2011-08-29_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, August 29, 2011
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
4:30 p.m. 8th Floor Boardroom City Hall
1.0 Minutes
1.1 Property Matter 10.2(4)(d)
1.2 Employment Matter 10.2(4)0)
1.3 Property Matter 10.2(4)(d)
1.4 Property Matter 10.2(4)(d)
1.5 Legal Opinion 10.2(4)(f)
Si vous auriez besoin des services en frangais pour une r6union de Conseil Communal,
veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffi&re communale au 658 -2862
Regular Meeting
1. Call to Order — Prayer
6:00 p.m. Council Chamber
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Minutes of August 2, 2011
3. Adoption of Agenda
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
Items Forwarded from Previous Agendas
4.1 City Manager: Wellfield Protection - Harbourview Subdivision
4.2a) Solid Waste Management Service - Outsource Decision
4.2b) City Manager: Community Solid Waste Management Service
4.3 Standing Committee System (Councillor Titus) Tabled on August 15, 2011
4.4 Council Budget - Salaries (Councillor Titus) Tabled on August 15, 2011
4.5 Sydney Street Courthouse (Councillor Titus) Tabled on August 15, 2011
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 Proposed Public Hearing Date 1 Plaza Avenue (Recommendation in Report)
5.2 Initiate Stop- Up and Close Southern Tip of Water St (Recommendation in
Report)
5.3 Hitachi Crescent Subdivision - Galbraith Construction Limited
(Recommendation in Report)
5.4 Tender for 18 Scott Air Packs and Accessories Saint John Fire Department
(Recommendation in Report)
5.5 Tender for Plow Blades and Edges (Recommendation in Report)
5.6 Chip Seal 2011 (Recommendation in Report)
5.7 Crack Sealing 2011 (Recommendation in Report)
5.8 Millidge Ave, Skaling Crt, Woodward Ave and Black St - Storm Sewer
Separation (Recommendation in Report)
5.9 Sales Engagement Confidentiality Agreement (Non Disclosure Agreement)
Between the City and Taleo (Recommendation in Report)
5.10 New Brunswick Medical Education Trust Request to Present
(Recommendation: Refer to Clerk to Schedule)
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamation
7.1 United Way Day - Thursday, September 1 st, 2011
7.2 Seafarers Month September 2011
7.3 Arthritis Awareness Month September 2011
8. Delegations / Presentations
9. Public Hearings
7:00 p.m.
9.1(a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 192 -194 St. James Street West
9.1(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Rezoning with
Section 39 Conditions
9.2(a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 1035 Burchill Road
9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Re- zoning with
Section 39 Conditions
10. Consideration of By -laws
10.1 Third Reading Proposed Repeal of Fire - Damaged Buildings By -Law
10.2 Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment - 109 to 113 Prince Edward St and 27
Richmond St
11. Submissions by Council Members
11.0 Chalk Art and Busking on City Streets (Mayor Court)
11.1 Available Development Lots (Councillor Sullivan)
11.2 Record of Motions (Councillor Farren)
11.3 Environmental Impact Assessment for West side Power Line Proposal
(Councillor McGuire)
11.4 West Saint John Unsightly Premises (Councillor McGuire)
12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers
12.1 City Manager: Traffic Impacts - Tim Hortons 222 Bayside Drive
12.2 City Manager: Municipality of Saint John Four Year Capital Investment Plan
Respecting the "Gas Tax Fund Agreement" (2010 -2013)
12.3 Commissioner of Finance: Capital Financing
12.4 City Manager: Milford Storm Sewer Separation Phase 1
13. Committee Reports
13.1 Planning Advisory Committee: Request for Additional City Staff at PAC
meetings
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15. General Correspondence
15.1 Conservation Council of New Brunswick and Friends of Rockwood Park:
Restoration of 1671 Sandy Point Rd
16. Adjournment
City of Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Le lundi 29 aont 2011
Comite plenier
1.Ouverture de la seance
16 h 30 — Salle de conference, 8' Rage, h6tel de ville
0 Proces- verbal
1.1 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alinea 10.2(4)d)
1.2 Questions relatives a 1'emploi — alinea 10.2(4)j)
1.3 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alinea 10.2(4)d)
1.4 Question relative aux biens -fonds — alinea 10.2(4)d)
1.5 Avis juridique — alinea 10.2(4)f)
Si vous avez besoin de services en frangais lors d'une reunion du Conseil communal,
veuillez contacter le bureau de la greffiere communale au 658 -2862.
Seance ordinaire
1.Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
18 h — Salle du conseil
2. Approbation du proces- verbal
2.1 Proces- verbal de la seance tenue le 2 aout 2011
3. Adoption de 1'ordre du jour
4. Divulgations de conflits d'int6rets
Points report6s des ordres du jour precedents
4.1 Directeur general : Protection des champs de captage — Lotissement
Harbourview
4.2a) Service de gestion des dechets solides — Decision liee a l'impartition
4.2b) Directeur general : Service communautaire de gestion des dechets solides
4.3 Systeme des comites permanents (conseiller Titus) — Point reporte lors de la
reunion du 15 aout 2011
4.4 Budget du conseil — Salaires (conseiller Titus) — Point reporte lors de la
reunion du 15 aout 2011
4.5 Palais de justice de la rue Sydney (conseiller Titus) — Point reporte lors de la
reunion du 15 aout 2011
5. Questions soumises i Papprobation du conseil
5.1 Date proposee pour les audiences publiques visant le 1, avenue Plaza
(recommandation figurant au rapport)
5.2 D6but de fermeture et de barrage de 1'extr6mit6 sud de la rue Water
(recommandation figurant au rapport)
5.3 Lotissement du croissant Hitachi — entreprise Galbraith Construction Limited
(recommandation figurant au rapport)
5.4 Soumission relative a 18 appareils respiratoires autonomes a bouteille d'air
pulmo- command6 Scott et accessoires pour le Service d'incendie de Saint John
(recommandation au rapport)
5.5 Soumission relative aux socs de charrue et aux bords (recommandation
figurant au rapport)
5.6 Travaux de pose d'enduit superficiel en 2011 (recommandation figurant au
rapport)
5.7 Calfeutrage des fissures pour 2011 (recommandation figurant au rapport)
5.8 Avenue Millidge, cour Skaling, avenue Woodward et rue Black — s6paration
des 6gouts pluviaux (recommandation figurant au rapport)
5.9 Accord de confidentialit6 relatif a 1'entente de vente (entente de non -
divulgation) entre la Ville et Taleo (recommandation figurant au rapport)
5.10 Demande de pr6sentation de la part du Compte fiduciaire d'6ducation
m6dicale du Nouveau - Brunswick (recommandation : transmettre au greffier pour
qu'une date de pr6sentation soit fix6e)
6. Commentaires presentee par les membres
7. Proclamation
7.1 Centraide — le jeudi ler septembre 2011
7.2 Mois des « Gens de mer » — septembre 2011
7.3 Mois de sensibilisation a 1'arthrite — septembre 2011
8. Delegations et presentations
9. Audiences publiques
19h
9.1(a) Projet de modification de 1'Arr&6 de zonage visant le 192 -194, rue
St James Ouest
9. lb) Rapport du Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage
conform6ment aux conditions impos6es par Particle 39
9.2(a) Projet de modification de 1'Arret6 de zonage visant le 1035, chemin
Burchill
9.2(b) Rapport du Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rezonage
conform6ment aux conditions impos6es par Particle 39
10. Etude des arret6s municipaux
10.1 Troisi&me lecture de la proposition d'abrogation de 1'Arret6 sur les batiments
endommag6s par le feu
10.2 Pr6sentation publique relative a la modification propos6e du plan municipal
visant le 109 -113, rue Prince Edward et 27, rue Richmond
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
11.0 Activit& artistique a la craie et musiciens ambulants dans les rues
municipales (maire Court)
11.1 Terrains disponibles aux fins d'am6nagement (conseiller Sullivan)
11.2 Archives des motions (conseiller Farren)
11.3 Etude d'impact sur 1'environnement concernant la proposition relative a une
ligne 6lectrique dans le quartier ouest (conseiller McGuire)
11.4 Lieux inesth6tiques de Saint John Ouest (conseiller McGuire)
12. Affaires municipales &oqukes par les fonctionnaires municipaux
12.1 Directeur g6n&ral : Incidences de la circulation — Tim Hortons, 222,
promenade Bayside
12.2 Directeur g6n6ral : Municipalit6 de Saint John — r6gime d'investissement de
quatre ans conforme a N< entente sur le transfert des revenus provenant de la taxe
sur 1'essence » (2010 -2013)
12.3 Commissaire aux finances: Financement des immobilisations
12.4 Directeur g6n6ral : S6paration des 6gouts pluviaux de Milford — Phase 1
13. Rapports d6pos6s par les comit6s
13.1 Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme : Demande de personnel municipal
suppl6mentaire pendant les r6unions du Comit6 consultatif d'urbanisme
14. Etude des sujets 6cart6s des questions soumises i 1'approbation du conseil
15. Correspondance gknkrale
15.1 Conseil de conservation du Nouveau - Brunswick et Friends of Rockwood
Park: Restauration du 1671, chemin Sandy Point
16. Lev& de la s6ance
96 -315
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
COMMON COUNCIL MEETING — THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
CITY HALL — AUGUST 2, 2011 - 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Ivan Court, Mayor
Deputy Mayor Chase and Councillors Court, Farren, Higgins,
McGuire, Mott, Norton, Snook, Sullivan, and Titus
-and -
K. Forrest, Commissioner of Planning and Development / Acting
City Manager; M. Tompkins, Solicitor; G. Yeomans,
Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer; P. Groody,
Commissioner of Municipal Operations; A. Poffenroth, Deputy
Commissioner of Buildings and Inspection Services; W. Edwards,
Commissioner of Buildings and Inspection Services; M. King,
Police Staff Sargeant; K. Clifford, Acting Fire Chief; E. Gormley,
Common Clerk and J. Taylor, Assistant Common Clerk.
SEANCE DU CONSEIL COMMUNAL DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
TENUE A L'HOTEL DE VILLE, LE 2 AOUT 2011 A 19 H
Sont presents :
Ivan Court, maire
le maire suppleant Chase et les conseillers Court, Farren,
McGuire, Mott, Norton, Snook, Sullivan, Titus et la conseillere
Higgins
-et -
K. Forrest, commissaire au service Urbanisme et
developpement /directeur general par interim; M. Tompkins,
avocat; G. Yeomans, commissaire aux finances et tresorier;
P. Groody, commissaire aux Operations municipales;
A. Poffenroth, commissaire adjoint aux Services d'inspection et
des batiments; W. Edwards, commissaire aux Services
d'inspection et des batiments; M. King, sergent d'etat -major du
Service de police; K. Clifford, chef du service d'incendie par
interim; E. Gormley, greffiere communale, et J. Taylor, greffier
communal adjoint.
1. Call To Order — Prayer
Mayor Court called the meeting to order and Councillor Snook offered the opening
prayer.
1. Ouverture de la seance, suivie de la priere
La seance est ouverte par le maire Court, et le conseiller Snook recite la priere
d'ouverture.
2. Approval of Minutes
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Sullivan
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of
Common Council, held on July 18, 2011, be tabled until the meeting of August 15, 2011.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
2. Approbation du proces- verbal
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan
RESOLU que le proces- verbal de la seance du
conseil communal tenue le 18 juillet 2011 soit reporte jusqu'a la tenue de la reunion du
15 aout 2011.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
7
96 -316
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
3. Approval of Agenda
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the agenda of this meeting be
approved, with the addition of items: 5.18 Harbour Clean -Up Marsh Creek Collector
Sewer and Forcemain Installation Project Pipe Crossings Under CN Tracks; 13.2
Committee of the Whole: Outstanding Contributions re: Pension Plan Going Concern
Unfunded Liability; 13.3 Committee of the Whole: Appointment of Acting Fire Chief; 13.4
Committee of the Whole: Interim Arrangements for Acting City Manager; and further that
items 12.3 City Manager: Solid Waste Management Service — Outsource Decision and
12.4 City Manager: Wellfield Protection — Harbourview Subdivision be withdrawn from
the agenda and added to the agenda of August 29, 2011.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que I'ordre du jour de la presente reunion
soit adopte, moyennant I'ajout des points suivants : 5.18 Projet lie a ('installation d'une
conduite de refoulement et d'un egout collecteur au ruisseau Marsh dans le cadre du
nettoyage du port — Passage de conduits sous les lignes de chemin de fer du CN;
13.2 Comite plenier : Contributions impayees — Passif a long terme non capitalise du
regime de retraite; 13.3 Comite plenier : Nomination d'un chef du service d'incendie par
interim; 13.4 Comite plenier : Arrangements provisoires au sujet du directeur general par
interim, et, de plus, que les points 12.3 Directeur general : Service de gestion des
dechets solides — Decision liee a I'impartition et 12.4 Directeur general : Protection des
champs de captage — Lotissement Harbourview soient retires de I'ordre du jour et
ajoutes a I'ordre du jour du 29 aout 2011.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
Mayor Court declared a conflict of interest with item 9.4 and he declared a possible bias
for item 9.3; Councillors Norton and Court declared a conflict with items 9.3 and 9.4
respectively.
4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets
Le maire Court declare un conflit d'interets avec le point 9.4 et un parti pris possible a
1'egard du point 9.3; les conseillers Norton et Court declarent titre en conflit d'interets
avec les points 9.3 et 9.4 respectivement.
9. Public Hearings 7:00 P.M.
9.1(a) Proposed Section 39 Amendment— 350 Ashburn Road
9.1(b) Planning Advisory Committee Recommending Section 39 Amendment
9.1(c) Letters of Opposition
The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to
amending the Section 39 conditions imposed on the March 22, 2004 rezoning of the
property located at 350 Ashburn Road, also identified as PID number 55116073, to
permit a trailer or mobile home sales lot, as well as additional commercial or light
industrial uses, on the property.
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee
submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its July 19th, 2011 meeting at
which the Committee recommended the proposed Section 39 Amendment.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with
Joanne Middleton of Ashburn Road raising concerns with respect to flooding, stormwater
management and the transition of land uses in the area from residential to commercial.
96 -317
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with
Rick Turner of Hughes Surveys andConsultants, representing the applicant, stating that
he was in agreement with the staff report and recommendation. He explained that
Council's stormwater by -law would act as a safeguard for stormwater management in
the area. He further noted that the developer intends to remove the clay from the ground
on the subject site and replace it with shale rock to improve drainage.
On motion of Councillor Court
Seconded by Councillor Higgins
RESOLVED that Council deny the proposed
Section 39 amendment for 350 Ashburn Rd.
Question being taken, the motion was defeated with the Mayor, the
Deputy Mayor and Councillors Farren, McGuire, Mott, Snook, Sullivan and Titus voting
nay.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that Common Council amend the
Section 39 conditions imposed on the March 22, 2004 rezoning of the property located
at 350 Ashburn Road, also identified as PID number 55116073 as follows:
1) Condition "a)" is deleted and replaced with the following:
a) The use of the rezoned area is limited to a retail home sales lot and a trailer or
mobile home sales lot.
2) Condition "b)" is deleted and replaced with the following:
b) The developer must pave all parking areas, manoeuvring areas, loading areas
and driveways with asphalt. All paved areas must be enclosed with continuous
cast -in place concrete curbs in order to protect the landscaped areas and
facilitate proper drainage.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors Court and
Higgins voting nay.
9. Audiences publiques a 19 h
9.1a) Modification proposee a I'article 39-350, chemin Ashburn
9.1 b) Recommandations du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme en faveur de la
modification des dispositions de I'article 39
9.1c) Lettres d'opposition
La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies en ce qui a trait a la
modification des conditions imposees par I'article 39, le 22 mars 2004, relativement au
rezonage de la propriete situee au 350, chemin Ashburn, inscrite sous le NID 55116073,
afin de permettre 1'exploitation d'un terrain de vente de roulottes ou de maisons mobiles,
ainsi que des usages commerciaux ou d'industrie Iegere sur la propriete.
On procede egalement a 1'examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme,
accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme, etudie lors de la
seance du 19 juillet 2011, pendant laquelle le Comite a recommande la modification
proposee a I'article 39.
Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur opposition quant a la modification.
Joanne Middleton, residente du chemin Ashburn, fait part de ses inquietudes concernant
la gestion des inondations et des eaux pluviales, ainsi qu'au sujet du passage de ('usage
residentiel a ('usage commercial du terrain dans le secteur.
Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur appui quant a la modification.
Rick Turner, de Hughes Surveys and Consultants, qui represente le demandeur, se
prononce en faveur des recommandations et du rapport du personnel. II explique que
I'arrete du conseil relatif aux eaux pluviales pourrait servir de garantie pour la gestion
des eaux pluviales dans le secteur. II ajoute que le promoteur prevoit retirer I'argile du
sol sur le site en question et de la remplacer par des schistes rocheux afin d'ameliorer le
drainage.
9
96 -318
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
Proposition du conseiller Court
Appuyee par la conseillere Higgins
RESOLU que le conseil refuse la modification
proposee a I'article 39 concernant le 350, chemin Ashburn.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est rejetee. Le maire, le maire suppleant
ainsi que les conseillers Farren, McGuire, Mott, Snook, Sullivan et Titus votent contre la
proposition.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que le conseil communal procede a la
modification des conditions imposees par I'article 39, le 22 mars 2004, relativement au
rezonage de la propriete situee au 350, chemin Ashburn et portant le NID 55116073,
comme suit:
1) La condition « a) » est supprimee et remplacee par le Iibelle suivant
a) ('usage du secteur rezone se limite au terrain de vente de maisons au detail et
au terrain de vente de roulottes ou de maisons mobiles.
2) La condition « b) » est supprimee et remplacee par le Iibelle suivant :
b) Le promoteur doit revetir d'asphalte toutes les aires de stationnement, de
manoeuvre et de chargement, ainsi que les voies d'acces. Toutes les aires
asphaltees doivent etre entourees de bordures continues de beton coulees sur
place pour proteger les espaces paysagers et faciliter le drainage.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Le conseiller Court et la
conseillere Higgins votent contre la proposition.
9.2 (a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 303 Westmorland Rd
9.2(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Denial of Zoning
By -Law Amendment
The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to
amending Schedule "A ", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel
of land located at 303 Westmorland Rd, having an area of approximately 3900 square
metres, also identified as PID number 00321158 from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional
to "B -2" General Business, with written objections being received.
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee
submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its July 19th, 2011 meeting at
which time the Committee recommended that the application for re- zoning be denied.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the amendment with no
one presenting.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the amendment with
James Bustard, Carol Liebel, and John Maurer appearing before Council expressing
support for the proposed rezoning. Councillor McGuire stated that he is against the
rezoning as he would like to see the area preserved as residential.
Councillor Mott stated that he is concerned about the increased traffic that the business
would generate.
Councillor Sullivan expressed concerns with spot rezoning in a residential
neighbourhood.
On motion of CouncillorTitus
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to
Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 303
Westmorland Rd, having an area of approximately 3900 square metres, also identified
as PID number 00321158 from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General
Business, be read a first time.
10
96 -319
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors McGuire,
Mott and Sullivan voting nay.
Read a first time by title, the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of
The City of Saint John."
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to
Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A ", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by re- zoning a parcel of land located at 303
Westmorland Rd, having an area of approximately 3900 square metres, also identified
as PID number 00321158 from "IL -1" Neighbourhood Institutional to "B -2" General
Business, be read a second time; and further that staff be directed to prepare the
appropriate section 39 conditions with respect to the subject property.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors McGuire,
Mott and Sullivan voting nay.
Read a second time by title, the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of
The City of Saint John."
9.2a) Projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant le 303, chemin
Westmorland
9.2b) Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rejet de la
modification de I'Arrete de zonage
La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement a la
modification de I'annexe « A », plan de zonage de The City of Saint John, en vue du
rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 3 900 metres carres situee
au 303, chemin Westmorland, inscrite sous le NID 00321158, afin de faire passer la
classification s'y rapportant de zone de quartier a vocation collective « IL -1 » a zone
commerciale generale « B -2 » et que des objections par ecrit ont ete regues a cet egard.
On procede egalement a 1'examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme,
accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme, etudie lors de la
seance du 19 juillet 2011, date a laquelle le comite a recommande que la demande de
rezonage soit rejetee.
Le maire invite le public a exprimer son opposition quant a la modification, mais
personne ne prend la parole.
Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur appui quant a la modification.
James Bustard, Carol Liebel et John Maurer se presentent devant le conseil et se
prononcent en faveur du projet de rezonage. Le conseiller McGuire indique qu'il est
oppose au rezonage, car it aimerait que la zone soit preservee comme secteur
residentiel.
Le conseiller Mott indique que I'augmentation de la circulation qui serait generae par le
commerce le preoccupe.
Le conseiller Sullivan exprime ses inquietudes a I'egard du rezonage ponctuel dans un
quartier residentiel.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant I'annexe « A », plan de zonage
de The City of Saint John, en vue du rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au
303, chemin Westmorland, d'une superficie d'environ 3 900 metres carres, inscrite sous
le NID 00321158, afin de faire passer la designation de zone de quartier a vocation
collective « IL -1 » a zone commerciale generale « B -2 », fasse I'objet d'une premiere
lecture.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Les conseillers McGuire,
Mott et Sullivan votent contre la proposition.
11
96 -320
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
Premiere lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLLI que I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant I'annexe « A », plan de zonage
de The City of Saint John, en vue du rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain situee au
303, chemin Westmorland, d'une superficie d'environ 3 900 metres carres, inscrite sous
le NID 00321158, afin de faire passer la designation de zone de quartier a vocation
collective « IL -1 » a zone commerciale generale « B -2 », fasse ('objet d'une deuxieme
lecture et, de plus, que le personnel soit charge de rediger les conditions appropriees en
vertu de I'article 39 relativement au terrain en question.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est acceptee. Les conseillers McGuire,
Mott et Sullivan votent contre la proposition.
Deuxieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
9.3(a) Proposed Zoning By -Law Amendment 50 Heather Way
9.3(b) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Denial of Zoning
By -Law Amendment
9.3(c) Letters of Opposition and Support
(Councillor Norton withdrew from the meeting)
The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to
the proposed amendment to the Zoning By -Law for a parcel of land located at 50
Heather Way, having an area of approximately 7.5 hectares, also identified as PID
numbers 55124358, 55190227 and a portion of PID numbers 00456640, 00456657 and
00456665 from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "MH" Mobile Home Park, with
letters of objection and one letter of support received.
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee
submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its July 19th, 2011 meeting at
which the Committee recommended that the application for re- zoning be denied.
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the re- zoning and the
following citizens appeared before Council: Margaret Dubee of Grandview Avenue;
James MacLellan of Grandview Avenue; Adam MacDonald of Boyaner Crescent; Wayne
Stephen of Grandview Avenue; Joseph Marriott; Stephen Wayne; Eric Daley of Wyatt
Crescent; Rick McGinley of Wyatt Crescent; Lee Miller of Grandview Avenue; Barbara
Burns of Grandview Avenue; Leanne Shannon of Boyaner Crescent; JP Quinn of
Boyaner Crescent and Kelly VanBuskirk speaking on behalf of Dianne Wilson.
Some of the concerns that were expressed included: the proposed development not
being compatible with the neighbourhood and / or the direction of PlanSJ; the potential
of decreased property values; the proposed berms; increases in traffic; lack of street
parking; lack of playgrounds; storm drainage issues; removal of trees; blasting; snow
removal; the size of the proposed lots / high density; the notion that the proposal would
have transient people and would not contribute to a stable community; the absence of a
property manager in the development; emergency vehicle accessibility on the proposed
streets.
(Councillor Mott withdrew from a portion of the public hearing)
The Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the re- zoning with the
developer, Bob Darling of North Star Holdings Ltd., speaking in favour of the application
and staff recommendation. He explained that the staff report addressed each of the
issues raised by area residents with the exception of the lack of nearby playgrounds,
noting that he would agree to donate land for the construction of a new playground. He
stated that his proposal is an affordable housing option, noting that the price of the
homes in this development would be approximately $60,000 less expensive than any
other newly constructed homes.
Mr. Forrest displayed pictures of other comparable mini home developments in
New Brunswick and he responded to questions from Council members.
12
96 -321
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the meeting time be extended
beyond 10:00 p.m. as provided for in the Procedural By -law.
Question being take, the motion was carried.
Responding to a question, K. Clifford, Acting Fire Chief, stated that the Fire Department
typically provides input to planning staff when contacted about proposed developments.
He advised that he has not reviewed the present application, noting that the Fire
Department would be concerned with emergency vehicle turning radius and
accessibility.
The Common Clerk advised that Councillor Mott withdrew for a portion of the public
hearing. The Mayor suggested that Councillor Mott withdraw for the remainder of the
item due to his absence from a large portion of the public hearing.
(Councillor Mott withdrew from the meeting)
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the proposed amendment to the
Zoning By -Law for a parcel of land located at 50 Heather Way, having an area of
approximately 7.5 hectares, also identified as PID numbers 55124358, 55190227and a
portion of PID numbers 00456640, 00456657 and 00456665 from "R -2" One and Two
Family Residential to "MH" Mobile Home Park, be read a first time.
The Mayor did not vote on the motion citing a possible bias with respect to the proposed
rezoning.
Question being taken, the motion was defeated with Deputy Mayor Chase
and Councillors Court, Farren, Higgins and Snook voting nay.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Court
RESOLVED that the proposed amendment to the
Zoning By -Law for a parcel of land located at 50 Heather Way, having an area of
approximately 7.5 hectares, also identified as PID numbers 55124358, 55190227 and a
portion of PID numbers 00456640, 00456657 and 00456665 from "R -2" One and Two
Family Residential to "MH" Mobile Home Park, be denied.
The Mayor did not vote on the motion citing a possible bias with respect to the proposed
rezoning.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
(Councillor Mott re- entered the meeting)
9.3a) Projet de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant le 50, voie Heather
9.3b) Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant le rejet de la
modification de I'Arrete de zonage
9.3c) Lettres d'opposition et d'appui
(Le conseiller Norton quitte la seance.)
La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement au projet
de modification de I'Arrete de zonage visant la parcelle de terrain situee au 50, voie
Heather, d'une superficie approximative de 7,5 hectares, inscrite sous les NID
55124358, 55190227 et etant une portion des NID 00456640, 00456657 et 00456665,
pour passer de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a
zone parc de maisons mobiles « MH », et que des lettres d'opposition et une lettre
d'appui ont ete reques.
On procede egalement a 1'examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme,
accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme, etudie lors de la
seance du 19 juillet 2011, date a Iaquelle le comite a recommande que la demande de
rezonage soit rejetee.
13
96 -322
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
Le maire invite le public a se prononcer contre le rezonage et les citoyens suivants se
presentent devant le conseil : Margaret Dubee de ('avenue Grandview; James MacLellan
de ('avenue Grandview; Adam MacDonald du croissant Boyaner; Wayne Stephen de
('avenue Grandview; Joseph Marriott; Stephen Wayne; Eric Daley du croissant Wyatt;
Rick McGinley du croissant Wyatt; Lee Miller de ('avenue Grandview; Barbara Burns de
('avenue Grandview; Leanne Shannon du croissant Boyaner; JP Quinn du croissant
Boyaner et Kelly VanBuskirk, au nom de Dianne Wilson.
Certaines des preoccupations exprimees sont notamment les suivantes : incompatibilite
du projet de developpement avec le quartier ou ('orientation du PlanSJ; possibilite d'une
baisse des valeurs foncieres; projet de creation de bermes; augmentation de la
circulation, manque d'espaces de stationnement sur rue; manque de terrains de jeu;
problemes relatifs au drainage pluvial; retrait d'arbres; dynamitage; deneigement;
superficie des lots proposes /haute densite; idee selon laquelle le projet genererait la
venue de personnes de passage et ne contribuerait donc pas a creer une collectivite
stable; absence de gestionnaire immobilier participant a I'amenagement; accessibilite
des vehicules d'urgence dans les rues proposees.
(Le conseiller Mott quitte I'audience publique pour un certain temps.)
Le maire invite les membres du public a exprimer leur appui quant au rezonage. Le
promoteur, Bob Darling de North Star Holdings Ltd., se prononce en faveur de la
demande et de la recommandation emise par le personnel. II explique que le rapport du
personnel a aborde chaque question soulevee par les residents du quartier, a 1'exception
de la question relative au manque de terrains de jeu dans les environs, en mentionnant
qu'il accepterait de faire don d'un terrain pour la construction d'un nouveau terrain de
jeu. 11 indique que sa proposition est une possibilite de Iogement abordable, en faisant
remarquer que le prix des maisons dans cet amenagement couterait environ
60 000 dollars de moins que les autres maisons recemment construites.
M. Forrest montre les photos d'autres amenagements de mini - maisons comparables au
Nouveau - Brunswick et repond aux questions des membres du conseil.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLLI que la reunion se prolonge au -dela de
22 h, conformement aux dispositions de 1'arrete procedural.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
En reponse a une question, K. Clifford, chef du service d'incendie par interim, declare
que le service d'incendie fait habituellement part de ses points de vue au personnel
d'urbanisme lorsque I'on communique avec lui concernant des amenagements
proposes. II signale qu'il n'a pas examine la presente demande, indiquant que le service
d'incendie serait preoccupe par le rayon de virage et I'accessibilite des vehicules
d'urgence.
La greffiere communale signale que le conseiller Mott a quitte I'audience publique pour
un certain temps. Le maire propose que le conseiller Mott se retire jusqu'a la fin du point,
compte tenu de son absence pendant une grande partie de I'audience publique.
(Le conseiller Mott quitte la seance.)
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLLI que le projet de modification de I'Arrete
de zonage visant la parcelle de terrain situee au 50, voie Heather, d'une superficie
approximative de 7,5 hectares, et inscrite sous les NID 55124358, 55190227 et etant
une portion des NID 00456640, 00456657 et 00456665, pour passer de zone
residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone parc de maisons
mobiles « MH », fasse ('objet d'une premiere lecture.
Le maire ne procede pas a la mise aux voix de la motion, invoquant un parti pris
possible par rapport au rezonage propose.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est rejetee. Le maire suppleant Chase
ainsi que les conseillers Court, Farren, Snook et la conseillere Higgins votent
contre la proposition.
14
96 -323
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Court
RESOLU que le projet de modification de I'Arrete
de zonage visant la parcelle de terrain situee au 50, voie Heather, d'une superficie
approximative de 7,5 hectares, et inscrite sous les NID 55124358, 55190227 et etant
une portion des NID 00456640, 00456657 et 00456665, pour passer de zone
residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « R -2 » a zone parc de maisons
mobiles « MH », soit rejete.
Le maire ne procede pas a la mise aux voix de la motion, invoquant un parti pris
possible par rapport au rezonage propose.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
(Le conseiller Mott se joint de nouveau a la seance.)
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that items 11.1 Acquiring Land from
Brunswick Pipeline (Councillor Farren) and 12.1 City Manager: Emera Brunswick
Pipeline Company Ltd., be moved forward on the agenda.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que les points 11.1 Acquisition de biens-
fonds appartenant a Brunswick Pipeline (conseiller Farren) et 12.1 Directeur general
Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd., soient avances dans I'ordre du jour.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
12. Business Matters- Municipal Officers
12.1 City Manager: Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City
Manager in the submitted report Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd., the City
graciously accept the transfer of land, being PID #405431, from Emera Brunswick
Pipeline Company Ltd. (reserving to them an easement for their infrastructure) and that
the Commissioner of Finance issue to the Company an official municipal donation
receipt for income tax purposes for the value of the gift.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que les points 11.1 Acquisition de biens-
fonds appartenant a Brunswick Pipeline (conseiller Farren) et 12.1 Directeur general
Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd., soient avances dans I'ordre du jour.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux
12.1 Directeur general : Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur
general dans le rapport soumis intitule Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd., la Ville
accepte gracieusement le transfert du terrain portant le NID 40543, de 1'entreprise
Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd. (lui reservant une servitude pour son
15
96 -324
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 2011/LE 2 AO(JT 2011
infrastructure) et que le commissaire aux finances emette, a l'intention de 1'entreprise, un
regu officiel aux fins de I'impot sur le revenu en reconnaissance d'un don offert a la
municipalite mentionnant la valeur du don.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
16
96 -325
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
9.4(a,b) Proposed Municipal Plan & Zoning By -Law Amendment - Sandy Point
Road
9.4(c) Planning Advisory Committee Report Recommending Zoning By -Law
Amendment
9.4(d) Letters of Opposition and Support
(Councillor Norton re- entered the meeting)
(Mayor Court and Councillor Court withdrew from the meeting)
Deputy Mayor Chase replaced the Mayor as Chair of the meeting.
The Common Clerk advised that the necessary advertising was completed with regard to
the proposed Municipal Plan and Zoning By -Law amendments for parcels of land
located to the Southeast of Sandy Point Road, between University Avenue and the
Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land located between Sandy Point Road and Samuel
Davis Drive, also identified as portions of PID numbers 00418129, 55059026, 55059034,
55196380 and 00052548, by redesignating on Schedule 2 -A of the Municipal
Development Plan, from Low Density Residential to Open Space; and rezoning same
from "R -1 A" One Family Residential and "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban
Residential to "P -2" Park, with letters of objection and support received.
Consideration was also given to a report from the Planning Advisory Committee
submitting a copy of Planning Staff's report considered at its July 19th, 2011 meeting at
which the Committee decided to recommend approval as set out in the staff
recommendation to re -zone parcels of land located on Sandy Point Road, as described
above.
The Deputy Mayor called for members of the public to speak against the Municipal Plan
and Zoning amendments with no one presenting.
The Deputy Mayor called for members of the public to speak in favour of the Municipal
Plan and Zoning amendments with Atsko Nose of Sandy Point Road, Monica Chaperlin
of Sandy Point Road, Ernestine Rooney of Sandy Point Road, Peggy Campbell of
Brentwood Crescent, David Thompson, and Dr. Darrell Gallant of Sandy Point Road,
expressing support for the proposed amendments.
Some of the speakers expressed a desire for the remediation of the land of 1671 Sandy
Point Road and Howes Lake.
Responding to a question, Ms. Tompkins stated that if Council chooses to set the
boundaries of Rockwood Park by resolution, it could later decide to change those
boundaries as it owns the land.
Councillors McGuire and Titus indicated that they do not support the proposed rezoning
of the property as Council did not establish a public hearing for the subject property
when staff made zoning recommendations in the Sandy Point Road Planning Study.
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to
Amend the Municipal Plan By -Law" amending Schedule 2 -A, the Future Land Use Plan,
by re- designating parcels of land located to the Southeast of Sandy Point Road,
between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land located
between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive, also identified as portions of
PID numbers 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 and 00052548, from Low
Density Residential to Open Space, to permit a park, be read a first time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors McGuire
and Titus voting nay.
Read a first time by title, the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Municipal Plan
By- Law."
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to
Amend the Municipal Plan By -Law" amending Schedule 2 -A, the Future Land Use Plan,
by re- designating parcels of land located to the Southeast of Sandy Point Road,
17
96 -326
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land located
between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive, also identified as portions of
PID numbers 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 and 00052548, from Low
Density Residential to Open Space, to permit a park, be read a second time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors McGuire
and Titus voting nay.
Read a second time by title, the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend the Municipal Plan
By- Law."
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Sullivan
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to
Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Section 30(1) to include
"P -2" Park; adding Section 731 regarding the acceptable uses and zoning standards for
lands designated P -2; and re- zoning parcels of land located to the Southeast of Sandy
Point Road, between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land
located between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive, also identified as portions
of PID numbers 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 and 00052548, from "R -1A"
One Family Residential and "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "P -2"
Park, be read a first time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors McGuire
and Titus voting nay.
Read a first time by title, the by -law entitiled " A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of
The City of Saint John."
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to
Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Section 30(1) to include
"P -2" Park; adding Section 731 regarding the acceptable uses and zoning standards for
lands designated P -2; and re- zoning parcels of land located to the Southeast of Sandy
Point Road, between University Avenue and the Cherry Brook Zoo, and a parcel of land
located between Sandy Point Road and Samuel Davis Drive, also identified as portions
of PID numbers 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 and 00052548, from "R -1A"
One Family Residential and "RS -2" One and Two Family Suburban Residential to "P -2"
Park, be read a second time.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillors McGuire
and Titus voting nay.
Read a second time by title, the by -law entitiled " A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of
The City of Saint John."
(Mayor Court and Councillor Court re- entered the meeting)
The Mayor replaced the Deputy Mayor as Chair of the meeting.
9.4a), b) Projet de modification du plan municipal et de I'Arrete de zonage visant
le chemin Sandy Point
9.4c) Rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme recommandant la modification
de I'Arrete de zonage
9.4d) Lettres d'opposition et d'appui
(Le conseiller Norton reintegre la seance.)
(Le maire Court et le conseiller Court quittent la reunion.)
Le maire suppleant Chase remplace le maire a titre de president de la reunion.
La greffiere communale indique que les avis requis ont ete publies relativement au projet
de modification du plan municipal et de I'Arrete de zonage relativement aux parcelles de
terrain situees au sud -est du chemin Sandy Point, entre I'avenue University et le zoo
Cherry Brook, et a une parcelle de terrain situee entre le chemin Sandy Point et la
promenade Samuel Davis, inscrites sous les NID 00418129, 55059026, 55059034,
55196380 et 00052548 afin de faire passer la designation a I'annexe 2 -A du plan
in
96 -327
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 2011/LE 2 AOUT 2011
d'amenagement municipal, de zone residentielle a faible densite a zone d'espaces
libres; en faisant passer le terrain de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales
o R -1A » et de zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales « RS -2 » a
zone de parc « P -2 », et que des lettres d'opposition et d'appui ont ete reques.
