2021-03-08_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jourCity of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
AGENDA
Monday, March 8, 2021
6:00 pm
Meeting Conducted by Electronic Participation
Si vous avez besoin des services en francais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le
bureau du greffier communal au 658-2862.
Pages
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1. Minutes of February 22, 2021 5 - 20
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
5.1. Engineering Services: Site Works — Fundy Quay (Recommendation in Report) 21 - 23
5.2. Saint John Parking Commission - Appointment of Dylan Domres and Phillip 24 - 25
McCarthy as By -Law Enforcement Officers (Recommendation in Report)
5.3. Property Assessment Data Use and Confidentiality Agreement 26 - 31
(Recommendation in Report)
5.4. Procurement of a Trailer Mounted Combination Valve Exerciser and Vacuum 32 - 35
Excavation Unit (Recommendation in Report)
5.5. Fleet Replacement Procurement — March 2021 (Recommendation in Report) 36 - 39
5.6. Fundy Quay Sea Wall Refurbishment and Storm Sewer Outfall Project - Tender 40 - 44
Award (Recommendation in Report)
5.7. Traffic Paint Purchase (Recommendation in Report) 45 - 47
6.
7.
10
13.
14.
15.
5.8. Neighbourhood Service Agreements (Recommendation in Report)
48 - 86
5.9. 2021 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund and General Fund (Storm &
87 - 90
Transportation Categories) Capital Project Tendering Schedule
(Recommendation: Receive for Information)
Members Comments
Proclamation
7.1. International Women's Day - March 8, 2021
91 - 91
Delegations / Presentations
Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m.
9.1. Proposed Zoning ByLaw Amendment - 3396 Loch Lomond Road with PAC
92 - 134
report recommending rezoning (1st and 2nd Reading)
9.2. Zoning By-law and Heritage Conservation Areas By-law Amendments - Fee
135 - 162
Adjustments with Staff Presentation (1st and 2nd Readings)
9.3. Heritage Conservation Area ByLaw Amendment - Site -Specific By -Law
163 - 250
Amendment — 22 Sydney Street with Staff Presentation (1 st and 2nd Reading)
Consideration of By-laws
10.1. Weight Restriction By -Law Amendment on Wentworth Street (1st and 2nd
251 - 254
Reading)
10.2. Plastic Bag By -Law (1 st and 2nd Reading)
255 - 265
Submissions by Council Members
Business Matters - Municipal Officers
12.1. City Manager Update (Verbal)
12.2. Community Grants 2021
266 - 283
Committee Reports
Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
General Correspondence
15.1. Pension Board Letter to Council - Appointment (Recommendation: Refer to
284 - 284
Nominating Committee)
1
15.2. Green Shirt Day 2021 - Raising Awareness and Saving Lives 285 - 285
(Recommendation: Refer to City Manager)
16. Supplemental Agenda
17. Committee of the Whole
17.1. Termination of Contract 2020-04: Sanitary Sewer Structural Lining Phase IV - 286 - 286
Various locations between The City of Saint John and Clean Water Works Inc.
18. Adjournment
3
u
City of Saint John
Common Council Meeting
Monday, March 8, 2021
Committee of the Whole
1. Call to Order
Si vous avez besoin des services en frangais pour une reunion de Conseil communal, veuillez contacter le
bureau du greffier communal au 658-2862.
Each of the following items, either in whole or in part, is able to be discussed in private pursuant to the
provisions of subsection 68(1) of the Local Governance Act and Council / Committee will make a
decision(s) in that respect in Open Session:
4:30 p.m., Meeting Conducted through Electronic Participation
1.1 Approval of Minutes 68(1)
1.2 Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
1.3 Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
1.4 Legal Matter 68(1)(b,f,g)
1.5 Financial Matter 68(1)(c)
Ville de Saint John
Seance du conseil communal
Lundi 8 mars 2021
18h
Reunion organisee par participation electronique
Comite plenier
1. Ouverture de la seance
Si vous souhaitez obtenir des services en frangais pour une seance du conseil communal,
veuillez communiquer avec le bureau du greffier communal au 658-2862.
Chacun des points suivants, en totalite ou en partie, peut faire I'objet d'une discussion en
prive en vertu des dispositions prevues au paragraphe 68(1) de la Loi sur la gouvernance
locale. Le conseil/comite prendra une ou des decisions a cet egard au cours de la seance
publique :
16 h, Reunion tenue avec participation electronique
1.1 Approbation du proces-verbal 68(1)
1.2 Question financiere 68(1)(c)
1.3 Question financiere 68(1)(c)
1.4 Question juridique 68(1)(b, f, g)
1.5 Question financiere 68(1)(c)
Seance ordinaire
1. Ouverture de la seance
2. Approbation du proces-verbal
2.1 Proces-verbal du 22 fevrier 2021
3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour
4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets
5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil
5.1 Services d'ingenierie : Travaux sur le site de Fundy Quay
(Recommandation clans le rapport)
2
5.2 Commission sur le stationnement de Saint John — Nomination de Phillip
McCarthy (Recommandation clans le rapport)
5.3 Utilisation des donnees devaluation fonciere et Accord de confidentialite
(Recommandation clans le rapport)
5.4 Achat d'une unite de pompage a soupape et d'une unite d'excavation
sous vide montees sur remorque (Recommandation clans le rapport)
5.5 Achats pour le remplacement du parc automobile — Mars 2021
(Recommandation clans le rapport)
5.6 Remise a neuf de la digue de mer de Fundy Quay et projet d'ecoulement
des egouts pluviaux —Adjudication de contrats (Recommandation clans le
rapport)
5.7 Achat de peinture pour la voirie (Recommandation in Report)
5.8 Accords sur les services de proximite (Recommandation clans le rapport)
5.9 Calendrier 2021 des appels d'offres pour les projets d'investissement
relatifs au Fonds des services publics d'aqueduc et d'egout et au Fonds
general (categories tempete et transport (Recommandation : Recevoir
de ('information)
5.10 Subventions communautaires 2021 (Recommandation clans le rapport)
6. Commentaires presentes par les membres
7. Proclamation
7.1 Journee internationale de la femme - 8 mars 2021
8. Delegations et presentations
9. Audiences publiques
9.1 Modification proposee a I'arrete de zonage — 3396 chemin Loch Lomond
avec rapport du CCP recommandant le rezonage (Ire et 2e lecture)
9.2 Modifications a I'arrete de zonage et a I'arrete de conservation du
patrimoine — Modification des frais (1re et 2e lecture)
9.3 Modification a I'arrete de conservation du patrimoine — Modification
propre a un site — 22, rue Sydney (1re et 2e lecture)
10. Etude des arretes municipaux
9
10.1 Modification a I'arrete sur les limitations de poids sur la rue Wentworth
(jr' et 2e lecture)
10.2 Arrete sur les sacs de plastique (jr' et 2e lecture)
11. Interventions des membres du conseil
12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux
12.1 Mise a jour du directeur municipal (Verbalement)
13. Rapports deposes par les comites
14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du Bureau
15. Correspondance generale
15.1 Lettre de la Commission des pensions au conseil — Nomination
(Recommandation : soumettre au comite des mises en candidature)
15.2 Journee du gilet vert 2021— Favoriser la sensibilisation et epargner des
vies (Recommandation : soumettre au directeur municipal)
16. Ordre du jour suppiementaire
17. Comite plenier
17.1 Resiliation du contrat 2020-04: Revetement structurel des egouts
sanitaires Phase IV - Divers emplacements entre la ville de Saint John et
Clean Water Works Inc.
18. Levee de la seance
ll
Present:
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
j�
111►Lill 9X.1=:1xeD1We1:i► 1:119111►191
COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
FEBRUARY 22, 2021 AT 6:00 PM
MEETING CONDUCTED BY ELECTRONIC PARTICIPATION
Mayor Don Darling
Deputy Mayor Shirley McAlary
Councillor -at -Large Gary Sullivan
Councillor Ward 1 Blake Armstrong
Councillor Ward 1 Greg Norton
Councillor Ward 2 John MacKenzie
Councillor Ward 3 Donna Reardon
Councillor Ward 3 David Hickey
Councillor Ward 4 David Merrithew
Councillor Ward 4 Ray Strowbridge
Absent: Councillor Ward 2 Sean Casey
Also Present:
City Manager J. Collin
General Counsel M. Tompkins
Fire Chief & Chief Emergency Management Services K. Clifford
Chief of Staff & Chief Financial Officer K. Fudge
Commissioner Human Resources S. Hossack
Commissioner Public Works and Transportation Services M. Hugenholtz
Commissioner Utilities & Infrastructure Services B. McGovern
Commissioner Growth & Community Services J. Hamilton
Director Legislative Services / City Clerk J. Taylor
Deputy City Clerk P. Anglin
Administrative Officer R. Evans
5
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
1. Call to Order.
To conform to the Government COVID-19 State of Emergency and Mandatory Order
isolation and masking requirements during Code Alert Level Orange, Council Members
and staff participated by video conference. The City Clerk conducted roll call, noting
Councillor S. Casey absent.
To ensure public access and transparency the meeting is being video recorded and posted
to the City's website after the meeting has concluded.
1.1 Heritage Awards for 2020
Commissioner Hamilton acknowledged the Heritage Awards for 2020. Referring to the
submitted presentation entitled Heritage Awards for 2020, Ms. J. Watson Chair of the
Heritage Development Board recognized the following award winners:
Award for Storefront Rehabilitation: 62 Water Street Owner Jennifer Irving Photography
Craftsmen: Studio Shirshekar, Legacy Masonry, Avant Garde Construction Management,
Artizan Group
Awards for Local Business Signage:
• The Art Warehouse
Craftsmen: Geof Ramsay, Pamela Pierce, DesignArt Signs
• Juniper
Craftsmen: Chris Tompkins, Flewwelling Press
• Obscurity
Craftsmen: Hannah Cochrane, Barter Signs
Award for Commitment to Craft: Business owners Paul and Rena Chase
Local Historical Place Designation: 153 Watson Street
Moved by Councillor Merrithew, seconded by Deputy Mayor McAlary:
RESOLVED that the Heritage Awards presentation for 2020 be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Minutes of February 8, 2021
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Hickey:
2
n
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 f6vrier 2021
RESOLVED that minutes of February 8, 2021 be approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
3. Approval of Agenda
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Hickey:
RESOLVED that the Agenda for February 8, 2021 be approved with the addition of the
following items:
17.1 Fundy Quay Option Agreement — Final Version of Ground Lease
17.2 Dividend Agreement - Fundy Quay Developments Inc.
17.3 Regional Economic Development Members' Agreement and Funding Agreement
17.4 Settlement of Labour Matter— CUPE Local 486
17.5 Immutable Back -Up Storage Solution —Amazon Web Services Inc.
17.6 Local Governance Act - Council Vacancy Declaration
MOTION CARRIED with Councillor Sullivan voting nay.
4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
5. Consent Agenda
5.1 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
037: Heat Pump Upgrades — TD Station, Common Council approves that the tender
submitted by Select Mechanical Incorporated, for the Heat Pump Upgrades at TD
Station in the amount of $271,000 plus HST be accepted; and further to the base
tender amount, a contingency allowance be carried out for this project in the amount
of $15,000 plus HST, for a total cost of $286,000 plus HST; and that the Mayor and
City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
5.2 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C
2021-036: Sale of City Owned Lot being PID No. 394973 near Sea Street, Common
Council approves that the City of Saint John enter into the Agreement of Purchase and
Sale with Sea Street Manor Ltd. in the form as attached to M&C #2021-036 for the sale of
PID No. 394973, situated near Sea Street; and further that the Mayor and City Clerk be
authorized to execute the documents necessary to effect the conveyance of the subject
property.
5.3 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
040: Local Historic Place, Common Council approves that the building located at 152
Watson Street, PID No. 00362350, and known as the Peters House, is designated as a
Local Historic Place for its architectural and historic contributions to the City of Saint John.
3
N
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 f6vrier 2021
5.4 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report entitled Saint
John Parking Commission: Appointment of B. Wiley, Badge No. 9979 Canadian Corps of
Commissioners as By-law Enforcement Officer, Common Council adopts the following:
WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain by-laws
pursuant to the authority of the Local Governance Act, S.N.B. 2017 C.18, and amendments
thereto, (the "Local Governance Act") including the Saint John Parking By-law Number LG-
8 and amendments thereto:
AND WHEREAS Section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a Council may
appoint by-law enforcement officers for the local government and may determine their
terms of office:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bradley Wiley is hereby appointed as by-law
enforcement officer for the administration and enforcement of the Saint John Parking By-
law which received first and second reading by Common Council on January 13, 2020 and
third reading January 27, 2020, being enacted under the Local Governance Act, effective
immediately, and this authorization shall continue until he ceases to be an employee of
the Saint John Parking Commission or until rescinded by Common Council, whichever
comes first.
5.5 That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2021-
039: Proposed Public Hearing Date — 545 Sandy Point Road and 2400 Ocean Westway,
Common Council approves the public hearings for the rezoning applications of Xiaodu Ge
(545 Sandy Point Road) and the Municipal Plan and rezoning amendments for 2400 Ocean
Westway be scheduled for Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 6:30 p.m.
5.6 That the submitted report M&C2021-046: Adoption of 2015 National Building and
Plumbing Codes and the Building Code Administration Act, be received for information.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that the recommendation set out in each consent agenda item respectively,
be adopted.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Members Comments
7. Proclamations
8. Delegations/Presentations
4
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
8.1 211 Presentations
Referring to the presentation entitled 211, Mischka Jacobs 211 NB Director of Community
Engagement explained the role of the 211 information and referral service for non -
emergency needs funded by the Government of Canada in partnership with the Province
of New Brunswick.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that the 211 presentation be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
9. Public Hearings 6:30 PM
10. Consideration of Bylaws
10.1 Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — 2400 Ocean Westway
Commissioner Hamilton introduced the report entitled Proposed Municipal Plan
Amendment - 2400 Ocean Westway recommending Council move forward with the public
process to enable an access road to an existing quarry. There were no submissions
received from the public during the 30-day public review period. Staff recommends the
application be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and set a Public Hearing
date for April 6tn
Moved by Councillor Armstrong, seconded by Councillor Norton:
RESOLVED that the proposed Municipal Plan By -Law Amendment regarding 2400 Ocean
Westway be referred to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report and
recommendation and the necessary advertising be authorized with a Public Hearing to be
held on Tuesday, April 61", 2021 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber.
MOTION CARRIED.
10.2 Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment — 2100 Sandy Point Road (Ethos Ridge)
Commissioner Hamilton introduced the report entitled Proposed Municipal Plan
amendment — 2100 Sandy Point Road (Ethos Ridge) recommending Council move forward
with the public process to consider the Ethos Ridge development. Considerable public
input has been received during the 30-day public review period. It is recommended
Council refer the report and public submissions to the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC)
and schedule a dedicated Public Hearing for March 29tn
Moved by Councillor Reardon, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
RESOLVED that:
5
9
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
1. Common Council schedule the public hearing for the Plan Amendment and
Rezoning application (2100 Sandy Point Road — PID 55233977 and a portion of
55233233) for a Common Council meeting of Monday, March 29, 2021 at 6:30
p.m. and refer the application to the Planning Advisory Committee for a report
and recommendation; and,
2. That Common Council receive and file the submissions from the 30-day review
period for the Municipal Plan Amendment and Rezoning at 2100 Sandy Point Road
and forward to staff and the Planning Advisory Committee to be considered
through the application process.
IL IQIIQ0KK9ilk] ilk] I:19a
10.3 Zoning BV-Law Amendment — 0 Eldersley Avenue with Section 59 Conditions (3ra
Readingl
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-105, A Law to Amend the
Zoning By -Law of the City of Saint John" rezoning a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 20,347 square metres, located at 0 Eldersley Avenue, also identified as PID
Number 00471359, from Environmental Protection (EP) to Rural (RU), be read.
MOTION CARRIED.
The by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-105, A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law
of the City of Saint John", was read in its entirety.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the
Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on the parcel of land having an
area of approximately 20,350 square metres, located at 0 Eldersley Avenue, also
identified as PID Number 00471359:
(a) No development be permitted within any portion of the property that falls within a
regulatory buffer surrounding a public drinking water supply.
(b) No development be permitted where permanent access cannot be achieved from
Eldersley Avenue.
(c) Written permission from Saint John Water, or its successor, must be provided should
any access, temporary or otherwise, be sought or otherwise developed from Pipeline
Road East.
I
10
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
(d) The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with detailed building
elevation and site plans, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the
Development Officer, illustrating the design and location of buildings and structures,
garbage enclosures, outdoor storage, driveway accesses, vehicle and bicycle parking,
loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site
features; and
(e) The above elevation and site plans be attached to the permit application for the
development of the parcel of land.
MOTION CARRIED.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-105, A Law to Amend the
Zoning By -Law of the City of Saint John" rezoning a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 20,347 square metres, located at 0 Eldersley Avenue, also identified as PID
Number 00471359, from Environmental Protection (EP) to Rural (RU), be read a third
time, enacted, and the Corporate Common Seal affixed thereto.
IL IQIIQ0KIYAall ilk] I111a
Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-105, A Law to
Amend the Zoning By -Law of the City of Saint John."
10.4 Parking By -Law Amendment — Ticket Increases (3rd Reading)
Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Deputy Mayor McAlary:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number LG-8, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law
respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto"
repealing and replacing Subsection 8(1); Section 17; and Subsection 18(2), relating to an
increase to parking ticket violations, be read.
MOTION CARRIED.
The by-law entitled, "By -Law Number LG-8, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law respecting the
Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto", was read in its
entirety.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Sullivan:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number LG-8, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law
respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto"
repealing and replacing Subsection 8(1); Section 17; and Subsection 18(2), relating to an
increase to parking ticket violations, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate
Common Seal affixed thereto.
7
11
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
MOTION CARRIED.
Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number LG-8, A By -Law to Amend
a By -Law respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments
thereto.
10.5 Traffic By -Law Amendment — Ticket Increase (3rd Readin
Moved by Councillor Merrithew, seconded by Councillor MacKenzie:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1, A By -Law to Amend a By -
Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto",
repealing and replacing Subsections 27(1) and 27(2); and Subsection 28(2), relating to an
increase to parking ticket violations, be read.
IL IQ IIQ0[o1e1ilk] ilk] 1110a
The by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1, A By -Law to Amend a By -Law respecting
the Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto", was read in its
entirety.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Hickey:
RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1, A By -Law to Amend a By -
Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto",
repealing and replacing Subsections 27(1) and 27(2); and Subsection 28(2), relating to an
increase to parking ticket violations, be read a third time, enacted, and the Corporate
Common Seal affixed thereto.
MOTION CARRIED.
Read a third time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number MV-10.1, A By -Law to
Amend a By -Law respecting the Traffic on Streets in the City of Saint John and
amendments thereto."
11. Submissions by Council Members
12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers
12.1 City Manager Update (Verbal)
The City Manager commented on three items:
• Cyberattack — Forensics indicate there has been no significant breach of police
files or Personally Identifiable Information (PPI). The vast majority of data will be
0
12
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
recovered from backup devices. There will be no payment of ransom to the threat
actor.
• COVID-19 Orange Phase — Compliance in the City is good but not perfect. In the
current Orange level, masks are required in outdoor public spaces in addition to
indoor public spaces. Outdoor public places include any location where people
gather and physical distancing cannot be guaranteed, such as
sidewalks, public walking trails, parks, markets, and playgrounds.
• Cherry Brook Zoo Location Expression of Interest is open until March 31.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor MacKenzie:
RESOLVED that the City Manager verbal update be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
12.2 Fundy Quay Protect Launch
Commissioner McGovern advised Council of the launch of the Fundy Quay Project.
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C 2021-049: Fundy Quay — Project Launch
J. Cyr Director Real Estate Initiatives with the New Regional Economic Development
Agency for Greater Saint John informed Council the project funding is secured and the
development of the infrastructure improvements to transform the waterfront will now
be implemented.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that the submitted report M&C 2021-049: Fundy Quay — Project Launch be
received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
12.3 Utility and General Fund — Revised 2021 Capital Programs
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C 2021-052: Utility and General Fund —
Revised 2021 Capital Programs Commissioner McGovern advised on the necessary
revisions to the 2021 Capital budgets as funding was reallocated due to the City's revised
Bilateral Funding Program submission as well as funding for one of the City's catalytic
projects — Fundy Quay.
Moved by Councillor Reardon, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report entitled
M&C 2021-052: Utility and General Fund — Revised Capital Programs, Common Council
approve the revised 2021 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Budget in the amount
9
13
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
of $12,086,000 (gross) with contributions from other sources of $5,840,000 yielding a net
capital budget in the amount of $6,246,000 to be funded by pay as you go (net) as set in
Appendix A.; and further, the revised 2021 General Fund Capital Budget in the amount of
$44,960,683 (gross) with contributions from other sources of $29, 093,083, yielding a net
Capital budget in the amount of $15,867,600 to be funded by debt issue (net) as set in
Appendix B, be approved.
MOTION CARRIED.
12.4 Architectural Services: Loyalist Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour Passage Extension
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C2021-045: Architectural Services: Loyalist
Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour Passage Extension, Commissioner McGovern reviewed the
financing arrangements and the process undertaken when reviewing the submissions for
the award of architectural services.
Jeff Cyr, Director Real Estate Initiatives New Saint John Regional Economic Development
Agency, stated the Fundy Quay public space improvements are part of a broader project
to transform Saint John's urban waterfront.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Hickey:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C2021-
045: Architectural Services: Loyalist Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour Passage Extension,
Common Council approve the proposal submitted by the Glenn Group, for Architectural
Services for the revitalization of Loyalist Plaza and Extension of Harbour Passage along
the Fundy Quay, in the amount of $1,401,925.00 plus HST (including a contingency
allowance in the amount of $150,000.00); and that the Mayor and City Clerk be
authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
MOTION CARRIED.
12.5 Engineering Services — Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main
Upgrades/Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades
Referring to the submitted report M&C 2021-047: Engineering Services — Coleson Cove
Raw Water Transmission Main Upgrades/Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility
Upgrades, Commissioner McGovern advised the Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission
Main Upgrades was not part of the original 2021 Capital Program. Due to the asset
management inspection and the reprioritization of priorities the work is recommended
to be added through the revised 2021 Utility Capital Budget as an industrial water project
that would be covered solely by the industrial customer this pipe serves. The Lancaster
Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades was also not part of the original 2021 Capital
Program but due to the asset management inspection the work is recommended to be
added through the revised 2021 Utility Capital Budget. Typically, the Request for Proposal
10
14
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
method requires a period of 7 to 8 weeks for each substantial project. Direct Engagement
provides the City the opportunity to identify consulting firms best equipped to complete
the designs in a timely manner and significantly reduces the administrative time which is
inherent with a traditional call for proposals. The direct engagement process also affords
the City staff to fine-tune the details of the engagement to achieve the best value for
money for the City.
City Engineer M. Baker advised that provided an acceptable agreement can be reached
with CBCL Limited and Englobe, subsequent reports would be submitted to Council
identifying the negotiated fees for the engineering services required and requesting
Council's approval to engage CBCL Limited and Englobe.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C2021-
047: Engineering Services — Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main
Upgrades/Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades, notwithstanding the
City's Procurement Policy for Engagement of Professional Services, Common Council
authorize staff to conduct direct negotiations with CBCL Limited and Englobe to carry
out engineering services for the following projects:
• Coleson Cove Raw Water Transmission Main Upgrades (CBCL Limited)
• Lancaster Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrades (Englobe)
MOTION CARRIED.
12.6 Conditional Amendment to the Grant Agreement of the Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment Methodology
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C2021-038: Conditional Amendment to the
Grant Agreement of the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Methodology,
Commissioner McGovern advised that the project is approximately 65% finished with the
expectation to be completed by March 2021. However, due to COVID-19 and the recent
cyberattack on the City network, City staff has requested FCM for an extension to the
deadline. Many municipalities have requested the same extension. Currently FCM is
working with infrastructure Canada to extend the submission date for our project and
other projects across Canada beyond March 31, 2021.
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C2021-
038: Conditional Amendment to the Grant Agreement of the Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment Methodology, Common Council approve the Conditional Amendment to
the Grant Agreement of the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Methodology
in the form attached to this report and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to execute same.
11
15
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
MOTION CARRIED.
12.7 Redesiened Website saintiohn.ca
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C 2021-043: Redesigned Website
saintjohn.ca, Lead Manager City Website Project S. Ranson advised the new website
site "saintjohn.ca" has been redesigned and is launching February 22, 2021. The design is
from a customer perspective and includes easy access to City services, contacts, and
community information. The site has been designed to position the City for growth by
expanding growth -related information.
Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Strowbridge:
RESOLVED that the submitted report M&C 2021-043: Redesigned Website
saintjohn.ca, be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
13. Committee Reports
13.1 Finance Committee: Safe Restart Funding Program
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C 2021-041: Safe Restart Funding Program
Councillor Merrithew advised that the City received an additional $3,688,373 Safe Restart
Funding to offset potential future revenue losses due to COVID-19. This funding is in
addition to the $400,000 the City received for Transit and $3,376,725 received for
increased expenses and loss revenue the City and Saint John Water incurred due to
COVID-19 in 2020.
Moved by Councillor Reardon, seconded by Deputy Mayor McAlary:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the Finance Committee in the submitted report M&C
2021-041: Safe Restart Funding Program, Common Council approve the transfer
of $3,668,373.08 Safe Restart Funding to the General Fund Operating Reserve to be
utilized to offset potential future revenue losses due to COVID-19.
MOTION CARRIED.
13.2 Finance Committee: Assessment GaD Adiustment (P-Ga
Referring to the submitted report entitled M&C 2021-054: Assessment Gap Adjustment
(P-Gap), Councillor Merrithew advised that the Province of New Brunswick recently
announced the elimination of the property assessment gap (P-Gap). The resulting impact
on the financial operating budget for 2022 includes a 1.5 cent tax rate reduction.
12
16
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Norton:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the Finance Committee in the submitted report M&C
2021- 054: Assessment Gap Adjustment (P-Gap), Common Council approves the
allocation of $1,000,000 to the Tax Rate Reduction Reserve and that the reserve be used
to reduce the City of Saint John tax rate in the year 2022 by 1.5 cents to $1.77 as part of
the 2022 General Operating Budget.
MOTION CARRIED.
14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda
15. General Correspondence
15.1 Jervis Bav-Ross Memorial Park (Recommendation: Receive for Information
Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Deputy Mayor McAlary:
RESOLVED that the letter from Harold E. Wright regarding Jervis Bay -Ross Memorial Park
be received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
15.2 M. Wallace: Street Renamine (Recommendation: Receive for Information
Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that the submitted report entitled Street Renaming from Matthew Wallace be
received for information.
MOTION CARRIED.
15.3 Rogue Coffee: Opposition to Parking Ticket Increase (Recommendation: Receive
for Information)
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
RESOLVED that the submitted report entitled Rogue Coffee: Opposition to Parking Ticket
Increase be received for information.
16. Supplemental Agenda
17. Committee of the Whole
17.1 Fundy Quay Option Agreement — Final Version of Ground Lease
13
17
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor MacKenzie:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole having met on February
22, 2021 Common Council approves that the final version of the Ground Lease
contemplated at Schedule B the Option to Lease Agreement entered into on December
19t", 2019 between the City and Fundy Quay Developments Inc. be approved in the form
as attached to M&C No. 2021-055, pursuant to section 2.2 of the said Option to Lease
Agreement.
