2013-03-25_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourr.
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
AGENDA
Monday, March 25, 2013
6:00 pm
Council Chamber
Please use Chipman Hill entrance
S'il vous plait utiliser 1'entree Chipman Hill
Si vous avez besoin des services en francais pour une reunion de Conseil Communal, veuillez contacter le
bureau de la greffiere communale au 658 -2862.
1. Call to Order - Prayer
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Minutes of March 11, 2013
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation
8. Delegations / Presentations
9. Public Hearings
10. Consideration of By -laws
11. Submissions by Council Members
12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers
1
Pages
1 -5
Powered By: S' � i)E-
13.
Committee Reports
14.
Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15.
General Correspondence
16.
Supplemental Agenda
16.1
Safe Clean Drinking Water
16.2
Public Presentation - Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment Lorneville Harbour
16.3
The Council of Canadians - Request to Present
16.4
Retail Council of Canada - Request to Present
16.5
Letter from P. Hart: P3 Water Option
16.6
Asian Heritage Society Request for Sponsorship (Councillor Strowbridge)
16.7
290 Ludlow Street - Section 39 Amendments, PID Nos. 365106 and 365098
16.8
Rescheduling of Public Hearing Date - The Keeping of Backyard Chickens
16.9
Proposed Procedural By -Law Amendment
16.10
NBL All Star Weekend Funding
16.11
Reimbursement of Costs for Remedial Actions - Unsightly Premises and
Dangerous Buildings By -Law
17.
Committee of the Whole
17.1
Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointments to a Committee
17.2
Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointments to Committees
17.3
Committee of the Whole: 2nd Amended Capital Cost Agreement - Revision
17.4
Committee of the Whole: Exhibition Association
18.
Adjournment
2
6 -20
21 -33
34-34
35-36
37-37
38-39
40-43
44-45
46-50
51 -55
56-56
57-57
58-58
59-59
60-60
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, March 25, 2013
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal, veuillez
contacter le bureau de la greffi6re communale au 658 -2862.
Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private pursuant
to the provisions of section 10 of the Municipalities Act and Council / Committee will make a
decision(s) in that respect in Open Session:
4:30 p.m. 8t" Floor Boardroom City Hall
1.1 Approval of Minutes 10.2(4)
1.2 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c)
1.3 Land Matter 10.2(4)(d)
1.4 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c)
1.5 Nominating Committee 10.2(4)(b)
1.6 Nominating Committee 10.2(4)(b)
1.7 Nominating Committee 10.2(4)(b)
1.8 Financial Matter 10.2(4)(c)
3
The City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 25 mars 2013
Salle du conseil, 18 h
Comite plenier
1.Ouverture de la seance
Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal,
veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&c communale au 658 -2862.
Chacun des points suivants, en totalit& ou en partie, peut faire l'objet d'une discussion en
priv6 en vertu des dispositions pr&vues a Particle 10 de la Loi sur les municipalites. Le
conseil /comit6 prendra une ou des d6cisions a cet &gard au cours de la seance publique
16 h 30 — Salle de conference, 8e etage, h6tel de ville
1.1 Approbation du proc&s- verbal — paragraphe 10.2(4)
1.2 Question financiere — alin&a 10.2(4)c)
1.3 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alin&a 10.2(4)d)
1.4 Question financiere — alin&a 10.2(4)c)
1.5 Comit6 des candidatures — alin6a 10.2(4)b)
1.6 Comit6 des candidatures — alin6a 10.2(4)b)
1.7 Comit6 des candidatures — alin6a 10.2(4)b)
1.8 Question financiere — alin&a 10.2(4)c)
Seance ordinaire
1.Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
2. Approbation du proces- verbal
2.1 Proc&s- verbal du 11 mars 2013
3. Adoption de 1'ordre du jour
4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets
5. Questions soumises a 1'approbation du conseil
6. Commentaires presentes par les membres
7. Proclamation
8. Delegations et presentations
9. Audiences publiques
10. Etude des arretes municipaux
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
12. Affaires municipales 6voqu6es par les fonctionnaires municipaux
13. Rapports deposes par les comites
14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a Papprobation du conseil
15. Correspondance generale
16. Ordre du jour supplementaire
16.1 Salubrit6 et propret6 de Peau potable
16.2 Presentation publique — projet de modification du plan municipal, port de
Lorneville
16.3 Le Conseil des Canadiens — Demande de pr6sentation
16.4 Conseil canadien du commerce de d6tail — Demande de pr6sentation
16.5 Lettre reque de P. Hart: Option P3 li6e a Peau
16.6 Demande de parrainage de 1'Asian Heritage Society (conseiller
Strowbridge)
16.7 290, rue Ludlow — Modifications a Particle 39, NID 365106 et 365098
16.8 Changement de la date de 1'audience publique — Elevage de poulets dans
une cour arri6re
16.9 Projet de modification de 1'arret6 proc6dural
16.10 Financement de la fin de semaine des 6toiles de la NBL
16.11 Remboursement des couts relatifs aux mesures correctives — ArrW sur les
lieux inesth6tiques et les bdtiments ou constructions dangereux
17. Comite pl6nier
17.1 Comit6 pl6nier : Recommandations de nominations pour si&ger a un
comit&
17.2 Comit6 pl6nier : Recommandations de nominations pour si6ger aux
comit6s
17.3 Comite plenier : 2e entente afferente aux coots d'immobilisation modifiee
— Revision
17.4 Comite plenier : Association de 1'Exposition de la Ville et le Comte de
Saint -Jean
18. Levee de la seance
97-
COMMON COUNCIL/CONSEIL COMMUNAL
MARCH 11, 2013/LE 11 MARS 2013
COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
CITY HALL — MARCH 11, 2013 - 6:00 P.M.
Present:
Deputy Mayor Rinehart and Councillors Farren, Fullerton,
MacKenzie, McAlary, Merrithew, Norton, Reardon and
Strowbridge
- and -
P. Woods, City Manager; S. Brittain, Solicitor; G. Yeomans,
Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; J. Hamilton,
Commissioner of Growth and Development Services; A.
Poffenroth, Deputy Commissioner of Building Inspection; K.
Mason, Deputy Commissioner Saint John Water; M. McCaig,
Police Sergeant; K. Clifford, Fire Chief; J. Taylor, Assistant
Common Clerk; K. Tibbits, Administrative Assistant.
1. Call To Order — Prayer
Deputy Mayor Rinehart called the meeting to order and Rev_ Greg Dakin offered the
opening prayer.
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Approval of Agenda
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge
RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be
approved with the addition of Item 17.1 Committee of the Whole: Water Dispute with
Rothesay: 9996 Water Supply Agreement
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
On motion of Councillor Reardon
Seconded by Councillor Norton
RESOLVED that items 16.5 Milestones in the
History of Saint John's Public Water Supply; 16.9 The Council of Canadians
Presentation; 16.9.1 Public — Public Partnerships, be moved forward on the agenda.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
16.5 Milestones in the History of Saint John's Public Water Supply
Referring to the submitted presentation, Dean Price, Project Engineer, provided an
overview of the milestones in the history of Saint John's public water supply.
16.9 The Council of Canadians
16.9.1 Public — Public Partnerships
16.9.2 Flawed Failed Abandoned 100 133's
16.9.3 Overview of Selected Sewer, Wastewater and Water Treatment Projects
Referring to the submitted report, Mr. Wayne Dryer, representing the Council of
Canadians and Common Causes, outlined the group's concerns with respect to public -
private partnerships and he suggested that Council give consideration to all procurement
methods before making a final decision on the P3 model.
Mr. Joel Butler, member of the Council of Canadians, expressed concern that Council is
seeking advice from proponents of the P3 process such as Partnerships New Brunswick,
PPP Canada and Price Waterhouse Coopers. He stressed the importance of seeking
advice from a fully independent consultant.
(Councillor Fullerton withdrew from the meeting)
97-
COMMON COUNCILICONSEIL COMMUNAL
MARCH 11, 20131LE 11 MARS 2013
On motion of Councillor Norton
Seconded by Councillor Farren
RESOLVED that Item 16.5 entitled Milestones in
the History of Saint John's Public Water Supply, be received for information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
On motion of Councillor Strowbridge
Seconded by Councillor Farren
RESOLVED that Item 16.9 The Council of
Canadians Presentation; 16.9.1 Public — Public Partnerships; 16.9.2 Flawed Failed
Abandoned 100 P3's; and 16.9.3 Overview of Selected Sewer, Wastewater and Water
Treatment Projects, be received for information.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
5. Consent Agenda
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation
7.1 The Deputy Mayor proclaimed Monday, March 11, 2013 World Plumbing Day in
The City of Saint John.
(Councillor Fullerton re- entered the meeting)
8. Delegations /Presentations
9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M.
10. Consideration of By -laws
11. Submissions by Council Members
11.1 Speed Limits in the City (Councillor Reardon)
On motion of Councillor Reardon
Seconded by Councillor MacKenzie
RESOLVED that Item 11.1 Speed Limits in the City
(Councillor Reardon) be referred to the City Manager for a report on the logistics of
standardizing the speed limit to a maximum of 50 km /hr, with the option to further reduce
speeds, for city -owned streets as well as streets owned by the Province within the
municipality and also to look into the feasibility of overhead speed monitors that issue a
ticket to the registered owner of the license plate.
The question was taken with a resulting tie vote_ The Assistant Common Clerk advised
that the Deputy Mayor is required to cast the deciding vote. The Deputy Mayor voted in
the affirmative.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Farren,
Fullerton, McAlary and Merrithew voting nay.
12. Business Matters -Municipal Officers
13. Committee Reports
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15. General Correspondence
15.1 Campbell and McGrath Letter: Fundraiser for Mispec Beach
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge
RESOLVED that the letter from John Campbell and
Barry McGrath regarding a fundraiser for Mispec Beach be referred to the City Manager
for a report and recommendation.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
2
97-
COMMON COUNCILICONSEIL COMMUNAL
MARCH 11, 20131LE 11 MARS 2013
16. Supplemental Agenda
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge
RESOLVED that items 16.1 through 16.9 on the
supplemental agenda be lifted from the table.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
16.1 Market Study: Gravel (Deputy Mayor Rinehart)
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor Norton
RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to
provide a scoping document and an estimated cost of a market study with respect to the
supply and demand for gravel.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
16.2 Proposed Procedural By -Law Amendment
On motion of Councillor Merrithew
Seconded by Councillor Norton
RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to
arrange for an amendment to Council's Procedural By -Law for the purpose of changing
the delivery date of Council's agenda kit from the Tuesday immediately preceding a
regular Council meeting to the Wednesday immediately preceding such meeting; and
further, that the deadline for submissions to Council's agenda be changed to "no later
than 4:00 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the date on which the agenda is to be distributed
to members "; and further, the agenda submission and distribution dates be changed to
Wednesday and Thursday respectively where Monday falls on a public holiday; and
further, the procedural by -law be amended to remove the publication of the
supplemental agenda.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Farren and
McAlary voting nay.
On motion of Councillor MacKenzie
Seconded by Councillor Reardon
RESOLVED that Common Council not proceed
with an amendment to its resolution of November 13, 2012, pertaining to the start time
for regular Council meetings that would remove the word "at" preceding "6:00 p.m." and
replacing it with "not later than ".
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
16.3 Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (Harbour Clean -Up) Agreement —
Amendment
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City
Manager in the submitted report M &C 2013 -41: Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund
(Harbour Clean -Up) Agreement — Amendment, The City of Saint John accept the
amendment to extend the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Agreement to March 31,
2015 and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk execute the acceptance of the
amendment.
