not necessary to be a tax payer. This is clearly set out in the Municipalities Act. In order to vote in a municipal election one must be .a. resident of the municipality. It is not necessary to be a tax payer. It is also Provincial policy as manifested in a number of statutes that persons serving on municipal boards and committees should be residents of that Municipality. One of the very important boards effecting land use irrespective of where the owner lives is the Planning Advisory Committee which helps to administer the Community Planning Act effecting all lands in the Municipality. The Community Planning Act requires a member of the Planning Advisory Board to be a resident. The Police Act requires a member of a Municipal Police Commission to be a resident of the municipality. The Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority has a requirement for two residents of Saint John who live on the west side of the river. The Fort LaTour Development Authority requires the City appointees to be residents of the City. Even the Saint John Foundation a private charitable foundations has a residency requirement. It is consistent and make common sense that those who live in the municipality should be the ones responsible for policies and administrative matters effecting life in the Municipality. ERIC L. TEED, O.C., C.D., Q.C. April 1, 1999 Page 2 As the provincial government sets the standards then why should the City try to go against them. It must be remembered a municipality is created for the benefit of residents of the municipality. It is run by residents of the Municipality, elected by residents of the Municipality. It would seem logical therefore that municipal residents should be given the preference of serving on the various boards and commission which serve the municipality. This policy does not reflect adversely on non city residents who may wish to contribute their time and talents but is a recognition that residents have interests which effect their lives which may be different from those who are non residents. However, if non residents are serious in their complaints then possibly they should go to the provincial government and get the relevant Legislation changed and a new policy established. If and when the City of Saint John runs out of capable and suitable persons to serve on commissions and committees then maybe Council should seek non residents. Until then there is no real reason why Council should not follow a residence policy until such time it is found to be inoperable, which I expect would not be a life time of anybody here today. Some persons have cited the Canada Games Committee as an example of non residents providing leadership in service. The Canada Games Committee was an independent self governing corporation. There is no limitations for many organizations including the United Way, Boys & Girls Club, YM -YWCA and others on which any person can serve. A recent news editorial cited the Rally of Hope, Labatts Relay Skate to Care, Marco Polo and Ford World Curling as committees or organizations where non residents can help. These are useful organizations but they are not responsible to the City Council. They could be considered either private non profit organizations or ones covering the Municipal Region as a whole. An entirely different concept. There is ample opportunity for non residents to participate in organizations and committees involving the City if they wish. One could ask how many non residents are appointed to their own committee by the adjacent Municipalities whose Mayor according to the newspaper are apparently complaining. In the meantime until the Province implements a change of policy by abolishing residential requirements, it would seem reasonable the City should follow the provincial leadership and allow residents of the City of Saint John to demonstrate their interest and abilities to assist in the functions and development of our City by serving on the Saint John City Committees and Commission. Yours truly, (--L ' T e ELT /bh aQ w 1999 MY OF