MOTION CARRIED.
17.2 Dividend Agreement with Fundy Quay Developments Inc.
The City Manager explained the Provincial funding arrangement for any dividend flow to
the Province from the Developer will be assisted by the City acting as the flow through
agent.
Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole having met on February
22, 2021 Common Council approves the following:
1. That the City enter into an Agreement with the Regional Development Corporation for
the repayment of the Regional Development Corporation's contribution toward the
construction of the seawall on the Fundy Quay site in the form as presented to Committee
of the Whole at its February 22, 2021 meeting; and
2. That the City enter into a Dividend Agreement with Fundy Quay Developments Inc. for
the repayment of the Regional Development Corporation's contribution toward the
construction of the seawall on the Fundy Quay site in the form as presented to Committee
of the Whole at its February 22, 2021 meeting.
MOTION CARRIED.
17.3 New Regional Economic Development Agency for Greater Saint John Members'
Agreement and Regional Economic Development Funding Agreement
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole having met on February
22, 2021 Common Council approves the following:
1. Approve the Members' Agreement and Funding Agreement detailed in M&C 2021-
050 Schedules "A" and "B" between the City of Saint John and the New Regional
Economic Development Agency for Greater Saint John to support delivery of
economic development services: and
2. Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the said agreements.
14
Em
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
MOTION CARRIED with Councillor Armstrong voting nay.
17.4 Settlement of Labour Matter — CUPE Local 486
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Armstrong:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole having met on February
22, 2021 Common Council approves the full and final settlement of a labour matter
involving a former employee of the City previously identified by Employee No. XXXX in
exchange for the lump sum payment of $80,000 (less the withholding of applicable
statutory deductions) and subject to the execution by said former employee and by CUPE
Local 486 of a Full and Final Release in a form that is satisfactory to the General Counsel
or her designate.
IL IQIII:Q0EW1ilk] ilk] 1I19a
17.5 Immutable Back -Up Storage Solution —Amazon Web Services Inc. - AWS
Enterprise Agreement and Amendment No 1 to AWS Enterprise Agreement
Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Councillor Reardon:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole having met on February
22, 2021 Common Council approves the City enter into an AWS Enterprise Agreement and
Amendment No. 1 to AWS Enterprise Agreement with Amazon Web Services, Inc. to
provide virtual server instances and cloud -based storage in the form attached to M&C
2021-052; and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary
contract documents.
MOTION CARRIED.
17.6 Local Governance Act - Council Vacancv Declaration
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor Merrithew:
WHEREAS Ward 2 Councillor Sean Casey has been absent from the following four
consecutive regular meetings of the council, namely: January 11, 2021; January 28, 2021;
February 8, 2021; and February 22, 2021; and
WHEREAS Councillor Casey did not indicate that his absences were a result of illness; and
WHEREAS Common Council did not authorize Councillor Casey's absences; and
WHEREAS s. 50(1)(g) of the Local Governance Act provides that a vacancy results in a
council when a member is absent from four or more consecutive regular meetings of the
council, except in the case of illness or with the authorization of the council; and
15
19
COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL
February 22, 2021 / le 22 fevrier 2021
WHEREAS s. 51(1) of the Local Governance Act provides that a council shall by resolution
within 2 months after a vacancy arises, declare any vacancy resulting under s. 50(1)(b) to
(h):
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Saint John Common Council declares a vacancy on
council in Ward 2 of the City of Saint John effective February 23, 2021 as a result of
Councillor Sean Casey having been absent for four consecutive regular meetings without
authorization of Council.
MOTION CARRIED.
18. Adjournment
Moved by Deputy Mayor McAlary, seconded by Councillor MacKenzie:
RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on February 22, 2021 be adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
16
20
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-064
Report Date
February 24, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Engineering Services: Site Works — Fundy Quay
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Jeffrey Cyr
Brent McGovern
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the proposal submitted by Dillon Consulting Inc., for
Engineering Services for the Fundy Quay Site Works, in the amount of $438,780
plus HST (including a contingency allowance in the amount of $100,000), be
accepted. Additionally, it is recommended that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to award the Engineering
Services: Site Works — Fundy Quay, to Dillon Consulting Inc.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
In February of 2021, Common Council approved the award of Architectural Services:
Loyalist Plaza & Fundy Quay Harbour Passage Extension project.
REPORT
The City of Saint John has received financial support from the Province of New
Brunswick and Infrastructure Canada under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure
Program for a suite of projects associated with the Fundy Quay and surrounding
infrastructure. This is part of a larger initiative to transform Saint John's urban
waterfront through strategic infrastructure renewal, public space improvements,
and private sector development. As part of this project and the City's agreement
with Fundy Quay Developments Inc., the City is responsible for delivering a
development ready site, which includes addressing some of the soil contamination
on -site and regrading the elevation of the Fundy Quay.
To complete the site improvements to the Fundy Quay, the City released an RFP
21
IrAN
for engineering services in January of 2021. This process was managed by the
supply chain management service, who supported the procurement process and
the review of proposals. The successful proponent for this work was Dillon
Consulting Inc., whose proposal was ranked the highest by the evaluation team
based on an overall rating of the evaluation criteria as well as offering a
competitive cost for the work.
Dillon Consulting Inc. will work closely with City project team and key stakeholders
to perform the following scope of work:
➢ Part A: Background Information, Preliminary Investigation,
Engineering Analysis, and Regulatory Approvals Process
➢ Part B: Engineering Development Plan
➢ Part C: Concept Design & Plans
➢ Part D: Consultation
➢ Part E: Detailed Design & Tender Documents
➢ Part F: Tender Period Services, Materials Testing, & Inspection, Red
Books and Record Drawings
➢ Part G: Construction Management
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This project aligns with Council's priorities of Growth & Prosperity and Vibrant,
Safe City.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Funding for this project is provided by the Provincial and Federal Governments
through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) in the amount of
approximately $10.45 Million (82%) with the remainder funds provided by the
2021 City of Saint John General Capital program. The costs for Phase A, B, C, D, E
& F are based on a fixed price. Costs for Phase G are based on estimated number
of hours for each phase as identified in the City Request for Proposal. It is expected
that this project will move forward in phases in 2021 and 2022.
The Fundy Quay site works are part of a broader project to transform Saint John's
urban waterfront, with an agreement for private sector development on the
Fundy Quay site, creating a strong business case for the project. The Ground Lease
with Fundy Quay Developments is based on a maximum value of $6.45M and will
generate initial lease payments of $250,000 annually until purchased. The
development of the site is anticipated to generate $2M -$3M in annual property
tax revenue at full build -out and securing the development has been instrumental
22
-3-
in the approval of an additional $15M in federal and provincial infrastructure
investments.
❑Pll�jrya�]��L���,1�:�9�:,�I[���►:7�F��►PI��3r1:1�:[�1��7�:�9
Supply Chain Management facilitated the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to
solicit proposals for Engineering Services: Site Works — Fundy Quay.
As such the RFP closed on Thursday, February 11, 2021 with six (6) proponents
responding as follows:
• Dillon Consulting Inc.
• Fundy Engineering & Consulting Ltd.
• Englobe
• CBCL Limited
• Gemtec Consulting Engineers and Scientists Limited
• Exp Services Inc.
A review committee, consisting of staff from Supply Chain Management, Facility
Management, Utilities and Infrastructure, and New Regional Economic
Development Agency for Greater Saint John (NREDAGSJ) reviewed the
submissions for completeness and compliance with the RFP requirements and
selection criteria consisting of the following:
1. Quality and Completeness
2. Consultant's Experience
3. Experience of the Employees / Sub -Consultants
4. Methodology
5. Value Added
6. Schedule and Availability
7. Cost
In accordance with the City's standard procedures, the committee members
evaluated and ranked each proposal based on the proposals' technical merits.
Following this, the financial proposals were opened and evaluated, and
corresponding scores were added to the technical scores.
The Dillon Consulting Inc. proposal was ranked the highest based on an overall
rating of the evaluation criteria as well as offering a competitive cost acceptable
to staff.
The above processes are in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and
Supply Chain Management support the recommendations being put forth.
N/A
23
Saint John
Parking Commission
Commission sur le
stationnement de Saint John
March 8, 2021
Jonathan Taylor
Common Clerk
City of Saint John
3rd Floor, City Hall
Saint John, NB
SAINT JOHN TRANSIT �'
Dear Mr. Taylor,
Re: Appointment of Dylan Domres, Badge No 99$ZCanadian Corps of Commissionalres as
By-law Enforcement Officer under Saint John Parking By -Law
We are requesting that the following resolution be presented to Common Council for approval:
RESOLVED, that as recommended by the City Manager, the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain by-laws pursuant
To the authority of the Local Governance Act, S.N.B. 2017 C.18, and amendments thereto, (the
"Local GovernanceAcr) including the Saint John Parking By -low Number LG-8 and amendments
thereto;
AND WHEREAS Section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may be
appointed as a by-law enforcement officer for the local government and may determine their
terms of office;
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that Dylan Domres, is hereby appointed as by-law
enforcement officer for the administration and enforcement of the Saint John Porking By-law
which received first and second reading by Common Council on January 11, 2021 and third
reading January 25, 2021, being enacted under the Local Governance Act, effective immediately,
and this authorization shall continue until he ceases to be an employee of the Saint John Parking
Commission or until rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first.
Yours truly,
,I L L.4i
Marc Dionne
General Manager
Saint John Parking & Transit Commission
111 Floor City Hall, P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, NB, E2L 4L1 *Tel (506) 632 7275 *Email
parking@saintjohn.ca
11 th Floor, City Hall, P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, N.B. E2L 4L1 -Tel: (506) 632-7275 • E-mail: parking@saintjohn.ca
11 iisme image, H6tel de Ville, C.P.1971, Saint John, N.-B. E2L 4L1 •Tdl: (506) 632-7275 - Courriel: parking@saintjohn.ca
www.saintjohr2wo/parking
Saint John
Parking Commission
Commission our Is
stationnement de Saint John
March 8, 2021
Jonathan Taylor
Common Clerk
City of Saint John
3`11 Floor, City Hall
Saint John, NB
Dear Mr. Taylor,
SAINT ]OHN TRANSIT
Re: Appointment of Philip McCarthy. Badge No. q4$t Canadian Corps of Commissionalres
as By-law Enforcement Officer under Saint John Parking By -Law
We are requesting that the following resolution be presented to Common Council for approval:
RESOLVED, that as recommended by the City Manager, the following resolution be adopted:
WHEREAS the Common Council of The City of Saint John has enacted certain by-laws pursuant
To the authority of the Local Governance Act, S.N.B. 2017 C.18, and amendments thereto, (the
"Local Governance Act") including the Saintlohn Parking By-law Number LG-8 and amendments
thereto;
AND WHEREAS Section 72 of the Local Governance Act provides that a council may be
appointed as a by-law enforcement officer for the local government and may determine their
terms of office;
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, that Philip McCarthy, is hereby appointed as by-law
enforcement officer for the administration and enforcement of the Saint Jahn Parking By-law
which received first and second reading by Common Council on January 11, 2021 and third
reading January 25, 2021, being enacted under the Local Governance Act, effective immediately,
and this authorization shall continue until he ceases to be an employee of the Saint John Parking
Commission or until rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first.
Yours truly,
ap- � ok
Marc Dionne
General Manager
Saint John Parking & Transit Commission
111 Floor City Hail, P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, NB, E21. 41.1 *Tel (506) 632 7275 *Email
parking@saintjohn.ca
11th Floor, City Hall, P.Q. Box 1971, Saint John, N.B. E2L 41-1 -Tel: (506) 632-7275 • E-mail: parking@saintjohn.ca
11 i6me kage, Fl6tel de Mile, C.P. 1971, Saint John, N.-B. E2L 41-1 -T6I: (506) 632-7275 - Courriel: parking@saintjohn.ca
www.saintjohW/parking
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-058
Report Date
March 02, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Property Assessment Data Use and Confidentiality Agreement
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Yves Leger
Brent McGovern/Michael
Baker
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
RESOLVED That the City enter into a Data Use and Confidentiality Agreement with
Service New Brunswick for the right to use property assessment information as
described therein in the form attached to M&C No. 2021-058; and that the Mayor
and Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to enter into a Data Use
and Confidentiality agreement with Service New Brunswick for the right to keep
receiving monthly property assessment data, until October 2021. Service New
Brunswick representatives indicated that they expect to have a longer -term
agreement for municipalities to sign, at that time.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
N/A
REPORT
The City has been receiving property assessment information monthly updates, in
electronic format, from Service New Brunswick for over 20 years. In addition to
assessed values of properties, assessment information is the primary source for
property owners' mailing addresses, among other information used by the City on
a regular basis. This information is crucial to many City operations and is necessary
for the planning and delivery of municipal services.
Last year, Service New Brunswick informed municipalities that, because of privacy
concerns, they would no longer provide assessment data to municipalities in
electronic format. After many discussions between municipal and Service New
26
-2-
Brunswick representatives and explaining how crucial this information is to
municipalities, Service New Brunswick agreed to resume providing the assessment
information monthly updates on the condition that municipalities sign a data use
and confidentiality agreement, valid until the end of October 2021 (see
attachment). Service New Brunswick representatives indicated that they expect
to have a longer -term agreement for municipalities to sign, at that time.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
Given up-to-date property assessment information is crucial for many City
operations and the delivery of municipal services, signing this agreement aligns
with Council's Priority for Growth & Prosperity and Valued Service Delivery.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
There is no cost associated with signing this agreement.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The City's General Counsel Department has reviewed the agreement, which
appears to be a standard form used by Service New Brunswick with all
municipalities and no concerns have been identified.
ATTACHMENTS
Data Use and Confidentiality Agreement
27
•
Service
Nouveau Brunswick
DATA USE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made in duplicate as of the 25 of October 2020 until 24 of October 2021.
Service New Brunswick,
a Crown corporation with head offices at 850 Lincoln Road,
Fredericton, NB E313 4Z7
(hereafter called "SNB")
OF THE FIRST PART
-and-
City of Saint John,
15 Market Square, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 41-1
A body corporate located in the County of Saint John and
incorporated under the laws and regulations of the
Province of New Brunswick.
(hereafter called "Saint John")
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS pursuant to section 23(4.1) of the Assessment Act, the Director may release information
contained in the real property assessment list to any person or body that the Director considers
appropriate if the person to whom the information or documentation is released agrees in writing
that the information or documentation will be restricted to use in the assessment functions of that
government.
AND WHEREAS the parties are entering into this agreement whereby Saint John will be supplied with
certain Confidential Information belonging to SNB for the purpose of performing city business
functions and delivering municipal services.
AND WHEREAS for the purpose of preventing the unauthorized disclosure of Confidential
Information as defined below, the parties agree to enter into a confidential relationship with respect
to the disclosure of this Confidential Information.
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this
agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:
Page 1 of 4
1. (a) Definition of Confidential Information. For purpose of this Agreement, "Confidential
Information" includes but is not limited to any documents, instructions, guidelines, data, material,
advice or any other information whether received orally, in printed form, recorded electronically, or
otherwise and whether or not labeled as proprietary or confidential that is disclosed to Saint John.
(b) Exclusion From Confidential Information. Saint John's obligations under this Agreement
do not extend to information that is:
(i) publicly known at the time of disclosure or subsequently becomes publicly known through
no fault of Saint John;
(ii) discovered or created by Saint John before disclosure by SNB;
(iii) learned by Saint John through legitimate means other than from SNB or SNB's
representatives; or
(iv) is disclosed by Saint John with SNB's prior written approval.
2. The parties acknowledge that each is bound by the provisions of privacy legislation in force
from time to time with respect to the provision of this Agreement, including but not limited to
the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act c. R-10.6; or any other applicable privacy
legislation in effect from time to time.
3. The Confidential Information is provided on an "as is" basis and SNB makes no representations
or warranties whatsoever with respect to the Information, whether expressed or implied, in
relation to the Information and expressly disclaims any implied warranty of merchantability or
fitness for a particular purpose.
Obligations of Saint John.
4. (a) Strict Confidence. Saint John shall hold and maintain the Confidential Information in strictest
confidence. Saint John shall carefully restrict access to Confidential Information to parties with a
"need -to -know", or in response to a subpoena, warrant, order, or demand of a Canadian court of
law.
(b) Use. Saint John shall use the Confidential Information only for the purpose of performing city
business functions and delivering municipal services.
Saint John shall not, without prior written approval of SNB, use for Saint John's own benefit,
publish, copy or otherwise disclose to others, or permit the use by others for their benefit or to the
detriment of SNB, any Confidential Information.
(c) Notification. Saint John shall notify SNB's Property Assessment Services Director of Gama
and System Support immediately upon discovery of any unauthorized use or disclosure of
Confidential Information or any other breach of this Agreement. Saint John will cooperate with
SNB in every reasonable way to help SNB regain possession of the Confidential Information and
prevent its further unauthorized use or disclosure, and to cooperate with SNB's investigation of the
circumstances surrounding its loss.
5. Time Periods. The parties agree that this Agreement shall begin on the date of signing. The
nondisclosure provisions of the Agreement shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
6. Relationships. Nothing contained in the Agreement shall be deemed to constitute the Service
Provider an employee of SNB for any purpose.
29
7. No Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any rights or obligations hereunder, in whole or in part,
may be assigned by a party without the prior written consent of the other party.
8. Severability. If a court finds any provision of this Agreement invalid or unenforceable, the
remainder of this Agreement shall be interpreted so as best to affect the intent of the parties.
9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement expresses the complete understanding of the parties with
respect to the subject matter and supersedes all prior proposals, agreements, representations
and understandings. This Agreement may not be amended except in a writing signed by both
parties.
10. Applicable Law. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the Province of New
Brunswick and the federal laws of Canada. The parties submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts of the Province of New Brunswick.
11. Waiver. A waiver must be made in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived or
consented. Such waiver and consent will not be considered a waiver of any other right. Any waiver
does not prevent the party who has waived from insisting on compliance at a later date.
12. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, which
together shall constitute one instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature
page of this Agreement by facsimile or electronically shall be effective as delivery of a
manually executed counterpart of this Agreement.
Service New Brunswick
Name: Stephen Walsh
Title: PAS System Support Manager
City of Saint John
Name: Don Darling
Title: Mayor
Name: Jonathan Taylor
Title: Common Clerk
30
•
Service
Nouveau Brunswick
Schedule "A" — Data to be Provided by SNB to Saint John
Data Being Shared
FOR THE REGIONS OF SAINT JOHN AND KINGS COUNTY;
REGION, PAN, OWNER_1, OWNER 2, ADDRESS_1, ADDRESS_2, POSTAL_COD,P_LOCATION, P_DESCRIPTION,
P_TYPE_COD, SEQ-NUMBER, PID, PID2, PID_OVERFL, MAP -SHEET, TAX _AUTH, NBHD_CODE, TAX -CLASS, CURB ASSMT,
TAX_CREDIT, SUBUNIT, VOL_NUM_1, PAG_NUM_1, DOC_NUM_1, TRAN_DAT_1, TRAN_TYP_1, VOL_NUM_2,
DOC_NUM_2, TRAN_DAT_2, TRAN_TYP_2, VOL_NUM_3, PAG_NUM_3, DOC_NUM_3, TRAN_DAT_3, TRAN_TYP_3,
YEAR _FIRST, STATUS, L_TYP_HOLD, SPEC_ID_CO, NUM_UNITS, FLIP _CODE, COUNTY, CUR_NT_LEV, CUR_BIA_TX,
BLDG_CLASS, BLDG_AGE, P_TYP_CD2, P_TYP_CD3, P_TYP_CD4, P_TYP_CDS, P_TYP_CD6, P_TYP_CD7, P_TYP_CDB,
P_TYP_CD9, P_TYP_CD10, STOREY -HT, RES_ASSMT, NRES_ASSMT, CRED_PORT
31
r li I. I I'
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-061
Report Date
March 02, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT. Procurement of a Trailer Mounted Combination Valve Exerciser and
Vacuum Excavation Unit
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Kendall Mason
J. Brent McGovern
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Common Council award the purchase of a Trailer Mounted
Combination Valve Exerciser and Vacuum Excavation Unit at a total cost of
$117,205.00 plus HST to Saunders Equipment Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Saint John Water is committed to reliably providing safe, clean drinking water to
all users, protecting the environment by effectively treating wastewater and
ensuring industry has the raw water required to meet their operational needs.
Asset Management and preventive maintenance are key to ensuring the water
Utility's infrastructure can deliver those services reliably and an effective valve
maintenance program is critical to delivering the drinking water and industrial
water services. SJ Water is working toward strengthening its valve exercising
program by purchasing a Trailer Mounted Combination Valve Exerciser and
Vacuum Excavation Unit that will allow for the exercising of over 8,300 valves in
the water system. This is an approved operational budgeted item, and the
recommended purchase is less than the amount budgeted.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
On December 7, 2020, Common Council approved the 2021 Utility Fund Operating
Budget.
32
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This report aligns with Council's Priority for Valued Service Delivery, specifically as
it relates to investing in sustainable City services and municipal infrastructure.
REPORT
Saint John Water has over 8,300 valves ranging in size from 4 inch to 60-inch valves
throughout the potable water system and industrial water transmission systems.
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) states that a water distribution
system shall have a valve exercising program that follows the American Water
Works Association Manual M44.
A valve exercising program is a systematic program to locate and exercise water
valves to ensure that valves function/operate properly. AWWA states that each
valve should be operated through a full cycle and returned to its normal position
on a schedule that is designed to prevent a buildup of turbulation or other
deposits that could render the valve inoperable or prevent a tight shut-off.
Valves are an integral part of the water distribution system and industrial
transmission system. The benefits of a valve exercising program are significant
particularly during an emergency event. At all times it is important to have valves
accessible and operational. A valve exercising program provides many benefits to
the Utility and its customers.
Shown in Figure 1. is the Trailer Mounted Combination Valve Exerciser and
Vacuum Excavation Unit from E.H. Wachs and retailed by Saunders Equipment Ltd.
This unit is utilized by water utilities across North America to perform
maintenance on water valves. The trailer is designed to provide the water crew
with the tools required to perform a variety of water valve maintenance (hydro -
excavation and valve turning).
1
Figure 1. Trailer Mounted Combination Valve Exerciser and Vacuum Excavation Unit —
E.H. Wachs
33
Z-
Figure 2. Above is the Trailer Mounted Combination Valve Exerciser and Vacuum
Excavation Unit with the ERV-750 valve exerciser extended turning a valve off the street.
It comes completed with a vacuum system and a 250-gallon (946 L) debris holding tank.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The purchase of a Valve Maintenance Trailer is a planned purchase to support the
Utilities increasing efforts of asset management and preventative maintenance of
water infrastructure that supports potable and industrial customers.
The purchase of the Valve Maintenance Trailer was included in the approved 2021
Utility Operating budget. A total of $130,000 was included in the 2021 Utility
Operating Budget, therefore, the quoted amount has come in under budget. This
asset, upon purchase, will be included in Fleet Services Asset Reserve Program,
with the future replacement being funded via monthly payments from the Utility
Operating Budget.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Input from Supply Chain Management
A public tender call was issued for One (1) New Trailer Mounted Combination
Valve Exerciser and Vacuum Excavation Unit by the Town of Riverview and closed
on January 28, 2021. One (1) company responded to the tender call by submitting
a bid. The results are as follows (excluding HST):
Bidder Price
Saunders Equipment Ltd. $117,205.00 + HST
In addition, staff of Supply Chain Management have reviewed the Town of
Riverview's tender document and are satisfied that the City of Saint John's
obligations under the Province of New Brunswick's Procurement Act and
Regulation have been satisfied. Additionally, staff believe that the low tenderer
can supplythe equipment as required and recommend acceptance oftheirtender.
34
The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Supply
Chain Management support the recommendation being put forth.
Input from Fleet Services
Staff of Fleet Services have reviewed the tender and are satisfied the tender
submission meets the requirements of Saint John Water.
Input from the City of Moncton
Saint John Water contacted the City of Moncton and received a positive
recommendation on the performance of the Trailer Mounted Combination Valve
Exerciser and Vacuum Excavation Unit purchased from Saunders Equipment Ltd.
Moncton staff were very impressed with the smart automation of the valve
exercising equipment that controls torque, direction and turns applied to the valve
being exercised.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
35
r li I. I I'
COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-066
Report Date
February 25, 2021
Meeting Date
March 8, 2021
Service Area
Public Works and
Transportation Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT. Fleet Replacement Procurement — March 2021
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author(s)
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Kevin Loughery/
Chris Roberts
Michael Hugenholtz/
Jeff Hussey
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Common Council award the purchase of two (2) Tandem
Refuse Packers and two (2) Tandem Co -Mingle Refuse Packers at a total cost of
$1,321,070.00 plus HST to Saunders Equipment Ltd.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City manages a fleet of approximately 290 vehicles and equipment and each
year, the City's Fleet Services Division works with various City departments to
identify and replace vehicles which have reached the end of their useful service
lives. The purpose of this report is to make recommendations to award the latest
tendered vehicles which require Common Council approval.
The City currently has over 75 vehicles past their optimal replacement point (ORP,
a calculation based on the age of a vehicle, the odometer reading, overall
condition and maintenance cost) and this year, 36 vehicles (some of which are the
least reliable and most expensive to maintain) will be replaced through the City's
procurement processes.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
Not applicable.
REPORT
36
-a -
The City's Fleet Services Division manages a fleet of ten (10) tandem refuse
packers utilized by the Solid Waste Section of Public Works and Transportation
Services. These units are currently utilized for the collection of refuse and compost
and soon will also be utilized for the collection of recyclables.
The tandem refuse packers in this recommendation are to replace four (4) units;
640, 646, 650 and 651.
$350,000.00
$300,000.00
$250,000.00
$200,000.00
$150,000.00
$100,000.00
$50,000.00
Lifetime Cost
Last Four Years
ORP #
650 651
$290,841.42 $248,727.64
$223,835.96 $161,145.82
23 20
640 646
$148,811.45 $188,866.75
$115,419.25 $139,728.99
17 17
25
20
15
10
5
0
All these units are equipped with Navistar MaxxForce Advanced EGR diesel
engines and have higher than usual life maintenance costs. In all cases, the
escalating lifetime maintenance costs are expected to continue and have
exceeded or are quickly approaching the initial purchase price of each of these
units. The tentative delivery date on the new tandem refuse packers is 60 weeks.
The new tandem refuse packers will also come with additional pieces of
equipment including a helping hand, mounted video cameras with a video
retention system and an automatic greaser.
The helpings hand is a drop frame, side loading unit adapted for manual, semi -
automated or fully automated refuse or recycling collection operations. This
equipment should enable efficiencies in our collection process and reduce
repetitive motion and weight strain on staff. It also presents the opportunity to
optimize our Fleet and potentially reduce redundant units currently being used to
offset the downtime.
The mounted video cameras with a video retention system will be utilized to
monitor collection as part of the new sanitation bag tag program. The system will
retain images of each location pick-up with a time and date stamp.
37
-3-
The automatic greaser is used lubricate critical components with small amounts
of fresh grease every hour while the machine is in motion, which provides a seal
that protects valuable equipment form dirt and the elements.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
Not applicable.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This report aligns with Council's Priority for Valued Service Delivery, specifically
as it relates to investing in sustainable City services and municipal infrastructure.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
This purchase is a planned replacement of existing fleet equipment, approved in
the 2021 capital budget. The funds specifically are provided for in the fleet
reserve, funded from the operating budget.
