The URL can be used to link to this page

2026-11-02_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour /źƷǤ ƚŅ {ğźƓƷ WƚŷƓ /ƚƒƒƚƓ /ƚǒƓĭźƌ aĻĻƷźƓŭ aƚƓķğǤͲ bƚǝĻƒĬĻƩ ЋͲ ЋЉЋЏ Committee of the Whole Њ͵ /ğƌƌ Ʒƚ hƩķĻƩ Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private pursuant to the provisions of subsection 68(1) of the Local Governance Act and Council / Committee will make a decision(s) in that respect in Open Session: Ɠķ ЎʹЌЉ Ʀ͵ƒ͵Ͳ Ћ CƌƚƚƩ .ƚğƩķƩƚƚƒͲ /źƷǤ Iğƌƌ 1.1 Approval of Minutes 68(1) 1.2 Financial Matter 68(1)(c,e) 1.3 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.4 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.5 Labour Matter 68(1)(j) COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL October 19, 2026 / le 19 octobre 2026 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN OCTOBER 19, 2026, AT 6:00 PM ND 2 FLOOR COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL Present: MayorDonna Noade Reardon Deputy MayorJohn MacKenzie Councillor-at-LargeGina Hooley Councillor-at-Large Gary Sullivan CouncillorWard 1Sherri Colwell-McCavour CouncillorWard 1 Greg Norton CouncillorWard 2 Brian Wyatt CouncillorWard 3 Ryan Moore CouncillorWard3Eric Savoie CouncillorWard 4Paul Dempsey CouncillorWard 4David Merrithew Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer I. Fogan Deputy Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer K. Fudge General Counsel and Chief Public Safety Officer M. Tompkins Acting Police Chief N. Fowler Chief Development and Community Officer A. Poffenroth Chief Operating Officer (Interim) K. Loughery Director External Relations and Customer Service L. Kennedy Director Human Resources K. Shannon City Clerk J. Taylor Deputy City Clerk A. McLennan 1. Call to Order 1 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL October 19, 2026 / le 19 octobre 2026 1.1 Land Acknowledgement Councillor Savoie read aloud the Land Acknowledgement and called for a moment of reflection. is situated is the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet.The Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet along with their Indigenous Neighbours, and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s that protected their rights to lands 1.2 National Anthem Councillor Dempsey provided words of condolence for those impacted by the fire at CFB Wainwright. 2. Approval of Agenda Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Savoie: RESOLVED that the agenda of October 19, 2026, with the addition of a Letter of Opposition re: 460 Milford Road / 40 Sealedge Court; a Petition for Neighbourhood Support re: 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent; and Item 16.1 License Agreement with NB Power to Conduct Tree Clearing within Saint John Corridor Project (SJCP), be approved. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest No disclosures were declared. 4. Consent Agenda 4.1 RESOLVED that the minutes of October 5, 2026, be approved. 4.2 Refer to Item 13.1 4.3 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2026-239: Referral of Item to November PAC and December Public Hearing, Council refer the application for a proposed rezoning from applicant Carlos Newton for 206-262 Tower Street, PID 00364596 and/or successor PIDs, to the Planning Advisory Committee and set the date for the public hearing to be held at the meeting of Council scheduled for December 14, 2026, commencing at 6 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall 2nd floor, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB. 4.4 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2026-228: Community Resilience Fund - Grants Approval Second Round 2026, on the recommendation of the Community Resilience Fund Committee, Common Council award the successful applicants of the Community Resilience Fund grant program 2026 - second round, as listed in MC 2026-228, and direct the Chief Financial Officer to facilitate payment to the successful organizations. 2 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL October 19, 2026 / le 19 octobre 2026 4.5 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2026-236: Canada Public Transit Fund - Agreement for Transit Bus Replacements, the City enter into the Contribution Agreement generally in the form as attached to M&C 2026-236 to receive funding under the Baseline Funding stream of the Canada Public Transit Fund, and that the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the said Agreement and any other documents ancillary thereto. 4.6 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2026-234: Renaming a Section of chemin Drury Cove Road, Common Council rename the section 4.7 RESOLVED that the Council Community Fund Application submitted by Councillor Merrithew for the Latimore Lake Community Centre in the amount of $750 be approved. 4.8 RESOLVED that the Council Community Fund Application submitted by Councillor Hooley for the Latimore Lake Community Centre in the amount of $500 be approved. 4.9 RESOLVED that the Council Community Fund Application submitted by Councillor Dempsey for the Latimore Lake Community Centre in the amount of $750 be approved. 4.10 RESOLVED that the Council Community Fund Application submitted by Councillor Moore for P.U.L.S.E. Inc. in the amount of $250 be approved. 4.11 RESOLVED that the correspondence from E. Levesque re: Impact of City Ice Allocation Decision be referred to the CAO. 4.12 Refer to Item 13.2 Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that the recommendation set out in each consent agenda item respectively, with the exception of item 4.2 and 4.12, which have been identified for discussion, be adopted. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Members Comments Members commented on various local events. 6. Proclamation 7. Delegations / Presentations 7.1 Avenue B.: Harm Reduction Saves Lives Laura MacNeill, Executive Director of Avenue B Harm Reduction Inc., reviewed the submitted presentation entitled Moved by Councillor Moore, seconded by Councillor Wyatt: 3 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL October 19, 2026 / le 19 octobre 2026 RESOLVED that received for information. MOTION CARRIED. 8. Public Hearings 8.1 Proposed Section 59 Amendment with Staff Presentation - 460 Milford Road / 40 Sealedge Court Chief Development and Community Officer A. Poffenroth presented an overview of a proposed variation to a Section 59 resolution affecting the property at 460 Milford Road/40 Sealedge Court. The applicant is requesting a change to the existing condition (a) that limits building height to three storeys to permit a four-storey multi-unit residential building. Staff recommend rescinding Section 59 condition (a) that limits height to allow for the proposed development. Planner Y. Mattson reviewed the submitted presentation Milford Road/40 Sealedge . The Mayor called the Public Hearing to Order. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the proposed amendment with no one presenting. The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the proposed amendment with Peter MacKenzie of Comeau MacKenzie Architecture noting his approval of the project. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Moved by Councillor Norton, seconded by Councillor Wyatt: RESOLVED that Common Council rescind condition (a) imposed on August 8, 2023, as part of the rezoning of the property located at 460 Milford Road, also identified as PID 55245153 (previously PID 00405381). MOTION CARRIED. 9. Consideration of By-Laws 10. Submissions by Council Members 10.1 Notice of Motion - Public Presentation by Lord Beaverbrook Rink (Councillor Norton) Councillor Norton read aloud his Notice of Motion re: Public Presentation by Lord Beaverbrook Rink. Moved by Councillor Norton, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: 4 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL October 19, 2026 / le 19 octobre 2026 RESOLVED that section 16.28 of the Procedural By-law be suspended to allow for Lord Beaverbrook Rink. MOTION CARRIED. Moved by Councillor Norton, seconded by Councillor Merrithew: RESOLVED that the City Clerk be directed to schedule a presentation to Common Council by representatives of the Lord Beaverbrook Rink. MOTION CARRIED. 10.2 Notice of Motion - Evaluation of Permitting Process and Enforcement (Councillor Moore) Councillor Moore read aloud his Notice of Motion re: Evaluation of Permitting Process and Enforcement. In accordance with the Procedural By-law, the motion is deferred to the next meeting of Council, November 2, 2026, for discussion and vote. 11. Business Matters Municipal Officers 12. Committee Reports 12.1 Planning Advisory Committee: Prescribed Standards for any Land, Building or Structure Containing a Non-Conforming Use as a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Chief Development and Community Officer A. Poffenroth provided an introduction. Senior Planner J. Kirchner reviewed the submitted presentation entitled -6 McLaughlin . Moved by Councillor Savoie, seconded by Councillor Dempsey: RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2026-233: Prescribed Standards for any Land, Building or Structure Containing a Non-Conforming Use as a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent, Common Council approve the following: 1. Common Council, pursuant to subsection 61(1) of the Community Planning Act, require that any land, building or structure containing a non-conforming use as a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4- and kept in a condition appropriate to the area in which it is located, in accordance with the standards prescribed by 2. Common Council direct staff to give notice to the owner of the Property, pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the Community Planning Act, setting out: (a) the Standards; (b) the right of appeal under section 120 of the Community Planning Act; 3. Common Council refer the application back to the Planning Advisory Committee to decide, pursuant to subsection 60(2)(b) of the Community Planning Act and 5 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL October 19, 2026 / le 19 octobre 2026 paragraph -law, whether to permit the reconstruction of the garage associated with the non-conforming Vehicle Repair Garage use at the Property; and 4. Common Council direct staff to investigate an amendment to the Traffic By-law to restrict on-street parking for the portion of McLaughlin Crescent adjacent to the Property. Councillor Moore proposed an amendment to the recommendation to limit parking to a maximum of 13 spots. Moved by Councillor Wyatt, seconded by Councillor Moore: RESOLVED that Item 12.1 Planning Advisory Committee: Prescribed Standards for any Land, Building or Structure Containing a Non-Conforming Use as a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent, be tabled. MOTION CARRIED. Moved by Councillor Merrithew, seconded by Councillor Savoie: RESOLVED that the Common Council meeting take a five-minute recess. MOTION CARRIED. Council recessed from 8:00 p.m. - 8:05 p.m. Councillor Wyatt withdrew from the meeting. The Mayor called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. 12.2 Public Safety Committee: Saint John Police Commission Mandate - Governedge Councillor Dempsey provided an introduction as Chair of the Public Safety Committee. Fred Kaustinen of Governedge Inc. reviewed the submitted presentation entitled John Po. Moved by Councillor Dempsey, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Public Safety Committee, the proposed Police Commission Mandate be approved as presented by Governedge. MOTION CARRIED. 12.3 Public Safety Committee: Saint John Police Commission Appointment Process - Governedge Councillor Dempsey provided an introduction as Chair of the Public Safety Committee. Fred Kaustinen of Governedge Inc. reviewed the submitted presentation entitled . Moved by Councillor Dempsey, seconded by Councillor Savoie: 6 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL October 19, 2026 / le 19 octobre 2026 RESOLVED that as recommended by the Public Safety Committee, the proposed Competency Profile, Competency Profile Scoring Matrix, and Recruiting and Selection Process regarding Police Commission appointments be approved as presented by Governedge. MOTION CARRIED. 13. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 13.1 Housing For All Strategy: Status Update - October 2026 Moved by Councillor Moore, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the submitted infographic Housing For All Strategy: Status Update - October 2026 be received for information. MOTION CARRIED. 13.2 Romero House Inc. - Request for Traffic By-law Amendment Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Savoie: RESOLVED that the correspondence from Romero House Inc. re: Request for Traffic By- law Amendment be referred to the CAO. MOTION CARRIED. 14. General Correspondence 15. Supplemental Agenda 16. Committee of the Whole 16.1 License Agreement with NB Power to Conduct Tree Clearing within Saint John Corridor Project (SJCP) Moved by Councillor Savoie, seconded by Councillor Merrithew: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on October 19, 2026, the City enter into the License Agreement with the New Brunswick Power Corporation generally in the form attached to M&C 2026-241 for the purpose of permitting the New Brunswick Power Corporation to initiate clearing activities to support the expansion of the Saint John Corridor Project transmission line and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said License Agreement and any other documents ancillary thereto. MOTION DEFEATED, with Deputy Mayor MacKenzie and Councillors Sullivan, Norton, Colwell-McCavour, and Moore voting nay. 17. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on October 19, 2026, be adjourned. 7 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL October 19, 2026 / le 19 octobre 2026 MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 8 COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No.2026-258 Report DateOctober 29, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 2, 2026 Development and Community Service Area Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Location Agreement Approval Shamrock Turf Field AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Craig GanongDavid DobbelsteynAmy PoffenrothIan Fogan RECOMMENDATION That the City enter into the Standard Location Filming Agreement with Letting Go NB Film Ltd., generally in the form as attached to this M&C 2026-258, for the purpose of permitting film production at Shamrock Park on November 16, 2026, and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Standard Location Filming Agreement and any other documents ancillary thereto. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Letting Go NB Film Ltd. is seeking approval to film at Shamrock Turf Field on November 16, 2026. The proposed Location Agreement includes access to the field, lighting system, and dressing rooms for a 12-hour commercial rental period. As filming occurs after the regular operating season, there will be no disruption to user groups. The production company will be responsible for necessary site arrangements, insurance and restoration of the property, with City staff coordinating access and conducting a post-filming inspection. The citywill receive $1,619.16 plus HST inrental revenue. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) N/A STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT GROW: Focusing on service delivery and partnerships to achieve growth initiatives that align with the principles of smart growth PlanSJ. COMMON COUNCIL REPORT REPORT Letting Go NB Film Ltd. has requested approval to film atShamrock Turf Field on November 16, 2026. The proposed Location Agreement would permit use of the field, lighting system, and dressing rooms for a 12-hour commercial rental period. The production is scheduled to begin setup at approximately 7:00 a.m., with filming and associated activities expected to conclude by 8:00 p.m. The production company will provide portable washrooms and water and arrange for snow removal, if required. As the filming date falls outside the regular operating season, there will be no displacement of scheduled user groups or disruption to regular field operations. The proposed Location Agreement establishes the following terms and responsibilities: Site Access:The production company may access the property with personnel, equipment and temporary sets during the agreed rental period, including use of the field lighting system and dressing rooms. Filming Rights:The production company retains the rights associated with filming and photography undertaken at the location. Site Restoration:The production company is responsible for returning the property in reasonable condition following filming, subject to normal wear and tear. Inspection and Damage:City staff will coordinate site access and conduct a post-filming inspection. Any identified damage must be reported in writing within two days of the production company vacating the property. Insurance:The production company is required to maintain liability and property damage insurance and has indicated that the City will be named as an additional insured. The City will receive $1,619.16 plus HST ($1,862.03 total) in rental revenue, based on 12 billable hours at the established commercial rate of $134.93 per hour. Letting Go NB Film Ltd. are responsible for the full cost of any facility damage, including repairs, materials and labour. Final permit approval is subject to receiving a copy of the required insurance coverage, as outlined in the City's Outdoor Allocation Policy. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person General Counsel OfficeJacqueline Boucher Development and Community ServicesDarrell Fountain ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment A Location Filming AgreementShamrock Turf /haahb /hb/L\[ w9thw M&C No.2026-243 Report DateOctober 20, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaDevelopment and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:Referral toDecember PAC andJanuaryPublic Hearingfor 324 Charlotte Street/0 Sydney Street AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Bill MackeyPankaj NalavdeAmy PoffenrothIan Fogan RECOMMENDATION RESOLVED that the Councilrefer the applicationlisted below to the Planning AdvisoryCommitteeand set the date for thepublic hearing to be held at the meeting of Council scheduled forJanuary 11, 2027, commencing at 6 PM: tƩƚƦƚƭĻķwĻǩƚƓźƓŭ ApplicantLafford Properties, Inc. For324 Charlotte Streetand 0SydneyStreet PIDPIDs00002444and 55147482and/or successor PIDs Location: Council Chamber, City Hall 2ndfloor, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pursuant tosection 111 ofthe Community Planning Act,theCommon Council by resolution(1)refers applicationsto thePlanning Advisory Committee (PAC);and(2)setsthetime and place forthe public hearingstoconsidersuch applicationsandreceivepublic input. Public noticesmust be posted on the Citywebsite not less than21 days beforethepublic hearingsare held. The proposeddate for thispublic hearing isJanuary 11, 2026, requiring notice to be postedonor before December 21,2026. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION At its meeting of August 3, 2004, Common Council resolved that: 1. The Commissioner of Planning and Developmentreceive all applications for amendments to the Zoning By-law and related to Section 39 \[now referred to as Section 59\] resolutions/agreements and proceed to prepare the required advertisements; and, 2.When applications are received a report will be prepared recommending the appropriate resolution setting the time and place for public hearings and be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee as required by the Community Planning Act. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Common Council established five priorities for their 2021-2026 term. Public hearings align with the REPORT Per the Community Planning Act and Councilresolution, planning applications that include a request for rezoningarereferred by Council to thePACfor itswritten views. Council includes the in its considerationofproposed applications. Atreferral,the Councilalsosetsthedatesfor its public hearingson said applications, directingstaff to post notices ofthetime and place of the public hearings. Regarding service and financial outcomes, the postingof the public hearings will ensure that reviewsof proposed applicationssatisfy the noticerequirementsmandated by the Community Planning Act, which provide forthe public INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person As part of the application review process, the proposed amendments are circulated to other City service areas, external agencies,and governmental departments for feedback. Responsesfrom the external reviews are included inthestaff reportssubmitted to the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC). The staff reports and PACwritten viewsare providedto Council. ATTACHMENT COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No.2 026-247 Report DateOctober 19, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaDevelopment and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:Restoration AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Kelly Bayne/Nick David DobbelsteynAmy PoffenrothIan Fogan Crozier RECOMMENDATION That Common Council receive and file this report for information. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the theft of bronze plaques. Affected monuments include the Cenotaph, which commemorates Canadians who served and died inthe First World War and subsequent conflicts; the statue of Sir Samuel Tilley, a Father of Confederation; and the statue of Charles Gorman, a world champion A broader review of monuments and public art on City property identified an additional 25 damaged or missing plaques and medallions at various locations throughout Saint John. Staff assessed replacement options for the Cenotaph, including consultation with representatives of Royal Canadian Legion Branch 69, the Heritage Development Board, and four suppliers of potential replacement materials. Based on this assessment, staff determined that etched granite offers a suitable alternative to bronze, balancing heritage considerations, durability, cost, and reduced susceptibility to theft. Restoration work is underway, with completion targeted before Remembrance Day. Staff hasalso developed preliminary cost estimates for restoring the remaining affected monuments and public art, recognizing that replacement materials will vary depending on the historical significance, design, and specific requirements of each asset. The estimated cost to including HST, which will of the remaining monuments and public art throughout the City is estimated to cost an additional $22,600, with work anticipated in 2027 using etched granite or other suitable materials. The total estimated cost of restoration using alternative materials is $31,000, compared with approximately $55,000 for like-for-like replacement of all affected plaques and medallions. The proposed approach therefore represents an estimated cost avoidance of almost $24,000while also reducing the risk of future theft. Consultation with other Canadian municipalities indicates that replacing bronze and brass plaques with alternative materials, including etched graniteor tooled aluminum, is an increasingly common response to similar incidents of theft and vandalism. This approach is intended to preserve important historical and commemorative information while supporting the long- PREVIOUS RESOLUTION RESOLVEDAugust 17, 2026, dand missing plaques, and reportback to Council with an estimated budget required to restore and remediate these assets. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Belong Perform REPORT Staff learned ofdamage to the monuments on June 30,2026 and immediately started an investigation, filed a police report, and started work to identify restoration options and cost. The investigation identified that other monuments across the City had been vandalized or stolen, and staff filed two additional police reports. This was followed by a resolution from Council on August 17, 2026 to report back with an estimate cost to restore and remediate the assets. Staffassessment included an inventory of affected items, consultation with relevant stakeholders, apreliminaryevaluation of replacement materials, and the collection of preliminary supplier estimates to inform restoration costs. A total of 28 missing plaques and medallions were identified at several locations throughout Saint John, includingare, Queen Square South, Harbour Passage, and the Loyalist Burial Grounds. The missing plaques and medallions represent more than a physical maintenance concern. They providehistorical, commemorative, and interpretive information that helps residents and visitors understand the people, events, and stories associated with these locationsand pieces. Restoring these assets requires consideration of both their physical condition and the continued preservation of this information. Consultation and Assessment of Replacement Materials To inform the restoration approach, staff consulted with former City Staff as well as Royal Canadian Legion Branch 69, met with the Heritage Development Board, and contacted multiple suppliers regarding replacement materials. Materials explored included aluminum, steel, resin, combinations of metal and plastic, and granite. The assessment considered estimated costs, durability in outdoor conditions, appearance, and the practical requirements of attaching replacement plaques to existing monuments and public art. Staff identified limitations with some materials, particularly where replacements must be securely bonded to existing granite or fitted to curved surfaces. As a result, one material may not be suitable for every location.Etched granite has been identified as the preferred option for the Cenotaph,while alternative materials, including tooled aluminum, may be more appropriate for certain monuments and public art pieces. Brief consultation with other Canadian municipalities has indicated that moving away from bronze and brass in favour of alternative materials is becoming a common approach for municipalities facing similar challenges. The City's proposed direction reflects this broader shift and provides an opportunity to reduce the likelihood of repeatedincidentsrelated to valuable materials. Cenotaphrestoration Due to the time-sensitive nature of this monument, this is the project that will be addressed first. Staff hasalready initiated this work to support completion before Remembrance Day, where the Cenotaph is a focal point for community commemoration.This also allowed the Cityto correct one of the inscriptions.All required permits have been obtainedfromthe Heritage Development Board. For continuity, theestimatesrefer mostly to etched granite butmay varyand be cheaper depending on what material is chosenfor the final product. Restoration cost comparison: All City Plaques Bronze Etched Granite or DescriptionLocationMonument ReplacementTooled Aluminum Xpsme!Tqffe!Dibsmft!Hpsnbo! Tlbujoh!DibnqjpoLjoh!TrvbsfNpovnfou%8-925%5-674 Gmpxfs!BsdiLjoh!TrvbsfUjmmfz!Npovnfou%9-845%2-922 Nfsdibou!ObwzLjoh!TrvbsfXbs!Nfnpsjbm%3-641%2-7:6 Lpsfb!2:61.2:64Ljoh!TrvbsfXbs!Nfnpsjbm%4-481%2-7:6 Hsfbu!Xbs!294:. 56Ljoh!TrvbsfXbs!Nfnpsjbm%4-481%2-7:6 Bghibojtubo!3112. 3125Ljoh!TrvbsfXbs!Nfnpsjbm%4-481%2-7:6 Ijuptij!Uboblb!. Xjoepx!pg!uif!Ibscpvs! XbufsgspouQbttbhfTdvmquvsf!TK%2-672%:32 Kjn!Cpze!.Xjoe!'!Ibscpvs! XbufsQbttbhfTdvmquvsf!TKSfdpwfsfeO0B Dpnnfnpsbujwf!Rvffo!Trvbsf!Tbnvfm!ef! QmbrvfTpvuiDibnqmbjo%4-159%3-211 Xjlups!Lpqbd{!. Djsdvmbujpo!jo!Rvffo!Trvbsf! ObuvsfTpvuiTdvmquvsf!TK%2-672%:32 Sftupsbujpo!Mpzbmjtu!Cvsjbm! QmbrvfHspvoeCfbwfs!Gpvoubjo%6-746%5-596 Mpzbmjtu!Cvsjbm! Cfbwfs!GpvoubjoHspvoeCfbwfs!Gpvoubjo%3-641%2-:11 9y!Djuz!pg!Tbjou!Mpzbmjtu!Cvsjbm!Hbscbhf! Kpio!DsftuHspvoeDbot0Mjhiu!Qpmft%6-585%4-745 :y!Cfbwfs!Mpzbmjtu!Cvsjbm!Hbscbhf! NfebmmjpoHspvoeDbot0Mjhiu!Qpmft%7-269%5-199 Total$55,155$31,204 INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person Nick Crozier Community Services and Parks Community Planning and HousingRodrigo Campos Royal Canadian Legion Branch 69Various Representatives Heritage DevelopmentBoard ATTACHMENT(S)N/A COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No.2026-240 Report DateOctober 27, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaDevelopment and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:Community Resilience Fund Policy Adjustments AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Ronald MoncadaDavid DobbelsteynAmy PoffenrothIan Fogan RECOMMENDATION That on the recommendation of the Community Resilience Fund Committee, the CAO recommends that Common Council: 1.Approve the proposed clarifications to the Community Resilience Fund (CRF) Grant Program Policy, as outlined in MC 2026 -240, for implementation during the second year of the two-year pilot; and 2.direct staffto make minor administrative and procedural adjustments required to implement the clarified policy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Community Resilience Fund (CRF) is a two-year pilot program designed to provide financial assistance to eligible small businesses and non-profit organizations experiencing impacts associated with crime, including property damage, safety concerns and increased security needs. Following the first year of implementation, the CRF Evaluation Committee identified several areas where additional clarification would improve the consistent interpretation and administration of the program. The proposed adjustments are intended to clarify eligible expenses, documentation requirements, eligibility criteria, property management organizations applications, frequency of application reviewand administrative process. The proposed clarifications also reinforce that the program is intended to support physical safety and security improvements, rather than ongoing contracted services or operating costs. As the CRF remains a two-year pilot, these changes are intended to strengthen implementation during the second year while allowing the City to assess their effectiveness as part of the overall pilot evaluation. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) Common Council Resolution December 1, 2025 RESOLVED that as recommended by Committee of the Whole, having met on December 1, 2025, Common Council: Approve the Community Resilience Fund Policy as attached to report M&C 2025279 and allocate up to $250,000 per year for two years (total $500,000) from operating reserves to implement the Community Resilience Fund pilot. Common Council Resolution May 4, 2026 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2026-122: Community Resilience Fund -Grants Approval 1st round 2026, Common Council award the successful applicants of the Community Resilience Fund grant program 2026 first round, as listed in M&C 2026-122, and direct the Chief Financial Officer to facilitate payment to the successful organizations. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The Community Resilience Fund aligns withCommon Council priorities,GROW by strengthening the local business environment supporting with themitigation offinancial impacts of crime, and BELONG by enhancing safety, inclusivity, and confidencein public and commercial spaces. The adjustments support effective and accountable program administration by establishing clearer expectations for applicants and providing greater consistency in the assessment of applications.The lessons learned throughthe second year will contribute to the City's assessment of the program and inform any future recommendations. REPORTIncluding Any Service and Financial Outcomes The Community Resilience Fund (CRF) is intended to assist with costs associated with measures that improve safety and security, including addressing property damage, safety concerns and security needs.The CRF Evaluation Committee reviewed the experience of the first year of the program and identified several areas where the current policycould benefit from additional clarificationor adjustments. These observations reflect practical questions and the need for greater consistency in how applications and expenses are assessed.Staff istherefore recommending targeted clarifications for the second year of the pilot. Proposed Policy Adjustments The policy currently identifies examples of eligible expenses. To provide greater flexibility while maintaining the intent of the program, theeligible expense section would use the wording includes but The policy would also clarify that eligible expenses must relate directly to physical equipment, materials, installations or improvements that contribute to the enhancement of safety and security.includes but Proposed expenses must continue to meet the purpose and eligibility requirements of the CRF and be directly connected to a qualifying safety or security improvement. The clarification would also establish that ongoing or recurring contracted services are not eligible expenses.For example, the purchase and installation of a security camera system may be eligible, while the ongoing cost of a third-party company providing 24/7 live monitoring of that system would not be eligible.Similarly, security guard services would generally not be eligible as an ongoing operating expense. The policy currently identifies lighting improvements as an eligible expense. The proposed clarification would specify that eligible lighting costs relate to physical lighting equipment, materials and installation that directly improve safety and security.Ongoing or recurring contracted lightingservices would not be eligible. The Evaluation Committee identified an opportunity to provide additional flexibility regarding when eligible expenses may be incurred.For the second year of the pilot, staff recommend allowingeligible expenses incurred during the calendar year in which the application is submitted, regardless of the intake period, provided that: the expense meets all CRF eligibility requirements; the expense relates directly to the approved project; appropriate proof of purchase and payment is provided; and the expense has not been reimbursed through insurance or another funding source. This approach recognizes that some applicants may have undertaken eligible safety improvements before fully understanding the program's eligibility requirements. The policy does not currently explicitly address businesses operating from multiple physical locations.The proposed clarification is that the maximum CRF grant applies to the business entity, rather than each physical location. Therefore, a business operating multiple locations would remain eligible for a maximum grant of $7,500, regardless of the number of locations included in its application or applications. The CRF is intended to support eligible small businesses and non-profit organizations and is not intended to fund general improvements to residential properties.The policy would therefore clarify that property management organizations are not eligible applicants where the proposed project relates solely to the management or improvement of residential units or properties. Where a property management organization applies on behalf of or in relation to a commercial property, the application must demonstrate that an eligible small business or non-profit organization will directly benefit from the proposed safety or security improvement.Funding would not be provided for general property improvements where there is nodirect benefit to an eligible organization. The policy currently establishes a 90-day period associated with approved projects.The proposed clarification would specify that the 90-day period applies to both completion of the approved project and submission of the required proof of eligible expenses.This will provide applicants with a clear deadline for completing their projects and submitting the documentation required for reimbursement. The Evaluation Committee also identified questions regarding whether every funding decision requires Common Council approval and whether there may be opportunities to streamline the process.Given that the CRF remainswithin its two-year pilot, staff recommend maintaining appropriate Council oversight while exploring administrative efficiencies within the existing policy framework. Staff may therefore adjust final reimbursement amounts based on actual eligible expenses and supporting documentation, provided that the amount does not exceed the approved funding or applicable program maximum.Any broader delegation of funding authority could be considered as part of the evaluation of the pilot once sufficient experience has been gained with the program. The Evaluation Committee identified the need to clarify how the restriction established in the City's Grant Policy limiting recipients from receiving funding through multiple City grant programs within the same yearapplies to CRF applicants,that have also received funding through another City grant program.The CRFserves a distinct purpose, as it is specifically intended to help eligible small businesses andnon-profit organizations respond to and recover from the impacts of crime and public safety issues. For example, a non-profit organization that has received an Arts grant to support a cultural initiative should not automatically be deemed ineligible for CRF assistance to repair a vandalized door or address another eligible safety or security concern. This clarification would establish that receiving funding through another City grant program does not, in itself, make an applicant ineligible for the CRF, provided the application meets all CRF eligibility requirements. Applicants would not be permitted to receive duplicate funding for the same expense, and all proposed costs would remain subject to the CRF's assessment and approval process. During the first year of the Community Resilience Fund (CRF), applications were received on an ongoing basis but evaluated only in April and September. This process resultedin delays between application submission, evaluation and notification of funding decisions. To improve program efficiency and provide greater predictability for applicants, it is proposed that the CRF move to a quarterly review and allocation, aligningit with each quarter of the calendar year, meaning that the next revisionshould happenin January2027. Under this approach, applications would continue to be accepted on an ongoing basis and grouped for review at quarterly intervals. The Evaluation Committee would assess eligible applications and prepare funding recommendations in accordance with the established policy, eligibility requirements and available program budget. The proposed clarifications are expected to improve the administration of the CRFbyreducing ambiguity when evaluating applicationsand improving consistency between applications. The changes are not expected to materially increase the administrative requirements associated with the program, but to have clearer application requirements and, in some cases, reduce the need of additional requirements and clarifications from applicants. The proposed clarifications do not change the approved funding envelope or the maximum grant available under the CRF.The maximum grant remains $7,500 per eligible business or organization, $25,000 per BIA or group of 4 or more businessesand a maximum of $250,000 annually for the grant program, subject to the applicable cost-sharing requirements and overall program funding. Implementing these clarifications for the second year will allow the City to continue testing the program while maintaining flexibility to make further adjustments based on experience. The results of the second year will be incorporated into the overall evaluation of the two-year pilot and will help inform future recommendations to Common Council regarding the program. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person Strategic Services Kevin Fudge, CFO Community Resilience Fund Evaluation Viral Parikh, Finance Committee Benn Purinton, Community Standards Greg Cutler, Community Development Development and Community Services Mohamed Bagha ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment 1: Community Resilience Fund Grant Policy RevisedOctober 2026 Title: Community Resilience Fund Policy Subject: Community Resilience Fund Category: Finance and Administrative Services Policy No.: FAS-030 M&C Report No.: 2025-279 Effective Date: Next Review Date: Area(s) this policy applies to: Cross Corporate Office Responsible for review of this Policy: Finance and Administrative Services Related Instruments: Policy Sponsors: Chief Administrative Officer Chief Financial Officer Commissioner Growth & Community Services Document Pages: This document consists of 8 pages. Revision History: First Revision: October 1, 2026. Common Clerk's Annotation for Official Record Date of Passage of Current Framework: _________________________ I certify that this Policy was adopted by Common Council as indicated above. ________________________ ______________________ Common Clerk Date Date Created: Common Council Approval Date: Contact: December 1, 2025 December 17, 2025 Finance and Administrative Services City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.PURPOSE AND CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.POLICY STATEMENT ............................................................................................................................. 