On procede egalement a 1'examen d'un rapport du Comite consultatif d'urbanisme,
accompagne d'un exemplaire du rapport du personnel d'urbanisme, etudie lors de la
seance du 19 juillet 2011, date a laquelle le comite a decide de recommander I'adoption
de la proposition, comme le souligne la recommandation du personnel, voulant que le
conseil communal procede au rezonage des parcelles de terrain situees sur le chemin
Sandy Point, comme cela est decrit ci- dessus.
Le maire suppleant invite le public a exprimer son opposition a la modification du plan
municipal et du zonage, mais personne ne prend la parole.
Le maire suppleant invite le public a exprimer son appui quant a la modification du plan
municipal et du zonage. Atsko Nose du chemin Sandy Point, Monica Chaperlin du
chemin Sandy Point, Ernestine Rooney du chemin Sandy Point, Peggy Campbell du
croissant Brentwood, David Thompson et Dr Darrell Gallant du chemin Sandy Point se
prononcent en faveur du projet de modification.
Certains des intervenants souhaitent que des mesures d'assainissement du terrain situe
au 1671, chemin Sandy Point et du lac Howes soient prises.
En reponse a une question, Mme Tompkins signale que si le conseil choisit d'etablir les
limites du parc Rockwood par resolution, it pourrait decider plus tard de modifier ces
limites, puisque le terrain Iui appartient.
Les conseillers McGuire et Titus signalent qu'ils n'appuient pas le projet de rezonage de
la propriete, etant donne que le conseil n'a pas organise une audience publique portant
sur la propriete en question Iorsque le personnel a formule des recommandations en
matiere de zonage dans 1'etude de planification du chemin Sandy Point.
Proposition du conseiller Farren
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete relatif au plan municipal », modifiant I'annexe 2 -A du plan d'amenagement futur
des terres, pour faire passer la designation des parcelles de terrain situees au sud -est
du chemin Sandy Point, entre ('avenue University et le zoo Cherry Brook, et une parcelle
de terrain situee entre le chemin Sandy Point et la promenade Samuel Davis, toutes ces
parcelles etant inscrites sous Ies NID 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 et
00052548, de zone residentielle a faible densite a zone d'espaces Iibres, et ce, afin
d'amenager un parc, fasse l'objet d'une premiere lecture.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Les conseillers McGuire et
Titus votent contre la proposition.
Premiere lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete relatif au plan
municipal ».
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete relatif au plan municipal », modifiant I'annexe 2 -A du plan d'amenagement futur
des terres, pour faire passer la designation des parcelles de terrain situees au sud -est
du chemin Sandy Point, entre ('avenue University et le zoo Cherry Brook, et une parcelle
de terrain situee entre le chemin Sandy Point et la promenade Samuel Davis, toutes ces
parcelles etant inscrites sous Ies NID 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 et
00052548, de zone residentielle a faible densite a zone d'espaces Iibres, et ce, afin
d'amenager un parc, fasse ('objet d'une deuxieme lecture.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Les conseillers McGuire et
Titus votent contre la proposition.
Deuxieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete relatif au plan
municipal ».
19
96 -328
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant I'article 30(1) pour inclure la
zone de parc « P -2 »; ajoutant I'article 731 relatif aux usages et aux normes de zonage
admissibles concernant les terrains classes zone de parc « P -2 » ; et procedant au
rezonage des parcelles de terrain situees au sud -est du chemin Sandy Point, entre
('avenue University et le zoo Cherry Brook, et d'une parcelle de terrain situee entre le
chemin Sandy Point et la promenade Samuel Davis, toutes ces parcelles etant inscrites
sous les NID 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 et 00052548, pour faire
passer la designation de ces parcelles de terrain de zone residentielle — habitations
unifamiliales « R -1A » et zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales
RS -2 » a zone de parc « P -2 », fasse ('objet d'une premiere lecture.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Les conseillers McGuire et
Titus votent contre la proposition.
Premiere lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que I'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John » modifiant I'article 30(1) pour inclure la
zone de parc « P -2 »; ajoutant I'article 731 relatif aux usages et normes de zonage
admissibles concernant les terrains classes zone de parc « P -2 » ; et procedant au
rezonage des parcelles de terrain situees au sud -est du chemin Sandy Point, entre
('avenue University et le zoo Cherry Brook, et d'une parcelle de terrain situee entre le
chemin Sandy Point et la promenade Samuel Davis, toutes ces parcelles etant inscrites
sous les NID 00418129, 55059026, 55059034, 55196380 et 00052548, pour faire
passer la designation de ces parcelles de terrain de zone residentielle — habitations
unifamiliales « R -1A » et zone residentielle — habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales
RS -2 » a zone de parc « P -2 », fasse ('objet d'une deuxieme lecture.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Les conseillers McGuire et
Titus votent contre la proposition.
Deuxieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete de zonage de
The City of Saint John ».
(Le maire Court et le conseiller Court sont de nouveau presents a la reunion.)
Le maire remplace le maire suppleant a titre de president de la reunion.
12.1 City Manager: Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd.
Rob Belliveau, General Manager of Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd., appeared
before Council advising that Emera is pleased to announce the transfer of 26 acres of its
waterfront property to The City of Saint John for use as a green space for the Milford
community.
12.1 Directeur general : Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd.
Rob Belliveau, directeur general d'Emera Brunswick Pipeline Company Ltd., se presente
devant le conseil et signale que 1'entreprise est heureuse d'annoncer le transfert de
26 acres de sa propriete du secteur riverain a la Ville de Saint John afin de servir
d'espace vert pour la collectivite de Milford.
4.2 Parking Commission: Designation / Authorization to Lay Information in the
Provincial Court of New Brunswick for Violation of the Parking Meter and
Traffic By -Laws
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that Valerie Farrah is hereby
designated and authorized to lay informations in the Provincial Court of the Province of
New Brunswick for breach of the Saint John Traffic By -Law and the Saint John Parking
20
96 -329
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
Meter By -Law, and this appointment and authorization shall continue until such time as
the appointee ceases to be an employee of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded
by Common Council, whichever comes first.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
4.2 Commission sur le stationnement : Designation /Autorisation concernant le
depot des sommations a la Cour provinciale du Nouveau - Brunswick pour
les infractions lives aux parcometres et aux arretes sur la circulation
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que Valerie Farrah soit, par les
presentes, nommee et autorisee a deposer aupres de la Cour provinciale du
Nouveau - Brunswick des denonciations relatives aux infractions commises a 1'encontre
de I'Arrete relatif a la circulation dans The City of Saint John et de I'arrete sur les
parcometres. Cette nomination et son autorisation correspondante demeureront en
vigueur aussi longtemps que cette personne sera employee par The City of Saint John
ou jusqu'a ce que sa nomination soit revoquee par le conseil communal, selon la
premiere eventualite.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
4.3 Committee of the Whole: Recommended Appointments to Committees
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that as recommended by the
Committee of the Whole, having met on July 18, 2011, Common Council makes the
following appointments to Committees:
Saint John Emergency Management Organization Advisory Committee: to appoint
Dan Houghton for a two year term from July 18, 2011 to July 18, 2013.
Rockwood Park Advisory Board: to re- appoint Greg Burgess, Steve Langille and
John Acker each for a one year term from July 18, 2011 to July 18, 2012; to re- appoint
Tom Chesworth for a one year term from August 30, 2011 to August 30, 2012; to appoint
Jamie LeMesurier for a one year term from July 18, 2011 to July 18, 2012.
Taxicab Advisory Committee: to re- appoint Donald LeBlanc, Gary Williston, Mack
Tobias, and Christine Saumure from July 18, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
Saint John Board of Police Commissioners: to re- appoint Christopher Waldschutz for
a three year term from July 18, 2011 to July 18, 2014.
Trade & Convention Centre Oversight Committee: to re- appoint Councillor Sullivan
from July 18, 2011 until the end of his current term on Council; to re- appoint Ralph
Holyoke for a three year term from July 18, 2011 to July 18, 2014.
Harbour Station Commission: to re- appoint Mark McAuliffe for a three year term from
July 18, 2011 to July 18, 2014.
Saint John Industrial Parks: to re- appoint Councillor Farren from July 18, 2011 until
the end of his current term on Council; to re- appoint Kathy Craig, Andy Simpson and
Andy Lodge each for a term from July 18, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
Saint John Substandard Properties Appeal Committee: to re- appoint Councillor
Snook from July 18, 2011 until the end of his current term on Council.
Saint John Parking Commission: to re- appoint Lionel Bordage for a three year term
from August 18, 2011 to August 18, 2014.
Environment Committee: to appoint Craig Campbell for a three year term from July 18,
2011 to July 18, 2014.
21
96 -330
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 2011/LE 2 AOUT 2011
Greater Saint John Regional Facilities Commission: to re- appoint Mayor Court,
Councillor Sullivan and Councillor Higgins from July 18, 2011 until the end of their
current terms on Council.
Justice Complex Advisory Committee: to re- appoint Mary Blatherwick and Scott
Gibson each for a three year term from July 18, 2011 to July 18, 2014.
Fundy Trail Development Authority Inc.: to appoint Graeme Stewart - Robertson for a
three year term from July 18, 2011 to July 18, 2014.
Taxation Review Committee: to appoint Don Watson from July 31, 2011 to
December 31, 2011.
PRO Kids: to re- appoint Connie Coffin and Charles Jensen each for a term from
July 18, 2011 to December 31, 2013.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
4.3 Comite plenier : Recommandations de nominations pour sieger aux
comites
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que, comme le recommande le comite
plenier, s'etant reuni le 18 juillet 2011, le conseil communal approuve les nominations
suivantes pour sieger aux comites :
Comite consultatif de I'Organisme de gestion des services d'urgence de
Saint John : La nomination de Dan Houghton pour un mandat de deux ans allant du
18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2013.
Conseil consultatif du parc Rockwood : Le renouvellement des nominations de
Greg Burgess, Steve Langille et de John Acker, chacun pour un mandat d'un an allant
du 18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2012; le renouvellement des nominations de Tom
Chesworth pour un mandat d'un an allant du 30 aout 2011 au 30 aout 2012 et le
renouvellement de la nomination de Jamie LeMesurier, pour un mandat d'un an allant du
18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2012.
Comite consultatif sur les taxis : La reconduction des mandats de Donald LeBlanc,
Gary Williston, Mack Tobias et de Christine Saumure allant du 18 juillet 2011 au
31 decembre 2011.
Bureau des commissaires de la police de Saint John : Le renouvellement de la
nomination de Christopher Waldschutz pour un mandat de trois ans allant du
18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2014.
Comite de surveillance du centre des congres : La reconduction du mandat du
conseiller Sullivan allant du 18 juillet 2011 jusqu'a la fin de son mandat actuel au sein du
conseil et le renouvellement de la nomination de Ralph Holyoke pour un mandat de trois
ans allant du 18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2014.
Commission de Harbour Station : Le renouvellement de la nomination de
Mark McAuliffe pour un mandat de trois ans allant du 18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2014.
Pares industriels de Saint John : La reconduction du mandat du conseiller Farren
allant du 18 juillet 2011 jusqu'a la fin de son mandat actuel au sein du conseil et le
renouvellement des nominations de Kathy Craig, Andy Simpson et d'Andy Lodge,
chacun pour un mandat allant du 18 juillet 2011 au 31 decembre 2011.
Comite d'appel sur les residences non conformes aux normes de Saint John : Le
renouvellement de la nomination du conseiller Snook pour un mandat allant du
18 juillet 2011 jusqu'a la fin de son mandat actuel au sein du conseil.
Commission sur le stationnement de Saint John : Le renouvellement de la
nomination de Lionel Bordage pour un mandat de trois ans allant du 18 aout 2011 au
18 aout 2014.
22
96 -331
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 2011/LE 2 AOUT 2011
Comite sur I'environnement : La nomination de Craig Campbell pour un mandat de
trois ans allant du 18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2014.
Commission regionale des installations du Grand Saint John : Le renouvellement
de la nomination du maire Court, du conseiller Sullivan et de la conseillere Higgins pour
un mandat allant du 18 juillet 2011 jusqu'a la fin de leur mandat actuel au sein du
conseil.
Comite consultatif sur le centre judiciaire : Le renouvellement des nominations de
Mary Blatherwick et Scott Gibson, chacun pour un mandat de trois ans allant du
18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2014.
Fundy Trail Development Authority Inc.: La nomination de Graeme Stewart -
Robertson pour un mandat de trois ans allant du 18 juillet 2011 au 18 juillet 2014.
Comite de revision de I'impot foncier : La nomination de Don Watson pour un mandat
allant du 31 juillet 2011 au 31 decembre 2011.
PRO Kids : Le renouvellement des nominations de Connie Coffin et Charles Jensen,
chacun pour un mandat de trois ans allant du 18 juillet 2011 au 31 decembre 2013.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 That the ONE Change Inc. request to present to Council regarding management
and operations of the C.E. Nicolle Community Centre be referred to the Clerk to
schedule.
5.2 That the Milford Park Committee request to present be referred to the Clerk to
schedule.
5.3 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011-
197: Engagement of Engineering Consultant for Material Testing and Inspection
Services, and notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy for engagement of
professional services, Common Council authorize staff to conduct negotiations for the
engagement of Gemtec Limited to provide Materials Testing and Inspection Services for
2011.
5.4 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011-
198: 2011 Service Contract between Accu -Link and The City of Saint John, The City of
Saint John enter into a Service Contract with Accu -Link in the form and upon the terms
and conditions set out in the Service Contract submitted with said report, for the
purposes of providing a One -call Service and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to execute the said Contract.
5.5 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011-
199: Design Services: Loch Lomond Road (Russell Street to Westmorland Road) Water
and Sanitary Sewer Main Renewal and Road ReconstructionCommon Council authorize
the Engineering Services Agreement with exp Services Inc. for engineering design
services for the Loch Lomond Road Reconstruction Project be increased from $48,301
to $83,900.41 (including the City's eligible HST rebate).
5.6 That Common Council receive for information the submitted report M &C 2011-
200: Public Information Session — Crown Street SLS #8 and Force Main Harbour Clean -
Up Construction Project.
5.7 That Common Council receive for information the submitted report M &C 2011-
194: Public Information Session — Prince William Street (Civic #221 to Civic #270) Street
Reconstruction.
5.8 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011-
183: Westmorland Road (Westmorland Mall to Kervin Road) Roadway Reconstruction,
Contract 2010 -16: Westmorland Road (Westmorland Mall to Kervin Road) Roadway
Reconstruction be awarded to the low tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd., at the
tendered price of $506,827.60 as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and
23
96 -332
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary
contract documents.
5.9 That the Saint John Transit Commission presentation of Financial Position Year
to Date and Forecast for the balance of 2011 be referred to the Clerk to schedule.
5.10 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report Mispec Park
— Repso/ Canada Ltd., the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the
agreement between The City of Saint John and Repsol Canada Ltd., in its capacity as
the managing general partner of Canaport LNG Limited Partnership.
5.11 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011-
192: Easement Acquisition for Municipal Storm and Sanitary Sewer Lines — Part of 330
Green Head Road, The City of Saint John acquire an Easement for Municipal Services
in and through the lands at civic #330 Green Head Road, as per the submitted
Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and as illustrated on the submitted Easement Sketch,
titled "Milford Drainage Basin Storm water System Improvements "; and authorize the
Mayor and Common Clerk to sign any document(s) necessary to finalize this transaction.
5.12 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011-
202: Sludge Trailer, the proposal negotiated by staff with NexGen Municipal Inc., to build
a replacement trailer for vehicle 489, a 1999 Delco Sludge hauling trailer, in the amount
of $194,300.00 plus tax, be accepted.
5.13 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011-
195: Street Naming, Common Council amend the list of Official Street Names and
approve the following change: Add the name rue Hubert Street.
5.14 That Common Council receive for information the submitted report M &C 2011-
191: Building Permit Application — 109 Crowley Road.
5.15 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report Little River
Reservoir Park — Irving Oil Refining GP, the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to
execute the Early Access Agreement between The City of Saint John and Irving Oil
Refining GP in relation to the Little River Reservoir Park redevelopment in the submitted
form.
5.16 That the request to have reinstated a Labour Day Parade in the City of
Saint John be referred to the Police Commission.
5.17 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report Little River
Reservoir Park/ Park Maintenance Agreement, the City enter into the Park Maintenance
Agreement in the form and upon the terms and conditions as submitted with said report
and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the said agreement.
5.18 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011-
205: Harbour Clean -Up Marsh Creek Collector Sewer and 600mm Sanitary Forcemain
Installation Project, the City of Saint John enter into agreement(s) with Canadian
National Railway (CN) to permit the installation of a forcemain pipe crossing and sanitary
main pipe crossing under the CN tracks at Mile 0.18 Courtenay Bay Spur (Saint John),
located off Egbert Street, upon the terms and conditions set by CN in their letters and
documents submitted with M &C 2011 - 205 for the sum of $1,250.00+ HST, if applicable,
for each of the crossings; and further that the City of Saint John enter into agreement(s)
with Canadian National Railway (CN) to permit the installation of a forcemain pipe
crossing and sanitary main pipe crossing under the CN tracks at Mile 0.62 Dry Dock
Spur (Saint John), located off Bayside Drive, upon the terms and conditions set by CN in
their letters and documents submitted with M &C 2011 -205 for the sum of $1,900.00+
HST, if applicable, for each of the crossings; and further that the Mayor and Common
Clerk be authorized to sign all documentation in this regard.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the recommendation set out for
each consent agenda item respectively be adopted.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
24
96 -333
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil
5.1 Que la demande de presentation devant le conseil de ONE Change Inc. visant la
gestion des operations du Centre communautaire C.E. Nicolle soit transmise a la
greffiere pour qu'elle fixe une date de presentation.
5.2 Que la demande soumise par le comite du parc Milford visant a se presenter
devant le conseil soit transmise a la greffibre pour qu'elle fixe une date de presentation.
5.3 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -197: Embauche dun ingenieur- conseil pour les services d'essai des
materiaux et d'inspection, le conseil communal, nonobstant la politique
d'approvisionnement de la Ville relativement au recours a des services professionnels,
autorise le personnel a entreprendre des negociations avec Gemtec Limited pour fournir
des services de mise a I'essai et d'inspection du materiel pour 2011.
5.4 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -198: Contrat de services en 2011 conclu entre Accu -Link et The City of
Saint John, The City of Saint John conclue un contrat de services avec Accu -Link dans
la forme et selon les modalites enoncees dans le contrat de services soumis avec ledit
rapport, dans le but de fournir un service unique et que le maire et la greffiere
communale soient autorises a executer ledit contrat.
5.5 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -199: Services de conception: Renouvellement de la conduite d'eau
principale et refection du chemin Loch Lomond (de la rue Russell au chemin
Westmorland); le conseil communal accepte que la convention relative aux services
d'ingenierie conclue avec exp Services Inc., visant les services de conception technique
et la realisation du projet de refection du chemin Loch Lomond, soit modifiee en faisant
passer le montant de 48 301 $ a 83 900,41 $ (y compris le remboursement de la taxe de
vente harmonisee auquel la municipalite est admissible).
5.6 Que le conseil communal accepte a titre informatif le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -200: Seance informative publique — Station de relevement no 8 de la rue
Crown et conduite de refoulement dans le cadre du projet de construction et de
nettoyage du port.
5.7 Que le conseil communal accepte a titre informatif le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -194 : Seance informative publique relative aux travaux de refection de la
rue Prince William (du numero municipal 221 au numero municipal 270).
5.8 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -183: Refection du chemin Westmorland (du centre commercial Westmorland
au chemin Kervin), le contrat no 2010 -16 : relatif aux travaux de refection du chemin
Westmorland (du centre commercial Westmorland au chemin Kervin) soit accorde au
soumissionnaire le moins - disant, Galbraith Construction Ltd., au prix offert de
506 827,60 $, etabli a partir de quantit6s estimatives et, que le maire et la greffiere
communale soient autorises a signer les documents contractuels necessaires.
5.9 Que la presentation de la situation financiere a ce jour et des previsions pour le
reste de I'annee 2011 par la Commission des transports de Saint John soit transmise a
la greffiere pour qu'elle fixe une date de presentation.
5.10 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
Parc Mispec — Repso/ Canada Ltd., le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a
signer 1'entente soumise entre The City of Saint John et Repsol Canada Ltd., en sa
qualite d'associee commanditee gestionnaire de la societe en commandite Canaport
GNL.
5.11 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -192: Acquisition dune servitude relative au reseau municipal d'egout
sanitaire et d'egout pluvial visant le 330, chemin Green Head, The City of Saint John
fasse I'acquisition d'une servitude pour services municipaux sur les terrains situes au
330, chemin Green Head, conformement a la convention d'achat -vente soumise et au
croquis de servitude soumis intitule « Modernisation du reseau d'egout pluvial du bassin
versant de Milford », et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer
tous les documents necessaires a la conclusion de cette transaction.
25
96 -334
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
5.12 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -202: Remorque pour boues, la proposition negociee par le personnel avec
NexGen Municipal Inc., visant a construire une remorque de remplacement pour le
vehicule 489, une remorque pour boues Delco 1999, d'un montant de 194 300 $ (taxes
en sus), soit acceptee.
5.13 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -195: Attribution de nom de rue, le conseil communal modifie la liste des noms
de rue officiels et approuve la modification suivante : Ajout du nom rue Hubert Street.
5.14 Que le conseil communal accepte a titre informatif le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -191 : Demande de permis de construction concernant le 109, chemin
Crowley.
5.10 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
Parc du reservoir Little River— Irving Oil Refining G. P., le maire et la greffibre
communale soient autorises a signer 1'entente relative a I'acces anticipe conclue entre
The City of Saint John et Irving Oil Refining G.P., relativement au reamenagement du
parc du reservoir Little River, dans la forme et selon les modalites enoncees.
5.16 Que la demande de retablir le defile de la fete du Travail dans The City of
Saint John soit transmise a la Commission de police.
5.17 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
Parc du reservoir Little River— Entente relative a 1'entretien du parc, la Ville conclue une
entente relative a 1'entretien du parc dans la forme et selon les modalites soumises avec
ledit rapport, et que le maire et la greffibre communale soient autorises a signer ladite
entente.
5.18 Que, comme le recommande le directeur general dans le rapport soumis intitule
M/C 2011 -205 : Projet lie a ('installation d'une conduite de refoulement de 600 mm et
d'un egout collecteur au ruisseau Marsh dans le cadre du nettoyage du port, The City of
Saint John conclue un contrat avec la Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du
Canada (CN) en vue d'installer une conduite de refoulement et une conduite sanitaire
principale passant sous les voles ferrees du CN au point milliaire 0,18 de
1'embranchement Courtenay Bay (Saint John), situe pres de la rue Egbert,
conformement aux conditions etablies par le CN dans les lettres et les documents
soumis avec le contrat no M/C 2011 -205 pour la somme de 1 250 $ (TVH en sus, le cas
echeant) pour chacun des points de rencontre, et, de plus, que The City of Saint John
signe une entente avec la Compagnie des chemins de fer nationaux du Canada (CN) en
vue d'installer une conduite de refoulement et une conduite sanitaire principale passant
sous les voies ferrees du CN au point milliaire 0,62 de 1'embranchement Dry Dock (Saint
John), situe pros du chemin Bayside, conformement aux conditions etablies par le CN
sans les lettres et les documents soumis avec le contrat no M/C 2011 -205 pour la
somme de 1 900 $ (TVH en sus, le cas echeant) pour chacun des points de rencontre,
et que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer la documentation
afferente a cet egard.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLLI que la recommandation formulee pour
chacune des questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil soit adoptee.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
7. Proclamation
7.1 Greater Saint John Gay Pride Week August 6 -14, 2011
The Mayor proclaimed the week of August 6th to 14th, 2011 as "The Greater Saint John
Gay Pride Week" in the City of Saint John.
7. Proclamation
7.1 Festival de la semaine de la fierte gaie du Grand Saint John,
du 6 au 14 aout 2011
Le maire declare la semaine du 6 au 14 aout Semaine du Festival de la semaine de la
26
96 -335
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
fierte gaie du Grand Saint John dans The City of Saint John.
10. Consideration of By -laws
10.1 Third Reading Traffic By -Law Amendment Re: Dorchester Street
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to
Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the
Authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and Amendments Thereto," amending
Schedule B and Schedule J regarding Dorchester Street, be read.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
The by -law entitled "A Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City
of Saint John made under the Authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and
Amendments Thereto" was read in its entirety.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A Law to
Amend a By -Law Respecting Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the
Authority of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1973, and Amendments Thereto," amending
Schedule B and Schedule J regarding Dorchester Street, be read a third time, enacted,
and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled "A Law to Amend a By -Law Respecting
Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John made under the Authority of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1973, and Amendments Thereto."
10. Etude des arretes municipaux
10.1 Troisieme lecture du projet de modification de I'Arrete relatif a la circulation
visant la rue Dorchester
Proposition du conseiller Farren
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John edicte en vertu de
la Loi sur les vehicules a moteur (1973) et modifications afferentes », modifiant
I'annexe B et I'annexe J relativement a la rue Dorchester, fasse I'objet d'une lecture.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
L'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City
of Saint John edicte en vertu de la Loi sur les vehicules a moteur (1973) et modifications
afferentes » est lu integralement.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant
I'Arrete relatif a la circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John edicte en vertu de
la Loi sur les vehicules a moteur (1973) et modifications afferentes », modifiant
I'annexe B et I'annexe J relativement a la rue Dorchester, fasse I'objet d'une troisieme
lecture, que ledit arrete soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit appose.
A Tissue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Troisieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete relatif a la
circulation dans les rues de The City of Saint John, edicte en vertu de la Loi sur les
vehicules a moteur (1973) et modifications afferentes ».
27
96 -336
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
10.2 Third Reading Parking By -Law Amendment Re: Dorchester Street
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Sullivan
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a
By -Law With Respect to Parking Zones and the Use of Parking Meters and Pay and
Display Machines" amending Schedule "A ", regarding Dorchester Street, be read.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
The by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law with Respect to Parking Zones and
the Use of Parking Meters and Pay and Display Machines" was read in its entirety.
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a
By -Law With Respect to Parking Zones and the Use of Parking Meters and Pay and
Display Machines" amending Schedule "A" regarding Dorchester Street, be read a third
time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
Read a third time by title, the by -law entitled "A By -Law to Amend a By -Law with
Respect to Parking Zones and the Use of Parking Meters and Pay and Display
Machines ".
10.2 Troisieme lecture du projet de modification de I'Arrete sur le stationnement
visant la rue Dorchester
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan
RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete
concernant les zones de stationnement et ('utilisation des parcometres et des
horodateurs », modifiant I'annexe « A » relativement a la rue Dorchester, fasse ('objet
d'une lecture.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
L'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete concernant les zones de stationnement et
('utilisation des parcometres et des horodateurs » est lu integralement.
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que 1'arrete intitule « Arrete modifiant I'Arrete
concernant les zones de stationnement et ('utilisation des parcometres et des
horodateurs », modifiant I'annexe « A » relativement a la rue Dorchester, fasse ('objet
d'une troisieme lecture, que ledit arrete soit edicte et que le sceau communal y soit
appose.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
Troisieme lecture par titre de 1'arrete intitule « Arrete concernant les zones de
stationnement et ('utilisation des parcometres et des horodateurs ».
13. Committee Reports
13.2 Committee of the Whole: Outstanding Contributions re: Pension Plan
Going Concern Unfunded Liability
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that as recommended by the
Committee of the Whole, payment of $309,183.00 be made forthwith to the City of
Saint John Pension Fund, for interest owing to July 31, 2011 for special payments due
with respect to 2010.
96 -337
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
Deputy Mayor Chase stated that he could not support the motion at this time as the City
will soon be presenting the Province with its pension reform proposal, which he noted
could reduce the unfunded liability.
Councillor Farren stated that until there is a solution in place for the City's pension plan,
he cannot support providing additional funding to the plan.
The Commissioner of Finance stated that the City has been directed by the
Superintendent of Pensions to make the payment to the pension plan for payments due
with respect to 2010.
Responding to a question, the Commissioner of Finance stated that it is his
understanding that future reforms to the City's pension plan will not result in relief for the
2010 pension contribution obligations.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Deputy Mayor Chase
and Councillors Higgins and Farren voting nay.
13. Rapports deposes par les comites
13.2 Comite plenier : Contributions impayees — Passif a long terme non
capitalise du regime de retraite
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLU que comme le recommande le
Comite plenier, le montant de 309 183 $ soit paye immediatement au regime de retraite
de The City of Saint John, au titre des interets dus au 31 juillet 2011, pour paiements
speciaux dus par rapport a 2010.
Le maire suppleant Chase declare qu'il ne peut pas appuyer cette motion pour le
moment, etant donne que la Ville presentera bientot a la province sa proposition de
reforme des pensions, ce qui, precise -t -il, pourrait reduire le passif non capitalise.
Le conseiller Farren indique que tant qu'une solution n'est pas trouvee relativement au
regime de retraite de la Ville, it ne pourra pas octroyer des fonds supplementaires au
regime de retraite.
Le commissaire aux finances declare que le surintendant des regimes de retraite a
ordonne a la Ville de payer le montant au regime de retraite, pour paiements dus par
rapport a 2010.
En reponse a une question, le commissaire aux finances indique qu'a sa connaissance,
les futures reformes au regime de retraite de la Ville ne donneront pas lieu a une
exoneration des cotisations de retraite de 2010.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. Le maire suppleant Chase
ainsi que le conseiller Farren et la conseillere Higgins votent contre la proposition.
13.3 Committee of the Whole: Appointment of Acting Fire Chief
On motion of Councillor McGuire
Seconded by Councillor Sullivan
RESOLVED that Kevin Clifford is hereby appointed
Acting Fire Chief effective August 9, 2011 for the duration of the current vacancy in the
position of Fire Chief or until sooner determined by Common Council.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
13.3 Comite plenier : Nomination d'un chef du service d'incendie par interim
Proposition du conseiller McGuire
Appuyee par le conseiller Sullivan
RESOLU que Kevin Clifford soit nomme chef du
service d'incendie par interim a compter du 9 aout 2011 pendant tout le temps que le
poste de chef du service d'incendie restera vacant ou pour une duree inferieure a
I'appreciation du conseil communal.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
29
96 -338
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AO(JT 2011
13.4 Committee of the Whole: Interim Arrangements for Acting City Manager
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor McGuire
RESOLVED that in the event of the absence of City
Manager J. Patrick Woods, appointment to the position of Acting City Manager is hereby
made of Paul Groody, Ken Forrest and Bill Edwards, in accordance with their respective
availability and the matters anticipated to require attention in the City Manager's
absence, with the City Manager to administer the arrangement.
Question being taken, the motion was carried with Councillor Higgins
voting nay.
13.4 Comit6 pl6nier : Arrangements provisoires au sujet du directeur g6n6ral
par int6rim
Proposition du conseiller Farren
Appuyee par le conseiller McGuire
RESOLLI que, dans le cas ou le directeur general
J. Patrick Woods serait absent, cette fonction soit occupee par Paul Groody, Ken Forrest
et Bill Edwards, en fonction des disponibilites de chacun et des sujets devant etre
examines en I'absence du directeur general. II est en outre resolu que le directeur
general definisse Ies modalites de la presente disposition.
A ('issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee. La conseillere Higgins vote
contre la proposition.
12.2 City Manager: Proposed City of Saint John Ice Time Allocation and
Management Policy
On motion of Councillor Farren
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that item 12.2 City Manager: Proposed
City of Saint John Ice Time Allocation and Management Policy be tabled until the next
meeting of Council.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
12.2 Directeur g6n6ral : Politique propos6e par The City of Saint John
relativement a I'allocation et a la gestion de temps de glace
Proposition du conseiller Farren
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLLI que le point 12.2 Directeur general
Politique propos6e par The City of Saint John relativement a I'allocation et a la gestion
de temps de glace, soit reporte a la prochaine reunion du conseil.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
12.5 City Manager: Green Infrastructure Fund — Funding Request Combined
Sewer Overflow Reduction
On motion of Councillor Court
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City
Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -167. Green Infrastructure Fund — Funding
Request Combined Sewer Overflow Reduction, Common Council:
1) Adopt the funding request under the Green Infrastructure Fund for the
combined Sewer Overflow Reduction project; and
2) Authorize the Mayor to send the submitted funding request to the Minister of
Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and otherwise follow -up with the appropriate
Federal representatives to secure funding for this very important Combined Sewer
Overflow Reduction project.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
30
96 -339
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 201 VLE 2 AOUT 2011
12.5 Directeur general : Fonds pour ('infrastructure verte — Demande de
financement pour la reduction de la decharge de I'egout unitaire
Proposition du conseiller Court
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur
general dans le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -167: Fonds pour 1'infrastructure verte —
Demande de financement pour la reduction de la decharge de 1'egout unitaire, le conseil
communal:
1) adopte la demande de financement en vertu du Fonds pour ('infrastructure
verte concernant le projet de reduction de la decharge de I'6gout unitaire;
2) autorise le maire a transmettre la demande de financement soumise au
ministre des Transports, de ('Infrastructure et des Collectivit6s, ou a en faire le suivi
aupres des representants des gouvernements f6deraux appropries en vue de garantir le
financement de ce projet capital, a savoir la reduction de la decharge de I'egout unitaire.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
12.6 City Manager: Bridge Street Sanitary Lift Station #23 Force Main & Sewer
Installation
On motion of Councillor Titus
Seconded by Councillor Snook
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City
Manager in the submitted report M &C 2011 -196: Contract No. 2011 -12: Bridge Street
Sanitary Lift Station #23, Force Main & Sewer Installation be awarded to the low
tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd., at the tendered price of $1,406,903.11 as
calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common
Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
Question being taken, the motion was carried.
12.6 Directeur general : Installation de la conduite d'eau principale et de I'egout
sanitaire a la station de relevement no 23 de la rue Bridge
Proposition du conseiller Titus
Appuyee par le conseiller Snook
RESOLU que, comme le recommande le directeur
general dans le rapport soumis intitul6 M/C 2011 -196, le contrat no 2011 -12 relatif a
('installation de la conduite d'eau principale et de I'egout sanitaire a la station de
relevement no 23 de la rue Bridge soit accorde au soumissionnaire le moins - disant,
Galbraith Construction Ltd., au prix offert de 1 406 903,11 $, etabli a partir de quantit6s
estimatives et, que le maire et la greffiere communale soient autorises a signer les
documents contractuels necessaires.
A I'issue du vote, la proposition est adoptee.
11. Submissions by Council Members
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du
conseil
15. General Correspondence
15. Correspondance gen6rale
16. Adjournment
2011.
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. on August 3rd
31
96 -340
COMMON COUNCIL /CONSEIL COMMUNAL
AUGUST 2, 2011/LE 2 AOUT 2011
Items forwarded to the August 15, 2011 Council Agenda:
11.2 Sydney Street Courthouse (Councillor Titus)
11.3 Standing Committee System (Councillor Titus)
11.4 Council Budget — Salaries (Councillor Titus)
11.5 Traffic Restrictions on Uptown Streets During Outdoor Market (Councillor
Higgins)
13.1 Planning Advisory Committee: 111 Molson Avenue — Subdivision Application
12.7 City Manager: Dress Uniforms — Fire Department
Items forwarded to the August 29, 2011 Council Meeting:
12.3(a) City Manager: Solid Waste Management Service — Outsource Decision
12.3(b) City Manager: Community Solid Waste Management Service
12.4 City Manager: Wellfield Protection — Harbourview Subdivision
16. Levee de la seance
Le maire declare que la seance est levee a 1 h le 3 aout 2011.
Points reportes a I'ordre du jour du conseil du 15 aout 2011 :
11.2 Palais de justice de la rue Sydney (conseiller Titus)
11.3 Systeme des comites permanents (conseiller Titus)
11.4 Budget du conseil — Salaires (conseiller Titus)
11.5 Restrictions imposees a la circulation dans les rues du centre -ville lors de la
tenue du marche en plein air (conseillere Higgins)
13.1 Comite consultatif d'urbanisme : Demande d'amenagement de lotissement au
111, avenue Molson
12.7 Directeur general : Uniformes de grande tenue du service d'incendie
Points reportes a la seance du conseil du 29 aout 2011 :
12.3a) Directeur general : Service de gestion des dechets solides — Decision liee a
I'impartition
12.3b) Directeur general : Service communautaire de gestion des dechets solides
12.4 Directeur general : Protection des champs de captage — Lotissement
Harbourview
Mayor / maire
Common Clerk / greffiere communale
32
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2011 -178 m.�.
July 12th, 2011 n.
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court The city of saint john
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: Wellfield Protection - Harbourview Subdivision
BACKGROUND
Approximately 252 homes in the Harbourview Subdivision receive drinking water from
two (2) wells operated by the City of Saint John as part of its formal Approval to Operate
drinking water facilities, as issued by the Minister of Environment. The primary well on
Seaward Crescent typically services the demand of the subdivision; the back -up well is
on Ocean Drive. The wells date back to the early 1970s.
Work is currently underway to provide disinfection of these drinking water supplies — in
accordance with the drinking water standards of the Province of New Brunswick.
In recognition of the need to protect vital groundwater supplies, the Province introduced a
Wellfield Protection Program (WPP) in October 2000. The Program enables the Minister,
with the approval of the Lieutenant - Governor in Council, to issue a Wellfield Protected
Area Designation Order under the Clean Water Act, Regulation 2000 -47 - for the purpose
of protecting the quality and quantity of municipal groundwater sources.'
When a wellfield area is so designated, prohibitions or limitations on chemical storage
and land use can be imposed for the good of the public groundwater supply. It makes far
more sense to prevent water contamination in the first place than to try to clean up a
contaminated wellfield or find an alternative source of drinking water.
Within a designated protected area, the Minister of Environment may:
1. Allocate the use of water;
2. Control, prohibit, or limit any activity or thing which might impair the quality
or quantity of the water;
3. Restrict or prohibit unsuitable land uses; and
4. Establish and enforce guidelines and standards for the purpose of protecting
the quantity and the quality of the water supply.