The specifications allow for vendors to submit proposals of new and/or used
equipment to be evaluated using common criteria.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS — SUPPLY CHAIN
MANAGEMENT
Supply Chain Management facilitated the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to
solicit proposals for the Tandem Refuse Packers. As such the RFP closed on
February 11, 2021 with the following proponents responding by submitting
proposals:
Saunders Equipment Ltd.
Shu-Pak Equipment Inc.
A review committee, consisting of staff from Supply Chain Management,
Sanitation Services and Fleet Services reviewed the submissions for completeness
and compliance with the RFP requirements and selection criteria consisting of the
following:
1. Presentation and Quality of Proposal
2. Compliance with Specifications
3. Delivery Timeframe
4. Service Response Time
5. Value Added
6. Cost
Also, in accordance with the City's standard procedures, the committee members
-4-
evaluated and ranked each proposal based on the proposals' technical merits.
Following this, the financial bids were opened and evaluated, and corresponding
scores were added to the technical scores.
Saunders Equipment Ltd.'s proposal was selected as the best proposal based on
an overall rating of the evaluation criteria offering a strong overall solution for the
City at the lowest cost.
The above processes are in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and
Supply Chain Management support the recommendations being put forth.
ATTACHMENTS
None
39
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-059
Report Date
March 03, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT., Fundy Quay Sea Wall Refurbishment and Storm Sewer Outfall
Project -Tender Award
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Samir Yammine
J. Brent McGovern
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the tender submitted by Alternative Concrete
Technologies Ltd., for Fundy Quay Sea Wall Refurbishment and Storm Sewer
Outfall Project in the amount of $7,920,895.50 plus HST be accepted. Further to
the base tender amount, it is recommended that a contingency allowance be
carried out for this project in the amount of $500,000 plus HST, for a total cost of
$8,420,895.50 plus HST. Additionally, it is recommended that the Mayor and
Common Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to award the Fundy Quay
Sea Wall Refurbishment and Combined Storm Sewer Outfall Project to the lowest
compliant bidder
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
October 21, 2019; (M&C 2019-266) Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Funding
Agreement, adopted.
February 22, 2021; (M&C 2021-05) Approved Utility and General Fund — Revised
2021 Capital Programs
.m
-2-
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The Sea Wall Refurbishment Project is aligned with the City of Saint John Climate
Change Adaptation Plan which was adopted by Council on November 9, 2020.
Additionally, the Project is aligned with Council's Priority for Growth and
Prosperity, specifically, as it relates to the growth of the residential and
commercial tax base.
REPORT
Background
Over the past few years, City staff have been working with consultants, various
levels of government including Infrastructure Canada and Provincial and Federal
Environmental Regulatory Departments, Develop SJ, the Developer, and
neighboring Indigenous communities on the Saint John Sea Wall Refurbishment
Project (the Project). The main objectives are to protect the environment and city
infrastructure while ensuring the Fundy Quay site is suitable for future
development.
The Saint John Sea Wall Refurbishment Project consists of repairing and raising
the existing Sea Wall which surrounds the Fundy Quay site.
There are three primary goals for this project:
1) Complete repairs to the steel pilling and concrete Saint John Sea Wall to help
ensure the stability of the site for future development.
2) Raise the height of the Saint John Sea Wall to protect the site from damage due
to the combination of rising sea levels, wave action, and storm surge.
3) Extend the life of the Saint John Sea Wall for 75 years through completion of
repairs.
The repairs will help to ensure that the stability of the Sea Wall and the soil behind
it, some of which is considered contaminated, for the next 75 years. The Project
will address the deteriorated condition of the existing sheet pile wall as corrosion
of the steel within the existing wall has led to the formation of several large holes
in the retaining wall.
Time Frame, Work Plan and Scope of Work
The Project consists of two major components: Storm Sewer Outfall and Sea Wall
Refurbishment.
The Sea Wall Refurbishment is a complex and unique Project. There are many
variables which impact the construction phase such as the High Tide surrounding
the Sea Wall and the availability of specialized and unique skills to complete this
41
am
Project. Additionally, the proposed phased approach will ensure that the Sea Wall
contractor can vacate the south portion of the site at the end of Phase #1, thus
allowing a separate contractor to complete grading and soil remediation work on
this portion of the site in the last few months of 2021. As a result, the Project will
be constructed using a multi -phase approach to address any unexpected issues.
The following is a breakdown of work for each phase:
Phase 1 (See attached Site Plan Drawing)
• 100% of Sewer Outfall work.
• 100% of crib wall refacing and raised wall from stations #8-14.
• Installation of new sheet piling and tieback system at stations #2-3.
• Installation of new tieback system at existing concrete -encased steel
sheet piling at stations #1-2.
Completion Date of Phase 1 September 30, 2021
Phase 2 (See attached Site Plan Drawing)
• Crib and gravity wall refacing and new raised wall from stations #3-8.
• New raised wall from stations #1-3 (above sheet pile sections of the wall).
Completion Date of Phase 2 September 30, 2022
I<9-1.1rif 114E1►T14.11►%�1►�[�/_►��I�jC��1u1 7
A public tender call was issued on January 27, 2021 and closed on March 3, 2021.
Six (6) companies responded to the tender call by submitting bids. The results are
as follows (excluding HST):
Contractor
Bid Amount
Fundy Contractors Limited
$17,374,374
Alternative Concrete Technologies Ltd.
$7,920,895.50
Pennecon Heavy Civil Ltd.
$9,404,769.80
Arthur Sivret et Fils Ltee
$8,851,981.09
Atlantic Underground Services Ltd.
$8,950,917.80
Dexter Construction Company Limited
$13,469,099.00
Staff of Supply Chain Management have reviewed the tenders and have found
them to be complete and formal in every regard. Staff believes that the low
tenderer -Alternative Concrete Technologies Ltd. has the necessary resources and
expertise to perform the work and recommend acceptance of their tender.
The above process is in accordance with the City's Procurement Policy and Supply
Chain Management support the recommendation being put forth.
42
-4-
The total cost to complete the Project, if awarded to the lowest bidder as
recommended, will be $8,420,895.50 plus HST, including $500,000 contingency.
The average of the three low bids is $8,574,564.80.
The pre -tender engineers estimate for the work was $9,333,969.00 plus HST
including $500,000 contingency.
Cost of this project is funded by the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund
($3,270,000), the provincial government ($3,240,000) and the remaining amount
is being funded under the City's General Capital Program.
Total approved fund under the 2020 and 2021 General Capital Program to
complete the Project is as follow: $9,675,000 for the Sea Wall Refurbishment and
$840,000 for the Storm Sewer and Outfall separation. It is estimated that the total
Project cost will be under budget by approximately $1.2 Million compared to the
approved fund under the revised 2021 capital budget.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Input from Supply Chain Management.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A - Site Plan Phasing of the Work.
43
FILENAME: Q\PW WORKING
2454 - STRUCT SEA WALL - S25.DWG PLOTTED BY: BAILEY, PHILIP
50
0
�a <
C7
0
"0 0
0
m m
C
CD o
0
0
CD
Q
m m o
<
rt
3
W CD
o
�. 03
= ca- v CD
m
m CD
0
3='p
m
--
o
Er
3 CD
0 �
C7
0 o -
Q
v
_N
o o.
o
cOo —1
n 0
.�
o 0
c
co m ID
0 Q
CD
CD o
r co
=3.
o
0
o N
p-
0 0
0
co
m
0
oz > 07 n 0
m m m m
m m m m
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
T m T ;;a
G� � c7 <
p O m
z n
D D m
Cl)z m
C') o
m
vN < M
a v
o m c
D z
m O O
o
5,
W
OO
C
N
y
o
a
0
0
O
iv
m
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
n
m
n
m
z
Z
W
=
D
D
cn
0
_
m
m
o
N�
z
o
m
o
mo
U)
m
Z
m
D
�
aT�
Cl)
N
n
m
=T�
W
r
z v�
D
00 =
Z
m
m p
m `m
o N p
Cl)
O o
N
CA
CA
cc 4�h
W N O (D 00 �I M CTt CA NJ C/) CA N n Cn M C A N n
D 0 0
�;;uKcn-Ti -icnz o > m0-u=m cn::E -i� �DDn = c cn c0;u D= n �;;7CnnDKKDm n
DDO=O I Cm z zFT, 0; �m0m rD m n = Z;;um Mm Dmz0or-0-Nm
z-10�arD_mr r rZ ;U -1 3 D rDz U4;U m r—= = Z r 0 zC,J;:) m
mpz-D=� z 00p�MMm� rMcnZ �� I 0 � C/)M0 m �O�O�n. CEO m
Dm�' OpzD O �)cnOCA �� =0D0 r��D D W ��n �� Dn���O I z
�0n 0�0r m �� 000K m �m cOpD— I cn �. zo m z—Z mn n� 0
c./) r Z0mcn C7 0O>�DW= M 0000r j �u >— M �_ p�7G7 m pG7—p�lm O p r�
=�D Z�70m �D� Z Q, n � �o m z_ n z 0 n 0m Z cn
O�� �ZTI� C/) C/) fZ� f(l.Z�] cnCoOZ I n r CT�i -i m CA ��-i n
zOcn _ O,z ��,� r0 � j �70 Cm � z o C o m m 3 moD�0O m
m= Woo ODw cn� cm/)M CmZ O-1 3 � 00r n m 3 r0D� - m
Cnz =r--m C/) zD 0 ��p D cmn 3 o=�_ DO=wpm m �
�0 D��� p� W 00 p0f� � N o .Zml D Z �CC) Zu I z� ;u
�� D m�D -iN D -U00 zmo m cn n o DCD m— x m
�Dp m� UNi Dm Dpz r m O cmn o!� DO
z z
Dz �O D ��m r O co V n O z - �O r� C7
Z X O I fr- > O W � m z = n m C = n
op c�� nCD ,a zD Jo C/) ��_ � � M 0 D M3 oz �m n
�(n m C Ocn 00 o n pDD �'Z n O D 0
zO O- p mm __ znr Z J 0 O pD� �n N o
0 K cn r 0 m
0 �D Z mQ �� 0 cn0 m�0 D O n 0 Doi j �C�n 00
z
K� Zn —Ti CD - OO D i Dz z n z m Dp m
OD Gym O CD � � m �zm 3 0 D O n � D
n G) m= O Z n D
� m r 0 CAD cnn r o = � � o m C/) j� c�i)
zu) Zm D< D D -� nK D C) �o D� -
0 m <D Cn 00 nm z -i Cil D p cnD 0
rO �D M zN 0 N CoM D-10 m M G7 = m0 cnp W
z� Dr Nm mZ �n z C,4 n D = m D
mD mD p o� N oD 00 1 o D m DCn CA
D p D m Co = o cn 00 0 r U4 Ui
>m
p
�mm
-n
0
D
D
Z
D
*
rn
z0�
�
=
�7
Z
0
Cn -Ti
Dm
UJ
0
>0
D
T
N
D m
r
UJ
UJ
M
r
Z
\
m
SOD
;7 N Z
-n0<
D Z M
D r
00
N
� � Z
�G)G)
N 7
D D M
;p Z
G)
M
^-imZ
MHMO
M
nC()M
O-i -0�
(C m W Z
�0D
O_ �
Z D
P - O
x
x W
^ N
X
0 X / N
U
A x � N
A /� qp Cn
n / X X
pNp x
/ 0 (ng
x
X �,
N
�^ CC) o
x
x �n �xn
A W
/x
X X
(n n u O /
i m D cc)N
1 X a /
N x I (1 m n
J N f l o /
Z D X
J
� � O
Z
A� x
C. N W n / N
N X J Cn N
gypp, � � v X X
A �
N fNq`W
W
X
NN
p / cn C /\
N / m D \-
T
m r Co
U
N x
1 X m
N U \ X m N
0ox m
N \N J C/)
N 0
0
X T x
X �� o \\ 1 o x
�I 0') C7t � CA N G-)
M
z
DOm�um of 0 -1 0n�0-0-9 -1_ ;UZDD np<D-r� -Ti -Ti D -9C) D m
zmxm;1 u m C = OOmF; mO -ur Ohm= �a mDr 00� r �
p �m0 � m Z��m0 mD G»-ur Zn�m m rOr �z r D
0=zn� C ��mg� �M Cr-* �m�n z� ��X z�� p z
r=�00D m nmpDD m O�W� CDDO -i ID C/) co
m 0
�7Dn0� 0 = Cn 0pp n� Zmri� �Zr= cn0 DZ DO0 Z ri
0mOz 0 m � �7W�zOZ z= �pr0 0r�pn Oz rp z 0
C) m U) < per �D 0m zcn � Z
� D 'a C) (n = fT1 r � C) CD m 0 z O W O 0� (n
mzMz = N = D= Z �r cnm 0Z� CD D Zm� -
5- 1 ;u— m- O rC/)M�� cnz c�m LA �� Dp 00� Z
I M I r 0�m O= m ,�7_
zzfTl�w = Z ���� Zp COZ7 =ZD -9 C) C)
m�nmcn m r-Kcnm� 0� �zo m�� �o =0 �0 0 r
OD = Ommaoco D m mz
Cr�nD n 0 n �D= O� �D� ==> �� p� ppD
cn�m�r D 0 DWM0D mW OZM npcn OO _� m
�OpC/) (n =m�����o Dpp mmm mZ 0r- moJ�
mZ� M W D D DcnO-<Cp Dm rmz mrz � jZ M DAD cn
� � Z = 0 W r—M CA M r � =G� '0�� <O XO C7m-<
OmmpD z 0 -0mDM0 zM DCn co ��_ �� zZ�
�cn0r ' cn N �KrCAK O ��n mo Oz zCn D
=ter OCo =-0 OZ= G) nr
0M<n D � OZ C)�Dzm Do zOD mD� (n0 Om cx
z O (n m �C,� r p m N p—z -uz � � z X CA M
Z m <or n m
G F C/) 0 = m- Dp Oo cnnm 00p 0 Oc �-i cDnczi)
CD C/) C NDr =- Dr n;;a7 0�N c� mC=
Cl) �00rm moZG) ppn
Dof NO�� = 00= m
�DZ0 m O p���� O�� Zen n =D c
p p= Z=m _= G7 m m
cnz D 0m m �� �zD C/)o
G')
-i z
0 = 0
^� <>
= D n
M
CA
M D CA
�m�
0
o cn
Z �
�mm
m
i
1
` () Cn
W �
m 0cr—
T9 C/)
C/) C/)
M :::iOCl)
Z*zmm0
N =Cl) TI
n0 � M o
Z p D
co z
GD
�)G-)
C p r
O
0 70D
Z c�n
�O
Z
m 0cr-
9 U)
CIO C/)
M COCA
mm0
Cn
0 ;m0
Z o>Z
i Z p �)
;;on D
C pry
i cn�
o cn
Z Z O
G� Z
00
0 M czn
i-3311ls
U)mD
cn D
m��m�u
�m
m �z
0 M
c
C)
M
-z
D 70
cn D
D
m n
M
m
N
O•
C)
W
m
I
I
I
o
m
0
-4
'o
=
r
W
D
Cn
=
y
N
m
2
Z
O
m
Z
C7
md
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No. 2021 -067
Report Date: February 1, 2021
Meeting Date: March 8, 2021
Service Area: Public Works & Transportation
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT. Traffic Paint Purchase
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Katherine Shannon
Michael Hugenholtz
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy, your City Manager recommends that Common Council
authorize City staff to purchase Franklin Paint Company traffic paint for the 2021 construction season as
a sole source procurement from Stinson Equipment Limited at a cost of $94,430.95 plus HST.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is for City staff to recommend a 'sole source' approach to the purchase of our
traffic paint in 2021. This recommendation is based on past years' experience with other paints that
clogged our equipment and led to costly delays.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
RESOLVED That as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2020-049: Traffic
Paint Sole Source, notwithstanding the City's Procurement Policy, Common Council authorize City staff to
purchase Franklin Paint Company traffic paint for the 2020 construction season as a sole source
procurement from Stinson Equipment Limited at a cost of $91,505.82 plus HST.
REPORT
Prior to 2016, the City had procured traffic paint from four different manufacturers through a
competitive process. Three of these four manufacturers ultimately did not meet the City's specifications.
One manufacturer did not meet the material composition requirements and the other two
manufacturers provided product that clumped during the painting season causing damage to equipment
45
and excessive down time. Only Franklin Paints met specifications upon delivery and throughout the
subsequent painting season.
City staff has endeavored over the years to maintain the competitive bidding process. Tender
specifications had been updated each year including more stringent material and performance
specifications, ability for the city to test the paint at its discretion and penalty clauses for non-
conformance. Ultimately, it was found that operational effectiveness and efficiency, as well as service
delivery to the public, were negatively impacted in each of these years. This more than offsets the lower
cost of the low tender process. Quantifying the net benefit of procuring the higher quality and more
costly Franklin Paint through a sole source procurement versus continuing a competitive bid process is
difficult. The question turns to quantifying the operational effectiveness and efficiency benefits, by
using the higher cost and quality of Franklin paint. When using lower quality paints clumping occurs,
when clumping occurs there is lost production. One lost day of productivity when clumping of the lower
quality paints occur, would cost approximately $1500 to make up in labor costs when overtime is
required.
The clumping is also hard on the $200,000 worth of painting equipment that the City owns, requiring
more frequent replacement of parts such as filters and pumps and accelerated depreciation of these
expensive assets. Additional staff time, both in working with manufacturers/suppliers of non-
conforming paint and in explaining to the public delays to the painting program, is also an added cost.
One key measurement of the operational effectiveness of the annual painting program is the repainting
of all the approximately 3235 traffic markings and 400 KM of centre and lane lines in a timely manner.
Extended times when these traffic control devices remain faded or risk that the annual program may not
be completed due to delays by non -conforming paint is a negative impact to public safety.
In 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 a sole source tender was awarded to Stinson Equipment Limited
through which Franklin Paint Company product was obtained. The product performs very well and none
of the aforementioned issues related to the other vendors has been experienced. The Department has
experienced zero downtime related to the quality of the paint and is happy with its performance and
longevity.
City staff remains committed to respecting the competitive bidding process and is always open to having
manufacturers demonstrate that their traffic paint meets the City's specifications. In 2020 staff reached
out to interested vendors to trial their paint throughout the season and have them demonstrate
compliance with our required quality requirements, to determine if there have been any changes in
composition of their paint from previous years. It was found a more extensive trial is required to
determine effectiveness.
From a service efficiency and effectiveness perspective, Staff is confident a sole source purchase of
Franklin Paint Company product, through Stinson Equipment Limited, is the best solution for the 2021
painting season.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This report demonstrates the City's commitment to effective and efficient service delivery.
M
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
Funding is included in the 2021 General Fund Operating Budget for the anticipated purchase price of
$94,430.25 plus HST of the Franklin paint.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
Input from the Supply Chain Management has been incorporated into this report.
City staff has received input from both the cities of Fredericton and Moncton. The City of Fredericton
has used Franklin Company paint for the last nine years and is continuing again in 2021 with this
product. In previous years, Fredericton used two different other manufacturers (same from the list of
those used by Saint John) with similar negative results. The City of Moncton has also experienced issues
with other manufacturers. They commenced a sole source procurement of Franklin Paint through
Stinson Equipment Ltd. in 2015 and will be continuing with their product in 2021.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
47
Q�amu joa-\�
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-056
Report Date
February 16, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Neighbourhood Service Agreements
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Amy McLennan /
Lori Lambert
Jacqueline Hamilton
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Your City Manager recommends Common Council:
1. Resolve that the parties renew the agreement in consideration for the
annual grant of $21,000 between the City of Saint John and P.U.L.S.E.
(People United in the Lower South End), Inc., for a period of two (2)
years, from January 1, 2021 until December 31, 2022, as outlined in
Appendix 'A' of this report and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to sign all necessary documentation.
2. Resolve that the parties renew the agreement in consideration for the
annual grant of $23,500 between the City of Saint John and Crescent
Valley Resource Centre Inc. for a period of two (2) years, from January 1,
2021 until December 31, 2022, as outlined in Appendix 'B' of this report
and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all
necessary documentation.
3. Resolve that the parties renew the agreement in consideration for the
annual grant of $23,500 between the City of Saint John and ONE Change
Inc. for a period of two (2) years, from January 1, 2021 until December
31, 2022, as outlined in Appendix'C' of this report and that the Mayor
and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary documentation.
MA
-a-
4. Resolve that the parties renew the agreement in consideration for the
annual grant of $22,000 between the City of Saint John and the Saint
John Learning Exchange Ltd. (Waterloo Village Neighbourhood
Association) for a period of two (2) years, from January 1, 2021 until
December 31, 2022, as outlined in Appendix'D' of this report and that
the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary
documentation.
5. Resolve that the parties renew the agreement in consideration for the
annual grant of $20,000 between the City of Saint John and the TRC (The
Resource Centre) for Youth in Greater Saint John, Inc., for a period of two
(2) years, from January 1, 2021 until December 31, 2022, as outlined in
Appendix'E' of this report and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be
authorized to sign all necessary documentation.
6. Resolve that the parties renew the agreement in consideration for the
annual grant of $22,000 between the City of Saint John and Saint John
Human Development Council Inc. (Around the Block Community
Newspaper) for a period of one (1) year, from January 1, 2021 until
December 31, 2021, as outlined in Appendix of this report and that the
Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all necessary
documentation.
7. Resolve that the parties renew the agreement in consideration for the
annual grant of $20,000 between the City of Saint John and Carleton
Community Centre, Inc., for a period of one (1) year, from January 1,
2021 until December 31, 2021, as outlined in Appendix of this report
and that the Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign all
necessary documentation.
I�:/��i►j719��► I��Ii'I
The City of Saint John has supported the City's five (5) priority neighbourhoods
since 2009 through its annual grant programs. Service agreements for the
priority neighbourhoods were established in 2016 and are now administered
through Growth and Community Services. The funding for the agreements
recommended in this report totals $152,000 and is included in the approved
2021 General Fund Operating Budget.
-3-
The purpose of the funding is to support service providers working directly
within Saint John's priority neighbourhoods with their operational costs. The
service providers deliver programs and services, as well as connect citizens to
resources that will alleviate the effects of poverty and improve quality of life.
Sustained funding is vital to their operations. Ongoing municipal support also
allows service providers to leverage funding from other sources in order to
strengthen their capacity and meet the evolving needs of the community.
REPORT
Background
Service agreements were originally established for a three-year term with the
following:
• P.U.L.S.E. (People United in the Lower South End)
• Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc.
• ONE Change Inc.
• Waterloo Village Neighbourhood Association
• TRC (The Resource Centre) for Youth in Greater Saint John, Inc.
• Around the Block Community Newspaper
• Westside PACT
With the exception of the defunct Westside PACT, the agreements were
reinstated in 2019 for a two-year term, ending December 31, 2020. The annual
funding amounts were unchanged from the original 2016 agreements.
COVID-19 Community Impacts
Due to COVID-19, the 2020 year presented new challenges for priority
neighbourhoods. In March, job loss and the closure of schools presented an
immediate need for food security measures. Partnerships were formed to safely
provide food and meals to families in need throughout the priority
neighbourhoods. Increased outreach efforts became the standard practice to
connect with residents and meet immediate needs in food security and mental
wellness.
During the summer months, the need for safe, outdoor recreation became the
priority. Existing programs were adapted and new programs were introduced,
with any COVID-19 Provincial Mandatory Order requirements in place. Examples
of these initiatives include a bike -share satellite operation, outdoor volleyball,
and outdoor adventures for teens.
50
-4-
With the community now into another year of COVID-19, communities continue
to adjust to the evolving challenges the pandemic presents. The shift to an
online learning model has created a need for education and technical support
beyond the capacity of the school system. Public access to computers and
technical assistance is required to allow citizens to access online government
resources. The desire for outdoor recreation activities and community activities
requires additional staff to accommodate smaller -sized groups. Programs and
services to support mental wellness will continue to be essential. In short, the
need and demand for accessible service providers in Saint John's five priority
neighbourhoods has never been greater.
Service Providers
P.U.L.S.E. (People United in the Lower South End)
With a strengthened board and strategic plan in place, P.U.L.S.E. has greatly
increased its capacity. Its Community Connector completes over a thousand tax
returns each year, finding additional revenue for individuals and families living
below the poverty line. P.U.L.S.E. has significantly increased its outreach efforts
in food security during COVID-19 and plans to expand its services to serve more
seniors in the area.
Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc.
It is estimated that Crescent Valley has upwards of 800 children living in that
dense community. With its diverse population of newcomers, funding will
support ongoing and increased efforts to address citizens' needs and to support
a safe, unified neighbourhood.
ONE Change Inc.
ONE Change is recognized by its peers and stakeholders as a leader in
community service, managing a full -service community centre. A strong
volunteer base and collaborative partnerships allows ONE Change to extend its
reach well beyond the walls of the facility. The food security, education,
employment, and life skills services offered by ONE Change empower residents
towards personal sustainability.
Waterloo Village Neighbourhood Association
A new board chair and increased partnerships within the community have
breathed new life into the Waterloo Village Neighbourhood Association (WVA).
Their Community Connector remains an active resource in the neighbourhood,
51
-5-
fostering relationships with residents and connecting them with local programs
and services to address educational needs and to build life skills. The Connector
continues to actively serve on various poverty reduction networks representing
the 'lived' experience. The WVA has also expanded its role in food security and
aims to host additional community events, within the parameters of any COVID-
19 restrictions.
TRC (The Resource Centre) for Youth in Greater Saint John, Inc.
The TRC supports local youth through a variety of programs and case
management services. In the majority of cases, the youth are considered
vulnerable persons and have experienced intergenerational poverty. Over 60%
have entered educational programs or have entered the work force. Emergency
and transitional housing and mental health are the primary challenges faced by
youth who attend the TRC. During school disruption from COVID-19, TRC staff
employed outreach efforts through online support, as well as porch deliveries of
food and supplies.
Around the Block
The free community newspaper, Around the Block, distributed its first edition in
October 2008. Since then, the newspaper has published 75 editions, distributing
between 5,000 and 8,000 copies per issue. The newspaper's primary objective
has been to serve as the voice of Saint John's priority neighbourhoods,
celebrating their good news, providing information, and offering advocacy.
After over twelve years of this model, Around the Block recognizes the need to
evolve. Discussions with City staff and various stakeholders indicate a desire for
a new medium to communicate with residents in Saint John's priority
neighbourhoods. The fundamental objectives and outcomes of Around the Block
will remain the same; however, with the continued support of the City of Saint
John, Around the Block will transition away from a print newspaper to a new
online communications platform.
Around the Block has requested that its funding be renewed within the terms
and conditions of the City of Saint John Neighbourhood Service Agreement at an
annual sum of $22,000. As detailed in their proposal (Appendix H of this report),
Around the Block will apply these funds during the one-year term of the
recommended agreement to research, develop, and deliver an online
communications platform that will serve the stakeholders and residents of Saint
John's priority neighbourhoods.
52
-6-
Carleton Community Centre Inc.
The Lower West Side has been without a Neighbourhood Service Agreement
since 2018. Now entering its third year as a non-profit, community -led centre,
the Carleton Community Centre (CCC) is well -positioned to expand its capacity
with this funding.
COVID-19 presented an immediate need for increased food security measures.