Responding to a question, Mr. Yeomans stated that Infrastructure Canada suggested a
deadline extension to provide adequate time to complete the audits and the required
filings.
voting nay.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Fullerton
3
97-
COMMON COUNCILICONSEIL COMMUNAL
MARCH 11, 20131LE 11 MARS 2013
16.4 Engineering Services — Groundwater Exploration for Potable Water —
Hydrogeological and Environmental Services
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Norton
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City
Manager in the submitted report M &C 2013 -40 Engineering Services — Groundwater
Exploration for Potable Water— Hydrogeological and Environmental Services, the
proposal from TerrAtlantic Engineering Limited for engineering design and construction
management services for the Groundwater Exploration for Potable Water —
Hydrogeological and Environmental Services project in the amount of $1,676,516
including HST be accepted and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to
execute the appropriate documentation in that regard.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Fullerton
voting nay.
16.6 Saint John Water— 2012 Annual Water Report
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Reardon
RESOLVED that Common Council receive for
information the report M &C 2013 -38: Saint John Water— 2012 Annual Water Report,
and further, that staff be authorized to forward the Saint John Water 2012 Annual Water
Report to the Department of Environment and the Department of Health on behalf of the
City of Saint John (Approval Holder).
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
16.7 Offer to Purchase City Owned Lands — Lorneville Portion of PID Number
55161541
On motion of Councillor Reardon
Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City
Manager in the submitted report M &C 2013 -37: Offer to Purchase City Owned Lands —
Lorneville Portion of PID # 55161541 Common Council adopted the following resolution:
1. Common Council deem the property identified as a 5.44 Ha +1- portion of PID
55161541, as illustrated on the plan attached to M &C 2013 -37 (the "Subject
Parcel ") to be surplus to the City's needs; and
2. The City convey the Subject Parcel to Saint John Industrial Parks Limited for
$78,100 (plus HST if applicable), subject to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement of Purchase and Sale document attached to M &C 2013 -37; and
3. The City consent to Saint John Industrial Parks Limited making an application
for a Municipal Plan Amendment and rezoning of the Subject Parcel, on the
express condition that the City is not explicitly nor implicitly obligated to
approve any such amendment to the Municipal Plan or the rezoning; and
4. The Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute all necessary
documentation.
Responding to a question regarding the sale price, Brian Irving, Senior Manager of Real
Estate, noted that it is a policy of Council to sell City owned land, based on unsolicited
offers, at the appraised value plus 10 %.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
16.6.1 The Keeping of Backyard Chickens Zoning By-Law Amendment
On motion of Councillor Strowbridge
Seconded by Councillor McAlary
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City
Manager in the submitted report M &C 2013 -36: The Keeping of Backyard Chickens
Zoning By -Law Amendment, Common Council set Monday, April 29, 2013 as the date
4
97-
COMMON COUNCILICONSEIL COMMUNAL
MARCH 11, 20131LE 11 MARS 2013
for a Public Hearing to consider the above proposed Zoning By -Law amendment and
authorize the necessary advertisement.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
16.8 Planning Advisory Committee: The Keeping of Urban Chickens Zoning By-
law Amendment
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor McAlary
RESOLVED that item 16.8 Planning Advisory
Committee: The Keeping of Urban Chickens Zoning By -Law Amendment be tabled until
the public hearing scheduled for Monday, April 29, 2013.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
17.1 Committee of the Whole: Water Dispute with Rothesay: 1996 Water Supply
Agreement
On motion of Councillor McAlary
Seconded by Councillor Merrithew
RESOLVED that as recommended by the
Committee of the Whole, having met on March 11, 2013, Common Council accept the
proposed settlement Agreement between the City of Saint John and Rothesay, as
attached to the submitted report, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to execute the said Agreement.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
18. Adjournment
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor Strowbridge
RESOLVED that the Common Council meeting of
March 11, 2013 be adjourned.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
The Deputy Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Deputy Mayor / mairesse suppleante
Assistant Common Clerk 1 greffier communal adjoint
5
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
March 22, 2013
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Safe Clean Drinking Water
INTRODUCTION
ch
The Cky of SWnt phn
The City of Saint John relies on surface water as its drinking water source and provides limited
screening and chlorination to purify the tap water. As a result, the City's water quality does not
meet current drinking water standards. This poses risks to public health and limits our ability to
advance the economic wellbeing of the community. In addition, the water transmission and
distribution system is aged and deteriorating which not only further compromises water quality
but also results in significant ongoing water loss. The City has therefore identified the need for a
modern Water Treatment Plant and major upgrades to its transmission and distribution system as
the number one priority for the community.
The program is referred to as the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program (SCDWP). The desired
outcomes for the City's SCDWP include: (1) drinking water of the highest quality for the
community; (2) a least -cost solution (over the long - term.) for users of the water service; (3) a
sustainable solution: meeting needs today without compromising future generations.
The costs of realizing this goal are significant. The SCDWP is comprised of 33 key components
and in 2010 it was projected that completion of all 33 projects would cost in the order of $260
million dollars. Key considerations in moving forward are identifying the scope of the project ie
the highest priority components and determining an affordable and timely method to implement
the SCDWP.
The City engaged PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to assess the SCDWP in detail and to prepare
a business case comparing the traditional tender procurement method against the Public Private
Partnership (PPP) approach to determine which would offer the most advantage to our
ratepayers.
The purpose of this report is to review the procurement options available to implement the Safe,
Clean Drinking Water Program and to make a recommendation on a preferred approach. Council
has already received a detailed business case, this report will address the various related
considerations in a question and answer format.
Page 2
1. Need - Why do we need to improve our water system?
The goal of the SCDWP is to ensure that every customer of Saint John Water has access to
quality water that meets or exceeds drinking water standards. Saint John's water system is aging
and in desperate need of updating. The City of Saint John is looking at ways of updating the
system in order to achieve:
• Public health: ensuring water quality that meets current and future water standards;
• Technological upgrades: improved measurement of water usage, minimizing leaks in the
water system, and increasing storage capacity;
• Public safety: ensuring adequate water supply for fire protection;
• Conservation: instilling water usage practices that encourage conservation.
The Regional Medical Officer of Health has expressed concern with the City's surface drinking
water as far back as 2003, as there continues to be risks associated with pathogens within the
water system that cannot be eliminated solely through chlorine treatment. Unfiltered surface
water from the current system contains significant amounts of disinfection by- products, at levels
often more than twice that prescribed by Canadian standards. The by- products, as well as the
inability of the system to adequately treat potentially harmful protozoa, such as giardia and
cryptosporidium, increase the risk to public health.
2. Cost - What is the likely cost of doing all the work?
The City of Saint John has developed a Business Case to determine the likely cost of the work.
The Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program is a significant expenditure for the City of Saint John,
and will subsequently impact rate payers of the water utility. The scope of the entire SCDWP
includes 33 unique projects, 7 of which have already been completed. As noted the full cost of
the program is in the order of S260M. The City has decided not to disclose detailed project costs
in order to preserve the integrity of a possible fixture procurement process and to prevent
compromising the competitiveness of future bids from private sector partners.
3. Scope -What parts of the water system have to be addressed in the proposed
program?
While all the 33 SCDWP projects are important, only those Critical and High Impact ones have
been included for consideration. The remaining 8 projects that fall outside of scope are
considered complementary, and remain important for the successful implementation of the
SCDWP. The 18 components deemed essential at this point are set out in the table below.
5
1. Water Treatment 1. Water 'Treatment Plant "WTP ")
21 Watershed Improvements
2. Robertson Lake Dam
3. Transmission system
improvements — raw supply
3. Latimer Lake intakes and dam upgrades
4. Supply Transmission (Lakewood Pump Station to WTP)
4. Transmission system
improvements - potable
5. Transmission East (WTP to Sandbank Hill)
6. Transmission East - Central (Sandbank Hill to Marsh Creek)
7. Transmission Central (Marsh Creek to Metcalf Street)
8. Transmission Chesley Drive (PRV 107 to RF Bridge)
S.Water system storage
improvements
9. North End Storage Reservoir
10. Twin Storage Reservoirs at WTP Site
6. System pumping station
11. Reversing Falls Booster Pump Station
7
Page 3
im rovements
12. Spruce Lake Pump Station Upgrade
7. System rehabilitation
13. West System Modifications
14. Ocean Westway Rehabilitation (Spruce Lake to Gault Road)
15. Potable Transmission East Lakewood PS to Sandbank Hill)
16. East Pressure Modifications
8. East industrial system
improvements
17. Industrial Transmission New (Lakewood PS to Sandbank
Hill)
18. Industrial Transmission Rehab (Lakewood PS to Sandbank
Hill)
4. Timing - If we do all this work, when will the rest of the needed work get done and
how will it be paid for?
The City has already completed 7 of the 33 initiatives while the City's Business Case proposes
that the 18 projects to be addressed at this time be fully completed by 2018. The City is planning
on pursing the 8 remaining projects that fall outside the scope of the City's Business Case within
the coming 10 years through the Water Utility's ongoing capital improvement program. The City
is currently working with the federal and provincial government to identify possible funding
opportunities for these 8 projects.
5. Results - What will water customers get after the proposed program work is done?
Once the proposed work has been completed, water customers will get:
• Fully treated drinking water that meets or exceeds Drinking Water Standards
• A water treatment facility: Located on City -owned land south of Little River Reservoir;
• Watershed improvements: Improved dam infrastructure
• Transmission system improvements: Construction of new, and upgrade of current, water
transmission mains to deliver raw water from Latimer Lake to the East area water
treatment plant, and treated water to the entire distribution system;
• Water system storage improvements: Three new storage reservoirs with a total of 29.9
ML capacity;
• Improved pumping stations: Construction of a booster pump station at Reversing Falls,
modifications to the Spruce Lake Pump Station;
• System rehabilitation: Replacement of 22.4 km of water transmission mains,
rehabilitation of 19.3 km of water transmission mains, and modifications of pump station
equipment;
• East -side industrial system improvements: construction and renovation of transmission
systems to deliver raw water from Latimer Lake to Sandbank Hill.
6. If we do this work, does that mean there will be no more pipe breaks or boil orders?
Water main or water pipe breaks occur for various reasons, but the most common reasons
include, soil movement, freezing and thawing, aging pipes, water hammer and pressure surges,
internal and external corrosion, traffic loads, and construction around water pipes. During a
typical year there are between 80 and 100 water main breaks and a very small number result in
boil orders. The most common reason for a boil water order (affecting a large number of
citizens) from a water main break is when a water transmission pipe fails and the water pressure
drops significantly. When the water pressure is too low, the potential exists for contaminates
from outside the water pipe to enter the pipe exists. The proposed projects within the SCDWP,
includes the refurbishment and replacement of large water transmission pipes. These projects
Page 4
will not completely eliminate the exposure to pipe breaks and boil water orders, but it is certainly
expected to dramatically diminish such occurrences.
7. What happens if we just don't do anything and live with the water system we now
have?
There will remain a public health risk if the City does not implement a resolution for its current
drinking water challenges. The pathogens within the water system that cannot be eliminated
solely through chlorine treatment and significant amounts of disinfection by- products, at levels
often more than twice that prescribed by Canadian standards will continue to pose health risks.
Furthermore, the aged water infrastructure will continue to deteriorate while construction costs
for treatment and distribution will continue to escalate.
8. What does it mean to use a PPP approach for this project? What is meant by the
traditional approach?
PPP is one of the procurement options being considered for this project. Using the PPP model for
this project would mean:
• One single entity (contractor) would be responsible for delivery of the 18 components of
the project at a fixed price on a certain date;
• The private sector partner would design, build, operate and maintain the water treatment
plant over a long -term period (defined by the City of Saint John);
• The private sector partner would finance the project design and construction costs in the
short term and provide long -term financing for the Water Treatment Plant;
• The private sector partner would be paid based on its actual service performance (water
quantity and quality), as defined by the City of Saint John (there would be penalties for
non - performance);
• The City would retain ownership of the infrastructure and continue to set water rates.
With a traditional approach;
• the City would engage engineers to design each of the projects;
• the City would issue tenders for the various components as and when funding is
available;
• the City would fund the project through operating revenues, grants and long -term debt;
• various contractors would undertake the work and turn the projects over to the City at
completion;
• the City would be responsible for any cost overruns or delays;
• the City would own, operate and maintain the infrastructure in future years and continue
to set water rates.
9. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a PPP vs a Traditional
Tendering method?
The Business case identified the various advantages and disadvantages of the PPP and traditional
procurement methods.
Page 5
- Fixed price, date certain commitment;
- The City is able to enforce achievement of its
specifications through the contract and
payment
mechanism (pay for performance);
- Design and pricing reflects whole lifecycle of
the asset;
- The private sector partner assumes significant
risks, including interface and coordination
during construction (such as between design
and construction, and between lots of
construction);
Quality of asset at the end of the project term
is assured through handback condition
assessment;
City can access innovative solutions.
- City is contractually obligated to make
maintenance and lifecycle payments in line
with the service standards defined in the
project agreement. This will remove flexibility
to divert funds away from these activities
under budget pressures;
Success of the PPP depends on the quality of
the project agreement and the City's ability to
clearly and accurately communicate its
performance requirements. This requires a shift
in how projects are typically planned;
- Planning and procurement take longer than
under a traditional procurement;
- Can be misunderstood and raise opposition
from special interest groups;
- Up -front planning and procurement costs are
higher.
►d �•:uaaaau e
- Competitive bidding process;
Easy to manage, universally understood,
allows for project division into different
components;
1• City controls design, which is completed to
95% -100% before letting construction
contracts;
- Architect will work for the City and will
provide best recommendation on quality vs.
price;
- Most projects value engineered with the
City's
involvement during the design phase;
Less up -front ancillary costs for consultants
and legal advisors;
- Less work for City staff during procurement.
Disadvantage
-Risk of going beyond the project scope
through change orders;
- Design suffers from lack of input from
construction contractors and subcontractors;
- Limited risk transfer: engineers and
contractors would not provide guarantee of
firm fixed price commitment;
- Low opportunity/less motivation for
innovation;
- Interface risk between construction lots
carried by the City. This is a risk retained by
the City;
- Work in progress payments diminish leverage
against noncompliance at substantial
completion;
Design does not reflect whole lifecycle of the
asset;
- Lifecycle costs not always funded by the
City;
- Warranty on construction and equipment
limited to 1 to 2 years post completion.
Warranty typically not supported through
liquid security, nuttine enforcement at risk.
10
Page 6
10. How much will the rate payers have to fund for the proposed program? Will it cost
more or less for the ratepayers to use a PPP or traditional approach?
Approximately 92% of the required revenue for the Water & Sewerage Utility comes from the
ratepayers. The Water & Sewerage revenue from ratepayers funds annual operating
expenditures, required debt repayments and capital requirements. Section 189 of the
Municipalities Act provides that "the municipality shall construct, operating and maintain such
service or Utility on a user - charge basis." Implementation of the City's SCDWP will have a
direct impact on rate payers of the water utility, who are currently paying an annual flat rate of
$1008.00. While the water rates would be expected to increase regardless of the pursuit of the
SCDWP because of inflation and ongoing maintenance, rate payers can expect an additional
$400 to $550 in annual payments if the City pursues the PPP process for the SCDWP. The
projected increase in rates under a PPP process includes construction costs, risks, contingencies,
and lifecycle replacement over 30 years and the cost of completion of the remaining 8
complementary projects within the SCDWP. Rate payers would be expected to increase by $600
to $750 if the City pursued the SCDWP under a traditional procurement method.
11. What can the City do to limit the impact of water rate increases in future years?
Regardless of the procurement method chosen, water rates will increase. The City will
encourage the use of monthly payment plans and identify measures to assist customers with
limited or fixed incomes. The installation of water meters will also ensure that customers can
better monitor and control their usage and in turn reduce water costs. The Utility will continue to
be obligated to operate in an effective and efficient manner and avoid unnecessary expenditures.
12. How long will it take to get the work done using either the PPP or traditional tender
approach?
The PPP model would allow the City to accelerate implementation of the SCDWP. The
construction timeline produced by the City's technical advisors under the traditional procurement
method provided for the completion of components of the Project over a 10 year period to reflect
preliminary views regarding funding and affordability. While it is possible that the City could
accelerate development under a traditional procurement method, the PPP would guarantee
delivery of the SCDWP within a five year timeframe (2018).
13. What did the Business Case prepared by PwC recommend?
The business case analysis showed real value for money using a PPP approach, the affordability
analysis showed that the ratepayers would benefit from a 50% capital contribution from the other
levels of government and the rate impact analysis demonstrated that water rates while increasing
would be approximately $200 per year lower using the PPP approach. The report recommends
using a P3 procurement method.
14. What other factors should be considered to determine if the PPP approach is a
better method to get the SCDW program completed?
In order to determine whether the PPP approach is the better procurement method, the City also
evaluated a range of other factors as set out below.
11
Page 7
1 I Risk
2 1 Price
3 1 Timeline
4 � Payment
schedule
5 1 Contribution
6 I Innovation
7 Lifecycle
maintenance
and
replacements
8 Job Loss
9 Security
10 1 Utility Rates
11 1 Debt
Reduced risk on
City, additional
shared risk and
risk transfer to
private sector
Contractually
fixed
Final completion
in +/- 5 Years +
30 year
concession
period
First payment in
2018 + 30 year
concession
50% from
federal &
provincial
Value -added
from private
sector with
global
experience
Shared
responsibility for
treatment plant
with full lifecycle
maintenance
No job losses
Fixed pricing
and fixed
timeline with
financial
security
$1400 -$1550
(annual flat rate
$3001
Status quo — risk
on City, and
limited private
sector risk
Known at
substantial
Final completion
in 8 -10 years +
City to maintain
assets
City responsible
for up -front
financing in 2015
No confirmed
contribution
Status quo —
Some innovation
from City and
private sector
Full
responsibility of
City — level of
maintenance
determined by
budget capacity
No job losses
Status quo —
Greater
likelihood of
delays and
additional costs
$1600 -$1750
(annual flat rate
$188NI
12
The risk transfer is put in
place during the development
of the contract.
Timing of traditional depends
on affordability
City does not pay until
substantial completion
Future program funding
uncertain and limited
A PPP is likely to attract
bidders with significant
experience in the development
of this type of infrastructure
who would have been unlikely
to bid through a traditional
procurement process.
The PPP alternative provides
for a contractual obligation to
adequately fund operations,
maintenance and renewal of
the water treatment plant
ensuring the quality of the
asset of a lone term period.
Lenders and City will require
financial security to protect
contractual interests
Projected for 2019
Based on Federal Provincial
cost sharing
Page S
The PwC Business Case also identified a number of qualitative factors that should be considered
including:
• Could enable the City to obtain PPP Canada funding of up to 25% of Project costs;
• Could enable the City to obtain New Brunswick provincial funding at a minimum of 25%
of Project costs linked to PPP Canada's financial participation;
• Significant level of internal and external controls associated with the contractual and
financing structure including:
o Independent certifier who acts for both the City and PPP Contractor who signs off
on substantial completion based on achievement of specifications set out by the
City;
o Lenders' technical advisors who oversee draw requests by PPP Contractor and
ensure that the Project is on time and on budget;
o Performance regime which provides the City with the controls required to enforce
quality standards;
o Qualification process which leads to the selection of the best technically qualified
and financially capable bidders;
o Possible role of a process auditor who will oversee the procurement process and
report on the transparency and equity of the selection of the preferred bidder;
o Strict controls in the evaluation process including explicit division and protection
of financial bid from technical.
15. What is Value for Money in a PPP? Is there value for money in this project?
Value for Money (VfM) refers to the process of defining the public benefits for money spent on
a project using a particular procurement method. This process allows us to compare one
procurement method to another based on the benefits expected from each. The City of Saint John
has worked with professional consultants to determine the value for money for its SCDWP,
looking at the two different types of procurement processes. Through the City's Business Case,
the value- for -money for a PPP alternative for the City's SCDWP is $3.2 million less costly in
Net Present Value terms than using the traditional approach.
16. The VfM of $3.2 million does not appear to be all that substantive. Why is this so?
There is likelihood that the VfM would be higher for the PPP alternative if the replacement and
refurbishment of pipes was removed from the PPP program, however, there are challenges when
the pipes are removed from the larger scope of the PPP project. There is an important link
between the water treatment plant and the replacement and refurbishment of the pipes in order to
actually deliver safe, clean drinking water to customers. Absent the improvements in the
transmission and distribution system, the water would meet standards coming out of the plant but
could be compromised during distribution. The piping infrastructure is therefor included in the
critical components of the SCDWP. The ratepayers will also benefit from capital cost sharing by
including all the critical components in the program.
17. All of these advisors /experts seem to be advocates for PPPs. Is the information
received from them biased?
In late April 2012, the City issued an RFP to identify consultants with "demonstrated expertise
with drinking water systems and in the structuring and evaluation of public private partnerships
in order to help realize the potential of the Drinking Water Program... "Based on their
experience, qualifications and professional abilities as outlined in the request for proposals and
13
Page 9
candidate interviews, PwC was selected as the advisor /expert that met those specifications.
Partnerships New Brunswick has also been engaged to advise the City on the procurement
alternatives for the SCDWP, and have a proven track record to support various procurement
projects for the Government of New Brunswick. What these consultants brought to the table was
knowledge, expertise and experience needed to help the City assess the merits of a PPP approach
versus the traditional approach. All the advisors /experts adhere to professional standards, and
will not jeopardize their professional reputation by recommending a procurement method that is
not in the best interest of the client.
18. What funding are we eligible for from PPP Canada and the Province?
Under the PPP process, the City is eligible for funding from both federal and provincial
government. Through PPP Canada, the City is eligible for up to 25% for construction and other
costs for the 18 high impact and critical projects under the SCDWP. The Government of New
Brunswick has agreed to match PPP Canada's funding in the event the PPP process proceeds.
The combined contribution represents a 50% capital cost saving for the ratepayers.
19. How much money does the private sector partner put in the project with a PPP
model?
A common misconception of a public private partnership (PPP) is that it involves privatization or
a financial contribution from the private sector. In fact, under the PPP funding model, the role of
the private sector is to provide up -front financing of the project costs during construction and
then long -term financing upon substantial completion of the project. Under the current
assumptions of the PPP alternative for the City's SCDWP, the federal and provincial
governments would fund 50% of eligible costs while the remaining balance financed by the
Private Sector Partner would be covered by the City of Saint John through ongoing service
payments over the life of the agreement.
20. PPPs consider risks and retaining or transferring certain risks? What does this
mean?
The Business Case analysis considers risks that are retained by the municipality versus risks that
are transferred to the PPP consortia (private sector partner). Not all risk should be transferred, as
risk transfer could contribute to higher PPP payments. Only the risks that can be best controlled
by the Private Sector Partner should be transferred. Some risks that are best managed or
mitigated by the City should be retained by the City.
"Risks should be allocated to the party best able to manage them"
Government Shared Private sector should
should retain risks manage risks that are
that are inherently inherently commercial
governmental
• Changes to scope • Inflation * Design, Construction,
• Planning permission • Regulatory • Commissioning
• Latent defect (existing) • Taxation • Operating and
14
Page 10
• Force Majeure maintenance
• Costs
• Operating performance
• Technology
obsolescence
• Project financing
• Latent defect (new)
• Responsive repairs
21. If we use a PPP does it mean our water will be privately owned?
No. There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding respecting ownership of water. The City
of Saint John does not own the current water supply that utility users' access. The City's
watershed supplies are the property of the Government of New Brunswick and the City has the
right to appropriate the water used for purposes of our water utility. The City does not own that
water. Under a PPP agreement, a private sector partner would be required to design, build,
finance, operate and maintain the water treatment facility for a concession period of 30 years.
The Water quality being received by the water treatment plant as well as water quality exiting the
plant would be outlined and agreed upon in the PPP contract. Under a P3 model as contemplated,
the contractor would not acquire any right to appropriate the water supply or any portion of it nor
would the private sector partner gain ownership over any component of the water system. In
either a traditional or PPP procurement method, the City would always maintain full ownership
over all water - related infrastructure throughout the procurement and concession period.