1 New Brunswick Regulation 2000 -47 under the Clean Water Act, 2000
1 New Brunswick Regulation 2000 -47 under the Clean Water Act, 2000
33
Report to Common Council (M &C 2011 -178) July 12"', 2011
Wellfield Protection — Harbourview Subdivision Page 2 of 6
The WPP provides the means to protect the ground water supply while ensuring equitable
consideration for property owners within the designated area. Officials from Saint John
Water and the New Brunswick Department of Environment have been working
collaboratively to have the Harbourview wellfield recharge areas designated as protected
under the Clean Water Act, Regulation 2000 -47.
ANALYSIS
The first step involved identification of the recharge areas (also known as the wellfield
protection areas) which feed these neighbourhood wells. GEMTEC Limited was engaged
in 2009 (M &C 2009 -146) to undertake the Wellfield Protection Study for Harbourview.
The study's final report2 has now been received.
As part of the study, a senior hydrogeologist delineated the recharge areas for each
production well using a 3 -D groundwater flow model to determine the various protection
zones for the Harbourview Wellfield. While groundwater models are mathematical
representations of natural groundwater flows, the Harbourview model is considered a
predictive tool for identification of wellfield protection areas. A sensitivity analysis of the
model indicated a negligible discrepancy (equal to or less than 0.7 %).
The creation of three protection zones (A, B and C) around a municipal wellfield reflects
the fact that different contaminants persist in the environment for different lengths of
time, move at different rates and pose different health risks. Figures 4 and 5, attached,
from the GEMTEC report shows delineations for Zones A, B and C. These zones have
varying degrees of controls; dictated by the types of contaminants and their tendency to
degrade, be absorbed or get filtered from the groundwater. A brief summary of the three
zones follows, with the contaminants to focus on identified for each protection zone.
The most stringent controls are required for areas closest to the well - Zone A where
groundwater travel times to the well are less than 250 days (or 100 days for sand and
gravel aquifers). Zone B surrounds Zone A and represents a groundwater travel time from
250 days (or 100 if sand/gravel) to 5 years. Zone C surrounds Zones A and B with
groundwater travel times of 25 years. Zone C is located furthest from the wellhead.
Zone A Zone A is the most sensitive; a high risk area identified for protection
from bacteria and viruses. It is generally accepted that bacteria and viruses will be
eliminated when their residence time (time of travel to the wellhead) is greater than 250
days in a bedrock aquifer. Examples of sources of these contaminants include septic
tanks, leaking sewer lines, sewage sludge disposal and sanitary landfill leachate. A WPP
would impose restrictions and controls on these types of activities.
Zone B Zone B is the protection area for liquid petroleum products - defined by a
5 -year groundwater travel time; sufficient time for petroleum contaminants to break
z Wellfield Protection Study Harbourview Subdivision, GEMTEC Limited on behalf of the City of Saint John, final
report dated July 8't', 2011.
34
Report to Common Council (M &C 2011 -178) July 12"', 2011
Wellfield Protection — Harbourview Subdivision Page 3 of 6
down based on the permitted volume of 1,200 litres. The most common threat for
petroleum products entering the groundwater is from leaks in underground storage tanks
and home heating oil tanks. Examples of liquid petroleum products include gasoline,
diesel, kerosene, furnace oil and vehicle lubricants. Petroleum solvents include varsol,
turpentine, paint cleaner and thinner, toluene and xylene. Petroleum by- products such as
acetone, benzene, ethylene glycol and methanol would also be restricted. Maximum
quantities permitted vary depending upon the specific chemical as shown below in Table
6 from the Wellfield Protection Study report. Schedule C from the New Brunswick
Regulation 2000 -47 under the Clean Water Act provides a more detailed list.
Table 6 — Wellfield Protection Areas
Harbourview Subdivision Wellfield Protection Study
Chemical or Activity
:A_r -p., �u
Petroleum fuel storage
25 litres maximum
1200 litres maximum
2000 litres maximum
Petroleum solvent storage ( Varsol)
10 litres maximum
65 litres maximum
500 litres maximum
Chlorinated solvent storage
Not permitted
Not permitted
Not permitted
Pesticide and preservative storage
10 kg or 10 litres
whichever is less
15 kg or 15 L
whichever is less
50 kg or 50 L
whichever is less
New sewage system installations
Not permitted
Permitted
Permitted
Manure storage
Not permitted
Allowed with controls
Allowed with controls
Manure application
Not permitted
Allowed with controls
Allowed with controls
Mining and aggregate removal
Not permitted
Not permitted
Not permitted
Inorganic
fertilizers
Storage
Usage
10 kg maximum
Allowed with controls
15 kg maximum
Allowed with controls
50 kg maximum
Allowed with controls
Forestry Operations
Salvage cutting
Selection cutting
Selection cutting
Groundwater extraction
Not permitted
9000 litres /day
maximum
9000 litres /day
maximum
Groundwater heat pumps
Not permitted
Not permitted
Not permitted
Road salt
Storage allowed to a
maximum of 50 kg
Storage allowed to a
maximum of 50 kg
Storage allowed to a
maximum of 50 kg
Note: Listed values are the maximum allowable amounts per parcel.
Amounts do not include personal or commercial vehicles or their payload.
Zone C Zone C, farthest from the wellhead, is determined by 25 -year groundwater
travel time. Primary concerns for this protected area are chlorinated solvents;
contaminants much more persistent than others and hence the need for longer travel times
and larger protected areas. Examples include dry cleaning fluid, spot remover, metal
35
Report to Common Council (M &C 2011 -178) July 12"', 2011
Wellfield Protection — Harbourview Subdivision Page 4 of 6
degreasers and paint removers. Controls in Zone C are reduced again from those in A and
B; however, as with protection areas A and B, chlorinated solvents, groundwater heat
pumps and mining of aggregates are not permitted.
Land Use
Land use within the groundwater recharge areas is also considered. As part of the
Harbourview Study, current land uses were reviewed to assess potential conflicts with the
Wellfield Protected Area Designation Order. This involved site visits to examine existing
land uses within the wellfield areas.
The City's Municipal Plan and Zoning By -law were also reviewed to determine the range
of permitted land uses within the zones. In addition, past land uses were considered - to
determine potential risks to the aquifer.
Zone A There are separate Zone A areas for the two production wells; collectively
covering an area of approximately 3 hectares. Zone A for the Ocean Drive Well contains
16 properties along with portions of the municipal right -of -way, homeowner association
lands and travelled portions of Harbourview Drive, Ocean Drive, Redrock Court and
Dewar Street. Most parcels contain single - family dwellings. The Seaward Crescent well
area contains 15 parcels along with portions of the municipal right -of -way and traveled
portions of Seaward Crescent and Aberdeen Avenue.
Zone B Zone B encompasses 162 properties or portions thereof in an area of about
18 hectares. The majority of the existing land use comprises single - family homes and
associated common areas under the control of a homeowners association. The remaining
developed areas are municipal streets and a playground. Within Zone B, three dwellings
were confirmed to have fill pipes for heating oil and one property a heating oil tank. In
addition, a parked petroleum delivery truck was observed on Ocean Drive on two
occasions near the transition boundary from Zone B to Zone C. At the eastern most edge
of the subdivision, Zone B encompasses approximately 140 to 150 linear metres of the
two Irving Oil crude oil pipelines running from Canaport to the refinery. See Figure 5
(attached) of the GEMTEC report.
Zone C Zone C for the two wells covers an area of about 75 hectares and contains
42 properties, the majority single family homes. One home was confirmed as having
heating oil fill pipes. There are also lands zoned "Pits and Quarries" and "Rural ". The
"Pits and Quarries" zoning permits pits, quarries, topsoil removal and the excavation of
sand, clay, shale, limestone and other deposits. Parcel PID 00339960 was rezoned in
2007 to permit the existing gravel pit operation, however during rezoning restrictions
were noted. For instance, the disturbed area was limited to a maximum of 4 hectares,
excluding the driveway with all other areas to be undisturbed or rehabilitated. An
additional condition of the zoning does not allow for trucks or equipment to be stored on
the site unless part of an active excavation.
36
Report to Common Council (M &C 2011 -178) July 12"', 2011
Welliield Protection — Harbourview Subdivision Page 5 of 6
Summary - Present Non - Conforming Land Uses
There are no present non - conforming land use issues in Zone A.
Within Zone B the major issue pertains to the presence of the two crude oil pipelines at
the northeast edge of the Seaward Crescent Welliield. This will require an exemption
under the Regulation. Other more minor issues relate to the presence of oil heating at
several properties and the parked petroleum delivery truck.
To address the residential issues in Zone B, upgrades to oil storage systems to provide
secondary containment will be required and the parking of a petroleum delivery truck on
city streets within the welliield will have to be addressed.
Within Zone C the major issues from a land use perspective are the presence of the crude
oil pipelines (noted for Zone B) and the existing gravel pit located east of Bayside Drive.
Both activities require an exemption under the Regulation.
Any potential forestry operations within the protected zones would be limited and
required to practice selective cutting.
Water Ouality
Overall the inorganic and organic water quality for the two wells is good with only minor
exceedences of turbidity and iron in samples collected from the Ocean Drive well. The
microbiological water quality of the two production wells is very good, with no E. Coli
detected in either well and only sporadic detection of coliform bacteria in each. The
sporadic detection of coliform is being addressed through the current capital project to
add a chlorine injection system at the newly upgraded Ocean Drive Well House and then
the Seaward Crescent Well House.
With both wells located in close proximity (less than 600m) to the Bay of Fundy (major
salt water body), there is always a concern with the potential for saltwater intrusion.
However, through a review of water quality records and some testing previously
completed, the data indicates the wells have not been influenced by saltwater.
Steps in Protecting the Wellfield
Subsequent to the presentation to Council as part of this report submission, Council will
be asked to resolve that the wellfields be protected. Should Council determine that this is
in the public interest; a letter would be sent from the Mayor on behalf of Council to the
Minister of Environment requesting protection under the Regulation.
An open house would be organized by the Department of Environment and Saint John
Water would participate in that open house. This would provide an opportunity to discuss
the protection areas with the general public, explain what the regulation would mean,
seek input, and answer any questions — all before the regulation would be amended. (A
37
Report to Common Council (M &C 2011 -178) July 12"', 2011
Wellfield Protection — Harbourview Subdivision Page 6 of 6
direct mail out invitation will go out to all residences within the proposed protected area
prior to the open house, as well as general invitations through the local media). Once
completed, protection areas would be considered for designation by the Minister.
Once supported by the Minister, the regulation makes its way to the Legislature, where a
motion to amend the regulation is made and the wellfield delineations added.
Residential non - conformances are usually addressed by the Department of Environment.
Those affected are given time to get into compliance with the regulation.
The pipeline and the gravel pit are both previously existing uses that may be eligible for
exemption; something the Department of Environment as the regulatory authority will
need to consider. Exemptions for gravel pits in Protected Areas B and C have been
approved previously in other wellfields.
INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES
Officials of the Department of Environment, which has been working collaboratively on
Harbourview wellfield protection with Saint John Water, will be making a presentation to
Council in conjunction with the consideration of this report.
Community Planning and Development has also been consulted.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that Common Council:
1. Resolves to proceed with seeking formal protection/designation of the
Seaward Crescent and Ocean Drive Wellfields under the Clean Water Act,
Regulation 2000 -47.
2. Direct the Mayor to send a letter on behalf of Council to the Minister of
Environment requesting that Regulation 2000 -47 be amended to include the
Wellfield delineations as `add -ons' to Schedule A.
3. Once the Regulation has been amended and the Wellfields designated as
protected, direct staff to proceed with placing signage on streets and roadways
within these areas to alert the public that they are entering /in protected areas.
Respectfully submitted,
J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng.
Commissioner,
Municipal Operations & Engineering
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
W
1 1 /,
pp 6
IRvm OIL PIPELINES
(APPRO)
,
I
- I
11102' pb,9 $oases ,
° 9
NS
9 o o b
/ 00��858 SEA
i�p0338�61- y ° $ g N
\ I
55pp9963
X. I
I
I
I
o�„tly'
I
65MM
00�`166AA
39
I
I
Op331�Q9,,/ 31691
/ p033a335
I
I
LEGEND
PRODUCTION WELL
® 250 DAYS
5 YEARS
25 YEARS
W
>
W Drawn By Checked By
W
39960 AGSD VB
pQ3 Calculations By Checked By
Q '
m
Date
I
I
�' 6gAl
I
I
NOV, 2009
Project
HARBOURVIEW SUBDIVISION WELLFIELD
PROTECTION STUDY, SAINT JOHN, NB
Drawing
WELLFIELD PROTECTION AREAS
Scale
1:5000
0 100 200 300m
File No. Drawing Revision No.
04183503 1 FIGURE 4 1 0
C EME
CONSULTING F-
AND SCIENTIS
i
IRVJNG OIL PIPELINES
(APPR X
13 133311
- I
Qp 000%'�4
I
0954,962
55019046 4
OCEAN
SEA $� $
rol
550'9963
� ''338335
I
I
I
I > I
LU
1 Q I
IM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
55969948
' I
El
00339960
I
�-
/
I
LEGEND
PRODUCTION WELL
ZONE A
ZONE B
ZONE C
Drawn By Checked By
AGSD VB
Calculations By Checked By
Date
NOV, 2009
Project
HARBOURVIEW SUBDIVISION WELLFIELD
PROTECTION STUDY, SAINT JOHN, NB
Drawing
PROPOSED PROTECTION AREAS
Scale
1:5000
0 100 200 300m
File No. Drawing Revision No.
04183503 1 FIGURE 5 1 0
GEMTD,
CONSULTING ENGINEE- -
AND SCIENTISTS
IRVJNG OIL PIPELINES
(APPR X
13 133311
- I
Qp 000%'�4
I
0954,962
55019046 4
OCEAN
SEA $� $
rol
550'9963
� ''338335
I
I
I
I > I
LU
1 Q I
IM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
55969948
' I
El
00339960
I
�-
/
I
LEGEND
PRODUCTION WELL
ZONE A
ZONE B
ZONE C
Drawn By Checked By
AGSD VB
Calculations By Checked By
Date
NOV, 2009
Project
HARBOURVIEW SUBDIVISION WELLFIELD
PROTECTION STUDY, SAINT JOHN, NB
Drawing
PROPOSED PROTECTION AREAS
Scale
1:5000
0 100 200 300m
File No. Drawing Revision No.
04183503 1 FIGURE 5 1 0
GEMTD,
CONSULTING ENGINEE- -
AND SCIENTISTS
City of Saint John
Welifield Protection
Mark Bader, B.Sc.
Regional Water Planning Officer (Region 5)
NB Department of Environment
August 2, 2011
41
A
ew No i u�
u sw c
Be...in this place • Etre ... id on le peut
Drinking Water Protection
Province of New Brunswick
Municipal Wellfields
57 Wellfields /municipalities
20% of population
150 000 people Domestic Wells
.. , 40% of population
Surface Water
300 000 people
30 watersheds /21 municipalities
40% of population
300 000 people
�:- B?ew-i&NV1 uk
c
42 Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Province of New Brunswick
• 57 municipalities.
• -200 wells
• -150 000 people
• 34 Designated Wellfields
• Miramichi partially
designated
d
43 Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Drinking Water Protection
Elements of Drinking Water Protection
Source Ik
Protectio
Treatment
Processes
Monitorin
di
Traini
Source Protection: A proactive approach
water protection.
.M,
s
to drinking
B?ew,-�MNquveau k
s
Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Regulation under the Clean Water Act
• Regulation Established in CI .. a...,
2000 under the Clean Water
Act. NEW BRUNSWICK
under the
CLEAN WATER ACT
'0 C. 811Dd511
• Wellfield Protected Area ).flk C11- .13.3000
Under wh-h I I-N 11 of the C /ran ft— All.
the Minr with the Ap , Ikl of nc� g
G--.. Cwrr[il. mak<sthcfollowinBD[rigna-
• nn Order:
Designation Order. ,i TMr QDmayecircdu the Wr °field,.
«redAO OraiRnm/on iwdre � It Iif,,I An.
Alloft.. - w,wan�mhargearcuurpw-
s A. gmunJ wat<r — C, areas drown u a
Zane A. ZoncBma] rcCon the map anxMd
• Based on groundwater travel as n <m�f -,f,. brt<hartW-,
potion ( wundw recharge area. Thar
scd as , -f cr fur a puhl c gnru -w
supply syu< Jesignat[dupwt tN
■
t1 m es ■ The Aqd C moms sm out m the mt t, h m.
al[r B ane a are imposN m rclmion w <a[n pw-
rrcJ area shown u a Zane JA.. Zone B or a Zone
C nn the map couched as Sch[duk A.
Tbu 0,4,,—. dro/ ton 0-k, 1.3000.
• Regulates land uses and
chemical storage.
45
Rt:OLEMENT OU
NOUVEAU - BRUNSWICK SW0.�]
tub. en _. dr 1.
LOI SUR L•ASSAINISSEMENT DE L•EAU
ID.C. 3000,J511
Dim I[ I!,rprrarrbm 2"
En vertu du paragraph[ Ial I I do la Ln ,ur I.—
d, k M..W. av[cI[cunsenm-
nrsdu lieu nr -gw —61. PrcM k
Ohm do designation su�� r rn
rcL<prium dhm p[ut etrc cite sous le t trc : Di-
drdi,ign.ri a d crrorporigi duclmmpdr
cnpragr- lai,ur l'u,aairri„rmrnr dr l'ran.
Tuutn les aircs m, d' <nrmian J'un< l— raw -
ou Ics panics J'aim d'alime on J'u
nappew inJiyufe>a me Nan
I— yu'A.— A. wr<m J<> mm J'alimenrariun
m'a nanp[vwtenmrr<aa d[ >pMnier aaircr J•a.
a J'urw nappc wur
J uis nt uri
tinrctJe wurcrs '<aa puurm ns tallation d'. J'ap. pp
pw.is m public c rte >. wnt
dFSrgrkes [n unt que r[acurs pnxcgismi
Gs mrWJions
W- oua Armea[s B n C ci-
F-46Z.,epco mel6 -1 une,wrehA un[a,[xK
B ou une am[ C sup la cane jmnu rn tans qu'An-
neae A.
Gpci—rdi—f rnrrc rn rignrurl� / ^xrobn
3000.
BrWu "° Nouveau
n sw c
Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Protection zones - typical wellfield
k7&4
one'i4_, High_ Ris
Zone B - 11l dium Risk
Zone -Low Risky //
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Controls on Storage of Chemicals and Activities
• Petroleum fuels 9 Fo re s try
•Petroleum solvents •Groundwater extraction
• Chlorinated solvents •Road construction
• Pesticides •Residential buildings
• Microbiological sources •Commercial, Institutional,
• Groundwater heat pumps and Industrial buildings
• Fertilizer (Nitrates) •Mining &aggregate
removal
°-
BiunswicK
47 Be ... in this place . EVe ... id an le part
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Petroleum Fuels
• Gasoline
• Kerosene
• Diesel
• Heating Oil
• Permitted Storage
— Zone A
— Zone 8
— Zone C
2,
Ile
2GUU
5 gallons =22.7 L
U-01
Brunswick
Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Home Heating Oil Tank Exemption
• Zone A — Exemption expires 13 years after
designation. BUT 3 years after
designation, must have tank under 10 year
old
• Zone B — Exemption expires 15 years after
designation. (Zone B — 1200 L). Secondary
containment at year 15. BUT have 5 years
to have a tank under 10 years old.
• Zone C — No exemption needed.
M •7
BiNew "wi uk
u s c
Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
11
11
11
11
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Microbiological Sources
Zone A
Zone 8
Zone C
Zone A
Not Permitted
Permitted
Permitted
— No new municipal sanitary sewer systems
— No new septic systems
— No liquid or dry manure application
— No livestock grazing
671]
B FtffiswicK "° u
Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Transportation
• Existing roads are permitted
• Road Salt use is permitted (limits on storage 50Kg)
• Temporary passage of chemicals through wellfield is
permitted (max. 2hours) — no overnight parking
51
B Nouveau i u n sc k
Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Wellfield Protection Process
• Study to Identify the
Protected Area
• Review Municipal Plan
• Land Use Survey
• Resolution of Council
• Public Meetings
52
• Designate the Protected
Area under the Wellfield
Protected Area
Designation Order
• Controls on Storage of
Chemicals &Land
Activities
B iunswiW"° uk
u c
Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Saint John, Harbourview Subdivision
• Wellfield study conducted in 2009 -2011 (CFP
April 2009, final report revisions June 2011)
- Identified protected area
- Reviewed municipal plan
- Conducted a land use survey
• 2 wells, Ocean Drive &Seaward Crecent
• Designation of existing wellfields on a voluntary basis
B FtffiswicK
No u
53 Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
Harbourview Subdivision
Wellfield
y.r
`L
1]
EAD
NN
r
1
4 E �k
• I !'
0%,
1 a %k5
� � r
5 0 240.0 4SO.0 m
Protected Area A
-Ocean Drive Well Protected Area `A'
contains 16 residential properties, RoWs, a
portion of homeowner assocation land, city
streets
-Seaward Crescent Protected Area `A'
contains 14 residential parcels, municipal
RoWs, city streets
r
_ •� r li
y
y--_�S
wro
�{
*,
..`anCe�rr
- ■y v g s
"
L O " { f
Ile
S
woe
f��3 6roG�'E
r H'
1.4 }
Oro
m
Protected Area B
-includes 162 properties, primarily
residential land use, RoWs, municipal
streets and a play ground
-Appear to be four properties in `B' with
home heating oil tanks, needs to be '
confirmed (exemptions required)
-Occasionally an oil delivery truck is k
parked on Ocean Drive in Zone `B' _ J
-Also includes 140 -150 linear metres of - $
oil pipeline (exemption required) .:.. '.
- v
Ly J
4.... _.
,{ s.
woe r�8
woo
oe
Oro
4
m
r
m
Protected Area C
-Contains 42 properties, including
residences, and other lands zoned as
Pits and Quarries, and Rural
-Two gravel pits (exemption required)
-Crude oil pipeline (Canaport to refinery)
..�
4'
•,
U61 I i� n
dO
.0 '0 \% , o Vk
�} \1L
ep
57�
Oe
r
P ected. Ar ,a
}
m
Municipal Wellfield Protection
Cost Benefits of Wellfield Protection
• Ratio of contamination costs vs. basic
prevention costs are as high as 200 to 1
• Contaminated Municipal Production Well ($200)
• Remediation
• Groundwater Exploration
• Extend Distribution System
• Treatment System
• Basic Prevention Costs ($1)
• Wellfield Protection Studies
• Wellfield Designation Order
iNea&NVouveauBc k
58 Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
MMOMIM.
Questions
Mark Bader, B. Sc.
Regional Water Planning Officer
8 Castle Street
Saint John, NB
(506) 658 -2558
Mark. Bader(cb,gnb. ca
http: / /Www. gnb. ca /0009 /037110001IWellfield -E. pdf
We
Brunswick
Be ... in this place • Etre ... ici on le peut
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2011 -89
June 17, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
And Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE — OUTSOURCE DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The City of Saint john
Effective solid waste management is an essential municipal service — important for
reasons of public health, quality of life, and the cleanliness of properties and streetscapes.
Staff is undertaking a comprehensive review of the service — based on principles of
sustainability, quality service, prudent financial management and responsibility on the
part of every citizen. This is one of several solid waste topics that will be reported over
the coming months.
Purpose of Report This report presents a financial and operational review of collection
alternatives; essentially, "in- house" City resources or utilization of "contracted" carriers -
a "make- versus -buy" choice.
BACKGROUND
Currently, 19 of 53 solid waste collection routes are contracted (based on available
resources), while the remainder are serviced by City employees and equipment.
The Solid Waste Management Service has been a highly rated municipal service with
respect to citizen satisfaction. In 2009 and 2010, an average of 79% of citizens was
satisfied (very or somewhat) with service delivery and an average of 86% of citizens
believes that this service is `very important'.
ANALYSIS
Periodic operational and financial analysis of the Solid Waste Management Service is
necessary to ensure the City provides optimal service delivery and receives the best value
for the allocated funding. As operational and/or financial conditions change, the service
must adapt to new realities.
5U5TAINA51LITY
.0
5olidWaste Management 5ervice— OutsourcingF_)ecision June 17, 201 1
KeFort to Common Council, M &C 201 1 -89 Page 2
In 2010, the City sought and received `Expressions of Interest' from local contractors to
provide sole source contracted solid waste and compost collection services for a total of
22,190 households, of which 3,795 customers receive weekly collection service. Two
contractors submitted bids - based on 2009 solid waste /compost disposal expense
information. Bids were also received for the existing 19 contracted routes and for an
arrangement that would contract 50% of the routes; the other 50% operated by the City.
The enclosed Solid Waste Collection Financial Analysis — Outsource Decision dated June
17th, 2011 (Appendix A) has been prepared by Finance. It compares three alternatives:
[ #1] the status quo, the existing 64 %/36% split between internal and external collection;
[ #2] bringing all collection "in house" and terminating the current contract arrangement;
and [ #3] outsourcing all collection activity. The objective of the analysis was to provide
financial guidance for a decision on selecting the most cost - effective collection option for
Saint John. The author cautions that "readers ... should take note of the scope limitations
section ... in addition to carefully reviewing the assumptions within that drive the
financial results ".
When assessing alternative #3, it had to be assumed the City could reduce the cost of its
workforce. Reduction of wage and benefit costs would be a key to pursuing such an
option. Although alternative #3 was deemed competitive, though not superior, its
feasibility is constrained by the City's collective agreement with CUPE, Local 18 and the
commitment to maintain a minimum number of workers. Although staff will discuss the
alternative during its presentation, it is not one that is viable under existing conditions.
The comparisons outlined herein look at #1 (status quo - split) and #2 ( "in house ").
The financial analysis indicates that City equipment and employees can provide all solid
waste and compost collection services at a savings of about $1.3 million over 5 years,
with operational savings on an absolute basis of approximately $500,000 annually. The
discounted payback period is expected in 1.81 years on the initial upfront investment of
approximately $794,000 required for three additional packer units. Based on a 5 -year
projection of annual costs for all 25,985 units (18,395 bi- weekly + 2 x 3,795 weekly), it
is projected that the City can provide this service for all units at an overall average rate of
$11.42 per unit per month over the next five years.
Once the current annual supply contract, for contracted collection services, expires in
September 2011, a necessary extension of services for a period of approximately 8 to 10
months would be needed (depending on equipment availability) for transition to full "in-
house" collection.
Personnel Considerations
Factors impacting service delivery include personnel and equipment availability. We
highlight the good job done by solid waste and compost collection personnel. A core
group of stalwarts has enabled the City to deliver an excellent collection service. In the
5U5TAINANLITY
61
Solid Waste Management Service — Outsourcing J)ecision June 17, 201 1
KeFort to Common Council, M &C 201 1 -89 Page j
past, however, wear and tear on some employees has been telling. Team members have
been lost for periods of time and their non - availability has made service delivery difficult.
In cooperation with Local 18, a pilot project began in 2009 where new personnel start out
in solid waste and then `graduate' to another service area in time. Lost time in this service
area has been reduced by over 75% in 2009 and 2010 when compared to 2008.
Should City forces provide city -wide collection service; four additional personnel at the
entry Skilled Worker level would be required; re- allocated from other service programs.
Equipment Fleet
The City's solid waste fleet currently consists of
seven (7) side - loading one - person packers and a
mini - packer unit for litter clean up. This
equipment is scheduled for replacement every
10 years with several packers due to be replaced
in the next few years through the Fleet `reserve'
fund. Six of the seven packer units are beyond
their optimum replacement point, but are less
than ten years old. In continuous operations of
this nature, equipment is heavily utilized and
subject to breakdown. An evening shift
instituted in the mechanical garage has played a
crucial role towards the operational readiness of
this equipment.
Equipment availability is a central consideration in planning and setting route schedules
for any continuous service. Garbage /compost must be collected on the appointed day and
transported to Crane Mountain. In order to ensure service reliability, a level of equipment
redundancy must be built into service schedules. All pieces of equipment cannot be
scheduled for deployment every day.
Should City forces provide city -wide
collection service, a side - loading one -
person packer with dual access and two
rear - loading two- person split packers
would need to be added to the existing
fleet to offset current contract resources;
to enable consistent service delivery and
ensure efficiency of service on narrow
roads, in uptown traffic and on one -way
streets.
5U5TAINANLITY
62
t.
5olidWaste Management 5ervice— OutsourcingF_)ecision June 17, 201 1
KeFort to Common Council, M &C 201 1 -89 Page 4
Service Continuity
A solid waste service performed entirely by municipal employees increases the risk of
service disruption in times of labour strife. Solid waste (garbage) becomes a critical
public health issue when collection does not occur in a timely and thorough manner.
Despite this, the costs versus benefits of City personnel providing collection services at
this time cannot be ignored.
The local contracting community could still be engaged in the future should economic
realities and cost -of- service circumstances change.
Collective Agreement Provisions
A letter of agreement with Local 18 that would make necessary amendments to the
collective agreement on career structure and wage levels for solid waste workers will be
brought forward. A "no strike / no lock -out" provision for those essential service workers
had also been considered, but the union advised that it could not agree with such a
provision in the context of a single service and without fully considering provisions to
address the broader interests of its membership.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Cost implications are presented in the attached financial analysis prepared by Finance.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The analysis of the solid waste collection service has been undertaken by staff of Finance
and Municipal Operations. The changes outlined will be implemented, subject to
Council's approval of 2012 funding for three additional packer units and ratification of
the necessary letter of agreement with Local 18. Specific recommendations for those
decisions will be brought forward soon to enable the process of change to move ahead.
At this time, feedback from members of Council would be appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report.
Respectfully submitted,
J.M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. J. Patrick Woods, CGA
Commissioner, City Manager
Municipal Operations & Engineering
5U5TAINANLITY
63
SAINT JOHN
NEW BRUNSWICK
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
Financial Analysis — Outsource Review
June 17th, 2011
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY .............................................................................. ............................... 3 -4
INTRODUCTION £t BACKGROUND ..................................................................... ..............................5
OBJECTIVE............................................................................................... ............................... 6
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................... ............................... 7
SCOPELIMITATION ...................................................................................... ..............................8
KEYASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................. ............................... 9 -10
BUDGET PROJECTION ( PRO - FORMA) ............................................................. ............................... 11
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................ ............................... 12
DIFFERENTIAL COST ANALYSIS (STATUS QUO VERSUS `IN- HOUSE' ) ............................................................. ............................... 12
BaseCase ........................................................................................................................................................ .............................12
Sensitivity Analysis — Best, Worst & Most Likely Case ........................................................................... ............................... 13 -14
BudgetImpact Analysis ................................................................................................................................... .............................14
Conclusion & Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... .............................15
DIFFERENTIAL COST ANALYSIS (`IN- HOUSE' VERSUS `OUTSOURCE') ............................................................ ............................... 16
BaseCase ........................................................................................................................................................ .............................16
Sensitivity Analysis — Best, Worst & Most Likely Case ................................................................................... .............................17
BudgetImpact Analysis ................................................................................................................................... .............................18
Conclusion & Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... .............................19
RISKFACTORS ........................................................................................ ............................... 20
2
65
The City provides for collection of refuse and compost, through the Solid Waste Collection Service, at 22,190
eligible residential households in accordance with the Solid Waste By -Law. Approximately 18,395 of those
households receive service on a bi- weekly basis, while 3,795 households in priority neighbourhoods are
serviced weekly. This amounts to collection at 25,985 units (18,395 +3,795 +3,795) during every two week
period, utilizing both "in- house" resources (16,718 collection units) and contracted services (9,267 units) by
FERO Waste and Recycling Inc. ( "FERO ").
A re- evaluation of the service and its methods of delivery have been undertaken. On the matter of solid waste
collection, the City can decide to proceed with the following options:
1. Continue with the Status Quo which means servicing 16,718 units with "In- House" resources and
outsourcing 9,267 units with contracted services ( "Alternative #1 ");
2. Bring all 25,985 units "In- House" and terminate existing contractor services ( "Alternative #2 ");
3. Outsource all 25,985 units to the contractor that provides the most competitive pricing and acceptable
service level ( "Alternative #3")
The objective of this report is to provide financial analysis that is useful for making a decision associated with
the above alternatives. The readers of this report should take note of the scope limitations section of the report
in addition to carefully reviewing the assumptions within that drive the financial results.
Alternative #1 versus Alternative #2
Finance produced a differential cost analysis to compare the cost of providing solid waste collection services
via Alternative #1 versus Alternative #2. With assumptions vetted by operations, Finance estimates Alterative
#2 will result in increased value for the City by approximately $1,387,000 over a 5 year period. This is
supported by an expected reduction in annual operating costs of approximately $500K per annum.
However, given the inherent uncertainty of assumptions, different financial results could arise. Finance
sensitivity tested the assumptions for the number of City workers required and percentage of contingency
afforded to produce best case, worst case and most likely case scenarios. The base case provides for 4
additional City workers and offers a 5% contingency. On a best case scenario (4 additional City workers and
no contingency) Finance estimates Alternative #2 will yield value accretion of $1,631,176 over 5 years. On the
flipside, a worst case scenario provides for 6 City workers and an additional 10% contingency, reducing the
value increase to $581,666 over the same period. The most likely result will be somewhere in between,
estimated between $989,413 and $1,507,847 over a 5 year period. Applying probabilities produces an expected
case of approximately $1,292,000 over 5 years.
Operations indicate a call for bids was sent in August of 2010 for the units currently serviced by FERO, for
which FERO was the lowest bidder. The expectation is sending another call for bids would yield similar
results. Based on this information and the results established in the financial model, Finance concludes
Alternative #2 would achieve better value for money for the City.
Alternative #2 versus Alternative #3
Expressions of interest (EOI) were solicited for Alternative #3 with Waste Management of Canada Corporation
( "WMCC ") being the lowest bidder. Based on assumptions vetted by operations, and based on the WMCC
bid, Finance estimates Alternative #2 provides marginally higher value for money over the 7 year term by
approximately $255,000. This is supported by an expected reduction in annual operating costs of
approximately $225K per year.
..
However, given the inherent uncertainty of assumptions, different financial results could arise. The base case
assumes Alternative #2 would require 4 additional City workers in Solid Waste and incorporates a 5%
contingency. A best case scenario assumes 4 additional City workers is sufficient and incorporates no
contingency, resulting in estimated value accretion of approximately $784,694 over 7 years. On the other
hand, a worst case scenario assumes 6 City workers are required and adds a 10% contingency, diluting value
by approximately negative $974,447 over the same period. The most likely result will be somewhere in
between, estimated between a negative value of $350,469 and a positive value of $521,093 over the 7 year
term. Applying probabilities produces an expected case of approximately $137,000 in positive value, basically
a breakeven between the two alternatives.
Paramount to any outsource decision is the cost of wages and benefits. When assessing Alternative #3,
Finance had to assume the City is unrestricted in its ability to reduce the cost of its workforce; otherwise the
financial analysis of Alternative #3 is moot. Wages and benefits are the single largest savings when
undertaking such a review.
The reality, however, is the collective agreement with Local 18 commits the City to maintain a minimum of
293 outside workers. Unless otherwise negotiated it is unlikely that savings can be realized by means of a
permanent workforce reduction.
Finance recommends sustaining the "In- House" business model at this point in time due to the following:
1. Finance estimates value accretion for the "In- House" approach as the most probable result
2. Start-up cost would be significant if the City needed to get back into the solid waste business
3. There is rate uncertainty in the WMCC contract, with a clause for rate increases for fuel and inflation
4. Uncertainty of feasibility for a permanent workforce reduction to generate required savings
However, WMCC did put forward a very competitive proposal. The value gap between the two alternatives
over 7 years is slim. Further investigation and discussion may be merited given the EOI expressly states
opportunity for a lower rate based on a longer term agreement. Finance recommends if such discussions do
proceed, a formula be agreed upon representing annual inflation and fuel increases that is transparent for both
parties. In addition, given the significant start-up costs required to get back into the solid waste business,
Finance recommends the proposal be based on a longer term than 5 -7 years. A positive business case is also
dependent on the City's ability to reduce wages and benefits. Finally, the financial model should be refreshed
if these events were to occur.
Business Case & Risk Management
The financial projections within this report should form part of an overall business case to provide Council
with a comprehensive picture aligned with the City's overall corporate strategy. The business case should
consist of a thorough analysis of the City's needs, opportunities, threats (risks), and alternatives. From a risk
management perspective, Finance suggests the strategy addresses the following business issues:
1. Risk of loss of service quality and control in the outsource model
2. Business interruption risks from labour disputes and strikes
3. Business interruption risks from contractor business closure
4. Uncertainty in long term contractor rates
5. Quality of monitoring, reporting, information needs
6. Impact on employee morale
67
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Municipalities across Canada are continuously seeking ways to provide high service levels in the most cost
effective manner. One approach to reduce costs is through outsourcing, provided it is not cost prohibitive and
there is a business case to support it. The purpose of this report is to study that business case.
For several years the City has contracted out part of the collection of its solid waste, primarily for reasons of
internal capacity and resource limitations. The City provides for collection of refuse and compost, through the
Solid Waste Collection Service, at 22,190 eligible residential households in accordance with the Solid Waste
By -Law. Approximately 18,395 of those households receive service on a bi- weekly basis, while 3,795
households in priority neighbourhoods are serviced weekly. This amounts to collection at 25,985 units
(18,395 +3,795 +3,795) during every two week period, utilizing both "in- house" resources (16,718 collection
units) and contracted services (9,267 units) by FERO Waste and Recycling Inc. ( "FERO ").
A re- evaluation of the service and its methods of delivery have been undertaken. Based on the 2011 budget
submission, the City is expected to invest $4,113,000 in Solid Waste collection, with $1,760,000 representing
contracted services. Expressions of interest (EOI) were recently solicited for the collection of all 25,985 units.