The CCC quickly established a partnership with Inner City Youth to distribute
food bags to families in need. In partnership with Hillcrest Baptist Church, the
CCC now serves Grab & Go meals to residents. It established a wellness helpline
in the early months of the pandemic and continued to develop and deliver new
and enhanced programs and services, including the refurbishment of two
modular classrooms for increased education programs and rentals, a summer
beach volleyball league, new computers for free public access, interactive
sidewalks, boxing and self-defense classes, and community events. Further
details of their plans for utilization of the funds are outlined in Schedule 'A' of
the recommended one-year agreement (Appendix G of this report).
Evaluation Framework
As a result of a generous grant from the Community Foundation and BCAPI
(Business Community Anti -Poverty Initiative), Impact Specialists are working with
neighbourhood service providers to develop an evaluation framework.
Scheduled to be completed by summer 2021, the evaluation framework will
better equip neighbourhoods to collect and interpret data, as well as have
consistent measurement tools that will demonstrate and communicate their
impact. This new framework will be a beneficial addition to the existing
information service providers report to City staff.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
February 11, 2019 — RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the
submitted report 2019-023: Service Agreements - Priority Neighbourhood
Associations:
1) Common Council approve service agreements with the Priority
Neighbourhood Association's identified in this report, and that;
2) The City Solicitor be directed to prepare all necessary documents outlining the
terms and conditions for specific Service Agreement with each Neighbourhood
Association, and that;
53
3) The Mayor and Common Clerk be authorized to sign any required
documentation.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
Service agreements for the priority neighbourhoods align with the following
priorities of Common Council:
• Vibrant, Safe City priority related to supporting liveable neighbourhoods
and community pride; and
• Valued Service Delivery priority through developing partnerships with
organizations.
These agreements also support Play SJ's vision of providing recreational services
and programs through the community partnership model.
F��:��1[�1�►P1�7dIP/_1P[�/_►��I�j���1��7�7
The annual funding amounts indicated in the recommended agreements are in
alignment with the approved 2021 General Fund Operating Budget. Those same
amounts would be recommended for the 2022 budget, representing a zero
percent increase year over year and allowing for the potential recommendation
of a future renewal of the two one-year agreements. The funding amounts are
as follows:
P.U.L.S.E. (People United in the Lower South End)
$21,000
Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc.
$23,500
ONE Change Inc.
$23,500
Saint John Learning Exchange Ltd.
(Waterloo Village Neighbourhood Association)
$22,000
TRC (The Resource Centre) for Youth in Greater Saint John, Inc.
$20,000
Saint John Human Development Council Inc.
(Around the Block Community Newspaper)
$22,000
Carleton Community Centre, Inc.
$20,000
TOTAL:
$152,000
54
-8-
��r�ljr�:z•�i�r•�r:►:�a�irA►:jx-WA►.T��►r_-►: :r•�:��
• The City of Saint John's General Counsel prepared the service agreements
attached to this report.
• This report was reviewed by the City of Saint John's Finance Department.
• Reports and proposals were submitted by the service providers to inform
recommendations from City staff.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A — P.U.L.S.E. Renewal Agreement
Appendix B — Crescent Valley Resource Centre Renewal Agreement
Appendix C — ONE Change Inc. Renewal Agreement
Appendix D — Learning Exchange - Waterloo Village Assoc. Renewal Agreement
Appendix E — TRC (The Resource Centre) for Youth Renewal Agreement
Appendix F — HDC - Around the Block New Agreement
Appendix G — Carleton Community Centre Inc. New Agreement, with Schedule A
Appendix H — Proposal from HDC - Around the Block
55
56
THIS REVIVAL AND RENEWAL AGREEMENT made as of this , 2021 and effective as of
December 31, 2020.
BETWEEN:
P.U.L.S.E. (People United in the Lower South End), Inc.,
a neighbourhood association duly incorporated under
the laws of the Province of New Brunswick, having its
head office at the City of Saint John, in the County of
Saint John, and Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter
called the "Association"
OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City
Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New
Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed
and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City"
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS Saint John Common Council supports the neighbourhood and community development
principles outlined in PLAYSJ;
AND WHEREAS the Association is a service provider which aims to build safe, supportive and healthy
communities and link its residents to resources, services and programs to improve quality of life;
AND WHEREAS Common Council, at its meeting held on December 17, 2018, resolved to accept the
proposal submitted by the Association in request of a Service Agreement for Organizational and Project
Support for the calendar years 2019, 2020;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to a Common Council resolution adopted on February 11, 2019, the City and the
Association entered into an agreement dated February 14, 2019 (the "Agreement");
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement provides at Clause 2:
2. Upon the termination of this Agreement the Association may apply to renew this
Agreement.
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
57
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement expired December 31, 2020;
AND WHEREAS the Association and the City desire to revive and renew the said Agreement for two (2)
years from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the parties agree as
follows:
The said Agreement between the parties, dated February 14, 2019 is hereby revived and is
declared to be in full force and effect unamended, except to the extent expressly set forth herein;
II. Effective immediately prior to December 31, 2020, the parties renew the term of the said
Agreement for two (2) years from January 1, 2021 to midnight of December 31, 2022;
III. The Association shall provide for the development and delivery of programs and services in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the said Agreement;
IV. Subject to the Association's compliance with the provisions of the said Agreement, the City shall
pay to the Association an annual grant of $21,000.00 in one lump sum payment, on or before
March 31 of each calendar year of the Agreement;
V. This Revival and Renewal Agreement and the Agreement as previously entered, together
constitute the entire agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their respective corporate seals, attested by the hands of
their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf on the day aforementioned.
SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED
In the presence of:
P.U.L.S.E. (People United in the Lower South
End), Inc.
Per
Heather Chase, President
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Don Darling, Mayor
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
58
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, Heather Chase, of the of
AND SAY:
Jonathan Taylor, City Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
.2021
and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH
1. THAT I am the President of P.U.L.S.E. (People United in the Lower South End), Inc., and am
authorized to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter
deposed to.
2. THAT the seal affixed to the foregoing agreement and purporting to be the corporate seal of
P.U.L.S.E. (People United in the Lower South End), Inc., is the corporate seal of P.U.L.S.E. (People
United in the Lower South End), Inc., a party named in the foregoing instrument and it was affixed
by the officer authorized to so affix the seal.
3. THAT the Signature "Heather Chase" subscribed to the said instrument is my signature and as
President, I am duly authorized to execute the said instrument.
4. THAT the said document was executed as aforesaid at the City of Saint John and Province of New
Brunswick on the day of , 2021.
SWORN TO before me at the
City of Saint John, County of
Saint John and Province of
New Brunswick on the
day of 12021
Heather Chase
Commissioner of Oaths
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
59
THIS REVIVAL AND RENEWAL AGREEMENT made as of this 2021 and effective as of
December 31, 2020.
BETWEEN:
THE CRESCENT VALLEY RESOURCE CENTRE INC., a
neighbourhood association duly incorporated under the
laws of the Province of New Brunswick, having its head
office at the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint
John, and Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called
the "Association"
OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City
Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New
Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed
and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City"
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS Saint John Common Council supports the neighbourhood and community development
principles outlined in PLAYSJ;
AND WHEREAS the Association is a service provider which aims to build safe, supportive and healthy
communities and link its residents to resources, services and programs to improve quality of life;
AND WHEREAS Common Council, at its meeting held on December 17, 2018, resolved to accept the
proposal submitted by the Association in request of a Service Agreement for Organizational and Project
Support for the calendar years 2019, 2020;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to a Common Council resolution adopted on February 11, 2019, the City and the
Association entered into an agreement dated February 11, 2019 (the "Agreement");
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement provides at Clause 2:
2. Upon the termination of this Agreement the Association may apply to renew this
Agreement.
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement expired December 31, 2020;
AND WHEREAS the Association and the City desire to revive and renew the said Agreement for two (2)
years from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022;
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
60
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the parties agree as
follows:
The said Agreement between the parties, dated February 11, 2019 is hereby revived and is
declared to be in full force and effect unamended, except to the extent expressly set forth herein;
II. Effective immediately prior to December 31, 2020, the parties renew the term of the said
Agreement for two (2) years from January 1, 2021 to midnight of December 31, 2022;
III. The Association shall provide for the development and delivery of programs and services in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the said Agreement;
IV. Subject to the Association's compliance with the provisions of the said Agreement, the City shall
pay to the Association an annual grant of $23,500.00 in one lump sum payment, on or before
March 31 of each calendar year of the Agreement;
V. This Revival and Renewal Agreement and the Agreement as previously entered, together
constitute the entire agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their respective corporate seals, attested by the hands of
their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf on the day aforementioned.
SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED
In the presence of:
THE CRESCENT VALLEY RESOURCE CENTRE
INC.
Per
Ann Barrett, President
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Don Darling, Mayor
Jonathan Taylor, City Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
, 2021
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
61
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, Ann Barrett, of the of
SAY:
and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND
1. THAT I am the President of The Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc., and am authorized to make
this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to.
2. THAT the seal affixed to the foregoing agreement and purporting to be the corporate seal of The
Crescent Valley Resource Centre Inc., is the corporate seal of The Crescent Valley Resource Centre
Inc., a party named in the foregoing instrument and it was affixed by the officer authorized to so
affix the seal.
3. THAT the Signature "Ann Barrett" subscribed to the said instrument is my signature and as
President, I am duly authorized to execute the said instrument.
4. THAT the said document was executed as aforesaid at the City of Saint John and Province of New
Brunswick on the day of , 2021.
SWORN TO before me at the
City of Saint John, County of
Saint John and Province of
New Brunswick on the
day of , 2021
Ann Barrett
Commissioner of Oaths
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
62
THIS REVIVAL AND RENEWAL AGREEMENT made as of this 2021 and effective as
of December 31, 2020.
BETWEEN:
THE ONE CHANGE INC., a neighbourhood association
duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of New
Brunswick, having its head office at the City of Saint John,
in the County of Saint John, and Province of New
Brunswick, hereinafter called the "Association"
OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City
Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New
Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed
and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City"
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS Saint John Common Council supports the neighbourhood and community development
principles outlined in PLAYSJ;
AND WHEREAS the Association is a service provider which aims to build safe, supportive and healthy
communities and link its residents to resources, services and programs to improve quality of life;
AND WHEREAS Common Council, at its meeting held on December 17, 2018, resolved to accept the
proposal submitted by the Association in request of a Service Agreement for Organizational and Project
Support for the calendar years 2019, 2020;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to a Common Council resolution adopted on February 11, 2019, the City and the
Association entered into an agreement dated February 11, 2019 (the "Agreement");
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement provides at Clause 2:
2. Upon the termination of this Agreement the Association may apply to renew this
Agreement.
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement expired December 31, 2020;
AND WHEREAS the Association and the City desire to revive and renew the said Agreement for two (2)
years from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022;
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
63
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the parties agree as
follows:
The said Agreement between the parties, dated February 11, 2019 is hereby revived and is
declared to be in full force and effect unamended, except to the extent expressly set forth herein;
II. Effective immediately prior to December 31, 2020, the parties renew the term of the said
Agreement for two (2) years from January 1, 2021 to midnight of December 31, 2022;
III. The Association shall provide for the development and delivery of programs and services in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the said Agreement;
IV. Subject to the Association's compliance with the provisions of the said Agreement, the City shall
pay to the Association an annual grant of $23,500.00 in one lump sum payment, on or before
March 31 of each calendar year of the Agreement;
V. This Revival and Renewal Agreement and the Agreement as previously entered, together
constitute the entire agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their respective corporate seals, attested by the hands of
their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf on the day aforementioned.
SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED
In the presence of:
ONE CHANGE INC.,
Per
Caitlin Corkum
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Don Darling, Mayor
Jonathan Taylor, City Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
12021
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
64
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, Caitlin Corkum of the of and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH
AND SAY:
1. THAT I am the President of ONE Change Inc., and am authorized to make this affidavit and have
personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to.
2. THAT the seal affixed to the foregoing agreement and purporting to be the corporate seal of ONE
Change Inc., is the corporate seal of ONE Change Inc., a party named in the foregoing instrument
and it was affixed by the officer authorized to so affix the seal.
3. THAT the Signature "Caitlin Corkum" subscribed to the said instrument is my signature and as
President, I am duly authorized to execute the said instrument.
4. THAT the said document was executed as aforesaid at the City of Saint John and Province of New
Brunswick on the day of , 2021.
SWORN TO before me at the
City of Saint John, County of
Saint John and Province of
New Brunswick on the
day of , 2021
Caitlin Corkum
Commissioner of Oaths
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
65
THIS REVIVAL AND RENEWAL AGREEMENT made as of this 2021 and effective as of
December 31, 2020.
BETWEEN:
THE SAINT JOHN LEARNING EXCHANGE LTD. (Waterloo
Village Neighbourhood Association), a neighbourhood
association duly incorporated under the laws of the
Province of New Brunswick, having its head office at the
City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John, and
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the
"Association"
OF THE FIRST PART
111111111111110it:!
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City
Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New
Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed
and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City"
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS Saint John Common Council supports the neighbourhood and community development
principles outlined in PLAYSJ;
AND WHEREAS the Association is a service provider which aims to build safe, supportive and healthy
communities and link its residents to resources, services and programs to improve quality of life;
AND WHEREAS Common Council, at its meeting held on December 17, 2018, resolved to accept the
proposal submitted by the Association in request of a Service Agreement for Organizational and Project
Support for the calendar years 2019, 2020;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to a Common Council resolution adopted on February 11, 2019, the City and the
Association entered into an agreement dated February 11, 2019 (the "Agreement");
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement provides at Clause 2:
2. Upon the termination of this Agreement the Association may apply to renew this
Agreement.
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement expired December 31, 2020;
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
66
AND WHEREAS the Association and the City desire to revive and renew the said Agreement for two (2)
years from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the parties agree as
follows:
The said Agreement between the parties, dated February 11, 2019 is hereby revived and is
declared to be in full force and effect unamended, except to the extent expressly set forth herein;
II. Effective immediately prior to December 31, 2020, the parties renew the term of the said
Agreement for two (2) years from January 1, 2021 to midnight of December 31, 2022;
III. The Association shall provide for the development and delivery of programs and services in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the said Agreement;
IV. Subject to the Association's compliance with the provisions of the said Agreement, the City shall
pay to the Association an annual grant of $22,000.00 in one lump sum payment, on or before
March 31 of each calendar year of the Agreement;
V. This Revival and Renewal Agreement and the Agreement as previously entered, together
constitute the entire agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their respective corporate seals, attested by the hands of
their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf on the day aforementioned.
SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED
In the presence of:
THE SAINT JOHN LEARNING EXCHANGE LTD.
Per
Christina Fowler, President
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Don Darling, Mayor
Jonathan Taylor, City Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
.2021
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
67
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, Christina Fowler, of the of and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH
AND SAY:
1. THAT I am the President of The Saint John Learning Exchange Ltd., and am authorized to make
this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to.
2. THAT the seal affixed to the foregoing agreement and purporting to be the corporate seal of The
Saint John Learning Exchange Ltd., is the corporate seal of The Saint John Learning Exchange Ltd.,
a party named in the foregoing instrument and it was affixed by the officer authorized to so affix
the seal.
3. THAT the Signature "Christina Fowler" subscribed to the said instrument is my signature and as
President, I am duly authorized to execute the said instrument.
4. THAT the said document was executed as aforesaid at the City of Saint John and Province of New
Brunswick on the day of , 2021.
SWORN TO before me at the
City of Saint John, County of
Saint John and Province of
New Brunswick on the
day of , 2021
Christina Fowler
Commissioner of Oaths
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
68
THIS REVIVAL AND RENEWAL AGREEMENT made as of this 2021 and effective as of
December 31, 2020.
BETWEEN:
TRC (The Resource Centre) FOR YOUTH IN GREATER
SAINT JOHN, INC. duly incorporated under the laws of
the Province of New Brunswick, having its head office at
the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John, and
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the
"Association"
OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City
Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New
Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed
and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City'
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS Saint John Common Council supports the neighbourhood and community development
principles outlined in PLAYSJ;
AND WHEREAS the Association is a service provider which aims to build safe, supportive and healthy
communities and link its residents to resources, services and programs to improve quality of life;
AND WHEREAS Common Council, at its meeting held on December 17, 2018, resolved to accept the
proposal submitted by the Association in request of a Service Agreement for Organizational and Project
Support for the calendar years 2019, 2020;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to a Common Council resolution adopted on February 11, 2019, the City and the
Association entered into an agreement dated March 5, 2019 (the "Agreement");
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement provides at Clause 2:
2. Upon the termination of this Agreement the Association may apply to renew this
Agreement.
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement expired December 31, 2020;
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
69
AND WHEREAS the Association and the City desire to revive and renew the said Agreement for two (2)
years from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the parties agree as
follows:
The said Agreement between the parties, dated March 5, 2019 is hereby revived and is declared
to be in full force and effect unamended, except to the extent expressly set forth herein;
II. Effective immediately prior to December 31, 2020, the parties renew the term of the said
Agreement for two (2) years from January 1, 2021 to midnight of December 31, 2022;
III. The Association shall provide for the development and delivery of programs and services in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the said Agreement;
IV. Subject to the Association's compliance with the provisions of the said Agreement, the City shall
pay to the Association an annual grant of $20,000.00 in one lump sum payment, on or before
March 31 of each calendar year of the Agreement;
V. This Revival and Renewal Agreement and the Agreement as previously entered, together
constitute the entire agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their respective corporate seals, attested by the hands of
their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf on the day aforementioned.
SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED
In the presence of:
TRC (The Resource Centre) FOR YOUTH IN
GREATER SAINT JOHN, INC.
Per
June Breau-Nason, Executive Director
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Don Darling, Mayor
Jonathan Taylor, City Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
, 2021
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
70
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, June Breau-Nason, of the of and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH
AND SAY:
1. THAT I am the Executive Director of TRC (Teen Resource Centre) for Youth in Greater Saint John,
Inc., and am authorized to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the matters
hereinafter deposed to.
2. THAT the seal affixed to the foregoing agreement and purporting to be the corporate seal of TRC
(The Resource Centre) for Youth in Greater Saint John, Inc., is the corporate seal of TRC (The
Resource Centre) for Youth in Greater Saint John, Inc., a party named in the foregoing instrument
and it was affixed by the officer authorized to so affix the seal.
3. THAT the Signature "June Breau-Nason" subscribed to the said instrument is my signature and as
Executive Director, I am duly authorized to execute the said instrument.
4. THAT the said document was executed as aforesaid at the City of Saint John and Province of New
Brunswick on the day of , 2021.
SWORN TO before me at the
City of Saint John, County of
Saint John and Province of
New Brunswick on the
day of 12021
June Breau-Nason
Commissioner of Oaths
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
71
THIS REVIVAL AND RENEWAL AGREEMENT made as of this 2021 and effective as of
December 31, 2020.
BETWEEN:
SAINT JOHN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL INC.
(Around the Block Community Newspaper), a
neighbourhood association duly incorporated under the
laws of the Province of New Brunswick, having its head
office at the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint
John, and Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called
the "Association"
OF THE FIRST PART
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City
Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New
Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed
and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City"
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS Saint John Common Council supports the neighbourhood and community development
principles outlined in PLAYSJ;
AND WHEREAS the Association is a service provider which aims to build safe, supportive and healthy
communities and link its residents to resources, services and programs to improve quality of life;
AND WHEREAS Common Council, at its meeting held on December 17, 2018, resolved to accept the
proposal submitted by the Association in request of a Service Agreement for Organizational and Project
Support for the calendar years 2019, 2020;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to a Common Council resolution adopted on February 11, 2019, the City and the
Association entered into an agreement dated February 11, 2019 (the "Agreement");
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement provides at Clause 2:
2. Upon the termination of this Agreement the Association may apply to renew this
Agreement.
AND WHEREAS the said Agreement expired December 31, 2020;
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
72
AND WHEREAS the Association and the City desire to revive and renew the said Agreement for one (1)
year from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021;
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the parties agree as
follows:
The said Agreement between the parties, dated February 11, 2019 is hereby revived and is
declared to be in full force and effect unamended, except to the extent expressly set forth herein;
II. Effective immediately prior to December 31, 2020, the parties renew the term of the said
Agreement for one (1) year from January 1, 2021 to midnight of December 31, 2021;
III. The Association shall provide for the development and delivery of programs and services in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the said Agreement;
IV. Subject to the Association's compliance with the provisions of the said Agreement, the City shall
pay to the Association an annual grant of $22,000.00 in one lump sum payment, on or before
March 31 of each calendar year of the Agreement;
V. This Revival and Renewal Agreement and the Agreement as previously entered, together
constitute the entire agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their respective corporate seals, attested by the hands of
their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf on the day aforementioned.
SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED
In the presence of:
SAINT JOHN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
INC.
Per
Brian Stephenson, President
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Don Darling, Mayor
Jonathan Taylor, City Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
.2021
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
73
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, Brian Stephenson, of the of and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH
AND SAY:
1. THAT I am the President of Saint John Human Development Council Inc., and am authorized to
make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to.
2. THAT the seal affixed to the foregoing agreement and purporting to be the corporate seal of Saint
John Human Development Council Inc., is the corporate seal of Saint John Human Development
Council Inc., a party named in the foregoing instrument and it was affixed by the officer authorized
to so affix the seal.
3. THAT the Signature "Brian Stephenson" subscribed to the said instrument is my signature and as
President, I am duly authorized to execute the said instrument.
4. THAT the said document was executed as aforesaid at the City of Saint John and Province of New
Brunswick on the day of , 2021.
SWORN TO before me at the
City of Saint John, County of
Saint John and Province of
New Brunswick on the
day of , 2021
Brian Stephenson
Commissioner of Oaths
Revival and Renewal Agreement: 2021 - 2022
74
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 2021 and effective as of January 1,
2021.
BY AND BETWEEN:
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, having its offices at the City
Hall Building at 15 Market Square, Saint John, New
Brunswick, a body corporate by Royal Charter, confirmed
and amended by Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the
Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "City"
OF THE FIRST PART
- and -
CARLETON COMMUNITY CENTRE, INC., a
neighbourhood association duly incorporated under the
laws of the Province of New Brunswick, having its head
office at the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint
John, and Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called
the "Association"
OF THE SECOND PART
WHEREAS Saint John Common Council supports the neighbourhood and community development
principles outlined in PLAYSJ;
WHEREAS the Association is a service provider which aims to build safe, supportive and healthy
communities and link its residents to resources, services and programs to improve quality of life;
WHEREAS the Association developed a proposal in accordance with the goals outlined in the immediately
foregoing recital, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Schedule "A" and forms part hereof
(the "Proposal");
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein and subject to the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement, the parties agree
as follows:
1. The City shall grant to the Association an annual sum of $20,000.00 to support its operational and
organizational needs.
2. Upon the termination of this Agreement, the Association may apply to renew this Agreement.
3. THE CITY SHALL:
a. Pay to the Association the annual grant in one lump sum on or before March 31 of each
year of this Agreement;
75
b. Provide a staff liaison from the Growth and Community Service to meet on a regular basis
with the Association to support the planning and achievement of its goals;
c. Provide a staff liaison to the collective Neighbourhood Action Group (NAG).
4. THE ASSOCIATION SHALL:
a. Connect residents to required resources that aim to alleviate the effects of poverty and
improve quality of life as per the Proposal in Schedule A:
Assist residents in accessing resources in areas such as housing, mental health,
wellness programs, food supports and completion of provincial and federal
forms;
ii. Host free tax clinics in partnership with service providers.
b. Develop and deliver programs and services that contribute to resilient, healthy and
sustainable neighbourhoods, as per the Proposal in Schedule A:
i. Provide food security programs such as "Grab and Go Meals";
ii. Provide an emergency food pantry to supplement West Side Food Bank hours;
iii. Provide a bike -share program that gifts families in need with re -constructed
bicycles and bike -safety lessons;
iv. Provide digital access (computers/tablets) for public to use internet, study,
perform research, job search, etc;
v. Host community events to allow residents to gather, socialize and foster
community pride.
c. Be an active member of the Neighbourhood Action Group by participating in meetings
and collective efforts of all Priority Neighbourhood initiatives; and funding of this
Agreement is contingent upon this involvement;
d. Provide detailed reports, including financial statements, that will capture the
Association's outcomes and impact to the community;
e. Obtain liability insurance in the amount of $2,000,000.00 and the policy shall name the
City as a co-insured. The Association shall provide an annual certificate of insurance to
the City outlining the above, prior to the City releasing the annual payment;
f. Recognize the City in all promotional materials and campaigns (digital, print, media) and
public events.
76
Parfnrmanra
5. Both parties agree to do everything necessary to ensure that the terms of this Agreement take
effect.
Non -Performance
6. The failure on the part of either party to exercise or enforce any right conferred upon it under this
Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such right or operate to bar the exercise or
enforcement thereof at any time or times thereafter.
Ramariiac
7. Upon default by either party under any terms of this Agreement, and at anytime after the default,
the parties shall have all rights and remedies provided by law and by this Agreement.
8. No delay or omission by the City in exercising any right or remedy shall operate as a waiver of
them or of any right or remedy, and no single or partial exercise of a right or remedy shall preclude
any other or further exercise of them or the exercise of any other right or remedy. Furthermore,
the City may remedy any default by the Association in any reasonable manner without waiving
the default remedied and without waiving any other prior or subsequent default by the
Association. All rights and remedies of the City granted or recognized in this Agreement are
cumulative and may be exercised at any time and from time to time independently or in
combination.
Force Maieure
9. It is agreed between the parties that neither party shall be held responsible for damages caused
by delay or failure to perform his undertakings under the terms of the Agreement when the delay
or failure is due to fires, strikes, floods, acts of God, lawful acts of public authorities, or delays or
defaults caused by common carriers, which cannot be reasonably foreseen or provided against.
Reference to Prior Agreement
10. This Agreement supersedes and takes the place of all prior agreements entered into by the
parties.
Amendments
11. No change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it be in writing and signed by
each party.
Further Documents
12. The parties agree that each of them shall, upon reasonable request of the other, do or cause to
be done all further lawful acts, deeds and assurances whatever for the better performance of the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
77
Validity and Interpretation
13. Descriptive headings are inserted solely for convenience of reference, do not form part of this
Agreement, and are not to be used as an aid in the interpretation of this Agreement.
14. It is intended that all provisions of this Agreement shall be fully binding and effective between the
parties, but in the event that any particular provision or provisions or part of one is found to be
void, voidable or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then the particular provision or
provisions or part of the provision shall be deemed severed from the remainder of this Agreement
and all other provisions shall remain in full force.
Governing Law
15. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province
of New Brunswick.
Termination of Agreement
16. The City shall retain the right to cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause. Whereby
this Agreement is nullified or cancelled the Association shall reimburse the City the unused
portion of funding provided through this Agreement.
Terms of Agreement
17. The Agreement shall commence on or about January 1, 2021 and shall continue for a period of
one (1) year, ending on December 31, 2021 unless earlier terminated by the City in accordance
with the provisions of Article 16 hereof (the "Term")
THIS AGREEMENT shall ensure to the benefit of and be binding on the respective heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns of each of the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have affixed their respective corporate seals, attested by the hands of
their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf on the day aforementioned.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED
In the presence of:
Witness
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Don Darling, Mayor
Jonathan Taylor, City Clerk
Common Council Resolution:
Witness
2021
CARLETON COMMUNITY CENTRE INC.