22. If we use a PPP does it mean the pipes and the treatment plant will be privately
owned?
Under the proposed PPP alternative outlined in the City's Business Case, a private sector partner
would be required to undertake a Design, Build, Finance procurement process for the City's
water utility pipes. Under this arrangement, the private sector partner would not gain ownership
over any component of the water system. In both a traditional and PPP procurement agreement,
the City would always maintain full ownership over all water - related infrastructure throughout
the procurement and concession period.
23. One of the noted advantages of a PPP is that the project will be delivered on price
on time. How does this work and what happens if the contractor is late or over
budget? What about with the traditional approach?
Payment to the private partner is triggered on substantial completion ie when the independent
certifier declares that the asset has been delivered to the terms specified by the City. If there is a
delay, the City pays nothing until substantial completion has occurred. As a result, the lenders
don't get repaid unless substantial completion occurs. To mitigate this risk, they require that the
private partner assume responsibility for moneys owed to the lenders in the form of liquidated
damages and liquid security. Because the cost of delay is born by the private partner, they have a
significant incentive to deliver on time or earlier. The traditional construction contract often uses
unit rates or lump sum items that can change during the course of the project and consume more
money than expected. There are only minor liquidated damages for late delivery in a traditional
contract, which does not provide much incentive for the contractor to finish on time. In this
traditional approach, contractors have the potential of identifying extra costs or request
additional time.
15
Page 11
24. What happens if in the future the plant does not produce the quantity or quality of
water that is specified using a PPP approach? What about using the traditional
approach?
Pay for performance is a cornerstone of the PPP model. The City will monitor water quality
from the plant on an ongoing basis to ensure that the contracted specifications are met. In a PPP
contract, there are opportunities to set extremely detailed targets and specifications that have
built -in repercussions if not achieved. The contract agreement will clearly state that the service
provider will not receive the Ul service payments if the performance specifications are not met.
In a traditional approach, City staff would operate the plant and if a problem arose and the
quality of the water is below standard, the City would subsequently be responsible for resolving
the problem and all costs.
25. Will the private sector partner be able to sell water to customers other than the City
of Saint John?
No. This question intimates that the contractor will be able to "sell" water to the City of Saint
John. This is a misconception of the contractor's role; the contractor will acquire no interest in
the water so as to enable it to sell it to anyone. The water utility's customer base will be
determined by the City in consultation with the Province as required. The private sector partner
is simply treating the water and will not be able to sell the water to other customers. The volume
of water the City directs to the treatment facility will be measured and the volume of water
leaving the treatment facility will also be measured. City Staff will continue to monitor the water
volumes throughout the procurement and concession period.
26. Who will set the water rates in the future?
The municipality has an obligation under s. 189 of the Municipalities Act, when if offers water
services, to charge for those services on a user - charge basis. Therefore, the responsibility to set
water rates rests with the City of Saint John Common Council.
27. City union representatives seem to be concerned about jobs. Will there be job losses
if we use a PPP?
The City does not currently operate an advanced water treatment facility. The ongoing operation
and maintenance of the advanced water treatment facility will create 6 -10 new jobs. While it is
anticipated that these individuals will be employees of the Private Sector Partner there will be no
reduction in City staffing because the PPP alternative is used for the water treatment plant.
28. How can we be sure we are getting competitive pricing on a project this large?
The City's Business Case included a market sounding exercise, which indicates that there is
great interest from a wide -range of potential private sector partners in the City's SCDWP. The
more interest there is from the market, the higher probability of the City receiving competitive
bids. The City is most likely to receive the full benefit of a PPP and competitive pricing for
components of its SCDWP when the bidding process remains fair, open and competitive. The
City also needs to be clear and fair in its service specifications and risk transfer obligations.
29. How can the City make sure it is getting all the advantages of the PPP approach?
In order to maximize the advantages of a PPP approach for the citizens of Saint John, the City
must continue using expert consultants (finance, engineering, legal) and a dedicated professional
City Staff to ensure due diligence throughout the entire process. In terms of ensuring
competitive pricing, the City has already received confirmation that there is wide- spread interest
16
Page 12
from potential private sector partners in the City's SCDWP, which has the potential of
generating competitive bids. A critical element to achieving the full benefits is the formulation
of the contractual agreement with the private sector partner, in which the City must clearly
articulate its desired specifications and outcomes. Only those requirements set out in the
agreement will be enforceable during the life of the agreement.
30. Why don't we stay with the traditional approach and wait to see if we can get other
cost sharing in future years?
The City is taking action to avoid the risks associated with further delays in upgrading the
system, as well as taking advantage of the opportunity to access upwards of 50% in shared,
eligible costs through programs with PPP Canada and the Government of New Brunswick.
Funding opportunities from the provincial and federal governments outside of a PPP process are
not certain at this stage nor are they likely to yield such a high level of cost sharing. Past
infrastructure programs would provide limited funding on a project by project basis. It is
interesting to note that the renewed Building Canada Fund now requires that, `BCF projects
worth more than $100 million must be screened for P3 financing opportunities.' As noted
previously, system risks and construction costs will increase as time progresses.
31. If the City decides to pursue the PPP alternative in early April 2013, are they
locked -into a PPP for the SCDWP? What happens if the City decides to pursue the
PPP alternative and later decides to back -out?
If Common Council decides to pursue the PPP alternative in early April 2013, the City will be
committing itself to a procurement process until summer 2015, a construction period estimated
between 2015 and 2018, and a concession period estimated between 2018 and 2048. While
Common Council's decision in April 2013 is significant, there will be 3 other critical decision
milestones (RFQ, RFP, Contract Award) before a private sector partner would begin
construction. There are real financial consequences for the City and the bidders in the event it
chooses to proceed with the PPP alternative and later decides to back -out of the process /project
given the significant upfront investment in legal, engineering and other ancillary costs when
using a PPP model.
32. If we want to move forward what has to happen next?
The Business Case will be sent to PPP Canada for review and approval by their Board of
Directors. The City must also demonstrate that they have the funding available to complete the
project, which includes support from the Government of New Brunswick. The City must also
demonstrate that it has assembled a team capable of managing the project to a successful
completion.
33. Will the City use its own professional staff and/or engage additional resources to
move the project forward?
The City will engage both City Staff and external advisors to create the project team. Some City
Staff will work full time on the project while others will be only used as required in their field of
expertise. The City will engage external consultants for engineering, communication, finance and
project management, as well as legal advisors to help create the contractual agreements.
34. What will be the role of PwC and Partnerships New Brunswick going forward?
PwC have provided the City with valuable guidance throughout the business case development,
and will be the primary advisors for the next phases in the event that Common Council proceeds
17
Page 13
with the PPP alternative. The City of Saint John will also enter into an agreement with
Partnerships New Brunswick (PPPNB) for provision of additional advisory support to the City
for procurement, financing and governance advice.
35. The City is currently exploring groundwater sources, and if successful, it may
impact the scope of the current SCDWP. What's the impact of the groundwater
exploration on the SCDWP? Will the outcome of the groundwater exploration
compromise the City's PPP Canada application?
The current groundwater exploration has the potential of yielding significant capital savings in
the scope of the City's SCDWP. If a significant groundwater source with demonstrated quality
is identified, it could impact the relative size of the water treatment plant, and subsequently
reduce the total cost of the SCDWP. If the City is eventually successful in identifying a
satisfactory groundwater source, the City will conduct a cost/benefit analysis to determine if
there is merit in changing the scope of particular elements of the SCDWP. If so, the City will be
required to work with PPP Canada to revise the Business Case in order to re- examine the value -
for- money. Lower capital costs will benefit the City and the Provincial and Federal funding
partners. The City expects to receive results of the groundwater exploration in September 2013
for the west side sites and December 2013 for the east side sites.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Based on the estimated base costs, risks, and contingencies and on the financial assumptions
which have been expressed as conservative, the estimated Value for Money is $3.2 million
favorable in net present value for the City to pursue a Public Private Partnership procurement
model versus a Traditional procurement model. In other words, the Value for Money concludes
the Public Private Partnership is the lowest cost option for the City.
The Value for Money is based on a series of assumptions. As a result, a series of sensitivity
analysis was conducted in order to test the impact of changes in key assumptions. The Value for
Money is most sensitive to a decrease in the discount rate, an increase in the interest rate
associated with long term financing, and an increase in the proportion of equity relative to debt
financing.
While the Value for Money exercise does not reflect any assumptions regarding capital
contributions from the Province of New Brunswick or the Government of Canada, the City
completed an affordability analysis with the following assumptions:
a. Federal Contribution or PPP Canada contribution of 25% of eligible PPP costs at
substantial completion, and a
b. Matching contribution from the Province of New Brunswick
With capital funding, City savings increase from $3.2 million to approximately $84 million in
net present value.
Without external funding, the estimates the flat rate to increase in the range of $1650 -$1750 by
the year 2019. The City estimated with PPP funding and matching contribution from the
iiE:?
Page 14
Province under a PPP procurement model, rates are estimated to increase to $140041550, a
savings of $200 -250 per year or 15% to the ratepayer.
Without external funding, long -term debt for all utility operations is projected to increase from
$64M to $300M. With the Federal and Provincial contributions the long -term debt for the water
utility is projected to increase to $188M.
There is a real financial advantage to the PPP procurement method based on the business case
analysis and VfM assessment. This financial advantage is substantially enhanced should the City
secure a 50% capital funding contribution from the other levels of government.
XIMLK1�. IXI
The first question comes down to whether or not the ratepayers will be better served by
proceeding with a fixed price, time certain, PPP approach to advancing the Safe, Clean Drinking
Water Program with a substantial financial contribution from the other levels of government or
to proceed with a traditional tender approach over a number of years with limited potential
financial support from the other levels of government.
The financial analysis and business case clearly demonstrate that the PPP approach is less costly
(VfM), less risky (quality, price, timing) and will yield lower water rates in future years with the
capital cost sharing that is currently available and result in a substantially lower debt load for the
utility. In addition, the City retains ownership of the assets, continues to set water rates, transfers
some risks to the private sector and secures the SCDWP within five years. From a quantitative
and qualitative perspective, the PPP procurement method is more advantageous to our rate
payers than the traditional approach.
There is however a significant caveat. Based on the experience of other communities and the
advice of our advisors (PwC, Partnerships NB) the City must be fully committed to investing the
resources necessary to ensure that the procurement process is fair and competitive, that the
desired technical outcomes are clearly specified and perhaps most important of all that the legal
agreements will in fact provide the benefits and protections anticipated in the PPP procurement
approach.
In practical terms this means that a qualified staff team be put in place and that the City secures
the professional services of experienced and knowledgeable legal, engineering and other subject
matter experts as needed to protect the ratepayer's interests.
The second question then becomes whether or not the ratepayers would be better served to hold
back on the PPP approach with a view to securing a better funding mechanism for the program at
some time in the future.
The reality is that construction costs will continue to escalate over time, the 25% cost sharing
from PPP Canada is the only available federal contribution and only if a PPP approach is used
and it is not realistic to assume that future federal/provincial infrastructure programs will yield a
$IOOM contribution to the City's water capital program.
ipt
Page 15
Input from Other Sources
Staff from Finance and Administrative Services, Saint John Water, Legal Services and Strategic
Services have provided input in the preparation of the report. The Commissioner of Finance and
Chief City Engineer concurs with the recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
That Common Council proceed with the PPP procurement process for the 18 identified
components of the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program, and
That the City Manager be directed to submit the Business Case prepared by PwC to PPP Canada
for consideration in the current round of funding, and
That the City Manager be directed to initiate the RFP process for the legal, engineering,
communication and other professional advisory services necessary to support the PPP
procurement process, and
That the City Manager be directed to identify an internal staff team to support the delivery of the
PPP procurement process for the Safe, Clean Drinking Water Program.