Two responses were received on Thursday, August IV, 2010; one from FERO and the other from Waste
Management of Canada Corporation ( "WMCC ").
The EOI in no way binds the City of Saint John to either company. Pricing on a final tender would be based on
fixrther due diligence supplied by the City and may result in higher or lower pricing. The following is a
summary of the pricing terms within each EOI:
The Finance Department was requested to provide a financial analysis to support an overall business case that
compares the merits of providing solid waste services with City workers (hereinafter referred to as "In- House ")
to the value of outsourcing the service to a private contractor. The financial analysis for such a business case is
often referred to as a "Make- versus -Buy" decision.
.:
FERO
Waste Management of Canada
Term
3 Years with option to renew
5 -7 Years with option to renew
Solid Waste & Compost
$15.40 per unit per month
$7.50 per household per month
Disposal Cost
Included in Price
Excluded in Pricing
Annual CPI Adjustment
No
Yes
Fuel
Included in Price
Monthly Rate Adjustment
The Finance Department was requested to provide a financial analysis to support an overall business case that
compares the merits of providing solid waste services with City workers (hereinafter referred to as "In- House ")
to the value of outsourcing the service to a private contractor. The financial analysis for such a business case is
often referred to as a "Make- versus -Buy" decision.
.:
The City of Saint John can decide to proceed with the following options for Solid Waste Collection services:
1. Continue with the Status Quo which means service 16,718 collection units with "In- House" resources and
outsource 9,267 units with FERO ( "Alternative #1)
2. Bring all 25,985 units "In- House" and terminate the FERO contract ( "Alternative #2 ")
3. Outsource all 25,985 collection units to a private contractor that provides the most competitive pricing and
acceptable service level ( "Alternative #3 ")
The objective of the report is to produce financial analysis that is useful for making a go forward decision.
Two financial analyses will be employed:
1. Differential Cost Analysis
2. Budget Impact Analysis
The report will also touch on the importance of having a business case for long term investment decisions
that addresses both the financial implications and a strategy for risk management.
.•
Strategic investment decisions should be based on a business case that focuses on the long term to ensure the
City obtains the highest value for money. Production of a financial model is critical for justifying whether an
investment has value, as well as to demonstrate the long term impact of the strategic decision.
A discounted cash flow ( "DCF ") analysis is considered the "gold standard" of financial analysis for measuring
the value of long term investments. Cash is the most important measure in a DCF analysis, as incremental
future cash flow streams are discounted to a present value to measure the value of a potential investment. The
concept of incremental is an important one, as only costs that are affected by taking certain action is relevant.
Fixed costs are ignored; as they exist no matter what decision is made.
Discounting is another important concept. Discounting determines the present value of a stream of payments
that is to be paid or received in the future. Discounting is important to ensure proper weighting is applied to
costs today as well as costs into the future. Finally, DCF models also incorporate opportunity cost.
Opportunity costs are the costs or benefits foregone by choosing an alternative action.
DCF financial models are a powerful tool, however it is important that all inputs in the model are heavily
vetted. Financial models are merely a financial tool and are only as good as the information placed within. It
is imperative to obtain a comfort level with the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions. The results in a
DCF model demonstrates that if the value arrived at is positive; then the opportunity may be a good one.
Differential Cost Analysis
According to the Government Finance Officers Association' (the "GFOA "), it is recommended that a
differential cost analysis (a particular type of "DCF" analysis) be conducted when reviewing the merits of
outsourcing. The differential cost analysis illustrates the value difference between two or more alternatives.
Future cash flow projections are based on supportable management assumptions and known factors. Given the
inherent uncertainty of assumptions, a high level of diligence is required in the vetting process. A sensitivity
analysis should also be produced to demonstrate a "best case ", "worst case" and "most likely" case scenario.
One major pitfall organizations sometimes fall into is comparing the total costs of alternatives rather than the
differential or incremental costs. Doing so can lead to misleading results because fixed costs are often included
in total cost and are irrelevant to the decision. For example, if employee costs cannot be avoided due to
contractual commitments either directly or indirectly, the costs would be considered fixed and not relevant to
the "Make- versus -Buy" decision.
A calculation of the Internal Rate of Return ( "IRR ") and the Discounted Payback Period (DPP) often
accompany these analyses. The IRR is an indicator of investment return while the DPP calculates the amount
of time until the investment is recovered.
Budgetary Impact Assessment
As expected, there will also be interest in projecting what the City's budget may look like for each alternative.
The DCF analysis provides an assessment of value whereas the budget demonstrates funding requirements.
' "Make or Buy? "— R. Gregory Michel, GFOA Manager of Research and Consulting, August 2004
70
SCOPE LIMITATION
Readers of this report should take note of the various scope limitations within this document:
1. As it relates to Alternative #3 on page 6, paramount to any outsource decision is the cost of wages and
benefits. When assessing Alternative #3, Finance had to assume that the organization is unrestricted in its
ability to reduce the cost of its workforce; otherwise the financial analysis of Alternative #3 is moot.
Wages and benefits are the single largest savings when undertaking such a review.
In reality, however, the collective agreement with Local 18 commits the City to maintain a minimum of
293 outside workers. Unless otherwise negotiated it is unlikely that savings can be realized by means of a
permanent workforce reduction. In light of this, for purposes of assessing Alternative #3, the report
should be used as an illustrative example of what could possibly be achieved if such limitations did not
exist. Some savings may or may not be achievable through reallocation of the permanent workforce. This
would require further financial analysis and is considered out of scope for this report.
2. The financial analysis is specifically geared to the solid waste services provided today. Other potential
value added services not currently offered, such as curb side recycling, were not contemplated and are
outside the scope of this report.
3. Operating and business practices were not reviewed for synergistic cost savings by Finance (i.e. route
scheduling, manpower scheduling, etc.) and is also considered outside the scope of the analysis, although
Operations should seek to optimize such considerations.
4. Finance did not review any potential impact to service levels from changing the current business model.
Questions regarding service level should be posed to Operations.
5. Finance did not analyze the costs associated with a potential transitioning to a user pay system.
6. Alternative #2 compares the cost of FERO services to projected "In- House" costs. The analysis is specific
to the current contracted rates with FERO. The WMCC bid is outside the scope of Alternative #2 given
the company placed a bid only on the entire business (all City routes).
71
KEYASSUMPTIONS
Wages & Benefits
• Per scope limitation #1 on page 8, for purposes of assessing Alternative #3, it is assumed the City is able
to achieve, regardless of its collective agreement obligations, a reduction in wages and benefits from
outsourcing solid waste collection services.
• Based on Operations management, Alternative #2 would require 4 additional full time City workers in
Solid Waste. Alternative #3 plans for a reduction of 13 full time equivalent positions ( "FTEs ").
• Based on Operations management, for Alternative #3, through adherence with the seniority hierarchy, the
reduction in 13 FTEs would be with employees that have less than 2 years of service; sufficient working
notice would be provided and negligible severance payouts would be required.
Expressions oflnterest
WMCC's bid excludes disposal costs from their pricing; their position is that leaving these costs with the City
allows for "a more competitive price ". The FERO bid includes disposal costs. Finance adjusted WMCC's bid
for the estimated disposal costs and both bids for non - refundable portion of HST to establish an "apples to
apples" rate. The WMCC rate was deemed lowest bid based on the following table for the first year:
Term
Annual Charge
Estimated Disposal Costs
Total Solid Waste /Compost
Collection Units
Monthly Unit Rate
Fero
WMCC
$4,966,738
$2,065,577
$0
$1,410,289
$4,966,738
$3,475,866
25,985
25,985
$15.93
$11.15
** Annual Charge includes Non Refundable Portion of HST
• WMCC minimum contract term per EOI is 5 -7 years with upside potential that additional option years
may result in more competitive pricing
• Pricing on final tender will be based on a more detailed due diligence exchange with the City which may
or may not result in higher or lower pricing on tender
• WMCC rates are adjusted regularly for changes in CPI and Fuel prices
Fuel Costs
• Consideration to density, and fuel rates. Assumes 5% annual increase
Contin .eency
• To be conservative, a contingency was applied in the base case at 5% and was sensitivity tested
72
Capital Investment
• Alternative #2 requires the purchase of 3 solid waste packers. The 3 packers would consist of 1 side
loading 1 person packer, and 2 rear loading 2 person split packers and have an estimated average unit
price of approximately $264,667.
• The City currently has a fleet of 7 side loading 1 person packers.
• Based on Fleet Management, the useful life of a packer is estimated to be 10 years
Debt Financing
• Discount rate - 5.5%
• Borrowing Term — 15 Years
Tipping Fees
• Based on budget and tonnage information from Operations management
• Refuse Rate - $108 per ton
• Compost Rate - $28 per ton
Salvage Value
• Finance consulted with Fleet Management to estimate salvage value for the current packer fleet, which
are typically salvaged through an auction process
• Fleet Management suggests a declining balance depreciation calculation and a straight line depreciation
calculation is a reasonable basis to estimate salvage value. The straight line method depreciates over a 10
year useful life. The Declining - Balance method assumes depreciation of 30% on the initial purchase
price (year one) and then a further 20% each consecutive year from the previous year balance.
• Based upon the above parameters, salvage value is estimated at approximately $260,000 (mid -point
below) as reflected below:
$197,922 $322,520
Midpoint $ 260,221
Estimate $ 260,000
Employee Lost Time
• Opportunity cost calculated based on historical payroll records, and include sick time, workers
compensation, medical, family care, union business, and other non work related absences.
10
73
Residual Values
Packers
Veh #
Purchase Price
30/20
Straight Line (10 yrs)
2006 Ford F -550
569
$104,915
$24,065
$47,966
2001 Freightliner
640
$72,200
$10,599
$10,000
2008 International
641
$167,000
$59,853
$104,200
2003 Freightliner
643
$140,076
$17,136
$23,008
2001 Freightliner
644
$72,200
$10,599
$10,000
2006 International
646
$186,366
$42,748
$80,546
2002 International
1 647
$185,626
$15,260
$10,000
2006 International
1 648
$77,000
$17,662
$36,800
$197,922 $322,520
Midpoint $ 260,221
Estimate $ 260,000
Employee Lost Time
• Opportunity cost calculated based on historical payroll records, and include sick time, workers
compensation, medical, family care, union business, and other non work related absences.
10
73
BUDGET PROJECTION (PRO- FORMA)
For the purpose of this report, the 2011 Solid Waste operating budget (Alternative #1 - Status Quo) was
adjusted to project what the budget would look like based on an "In- House" model and based on a full
outsource model with WMCC.
1. Alternative #1 (Status Quo) is based on the submitted 2011 Solid Waste Collection operating budget
which includes FERO contractor fees for 9,267 collection units.
2. Alternative #2 ( "In- House ") is based on the status quo budget adjusted for 4 additional FTEs, increasing
total solid waste workers from 9 to 13, to support the 9,267 units serviced by FERO. In addition,
incremental tipping fees, vehicle charges and overhead costs were added. These costs are offset from the
reduction in contractor fees. A further capital investment of approximately $794,000 would be required
for the purchase of 3 new packers.
3. Alternative #3 (WMCC Outsource) is based on the status quo budget adjusted to remove avoidable "In-
House" costs and to add the additional WMCC costs for all 25,985 units.
The Pro -Forma budgets are illustrated below:
Pro Forma Operating Budget
Alternative #1 Status Quo
Alternative #2 "in-House"
Alternative #3 Outsource
Based on projected 2011
Solid Waste Budget
Additional Resources
I Required
Based on Waste
Management Submission
Wages & Benefits $783,391 $1,014,620 $155,812
Tipping Fees $810,000 $1,410,289 $1,410,289
Outsource Services
$1,760,000
$0
$2,065,497
Vehicle Usage
$479,460
$677,928
$8,736
Vehicle Fuel
$107,605
$187,605
$2,000
Other
$173,487
$228,525
$199,617
$4,113,943
$3,518,967
$3,841,951
Fiscal Charges
$0
$96,603
$0
Total Solid Waste
$4,113,943
$3,615,570
$3,841,951
3 Packers
Capital Required
Alternative #1 Status Quo
Alternative #2 "in-House"
Alternative #3 Outsource
Based on projected 2011
Solid Waste Budget
Additional Resources
I Required
Based on Waste
Management Submission
$0
$794,000
$0
" Annual operating budget impact for packers reflected in fiscal charges above
11
74
FINANCIAL ANAL YSIS
Status Quo (Alternative #1) versus "In- House" (Alternative #2)
The status quo has City workers collecting 16,718 collection units while FERO services picks up the remaining
9,267 units. The contracted price per unit with FERO is $15.40 per unit per month. In respect to scope
limitation #6 on page 8 of this report, the first financial analysis compares the cost of FERO services to the cost
of servicing those 9,267 units fully with "In- House" resources.
Exhibit I - Differential Cost Analysis - FERO contract
Based on the assumptions previously detailed, the value of replacing the current FERO contract with "In-
House" resources is valued at an estimated $1,387,000 over a 5 year period. The discounted payback period on
the investment in 3 packers is estimated to be within 20.75 months. The internal rate of return of 57.16% over
5 years exceeds the City's cost to acquire debt supporting a positive business case. FERO's expression of
interest for all units proposed the same rate charged today for the next 36 months, thus Finance assumed the
FERO rate would be fixed until year 4, and thereafter, a CPI inflation factor was applied.
The detail is presented below:
Solid Waste Differential CostAnal sis DCF
Rounded to nearest 000's Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Incremental Savings
FERO contract $ $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,795,000 $ 1,831,000
$ - $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,795,000 $ 1,831,000
Incremental Investment in Packers $ (794,000)
Incremental "In- House" Costs
Tipping Fees for 9,267 units
$
- $
(600,000)
$
(612,000)
$ (625,000)
$ (637,000)
$ (650,000)
4 FTE's - Solid Waste
$
- $
(231,000)
$
(238,000)
$ (245,000)
$ (253,000)
$ (260,000)
Fuel - 3 Packers
$
- $
(80,000)
$
(84,000)
$ (88,000)
$ (92,000)
$ (97,000)
Vehicle Charges - 3 Packers
$
- $
(198,000)
$
(202,000)
$ (206,000)
$ (211,000)
$ (215,000)
Estimated Lost Time - 4 FTE's
$
- $
(15,000)
$
(15,000)
$ (16,000)
$ (16,000)
$ (17,000)
Insurance
$
- $
(3,000)
$
(3,000)
$ (3,000)
$ (3,000)
$ (3,000)
Admin
$
- $
(12,000)
$
(12,000)
$ (13,000)
$ (13,000)
$ (13,000)
Contingency (5 %)
$
- $
(57,000)
$
(58,000)
$ (60,000)
$ (61,000)
$ (63,000)
Change in Working Capital
$
- $
(78,000)
$
4,000
$ 4,000
$ (1,000)
$ (1,000)
$
- $(1,274,000)
$(1,220,000)
$(1,252,000)
$(1,287,000)
$(1,319,000)
Incremental "In- House" Savings $ (794,000) $ 486,000 $ 540,000 $ 508,000 $ 508,000 $ 512,000
Discounted "In- House" Savings (5.5%) $ (794,000) $ 461,000 $ 485,000 $ 433,000 $ 410,000 $ 392,000
Cumulative "In- House" Discounted Savings $ (794,000) $ (333,000) $ 152,000 $ 585,000 $ 995,000 $ 1,387,000
Discounted Payback Period 20.75 months
Internal Rate of Return on Investment 57.16% over 5 years
12
75
Exhibit 2 - Sensitivityy Analysis ( Best Case, Worst Case, Most Likely Case, and Expected Case)
The DCF is quite sensitive to two particular assumptions:
1. Number of additional FTEs required to service the additional 9,267 units (4 in base case)
2. Percentage contingency applied in the financial model (5% in base case)
The sensitivity analysis (also referred to as the "what if' analysis) demonstrates the financial risk of volatile
assumptions. Finance prepared a sensitivity analysis to test the financial model's volatility to changes in FTE
and contingency for purposes of estimating a worst case, best case and most likely case scenario:
Best Case: A best case scenario would see the City adding 4 FTEs and experience 0% contingency. If
realized, this would give rise to a positive DCF valuation of approximately $1,631,176 over a 5 year period, a
discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return on the investment in 3 Packers of
64.92% over 5 years.
Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario, assuming 10% contingency and 6 FTEs results in a
positive DCF valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54
months and an internal rate of return of 29.85% on investment.
Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall in between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a
discounted payback period in the range of 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return
between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. The most likely
scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement.
Expected Case: Weightings (probabilities) were applied to the outcomes in the tables above for various
ranges of contingency and FTE requirements for the discounted cash flow, payback period, and internal rate of
return (see results in table in page 14). Assigning probability produces an expected result. Finance assigned
a 75% probability that 4 FTEs would be required, 15% for 5 FTE's and 10% for 6 FTE's. In addition,
Finance assigned the following probabilities for contingency; 5% probability that no contingency
would be required, 20% probability of a 2.5% contingency, 50% probability for 5% contingency, 20%
probability for 7.5% contingency, and 5% probability of a 10% contingency. Assigning these
13
76
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
Contin enc
W
LL
0.00% 2.509/6
- - - - --
$1,631,176 1 $ 1,507,847
5.00% 7.50% - 10.00%
- - - - -- - - - - -
$ 1,387,000 $ 1,261,190 1 $ 1,137,861
4 FTE
W
LL
5 FTE
$1,378,360 1 $ 1,248,711
$1,125,544 $ 989,574
t $ 1,119,062 $__9_89,4_13 $ 859,764
$ 853,605 $ 717,635 $ 581,666
6 FTE
Best Case: A best case scenario would see the City adding 4 FTEs and experience 0% contingency. If
realized, this would give rise to a positive DCF valuation of approximately $1,631,176 over a 5 year period, a
discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return on the investment in 3 Packers of
64.92% over 5 years.
Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario, assuming 10% contingency and 6 FTEs results in a
positive DCF valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54
months and an internal rate of return of 29.85% on investment.
Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall in between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a
discounted payback period in the range of 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return
between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. The most likely
scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement.
Expected Case: Weightings (probabilities) were applied to the outcomes in the tables above for various
ranges of contingency and FTE requirements for the discounted cash flow, payback period, and internal rate of
return (see results in table in page 14). Assigning probability produces an expected result. Finance assigned
a 75% probability that 4 FTEs would be required, 15% for 5 FTE's and 10% for 6 FTE's. In addition,
Finance assigned the following probabilities for contingency; 5% probability that no contingency
would be required, 20% probability of a 2.5% contingency, 50% probability for 5% contingency, 20%
probability for 7.5% contingency, and 5% probability of a 10% contingency. Assigning these
13
76
Payback Period (Months)
Contingency
W
LL
0.00% 2.50%
5.00%
7.50% 1 10.00%
W
LL
4 FTE
18.831 19.75
20.75
21.85 23.08
_ 48.59% _ _ 4_4.26% _ I 39.81%
39.62% 34.82% 29.85%
5 FTE
20.76 _ 21.94
23.14 24.24
23.25
26.01
_ 24.26 25.95
28.09 r 30.54
6 FTE
Best Case: A best case scenario would see the City adding 4 FTEs and experience 0% contingency. If
realized, this would give rise to a positive DCF valuation of approximately $1,631,176 over a 5 year period, a
discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return on the investment in 3 Packers of
64.92% over 5 years.
Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario, assuming 10% contingency and 6 FTEs results in a
positive DCF valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54
months and an internal rate of return of 29.85% on investment.
Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall in between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a
discounted payback period in the range of 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return
between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. The most likely
scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement.
Expected Case: Weightings (probabilities) were applied to the outcomes in the tables above for various
ranges of contingency and FTE requirements for the discounted cash flow, payback period, and internal rate of
return (see results in table in page 14). Assigning probability produces an expected result. Finance assigned
a 75% probability that 4 FTEs would be required, 15% for 5 FTE's and 10% for 6 FTE's. In addition,
Finance assigned the following probabilities for contingency; 5% probability that no contingency
would be required, 20% probability of a 2.5% contingency, 50% probability for 5% contingency, 20%
probability for 7.5% contingency, and 5% probability of a 10% contingency. Assigning these
13
76
Internal Rate of Return
Contingency
W
LL
0.00% - 2.50%
- - - --
64.92% 61.04%
5.00% - 7.50% -
- - - -- - - - --
57.16% 53.20%
10.00%
4 FTE
49.18%
5 FTE
57.03% 1 _ 52.83% _
48.87% 44.29%
_ 48.59% _ _ 4_4.26% _ I 39.81%
39.62% 34.82% 29.85%
6 FTE
Best Case: A best case scenario would see the City adding 4 FTEs and experience 0% contingency. If
realized, this would give rise to a positive DCF valuation of approximately $1,631,176 over a 5 year period, a
discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an internal rate of return on the investment in 3 Packers of
64.92% over 5 years.
Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario, assuming 10% contingency and 6 FTEs results in a
positive DCF valuation of approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54
months and an internal rate of return of 29.85% on investment.
Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall in between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a
discounted payback period in the range of 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return
between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis. The most likely
scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement.
Expected Case: Weightings (probabilities) were applied to the outcomes in the tables above for various
ranges of contingency and FTE requirements for the discounted cash flow, payback period, and internal rate of
return (see results in table in page 14). Assigning probability produces an expected result. Finance assigned
a 75% probability that 4 FTEs would be required, 15% for 5 FTE's and 10% for 6 FTE's. In addition,
Finance assigned the following probabilities for contingency; 5% probability that no contingency
would be required, 20% probability of a 2.5% contingency, 50% probability for 5% contingency, 20%
probability for 7.5% contingency, and 5% probability of a 10% contingency. Assigning these
13
76
probabilities to the results in the tables above produces an expected positive valuation of approximately
$1,292,000 over the 5 year period, including an expected payback period of 21.69 months and an expected
internal rate of return of 54.09 %. See results in table below:
Total $1,292,000
Expected Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
Weighting
W
5%
1 20%
50%
20%
50
LL
75%
$ 61,000
$ 226,000
$ 520,000
$ 189,000
$ 43,000
$1,760,000
15%
$ 10,000
$ 37,000
$ 84,000
$ 30,000
1 $ 6,000
$187,605
10%
$ 6,000
$ 20,000
$ 43,000
$ 14,000
1 $ 3,000
Total $1,292,000
Total 21.69 months
Expected Payback Period Months
Wei htin
W
5%
20%
50%
20%
5%
LL
75%
0.71
2.96
7.78
3.281
0.87
$1,760,000
15%
0.161
0.661
1.74
1 0.73
1 0.19
$187,605
10%
1 0.121
0.481
1.301
0.56
1 0.15
Total 21.69 months
Total 54.09%
Exhibit 3 — Budget Impact Assessment
Based on assumptions, compared to the status quo, Finance estimates Alternative #2 reduces the annual
operating budget requirement by approximately $498,373. With consideration to future inflationary factors,
Finance estimates savings of approximately $500,000 annually.
Expected Internal Rate of Return
Wei htin
W
5%
20%
50%
20%
5%
LL
75%
2.43%
9.16%
21.43%
7.98%
1.84%
$1,760,000
15%
0.43%
1.58%
3.64%
1.33%
0.30%
$187,605
10%
0.24%
0.89%
1.98%
0.70%
0.15%
Total 54.09%
Exhibit 3 — Budget Impact Assessment
Based on assumptions, compared to the status quo, Finance estimates Alternative #2 reduces the annual
operating budget requirement by approximately $498,373. With consideration to future inflationary factors,
Finance estimates savings of approximately $500,000 annually.
$4,113,943 $3,518,967
Fiscal Charges $0 $96,603
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Solid Waste $4,113,943 $3,615,570 $4 -113 -943 - $3.615.570 = $498.373
14
77
Pro Forma Budget
Alternative #1 Status Quo
Alternative #2 "in-House"
Based on projected 2011 Solid
Additional Resources
Waste Budget
Required
Wages & Benefits
$783,391
$1,014,620
Tipping Fees
$810,000
$1,410,289
Outsource Services
$1,760,000
$0
Vehicle Usage
$479,460
$677,928
Vehicle Fuel
$107,605
$187,605
Other
$173,487
$228,525
$4,113,943 $3,518,967
Fiscal Charges $0 $96,603
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Solid Waste $4,113,943 $3,615,570 $4 -113 -943 - $3.615.570 = $498.373
14
77
Conclusion - Status Ono (Alternative #I) versus "In- House" (Alternative #2
There is an interest in understanding the financial implications of replacing the current FERO contract that
services 9,267 units with "In- House" resources. Finance produced a differential cost analysis based on a
Discounted Cash Flow methodology to assess the value proposition.
Based on assumptions in the base case, replacing the FERO contract with City workers adds approximately
$1,387,000 in value over a 5 year period, a discounted payback period of 20.75 months and an internal rate of
return of approximately 57.16 %.
The financial model is sensitive to two particular assumptions; the number of additional FTEs required and the
percentage contingency applied. A best case scenario includes a 0% contingency and 4 FTEs to produce a
positive value of approximately $1,632,000 over 5 years, a discounted payback period of 18.83 months and an
internal rate of return of 64.92 %. For the worst case scenario, Finance estimates a positive valuation of
approximately $581,666 over 5 years, with a discounted payback period of 30.54 months and an internal rate of
return of 29.85 %.
The most likely scenario ranges between $989,413 to $1,507,847 over 5 years; a discounted payback period
between 19.75 months and 24.26 months; and an internal rate of return between 44.26% and 61.04 %. The
most likely scenario is based on a 2.5 -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 FTE requirement.
Probabilities were applied to percent contingency and number of additional FTEs to produce an expected value
of approximately $1,292,000 over the 5 year period, as well as an expected discounted payback period of 21.69
months and an expected internal rate of return of 54.09 %.
Based on assumptions, compared to the cost of the FERO contract, Finance estimates the "In- House" solution
will reduce annual operating costs by approximately $500,000 annually.
Recommendation
Operations indicate a tender for bids was sent in August of 2010 for the 9,267 units currently serviced by
FERO, for which FERO was the lowest bidder. The expectation is that another tender call would yield similar
results. Based on this information and the results established in the financial model, Finance concludes
Alternative #2 would achieve better value for money in solid waste collection for the City.
15
W
"In- House" ( "Alternative #2 ") versus Outsource ( "Alternative #3 ")
A financial analysis is also necessary to understand the opportunity that exists with the expression of interest
from the lowest bidder, WMCC, to outsource all 25,985 collection units currently serviced. The reader must
keep in mind scope limitation #1 on page 7 when interpreting the results hereunder.
Differential Cost Analysis - Base Case
Over a 7 year term, "In- House" solid waste collection services are estimated to generate $255,000 in value
compared to contracting with WMCC contract over the same period. Even though the annual savings are
estimated at $225K per year with an "In- House" approach, the break even period is estimated at 5.53 years due
to the upfront investment in 3 packers combined with the opportunity cost of the current fleet salvage value
(combined at over $1 million dollars).
The EOI stipulates that a longer term contract than 5 -7 years may have upside pricing potential for the City.
Given these factors, and considering how narrow the value gap is between the two alternatives, Finance
recommends that further analysis be conducted after exploration of a longer term rate with WMCC.
Exhibit 4 - Differential Cost Analysis - Outsource Decision
Solid Waste Collection - Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
Rounded to nearest 000's Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Incremental Contracted Services
WMCC Contract $ $ 2,065,000 $ 2,123,000 $ 2,183,000 $ 2,244,000 $ 2,307,000 $ 2,371,000 $ 2,438,000
$ $ 2,065,000 $ 2,123,000 $ 2,183,000 $ 2,244,000 $ 2,307,000 $ 2,371,000 $ 2,438,000
Incremental Investment in Packers $ (794,000)
Salvage Opportunity for Packer Fleet $ (260,000)
Incremental "In- House" Costs
Wages & Benefits
$
$
(859,000)
$ (885,000)
$ (911,000)
$ (938,000)
$ (967,000)
$ (996,000)
$(1,025,000)
Vehicle Usage
$
$
(669,000)
$ (683,000)
$ (696,000)
$ (710,000)
$ (724,000)
$ (739,000)
$ (754,000)
Fuel
$
$
(186,000)
$ (195,000)
$ (205,000)
$ (215,000)
$ (226,000)
$ (237,000)
$ (249,000)
Other
$
$
(29,000)
$ (29,000)
$ (30,000)
$ (31,000)
$ (31,000)
$ (32,000)
$ (33,000)
Lost Time
$
$
(15,000)
$ (15,000)
$ (16,000)
$ (16,000)
$ (17,000)
$ (17,000)
$ (18,000)
Contingency (5 %)
$
$
(88,000)
$ (90,000)
$ (93,000)
$ (96,000)
$ (98,000)
$ (101,000)
$ (104,000)
Change in Working Capital
$
$
(31,000)
$ (1,000)
$ (1,000)
$ (1,000)
$ (1,000)
$ (1,000)
$ (1,000)
$
$(1,877,000)
$(1,898,000)
$(1,952,000)
$(2,007,000)
$(2,064,000)
$(2,123,000)
$(2,184,000)
Incremental "In- House" Savings $ (1,054,000) $ 188,000 $ 225,000 $ 231,000 $ 237,000 $ 243,000 $ 248,000 $ 254,000
Discounted "In- House" Savings $ (1,054,000) $ 178,000 $ 202,000 $ 197,000 $ 191,000 $ 186,000 $ 180,000 $ 175,000
Cumulative "In- House" Savings $ (1,054,000) $ (876,000) $ (674,000) $ (477,000) $ (286,000) $ (100,000) $ 80,000 $ 255,000
Discounted Payback Period 5.53 years
Internal Rate of Return on Investment 11.68%
16
79
Exhibit 5 — Sensitivity Analysis (Best Case, Worst Case, and Most Likely Case
Consistent with Exhibit 2, the following sensitivity analysis demonstrates the financial risk of various
assumptions. Finance prepared a sensitivity analysis to test the financial model's volatility to changes in FTE
and contingency for purposes of estimating a worst case, best case and most likely case scenario:
Best Case: The best case scenario (no contingency and 4 FTE) for an "In- House" service is estimated to result
in a value of $784,694 over a 7 year period. A breakeven would be achieved within 3.89 years and an internal
rate of return of 22.83% after the full 7 year term.
Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario for the "hi-House" solution, based on a 10%
contingency and 6 FTEs, could erode value by ($974,447) over 7 years, with no payback or return on
investment.
Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall somewhere in between negative ($350,469) and
positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement.
The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis.
Expected Case: As per Exhibit 2, probabilities weightings were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and
FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year
contract. The payback period would be 75.24 months and the internal rate of return would be 8.45 %.
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF)
Contingency
w
0.00%
2.50%
5.00_%
7.50%_ 10.00%
LL
4 FTE
_ _2.50% _
$ 784, 694 1 $ 521,093
_ _
$ 255,000
_ _
$ (6,110) $ 269, 712
5.53
— 5 FTE
$ 464,360 $ _1_92,7_50
$ _ (78,85
$ 5350_46 $ (622,079)
4.73
6 FTE
$ 144,026
$ (135,592)
$ (415,210)
$ (694,828)
6 FTE
Best Case: The best case scenario (no contingency and 4 FTE) for an "In- House" service is estimated to result
in a value of $784,694 over a 7 year period. A breakeven would be achieved within 3.89 years and an internal
rate of return of 22.83% after the full 7 year term.
Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario for the "hi-House" solution, based on a 10%
contingency and 6 FTEs, could erode value by ($974,447) over 7 years, with no payback or return on
investment.
Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall somewhere in between negative ($350,469) and
positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement.
The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis.
Expected Case: As per Exhibit 2, probabilities weightings were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and
FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year
contract. The payback period would be 75.24 months and the internal rate of return would be 8.45 %.
Payback Period (Years)
Contingency
w
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
7.50%
10.00%
LL
4 FTE
3.89
4.57
5.53
7.04
9.75
5 FTE
4.73
5.82
7.61
11.16
- 14.20%
6 FTE
6.09
8.15
12.64
-17.51%
$ 5,000
Best Case: The best case scenario (no contingency and 4 FTE) for an "In- House" service is estimated to result
in a value of $784,694 over a 7 year period. A breakeven would be achieved within 3.89 years and an internal
rate of return of 22.83% after the full 7 year term.
Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario for the "hi-House" solution, based on a 10%
contingency and 6 FTEs, could erode value by ($974,447) over 7 years, with no payback or return on
investment.
Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall somewhere in between negative ($350,469) and
positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement.
The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis.
Expected Case: As per Exhibit 2, probabilities weightings were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and
FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year
contract. The payback period would be 75.24 months and the internal rate of return would be 8.45 %.
Internal Rate of Return
Contin enc
w
0.00%
2.50%
5.00%
7.50%
10.00%
LL
4 FTE
22.83%
17.45%
11.68%
5.34%
-1.87%
5 FTE
16.25%
10.19%
3.46%
-4.35%
- 14.20%
6 FTE
9.04%
1.93%
-6.46%
-17.51%
$ 5,000
Best Case: The best case scenario (no contingency and 4 FTE) for an "In- House" service is estimated to result
in a value of $784,694 over a 7 year period. A breakeven would be achieved within 3.89 years and an internal
rate of return of 22.83% after the full 7 year term.
Worst Case: On the other hand, the worst case scenario for the "hi-House" solution, based on a 10%
contingency and 6 FTEs, could erode value by ($974,447) over 7 years, with no payback or return on
investment.
Most Likely: Finance estimates a most likely range to fall somewhere in between negative ($350,469) and
positive $521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement.
The range is outlined in green in the above sensitivity analysis.
Expected Case: As per Exhibit 2, probabilities weightings were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and
FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year
contract. The payback period would be 75.24 months and the internal rate of return would be 8.45 %.
Tota 1 $ 137,000
17
:1
Expected Value
Weighting
W
5%
20%
50%
20%
5%
LL
75%
$ 29,000
$ 78,000
$ 96,000
$ (1,000)
$ (10,000)
15%
$ 3,000
$ 6,000
$ (6,000)
$ (11,000)
$ (5,000)
10%
$ 1,000
$ 3,000
$ 21,000
$ 14,000
$ 5,000
Tota 1 $ 137,000
17
:1
The model is also sensitive to fixture rate increases from WMCC. The table below illustrate the sensitivity of
rate increases:
"In- House" Value
WMCC Rate Increase
Alternative #3 Outsource
2.00%
1 2.40%
1 2.80%
3.00%
4.00%
4 FTE
1 $ (12,874)1$
121,463
1 $ 255,000
1 $ 326,145
1 $ 675,911
If WMCC's annual rate increase is 4 %, the value of the "In- House" approach escalates to approximately
$675,911. If WMCC holds their annual rate increase to 2% over the next 7 years, the result is a virtual break -
even between the two alternatives. The base model assumes a 2.8% increase representing fuel and inflation
increases.
Exhibit 6 — Budget Impact Assessment
The Alternative #2 "In- House" Solid Waste Collection budget is projected to be less than the WMCC
outsource model by approximately $226,381. Finance estimates annual budgeted savings of approximately
$225K per year. See below:
Pro Forma Operating Budget
Alternative #2 "In- House"
Alternative #3 Outsource
Additional Resources
Required
Based on Waste
Management Submission
Wages & Benefits
$1,014,620
$155,812
Tipping Fees
$1,410,289
$1,410,289
Outsource Services
$0
$2,065,497
Vehicle Usage
$677,928
$8,736
Vehicle Fuel
$187,605
$2,000
Other
$228,525
$199,617
$3,841,951
$3,518,967
Fiscal Charges
$96,603
$0
Total Solid Waste
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$3,841,951 $3,841,951- $3,615,570 = $226,381
$3,615,570
18
Conclusion — "In- House" ( "Alternative #2 ") versus Outsource ( "Alternative #3"
It appears WMCC has offered a very competitive bid price. However, based on assumptions, the "In- House"
approach is expected to result in a modest increase in value over 7 years versus the WMCC contract by
approximately $255,000, including a discounted payback of 5.53 years and an internal rate of return of 11.68 %.
Based on the level of contingency and additional workers required, on a best case scenario, the value could be
as high as $784,694 with a payback period of 3.89 years and an internal rate of return of 22.83 %. This scenario
assumes a 0% contingency and 4 additional FTEs. A worst case scenario could result in a negative valuation
over 7 years of approximately ($974,447) with no payback or return. This scenario is based on 10%
contingency and 6 FTEs.
The most likely scenario will be somewhere in between, estimated at negative ($350,469) and positive
$521,093 over a 7 year term based on a 2.5 % -7.5% contingency and a 4 -5 additional FTE requirement.
Probabilities were applied for contingency (5 %, 20 %, 50 %) and FTEs (75 %, 15 %, 10 %) to produce an
expected DCF valuation of approximately $137,000 over a 7 year contract, discounted payback period of 6.27
years and an internal rate of return of 8.45 %.
The budget impact analysis illustrates that an "In- House" model will result in lower operating costs than a
complete outsource model by approximately $226,381. Finance estimates annual budgeted savings of
approximately $225K per year.
The EOI with WMCC states that preferential pricing may be possible with a longer term agreement. The term
in the EOI was for a 5 -7 year term, with annual adjustments for CPI and fuel increases.
The collective bargaining agreement with Local 18 commits the City to maintain a minimum of 293 outside
workers. As a result it is unlikely that savings can be realized by means of a permanent workforce reduction.
In light of this, for purposes of assessing Alternative #3, the report should be used as an illustrative example of
what could possibly be achieved if such limitations did not exist.
Recommendation
The financial results of Alternative #2 ( "In- House ") compared to Alternative #3 (WMCC) are quite interesting.
Over a 7 year period Alternative #2 is projected to generate slightly higher value. However, depending on
certain assumptions, the value could swing in either direction.
Based on the information we have today, Finance would recommend an "In- House" solution over the WMCC
solution due to the following:
1. Finance estimates value accretion for the "In- House" approach as the most probable result
2. Start-up cost would be significant if the City decided to get back into the solid waste business
3. There is rate uncertainty in the WMCC contract, with a clause allowing for rate increases at any time for
fuel and inflation. There is uncertainty as to the financial impact after the 7 year term.