Per:
Dennis Sisco
Chair, Board of Directors
79
MKO R011"_C
Dear Mayor Darling and Saint John Common Council,
The Carleton Community Centre, now a registered charity, seeks to enter into a Neighbourhood Service
Agreement with the City of Saint John, granting our organization an annual sum of $20,000 to support
operational and organization needs. As one of Saint John's Five Priority Neighbourhoods, the Lower West
Side has been without a service agreement since 2018.
We are extremely grateful for the City's ongoing support of the community centre. Now in its third year
as a registered non-profit and community -led centre, our organization, staff and partners have continued
to grow in capacity in order to meet the needs of residents. In addition to recreational, wellness,
educational and social programs and activities offered at the centre, the Carleton also serves as a one -
stop shop for low-income and poverty-stricken residents.
The $20,000 funding from a Neighbourhood Service Agreement will primarily support staff resources
required to deliver services. Every year, hundreds of individuals come to the Carleton seeking assistance
in areas such as food security, housing, mental health, income taxes, and completing forms. They rely on
Carleton staff to assist them in navigating and accessing resources.
Like our counterparts in other priority neighbourhoods, the Carleton offers daily programs and services
to alleviate the effects of poverty and low-income living. This includes a food security program, emergency
food pantry, tax clinics, as well as public access to computers and a satellite location to Crescent Valley's
Bike Share program. As active members of the Neighbourhood Action Group, we enjoy learning from and
collaborating with priority neighbourhood associations to serve residents.
During COVID 19, we established partnerships with the Inner City Youth Ministry to deliver emergency
food bags. We now have a partnership with Hillcrest Baptist Church to offer a Grab and Go meal program.
We have enhanced our educational and resource offerings with the refurbishments of two modular
classrooms. In addition to the GED program that takes place, the classrooms now also provide additional
space for Teen Tutoring and serve as a source of revenue for meeting rental space.
In short, the Carleton Community Centre is an active service provider for the Lower West Side. We are
confident in our ability to meet or exceed the requirements of the City's Neighbourhood Service
Agreement and look forward to extending our impact in the Lower West Side.
Please find attached a summary of our programs and services.
Thank you again for your consideration,
Dustin Leclerc
Executive Director, CCC Inc.
dustin@carletoncommunitycentre.ca
Office: (506) 658-2920
:1
CARLETON COMMUNITY CENTRE AND CITY OF SAINT JOHN NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICE AGREEMENT
In addition to operating a full -service community centre, Carleton staff dedicate time and resources to
alleviate the effects of poverty and improve quality of life. The City of Saint John Neighbourhood Service
Agreement annual sum of $20,000 will support the following deliverables specific to serving priority
neighbourhood residents.
STAFF RESOURCES
Assist residents to access resources in areas such as housing, mental health, wellness programs, and
food supports.
Assist patrons with the use of computers and software to access resources, perform research, study, job
search or complete forms.
Support an emergency food pantry to supplement West Side Food Bank hours as required.
Coordinate monthly food purchase club.
Coordinate "Grab and Go Meals" program with Hillcrest Baptist Church.
Host free tax clinics in partnership with service providers.
Deliver community events to allow residents to gather, socialize and foster community pride.
Implement evaluation tools to capture outcomes and impact of services.
Provide detailed reports.
Participate in the Neighbourhood Action Group.
Participate in collaborative efforts to address poverty in Saint John.
EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND SERVICE COSTS
Food supplies for "Grab and Go" Meal Program (up to $3.50 pp x 90 meals per week)
Food supplies to stock Emergency Food Pantry
Emergency clothing purchases as required.
Equipment costs associated with bike -share program that gifts families in need with re -constructed
bicycles and bike -safety lessons.
Internet service, software and security upgrades, and repair fees to provide digital access
(computers/tablets) for patrons to use internet, study, etc.
Costs associated with community events such as rentals, food, and entertainment.
Promotional materials (digital and print) of programs and activities.
(Will recognize City of Saint John as the primary sponsor.)
OUR TEAM:
Dustin Leclerc, Executive Director
Kate Worden, Marketing & Programs Coordinator
Madelynn Ryan, Youth Program Coordinator
Jaime Worden, Special Projects & Facility Coordinator
Marta Kelly, Finance Coordinator
Abbygail Craig, Youth Counsellor
Aydan Wyse, Youth Counsellor
Leah Robichaud, Youth Counsellor
Jenna Durelle, Youth Counsellor
Mike Eatman, Seasonal Groundskeeper
HOURS OF OPERATION:
Monday 8:OOam — 9:OOpm
Tuesday 8:OOam — 9:OOpm
Wednesday 8:OOam — 9:OOpm
Thursday 8:OOam — 9:OOpm
Friday 8:OOam — 9:OOpm
Saturday *Open for Rentals Only*
Sunday 10:OOam — 9:OOpm
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, Jonathan Taylor, of the City of Saint John, in the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick,
MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. THAT I am the City Clerk of the City of Saint John and have custody of the Common Seal hereof
2. THAT the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the Common Seal of The City of Saint John
and that it was so affixed by Order of the Common Council of the said City.
3. THAT the signature "Don Darling" to the said instrument is the signature of W. Donald Darling,
Mayor of the said City, and the signature "Jonathan Taylor" thereto is my own signature.
4. THAT we are the proper officers to sign the foregoing instrument on behalf of The City of Saint
John.
SWORN TO BEFORE ME
At the City of Saint John, in the
County of Saint John and
Province of New Brunswick this
day of 12021
Jonathan Taylor
Commissioner of Oaths
Being a Solicitor
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, Dennis Sisco, of the City of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. THAT I am the Chair of the Board of Directors of Carleton Community Centre Inc., and am
authorized to make this affidavit and have personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter
deposed to.
2. THAT the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument and purporting to be the corporate seal of
Carleton Community Centre Inc., is the corporate seal of Carleton Community Centre Inc., a party
named in the foregoing instrument and it was affixed by the officer authorized to so affix the seal.
3. THAT the Signature "Dennis Sisco" subscribed to the said instrument is my signature and as Chair
of the Board of Directors I am duly authorized to execute the said instrument.
4. THAT the said document was executed as aforesaid at the City of Saint John in the Province of
New Brunswick on the _ day of 12021.
SWORN TO BEFORE ME
At the City of Saint John, in the
County of Saint John and
Province of New Brunswick this
day of , 2021
Commissioner of Oaths
Being a Solicitor
Dennis Sisco
Chair, Board of Directors
0
HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
2021 SERVICE AGREEMENT PROPOSAL
AROUND THE BLOCK
The free community newspaper, Around the Block, distributed its first edition in October 2008. Since then,
the newspaper has published 75 editions, distributing between 5,000 and 8,000 copies per issue. The
paper's primary objective has been to serve as the voice of Saint John's priority neighbourhoods,
celebrating their good news, providing information, and offering advocacy.
After over twelve years of this model, Around the Block recognizes the need to evolve. Discussions with
City staff and various stakeholders indicate a desire for a new medium to communicate with residents in
our priority neighbourhoods. The fundamental objectives and outcomes of Around the Block will remain
the same. However, with the continued support of the City of Saint John, Around the Block will transition
away from a print newspaper to a new online communications platform.
Around the Block requests that its funding be renewed within the terms and conditions of the City of Saint
John Neighbourhood Service Agreement at an annual sum of $22,000. Around the Block will apply these
funds to "Research, develop and deliver an online communications platform that will serve the
stakeholders and residents of Saint John's Priority Neighbourhoods."
WHY THE CHANGE?
COST
Costs to produce the newspaper exceed revenues. Printing, specialty software, consultation and
distribution costs contribute to the bulk of the expenses. The Saint John Human Development Council
has absorbed these expenses since it took Around the Block under its umbrella in 2015.
DECLINE IN READERSHIP
Around the Block has seen continued support from its contributors over the years. However, the overall
decline of newspaper readership in general over the past fifteen years also applies to community
newspapers. More and more citizens prefer to consume news online. In addition, advertisers are
dedicating fewer dollars to print media.
99
HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL
CURRENT AND ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION
While Around the Block is full of positive stories and information, it does not provide a means to share
current, real-time information with residents. An online version, together with a link to an imminent
provincial 211 system, will provide current, searchable, and shareable information available at the click
of a button.
In 2021, most citizens, regardless of their financial situation, own a cellphone as an essential
requirement to communicate and access information.
With COVID-19 restrictions in place that limit in -person services, online access to information has
become much more critical.
MEASUREMENT
It is difficult to measure the true readership of a free community newspaper. Online platforms allow for
very precise measurements that allow publishers to adjust content and layout for optimal performance
and reach.
COMMUNICATING IMPACT
The "Building Neighbourhood Measurement Capacity Project" that is currently underway will provide
an evaluation tool for priority neighbourhood associations and service providers. A significant piece to
this project will involve interpreting data and demonstrating and communicating impact which is critical
to their sustainability.
NEXT STEPS
1. Develop a work plan and timeline for transition from print newspaper to online version and
platform.
2. Plan/publish final print edition(s) of Around the Block community newspaper.
3. Use final editions of newspaper to announce coming changes.
4. Conduct research (e.g. survey, stakeholder meetings) to establish desired alternatives for new
online communications platform.
5. Retain a Content Coordinator to administer new platform.
6. Report on all milestones and deliverables to City of Saint John.
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-069
Report Date
March 03, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: 2021 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund and General Fund (Storm &
Transportation Categories) Capital Project Tendering Schedule
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Michael Baker
J. Brent McGovern
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this report be received and filed.
I�:���►jrPl�1►luluG�li'I
The 2021 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program and the 2021
General Fund Capital Program were approved by Council on February 22,
2021. As a result of this approval, most capital projects can procced with design,
tendering and construction activities.
An overview for the schedule of the planned projects to be tendered in the next
three months is provided.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
M&C 2021-051; Utility and General Fund — Revised 2021 Capital Programs
M&C 2019-203; 2020 and 2021 General Fund Capital Budget
M&C 2019-204; 2020 and 2021 Utility Fund Capital Budget
�11r.fArrxr1f#ffA",[elff[i'�M.iJ
This report aligns with Council's Priority for Valued Service Delivery, specifically as
it relates to investing in sustainable City services and municipal infrastructure. The
City is also being financially responsible by seeking funding from alternative
sources.
QDS'am2T m�\J
REPORT
The 2021 Water and Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program and the 2021
General Fund Capital Program were approved by Council on February 22,
2021. As a result of this approval, most capital projects can procced with design,
tendering and construction activities. There are a total of 7 projects within the
Capital programs that are awaiting approval of Bilateral funding. The remainder of
projects can proceed except for 2 minor projects which are subject to
Environmental Trust Fund Funding and National Disaster Mitigation Program
Funding.
The completion of the 2021 Capital projects will greatly assist with current and
future development in the Central Peninsula (i.e. Reconstruction of Princess Street
(Wentworth Street to Crown Street)) as well as lower the City's and Utilities large
infrastructure deficits. To inform Council on upcoming tendering of capital
projects the tables below indicate the planned capital program tendering for the
next three months. The projects noted below are in no particular order.
March 2021
Overall Project
Project
Budget
Description
Notes
Waterloo Street
Water, Sanitary and Storm
Project award subject to
(Haymarket Square
$ 2,370,000.00
Sewer Installation and
successful funding under
to Castle Street)
Street Reconstruction
Bilateral Funding.
(980m)
Structural Lining
$ 225,000.00
Structural lining of sanitary
N/A
sewers at various locations
Princess Street
Water, Sanitary and Storm
project award subject to
(Wentworth Street
$ 1,545,000.00
Sewer Installation and
successful funding under
to Crown Street)
Street Reconstruction
Bilateral Funding.
(720m)
Wastewater
Pumping (Prospect
$ 575,000.00
New Sanitary Lift Station
N/A
Street West at
Walnut Street)
Westmorland Road &
Bayside Drive Flow
New flow meters and flow
Meters / Chamber
$ 180,000.00
N/A
#33 Flow Limiting
limiting valves
Valves
Removal of cross -
Waiting on HUP Permit
connections on
$ 15000000
,.
Removal of transmission
from the Province of
water transmission
main cross connections
New Brunswick.
mains
Total
$ 5,045,000.00
QDS'am2T H�\'J
April 2021
Project
Overall Project
Description
Notes
Budget
Asphalt Roadway
Resurfacing and Curb
$ 6,500,000.00
New curb, sidewalk and
N/A
& Sidewalk Renewal -
resurfacing of streets.
Neighborhoods
Broadview Avenue
Water, Sanitary and
Project award subject to
(Charlotte Street to
$ 1,410,000.00
ll
Storm Sewer Instaationand
successful funding under
Carmarthen Street)
Street
Bilateral Funding.
Reconstruction (670m)
Structural lining of
Structural Lining
$ 225,000.00
sanitary sewers at
N/A
various locations
Princess Street (Water
New storm (46m) and
Street to Germain
$ 365,000.00
sanitary sewer (100m).
N/A
Street)
Total
$ 8,700,000.00
May
2021
Project
Overall Project
Description
Notes
Budget
Wentworth Street
Water, Sanitary and
Project award subject to
(Elliott Row to Orange
$ 1,665,000.00
Storm Sewer Installationsuccessful
funding under
Street)
and Street
Bilateral Funding.
Reconstruction (1050m)
Rodney Street (Market
Water, Sanitary and
Place to Watson
$ 1,645,000.00
Storm Sewer Installation
N/A
Street)
and Street
Reconstruction (940m)
St James Street (Prince
Water, Sanitary and
Project award subject to
William Street to
$ 620,000.00
Storm Sewer Installationsuccessful
funding under
Germain Street)
and Street
Bilateral Funding.
Reconstruction (280m)
Catherwood Street
New storm (85m) and
(Ready Street to
$ 259,000.00
sanitary sewer (55m).
N/A
Greystone Terrace)
Total
$ 4,189,000.00
The anticipated project tendering timelines are tentative and may be subject to
change. Project tendering timelines may be altered because of the City obtaining
necessary easements and/or permits for certain projects to proceed. Projects not
listed above may be tendered sooner than anticipated if the necessary easements
and/or permits are obtained.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
As the 2021 Capital Programs were approved on February 22, 2021 City staff are
currently working on creating a complete tender schedule for all the 2021
Capital projects (Water and Sewerage Utility Fund and General Fund (Storm &
Transportation Categories). Once completed, the 2021 tender schedule will be
released to the Saint John Construction Association for their information
regarding upcoming construction tender releases.
Contractors and residents can refer to the City of Saint John website
www.saintiohn.ca for current tender advertisements and closing dates.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
This report has been prepared and reviewed by the Utilities and Infrastructure
Department.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
•N
PROCLAMATION - International Womenss Day March 8t"12021
WHEREAS: Tourism, Heritage and Culture Minister Tammy
Scott -Wallace, who is also the minister
responsible for women's equality, released the
following statement in recognition of
International Women's Day, March 8:
On International Women's Day, let's pause and celebrate the women in our
lives. The impact of COVID-19 has had an alarming and disproportionate effect
on women. The pandemic has led to circumstances that may increase the
incidence of domestic violence and the level of risk and danger for those
subjected to domestic violence.
Yet, women and girls around the world persevere and continue to shape a
more equal future. They make up the majority of healthcare and essential
workers; they make the health and wellness of their families a priority and
continue to be a primary support for their children; and they are at the
frontlines, battling this pandemic. Women leaders and organizations have
demonstrated the skills, knowledge, and networks to effectively lead COVID-
19 response efforts.
Feminist Recovery is the national theme for International Women's Day this
year. Women are the future, the hope and the recovery that will carry us
through this pandemic. New Brunswick women, for your strength and your
perseverance, you are our leaders. This year, on this International Women's
Day, New Brunswick thanks you.
NOW THEREFORE: I, Don Darling, Mayor of Saint John do hereby
proclaim March 8t", 2021 as International
Women's Day and urge all citizens to support and
participate in Women's Day activities throughout
the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF: I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
Mayor of the City of Saint John.
91
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
February 18, 2021
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Rezoning and Subdivision Application
3396 Loch Lomond Road
On January 25, 2021, Common Council referred the above matter to the
Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee
considered the attached report at its February 17, 2021 meeting.
The City of Saint John
In response to staff's presentation, the Committee questioned whether Lot 20-2
(garage lot) would comprise the full area down to Cooks Lake. Staff confirmed
that it would. The Subdivision will divide the property into a small lot for the one -
unit dwelling and a larger lot consisting of the garage and remaining property. In
response to a question regarding the condition to remove a shipping container on
site prior to issuance of a building permit, staff confirmed this enforcement
approach was consistent with other applications. The container is currently
buffered and the condition will allow time to remove the items without creating an
additional issue of outdoor storage.
The applicant, Rick Turner of Hughes Suveys Inc., was present. Mr. Turner noted
that the property owner, Bob Landry, agreed with the staff recommendation. He
stated that the proposed zone was an excellent fit and highlighted that the
neighbourhood was on board with the change. Mr. Turner further indicated that
the container will be removed once a house is built on the garage lot. In response
to a question on the timeline for construction on the house, Mr. Landry stated it
would be within the next couple of years.
The Committee voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Page 1 of 3
92
Hughes Surveys Inc. 3396 Loch Lomond Road February 18, 2021
That Common Council rezone a portion of a parcel of land having an area
of approximately 8,227 square metres, located at 3396 Loch Lomond
Road, also identified as a portion of PID Number 00330126, from Rural
Residential (RR) to Rural General Commercial (CRG).
2. That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the
Community Planning Act, impose the following conditions on a portion of
a parcel of land having an area of approximately 8,227 square metre,
located at 3396 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a portion of PID
Number 00330126:
a. The parcel of land will be restricted to the following uses as
identified in the Rural General Commercial (CRG) Zone of the City
of Saint John Zoning By-law:
• An Artist or Craftsperson Studio;
• Bed and breakfast;
• Business Office, subject to paragraph 11.11(3)(a) of the Zoning
By-law;
• Contractor Service, Household;
• Dwelling unit;
• Garden Suite, subject to section 9.8 of the Zoning By-law;
• Home occupation, subject to section 9.9 of the Zoning By-law;
• Secondary suite, subject to section 9.13 of the Zoning By-law;
• Service and Repair, Household;
• Supportive housing, subject to section 9.14 of the Zoning By-law;
and,
b. Only one of the above land uses mentioned in 2(a) can be
established on the site, in addition to a Dwelling Unit, at any one
time.
c. The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance
with a detailed site plan, prepared by the proponent and subject to
the approval of the Development Officer, illustrating the location of
buildings and structures, garbage enclosures, driveway accesses,
vehicle parking, loading areas, landscaping, amenity spaces,
signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; and the
above site plan be attached to the permit application for the
development of the parcel of land.
d. The Development Officer shall not endorse any permit application
for an additional residential dwelling unless the existing shipping
container in the area have been removed.
Page 2 of 3
93
Hughes Surveys Inc. 3396 Loch Lomond Road February 18, 2021
3. That upon third reading, Common Council accept a money in -lieu of Land
for Public Purposes dedication for the proposed "Robert M. Landry
Tentative Subdivision Plan" at 3396 Loch Lomond Road.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex Weaver Crawford
Chair
Attachments
1 — Staff Report
2 — Staff Presentation
3 — Letters
Page 3 of 3
94
The City of Saint John
Date:
February 12, 2021
To:
Planning Advisory Committee
From:
Growth & Community Services
Meeting:
February 17, 2021
SUBJECT
Applicant:
Hughes Surveys & Consultants Inc.
Landowner:
Robert M. Landry
Location:
3396 Loch Lomond Road
PID:
00330126
Plan Designation:
Rural Residential
Current Zoning:
Rural Residential (RR)
Proposed Zoning:
Rural General Commercial (CRG)
Application Type:
Rezoning and Subdivision
Jurisdiction:
The Community Planning Act authorizes the Planning Advisory
Committee to give its views to Common Council concerning
proposed amendments to the Zoning By-law. Common Council
will consider the Committee's recommendation at a public hearing
on Monday, March 8, 2021.
The Act also authorizes the Planning Advisory Committee to
advise Common Council concerning the acceptance of money in -
lieu of Land for Public Purposes dedications.
Page 1 of 7
95
Hughes Surveys Inc. 3396 Loch Lomond Road February 12, 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application seeks to rezone unserviced residential property to permit an existing household
contractor service. The application further seeks to subdivide the property into two lots. One lot
is to contain an existing one -unit dwelling and the second lot a large garage, which has evolved
to be used as part of the owner's household contractor business over the years. It is
recommended that a money in -lieu of LPP dedication be accepted as part of the subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Common Council rezone a portion of a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 8,227 square metres, located at 3396 Loch Lomond Road, also identified
as a portion of PID Number 00330126, from Rural Residential (RR) to Rural General
Commercial (CRG).
2. That Common Council, pursuant to the provisions of Section 59 of the Community
Planning Act, impose the following conditions on a portion of a parcel of land having an
area of approximately 8,227 square metre, located at 3396 Loch Lomond Road, also
identified as a portion of PID Number 00330126:
a. The parcel of land will be restricted to the following uses as identified in the Rural
General Commercial (CRG) Zone of the City of Saint John Zoning By-law:
• An Artist or Craftsperson Studio;
• Bed and breakfast;
• Business Office, subject to paragraph 11.11(3)(a) of the Zoning By-law;
• Contractor Service, Household;
• Dwelling unit;
• Garden Suite, subject to section 9.8 of the Zoning By-law;
• Home occupation, subject to section 9.9 of the Zoning By-law;
• Secondary suite, subject to section 9.13 of the Zoning By-law;
• Service and Repair, Household
• Supportive housing, subject to section 9.14 of the Zoning By-law; and
b. Only one of the above land uses mentioned in 2(a) can be established on the
site, in addition to a Dwelling Unit, at any one time.
c. The development and use of the parcel of land be in accordance with a detailed
site plan, prepared by the proponent and subject to the approval of the
Development Officer, illustrating the location of buildings and structures, garbage
enclosures, driveway accesses, vehicle parking, loading areas, landscaping,
amenity spaces, signs, exterior lighting, and other such site features; and
the above site plan be attached to the permit application for the
development of the parcel of land.
Page 2 of 7
96
Hughes Surveys Inc. 3396 Loch Lomond Road February 12, 2021
d. The Development Officer shall not endorse any permit application for an
additional residential dwelling unless the existing shipping containers in the area
have been removed.
3. That Common Council accept a money in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes dedication for
the proposed "Robert M. Landry Tentative Subdivision Plan" at 3396 Loch Lomond
Road.
DECISION HISTORY
In 1999, Common Council approved placement of a mini home at 3396 Loch Lomond Road, for
a temporary period of one year. The mini -home is no longer on the site. There is no other
applicable decision history. There are no Section 59 conditions registered with the property and
it is not subject to any exceptions under the Zoning By-law.
ANALYSIS
Proposal
The proposal consists of the rezoning and subdivision of property located at 3396 Loch Lomond
Road. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR). The subdivision would create a
small lot containing an existing one -unit dwelling (2,223 square metres) and a large lot
containing an existing garage, yard, and forested area. The purpose of the rezoning is to enable
subdivision of the property and permit an existing household contractor service from operating
out of the garage. Only the portion of the lot that is already used by the garage and yard is
recommended to be rezoned to Rural General Commercial (CRG). This portion consists of
8,227 square metres and is illustrated on Submission 1. Authorization for money -in -lieu of Land
for Public Purposes dedication is recommended as part of the subdivision.
Site and Neighbourhood
3396 Loch Lomond Road is located between Loch Lomond Road and Cooks Lake. The lot
currently consists of a one -unit dwelling unit fronting on Loch Lomond Road. Located to the rear
of the home is a large garage, which is accessory to the dwelling unit. The southern half of the
lot is undeveloped, forested land, which slopes down to Cooks Lake. The property
encompasses approximately half of Cooks Lake, with the other half of the lake under separate
private ownership. An easement and existing utility poles run north to south from Loch Lomond
Road through the property. This portion of Loch Lomond Road is characterized by ribbon
development in the form of unserviced low -density residential units. The immediate area within
100 metres is residential except for a convenience store across the street. There are several
commercial uses along Loch Lomond Road and the greater area, including a small-scale
vehicle sale business, an automotive repair shop and redemption centre.
Existing Business and Required Approvals
Page 3 of 7
97
Hughes Surveys Inc. 3396 Loch Lomond Road February 12, 2021
The primary purpose of the rezoning and subdivision application is to legalize the business and
enable sale of the one -unit dwelling lot. In 2001, the garage (30' x 50') was constructed as
accessory to the home. The garage and yard have evolved over the years to be used as part of
the applicant's household contractor business. A site visit revealed the floor space is primarily
used for storage of tools and equipment, in addition to personal use. Further, several items
related to the business are currently stored in the yard, which include utility trailers, concrete
forms, a shipping container for storage, and a mobile construction office trailer. No vehicles or
heavy equipment are stored on the property. The business specializes in kitchen and bath
remodeling, additions, flooring, a variety of other residential improvements, and project
management. Both lots contain their own well and septic system. There was previously located
a mini -home on the garage lot. The garage is accessed via a long driveway from Loch Lomond
Road. The one -unit dwelling has its own access. The owner would continue to use the garage
and lot as part of the business and for personal use but is interested in eventually constructing
an additional residential unit on the property and selling the property.
Municipal Plan and Rezoning
The property is designated Rural Residential under Schedule B of the Municipal Plan. This
designation is generally intended to accommodate existing unserviced rural residential
development, although commercial uses, where compatible, can be appropriate. Development
is limited in accordance with limitations set out on the subdivision of land. Within these lands, a
maximum of two new lots are permitted from a parent parcel. New lots may have a minimum lot
area less than 4 hectares in the Rural Residential Area. The Plan does not set a minimum lot
area; however the Zoning By-law sets a minimum lot area of 5,350 square metres for the Rural
General Commercial Zone. The Plan provides some criteria on businesses within residential
areas in terms of considering their visibility from the street, storage of material or equipment,
excessive traffic, signage, and production of smoke, dust, fumes, and noise.
The household contractor service is not an obtrusive use and many of the potential issues
arising from a business have been minimized by the current operator. The garage is not visible
from the street as it is set back 70 metres and is screened by a combination of berms topped
with hedges. These hedges exist both on the owner's lot and the adjacent neighbour's lot. The
garage is surrounded by forest to the south. The applicant has acknowledged an intention to
clean up the yard and remove outdoor storage. There is no heavy equipment or vehicles
associated with the business kept in the yard. As all work is conducted off site there should not
be any noise or emissions from the garage. There is no business signage or client traffic, which
has ensured that the business -related operations have remained hidden from public view.
The nature of the household contractor business is small scale. The current business does not
seem to be causing any problems and there are no complaints on record. With the growth of the
business over the years and the use of an accessory building and yard for storage, it is the
appropriate time to recommend the use be recognized through a rezoning application. Further,
Page 4 of 7
98
Hughes Surveys Inc. 3396 Loch Lomond Road February 12, 2021
the subdivision cannot occur without the rezoning as the garage is not permitted as a main
building under the current zone and the applicant does not have short term plans to construct a
second dwelling.
While it is appreciated that the current operator may have minimized issues resulting from the
operation of the business, future owners must be held to a standard to ensure that compatibility
with the neighbourhood is maintained. Staff recommend the following conditions to maintain
compatibility:
- The area to be used for commercial activity is limited to the existing area of operations,
an approximately 8,227 square metre footprint, so that future rural commercial uses
cannot be expanded.