Respectfully submitted,
V 1
atrick Woods CGA
City Manager
20
BY -LAW NUMBER C.P.106-
A LAW TO AMEND THE
MUNICIPAL PLAN BY -LAW
ARRETE No C.P. 106 -
ARRETE MODIFL4,NT L'ARRETE
RELATIF AU PLAN MUNICIPAL
Be it enacted by The City of Saint Lors dune reunion du conseil
John in Common Council convened, as communal, The City of Saint John a ddictd
follows: ce qui suit :
The Municipal Plan By -law of The
City of Saint John enacted on the 30th day
of January, A.D. 2012 is amended by:
1 Amending Schedule A — City
Structure, by redesignating a parcel of land
with an area of approximately 1.6 hectares,
located at Lorneville Harbour, also
identified as being a portion of PID No.
55161541, from Park and Natural Area to
Employment Area classification;
2 Amending Schedule B — Future
Land Use, by redesignating the same parcel
of land from Park and Natural Areas to
Heavy Industrial classification
- all as shown on the plans attached hereto
and forming part of this by -law.
IN VaTNESS 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. 2013
and signed by:
Mayor
L'arrdtd concemant le plan
municipal de The City of Saint John
d6cr6t6 le 30 janvier 2012 est modifid par :
1 la modification de Pannexe A —
Structure de la municipalitd, afin de faire
passer la ddsignation d'une parcelle de
terrain d'une superficie d'environ 1,6
hectares, situ6e au havre de Lorneville, et
6tant aussi une partie du NID 55161541, de
secteur parc et afire naturelle a secteur
d'emploi ;
2 la modification de I'annexe B —
Utilisation future des sols, afin de faire
passer la ddsignation de la parcelle de
terrain prdcitde de secteur parc et afire
naturelle a secteur d'industries lourdes;
- toutes les modifications sont indiqudes sur
les plans ci joints et font partie du prdsent
anet6.
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John
a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le
prdsent arret6 le 2013, avec les
signatures suivantes :
Common Clerk/Greffier communal
First Reading - Premiere lecture
Second Reading - Deuxieme Iecture
Third Reading - Troisieme lecture
21
ON1
Advertiser Name: Saint John Common Clerk
Advertiser Code: S71206
Size: 4.00 x 12.50 in.
Sales Rep: Elizabeth Cook
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
RE LORNEVYIE HARBOUR
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. Redesignate, on Schedule A
of the Plan, a parcel of land with
an area of approximately 1.6
hectares, located at Lorneville
Harbour, also identified as a
portion of PID No. 55161541,
from Park and Natural Area
to Employment Area, as &
lustrated below,
2. Redesignate, on Schedule B of
the Plan, the
sentation of
the
same parcel
proposed
amendment
of land, from
Park and
will take place
Natural Ar-
at a regular
eas to Heavy
`,•-
Industrial.
Common Council on Monday,
rKOJEt DE MODIFICATION DU
PLAN MUNICIPAL
ORIET : HAVRE DE LORNEVILLE
Par les pr6sentes, un avis
public est donne par lequel
le conseil communal de The
City of Saint John a ['intention
d'6tudier la modification du
plan d'am6nagement municipal
comme suit:
1. Modifier fa designation,
a I'annexe A du plan, d'une
parcelle de terrain d'une su-
perficie d'environ 1,6 hectares,
situ6e au havre de Lorneville,
et 6tant aussi une partie du
NID 55161541, afin de la faire
passer de secteur pare et aire
naturelle a secteur d'emplol,
comme it est indiqu6 ci- dessous.
A public pre-
r
sentation of
the
,�,\
proposed
amendment
/ ?
will take place
==
at a regular
meeting of
Common Council on Monday,
March 25, 2013
in the Council
Chamber, Lobby Level, City Hall.
REASON FOR CHANGE
To permit an industrial barge
facility and access road.
Written objections to the
proposed amendment may be
made to the Council, in care
of the undersigned, by April
24, 2043. Enquiries may be
made at the office of the Com-
mon Clerk or Planning and
Development, City Hail, 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 ex-
cepted.
tf you require French services for
a Common Council meeting,
please contact the office of the
Common Clerk.
Jonathan Taylor,
Assistant Common Clerk
648 -3703
2. Modifier la
d6signation,
a ['annexe B
du plan, de
la parcelle de
terrain pr6ci-
t6e, affn de
la faire passer
desecteur
pare et alre
naturelle
A secteur
d'Industries
Lourdes.
Une presentation publique du
projet de modification aura
lieu lors de la reunion ordinaire
du conseil communal le lundl
25 mars 2013 dans la Salle
du conseil, au niveau du hall
d'entr6e, a I'h6tel de ville.
RAISON DE LA MODIFICA-
TION:
Permettre une installation
industrielle pour p6niches et une
route d'acccs.
Veuillezfaire part au conseil par
6crit de vos objections au projet
de modification au plus tard le
24 avrH 2013 A ['attention du
soussign6. Pour toute demande
de renseignements, veuillez
communiquer avec le bureau du
greffier communal ou le bureau
de Furbanisme et du d6vel-
oppement A I'h6tel de ville au
15, Market Square, Saint John,
N. -B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30
du lundi au vendredi, sauf les
jours f6ri6s.
Si vous avez besoin des services
en fran4ais pour une reunion
de Conseil Communal, veuillez
contacterle bureau du greffier
communal.
Jonathan Taylor,
greffier communal adjoint
648 -3703
Ad !Number: A59645
Ad ID: 6303095
Current Date: Mar 08 2013 08:45AM
Start Date: 3/14/2013
End Date: 3/14/2013
Color:
Client Approval OK ❑
22
Corrections ❑
(aussi disponible en frangais)
Type of Application
[�
Municipal Plan Amendment
[I Subdivision
❑ Similar / Compatible Use
[�
Zoning By -law Amendment
❑ Variance
❑ Temporary Use
❑
Amendment to Section 39 Conditions
❑ Conditional Use
❑ Change / Re- establishment of
❑
Zoning Confirmation Letter
❑ Letter for Liquor Licensing
Non - Conforming Use
Contact Information
Name of Applicant . $hMT ,10}} N, ! 1LDU STR IAA, PM" S LT D
Mailing Address of Applicant (with Postal Code) _ P.O, 50j Q 7 (
Home Telephone Number Work Telephone Number 6 Ss —
Fax Number b 56 —20S_7 E -mail br i�ift - � t (JiA5 Q .sat' PkjQ - C_Q
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant) C. I TY 0 i' .5AJ hi T7 1. .) Off KI
Mailing Address (with Postal Code) P to, X jq77 1 4,C A,j hjT J(j 4M M a E2,; YL,1
Property Information
Location 1-,01, K EV (L_LF. KAj?Q 0 u & _- Pam 0 M Or ;; slid 145Y 1
Civic # Street PID
Existing Use of Property ll ykck mT Proposed Use of Property ao& �UL i T
I4FJkW IND./
Existing Plan Designation of Property PA Proposed Plan Designation of Property A(-Ay Y I90usi> A L
EA
Existing Zoning of Property ~T -Z "� "R FFf' Proposed Zoning of Property_! =-2 �
Description of Application
Describe what you propose to do (attach additional pages if necessary).
o
WL
NOTE: If the applicant is NO -the owner, the er's signature or authorization (in writing) to submit this application is
required.
Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner
Date �Le' Date
For Office Use Only
Reviewed by _ Date
Development Officer
Information Accompanying Application:
❑ Letter of Intent ❑ Tentative Subdivision Plan ❑ Floor Plans
❑ Site Plan ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Sign Drawings
❑ Fee ❑ Other
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada Ill 4L1 www.saintjohn.ca C.P. 1971 Saint John. NA. Canada Ill 4L1 4
� GraOtphm PARCEL RA5 A CItYPPr MTIONL SAINT JOHN
24
1
ALLOY QtRVE
0
cr
U
O
S
wn daN
N W 571ML
vrwa cm
ro WffinN
Q
0
M0[R 9
LM.
A 9="
J
J
C7
z
,NN
xm
m '. lgi
S��NS�N
�w N,0O
'0.= '°""""�'"
BARGE
ACCESS ROAD
too 0 700
zoo 300 100
E& Ni% WFA
PD 9T613]l
99a MAIN STREET, HILYARD PLACE
GEN IVAR
SAINT JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK
19
508
FAUX 899 BO4t8S
VIMW.GENIVAR.COM
on ff wR.oei
No asutsN
DRAWN: AKT I
FIELD: CHECKED:
DAIS: MARCH 6, 2013
JOB No.3JO9055
CAD:&MM —OVERA LSTE
SCALE:1:5,000
24
01
aft
C-71
�" 25
a.
_ +,��
�— �T �•
Loadout Scenario
A INDUSTRIAL
PARKS
Iii IMW, "'
(Lift
INDUSTRIAL
Loadout Scenario
t
y ate..
A
Loadout Scenario
--
i
�I -�. LoadoutScenario
INDUSTRIAL
PARt{ 5
'I
~ ` a..►
IT .. too
_ 4pr
si . —
t
A INDUSTOIA11
PARKS
Loadout Scenario
...... .�
�`ir1 1 � • _ ��. x'•11• • ��
low
� V
:'``' `• `t" Saint John Chapter
1 Bayard Driw - as nt,)ohn, NB E2L 3L5
_ — • --•
'00 0 E 33 G5911 i Sic; 660 x486
15 March 2U 13
Mayor and Council of the Cott of Saint John
Cay of 5ajiit Jolut, NB
8t11 floor Cite Hall
Saint )ohi L, TIF,
Your Woiship ,end Cuuncillurs:
Our group is requesting the opportunity to make a presentation at your April 8, 2013
Council meeting. Stuart Irt:w, national trade cz w.pa igner with the Council of
Lanadi.in:3, is a(aing toy oe in Saint John that day.
Mr. I zc A would like h1 addres.9 Council on ne-w developments in the Canada- Luropean
Union free trade negotiationts affecting municipalities. R;:ceptly leaked documents
suggest that Can dian municipalities will lie coveted by proc:u enient rules ui tlic
Canada European Comprehensive l co nomic anti Trade Agreement (C:ETA) that are
more vest, it ti% v of public spending than similar rules affecting Saint john in the
Agreement on internal Trade. More than 45 Canadian municipalities are seekii-ig
exemptions from these new restrictions, and several are following up with provincial
governments atter becoming aware of the newly leaked CE`i'A documents,
Mr. rrev., would aJco life to address Council on thy now restrictions CEFA will place on
the provision ut local seivices, including water, transit and energy. l7tis N especiall"
in poitant given this C'ity's col-V; tlOt ation of a public - private pat Lnership (PI) Cur w�.ittr
treatment.
RespCLtfull)- submitted,
I- eticla Adair
Chapter Coniact
ladair�,rrnb aibn.,2om
34
N the Voice of retail
Retail Council of Canada
March 19, 2013
His Worship, Mel Norton &
Members of Saint John City Council
c/o Assistant Common Clerk, Jonathan Taylor
City of Saint John
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB E2L 41.1
e -mail: jonathan.taylor @saintjohn.ca
Dear Your Worship and Councilors,
Atlantic Office: Suite 201, 5121 Sackville Street, Halifax,
NS 153J 1 K1
(902) 422 -4144 Fax (902) 422 -1161
0cormier retailcouncil.ora
On behalf of the many Retail Council of Canada (RCC) members who conduct business and
provide employment in Saint John, New Brunswick, I am writing to ask Saint John City Council to
support RCC's initiative for municipalities to allow retailers to determine Sunday opening hours
that work best for their business.
As you may know, retail is now the largest employer in Canada and contributes greatly to the
economy in towns and cities all across New Brunswick. Due to changing lifestyles and work
hours, retail has changed in response to customer demand for more flexibility in retail hours of
operation. This demand is happening throughout Canada and governments are responding by
allowing retailers greater choice of when they wish to be open for business.