4. There is uncertainty as to a permanent workforce reduction to generate required savings
However, WMCC did put forward a competitive bid. The value gap between the two alternatives over 7 years
is slim. Further investigation and discussion may be merited given the EOI expressly states opportunity for a
lower rate based on a longer term agreement. Finance recommends if such discussions do proceed, a formula
be agreed upon representing annual inflation and fuel increases that is transparent for both parties. In
addition, given the significant start-up costs required to get back into the solid waste business, Finance
recommends the proposal be based on a longer term than 5 -7 years. A positive business case is also dependent
on the City's ability to reduce wages and benefits. Finally, the financial model should be refreshed if these
events were to occur.
19
Business Case & Risk Management
The financial projections within this report should be part of an overall business case to provide Council with a
comprehensive picture aligned with the City's overall corporate strategy. The business case should consist of a
thorough analysis of the City's needs, opportunities, threats (risks), and alternatives.
From a Risk Management perspective, Finance suggests the risk management strategy includes the following
business issues:
1. Risk of loss of service quality and control in the outsource model
2. Business interruption risks from labour disputes and strikes
3. Business interruption risks from contractor business closure
4. Uncertainty in long term contractor rates
5. Quality of monitoring, reporting, information needs
6. Impact on employee morale
7. Waste Reduction Program
20
W
City of Saint John
Financial Analysis
Solid Waste Collection
8/18/2011 Finance Department
84
Objectives of Financial Report
To estimate the value of the following options:
➢ Continue with the Status Quo servicing 16,718 units with
"In- House" resources and outsourcing 9,267 units
( "Alternative #1)
➢ Bring all 25,985 units "In- House" and terminate the
current contracted services ( "Alternative #2 ")
➢ Outsource all 25,985 units
E:16'7
( "Alternative #Y)
Current State
➢City provides service for 22,190 households
➢ 18,395 households have bi- weekly service
➢3,795 households receive weekly service
➢ U n its Collected 25,985 (18,395+3)795+37795)
➢ 16,718 units (64 %) collected by City workers
➢9,267 units (36 %) collected by the contractor
Finance Department 86 8/18/2011
2011 Solid Waste Collection Budget
Total 2011 Budget of $4,113,943
$173,487_
$587,065 4%
$810,000—
ZO°
$783,3!
43%
$1,760,000
Contractor
MM
Tipping Fee
Vehicle /Fuel
Other
Finance Department 87 8/18/2011
Methodology
➢Concept of Incremental
➢Why focus on incremental savings and costs?
➢Discounted Cash Flow Analysis ( "DCF ")
➢What is a DCF?
➢What does the result tell us?
➢Why do we use discounting?
➢What is the Discounted Payback Period?
➢Budget versus DCF
1:1:3
/AV44
Significant Considerations
➢ Financial models are simply mathematics, the quality of the
financial analysis is driven by the quality of the inputs and
assumptions used
➢Users of the report should ensure they are comfortable with the
assumptions outlined in the report, the assumptions will drive
the results
➢Users should understand all scope limitations
IQ*
Scope Limitations
➢ Analysis based on services provided today
➢ Finance did not analyze the costs associated with a user
pay system
➢ Finance did not review any potential impact to service
levels from changing the current business model
➢ Operating and business practices were not reviewed for
synergistic opportunities (i.e. route scheduling,
manpower scheduling, etc.)
Finance Department 90 8/18/2011
"10M W--
Key Assumptions
➢ Investment in Packers:
➢ 1 side loading 1 person packer, and 2 rear loading 2 person split
packers
➢ Total Investment estimated to be $794,000 with 10 year useful life
➢ City Workers:
➢ 4 additional at skilled worker wage - $44,595 per year plus fringe
➢ Tipping Fees:
➢ Refuge Tonnage: 4,795 tons @ $108
➢ Compost Tonnage: 1,364 tons @ $28
➢ Vehicle Maintenance & Replacement
➢ 3 Packers @ 5,513 per month based on consultation with Fleet
➢ Average Maintenance $30K annually, lifecycle cost over 10 years
Finance Department 91 8/18/2011
Assumptions Continued
➢ Fuel:
➢Current City Average Cost per Unit - $6.29
➢Density Factor — 1.4 times the rate
➢9,267 units @ $8.81
➢Contracted Rates:
➢Status Quo — based on call for bids for 9,267 units
➢Full Outsource — based on lowest expression of interest
➢Other Assumptions:
➢Contingency — 5%
➢Administrative Costs — 2%
➢Lost Time — based on experience
➢Fuel — 5% annual increase
➢ Inflation — 2%
Finance Department 92 8/18/2011
Service
HST
Tota I
Estimate
/AV_ _.,
Alternative #1 versus Alternative #2
Net Incremental Savings
Incremental Contractor Savings Incremental City Costs
Quantity I Rate I Annual Cost
9,267
9,276
$15.40
$1,712,542
$58,740
9,276
$11,000
$1,771,282
$1,760,000
Net Incremental Savings
Savings - $1,760,000
Costs - $172747000
Net Savings - $4867000
Finance Department
City Workers
Wages
Benefits
Ove rti m e
Tipping Fees
Refuge
Compost
Bulky
Quantity Rate I Annual Cost
4
$45,000
$180,000
4
$11,000
$44,100
4
$1,725
$6,900
4
$57,725
$231,000
5000
$108
$540,000
1000
$28
$28,000
$32,000
$600,000
Vehicle Charges 1 3 1 $66,000 1 $198,000
Fuel Charges 1 9267 1 $9 1 $80,000
Other I 1 1 $108,000
Contingency 1 5% 1 1 $57,000
Tota I 1 $1,274, 000
93 8/18/2011
/AV_ _.,
Base Case Valuation
Solid Waste Differential Cost Analysis DCF
Rounded to nearest 000's
Incremental Savings
FERO contract
Incremental Investment in Packers
Incremental "In- House" Costs
Tipping Fees for 9,267 units
4 FTE's - Solid Waste
Fuel - 3 Packers
Vehicle Charges - 3 Packers
Estimated Lost Time - 4 FTE's
Insurance
Admin
Contingency (5 %)
Change in Working Capital
Incremental "In- House" Savings
Discounted "In- House" Savings (5.5 %)
Cumulative "In- House" Discounted Savings
Discounted Payback Period
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
$ - $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,795,000 $ 1,831,000
$ - $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,760,000 $ 1,795,000 $ 1,831,000
$ (794,000)
$
- $
(600,000)
$
(612,000)
$
(625,000)
$ (637,000)
$ (650,000)
$
- $
(231,000)
$
(238,000)
$
(245,000)
$ (253,000)
$ (260,000)
$
- $
(80,000)
$
(84,000)
$
(88,000)
$ (92,000)
$ (97,000)
$
- $
(198,000)
$
(202,000)
$
(206,000)
$ (211,000)
$ (215,000)
$
- $
(15,000)
$
(15,000)
$
(16,000)
$ (16,000)
$ (17,000)
$
- $
(3,000)
$
(3,000)
$
(3,000)
$ (3,000)
$ (3,000)
$
- $
(12,000)
$
(12,000)
$
(13,000)
$ (13,000)
$ (13,000)
$
- $
(57,000)
$
(58,000)
$
(60,000)
$ (61,000)
$ (63,000)
$
- $
(78,000)
$
4,000
$
4,000
$ (1,000)
$ (1,000)
$
- $(1,274,000)
$(1,220,000)
$(1,252,000)
$(1,287,000)
$(1,319,000)
$ (794, 000) $ 486,000 $ 540,000 $ 508,000 $ 508,000 $ 512,000
$ (794,000) $ 461,000 $ 485,000 $ 433,000 $ 410,000 $ 392,000
$ (794, 000) $ (333, 000) $ 152,000 $ 585,000 $ 995,000 $ 1,387,000
20.75 months
Finance Department 94 8/18/2011
Risk Analysis
• Based on a 5 year contract term, the financial risk of experiencing
differences from the base assumptions within the model for the
number of additional city workers required and percent contingency,
is presented below:
Finance Department 95 8/18/2011
Base Case
Worst Case
Best Case
City Workers
Conten enc
4
5%
6
10%
4
0%
Average Savings
5 Year Valuation
5 Year Payback months
$ 5105000
$ 1,387,000
21
$ 3215000
$ 582,000
31
$ 5707000
$1,631,000
19
Finance Department 95 8/18/2011
Recommendation
• Based on the results of the financial model, Finance concludes that
replacing current contracted services with a full "In- House" service
model would achieve better value for money in Solid Waste
Collection
• Finance estimates replacing contracted services with City resources
will reduce annual operating costs by approximately $500,000 with
upside potential future savings in employee savings
• Based on assumptions, Finance estimates value for money over a 5
year period of approximately $1.4M, with a payback on investment
of 21 months
Finance Department 96 8/18/2011
Objective 2: Full Outsource (Alternative #3)
• Finance produced a financial analysis to compare a Full Outsource
approach, based on rates established in the August 2010 "EOI", to
the "In- House" model
• Rates proposed in the expression are competitive. Based on the 7
year term, the "In- House" model produces a marginally higher value
• However, given the inherent risk of assumptions, for all intents and
purposes Finance deemed the result value neutral
• A Permanent Reduction in workforce is the largest savings in an
outsource model and must be achievable
• If wishing to pursue this option, Finance recommends further due
diligence be conducted
Finance Department 97 8/18/2011
Due Diligence
• If it is the desire of Council to further investigate the Outsource
model, Finance recommends additional due diligence be conducted:
— Feasibility of permanent employee reduction given collective
agreement restrictions
— City should seek long term certainty of rates beyond 7 years
— Ensure transparent inflationary clauses
— Understand the significant start up cost to re -enter solid waste
service once divesting of all interest
— Material changes in terms, conditions or assumptions will
necessitate a refresh of the financial model
• Accordingly, a risk management strategy should be prepared to
identify, assess, and prioritize solid waste risks
Finance Department 98 8/18/2011
Conclusion
The financial report is based on a specific scope and specific assumptions
which should be carefully reviewed, changes in scope and assumptions will
drive changes to the analysis
Finance estimates a positive business case for bringing current contracted
routes "In- House" based on a call for bids, with an estimated value over 5
years of approximately $1.4 million, estimated annual reduction in operating
expenses of approximately $500K and a payback period of 21 months. The
worst case scenario also produces a positive business case
Finance also reviewed the business case for a full outsource service model
based on expressions of interest. The financial results are comparable to
the "In- House" model over 7 years, however significant obstacles do exist.
If interested in this option, further due diligence is required
Finance Department 99 8/18/2011
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2011 -150
m,
June 15", 2011
cam.
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
And Members of Common Council
The City of Saint John
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the community's Solid Waste
Management Service, a brief update on aspects of the service under review, and a
context for changes being contemplated.
BACKGROUND
The Solid Waste Management Service is an essential community service - essential to
public health, to quality of life in Saint John and to cleanliness of properties and
streetscapes - provided in accordance with the provisions of A By -Law for the Storage,
Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste in the City of Saint John (the Solid Waste By -Law).
The service comprises seven basic elements:
Residential Refuse Collection Collection /disposal of refuse from eligible
households on a bi- weekly basis; currently weekly in priority neighbourhoods.
2. Residential Compost Collection Collection /disposal of compost from eligible
households on a bi- weekly basis; currently weekly in priority neighbourhoods.
3. Blue Bin Recycling and Composting Promotion Promote participation in
the Fundy Region's recycling and composting programs.
4. Litter Control Control street litter and efficiently service municipal litter
containers placed at strategic locations around the city.
5. Special Activities Special service features, such as bulky item pick -up, white
goods drop off, Christmas tree mulch, and neighbourhood clean -up initiatives.
6. Service Coordination and Consultation Maintaining the inventory of eligible
residential customers, collection schedules and handling service needs of clients.
7. By -Law Administration and Public Education Administration of the By -Low and
public education to promote waste diversion, with a particular focus on preventing
and prosecuting illegal dumping.
100
COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PAGE 2
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 JUNE 15- 2011
Sustainability and Continuous Improvement
Since establishment of the Fundy Region Solid Waste Commission in August 1995, the
opening of the Crane Mountain Landfill facility in November 1997, and the introduction
of region -wide composting in August 2001, solid waste management in Saint John has
continued to evolve. Council has considered various reports over the years, including:
• Residential Solid Waste Collection Service, M &C 2001 -95, March 22 ^d, 2001
• Integrated Resource and Solid Waste Management - Service, Sustainability,
Costs and the Environment, M &C 2005-179, May 31't, 2005
• Solid Waste Management Service, M &C 2007 -328, November 28', 2007
• Same Week, Same Day - Solid Waste Service Implementation, M &C 2008 -258,
August 28`h, 2008
• User Pay Option - Solid Waste Management Service, M &C 2009 -252,
September 10", 2009
• Preliminary Estimates - Implementation of Curbside Recycling, M &C 2009-
329, October 15', 2009
Maintaining a clear focus on sustainability and continuous improvement is very
important; increasing diversion to reduce expensive tipping fees for refuse, finding
opportunities for more cost - effective delivery of service, improving public education,
firmly enforcing landlord responsibilities for their waste management, continuing
support of community clean -ups and redoubling efforts to eradicate illegal dumping.
The fiscal challenges facing municipalities, coupled with a seemingly insatiable demand
on limited public resources, require that services are prudently managed and that viable
options to improve the output -cost equation are actively pursued. The underlying goal is
to best provide for the real solid waste needs of the community.
Current Service
The City's 2011 budget for solid waste totals just over $4.1 million; with major (budget)
cost factors being:
• Vehicles - Usage /Fuel /Insurance $615,000
• Personnel $783,000
• Tipping Fees (Disposal) $810,000
• Contracted Collection Services $1,760,000
Collection of refuse and compost is provided for about 22,190 eligible residential
households; the great majority (18,395 or 82.9 %) bi- weekly and 3,795 in the priority
neighbourhoods on a weekly basis. In due course, the service should transition to an
equivalent bi- weekly level of service to all residential households in the city.
101
COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50
ANALYSIS
PAGE 3
JUNE 15- 2011
There are opportunities for positive change in the solid waste service - based on
principles of sustainability, prudent financial management and responsibility on the part
of every citizen and property owner. Council has also requested consideration of several
ideas. In addition, solid waste services are among those being considered for
regionalization by the Government of New Brunswick.
Aspects of Service under Review
Alternatives for Solid Waste Collection An operational and financial examination has
been made of "in house" versus "contracted" collection options. The financial analysis
compared three alternatives: [1 ] the status quo, the existing 64/36% split between
internal and external collection; [2] bringing all collection "in house" and terminating the
current contract arrangement; and [3] outsourcing all collection activity. There are
several considerations involved in choosing among collection alternatives and certain
factors limit the timing and /or viability of some options for the City of Saint John. A
separate report (M &C 2011-89, dated June 17', 201 1) will follow.
Limits for Household Refuse Saint John does not divert enough of the waste that it
generates; too much goes out for garbage collection and ends up in the landfill. As a
result, the costs of disposal (for taxpayers generally) are substantially higher than they
could be. A recent report, considered at the June 6t' meeting of Council, outlined a "2
Bags or Less" voluntary pilot project being undertaken with 460 households in the
Douglas Avenue area. Of the estimated 17,718 tonnes of residential waste generated in
2010, about 68.5% (12,152 tonnes) went into the landfill as refuse. The diverted waste
comprised 3,359 tonnes of compost (19.0 %) and only 2,207 tonnes of recycled materials
(12.5 %). This community can and must do better.
User Pay and Sustainability Managing solid waste effectively at the best cost over the
long term means truly embracing sustainability; practicing a philosophy that maximizes
resource reuse, recycling and diversion, minimizes waste generation, and extends the
service life of landfill infrastructure. A system of "user -pay" could be the key to
encouraging individual responsibility for the cost of solid waste. Although there are
good reasons for having a service like this one within the suite of those covered by
property taxes, doing so does not encourage waste reduction or diversion; costs are not
readily apparent to system users. Those who generate the most waste are not paying
their fair share of the costs. Without a direct financial incentive to reduce waste, many
people will not take personal responsibility to control costs. Council will probably need
to consider a user -pay structure for solid waste at some future point.
Priority Neighbourhoods (Level of Service) The interim higher level of service that
priority neighbourhoods receive reflects substantive municipal support for those
residents working to bring about positive change in these important areas of the city.
The initiative was supported by the Human Development Council, Vibrant Communities
102
COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PAGE 4
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 JUNE 15-, 2011
and the Business Community Anti - Poverty Initiative. However, there is a cost associated
with this higher level of service; one that cannot be justified indefinitely. A gradual
transition to the standard bi- weekly level of service will be proposed - neighbourhood by
neighbourhood. In some cases there will be difficult challenges to overcome in doing so.
Mechanized Refuse (Cart) Handling The benefits of mechanized collection ( "black cart"
system similar to compost) are many. Containers, possibly with a range of sizes, could
be used to establish "limits" and pricing based on capacity. The greatest benefit,
however, is in reduction of back injuries common to this type of work. Improved
operating efficiency and tidier neighbourhoods could also be expected. Currently,
everything from small plastic shopping bags to varying sizes and shapes of containers
to loose and awkward refuse are placed for collection. Staff will caution Council,
however, that the cost of procuring carts should be the responsibility of individual
households and not be absorbed by the municipal (property tax) budget.
Night Time Collection A night time collection "pilot" initiated several years ago has
not proven itself. Potential benefits have been outweighed by certain challenges
associated with night work. Citizens will be advised of the move away from night time
collection in the South Central Peninsula. Should conditions change, the City could
reconsider a broader policy of night time collection at some time in the future.
Recycling Options Saint John is currently served by a depot recycling service
operated by the Fundy Regional Solid Waste Commission. Citizens voluntarily bring their
paper, cardboard, plastics and other recyclables to one of 13 strategically located Blue
Bin depots in the city. Although the service is a good one, many citizens would prefer
curbside recycling. Although more recyclables would probably be generated, a curb side
service would also involve much higher operating costs and not pay for itself; the higher
costs would not be offset by recycling revenues. Even the current system is subsidized
by tipping fees for refuse. Finding the right recycling model for Saint John remains a
work in progress; the balance of net costs and benefits will determine the most feasible
approach for this community.
Clean Neighbourhoods An important part of the solid waste service is working with
citizens to clean -up neighbourhoods. Community groups are encouraged to take such
initiatives and to make arrangements with Municipal Operations for the support needed.
Service to Provincial Housing The City has come to provide service to a group of NB
Housing properties and incur costs that rightfully rest with the Province. Staff has been
in discussions with Provincial representatives to resolve this matter.
By -Law and Enforcement Capability The Solid Waste By -Law is the foundation for the
community's solid waste service. Beyond defining residential eligibility, it outlines
standards for storage, handling and disposal of solid waste generally. The By -Law needs
to be kept current and reflect modern thinking for a clean, healthy and liveable city; one
that minimizes its ecological footprint, optimizes service outputs with costs, and strives
103
COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PAGE 5
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 JUNE 15- 2011
for long -term sustainability. It needs to be properly administered and communicated.
Also vitally important is positive enforcement of its provisions. The City does not
presently have the capability needed to effectively enforce the Solid Waste By -Law. Work
on its update is underway, along with developing an effective solution for enforcement.
Illegal Dumping /Placement Illegal dumping defiles the community; it is unhealthy,
irresponsible, unlawful, and costly to taxpayers. It happens essentially in two ways. The
first is the garbage, old appliances and furniture, and hazardous wastes dumped in out -
of- the -way places, including watersheds and parklands. The other involves people
ineligible for service, often as a result of inadequate provisions for garbage in their own
buildings, placing garbage in front of eligible city households for pick -up. Eliminating
this problem must be a high priority for the City - with public education and preventive
measures, supported by the vigorous prosecution of offenders.
Clean -Up Week Notwithstanding the popularity of Clean -Up Week, its price tag was
very high and its demand on resources was disruptive to several essential spring time
services. Analysis in 2001 strongly indicated that the program did not represent an
effective use of limited public resources. More critical and seriously under funded
programs, such as street, sidewalk and storm drainage system maintenance, could
better utilize the dollars being spent on picking up and disposing of what was primarily
"private refuse ". The cost of Clean -Up Week far outweighed the benefits gained.
Annual Report Card A series of measureable improvement objectives, established for
the service, will be reported on annually. This year's report has been drafted and will be
presented to Council in the near future.
Other Considerations
Regionalization of Solid Waste Services As Council is aware, the 2008 Finn Report,
"Building Stronger Local Governments and Regions ", recommended that solid waste
management be designated as a `supra - municipal' service, to be handled exclusively on
a regional basis: "Responsibility for the planning and management of the entire solid
waste stream, from collection, to recycling, to disposal transferred to the regional
service district." An integrated approach has merit. Given the current Government's
plans for municipal reform, it would be prudent for the City to prepare itself for changes
that could come to pass. Council needs to weigh the risks associated with making
significant investments in the service prior to decisions on regionalization - against the
benefits expected from the changes being made.
Strikes /Work Stoppages Several communities across the country have experienced
work stoppages that impacted their garbage collection; most notable among these being
the City of Toronto. A 39 -day strike in 2009 produced serious difficulties for the
municipality and its citizens. Among the consequences have been changing public
opinions, the election of a new municipal council with strong points of view and a highly
publicized debate on privatization of solid waste collection. On May 1 7t' of this year,
104
COMMUNITY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE PAGE 6
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL, M &C 2011 -1 50 JUNE 15- 2011
Toronto council voted conclusively to start a bidding process that could see private
waste haulers collect garbage from some 165,000 households previously serviced by
municipal equipment and employees; claiming potential to save millions of dollars. Saint
John needs to be mindful of the effects a work stoppage can have on a service like solid
waste; something not experienced here since 1981.
Equipment and Mechanical Support Essential to reliable solid waste collection is the
fleet of packers and the supporting maintenance resources to keep the equipment ready
for the continuous daily schedule. Refuse and compost are collected five days a week,
52 weeks a year, statutory holidays included. The equipment is heavily used and can be
subject to breakdown. As equipment availability is central to the service, there must be a
built -in equipment reserve and the maintenance garage must operate an evening or
night shift that keeps the packers in good repair, mobile and available for morning use.
Working in Solid Waste Over the years, diligent managers and a fairly small group of
stalwart employees have enabled the City to deliver a good "in house" solid waste
collection service. Although much improved recently, there have been periods of
considerable lost time from duty. Also, employment in "sanitation" is not attractive to
the majority of workers; very few seek full time employment there. The "staffing" reality
for this service can be a real challenge, making its delivery very difficult.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Solid Waste Management Service is budgeted to cost taxpayers over $4.1 million in
2011. These costs are related directly to the amount of waste generated by residential
households. Consistent with the goals of Plan SJ, the community can and must change.
Being a clean, healthy and liveable city involves minimizing our ecological footprint,
optimizing resource use, and achieving long -term sustainability.
There is room for financial improvement in how the community and individual citizens
manage solid waste. All concerned need to work hard to that end.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report.
Respectfully submitted,
J.M. Paul Groody, P.Eng. J. Patrick Woods, CGA
Commissioner, City Manager
Municipal Operations & Engineering
105
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
.�d
w�
27 July 2011 city of saint John
His Worship Ivan Court
And Fellow Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Standing Committee System
Common Council has discussed the implementation of a standing committee
system on a number of occasions. This governance model will be more efficient
for Council, provide an opportunity for Councillors to develop a better
understanding of the issues before them, allow Councillors to be more involved in
setting the direction for the community and ultimately should improve the quality
of our decision making.
We need a commitment to have this model fully developed and a plan put in place
for implementation for the incoming Council. It may also be beneficial to start
the implementation process early in the New Year to allow for a smooth
transition.
Recommendation
Resolved that the Common Clerk be directed to prepare the necessary By -law
amendments and develop a timely process for implementation of a Standing
Committee System.
Respectfully submitted,
C
AT LARGE
106
I L(
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
27 July 2011
His Worship Ivan Court
And Fellow Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: COUNCILBUDGET- SALARIES
Common Council has decided that it has no appetite to reduce the number of Councillors citing the
importance of citizen representation. My point in first raising the issue remains the same, the Council
needs to show leadership and set an example in reducing costs.
Leaving the number of Councillors the same and reducing the Council salaries by 40% would achieve the
same financial result and still allow the desired level of representation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Resolved that the City Solicitor be directed to prepare the necessary By -law amendments to reduce the
salaries of Council by forty percent beginning in January 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
Christopher Ti
COUNCILLOR AT LARGE
107
� . Z- REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
27 July 2011
His Worship Ivan Court
And Fellow Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Sydney St. Courthouse
The Sydney St. Courthouse will likely be vacated in due course with the opening
of the new Courthouse at Peel Plaza. This is a prominent building in the City core
with considerable historical significance. It would likely fall into disrepair if it
were to be left unoccupied for any length of time.
The City should explore the possibility of acquiring this property and what other
use(s) it may serve should the Province of New Brunswick declare it surplus to
their needs.
Recommendation
Resolved that the City Manager be directed to investigate the possible acquisition
of the Sydney St Courthouse from the Province of New Brunswick and report
back on a timely basis.
Respectfully submitted,
Christ er Titus
CO 0 OR AT LARGE
1:
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C -2011 —222
August 24, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Proposed Public Hearing Date
1 Plaza Avenue
BACKGROUND:
As provided in Common Council's resolution of August 3, 2004, this report
indicates the rezoning and Section 39 amendment applications received and
recommends an appropriate public hearing date.
Details of the applications are available in the Common Clerk's office and will
form part of the documentation presented at the public hearings.
The following application has been received.
Name of Location Existing Proposed Reason
Applicant Zone Zone
City of Saint John
Sobeys 1 Plaza Avenue "I4" "SC" To permit an
Developments employee parking
area
RECOMMENDATION:
That Common Council schedule the public hearing for the rezoning application of
Sobeys Developments (1 Plaza Avenue) for Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chamber, and refer the application to the Planning Advisory
Committee for report and recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
orrest, MCIP, RPP
and Development
109
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M & C — 2011 -228
August 26, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
City of Saim John
SUBJECT: INITIATE STOP -UP AND CLOSE SOUTHERN TIP OF WATER
STREET
BACKGROUND:
The subject parcel of land comprising an area of approximately 645 square metres is
beyond the area that is presently utilized for the travelled portion of Water Street; in fact
it is beyond the fenced area and is within the confines of the land that is utilized by the
Saint John Port Authority. The purpose of this street closure is to facilitate a land
transaction with the Port Authority that would see this parcel swapped to the Port for a
desired, similar sized parcel to be utilized for the construction of Lift Station #9 as part of
the Harbour Cleanup project. Municipal Operations are supportive of this street closure
and subsequent land exchange.
A further report will be prepared for Council on the particulars of the land transaction
once the details are finalized. The recommendation contained in this report will facilitate
the process to initiate the street closure of the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Public Hearing for the consideration of the passing of a By -law to Stop
Up and Close a 645 square metre f portion of a public street known as Water
Street, be set for Monday, September 26, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber, and
2. That Common Council authorize the publishing of a notice of the intention to
consider passing of such By -law.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner Planning and Development
Attachment
CL /c
110
J. Patrick Woods, C.G.A.
City Manager
776
rue Qug�, tT
c 247
.: ol,
w r 7�y10�
0
CD
2
r
r
r
91
3
e
U)
A
�Sl (augers rue
. dame
St•
rue .7a .
'Ross st .
rue
a„
S. f �'
Queen S4 n
7M
°
1
Description of Plan: To stop -up and close the southern tip of Water Street
N PID: N/A Address: Portion of Water Street
Pan: N/A Date: August 24, 2011
111
fC9 Z
JIi `� n - p i °oi��' ®� > u3353c43 BiSiiii•N ad c� FE
Qin 3 2 1 f
• "y e 6 e 2 E� .E Z t1
nnnR ' c K 'm
° R�7 °g bl F Ji §1•°€ fi ��.d' v c yp
c F g r °€ 8 • ao R� eB •� a $�mS�boEn_ oB��o n. $�B p-7°. m o °�z O ?o —.4m
u ° 9$ �E �' aE gg= �Ss€ n���nn v� •z� 0°3 d
$ F yjfa �€ �` y off= 8 96 E3P :� rr•nrnn rnnn nnn n.s `O
lon_EE wn ,i C°° .g9 '$2c 6 .�•N� •°-w° b ?gyp �Cn�cr Em S'v
""�. °a v °� •� °� � �>
x° ��
$ i/l rn t'o v
o z °� •� g�,�� � � �_`
a o a9n° g�Yl gall 5 5'1g f3 f g c� SE x Z °om ° Hr nHr H «rNrvN «rvaN� or .S c v o� • �• �3
u a 5� U ° 'j d Eg �_ Se g'� 8 V7 c °� Sg B +h
6a m �> T,.� `$ m 'E ' v� i $E° S�'6-0N' zb mnnn C �•v dm
wa+ we w�we
W-gon` Stree�IRUe
P�1�ae
e
William
Prime
et �
9 z d
i" z e
r� �65i a
Y ` 8
�a
D o
d
° � E
v
�v
N3
�a
ti ritY
Pa,o,la.i.oPo�r��A tho P °�M� r��d
Saint
rtv.,a.�� Qae du°CUrad °fie •� �d� Lehr ule�•
gee 9°t lnN U con ub 7 N+•° D°�
Ld,
PP ww
112
B
/
S
2
u
06S YCq Z m
Q
y
Z
b
P
/
19
to F
oqy ON z ; a:: s • a
ea:e� ie� g
`��•.�vasfas,ga o��
viali "a�:sB'ss
m
J II
,I 1
��I��N�I �1�0�•4
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C- 2011 -225
August 24, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Hitachi Crescent Subdivision - Galbraith Construction
Limited
BACKGROUND:
City of Saim John
On March 1, 2010 and March 11, 2011 Common Council assented to the vesting
of the proposed street and revised land for public purposes as well as any
necessary municipal services easements and public utility easements with respect
to the Hitachi Crescent Subdivision. The subdivision, located off of Gault Road
will contain approximately 34 townhouse units. Common Council also authorized
the preparation and execution of one or more City / Developer Subdivision
Agreements to ensure provision of the required work and facilities.
The Developer, Galbraith Construction Limited, has provided the Final Plan of
Subdivision for the first phase of the development and the City is currently
awaiting execution of the City / Developer Subdivision Agreement.
In addition to these requirements, the subdivision contains a storm water retention
pond which is required to be conveyed to the City. Conveyance of the storm water
management pond is an additional requirement beyond endorsement of the Final
Plan of Subdivision and execution of the City / Developer Subdivision
Agreement. The acceptance of the transfer of the lands on which the storm water
retention pond is located, shown as "Parcel A" on the attached plan of
subdivision, requires a resolution of Common Council.
113
M & C — 2011 — 225 - 2 - August 24, 2011
ANALYSIS:
Planning and Development staff has consulted with the Legal Department
regarding the land transfer and the Developer has agreed to the terms and
conditions and wishes to make the conveyance. The transfer of Parcel "A" will be
subject to the following terms:
1) Title to Parcel "A" to be unencumbered freehold title;
2) Title to be acquired upon completion of the Developer's work to the
satisfaction of the Chief City Engineer of The City of Saint John; and
3) All costs associated with the transfer are to be borne by the Developer.
Following completion of the work required by the City to the satisfaction of the
Chief City Engineer, receipt of the executed Subdivision Agreement and receipt
of the transfer documentation and applicable filing and registration fees, the
Development Officer will endorse the Final Plan of Subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
That The City of Saint John accept from Galbraith Construction Limited,
at the said Company's cost and expense, a Transfer in registerable form of
the unencumbered freehold title to Parcel "A" on Subdivision Plan,
"Hitachi Crescent Subdivision - Phase 1, Gault Road, City of Saint John,
Saint John County, N.B." dated July 20, 2011 upon completion of the
work required by the City being satisfactory to the Chief City Engineer."
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner
Planning and Development
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
MR
Project No. 10 -13
114
L f� s
° d
a
a.c� �W m $ o
p b rob( p q
���,$U����a qP�����4� i C o Y y"jo
qqB R �" °raj 55" P P t O ° ° �'6 obi
«44 v I '�•�� F�� �_.:����$;gf�� � 999 �� �� }F � O_> Uc �— g�
1 lRRg1�B1 fan = N
Jy0
4 \1 .7
Y F 1
�3 q
o
'S7 y `, •'
u
y , w
�6
E
nggn uH
&
Q
IM
��
a
o
j`
E8
R
�a
"°
pill!
Q
�'
94
g �
i
�m691Bm_Sb
aa®®gyyggsyylgg
ay,.
K :R: 4MO
° 6
N °
Ly
IOROB'00" 71.]9
/ °
T •
1 les9e'9n• �
n
t era e'a9
]1.37 •�
°i A5!
tetea'YY9'
U'�
]1.46
1-4 1M% 1, al:
lee•oe'a�y
��ry
31.77
d :3
HPviN.�•ry
1eYroe'oo'
166'06'00'
31.4e0
�' L6rez .OS.OSEte
OreL�
Jy0
4 \1 .7
Y F 1
�3 q
o
'S7 y `, •'
y , w
�6
Q
��
•' d,d
,
R
Nom} •: J,Y
$
ci
a!u
"too, .o�� cQlurr`
• �` t+
N °
Ly
IOROB'00" 71.]9
/ °
T •
1 les9e'9n• �
n
t era e'a9
]1.37 •�
°i A5!
tetea'YY9'
]1.46
1-4 1M% 1, al:
lee•oe'a�y
�..
31.77
d :3
]1A6
r
'°
1eYroe'oo'
166'06'00'
31.4e0
�' L6rez .OS.OSEte
OreL�
6L .9sAS.61f
-
w IOreL a
- - --
. {Y9L ,OC.00.Bff
Q OC.OSd1C
•••LS')L ,OC,DSb
.OS.OS,6*E
°:,°6.;�tt►a�.n�t
mww ,tom Ppo�j
1Inpo
a
o da�aR_ y1M Rim dda.R.-ry
s�748��� ' °R�p1RS:Si���XiAYIF91R��g
v to
; 111 1117 s Mumunow o it
,�An
N R A 4
WR ;RgRnRRRRRRBIB:7Y7S ^ +14WS�;2pa9
960£
r
J p
spar sa i
At.1a
E' L t � •Y
id !a
�^ g
,�\ a
019C0Y Old
'D41 uoAorjSWOQ MDJgIDD
l7 L
i0 U
9y 14y O,.
J
yj
u 5 m B
� y
E m o
ao o� ° t••
N
i7
115
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M & C — 2011 -220
26 August 2011
His Worship Ivan Court
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Tender for 18 Scott Air Packs and Accessories
Saint John Fire Department
BACKGROUND:
Tenders have been received for the purchase of eighteen (18) Scott Health and Safety
Self Contained Breathing Air Packs and Accessories.
The City of Saint John Fire Department has seventy -two self - contained breathing
apparatus (air packs) in its inventory for daily use and regional hazardous
materials emergency response deployment. It is the employment of air packs that
permit fire fighters to be in situations which humans could not normally survive
(i.e. heavy smoke, noxious gases, etc).
To ensure fire fighter safety, air packs are constructed and tested to the most
current edition of the National Fire Protection Association's Standard on Open -
Circuit Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for Emergency Services
(NFPA 1981). This standard is updated every five years, with 2007 being the
most recent edition and 2012 being the next planned edition of NFPA 1981.
Traditionally, the Fire Department has purchased packs midway to the end of the
five -year edition cycle. The reasons are two folds; first to avoid any unplanned
"issues" with any new features on the air pack; and secondly, the unit cost
sometimes drops after the first year or two of the new edition.
116
PAGE TWO
The Fire Department purchased approximately 60 air packs in the 1999 to 2002
time - frame. These air packs were configured to the 1997 Edition of NFPA 1981.
Additional air packs have since been purchased to replace severely damaged air
packs as well as support the entry into regional hazardous materials emergency
response service.
As Council is aware, the Fire Department maintains, repairs and upgrades its own
air packs, continually extending the useful life of the packs. Of the seventy -two
air packs in use, 36 air packs conform to NFPA 1981, 2007 Edition (12 purchased
and 24 previously upgraded), while 36 air packs are still configured to the 1997
Edition. Each edition of NFPA 1981 brings with it either new safety features and/
or improvements to primary functions. Similarly, these improvements usually
entail longer part life or easier parts replacements.
As part of the 2011 capital equipment program, the Fire Department planned to
upgrade 20 of the remaining 36 packs to the 2007 Edition of NFPA 1981. The
upgrade would have entailed the replacement of defunct /costly parts and the
addition of new safety features. But with the upgrade, you still have the same
metal frame, the same straps and the same basic mechanisms, which are still nine
to twelve years old and subject to fatigue. The metal frame alone costs over
$1000.00 to replace.
Recently, the gap between the cost of the upgrade parts and the cost of a new air
pack closed significantly. This is due in part to the value of the Canadian Dollar
and the pending release of the next edition of NFPA 1981. With just a $700
difference between purchasing new and upgrading, the logical choice is to replace
new (i.e. full life expectancy from the unit). The Fire Department is now
proposing to replace 18 air packs as opposed to upgrading 20.
Based on the funds allocated for the project, it is proposed that 18 of the NFPA
1981, 1997 Edition air packs be decommissioned and replaced with 18 air packs
purchased to 2007 Edition.
As a related benefit, parts from the decommissioned air packs will be used to
sustain the 18 air packs still "built" to NFPA 1981, 1997 Edition (until their
eventual upgrade or replacement).
117
PAGE THREE
ANALYSIS:
Four companies responded to the City's tender call by submitting bids. Staffs of the
Saint John Fire Department and Materials and Fleet Management have reviewed the
bids and have found them all to be complete in every regard.
A summary is enclosed for Council's consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
If awarded as recommended, to the lowest bidder, the estimated total cost for the 18
Scott Air Packs and accessories will be $83,142.00 plus tax.