- Section 59 conditions will ensure that the types of permitted uses within the CRG zone
are compatible and not detrimental to the adjacent residential uses.
Shipping Container
The proposal can meet all Zoning By-law standards, with exception of the use of a shipping
container in accordance with Section 8.17. Currently, the appearance of the container, like the
garage, has largely been minimized by screening through berms and hedges. Furthermore, the
container is set back 100 metres from the road. The container is currently being used for
storage related to the business. The applicant has committed to removing the containers. In
terms of a timeline, staff are recommending that prior to approval of any residential dwelling unit
on the property that the container be removed. This will allow sufficient time to remove the
storage items and container.
Land for Public Purposes
The Subdivision By-law requires ten percent of the area of a proposed subdivision to be vested
to the City as Land for Public Purposes (LPP). Such land dedications must be assented to by
Common Council; however, a money in -lieu of LPP dedication may be accepted.
The Subdivision By-law encourages the assent of proposed LPP dedications that involve a
pedestrian walkway between streets or land required to support the City's Trails and Bikeways
Strategic Plan. Otherwise, the Subdivision By-law encourages the acceptance of money in -lieu
of LPP dedications for subdivisions that do not offer these benefits. This approach is supported
by the City of Saint John Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan (PlaySJ) and the Parks and
Recreation service area.
Since the proposed subdivision does not meet the land dedication requirements of the
Subdivision By-law, staff is recommending the acceptance of a money in -lieu of LPP dedication.
The Community Planning Act (Act) requires that money in -lieu of LPP dedications represent
eight percent of the market value of the unimproved land at the time of subdivision. The Act also
requires that money in -lieu dedications be deposited into a special account and that Common
Page 5 of 7
99
Hughes Surveys Inc. 3396 Loch Lomond Road February 12, 2021
Council expend the money for "acquiring or developing land for public purposes and for no other
purposes."
Variances
Several variances have been requested from the Zoning By-law because of the subdivision,
owing to the configuration of Lot 20-01 and Lot 20-02.
- Lot 20-01 is proposed to be 2,223 square metres, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a
minimum lot area of 5,350.
Lot 20-01 is proposed to have a frontage of 27.08 metres whereas the Zoning By-law
requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres.
Lot 20-02 is proposed to have a frontage of 9.93 metres, whereas the Zoning By-law
requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres.
The minimum lot area variances are reasonable given the size of existing lots along Loch
Lomond Road. The proposed Lot 20-01 corresponds with the size of lots in the neighbourhood.
Each lot has its own existing well and septic system. The existing lot frontage is undersized and
does not meet the Rural Residential frontage standard. Lot 20-02 current functions as a flag lot
and therefore is incapable of meeting the lot frontage standard. These variances will be
considered by the Development Officer.
Conclusion
The rezoning will recognize a household contractor service use that has evolved out of a home
business. Over the years, this use has remained invisible from the street and appears to have
had little impact on its surroundings. The City has not received any complaints regarding the
business. The proposed uses being considered as part of the rezoning are limited and should
ensure that any future development will be able to continue to integrate with the surrounding
neighbourhood.
ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
No alternatives are proposed.
ENGAGEMENT
Public
In accordance with the Committee's Rules of Procedure, notification of the proposal was sent to
landowners within 100 metres of the subject property on February 4, 2021.
APPROVALS AND CONTACT
Author Manager Commissioner
Page 6 of 7
100
Hughes Surveys Inc. 3396 Loch Lomond Road February 12, 2021
Andrew Reid, MCIP, RPP Jennifer Kirchner, MCIP, RPP Jacqueline Hamilton, MCIP,
RPP
Contact:
Andrew Reid
Telephone:
(506) 658-4447
Email:
Andy. Reid @saintjohn.ca
Application:
20-3002
APPENDIX
Map 1: Aerial Photography
Map 2: Future Land Use
Map 3: Zoning
Attachment 1: Site Photography
Attachment 2: Municipal Plan Review
Applicant Submission 1: Tentative Subdivision Plan
Applicant Submission 2: Tentative Subdivision Plan with Aerial
Applicant Submission 3: Letters of Support
Page 7 of 7
101
Lot 20-1 Existing residence and access to Lot 20-3
Lot 20-3 Outdoor storage
Aw
qf
I _
Lot 20-3 Outdoor storage
Lot 20-3 Existing garage
r,-
1 ■
POP'-
MENEM pp-
Lot 20-3 Existing Garage
Attachment 2 — Municipal Plan Review
Policy LU-104
Create the Rural Residential designation on the
Future Land Use map (Schedule B). Council intends
that land within the Rural Residential Area
designation is generally intended to accommodate
existing rural residential development. Development
of residential uses on existing lots shall be permitted
but the creation of new lots for additional rural
residential development will generally be
discouraged, except where applications for
subdivision were approved by Council prior to the
adoption of the Municipal Plan. Council will permit
other compatible uses including home occupations,
parks, and community facilities without amendment
to the Municipal Plan.
Policy LU-106
Permit the creation of new lots that have a
minimum lot area of less than four (4) hectares
(40,000 square metres) in the Rural Residential Area
subject to compliance with the provisions in the
Zoning Bylaw and in keeping with the rural character
of the area. Council shall permit the creation of no
more than two (2) new lots from a host parcel and
will not permit the creation of any more than one (1)
new access driveway per lot to a collector or arterial
roadway as a result of such subdivisions, except
where approved by Council prior to the adoption of
the Municipal Plan.
Policy 1-2
In considering amendments to the Zoning Bylaw or
the imposition of terms and conditions, in addition
to all other criteria set out in the various policies of
the Municipal Plan, have regard for the following:
a. The proposal is in conformity with the goals,
policies and intent of the Municipal Plan and the
requirements of all City bylaws;
b. The proposal is not premature or inappropriate by
reason of:
i. Financial inability of the City to absorb costs
related to development and ensure efficient
delivery of services, as determined through Policy
The home and garage are existing. The
subdivision will create one new lot and the
development is of a small scale in nature and
not inappropriate in terms of the policy's
intention for these lands. Furthermore, the
proposal will legalize an existing commercial
use that has evolved over the past decade and
has shown a degree of compatibility with
adjacent residences.
The proposal will create one new lot, resulting
in an undersized lot. The existing lot does not
meet the minimum frontage standard.
Overall, the subdivision is capable of keeping
with the rural character of the area, as Lot 20-
1 is comparable to the lot size and frontage of
the majority of lots within the area.
The proposal does not detract from
the overarching goals or policies of
the Municipal Plan. The proposal has
been crafted to bring the property
into alignment with City bylaws.
b. The proposal is not premature or
inappropriate by virtue of these
103
Attachment 2 — Municipal Plan Review
1-7 and 1-8;
ii. The adequacy of central wastewater or water
services and storm drainage measures;
iii. Adequacy or proximity of school, recreation or
other community facilities;
iv. Adequacy of road networks leading to or
adjacent to the development; and
v. Potential for negative impacts to designated
heritage buildings or areas.
c. Appropriate controls are placed on any proposed
development where necessary to reduce any conflict
with adjacent land uses by reason of:
i. Type of use;
ii. Height, bulk or appearance and lot coverage of
any proposed building;
iii. Traffic generation, vehicular, pedestrian,
bicycle or transit access to and from the site;
iv. Parking;
v. Open storage;
vi. Signs; and
vii. Any other relevant matter of urban planning.
d. The proposed site is suitable in terms of steepness
of grade, soil and geological conditions, locations of
watercourses, wetlands and susceptibility of
flooding as well as any other relevant environmental
consideration;
e. The proposal satisfies the terms and conditions of
Policy 1-5 related to timeframes and phasing of
development; and
f. The proposal meets all necessary public health
and safety considerations.
reasons. The property is unserviced
and has access off Loch Lomond Road.
c. Conditions have been recommended
to reduce open storage conflict with
adjacent neighbours. In large part, the
owner has screened the use from the
street and adjacent properties.
d. The property is located within the 30
metre buffer area of Cooks Lake. No
development or work is proposed in
this area; however, if it were, a
watercourse and wetland permit
would be required.
e. Not applicable.
f. The proposal meets necessary public
health and safety considerations.
104
Aerial Photograph - 3396 Loch Lomond Road
2021-01-27 1:2,797
0.01 0.03 0.06 mi
0.03 0.05 0.1 km
Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Saint John, Province of New
Brunswick, Province of Nova Scotia, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P,
METI/NASA, USGS, US Census Bureau, NRCan, Parks Canada, The City
of Saint John
105
Future Land Use - 3396 Loch Lomond Road
2021-01-27
Property Parcels Rural Resource
Future Land Use 0 Rural Residential
Rural Settlement Federal Transportation
V � l
Park and Natural Area
106
,
r*/
9
IM
1:18,000
0 0.1 0.2 0.4 mi
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 km
GeoEye, Maxar
Drawn by Andy Reid
Ben
Lomon
Latim r
L.a,ke
To, City of Saint John
Planning Department
I have reviewed the proposed plan and I am in favour of Robert Landry's application to make his garage
and lot a commercial zone, in support of his home contracting business.
e
Sydney Muxworthy
3426 Loch Lomond Rd
Saint John, NB
506.696-5878
Ta: City of Saint John
Planning Department
I have reviewed the proposed plan and I am in favour of Robert Landry's application to make his garage
and lot a commercial zone, in support of his home contracting business.
LAY
Jim Campbell
3424 Loch Lomond Rd
Saint John, NB
506-696-6307
109
To, City of Saint John
Planning Department
I have reviewed the proposed plan and I am in favour of Robert Landry's application to make his garage
and lot a commercial zone, in support of his home contracting business.
Norm Brien
3384 Loch Lomond Rd
Saint John, NB
5�B6=f�t3Y'S4�
110
To'. City of Saint John
Planning Department
I have reviewed the proposed plan and I am in favour of Robert Landry's application to make his garage
and lot a commercial zone, in support of his home contracting business.
FC/S 7 'wa �
Donnie Caissie
3408 Loch Lomond Rd
Saint John, NB
506-633-2817
111
February 17`", 2021
Saint John Planning Advisory Committee,
Re:
Rezoning -and S6bdivis+0n :A licatiOn
3396 Loch Lomond Road (PID 00330126)
please accept this letter in support of subdividing PID Number 00330126.
properties neighbouring the requested suhciivisi:an (3347 Loch ood rezoning.
8 z3
As the owner of two pCOpe rezoning and am in favour of the proposed
Morrison Rd), I have reviewed the proposed
Sincer
Aaron Comeau
112
113
PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
COUNTY OF SAINT JOHN
I, SEAN B. MURPHY, of the City of Saint John, in
the County of Saint John and Province of New Brunswick,
Barrister and Solicitor, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:-
1. THAT the attached instrument dated the Z 7 day
�,5 W
of May, A.D. 1996, between Albert S. Sproul as Grantor,
and Robert M. Landry as Grantee, does not subdivide land
within the meaning of the Community Planning Act.
SWORN TO at the City of Saint)
John, in the County of Saint )
John and Province of New )
Brunswick, this Z 3
day of May, 1996, )
)
BEFOR ME: )
Dennis Boyle )
A COMMISSIONER OF 0 THS )
BEING A SOLICITOR )
Sean B. Murphy v4
114
COOKS
F L E D
j{.Fi4
Rius,r-o.r: o: DEEDb
Y OF SARIT JOHN, N. $-
HA ZEN d WHITE GRANT `l OEBORA H
U L , o .HA ZEN ORA N T
PRD � o
i �b 5 Y
� � �"�� LL�pM OPERT
.1AME5
L A K E 3k 1
NO TE.'
NO FURTHER SU8-0IVISIONI
W/ THOUT PROPER CI T Y
STREETS, ETC.
OWNERS S/GNJa TURF
i aor
r
� r
COTTAGE
L or
o.
AREA 53 20
A f \ l (N Q
'f-
DEED DATA.'
JAMES SPROUL d WILLIAM SPROUL
DEED NO. 169946, BOOK 344, PAGE ZY8
Thiw approval ire null and void
o4\>•t4 i1'A �a. ��t v�.• illy ;this V; 11tC date
nIE .}t.���roval, JA MES
r� s 'o
IL
d}
I
W
q
SUB --DIVISION PLAN
Lor NxM
W/L L /AM SPROUL PROPERTY
COOKS LAKE
:'A C/rY OF SAINr JOHN, EAST, Its B.
SCALE /N.=100FT
r
FEBRUA RY 25, 1970 A L A N A. H/ Cft S
CERTIFIED CORRECT
NEW BRUNSW/GK LAND SURVEYOR
HAMPTON, KINGS COUNTY, N. B.
115 B—I—IIS
ENDORSEMENTS
Lomo
nd Road
Loch Varies)
(Width
15680 See Detail "B"
/ 00 0
< o \00"O,-
0-oSe general 801 201 Well O o ocation as �`vv,
shown by v' 6, o 0
landowner. 31 �
0
504 �� 6, o
�s Lot �(-4�c,�
20 01 0 0
2233 m K77---
_7cS� 301 0 36
46
2 O 2�5 �$ O Building
/ 0 Location
iding)
/ s �
Easement \\
Doc. 31794382
Reg. 2012-08-02 \\
C
��(�e �-o
C)o
+ / + 7i +
0 �� Lot
0) U� 4
0 20-02
3.48 ha f
~ CD
/ Q L 9 N
o N�r'p��
� .�
0 oo �o� 0�' CO,s
-0� 0,c9d'�J'� Ov,.L rot
�s ss =e2
/ so 2233
9
/ 803 • \
5 f or
/ to shore
C)
0 O^ o�
�e-0
L EG END -O>
o��
ROUND IRON BAR FOUND
SQUARE IRON BAR FOUND ■ O
IRON PIPE FOUND O
STANDARD SURVEY MARKER FOUND QQ
STANDARD SURVEY MARKER PLACED Q 9
WOODEN POST PLACED
CALCULATED POINT O 6'
TABULATED POINT
TRAVERSE CONTROL POINT 0
N.B. GRID CO—ORDINATE MONUMENT 0
HYDRO POLE / UTILITY WIRE 0/H" ,
FOUNDATION F d n .
STREET R.O.W.
UTILITY EASEMENT —
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE
CENTRELINE —
FENCE —X X X—
STRUCTURE
AN = +0.077
AE = -0.083
�<a
O
o �Sp •
� os
o �o
o� Detail "B" - N.T.S.
Key Plan
—Area off o\
\Survey
Reaistration Data
Scale 1 : 5,000
Owner Name : Robert Mickle Landry
PID : 00330126
Effective Date : 201 1 -04-21
Instrument : Transfer # 407403 Vol. 1832 Pg. 233 Reg. 1996-05-27
Owners
Robert M. Landry
NOTES
1. Directions are N. B. Grid azimuths derived from G.P.S. observations
on N.B. Mon's. 20005 (based on NAD83 CSRS HPN Value on N.B.
Mon. 28160).
2
3
AN= -0.25 11
AE= -0.0311 4
Detail "A" - N.T.S.
/N
— 2012�
n
\ ° 0 \
CD L
o a N
`D
� \
3.5 f or
to shore � O o �
o 0
N 210ED
o I o
ZS
cS ��
_a ke �\J
I I
I PID OC 421750
Lot
lee Plan File 50 No. 1
I I
p 0
c o QN
O
2 �
P
O
s O
Q U
O
Q
All distances are in metres; to convert to imperial equivalents divide
by 0.3048.
Area of survey outlined thus o , peripheral information
compiled from various sources.
All document and plan references refer to the Registry Office for
Saint John County or the Land Titles District of New Brunswick.
5. Field survey completed on November 17, 2020.
6. All computations performed and coordinates shown on this plan
are based on New Brunswick Stereographic Double Projection and
the NAD83(CSRS) Reference System as realized by Service
New Brunswick High Precision Network coordinate survey monuments.
Purpose Of Plan
to create lot 20-01 & lot 20-02 from PID 00330126
New Brunswick Grid Co —Ordinate Values
Sta.
X
Y
Rmks.
200
2
545
340.133
7
370
345.207
CALC. PT.
201
2
545
315.907
7
370
333.107
S.S.M.
202
2
545
347.261
7
370
273.314
S.S.M.
300
2
545
345.690
7
370
346.361
CALC. PT.
301
2
545
377.482
7
370
287.321
S.S.M.
302
2
545
412.980
7
370
294.695
FD. S.M.
504
2
545
272.938
7
370
311.644
PLAN 19307785
801
2
545
307.023
7
370
328.669
PLAN 19307785
802
2
545
345.549
7
370
262.925
PLAN 19307785
20005
2
545
346.254
7
370
366.142
H.P.N. (OBS.)
28160
2
535
354.190
7
363
188.696
H.P.N. MON.
Scale Factor Applied 1.000028
entative Subdivision Plan
Robert M. Landry Subdivision,
Loch Lomond Road,
City of Saint John,
Saint John County, New Brunswick
HUGHES SURVEYS & CONSULTANTS INC.
Surveyed by Feb. 03, 2021
Date
New Brunswick Land Surveyor # 395
20 0 20 40 60 80
1 : 1000
meters
Dwg. No. Disk No. Topos Disk No.
S20278D 2020 H2O278 2020
Dwn. by Job No. Rev. No. Map Ref.
M.C.B. Y20-278 H/05-R3D-E
rn
3
o
co
1-1
N
0
N
i
0
i
r-
N
O
N
v)
i
0
0
N
O
N
..
iI
ENDORSEMENTS
Road
A— (Width �� n
-76 15 50 See Detail „B„
Ste)53
00
\0
O Road
>' Se general 801 � � 201 s~ �O OO Oo N O� ° u Y
3 •. 0'
ocation as Well j� �� �i �� cS� boo
shown by v' 6;, o o/ �Q v �'�p L ° and
land w �° �; O 'S Q r' o m �oArea o
Q �, COAO r pie
': O
s� ... 00 \S u rvey ns
s Lot
9
2 0 — 01 Z /
00,
•
/ 2233 m2 302 \ \ \
o ° 301 0 36 Key Plan Scale 1 5,000
>.-° ,� � oo' � ` 6 •- Registration Data
4,2 2�5 Building
o°,� •0) Location PID 00326033 Owner Name Robert Mickle Landry
0' Siding) Brenda A. Gallant PID : 00330126
Sidney B. \ Effective Date 201 1 —04-21
Instrument Transfer # 407403 Vol. 1832 Pg. 233 Reg. 1996-05-27
Easement :u
Muxworthy Property
\
Doc. 388298
Doc. 31794382 \ Owners
Re 2012-08-02 Vol. 1664 Pg.` 192
g' �� Robert M. Landry
AN. +0.077
'. 5e 0
AE 0.083,E NOTES
•\cam - Q
�o O 1. Directions are N. B. Grid azimuths derived from G.P.S. observations
G • ed �` o c5o on N.B. Mon s. 20005 (based on NAD83 CSRS HPN Value on N.B.
Ar
* co��\ L�k �O(3` Mon. 28160).
K
a }" '. • ';: > >� 2. distances are in metres; to convert to imperial equivalents divide
,:\\ by 0.3048.
J O —
,¢.y; + c>' Detail B N.T.S.
':. + + "
Qom, 3. Area of survey outlined thus o , peripheral information
.ry
. :. 0 ,
=k: compiled from various sources.
.. +R,.
E-
-, Y y 0 2234 AN 0.03 4. All document and Ian references refer to the Registry Office for
r� • , ' " . 3., f v1- v Wyk.
- „ •, .t ... ,,,.._ ,, ;,.,, - �,, , � � .. • �� � - Saint John County or the Land Titles District of New Brunswick.
_ g
f s �
V
Ill t:'. s, 4: .-.� n` •' \ - 5. Field survey completed on November 17, 2020.
.O �
z oRr. 4, r"•Y x
, t
„ „ 6. All computations performed and coordinates shown on this plan
Detail A — N.T.S..x- _ .• .:� ..k - .. ,. _ '.<�. �..._ :. ;,<.' �� o ,'� ,: '•. � ti _:.. are based on New Brunswick Stereographic Double Projection and
.tom,, ....3 -..d -�' -.. 13
p �, Q the NAD83 CSRS Reference System as realized b Service
,
off� .i - o ,., New Brunswick High Precision Network coordinate surveymonuments.
cA
See. Detail A
tr v
US
4
, 4
�
Doc. 31794382 22
s
Re
2012-08-02
-
g•
:r
Purpose Of Plan
x
' to create lot 20 01 & lot 20 02 from PID 00330126
`
y ' \ AN 1V ^
' /J/ ,^ o '
New Brunswick Grid Co —
Ordinate Values
1 f .
X.
r _ - - -
ll ,� � � ;� _. cP o Sta. X Y Rmks.
��` 2 .
r � O
-r ;<.•� : - ,.. o 200 2 545 340.133 7 370 345.207 CALC. PT.
•. (/may ` .: ,n • . 201 2 545 315.907 7 370 333.107 S.S.M.
}s
m ,
1
or „� ° K �
".dIF
to sh e , - , O o 202 2 545 347.261 7 370 273.314 S.S.M.
h _ x„: w: #";:;, a , 300 2 545 345.690 7 370 346.361 CALC. PT.
. `Io., snare .'c Q'ji
°. , ,.•�, 2106 A 301 2 545 377.482 7 370 287.321 S.S.M.
A `- /
;.: ,,>_•' �, _',;'' ,•t`=,-, k: cp N 302 2 545 412.980 7 370 294.695 FD. S.M.
,.'.'
504 2 545 272.938 7 370 311.644 PLAN 19307785
:1
��
gon
- 801 2 545 307.023 7 370 328.669 PLAN 19307785
:.,, � ,*�; ,'�h ,,..: tom' .,r_'4 , . , •-.�.
802 2 545 345.549 7 370 262.925 PLAN 19307785
Cooks Lake
r .. ':..... s...+5:
_ , : -_r. ... ~i .
:.. r,. 20005 2 545 346.254 7 370 366.142 H.P.N. OBS.
`
28160 2 535 354.190 7 363 188.696 H.P.N.MON
1 50 Scale Factor Applied 1.000028
v I PID 0�42 �
er L „Z
riof
_. ? an e 50 No. 1 l l Subdivision P e PI n a e an
�e �I ,� e �V
.,:.
1
-1 z Robert M. LandrySubdivision
,
r I
r - p °/
I ,
7I -� �� �° I Loch Lomond Road
L E G E N D `�s°- so '
{ / _ Z_ a�� City of Saint John,
ROUND IRON BAR FOUND Saint John Count New Brunswick
o°�� w x y,
SQUARE IRON BAR FOUND ■ hoiW �- � ', � _
IRON PIPE FOUND`
STANDARD SURVEY MARKER FOUND Q) N
STANDARD SURVEY MARKER PLACED Q - „ 9� T ->' HUGHES SURVEYS 8c CONSULTANTS INC.
WOODEN POST PLACED ® ,. , Mu . R % w ' ,'' O /�
CALCULATED POINT O a, +_} „ O i r CD Q) o Surve Surveyed b Feb. 03, 2021
TABULATED POINT' Y Y
Date
ko
TRAVERSE CONTROL POINT Ak.-n �_` Y-' ., N C),
N.B. GRID CO-ORDINATE MONUMENT 0 n : k. ; O to
'•� ' u y.: s k, cS` 395 New Brunswick Land Surveyor , Y #
HYDRO POLE UTILITY WIRE 0 H,. __. x • - - •;:,•, .' -, :.. ._ �:,� .,:: ,� ,:
FOUNDATION Fdn. � -:;. � .'� _,,, ., .,....:,, ... _ , O 0 20 40 60 80
STREET R.O.W. 'z 1
x �::. Y . _: '� d
UTILITY EASEMENT � ,�' y. ; . , >t..-. � .: � vc , , r M
.� �?� .x-. i- � - , �/ yam, (p
-` r. ,, x:• meters
a „..
ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE h ., `. � ,. ,: .. . ., > �..: : - * . , : . ,
`i' :.
3 y�
F
S
,
N
1
CENTRELINE - � ' ��.
i
_
a
• w N Disk N T Disk I y� y .. .4
<5` D o. D s o 0 os D s No.
i$
FENCE X X x— #`,. t ,: • ';. S20278D 2020 H2O278 2020
4 ,
STRUCTURE .: �,'k _ a
w, 4 " :. - :�` - _. _.. •• � <' •. = - ,_ n 1 Dwn. by Job No. Rev. No. Map Ref.
M.C.B. Y20 278 H/05—R3D E
L2
co
N
N
0
N
L
a
rn
3
o
r,
CA
N
O
N
ca
0
/
r-
N
O
N
N
0
0
N
O
N
■■
117
BY-LAW NUMBER C.P. 1114
A LAW TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-
LAW
OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN ARRETE
No C.P. 111-X
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 fifteenth day of
December, A.D. 2014, is amended by:
Rezoning a parcel of land having an area of
approximately 8,227 square metres, located at
3396 Loch Lomond Road, also identified as a
portion of PID No. 00330126, from Rural
Residential (RR) to Rural General
Commercial (CRG).
- 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 X day of X, A.D. 2021 and
signed by:
Mayor/Maire
ARRETE NO C.P. 111-X ARRETE
MODIFIANT L'ARRETE DE ZONAGE
DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Lors d'une reunion du conseil
communal, The City of Saint John a
decrete ce qui suit :
L'arrete sur le zonage de The
City of Saint John, decrete le quinze (15)
decembre 2014, est modifie par :
Rezonage d'une parcelle de terrain d'une
superficie d'environ 8,227 metres carres,
situ6e au 3396, rue Loch Lomond,
egalement identifie comme une partie de
NID 00330126, de zone residentielle rurale
(RR) a zone commerciale generale rurale
(CRG).
- 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 X 2021, avec Ies
signatures suivantes :
Common Clerk/Greffier communal
First Reading - X Premiere lecture - X
Second Reading - X Deuxieme lecture - X
Third Reading - X Troisieme lecture - X
118
3396 Loch Lomond Road
Growth & Community Services
Common Council Presentation
March 8 2021
119
SAINT JOHN
-ea proposed
r Rezoning
Rezoning
- Rezone a 8,227 m2 area
from Rural Residential to
Rural General
Commercial.
Subdivision
- Accept money in -lieu of
LPP
Y n24--j
w
SAINT JOHN
Site & Neighbourhood
YN I
Site & Neighbourhood
CIF■I
!f Rf Z Sri x�
l�,a �
a
3396 Loch Lomond Road — Lot 20-01 and access to 20-02
_� A..._- :..
�' -�.� 'moo _ _- _.
Site & Neighbourhood
Lot 20-02
Site & Neighbourhood
id ftea y j :
PW—.wAm
t _. t
�fl
wCib
�
✓
Lq6�o-o2
Site & Neighbourhood
gi
wz
°Yf
W
y
r � r
1�
I
Lot 20-02
2021-01-27 1 18,000
0 0.1 02 0.4mi
0 Property Parcels .� Rural Resource �� Park and Natural Area 1 1 .f- ' - ' -T
0 0.15 0.3 0.6 kra
Future Land Use 0 Rural Residential
C�rye, M—
Rural Settlement Federal Transportation Dr byArdY Reid
SAINT JOHN
Zoning
Rural Residential
• Rezoning will recognize existing household contractor
business, which has evolved over past 18 years.
• Area to be rezoned is limited to existing footprint on the
property (8,227 m2) to limit future owners.
• Section 59 Conditions limit CRG uses to those that can
maintain compatibility.