3 3.ELIGIBILITY ........................................................................................................................................... 3 4.ELIGIBLE EXPENSES .............................................................................................................................. 4 5.FUNDING STRUCTURE ......................................................................................................................... 6 6.APPLICATION PROCESS ........................................................................................................................ 6 7.EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................................ 7 8.REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY .................................................................................................... 7 9.PRIORITIZATION MATRIX ..................................................................................................................... 8 10. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ........................................................................................................ 8 11. ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................................................ 9 12. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................. 9 2 City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy 1. PURPOSE AND CONTEXT 1.1. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for the implementation of a 2-year pilot grant called the Community Resilience Fund (CRF) for small sized businesses (less than 100 employees) and Non-Profit Companies in Saint John, facing direct impacts related to crime, including property damage, security needs, and increased safety concerns. 1.2. The program seeks to encourage crime prevention and education initiatives that strengthen community resilience, while ensuring funds are used responsibly and equitably. 2. POLICY STATEMENT 2.1. The CRF Policy objectives are to: 2.1.1 Support small sized businesses and Non-Profit Companies, with costs related to property damage and security. 2.1.2 Promote preventive measures and education on crime prevention, de- escalation, and community support. 2.1.3 Encourage partnerships between businesses, social agencies, and the municipality to foster safer and more inclusive public spaces. 2.1.4 Provide clear, fair and accountable guidelines for the distribution of grant funding. 3. ELIGIBILITY 3.1 Eligible applications include: 3.1.1 Registered small sized businesses operating within the Saint John geographical boundary that have less than 100 employees in total and with priority being given to areas experiencing the largest negative impacts supported by data. 3.1.2 Non-Profit Companies with operating offices in Saint John, that have been affected by crime in their areas. 3.1.3 Owners of commercial properties leased to small sized businesses or Non- Profit Companies, impacted by criminal activity. 3 City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy 3.1.4 Uptown Saint John (Business Improvement Association) applying on behalf of member businesses for collective prevention/education initiatives. 3.1.5 Mixed Use multi-unit developments under construction. 3.2 Not Eligible: 3.2.1 Residential Property Owners and businesses in a principal residence. 3.2.2 Businesses in arrears on municipal taxes or user fees. 3.2.3 Property management organizations where the proposed project relates solely to the management or improvement of residential units or properties. Where a property management organization applies on behalf of or in relation to a commercial property, the application must demonstrate that an eligible small business or non-profit organization will directly benefit from the proposed safety or security improvement. Funding would not be provided for general property improvements where there is no direct benefit to an eligible organization. 3.2.4 Government or quasi-government organizations. 3.2.5 Costs that have been recovered by insurance (deductible is eligible). 3.2.6 Ongoing or recurring contracted services. For example, the purchase and installation of a security camera system may be eligible, while the ongoing cost of a third-party company providing 24/7 live monitoring of that system would not be eligible. Similarly, security guard services would not be eligible as an ongoing operating expense. 3.2.7 Any costs incurred prior to following proper process such as the issuance of building or heritage permits. 4. ELIGIBLE EXPENSES These expenses include but are not limited to: 4.1 Security and Prevention Costs 4.1.1 Security cameras (CCTV, doorbell cameras, monitoring systems) on condition to provide access to footage to Police for open investigations. 4.1.2 Alarm systems, security mirrors, new locks (re-keying locks), motion detectors and security audits. 4 City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy 4.1.3 Lighting improvements to deter loitering or unsafe activity. Eligible costs relate to physical lighting equipment, materials and installation that directly improve safety and security. Ongoing or recurring contracted lighting services would not be eligible. 4.1.4 Security staff training in de-escalation and safe engagement. 4.1.5 Education workshops for business owners and staff on crime prevention, mental health first aid, or trauma informed approaches. 4.1.6 Bollards, fencing, or planters that deter crime without reducing accessibility. 4.2 Damage Response 4.2.1 Repairs for broken windows, damaged doors, and storefront damage caused by criminal -related incidents. 4.2.2 Graffiti removal. 4.2.3 Anti-graffiti initiatives, shatterproof glass or security film for windows. 4.2.4 Cleanup costs for biohazards (needles, waste) or vandalism linked to street activity. 4.3 Business Resilience 4.3.1 Community awareness campaigns led by business groups in coordination with service providers. 4.3.2 Support to neighborhood watch type programs. 4.3.3 Shared waste/needle disposal units maintained by organization or private contractors. 4.3.4 Joint business-BIA investments in street lighting or alleyway upgrades. 4.3.5 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) studies led by the BIA. Proposed expenses must continue to meet the purpose and eligibility requirements of the CRF and be directly connected to a qualifying safety or security improvement. 5 City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy 5. FUNDING STRUCTURE 3. 5.1 Maximum Program Budget: $250,000 annually. 5.2 Program Length: 2 Year Pilot Program. 5.3 Maximum Grant per Business/ Non-Profit Company: Up to $7,500 annually. There can be more than one grant per year however the total payable to the business will not exceed $7,500 annually. For businesses with multiple locations, the maximum CRF grant applies to the business entity, rather than each physical location. 5.4 Grant Payment: Applications must be processed, approved and paid out in the year awarded. 5.5 Cost Sharing: Grants may cover up to 50% of eligible expenses. Applicants must provide the remaining 50%. 5.5.1 For Non-Profit Companies grants may cover up to 75% of eligible expenses. Applicants must provide the remaining 25%. 5.6 Collective Projects: Up to $25,000 for the Business Improvement Association or groups of 4 or more businesses in the same area (with separate individual street access entrances) applying jointly for a collective project. 6. APPLICATION PROCESS 6. 6.1 Applications are accepted on a continuous basis but evaluated quarterly (January, April, July, and October), and not to exceed the annual maximum program budget. 6.1.1 There will be four application periods: Round 1: January 1 March 31. Grants awarded in April. Round 2: April 1 June 30. Grants awarded in July. Round 3: July 1 September 30. Grants awarded in October. Round 4: October 1 December 31. Transitional Provision (2026): All applications received between September 1 and December 31, 2026, will be considered together during a one-time grant approval period in January 2027. The regular application periods will resume thereafter. 6.2 Applicants must provide: 6 City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy 6.2.1 Description of issues(s) faced and evidence of impact. 6.2.2 Reimbursement based on detailed receipts for expenses incurred. 6.2.3 Confirmation that applicant is not delinquent in property tax or utility bill payments. 7. EVALUATION 7.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA 7.1.1 Application must demonstrate need and impact on the business. 7.1.2 Application must align with program objectives (prevention, response, community safety). 7.1.3 Costs must be reasonable and incurred during the calendar year in which the application is submitted. 7.1.4 Preference given for applications that provide opportunities for collaboration and provides a broader community benefit. 7.1.5 Receipt of funding through another City grant program does not, in itself, disqualify an applicant from receiving funding through the Community Resilience Fund. The CRF is a distinct program intended to assist eligible businesses and non-profit organizations in responding to and recovering from the impacts of crime and public safety issues. 7.2 EVALUATION COMMITTEE 7.2.1 The Commissioner of Growth and Community Services or their designate will appoint an independent evaluation committee composed of up to five (5) City staff to screen, review and evaluate all applications and make recommendations on grant awards to Common Council. Ηȁ REPORTING AND ACCOUNTABILITY! 8.1 Grant recipients must submit receipts (if project was not completed when submitting the application) and a brief report on outcomes within 90 days of funds being approved. The 90-day period applies to both completion of the approved project and submission of proof of eligible expenses, which are required for reimbursement. 7 City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy 8.2 Noncompliance may result in ineligibility for future funding. 8.3 The City will produce an annual summary of the grants awarded and outcomes achieved in the annual report. 8. PRIORITIZATION MATRIX 9. 9.1 Where demand exceeds available funding, priority will be given to: 9.1.1 Small and Independent Businesses locally owned businesses with limited financial capacity to absorb costs. 9.1.2 Local Non-Profit Companies with facilities in areas with higher criminal activity. 9.1.3 High impact incidents applicants that can demonstrate repeated or severe impacts related to crime (multiple property damages, safety incidents). 9.1.4 Aesthetic Security - security measures that blend seamlessness with or enhance the visual appearance of a space or building, such as warm lighting, decorative screening or fencing, discreet cameras, etc. 9.1.5 Community Benefit projects that benefit multiple businesses, improve shared spaces or enhance overall public safety. 9.1.6 Prevention Oriented Proposals initiatives that reduce the likelihood of future damage or incidents, rather than only responding to past harm. 9.1.7 Geographic Equity ensuring grants are distributed across different neighborhoods and business districts rather than one concentrated area with a focus on areas with elevated criminal activity. 9.1.8 Partnership Projects non-profits, or service providers. Note: These criteria are not ranked and are normally weighed equally. In some cases, the committee may give more weight to certain factors based on the needs of the area or the impacts described in the application. 9. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 8 City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy 10.1 The success of the program will be tracked and reported annually using the following indicators: 10.1.1 Program Uptake Number of grant applications received. Percentage of businesses supported. 10.1.2 Financial Accountability Average grant amount awarded. Percentage of funding allocated versus budgeted. Ratio of prevention versus response funding. 10.1.3 Impact on Businesses Review of Outcome reports to track impacts on businesses. Review of Outcome reports to track recipients reporting improved safety/security. 10.1.4 Community and Prevention Outcomes Number of businesses/staff trained in prevention and de-escalation. Number of collaborative/partnership projects funded. 10.1.5 Equity and Distribution Geographic distribution of grants across neighborhoods. 10. ADMINISTRATION 11. 11.1 This policy will be reviewed in two years or as needed to assess uptake, effectiveness, and alignment with evolving community needs. 11.2 The City may end the program at any time. 11. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 12. 12.1 The Commissioner of Growth and Community Services or their designate is responsible for the overall administration of the program. They will appoint the evaluation committee and a lead staff member to facilitate the administration of the program. 12.2 The Evaluation Committee will be responsible for evaluating all grant requests and impartially making a joint recommendation on a grant award to Common Council based on this policy. 12.3 Common Council will award grants on the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee but will not be involved in evaluating specific grant requests. The 9 City of Saint John C®¬¬´¨³¸ 2¤²¨«¨¤¢¤ &´£ Policy Evaluation Committee and lead staff may adjust final reimbursement amounts based on actual eligible expenses and supporting documentation, provided that the amount does not exceed the approved funding or applicable program maximum. 12.4 The Chief Financial Officer or their designate will issue grants to applications through resolution of Common Council. 10 /haahb /hb/L\[ w9thw 2026-255 M&C No. Report DateOctober 27, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaPeople and Systems Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:City of Saint John Microsoft Enterprise Agreement Sub-Enrollmentfor Saint John Energy AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive Lead(Interim)CAO S. Rackley-RoachS. Rackley-RoachStephanie HossackIan Fogan RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the Amendment to Contract Agreement to allow MicrosoftSub-Enrollment Enterprise Agreement, as outlined in the forms attached to M&C 2026-255, and any other documents ancillary thereto. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As an entity of the City of Saint John,Saint John Energy (The Utility) can leverage pricing for Microsoft licensing on November 4, 2025, for three years. Microsoft will work directly with Saint John Energy for invoicing and compliance, resulting in no cost and mitigated risksto the City. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met onNovember 3, 2025, the City enter into an early three (3) year term Enterprise EnrollmentAgreement (Agreement) with Microsoft Corporation for Volume Licensing Renewal ofsoftware effective May 1, 2026, as outlined in the forms attached to M&C 2025-253, and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Agreement and any otherdocuments ancillary thereto. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT s priorityof perform and strategic objective accountability, working with our partners to demonstratetransparency in financial stewardship, performance management, and reporting outcomes, so our taxpayers and customers see value in their investments. REPORTIncluding Any Service and Financial Outcomes In November of 2025, the City finalizedan early Enterprise Agreement (EA) renewal with Microsoft to achieve cost savings that would not be available during the typically annual renewal window. Saint John Energy approachedthe City under the advice of Microsoft to consider the possibility of leveraging the pricing as an entity of the City. Working collaboratively with Saint John Energy and Microsoft, an approach to leverage pricing was determinedthat mitigatesrisksto the City. This involves addingSaint John Energy as a . Tenant Affiliate is an Enterprise Enrollment but operates its own separate Microsoft 365 tenant.Saint John Energy hasoperational independence for its Microsoft tenant, but the City retains contractual responsibility to Microsoft for the enrollment. While the Saint John Energy sub-enrollment will operate under the City's Microsoft Enterprise Agreement, Microsoft has confirmed in writing that Saint John Energy will sign its enrollment as the Enrolled Affiliate and will be responsible for managing its own annual True-Ups, license additions and records of license use. Microsoft has further confirmed that it will deal directly with Saint John Energy regarding license compliance and verification and that the City will not be required to manage Saint John Energy's licensing compliance.These arrangements mitigate the City's administrative and compliance risks associated with the sub-enrollment.The City will retain Microsoft's written confirmation of these responsibilities as part of the contractual record. Enabling Saint John Energy to result in no financial cost to the City while providing Saint John Energy access to Microsoft licensing at a lower cost than it could obtain independently. This collaborative approach also creates opportunities for the City and Saint John Energy to work together to manage the growing cost of technology and identify shared opportunities for greater value. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person Finance and ProcurementJodie Forgie and Chris Roberts General Counsel OfficeJacqueline Boucher ATTACHMENT(S) /haahb /hb/L\[ w9thw M&C No.2 026-257 Report DateOctober 27, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaLegal and Public Safety Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:Business Improvement Area 2027Budget AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Melanie C. Tompkins, Jonathan Taylor Jonathan TaylorIan Fogan K.C. RECOMMENDATION 1)That Common Council indicate its intention to approve the 2027Business Improvement Area budget submitted by Uptown Saint John Inc. 2)That the City Clerk be directed to prepare and publish the required public notice in accordance with section 6(2) of the Business Improvement Areas Act. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Uptown Saint John Inc. submitted the proposed 2027 Business Improvement Association Budget for Common approval. The budget would establish aBIAlevy rate of 20cents for each one hundred dollars of assessed value on non-residential property within the designated area. BIA By-Law are necessary steps to enact the 2027 levy rate. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) N/A REPORT ABusiness Improvement Area (BIA) is a designatedarea ofthe Citywhere businesses and commercial property ownerswork togetherthrough a formal associationto fund improvements and economic development initiatives that strengthen Businesseswithin the BIA automaticallybecome members andpay an annual levy through their property taxes, providingstable funding for BIA activities. The BIA By-Lawdesignates the specific properties located within the BIA, while the BIA Levy By-Lawsets the levy rate needed to fund the annual budget. Uptown Saint John Inc. administers the levy funds to supportmarketing, advocacy, beautification, and other initiatives that promotebusiness growth. th At its annual budget meeting held on October 8, 2026, Uptown Saint JohnInc. of Directorsunanimouslyapproved a proposed 2027 BIAbudget totaling $766,486.80. The levy rate required to support the budget would be $0.20 per $100 of assessed non- residential property value. This is an increase from the 2026 BIA budget of $539,173.92 and levy rate of $0.16 per $100 of assessed non-residential property value. Approval Process The Business Improvement Areas Actprovides the following process for budget approval and levy enactment: The Business Improvement Association (Uptown Saint John Inc.)develops and approves a budget for the upcoming calendar year. The approved BIA budget is submitted to Common Council for approval. Council signals its intent to approve the budget and instructs the Clerk to publish a public noticefor the BIA Levy. Non-residential users within theBIA are given a period to submit written objections to the budget. After the written objection period has expired Council may approvethe budget and amend the BIA Levy By-Lawto establish the levy rate. The Minister of Local Government reviews and approves the By-Law Amendment, facilitating the transfer of levy funds to Uptown Saint John Inc. Next Steps It is recommended that Council indicate its intention to approve the 2027BIA budget and direct the Clerk to publish the required notices in the local newspaper, and on the City ndth website, for the weeks commencing November 2and November 9, 2026. The BIA budgetapprovaland the first and second reading of the BIA Levy By-Law th amendment will be scheduled for the November 30Council meeting. The third and final th reading would be scheduled for December 14. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person CFO Fudge Nancy Tissington ATTACHMENT(S) Uptown Saint John Business Improvement Association 2027 Budget Summary. Uptown Saint John Inc. BIA Rate Increase Summary Report October 23rd, 2026 Mayor and Councillors City of Saint John PO Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick E2L 4L1 Your Worship and Councillors, On behalf of the Board of Directors of Uptown Saint John Inc., please find attached a copy of the 2027 Budget, which was approved by the board at the Annual Budget Meeting held on Thursday, October 08,2026. This meeting was advertised and conducted in accordance with the Business Improvement Areas Act of New Brunswick. Regards, Nancy Tissington Executive Director 506 633 1426 cc: Board of Directors Uptown Saint John Inc. Attachment 2027Budget for the Uptown Saint John Inc. Business Improvement Association 2027 Budget Summary ADVOCACY 5,000.00 BEAUTIFICATION 86,500.00 CLEAN & SAFE 121,700.00 PROMOTIONS & COMMUNICATIONS 223,986.80 OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION 229.300.00 URBAN DESIGN/PLACEMAKING 100,000.00 766,486.80 Area Rate of 0.20 Report prepared by Nancy Tissington, Executive Director th Approved by Uptown Saint John Inc. Board of Directors on October 08, 2026 Uptown Saint John Business Improvement Association ~ 50 years proud representing and lifting up local businesses. A not for profit representing over 500 non-residential property owners and businesses located within the provincially designated 26 block area of Uptown Saint John. has made a unanimous decision to increase the area rate from $0.16 to $0.20 per $100 of assessed non-residential property value, as reflected in its proposed 2027 budget. We have followed the provincial BIA legislation and as well as announced the increase at the AGMs in 2025 and 2026. This would be the first-rate adjustment in more than two decades. not-for-profit organization under the oversight of its Board. The proposed rate would align Uptown Saint John with 21 , who are at the $0.20 per $100 of assessed value.¹ How the BIA continues to support the Uptown The Association has experienced a rapid increase in graffiti and vandalism across the district, placing additional pressure on staff time and maintenance resources. Prompt graffiti removal and preventative projects, including our Uptown Box Art Program, which engages youth and partners such as SJ Energy. This graffiti abatement project has helped discourage repeat activity and keep public spaces welcoming. Clean Crew Staff hired during the peak summer tourism season provide more feet on the ground to care for Uptown. They help keep streets and public spaces clean and welcoming when visitor activity is busiest. With a plan to engage This support augments municipal services and responds to a priority for our business community, while requiring dedicated funding for staffing, equipment and supplies. As Uptown Saint John continues to increase our partnership and participation in programs such as: the City of Saint Fundy Winterfest, enhancements to our signature event Uptown Sparkles. Additional public space activations also require planning, staffing, equipment and event support. These experiences give people more reasons to spend time Uptown and support local businesses and have increased in costs over the last two decades. The budget has proposed an introduction to the following grants: Beautification, Security, Event and the return of the Façade grant would put additional funding directly into the hands of eligible property owners, businesses and event organizers to invest in the district. Drawing on approaches used by other BIAs, these programs also respond to -year strategic planning process. The budget turns those priorities into practical support for Uptown Saint John. Understanding the difference between nonresidential assessment and the BIA area rate The non-residential assessment base is the total assessed value of eligible properties within the BIA. The area rate is applied to that value to calculate levy revenue currently .16/100.00. With the rate unchanged at $0.16, additional levy revenue has depended on assessment growth. Assessments can also decline, and their growth does not necessarily cover rising costs. Between 2015 and 2026, the change in BIA assessment base was 6% below the New Brunswick consumer price index (CPI). Uptown Saint John BIA | 1 Responsible use of levy funding The BIA has stretched available funding by adjusting staffing, using seasonal support, reviewing equipment needs and securing sponsorships and partner contributions. These efficiencies cannot indefinitely close the gap between rising costs and the services businesses need. Impact on property owners The chart below provides an example of the area rate effects on property owners. The 4-cent area rate increase equates to 135k lift to the 2027 budget. Assessed value Annual levy 2026 Annual levy 2027 Additional annual at $0.20 contribution at $0.16 $100,000 $160 $200 $40 $250,000 $400 $500 $100 $500,000 $800 $1,000 $200 $750,000 $1,200 $1,500 $300 $1,000,000 $1,600 $2,000 $400 The comparison holds assessed values constant to isolate the rate change. affect its levy separately. Accessing additional grant opportunities With councils support the new proposed budget, the BIA will be able to utilize multi-level government grant opportunities. As the criteria in most cases is 25-50% matching contributions. The proposed rate increase would strengthen our ability to secure partner funding and extend the value of levy contributions. Example the Resilience Grant created by the City of Saint John could not be accessed by the BIA in its first year of offering. As well, our Provincial partners-Local Government have provided an annual opportunity to access grants. Investing in the future of Uptown -2029 three-year strategic plan emphasizes placemaking and experiences that encourage people to estment in our 26- places and activities gives residents and visitors reasons to return, and local businesses more opportunities to thrive. ¹ Business Improvement Areas Act, section 5(2): maximum levy of $0.20 per $100 of assessed value. View source ² Assessment figures: supplied Service New Brunswick reports. NB CPI: annual 2015 index 125.4; JanuarySeptember 2026 average 169.433. Full-year 2026 CPI is not yet available. View source ³ Jeff Siegler, Revitalize or Die, published commentary on community revitalization. View source Uptown Saint John BIA | 2 CƩƚƒʹChris Watson <christowatso@gmail.com> {ĻƓƷʹ Thursday, October 8, 2026 6:04 PM ƚʹ City of Saint John Mayor's Office <mayor@saintjohn.ca>; Reardon, Donna <donna.reardon@saintjohn.ca>; Norton, Greg <greg.norton@saintjohn.ca>; Hooley, Gina <Gina.Hooley@saintjohn.ca>; MacKenzie, John <john.mackenzie@saintjohn.ca>; Sullivan, Gary <gary.sullivan@saintjohn.ca>; Colwell-McCavour, Sherri <Sherri.Colwell-McCavour@saintjohn.ca>; Wyatt, Brian <Brian.Wyatt@saintjohn.ca>; Savoie, Eric <Eric.Savoie@saintjohn.ca>; Moore, Ryan <Ryan.Moore@saintjohn.ca>; Dempsey, Paul <Paul.Dempsey@saintjohn.ca>; Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca>; Merrithew, David <David.Merrithew@saintjohn.ca>; Taylor, Jonathan <jonathan.taylor@saintjohn.ca> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹ Request to Amend the Spruce Lake Industrial Zone to Prohibit High-Emitting Industry \[ External Email Alert\] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** Mayor and Common Council, I am writing to ask Council to amend By-law C.P. 111-196, specifically Section 12.8 of the Spruce Lake Industrial (SLI) Zone, so that major high-emitting industries including continuous fossil-fuel electrical generation are not permitted within the Spruce Lake Industrial Park. I have attached C.P. 111-196 for reference. This would give enforceable meaning to what the City, Envision Saint John and Saint John Industrial Parks repeatedly told the community this expansion in our community -- characterize the Spruce Lake Industrial Park expansion in media interviews, in direct communications with the Lorneville community, and during the 2025 public hearing process. The current zoning by-law already reflects that principle in part. Section 12.8(3)(d) dioxide and other pollutants. However, Section 12.8(3)(e) then creates a specific exception. Notwithstanding that restriction, an electrical generation station fueled by natural gas or hydrogen and smaller than 300 MW is expressly permitted if it is at least 1,000 metres from a residential property line. It is difficult to understand the policy logic of a zoning provision that first appears to give - industrial park, and then immediately creates an exception allowing large-scale natural- gas generation notwithstanding that air-pollution restriction. That exception now permits the first major proposed development in the Spruce Lake expansion area to include a 190 MW natural-gas generating plant. The EIA estimates approximately 755,187 tonnes of COe in direct emissions annually, together with approximately 122 tonnes of NOx, 236 tonnes of carbon monoxide, 30 tonnes of particulate matter, 16 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 59.6 tonnes of formaldehyde and 38 tonnes of ammonia each year. Several of these pollutants have well-established human-health implications, primarily short and long-term respiratory impacts. With the planned transition of the Belledune generating station away from coal, the proposed Lorneville facility would become one of the two largest direct GHG-emitting facilities in New Brunswick, behind only the Irving Oil refinery. -- y told this expansion would become. Based on those repeated statements and representations by the City, residents certainly had no reason to expect that we could -largest greenhouse-gas emitter, which would continuously release substantial quantities of known carcinogens and respiratory irritants into our local air. It is also fundamentally at odds with ActSJ, the City's own Pathway to Net-Zero. Page 23 shows that the largest emissions-re The City's pathway depends on industrial emissions declining dramatically over the coming decades, not adding another major fossil-fuel source emitting approximately 755,000 tonnes of COe every year. In a May 8, 2026 email (see attached) discussing carbon compliance for the proposed facility, VoltaGrid Vice President Krasen Chervenkov stated: are), there is no magic to redu The proponent itself has therefore acknowledged the difficulty of reducing these emissions once the generating infrastructure is built. ActSJ specifically warns about this problem: industrial facilities have long lifetimes, and where new facilities are not designed as close to net- On June 18, 2025, SJIP General Manager Ian MacKinnon sent Opportunities NB an excerpt from an earlier draft of the SLI provisions under which electrical generation was required to be non-emitting, or, if low-emitting, to use measures such as carbon capture (see attached). He wrote that the provision was e / are in talks expressly permitted natural-gas or hydrogen generation below 300 MW notwithstanding the air-pollution restriction. Importantly, substantially that same natural-gas exception had already appeared in the May 12, 2025 public-hearing package. The records therefore show that the SLI provisions evolved from an earlier non-emitting/low-emitting standard to an express natural-gas exception before the public hearing. So this gas plant, which would include 58 exhaust stacks (i.e. smokestacks), is the - treated simply as an unforeseen industrial use that appeared after the rezoning. The City and its industrial-development agencies were actively pursuing a data-centre and high-emitting project while the SLI zoning framework was being developed, and the electrical-generation provisions were expressly being drafted with a specific high- emission project in mind. All while City Staff, SJIP, and Envision SJ were misleading in - failure to fulfill the commitments and promises made to our community. I therefore ask Council to direct staff to amend Section 12.8 in two ways: 1. repeal the natural-gas exception in Section 12.8(3)(e), so that continuous fossil- fuel electrical generation is not a permitted use in the SLI zone; and 2. establish an enforceable prohibition on major high-emitting industrial uses, with objective greenhouse-gas and air-contaminant thresholds developed by staff so - If the purpose of Section 12.8(3)(d) is to prevent polluting heavy industry from locating next to Lorneville, then Section 12.8(3)(e) largely defeats that purpose for one of the most emissions-intensive industrial uses the zone could accommodate. Emergency or genuinely ancillary backup generation could be addressed separately without creating a loophole for a 190 MW continuously operating fossil-fuel generating nd highest GHG emitter. The community was repeatedly told that Spruce Lake would not become another major polluting industrial park. The zoning by-law should reflect that commitment. Sincerely, Chris Watson Lorneville Resident From:Luckett, Martin (ONB) To:"Krasen Chervenkov"; Milbury, Steve (ONB) Subject:RE: OBPS discussion with Voltagrid Date:Friday, May 8, 2026 4:07:00 PM Pshboj{bujpo!Mphpt!sfnpwfe Attachments:i There will be some more internal conversation next week around this. Let me take it away and I’ll get back to you with some next steps Martin Luckett Energy Development Lead / Responsable Développement Énergie Opportunities New Brunswick / Opportunités Nouveau-Brunswick martin.luckett@onbcanada.ca (c ) (506)343-5494 Saint John www.ONBCanada.ca Waterstone Human Capital 2025 Canada’s Most Admired Corporate Cultures Award Winner / Gagnant du prix cultures d'entreprise les plus admirées au Canada 2025 décerné par Waterstone Human Capital One of Atlantic Canada’s Top Employers 2017-2025 / L’un des meilleurs employeurs au Canada atlantique 2017-2025 Book time to meet with me From: Krasen Chervenkov <Krasen.Chervenkov@voltagrid.com> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 3:55 PM To: Milbury, Steve (ONB) <Steve.Milbury@onbcanada.ca>; Luckett, Martin (ONB) <Martin.Luckett@onbcanada.ca> Subject: RE: OBPS discussion with Voltagrid The latest answer was not very good. We need to work on a carbon framework with the province to fix our carbon taxes for the next 15 years, so that they are a well known and defined costs (therefore giving all stakeholders visibility as to what they are getting into). From: Krasen Chervenkov Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 1:51 PM To: 'Pelkey, Jill (ELG/EGL)' <Jill.Pelkey@gnb.ca>; Luckett, Martin (ONB) <Martin.Luckett@onbcanada.ca>; Milbury, Steve (ONB) <steve.milbury@onbcanada.ca> Cc: DeWolfe, Joel (ONB) <Joel.DeWolfe@onbcanada.ca>; Love, Brandon (ELG/EGL) <Brandon.Love@gnb.ca>; Daley, Dan (ELG/EGL) <Dan.Daley@gnb.ca> Subject: RE: OBPS discussion with Voltagrid Doesn’t make sense? I want to make sure I’m following the logic in the regulations. Two identical plants (built 2 years apart from each other, with the same technology, and producing the same emissions), should not have a different carbon compliance cost in the same year. Once the power plants are built (and the technology or power widgets are what they are), there is no magic to reducing the overall output in CO2 emissions. Lastly, regulatory uncertainty makes it harder for companies to justify large capital projects (as you don’t necessarily know how future regulations may negatively impact your project after it is built). From: Pelkey, Jill (ELG/EGL) <Jill.Pelkey@gnb.ca> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 1:41 PM To: Krasen Chervenkov <Krasen.Chervenkov@voltagrid.com>; Luckett, Martin (ONB) <Martin.Luckett@onbcanada.ca> Cc: DeWolfe, Joel (ONB) <Joel.DeWolfe@onbcanada.ca>; Love, Brandon (ELG/EGL) <Brandon.Love@gnb.ca>; Daley, Dan (ELG/EGL) <Dan.Daley@gnb.ca> Subject: RE: OBPS discussion with Voltagrid Caution: EXTERNAL MESSAGE: Use Caution when opening attachments, clicking on links, or responding. Hi Krasen, The Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS) is intended to consider economic growth as well as greenhouse gas emission reductions. Our program was built on a facility basis and therefore, each facility follows their own reduction period (starting at reduction period 1) when they enter into the system. This allows transition for new facilities as well to adjust to the carbon price while they become established. Currently, the OBPS and how it currently functions is in effect until 2030 and we await federal direction following that period. Once direction is provided beyond 2030, the provincial OBPS willbe required to meet any new federal requirements (i.e. the federal benchmark). Based on your estimated electricity production and GHG emissions, the way the Regulation and Standard have been applied to calculate the compliance obligations is correct. As mentioned, the system is currently undergoing a federal interim review which may impact how the system runs in 2028, potentially impacting these estimates and we cannot provide any insight into what the federal benchmark system may look like post 2030 currently. Thanks, Jill 20260521 Spruce Lake and Belledune_all correspondence ONB - 20260521 FinalPage 180 of 204 From:MacKinnon, Ian To:Luckett, Martin (ONB) Cc:Milbury, Steve (ONB) Subject:Spruce Lake Industrial Zone & Power Generation Date:Wednesday, June 18, 2025 3:42:36 PM ATTENTION! External email / courriel externe. Steve – FYI – Martin suggested you might be interested in this as well. Martin, When the new Spruce Lake Industrial Zone bylaw was being developed, one of the “permitted” uses of the zone is around Electrical Generation. Power generation is permitted and described below. The following is an except from a draft of the zoning bylaw: ============== 12.7. Electrical Generation Station An Electrical Generation Station is a permitted use provided it is non-emitting, smaller than 300MW, and non-nuclear. Notwithstanding the above, if the Electrical Generation Station is low emitting including the use of Carbon Capture, it must be located a minimum of 1,000 metres from a residential property line. ============== This was very specifically placed in the bylaw knowing the projects we all were / are in talks with. Ian MacKinnon, MBA, BSc. General Manager, Saint John Industrial Parks City of Saint John 32)2*32)2* Cell / Cellulaire: www.saintjohnindustrial.ca 20250815_1 Spruce Lake Industrial Expansion ONB 20250815_1 FinalPage 285 of 330 From:MacKinnon, Ian To:Luckett, Martin (ONB); Jeff Cyr Cc:Irving, Brian Subject:Power Generation in SLI Park Date:Thursday, June 19, 2025 9:52:34 AM ATTENTION! External email / courriel externe. Gents, Here is the latest wording for the new SLI zone bylaw around power generation: 12.8 (3) (d) Heavy Industrial Use is permitted at section 12.8(1) provided a main use does not result in the discharge of air pollutants. Such pollutants include, but are not limited to: Particulate Matter (PM) Ground-level Ozone (O3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 12.8 (3) (e) An Electrical Generation Station is a permitted use at subsection 12.8(1) provided it is smaller than 300MW, and non-nuclear. Notwithstanding paragraph 12.8(3) (d), an Electrical Generation Station that is fueled by natural gas or hydrogen, and is smaller than 300MW, shall be permitted as long as it is located a minimum of 1,000 metres from a residential property line. Ian MacKinnon, MBA, BSc. General Manager, Saint John Industrial Parks City of Saint John Cell / Cellulaire: 32)2*32)2* www.saintjohnindustrial.ca 20250815_1 Spruce Lake Industrial Expansion ONB 20250815_1 FinalPage 286 of 330 CƩƚƒʹ/źƷǤ ƚŅ {ğźƓƷ WƚŷƓͲ bĻǞ .