This is a planned expenditure and as such funds are included in the 2011 Capital
Budget for Fire Equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the tender submitted by Safety Source Ltd. in the amount of
$83,142.00 plus tax, for the supply and delivery of 18 Scott Air Packs and
accessories be accepted.
Respectfully submitted,
0—j 9-- ,
David Logan
Purchasing Agent /Manager
Patrick Woods
City Manager
118
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M & C — 2011 -227
26 August, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
& Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Tender for Plow Blades and Edges
BACKGROUND:
The City called a tender for the establishment of a supply agreement for the provision of plow blades
and cutting edges used in snow clearing operations.
Eight companies responded to this tender call, which closed on Wednesday, August 17, 2011.
ANALYSIS:
The tender bids have been reviewed by staff of Materials & Fleet Management and Municipal
Operations. All tenders are complete in every regard.
The summary of the tenders is enclosed for Council's consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The purpose of this tender is for the establishment of a supply agreement for plow blades and cutting
edges for winter snow plowing and removal. The actual requirement for these items is very much
influenced by the type and duration of the coming winter months and therefore is difficult to predict
with any degree of accuracy.
The tender however, is divided into two requirements. The first of these is an initial order amount
that is needed to replenish existing stocks. This requirement is illustrated by the quantities contained
on the enclosed summary and based on the prices offered, if awarded as recommended, will total
$27,120.56 plus tax. The second requirement covers future needs, if any, and is established on an as
and when required basis.
This tender represents a yearly requirement and as such, funds are included in the annual operating
budget.
119
Page Two
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the tender for the establishment of a supply agreement for plow blades and
edges from date of award until March 31, 2012 be awarded to the low bidder, LSW Wear Parts Ltd.,
Fredericton, N. B. as per the prices quoted and illustrated on the enclosed summary.
Respectfully submitted,
David Logan
Purchasing Agent
Patrick Woods
City Manager
120
City of Saint John
Tender Summary
2011-259001T
Plow Blades and Edges
( * *) Indicates Recommendation
121
JOE
ITE
DESCRIPTION
INITIAL
LETCO
CHEMUNG
KENNA-
SMS
ALPHA
LSW **
JOHNSO
BRC
M#
ORDER QTY
LTD.
SUPPLY
METAL
EQUIP
EQUIP
WEAR
N EQUIP
BLADES
1
36" (Carbon Tip)
38
$180.75
$175.92
$173.47 **
$ 172.69
$ 212.46
$ 153.88 **
$ 232.64
$ 168.92
2
48" (carbon Tip)
76
$220.65
$ 234.56
$ 228.68 **
$ 230.26
$ 283.15
$ 204.44 **
$ 280.49
$ 225.22
3
132" Cutting Edge
38
$279.00
$ 125.40
NO BID
$ 147.28
$ 177.28
$ 120.00 **
$ 367.02
NO BID
2 Piece Cutting Edge -
4
Flipable 5/8" x 8
16
$108.00
$ 76.02
NO BID
$ 112.36
$ 295.64
$ 73.48 **
$ 162.84
NO BID
5
144" Cutting Edge
-
NO BID
$ 136.80
NO BID
$ 160.67
$ 189.54
$ 130.84 **
NO BID
NO BID
6
96" Cutting Edge
-
NO BID
$ 91.20
NO BID
$ 107.11
$ 126.40
$ 87.15 **
NO BID
NO BID
Blades for John Deere Grader:
7
Blade PT# T66703
-
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
$ 105.98
$101.61
$ 94.40 **
NO BID
NO BID
Overlays PT# 6Y/2805
-
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
$ 108.56
NO BID
$101.10 **
NO BID
NO BID
60 Days Ist
DELIVERY
4 Weeks
21 Days
60 Days
5 Weeks
6 Weeks
3 -4
1 Month
order
Weeks **
5 Days for
rest
( * *) Indicates Recommendation
121
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2011 -213
August 24, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Contract 2011 -20: Chip Seal - 2011
BACKGROUND
71r � I
The City of Saint john
The 2011 General Fund Operating Budget included a provision for the chip sealing of a number
of roads in the City. This is an annual program to maintain the City's inventory of existing chip
seal roads.
The work consists generally of the supply of all necessary labour, materials and equipment for
the placement of approximately 9883 m2 of single coat chip seal surface treatment on various
roads. There are a total of 5 roads in this contract as follows:
Bay Crescent Drive from Woodside Drive to Dead End
Camp Court from Chalmers Drive to Dead End
Chalmers Drive from Woodside Drive to Bay Crescent Drive
Clairmont Street from Rothesay Road to End of Chip Seal
Woodside Drive from Westfield Road to Bay Crescent Drive
TENDER RESULTS
Tenders closed on August 10, 2011 with the following results:
1) 624091 Alberta Ltd. o/a R &N Maintenance, Guelph Ontario
$ 48,042.03
2) Maritime Road Recycling Inc., Grand Falls, NB
$ 72,164.46
3) Moncton Construction Inc., Saint Jacques, NB
$ 72,722.85
4) Industrial Cold Milling Ltd., Moncton, NB
$ 94,500.04
The Engineer's estimate for the work was $ 92,240.00.
122
M &C2011 -213
August 24, 2011
Page 2
ANALYSIS
The tenders were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects with
the exception of the tender submitted by 624091 Alberta Ltd. o/a R &N Maintenance. Division 2
— Instructions to Tenderers and Tendering procedures of the 2011 General Specifications at —
Clause 2.11(a) Reserved Rights states: - "The City reserves the right to: Reject an unbalanced
Tender. For the purpose of this section, an unbalanced tender containing a unit price which
deviates substantially from, or does not fairly represent reasonable and proper compensation for
the unit of work bid or one that contains prices which appear to be so unbalanced as to adversely
affect the interest of the City. The City Reserves the right to use tenders submitted in response to
this Request for Tender or for other like or similar work as a guideline in determining if a bid is
unbalanced." Staff has determined that the tender submitted by 624091 Alberta Ltd. o/a R &N
Maintenance was an unbalanced Tender and should be rejected in accordance with Clause
2.11(a). Staff is of the opinion that the lowest compliant tenderer, Maritime Road Recycling Inc.
has the necessary expertise and resources to perform the work, and recommend acceptance of
their tender.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This contract includes work that is charged against the 2011 General Fund Operating Budget.
Assuming award of the contract to Maritime Road Recycling Inc. staff completed an analysis
that concluded that a total of $100,000.00 was provided in the General Fund Operating Budget
and the projected completion cost is estimated to be $66,052.07, including the City's eligible
H.S.T. rebate — a positive difference of $33,947.93 in the General Fund Operating Budget.
POLICY — TENDER OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy
for the tendering of construction contracts, the most current version of the City's General
Specifications and the specific project specifications.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Contract 2011 -20: Chip Seal - 2011, be awarded to the lowest compliant
tenderer, Maritime Road Recycling Inc. at the tendered price of $72,164.46 as calculated based
upon estimated quantities, and further, that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to
execute the necessary contract documents.
Respectfully submitted,
J. M. Paul Groody, P. Eng.
Commissioner,
Municipal Operations & Engineering
123
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2011 -224
August 23, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
And Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: Contract 2011— 24: Crack Sealing - 2011
BACKGROUND:
71n 7
The City of Saint John
The 2011 General Fund Operating Budget included a provision for the crack sealing of the
asphalt pavement on Rothesay Avenue between McLean Street and McAllister Drive.
The work consists generally of cleaning the asphalt pavement cracks by high velocity blowers
and immediately filling the cracks with a hot rubberized joint sealing compound which adheres
and seals the cracks in asphalt pavements. A sprinkle of cement or agricultural lime is then
applied to prevent tracking of the sealant by vehicular traffic.
The total length of asphalt cracks to be sealed is approximately 10,000 metres.
TENDER RESULTS:
Tenders closed on August 17, 2011 with the following results:
1. Road Savers Maritime Limited, Chester, N.S. $40,115.00
2. Morin Curbing Inc., Drummond N.B. $42,375.00
3. 624091 Alberta Ltd. o/a R & N Maintenance, Guelph, Ontario $42,827.00
The Engineer's estimate for the work was $50,000.00
ANALYSIS:
Three tenders were reviewed by the Tender Opening Committee and found to be formal in all
respects. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to
perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender.
124
M &C 2011 - 224
August 23, 2011
Page 2
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There is $50,000.00 provided for crack sealing in the 2011 General Fund Operating Budget. The
projected completion cost is estimated to be $36,717.32 including the City's eligible H.S.T.
Rebate — a $13,282.78 positive difference in the General Fund Operating Budget.
This Contract is prepared in such a way that the quantity of work can be increased or decreased
without penalty. Staff will monitor the progress of the work and maintain the expenses to the
budget allocation.
POLICY — TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy
for the tendering of construction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the specific
project specifications.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Contract 2011 -24: Crack Sealing - 2011, be awarded to the low tenderer,
Road Savers Maritime Limited, at the tendered price of $40,115.00 as calculated based upon
estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the
necessary contract documents.
Respectfully submitted,
J. M. Paul Groody, P.Eng.
Commissioner,
Municipal Operations & Engineering
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
125
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2011 -226
August 25, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
& Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
71r � I
The City of Saint john
SUBJECT: Contract No. 2011 -4 — Millidge Ave., Skaling Court, Woodward Avenue and Black
St. — Storm Sewer Separation
BACKGROUND
To address flooding issues related to stormwater in the Brentwood Drainage Basin, Common
Council adopted the recommendations from the "Millidgeville Stormwater Management —
Brentwood Drainage Basin" report (M &C 2010 -180, May 25, 20 10) as follows:
1. Council authorize staff to proceed with the design and construction of the following
Associated Works items:
a. Relocate Boars Head outfall at Caledonia Bk,
b. Disconnect and re -route (2) Air Canada storm sewers directly to Caledonia Bk,
c. Re- profile ditch along Woodward Ave, install cross culvert and redirect catch
basins at Cedar Point, and
d. Disconnect six(6) of the twelve(12) catch basins from the sanitary sewers.
2. Initiate the Environmental Impact Assessment process for the full six detention ponds.
This work must be carried out during the summer months when vegetation is in bloom.
3. Authorize staff to negotiate with CBCL Limited for engineering design and construction
management services for the above work.
On September 27, 2010 (M &C 2010 -320) Council adopted the recommendation to engage CBCL
Limited to carry out the engineering design and construction management services for the
Brentwood Drainage Basin Storm Sewer Improvements which included the Associated Work
items and the Environmental Impact Assessment described above.
126
M &C 2011 — 226
August 25, 2011
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to make a recommendation for the award of a storm sewer
separation project in Millidgeville identified in the Background section of this report under item
Ld) and including: Millidge Avenue between Hayward Court and Daniel Avenue, Millidge
Avenue at Reed Street, Black Street at Alward, Woodward Avenue at Civic #298, and the
easement from Woodward Avenue to Skaling Court.
TENDER RESULTS
Tenders closed on August 24, 2011, with the following results:
1.
Fairville Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB
$
291,977.31
2.
Galbraith Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB
$
292,214.61
3.
Dexter Construction Company Limited, Moncton, NB
$
321,498.56
4.
H.E. Merchant and Sons Ltd., St. George, NB
$
336,465.41
5.
Maguire Excavating Ltd., Saint John, NB
$
471,023.15
The Engineer's estimate for the work was $323,090.73.
ANALYSIS
Six tenders were received and reviewed by the Tender Opening Committee and all tenders were
found to be formal in all respects with the exception of one, which was non compliant as they
failed to initial a change in price in the form of tender. The tender was rejected in accordance
with Division 2 — Instructions to Tenderers and Tendering Procedures, Section 2.8.03 i). Staff is
of the opinion that the lowest compliant tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to
perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The cost of the work from CBCL Limited to provide engineering design and construction
management services, and carry out the EIA for the detention ponds is approximately $375,201
including the City's eligible HST rebate. A further $241,397.65 including the City's eligible
H.S.T. rebate was approved for Contract 2010 -29 - Woodward Avenue — Boars Head Road to
Conifer Crescent — Storm Drainage Improvements to complete Associated Works item Lc)
identified above under the Background section. An amount of $1,035,000 was approved in the
2010 and 2011 General Fund Capital Programs for these projects. The remaining budget
$418,401.35 ($1,035,000 - $375,201 - $241,397.65) will be used for tendering and construction
of the remaining Associated Works items La) and Lb) listed above under the Background
section of this report.
127
M &C 2011 — 226
August 25, 2011
Page 3
Assuming award of the Contract to the lowest compliant tenderer, an analysis has been
completed which includes the estimated amount of work on this project that will be performed
by City forces and others. The analysis concludes that an amount of $418,401.35 is available in
the budget and that the cost of this project is estimated to be $269,246.57 including the City's
eligible H.S.T. rebate - a $149,154.78 positive difference in the General Fund Capital Program
that will be used to tender and construct the remaining Associated Works items.
POLICY — TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
The recommendation in the report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's policy
for the tendering of construction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the specific
project specifications.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Contract 2011 -4: Millidge Ave., Skaling Court, Woodward Avenue and
Black St. — Storm Sewer Separation be awarded to the lowest compliant tenderer, Fairville
Construction Ltd. at their tendered price of $291,977.31 as calculated based upon estimated
quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary
documents.
Respectfully submitted,
J. M. Paul Groody, P.Eng.
Commissioner
Municipal Operations & Engineering
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
128
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
August 25, 2011
The City of Saint John
Mayor Ivan Court
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Sales Engagement Confidentiality Agreement (Non Disclosure Agreement) between
the City and Taleo.
BACKGROUND: In 2009, the City entered into an agreement with Canadian application service
provider Cytiva Software for the provision of certain services related to the management of
employee performance appraisals. Cytiva Software was recently acquired by the U.S. firm Taleo
and the City is performing its due diligence with respect to ensuring that the personal
information of City employees is protected against risks, including unauthorized access,
use, disclosure or destruction,
We have requested from Taleo a copy of an auditor's report known as an SAS 70 report. These
auditor's reports are one of several mechanisms which can be used to evaluate an application
service provider's control environment and offer some assurance of both information security
and privacy.
Taleo has agreed to share this auditor's report but first requires that the City sign a Non
Disclosure Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Common Council authorize the Mayor and
Common Clerk to sign the Sales Engagement Confidentiality Agreement (Non Disclosure
Agreement) between the City and Taleo.
Respectfully submitted,
David Burke
Privacy, Access, Records & Information
Management Officer
City of Saint John
Elizabeth Gormley
Common Clerk
City of Saint John
129
ThIeo • ., SALES ENGAGEMENT CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
1. Purpose. Taleo and Company desire to disclose Confidential Information to one another in the context of
a sales evaluation for the potential purchase of products and services by Company from Taleo (the "Sales Cycle ").
2. Confidentiality Obligation. This agreement governs the information disclosed by one party or its agents
(collectively the "Disclosing Party ") to the other party or its agents (collectively the "Receiving Party") during
the Sales Cycle, including disclosures prior to the execution of this agreement. "Confidential Information"
includes information marked as confidential or designated as confidential at the time of disclosure. With respect to
Taleo, "Confidential Information" includes, without limitation, sales p resentations, responses to requests for
proposals /information, pricing and price quotes, product documentation (including software hosting and security
practices), product demonstrations (including screen shots from such demonstrations), and product functionality not
available except by use of a 1 ogin and password. Confidential Information does not include any information that
(i) is or becomes publicly available through no fault of the Receiving Party, (ii) is known by the Receiving Party
without restriction at the time of its receipt from the Disclosing Party, (iii) is received from a third party who did not
acquire such information by a wro ngful or tortious act, or (i v) is or has been i ndependently developed by the
Receiving Party without use of any Disclosing Party Confidential Information. The Disclosing Party does not
make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of any Disclosing Party Confidential
Information. The Receiving Party will not disclose the Disclosing Party Confidential Information to anyone
(who is not an employee of the City of Saint John) and will use Confidential Information only in pursuance of
the Sales Cycle. For the av oidance of doubt, Taleo Confidential Information may not be shared with
competitive bidders participating in a competitive sales cycle. The Receiving Party's obligations with respect to
the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information will survive for three (3) years from the date of this agreement.
3. Return of Confidential Information. The Receiving Party will return or destroy all tangible materials
embodying Disclosing Party Confidential Information (in any form and including, without limitation, all
summaries, copies and excerpts of Confidential Information) promptly following the Disclosing Party's written
request, retaining no copies of the same. At the Disclosing Party's option, the Receiving Party will provide written
certification of its compliance with this provision.
4. Miscellaneous. The parties have executed this agreement as of the d ate last written below. This
agreement may be executed in counterparts and by facsimile, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and
all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement. An y handwritten changes to the above
provisions of this agreement shall render the agreement immediately null and void.
Taleo Corporation
,:=J-- CVK 4j�;e�r
By:
Name: Josh Faddis
Title: Vice President & Corporate Counsel
(write Company name above)
Signature:
Print Name:
Title:
Date:
EXECUTION INSTRUCTIONS: After execution of this
agreement, please fax to 925 - 452 -3027 (Attn: Legal) and retain
a copy for your records.
130
Campaign Cabinet
Medical Education Trust
Supporting a medical student's education yields
Chair Donald Craig, MD
substantial results in physician recruitment.
Michael Doyle, FCA
August 24,201 1
Kelly Duplisea, VP Bell Aliant
Dr. Donald Craig, Chair
Nathalie Godbout, LLB
Mayor Ivan Court, Councillors and Common Clerk
David Huestis
Common Clerk's Office
Allison Kennedy, MD
City of Saint John,
Gerald Maloney, MD
P.O. Box 1971
David Marr, MD
Saint John, NB
Jeanne McNeill, MD
John Quinn, MD
Dear Ms. Gormley, Common Clerk of the City of Saint John
Tony Wade, MD
As you are by now aware, the medical education programs offered by Dalhousie
Medicine New Brunswick in Saint John and Universite de Sherbrooke in Moncton
are finally a reality. But these programs are new, and do not have a history of
fundraising and endowments from which to offer scholarships and bursaries to
undergraduate medical students. That's why the New Brunswick Medical Education
Trust was established with the specific goal of providing bursaries to medical
students who intend to set up practice in New Brunswick following completion of
their studies.
As a member of the Saint John New Brunswick community, you recognize the
importance of making an investment in the future of healthcare in our city by
making it possible for the Trust to support these future physicians who will provide
access to medical care for the citizens of Saint John . As you see daily in the local
press , thousands of people in our city are denied access to a family doctor.
It is my privilege to Chair this campaign for the New Brunswick Medical
Education Trust. Our goal is to try to retain many of the medical graduates from
Dalhousie Med NB to stay in our community to replace our retiring physicians.
At this time I am requesting formally to make a presentation to the Council of
the City of Saint John at your earliest convenience, possibly August 29,2011 if that
is possible.
Martha Zed Sincerely,
Campaign Director
New Brunswick
Medical Education Trust
Z
PO Box 2100
400 University Ave.
Entrance Lobby, Level One
Dr. Donald Craig, Chair
Saint John, NB E2L 4L2
Saint John,
New Brunswick Medical Education Trust
87
Martha.Zed @HorizonNB.ca
www.NBMedTrust.ca
131
Mayor Ivan Court
Mayor's Office
Bureau du maire
SAINT JOHN
WHEREAS:
PROCLAMATION
This is the United Way's 52nd year of helping
those in need; and
WHEREAS: there are 25- member agencies of the United
Way who provide essential services to those in
need in the community; and
WHEREAS: over 250,000 needed units of service are
provided to citizens in the counties of Saint
John, Kings and Charlotte annually; and
WHEREAS: over $33 million has been invested to support
programs and services in our co munity;
NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Ivan Court, - _
of Saint John do hereby proclaim Thursday, September 1st,
2011 as "United Way Day" for the United Way of Greater Saint
John Inc.
I encourage everyone in our community to support the United
Way and the 25- member agencies which provide services
necessary in our community. The annual campaign is truly a
community effort with labor, business, community leaders, non-
profit organizations and numerous volunteers working to
improve the lives of those in our community.
In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed
official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John.
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 www.saintjohn.ca C
132
The City of Saint John
Mayor Ivan Court
Mayor's Office
Bureau du maire
SAINT JOHN
--�.
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: the Port of Saint John hosts in excess of eight hundred
foreign vessels each year carrying approximately thirty
million tonnes of cargo; and
WHEREAS: the Saint John Seafarers Mission administers to visiting
crew members through its amenities at Tilley Lane,
Market Place West; and
WHEREAS: the welfare of ships crews is paramount to the efficient
transportation of goods by sea and the global economy;
and
WHEREAS: in recognition of the role of seafarers to global trade and
the safe and efficient navigation of world shipping;
NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Ivan Court, ! L <: of
Saint John do hereby proclaim September will be Seafarers Month
in the City of Saint John.
In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal
of the Mayor of the City of Saint John.
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L11 j ,Nw.saintjohn.ca � C.P. 1971 Sain
Mayor Ivan Court
Mayor's Office
Bureau du maire
% r
SAINT JOHN
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: September is known as Arthritis Awareness Month during which
time The Arthritis Society promotes public awareness about this
chronic disease that can affect children, adults and the elderly;
and
WHEREAS: the Society educates people about this disease through the
Arthritis Information Line, The Arthritis Society's website, the
Arthritis Public Forum series, the Arthritis Self- Management
Program, and Chronic Pain Management Workshops; and
WHEREAS. the Society strives to build positive relationships with elected
officials in an effort to establish equitable access to care and
treatment for arthritis; and
WHEREAS. through education, support, understanding and awareness of
arthritis, The Society helps nearly 4.5 million people and raises
funds through door -to -door canvassing and initiatives such as Go
Blue & Give Too and Bluebird sales; and
WHEREAS. arthritis Awareness Month will focus on communities committing
to a world without arthritis, providing help to those living with
arthritis and supporting innovative research to ultimately find a
cure for this debilitating disea e;
NOW THEREFORE: I, Ma Yor Ivan Court - -____— S a
rntJohn do
hereby proclaim the month of September 2011 Arthritis Awareness Month.
In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the
City of SaintJohn.
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971
134
9, I (41
City of Saint John
INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER
Ror City of Saint Jahn use only:+
Budget Number: 110 0801 442 2010
Department: Common Clerk's Office Account # 7120
__ _ __
Contact: Elizabeth Gormley
Phone: (506 ) 658 -2862
Fax: 506) 674 -4214
Special Instructions (if any):
P
Reference: 192 -194 St. James Street West
Newspaper Insertion Dates
(Check as applicable)
(SJTJ= Saint John Telegraph Journal)
SJTJ City Information Ad
SJTJ Independent Placement
SJTJ Classifieds
Date(s): Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011
Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011
Date(s):
Date(s):
Information for Ad
(Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc.)
Section Headline: ❑ General Notice ❑ Tender ❑ Proposal
IN Public Notice
Sub - Headline (if applicable):
Text:
INSERT ATTACHED
Call to Action: Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk/Greffiere communale
Contact:
Telephone: (506) 658 -2862
iP11
PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW
AMENDMENT
RE: 192 -194 ST. JAMES STREET WEST
Public Notice is hereby given that the Common
Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider
amending The City of Saint John Zoning By -law at its
regular meeting to be held in the Council Chamber on
Monday, August 29, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., by:
Rezoning a parcel of land with an area of
approximately 240 square metres, located at 192 -194
St. James Street West, also identified as PH) No.
00367722, from "R -2" One and Two Family
Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential.
REASON FOR CHANGE:
To recognize an existing four- family dwelling as a
permitted use.
The proposed amendment may be inspected by any
interested person at the office of the Common Clerk,
or in the office of Planning and Development, City
Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted.
Written objections to the amendment maybe sent to
the undersigned at City Hall.
PROJET DE MODIFICATION DE L'ARRETE
SUR LE ZONAGE
OBJET: 192 -194, RUE ST. JAMES OUEST
Par les pr6sentes, un avis public est donne par lequel
le conseil communal de The City of Saint John
indique son intention d'dtudier la modification
suivante a Parretd sur le zonage de The City of Saint
John, lots de ]a r6union ordinaire qui se tiendra dans
la salle du conseil le lundi 29 aout 2011 a 19 It :
Rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie
d'environ 240 metres carr6s, situ6e au 192 -194, rue
St. James ouest, et portant le NID 00367722, de zone
r6sidentielle — habitations unifamiliales et
bifamiliales «R -2» a zone r6sidentielle —
habitations de quatre logements <<R -4».
RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION:
Reconnaitre l'utilisation permise d'un ddifice a quatre
logements existant.
Toute personae intdressde peut examiner le projet de
modification au bureau de la greffi6re communale ou
au bureau de Purbanisme et du d6veloppement A
Ph6tel de ville au 15, Market Square, Saint John, N.-
B., entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du lundi au vendredi, sauf
les fours f6ri6s.
Veuillez faire parvenir vos objections au projet de
modification par 6crit a Pattention de la soussign6e a
Ph6tel de ville.
If you require French services for a Common Council Si vous exigez des services frangais pour une rdunion
meeting, please contact the office of the Common de Conseil Communal, s'il vous plait contacter le
Clerk. bureau de la greffiere communale.
Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk Elizabeth Gormley, Greffiere communale
658 -2862 658 -2862
MR
T
I-
0
--I
Ul
mar k, fZe- ad
30 4 41 19
50
15.24 m
)t
—Ovef (m
0-40
0, 83
46� 44
elm
50
Al
LUDLOW -.20
STR EFT #00 %;
ti
i F-I FA
46� 44
elm
50
Al
LUDLOW -.20
STR EFT #00 %;
ti
i F-I FA
BY -LAW NUMBER C.P. 110 -
A LAW TO AMEND
THE ZONING BY -LAW
OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Be it enacted by The City of Saint
John in Common Council convened, as
follows:
The Zoning By -law of The City of
Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of
December, A.D. 2005, is amended by:
1 Amending Schedule "A ", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by
re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 240 square metres, located
at 192 -194 St. James Street West, also
identified as being PID No. 00367722,
from "R -2" One and Two Family
Residential to "R -4" Four Family
Residential
ARRETE No C.P. I10-
ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE
SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF
SAINT JOHN
Lors dune reunion du conseil
communal, The City of Saint John a
decret6 ce qui suit :
Varretd sur le zonage de The City
of Saint John, decret6 le dix -neuf (19)
d6cembre 2005, est modifid par:
1 La modification de 1'annexe «A >>,
Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John,
permettant de modifier la d6signation pour
une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie
d'environ 240 m6tres carrels, situ6e au 192-
194, rue St. James ouest, et portant le NID
00367722, de zone residentielle —
habitations unifamiliales et bifamiliales
<<R -2» a zone residentielle — habitations de
quatre logements «R -4»
- all as shown on the plan attached hereto - toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur
and forming part of this by -law. le plan ci joint et font partie du prdsent
arret6.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of
Saint John has caused the Corporate
Common Seal of the said City to be affixed
to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2011
and signed by:
Mayor/Maire
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John
a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le
prdsent arrete le 2011,
avec les signatures suivantes :
Common Clerk/Greffi&re communale
First Reading -
Premi&re lecture
Second Reading -
Deuxi6me lecture
Third Reading -
Troisidme lecture
138
Planning P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800
Advisory Committee Saint John
New Brunswick
Canada E2L 4L1
August 17, 2011
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: 192 -194 St. James Street West
Rezoning Application
On July 18, 2011 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning
Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee
considered the attached report at its August 16, 2011 meeting.
City of Saint John
Saied Salamat, the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting and was in general
agreement with staff's recommendation; however he did not agree with the
recommended Section 39 condition that a bond of $5,000 be submitted and held
for a period not exceeding one year as a condition of the rezoning of the subject
property. The applicant expressed reservation toward the bond as he felt it would
undermine his ability to invest the appropriate amount of capital necessary to
make the required renovations. A suggestion was brought forward by the
Committee to use the term "security" in place of "bond" to enable the applicant to
pursue the option of having financial institutions provide a secured agreement to
honour the required $5,000.
No other persons addressed the Committee and one letter was received in support
of the application.
After considering the report, the letter received and comments made by the
applicant, the Committee recommended approval of the proposed rezoning, with
the above mentioned change to the proposed Section 39 condition.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of
approximately 240 square metres located at 192 -194 St. James Street
West, also identified as PID Number 00367722, from "R -2" One and Two
Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential.
2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning
Act, the rezoning of the property at 192 -194 St. James Street West be
subject to the following condition:
139
-2-
a. that a security of $5,000 be submitted by the applicant to staff and
held for a period not exceeding one year as a condition of the
rezoning of the subject property. Should the applicant renovate the
property as proposed to meet all the Minimum Property Standard
Bylaw conditions, the Building Bylaw requirements and to the
satisfaction of the Building Inspector, and the debris be cleaned
from the site, the bond will be returned to the applicant in full.
Res ectfully submitted,
L
in Murray
Chairman
U
Project No. 11 -191
140
DATE: AUGUST 12, 2011
TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR: MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2011
PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:
Jody h fer Jac ue e Hamilton, MCIP, RPP
Planner Deity Commissioner
SUBJECT:
Name of Applicant: Saied Salamat
Name of Owner: Saied Salamat
Location: 192 -194 St. James Street West
PID: 00367722
Municipal Plan: Low Density Residential
Zoning: "R -2" One and Two Family Residential
Proposal: To convert an abandoned two - family dwelling to a four - family
dwelling.
Type of Application: Rezoning
SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 40
141
Saied Salamat Page 2
192 -194 St. James Street West August 12, 2011
JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE:
The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common
Council concerning proposed amendments to the Zoning By -law. The Committee recommendation will
be considered by Common Council at a public hearing on Monday, August 22, 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE:
1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land with an area of approximately 240 square metres
located at 192 -194 St. James Street West, also identified as PID Number 00367722, from "R -2"
One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential,
2. That, pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the rezoning of
the property at 192 -194 St. James Street West be subject to the following condition:
a. that a bond of $5,000 be submitted by the applicant to staff and held for a period not
exceeding one year as a condition of the rezoning of the subject property. Should the
applicant renovate the property as proposed to meet all the Minimum Property Standard
Bylaw conditions, the Building Bylaw requirements and to the satisfaction of the
Building Inspector, and the debris be cleaned from the site, the bond will be returned to
the applicant in full.
INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES:
Municipal Operations and Engineering has stated that:
• A City approved water meter is required;
• All parking is to be provided for on site; and
• It is assumed from the application that the general existing site conditions and entry/exit will
remain unchanged. Should any site or driveway modifications be required, Municipal
Operations and Engineering must be contacted for further review and approval.
Buildings and Inspection Services has indicated that they are supportive of the rezoning application at
this property so that the illegal units can be dealt with and required building code upgrades be
conducted. Buildings and Inspection Services have had a lengthy relationship with this property and the
property owner and hope that this rezoning will be the start of resolving a number of code related issues
at the property.
The property is currently the subject of an open Minimum Property Standards case; currently on hold
because the building is presently vacant The property owner has been uncooperative at times — he has
conducted work before obtaining the necessary permits, he has worked beyond the scope of approved
permits, and it has been difficult to access the property to conduct inspections.
142
Saied Salamat Page 3
192 -194 St. James Street West August 12, 2011
The third and fourth units require extensive repairs before they can be occupied. Work that has been
done without permits must be included in any permit application and work cannot proceed until permits
are issued.
ANALYSIS-
Site and surrounding area
The subject site is located on St. James Street West, just east of Queen Square West. The 240 square
metre (2,583 square feet) four -unit dwelling is currently unoccupied and in need of significant repair.
The corner -lot property has approximately 15 metres (49 feet) of frontage on St. James Street West and
15.7 metre (51.5 feet) frontage along Ludlow Street. The surrounding neighbourhood is an older
residential area comprising a mixture of predominantly single- family and two - family dwellings.
However, Service New Brunswick Assessment records show that a number of buildings within a two -
block radius located on similar sized lots contain three or four dwelling units.
Rezoning
Our records show that the subject dwelling has been assessed as a two -unit, three -unit and four -unit
building at various points in the past 30 years. Nevertheless, the zoning of the property has never altered
from the existing "R -2" One and Two Family Residential zone. Although the applicant has not
submitted floor plans with his application, he has communicated to staff that he is currently proposing to
renovate the four -unit dwelling to include three one - bedroom units and one three- bedroom unit.
To facilitate the development of the proposed four -unit building in this neighbourhood, the applicant is
seeking a rezoning from "R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential.
There are three properties in a two -block radius from the subject site that have been rezoned to "R -4"
Four Family Residential, including the property immediately across the street from the subject site at
372 Ludlow Street and the property at 202 St. James Street West, which is two lots south -west from the
subject site. The proposed rezoning conforms with the existing Municipal Plan, which designates this
neighbourhood as "Low Density Residential ". The designation allows for one, two and multi -unit
dwellings to maximum of 38 units per hectare.
P1anSJ
The subject property is located in an area of the City that has been identified by the P1anSJ process as an
"Intensification Area ". PlanSJ envisions Intensification Areas to entail higher residential density levels
than the two -unit maximum as set out in the existing "R -2" zone. As such, the proposed rezoning
positively reflects the direction that the planning process has taken with regards to this area of the Lower
West Side neighbourhood; which is a position that has been strongly supported by the broader
community.
Discussion
The existing building on the subject property has been vacant for some time and represents a potential
hazard to the community in its current and/or future condition. As indicated in comments submitted by
Building and Inspections Services, the current owner has attempted to do work on the building without
143
Saied Salamat Page 4
192 -194 St. James Street West August 12, 2011
the proper permits and has been generally uncooperative with staff in the process. Neighbours have
expressed their concern for the long - standing substandard condition of the dwelling and the resulting
blight that it has incurred on the community. The impact the condition of the building has on the
surrounding neighbourhood is worsened by the amount of debris that is strewn throughout the property,
which is apparently a result of the work that the owner has been doing without a permit. Property
owners are required to dispose of any waste materials generated from renovation projects in a proper
manner. Failing to do so places the property in violation of the "Dangerous and Unsightly" By -law, as is
the case with the subject property. Typically staff do not look favourably on rezoning applications where
a property violation exists. However, the proposed rezoning will enable further investment to occur in
the property, thus improving its substandard condition and enhancing its compatibility with surrounding
uses. In staff's view, however, there must be assurances that the violations will be addressed in a timely
fashion.
The Lower West Side community has had an above - average concentration of poverty for a number of
years, which is only made worse by blighted properties that contribute to the decline of the
neighbourhood. Considering the history of the property and the current substandard condition of the
dwelling and the inconsiderate disposal of waste on the lot, staff is recommending that a bond of $5,000
be submitted by the applicant to staff and held for a period not exceeding one year as a condition of the
rezoning of the subject property. Should the applicant renovate the property as proposed to meet all
minimum standard bylaw conditions, and the debris be cleaned from the site immediately, the bond will
be returned to the applicant in full.
CONCLUSION:
The Lower West Side is a priority neighbourhood that is in dire need of investment and repair. The
applicant is proposing to renovate a four - family dwelling in an area of the neighbourhood that has not
seen many new housing starts in recent years. Although this development will require a rezoning from
"R -2" One and Two Family Residential to "R -4" Four Family Residential, staff can support the rezoning
of the property based on the policies in the current plan, and also in consideration of the benefits this
development could bring to the community. However, considering the history of the property and the
challenges Building and Inspection Services have had in dealing with the applicant, staff is
recommending that approval of the rezoning be subject to the condition that the applicant submit a bond
of $5,000 for a period not exceeding one year.
JK
Project No. I 1 -191
144
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENVURBANISME ET DEVELOPPEMENT
110 12
t+
111 • 11 +' �• e�` / i` ` * Of
♦ +V + 3 //'''sw 29 ♦
127 �' { A ee
O
I♦ +3`�C 1 ryanf
♦' ♦ /�v V'♦ _ 71e
� e 2b ♦ 39 V ��
2 A ♦ 1
♦ 113 (♦�'\ 721 i /i /
` 129
267 � • ,31 CO ,22
171
133 ♦ 139 ` 133 132
♦ _Qj�V 190
136 110 ♦�A 1I6 µ 1 a 13 139 *1
4 136 H
161
r B3 i
334
i
0 ' • 4 ♦� 32e 1 164 e3
` 190 - t0 177 87
♦ 106 ♦ 1e6 ly v
♦ lee \
190 is f ,ee �` ♦
,9 • g� b i
,61 �
/196 203 lei '
203
7
\ 213
+ee 3B0
200 `
\ \\ 201 9e
♦
\` 209 100 �¢8 391
219
/ ♦ 22 216
'\ 371 l Q! z1i e3
♦ ♦ 22e 93 t 41P `\ � ♦ 379 271 220 N
/ ♦ 392 Sat 87
� 1 �
♦ ♦ US 0 4 /
t ♦
4 1
a,
/258 ses • ♦
\�
®
Subject Site /site en question: PID(s) /NIP(s): 00367722
Location: 192 -194 St. James Street West
Date: July 25, 2011
Scale /echelle: Not to scale /Pas a 1'echelle
145
192 -194 St. James Street West
HEX
92 -194 St. James Street West
Neighbourhood
147
.•
F�
AN
r�
3
N
rF
m
m
rF
,qi-.
0�
�' 2"(a)
City of Saint John
INTERNAL INSERTION ORDER
Newspaper
Insertion Dates
(Check as applicable)
(SJTJ= Saint John Telegraph Journal)
'"SJTJ City Information Ad
SJTJ Independent Placement
SJTJ Classifieds
Date(s): Tuesday, August 2n6, 2011
Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011
Date(s):
Date(s):
Information for Ad
(Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc.)
Section Headline: ❑ General Notice ❑ Tender ❑ Proposal
® Public Notice
Sub - Headline (if applicable):
For Cih of Saint John use only:
Butt Number _ 110 0801 442 2010
Contact:
Department: Common Clerk's Office (Account # 71206)___
Contact: Elizabeth Gormley _ _ _
Phone: (506 658 -2862
Fax: 5Q6) 674 -4214
Special Instructions (if any):
Reference: Lands Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road
Newspaper
Insertion Dates
(Check as applicable)
(SJTJ= Saint John Telegraph Journal)
'"SJTJ City Information Ad
SJTJ Independent Placement
SJTJ Classifieds
Date(s): Tuesday, August 2n6, 2011
Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011
Date(s):
Date(s):
Information for Ad
(Boldface anything you want Bold in Ad, Centre, Tab, etc.)