• Further Section 59 Condition to remove shipping
container prior to building permit for additional
residential dwelling.
129
general
on as
,n by
-wner._o
Loch LOM°�d Roca
tMfdtn Varies]
78: �" See Detail "B"
F o 'cs% S od ■ . ■
Well 1
Minimum
■ _
Lot -a
+
2233 m2
0
q'S q
a .p
n `i4�'� A 9Giir � a0 '0
�. o �a ❑
PID 00326033
Brenda A. Gallant
& Sidney S.
hAuxworthy Property
Doc. 388298
Vol- 1664 Pa, 192
S A
®� o
Py o
� � o
o�
Lot
20-02
3.48 ho f Try
1 1�.
36 •'3 S
Detail
Det[
P4-
SAINT JOHN
r r- i.
The City of Saint John
Subdivision By-laow i
MUMEd ---�
The City of
Saint John
Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan
Exp project number - FRE-00202814-AO
November 1911, 2013
ay*
i�
West 'exp.
Engagement
Letters sent to all
property
owners within
100 metres of
the subject
property
on
February
4, 2021.
The public notice posted on the City's website on
February 12, 2021.
PAC unanimously approved staff recommendation on
February 17t", 2021.
5 Letters of support, 1 letter in opposition received.
Staff Recommendation
1. Approve rezoning from RR to CRG
2. Impose Section 59 Conditions to limit the
commercial uses and remove shipping
container before additional development
3. Accept money in -lieu of LIPP
PAC Recommendation
1. Approve rezoning from RR to CRG
2. Impose Section 59 Conditions to limit the
commercial uses and remove shipping
container before additional development
3. Upon third reading accept money in -lieu
ov LIPP
C
COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-060
Report Date
March 02, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Zoning By-law and Heritage Conservation Areas By-law Amendments
- Fee Adjustments
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Amy Poffenroth
Jacqueline Hamilton
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Your City Manager recommends that Common Council:
1. Approve first and second reading of the attached amendment to the
Zoning By-law; and
2. Approve first and second reading of the attached amendment to the
Heritage Conservation Areas By-law.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part the Sustainability Plan, all development related fees were reviewed for
proposed adjustments and the addition of some new fees. While the majority of
the initiative has been completed with the adoption of amendments to five
development by-laws in December 2020, a few by-laws remain, including the
subject of this report — consideration of amendments to the Zoning By-law and
Heritage Conservation Areas By-law.
The Zoning By-law amendment focuses on revised fees in an updated fee schedule
and two new fees to build consistency with other development by-laws.
With the exception of the demolition (of a heritage building) permit fee, the
amendment to the Heritage Conservation Areas By-law deals mostly with new
fees on some low volume/high effort items.
135
-2-
The combined revenue generated by both revised fee structures account for
approximately 17 percent of the $100,000 revenue target. If approved, the new
fees will be effective upon third reading, scheduled for March 22, 2021.
Considering amendments to both the Zoning and Heritage By-laws requires public
hearings and are scheduled for the March 8, 2021 meeting.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
On May 4, 2020, the following resolution was passed:
1. Approve the implementation of the Sustainability Plan and all elements as
presented to address the projected deficit of $10 Million through workforce
adjustments (60%), revenue generation, service changes, and continuous
improvement efforts in 2021 and 2022.
2. Direct the City Manager to return to Council as and when required for
implementation plan approval, including any changes to bylaws, policies or
Council guidance and direction.
3. Approve the implementation of Standby Sustainability Initiatives as prioritized
to ensure the entirety of the deficit is addressed, inclusive of updated deficit
figures, to balance the 2021 and 2022 general fund operating budget.
On February 24, 2020, the following resolution was passed:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report
M&C 2020-59: Permit and Development Approvals, New Fees — Sustainability
Item, Common Council endorse the proposed Permit and Development Approvals
New Fees — Sustainability Item as an option to be considered in addressing the
entirety of the deficit in 2021 and 2022.
On December 2, 2019, the following resolution was passed:
RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager, Common Council endorse
the proposed Permit and Development Approvals Fee Increases — Sustainability
Item as an option to be considered in addressing the entirety of the deficit in 2021
and 2022.
REPORT
As part the Sustainability Plan, all development related fees were reviewed for
proposed adjustments and the addition of some new fees. While the majority of
the initiative has been completed with the approval of amendments to the
Building, Plumbing, Water and Sewerage, Subdivision and Street Excavation By-
laws in December 2020, a few by-laws remain, including the subject of this report
136
am
— consideration of amendments to the Zoning By-law and Heritage Conservation
Areas By-law. The revised fees associated with the Zoning and Heritage by-laws
are expected to generate approximately 17 percent of the revenue target.
As a reminder to Council, proposed fee adjustments consider the following:
o Consumer price index (CPI) since the fees were last adjusted;
o Cost of delivering the service;
o Simplified fee structure and addressing fee irregularities for ease of
application, fairness, and improved process;
o A move towards cost -recovery; and
o Common practice in other municipalities.
The procedure for the March 8, 2021 Council meeting will be as follows:
• Item introduction by City Clerk
• Staff presentation regarding by-law amendments to both the Zoning and
Heritage Bylaws
• 6:30 Public hearing - Zoning By-law
• 6:30 Public hearing — Heritage By-law
• Questions / Discussion
• Approval of 1st and 2nd Readings of the Zoning By-law, followed by the
Heritage By-law.
Zoning By-law
The Zoning By-law amendment focuses on revised fees in an updated fee schedule
and two fees to build consistency with other development by-laws. All fees have
been moved to the updated fee schedule, as some were previously placed in the
body of the by-law.
The proposed fees are shown in the table below:
Type of Application or Service
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
Zoning By-law Amendment
$2,500
$2,650
Zoning By-law Amendment
requiring a Municipal Plan
Amendment
$3,500
$3,700
Section 59 Amendments
$2,500
$2,650
Development Permits
$110
$200
Conditional Use
$300
$350
Encroachment in Good Faith
$150
$165
Non -conforming Use (Council)
$200
$250
Non -conforming Use (Committee)
$300
$350
Satisfactory Servicing (Council)
$200
$350
Similar or Compatible uses
$300
$350
Temporary Approval
$300
$350
137
-4-
Variances
$50 + $10/additional
$200 for up to five (5)
Tier 1 and Tier 2
$100 + $20/additional
variances, $50 for each
variance after six (6).
Committee Variances
$300 + $60/additional
$400 for up to five (5)
variances, $100 for each
variance after six (6)
Pit and Quarry Development
$1,100
$1,500
Permit
Zoning Confirmation or
$100 + $50 / additional
$120 per hour
Compliance Letter
hour
Fees were adjusted to account for a number of factors, including CPI,
competitiveness with comparator New Brunswick municipalities, and cost
recovery. Overall, cost recovery for Planning -related applications is very low,
ranging from 10 percent for a Development Officer variance, to under 40 percent
for a municipal plan amendment. Although some fees were increased greater
than CPI (ie. variances), they still only recover a small fraction of the cost to deliver
the service.
Staff is proposing a change in the way variance fees are calculated to enhance
clarity and predictability for clients and for ease of administration. Variance fees
have been combined to include only two fees — one for a Development Officer
approval, and another for a Planning Advisory Committee approval. A flat fee for
variances includes a package approval of up to five variances. Anything above five
will be charged for each additional variance; however, this is a very rare
circumstance.
Lastly, consistency with other development by-laws (mainly the Building By-law)
has been incorporated in the Zoning by-law for two items:
• The inclusion of a double permit fee when work is undertaken without the
development permit first having been issued. This is to recover resource
costs related to enforcement efforts; and
• Clarity around refunds of application fees if the application is requested
to be cancelled prior to a decision having been made.
As required under the Community Planning Act, the Planning Advisory Committee
considered the by-law amendment at its meeting of October 20, 2020 and has
submitted a letter of support for Council's consideration.
Heritage Conservation Areas By-law
Proposed fee adjustments in the Heritage Conservation Areas By-law account for
a very small portion of the revenue target. Recognizing that heritage property
owners are subject to by-law requirements that do not apply to any other
property owners, and that heritage buildings are considered a community asset,
fees for typical heritage permits are not being proposed. With the exception of
138
-5-
demolition permit fees, the amendments deal mostly with new fees on some low
volume/high effort items.
The proposed demolition permit fee is doubling, in an effort to recover new
advertisement costs for required signage and to more accurately reflect staff time
on these files. A new fee is being proposed to recover staff research time for
requests to remove a property from designation. Additionally, a fee structure for
Tier 3 infill developments is also being introduced to recover costs associated with
required peer review on these applications. For consistency with other
development by-laws, a double fee is proposed for work started without a
heritage permit; in the case of the many routine heritage permits that are issued
with no fee assigned, the fee would be $200.
The proposed fees are listed below:
Application or Service
Current Fee
Proposed Fee
Heritage Demolition permit
$ 1,000
$ 2,000
Work without Issued
N/A
Double
Heritage permit
Work without Issued
N/A
$ 200
Heritage permit if the fee is
$0
Request for Designation
N/A
$ 1,000
Removal — Research fee
Tier 3 Infill Permit:
• value < $ 1Million
N/A
$ 1,000
• value $ 1M - $ 4M
N/A
$ 2,000
• value > $ 4 Million
N/A
$ 3,000
Changes to an issued
Heritage Permit that requires
N/A
$ 200
Board approval
The Heritage Development Board considered the by-law amendment at its
meeting of October 7, 2020 and has submitted a letter of support for Council's
consideration.
Comparators
Staff has undertaken a high level fee review of the most common permit and
development approvals from Rothesay, Quispamsis, Fredericton, Moncton,
Dieppe and Halifax, the relevant comparators shown below:
139
sM
Rezoning
Municipal
Plan
Amendment
Variance
(Development
Officer)
Variance
(PAC)
Current
Proposed
$2,500
$2,650
$3,500
$3,700
$100
$200*
*includes
multiple
$300
$400*
*includes
multiple
Rothesay
$1,500
$1,800
$0
$250
Quispamsis
$1,500
$1,800
$300
$300
Fredericton
$1,500
$1,750
$300
$300
Moncton
$2,750
$3,500
$450
$650
Dieppe
$2,500
$3,500
$450
$450
Halifax
$3,000
$5,000
$1,000
$1,000
With the information from the fee review, it appears that Saint John's fees tend
to align more with Moncton and Dieppe than some of our closer neighbours,
particularly in the area of planning applications. This is expected, given the
services the City provides and that Saint John's neighbourhoods are naturally
more aligned with our urban neighbours like Moncton. That being said, Saint
John's One Stop Development Shop provides a high level of customer service and
support, offering an integrated and coordinated customer service experience with
all development service areas (planning / building / infrastructure / heritage) in
one streamlined, development -focused service area.
Impact
While increasing development fees is always challenging, particularly from a
messaging perspective, it is important to keep in mind that the financial impact on
actual projects is relatively low and that cost -recovery is not being achieved for
most of the development services, particularly in the area of planning
applications.
It is also important to note the high level of support and incentives provided to
developers and property owners in the City. The development incentives program
and the heritage grant system will remain as a strong driver for projects in the
City's urban core. The City has a number of ways to encourage and support
development, including parking exemptions in large parts of our urban areas,
promotion and support of higher density developments, access to services and
140
amenities consistent with vibrant, active neighbourhoods and urban standards
that citizens expect. Additionally, the One Stop Development Shop provides a high
level of customer service to support and encourage development, including the
project champion program; free pre -application service; a highly skilled, fully
integrated professional team to provide guidance to applicants; and modernized,
integrated development by-laws.
Next Steps
If first and second readings of the by-law amendments are passed on March 8,
2021, third and final reading is scheduled for March 22, 2021. The fees will be in
effect immediately upon third reading.
The last two by-laws subject to the Development fees sustainability plan initiative
is the Peddlers and Hawkers By-law and the Use of Sidewalks By-law. These will
be before Council for consideration in the next month or two.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The permit and development approvals fees initiative is part of the City's
Sustainability plan, which supports Council's Priority to be Fiscally Responsible.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The permit and development approvals fees initiative will generate
approximately $100,000 in additional revenue. Amendments to the Zoning and
Heritage by-laws will generate approximately $17,000 of the target.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The General Counsel's office provided support and advice in the drafting of the
by-law amendments.
The Zoning By-law amendment was considered by the Planning Advisory
Committee on October 20, 2020; a letter from the PAC has been submitted to
Council.
The Heritage Conservation Areas By-law amendment was considered by the
Heritage Development Board on October 7, 2020; a letter from the Board has been
submitted to Council.
Public notice of the March 8, 2021 public hearings has been issued, pursuant to
the Community Planning Act and the Heritage Conservation Act.
141
-8-
ATTACHMENTS
Zoning By-law Amendment
Heritage Conservation Areas By-law Amendment
142
L'J
A � J
7 r .: ✓
- w
.71
JIM
77
• A
1.
d.
Fee Adjustments
Zoning By-law and Heritage
Conservation Areas By-law
SAI8 March 2�21
143
Building
60
Complete
Zoning
17
March
Plumbing
7
Complete
Water & Sewerage
7
Complete
Use of Sidewalks
5
Tentative April
Subdivision
2
Complete
Street Excavation
2
Complete
Heritage
<1
March
Peddler & Hawker
<1
Tentative April
144
• Total Revenue
generated by
development fees is
approx. $1.2M
• Already implemented
accounts for 78% of
target
• Zoning and Heritage
fees account for
17% of target
( P---,
SAINT fOHN
• Adjustments to existing fees — considered multiple factors,
including:
• Consumer Price Index since fees were last adjusted
• Cost to deliver the service
• Simplified fee structure, fee irregularities, fairness
• Comparators with other municipalities
• New fees — focused on 3 main considerations:
• Cost -recovery
• Common practice / consistency among similar by-laws
• Comparators with other municipalities
145 P_
SAINT fOHN
• Zoning By-law Amendment
• Updated fee schedule
• Consistency with development by-laws
• Public hearing; Public notice provided
• Planning Advisory Committee input October 20, 2020
• Heritage Conservation Areas By-law Amendment
• No fees for standard Heritage permits
• Demolition permit fee increase
• New Fees - Low volume / High effort applications
• Public hearing; Public notice and property owner notices provided
• Heritage Development Board input October 7, 2020
146 P_
SAINT fOHN
Rezoning $2,500 $2,650 2012 6
Application
Municipal Plan $3,500 $3,700 2012 6 %
Amendment
Development $110 $200 2012
82 % *
Permit
*covers
inspections
Heritage $1,000 $2,000 2017
100 %*
Demolition
*to cover
Permit
new sign
req'ts
147
SAINT [OHN
• March 8, 2021 Council Meeting
• Is' and 2nd readings
• March 22, 2021 Council Meeting
• 3rd and final readings
• March 23, 2021— Fees in effect
148 P--
SAINT fOHN
BY-LAW NUMBER C.P. 111-86
A LAW TO AMENDTHE 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 fifteenth day of December, A.D.
2014, and further amended from time to time, is
amended follows:
1. Paragraph 12.4(8)(m) is amended by
deleting "Each application for a permit shall be
accompanied by a fee of one thousand and one
hundred dollars" and replacing it with "Each
application for a permit shall be accompanied by
the fee identified in Schedule `B" hereto."
2. Subparagraph 12.4(9)(a)(iv) is amended
by deleting "The fee set out in paragraph
12.4(8)(m) has been paid" and replacing it with
"The fee identified in Schedule "B" hereto has
been paid."
ARRETE NO C.P. 111-86
ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE DE
ZONAGE DE THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
Lors d'une reunion du conseil communal, The
City of Saint John a decrete ce qui suit :
L'Arrete de zonage de The City of Saint John,
decrete le quinze (15) decembre 2014, et modifie a
nouveau de temps a autre, est modifie comme suit:
1. L'alinea 12.4(8)m) est modifie par la
suppression des mots « est accompagnee d'un
droit de 1 100 $ » et leur remplacement par les
mots « est accompagnee d'un droit prevu a
1'annexe « B » ci jointe. »
2. Le sous-alinea 12.4(9)a)(iv) est modifie
par la suppression des mots « le droit fixe a
1'alinea 12.4(8)m) a ete paye » et leur
remplacement par les mots « le droit prevu a
1'annexe « B » ci jointe a ete paye. »
3. Subsection 2.11(c) is deleted and 3. Le paragraphe 2.11(c) est supprime et
replaced with the following language: remplace par le texte suivant :
2.11(c) (A) The Development Officer shall
accept for consideration an application for a
development permit when:
(i) A completed application, in a
form prescribed by the
Development Officer, has
been received;
(ii) The information submitted
appears correct and adequate
to determine compliance with
the standards of this By-law
and the Municipal
2.11(c) A) L' agent d' amenagement accepte pour
examen une demande pour un permis
d'amenagement lorsque :
i) Une demande remplie, sous la
forme prescrite par Pagent
d'amenagement, a ete reque;
ii) L'information presentee semble
correcte et appropriee pour
determiner la conformite avec les
normes etablies dans le present
arrete et dans le plan
149
-2-
Development Plan; and
(iii)The full application fee as
required in Schedule `B" has
been received by the
Development Officer, but
where the proposed
development requires a
building permit, no fee shall
be required for the
development permit.
(B) When a development has commenced
prior to the issuance of a development
permit, the fee identified in Schedule "B"
shall be two (2) times the fee listed
therein.
(C) When an applicant cancels a
development permit prior to the
Development Officer rendering a
decision to approve or deny the
application, the applicant shall receive a
refund of sixty (60) percent of the fee
identified in Schedule `B". No refund
will be provided for an application
cancelled after the Development Officer
has rendered a decision on the
application.
d'amenagement municipal;
iii) L'agent d'amenagement a reru la
totalite des droits de demande
exiges dans 1'annexe « B », mais
lorsque 1'amenagement propose
requiert un permis de
construction, aucun droit n'est
exige pour le permis
d' amenagement.
B) Lorsqu'un amenagement a commence
avant la delivrance d'un permis
d'amenagement, le droit a payer sera deux
(2) fois le droit prevu a 1'annexe « B ».
C) Lorsqu'un demandeur annule un
permis d'amenagement avant que 1'agent
d'amenagement ait rendu une decision
d'approuver ou de rejeter la demande, le
demandeur regoit un remboursement
equivalent a soixante (60) pour cent du
droit prevu a 1'annexe « B ». Aucun
remboursement ne sera effectue pour une
demande annulee apres que 1'agent
d'amenagement a rendu une decision sur
la demande.
4. Schedule `B" is deleted and replaced 4. L'annexe «B» est
with the following language: remplacee par le texte suivant:
supprimee et
150
-3-
Schedule B: Fees
Except as otherwise provided in this By-law, the following fees are required concerning
any matter considered by Council, the Committee or the Development Officer:
Type of application or service
Required application fee
(a) Conditional Use
$350.00
(b) Encroachment in Good Faith
$165.00
(c) Non -conforming Use (Council)
$250.00
(d) Non -conforming Use (Committee)
$350.00
(e) Satisfactory Servicing (Council)
$350.00
(f) Section 59 Amendments
$2,650.00
(g) Similar or Compatible uses
$350.00
(h) Temporary Approval
$350.00
(i) Variances
Tier 1 and Tier 2
$200.00 for up to five (5) variances,
$50.00 for each variance after six (6).
Committee Variances
$400.00 for up to five (5) variances,
$100.00 for each variance after six (6)
(j) Zoning By-law Amendment
$2,650.00
(k) Zoning By-law Amendment requiring
a Municipal Plan Amendment
$3,700.00
(1) Zoning Confirmation or Compliance
Letter
$120.00 per hour
(m)Development Permits
$200.00
(n) Pit and Quarry Development Permit
$1,500.00
151
Annexe B : Droits
Sauf disposition contraire du pr6sent arret6, les droits qui suivent doivent &re vers6s a
1'6gard de 1'examen par le conseil, le comit6 on 1'agent d'am6nagement des demandes on
services suivants :
Type de demande ou de service
Droit de demande prescrit
(a) Usage conditionnel
350.00 $
(b) Empi6tement de bonne foi
165.00 $
(c) Usage non conforme (conseil)
250.00 $
(d) Usage non conforme (comit6)
350.00 $
(e) Viabilisation satisfaisante (conseil)
350.00 $
(f) Modifications aux conditions impos6es
en vertu de Particle 59
2 650.00 $
(g) Usages similaires ou compatibles
350.00 $
(h) Approbation temporaire
350.00 $
(i) Derogations
De niveau 1 et de niveau 2
200.00 $ jusqu'a cinq (5) d6rogations,
50.00 $ pour chaque d6rogation apres cinq
(5).
D6rogations (comit6)
400.00 $ jusqu'a 5 d6rogations, 100.00 $
pour chaque d6rogation apres cinq (5).
0) Modification a 1'Arret6 de zonage
2 650.00 $
(k) Modification a 1'Arret6 de zonage
exigeant une modification du plan
municipal
3 700.00 $
(1) Lettre de confirmation ou de conformit6
de zonage
120.00 $1'heure
(m)Permis d'am6nagement
200.00 $
(n) Permis d'am6nagement pour les
carrieres et gravieres
1 500.00 $
152
-5-
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. 2021 and signed by:
First Reading
Second Reading
Third Reading
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait
apposer son sceau communal sur le present
arrete
suivantes
Mayor/Maire
Common Clerk/Greffier communal
Premiere lecture
Deuxieme lecture
Troisieme lecture
2021, avec les signatures
153
BY-LAW NUMBER HC-1
A LAW TO AMEND
THE SAINT JOHN HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREAS BY-LAW
Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as follows:
The Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law, enacted on the 23rd day of September, A.D. 2019, is
amended as follows:
1. Deleting subsection 6 (2) (c) and replacing with the following:
"(c) the applicable fee set out in Schedule "K", as determined by the Heritage Officer, has been paid in
full."
2. Adding the following subsection, immediately following subsection 6 (10):
"6 (11) The applicable fee under Schedule "K" shall be increased by an amount of double the amount
required in subsection 6 (2) (c) when any development is undertaken before a Heritage Permit
authorizing such development has been issued, except where the development is subject to a fee of $0
under Schedule "K", as determined by the Heritage Officer, in which case the fee shall be $200."
3. Deleting Schedule K: Fees and replacing with the following:
Schedule K: Fees
The fees referred to in this By -Law are as follows:
Developments pursuant to Section 7 that have commenced without a Heritage Permit
having been issued
$200
Developments designated by the Heritage Officer as a Tier 3 infill development
pursuant to Section 8
Estimated Project Value:
Less than $1,000,000
$1,000,000 - $4,000,000
Greater than $4,000,000
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
Developments which include demolition, removal or relocation pursuant to Section 9
$2,000
All other developments
$0
Changes to issued Heritage Permits which require Board review
$200
Research cost for a request to remove a property or properties from designation in this
By -Law
$1,000 per
PID
154
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John has caused the Corporate Common Seal of said City to be
affixed to this by-law the _ day of , A.D. 2021 and signed by:
Mayor
City Clerk
155
ARRETE No HC-1
ARRETE MODIFIANT
UARRETE SUR LES SECTEURS DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE SAINT JOHN
Le conseil communal de The City of Saint John, etant reuni, edicte ce qui suit :
L'Arrete sur les secteurs de conservation du patrimoine de Saint John, edicte le 23 septembre 2019, est
ainsi modifie:
1. L'article 6 est modifie par suppression de I'alinea 6(2)c) et son remplacement par ce qui suit :
« c) les droits applicables enonces a I'annexe K, selon la decision de I'agent du patrimoine, ont ete
verses integralement.
2. L'article 6 est modifie par adjonction du paragraphe suivant apres le paragraphe 6(10) :
c 6(11) Lorsqu'un amenagement est entrepris avant la delivrance du permis du patrimoine
I'autorisant, les droits applicables prevus a I'annexe K sont augmentes d'un montant correspondant au
double du montant prescrit par I'alinea 6(2)c), sauf lorsque I'amenagement est assujetti a des droits de
0 $ conformement a I'annexe K, selon la decision de I'agent du patrimoine, auquel cas le droit sera de
200 $.
3. L'annexe K — Droits est abrogee et remplacee par ce qui suit :
Annexe k— Droits
Les droits de demande mentionnes clans le present arrete sont les suivants :
Amenagements vises a I'article 7 qui ont ete entrepris sans qu'un permis de patrimoine
200 $
Wait ete delivre
Amenagements que I'agent du patrimoine designe amenagements (edification sur
terrain intercalaire) — classement de niveau 3 au titre de I'article 8
Valeur estimative du projet
Inferieure a 1 000 000 $
1 000 $
Entre 1 000 000 $ et 4 000 000 $
2 000 $
Superieure a 4 000 000 $
3 000 $
Amenagements comportant des travaux de demolition, d'enlevement ou de
2 000 $
deplacement vises a I'article 9
Autres amenagements
0 $
Modifications a un permis de patrimoine delivre qui doivent etre approuves par le
200 $
Comite
Frais de recherche afferents a une demande de suppression d'un ou de plusieurs biens
1000 $ par
d'une designation au titre du present arrete
NID
3
156
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrW le
2021, avec les signatures suivantes :
Maire
Greffier communal
4
157
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
October 21, 2020
The City of Saint John
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and
Members of Common Council
Your Worship and Councillors:
SUBJECT: Amendments Application Fees - Zoning, Building and
Subdivision By-laws
On September 28, 2020 Common Council referred the above matter to the
Planning Advisory Committee for a report and recommendation. The Committee
considered the attached report at its October 20, 2020 meeting.
Ms. Amy Poffenroth, representing Growth and Community Services, appeared
before the Committee and provided an overview of the proposed fee increases to
the Zoning, Subdivision and Building By -Laws. Ms. Poffenroth highlighted the
need for overall fiscal sustainability, comparison with other municipalities, and a
coordinated approach among the by-laws. The proposed fee structure seeks to
gain an acceptable amount of cost -recovery, while being comparable in the New
Brunswick context and providing a predictable framework for applicants. She
noted a relatively high level of service is provided to applicants with respect to
support to developers and property owners, including timely processing for
permits and applications. It was also noted the Heritage and Development
Incentive programs will remain for 2021, providing support to the development
community and staffing levels in the department allow pre -application meetings
to be provided at no cost to applicants.
Ms. Poffenroth responded to questions from the Committee related to
enforcement, noting the application of double permit fees for work started without
a Building Permit has increased compliance. Staff has also focused on obtaining
a valuation of the project cost at the permit stage that adequately reflects the
work to be completed through the permit. Ms. Poffenroth and Mark Reade,
Senior Planner, also responded to questions regarding cost recovery and the fee
amount for Municipal Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications possibly
Page 1 of 2
158
City of Saint John Application Fees October 21, 2020
providing an incentive for applications that are contrary to the direction
established in the Zoning By-law and Municipal Plan.
A number of Committee members also shared their preference that fees be
updated on a more regular basis, possibly linking annual increases to the
Consumer Price Index (CPI); City staff acknowledged that this is something that
should be considered, while ensuring fees remain relatively comparable to similar
municipalities in New Brunswick.
Staff noted public notification would be provided outlining the rationale for the
proposed fee increases. Staff also provided an overview of how the proposed
fees compare to other New Brunswick municipalities. One Committee member
noted that application fees could be considered a "loss leader" and that growth in
the tax base resulting from development plays a greater role in fiscal
sustainability.
No other persons appeared before the Committee, and no letters were received
regarding the application.