For instance, the cities of Moncton and Dieppe as well as the towns of Riverview, Grand Falls and
the province of Nova Scotia have all made this business friendly decision and retailers in these
areas have benefitted through opening during hours that benefit their customers and their
business.
Successful retailers are constantly tweaking their business practices to achieve the delicate
balance between responding to customer demand, while being financially responsible and
realistic. The government decision on Sunday opening hours in Nova Scotia, Moncton, Dieppe,
Riverview and Grand Falls increases a retailer's ability to achieve this delicate balance by opening
during Sunday hours that are best for their business. In providing this choice, some retailers have
decided to open for extended Sunday hours, some have chosen limited hours of operation (eg:
Sunday moming) while others have decided not to open for business on Sundays. Regardless of
the operational decisions made at the store level, retailers appreciate the opportunity to make that
choice based on what they feel is best for their business and their employees.
RCC is working with municipalities, Chambers of Commerce and Boards of Trade throughout
New Brunswick to show them of the benefit in allowing retailers to determine their own opening
hours on Sundays. It is our hope that the City of Saint John will be a leader in this regard and
City of Saint John
Sunday Opening Hours
Page 2
make the business friendly decision to support retailer choice and support RCC in its advocacy
efforts.
Should you wish to discuss this matter, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and
members of Saint John City Council_ In fact, I will be in Saint John on April 8- 9t�'thus, if Council
members are interested in this issue, it would be easy for me to address your Council meeting on
April 8"'. If interested, I can be contacted directly, using the coordinates listed on the letterhead.
I thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
J, j / a»'0,
Jim Cormier
Director (Atlantic)
Retail Council of Canada
W
March 18, 2013
To the Mayor and council of the Saint John City
Re: P3 Water option
I am writing to express my concern regarding the rush to make a decision about
going the P3 route to get the new water system up and running. It is my belief
that the early deadline for this decision is a function of the Harper government
plan to privatize anything public in which the private sector can make a profit.
It is a myth that the private sector is more efficient. The only thing they are more
efficient at is getting money out of tax payers.
I understand that only 25% of the cost would be provided by the federal
government. Is that really enough to risk the increased cost of having the private
sector make a profit on every step of the process? None of the private sector
involvement in public projects I've read about delivered the savings promised.
Some have been disastrous. Consider the Digby Ferry: to keep it going the tax
payers have had to dig deep for maintenance money or risk its closure. Any
service that is considered vital to the public should be kept totally in public hands
and under public control. Your job is to get the best system the city can afford to
provide continued affordable water for your citizens. The water system didn't get
this bad overnight and cannot be solved overnight. As a woman and a
homeowner of limited means, I start with an overall plan and do a little each year
— building on what is already done and doing what is most urgent. Surely the
same process can be applied to installing a new water system. I believe the
people of Saint John can do this without incurring the risk of P3s. Local
companies can do this and keep the money and jobs in the area. That is good
public management. Tax payers do not mind paying for public services; they do
mind paying for corporate profits, and they shouldn't be expected to. The track
record for water companies around the world is abominable. Please avoid them.
You will notice that my address is Quispamsis and may wonder why I should
have a say in this. The provincial government has been pushing to amalgamate
the greater Saint John area. We will be expected to pay for this system down the
road and will have been given no say in the expenses incurred.
Phyllis Hart
6 Valleyview Drive
Qiispamsis, N-B.
E2E 1N1
37
March 21, 2013
His Worship Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: Asian Heritage Society Request for Sponsorship
Background:
I have a received a letter from the Asian Heritage Society of New Brunswick Saint John Chapter
requesting sponsorship for Asian Heritage Month in May of 2013 (Please see attached). They
have a series of events throughout May including opening ceremonies on May 5th in the Market
Square atrium, month long educational and cultural exhibit and a film series at the Saint John
Free Public Library and a closing ceremonies on May 25th at the Dennis Knibb Auditorium in
Saint John High School
Motion:
That this request be referred to the City Manager.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Received via email)
Ray Strowbridge
Ward 4
City of Saint John
%-
SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L LI www.saintjohn.ca ( C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1
�gritaBe
s
Asian Ifentage Society of New Brunswick
Saint ,john Chapter
F�eh,Bruns`a`` www.ahsnb.or
Request for Sponsorship
Dear Councillor Ray Strowbridge,
May is the Asian Heritage Month declared by the Government of Canada in 2002. Led by the
Asian Heritage Society of New Brunswick -Saint John Chapter, May has been celebrated over the
last 5 years in Saint John. Our celebrations grow every year and have attracted public interest and
government attention.
In 2013, we have planned a series of events throughout the May including the opening ceremony
on May 5"' at the atrium of the Market Square, a month long educational and cultural exhibit and
a film series at the Saint John Free Public Library, a closing cultural gala and ethnic food
reception on May 25th at the Dennis Knibb Auditorium at the Saint John High School. As in the
past, the month long celebration will bring together more than 200 volunteers and more than 800
audiences from local communities. We also expect guest of honors from different levels of
governments attending our events. Both the opening ceremony and the closing cultural gala will
have numerous ethnic performances from the greater Saint John area and beyond. All our events
are free of charge and open to public.
Events will be well advertised and well attended and will serve as a terrific opportunity for your
organization to show its support of our culturally diverse communities in Saint John in events that
celebrates Asian Canadian Heritage. Saint John's Asian community is the largest cultural
community in the region and the Asian Heritage celebrations will attract a large percentage of our
Asian population. Your kind generosity and support is certain to continue the on -going tradition
of your commitment to the community at large.
In return for your generous sponsorship of our events, we will advertise your Sponsorship
verbally at our events in addition to placing your organization' sponsorship on all appropriate
print materials.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of support for the Celebration of Asian
Heritage Month in Saint John.
Sincerely,
Direct rof. Officers Coordinator
Pro . Li -Hong Xu Jay Young Chang, Ophelia Maestrado, Zahra Sholeh Li Song
The Asian Heritage Society of New Brunswick, Saint John Chapter consists of representatives from the Bhutanese
Nepalese Cultural Society, the Chinese Community, the Greater Saint John Korean Association, the Filippino Group,
the Saint John Indo - Canadian group, the Saint John Iranian Community, the Vietnamese Community, the Multicultural
Association of Saint John, and the Saint John Multicultural & Newcomers Resource Centre.
W
PFUE,'PORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C -- 13 -46
March 19, 2013
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: 290 Ludlow Street
Section 39 Amendments, PID Nos. 365106 and 365098
BACKGROUND:
At its March 15, 1985 meeting, Common Council rezoned the property at 290
Ludlow Street with PID number 365106 to `B -2" General Business in order to
permit the establishment of the Royal Canadian Legion, subject to a Section 39
condition of the Community Planning Act that limited the use of the property to
the activities of the Royal Canadian Legion, including a liquor license.
At its October 16, 2012 meeting the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)
considered a Section 39 amendment and rezoning application to "permit the use
of the former legion as a facility for corporate meetings, professional gatherings,
seminars, weddings and bingo, including on -site catering with a liquor licence ".
The applicant was proposing to continue with similar operations to the previous
legion under new ownership. Considering that the Section 39 conditions
established in 1985 limited the use of the property to the operations of the Royal
Canadian Legion, an amendment to the existing conditions was required.
The PAC adopted staff's recommendation to approve the application, but
proposed a few amendments to the proposed Section 39 conditions. Among the
conditions proposed by the PAC, the Committee recommended that the existing
retaining wall be reviewed and repaired if necessary, to the satisfaction of a
Professional Engineer.
CAN
City of Saint john
On November 5, 2012 Common Council heard the application and gave it First
and Second Reading. In response to neighbouring concerns, Council directed staff
40
M&cC -13 -46 -2- March 25, 2013
to clarify and revise the proposed conditions, and requested that staff include a
condition that involves "a review of the current drainage situation on the property
to ensure that stormwater runoff does not drain onto the neighbouring properties ".
Staff revised the conditions as requested and submitted the revised proposed
conditions in a report to Council, which Council received and considered as part
of the third Reading for the property. The below revised Section 39 conditions
were adopted by Council on November 19, 2012:
1. That Common Council amend the Section 39 conditions imposed on the
March 25, 1985 rezoning of a parcel of land with an area of approximately
1272 square metres, located at 290 Ludlow Street, also identified as PID
No. 00365106 by deleting the existing condition limiting the use to the
activities of the Royal Canadian Legion, and replacing it with the
following:
a) The use of the property be limited to a facility for banquets,
weddings, meetings, seminars, bingo games, and other related
uses;
b) Any liquor licence on the property be limited to a "Special
Facility" liquor licence, or a similar class of licence should a
"Special Facility" licence be changed as a result of the Province's
licence review process;
c) No physical additions to the building shall be permitted;
d) The barbed wire located on the perimeter of the roof be removed
and replaced by a more suitable barrier;
e) All required off - street parking be provided on site or on a property
within a 100 metre radius of the subject site;
f) No mobile signs are permitted;
g) A wooden privacy fence be installed on top of the existing or
future retaining wall abutting the properties at 102 and 106 St.
George Street;
h) The condition of the retaining wall along the property Iine abutting
the adjacent properties on St. George Street be evaluated by a
professional engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector.
If the Building Inspector determines that it is necessary to repair or
replace the retaining wall, the required work shall be designed by a
professional engineer to the satisfaction of the Building Inspector.
i) The applicant shall submit a drainage plan for the subject site
prepared by a professional engineer, to the satisfaction of the Chief
City Engineer or his designate, ensuring all water runoff on the
subject site is directed away from the adjacent properties;
j) Adequate safety lighting be installed to enhance the safety of the
subject site, subject to the approval of the Development Officer;
41
M & C — 13-46 - 3 - March 25, 2013
k) The work identified in conditions (d), (g), (h), (i) and 0) be
completed within one year of the amendments to the Section 39
conditions.
Common Council imposed these same conditions on PID no. 365098.
ANALYSIS:
Infrastructure Development has reviewed the applicant's submitted engineered
storm drainage plan and has no objection to the submission as the proposed
retaining wall will not change the existing site conditions for storm water run -off
(i.e. a balanced site runoff of pre vs. post conditions has been met); and the wall
will not increase nor alter the manner in which the existing site handles storm
water flow.
Infrastructure Development has sought Planning's input with regard to condition
1(i) listed above, which states that the applicant must submit a drainage plan
"ensuring all water runoff on the subject site is directed away from the adjacent
properties ". The applicant's engineering consultant and staff are uncertain how
the imposed Condition can be met with respect to this site. Staff has noted that
given the existing site conditions and existing municipal infrastructure, it is not
possible to ensure that all water runoff on the property is directed away from the
adjacent properties. There is no existing municipal storm sewer on Ludlow Street
for a storm connection from the site and the property is below St. John Street,
therefore a connection to that system is also not possible. As a result, the
applicant's engineering consultant cannot fulfill condition 1(i) and therefore staff
is unable to approve the plan.
The owner of the property, Mr. Karl Secord, is unable under these circumstances
to proceed with his business. Should Mr. Secord be forced to abandon the
proposed operations at the subject site, the property will likely remain vacant and
the current level of runoff will continue to occur onto the adjacent properties,
which will satisfy neither Mr. Secord nor the adjacent property owners.
However, if the existing Section 39 condition were to be revised to ensure that the
runoff from this property will not be increased as a result of the proposed
operations on the site, it would allow Mr. Secord to finish constructing the
retaining wall abutting the rear yard of the properties on St. George Street, which
would be a significant improvement to the existing site conditions. Section 39
condition 1(c) prohibits Mr. Secord from altering the layout of the site or
constructing any additions to the building, which means Mr. Secord's proposed
business will not result in a greater amount of stormwater runoff onto the adjacent
properties.