Section Headline: ❑ General Notice ❑ Tender ❑ Proposal
® Public Notice
Sub - Headline (if applicable):
Text:
INSERT ATTACHED
Call to Action: Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk/Greffiere communale
Contact:
Telephone: (506) 658 -2862
`L1']
PROPOSED ZONING BY -LAW
AMENDMENT
RE: LANDS ADJACENT TO 1035
BURCHILL ROAD
Public Notice is hereby given that the Common
Council of The City of Saint John intends to
consider amending The City of Saint John Zoning
By -law at its regular meeting to be held in the
Council Chamber on Monday, August 29, 2011 at
7:00 p.m., by:
Rezoning a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 28.5 hectares, located adjacent to
1035 Burchill Road, also identified as being a
portion of PID No. 00412189, from "I -2" Heavy
Industrial to "PQ" Pits and Quarries, as
illustrated below.
(INSERT MAP)
REASON FOR CHANGE:
To permit the expansion of the existing quarry site
The proposed amendment may be inspected by any
interested person at the office of the Common
Clerk, or in the office of Planning and
Development, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint
John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m, and 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays
excepted.
PROJET DE MODIFICATION DE L'ARRETE
SUR LE ZONAGE
OBJET: PROPRIETE ADJACENTE A CELLE
SITUEE AU 1035, CHEMIN BURCHILL
Par les presentes, un avis public est donne par
lequel le conseil communal de The City of Saint
John indique son intention d'etudier la modification
suivante a 1'arrete sur le zonage de The City of
Saint John, lors de la reunion ordinaire qui se
tiendra dans la salle du conseil le lundi 29 aout
2011 a 19 It :
Rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une
superficie d'einiron 28,5 hectares, dtant adjacente
a celle situee au 1035, chemin Burchill, et formant
une partie du NID 00412189, de zone d'industrie
lourde << I -2 » a zone de earri6res << PQ », comme
le montre la carte ci- dessous.
(INSERER LA CARTE)
RAISON DE LA MODIFICATION:
Permettre ]'expansion du site de la carriere
existante.
Toute personne interestee peut examiner le projet
de modification au bureau de la greffiere
communale ou au bureau de 1'urbanisme et du
developpement a l'h6tel de ville situe au 15,
Market Square, a Saint John, au Nouveau -
Brunswick., entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30 du lundi au
vendredi, sauf les jours f6ries.
Written objections to the amendment may be sent Veuillez faire part de vos objections au projet de
to the undersigned at City Hall. modification par dcrit a ]'attention du soussigne a
I'h6tel de ville.
If you require French services for a Common
Council meeting, please contact the office of the
Common Clerk.
Elizabeth Gormley, Common Clerk
658 -2862
Si vous exigez des services frangais pour une
reunion de Conseil Communal, s'il vous plait
contacter le bureau de la greffi6re communale.
Elizabeth Gormley, Greffiere communale
658 -2862
U671]
'
�
�.
~| /
----� .
�
1
. /
,
�
/
' Z
/ �/
..
\
' --.
/
0-
, 10%4
C910
�
/ Wilk
�
/
/~
'
H--
|
(aussi disponible en frangais)
Type of Application
-'Municipal Plan Amendment [ El Subdivision Similar / Compatible Use
[oning By -law Amendment ❑ Variance
❑ Temporary Use
❑ Amendment to Section 39 Conditions ❑ Conditional Use
❑ Change / Re- establishment of
❑ Zoning Confirmation Letter ❑ Letter for Liquor Licensing Non - Conforming Use
Contact Information
Name of Applicant tj Ln d u s4r r
Mailing Address of Applicant (with Postal Code) _ �. s c '!? ( 1 rd -"IX IJ
. (Z Lf
Home Telephone Number SZ61 `D 2--CG Work Telephone Number _SC9 " 60 Ly 1 a
Fax Number _ - G 6 G S~ Y 29:3 E -mail _ ti ! r t/ I _0101 t K.AoJ CA
I-
-Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant) C.ISI A/e S S jl%G'Lu i ,,1
Mailing Address (with Postal Code)
Property Information %
Location'
Civic #
Street
PID
PZ q1Z / 97
. e
Existing Use of Property _��(/ %� C Proposed Use of Property v to /d^
Existing Plan Designation of Property
Existing Zoning of Property
Description of Application
Proposed Plan Designation of Property
-. Proposed Zoning' of Property---- `Z.
Describe what you propose to do (attach additional pages if necessary),
SuSdrvlde a 70 arg`c Ord ��ns � �rP � Ci
cw"['7
NOTE: If the applicant is NOT the o Owner's signature or authorization (in writing) to submit this application is
required.
Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner ��►
Date 'de, Date /
For Office Use Only a ere--
r & DE YJ�
Reviewed by Date
Development Officer
Information Accompanying Application:
i
f k
w
aroa.ra..�+p.
Letter of Intent ❑
Site Plan ❑
Fee ❑
Tentative Subdivision Plan
Building Elevations
Other
❑ Floor
❑ Sign l
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada ER 41.7 www.saintjohn.ca C.P. 1971 Saint John. N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1
152
JUL U 4 2011
x.1ii:Tt` JOHN
�:' &8
APPROVALS
a
PURPOSE OF PLAN
-TO CREATE PARCEL A TO HE ADDED TO AND FORM PART OF
LOT 05 -01, PLAN 2613216& PID 55193908
DOCUMENT,
EXPROPRIATION BY ORDER IN COUNCIL 71 -393
DDa DATED JUNE 11, 1971,
REGISTEFt =D JUNE 16. 1971, IN VOLUME 648, PAGE
634, AS NUMBER 229639, PID 00412189.
OWNER'S SIGNATURE:
GARY JOCHELMAN
FOR: BUSINESS NEW BRUNSWICK
NOTES
- DIRECTIONS ARE N.B. GRID AZIMUTHS DERIVED FROM THE N.B.
GRID MONUMENTS TABULATED HEREON.
-THE SCALE FACTOR USED WAS 1.0000.
-THE DOCUMENT NUMBERS REFERRED TO ON THIS PLAN ARE
THOSE OF THE COUNTY REGISTRY OFFICE.
- ADJACENT OWNER INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SING
RECORDS
-AS USED HEREIN, THE WORD CERTIFY SHALL MEAN AN
DWESSION OFTHE CONSULTANT'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION TO
THE BEST OF ITS INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AM BELIEF, AND
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE BY THE
CONSULTANT.
-ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE CALCULATED GRID INSTANCES.
- CERTIFICATION IS NOT MADE AS TO LEGAL TITLE, BEING THE
DOMAIN OF A LAWYER, NOR TO THE ZONING do SETBACK
BY -LAWS OR REGULATIONS, BEING THE DOMAIN OF A
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.
- CERTIFICATION IS NOT MADE AS TO COVENANTS SET OUT IN
THE DOCUMENT(S) AND THE LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND
SERVICES AND /OR FIXTURES, PERMANENT OR OTHERWISE.
- INITIAL FIELD SURVEY WAS COMPLETED Month DO, YYYY.
153
�In
15
SURVEY
AREA
sulo.+i eln�v Wnan
cure yarmn aTni 4wx fil Doaewr / wwue / rwc Doe/Yd,fro.
wwee utcx er�N smxc¢ NcN ewNewa sa
eu.a aw o I uerulcv.au>w cAUn M N Deo. tewm
1 amtn,l a _I I eertul a —1 r
PLAN:
711TH OF ROUTE 1 AND WEST TO KING WILLIAM ROAD,
TY OF SAINT JOHN, SAINT JOHN COUNTY. N.B. „
taD o taD mD Dao 100
SCALE IZ=
010 M4H RIi1EET� HLYARO %/JE
aVRr:dw, rPY entmevtcN
91 GENIVAR:
xMw.al�oow
SURVEYOR " °: STATEMENT
I HEREBY CERTFY THAT US PLAN IS CORRECT.
TE��TA
�. B.
r
N.B.LS.
No.
SURVEYED BY: ANDREW K. TOOLE, N.B.LS.
DATED: JULY 4. 2011 #379
7�
CRAW* ANT IFKM 1001
.LIB No.a.0YD65-A ...IA -62D
BY -LAW NUMBER C.P.110-
A LAW TO AMEND
THE ZONING BY -LAW
OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Be it enacted by The City of Saint
John in Common Council convened, as
follows:
The Zoning By -law of The City of
Saint John enacted on the nineteenth day of
December, A.D. 2005, is amended by:
1 Amending Schedule "A ", the
Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by
re- zoning a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 28.5 hectares, located
adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road, also
identified as being a portion of PID No.
00412189, from "I -2" Heavy Industrial to
"PQ" Pits and Quarries
- all as shown on the plan attached hereto
and forming part of this by -law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of
Saint John has caused the Corporate
Common Seal of the said City to be affixed
to this by -law the * day of *, A.D. 2011
and signed by:
Mayor/Maire
ARRETE No C.P. 110 -
ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE
SUR LE ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF
SAINT JOHN
Lors d'une reunion du Conseil
communal, The City of Saint John a
decrete ce qui suit :
Uarretd sur le zonage de The City
of Saint John, decrete le dix -neuf (19)
decembre 2005, est modifie par:
1 La modification de 1'annexe «A »,
Plan de zonage de The City of Saint John,
permettant de modifier la designation pour
une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie
d'environ 28,5 hectares, etant adjacente a
celle situee au 1035, chemin Burchill, et
formant une partie du NID 00412189, de
zone d'industrie iourde << I -2» a zone de
canridres << PQ »
- toutes les modifications sont indiquees sur
le plan ci joint et font partie du present
arrete.
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John
a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le
present arrete le 2011,
avec ies signatures suivantes :
Common Clerk/Greffidre communale
First Reading - Premiere lecture
Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture
Third Reading - Troisieme lecture
154
72 �� Planning P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800
Advisory Committee Saint John
New Brunswick
Canada E2L 4L1
August 17, 2011
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning - Lands Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road
On July 18, 2011 Common Council referred the above matter to the Planning
Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee
considered the attached report at its August 16, 2011 meeting.
city of Saint John
Mr. Brian Irving of Saint John Industrial Parks Limited, representing the
applicant, attended the meeting and advised that he was in agreement with the
Staff Recommendation, Mr. Irving responded to questions from the committee
regarding the impacts of blasting on the water main and past clear cutting of the
quarry area. Mr. Irving noted the quarry operator employs licensed blasters and
the site is quite remote with respect to development in the Lorneville area.
No letters were received regarding the application and no other persons appeared
before the Committee with respect to the application.
Following consideration of the report, letters and presentations, the Committee
adopted the staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 28.5 hectares, located adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road, also
identified as being a portion of PID No. 00412189, from "I -2" Heavy
Industrial to "PQ" Pits and Quarries.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning
Act, the use and development of the parcel of land having an area of
approximately 28.5 hectares, located adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road, also
identified as being a portion of PID No. 00412189, be subject to the
following conditions:
a) In addition to the requirements contained in Section 680(10)(d) of the
Zoning By -Law, the elevation of any disturbed portion of the site after
excavation / extraction shall be no less than 50 metres above sea
level;
155
-2-
b) That any stockpiling of material within the water main easement and
excavation within or around the easement that may compromise the
integrity of the water main be prohibited;
c) That the applicant's engineering consultant must verify that the
blasting activity will not affect the integrity of the existing water
transmission main;
d) The required security in accordance with Section 680(5)(b) of the
Zoning By -Law be set at $ 20,000;
e) The buffer along the southern portion of the existing excavation site
(PID 55193908) be reinstated within 2 years using coniferous trees in
accordance with a plan subject to the approval of the Development
Officer,
f) That the plans required to accompany the excavation permit
application in accordance with Section 690 (4)(i) of the Zoning By-
Law, be subject to the approval of the Development Officer prior to
the issuance of the Excavation Permit, and that these plans show the
extent of the site to be cleared in conjunction with the phased
development of the site and the location of processing equipment and
stockpiles.
Respectfully submitted,
CAinM ay
Chairman
T�
Project No. U-195
156
t
3�
r
The City of Saint John
DATE: AUGUST 12, 2011
TO: PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FROM: COMMUNITY PLANNING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
FOR: MEETING OF AUGUST 16, 2011
PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:
e�CIt
Mark Reade, P. Eng., MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Name of Applicant:
Name of Owner:
Location:
we
- A �111 ' , , 7- 24 ;; ���
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner
Saint John Industrial Parks Limited
Business New Brunswick
Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road
Portion of 00412189
Municipal Plan: Heavy Industrial and Open Space
Zoning: Existing: "I -2" Heavy Industrial
Proposed: "PQ" Pits and Quarries
Proposal: To permit the expansion of the existing quarry site.
Type of Application: Rezoning
,rte
SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 41-11 www saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 40
157
Saint John Industrial Parks Limited Page 2
Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road August 12, 2011
JURISDICTION OF COMMITTEE:
The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to give its views to Common
Council concerning proposed rezoning applications. The Committee's recommendation will be
considered by Common Council at a Public Hearing on Monday, August 29, 2011.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE:
1. That Common Council rezone a parcel of land having an area of approximately 28.5 hectares,
located adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road, also identified as being a portion of PID No. 00412189,
from "I -2" Heavy Industrial to "PQ" Pits and Quarries.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 39 of the Community Planning Act, the use and
development of the parcel of land having an area of approximately 28.5 hectares, located
adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road, also identified as being a portion of PID No. 00412189, be
subject to the following conditions:
a) In addition to the requirements contained in Section 680(10)(d) of the Zoning By -Law, the
elevation of any disturbed portion of the site after excavation / extraction shall be no less
than 50 metres above sea level;
b) That any stockpiling of material within the water main easement and excavation within or
around the easement that may compromise the integrity of the water main be prohibited;
c) That the applicant's engineering consultant must verify that the blasting activity will not
affect the integrity of the existing water transmission main;
d) The required security in accordance with Section 680(5)(b) of the Zoning By -Law be set at
$ 20,000;
e) The buffer along the southern portion of the existing excavation site (PID 55193908) be
reinstated within 2 years using coniferous trees in accordance-with a plan subject to the
approval of the Development Officer,
f) That the plans required to accompany the excavation permit application in accordance with
Section 690 (4)(i) of the Zoning By -Law, be subject to the approval of the Development
Officer prior to the issuance of the Excavation Permit, and that these plans show the extent
of the site to be cleared in conjunction with the phased development of the site and the
location of processing equipment and stockpiles.
158
Saint John Industrial Parks Limited Page 3
Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road August 12, 2011
BACKGROUND:
On January 14, 2003 the Planning Advisory Committee approved the establishment of a temporary
excavation to supply aggregate to the Coleson Cove project and prepare the subject site for future
industrial uses, subject to the following terms and conditions:
a) The proposed excavation shall be completed no later than eight months after approval of the
required excavation permit.
b) The excavated material shall be used only for the Coleson Cove generating station refurbishment
project.
C) The proponent shall be responsible for all necessary upgrading of Burchill Road in order to
accommodate the traffic generated by the excavation project, and shall return the road to same or
better condition than presently exists upon completion of the project.
d) The proposed excavation shall be limited to the subject site, containing approximately 22 acres,
as generally shown on the [submitted] location map.
e) The application for an excavation permit shall include plans illustrating how the site will be
made suitable for a future development.
On August 10, 2004, the Committee amended its conditions by permitting the use of the remaining
stock -piled material left on the site for projects in the Spruce Lake Industrial Park.
At their meeting of April 8, 2008 the Planning Advisory Committee recommended that the parcel of
land at 1035 Burchill Road, also identified as being a portion of PID No. 00412189, be rezoned from
"I -2" Heavy Industrial to "PQ" Pits and Quarries and that the rezoning was subject to the condition that,
in addition to the requirements contained in Section 680(10)(d) of the Zoning By -law, the elevation of
any disturbed portion of the site after excavation shall be no less than 50 metres above sea level.
The Committee also granted a variance from the requirements of the Subdivision By -law to permit the
creation of the proposed Lot 05 -01 with no municipal water and sewer services, on condition that the use
of the lot is restricted to a quarry and a note to this effect is placed on the final subdivision plan and
approved the creation of Lot 05 -01 having access from King William Road via the Burchill Road private
right -of -way.
On April 28, 2008 Common Council gave third reading to the rezoning and adopted Section 39
conditions.
INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES:
Municipal Operations and Engineering has the following comments regarding the proposed rezoning
and subdivision of the lands adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road:
• There are no municipal services available for this site.
159
Saint John Industrial Parks Limited Page 4
Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road August 12, 2011
• Burchill Road is a private road and as such, is not maintained by the City.
• This subdivision does not abut a public street as per the requirements of the Subdivision By -law.
• There is an existing municipal water transmission main and easement along the western edge of
the proposed Parcel "A" — absolutely nothing can be built overtop of this easement.
Additionally, due to the nature of the proposed development, there is to be no excavation or
stockpiling of material within this easement and on the underlying water transmission main.
• Prior to any blasting taking place, the applicant's engineering consultant must verify that the
blasting activity will not affect the integrity of the existing water transmission main.
• Detailed storm drainage and grading plans and a storm water design report must be submitted by
the applicant's engineering consultant to this Department for review and approval.
• The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary municipal permits.
• There is an existing watercourse on proposed Parcel "A" (Frenchman Creek). The proximity of
this development to the watercourse would be subject to review /comments of New Brunswick
Department of Environment.
Buildings and Inspection Services notes the site at 1035 Burchill Road is currently being used as a
rock quarry and the department has been unsuccessful in obtaining sufficient information and security
from the owner (Debly Resources Inc.) to allow us to issue an excavation permit in 2010 or in 2011. As
well the provisions of section 680 of the Zoning By -Law are not being followed in that the existing
quarry site has been clear cut, (section 680(10)(i)), and the property line setbacks have been ignored
(section 680(3)(v)).
Saint John Fire Department has been informed of the application.
Saint John Transit has been informed of the application.
Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd. has no objections and supports the application.
Saint John Energy has been informed of the application.
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline and Brunswick Pipeline have been informed of the proposal.
Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline and Brunswick Pipeline advise the area is clear of their facilities.
ANALYSIS:
Subject Site
The subject site is a 28.5 hectare parcel of land that is proposed to be added to the existing 12.1 hectare
quarry site at 1035 Burchill Road, approximately 2.5 kilometres north of King William Road and
approximately 1.3 kilometres south of Route 1, on the Lomeville peninsula. The site is currently treed
and has a width of between 150 metres and 530 metres and a depth of between 390 and 820 metres.
Elevations of the site range from 57 metres in the eastern portion of the subject site to 32 metres along
the proposed western boundary of the subject site.
160
Saint John Industrial Parks Limited Page 5
Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road August 12, 2011
Proposed Development
Saint John Industrial Parks Ltd. (SJIPL) has submitted this application to rezone the subject property
from "I -2" Heavy Industrial to "PQ" Pits and Quarries, in order to permit an expansion to the existing
quarry at 1035 Burchill Road. Additional expansion area is required for activities such as stockpiling
and the processing and crushing of material and the intent is to quarry available material from the
expansion area. If approved, the site will be conveyed to Debly Enterprises Ltd.
Surrounding Area
The area surrounding the subject site on the north, south and east sides for a distance of a minimum of
between 670 and 1950 metres is undeveloped woodland that is part of the Province of New Brunswick's
large industrial land bank in the area. This land was expropriated by the Province in the early 1970s for
future industrial development and is designated Heavy Industrial in the current Municipal Plan and
zoned "I -2" Heavy Industrial. The western boundary of the proposed expansion will abut lands held by
the Nature Conservancy of Canada. The expanded area, at its closest point will be approximately 2890
metres from the closest residentially zoned property located at 2550 Lorneville Road.
Municipal Plan Direction
The majority of the subject site is designated Heavy Industrial by the Municipal Development Plan with
a small portion of the western area of the site designated as Open Space. Staff note the boundary shown
on Schedule 2A — Future Land Use Pan of the Municipal Plan is approximate and represents the general
concept and principles of the Plan and that the portion of the site which is designated as open space is
currently zoned "I -2" Heavy Industrial.
Specific policies respecting pits and quarries are contained in Section 2.4.3 of the Municipal Plan. These
policies were developed and incorporated into the Plan in 2001 as a result of the Pits and Quarries
Aggregate Resource Strategy, which was prepared by the City in 1994, with considerable citizen and
industry input, in response to Common Council's request for a review of the development process. The
1994 report's most important recommendation was that excavation be removed as a permitted use in the
"RF" Rural, "I -1" Light Industrial and "I -2" Heavy Industrial zones and that a specific zone, with more
rigorous standards than existed at the time, should be created for this activity. The study also included
maps and descriptive information that identified areas of the City with significant aggregate resources
that, where feasible, should be protected and utilized.
Section 2.4.3 of the Municipal Plan states that extractive industries form an important component of the
economic activity in the region and it is the intent of the City to support and encourage their continued
operation as a contribution to the economic health of the community. It is also recognized, however, that
pit and quarry operations can constitute a disturbance and hazard to nearby urban uses. Pits and quarries
are not regarded as permanent land uses and therefore they are not designated on Schedule 2 -A of the
Plan. The Plan permits pits and quarries in all land use designations and intends that such activities will
be controlled through specific rezonings to the "PQ" Pits and Quarries zone, and then later rezoned to a
zone compatible with the underlying land use designation (in this case Heavy Industrial). This approach
161
Saint John Industrial Parks Limited Page 6
Adjacent to 1035 BurchiIl Road August 12, 2011
allows for a review of proposed new operations and a decision by Common Council as to whether or not
they may be established.
In addition to determining whether or not the proposed location of a pit or quarry is appropriate, the Plan
indicates that it is the City's intent to regulate the day -to -day operation of such uses with respect to such
matters as:
• hours of operation,
• site development measures to assist in the control of smoke, dust, odours, toxic materials,
vibration and noise,
• setbacks, yards and separation from existing roads or uses,
• visual screening,
• location of buildings and equipment,
• safety and protective measures,
• location of entrances and exits, and the designation of hauling routes,
• signs and landscaping, and
• progressive rehabilitation.
These matters have been incorporated into the standards of the "PQ" Pits and Quarries zone which
permits extraction and related activities, such as screening, crushing, washing and stockpiling of
aggregates.
Staff acknowledge the development proposed is consistent with the provisions of the existing Municipal
Plan.
Growth Strategy
The subject property is located outside of the Primary Development Area boundary established in the
Growth Strategy with the site designated as a Rural Area. The Growth Strategy notes that appropriate
resource based land uses may be permitted. Staff are of the opinion the proposed development is in
conformity with the Growth Strategy, In addition, the site is mostly designated as Rural Resource on
Schedule 2A of the Draft Municipal Plan (Future Land Use Plan) with the portion of the site that is
adjacent to Frenchman Brook designated as Open Space.
Zoning By -law
The western side of the Lorneville peninsula is one of the areas that are specifically shown on the maps
accompanying the Pits and Quarries Aggregate Resource Strategy as having significant secondary
bedrock aggregate (crushed rock) potential. The remote location of the expansion area, which is at least
2.8 kilometres from the nearest residential area at the end of Lorneviile Road, combined with its
adjacency to an existing quarry operation suggests that the subject site is an ideal location for the
proposed expansion.
162
Saint John Industrial Parks Limited Page 7
Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road August 12, 2011
The expanded area is able to satisfy the relevant Zoning By -Law requirements. In addition, the site also
appears to meet or exceed the provincial Department of Environment's setback guidelines' for final
operational perimeters of quarries from public rights of way, residential development, public water
supplies, wells, buildings and residential properties.
While the expanded area is able to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Zoning By -law, Staff note
activities on the area occupied by the existing quarrying operation have not been in conformance with
the existing "PQ" Pits and Quarries zone standards, specifically clear cutting and the failure to leave the
required 30 metre buffer around the perimeter of the site. Based on this, Staff recommend that the
required security in accordance with Section 680(5)(b) be set at $ 20,000 and that the buffer along the
southern portion of the existing excavation site (PID 55193908) be reinstated within 2 years using
coniferous trees in accordance with a plan subject to the approval of the Development Officer.
Staff also recommend that the plans required to accompany the excavation permit application in
accordance with Section 690 (4)(i), be subject to the approval of the Development Officer prior to the
issuance of the Excavation Permit, and that these plans show the extent of the site to be cleared in
conjunction with the phased development of the site and the location of processing equipment and
stockpiles.
The approval of the previous rezoning was subject to the condition that the elevation of any disturbed
portion of the site after excavation shall be no less than 50 metres above sea level. This was put in place
to set a specific elevation for the final elevation of the area where the aggregate material was being
quarried following the extraction operation. This condition can remain as excavation activities will still
be occurring on the portion of the site that has an elevation above 50 metres geodetic.
Municipal Operations and Engineering have expressed concern regarding the impacts of the operation,
including blasting, may have on an existing water main to Coleson Cove that is located along the
proposed western boundary of the site. Staff recommend Section 39 conditions that prohibit the
stockpiling of material within the water main easement and excavation within or around the easement
that may compromise the integrity of the water main. Staff also recommend a Section 39 condition that
the applicant's engineering consultant must verify that the blasting activity will not affect the integrity of
the existing water transmission main.
While the site is fairly remote, combined with the industrial nature of the area and the location of the
access route such that truck traffic will not be required to pass through any residential area in order to
get to or from Route No. 1, Staff are of the opinion that the proposed rezoning and expansion to the site
is reasonable only with the recommended Section 39 conditions.
CONCLUSION:
The subject site is adjacent to an existing quarry that is located in a remote area of the Spruce Lake
Industrial Park on the Lorneville peninsula. The site is separated from the nearest existing dwelling by
approximately 2.9 kilometres. In addition to the isolated nature of the site, access for hauling of
1 New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government. Environmental Management Division — Approvals
Branch. Draft Rock Quarry and Asphalt Plant Siting Guideline. 2005.
163
Saint John Industrial Parks Limited Page 8
Adjacent to 1035 Burchill Road August 12, 2011
materials does not pass through any residential area. Approval of the proposed rezoning, conditions
pertaining to blasting and activities on the water main easement is recommended.
MR
Project No. 11 -195
164
165
APPROVALS
-)*I-
PURPOSE OF PLAN
-TO CREATE PARCEL A TO BE ADDED TO AND FORA/ PART OF
LOT OS-01, PLAN 26132168, PID 55193006
DOCUMp1T:
EXPROPRIATION BY ORDER IN COUNCIL 71 -393
D. DATED JUNE 11, 1971,
REGISTERED JUNE 16, 1971, UM VOLUME 648, PAGE
634, AS NUMBER 229639, PID 00412189.
OW4ER'S SIGNATURE-
GARY JOCHEL.MAN
FOR: BUSINESS NEW 13RUNSXICK
1r'
NOTES
- DWECTIONS ARE H.B. GRID AZIMUTHS DERIVED FROM THE N.B.
GRID MONUMENTS TABULATED HEREM
-THE SCALE FACTOR USED WAS 1.0000.
-THE DOCUMENT NUMBERS REFERRED tO ON THIS PLAN ARE
THOSE OF THE COUNTY REGISTRY OFFICE
- ADJACENT OWNER INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM SNB
RECORDS
-AS USED HEREIN, THE WORD CERTIFY SHALL MEAN AN
EXPRESSION OFTHE CONSULTANT'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION TO
THE BEST OF IT'S INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE BY THE
CONSULTANT.
-ALL DISTANCES SHOWN ARE CALCULATED GRID DISTANCES
- CERTIFICATION IS NOT MADE AS TO LEGAL TITLE, BEING THE
DOMAIN OF A LAWYER, NOR M THE ZONING & SETBACK
BY -LAWS OR REGULATIONS, BF]NG THE DOMAIN OF A
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-
-CERTIFICATION IS NOT MADE AS TO COVENANTS SET OUT IN
THE DOCUMENT(s) AND THE LOCATION OF ANY UNOERCROUNO
SERVICES MID /OR FIXTURES, PERMANENT OR OTHERWISE.
- INITIAL FIELD SURVEY WAS COMPLETED Mmth DD, YYYY.
LLoolo
P
SURVEY
AREA
LOCALITY SKETCH
LEGEND
DESCWTION
TION
s,,..c+ ssror amloarc YvwW1r
D
re
aravo,4m Pwm rMm nACWi
O
(7
Sru.pyY sl.lcr IIYIa;II rgMY1
®
R[u5rt4D
o,y
eYCaarm mwoWa¢owvr
p
�
TKYAI(y cmmWalE v6D01fi
�
vmsmargl YUNOt
A)1
vo4® eW4op r+.mT rasT
®
mwY[ Yrnes
,r
W WFII ugltY bzr
❑
wuu[n]rs
SpYavC POM ANe fY1110
*
YYOYN
YY
14PI YMC rOXVI
O
R
RO4ro �I YR RyYp
�
OY1EiP
W7MWl: / r61gr
Yp NRYSYO( 41C 9PY':IUP
YY1iA YIYE / RRC M19R� T
GLwIIA
UrM Y.YaI
WWp}
rFL Ulpl W.SCI
®
WOCw61I / YOYIIE / M,(C
ON:AI+.NS.
ura easy
p
SWq WW
WSLM4 /a0M441 GY3LD YM IT' G¢
(ti,y)
Y1MIgE
�
W11RaRPI¢raTO#9 OYCIYJW
Tf NAE / (LT'
[Mm p(/InY51
CaIMAt
) —�
fFa�
IIWr IrYONY
GYl•IFtl 11kS
_ _ _ __
YYVOVaL SGNCY Ea5e51W1r
ILSG
Cd1YplIL
WUf LMl1Y GIDOIT
I•Jr;
,Wy IY6
_
-
1�
OF vOW
r� 6 4vE
w10f LE1LT YN BY r,a rl/.1
IOmMC
SUBDIVISION PLAN:
IN N BRUNSWICK
SUBDIVISION
SOUTH OF ROUTE 1 AND NEST TO KING WILLIAM ROAD,
CITY OF SAINT JOHN, SAINT JOHN COUNTY. N.B. In1en
No 4.
SCALE I:S09 �.
510 WW1>RY4T, r1AYARONAfi
SIA(TJaN,NyI VRWygW1p0
GENIVAR I.
Wv: ,WEWAkCW
$lRVEYOR'S STATEMQIT
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN IS CORRECT.
TENTATIVE
N.B.L. S
�� B. � S
N0. HMO MW_
9
�5
SURVEYED BY, ANDREW K TOOL£, N.B.L.S.
DATED: JULY 4. 2011 /379
U Wi ART RBII: XICf
Jab Mo S*N5&-A u :SJ09055 -A -620
V{
BY -LAW NUMBER BA -1
A LAW RELATING TO FIRE -
DAMAGED BUILDINGS IN THE CITY
OF SAINT JOHN
Be it enacted by the Common Council of
The City of Saint John as follows:
1. A By -Law of The City of Saint John
entitled "A Law Relating to Fire- Damaged
Buildings in the City of Saint John ", By -law
Number BA -1, enacted on the 215` November,
2005, is hereby repealed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint
John has caused the Corporate Common Seal
of the said City to be affixed to this by -law
the day of August, A.D. 2011 and
signed by:
Mayor /Maire
ARRETE No BA -1
ARRETE CONCERNANT LES
BATIMENTS ENDOMMAGES PAR LE
FEU DANS THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Lors dune reunion du conseil communal,
The City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit:
1. L'arrete de The City of Saint John
intitule « Arrete concernant les batiments
endommages par le feu dans The City of Saint
John », Arrete N° BA -1, decrete le 21
novembre 2005, est abroge.
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a
fait apposer son sceau communal sur le
present arrete le _ aout 2011, avec les
signatures suivantes:
Common Clerk/Greffiere communale
First Reading - August 15, 2011
Second Reading - August 15, 2011
Third Reading -
Premiere lecture - le 15 aout 2011
Deuxieme lecture — le 15 aout 2011
Troisieme lecture-
167
10, Z
The City of Saint John
August 29, 2011
His Worship Mayor Court
And Councillors
Your Worship and Councillors
SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — 109 to 113 Prince Edward
Street and 27 Richmond Street
A Public Presentation was made on July 181h, 2011 of a proposed amendment to the
Municipal Development Plan which would redesignate on Schedule 2 -A and 2 -C of the
Plan, from Medium Density Residential to Approved Commercial Development, a
parcel of land with an area of approximately 470 square metres, located at 109 — 113
Prince Edward Street and 27 Richmond Street, also identified as PID Number
00012468.
The required advertising has been completed, and attached you will find a copy of the
public notice, and any letters of opposition or support received.
If Council wishes, it may choose to refer the matter to the Planning Advisory Committee
for a report and recommendation and authorize the necessary advertising with a Public
Hearing to be held on Monday, September 26th in the Council Chamber at 7:00 pm, or
not to proceed with the proposed amendment process and adopt a resolution to deny
the application,
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Gormley
Common Clerk
Attachment
SAINT JOHN P.O. Bux 1971 SainL John, NB Canada E2L4L1 vA"v.saingohn.ca C.P'971 Saint John, N.-B, Canada E2L4L1
168
1
The (Ity ofitin[lahn
August 26th, 2011
Deputy Mayor Chase
and Members of Common Council,
Subject: Sidewalk Art on Uptown Streets
The recent uncertainty surrounding chalk art and busking on City streets /sidewalks requires
clarification from City Staff.
Motion: That this matter be referred to the City Manager and City Solicitor for a report
and recommendation.
Sincerely,
Ivan Court
Mayor
4�
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1 371 Saint john, Na CanaM UL M I www.salntjahnxa I C.P.1971 Saint John, N �, Canaria E2L 4L I
169
2YA
:Y.
August 29, 2011
Mayor Ivan Court and Members
Of Common Council
Dear Mayor Court and Members of Common Council,
Motion: That the planning department, through the City Manager, prepare a report on the available
development lots currently approved by the City and that have yet to be developed.
Rational: Plan SJ is based on modest growth in the city, unlike our previous Municipal Plan that
forecasted a need for growth all over this vast city. I believe it would be valuable information for this
and future councils to know how many approved building lots are available for development in the city.
Basic Economics would show that by continually increasing the supply, prices will fall and developers'
assertions that more lots means more tax revenue for the city may not necessarily be true.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Sullivan
Councillor for the City of Saint John
Representing Ward 2
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E21L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E21- 4L1
170
C
August 24, 2011
Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court
and Members of Common Council
It is important for any organization to measure themselves in order to spur
growth from within. I believe that we have to review ourselves from time to
time as any progressive organization should in order to meet tomorrows
challenges. Each Councillor around this horse shoe has made motions in
the last 31/2 years and before the end of this Council's mandate everyone
should know where each Councillor's motion sits.
I therefore move:
That the Common Clerk provide a full record of all motions, whether
completed or not, made by each Councillor over the last 38 months and
where each motion, whether completed or not, now rests in Staffs agenda.
(ie: completed, being worked on, etc...) I further resolve that the Common
Clerk advise Council as to when this list will be completed, be it one, two or
three months, so each Councillor can obtain the knowledge of what they
must do to have their motions acted upon before the end of this Council's
mandate of May 2012.
Respectfully,
Bill Farren
Councillor
The City of Saint John
lr -
SAINT JOHN
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1
171
X`
. 1
August 29, 2011
Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court &
Members of Common Council:
Issue: Critical Need for a Full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be Completed by the
Department of Environment on the Proposed AIM / Saint John Port Authority / NB Power
Above - Ground Power Corridor
Context:
• At the recent public meeting held at the Carleton Community Centre regarding this issue,
numerous speakers raised the issue of possible health and environmental risks associated with
this project.
• Noise pollution, chronic illnesses, and the movement of hazardous materials were identified.
• Mr. Gordon Dalzell, one of the most respected environmentalists in New Brunswick, stressed
the need for a complete environmental impact assessment for this project.
• With respect to due diligence —The City of Saint John must take every step to ensure the
safety of its citizens.
Motion: That The City of Saint John formally request, in written form, that the Provincial Department
of Environment conduct a full environmental impact assessment regarding the proposed high voltage
above - ground corridor being considered for the West Side of Saint John.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter McGuire
Councillor —City of Saint John
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 41_1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1
172
:a
August 29, 2011
Your Worship Mayor Ivan Court &
Members of Common Council:
Issue: West Saint John Unsightly Premises
Context:
• There continues to be 3 properties on the West Side of Saint John that continue to be in need of
rehabilitation.
• 1 have raised with staff these concerns from citizens on several occasions.
• It appears we may need to craft a progressive by -law to remediate these properties.
Motion: That the City Manager, working with the appropriate City staff, bring back to Council in two
months' time a proposed by -law to deal with these unsightly properties, and others throughout the
City.
Respectfully submitted,
(received by email)
Peter McGuire
Councillor — City of Saint John
SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1
173
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C- 2011 -219
August 22, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Traffic Impacts — Tim Hortons 222 Bayside Drive
BACKGROUND:
City of Saim John
TDL Group has received a building permit and commenced construction of a new
Tim Hortons outlet at 222 Bayside Drive located at the northwest corner of the
Bayside Drive / Courtney Bay Causeway / Mount Pleasant Avenue East
intersection. The property is zoned "I -2" Heavy Industrial and a restaurant is a
permitted use in the "I -2" zone. The development meets all of the requirements of
the "I -2" zone and City of Saint John Zoning By -Law, therefore no additional
approvals were required beyond issuance of the Building Permit.
On August 16, 2011 Common Council referred the above matter to staff for a
report regarding the traffic impacts of the development.
ANALYSIS:
A traffic impact study was completed for the development in September 20091.