ƩǒƓƭǞźĭƉ ѡǞĻĬŅƚƩƒΏƓƚƩĻƦƌǤθƭğźƓƷƆƚŷƓ͵ĭğѢ {ĻƓƷʹ ǒĻƭķğǤͲ hĭƷƚĬĻƩ ЋАͲ ЋЉЋЏ ЋʹЊБ ta ƚʹ /ƚƒƒƚƓ /ƌĻƩƉ ѡĭƚƒƒƚƓĭƌĻƩƉθƭğźƓƷƆƚŷƓ͵ĭğѢ {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹ ĻĬŅƚƩƒ ƭǒĬƒźƭƭźƚƓ ŅƩƚƒʹ wĻƨǒĻƭƷ Ʒƚ tƩĻƭĻƓƷ Ʒƚ /ƚǒƓĭźƌ CƚƩƒ \[ External Email Alert\] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** Submitted on Tue, 10/27/2026 - 14:17 Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: About Person/Group Presenting First Name: New Brunswick Power Corporation Last Name: New Brunswick Power Corporation Name of Organization/Group (where applicable): New Brunswick Power Corporation Address: 515 King Street Fredericton, New Brunswick. E3B4X1 Canada Day Time Phone Number: Email If you do NOT wish to have your personal information (address, phone number, email) become part of the public record, please check this box. Yes About your Request Topic of Presentation: Saint John Corridor Purpose for Presentation (what is the ask of Council): Present to council the purpose of the Saint John Corridor project in support of obtaining easements on the required City PIDs. NB Power attendees: Darren Storey-Senior Project Manager SJCP Jonathon Pollock-Executive Director-System Operations Pam McKay-Corporate Comms SJCP Background Information: Follow up engagement as a result of the council meeting in which the licence agreement for tree cutting was not approved. Are you making a request for funding? No COMMON COUNCIL REPORT 2026-251 M&C No. Report DateOctober 27, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaFinance and Strategic Investments Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:Public Hearing for Street Closure of Undeveloped Right of Wayon Inverness Avenue AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Blair MacPheeN/AKevin FudgeIan Fogan RECOMMENDATION -Law Respecting close a 614square meter portion of a public street, known as Inverness Avenue. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PMG LivingIncis the owner of the property identified as PID00312900 which is located between Old Lake Trail and Bon Accord Drive. They haverequested that the City initiate the process to stop-up and close the undeveloped street right-of-wayoff InvernessAvenue, having an area of 614square meters for the purpose of consolidating it with their property. The rationale for the request is to acquire and -of-way tobuild a private street to provide access onto Bon Accord Drive. The purpose of this report is to provide the context for the Public Hearing scheduled for November 2, 2026. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) th At its meeting held on October 5, 2026 STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Grow. REPORTIncluding Any Service and Financial Outcomes Background PMG Living Inland onthe easterly boundary of the undeveloped portion of Inverness Avenue. The Owner intendsto develop this14-acre lot and has requested that the City convey to them a 614 square meter portion of Inverness Avenue, as shown on the attached plan of survey. The street closure and conveyance to PMG Living Inc. will enable the Ownerto provide an additional route between the development and Loch Lomond Road via Bon Accord Drive, reducing traffic volumes and congestion on Old Lake Trail, which currently serves as the sole access point for both the proposed development and the existing Old Lake Trail subdivision. Conveying this land to the developer will improve the design of the development and maximize the density thus maximizing tax growth for the City. Having this access point and private street owned by the developer will also reduce future City maintenance and service costs such as asphalt repair, snow removal, etc. Pending approval of this stop up and close, The City will finalize negotiations on the sale price based on fair market value of the property. The Owner will also be responsible for all costs associated with the stopping up and closure of the portion of the street right-of-way, as well as all costs related to the subsequent land transaction. The City will also include a buy back provision for this 614 sq m piece of land should the developer not proceed with the construction of a private street. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person CFOKevin Fudge GCOJacquelineBoucher PlanningPankaj Nalavde /Yeva Mattson TransportationReilly Infrastructure DevelopmentJeremy Clack ATTACHMENT(S) Attachment 1 Location Map Attachment 2 Plan of Survey ShowingPortion of Inverness Avenue Attachment 3Inverness Ave Street Closing Advertisement Attachment 4 Street Closure By-law Amendment Inverness Avenue Attachment 1 Location Map Attachment 1 Location Map STREET CLOSINGFERMETURE DE RUE INVERNESS ANENUE AVENUE INVERNESS Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Par les présentes, un avis public est donné par Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider lequel le conseil communal de la ville de Saint John amending "A By-law Respecting The Closing of Arrêté relatif à Roads, Streets or Highways In The City of Saint John" la fermeture des chemins, des rues ou des routes at its regular meeting to be held in the Council dans The City of Saint John » lors de la réunion Chambers on Monday, November 2, 2026, at 6:30 ordinaire qui se tiendra le lundi 2 Novembre 2026 à p.m. to permanently close the following street: 18 h 30 fermer la route suivante : INVERNESS AVENUE: All that portion of Inverness AVENUE INVERNESS : Avenue, a public street in the City of Saint John, in Inverness, une rue publique située dans la Ville de the County of Saint John and Province of New Saint John, dans le comté de Saint John et la Brunswick, comprising 614 square metres as shown province du Nouveau- Showing portion of ulé « Montrant une partie de Inverness Avenue, City of Saint John, Saint John Don-More Saint John, Nouveau-Brunswick », préparé par Don- Surveys & Engineering Ltd. and dated May 26, 2026, More Surveys & Engineering Ltd. et daté du 26 mai attached hereto. 2026, lequel est joint aux présentes. (INSERT PLAN) (INSÉRER LE PLAN) For details on how to participate in the Public Pour savoir comment participer à l'audition Hearing, to inspect the amendment and plan, or to publique, inspecter la modification et le plan de la register to participate please contact the Office of rue ou de vous inscrire pour participer, veuillez the City Clerk at cityclerk@saintjohn.ca. communiquer avec le bureau du greffier municipal ityclerk@saintjohn.ca. Written objections to the proposed amendment Veuillez faire part de vos objections au projet de may be delivered to Mr. Jonathan Taylor, City Clerk at: M. Jonathan Taylor, greffier municipal coordonnées suivantes : i) C.P. 1971, Saint John (N.-B.) E2L 4L1; i) P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, N.B., E2L 4L1; or ii) cityclerk@saintjohn.ca. ii) cityclerk@saintjohn.ca Si vous exigez des services en français pour une If you require French services for a Common Council réunion du conseil communal, veuillez meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk communiquer avec le bureau du greffier municipal at (506) 658-2862. au (506) 658-2862. O BY-LAW NUMBER L.G. 4-13 ARRÊTÉ N L.G. 4-13 A BY-LAW RESPECTING THE ARRÊTÉ RELATIF A LA CLOSING OF ROADS, STREETS OR FERMETURE DES CHEMINS, DES HIGHWAYS IN RUES OU DES ROUTES DAN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by the Common Lors d'une réunion du conseil Council of The City of Saint John as communal, The City of Saint John a follows: décrété ce qui suit : The By-law of The City of Saint John -law Respecting The Saint John intitulé, « Arrêté relatif à la Closing of Roads, Streets or Highways in fermeture des chemins, des rues ou des The City of Saint routes dans The City of Saint John», eleventh day of March, A.D. 2019, is décrété le 11 mars 2019, est modifié par hereby amended by adding thereto Section 13 immédiatement après 13 immediately after Section 12 thereof, as 12, comme suit : follows: 13 The City of Saint John does hereby 13 Par les présentes, The City of Saint stop up and close permanently the John barre et ferme de façon permanente la following street: rue suivante : INVERNESS AVENUE: All that portion AVENUE INVERNESS: Toute la partie of Inverness Avenue, a public street in the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint située dans la Ville de Saint John, dans le John and Province of New Brunswick, comté de Saint John et la province du comprising 614 square metres as shown on Nouveau- a Plan of Survey titled, of Inverness Avenue, City of Saint John, lustrée sur un prepared by Don-More Surveys & Engineering Ltd. and dated May 26, 2026, John, comté de Saint John, attached hereto. Nouveau-Brunswick », préparé par Don- More Surveys & Engineering Ltd. et daté du 26 mai 2026, lequel est joint aux présentes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John Saint John has caused the Corporate a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le Common Seal of the said City to be affixed présent arrêté le ** **** 2026, to this by-law the *** day of ***, A.D. avec les signatures suivantes : 2026 and signed by: _______________________________________ Mayor/Mairesse _____________________________________ City Clerk/Greffier de la municipalité First Reading - Première lecture - Second Reading - Deuxième lecture - Third Reading - Troisième lecture - o BY- LAW NUMBER L-15 ARRÊTÉ NLG-15 A LAW TO AMEND A BY- LAW CONCERNANT LE RÈGLEMENT RESPECTING THE PROCEDURES OF THE INTÉRIEUR DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE COMMON COUNCIL THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors réunion du conseil communal, The City of Saint John a décrété ce qui suit: The City of Saint John as follows: A By -Law of The City of Saint John entitled arrêté de The City of Saint John intitule « Arrêté concernant le règlement intérieur du By-Law Respecting the Procedures of the conseil communal de The City of Saint John », édicté Common Council of The City of Saint John" enacted th le 4 mai 2026, est modifié comme suit: on the 4 day of May, A.D. 2026, is hereby amended as follows: 1. Schedule B is repealed and replaced with 1. Lnnexe « B » est abrogée et remplacée par l'annexe « B » ci-jointe. Schedule B attached hereto. 2. This amendment comes into force on the 2. La présente modification entrera en vigueur le 1er janvier 2027. first day of January, 2027. EN FOI DE QUOI The City of Saint John a fait IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City of Saint John has apposer son sceau communal sur le présent arrêté le caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said City to _______________ 2026, avec les signatures be affixed to this By-law the ______ day of suivantes: ____________, A.D. 2026 and signed by: ___________________________________________ Mayor / Mairesse _____________________________________________ City Clerk / Greffier de la municipalité - October 5, 2026 Première lecture - le 5 octobre 2026 First Reading - October 5, 2026 Deuxième lecture - le 5 octobre 2026 Second Reading - Troisième lecture - Third Reading SCHEDULE B PROCEDURE FOR STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING 1. Except for the Applicant, members of the public who wish to address Council during the Public Hearing must register using one of the following methods: (a) Advanced Registration: (i) The registrant must , or contact the Office of the City Clerk, no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the Public Hearing to provide their first and last name and indicate their intention to address Council and specify whether they wish to speak in support of or in opposition to the proposal being considered by Council at the Public Hearing; or (b) In-Person Registration: (i) The registrant must provide their first and last name for inclusion on the City Hall, and specify whether they intend to speak in support of or in opposition to the proposal being considered by Council at the Public Hearing. (ii) In-person registration opens thirty (30) minutes prior to the Council Meeting at which the Public Hearing will take place being Called to Order and closes five (5) minutes prior to that same Meeting being Called to Order. registrant. 2. Any presentation materials, including audiovisual components and handouts intended for 4:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the Public Hearing. This presentation and other materials shall not include any unauthorized copyrighted content or any material deemed offensive, abusive, defamatory, or unlawful. 3. All members of the public attending a Public Hearing shall comply with section 5.11 of this By-law upon entering the Council Chamber. 4. Immediately prior to the opening of the Public Hearing, and at the discretion of the Chief Administrative Officer, City staff and the Applicant may each make a presentation to Council providing an overview of the proposal. 5. The Presiding Officer opens the Public Hearing. 6. Using the list of registered speakers, the Mayor or Clerk then calls upon those members of the public who registered to speak to voice their objections to the proposal. Each member of the public who registered to speak will be allotted a maximum of ten (10) minutes to present to Council, inclusive of any audiovisual presentation. 7. Once the Mayor, or Clerk, exhausted the list of members of the public who registered to speak in opposition to the proposal, they call upon registered members of the public to speak in favour of the proposal. Each member of the public who registered to speak will be allotted a maximum of ten (10) minutes to present to Council, inclusive of any audiovisual presentation. 8. The Mayor may ask the Applicant to respond to questions or concerns raised during the Public Hearing. 9. to present, Members of Council may pose questions to them. There is no time limit to this question period from members of Council. 10. Once steps 1 to 9 above have been completed, the Presiding Officer shall declare the Public Hearing closed. 11. If a continuation of the Public Hearing is required, only those registrants who did not have an opportunity to present to Council at the initial Public Hearing may speak at the continuation of the Public Hearing. 12. Once the Public Hearing is closed, Members of Council may ask questions to the Chief Administrative Officer or staff on the proposal. 13. Once the Public Hearing is closed, Council may: (a) debate the proposal; (b) make amendments that do not require re-advertising or reopening of the Public Hearing; (c) pass, defeat or postpone the item; or (d) refer the item to the Chief Administrative Officer. ANNEXE B PROCÉDURE RELATIVE AUX AUDIENCES PUBLIQUES 1. méthodes suivantes : (a) Inscription avancée : (i) site web de la ville, soit contacter le Bureau du Greffier, au plus tard adresser le conseil (b) Inscription en personne : (i) qui seront ajoutés à la liste de e salle du conseil, au 2 (ii) Les inscriptions en personne commencent 30 minutes avant conseil. cité du conseil de faire un suivi avec les personnes inscrites sera limitée si ces coordonnées ne sont pas fournies. 2. Toute présentation, y inclus du matériel audio-visuel et autres, que les membres du présentations et autres matériaux ne doivent pas inclure de contenu non autorisé ant, abusif, diffamatoire ou illégal. 3. Tous les membres du public qui assistent à une audience publique doivent se 4. publique, et à la discrétion de faire une présentation au conseil qui résume la proposition. 5. 6. maire, ou le greffier, invite ceux qui se sont faire une présentation au conseil pour une durée maximale de dix (10) minutes, incluant toute présentation audio-visuelle. 7. proposition ont adressé le conseil, le maire, ou le greffier, invite ceux qui se sont inscrits et qui appuient la proposition à prendre parole. Chaque membre du public qui faire une présentation au conseil pour une durée maximale de dix (10) minutes, incluant toute présentation audio-visuelle. 8. Le maire peut demander au demandeur de répondre à des questions ou inquiétudes soulevées 9. Il n'y a pas de limite de temps pour cette période de questions de la part des membres du conseil. 10. Une fois que les étapes 1 à 9 ci- publique. 11. seulement les memb de faire une présentation au publique. 12. concernant la proposition. 13. : (a) Discuter la proposition; (b) Apporter des modifications qui ne nécessitent pas une nouvelle annonce ou (c) Adopter, rejeter ou reporter le point; ou (d) . Schedule B Implementation Plan In the period between enactment of the amending By-law and its entry into force on January 1, 2027, the following actions will be taken by City staff to prepare for the revised Procedure for Statutory Public Hearings under Schedule B of By-law Number LG-15. 1. Speaker Registration System A speaker registration system will be established to record speakers who register through the advanced registration process. Paper sign-up sheets will be made available outside Council Chambers for in-person registration on the day of each Public Hearing. The City Clerk's Office will confirm the registration channel phone, email, and/or web form prior to the first hearing held under Schedule B. 2. City Website Public Hearing Landing Page and FAQ A dedicated landing page will be created on the City's website providing clear information on the Public Hearing process, including how to register to speak, registration deadlines, how and when to submit presentation materials, and what participants can expect on the day of the hearing. A plain-language Frequently Asked Questions document will be published alongside the landing page and will be linked from the City's Planning, Development, and City Council web pages. 3. Posting of Planning Reports for Public Hearings Planning's Reports to Council for items that are the subject of a Public Hearing will be posted on the City's website on the Tuesday preceding the Council meeting at which the Hearing will take place. 4. Social Media and Public Awareness Campaign An education and awareness campaign will be conducted through the City's website and social media channels to inform residents of the upcoming procedural changes prior to the first hearing held under Schedule B. This will include an initial announcement post, a procedural change notice to remain active on the City website for a minimum of 90 days following entry into force. 5. Signage Outside Council Chambers New bilingual signage will be installed on the second floor of City Hall, outside Council Chambers, directing participants to the registration table and providing information on registration timelines and contact information for the City Clerk's Office. 6. In-Person Staff Presence City staff will be present outside Council Chambers from 5:30 p.m. to 5:55 p.m. on the evening of each Public Hearing to assist participants with in-person registration. The in-person registration window closes five minutes before the Council meeting is called to order, consistent with Schedule B. 7. Council Briefing Prior to the changes coming into effect, Members of Council will be provided a briefing on the updated Public Hearing procedure at the last Council meeting in December 2026. This Implementation Plan is aimed at generating public awareness of the revised procedure for Statutory Public Hearings and ensuring a smooth operational transition for participants, applicants, and Council. While there may be a learning curve with the initial implementation of Schedule B, City staff are prepared to support the public in understanding the updated procedures. /hb/L\[ bhL/9 hC ahLhb Received DateOctober 15, 2026 Meeting DateOctober 19, 2026 Open or ClosedOpen Session Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECTʹ Evaluation of Permitting Process and Enforcement Primary AuthorInput from CouncilInput from Staff Councillor Ryan Ian Fogan Moore PROPOSED MOTION: That the CAO be directedto evaluate the permitting process for businesses within residential area, including but not limited to the requirement for community outreach. In addition,to evaluate the tools and mechanisms available in regard to enforcing ongoing compliance and public safety. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Severalcalls andinquiries from residents across the city regarding businesses operating within residential areas. This has highlighted the need to evaluate our permitting processes, community outreachrequirement, and enforcement mechanisms in addition to other possible suggestions. A clear path and defined parameters will help businesses work effectively with their neighbors and support the growth of successful businessesand communitiesin Saint John. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT: Alignment with Plan SJ and itscollective vision of growing SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES: INPUT FROM OTHERS: Communication and concerns from multiple groups of residents from across the city ATTACHMENTS: N/A COUNCIL NOTICE OF MOTION Received Date10/22/2026 Meeting Date11/02/2026 Open or ClosedOpen Session Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Evaluation of Alternative Traffic-Calming Measures Primary AuthorInput from CouncilInput from Staff Councillor Gina Hooley BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND PROPOSED MOTION: WHEREAS, traffic calming remains an important component of public safety and neighbourhood livability throughout the City of Saint John; AND WHEREAS, speed cushions have demonstrated measurable reductions in vehicle speeds, with data indicating an approximate reduction of 9 km/h; AND WHEREAS, rising and fluctuating asphalt costs present an opportunity to evaluate alternative, cost-effective and sustainable traffic-calming measures; AND WHEREAS, concerns have been raised regarding the potential diversion of traffic onto adjacent residential streets, as well as accessibility and comfort for individuals with medical conditions and emergency vehicle occupants; BE IT RESOLVED THAT Common Council direct City staff to investigate and report back on alternative traffic-calming initiatives, including but not limited to: 1. Lane narrowing: Evaluate the effectiveness of physical and visual lane narrowing, including pavement markings, flexible delineators and other appropriate traffic-calming infrastructure, compared with speed cushions. 2. Speed reduction data: Compare the approximately 9 km/h speed reduction reported for existing speed cushions with available evidence and data from alternative traffic-calming methods. 3. Financial implications: Provide comparative installation, maintenance, replacement and lifecycle costs, taking into consideration fluctuations in asphalt pricing. 4. Neighbourhood impacts: Examine whether speed cushions contribute to traffic diversion onto adjacent or parallel residential streets and whether alternative measures could reduce these impacts. 5. Accessibility and emergency services: Evaluate the potential effects of various traffic- calming measures on individuals with medical conditions, emergency response vehicles, transit vehicles and other road users. 6. Alternative initiatives: Identify additional traffic-calming strategies, including opportunities for low-cost pilot projects, that may provide comparable reductions in vehicle speeds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff identify opportunities for a pilot project comparing lane narrowing or other alternative traffic-calming measures with existing speed-cushion installations, using measurable speed, traffic-volume, safety and cost data to inform future decisions. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT: This initiative aligns with the Council priority of Belong by increasing traffic safety for the community, which helps promote active transportation. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES: Staff will be asked to report back on service and financial outcomes associated INPUT FROM OTHERS: ATTACHMENTS Pictures of lane narrowing traffic calming catalytic projectcatalytic project catalytic projectcatalytic project Comment /haahb /hb/L\[ w9thw M&C No.2026-242 Report DateOctober 08, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaDevelopment and Community Services Her Worship Mayor DonnaNoade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Community Safety Services TeamOctober Update AUTHORIZATION Chief Administrative OfficerChair ofPublic SafetyCommittee Ian FoganCouncillor Paul Dempsey Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive Lead Benn PurintonChristopher McKielAmy Poffenroth d RECOMMENDATION Public Safety Committee recommends: That staff be directed to make this presentation to Open session of Common Council at its next regular meetingas a receive and file. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides an eight-month update on the Community Safety Services (CSS) two-year pilot and assesses how the service is performing based on operating data and community feedback. Since launching in February2026, CSS has become a consistently utilized service, responding to 809 calls while maintaining an average response time of under fiveminutes. Proactive activity has also remained strong, including 672 wellness checks and 480 public assists, while only 41 matters required escalation to another public-safety resource. Overall, the statistical results indicate that the existing model has absorbed increasing demand while maintaining rapid response and proactive service delivery. Community feedback was also collected to better understand how the service is being experienced by businessesand residentsin the service area. Respondents that have directly used CSS generally rated response time and professionalism positively, and a majority of respondentssupported maintaining or expanding the service. At the same time, respondents identified meaningful concerns regarding - 2 - visibility, the effectiveness of some interventions and the continued nuisance and disorder conditions within the service area. The feedback therefore supports a continued role for CSS while also identifying clear areas where the service can be strengthened. The next phase of the pilot is focused on translating the survey findings into practical improvements. Staff is refining the service through various improvements detailed in this report. The immediate priority is to ensure the existing 24/7 model is operating as effectively and efficiently as possible and that the City is receiving the greatest value from its current investment. The service will be reassessed at the one-year mark based on the impact of these improvements and the operating evidence available at that time. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The Community Safety Services priority by emphasizing a voluntary-compliance first approach, respectful engagement with people experiencing homelessness, addictions, or mental health challenges, and coordinated referrals to outreach and social supports, with enforcement reserved for situations where voluntary compliance and supportive interventions are unsuccessful or inappropriate. REPORT tƩƚŭƩğƒ hǝĻƩǝźĻǞ The Community Safety Services (CSS) Team launched in February 2026 as a two- year pilot intended to provide a visible non-police presence for nuisance, disorder and other non-emergency concerns that do not necessarily require a police response. The service was established to help address ongoing concerns within Waterloo Village, portions of the Uptown and the Thorne/Rothesay Avenue area, while providing businesses and residents with a resource that can respond quickly to lower-priority issues and help stabilize situations before they escalate. The CSS Team operates 24/7 with a two-person team. The team responds to calls from businesses and members of the public while also conducting proactive vehicle and foot patrols throughout the service area. Typical activities include responding to nuisance and disorder concerns, conducting wellness checks, - 3 - providing general public assistance and identifying concerns independently while on patrol. The team also provides additional services to benefit the community such as disposing of needles and returning shopping carts. The CSS Team primarily addresses issues through visible presence, de-escalation and voluntary compliance. When a situation requires authority or expertise beyond the scope of the team, they can escalate to Police, Outreach, emergency services or other City resources as required. As a pilot, the service was designed to evolve based on operating experience, service demand and community feedback. The purpose of this report is therefore not only to provide an update on activity through the first eight months of operation, but also to assess how the service is performing, identify where the model can be strengthened and outline the changes being made as the pilot continues. tƩƚŭƩğƒ {ƷğƷźƭƷźĭƭ The last update on statistical output was provided on the April 29, 2026 meeting of the Public Safety Committee. This 90-day review was completed while the Community Safety Services (CSS) program was still in its early implementation period. At that time, service demand was increasing, average response time was under five minutes, and staff identified the need to continue monitoring whether increasing call volumes would affect the team's ability to maintain proactive patrol. With approximately eight months of operating data now available, a clearer picture of service demand and delivery has emerged. The data demonstrates that CSS has transitioned from its initial ramp-up period into a consistently utilized service. Service Calls From the February 2, 2026 launch through September 30, 2026, CSS has recorded 809 service calls. Calls for service increased substantially since the initial months of the pilot before beginning to stabilize at a sustained level. Month Service Calls February 33 March 52 April 89 May 127 June 114 July 151 - 4 - August 124 September 119 Total 809 July represented the highest-volume month to date with 151 service calls. Since May, however, monthly demand has generally remained within a range of approximately 115 to 150 calls. The lower call volumes during the early months of the pilot were influenced by both colder winter conditions and the gradual introduction and awareness of the service. Call volumes are expected to decline again when the winter months arrive. However, given the increased awareness and established use of CSS, they are not expected to return to levels as low as what was experienced during the initial rollout in February. Response Times The increase in service demand has not resulted in a significant deterioration in response performance. For calls recorded from May through September, the average response time was approximately 4.8 minutes. Rapid response remains one of the strongest aspects of the CSS model. The business survey results discussed later in this report reinforce this finding, with response time among the strongest-rated aspects of the service for businesses that have directly contacted CSS. Proactive Services Calls for service represent only one component of CSS activity. The team also conducts wellness checks, provides public assistance, removes needles and other hazardous materials, addresses abandoned carts, conducts proactive vehicle and foot patrols, and responds to issues identified independently while patrolling the service area. Through September 30, 2026, CSS recorded: 672 wellness checks; 480 public assists; 126 carts addressed; and 2,059 needles or other hazardous materials collected; There has been a consistent output of these activities as the pilot has progressed, shown in the table below. Month Wellness Checks Public Assists Carts Needles February 70 58 15 2 March 57 46 31 513 April 40 39 18 639 May 70 77 26 285 - 5 - Month Wellness Checks Public Assists Carts Needles June 106 46 9 156 July 150 58 7 245 August 90 66 14 96 September 89 90 6 123 Total 672 480 126 2,059 The consistency in these proactive activities demonstrates that increasing direct service-call demand has not eliminated the proactive component of the program. The presence continues to generate service through issues identified by the team while on patrol and through interactions with members of the public who may not otherwise initiate a formal call for service. Escalation Rate CSS is intended to address nuisance and disorder concerns directly wherever appropriate while escalating matters to Police, emergency services, Outreach or other resources when circumstances require a different level of intervention. Through September, 41 escalations (2% of overall service activity) were recorded. The relatively small number of escalations compared with overall service activity continues to demonstrate that the majority of CSS activity can be managed without requiring another emergency or public-safety resource. Time-of-Day Demand The longer operating period has also provided a clearer understanding of when reactive demand occurs. From May through September: 28% of calls occurred between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.; 41% occurred between 12:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; 17% occurred between 6:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m.; and 13% occurred between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. The busiest individual period is generally the early afternoon, with the highest call volumes occurring between approximately 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. This is consistent with the trend identified during the April review, when afternoon hours were already emerging as the period of greatest demand. This same pattern is reflected in other measures of CSS activity. Most foot patrol and proactive service activity also occurs during the daytime and evening, meaning the midnight to 6:00 a.m. period produces substantially less measurable activity than daytime hours. From a purely operational-output perspective, similar overall results could likely be achieved with a shorter daily operating window. - 6 - Thereason for maintaining overnight coverage is that businesses have consistently identified overnight hours as important as a preventative measure when commercial properties are unattended. As discussed later in this report, staff is focused on finding ways to make greater use of these lower-demand hours and increase the preventative value generated by overnight coverage. Foot Patrol Visible foot patrol is an important component of CSS service delivery, supporting proactive presence, deterrence and accessibility within higher-activity areas. Staff established a target of seven hours of foot patrol per day. The team has averaged approximately 6.1 hours per day overall since tracking began in June. While the seven-hour target represents less than one-third of 24-hour day, that target is a significant portion of the time that is realistically available for foot patrol under the current two-person model. Overnight foot patrol is limited by member safety and generally provides less value than daytime patrol. Within the daytime window, the two-person team must also respond to calls for service, travel throughout the service area, take scheduled breaks and complete shift transitions. These activities all temporarily remove the team from a proactive foot patrol. There is a practical ceiling on how much additional foot patrol can be generated without changing the service model. A material increase would likely require additional staffing during daytime hours. This could be achieved by adding resources or by reducing overnight coverage. Staff is not recommending changes to the staffing model currently. The focus through this next stage of the pilot will be maximizing the value of the existing service while maintaining 24-hour coverage. Summary of Statistical Findings The last update on statistical output was provided on the April 29, 2026 meeting of the Public Safety Committee. This 90-day review was completed while the Community Safety Services (CSS) program was still in its early implementation period. At that time, service demand was increasing rapidly, average response time was under five minutes, and staff identified the need to continue monitoring whether increasing call volumes would affect the team's ability to maintain proactive patrol. The additional operating data provides a much clearer picture of CSS than was available at the time of the April review. Several trends are now evident: call volumes have increased from the initial rollout period and stabilized at a relatively consistent level; response times have remained low as call volumes have increased; - 7 - proactive service activity has been maintained alongside the growth in calls for service; most activity continues to be handled without escalation to another public-safety resource; and demand and measurable activity are concentrated during daytime and early-evening hours, with greater available capacity overnight. Overall, staff is encouraged by the statistical performance of the program. The data does not suggest that CSS is operating at its capacity; rather, it indicates that the current model has been able to absorb increasing service demand while maintaining rapid response and proactive activity. This provides an opportunity during the next phase of the pilot to increase utilization and make more effective use of the existing 24-hour capacity before considering additional resources. However, operational statistics only tell part of the story. The success of the pilot must also consider how the service is being experienced by businesses, residents and others who spend time within the service area, including whether they feel the service is visible, valuable and having an impact. The community and business feedback outlined in the following section provides this additional perspective and helps identify where the program can continue to be refined. /ƚƒƒǒƓźƷǤ ğƓķ .ǒƭźƓĻƭƭ CĻĻķĬğĭƉ As the pilot approached the latter half of its first year, staff collected feedback via surveys to better understand how Community Safety Services (CSS) is being experienced by businesses and members of the community within the service area. Separate business and resident surveys were open throughout September. A total of 33 responses were received, 16 from business representatives and 17 from residents. The responses provide useful information regarding direct experiences with CSS, perceptions of conditions within the service area, areas where respondents believe the program can be improved and whether respondents find the service valuable. Given the relatively small number of responses, the results should not be taken as representative of everyone in the service area, but they do provide useful insight into how the service is being experienced. Key Takeaways Six principal findings emerged from the feedback: 1. The majority of business representatives believe CSS should be maintained or expanded. The broader community feedback was more divided. 2. Businesses that have directly used CSS generally report that the team responds quickly and handles individual incidents professionally. - 8 - 3. Positive experiences with the immediate CSS response have not necessarily translated into an improvement in the broader nuisance and disorder conditions experienced by businesses and residents. 4. Awareness of CSS remains an area for improvement, particularly among residents. 5. Visibility was the most consistently identified area for improvement with respondents placing considerably greater emphasis on increased foot patrol and proactive presence. 6. Businesses place particular value on proactive presence during periods when their properties are unattended. The following sections provide additional detail supporting these findings. Business Support for Continuation of CSS Business representatives were asked directly what they believed should happen with CSS in the future. Overall, 10 of 16 business representatives supported maintaining or expanding the service in some form. Of the 16 business representatives: 6 supported expanding CSS, which would require additional funding; 2 supported maintaining CSS at its current level with no changes; 2 supported maintaining CSS while changing how and when the team is deployed; 3 supported discontinuing CSS; and 3 were unsure. While businesses are generally supportive of the program, the survey also contains critical feedback of CSS, including concerns with visibility, authority, the effectiveness of some interventions, and whether broader conditions have improved. These criticisms will be discussed in later section of this report. However, the majority of business respondents did not identify discontinuation as the preferred response to those concerns. Instead, the results generally point toward continuing the service while improving how the existing resources are deployed and the tools available to the team The broader community/individual group was more divided. Of those 17 respondents: 5 supported expansion; 3 supported maintaining the service with changes to deployment; 5 supported discontinuation; and 4 were unsure. - 9 - It is important to note that direct experience with CSS was considerably lower among resident respondents. Only 5 of the 17 resident respondents reported having directly contacted or interacted with CSS. The resident/community respondents who had directly used CSS were generally more supportive of continuing the service than those who had not. Many of these responses provide important information about visibility, service awareness, perceptions of safety and conditions within the service area, but generally provide less information about the quality of CSS response. Direct Experience with CSS The business survey provides the strongest feedback regarding actual service delivery. Of the 16 business representatives: 9 had contacted CSS at least once, including 5 who contacted CSS more than 5 times. 