In this circumstance, it is staffs view that Council imposed a condition on an
application that had unintended negative consequences to the applicant. It is
42
M &C -13 -46 -4- March 25, 2013
staff's interpretation that the nature of the discussion that took place at Common
Council's November 5, 2012 meeting was largely in favour of permitting the
applicant to proceed with his intentions of operating the proposed business at the
subject property. In an attempt to recognise drainage problems raised by the
adjacent neighbours, Council adopted a condition that was in spirit an attempt to
rectify an existing drainage problem, or at the very least ensure that the conditions
would not be worsened by the proposed operations. However, as indicated by
Infrastructure Development staff, the natural geography of the property does not
allow for water to flow in any other direction. Whether or not Mr. Secord owns
and operates a business from the subject site, this condition will not change.
It is therefore recommended that Council revise the existing condition (i) to
ensure that there is not an increase in storm water runoff from this site due to the
proposed application.
Section 910(3)(b) of the Zoning Bylaw enables Council to waive the application
fee "if it deems fit ". Staff feel that given the current circumstances, where Council
has imposed a condition that is impossible for the applicant to meet, the
application fee should be waived.
RECOMMENDATION:
Your City Manager recommends that Common Council:
1) Schedule a public hearing for the proposed Section 39 amendment for 290
Ludlow Street for Monday, April 29, 2013, and refer the application to the
Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation, and
2) Pursuant to Section 910(3)(b) of the Zoning By -law, waive the $2,500 fee
for the amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Poffenroth, . Eng., MBA
Acting Commissioner
Growth & Development Services
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
AiN
43
R]EEPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C- 2013 -48
March 22, 2013
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
city of Saint John
SUBJECT: Rescheduling of Public Hearing Date
The Keeping of Backyard Chickens
BACKGROUND:
Common Council received a report on March 11, 2013 recommending a public
hearing date of April 29, 2013to consider proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments
relating to the keeping of chickens in specified residential zones.
ANALYSIS:
Due to scheduling conflicts, the appropriate staff will not be able to attend the
designated public hearing date to present the recommendations regarding the
keeping of chickens. Therefore staff is respectfully requesting that Common
Council reschedule the April 29, 2013 public hearing to June 3, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION:
Your City Manager recommends that Common Council reschedule the April 29,
2013 public hearing for the proposed amendment to the Zoning By -law with
respect to the keeping of chickens as a secondary use to Monday, June 3, 2013 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
44
M & C-2013 — 48 - 2 - March 22, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
Amy Poffenroth, P. Eng., MBA
Acting Commissioner
Growth & Development Services
J trick Woods, CGA
Ci Manager
JK
45
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
March 22, 2013
His Worship Mayor Mel Norton
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
Re: Proposed Procedural By -Law Amendment
The city of saint Jain
At its meeting held on March 11, 2013, Common Council adopted the following resolution:
"RESOLVED that the City Manager be directed to arrange for an amendment to
Council's Procedural By -Law for the purpose of changing the delivery date of
Council's agenda kit from the Tuesday immediately preceding a regular Council
meeting to the Wednesday immediately preceding such meetings; and further, the
deadline for submissions to Council's agenda be changed to "no later than 4:00
p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the date on which the agenda is to be distributed to
members"; and further, the agenda submission and distribution dates be changed
to Wednesday and Thursday respectively where Monday falls on a public holiday;
and further, the Procedural By -Law be amended to remove the publication of the
supplemental agenda."
The Legal Department prepared an amendment to the Procedural By -Law which achieves the
result Council seeks and stipulated in the above -noted resolution.
It is in order for Council to give the attached amendment to the Procedural By -Law first and
second reading.
Respectfully submitted,
. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
46
� J
] . L. Nugent
City Solicitor
BY -LAW NUMBER M -5
A LAW TO AMEND A BY -LAW
RESPECTING THE PROCEDURE OF THE
COMMON COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
ARRETf No M -5
ARRETL MODIFIANT L'ARRETE
CONCERNANT LE REGLEMENT
INTERIEUR DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une r6union du conseil communal,
The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a ddcr6t6 ce qui suit :
A By -Law of The City of Saint John
entitled "a By -Law Respecting the Procedures of
the Common Council of The City of Saint John"
enacted on the 29`h day of November, A.D. 2010, is
hereby amended as follows:
1 Sections 8.6 to 8.17 are repealed.
2 The following sections are enacted and added
immediately following section 8.5:
"8.6 Delivery — to members — prior to meeting
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Clerk shall
use best efforts to ensure that copies of the
agenda and Council kit for regular
meetings of Council are delivered in
printed format and/or distributed
electronically to each member so that they
are received in each case by 4:30 pm on the
Wednesday immediately preceding the
regular meeting.
(2) Where a regular meeting falls on a holiday
and said regular meeting is held pursuant to
section 4.6, the Clerk shall use best efforts
to ensure that copies of the agenda and
Council kit for that regular meeting of
Council are delivered in printed format
and/or distributed electronically to each
member so that they are received in each
case by 4:30 pm on the Thursday
immediately preceding the said regular
meeting.
Par les prdsentes, 1'arret6 de The City of
Saint John intitul6 « Arrdt6 concernant le
r6glement int6rieur du conseil communal de The
City of Saint John o, 6dict6 le 29 novembre 2010,
est modifid comme suit :
1 Les articles 8.6 a 8.17 sont abrog6s.
2 Les articles suivants sont ddictds et suivent
immediatement Particle 8.5:
8.6 Distribution aux membres avant la
r6union
147
(1) Sous r6serve du paragraphe (2), le greffier
ou la greffiere doit faire tout ce qui est en
son pouvoir pour s'assurer que les copies
de l'ordre du jour et la trousse de
documents relatifs aux r6unions ordinaires
du conseil sont distribu6es sous forme
imprimde et/ou 6lectronique de mani6re a
ce que chaque membre les regoive avant
16 h 30 le mercredi pr6c6dant la r6union
ordinaire.
(2) Lorsqu'une rdunion ordinaire tombe un
jour f666 et que cette r6union est tenue
conformdment a Particle 4.6, le greffier
ou la greffiere doit faire tout ce qui est en
son pouvoir pour s'assurer que les copies
de 1'ordre du jour et la trousse de
documents relatifs a cette r6union
ordinaire du Conseil sont distributes sous
forme imprim6e et/ou 6lectronique de
mani6re a ce que chaque membre les
regoive avant 16 h 30 le jeudi pr6c6dant la
r6union ordinaire.
8.7 Made available — to officers — staff
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Clerk shall
use best efforts to ensure that electronic
copies of the agenda and Council kit for
regular meetings of Council are made
available to all Corporation officers and
staff who are to receive copies thereof as
determined by the Chief Administrative
Officer on the Wednesday immediately
preceding the meeting.
(2) Where a regular meeting falls on a holiday
and said regular meeting is held pursuant to
section 4.6, the Clerk shall use best efforts
to ensure that copies of the agenda and
Council kit for that regular meeting of
Council are made available to all
Corporation officers and staff who are to
receive copies thereof on the Thursday
immediately preceding the regular meeting.
8.8 Made available — public
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Clerk shall
use best efforts to ensure that copies of the
agenda and Council kit for regular
meetings of Council are made available to
the general public at the Office of the
Common Clerk and on the website of The
City of Saint John by 4:30 pm on the
Wednesday immediately preceding the
regular meeting.
(3) Where a regular meeting falls on a holiday
and said regular meeting is held pursuant to
section 4.6, the Clerk shall use best efforts
to ensure that copies of the agenda and
Council kit for that regular meeting of
Council are made available to the public at
the Office of the Common Clerk and on the
website of The City of Saint John by 4:30
pm on the Thursday immediately preceding
8.7 Mis i la disposition des dirigeants et des
employ6s
(1) Sous r6serve du paragraphe (2), le greffier
ou la greffiere doit, le mercredi prec6dant
la rdunion, faire tout ce qui est en son
pouvoir pour s'assurer que Pordre du jour
et la trousse de documents relatifs aux
reunions ordinaires du Conseil, soot
transmis sous forme electronique a tous
les dirigeants et employ6s de la
Corporation qui doivent les avoir regus,
comme Pindique le directeur gdn6ral.
(2) Lorsqu'une reunion ordinaire tombe un
jour f666 et que cette r6union est tenue
conformement a Particle 4.6, le greffier
ou la greffiere doit, le jeudi pr6cedant la
r6union, faire tout cc qui est en son
pouvoir pour s'assurer que 1'ordre du jour
et la trousse de documents relatifs a cette
r6union ordinaire du Conseil, soot
transmis sous forme 6lectronique a tous
les dirigeants et employ6s de la
Corporation qui doivent les avoir requs,
comme Pindique le directeur g6n6ra1.
8.8 Disponibilite de Pordre du jour, grand
public
248
(1) Sous reserve du paragraphe (2), le greffier
ou la greffi6re doit faire tout ce qui est en
son pouvoir pour s'assurer que Pordre du
jour et la trousse de documents relatifs
aux r6unions ordinaires du Conseil sont
mis A la disposition du grand public au
bureau du greffier communal ou do la
greffiere communale et sur le site Web de
The City of Saint John avant 16h30 le
mercredi pr6c6dent la r6union ordinaire.
(2) Lorsqu'une reunion ordinaire tombe un
jour f666 et que cette r6union est tenue
conform6ment a Particle 4.6, le greffier
ou la greffiere doit faire tout ce qui est en
son pouvoir pour s'assurer que Pordre du
jour et la trousse de documents relatifs a
cette r6union ordinaire du Conseil sont
mis a is disposition du grand public au
bureau du greffier communal ou de la
the regular meeting.
8.9 Submissions — to Clerk — deadline
(1) Subject to subsection (2), all submissions
for inclusion in the agenda for regular
meetings of Council shall be submitted to
the Clerk no later than 4:00 pm on the
Tuesday immediately prior to the day on
which the agenda is to be distributed
pursuant to Sections 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8.
(2) Where a regular meeting falls on a holiday
and said regular meeting is held pursuant to
section 4.6, all submissions for inclusion in
the agenda for that regular meeting of
Council shall be submitted to the Clerk no
later than 4:00 pm on the Wednesday
immediately prior to the day on which the
agenda is to be distributed pursuant to
Sections 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8.
8.10 Submissions — to Clerk — past deadline
(1) Where the Clerk receives a submission for
inclusion on the agenda past the deadlines
stipulated at section 8.9 and such
submission is deemed by the City Manager
to be a matter requiring Council's
immediate consideration at its next regular
meeting, then the Clerk shall deliver copies
of the submission to each member as soon
as possible and present it to the Council at
the beginning of the regular meeting and
Council may vote to include the
submission on the agenda.
(2) Where Council votes to include a late
submission on the agenda at the regular
meeting, the Clerk shall add the late
submission as an item under the "16.
supplemental agenda" heading on the
agenda.
greffiere communale et sur le site Web de
The City of Saint John avant 16h30 le
jeudi prec6dent la reunion ordinaire.
8.9 Propositions an greffier ou i la greftiere,
date limite
(1) Sous r6serve du paragraphe (2), toute
proposition devant titre inscrite a l'ordre
du jour des r6unions ordinaires du Conseil
doit titre remise au greffier ou a la
greffi&e avant 16 h le mardi pr6c6dant la
date a laquelle l'ordre du jour doit titre
distribu6 en vertu des articles 8.6, 8.7 et
8.8.
(2) Lorsqu'une r6union ordinaire tombe un
jour f6ri6 et que cette r6union est tenue
conformement a Particle 4.6, toute
proposition devant titre inscrite a 1'ordre
du jour de cette r6union ordinaire du
conseil doit titre remise au greffier ou a la
greffiere avant 16 h le mercredi pr6cedant
la date a laquelle 1'ordre du jour doit titre
distribu6 en vertu des articles 8.6, 8.7 et
8.8.
8.10 Propositions an greffier on iti la greffiere,
apres la date limite
KO
(1) Lorsque le greffier ou la grefUre regoit
une proposition devant titre inscrite a
l'ordre du jour a une date ult&rieure A
celles indiqu6es a Particle 8.9 et que le
Directeur General est d'avis que ladite
proposition requiert 1'attention immediate
du Conseil a sa prochaine r6union
ordinaire, le greffier ou la greffiere
d6livra d6s que possible une copie de
ladite proposition a chaque membre et la
pr6sentera au Conseil au d6but de la
r6union ordinaire et le Conseil peut voter
pour ajouter ladite proposition A 1'agenda.