As part of the study process, the engineering consultant who prepared the study
on behalf of the developer met with Municipal Operations and Engineering staff
to discuss concerns relating to the project. Staff identified two issues: provision of
sufficient on -site space for queueing so that traffic queues from the site would not
reach Bayside Drive, and provision of queueing space for left turning vehicles
into the site so that the queue of vehicles making a left turn from Bayside Drive
into the site would not reach the Bayside Drive / Courtney Bay Causeway
intersection. Municipal Operations & Engineering also requested that the study
' ADI Limited. September 2009. Traffic Impact Study for a Tim Hortons on Bayside Drive.
174
M & C — 2011 — 219 - 2 - August 22, 2011
review the impacts that the One Mile House Interchange will have on the post -
development traffic patterns at the site.
The approved site plan for the development has the driveway located
approximately 82 metres north of the Bayside Drive / Courtney Bay Causeway
intersection. The separation distance between the driveway and the Bayside Drive
/ Courtney Bay Causeway intersection exceeds the minimum requirements of the
City of Saint John Zoning By -law (30 metres) and the Transportation Association
of Canada standards2 (70 metres). Driveway widths also meet City and
Transportation Association of Canada standards. For vehicles accessing the drive
through, sufficient queueing is provided on -site for up to 26 vehicles. Staff also
note the existing driveway into the site, located a distance of 30 metres from the
Bayside Drive / Courtney Bay Causeway intersection, will be closed.
Estimated driveway volumes accessing the site were based on a similar sized Tim
Hortons in Fredericton and are as follows:
Estimated Driveway Volumes
Enter
Exit
AM Peak Hour
168 vehicles
159 vehicles
PM Peak Hour
95 vehicles
90 vehicles
The Traffic Impact Study recommended the following modifications to the
roadway network to improve post - development traffic operations in the Study
Area:
Adjust the traffic signal timings at the Bayside Drive / Courtney Bay
Causeway intersection. This was recommended to improve both existing
and post - development traffic operations at the intersection. Modifications
include increased green time for vehicles making a left turn from Bayside
Drive onto the Causeway and increased green time for through movements
on Bayside Drive and the Causeway approaches to the intersection.
Reconfiguring the existing pavement markings /lane designation in the
southbound right turn lane on Bayside Drive to allow both through and
right turn movements. This would reduce the overall queue length at the
intersection providing increased separation between the end of the
southbound traffic queue ( Bayside Drive heading from Loch Lomond
Road towards the Causeway) and the Tim Hortons driveway.
2 Transportation Association of Canada. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads. 1999
Edition. Figure 3.2.8.2.
175
M & C — 2011 — 219 - 3 - August 22, 2011
With projected 2012 post - development traffic volumes following
completion of the One Mile House interchange, the southbound traffic
queues are not projected to impact the driveway into the Tim Hortons site.
The Study contained a third recommended improvement, unrelated to the
development, to increase the storage length of the left turn lane on the Mount
Pleasant Avenue East approach to the intersection.
With these improvements, the Bayside Drive / Courtney Bay Causeway / Mount
Pleasant Avenue East intersection is projected to operate with acceptable vehicle
delays and volume -to- capacity ratios with 2012 post development traffic volumes.
The intersection of the Tim Hortons Driveway and Bayside Drive is also
projected to operate with acceptable vehicle delays and volume -to- capacity ratios
with post development 2012 traffic volumes. Vehicles making a left turn from
Bayside Drive into the site will be able to use the existing Two Way Left Turn
Lane (TWLTL) on this section of Bayside Drive which will minimize impacts to
through traffic on this portion of Bayside Drive and provide increased safety for
vehicles making a left turn into the site as they are removed from the through
traffic lanes.
Traffic movements exiting the development and turning onto Bayside Drive are
projected to operate with acceptable levels of delay and volume -to- capacity ratios
during the morning and afternoon peak hours.
Based on the analysis presented in the Traffic Impact Study the recommended
signal timing and lane designation changes, combined with the proposed
driveway location, are projected to minimize conflicts with traffic operations on
Bayside Drive. The proposed driveway is in accordance with City and
Transportation Association of Canada design and location criteria.
Municipal Operations and Engineering will monitor traffic operations with
respect to queue lengths following the opening of the new Tim Hortons location.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed development is permitted under the City of Saint John Zoning By-
Law and conforms to all of the requirements stipulated therein. The proposed
driveway location conforms to City and Transportation Association of Canada
criteria.
It is recommended that Common Council receive and file this report.
176
M & C — 2011 — 219 - 4 - August 22, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Forrest, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner
Planning and Development
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
MR
Project No.
177
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2011 -221
August 23, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
and Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council:
71r � I
The City of Saint john
SUBJECT: Municipality of Saint John Four -Year Capital Investment Plan Respecting
the "Gas Tax Fund Agreement" (2010 -2013)
BACKGROUND
New Brunswick Municipalities have been provided with a "Guidelines" package that includes
instructions on the preparation of a Gas Tax Fund (GTF) Capital Investment Plan for 2010 -2013.
Council approved the 2011 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program on January 4, 2011
and the General Fund Capital Program on February 7, 2011. Included in the approved Capital
Program submissions were a number of projects proposed to be funded under the 2010 -2013 Gas
Tax Fund. The Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program also contained tentative capital
plans for 2012 to 2015 which included proposed Gas Tax Fund projects.
ANALYSIS
Key to application under the Gas Tax Fund is the submission of a Four -Year Capital Investment
Plan. This Capital Investment Plan must outline in detail, projects to be funded under the Gas
Tax Fund Agreement that are considered as priorities by the Municipality.
The Capital Investment Plan that staff are recommending be submitted, includes provision for
twenty projects that otherwise would not have been possible in the years 2010 -2013 without the
Gas Tax Fund Agreement. These twenty Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program and
General Fund Capital Program projects total $28,365,528 of which $21,151,528 is proposed to
be funded under the Gas Tax Program.
While a Four -Year plan is a requirement, the Agreement also recognizes that plans do change.
Provision has been made in the Agreement to allow the Municipality to update or modify their
Capital Investment Plan at any time during the term of the Agreement subject to approval by the
Province of New Brunswick Department of Local Government.
178
M &C2011 -221
August 23, 2011
Page 2
The attached Capital Investment Plan includes the following content:
Project Descriptions, Expected Outcomes and Proposed Indicator(s) for each project
related to the Utility Fund and General Fund Four -Year Capital Budgets.
Utility Fund and General Fund Four -Year Budget Summaries.
Baseline Calculation.
Following approval of the Capital Investment Plan by Council,
Department of Local Government for their review and approv
the Province, they will forward a formal Gas Tax Agreement
City.
RECOMMENDATION
staff will submit the Plan to the
al. After approval of the Plan by
for review and signature by the
Consistent with the requirements of the Federal/Provincial Agreement related to the Transfer of
Gas Tax Revenues, it is recommended:
That the attached documentation representing Target Investment Levels by the General Fund and
the Water & Sewerage Utility Fund for the years 2010 through 2013 including the Baseline
Calculation be adopted, and that the listing of specific projects totaling $28,365,528 for the years
2010 to 2013 of which $21,151,528 in funding is being sought under the Gas Tax Fund be
approved.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Paul Groody, P. Eng.
Commissioner
Municipal Operations & Engineering
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
179
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN 23- Aug -11
-- MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING
2010 - 2013 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
SAINT JOHN GTF AGREEMENT
Federal Gas Tax Revenue Funding
2011 - $11,986,528
2012 - $3,240,000
2013 - 55.925.000
Total: $21,151,528
Year Project
Category
Location
Description
GTF City
Share
2011 Beach
Infrastructure Renewal -
Beach Crescent; Kennebecasis
Installation of new sanitary sewer for separation as reccommended
800,000.00 0.00
Crescent/Meadowbank
Sanitary
Drive; Meadowbank Avenue
in the Beach Crescent/Meadowbank Drainage Basin Study,
Sanitary System
including design and construction management services. Project to
be funded under G.T.F.
Champlain Heights
Infrastructure Renewal -
Champlain Heights
Renewal of water pumping station, including design and
435,000.00 0.00
Pumping Station
Water
construction management services. Project to be funded under
G.T.F.
Honeysuckle,
Storm
Sand Cove Rd from Lawrence
Install approx 694m of new storm piping and structures for
725,000.00 700,000.00
Sherbrooke Street
St. to Cushing St., including
separation in the area per the 2010 Drainage study, including
Drainage Basin - Fundy
Lawrence St and Young St
design and construction management services. Project to be
Heights
funded under G.T.F.
Honeysuckle,
Storm
Parking area of Lancaster Mall
Install approx 400m of new storm piping and structures for
845,000.00 0.00
Sherbrooke Street
and the bottom of Harding Street
separation in the area per the 2010 Drainage study, including
Drainage Basin -
design and construction management services. Project to be
Lancaster Mall Area
funded under G.T.F.
Long Wharf
Wastewater Treatment
Long Wharf Area
Construction of Lift Station #10 and Forcemain/Collector System,
4,000,000.00 0.00
including construction management services. Project to be funded
under G.T.F.
Milford Drainage Basin -
Storm
Balmoral Crescent from Civic
Install approx. 460m of new 200mm and 300mm storm sewer
515,000.00 0.00
Balmoral Crescent
#345 to Dwyer Road and new
and structures for separation in the area including 160m of new
outfall at Civic #429
450mm storm outfall piping, including construction management
services. Project to be funded under G.T.F.
Milford Drainage Basin -
Storm
Kingsville Road from Civic
Install approx. 300m of new 200mm and 300mm of new storm
390,000.00 0.00
Kingsville Road
#288 to Milford Road and new
sewer piping and structures for separation in the area and 140m of
outfall to replace existing
new 450mm outfall piping. Includes construction management
services. Project to be funded under G.T.F.
Milford Drainage Basin -
Storm
Russell Hill Road to Greenhead
Install approx. 310m of new 900mm storm sewer and structures
500,000.00 0.00
Saint Clair Avenue
Rd
for separation in the area and new storm outfall near "X" Lift
Station, including construction management services. Project to be
funded under G.T.F.
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN 23- Aug -11
-- MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING
2010 - 2013 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
SAINT JOHN GTF AGREEMENT #
Federal Gas Tax Revenue Funding
2011 -
$11,986,528
2012 -
$3,240,000
2013 -
55.925.000
Total:
$21,151,528
Year Project Category Location
2011 Milford Sanitary System Infrastructure Renewal - Dominion Park Road, Russell
Sanitary Hill Road, Dwyer Road,
Glenaire Avenue, Balmoral
Crescent, Riverhill Drive, Saint
Claire Avenue, Kingsville Raod,
Gifford raod and Silvermount
Crescent
Description GTF City
Share
Renewal of various lengths of deteriorated sanitary sewer as 680,000.00 0.00
reccommended in the Milford Drainage Basin Study, including
design and construction management services. Project to be
funded under G.T.F.
Rodney Terminal
Storm
Market Place pumping station to
Renewal or structural lining of approx 380m of 2150mm diameter
1,721,528.00
1,615,000.00
outfall
CMP. Project to be funded under G.T.F. (Design and approvals to
be completed in 2010 for construction in 2011)
Wastewater Pumping
Infrastructure Renewal -
Beach Crescent Sanitary Lift
Reconstruction of inlet piping, control structures and outfall,
450,000.00
0.00
Facilities
Sanitary
Station
including design and construction management services. Project to
be funded under G.T.F.
Wastewater Pumping
Infrastructure Renewal -
Kennebecasis Drive Lift Station
Install Variable Speed Drives, including design and construction
125,000.00
0.00
Facilities
Sanitary
#2
management services. Project to be funded under G.T.F.
Woodward Avenue
Infrastructure Renewal -
Donaldson Street to Alward
Installation of approx. 220m of new 900mm saintary sewer,
800,000.00
0.00
Sanitary
Street
including design and construction management services. Project to
be funded under G.T.F.
2012 Chesley Drive
Wastewater Treatment
Chesley Drive Area
Construction of Lift Station #I OA and Forcemain/Collector
1,200,000.00
1,515,000.00
System, including construction management services. Project to be
funded under G.T.F. with utility contribution.
Storm Water
Storm
Boars Head Road
Construction of stormwater detention pond on Caledonia Brook -
1,140,000.00
0.00
Management -
High Pond "A ", including land acquisition, design and
Brentwood
construction management services. Subject to environmental
approvals.. Project to be funded under G.T.F.
Watermain Cleaning and
Safe, Clean Drinking
Various locations
Cleaning and lining of existing unlined C.I. watermains to
900,000.00
0.00
Lining Phase 8
Water
improve pressure, water quality, and fire flows. Project funded
under G.T.F.
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN 23- Aug -11
-- MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING
2010 - 2013 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
SAINT JOHN GTF AGREEMENT
Federal Gas Tax Revenue Funding
2011 - $11,986,528
2012 - $3,240,000
2013 - S5.925.000
Total: $21,151,528
Year Project
Category
Location
Description
GTF
City
Share
2013 Beach
Infrastructure Renewal -
Millidge Avenue
Construct new sanitary sewers and services as reccommended in
1,800,000.00
1,200,000.00
Crescent/Meadowbank
Sanitary
the Beach Crescent/Meadowbank Drainage Basin Study, including
Sanitary System
design and construction management services. Project to be
funded under G.T.F.
Reversing Falls Bridge -
Safe, Clean Drinking
Reversing Falls Bridge
Renew existing 475mm watermain with two new 500mm
2,100,000.00
2,184,000.00
Water Transmission Main
Water
watermains including design and construction management
services. Project funded under G.T.F. as a contingency plan
should the project funding not be available under the SCDW
program.
Storm Water
Storm
Boars Head Road
Construction of stormwater detention pond on Caledonia Brook -
1,125,000.00
0.00
Management -
High Pond 'B ", including land acquisition, design and
Brentwood
construction management services. Subject to environmental
approvals. Project to be funded under G.T.F.
Watermain Cleaning and
Safe, Clean Drinking
Various locations
Cleaning and lining of existing unlined C.I. watermains to
900,000.00
0.00
Lining Phase 9
Water
improve pressure, water quality, and fire flows. Project funded
under G.T.F.
TOTAL:
$21.151.528.00
$7.214.000.00
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
183
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
8/26/2011
FOUR -YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
RESPECTING THE "GTF AGREEMENT"
(2010 -2013)
Page 2 / 27
.,
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
INTRODUCTION
8/26/2011
The City of Saint John has prepared a four -year Capital Investment Plan for the years 2010 — 2013 respecting
the GTF agreement. Included are descriptions, expected outcomes, proposed indicators, and cost estimates for
each selected project. These various projects will lead towards cleaner air, cleaner water or lower greenhouse
gas emissions.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN CONTENT
1) Certified copy of the resolution from Council adopting the four -year Capital Investment Plan for the GTF
Agreement of the municipality
2) Project Descriptions, Expected Outcomes and Proposed Indicators for each capital project related to the
General Operating Fund Four -Year Budget
3) General Operating Fund Four -Year Budget Summary
4) Project Descriptions, Expected Outcomes and Proposed Indicators for each capital project related to the
Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Four -Year Budget
5) Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Four -Year Budget Summary
6) Baseline Calculation
185
Page 3 / 27
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement 8/26/2011
MUNICIPALITY OF SAINT JOHN
FOUR -YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
RESPECTING THE "GTF AGREEMENT"
(2010- 2013)
RESOLUTION
201X -XXX Moved by Councilor and seconded by Councilor "RESOLVED that the
submitted documentation representing Target Investment Levels by the General Fund and the Water &
Sewerage Utility Fund for the years 2010 through 2013 including the Baseline Calculation be adopted, and that
the listing of specific projects totaling $28,365,528 for the years 2010 to 2013 of which $21,151,528 in funding
is being sought under the Gas Tax Fund be approved."
Motion Carried
I certify that the above resolution of the council of
session XCXYXX, 201X.
(SEAL)
CLERK
MUNICIPALITY OF
:.
was adopted while in regular /special
Page 4 / 27
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
General Operating Fund — Capital Budget
1) Honeysuckle, Sherbrooke Street Drainage Basin - Fundy
Heights Area — Storm Sewer
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Installation of new storm piping and structures for separation from the sanitary in the area per the 2010 Drainage Basin
study.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. Completion of all the projects in this area
should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Total Cost
Contribution
2011
=Honeysuckle, Sherbrooke Street Drainage Basin - Fundy Heights
725,000
1,425000
torm Sewer
Page 5 / 27
187
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
8/26/2011
2) Honeysuckle, Sherbrooke Street Drainage Basin - Lancaster Mall Area — Storm Sewer
Project Description:
Installation of new storm piping and structures for separation from the sanitary sewer in the area per the 2010 Drainage
Basin study.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. Completion of all the projects in this area
should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
1�t Name
GTF
Total Cost
Contribution
2011
=Hone�ysuckle, Sherbrooke Street Drainage Basin - Lancaster Mall
845,000
845,000
torm Sewer
Page 6 / 27
No
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
3) Milford Drainage Basin - Balmoral Crescent Area — Storm Sewer
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Installation of new storm piping and structures for separation from the sanitary in the area per the 2010 Drainage Basin
study.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. Completion of all the projects in this area
should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Milford Drainage Basin - Balmoral Crescent Area — Storm Sewer
515,000
515,000
Page 7 / 27
:•
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
4) Milford Drainage Basin - Kingsville Road Area - Storm Sewer
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Installation of new storm piping and structures for separation from the sanitary in the area per the 2010 Drainage Basin
study.
EIA Required F] Tender Required 0
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. Completion of all the projects in this area
should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Milford Drainage Basin - Kingsville Road Area — Storm Sewer
390,000
3909000
Page 8 / 27
190
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
5) Milford Drainage Basin - Saint Clair Avenue Area — Storm Sewer
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Installation of new storm piping and structures for separation from the sanitary in the area as per the 2010 Drainage Basin
study.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. Completion of all the projects in this area
should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Milford Drainage Basin - Saint Clair Avenue Area — Storm Sewer
500,000
500,000
Page 9 / 27
191
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
6) Rodney Terminal — Storm Sewer Outfall
Project Description:
Renewal or structural lining of 2150mm diameter CMP.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
8/26/2011
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
The existing outfall pipe is in poor condition and is showing signs of collapse. There have been occurrences of
sink holes developing at the surface from soil migrating into the pipe. Renewal or structural lining will resolve
the problem.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Rodney Terminal — Storm Sewer Outfall
1,721,528
3,336,528
Page 10 / 27
192
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
7) Storm Water Management — Brentwood Area — High Pond "A"
Project Description:
Construction of stormwater detention pond on Caledonia Brook - High Pond "A ".
EIA Required FI Tender Required XD
8/26/2011
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. The detention pond will allow the storage of
storm water during a rain event and then release the water slowly to downstream systems in a controlled manner
following the storm event. Completion of all the projects in this area should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe as well as the capacity (volume) of the detention pond
following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2012
Storm Water Management — Brentwood — High Pond "A"
1,140,000
1,140,000
Page 11 / 27
193
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
8) Storm Water Management — Brentwood Area — High Pond "B"
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Construction of stormwater detention pond on Caledonia Brook - High Pond "B ".
EIA Required FI Tender Required XD
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. The detention pond will allow the storage of
storm water during a rain event and then release the water slowly to downstream systems in a controlled manner
following the storm event. Completion of all the projects in this area should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe as well as the capacity (volume) of the detention pond
following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2013
Storm Water Management — Brentwood Area — High Pond
«B„
1,125,000
1,125,000
Page 12 / 27
194
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
8/26/2011
CITY OF SAIMTJCHN
FOUR -YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET
SUMMARY
Part I - General Capital Fund Section
SERVICES
2011
2012
2013
total
Community Energy Systems
Public Transit
Solid Waste
Local Roads and Bridges
$7,011,528
$1,140,000
$1,125,000
$9,276,528
Honeysuckle, Sherbrooke Street Drainage
Basin - Fundy Heights Area — Storm Sewer
1,425,000
1,425,000
Honeysuckle, Sherbrooke Street Drainage
Basin - Lancaster Mall Area — Storm Sewer
845,000
845,000
Milford Drainage Basin - Balmoral Crescent
Area — Storm Sewer
515,000
515,000
Milford Drainage Basin - Kingsville Road Area
— Storm Sewer
390,000
390,000
Milford Drainage Basin - Saint Clair Avenue
Area — Storm Sewer
500,000
500,000
Rodney Terminal — Storm Sewer Outfall
3,336,528
3,336,528
Storm Water Management — Brentwood — High
Pond "A"
$1,140,000
1,140,000
Storm Water Management — Brentwood Area —
High Pond "B"
$1,125,000
1,125,000
Total Capital Expenditures
$7,011,528
$1,140,000
$1,125,000
$9,276,528
SOURCE OF FUNDS
GTF Agreement $4,696,528 $1,140,000 $1,125,000 $6,961,528
Capital Reserve Fund
Operating Fund
Long Term Borrowing $2,315,000 $2,315,000
Others (specify)
Total Sources of Funds $7,011,528 $1,140,000 $1,125,000 $9,276,528
Page 13 / 27
195
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
Utility Fund — Capital Budget
1) Long Wharf Area — LS #10
Project Description:
Construction of Lift Station #10 and Forcemain /Collector System.
EIA Required Fi Tender Required X❑
8/26/2011
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
Wastewater generated in this area currently flows untreated to the Harbour. Upon completion of the project the
wastewater will be collected and pumped to a wastewater treatment facility for treatment.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe as well as the lift station type following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Long Wharf Area — LS #10
4,000,000
4,000,000
Page 14 / 27
196
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
2) Champlain Heights Pumping Station
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Upgrades to existing water pumping station including pump replacement and new diesel generator.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Lower GHG
The existing water pumping station requires upgrades. The upgrade will alleviate malfunctions and with modern
equipment will ensure that spare parts are available.
Proposed Indicator(s):
We will report on the decrease in KWH consumed following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Champlain Heights Pumping Station
435,000
435,000
Page 15 / 27
197
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
3) Beach Crescent /Meadowbank Sanitary System
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Installation of new sanitary sewer for separation as recommended in the 2010 Beach Crescent /Meadowbank Drainage
Basin Study.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. Completion of all the projects in this area
should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Beach Crescent /Meadowbank Sanitary System
800,000
800,000
Page 16 / 27
on
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
4) Milford Sanitary System
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Renewal of various lengths of deteriorated sanitary sewer as recommended in the 2010 Milford Drainage Basin Study.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
The sanitary sewers in this area are cracked and showing signs of collapse which impedes flow during peak
periods resulting in flooding. Completion of all the projects in this area should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Milford Sanitary System
680,000
680,000
Page 17 / 27
199
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
5) Wastewater Pumping Facilities - Kennebecasis Drive Lift Station #2
Project Description:
Install Variable Speed Drives.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
8/26/2011
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
Under current conditions the wastewater pumping station discharges sanitary flow at a high rate when the
pumps are signaled to start at the "pump on" level in the wetwell. This high rate of flow causes downstream
flooding. Following completion of the project the facility will pump at a constant controlled rate which should
alleviate downstream flooding.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the decrease in KWH consumed following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Wastewater Pumping Facilities - Kennebecasis Drive Lift Station #2
125,000
125,000
Page 18 / 27
200
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
6) Wastewater Pumping Facilities - Beach Crescent Sanitary Lift Station
Project Description:
Reconstruction of inlet piping,control structures and outfall.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
8/26/2011
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
Under current conditions the existing wastewater pumping facility bypasses wastewater frequently during peak
flow events. Following completion of the project the occurrence of bypassing will be much less frequent.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
P Name
GTF
Total Cost
Contribution
2
Wastewater Pumping Facilities - Beach Crescent Sanitary Lift
450,000
450,000
Station
Page 19 / 27
201
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
7) Woodward Avenue — Sanitary Sewer
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Installation of new sanitary piping and structures to remove a "bottle neck" in the sanitary system.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
There have been flooding occurrences in this area due to the existing undersized sanitary system. Completion of
all the projects in this area should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2011
Woodward Avenue — Sanitary Sewer
E 800,000
800,000
Page 20 / 27
202
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
8) Chesley Drive— LS #10A
Project Description:
Construction of Lift Station #10A and Forcemain /Collector System.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
8/26/2011
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
Wastewater generated in this area currently flows untreated to the Harbour. Upon completion of the project the
wastewater will be collected and pumped to a wastewater treatment facility for treatment.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe as well as the lift station type following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2012
Chesley Drive — LS #10A
1,200,000
2,715,000
Page 21 / 27
203
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
9) Watermain Cleaning and Lining Phase 8
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Cleaning and lining of existing unlined C.I. watermains to improve pressure, water quality and fire flows.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
Unlined cast iron watermains that were installed in the late 1800's and early 1900's (up until about 1960) are
subject to a phenomenon called tuberculation - a buildup of material on the inside wall of the pipe. This buildup
reduces the internal diameter of the pipe which in turn leads to a decrease in water pressure and available fire
flows. In addition, tuberculation is a major contributor to water quality problems such as colour, increased iron
content and reduced chlorine residual. Following completion of this project the cast iron watermains will have
improved flow capacity, improved water quality and the service life of the candidate watermains will be
appreciably extended.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length and diameter of cast iron watermains cleaned and lined following completion of
the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2012
Vv- atermain Cleaning and Lining - Phase 8
900,000
900,000
Page 22 / 27
204
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
10) Beach Crescent /Meadowbank Area - Sanitary System
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Installation of new sanitary piping and structures for system separation in the Beach Crescent/Meadowbank area as per
the 2010 Drainage Basin study.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required -1
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
This area is primarily residential and has been subject to flooding. Completion of all the projects in this area
should alleviate the flooding.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2013
Beach Crescent /Meadowbank Sanitary System
1,800,000
3,000,000
Page 23 / 27
205
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
11) Watermain Cleaning and Lining Phase 9
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Cleaning and lining of existing unlined C.I. watermains to improve pressure, water quality and fire flows.
EIA Required ❑ Tender Required X❑
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
Unlined cast iron watermains that were installed in the late 1800's and early 1900's (up until about 1960) are
subject to a phenomenon called tuberculation — a buildup of material on the inside wall of the pipe. This buildup
reduces the internal diameter of the pipe which in turn leads to a decrease in water pressure and available fire
flows. In addition, tuberculation is a major contributor to water quality problems such as colour, increased iron
content and reduced chlorine residual. Following completion of this project the cast iron watermains will have
improved flow capacity, improved water quality and the service life of the candidate watermains will be
appreciably extended.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length and diameter of cast iron watermains cleaned and lined following completion of
the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2013
W— atermain Cleaning and Lining — Phase 9
900,000
900,000
Page 24 / 27
NO
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
12) Reversing Falls Bridge — Water Transmission Main
8/26/2011
Project Description:
Renew existing 475mm diameter watermain with two new watermains to be secured to the underside of the
Reversing Falls Bridge.
EIA Required FI Tender Required XD
Expected Outcome: Cleaner Water
The existing single watermain does not have the capacity to carry the necessary quantity of water to the West
side of the City following reconfiguration of the City's water system to supply all potable water from a single
water treatment plant in the Eastern portion of the City. The existing watermain is over 50 years old and is
constructed of thin walled steel. There is a concern that an increase in pressure necessary to meet the
requirements of the future servicing option could cause this existing watermain to rupture under certain
conditions. Following completion of this project the new watermains will have the capacity (both structural and
conveyance) to provide the necessary service under the City's future servicing option which includes a single
water treatment plant in East Saint John.
Proposed indicator(s):
We will report on the length, diameter & type of pipe following completion of the project.
Year
Project Name
GTF
Contribution
Total Cost
2013
Reversing Falls Bridge — Water Transmission Main
2,100,000
4,284,000
Page 25 / 27
207
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
8/26/2011
CITY OF SAINT JOHN
FOUR -YEAR CAPITAL
BUDGET SUMMARY
Part 2 - Public Utility Capital Fund Section
SERVICES
$14,190,000
2011
2012
2013
Total
Water
$19,089,000
Champlain Heights Pumping Station
$435,000
$435,000
Watermain Cleaning and Lining — Phase 8
$900,000
$900,000
Watermain Cleaning and Lining — Phase 9
$900,000
$900,000
Reversing Falls Bridge — Water Transmission
Main
$4,284,000
$4,284,000
Wastewater
Long Wharf Area — LS #10
$4,000,000
$4,000,000
Beach Crescent/Meadowbank Sanitary
System
$800,000
$800,000
Milford Sanitary System
$680,000
$680,000
Wastewater Pumping Facilities -
Kennebecasis Drive Lift Station #2
$125,000
$125,000
Wastewater Pumping Facilities - Beach
Crescent Sanitary Lift Station
$450,000
$450,000
Woodward Avenue — Sanitary Sewer
$800,000
$800,000
Chesley Drive — LS #10A
$2,715,000
$2,715,000
Beach Crescent/Meadowbank Sanitary
System
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
Total Capital Expenditures
$7,290,000
$3,615,000
$8,184,000
$19,089,000
SOURCE OF FUNDS
GTF Agreement
Capital Reserve Fund
Operating Fund
Long Term Borrowing
Others (specify): Bridge Financing
Total Sources of Funds
$5,879,236 $4,147,882 $4,162,882
$14,190,000
$4,899,000
$4,899,000
$1,410,764 - $532,882 - $877,882
$0
$7,290,000 $3,615,000 $8,184,000
$19,089,000
1:
Page 26 / 27
Capital Investment Plan for the GTF Agreement
Base Amount
Base Amount Calculation Table
YEAR
TOTAL
2005
18,889,952
2006
22,174,408
2007
19,065,106
2008
26,189,772
2009
24,498,855
AVERAGE
22,163,619
209
8/26/2011
Page 27 / 27
OPEN SESSION
August 25, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
Subject: CAPITAL FINANCING
The attached Notice of Motion has been prepared as a first step in the permanent
financing of certain Capital Projects. The purpose of the issue is summarized on the
attached schedule.
The giving of this Notice of Motion does not commit the City to any further action. It
does, however, place the City in a position to take action after the expiry of 30 days at
such time as bond market conditions and opportunities permit.
At this stage, it is not necessary to set limits with respect to the coupon rate or the terms
for which bonds are to be issued. These will be established at a later date and will be
related to the market conditions at that time.
Respectfully sub
Gp6gory
Commis
lr
SAINT JOHN
mans, CGA, MBA
of Finance
P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I wwwsaingohn.ca I C.P. 1971 Saint John, N. -B. Canada E2L 4L1
210
NOTICE OF MOTION
His Worship the Mayor gave the following Notice of Motion. "I do hereby give Notice
that I will, at a meeting of Common Council held after the expiration of thirty days from
this day, move or cause to be moved, the following resolution:
Namely,
RESOLVED that occasion having arisen in the public interest for the following
Public Civic Works and needed Civic Improvements, that is to say:
(Details to be read from "Purpose of the Issue ")."
THEREFORE RESOLVED that debentures be issued under provisions of the Acts of
Assembly 52, Victoria, Chapter 27, Section 29 and amendments thereto, to the amount
of $ 11, 500, 000.
211
The City of Saint John
Proposed issue of Debentures
To Be Dated On or After September 28, 2011
Purpose of Issue
GENERALFUND
Transportation Services $ 500,000
Economic Development $ 1,000,000
Parks and Recreation $ 3,000,000
4,500,000
WATER & SEWERAGE UTILITY
Water System $ 2,500,000
Sewer System $ 4,500,000 7,000,000
TOTAL $ 11,500,000
212
REPORT TO COMMON COUNCIL
M &C2011 -223
August 25, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court
& Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Members of Council,
SUBJECT: Contract No. 2011 -5 — Milford Storm Sewer Separation — Phase I
BACKGROUND
The City of Saint John
The 2011 General Fund and Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Programs include funding
for storm sewer separation and sanitary sewer renewal projects in the Saint Clair Avenue and
Kingsville Road areas.
TENDER RESULTS
Tenders closed on August 17, 2011, with the following results:
1.
Galbraith Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB
$
1,426,896.20
2.
Dexter Construction Company Ltd., Moncton, NB
$
1,526,827.75
3.
H.E. Merchant & Sons Ltd, St. George, NB
$
1,561,089.35
4.
Fairville Construction Ltd., Saint John, NB
$
1,743,126.70
5.
Gulf Operators Ltd., Saint John, NB
$
2,096,248.31
The Engineer's estimate for the work was $1,642,170.24.
ANALYSIS
The tenders were reviewed by staff and all tenders were found to be formal in all respects with
the exception of the tender submitted by H.E. Merchant and Sons Ltd. which contained a minor
error in mathematics. The math error was corrected in accordance with Division 2 — Instructions
to Tenderers and Tendering Procedures, Section 2.11 s) (i) and the corrected amount is reported
above. Staff is of the opinion that the low tenderer has the necessary resources and expertise to
perform the work, and recommend acceptance of their tender.
213
M &C2011 -223
August 25, 2011
Page 2
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Contract includes work that is charged against three capital work projects. Assuming award
of the Contract to the low tenderer, an analysis has been completed which includes the estimated
amount of work on these projects that will be performed by City forces and others.
The analysis concludes that a total amount of $1,632,000 was provided in the budgets and that
the projected completion cost of the projects included in the contract is estimated to be
$1,397,109.09, including the City's eligible H.S.T. rebate. This results in a $1,428.92 positive
difference in the General Fund Capital Program and a $233,461.99 positive difference in the
Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program. The remaining amount under the Water &
Sewerage Utility Program for this project will be utilized for further sanitary sewer renewals in
the Milford Sanitary System under a separate tender.
POLICY — TENDERING OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
The recommendation in this report is made in accordance with the provisions of Council's
policy for the tendering of construction contracts, the City's General Specifications and the
specific project specifications.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Contract No. 2011 -5 — Milford Storm Sewer Separation — Phase 1, be
awarded to the low tenderer, Galbraith Construction Ltd., at the tendered price of $1,426,896.20
as calculated based upon estimated quantities, and further that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
Respectfully submitted,
J. M. Paul Groody, P.Eng.
Commissioner
Municipal Operations & Engineering
J. Patrick Woods, CGA
City Manager
214
Planning
Advisory Committee
August 25, 2011
His Worship Mayor Ivan Court and
Member of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
P.O. Box 1971 506 658 -2800
Saint John
New Brunswick
Canada E2L 4L1
Wiw
City of Saint John
In the spirit of continuous improvement of serving the citizens on Saint John, the Planning Advisory
Committee is coming to council with a specific request that, if approved, will enable PAC to enhance its
decision making ability in two core areas.
Core area 1- In the jurisdiction set out by the Community Planning Act, the PAC can impose conditions'
of parcel or land rezonings. Standard conditions are often recommended in the City Planning Staff
report and supported by the PAC. Based on individual cases, situations, and rational, the PAC is faced
with imposing conditions where it is desired to have other views from city representatives in Building
Inspection. Since it is the Building Inspection Staff that must enforce these conditions, it is desirable to
hear their views on the enforceability in addition to the standard practice of reviewing written input.
Secondly, in situations that merit additional leverage" to have property owners satisfy rezoning
conditions, it is often Building Inspection that identifies these situations. In both of these situations, and
in other situations during the PAC meetings, it is desired to have Building Inspection Staff present to
answer questions to ensure the best outcome for the citizens of Saint John.
Core area 2 —The Planning Advisory Committee and Planning Staff form a portion of the City's dealings
with development within city. Through the planning and construction process of property development,
Municipal Operations and Engineering forms another significant part. Developers and PAC alike seek
clarity on specific issues during PAC proceedings from Municipal Operations and Engineering Staff.
Significant protection of citizens and the city's assets comes from the work Municipal Operations and
Engineering does. With this protection in mind, situations have arisen during PAC proceedings where the
standard practice of reviewing Municipal Operations and Engineering written input is not sufficient and
could benefit from discussions with Municipal Operations and Engineering Staff. For example, situations
where Municipal Operations and Engineering's input was based on information, that in hearing from the
developer during PAC proceedings is identified as being perceived by the developer as inaccurate,
clarification from Municipal Operations and Engineering during the PAC proceedings will facilitate better
decision making, and potentially avoid timely delays in construction.
215
During the August 16th, 2011 meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee, it was unanimously Moved,
Seconded and Carried:
To submit a written request for Council to direct the City Manager to instruct a
member from the Building Inspection and Municipal Operations and Engineering
and Engineering Department to be present at PAC meetings once a month to explain
and clarify recommendations as needed.
Respectfully,
/I
Murray
PAC Chairman
CC: Bill Edwards, Commissioner of Buildings and Inspections
Paul Groody, Commissioner of Municipal Operations
Ken Forrest, Commissioner of Planning and Development
Section 39 Conditions
An example of additional leverage is financial security, or a Bond.
216
Friends of Rockwood Park Inc.
and
Saint John Fundy Chapter, Conservation Council of New Brunswick
August 25, 2011
Mayor and Council
City of Saint John
15 Market Square
Saint John NB
Mayor and Council:
Regarding the restoration of property 1671 Sandy Point Road located in Rockwood Park
overlooking and adjacent Harrigan Lake, we request that before any planning occurs for the
restoration of this property that an advisory committee be established to plan and oversee the
restoration work.
Friends of Rockwood Park and the Saint John Fundy Chapter of the Conservation Council of
New Brunswick wish to actively participate on the restoration committee which we trust you
will move to establish. As you know, our groups have been involved with issues in the
protection of Rockwood Park for the past several years.
In another matter of immediate concern on property 1671 Sandy Point Road is a large drain
pipe which discharges to a small brook running directly into Harrigan Lake. We request that
this pipe be removed from the property without delay. Removal of the pipe is not a matter to
wait for the restoration but needs to be removed now as it has a continuing negative impact on
the lake.
We also wish to thank Mayor and Council for the recent decision to rezone the other five
properties along Sandy Point Road to P -2 (parkland).
Signed, 12" �' �—' � � , 4—� �-�c �2' t - �
Ernestine Rooney
506 - 652 -3597
for
Friends of Rockwood Park
David H. Thompson
506 - 635 -1297
for
Saint John Fundy Chapter, Conservation Council of New Brunswick
217