7 had not contacted CSS, 3 of those 7 were not aware that they could. The table below shows how the 9 businesses who had contacted CSS rated the overall response to incidents. Business Survey Responses Measure Good / Very Good Neutral Poor / Very Poor Response time 7 0 2 Professionalism and conduct 6 2 1 Helpfulness 5 2 2 Outcome or result 5 2 2 The results indicate that direct experiences with CSS have not been universally positive. However, ratings were generally favourable across each measure, with response time and professionalism receiving the strongest results. Helpfulness and outcomes were more mixed, although positive ratings still outnumbered negative ratings. The feedback does not suggest that this response model is failing. However, the more mixed ratings related to helpfulness and outcomes do raise concerns about whether the CSS is consistently able to achieve the result callers are looking for once the team arrives. Impact on Broader Concerns Respondents were also asked whether conditions in the service area had changed since CSS was introduced. These results were less positive than the feedback regarding direct interactions with CSS. The table below shows the business responses. - 10 - Business Survey Responses No Measure Improved Worsened Unsure Change How quickly concerns are addressed 5 8 1 2 once reported Own sense of safety 3 9 4 0 Staff safety 2 10 4 0 Customer comfort 1 10 4 1 Nuisance or disorder 3 7 6 0 Cleanliness and area conditions 2 7 7 0 Time spent dealing with nuisance issues 2 7 6 1 The same general pattern was evident among resident/community respondents, with a greater proportion reporting worsening safety, nuisance and overall conditions. Resident Survey Responses Measure Improved No Change Worsened Unsure How quickly concerns appear to be 5 6 5 1 addressed Overall sense of safety 3 4 10 0 Nuisance or disorder 6 1 10 0 Overall condition of the area 2 5 10 0 Taken together, the results highlight an important distinction between CSS as a service and the broader conditions CSS is responding to. Respondents generally are supportive of the program. As noted earlier, most business respondents and many of the resident respondents supported maintaining or expanding CSS despite reporting limited improvement in broader conditions. This suggests that respondents can see value in the service while also believing that the underlying challenges in the service area remain significant. The survey does not establish why broader conditions have remained unchanged or worsened. Those conditions are influenced by many factors which may be beyond CSS response. Visibility and Foot Patrol Visibility was the most consistently identified operational concern across both surveys. Among the 16 business representatives: 7 indicated that they would like to see CSS more often; 3 indicated that they rarely or never see CSS; 5 believed CSS was visible enough; and 1 was unsure. - 11 - Among the 17 resident respondents: 7 indicated that they would like to see CSS more often; 8 indicated that they rarely or never see CSS; and 2 were unsure. Additionally, 10 of 16 business representatives and all resident respondents identified that the level of visibility was insufficient. The feedback also shows a strong preference for greater foot patrol, which would also increase the visibility of the team. When asked where CSS should focus its time within the existing staffing level, 10 of 16 business representatives and 10 of 17 resident/community respondents selected more foot patrol. The survey results therefore point to visibility and the amount of foot patrols as a clear area for operational improvement. While staff can and will take steps to maximize visibility and foot patrols, there is a practical limit to much this can be improved with the existing two-person, 24-hour model. Overnight Coverage Calls-for-service data show that demand is concentrated during the daytime and early evening, with considerably fewer calls overnight. Survey feedback, however, shows that businesses continue to place value on overnight coverage. Of the 16 business representatives, 8 specifically identified an overnight period as a time when CSS presence is most needed. Resident respondents placed less emphasis on overnight coverage, with only 3 of 17 identifying an overnight period as a priority. Overall, the feedback suggests that call volumes alone do not fully capture the value of different periods of CSS coverage. Daytime and evening calls reflect reactive demand, while overnight coverage may provide more preventative value, particularly for businesses and properties that are unattended. Summary of Feedback Overall, the surveys suggest that CSS is generally viewed as a valuable service even though broader conditions in the service area have not clearly improved. A majority of business representatives supported maintaining or expanding CSS, while resident feedback was more divided. Businesses that had directly used the service generally rated the immediate response positively, particularly response time and professionalism, while ratings of helpfulness and outcomes were somewhat weaker. At the same time, both businesses and residents frequently reported that safety, nuisance and other broader conditions had remained unchanged or worsened. - 12 - The clearest operational concern was visibility. Respondents across both surveys wanted to see CSS more frequently, with a strong preference for increased foot patrol. Businesses also placed value on overnight coverage despite lower overnight call volumes, suggesting that the service is valued not only for responding to calls but also for providing a preventative presence when properties are unattended. Overall, the survey findings suggest that the service is working as intended while also point to opportunities to improve visibility and the tools available to the team while continuing to build on the parts of the service that are working well. These findings have informed the operational changes outlined in the following section. {ĻƩǝźĭĻ LƒƦƩƚǝĻƒĻƓƷƭ The next phase of the pilot is focused on building on what is working and maximizing the value of the existing service based on community feedback. Staff is refining how the team is deployed, introducing additional tools for frontline members, making more productive use of lower-demand periods, and continuing to strengthen coordination with Police and other public-safety partners. The objective is to ensure that the service continues to operate as efficiently and effectively as possible before determining whether additional capacity should be considered. Patrol Deployment & Foot Patrol Expectations Visibility was the most consistently identified area for improvement through the survey. CSS has always operated with a structured patrol model. However, staff turnover and changing operational priorities created some inconsistency over time in how those expectations were applied. To reinforce the model, detailed post orders have now been established for the team. The post orders identify where CSS should be deployed at different times throughout the day and provide clear expectations for proactive patrol when members are not responding to calls. They are reviewed and updated monthly to reflect service demand, emerging problem locations and seasonal changes. This provides continuity and consistency regardless of staffing changes and helps ensure that available patrol capacity remains focused in the right locations at the right times. Staff also established the seven-hour daily foot-patrol target in June, prior to the survey. The survey results reinforce the importance of that direction, with respondents consistently identifying visibility and increased foot patrol as priorities. Together, the post orders and foot-patrol target are intended to provide greater consistency and ensure that available patrol capacity is focused in the right locations at the right times. As discussed previously, there is a practical limit to how much additional foot patrol can be generated within the existing two-person, 24-hour service model. - 13 - Voluntary Business Patrol Program The business survey demonstrated that businesses in the service area value on overnight coverage and operational data shows that CSS has opportunity to provide more value during overnight hours. In response, staff is developing a voluntary business patrol program that will allow businesses within the CSS service area to register their properties for regular checks. Participating businesses will be able to identify periods when their properties are unattended and any specific areas of concern. CSS will incorporate those properties into its overnight patrol activity and conduct regular checks as operational demands allow. Depending on the property, a patrol may include: walking the exterior of the property; checking entrances, parking lots or other identified locations; identifying and addressing loitering or trespassing; and providing a preventative presence on the property. Where CSS identifies or addresses an issue during a patrol, the participating business will be notified of what occurred and what action was taken. The program is intended to make more productive use of overnight periods when calls for service are lower while responding directly to business concerns about vandalism, trespassing, theft and other issues that may occur while properties are unattended. Expanding the Tools Available to CSS Survey feedback indicates that CSS generally responds quickly and professionally when called, but that the interaction does not always result in the outcome the caller is seeking. Staff are therefore focused on ensuring frontline members have a practical range of tools available to respond effectively to different situations. Respectful engagement and voluntary compliance will continue to be the preferred approach in many cases, while other situations may require additional authority or enforcement options to achieve a more effective result. One opportunity being explored is a more standardized process for CSS to assist businesses and property owners with concerns occurring on private property. This could include mechanisms that allow property owners to authorize CSS to act on their behalf. The intent would be to give CSS a clearer and more effective role in addressing situations on private property. Before this advances, staff will need to have the opportunity reviewed by whether it can be implemented. This and other potential improvements are intended to expand the CSS toolkit and provide the team with clearer and more practical options based on the circumstances they encounter. - 14 - Strengthening Coordination with Police Staff has had positive discussions with Police leadership regarding opportunities to strengthen coordination between CSS and Police. While CSS serves a different role than Police, there are opportunities to improve how the two groups communicate and work together when responding to public-safety concerns. Staff is working with Police and PSCC to develop practical improvements to that collaboration. The objective is to strengthen coordination between the services and ensure public safety resources are being used as effectively as possible. Improving Awareness and Access The surveys also demonstrated that not everyone within the service area is aware of CSS or how to contact the team. This was anticipated, and staff has already taken steps to improve access to the service. As part of the survey distribution, a postcard was developed that explained what CSS is, when the service should be used and how to contact the team. The postcard was placed in residential mailboxes throughout Waterloo Village during foot patrols, emailed to monthly parkers in municipal lots within the service area, distributed to businesses in the Thorne/Rothesay area and emailed to businesses in Waterloo Village. Additionally, the CSS contact number i allows members of the public searching online for Community Safety Services in Saint John to readily find information about the service and how to contact the team. Current operating data indicates that the team has some capacity to absorb additional calls, as response times have remained low and proactive service levels have been maintained as call volumes have increased. Staff is therefore continuing to look for targeted opportunities to distribute the CSS number within the service area. Broad promotion through City-wide social media is not recommended or being pursued. Instead the focus is on reaching residents and businesses directly within the service area. As utilization and capacity continue to be monitored, staff can also consider whether the area from which CSS can be dispatched could be modestly expanded without affecting response performance or proactive service delivery. /ƚƓĭƌǒƭźƚƓ After eight months of operation, the evidence is encouraging. CSS has moved beyond its initial rollout and is now a consistently utilized service that has maintained rapid response times, sustained proactive activity and resolved the large majority of its work without escalation to another public-safety resource. The community and business feedback adds important context to those results. It generally supports a continued role for CSS, particularly among businesses and those who have used the service directly, while also identifying legitimate - 15 - concerns around visibility, the tools available to the team and the outcomes achieved in some situations. Broader nuisance and disorder conditions also remain challenging and can help identify where the pilot needs to improve. Staff is working towards translating the findings into tangible improvements to patrol deployment, overnight preventative activity, expanded tools for CSS Team members, coordination with Police, and overall public awareness. The priority through the next stage is to fully implement these improvements and ensure the existing model is operating as effectively and efficiently as possible. Staff will continue measuring the impact of these changes and reassess the service at the 1-year mark. At that point, the City will be in a stronger position to determine whether the existing model can address the identified gaps and whether targeted additional capacity would provide meaningful benefit. For now, the evidence supports continuing the pilot, improving the model based on what has been learnednt. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES N/A INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS N/A ATTACHMENTS Presentation f Click here to enter text. . Responded to 809 Service CallsConducted 672 Wellness ChecksCompleted 480 Public AssistsReturned 126 Shopping CartsCompleted 6.1hrs/day of Foot Patrol Through the first 8 months the team has:Service call response time was under 5 minutes. S E C s I t V n R e E S m Y e T v E o F r A p S Y m T I I N e U c i M v M r e O C S s p e t S t x e N Maximize efficiency of the current model and & : s y p r e t a S t m x e m N u S COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No.2026-244 Report DateOctober 15, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaLegal and Public Safety Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:Retention of a Consultant to Complete a Comprehensive Community Risk Assessment(CRA) AUTHORIZATION Chief Administrative OfficerChair ofPublic SafetyCommittee Ian FoganCouncillor Paul Dempsey Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive Lead Fire Chief NicholRob NicholMélanie C. Tompkins, K.C. Acting Police Chief Fowler RECOMMENDATION That the Public Safety Committee recommend to Council: That Council authorizethe Chief Administrative Officer to procure and retain a qualified consultant to completea comprehensive Community Risk Assessment (CRA) for the City of Saint John, in accordance with applicable procurement policies and procedures, and that the consultanvia its Public Safety Standing Committee. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Saint John faces an increasingly complex risk environment driven by expanding transportation corridors, industrial growth,climate-related hazards, aging infrastructure, population growth, and evolving community safety challenges. Increased marine shipping, containerized cargo volumes, rail traffic, dangerous goods movement, and industrial activity have heightened risks to public safety, critical infrastructure, the environment, and municipal operations. At the same time, pressures related to housing affordability, homelessness, mental health, substance use, cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure dependencies are creating new demands on municipal services and community resilience. Two independent consultant reports, Pomax (2023) and Darkhorse (2026), recommended that the City undertake a comprehensive Community Risk Assessment (CRA). This recommendation aligns with recognized emergency management standards and best practices, including NFPA 1300 and CSA Z1600, which emphasize risk assessment as the foundation of community resilience and effective emergency management. A comprehensive CRA would provide Council with an evidence-based assessment of current and emerging risks, vulnerabilities, emergency response capabilities, infrastructure resilience, and resource requirements. The assessment would also support the development and validation of Standards of Cover for fire and emergency response services. Public Safety Committee considered proposed fire response performance targets in April 2026 and tabled the matter for future consideration by the new Council. A CRA would provide the information necessary to determine whether those targets appropriately reflect the City's current and future risk profile, service demands, population distribution, industrial hazards, transportation challenges, and community expectations. The assessment would further support strategic planning, resource allocation, emergency preparedness, mitigation initiatives, infrastructure investment, and partnerships with industry and other levels of government. In recognition of Saint John's evolving risk environment and consistent with recommendations from previous independent studies, it is the recommendation of the Fire Chief and the Police Chiefthat Council authorize the retention of a qualified consultant to complete a comprehensive Community Risk Assessment and that staff report the findings and recommendations back to Council. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) Public Safety Committee Resolution of April 29, 2026: Moved by Mayor Noade Reardon,seconded by Councillor Killen: be laid on the table for a future meeting of the Public Safety Committee. MOTION CARRIED. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report supports the Grow and Belong Council Priorities by strengthening the City's understanding of current and emerging risks, improving community resilience, and supporting evidence-based decisions related to public safety, emergency preparedness, infrastructure planning, and sustainable growth. REPORT Evolving Community Risk Environment Saint John is experiencing an increasingly complex risk environment shaped by transportation corridor growth, industrial expansion, climate-related hazards, aging infrastructure, population growth, and evolving community safety challenges. As one of Atlantic Canada's primary transportation and industrial hub, Saint John continues to see growth in marine shipping, containerized cargo movements, rail traffic, commercial transportation, and industrial activity.Saint John has already experienced numerous significant emergency incidents that reflect the complexityof its risk profile.Investments at the Port of Saint John, combined with major industrial projects such as Irving Pulp & Paper's Project NextGen, are expected to increase the movement of dangerous goods through thecommunity. These developments create significant economic opportunities while increasing exposure to transportationnetwork-related incidents, hazardous materials emergencies, environmental contamination, critical infrastructure disruptions, and large-scale evacuation scenarios. The City also faces broader community safety pressures that influence resilience and service demand. Housing affordability challenges, homelessness, mental health crises, substance use disorders, changing demographics, cybersecurity threats, severe weather events, and growing dependence on interconnected infrastructure systems all have the potential to affect municipal operations, emergency services, public confidence, and overall community well-being. Understanding the interaction of these risks is critical to ensuring municipal services, emergency response capabilities, and long-term planning remain aligned with the City's evolving needs. A comprehensive CRA would provide Council with a holistic understanding of these threats and identify priorities for prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery. Emergency Response Capability Assessment Saint John's emergency response system is highly capable of managing routine emergencies, structural fires, and day-to-day municipal incidents. However, major industrial emergencies, hazardous materials incidents, marine disasters, large-scale transportation accidents, or prolonged emergency events would require substantial support from industry partners and regional, provincial, and federal agencies. A comprehensive CRA would evaluate: Community hazards, threats, and vulnerabilities; Emergency response capabilities and resource gaps; Mutual aid dependencies and partnership requirements; Critical infrastructure and cybersecurity risks; Transportation network challenges; Training, equipment, and specialized response requirements; Workforce sustainability, recruitment, and succession planning needs; Community safety pressures and vulnerable populations; Climate-related and transportation-related risks; and Overall municipal resilience and continuity capabilities. The assessment would also establish the foundation for a comprehensiveStandards of Cover analysis. Standards of Cover is a recognized methodology used to evaluate community risks, deployment models, station locations, staffing, apparatus resources, and response performance. By examining current and projected risks, service demand, transportation constraints, industrial hazards, and anticipated development patterns, the CRA would provide objective evidence to support or refine the fire response performance targets presented to Public Safety Committee in April 2026. This analysis would help determine whether existing response objectives, staffing models, station locations, and deployment practices remain aligned with community risk and service expectations while identifying opportunities to improve emergency response effectiveness and optimize resource allocation. Need for an Independent Assessment Both the Pomax (2023) and Darkhorse (2026) studies recommended the completion of a Community Risk Assessment. Conducting an independent, third-party assessment would provide Council with an objective and evidence-based evaluation of municipal risks, capabilities, vulnerabilities, and future requirements. The assessment would establish a defensible foundation for decision-making related to emergency response standards, infrastructure investments, workforce planning, community resilience initiatives, and future service delivery models. It would also assist the City in identifying opportunities to strengthen partnerships with industry, neighbouring municipalities, the Province of New Brunswick, and the Government of Canada. Financial Implications The estimated cost of undertaking a comprehensive CRA is anticipated to be between $100,000 and $150,000, depending on project scope, stakeholder engagement requirements, analytical modelling, and deliverables. While representing a relatively modest one-time investment, the assessment may identify future requirements for staffing, specialized equipment, training, infrastructure improvements, emergency preparedness initiatives, or enhanced response capabilities. Conversely, it may also identify opportunities to optimize existing resources, improve operational efficiencies, strengthen partnerships, and leverage external funding programs. Importantly, the CRA would provide Council with an independent, evidence-based assessment that could support future funding requests and cost-sharing opportunities with industry, regional partners, the Province of New Brunswick, and the Government of Canada. By clearly identifying risks, capability gaps, and shared public safety responsibilities, the assessment would strengthen the City's ability to pursue external funding and collaborativeinvestment opportunities. Staff requested the funds necessary to complete the CRA as part of the 2027 budget process, with a goal of procuring the services in Q1 of 2027 and completing the CRA by the end of 2027. Conclusion Saint John's risk environment is evolving rapidly as a result of industrial growth, transportation activity, increased hazardous materials movement, climate-related hazards, critical infrastructure dependencies, population growth, and broader community safety challenges. A comprehensive Community Risk Assessment conducted by a qualified consultant would provide Council with an objective, evidence-based understanding of the City's current and emerging risks, response capabilities, vulnerabilities, and resilience requirements. The assessment would also establish the foundation for validating fire and emergency response performance targets through a Standards of Cover analysis, ensuring future service level decisions are aligned with community risk, industry standards, and public expectations. The CRA will serve as a critical planning, governance, and advocacy tool, supporting informed decisions regarding emergency services, infrastructure investment, workforce planning, climate adaptation, public safety, and long-term community resilience. It will also position the City to pursue external funding opportunities and strengthen partnerships with industry, regional stakeholders, the Province of New Brunswick, and the Government of Canada. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Public Safety Committee recommend that Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to procure and retain a qualified consultant to undertake a comprehensive Community Risk Assessment for the City of Saint John and report the findings and recommendations back to Council upon completion. Community Safety Considerations The Saint John Police Force recognizes the significant risks identified within this report related to tradecorridor growth, transportation networks, industrial activity, climate-related hazards, critical infrastructure, and emergency response preparedness. In addition to those considerations, Saint John is experiencing broader community safety pressures that have the potential to influence municipal resilience, emergency service demands, public confidence, and overall quality of life. Like many Canadian municipalities, Saint John continues to experience increasing pressures associated with population growth, housing affordability challenges, homelessness, mental health crises, substance use disorders and changing demographic trends. These issues often require coordinated responses involving public safety agencies, healthcare providers, municipal departments, social service organizations, and community partners. These pressures have the potential to increase demands on emergency services and community support systems while affecting overall community well-being. Continued growth and development within the City, together with increasing residential density and changing community demographics, may also create additional demands on public infrastructure, transportation systems, emergency response resources, and community support networks. Understanding these trends will help support future planning and service delivery decisions across municipal departments. The continued growth of the Port of Saint John and anticipated increases in rail and commercial transportation activity introduce additional public safety considerations beyond those associated with emergency management and hazardous materials response. Increased rail traffic through residential and commercial areas has the potential to affect traffic flow, emergency response routes, railway crossing safety, neighbourhood accessibility, and community mobility. Increased movement of dangerous goods through municipal boundaries may also increase the potential consequences associated with transportation-related incidents. The City also relies upon a network of critical infrastructure systems, including transportation corridors, utilities, communications networks, industrial facilities, port operations, and energy infrastructure. Disruptions affecting these systems, whether resulting from natural hazards, technological failures, criminal activity, cyber incidents, or other emergencies, may have significant implications for public safety, municipal operations, economic activity, and community resilience. These evolving conditions present several community safety considerations: mental health crises, addictions, homelessness, vulnerable populations, and changing demographic trends. and economic expansion affecting service demands, transportation networks, and community safety. potential impacts on public safety, emergency access routes, and transportation networks. transportation corridors, and other essential services. cial crime, and technology-enabled offences, with associated impacts on community safety and public confidence. demonstrations, protests, and other large-scale community activities. outages, evacuations, and other climate-related emergencies requiring coordinated public safety responses. s and interconnected systems, increasing the potential impacts of cybersecurity incidents affecting municipal operations, businesses, residents, and critical infrastructure. ergency services, healthcare providers, community organizations, industry partners, and other levels of government. A comprehensive CRA would provide an opportunity to assess how these factors may influence future community safety, emergency response requirements, municipal preparedness, and overall community resilience. The assessment would also assist in identifying emerging risks, capability gaps, partnership opportunities, and long-term planning priorities to ensure municipal services remain aligned with Saint John's evolving risk environment. Public Safety Readiness and Capability The ability of municipal agencies to effectively respond to existing and emerging risks is dependent upon having appropriate capabilities, specialized expertise, training, succession planning, operational readiness, and access to the resources necessary to address an evolving risk environment. Public safety organizations across Canada continue to experience challenges related to recruitment, retention, workforce development, and increasing service demands. As Saint John's risk environment continues to evolve, it is important to assess whether current public safety capabilities remain aligned with future community needs and operational requirements. A comprehensive CRA wouldprovide an opportunity to evaluate public safety capacity, identify potential capability gaps, assess training and resource requirements, and support long-term workforce planning across emergency services and municipal response agencies. Saint John Police Conclusion The Saint John Police Force believes that a comprehensive Community Risk Assessment should examine not only traditional emergency management hazards, but also the broader social, economic, transportation, technological, infrastructure, and community safety factors that contribute to risk within the municipality. As Saint John continues to experience population growth, economic development, increased transportation activity, evolving social challenges, and changing community expectations, itis important that the City maintain a clear understanding of the risks, vulnerabilities, and service demands that may affect public safety and community resilience. The completion of a comprehensive CRA will provide Council with an evidence-based understanding of both current and emerging community safety risks and help ensure future planning, resource allocation, infrastructure investment, emergency preparedness initiatives, and partnership opportunities are informed by a complete assessment of the City's evolving risk environment. The Saint John Police Force supports the recommendation to retain a qualified consultant to complete a comprehensive Community Risk Assessment and looks forward to participating in the process as the assessment progresses. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person Acting Chief Neal Fowler Saint John Police Force ATTACHMENT(S) Nil /haahb /hb/L\[ w9thw M&C No.MC 2026-252 Report DateOctober 26, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaService Delivery and Operations Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:Public Safety Committee Red Light Camera PilotInvestigation AUTHORIZATION Chief Administrative OfficerChair of FinanceCommittee Ian FoganCouncillor Paul Dempsey Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive Lead Kevin Loughery RECOMMENDATIONS Public Safety Committee recommends to Common Council: City staff recommends to Common Council: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Red light cameras are electronic equipment installed at or near traffic signals to detect and then assist enforcing motorists that choose to drive through the red signal. This equipment is permitted in New Brunswicklegislationas of 2024with conditions provided in the Provincial Motor Vehicle Act. Enforcement, and ways to increase it such as via use of red light cameras, is one way that Saint John streets are as safe as possible for all modes of transportation. Public Safety Committee has supportedmoving forward with investigatinga pilot projectof the implementation of red light cameras. This investigation would provide further clarity on the policies, procedures, resources, andcosts involvedin this new opportunity available in the province, including with the current absence of revenues from associated fines being shared to New Brunswick municipalities. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) At its June 15, 2026 meeting, Common Council referred a correspondence from a member of the community, which is attached to this report, to the Public Safety Committeeand the Saint John Board of Police Commissioners. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT MoveSJ. REPORT In 2024, Image Capturing Enforcement (ICE) became legal in New Brunswick. ICE is the use of technology to issue fines for speeding, running red lights, among other measures. An important decision will need to be made by Common Council, with input and/or endorsement from the Saint John Police Force and Public Safety Committee,whether or not to implement ICE in the City of Saint John. City staff reviewed with Public Safety Committee at their October 15, 2026 meeting considerations for whether or not to implement ICE in Saint John. These included the contribution of ICE to road safetyoutcomes, perspective on the risk of short and long term community supportof ICEin light of investments needed, andan overview of the costs and resources needed to implement ICE.Staff reiteratedthatthere is currently nooffsetting revenue streamfrom the Province as a result of collected ticket fines. The full staff reportto Public Safety Committeewith details is attached to this report. Public Safety Committee members indicatedinterest in pursuing a more detailed investigation of red light cameras, being the ICE technology used to enforce when motorists run red signals at intersections. A better refinement of the costs involved in using this technology mayalso helpconvince the Province to either share costs of the technology or revisit revenue sharing. There was interest in pursuingonlyred light cameras,as opposed to also electronic speed enforcement,because of the efforts the city is already taking on the latter. Even as a pilot project, there will need to be detailed considerations as there are no municipalities in the province that have implemented ICE. Operating within the framework of the governing legislation of 2024,data collection protocols, decision as to where the equipment is to be installed during the pilot,investigation of equipment and/or service procurement options, and the amount of city staff and Police resources required are all examples of areas needing further review. City staff propose engagement of external consulting services to refine the feasibility of a pilot project . INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person Saint John Police ForceInspector Marc Hussey ATTACHMENT(S) PUBLIC SAFETYCOMMITTEEREPORT Report DateSeptember 29, 2026 Meeting DateOctober 15, 2026 Service AreaService Delivery and Operations Chair Dempseyand Members ofPublic SafetyCommittee SUBJECT:Red Light Cameras and Electronic Speed Enforcement OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in Public SafetyCommittee OpenSession. AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Kevin LougheryIan Fogan RECOMMENDATION The Public SafetyCommittee Recommends: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The community continues to request the city and Saint John Police Force take measures to ensure more motorists drive safelyon Saint John streets. Image Capturing Enforcement isone more toolnow legal in New Brunswick, which uses technology to enforce speeding and running red lights at traffic signals. A decision will need to be made whether or not to use this tool in Saint John. Level of community support, such asthe correspondence attached to this report, is one of several factorsin such a decision. This report contemplatesseveral factors city staff believe Common Council should considerin whether or not to support use of Image Capturing Enforcement, in addition to community support. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) At its June 15, 2026 meeting, Common Council referred a correspondence from a member of the community, which is attached to this report, to the Public Safety Committee and the Saint John Board of PoliceCommissioners. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with MoveSJ. REPORT In 2024, Image Capturing Enforcement (ICE) became legal in New Brunswick. ICE is the use of technology to issue fines for speeding, running red lights, among other measures important to other agenciesbesides Saint John. There are terms synonymous with ICE(the chosen term in New Brunswick)that some would hear from other jurisdictions. Automated Vehicle Enforcement is sometimes heard in the place of the term ICE. Terms like Speed Cameras or Speed Radars are used in jurisdictions for technology used to issue fines for speeding. The term Red Light Cameras is often used for the technology placed at signalized intersections to issue fines for motorists running red lights. An importantdecision will need to be made by Common Council, with input and/or endorsement from the Saint John Police Forceand Public Safety Committee,whether or not to implement ICEin the City of Saint John. This report provides Public SafetyCommitteewith an update on three factorscity staff believePublic Safety Committee should contemplate if steps are taken toward a decision on supportfor this tool. Factor #1: The Objective City staff believe the objectiveofICE, if implemented,is to reduce the risk of, and actual number of,accidents involving all modes of transportation. This objective alignswiththe aspirational goal ofyour Transportation Plan, MoveSJ, being to allow Saint John residents and other stakeholders to ƭğŅĻƌǤ use a variety of transportation modes to move around our community. Specifically, ICEwould align with the Road Safety Strategy in MoveSJ, which also has the goal of reducing the number of accidents on Saint John streets that cause injury or death, and risk thereof. , similar to other jurisdictions,has several elementsin addition to methods of enforcement, such as ICE; itis rooted in industry best practicesand the use of data, including vehicle accident data, to inform transportation policy and plans.Included in the Road Safety Strategyis what is referred to as the ,being Education, Engineering, and Enforcement. because of the link between lower speeds and reduced vehicle accidents and injuriesfrom accidents that do occur. The public safetybenefits of more motorists operating at appropriate speeds are both intuitive and backed by data. As examples: The 9ķǒĭğƷźƚƓ component of Road Safetyfocuses on the rights and responsibilities of all road users so they can contribute to safe roads for themselves and other road users. The role of the City and the Saint John Police Force, and other authorities,is to help remind road users, proactively,their rights and responsibilities. The Saint John Police Force uses both education and enforcement as part of its approach to traffic safety. In addition to targeted traffic campaigns and public awareness initiatives, officers regularly use warnings and roadside interactions as opportunities to educate motoristsand encourage voluntary compliance. As of September 1, 2026, officers had issued approximately 2,000 warnings to motorists.The City has commenced an initial Road Safety Education Program, providing content including short videos to complement the work ofourpolice force. The 9ƓŭźƓĻĻƩźƓŭ component of Road Safetyfocuses on the physical transportation network. Common Council recently adopted, as part of MoveSJ, a policy position to design new streets and redesign existing ones (when being reconstructed)to match the intended speed limit of the street, as opposed to overdesigning as historically used in our community and others. Standard cross sections for streets are being reviewed with the intent to narrow them to, among other reasons, encourage lower speeds. The Pedestrian, Cycling, and Transit strategies of MoveSJ provide recommendations on policy and dedicated infrastructure, specifically for the safety of these transportation modes, respectively. A prioritized plan to install or upgrade crosswalks on arterial and collector streets is completed and being implemented. Policy, first adopted in 2012 and updated since, focuses on reducing speeding where it is documented to occur. A particular focus on one type of traffic calmingin recent years, being Speed Cushions, hasresulted in speeds being reduced on 22 streetsand, where measured, speeds being reduced by over 9 KM/Hon average.In 2021,the city purchased two portable driver speed feedback signs, which areinstalled in various neighbourhood streets where there are speeding concernsto provide temporary traffic calming and to collect speed data. The 18elementary and middle school in Saint John, with elements for Beaconsfield School being completed in 2026, and elements planned for the new south end and north end schools. The 9ƓŅƚƩĭĻƒĻƓƷ component of Road Safety, provided primarily by the Saint John Police Force, focuses on issuing fines for violating rules of the road, including speeding and running red lights at intersections. Traffic enforcement remains an important component of the Saint John Police Force's overall approach to road safety. As of September 1, 2026, officers had issued approximately 1,250 traffic tickets through regular patrol activities and targeted enforcement initiatives. Enforcement efforts are informed by identified traffic concerns, collision information and complaints from the community. ICE, as an enforcement toolto complement use of officers in other jurisdictions, has contributed to saferstreets. National statistics indicate photo radar reduces average speeds between 8 and 14 KM/H. Additional evidence of the link between ICE and road safety performance is provided in the Business Case attached to this report. Traditional officer-led traffic enforcementprovides broader public-safety benefits, including the ability to identify impaired, suspended and other high-risk drivers. This perspective further reiteratesthe need for ICE, if implemented, to complement, but not replace,avenues to make Saint John street safer including involvement of police officersin traffic enforcement. Summary: City staff believe ICE would contribute to safer streets, where implementedbut their effectiveness at decreasing accidents across the community would depend on where and how many used, and whether the units are moved around the community. Citystaff also stress that ICE would be just one more toolto improve road safety outcomes, and would not replace Education, Engineering, or other Enforcement resources such as those detailed in this section of the report. Factor #2: Sustained Community Support The financial and resource commitments to implement ICE in the City of Saint John would be significant, as will be detailed further in this report. Although there is some community support correspondence attached to this report, city staff are unawarewhether such support would be widespread now and would be sustained well beyond implementation(including to pay for asset investments into ICE). Speed Cushions is a good example of how community support for a traffic (speed) calming measure produces very polarizing community feedback. Citizens continue to request speed cushionsin their neighbourhoodin great numbers. Although after installation, they continue to be effective at addressing the primary concern (speed), additional negative feedback is received including concerns with the heightof installed Speed Cushions and concerns withdiverting traffic to other neighbourhood streets. Other provincesin Canada that haveor had similar legislation allowing ICE have since limitedor cancelled the legislation, Alberta and Ontario respectively for examples. current support for ICE, city staff is recommending public consultation, via a survey using Shape Your City, be completed by end of 2027. Summary: City staff are unaware whether community support for ICE would sustain, either within our own community or by the Province of New Brunswick that initiated the authorizing legislation. Curtailed support would impact long-term road safety improvement outcomes and the financial business case for the required investmentsof an ICE program in Saint John. Factor #3: Financial(Business Case) ICE would require funding, potentially with major asset investments, and potentiallyfully through city taxpayers. ICE would generate community(road safety)benefits. ICE would also generate revenues, which are currently not available to New Brunswick communities. Alternative traffic(speed)calming solutionsremain available. All these factors are important to consider within a Business Casefor ICE. Supported bya resolution of Common Council, the Fundy Regional Services Commission commissioned a Business Case for ICE. This Business Case is attached to this report. According to this Business Case, ICE would require significant investment by city taxpayers. Lifecycle costs could be as great as $300,000, annually, per enforcement device. One of the more significant costs borne by New Brunswick municipalitiesthat decide to implement ICEis the requirement to involve a police officer in the process of issuing a ticket. Involvement (and cost) of an officer is not required inother provinces. Depending on the number of violations generated and the administrative requirements established by the Province, implementation could create a significant workload for theSaint John Police Force. The staffing and resource implications would need to be assessed as part of any future implementation model. Revenues from issued traffic enforcement tickets(such as for speeding or running red lights)in New Brunswick municipalitiesdo notgo back to municipalities. Ticket revenues go back to the Province. As detailed in the attached Business Case, not only do ticket revenues pay for ICE in municipalities ofother provinces, net revenues are used to fund other components of an overall Road Safety program, such as those detailed earlier in this report. The City of Saint John previously recognized this as an opportunity. Acorrespondence was sent in late 2024 to the Province requesting a re-evaluation of traffic enforcement ticket revenue sharing with intent, through policy,to re-invest shared revenues back into a broader Road Safety Program, including the cost of ICE. Although the Province has suggestedopportunities to explore this idea, no commitments have been made yet. The attached Business Case also details costs of other Road Safetysolutions, including traffic calming,as alternatives to ICE. Summary: City staff cannot recommend Public Safety Committee nor Common Council implement Image Capturing Enforcement at this timefrom a financial perspectivegiven the costs involved. The Business Case should be re-evaluated if the Province decides to share revenues from traffic enforcement tickets. City staff intend, as part of the planned public consultations,toidentify level of support for investing in ICEcompletely from city taxpayers. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person Saint John Police ForceInspector Marc Hussey ATTACHMENT(S) June 10, 2026 Mayor Donna Reardon and Members of Common Council The City of Saint John 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 Mayor Reardon and Councillors, I came close to being killed today. It was not the first time, and it will not be the last if I continue driving in Saint John. Quite frankly, I feel less safe on these streets in retirement than I did while working as a war correspondent in the Middle East. Today, despite driving cautiously and defensively, I experienced yet another near collision at the intersection of Somerset Street and Pugsley Avenue the second in five days. Although the light had changed in my favour and the intersection was clear, two vehicles travelling bumper-to-bumper came flying through the red light as I began turning from Pugsley onto Somerset. Had I been making a left turn instead of a right turn, I almost certainly would have been struck broadside. Given the speed involved, the outcome could easily have been fatal. The fact that I now instinctively look both ways even after receiving a green light says everything about how normalized this dangerous behaviour has become. Approximately a year and a half ago, I wrote to you after personally witnessing roughly a dozen motorists run the red light at Somerset and Pugsley within a relatively short period of time. In that letter, I urged Common Council to throw its support behind provincial legislation permitting the use of red-light cameras in New Brunswick because it was abundantly clear that traditional traffic enforcement in Saint John was failing. My concerns were dismissed by an irresponsible statement from the former City other words, money was more important than public safety. Drivers routinely treat red lights in Saint John as optional because there is little visible enforcement and virtually no fear of consequences. Somerset and Pugsley is simply one glaring example of a much larger city-wide problem. Complaints regarding speeding and dangerous driving continue to rise, yet actual traffic enforcement remains almost invisible. The hard numbers themselves tell the story. According to Saint John Police Force annual reports, local police issue only approximately 1,400 to 1,500 Motor Vehicle Act tickets annually. By comparison, public reporting from the Codiac Regional Policing Authority shows Moncton routinely issues close to 5,000 traffic tickets per year, while Fredericton Police Force annual reports show that Fredericton issues well over 3,500 annually despite being smaller than Saint John. Instead of aggressively addressing dangerous driving behaviour, the City continues red-light cameras, even after the Province passed enabling legislation. I recognize that Mayor Reardon has attempted to push the Province to share ticket revenue with municipalities. However, it is irresponsible for meaningful public safety measures to remain stalled while governments debate financial arrangements. The purpose of traffic enforcement is to protect lives, not maximize revenue streams. The danger is already obvious. Residents have warned about it. Drivers witness it daily. Yet despite all of this, the response continues to be bureaucratic delay while motorists keep blasting through red lights at dangerous speeds. The City of Saint John has both a moral and legal duty to take reasonable steps to protect the public from known and foreseeable dangers on its streets. Once a hazard has been repeatedly identified, documented, and brought directly to the attention of municipal leadership, continued inaction becomes far more difficult to justify. The purpose of red-light cameras is not to generate money. The purpose is to deter reckless driving before a tragic accident occurs. And unless this city changes course, somebody eventually will be killed. That is not speculation. It is the predictable outcome of allowing blatant red-light violations to continue year after year with minimal enforcement and little deterrence. The next victim may be a driver, pedestrian, cyclist, or one of the many seniors living in the area. The only uncertainty is when it will happen. When that day comes, none of you who claim to represent the people of Saint John will be able to feign ignorance or surprise. I am once again calling on Common Council to immediately prioritize meaningful traffic enforcement measures, including installing red-light cameras at known high-risk intersections such as Somerset and Pugsley, along with increased targeted police enforcement throughout Saint John. I expect a direct and public response outlining what concrete actions the City intends to take before a preventable tragedy occurs. Respectfully, Douglas Keith James December19,2025 FundyRegionalServiceCommission PO Box 3032 Grand Bay-Westfield, NB, E5K 4V3 Attention: Scott Borden, Senior Director of Community Planning and Transportation Subject:FRSCImageCapturingEnforcementBusinessCase Englobe reference:02510407.000 1Introduction The Province of New Brunswick recently amended their legislationto allow for the use of image capturing enforcement with respect to red light running at traffic signals, speeding, and passing a stopped school bus with the flashing red lights active. These changes allow for the use of new technologies to address specific safety concerns on New Brunswick roads, which have been long sought after by numerous municipalities. While the legislation has allowed for the use of image capturing enforcement since October 2024, it has yet to be implemented by a municipality in New Brunswick. Part of the reason for this is that these technologies would be new to New Brunswick, so an understanding needs to be established of what the use of these technologies would be within the New Brunswick context. Fundy Regional Service Commission (FRSC) has a mandate to support regional transportation and public safety for several communities near the mouth of the Wolastoq (Saint John River) on the Bay of Fundy. Their transportation committee has expressed an interest in learning more about how image capturing enforcement could help address issues of speedingand red light runningin their communities. 1.1Scope The overall goal of this study was to conduct a high-level overview of the potential for image capturing enforcement in FRSC. To do this, the following steps were undertaken: Areview of the state-of-practice in Canada was completed, identifying the history in different provinces and available information from specific road authorities. Three municipalities with active photo enforcement were profiledinmore detail on the operation and design of their programs. The business case for image capturing enforcement in FRSC was reviewed at a high-level with respect to implementation costs, alternatives to image capturing enforcement, revenue potential, and key factors to ensuring a program maintains long-term success. T 506 451-4400 x179131andrew.northmore@englobecorp.com 565 Priestman Street, Unit 400Fredericton, NBCanada E3B 5X8 englobecorp.com1of 17 2 Image Capturing Enforcement in Canada 2.1 Overview Various image capturing enforcement technologies are used by provincial, regional, and municipal road authorities across Canada. A report prepared by Stewart Solutions Inc. for Halifax Regional Municipality in 1 2022 summarized that photo enforcement is used in the following locations across Canada: British Columbia: Intersection safety cameras are the primary tool used in the province by police, the provincial government, and the provincial insurance corporation (ICBC). These cameras address both red light running and speeding. A dedicated program for photo speed enforcement was implemented in 1999 but abolished in 2001 due to public perception and a legal challenge. Alberta: Provincial legislation allows for the use of photo radar by municipalities and/or police services. The legislation puts limits on the locations where photo radar can be used, with a focus on high-risk and high-collision areas. As of 2022, there were 27 municipalities in Alberta that implemented some form of photo radar for red light running and/or speeding enforcement. Saskatchewan: The province has allowed for red light cameras since 2001 and photo speed enforcement since 2014. Red light camera programs are managed by individual municipalities / police forces while photo speed enforcement is centralized through the provincial insurance corporation and coordinated with the various road authorities. Manitoba: Photo enforcement for red light running and speeding is allowed in the province and implemented by municipalities and police agencies. The only programs in the province are run in Winnipeg. Ontario: Red light camera systems have been allowed for use by municipalities in Ontario since 2000, while automated speed enforcement was allowed from 2018 until 2025 when authorization was removed. Other applications of photo enforcement in Ontario include offences for failing to stop for a school bus when the stop arm is deployed and for failing to yield to a streetcar when the doors are open for passengers to embark and disembark. Quebec: Automated speed enforcement began in Quebec in 2009 and has gradually expanded in scope through a phased approach that includes thorough reviews of the how the program is contributing to safer roadways. Currently, devices for automated speed enforcement and red light running enforcement are authorized for use in the province. Newfoundland and Labrador: The province launched their automated speed enforcement program in 2025 with plans for 10 cameras to be used on municipal and provincial highways. The target locations 2 for the program are areas with safety concerns where speeding is a significant contributor. 2.2 Jurisdiction Experience To gain a more in-depth understanding of the use of image capturing enforcement by Canadian municipalities, our team reviewed 3 specific jurisdictions to learn about their image capturing enforcement programs. The team gathered information about the following topics: 1 Halifax Regional Municipality Photo Enforcement Feasibility Study, Stewart Solutions Inc., January 2022. 2 - Government Services FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 2 of 17 Which technologies they have implemented When and how the technologies were implemented What the objectives of their programs were/are How they selected locations for image capturing enforcement devices What financial model they have used, and how they use any revenues obtained from the program What safety / speed reduction benefits the programs have led to 2.2.1 City of Guelph (Ontario) framework. Under Ontario provincial rules at the time, ASE could only operate in Community Safety The ASE program expanded slowly over time, growing from four (4) mobile units to a planned total of twelve (12) units in 2025, consisting of: four mobile cameras, four permanent cameras, eight permanent enclosures, and four semi-permanent cameras rotating the eight enclosures The ASE program ended on November 14, 2025, when the provincial government passed Bill 56, the Building a More Competitive Economy Act, which includes an amendment prohibiting ASE cameras. Deployment locations of ASE depended on road characteristics such as straight sightlines to capture speed data and adequate boulevards to place the mobile cameras. A prioritization matrix was used to th select locations based on recorded 85 percentile speeds and collision history. Initially this process did not consider geographic distribution across neighbourhoods. Guelph switched their deployment process to include both the prioritization matrix and the geographic location to ensure they were not concentrated to an area. Data tracking throughout the program enabled staff to present evidence-based results in response to questions or criticism. of the program was done at an intentionally slow pace, proving the programs effectiveness before adding additional cameras to show the public their program was focused on safety, not revenue. They rotated cameras to all community safety zones throughout the city. Provincial regulation required warning signs in advance of an ASE location for 90 days. The first phase used short enforcement period. The second phase of enforcement involved longer enforcement periods. However, the city faced criticism because cameras issued tickets in school zones at all times of day, including outside school hours. The vendor handled issues such as vandalism of camera units. Traffic patterns shifted as some drivers changed their routes to avoid ASE locations. Even after cameras were removed, the city observed a 14 percent reduction in speeds on streets around the city, Guelph also has a red-light camera (RLC) program. Guelph already experienced low-angled collisions at intersections but received political directive to install RLCs. The city installed six (6) cameras around the city. More importantly all collision configurations producing injuries have decreased by 60% at RLC intersections. There was no increase in rear end collisions as a result of the installation of RLCs. The RLC program is self sustaining and requires no additional resource allocation once installed. RLC locations demand far fewer resources than ASE mobile enforcement. Administratively, Guelph partnered with Toronto, but limited court capacity in the Provincial Offences Act (POA) system created backlogs. To resolve this, the city was hoping to transition to the Automatic Penalty System (APS) through the Toronto Joint Processing Centre. The APS would not be feasible in New Brunswick as it does not adhere to the image enforcement legislation. The Canada Post strikes disrupted FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 3 of 17 the delivery of notice letters, and in some cases, residents received multiple letters at once due to processing delays. Public questions were raised about vendor tariffs and the ownership structure of the parent company, prompting consideration of Canadian-owned vendors in future procurements. Financially, Guelph created a Road Safety Fund where all ASE and RLC were directed. With six (6) RLCs in place, the system has generated the most revenue of any traffic-enforcement initiative over the past four (4) years. In the future, the city wanted to explore average speed enforcement over entire corridors. Guelph also considered support. The City of Guelph considered possibly installing signs next to infrastructure paid for through the This was paid for with ASE to help 2.2.2 City of Edmonton (Alberta) The City of Edmonton publishes annual reports on their Automated Traffic Enforcement program, which serve as detailed summaries of their existing program. The following information is largely drawn from 3 their 2024 report. mated traffic enforcement program is rooted in their Safe Mobility Strategy, which aims to address systemic factors that contribute to serious collisions. The program has three performance measures that are tracked by the City which relate to: Decreasing repeat violators, which suggests that the enforcement program is leading to behavioural change Reductions in high-speed violations (21+ km/h over the speed limit), showing that fewer drivers are travelling at these excessive speeds Ensuring that the total deployment hours for automated enforcement are at locations where they will be impactful, based on the The City maintains 35 mobile speed enforcement units (18 photo radar and 17 photo laser) that were rotated between 179 approved locations. These locations were determined based on an analysis of the frequency and severity of collisions, speed compliance, speed complaints filed by residents, proximity of pedestrian generators for children and seniors, and historical violation rates. Of over 24 million vehicles monitored in 2024, only 117,653 speeding violations were noted and 94,288 speeding tickets were issued. Locations where the mobile units were installed were observed to have decreases in speeding, with milder decreases observed in playground areas than the rest of the sites investigated. The City also has 63 intersections where Intersection Safety Devices (ISDs) are installed. These devices are used to enforce both speeding and red light running. While the devices are installed at more permanent locations, in 2024 there was an observed decrease in speeding violations compared to 2023 but an increase in red light violations. In 2024, the City generated $24.7 million through the automated enforcement program. As per City policy, all revenue generated by the program is directed into a fund that is dedicated to improving road safety through the City, in accordance with their Road Safety Plan. 3 Automated Traffic Enforcement Report 2024, City Operations, City of Edmonton. FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 4 of 17 2.2.3 City of Winnipeg (Manitoba) The City automated enforcement program is managed by the Winnipeg Police Service (WPS). It was developed in the early 2000s and is largely unchanged from the program that was initially developed. The more modernized system. More details should be available on the status of their upcoming system changes in the new year. Since the program has been largely unchanged since its inception, we were able to refer to a 2011 report 4 from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) on program to gain an understanding of how their system operates. WPS maintains 49 intersection safety cameras that are used for photo enforcement of red light running and speeding. These cameras were installed in locations that were identified through a review of collision data, speed data, public input, the feasibility of installation, and that provided a distributed network of cameras around the city. The technology currently used involves sensors built into the roadway that trigger the camera systems, which the WPS is aiming to replace with a fully above-group system in their next contract. Additionally, WPS uses 10 mobile photo radar systems that are attached to enforcement vehicles. These systems are used exclusively in school, playground, and construction zones. As they are mounted to a vehicle, an officer is present while the photo radar system is active. Overall, the TIRF report The program operations were well managed between the various stakeholders (WPS, vendors, courts, etc.) There was a high degree of public acceptance for the program: 71% believe it improves road safety 80% believe it makes the public more aware of the issue of speeding 81% support continuation of the program The intersection camera program has had a net positive effect on intersection safety in the City The reduction in angle collisions (46% reduction) is partially offset by an increase in rear-end collisions (15% increase). Angle collisions tend to result in more injuries and fatalities than rear- end collisions, which is why the result is a net positive effect. The photo enforcement program does mitigate speeding behaviour, though there was limited data from the mobile cameras to determine definitive speed reductions 3 Business Case The study did a review of municipal and provincial operating budgets to establish a baseline magnitude of operating costs and program startup fees to provide an understanding of the capital required for an image capturing enforcement program. 4 2011 TRIF Report FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 5 of 17 3.1 Implementation Costs Implementation cost varying by jurisdiction as a result of the system type (fully managed, self managed), the owner (province, provincial insurance, municipality, county), and the contract type (bulk, individual). The technique of bulk pricing a program allows cities to join an existing contract for a reduced fee than implementing their own. Some provinces have mandated companies for implementation such as Ontario. Currently in Ontario TrafficStar, provided by Jenoptik, is the only camera system authorized for red light 5 camera (RLC) enforcement in Ontario under O. Reg. 277/99. Accordingly, municipalities may enter individual agreements with Jenoptik or join a JPC under a collective multi-year contract. New Brunswick updated the provincial legislation in October 2024, to include a new definition of photo enforcement. The province prohibits the use of fully managed systems, because an official police officer must review and certify all offenses. The cost of assigning one officer per year to do so would cost approximately $110,000 per year. The city of Ottawa uses provincial offence officers instead of police officers to certify infractions. More details about suppliers, cost, contracts, and camera quantities are provided from varying jurisdictional examples separated by speed enforcement and red-light cameras in the following sections. Based on our review, the annual cost per camera unit for speed enforcement (away from intersections) is on the order of $50,000 to $80,000 while the annual cost per camera unit for intersections is on the order of $100,000 to $150,000. These estimates likely exclude program startup and ongoing staffing costs, which are detailed in a few of the examples and could be up to approximately $300,000 per camera per year. 3.1.1 Speed Enforcement Cameras The baseline costs for the implementation of image capturing speed enforcement vary based on the scale of the enforcement program and vendor involvement. Most of these costs also likely exclude start-up costs that may be required to carry out enforcement based on the captured images. Some options are not suitable under current New Brunswick legislation: City of Ottawa: Based on available reporting, the City of Ottawa spends $72,000 for design and construction of each speed enforcement camera location. Once operational, the average cost for the 6 vendors to operate and maintain each camera/site per year on behalf of the city is about $48,500. Ongoing annual costs were approximately $2.4 million. Eight ASE cameras in 2021 cost $1,683,000 and generated a revenue of $6,500,000. City of Toronto: The City reports in its FAQ section on ASE that each camera unit costs approximately 7 $50,000 annually to operate and maintain, including the software used for violation processing. Newfoundland and Labrador: The province has signed a five-year service contract with Jenoptik Smart Mobility Solutions (Jenoptik) for the installation, operation and maintenance of speed cameras and the issuing of tickets. The $3.9-million speed camera contract is for a minimum of 10 cameras with the 5 Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) & Red Light Cameras Norfolk County 6 Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) in Ottawa 7 Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) program - damage or vandalism to camera - City of Toronto FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 6 of 17 8 potential to add more as the program rolls out. This dollar amount includes both the physical installation and maintenance of the cameras as well as the development of an enforcement system for the province. Town of Stouffville: The Town of Stouffville in the York Region of Ontario has leased 8 cameras from Jenoptik. The lease includes procurement, installation, electrical hook-ups, signage, and software, and costs the Town $33,505 per camera on average. The cost per camera varies slightly based on the specific 9 location and hook-up requirements. Saskatchewan: In 2019, Saskatchewan Government Insurance Canada Inc (SGI) issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to select a vendor for the PSE program and Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited, 10 operating as Verra Mobility Systems was the vendor chosen during that process. The cost to SGI for the initial 2-year contract was approximately $4.5 million, which included the cost of the cameras and their installation, ticket processing, signs and advertising. Halifax Regional Municipality: While speed enforcement cameras have not been implemented in HRM, a 11 feasibility study was prepared and published that outlined potential program costing. They estimated costs for a system with 8 active cameras that was based on a hybrid model where a vendor supplies the system hardware and software and HRM would provide staffing to cover all levels of program administration that are the responsibility of the road authority (project management, road safety engineering, field operations, offence processing, administration, legal services, etc.). The estimated expenditures for the program over the first five years are summarized below. Note that the per-camera ongoing costs in this case are closer to $300,000 per camera when considering all the vendor and indirect costs to the regional municipality. Table 1: Financial Implications from the HRM Photo enforcement Feasibility Study Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Startup $1,099,900 - - - - Ongoing $2,385,400 $2,433,100 $2,481,800 $2,531,400 $2,582,000 3.1.2 Red Light Cameras The baseline costs for the implementation of image capturing red light running enforcement also vary based on the scale of the enforcement program: York Region: York Region in Ontario has a red-light camera program. The system supplier is Jenoptik. The camera is an industrial digital camera, manufactured for unattended operation in an outdoor environment. The cameras are housed in a one-half metre by one half metre by one half metre enclosure. The cameras are mounted on a pole, approximately 20 metres in advance of the intersection and are mounted approximately 3.6 metres above the ground. The red-light camera system costs approximately 8 Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) in Newfoundland and Labrador 9 Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) in Stouffville 10 Automated Speed Enforcement in Saskatchewan 11 Halifax Regional Municipality Photo Enforcement Feasibility Study, Stewart Solutions Inc., January 2022. FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 7 of 17 $100,000. The total cost of a red-light camera penalty order is $325, of which York Region receives $260 12 plus the $5 processing fee. The $60 victim fee surcharge is remitted to Province of Ontario. City of Ottawa: Based on their intersection safety camera program costs $11,765,000 for 84 cameras, which averages to approximately $140,000 per camera. 3.1.3 Opportunity Cost From the above review it is clear that installing and maintaining image capturing enforcement can come with significant costs. Based on the estimates from HRM, the annual cost of one year of a program with 3 cameras could cost up to $900,000. The opportunity cost of using $900,000 results in deferred funding from other road safety initiatives. The table shown below reviews the quantity of improvements that could be made if $900,000 were invested in them instead of ASE and RLCs, based on estimated costs for a variety of crosswalk, traffic calming, and miscellaneous infrastructure improvements. Table 2: Quantity of Alternative Infrastructure Improvements that Cost $900,000 Alternative Infrastructure Cost Quantity Crosswalk Infrastructure Overhead flashing crosswalk (RA-5) 100,000 $/crosswalk 9 crosswalks Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon crosswalk (RRFB) 40,000 $/ crosswalk 23 crosswalks Side mounted sign crosswalk 5,000 $/ crosswalk 180 crosswalks Painted zebra markings at a crosswalk 37 $/m 24,324 m Traffic Calming Measures Speed hump 7,500 $/unit 120 units Speed cushion 3,800 $/unit 237 units Radar speed display sign 10,000 $/unit 90 units Miscellaneous Painted centerlines 4.5 $/m 200,000 m Painted bike lanes (no roadway changes) 25 $/m 36,000 m Backplates on signal heads 150 $/unit 6,000 units 12 Red Light Cameras in York Region FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 8 of 17 3.2 Comparative Analysis Photo enforcement is not the only tool that can be used to address concerns with speeding or red light running. The following section outlines several alternatives to each and provides some general insight on their applicability to different types of roads, their effectiveness, and their relative costs. The TAC Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming (Second Edition) and case studies from Canadian municipalities were used to create a table to compare option for speed and redlight running reduction. 3.2.1 Speed Reduction Speed reduction counter measures vary based on the street classification. The study team assembled varying counter measures for local, collector, and arterial. Arterial roads have varying design speeds and access control, so the location all was added for countermeasures suitable for all road types, no matter access restrictions or design speed. Automatic Speed Enforcement: Cameras are placed along corridors, to capture images of drivers exceeding posted speeds. The image of the infraction is sent with a fine to the owner of the vehicle. Education campaigns: The City of Ottawa created the 'Time is precious' ad campaign is part of the Road Safety Action Plan's education work. In educating residents whether they drive, cycle and/or walk the Plan aims to de-normalize unsafe road behaviour and foster a culture of road safety in Ottawa. Each month focuses on different emphasis areas, which are chosen based on the high incidence of fatal and 13 major injury collisions in those months involving those behaviours. In San Francisco they rolled out signs in advance of enforcement actions as a part of the high-visibility speed enforcement campaign. The 14 signs were associated with a 3% reduction in 85th percentile speeds. Narrowing Streets: straighter a street the more comfortable a driver feels with their speed. Narrowing the width of travel lanes make drivers feel cramped, and as a result they reduce their speed to keep an acceptable level of comfort. Police enforcement: Enforcement is expensive and is directly related to the salary of the police force in the jurisdiction. Most fine structures are setup so that the speeders pay the additional enforcement costs not solely the taxpayers. Posted Speed Limit Reduction: Drivers will drive roads at the speed they are most comfortable at. Posted speed limit reductions are low cost and low speed reduction. Therefore reducing a posted speed limit without changing the geometry of the corridor will change the speed differential between those drivers following the reduced speed limit and those driving at the speed they are comfortable. 13 Ottawa's Education Campaign 14 Speed Reduction Education Campaigns FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 9 of 17 Table 3. Countermeasures for Speeding A Road Applicability th 85 Percentile B B Measure L C UA RA Speed ReductionCost Automatic Speed 16 X X X X 14.5km/h High Enforcement Education Campaigns X X X X None Medium Narrowing Streets X X - - Up to 10km/h High Police Enforcement X X X X 3-6km/h High Posted Speed 15 X - - - 1.6km/h Low Reduction Road Diet - X X - 5-12km/h High Rumble Strips - - - X 3-8km/h Low Speed Cushions X X - - Up to 8km/h Low Speed Humps X X - - 6-13km/h Low 16 Speed Feedback Signs X X X X 3-14 km/h Low Traffic Circle X X - - Up to 14km/h Medium-High Vehicle Activated Signs X X X X 10km/h Low A L = Local, C = Collector, UA = Urban Arterial, RA = Rural Arterial B All references from the TAC Canadian Guide to Traffic Calming (Second Edition), unless otherwise noted Road Diet: A road diet reduces travel lanes and/ or travel lane width of a street cross section. Road diets are typically applied with active transportation networks to reassign vehicle lane width to active transportation facilities or alternative modes to private vehicles. Similar to narrowing lanes, road diets reduce speeds by reducing lane width, prompting drivers to slow down to maintain an acceptable level of comfort. 15 Assessing the effectiveness of speed limit reduction in Edmonton: A case study analysis Edmonton Posted Speed Reduction 16 NHTSA Speed Countermeasures FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 10 of 17 17 Rumble strips have a collision reduction factor of 0.37 for all collision types and all collision severities. However they are not classified as speed reduction counter measure. They are useful as an auditory and tactile alert to the driver that road conditions are changing ahead, so they need to reduce their speeds. Transverse rumble strips are normally used where engineering judgment indicates a special need due to stopping sight distance restrictions, high approach speeds, or a history of collisions. There are transverse rumble strips in the FRSC at the end of Route 7 where it connects to Route 1 with an interchange. Speed Cushions: can be 8.0-10.0 cm in height, 2.0 m wide, and 3.5-4.0 m in length. Speed cushions are applied at midblock sections of local and collector streets. They are designed with two or more strategically placed cushions on the roadway so that emergency vehicles with a large track width (busses and fire trucks) can pass through them unobstructed but smaller passenger vehicles have to driver over the cushions. Speed Humps: The speed humps are designed to be significant enough to make it uncomfortable to drive over them at a speed higher than the desired speed for the roadway. These deflections often create challenges for cyclists, so accommodations should be made to allow cyclists to bypass the deflection where possible. ITE recommends spacing of 260 feet to 500 feet to keep 85th percentile operating speed between 40 and 50km/h. Speed Feedback signs : A high-quality multi-site study for FHWA has also documented crash reductions with the implementation of speed feedback signs. However, speeds seem to rebound quickly downstream 18 and as soon as the devices are removed, prompting recent efforts to evaluate permanent installations. Most studies have evaluated use of these devices in school zones, work zones, and other risky locations such as at curves. In work zones, a combination of a parked police vehicle and speed feedback trailer reduced average and 85th percentile traffic stream speeds and free flow speeds to a similar degree as automated camera enforcement, whereas the effect of speed trailers alone was the same as no treatment. 