(2) Si, a la r6union ordinaire, le Conseil vote
en faveur d' aj outer A 1' ordre du jour une
proposition soumise apres la date limite,
le greffier ou la greffiere aj outera ladite
proposition sous 1'entete o 16. ordre du
jour suppl6mentaire» a l'ordre du jour.
8.11 Special meeting — preparation
requirements
— 8.11 Reunion extraordinaire, preparation,
exigences
For special meetings, the agenda shall be prepared
as the Mayor, or in the case of a petition, the Clerk,
may direct.
8.12 Not delivered — on schedule — meeting valid
Failure by the Clerk to meet any deadline set out
herein shall not invalidate the Council meeting or
any proceedings thereat."
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
A.D. 2013 and signed by:
Mayor/Maire
L'ordre du jour des reunions extraordinaires est
rddigd sous la direction du maire, ou dans
le cas d'une petition, selon les directives du
greffier ou de la greffidre.
8.12 Defaut de distribution en temps opportun,
validite de is reunion
Si le greffier ou la greffiere ne respecte pas le
calendrier dtabli par le present arretd, la reunion
du conseil ou les ddlibdrations n'en seront pas
invaliddes pour autant. »
EN FOI DE QUOI The City of Saint John a fait
apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete
le 2013, avec les signatures
suivantes :
Common Clerk / Greffiere communale
First Reading -
Premiere lecture -
Second Reading -
Deuxieme lecture -
Third Reading
Troisieme lecture -
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
22 March 2013
His Worship Mel Norton
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: NBL All Star Weekend Funding
Common Council previously resolved on February 18, 2013 that any funds received
by the City of Saint John from the Department of Economic Development in support
of the Mill Rats All Star Weekend in turn be paid to the Mill Rats.
The City has now received confirmation of funding from the Regional Development
Corporation in the amount of $50,000 and is required to enter into an agreement to
access the funding on the terms and conditions specified.
Council will note that the funding arrangement requires that the City will pay up to
$50,000 in invoices submitted by the organizers and then claim a refund from RDC.
Staff have met with representatives of the Mill Rats and confirmed their agreement
with the funding terms.
Recommendation
That Common Council approve the attached agreement with the Regional
Development Corporation - Project No: 3342 (2013 -2014) — NBL All Star Weekend
and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign the agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
. 3V'9-
J atrick Woods, CGA
C MANAGER
51
Ne_w�' �y Nouveaux
C A N A D A
February 27, 2013
His Worship Mel Norton
Mayor of Saint John
P.O. Box 1971
15 Market Square
Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 41_1
SUBJECT: Project No.: 3342 (2013 -2014)
Project Name: City of Saint John — Event — NBL All Star Weekend
Dear Mr. Mayor:
I am pleased to inform you that the above -noted project has obtained support from the Regional
Development Corporation. A financial contribution up to $50,000 for City of Saint John (the
applicant) has been approved for this project. Eligible costs and funding for this project are
described in Appendix A.
Financing Conditions
The applicant must provide confirmation within 60 days of this offer that all other financing has
been obtained prior to release of any funds for the project.
Reimbursement Procedures
Any claim for reimbursement for the contribution must be supported by copies of invoices and
proof of payment of those invoices. Each claim for payment shall be submitted by
March 31, 2014 on forms herein provided. Electronic copies may be obtained at:
www.gnb.calydc
Terms and Conditions
The approval of this project is subject to the following:
1. No public announcement of funding or milestone events such as official openings and
ribbon- cuttings shall be made by the recipient without the prior consent of the Regional
Development Corporation,
2. The applicant shall not change the project scope, purpose or eligible costs without prior
written approval of the Regional Development Corporation.
3. Project work must begin within 60 days of the Regional Development Corporation
receiving confirmation of financing.
4. The applicant shall not sell or dispose of any assets purchased by this agreement for a
period of 36 months following the completion of this project without prior approval from an
authorized representative of the Regional Development Corporation.
Economic Development /Developpementeconomique www.gnb.ca
P.O. Box /C.P.6000 Fredericton New Brunswick /Nouveau - Brunswick E3691 Canada Tel. /Tel. (506) 453 -5897 Fax/Telec. (506) 453 -6389
0
City of Saint John Page 2
Project 3342
5. The applicant shall allow any authorized representative of the Regional Development
Corporation reasonable access to the project site(s) and information.
6. The applicant must submit a final activity report to the Regional Development Corporation
within 30 days of project completion.
7. Any costs incurred prior to April 1, 2013 are not considered eligible expenses under this
offer.
8. The applicant must adhere to all labour and environmental laws and regulations.
9. No Members of the Legislative Assembly, their staff, or their immediate family members
shall be a party to this project or derive any benefit arising therefrom.
10. Any unused portion of this contribution must be reimbursed to the Regional Development
Corporation.
All correspondence with respect to the involvement in the project is to be forwarded to
Lisa Hay - Busson. Should you have any questions or require further information please contact
her at (506) 453 -8545.
If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions of this offer, please sign the enclosed
copy of this letter and return it to the Regional Development Corporation. Please note that
failure to do so within 30 days renders this offer null and void.
Sincerely,
ill Levesque
President
cc: Honourable Paul Robichaud
Enc.
This offer accepted on behalf of
City of Saint John
Mayor:
Clerk:
Date: 53
Appendix
Project 3342
City_ of Saint John - Event
Total Approved Contribution
2013 -2014 Special Initiatives $50,000.00
Regional Development Corporation will reimburse 100% of eligible costs up to the total approved contribution.
Eligible Cost(s)
Advertising & marketing $105,000.00
Gameday cost
Overhead & administration
Total
Ineligible Cost(s)
$21,850.00
$107,100.00
$233,950.00
Accomodations & meals $11,100.00
Total $11,100.00
The portion of Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) refunded by Canada Revenue Agency is considered
ineligible.
54
New./`l Nouveau
Regional Development Corporation
P.O. Box 8000, Fredericton, New Brunswick E313 5H7
Claim
List all eligible project costs with invoices and cheque numbers on this form. Include a copy of each invoice and proof of
payment. Failure to record and support each cost will cause a delay in processing.
Project Number: 3342 (2013.2014,
Project Name: City of Saint John - Event
Description of Costs
Name of supplier
Cheque
No.
Cheque
Amount
Invoice
Total
HST
Total
Eligible & supported costs (total — HST refund)
% of HST refunded by Canada Revenue Agency.
73.62% - municipality 25.77% - university 50% - Non - profit organization 100% -other
The undersigned hereby certifies that:
a. the invoices above represent eligible project costs that have been paid in full and the work completed; and
b. no other public financial assistance has been received or is to be received for the part of the project against which this
reimbursement is claimed.
Signature Print Name Date
Title Company Telephone
r-OF ornce use only
Eligible & supported costs
Claim Reviewer
Less previous advance
122320 -14-14 Program Reviewer
Add current advance
122320 -14-14 Payment Authority
425300 -14 -14
CITYSJ 55
vendor payment request account
Date
Date
Claim Auditor
RE P R T COMMON C U CI 1
OPEN SESSION
M &C 2013- 42
March 11, 2013
His Worship
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
M
City of Saint John
SUBJECT
Reimbursement of Costs for Remedial Actions - Unsightly Premises and
Dangerous Buildings By -law
The Growth and Development Services Department has received notification
from the Province of New Brunswick that the City will be reimbursed an amount
of $238,074.47 for work undertaken by the City at nine separate properties in
2011 and 2012.
The work was conducted for reasons of remedial actions after Notices to Comply
for dangerous building conditions had not been complied with, and all attempts to
recuperate the costs from the property owners had failed.
The reimbursement will be paid by the Department of Local Government in the
March 2013 municipal transfer funds to the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Your City Manager recommends that this report be received and filed.
Reectfully submitted,
r den
Pamela Bentley, P.Eng
Technical Services Engineer
Growth and Development Services
Amy Poffenro , P. Eng., MBA
Acting Commissioner
Growth and Development Services
ck Woods, CGA
City Manager
W.
I pp
t, r9
I t
The City of Saint John
March 25, 2013
Deputy Mayor and Councillors
Subject: Recommended Appointments to a Committee
The Committee of the Whole, having met on March 25, 2013, adopted the following
recommendation:
Heritage Development Board: to appoint Bob Boyce and Scott Rinehart each for a three year
term from March 25, 2013 to March 25, 2016.
Sincerely,
Mel Norton
Mayor
&IJNT JOHN PO. Box 1971 Saint John, NS Canada EA 4157 N wvv.saMgohn,ca I C.P.1 971 Saint John, NA. Canada E2L4L1
W
4�
f.
The City of Saint John
March 25, 2013
Deputy Mayor and Councillors
Subject: Recommended Appointments to Committees
The Committee of the Whole, having met on March 25, 2013, adopted the following
recommendations:
Trade and Convention Centre Oversight Committee: to appoint Michael Whelton for a three
year term from March 25, 2013 to March 25, 2016,
Saint John Free Public Library: to appoint Councillor McAlary for a term from March 25, 2013
to the end of her current term on Council.
Greater Saint John Regional Facilities Commission: to appoint Councillor Strowbridge as
the alternate member for a term from March 25, 2013 to the end of his current term on Council.
Saint John Parking Commission: to appoint Andrew Green for a three year term from March
25, 2013 to March 25, 2016.
Saint John Community Arts Board: to re- appoint Stephen Tobias for a three year term from
March 25, 2013 to March 25, 2016; to appoint Barbara Crawford for a three year term from
March 25, 2013 to March 25, 2016; and to appoint Councillor MacKenzie for a term from March
25, 2013 to the end of his current term on Council.
Destination Marketing Organization: to re- appoint Judith Brown for a two year term from
March 25, 2013 to March 25, 2015.
PRO Kids: to appoint Deanna Price - MacKenzie for a term from March 25, 2013 to December
31, 2014.
Power Commission of the City of Saint John: Notwithstanding the policy adopted by
Common Council on October 29, 2012 regarding appointments to agencies, boards and
commissions, to re- appoint Ross Galbraith for a one year term from March 25, 2013 to March
25, 2014.
Sincerely,
Mel Norton
r
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint john, NB Canada E2L4 mvw.saintlohn.ca I C.R 1971 Saint john, NA. Canada EX4Li
March 25, 2013
Deputy Mayor and Councillors
Subject: 2nd Amended Capital Cost Agreement - Revision
The Committee of the Whole, having met on March 25, 2013, adopted the following
recommendation:
RESOLVED that Council recommends Section 2.A of the text of the Second Amended Capital
Costs Agreement approved by Common Council on March 18, 2013 be revised as follows:
1. By deleting in Section 3.1.3.6 the figure of $1,226,717.62 Dollars and substituting
therefore the figure of $21,546.27 Dollars for a total Province Capital Costs
contribution in Section 3.1.3.1 of the Original Agreement of $2,550,698 Dollars;
2. That the City Solicitor's Office be directed to prepare the appropriate
documentation; and
3. That the Mayor and Assistant Common Clerk be authorized to execute any
necessary documentation.
Sincerely,
Mel Norton
Mayor
U 7q
SAi:NT iOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L4MI wwwsaintjohn.ca C.P. 1971 Saint John,, NA. Canada E2L41-1
- - --1
1
a�
The City of saint John
March 25, 2013
Deputy Mayor and Councillors
Subject: Exhibition Association
The Committee of the Whole, having met on March 25, 2013, adopted the following
recommendation:
RESOLVED that Council discontinue the Council Exhibition Association committee having
recognized that it has served its purpose and is no longer a required committee.
Sincerely,
Mel Norton
Mayor
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint Jahn, NB Canada ESL 400 vvww raintjohn.c a I C.P:197'1 Sint John, NA. Canada LIM 4LI