17 FHWA Rumble Strips 18 Speed Feedback Signs FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 11 of 17 Traffic circles are helpful to slow down traffic along collector and local streets to reduce cut through traffic speeds on corridors. Traffic circles are places at intersections along the corridor to reduce speeds as they pass through the intersection as drivers must slow down and travel counterclockwise around the center island. Vehicle activated signs are electronic signs displaying the maximum speed limit, flashing the maximum posted speed limit. 3.2.2 Red Light Running Reduction To improve safety at traffic signal-controlled intersections there are engineering countermeasures that can be implemented. Separating vehicles from conflicting movement in time and/or space is the ideal way to reduce collisions. The study team created a list of engineering countermeasures that reduce red light running. Each counter measure has an associated collision reduction factor (CRF) showing the impact on collisions as a result of implementation. Backplates on signal heads allow drivers attention to be drawn to the traffic signal heads. The backplate is often a yellow retroreflective material visible This counter measure is useful for attention and relatively inexpensive to apply to signal heads. Adaptive signal control: Adaptive signal controls is a traffic management strategy. The signal timings change, or adapt, based on observed traffic demand. These systems use increased detection to continually collect data on observed demand, and signal timings. Reducing delay experienced by a driver, reduces risky behaviours as a result of delay frustration the driver experiences. Convert to Single Lane Roundabout: Converting a signalised intersection to a single lane roundabout reduces the number of conflict points from 32 to 8 conflict points . Roundabouts also reducing right angle traffic entering and intersection changes the angle of impact of a collision. The speed can be lower in a single lane roundabout than a signalized intersection depending on the radius, which reduces the severity of collisions. Dynamic Warning Flashers alert drivers that there is an intersection ahead and they should be prepared to stop. Specifically, the flashing sign is linked to the signal and flashers are actuated when the signal is about to change from green to yellow. In some cases this can result in drivers accelerating to avoid the red phase. Convert to Diamond Interchanges: Separating movements by space eliminates turning moving conflicts. Converting a signalized intersection to a diamond interchange requires a large space and a large budget. FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 12 of 17 Table 4. Red Light Running Countermeasures Types of Collision Method Collision Severity CRF Implementation Cost 19 Adaptive Signal control Multiple Vehicle All 19.3% Medium 20 Backplates on signal heads All All 15.0% Low 21 Convert to Diamond Interchanges All All 33.0% Very High Convert to Single Lane 22 All All 37.7% High Roundabout 23 Dynamic Warning Flashers Angle All 25.5% Low All 8.4% Red light Camera All Medium-High 24 Angle 37.7% 3.3 Potential Revenues The current legislation in New Brunswick, does not allow any revenue to go to the municipalities organizing the photo enforcement system. The potential revenue generated would go directly to the provincial general revenue fund, not a specific road safety fund. The current legislation for image enforcement will not produce any revenue for municipalities. The cameras, if installed, function as a counter measure not a source of revenue. If the legislation is changed to allocate a percentage of revenue to jurisdictions, then revenue could be generated for a road safety fund. Ontario provides an example of revenue sharing. The city of Ottawa publishes their data from both red-light cameras, and automated speed cameras from 2020 to 2024. The data includes the active cameras, annual violations and annual revenue. The annual revenue per violation in 2024 was $265.60. The Joint Processing Center is hosted by the City of Toronto Transportation Services, and it process the red-light tickets for Ottawa and 16 other Ontario municipalities, however it is currently backlogged resulting in missing revenue for municipalities. The total The City of Ottawa pays 60$ to the provincial government for the victim fine surcharge, and a $5 processing fee. Most jurisdictions return 65$ or a percentage of revenue to the province there are examples in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg 19 Adaptive Signal Control CRF 20 Signal Backplate CRF 21 Diamond Interchange CRF 22 Single Lane Roundabout CRF 23 Dynamic Warning Flashers CRF 24 Red Light Camera CRF FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 13 of 17 The registered vehicle owner would be responsible for the fine issued through photo enforcement. The fine structure is the same as the New Brunswick Provincial Offences Procedure Act outlined below. No taxes or service fees can be charged as a result of a photo enforcement fine in New Brunswick. $292.50 for a vehicle not registered or insured. $172.50 for speeding 25km/h or less above the posted limit $292.50 for speeding 25km/h or more above the posted limit $172.50 for failure to stop at a signal $400 minimum for failure to stop for a school bus Based on these numbers and the range of typical costs detailed previously, the number of fines that would need to be paid to offset the cost of one camera system of each type was calculated and summarized below in Table 5. Note that these estimates exclude any potential revenue sharing and that the average cost per year per camera likely does not include the startup and staffing costs that would be required to initiate and maintain a program. The HRM program outlined in their feasibility study does include additional costs, and they were included as an upper-bound in this analysis. Table 5. Camera System Break Even Points System Average Cost / Year / Camera Fines Paid / Camera to Offset Camera Cost $100,000 580 Red Light Running $150,000 870 $50,000 290 Speed Enforcement $80,000 464 ($172.50 / charge) $300,000 (HRM) 1,739 3.4 Factors for Success Image capturing enforcement has been subject to political scrutiny, as it can be easily characterized as a these political arguments is a data driven methodology, rooted in community safety. The jurisdiction needs to ensure any revenues generated are directed towards addressing the root causes of speeding and red light running in a dedicated Road Safety Fund. The following areas are important for a successful program. 3.4.1 Public Pressure ASE and RLC are engineering countermeasures that fine users who engage in unsafe driving behaviors to incentivize them to drive responsibly. The frequent characterization of these fines as a can lead to intense public pressure to remove them. One of the most visible ways in which this public pressure often manifests is through vandalism; through 2025 there were numerous reports of vandalism FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 14 of 17 25,26,27,28 to ASE cameras in Ontario in the lead up to the prohibition of the devices, but there have been 29,30,313233 similar reports of vandalism to ASE cameras in the United States, the UK, and France as well. This public pressure can then lead to governments restricting the use of the cameras or prohibiting their 34 use all together. Within Canada, Alberta has been increasing restrictions on ASE cameras while Ontario recently prohibited them entirely. Similar challenges have been observed in the United States where many states and communities make use of image capturing enforcement, but many other states have legislation prohibiting their use and many communities do not allow their use despite state-level 35 authorization. 3.4.2 Communication It is important to frame the program as a safety program not a revenue generating scheme. The automatic enforcement systems are not intended to replace traditional enforcement but offer a method for citing risky 36 behaviors and combined with effective publicity, to enact widespread behavior changes. In an ideal world there would be zero fines administered by an enforcement system, however automated enforcement techniques help change risky behaviors in combination with engineering countermeasures. Prior to camera activation there are signs placed to warn there will soon be a speed or red-light camera, to warn drivers. In Newfoundland during their automated speed enforcement pilot phase, warnings were sent to drivers who exhibited speeds warranting a fine. This ensured the public was aware and had a period to change their driving behavior prior to the start of enforcement. The City of Ottawa and Guelph setup their ASE programs within community zones which are viewed by the public as zones where there are vulnerable road users, ensuring the public is informed about the reasoning for the implementation of cameras. 3.4.3 Revenue When revenue is generated by the image capturing enforcement program, the revenue should be directed to a specific road safety fund to encourage capital investment in making roads safer for all road users. This fund can support traffic calming initiates, future image capturing enforcement infrastructure, and vision zero pilot programs. The City of Guelph recommended showing how the Road Safety Fund is used for infrastructure improvements such as new crosswalks RA5s, and new multiuse paths. Doing this allows the public to see how revenue is benefitting them with new infrastructure. 25 Speed Cameras In Canada Face Vandalism Surge | AutoGuide.com 26 Vandals lash out at automated speed enforcement cameras - Guelph News 27 Speed cameras damaged 9 times in Vaughan 28 'We are prepared to help get rid of them,' Ont. government says after 16 speed cameras vandalized | CBC News 29 What's Driving The Backlash Against Traffic Cameras : NPR 30 Speed Cameras Vulnerable to Vandalism Worldwide - But Studies Say They Save Lives 31 Richmond speed cameras become target of vandals 32 Plymouth speed camera damaged in 'reckless act of vandalism' 33 -Camera Network - Newsweek 34 Alberta to end use of photo radar on provincial highways, at speed-on-green cameras | Globalnews.ca 35 Traffic Safety Review: State Speed and Red-Light Camera Laws and Programs 36 Speed Safety Camera Program Planning and Operations Guide FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 15 of 17 3.4.4 Site Selection A methodology for selecting sites for ASE should include speeding patterns (at least 15 km/h over the posted speed limit), pedestrian activity, and collision history using engineering judgement. Applying a methodology allows jurisdiction to determine what locations could be improved with image enforcement compared to other countermeasures. The City of Guelph recommends also incorporating geographical locations, to ensure the ASE encompass the whole road network and that individual neighbourhoods/areas are not over targeted by the program. 3.4.5 Infraction Notification Timely notification of infraction to vehicle owners is a requirement for a success program. In New Brunswick, Bill 51 states in section 16.41(2) A violation ticket referred to in subsection (1) shall be mailed within 14 days after the date of the offence. Slowdowns in processing of the camera data, and certification from a police officer could result in some infractions remaining unprocessed within the required timeframes, resulting in a loss of potential fine revenue. The City of Ottawa opened their own speed infraction processing center due to processing slow downs. 3.4.6 Coordination The application of new enforcement techniques such as image captured enforcement, require teamwork. , if municipalities enact a photo enforcement program stakeholders such as provincial stakeholders. In Saskatchewan, the Enforcement Committee includes representatives from SGI, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure, Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police (SACP), Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association (SUMA), Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) and Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN). Deactivating speed cameras, and red-light cameras have been shown to increase collisions by 30% 37 compared to if the cameras remained. After deactivation, all severity red light running crashes increased more than expected at nearby non-treated intersections, which indicates the possibility of an adverse 38 spillover effect. However, fatal and injury producing crashes associated with rear-end collisions decreased after deactivation at both formerly treated and non-treated intersections, although those rear- end crashes account for smaller proportions when compared to all crash types/right-angle crashes. Ensuring the stakeholders are onboard with photo enforcement is critical. For this reason repealing the program as a result of political pressure creates a scenario with more risk than the initial untreated intersection. 4 Summary Image capturing enforcement is used widely across Canada to address specific road safety needs around speeding, red light running, and other enforceable offences. These tools can be extremely effective in broad application, but their cost and impacts on people do lend to the need for care in the design and implementation of these programs. 37 Effects of Red Light Camera Removal 38 Red Light Camera Removal Collision Increases FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 16 of 17 With the current legislation in New Brunswick, there is no revenue generated directed to municipalities, therefore there is no break even point for jurisdiction implementing photo enforcement. Instead the benefits to local jurisdictions come from the reduced vehicle speeds and improved safety of their networks. Making these programs last in the long-term can be challenging as they can face both public and political pressure. To establish effective programs it is important to clearly communicate the purpose of these systems to road safety objectives, direct revenues to road safety initiatives, select sites based on objective measures and distribution of potential fines geographically, and being reasonable with warnings and the solicitation of multiple fines. Coordination with other stakeholders can also lead to compounding benefits and reduced costs for each individual authority. Englobe Corp. Andrew Northmore, PhD, P.Eng., RSP1 Abigail Cartwright, M.Sc.E., EIT Transportation Engineer Transportation Engineer-in-Training Revisions and publications log REVISION No. DATE DESCRIPTION 0A November 24, 2025 Draft submission 1 December 19, 2025 Final submission Distribution 1 PDF copy Mr. Scott Borden FRSC Image Capturing Enforcement Business Case Englobe | 02510407.000 | December 19, 2025 17 of 17 November6th, 2024 Re: Motor Vehicle Act FinesRequest Saint John’s Common Council is requesting that the Province of New Brunswick provide to each municipality, including Saint John, at least 50% of the revenues collected from Motor Vehicle Act(MVA) fines issued including those that would be issued via Image Capturing Enforcement(ICE), as significant funds will be required to implement municipal road safety initiativesincluding the new ICE. The Province of New Brunswick recently enacted a regulation that allows municipalities to use ICE. However, 100% of revenues from issued MVA fines is currently retained by the province. Therefore, municipalities would be burdened by the additional equipment and operational costs to implement ICE as we struggle to fund our current and increasing responsibilities. We believe New Brunswick and Saint John should emulate the Province of Alberta’s and the City of Edmonton’s approach to funding road safety, respectively. Alberta returns approximately 50% of fine revenues back to the City of Edmonton. The city theninveststhose shared revenues back into their road safety plan, including but not limited to ICEequipment and operations costs,via a specific reserve fund. Their collaborative focus is on road safety and not general revenue collection,creating a win-win environment where the respective levels of government are working together with aligned interests. Their transparent funding model and road safety performance improvement year-over-year is demonstratedby the ongoing improving results. Through your leadership, we look forward to the Province of New Brunswick and the City of Saint John collaborating in ways that produce important results that matter to the residentsour governments serve. Allowing Saint John and other municipalities to secure a specific funding source that improves the safety of our roads for all modes of transportation and by persons with all abilities is one way we can collaborate. Sincerely, Donna Noade Reardon Mayor of the City of Saint John CC: Brent McGovern, CAO, Saint John Robert Gauvin, Minister of Public Safety Tim O’Reilly, Director, Public Works Chief Robert Bruce, Police Chief, Saint John /haahb /hb/L\[ w9thw M&C No.2026-246 Report DateOctober 15, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaLegal and Public Safety Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Police Request to Regulate the Sale of Bear Spray in the City of Saint John AUTHORIZATION Chief Administrative OfficerChair of Public Safety Committee Ian FoganCouncillor Paul Dempsey Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive Lead Maria K. PowellJacqueline BoucherMélanie C. Tompkins, K.C. RECOMMENDATION The Public SafetyCommittee Recommends: That Common Council direct the General Counsel to prepare a by-law regulating the sale of bear spray in the city of Saint John. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY By letter dated June 15, 2026, former Police Chief Bruce wrote to the Public Safety Committee, Safety, requesting that the Committee look into and recommend that the City enact a by-law regulating the sale of bear spray in the city of Saint John. The General Counsel office undertook a review of the issue and confirms that the City has the authority to enact such a by-law and that it would be appropriate to do so. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) None STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with the Council Priority .9\[hbD by supporting a safer community. REPORTIncluding Any Service and Financial Outcomes By letter dated June 15, 2026, former Police Chief Bruce wrote to the Public Safety Committee, recommend that the City enact a by-law regulating the sale of bear spray in the city of Saint John. The General Counsel office undertook a review of the issue and confirms that the City has the authority to enact such a by-law and that it would be appropriate to do so. Recognizing that enacting a bear spray by- Communications Service to prepare and deploy a communication strategy intended to inform residents and impacted retailers about the proposed by-law should Council choose to enact same. A copy of this communication strategy will be made public if Council chooses to enact the by-law. Staff is recommending that the Public Safety Committee recommend to Council that the General Counsel be directed to draft a bear spray by- INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person Acting Police Chief Neal Fowler Sarah Peiser ATTACHMENT(S) COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No.2026-254 Report DateOctober 26, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaDevelopment and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:SupplementaryReport for the prescribed standardsfor anyland, building or structure containing a Non-Conforming Use as a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Jennifer KirchnerPankaj NalavdeAmy PoffenrothIan Fogan RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant seeks to reconstruct a garage associated with a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. The applicant previously obtained a building permit to rebuild two of the four walls and replace the roof of the garage; during construction, the remainder of the structure collapsed, requiring the reconstruction of the entire building. The Vehicle Repair Garage has operated on the site since at least 1947 and is located on a Low-Rise Residential (RL) zoned property. It is a non-conforming use, as it was established before the current zoning came into force. The application was referred to Common Council by the Planning Advisory Committee to consider the establishment of site standards as facilitated through subsection 61(1) of the Community Planning Act. At the October 19, 2026, Meeting of Common Council, the application was tabled to allow staff to ask the applicant how a maximum cap of 13 parking stallswould impacttheir business. Through these discussions, staff learned that a parking maximum would negatively affect the recommendations. Staff is maintaining its original recommendation of a minimum of 13 parking spaces, which leaves flexibility for a few additional vehiclesand would meet the needs of the business. Staff is not recommending a maximum cap on the parking requirement at this time. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends in favour of the submitted applicationwith the recommended Standards, as set outin the Recommendation section and Attachment A. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) Not applicable. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Common Council established five priorities for their 2021-2026 term. The proposed site standardsfor the non-conforming use align REPORT The proposed application involves the reconstruction of a Vehicle Repair Garage, which is a long- standing non-conforming use. Through the recommended establishment of Standards, the reconstruction of the building would coincide with site and operational enhancements which will reduce the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and willenhance the appearance and operations of the business. Staff is not recommending a site standard that would limit onsite parking to thirteen vehicles. Staff is maintaining its original recommendation of a minimum of 13 parking spaces, as required by the Zoning By-Law and consistent with how parking standards are applied across the city. Service and Financial Outcomes Through the Planning Advisory Committee and Common Council, planning applications can be considered for approval based on the direction established throughCity by-lawsand the Community Planning Act.Development projects, including applications to reconstruct, redevelop or enhance existing site developmentare important as theyhave the potential togeneratenew revenue, increase overall economic vitality, and enhance our existing neighbourhoods.There is no direct financial impact to the City associated with the establishment of these site conditions. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person BuildingPam Bentley InfrastructureJeremy Clack Fire & Emergency Management Nathaniel Watson Parking, Traffic, and TransitJill DeMerchant & JillianGood Public WorksChris Phinney External Agencies Public UtilitiesRogers, Bell Alliant, Liberty Utilities, &Saint John Energy Natural Gas Enbridge/Emera ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Site Standardsfor the Non-Conforming Use at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Attachment B: PAC Variances Attachment C: Council Report Attachment D: PAC Chair Letter Attachment E: PAC Staff Report and Public Comments Attachment A Standards prescribed pursuant to s. 61(1) of the Community Planning Act for any land, building or structure containing a Non-Conforming Use as a Vehicle Repair Garage located at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Pursuant to s. 61(1) of the Community Planning Act, SNB 2017, c. 19, Common Council of the City of Saint John requires any land, building or structure containing anon-conforming use as a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent,shall be maintained and kept in a condition appropriate to the area in which it is located, in accordance with the following prescribed standards: Attachment B: PAC Variances COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No.2026-233 Report DateOctober 16, 2026 Meeting DateOctober 19, 2026 Service AreaDevelopment and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT:Prescribed standardsfor anyland, building or structure containing a Non-Conforming Use as a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. AUTHORIZATION Primary AuthorDirectorExecutive LeadCAO Jennifer KirchnerPankaj NalavdeAmy PoffenrothIan Fogan RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application The applicant seeks to reconstruct a garage associated with a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. The applicant previously obtained a building permit to rebuild two of the four walls and replace the roof of the garage; during construction, the remainder of the structure collapsed, requiring the reconstruction of the entire building. The Vehicle Repair Garage has operated on the site since at least 1947 and is located on a Low-Rise Residential (RL) zoned property. It is anon-conforming use, as it was established before the current zoning came into force. In April 2022, the City issued a Zoning Confirmation Letter confirming the non-conforming status of the use and that a Motor Vehicle Inspection License could be approved for the site. Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) At its regular meetings onAugust 18, 2026,and September 15, 2026, PAC considered an application to reconstruct a garage associated with a Vehicle Repair Garagelocated at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. At its September 15 meeting, PAC formally recognized the Vehicle Repair Garage as a non-conforming use. This decision enabled PAC to consider the requestedvariances and the reconstruction of a building associated with a non-conforming use. Recognizing the history of the site, staff developed a series of varianceswith conditionsand site development standardsfor PAC's consideration that would bring the site into a better-defined state, addressing site access, parking and landscaping. PAC approved the variances associated with the site access, the location of the parking lot and onsite landscaping, subject to conditions (see Attachment B). PAC deferred the establishment of site standardson the property to Common Council, which Council can prescribe as standards for a Non-Conforming Use on the Property pursuant to subsection 61(1) of the Community Planning Act.This referral included thestandards recommended by staff in the PAC report and a request to consider changes to the Traffic By-Law to restrict on-street parking for the portion of McLaughlin Crescent adjacent to the Property. Once Council establishes the site standards, the application willreturn to PAC for a determination on the requested reconstruction, pursuant to subsection 60(2)(b) of the Community Planning Act and paragraph 2.8(2)(b) of the Zoning By-Law. Establishing sitestandardsfor the Non-Conforming Use through Council under Section 61 provides an enforcement mechanism: if the site is not maintained in accordance with the Standards, Council may, subject to notice requirements, have the necessary work carried out and recover the cost from the property owner. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends in favour of the submitted applicationwith the recommended Standards, as set outin the Recommendation section and Attachment A. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION(S) Not applicable. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Common Council established five priorities for their 2021-2026 term. The proposed site standardsfor the non-conforming use align REPORT Summary of the Application Municipal Plan The proposed application involves the reconstruction of a Vehicle Repair Garage, which is a long- standing non-conforming use. Through the recommended establishment of Standards, the reconstruction of the building would coincide with site and operational enhancements which will reduce the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and willenhance the appearance and operations of the business. Service and Financial Outcomes Through the Planning Advisory Committee and Common Council, planning applications can be considered for approval based on the direction established throughCity by-lawsand the Community Planning Act.Development projects, including applications to reconstruct, redevelop or enhance existing site developmentare important as theyhave the potential togeneratenew revenue, increase overall economic vitality, and enhance our existing neighbourhoods.There is no direct financial impact to the City associated with the establishment of these site conditions. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Name of Service Area/StakeholderName of Staff Person BuildingPam Bentley InfrastructureJeremy Clack Fire & Emergency Management Nathaniel Watson Parking, Traffic, and TransitJill DeMerchant & JillianGood Public WorksChris Phinney External Agencies Public UtilitiesRogers, Bell Alliant, Liberty Utilities, &Saint John Energy Natural Gas Enbridge/Emera ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Site Standardsfor the Non-Conforming Use at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Attachment B: PAC Variances Attachment C: PAC Chair Letter Attachment D: PAC StaffReport and Public Comments Attachment A Standards prescribed pursuant to s. 61(1) of the Community Planning Act for any land, building or structure containing a Non-Conforming Use as a Vehicle Repair Garage located at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Pursuant to s. 61(1) of the Community Planning Act, SNB 2017, c. 19, Common Council of the City of Saint John requires any land, building or structure containing anon-conforming use as a Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent,shall be maintained and kept in a condition appropriate to the area in which it is located, in accordance with the following prescribed standards: Attachment B: PAC Variances Smallcity,bigheart. Petiteville,grand. PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 1, 2026 Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council ɎɎ1$Ȏ-µ´ɉ"µ´¬µ¸³¯´Ɏ4¹«Ɏ¬µ¸ɎŷɉŹɎ,©+§»®²¯´Ɏ"¸«¹©«´º Your Worship and Councillors: At its meetings on August 18, 2026 and September 15, 2026, thePlanning Advisory Committee considered the attached staff report regarding the reconstruction of a non-conforming use and PAC variances for 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. Atthe public meeting, staff madeapresentation. 32 Letters and 2 Petitions were received and areprovidedin the packet. The letters are attached. The PAC rendered the following decisions unanimously. Formalized that the Vehicle Repair Garage is a non-conforming use. Approved the following variances subject to conditions. 1.To permit two, two-way accesses on a frontage of less than 75 metres, subject to the following conditions: a.That each access be limited to a maximum width of 9 metres. b.That front yard landscaping and hard surfacing of the accesses be undertaken to formalize the site access locations. c.That the full-height curb on McLaughlin Crescent be reinstated to align with the new site accesses. 2.To permit a parking lot to be located within 2.4 metres of the front and rear property lines, and 2.85 metres of the side property line, subject to the following conditions: a.The required front, side, flankage and rear yard landscaping incorporate sod or hydroseed as the principal ground covering. b.That the front yard landscaping incorporates the planting of a minimum of 3 trees, with 1 tree to be located within each of the 3 landscaped areas identified on the site plan. c.That the side and rear yard landscaping, adjacent to 2 McLaughlin Crescent and 6 Barbara Crescent, incorporate screening as per the requirements established in Sections 5.3 and 6.1(j) of the Zoning By-Law. P.O.Box1971SaintJohn,NBCanadaE2L4L1 C.P.1971SaintJohn,N.-B.CanadaE2L4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Page 2of 2 3. To permit a reduction in the landscaping areas from 4.5 metres to 2.4 metres for the front yard and from 6 metres to 2.4 metres in the rear yard, subject to the following conditions: a. The required front and rear yard landscaping incorporate sod or hydroseed as the principle ground covering. b. That the front yard landscaping incorporate the planting of 3 trees, with 1 planting located within each of the 3 landscaped areas identified on the site plan. Send the application to Common Council for the establishment of Site Conditions on the property as presented in the staff report, as per Sections 61(1) to 61(5) of the Community Planning Act. In addition, PAC -Law, to eliminate on street parking for a portion of McLaughlin Crescent. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Jennifer Kirchner at Jennifer.Kirchner@saintjohn.ca. Sincerely Yours, Peter Corfield, Vice Chair c: Pankaj Nalavde, RPP, MCIP, Director of Community Planning and Housing Attachments: Staff Report for the August 18, 2026 Meeting Supplementary Staff Report for the September 15 Meeting Copies of correspondence received from the public. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Small city, big heart. Petiteville,grandcœur. Date: September 10, 2026 To:Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting:Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at 6 PM From: Jennifer Kirchner, RPP, MCIP, Senior Planner Application 26-157: Non-Conforming Use and PAC Variances Location/ Address: 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On August 18, 2026, the application for the reconstruction of a possible non-conforming use and associated PAC variances was tabled at the regular PAC meeting pending additional information. The following materials serve as a supplementary report to the original staff reportconsidered at the meeting. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Area History and Non-Conforming Use Status One of the key elements of this application isthe determination as to whether the Vehicle Repair Garage can be considered a non-conforming use. Based on the information gathered prior to the August PAC Meeting, it was understood that the Vehicle Repair Garage was established in the 1960s. Since the PAC Meeting, new information has been compiled,and an updated timeline is provided below: April 23, 1921:Westmorland Heightssubdivision planwas registered, whichcreated an early layout for the neighbourhood, includingMcLaughlin Crescent. September 24, 1947: Page 10 of the Wednesday edition of the Saint John Times Globe included an advertisement for Landry’s Garage, located on Westmorland Avenue. April 6, 1953:Page 12 of the Monday edition of the Saint John Times Globe, included an advertisement for Landry’s Garage, located at84 Westmorland Avenue.Based on the civic addressingpattern, it is likely that 84 Westmorland Avenue is the same location as 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. November 7, 1961:An amending subdivision plan for Westmorland Heightswas registered, featuringthe current road and lot layout. The subdivision plan also d that P. J. Landry owned lotsat the location of 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. March 9, 1968: Page 29of the Saturdayedition of the Saint John Times Globe, included an advertisement forLandry’s Garage, located at 4 McLaughlin Crescent. February 12, 1975:Page 2 of the Wednesday edition of the Saint John Times Globe, included an article regarding the February 11, 1975 PAC Meeting. It involved an P.O.Box1971SaintJohn,NBCanadaE2L4L1 C.P.1971SaintJohn,N.-B.CanadaE2L4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 2 of 6 application torelocate McLaughlin Crescent. The house was owned by Charles Bettle who ran a garage on the adjoining property. The article referenced a neighbour who indicated that Mr. Bettle’s garage was built prior to the establishment of zoning laws for the area. Based on the new information, it is likely that a Vehicle Repair Garage operated at this location since at least 1947. While a Zoning By-Law was in place as of 1937, the City did not have a Master Plan until its adoption in principle on January 6, 1946. Page 27 of the within residential areas there had been a scattering of residences that had been converted into small service shops. It also noted that amendments to the Zoning By-Law served to prevent the further establishment of similar non-conforming uses. Building Permit Timeline A building permit was issued on September 12, 2025, to rebuild two of four load bearing walls and replace the pitched roof of the existing repair garage with a flat roof at a height of 12 feet. It did not authorize demolition of the building. The building inspector met the applicant on site on September 3, 2025, to discuss replacement of the roof, at which time complete demolition was not raised. No further communication was received from the owner or contractor. A neighbouring resident reported that the building was taken down on the evening of April 18, 2026. The inspector attended on April 20, 2026, and found the garage fully demolished with only the existing slab remaining, the first indication to the City that the entire building had been removed. Following a further site visit on April 27, 2026, the inspector wrote to the owner and contractor directing that work stop and that a new permit be applied for. At no point prior to April 20, 2026, was the inspector advised, verbally or in writing, that the intention was to demolish the entire building. Decision Options If PAC determines that the Vehicle Repair Garage is a non-conforming use, they have several options in which to move forward. Denial: Non-conforming uses are granted a certain degree of protection to enable its continued existence despite changes to the Zoning By-Law. While the use is allowed to continue, the intention is that over time, non-conforming uses will relocate to more suitable locations. This may coincide with the deterioration of the buildings or when the intensity of the use outgrows its location. As such, the non-conforming status does not guarantee that approvals will be granted to either reconstruct buildings or to allow the use to expand, as these approvals would serve to extend the use of the site for non-conforming purposes. PAC has the jurisdictional authority to deny the application to reconstruct the demolished Vehicle Repair Garage structure. A denial of the application would prevent the rebuilding of the Vehicle Repair Garage structure, which would serve to limit the number of repair bays on the property. The denial would not, however, prevent the continued operation of the Vehicle Repair Garage out of the remaining blue garage building. The use would be P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 3 of 6 allowed to continue operations under the existing site layout, without being subject to any requirements for site improvements or enhancements. Approval with No Conditions: PAC may choose to approve the reconstruction of the Vehicle Repair Garage and PAC Variances without conditions. This approach would allow the reconstruction to occur based on the proposed site plan and would not tie the redevelopment to conditions intended to enhance the site conditions. This form of approval would result in limited site improvements including the reduction of the site accesses, but the broader site improvements that would be established through conditions would not be applicable. Approval with Conditions: A third option before PAC is to approve the reconstruction of the Vehicle Repair Garage and PAC Variances with conditions. This approach would allow the reconstruction to occur subject to a series of conditions that would seek to improve the site conditions and functionality of the site. While a series of conditions have been proposed, PAC would have the discretion to consider additional conditions. This could include conditions involving securities or deposits or establishing limitations on the number of vehicles that can be located on the property. As the applicant has indicated a willingness to meet the conditions of the approval, this may be a viable option in which to move forward. Using aerial imagery, staff has tracked the vehicle volume from 2004 to 2025. This provides a snapshot of onsite vehicle parking (including parking for the business and dwelling unit) and provides insight into the intensity of the use. During these years, the number of vehicles parked onsite has ranged from 2 to 28. Year2004 20062008 2010 2012 2014 2015 20162018 2020 2022 2025 Number 4 2 16 27 13 3 15 11 18 16 13 28 of Vehicles If PAC were to incorporate a condition that limits the number of vehicles that can be parked onsite, it would be recommended to establish the number based on historical information and the proposed onsite parking layout. Refer the Application to Common Council refer the application for the reconstruction of the structure associated with the non-conforming use to Common Council for a decision. Sections 61(1)-61(5) of the Community Planning Act provide a mechanism under which Common Council has authority over non-conforming uses. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 4 of 6 61(1) The council may require that any land, building or structure containing a non- conforming use shall be maintained and kept in a condition appropriate to the area in which it is located, in accordance with standards prescribed by the council. 61(2) If standards have been prescribed under subsection (1), the council may give to the owner and to the occupier of the land, building or structure written notice, indicating (a)the prescribed standards, (b)the consequences of failing to comply with the standards, and (c)the right of appeal under section 120. 61(3) If the standards prescribed under subsection (1) are not complied with, the council may (a)perform, at the expense of the owner or occupier, the work required to meet the standards, or (b)require the termination of the use. This approach outlines mechanisms for enforcement under which Common Council would have the authority and jurisdiction to either undertake site improvements to bring the property into alignment with prescribed conditions or to require the cessation of the use. It is important to note that PAC would have the jurisdiction over PAC Variances and would therefore be required to render a decision on that portion of the application. This approach would allow the reconstruction to occur subject to a series of conditions that would seek to improve the site conditions and functionality of the use. Compliance If approval is granted, there are processes in place to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. Building Permit If approval is granted for the reconstruction of the building, the applicant will be required to receive a building permit prior to construction occurring. Building Permits are reviewed and approved by City Building Inspectors, Engineers and Development Officers. The review ensures that the proposed development aligns with Municipal regulations in addition to the National Building Code. Building Permits are approved subject to conditions, which regulate the development. If the approvals are granted subject to conditions, these conditions will be incorporated into the Building Permit approval. Prior to the Building Permit being closed, the Building Inspector will ask t the completion of these conditions. as non-compliant. If a Building Permit is non-compliant, City staff will work with the applicant to achieve compliance. If compliance is not achieved, further enforcement actions will be taken. This traditionally includes the registration of the violations on the Land Gazette. This Land P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 5 of 6 have been addressed. Security or Deposit PAC may also choose to add a condition requiringthata security or deposit be taken for the development. The taking of security or deposit provides a financial incentive to the applicant, as the money would only be refunded upon the completion of the associated conditions. Additionally, a security or deposit could also be utilized by the City to undertake work to rectify non-compliance with the conditions. This process would be subject to broader considerations and would be limited based on the value of the security or deposit taken. Council Authority Lastly, if the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of approval, staff can bring forth the non-conforming use to Common Council for the establishment of conditions and the theoretical enforcement of said conditions. Sections 61(1)-61(5) of the Community Planning Act which outlines Common Council’s authority over non-conforming uses does not limit the process to . This process can be undertaken for any non- conforming use and provides a mechanism to enhance and integrate non-conforming uses into the surrounding built form. Enforcement Regardless of the decision rendered, all properties within the City are subject to compliance with Municipal and Provincial regulations. The following are a few of the Municipal Programs and By-Laws in place that serve as enforcement tools. -Law -Law establishes regulations for the use of streets within City limits. Some of the regulations within this By-Law which would be applicable to this use include: . Prohibiting vehicles or trailers from being repaired while on a street. Noise By-Law The Noise By-Law establishes regulations related to noise and sound within City limits. This includes the restricted use of domestic outdoor power tools or construction equipment between the hours of 9pm and 7am. Property By-Law Compliance Programs The City has an enforcement program which addresses the appearance, safety, and integrity of buildings and properties across the City. This program is a complaint-based program, which relies on members of the public to report a property for inspection. Traffic Update Currently, parking is permitted on both sides of McLaughlin Crescent from Westmorland Road to Barbara Crescent aside from specific prohibitions laid out in the City's Traffic By- P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 6 of 6 Law or Provincial Motor Vehicle Act that are communicated by on-street parking signage such as blocking driveways, blocking a fire hydrant, parking within 10 metres of traffic lights, or 5 metres of an intersection. Upon further review with this development file before the Planning Advisory Committee, the City's Transportation Services team believes that parking on both sides of this section of McLaughlin Crescent would prevent or impede the passing of other vehicles on this two-way street given available width, which is also not permitted as per the City's Traffic By-Law. To maximize remaining on-street parking availability, Transportation Services intends to direct that parking on the north side of this section of McLaughlin (the side with the subject auto repair garage) be signed as "No Parking Anytime", thereby leaving parking along the majority of the south side of this street section. Transportation Services also believe that any further parking restrictions on this section of McLaughlin Crescent would require a specific change to the city's Traffic By- Law that would need to be considered by Common Council at a later date. Transportation Services understands the planned prohibition of parking on the north side of McLauglin Crescent would address some concern raised during the prior PAC public hearing as it would mitigate narrowing of the street previously caused by parking on both sides. However, Transportation Services cautions that there is very limited ability to further limit which vehicles are parked on the remaining street sections in the vicinity of the repair garage without intervention of by-law changes supported by Common Council. In other words, there is virtually no way with the proposed plan to prevent vehicles associated with the garage to be parked on-street where on-street parking is permitted, and with further limited on-street parking capacity as a result of the proposed plan, this may further impede on-street parking capacity available to area residents. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Historical Information P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Small city, big heart. Petiteville,grandcœur. Date: August 13, 2026 To:Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting:Tuesday, August 18, 2026, at 6 PM From: Jennifer Kirchner, RPP, MCIP, Senior Planner Application 26-157: Non-Conforming Use and PAC Variances Location/ Address: 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 27, 2026, Anas Nasan, on behalf of Better Steering and Automotive Inc. appliedto reconstruct a building containing a potential non-conforming use. The approval would enable the Vehicle Repair Garage to be reconstructed on the Low-Rise Residential (RL) property. The applicanthas described the project as the reconstruction of a 24’ by 42’ building to be located on the same footprint as the recently demolished structure. The applicant has also applied forvariances to the development standards of the Zoning By-Law. Approval of the reconstruction of the potential non-conforming use and the associated variances would permit the continued use of the site for a Vehicle Repair Garage. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONTO PAC These include: a)Denial of both the reconstruction and variances. b)Approval of the reconstruction and/or variances with conditions. c)Approval of the reconstruction and/or variances without conditions. d) e)Send the application to Common Council for consideration. P.O.Box1971SaintJohn,NBCanadaE2L4L1 C.P. 1971SaintJohn,N.-B.CanadaE2L4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 2 of 16 STAFF REPORT REQUEST Application 26-157: Restoration of a Non-Conforming Use and PAC Variances Property Owners(s): Better Steering and Automotive Inc. Applicant: Anas Nasan PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Civic Address: 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent PID: 55246789 Lot Size: 1,659.88 m² Plan Designation: Stable Residential Current Zoning: Low-Rise Residential (RL) LEGAL JURISDICTION The Community Planning Act under s. 60(2)(b) authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to permit the repair or restoration of a building or structure containing a non- conforming use, that has been damaged to the extent of at least half of the whole building or structure, exclusive of the foundation. Pursuant to the CPA (see, e.g., City of Fredericton v. Liu, 2021 NBQB 203) a true non-conforming use must have: 1) been lawful at some point prior to a by-law change which made it non-conforming; and 2) continued since the time it became non-conforming (see, e.g., City of Fredericton v Liu, 2021 NBQB 203). The Community Planning Act under s. 55(1)(b) authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to permit reasonable variances from the requirements … of a zoning by-law, if it is of the opinion that the variance is desirable for the development of a parcel of land or a building or structure and is in keeping with the general intent of the by-law and any plan under this \[Community Planning\] Act affecting the development. FINAL ACTIONS The reconstruction of a Non-Conforming Use and the Variances may be granted, denied, or granted with conditions by the PAC at its meeting on August 18, 2026. The application may also be tabled for further information or sent to Common Council for consideration. APPLICATION SUMMARY The applicant seeks to reconstruct a Vehicle Repair Garage that was demolished in 2026. The Vehicle Repair Garage, established in the 1960s, is located on a Low-Rise Residential (RL) property at 4-6 McLaughlin Cresent. The applicant indicated that the use is non- conforming, and as such, the reconstruction of a building associated with a non- conforming use is subject to approval of the Planning Advisory Committee. City records P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 3 of 16 cannot confirm the planning mechanism under which the Vehicle Repair Garage was established or that the use meets the criteria to be considered a non-conforming use. Site development, including the reconstruction of a building that does not conform to a zone standard, is subject to all other applicable provisions of the Zoning By-Law. This includes site development regulations associated with site access, landscaping, and parking. The application proposes enhancements to onsite landscaping, parking and parking lot screening. Variances are being requested for reductions to landscaping, the location of the parking lot and to permit two site accesses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PAC a)Denial of both the reconstruction and variances. b)Approval of the reconstruction and/or variances with conditions. c)Approval of the reconstruction and/or variances without conditions. d) e)Send the application to Common Council for consideration. If PAC were to proceed with approval of the requested applications, it is suggested that the approvals be subject to conditions. That the Planning Advisory Committee, as per Section 2.8(2)(b) of the Zoning By-Law, approve the request to restore a building containing a non-conforming use located at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent, subject to the following conditions: a)The parking lot and site accesses shall be developed and maintained with a paved surface enclosed with permanent continuous cast-in-place concrete curbing and all parking spaces shall be delineated by painted lines on the paved surface. b)The parking lot be developed with screening for those portions of the parking lot that abut the residential properties located at 2 McLaughlin Crescent and 6 Barbara Crescent. The screening shall align with the requirements established in Sections 5.3 and 6.1(j) of the Zoning By-Law. c)The parking lot contain a minimum of 13 parking spaces as required with the Zoning By-Law for the Vehicle Repair Garage and associated Dwelling Unit. This shall include barrier-free parking spaces as required by the Barrier-Free Design Building Code regulation for the Province of New Brunswick. d)That operations of the Vehicle Repair Garage, including the repair of vehicles and storage of materials and parts, be limited to the interior of the two garage buildings. e)That onsite garbage storage be developed as per Section 5.4 of the Zoning By-Law. f)That the applicant submit a building permit application for the roof structure which connects the garage and the dwelling unit. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 4 of 16 g)That all surface drainage from the parking and vehicle maintenance areas (both interior and exterior) must be contained within the property boundaries and treated with an oil-grit separator before discharging to the municipal sewer system. That the Planning Advisory Committee approve the following variances subject to the recommended conditions. 1.To permit two, two-way accesses on a frontage of less than 75 metres, subject to the following conditions: a)That each access be limited to a maximum width of 9 metres. b)That front yard landscaping and hard surfacing of the accesses be undertaken to formalize the site access locations. c)That the full-height curb on McLaughlin Crescent be reinstated to align with the new site accesses. 2.To permit a parking lot to be located within 2.4 metres of the front and rear property lines, and 2.85 metres of the side property line, subject to the following conditions: a)The required front, side, flankage and rear yard landscaping incorporate sod or hydroseed as the principal ground covering. b)That the front yard landscaping incorporates the planting of a minimum of 3 trees, with 1 tree to be located within each of the 3 landscaped areas identified on the site plan. c)That the side and rear yard landscaping, adjacent to 2 McLaughlin Crescent and 6 Barbara Crescent, incorporate screening as per the requirements established in Sections 5.3 and 6.1(j) of the Zoning By-Law. 3.To permit a reduction in the landscaping areas from 4.5 metres to 2.4 metres for the front yard and from 6 metres to 2.4 metres in the rear yard, subject to the following conditions: a)The required front and rear yard landscaping incorporate sod or hydroseed as the principle ground covering. b)That the front yard landscaping incorporate the planting of 3 trees, with 1 planting located within each of the 3 landscaped areas identified on the site plan. DECISION HISTORY As established using historic orthophotos, the Vehicle Repair Garage was constructed prior to 1967. As per the 1967 images, the site contained a one-unit dwelling and two buildings associated with the commercial operations. The Zoning By-Law (adopted May 25, 1937) and the associated zoning map (September 1, 1963) surrounding neighbourhood as being zoned for residential land uses, through the Two P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 5 of 16 Family Dwelling zone. The City records do not indicate the mechanism under which the Vehicle Repair Garage was developed, or any variances to the commercial development standards of the time. Staff are unable to determine if the Vehicle Repair Garage is a non- conforming use. It is believed that a Vehicle Repair Garage has been in continuous operation on the site since its original construction. The subject site and land use were the subject of a discussion at an October 28, 1975, meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee. The PAC was in receipt of complaints made by neighbouring residents associated with the Vehicle Repair Garage. The PAC minutes from the meeting indicate that the property had been taken to PAC on three separate occasions to deal with the Vehicle Repair Garage. The letter was received after PAC, at its September 11, 1975 Meeting, denied a request to permit the operation of an insurance business from the site in addition to the Vehicle Repair Garage. The complaints were associated with: The grounds being kept in poor condition. Tires and other related goods on display outside of the garage. No attempt having been made to pave or upgrade the site entrances. The poor condition of the parking lot. And that the insurance business was in operation despite PAC’s denial of the request. At a subsequent meeting of PAC on November 16, 1976, the Building Inspector indicated that the insurance business had ceased operations and that the property owner had undertaken some cleanup of the site. In 2025, Building Permit 25-0161 was issued for the roof replacement of the 24’ by 42’ building that formed part of the Vehicle Repair Garage. In spring 2026, staff were informed that the building was demolished. No application was made for a demolition permit. A building permit application was made to reconstruct the 24’ by 42’ Vehicle Repair Garage. ANALYSIS Proposal The proposed application would permit the reconstruction of a 24’ by 42’, potential non- conforming Vehicle Repair Garage at 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent. The subject site, which is zoned Low-Rise Residential (RL), does not permit a Vehicle Repair Garage. The applicant has indicated that the Vehicle Repair Garage is a non-conforming use. The reconstruction of any buildings or structures associated with a non-conforming use is subject to approval by the Planning Advisory Committee. The City records do not indicate the mechanism under which the Vehicle Repair Garage was developed, or any variances to the commercial development standards of the time. Staff are unable to determine if the Vehicle Repair Garage is a non-conforming use. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 6 of 16 Section 8.5 of the Zoning By-Law allows the reconstructionand repair of buildings that do not conform to the zone standards provided that the structure otherwise meets all other provisions of the Zoning By-Law. This would include site development standards such as requirements for landscaping, parking lot screening and parking lot design. The applicant is requesting variances to the development standards set forth in the Zoning By-Law associated with parking and landscaping. A review of the variances is incorporated within the body of this report for consideration. Approval of these applications would permit the redevelopment of the Vehicle Repair Garage and would enable its ongoing use. The requested variances would, in turn, enable the site development to continue at a standard otherwise not permitted within the City. Site and Neighbourhood The subject site is located on the east side of the City, in the Westmorland Heights area. The site is located on the northeast side of McLaughlin Cresent, near the intersection of McLaughlin Crescent and Westmorland Road. The property is located inside the City’s Primary Development Area. Prior to 1967, the property was developed to contain a one-unit dwelling and two buildings which were utilized for a Vehicle Repair Garage. It is understood that the site has continuously been utilized for a Vehicle Repair Garage since its initial development in the 1960s. was established. The subject site is located within a residential neighbourhood that contains a mixture of one-unit, two-unit, townhouses and small-scale apartment buildings. These lands are zoned Low-Rise Residential (RL) and Mid-Rise Residential (RM) respectively. Located on McLaughlin Crescent are two sites that are zoned Local Commercial (CL) that contain a hair salon (personal service) Plan and Policy Alignment The subject site is designated Stable Residential within the Municipal Plan. The Stable Residential designation is utilized for existing neighbourhoods across the City that are generally built-out and are not anticipated to receive major change over the planning period. Policy LU-86 indicates that compatible uses, such as convenience stores, home occupations, parks and community facilities, are permitted within the designation without an amendment to the Municipal Plan. The Municipal Plan addresses the existence of non-conforming uses within the City. Given the historic nature of the City, there are existing land uses that exist in locations that may not be appropriate under today’s best practices for land use planning. While these uses cannot be forced to relocate, the Community Planning Act establishes a process to address these non-conforming uses. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 7 of 16 Policy LU-127 establishes a framework for addressing non-conforming uses within the City. Continue to allow non-conforming uses to carry on with their operations in accordance with the relevant requirements of the New Brunswick Community Planning Act, however, the City will encourage the relocation of incompatible uses to more appropriate locations in accordance with the land use hierarchy set out in the Municipal Plan. Given that non-conforming uses can involve a range of land uses, the level of compatibility with the surrounding area can vary. Some community and commercial uses, such as parks, convenience stores, and home occupations are as being compatible within residential neighbourhoods. The Zoning By-Law further contemplates this intention through the development of the Local Commercial (CL) and Neighbourhood Community Facility (CFN) zones, which support a range of uses that neighbourhoods. For those types of non-conforming uses, a rezoning can bring the property into conformance. Some commercial uses are subject to conditions of use, which are established through the Zoning By-Law. The conditions of use serve to regulate site selection, establishes minimum separation distances from other uses including residential zones and reduces . The Vehicle Repair Garage use is one such example, as a condition of use prevents them from being located adjacent to residentially zoned land. The subject site is zoned Low-Rise Residential (RL). The RL zone is intended to support a range of low-density, ground oriented residential development, as well as limited commercial uses such as home occupations and home day cares. The RL zone does not permit the development of a Vehicle Repair Garage, nor is the use permitted to be developed as a home occupation. The Vehicle Repair Garage was believed to have been established in the 1960s. The City records do not indicate the approval process associated with the development or any variances to the development standards in place at the time of development. City Records do indicate that the Vehicle Repair Garage was in operation in 1975. The Zoning By-Law permits the development of a Vehicle Repair Garage within certain commercial (Corridor Commercial, Regional Commercial, General Commercial, Rural General Commercial, and Regional Commercial Residential) and industrial (Light Industrial and Medium Industrial) zones. For those commercial zones that permit the establishment of a Vehicle Repair Garage, the use is subject to Conditions of Use. The condition of use prohibits the use from being established on a lot that is adjacent to a residential zone. Therefore, the rezoning of the P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 8 of 16 property to a commercial zone would not bring the property into conformance with the Zoning By-Law. Non-conforming uses are regulated in s. 60 of the Community Planning Act and are addressed in Section 2.8(2) of the Zoning By-Law. under which the Vehicle Repair Garage was granted Municipal approval, they are unable to verify if the use can be considered a non-conforming use. 2.8(2)(b) establishes that the Committee may authorize The repair or restoration or use of a building or structure containing a non- conforming use which, in the opinion of the Committee, has been damaged to the extent of at least half of the whole building or structure, exclusive of the foundation; Section 8.5 of the Zoning By-Law further addresses existing building and structures located in all zones. This Section establishes the following: Nothing in this By-law shall prevent any repair, renovation, reconstruction, or enlargement of a building or structure that does not conform to a zone standard provided: (a)The repair, renovation, reconstruction, or enlargement does not further reduce the zone standard that does not conform to this By- law; and (b)All other applicable provisions of this By-law are satisfied. -conforming use, the Committee would have the jurisdictional authority to authorize the reconstruction of the building and to render decisions associated with any variances to standards within the Zoning By-Law. As - Law including landscaping, parking lot standards and site screening. The submitted site plan incorporates the following development standards as required in the Zoning By-Law: Parking lot screening for the side and rear yards adjacent to residential lots. The screening includes the existing rear yard landscaping and a fence on the side yard. Provision of a minimum of 13 parking stalls as required for the Vehicle Repair Garage and Dwelling Unit. The site plan illustrates 15 parking stalls. Existing and proposed landscaping areas in the side, rear, and front yards. In addition, as per the requirements of the Zoning By-Law, the applicant will be required to undertake site improvements. This will include but not be limited to: Upgrading the site accesses and parking lot with hardsurfacing, and to delineate the parking stalls with painted lines and permanent curbs. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 9 of 16 Provision of barrier-free parking stalls as per the requirements of the National Building Code. Upgrading the garbage bins to meet the garbage enclosure requirements. The applicant has requested that the following variances be considered for this application. Zoning RequirementRequested VarianceAnalysis 4.1(2)(b)To permit 2 two-way The existing site development has The number of two-accesses on a established a site access that extends 26 way accesses shall frontage of less than metres across the lot frontage. This has be limited to one for 75 metres. been used to provide access to the each lot frontage parking lot, blue vehicle repair garage except when the lot and dwelling unit. The access area, has a frontage over which includes 7 metres of Road Right of 75 metres then two Way, has also been utilized for vehicle accesses are parking. permitted if a minimum of 20 The proposed site development will metres is provided reduce the site access from 26 metres to between the two 9-metre-wide accesses. Through the centreline of each formalization of the site accesses, it will access measured at serve to reduce the width of the site the street line. access, ensure controlled access in and out of the site, and will eliminate the use of the front yard for additional parking. 4.2(5)(i) To permit a portion of Section 4.2(5)(i) of the Zoning By-Law A parking lot shall the parking lot to be requires that parking lots be located not be provided in developed within the outside the required landscaped areas. any landscaped area required 4.5m front This ensures physical separation required by Part 6 or yard, 6m rear yard between the parking lot and adjacent within: and 3m side yard properties and that landscaping and (i)Three metres of a landscaping areas. screening can be provided on site. side or rear lot line if the abutting This variance would Staff undertook a review of the site plan lot is located in a permit the parking lot to determine the site development Residential zone to be located within limitations based on the site layout, and does not 2.4 metres of the building placement and measurements. contain or permit front yard, side yard a commercial use and the rear yard. Front Yard as defined by the The parking area (13 stalls) accounts for subsection 4.1(2); 35.66 metres of the overall 41.3 metre lot depth. This leaves 5.64 metres for front and rear yard landscaping and onsite garbage enclosure. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 10 of 16 Zoning Requirement Requested VarianceAnalysis The proposed layout identifies a 2.4 metre setback between the parking lot and the front yard. Rear Yard The proposed layout establishes a separation distance of 8.5 metres to 11.4 metres between the building to the property line. Within this space, a 6m- wide driving aisle will provide two-way onsite circulation. This provides 2.5 metres for a minimum landscaped buffer. Side Yard The proposed layout establishes an 8.85 metre setback from the building to the property line. Within this space, a 6m- wide driving aisle will provide two-way onsite circulation. This provides for a 2.85 metre landscaped buffer. 6.1(f) To reduce the Section 6.1(f) of the Zoning By-Law In a Commercial required landscaping outlines landscaping requirements for zone the following areas: Commercial zoned lands. While the site areas shall be 4.5m front yard is zoned Residential, it is recommended landscaped: 6m rear yard that landscaping be undertaken based on (i)All required front the Commercial zone, due to the existing and flankage This variance would commercial use. yards; reduce the (ii)All required landscaping areas to The proposed variances would reduce yards that abut a 2.4 metres for the the landscaping areas for the front and lot in a front and rear yards.rear yards of the property. Residential or Community As illustrated above, staff reviewed the Facility zone; site plan to determine the site and development limitations based on the (iii)All other areas site layout, building placement and not occupied by measurements. a building, structure, Based on the proposed parking layout parking area, and requirement for onsite circulation, driveway, the applicant would be unable to meet P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 11 of 16 Zoning Requirement Requested VarianceAnalysis walkway, or the landscaping requirements for the amenity space. front and rear yard. Both the front and rear yards landscaping areas are limited due to the proposed building location, 6- metre driving aisle and parking space dimensions. The requested variances are associated with site access, parking, and landscaping. As sites evolve and restoration work occurs, it provides an opportunity to address existing site conditions and have sites achieve better alignment with the development standards outlined in the Zoning By-Law. Some variances, such as the request to permit two site accesses, is directly tied to the existing site layout and buildings. The variance acknowledges this existing state but through conditions of approval, the site will benefit from streamlined access and an enhanced user experience. Other variances are requested to reduce development standards associated with landscaping and the location of the parking lot. These development standards seek to provide visual and physical separation between the private and public realm, and to reduce the impact between residential and non-residential land uses. These variances would seek to reduce the landscaping area of the property and enable the parking lot to be in closer proximity to adjacent residential properties and the public street. When considering these variances, it is important to consider the impact they may have on the surrounding properties and to determine if other development standards can compensate for the loss of landscaped areas. Through variance conditions, it can help to ensure that the remaining landscaping areas are developed in a manner that still meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law. Service Area Review The planning application was circulated to City service areas, external agencies, and governmental departments for feedback. Feedback provided through the review have been incorporated into the proposed conditions. Responses from the review are below. InternalService Areas Feedback Infrastructure and All surface drainage from parking and vehicle maintenance Saint John Water areas (both interior and exterior) must be contained within the property boundaries and treated with an oil-grit separator before discharging to the municipal sewer system. Wastewater that does not meet the requirements of Section 21 of the Water and Sewerage By-law may not be discharged to the municipal sewer system. Prior to permit approvals, the developer is required to prepare a storm drainage submission demonstrating that the proposed changes will not increase the peak rate of P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 12 of 16 stormwater runoff from the property, nor create any kind of adverse drainage effect. Recommend establishing the north side of McLaughlin Crescent between Westmorland Road and Barbara Crescent as a permanent no-parking zone. Building No concerns with the proposal to rebuild the garage in the location of the former structure or the requested variances. The proposed structure will need to meet the standards of the 2020 National Building Code and Energy Code. No deviation from the current code is permitted. The proposed structure and site development will be required to incorporate barrier-free parking stalls and the new structure will need to be barrier-free accessible and meet the standards of the Barrier-Free Design Building Code regulation for the Province of New Brunswick. In addition, a roof structure which connects the garage and the dwelling unit was undertaken without a building permit. The applicant will be required to apply for a building permit for the site work, which shall require submitted plans for the roof structure. Emergency The review conducted by the Saint John Fire Department is a Management review for compliance with the National Fire Code, 2020 Edition, and the National Building Code, 2020 Edition, and city ordinance as it pertains to fire and life safety. The items contained herein are not deemed to be an exhaustive list, and additional items may be noted as the project continues. It is important to understand that it is ultimately the owner’s responsibility to maintain compliance with the National Building and Fire Codes, and inspections and reviews are audits, not comprehensive lists of design, construction, operation, or maintenance deficiencies. The drawing submitted as part of the application raises several questions which should be answered prior to construction. The proposed development may exceed the existing infrastructure’s ability to provide sufficient fire suppression water. An analysis of the required and available fire flow shall be conducted and provided to Saint John Fire Prevention for review. Such an analysis shall be conducted in accordance with the fire underwriters survey 2025. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 13 of 16 If the results of the analysis reveal that there is inadequate water the proponent shall address it through one or more of the following measures: iUpgrades to the existing infrastructure, iiInstallation of residential sprinklers in conformance with NFPA 13, 13R or 13D depending on the nature of the development, or iiiSupplement the existing infrastructure with another source of water for fire suppression. Regarding the construction and modernization of the garage. The proponent shall identify all changes to service, including modernized technology. For example, if the business always performed oil changes, and they’re going to continue to perform them but they’re changing their equipment for the collection or storage of used oil it must be identified. The Saint John Fire Department is particularly interested in a.Anything related to the storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids including but not limited to: i.Windshield washer fluid ii.Used oil iii.New oil b.Any hazardous processes including but not limited to: i.Hot works such as welding or grinding ii.Body work involving paint spraying, dipping, or coating. Regarding the landscaping comments and request for variance, the landscaping in this area shall incorporate the principles and practices of FireSmart into land development planning. The proponent shall include for all plans a FireSmart assessment, and detailed plan for landscaping, land development, and planting in this area which complies with the best practices of FireSmart Canada. Before commencement of site preparation or construction, a Construction Fire Safety Plan must be prepared and submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. Such a plan shall conform to the requirements of the following: a. National Building Code, 2020 Edition Part 8 – Safety Measures at Construction and Demolition Sites, and P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 14 of 16 b. National Fire Code, 2020 Edition Section 2.8 – Emergency Planning (specifically Articles 2.8.2.1. Measures in a Fire Safety Plan, and 2.8.2.11. Construction and Demolition Sites) The proponent must prepare and submit to the Saint John Fire Department a Fire Safety Plan for the operation and care of the building, its systems, and occupants. a. National Fire Code, 2020 Edition Section 2.8 – Emergency Planning When preparing a Fire Safety Plan, the proponent should keep in mind that the travel time from the nearest active Fire Station is 2 minutes. When call taking, dispatch, and turnout times are factored in, the total ‘response time’ from call initiation to the first Fire Truck on scene is estimated at 4 minutes +/- and 9 minutes +/- for the second, third, and fourth Fire Trucks to arrive. The Saint John Fire Department has no objections to this planning application. However, the construction and development of the lot will still require a building permit, and shall conform to the National Building Code and National Fire Code of Canada. ParksNo concerns. Trafficand Parking 1.The site shall be fully paved and provide clearly defined, Commissionlined parking spaces throughout the parking area. Historical parking patterns, based on site observations and a review of historical photographs, indicate that parking demand has often exceeded the formal parking supply, with vehicles frequently parking within the lot and along portions of the municipal right-of-way. As a result, on-street parking shall be restricted in accordance with existing parking regulations on McLaughlin Crescent. 2.McLaughlin Crescent is too narrow to safely accommodate parking on both sides of the street while maintaining adequate traffic operations and access for maintenance and emergency vehicles. 3.Street trees shall be required along McLaughlin Crescent in lieu of shrubs to maintain and improve traffic sightlines and enhance overall roadway safety. 4.A full-height curb shall be installed along the street frontage between the two proposed driveways. TransitNo comments. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 15 of 16 Operations The use of on street parking for customers and disabled vehicles has and will continue to create a hinderance to snow clearing. The design of the hardscaped areas on the property for parking should be designed to ensure that no excessive stormwater is diverted onto the roadway. GIS No concerns. External Agencies RogersNo concernsifthe development does not impact the existing Public Utility Easement. BellNo concerns as long as a Right of Way remains for utility requirements. Saint John Energy No comments. Liberty UtilitiesNo concerns. Enbridge/Emera No comments. Conditions Staff has recommended that any approval to reconstruct the building or the requested variances be subject to conditions. These conditions will establish requirements associated with site development and operations including parking, landscaping, screening, site access and permitting. Conclusion The proposed application involves a use which does not conform with the requirements of the Zoning By-Law. Staff are unable to verify the non-conforming status of this use. Non- Community Planning Act, which permits their continuance. Over time, non-conforming uses often relocate, are formalized through a rezoning process, or ultimately cease operation once the buildings are at the end of their lifespan. The approval of the reconstruction of the Vehicle Repair Garage will extend the lifespan of this use into the future. If considering approval, PAC should consider the addition of conditions to support site upgrades and to reduce the impact to the surrounding properties. ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS a)Denial of both the reconstruction and variances. b)Approval of the reconstruction and/or variances with conditions. c)Approval of the reconstruction and/or variances without conditions. d) e)Send the application to Common Council for consideration. P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Better Steering and Automotive Inc. 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Page 16 of 16 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT sent to landowners within 100 metres of the subject property on July 27, 2026. Letters were sent to 58 properties. As of the date of this report, 30 letters and 1 petition were received regarding this application. 18 letters and a petition were submitted in opposition to the proposal. 5 letters were received in support and an additional 7 letters indicated support of the development subject to conditions. STAFF CONTACT Name: Jennifer Kirchner, RPP, MCIP, Senior Planner Email: jennifer.kirchner@saintohn.ca Phone: 506-639-7933 APPENDICES Map 1: Aerial Photography Map 2: Future Land Use Map 3: Zoning Attachment 1: Site Photography Submission 1: Site Plan and Renderings c: Amy Poffenroth, P. Eng., MBA, Commissioner, Growth & Community Services Pankaj Nalavde, RPP, MCIP, Director of Community Planning & Housing Bill Mackey, MCIP, AICP, Manager of Community Planning P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 C.P. 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 SAINTJOHN.CA Buubdinfou!2;!Tjuf!QipuphsbqizNdMbvhimjo!Dsftdfou!Gspoubhf!dpoubjojoh!uif!Wfijdmf!Sfqbjs!Hbsbhf!boe!uif!Exfmmjoh!VojuQbsljoh!Mpu!boe!Sfbs!Zbse!Mboetdbqjoh Joufstfdujpo!pg!NdMbvhimjo!Dsftdfou!boe!Cbscbsb!DsftdfouUif!Cbscbsb!Dsftdfou!Gmbolbhf!Zbse From:Marilyn To:OneStop Subject:4 and 6 McLaughlin Crescent (PID: 55246789) Date:August 11, 2026 9:39:13 PM You don't often get email from aliantbabe@yahoo.ca. Learn why this is important \[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** PAC Meeting: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 My address: 3 McLaughlin Crescent I support the proposed development if the following concerns are addressed & upheld: - visual - all equipment, furniture, car parts, tires, garbage, etc., are not stored or laying around within sight from the street. This would decrease value of residents properties & is unsightly. - parking on street - most of the day employees and/or customers vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. This impedes emergency vehicles from going up or down McLaughlin Crescent.This also makes getting out of driveways very dangerous, as it's a blind hill & residents can't see any traffic coming because parked vehicles are blocking view. The parking lot should have a maximum number of vehicles at one time, which also includes daily incoming vehicles. The parking lot is full of vehicles at night, with salvaged vehicles & vehicles that have been there for a long time. This leaves no room for incoming vehicles to park on lot. - salvage cars - these are being rebuilt or fixed up or used for parts. I don't want it to become an auto salvage yard. They are now stored within sight of the street. - business hours be kept & not loud machinery being heard until late evening. All of the above concerns directly impact me, as I own the house across the street from the garage. Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer From:Shaun Abbott To:OneStop Subject:Restoration at 6 and 4 Mclaughlin Date:August 11, 2026 2:55:58 PM You don't often get email from abbottshaun78@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important \[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** To whom it may concern, I Shaun Abbott Resident at 25 Barbara Crescent, Saint John. I am one of the residents close to the proposed restoration at 4 and 6 McLaughlin. Let the owners restore the property. I have also been a letter carrier in this area for the past 20 years. The previous owner Phillip Bettle. He was a great mechanic but he let the property deteriorate. The current owner has been fixing up the area. All the Japanese Knotwood growing everywhere was removed. The shingles that blew everywhere were dealt with when they replaced the roof. Before these fine folks took over there were cars everywhere on the street. They cleared the side lot and moved the bulk of the traffic snarl onto their own property. They have painted and repaired the main building. They have a public bathroom that useable now. For all that's good and holy let them continue restoring this garage. From:landerson7242@gmail.com To:OneStop Cc:landerson7242@gmail.com;blakeanderson1964@gmail.com Subject:4&6 MCLAUGHLIN CRES. PID 55246789 Date:August 10, 2026 8:29:30 PM You don't often get email from landerson7242@gmail.com. Learn why this is important \[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** Project description: RESTART OF BUILDING CONTAINING NON CONFORMING USE 1. Do you support the proposed development? No. I strongly oppose the proposed development and the conversion of these properties. 2. What are your top two or three concerns about the proposed development? My main concerns are traffic safety, the significant change and expansion of the business, and the impact on the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The property has been used for approximately 18 years as a small, one-bay, one-person specialized alignment business. The property was purchased by the current owners a few years ago, and the operation now being proposed is significantly different in both its nature and scale. I am concerned about the potential for a much larger auto-body operation, including vehicle dismantling, to result in significantly more vehicles, parts and materials being stored improperly on the property. I do not want our residential neighbourhood to become surrounded by a large accumulation of vehicles and vehicle parts. 3. How does the proposed development directly impact you? As a nearby resident, this development would directly affect my safety, the amount of traffic in the area, and the character of my neighbourhood. An auto repair facility/chop shop would bring increased vehicle traffic and activity into an area that is currently residential. The proposed access points also raise concerns about additional traffic moving through the surrounding residential streets. I am also very concerned about vehicles being parked along the roadway, particularly on the blind hill. I have personally come close to being hit on approximately three occasions. Increasing the size and activity of the business could make this safety concern considerably worse. 4. What are your recommendations for improving the proposal? I do not have recommendations for changes that would make me support this proposal. I believe the application should be denied. I am also requesting clarification regarding the proposed access/driveway shown on the plan, including how it will be used and how the additional traffic ans fluids will be managed. 5. Would you support the development as proposed? No. I strongly oppose the development as proposed. The small, one-bay specialized alignment business that operated at this location for many years is very different from the larger auto- body and chop shop now being proposed. I do not believe this significant change in the nature and scale of the business is appropriate for this residential neighbourhood. 6. Would you support the development with some changes? No. I would not support the development with changes. My concerns are with the proposed use of the property itself, the increased traffic, increased mishandling of toxic fluids and the impact this development would have on the surrounding residential neighbourhood. Kindest regards, Leanne & Blake Anderson #20 McLaughlin crescent Saint John NB E2J 2K2 Planning Advisory Committee Comment Form Project Location:4 and 6 McLaughlin Crescent (PID: 55246789) Project Description:Restoration of building containing non-conforming use PAC Meeting: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 Public Hearing: Your Name: David Arseneau & Tyler Arseneau Your Address: 32 McLaughlin Crescent 1.Do you support the proposed development? No, not with the lack of information provided; need more info on the proposed layout for one and accessibility to the site from the road. Recent observations of the site looks like its turning into a junk yard with numerous wrecked vehicles in the yard now. Additionallydue to the fact that the location is in a residential and not industrial area, this brings further concerns of noise and traffic. 2. What are your top two or three concerns about the proposed development? No information on the layout and parking, to control the access parking on the street which has been noted on both sides of the street which makes it extremely dangerousfor traffic flow and children come and going to school. 3. How does the proposed development directly impact you? We have been given no details on the proposal nor have we been permitted to obtain it. However, the new management has already proven to be an issue with the amount of debris, cars,noise, and accessibility. Cars are often parked or worked on in such a way that emergency vehicles would be unable to pass, and would have to go around another way. With McLean road having been blocked off, that already leaves McLaughlin and Barbara crescent with less routes of egress. Additional construction and a larger building for the auto shop is a concern for this reason, even without having access to the plans. 4. What are your recommendations for improving the proposal? Being more open with what they plan to do with the limited space in a residential area. 5. Would you support the developments proposed? No 6. Would you support the development with some changes? I would require more information before, and if they do not wish to comply than I'd so No. From:Asmar Khan To:OneStop Subject:4 and 6 McLaughlin Cres PID 55246789 Date:August 11, 2026 3:26:43 PM You don't often get email from asmarkhan202538@gmail.com. Learn why this is important \[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** Asmar Khan 11 Barbara Crescent, Saint John, NB E2J2K6 1) Yes, I do support the proposed deveoplment 2)I have no concerns, there has been a workshop there for the last 20+ years. 3) I have no recommendations, the deveoplment should proceed as proposed. 4)Yes, I would support the deveoplment as proposed. 5) Yes, I would support it. From:Mandy Malashevsky To:OneStop Subject:Comment for application of 4-6 McLaughlin crescent PID 55246789 Date:August 11, 2026 10:06:46 PM \[You don't often get email from mmalashevsky111@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification \] \[ External Email Alert\] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** Good evening, This is to comment on the application for 4-6 McLaughlin crescent PID 55246789. First we were not properly informed about this application or the ability to comment on it. As we live in the neighbourhood and are impacted by the business in question, we should have been informed properly and at the same time as other residences have been; the fact that we were not is in bad faith. 1. We do not support the development of the property at all. The business is not run with respect to the neighborhood, environment, or with the safety of residents in mind. It is a messy chaotic property and is too small for how they are trying to run their business. It is always in poor condition, appears to be a fire hazard at all times, and is trying to exploit the entire neighbourhood for use in their business plan. Further developments of this property would not improve this. 2. The top two concerns include safety and accessibility of our neighbourhood . Safety: Many times cars are whipping in and out of the parking lot of the business very quickly, without proper visibility due to the sheer volume of vehicles parked in the parking lot, all the way to the curb. We have almost been hit repeatedly either walking the dogs or even in our vehicles coming in and leaving the neighborhood due to this Behaviour. The fact that McLaughlin is usually down to only one lane due to the business parking their cars on the street, and working on the cars on the street, enhances the safety issues. The entire neighborhood is negatively impacted by how this business is run, and how it uses our roads. Multiple times daily many cars are test driven around Barbara and Carl court at a high rate of speed with no regard for residents safety. Accessibility: Many times we have been delayed, restricted, or completely blocked from entering our neighborhood due to multiple cars parked on both sides of the street belonging to, or in the care of the business. We have witnessed tow trucks blocking and taking up the entire roadway while delivering cars because the business parking lot is too full and congested for proper delivery. The business also parks cars on the corner and around the corner to Barbara crescent, so performing a right turn onto Barbara is most times impossible, and makes potential accidents more likely. Accessibility is also restricted by the fact that workers can sometimes be on the road doing work to the vehicles, which can limit the ability of any cars passing the business safely. 3. The proposed development directly impacts us. Our safety is always impacted since walking the dogs can be unsafe when the cars are test driven at high speeds throughout the neighbourhood. Safety is also impacted because emergency vehicles can be delayed or blocked from access to us in a timely manner. We are also directly impacted due to the Environmental and health impact of a badly run business with too many cars in various states of disrepair for extended periods of time. More vehicles pose more chemical issues. Many times we have seen very large piles of tires, improperly stored chemicals, and what appeared to be oil stains on the ground. If the current state of the business shows potential chemical hazards the safety of every single resident of our neighbourhood is in jeopardy at all times, especially if there is a fire. 4. Recommendations for improving the proposal: My suggestion is that the business be shut down and inspected for environmental damage and refined for residential property. The space is simply too small for a properly run automotive business to be run. They cannot handle their current level of vehicles properly, therefore any future development would just increase the problems. 5. We would NOT support the development as proposed. 6. We would NOT support the development with some changes. Thank you for your time, Mandy and Michael Rackley 4 Carl Court, Saint John NB (506) 636-0587 & (506)-721-6030 MRackley2023@gmail.com Have a Great day! Planning Advisory Committee Comment Form Project Location: 4&6 McLaughlin Crescent (PID 55246789) Project Description: Restoration of building containing non-conforming use. th PAC Meeting: Tuesday August 18, 2026 Danielle McPherson & Matthew Ritchie Address: 6 Barbara Crescent, Saint John, New Brunswick 1.Do you support the proposed development? Although we would love to see the property cleaned up andimproved upon. We are having a tough time supporting this project as the demolitionof the previousbuilding led to weeks of construction going sometimes as late as midnight. Our children were awoken by machinery, loud voices and tools late into the nightmultiple times, resulting in having to call the shop to make them stop, going outside and asking them to be quiet andcalling the non-emergency police line to make formal noise complaints. This was not a problem that we ever faced when it was owned by the previous owner.We would like this development to come with strict guidelines/enforceable rules that will not disrupt our lives. Even after the building has been torn down, we have been woken up after midnight with what sounded like a compressor as recently as the evening thth of August 8into the early hours of the morning of August 9, and again th now as I type this letter on August 10at 9pm. We love and support the idea of added greenery, and a capped number of parking spots on the property, as long asthat is the strict number of cars allowed on the property going forward. As of right now there appears to be at least double that parked in and around the property at any given time. Driving up McLaughlin and onto Barbara during the day, most days, results in having to slalom between cars parked all over the street.Some days the passage is just large enough for a passenger vehicle and emergency services would have been blocked from accessing Barbara Crescent and McLaughlin if required. If the development would prevent that from happening, we are more on board. 2.What are your top 2 or 3 concerns about the proposed development? Our top twoconcerns are noise, operation hours/construction hoursand overall operation of the property. a) Noise The business already seems to have little regard for the neighbours around them, and we are concerned that this new project will result in no sleep for us and our children because they could be working late into the night, for weeks at a time. We previously used to joke that we would not even know there was business next door, but since the new ownership, that has changed. On topof their untimely constructionhours they often park loud running trucks on the property between the hours of 4am and 6am andplow the lot with an ATV or 4-Wheeler during the winter with an extremely loud engine.We hope this project will streamline all their processes and make a positive difference instead of exasperatingan already inconvenientone. b) Operation Hours/Construction Hours/Overall OperationWe are also concerned about business hours going forward and what that will mean operate on a 9-5 schedule, butwe hope they take being in a residential neighbourhood into consideration going forward. If this project moves forward, we hope that the city will enforce noise by-laws and give them guidelines on appropriate times to work on this project so as not todisturb the neighbourhood around them.We also notice that their garbage piles around the property grow very large and occasionallyencroach onto our property, making it our job to clean up part of their mess. Additionally, several evenings in August a strong gasoline odor was present emanating fromtheir property.We hope this new development will result in more frequent disposal of garbage, and a better system of where they keep it. 3.How does the proposed development directly impact you? They are the property directly adjacent to us, making us the most impacted by proximity. We get the brunt of all the noise and garbage as our properties are connected. 4.What are your recommendations for improving the proposal? More dumpster spaces on the property, with a strict plan of how they plan to dispose of different materials, especially hazardous waste. Enforceable guidelines of when construction can be completed, and business hours. A strict maximum of only 15 cars on the lot, as depicted in the plan that is monitored by the city going forward to keep cars off the roads surrounding the area and grass. If they are paving the lot, we would be very interested in making sure they are installing proper drainage systems so our property is not affected by any water build-up on their property. Their plan to keep the cedar hedge and add lower shrubbery to the green space bordering our two properties, will require excessive removal and remediationof soilon both of our propertiesas that section along our shared property line isovergrown with Japaneseknotweed. It is a restricted and prohibited species of weed and will overtake anyplanned greenspace if not successfully cleaned up. 5.Would you support the development as proposed? While we like aspects of the proposed development, we hope that there will be strict stipulations of how it is carried out and then used going forward. But overall, a clean-up of the property would be greatly received. 6.Would you support the development with some changes? As long as it is carried out professionally, within reasonable business hours and all proper measures are taken to not affect the surrounding properties, we would support it.Although extra greenspace is an overall positive for the neighbourhood, we would request that one particular tree that borders our two properties be professionally trimmed to allow our power line to be unobstructed and free of debris. As we have already had to replace the attachment point to our house due to high winds shifting the tree branches which resulted in the anchor point being ripped from the structure.We would also only support this if going forward they were more mindful of their noise, garbage, and hours ofoperation. From:Manvir Singh To:OneStop Subject:Regarding 4&6 Mclaughlin Crescent/PID 55246789 Date:August 11, 2026 2:18:54 PM \[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** Hello, I have Attached my comments . Manvir singh 14 barbara Crescent, Saint John, NB E2J 2K7, Canada From:OneStop To:Kirchner, Jennifer Cc:OneStop Subject:FW: Application change 4&6 Mclaughlin Cresc, Saint John NB Date:August 4, 2026 8:54:19 AM Please see the comments below for your file. Candice Rideout, BSc Administrative Assistant/Adjointe Administrative One Stop Development Shop / Guichet unique pour l’aménagement City of Saint John / La Ville de Saint John Office / Bureau: (506) 658-4067 Website|Facebook| Shape Your City|Instagram -----Original Message----- From: sylvain cyr <jedi_linux@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2026 9:43 PM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Application change 4&6 Mclaughlin Cresc, Saint John NB \[You don't often get email from jedi_linux@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification \] \[ External Email Alert\] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** 1)Do you support the proposed Development? YES, but with minor modifications and few concerns, see number 2 2)What are your top 5 concerns about the proposed development a) Traffic control IN/Out of business on Mclaughlin Crescent. It is suggested that the new garage would be build at the very upper Left corner of the lot to give more parking space for client. It is suggested 3 entry to the business. One entry opening on Barbara Cresc, Keep the current one opening on Mclaughlin Cresc, and create a lane or private driveway opening on Westmorland Road by using the empty lot. It is suggested to have a hiding wiring fence to hide the property content has a lot of junk around the garage, from pile of old tires, old parts b) The main concern is not the garage, but the heavy in/out traffic since its opening. Having a lane extra on westmorland rd or at least a private driveway would help. This would help the whole neighborhood . 3)How the proposed development directly impact you? The garage is not the issue, only the traffic, and keep clean around the property. 4) What recommendations for improving the proposal? During the construction and landscaping , the garage would be closed. You cannot have contractors, it's employee, plus the client at the same time. The contractor employees would have to park further down Barbara Cresc. 5)Would you support the development as proposed? Yes, with modification of access to the property. High traffic around the business is an issue 6) Would you support with some changes? Yes Sylvain Cyr 35 Barbara Cres Saint John NB E2J 2K8 xbzof!wpvupvs 52!cbscbsb!dsftdfou Opu!gspn!xibu!j!tff!upebz 2/2!fyqboejoh!uijt!uzqf!pg!cvtjoftt-!xijdi!bu!uijt!ujnf!bmsfbez!mpplt!mjlf!b!#dipq!tipq#-!{pofe!gps!b!pof!cbz!hbsbhf!)ejmbqjube!cvjmejoh!pvucbdl!jt!gps!tupsbhf!pomz!boe!ibt!cffo!gps!uif!2:!zfbst!xf!i bwf!mjwfe!ifsf!voujm!ju!xbt!upsoepxo*!!!tipvme!opu!cf!jo!b!SFTJEFOUJBM!ofjhicpsippe/!3/!Xifo!Cfuumft!pxofe!uijt!cvtjoftt!ju!xbt!bmxbzt!lfqu!dmfbofe!vq!boe!qspgfttjpobm-!bu!uijt!ujnf!uif!gspou!boe!cbd l!mpplt!mjlf!b!kvol!zbse-/)ibwf!qipupt*4/!!Xf!bsf!fyusfnfmz!dpodfsofe!bcpvu!pvs!qspqfsuz!wbmvft/!Uijt!jt!tvdi!bo!fzf!tpsf!boe!ibt!cffo!tjodf!pqfojoh!voefs!uif!ofx!obnf/ 32/!jnqbdu!po!qbsljoh!boe!gmpx!pg!usbggjd!jo!boe!pvu!pg!NdMbvhimjo!Tusffu/!xifo!uifz!dbou!gju!bmm!uif!dbst!jo-!lffq!jo!njoe!uijt!jt!tvqqptfe!up!cf!b!POF!DBS!CBZ!!uifz!qbsl!uifn!po!cpui!tjeft!pg!uif!t usffu!xijdi!jt!bmsfbez!obsspx-!3/!qspqfsuz!wbmvft!xjmm!tvggfs4/!tbgfuz!pg!fwfszpof!boe!ftqfdjbmmz!xifo!uifz!uftu!esjwf!uif!dbst!vq!boe!epxo!b!sftjefoujbm!dsftdfou/!Uijt!xbt!ofwfs!epof!xjui!uif!qsfwjp vt!pxofs-!zpv!ibsemz!lofx!uifz!xfsf!uifsf/! Uijt!uzqf!pg!cvtjoftt!tipvme!cf!jo!b!dpnnfsdjbm!{pof!ps!uif!joevtusjbm!qbsl! xf!bsf!vodmfbs!pg!uif!gvmm!qspqptbm/!xjuipvu!b!wjtvbm!!bne!b!gbs!dmfbsfs!qjduvsf!jo!qmbdf!j!xpvme!ibwf!up!tbz!Op Op!ju!tipvme!opu!cf!jo!b!sftjefoujbm!bsfb/ xbzofwpvupvs 52cbscbsbdsftdfou Opugspnxibujtffupebz 2/2fyqboejohuijtuzqfpgcvtjoftt-xijdibuuijtujnfbmsfbezmppltmjlfb#dipqtipq#- 32/jnqbdupoqbsljohboegmpxpgusbggjdjoboepvupgNdMbvhimjoTusffu/xifouifz Uijtuzqfpgcvtjoftttipvmecfjobdpnnfsdjbm{pofpsuifjoevtusjbmqbsl xfbsfvodmfbspguifgvmmqspqptbm/xjuipvubwjtvbmbnebgbsdmfbsfsqjduvsfjoqmbdf Opjutipvmeopucfjobsftjefoujbmbsfb/ From:Kirchner, Jennifer To:Rideout.City, Candice; O"Connor, Colleen Cc:Mackey, Bill; Mattson, Yeva Subject:FW: 4&6 MCLAUGHLIN CRES. PID 55246789 Date:September 14, 2026 11:40:12 AM Attachments:image002.png image004.png Mailout - Comment Form_English_3.pdf Can you provide the additional letters to PAC for consideration. One is the body of this email. The second is the attachment. Jennifer Kirchner, RPP, MCIP Senior Planner / Urbaniste Principal Growth & Community Services / Services de la croissance et du développement communautaire City of Saint John / La Ville de Saint John Cell / Cellulaire: (506) 639-7933 Website|Facebook|Twitter|Instagram From: Mattson, Yeva <Yeva.Mattson@saintjohn.ca> Sent: September 10, 2026 10:12 AM To: Kirchner, Jennifer <jennifer.kirchner@saintjohn.ca> Subject: FW: 4&6 MCLAUGHLIN CRES. PID 55246789 Yeva Mattson, RPP, MCIP Planner / Urbaniste Community Planning / Service D’Urbanisme Growth and Community Services / Service de la croissance et de la communauté City of Saint John / La Ville de Saint John Cell / Cellulaire: (506) 721-8453 Website|Facebook|Shape Your City|Instagram From: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Sent: September 10, 2026 9:22 AM To: Mattson, Yeva <Yeva.Mattson@saintjohn.ca> Subject: FW: 4&6 MCLAUGHLIN CRES. PID 55246789 Colleen O’Connor, BA, BBA Administrative Assistant /Adjointe Administrative Development and Community Services / Développement et services communautaires City of Saint John / La Ville de Saint John Office / Bureau: (506) 658-4067 Website|Facebook| Shape Your City|Instagram My flexible workweek is Monday – Thursday. From:landerson7242@gmail.com <landerson7242@gmail.com> Sent: September 10, 2026 8:13 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Subject: Fw: 4&6 MCLAUGHLIN CRES. PID 55246789 You don't often get email from landerson7242@gmail.com. Learn why this is important \[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** Morning, I just received a notification that there's another meeting on Tuesday September 15. I received this notification from my neighbor NOT from anyone at the PAC because ridiculously, you guys only inform people within a 100m of a business, so you informed all the wrong people about this stuff. However , my information and my comments below still stand and I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. I have, driven by every single day because that's where I live. And I do want you to know they are working after hours , even since the last meeting. They're pretty sneaky , but they closed all their doors , they leave their lights on and they work inside. You can hear the air drops going. They're also still working off jacks in their yard. If you guys let this go through, know I will be calling inspectors, fire departments, and whoever else I need to every single day because of the hazard that these guys cause in this area. All this and they haven't even added the extension. Thank you Leanne Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 8:29 p.m., landerson7242@gmail.com <landerson7242@gmail.com> wrote: Project description: RESTART OF BUILDING CONTAINING NON CONFORMING USE 1. Do you support the proposed development? No. I strongly oppose the proposed development and the conversion of these properties. 2. What are your top two or three concerns about the proposed development? My main concerns are traffic safety, the significant change and expansion of the business, and the impact on the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The property has been used for approximately 18 years as a small, one-bay, one- person specialized alignment business. The property was purchased by the current owners a few years ago, and the operation now being proposed is significantly different in both its nature and scale. I am concerned about the potential for a much larger auto-body operation, including vehicle dismantling, to result in significantly more vehicles, parts and materials being stored improperly on the property. I do not want our residential neighbourhood to become surrounded by a large accumulation of vehicles and vehicle parts. 3. How does the proposed development directly impact you? As a nearby resident, this development would directly affect my safety, the amount of traffic in the area, and the character of my neighbourhood. An auto repair facility/chop shop would bring increased vehicle traffic and activity into an area that is currently residential. The proposed access points also raise concerns about additional traffic moving through the surrounding residential streets. I am also very concerned about vehicles being parked along the roadway, particularly on the blind hill. I have personally come close to being hit on approximately three occasions. Increasing the size and activity of the business could make this safety concern considerably worse. 4. What are your recommendations for improving the proposal? I do not have recommendations for changes that would make me support this proposal. I believe the application should be denied. I am also requesting clarification regarding the proposed access/driveway shown on the plan, including how it will be used and how the additional traffic ans fluids will be managed. 5. Would you support the development as proposed? No. I strongly oppose the development as proposed. The small, one-bay specialized alignment business that operated at this location for many years is very different from the larger auto-body and chop shop now being proposed. I do not believe this significant change in the nature and scale of the business is appropriate for this residential neighbourhood. 6. Would you support the development with some changes? No. I would not support the development with changes. My concerns are with the proposed use of the property itself, the increased traffic, increased mishandling of toxic fluids and the impact this development would have on the surrounding residential neighbourhood. Kindest regards, Leanne & Blake Anderson #20 McLaughlin crescent Saint John NB E2J 2K2 From:OneStop To:Mattson, Yeva; Kirchner, Jennifer Subject:FW: URGENT: Public Input Opposition for PAC Meeting Tonight – 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent Date:September 15, 2026 10:41:00 AM Attachments:image002.png I will print this off to hand out at the pre meeting this evening. Colleen O’Connor, BA, BBA Administrative Assistant /Adjointe Administrative Development and Community Services / Développement et services communautaires City of Saint John / La Ville de Saint John Office / Bureau: (506) 658-4067 Website|Facebook| Shape Your City|Instagram My flexible workweek is Monday – Thursday. From: joanne connell <joanne_conn@yahoo.ca> Sent: September 15, 2026 10:35 AM To: OneStop <onestop@saintjohn.ca> Cc: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca> Subject: URGENT: Public Input Opposition for PAC Meeting Tonight – 4-6 McLaughlin Crescent You don't often get email from joanne_conn@yahoo.ca. Learn why this is important \[ External Email Alert\]**Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact the IT Service Desk.** Date:Sept 14 2026 To:Office of the Common Clerk, City of Saint John Members of Saint John Common Council & The Planning Advisory Committee 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB E2L 1E8 RE: Strong Opposition to Commercial Expansion Application – \[Insert Garage Name or Street Address\] (Hearing Date: September 21) To the Common Clerk and Members of Council, I am writing as a local homeowner and resident, of the McLaughlin and Barbara Crescent neighborhood, to formally register my strong objection to the proposed three-bay expansion, parking lot extension, and zoning changes requested by the automotive garage located at 6 Mclaughlin Crescent. I would like to start by saying that I truly believe our neighborhood fully supports economic growth and welcoming new business owners to Saint John. That being said, community development must never come at the expense of public safety, environmental regulations, and municipal law. True "good faith" business investment is practiced by those who respect city bylaws and their neighbors. It appears the operators of this garage have proven they have not abided by this at all. Our specific objections and concerns include: Demonstrated Disregard for Municipal By-Laws & Unpermitted Demolition and Public Safety Risks: As exposed during the August 18 municipal meeting, this operator deliberately demolished a building on their property in the dark of the night without obtaining a mandatory City Demolition Permit, AND with lack of concern of their neighbors and the environmental risks. The structure that was "demolished" was of an age that it could and most probably was constructed or housed any number of less than safe materials (asbestos, oils, chemicals etc). A business that intentionally bypasses building inspectors and city oversight, something that all homeowners and businesses must adhere to cannot be counted on to self-regulate a significantly larger, three-bay commercial operation. Historical Use, Current Zoning and Intensification: This garage was constructed in approximately the 1950s-1960s, when municipal planning standards, zoning requirements and expectations surrounding small home- based operations were very different. A small, one-bay operation may have been permitted or tolerated at that time. However, the fact that a limited use may have existed historically should not automatically justify a major expansion of that use today, particularly in a neighbourhood that is not commercially zoned. The proposed change from a small one-bay operation to a three-bay commercial facility represents a significant intensification of the property. We question how an operation of this size and nature can be considered appropriate in its present location under today's zoning and planning standards. Approval should be based on the proposed use and its impact on the surrounding residential neighbourhood today, not simply on the fact that some form of garage operation has existed on the property for many years. Noise and Neighbourhood Impact: A three-bay operation would also substantially increase commercial noise and activity. Multiple vehicles being serviced at the same time, along with compressors, pneumatic/air tools, machinery, vehicle movement and other shop equipment, would create a very different level of noise than a small one-bay operation. This increased activity would directly affect neighbouring residential properties and the reasonable enjoyment of their homes and yards. Neighbourhood and Child Safety: Our greatest concerns is the safety of the neighbourhood, particularly the safety of children who live and play in this residential area. It is important to point out that not very long ago McLaughlin Crescent speed limit was reduced to 40K/hr and this was done because it is a residential area, it has many children and seniors. Vehicles being repaired at the garage are regularly test-driven up and down the residential street. We have observed vehicles being driven while a door is open and while the driver appears to be looking downward or concentrating on listening for mechanical noises. Regardless of the reason for doing so, this creates an obvious concern when vehicles are being tested on a residential street where children, pedestrians and residents are present. Expanding the operation from one bay to three would reasonably be expected to increase the number of vehicles entering and leaving the property and being test- driven through the neighbourhood. This is not simply a question of inconvenience or additional traffic; it is a public-safety concern. We believe the suitability of conducting this level of automotive activity in a residential neighbourhood, and the potential increased risk to children and other residents, should be given significant consideration before any expansion is approved. Environmental and Safety Risks: Expanding from a one-bay to a three-bay facility would also significantly increase the volume of automotive fluids, chemicals, hazardous materials and waste being handled and stored on the property. This raises legitimate concerns regarding containment, drainage, spill prevention, hazardous-waste disposal, fire safety, fencing, buffering and protection of neighbouring properties. Given the owner's previous history of proceeding with work without first obtaining required approvals, we are particularly concerned about whether all environmental, safety, permitting and site requirements would be consistently followed, we are not convinced they would be. A Final note: I would also respectively point you back to the comments that myself and my neighbors made at the first meeting in August, referencing the condition of the front and back areas (everyone has pictures) and the dangerous materials left just "out and about", including an acetylene torch left OPEN & RUNNING after everyone had left the site for the day, Since that meeting they have "tidied" up the front area (side and back still look the same-in a horrible state) and it is not lost on us that the timing is suspect...it was only minimally cleaned up and ONLY after that first meeting. A two week clean up does not eradicate the months/year of it looking like an industrial junk yard. We respectfully implore Council and the Planning Advisory Committee to DENY this application entirely. This business at the proposed increased size and workforce should be in a commercially zoned area. Saint John should not reward development undertaken without the required permits or approvals by subsequently allowing it to be legitimized under the guise of business growth. Doing so risks undermining the very permitting, planning and enforcement processes that are intended to protect residential neighbourhoods and the people who live in them.Thank you for your time and your dedication to protecting Saint John's family residential neighborhoods. Sincerely, Mr & Mrs Wayne Voutour 41 Barbara Crescent Saint John NB E2J 2K8 28 13 16 18 11 15 3 13 27 16 2 4 4§ ª ¸®´ȁ M&C No.2026-235 Report DateOctober 28, 2026 Meeting DateNovember 02, 2026 Service AreaFinance and Strategic Investments SUBJECT: Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) / Government of Canada Contribution Agreement -Accessibility improvements for the Saint John City Market EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to seek Common Council’s approval to enter into a GrantAgreement with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) / Government of for the Saint John City Market Accessibility improvements. COUNCIL RESOLUTION It is recommended that the City enter into a ContributionAgreement generally in the form as presented to Committee of the Whole at its meeting held November 2, 2026, with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) / Government of Canada for the Saint John City Market Accessibility improvements , and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the said ContributionAgreement and any other documents ancillary thereto.