Upon considering the Staff report, and comments made by City Staff, the
Committee unanimously adopted the Staff Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Common Council approve the recommended amendments to the
Building By-law, Zoning By-law and Subdivision By-law
Respectfully submitted,
Alexandra Weaver Crawford
Chair
Attachments
Page 2 of 2
159
-----Original Message -----
From: Betty Rourke <betty.rourke@gmail.com>
Sent: November 9, 2020 2:19 PM
To: External - CommonClerk <commonclerksaintjohn.ca>
Subject: Regarding proposed amendment to Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law and
common Council meeting November 16 th , 2020
I wish to address Mayor and Common Council at said meeting regarding revision of language in Section 6
and revision of Schedule K fees.
Thanks, Elizabeth Rourke owner 166 King st East
160
From: randy randybrook.com <randyw randybrook.com>
Sent: November 9, 2020 2:44 PM
To: External - CommonClerk <commonderk(Psaintjohn.ca>
Subject: Bylaw # NC-1
To whom it may concern:
As, a Property owner at 122 orange street.
I disagree with the existent of, the Saint John Heritage Conservation areas.
They discourage development and advancement of the City. That being said, they should also try
to fund themselfs.
I agree with the fee increase and the outlines in the proposed bylaw amendment.
Sincerely,
Randy Brook
161
November 10, 2020
Your Worship Don Darling and
Members of Common Council
Re: Heritage Conservation By -Law — Sustainability
Throughout the development of the revised Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law,
adopted in January 2020, the Heritage Development Board has considered the financial
implications of the amendments included therein. The Heritage Development Board is mindful of
the financial realities facing the City of Saint John and the impact of those realities on citizens,
developers, City staff, and Common Council.
At the October 7th, 2020 meeting of the Heritage Development Board, members of the Board
unanimously endorsed a motion recommending to Common Council the approval of the proposed
amendments to the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law respecting fees. These
amendments will allow the City to recover some of the costs of administering its heritage
conservation program.
It is important to Heritage Development Board that heritage conservation remain affordable
and accessible to homeowners, businesses and developers. The recommended fee structure,
therefore, does not impose a fee for standard Heritage Permits. To assist with compliance and
cost recovery for by-law enforcement, the Heritage Development Board recommends a fee of
$200 for work commenced without a heritage permit. Finally, in recognition of the new infill
approval process under Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law, a graduated fee
structure based on the estimated project value is recommended.
The Heritage Development Board is grateful for the work of staff and Common Council on this
important sustainability initiative, so that we may continue to support the conservation,
utilization and enjoyment of our built heritage in Saint John
Respectfully submitted,
Jamie L. Watson, Chair
Heritage Development Board
162
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
MC 2021-063
Report Date
March 01, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: 22 Sydney Street - Site -Specific By -Law Amendment — Heritage
Conservations Areas By -Law
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Emma Sampson
Jacqueline Hamilton /
Amy Poffenroth
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Your City Manager recommends that Common Council move to adopt the
proposed site -specific amendment to HC-1 Saint John Heritage Conservation
Areas By -Law for a Tier Three major addition at 22 Sydney Street, PID 55224539.
I�:���►j�PI�1►luluGli7
In January 2020, as part of the planned second phase of amendments to the
Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law, Common Council approved a new approach
to new construction (infill) in the City's Heritage Conservation Areas that allowed
for contemporary architecture, designated as Tier Three developments, to be
reviewed by Common Council as site -specific by-law amendments.
The first such proposed development is a major addition to the existing Old Saint
John County Courthouse at 22 Sydney Street. This addition, which would occupy
the rear of the lot along King Street East, would enable the Saint John Theatre
Company to develop the site into a medium -capacity performance venue and
community space. With the Heritage Development Board having reviewed the
proposal and provided its recommendation, the application is now brought to
Common Council for its consideration.
163
sM
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
N/A
1;7.110]a9
22 Sydney Street, more commonly known as the Old Saint John County
Courthouse, is situated at the corner of Sydney Street and King Street East on the
eastern boundary of King's Square. The property is located in both the Trinity
Royal and the King Street East Heritage Conservation Areas and is designated at
the Municipal level and at the Federal level as a National Historic Site'. Originally
built in 1829 and designed by John Cunningham in the neo-classical style (more
specifically neo-Palladian), it was renovated with alterations by Garnet Wilson in
1924-1925 following a major fire in 1919. Constructed primarily of finished and
rusticated sandstone, the three -storey building is noted for its massing, rhythm,
and symmetry, and for its classical detailing. The Courthouse exists as both the
oldest building and as the only (formerly) institutional use in a collection of
historic buildings of varied uses framing King's Square.
An application was submitted to the Heritage Development Board by the owners
of the property, the Saint John Theatre Company, for a new major addition to the
rear (east) of the building as part of an adaptive re -use proposal that would see
the Courthouse converted to a medium -capacity performance venue. The
Heritage Development Board has previously issued a Heritage Permit for
restoration work on the existing building as Phase One of the overall project.
Based on the documents submitted as part of this application, the project was
assessed by staff as a Tier Three infill development, which the
applicant anticipated and agreed with. Accordingly, the project required the
submittal of a Heritage Impact Assessment by the project architect, along with a
third -party peer review, which was contracted out by the City of Saint John. Both
sets of documents are attached as part of this report and will be referenced
throughout.
Background
An identified priority of the 2016-2020 Common Council through Vibrant, Safe City
was the modernization of heritage conservation processes, focusing on revision of
National Historic Sites do not have any legislative oversight from the Federal Government of
Canada.
164
am
the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law. These amendments were developed in
tandem with the Central Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan, helping to envision a new
future for the city's core. A major element of these revisions involved the passing
by Common Council of new standards for infill development, which allow for a
broader range of architectural design. As a refresher:
• Replication of heritage buildings is discouraged, as this can blur the line
between new and old, and can ultimately detract from heritage buildings;
• Buildings that take strong direction from their historic setting, but are still
identifiable as new construction are grouped as Tier One;
• Buildings that have influence from their historic setting, but incorporate
elements of modern design and/or materials are grouped as Tier Two;
and,
• Buildings that take little or no direct influence from their historic setting,
and are contemporary in their design and/or materials are grouped as Tier
Three.
As a reflection of the increasing modernity in each tier, the application and
approval requirements also increase, ranging from a standard application and
Heritage Development Board approval for Tier One, up to additional application
requirements and review as a site -specific by-law amendment by Common Council
for Tier Three. In establishing this range, the City has provided architects and
developers the opportunity to explore and pursue designs and approval processes
that are better suited to their own preferences and level of comfort. A developer
who is drawn to more traditional architecture or who does not want to take the
time and risk inherent in having their proposal reviewed as a by-law amendment
may choose a project that would be classified as a Tier One or a Tier Two
development.
While Tier One and Tier Two infill developments have specific standards and
expectations, Tier Three infill developments have limited standards in order to
accommodate a wide variety of design. This is not to say that any development
that cannot be determined to be Tier One or Tier Two should automatically be
considered and approved as a Tier Three development. This process is intended
to exist for well -considered, sophisticated contemporary architecture, not for
generic designs that would work in any number of locations. Due to the limited
standards against which a proposal can be objectively reviewed, assessment of a
Tier Three application relies upon professional opinion, which is provided to the
Heritage Development Board and ultimately to Common Council.
165
-4-
Process
Application/Assessment of Tier
Because there are minimal standards directing the design of Tier Three
developments, review and approval of these projects is not as clear-cut as it would
be for Tier One or Tier Two applications, which have direction on items such as
building composition, windows, and materials. To provide critical analysis of a Tier
Three proposal, the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment by the project
architect and the completion of a third -party Peer Review is required. The
Heritage Development Board then reviews the proposed development having
been provided with documents from three separate professionals:
• the Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by the project architect;
• a Peer Review of the proposal, prepared by a third -party architect; and,
• the Staff Report to the Heritage Development Board, prepared by the
Heritage Officer.
Similarly, these documents are provided to Common Council as attachments to
this report. With these projects, the Board does not issue a permit; instead, it
provides its recommendation to Common Council on a site -specific by-law
amendment.
Heritage Impact Assessment
As mentioned, for a Tier Three proposal the project architect is required to submit
a Heritage Impact Assessment. This is a longer and more detailed version of the
Heritage Impact Statement that is required for Tier Two proposals. It is intended
to show the extent to which the applicant has considered:
• how the proposed development interacts with both its immediate and its
broader heritage contexts;
• whether there are positive and/or negative impacts posed by the
development on neighbouring buildings, the streetscape, and the Heritage
Conservation Area; and,
• if potential negative impacts have been identified, what measures are
being proposed to offset or mitigate these impacts.
For this proposal, the project architect included the Heritage Impact Assessment
as part of a larger submission package that also spoke to the history of the Old
Saint John County Courthouse, the design process, and the design rationale. This
would not be expected for most applications, however because the proposed
166
-5-
development is an addition to an existing building, not a new, separate building,
understanding the Courthouse plays a large role in understanding the addition.
The project architect provides detailed explanation of the neo-Palladian design
principles embodied in the Courthouse, a very rhythmed and structured form of
architecture, and then explains how this has been interpreted in a modern style.
Peer Review
As part of the Tier Three review process, a peer review of the proposal is required
by a third -party architect. This is sourced by Heritage Conservation Staff and
includes all documents submitted by the applicant for review, with particular
focus on the design and the Heritage Impact Assessment. Because this is intended
to be an objective review, Staff felt that it was important to find an architect
removed from the Saint John context. The peer review for this proposal was
provided by Greg Munn, AAPEI, AIA, RAIC, CaGBC of SableArc Studios,
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. In addition to over 30 years as an architect,
Mr. Munn also sits on the Heritage Board and the Design Review Board for the
City of Charlottetown.
Responding to both the applicant's documents and the standard questions posed
by Staff in the Peer Review Request, Mr. Munn provided an overall strongly
positive review of the proposed design. In response to the modernity of the design
and its impact relative to its historic setting, he identifies the value of well -
considered contemporary architecture, stating "If the addition were to in any way
copy details and materials or window types for example, of a civic institutional
building, the effect would be a new building that would dilute the importance and
fabric of the original and blur the lines between recreation and originality."
Additionally, he identifies in his summary that "by being individual, [the addition]
is perpetuating the original intent of a landmark building of its time and place that
is modest, but monumental with a strong street presence."
Heritage Development Board
The full application package, which included the above -referenced documents as
well as the staff report, was provided to the Heritage Development Board as part
of the agenda for its review at its February 3, 2021 meeting. Apart from a regular
member of the public and one member of the media, there were no other
registrants to attend the virtual meeting. A Board member self -identified as having
a conflict of interest in the application and removed themselves from the 'table',
167
-6-
however they remained available for questions directed to them as project
architect for the proposed development.
Following staff presentation, discussion, and questions to staff and the applicant's
team, the Board passed a unanimous motion recommending that Common
Council move to approve a site -specific by-law amendment for the proposed
development.
Common Council
The role of Common Council in reviewing a Tier Three application is to assess the
proposed development as an amendment in consideration of all received opinion.
In total, this includes:
• the separate professional opinions expressed in the Heritage Impact
Assessment, the Peer Review, and the Staff Reports to the Heritage
Development Board and to Common Council;
• the recommendation of the Heritage Development Board, an appointed
Board of Common Council; and,
• the opinions of the public, as expressed through written submission and/or
spoken comment at the Public Hearing.
Proposal & Design
In choosing the Courthouse as the new home for a medium -capacity performance
venue, it was understood that an addition to the existing building would be
required for any design and layout. To accommodate staging, seating, and
associated spaces, the applicant is proposing a three -storey addition to the rear
(east) of the property, occupying what currently exists as a parking lot. A curtain
wall divider ('The Break') connects the existing building to the primary massing of
the addition. At the east end of the property, the secondary massing (the loading
bay) is more fully set back from all other building elements.
Rear projections are standard in medium- to large -capacity theatre design. These
projections typically provide space for loading docks, storage, and elements of
staging. Often, these projections exist as solid boxes, as seen at the rear of the
Imperial Theatre when viewed from Princess Street. With this proposal, due to its
location on a corner lot, the addition extends directly along King Street East.
Rather than design the addition as a piece of solid massing, which would be
challenging through both the Zoning By -Law and the Heritage Conservation Areas
By -Law regardless, the applicant has provided active use of the fagade. In other
words, instead of presenting a fagade that has false windows and doors to give
the appearance of use, the applicant has arranged the interior of the building so
that the portions of the building that face the street have active uses, and those
that have passive uses (i.e. the loading bay) are set back from the street wall. This
can be illustrated through the arched entrance on King Street East, which is
intended to serve as the new main entrance into the building. The existing Sydney
Street entrance will remain functional and unaltered, however the King Street East
entrance was given priority due to its accessible nature.
In terms of massing, the addition is in keeping not only with the Courthouse itself,
but with standard Heritage and Zoning expectations. Although height is
determined through the Zoning By -Law, the height of the addition matches the
peak of the Courthouse roof (excluding the cupola). The zero -lot setback of the
Courthouse is matched by the zero -lot setback of the addition's primary massing,
with subordinate pieces (the curtain wall connector, the loading bay) set farther
back. While there would be no expectation of an upper -storey step -back on a
three -storey structure, the solid street wall created by the addition's primary
massing reflects the solid street wall created on both Sydney Street and King
Street East by the Courthouse. The overall massing of the proposed addition
meets the setback requirement for all infill tiers and complies with all general
massing expectations.
One of the reasons behind exempting Tier Three designs from the majority of
design standards is because contemporary architecture by and large does not
adhere to the more traditional expectations of building composition. The
proposed development is a prime example. Attempting to assess the addition
through such well-defined categories as 'windows' is a challenge and so what
follows is a more all-inclusive review of the design. An in-depth analysis is available
through the attached staff report to the Heritage Development Board and as
referenced previously, the attached applicant's documents include a design
rationale.
169
-8-
While perhaps not understood at first
glance, the proposed addition is a
contemporary interpretation of neo-
Palladian design. This late 18t" to early
19t" century architectural style, a subset
of neoclassical design, was most popular
in Italy and the United Kingdom, with
rare examples in North America —the Old
Saint John County Courthouse being one.
Neo-Palladianism is a structured and
rhythmed style with strong
horizontal divisions and
CHANGE IN
ARTICULATION
restrained detailing. This is — —
PEDIMENT
I CORN ICE
achieved in the addition - -
first, by matching horizontal T
T1
Pi—Nobile
datums and second, byL-L t
changing materials and
TEXTURAL rl� y
articulation. Vertically BASE
three measurements were
taken from the Courthouse, and are used directly or in combination to create
widths and ratios for the addition. What results is a rhythmed and logical approach
to massing and fagade articulation for the addition that is in keeping with the
design principles applied to the original building.
Both the materials and palette for the proposed addition are limited in their scope.
This is in many ways a direct reflection of the original building, which is, outside of
the roof and trim, exclusively sandstone. On the primary massing, pre -cast
concrete, tinted to match the existing sandstone, is used as the base of the
addition to complement the textured base of the Courthouse. On the upper
storeys, insulated channel glass is used, mirroring the switch on the Courthouse
to smooth -finished sandstone. The articulation of the channel glass becomes finer
at the top, similar to the standing -seam metal roof. Both materials have textured
matte finishes, complementing the two uses of sandstone on the existing building.
In using insulated channel glass, which allows for diffused light transfer both in
and out of the building, the massing of the addition is not as imposing as it would
be if the glass were reflective or opaque. When this is paired with the concrete
base, which does not have any detail outside of the arched entrance, the overall
effect is of an addition that is respectful and subordinate to the existing building.
170
IRE
Insulated metal panels are proposed for the secondary massing to the east and
use a colour at the darker end of the overall tonal palette for the project. The use
of a flat -finish, architectural panel darker than all other aspects results in a more
subordinate element. This is further supported by the fact that it is the most
recessed element along the street wall. Given the secondary massing's strictly
utilitarian function as a loading bay, the material choice is appropriate and
practical.
The addition uses a limited selection of contemporary materials that complement
those in the existing building and establish it as separate from the historic fabric.
While the textures, colours and opacity vary, there is an interconnectedness and
interplay with the historic fabric that reflects a well -considered and intentional
selection. The same design using different finishes, colours, or materials,
traditional or modern, would result in a different relationship with the existing
building and would likely be one not as cleanly executed.
Imaact on Adiacent Buildings. Streetscaae and Heritage Conservation Areas
The primary impact of the proposed development is on the existing building itself.
Three of four facades remain untouched through the proposal; however, the east
(rear) fagade of the building would require heavy alteration to accommodate the
addition. This includes the removal of a large portion of the rubble wall, opening
back into the roof, which would also see the removal of the dormers added to the
roof in the 1925 renovation. While this is a major intervention in terms of scale,
there are two points to consider. The first is that the Statement of Significance,
which was drafted by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, does
not include any items on the fagade in question as character -defining elements for
the property. Their exclusion does not create a carte blanche for alterations at the
rear of the building, however it does provide some flexibility.
The proposal plans to only remove as much material as is required based on the
floorplans rather than removing the wall entirely. This can be seen in the
renderings, which show the rubble wall continuing in past the curtain wall
connector. An identified challenge, however, is the poor condition of the rubble
wall. It is acknowledged that the rubble wall as a whole may not be able to be
preserved, however this will only become known once work begins. Should this
be the case and provided any adjustments to the design are limited to the existing
building, future alterations would be able to be handled through a standard
permit application to the Heritage Development Board.
171
M1112
The second point of consideration in altering the wall is the impact on its public
visibility. Due to the Courthouse's location, the rear rubble wall is prominent when
approaching from the east. In removing a section of it, but more significantly in
placing a structure next to it, the public's ability to engage with this portion of the
historic fabric becomes limited. However, the fact that this wall is rubble, not
sandstone, along with the history of the site and streetscape, suggests that this
impact should not be viewed as substantial. Starting in the 1840s, the southern
span of King Street East from Sydney Street to Carmarthen Street was fully
occupied as a judicial complex, with an almshouse, a workhouse, a jail, and a
police station existing at various points and in various forms in addition to the
Courthouse until about the 1980s. The question of whether the rear parking lot of
the building should contain a structure, as well as the idea that the block face
should be fully occupied is not only true from a historical perspective but is also
encouraged through both Heritage and Planning principles, which
promote more complete streetscapes.
If it is concluded that a structure can exist in the rear parking lot, what then needs
to be considered is the design's impact. By matching the zero -lot setback of the
Courthouse, it establishes a prominence and an intentionality to the streetscape.
This reasserts its role in connecting Trinity Royal to the boulevard portion of King
Street East. If the massing were set back farther from the property line, the
connecting corridor between the two Heritage Conservation Areas would appear
incidental, especially when considered with the significant setback of
the neighbouring parking garage. The more uniform street wall also provides a
clean urban contrast relative to the natural setting of the Loyalist Burial Ground.
In viewing the Courthouse face -on from King's Square, the only portions of the
design that would be visible would be the corners behind the hipped roof to the
north and only beyond a certain distance.
The positive impacts of the proposed project can generally be viewed as
outweighing the identified negative impact of the direct intervention on the rear
wall of the Courthouse. The reinstatement of a street wall and the reinforced
connection between the City's two largest Heritage Conservation Areas are
valuable contributions in and of themselves and serve to support the framing of
King's Square, a key uptown anchor point. Additionally, by having such a
contemporary addition situated at the boundaries of these areas, there is less
disruption to the heritage character of the areas than there would be if the project
was located in a more central part of a Heritage Conservation Area.
172
From a pure conservation standpoint, an argument could be made that a use
should be found for the Courthouse that has less of an impact on the existing
building. In a purpose-built institutional property, however, adaptive reuse that
does not impact either the interior, the exterior, or both is a particularly
challenging ask. Coupled with a vacant building, the wait for a perfect project to
arise can ultimately be more damaging, as has unfortunately been seen before.
While the proposal does require the removal of historic material, deliberate effort
has been made to preserve as much of the fabric, interior and exterior, as
possible.
Summary
In its most basic description, an addition to a heritage building to create a
performance venue comes across as a moderately challenging proposal. When it
is also considered that the addition is located on a corner lot, that the historic
building's neo-classical composition is itself a character -defining element, that
theatre additions are generally utilitarian, and that it was always the intent for the
design to be contemporary, the proposal begins to sound like an impossible ask.
What has been presented, however, is an addition that demonstrates a deep
understanding of the historic building and its core architectural principles, a
reinterpretation using contemporary design and contemporary materials that
does not overwhelm or diminish the value of the Courthouse's heritage
but reflects and respects it. In creating the opportunity for Tier Three designs, it
was anticipated and acknowledged that these proposals would have higher
expectations and higher standards in order to ensure that the contributions they
make to Saint John's Heritage Conservation Areas would be valuable and would
endure. The proposed addition to the Courthouse understands and meets the
challenge, not only setting a new standard for contemporary infill in a
historic setting but raising the bar for architecture in Saint John.
R1111T ilfxeller-1 C�IJIuI�Pi�
The proposed amendment aligns with Common Council's priorities of Vibrant,
Safe City and Growth & Prosperity.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
N/A
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
173
sVAE
At its February 3, 2021 meeting, the Heritage Development Board unanimously
recommended to Common Council a motion to approve the proposed
development as a site -specific by-law amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed By -Law Amendment for 22 Sydney Street
2. Report to Heritage Development Board — February 3, 2021
3. Heritage Impact Assessment and Submission Documents
4. Third -Party Peer Review
5. Tier Three Infill Standards
174
BY-LAW NUMBER HC-1
A LAW TO AMEND
THE SAINT JOHN HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREAS BY-LAW
Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in Common Council convened, as follows:
The Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law, enacted on the twenty-third day of September, A.D.
2019, is amended by:
1. Adding immediately after Schedule O, the following schedule:
"Schedule P -Tier Three Developments"
2. Adding the following Subsection, immediately following Subsection 8.2 (2):
"8.3 Notwithstanding the conservation of the existing structure, pursuant to
Subsection 8 (5)(c)(iii) any building or structure, or portion thereof, erected upon the
parcel of land identified by Parcel Identification (PID) Number 55224539 shall be
constructed in all material respects in accordance with the plans forming Package "A" to
Schedule P of this By -Law."
ARRETE N HC-1
ARRETE MODIFIANT
UARRETE SUR LES SECTEURS DE CONSERVATION DU PATROMOINE DE SAINT JOHN
Le conseil communal de The City of Saint John, etant reuni, edicte ce qui suit :
L'Arrete sur les secteurs de conservation du patrimoine de Saint John, edicte le 23 septembre 2019, est
ainsi modifie :
1. L'annexe qui suit est ajoutee immediatement apres I'annexe O
c Annexe P — Amenagements de niveau 3 »
2. Le paragraphe qui suit est ajoute immediatement apres le paragraphe 8.2(2)
8.3 Malgre la conservation de la construction existante, au titre du sous-alinea
8(5)c)(iii), la construction d'un batiment ou d'une construction, ou d'une partie d'un
batiment ou d'une construction, sur la parcelle designee par le NID 55224539 se fera a
tous les egards importants en conformite avec les plans qui constituent 1'ensemble « A »
de I'annexe P du present arrete. »
175
APPLICATION FOR A I EXP ARCHITECTS FOR THE SAINT JOHN
HERITAGE PERMIT THEATRE COMPANY
20-5000 22 SYDNEY STREET
(PID 55224539)
Date
2021-01-29
To:
Heritage Development Board
From:
Growth and Community
Services
Prepared by:
Emma Sampson
Approved by:
Amy Poffenroth
SUBJECT
Application for a major addition (infill) to an existing building in a Heritage Conservation Area.
DISCUSSION
22 Sydney Street, more commonly known as the Saint John County Courthouse, is situated at the corner
of Sydney Street and King Street East on the eastern boundary of King's Square. The property is located
in both the Trinity Royal and the King Street East Heritage Conservation Areas and is designated at
the Municipal level and at the Federal level as a National Historic Site.' Originally built in 1829 and
designed by John Cunningham in the neo-classical style (more specifically neo-Palladian), it was
renovated with alterations by Garnet Wilson in 1924-1925 following a major fire in 1919. Constructed
primarily of finished and rusticated sandstone, the three -storey building is noted for its massing, rhythm,
and symmetry, and its classical detailing. The Courthouse exists as both the oldest building and as the only
(formerly) institutional use in a collection of historic buildings of varied uses framing King's Square.
An application has been submitted by the owners of the property, the Saint John Theatre Company, for a
new major addition to the rear (east) of the building as part of an adaptive re -use proposal that would see
the Courthouse converted to a medium -capacity performance venue. The Heritage Development Board
has previously issued a Heritage Permit for restoration work on the existing building as Phase One of the
overall project; also included in this request are a small number of new items and changes to finishes for
the existing building.
Based on the documents submitted as part of this application, the project has been assessed by staff as a
Tier Three development, which the applicant anticipated and agreed with. Accordingly, the project
required the submittal of a Heritage Impact Assessment by the project architect, along with a third -party
peer review, which was contracted out by the City of Saint John. Both sets of documents are attached
P.O. Box 1971 C.P. 1971
Saint John, NB Saint John, N.-B.
Canada E21-4L1 Canada E2L 4L1
SAINT JOHN
www.sp"ohn.ca
Page 1 of 6
22 Sydney Street 20-5000 January 29, 2021
as part of this report and will be referenced throughout. The role of the Heritage Development Board in
this application is to provide a recommendation on a site -specific by-law amendment for the proposed
development to Common Council, rather than standard permit approval. Following the Board's
recommendation to Common Council, a Public Hearing date will be set for the proposed amendment. A
full schedule of actions related to this process is attached at the end of this document.
Background
Tier Three infill developments are those that intentionally contrast from the existing patterns of design,
form, and materiality in their streetscapes and in their Heritage Conservation Areas. As accurately stated
in the Heritage Impact Assessment, a Tier Three addition is intended to "intentionally [transform] the
architectural meaning of the old building." Therefore, these designs are exempt from the
majority of the design standards that are outlined in the By -Law for Tier One and Tier Two developments.
This is not to say that any development that cannot be determined to be either of those tiers should
automatically be considered as a Tier Three development. The intent behind reviewing these applications
as site -specific by-law amendments and requiring both a heritage impact assessment and a third -party
peer review as part of the application is to ensure that these truly contemporary projects have fully and
deliberately considered their historic settings and surroundings in their designs and are not simply
generic designs that would work in any number of locations.
Proposal & Design
In choosing the Courthouse as the new home for a medium -capacity performance venue, it was
understood that an addition would be required for any design and layout. To accommodate
staging, seating, and associated spaces in using the Courthouse as a performance venue, the applicant is
proposing a three -storey addition to the rear (east) of the property, occupying what currently exists as a
parking lot. This addition is connected to the Courthouse using a slightly recessed glass curtain wall
divider ('The Break'), which carries into the primary massing of the addition itself as the recessed doors
of the new main entrance, with the primary massing overall in line with the zero setback of the
Courthouse. At the east end of the property, the secondary massing of the loading bay is more fully
recessed from all other building elements.
Rear projections are standard in medium- to large -capacity theatre design, providing for loading docks,
storage and housing all rigging and lighting. These projections typically exist as fully solid massing, as can
be seen at the rear of the Imperial Theatre as viewed from Princess Street. With this proposal, where it
sits on a corner lot, the addition extends directly along the street. Rather than present a piece of solid
massing, which would be challenging through both the Zoning By -Law and the Heritage Conservation
Areas By -Law, the applicant has provided active articulation of the fagade; that is to say, instead of
presenting a false fagade that has windows and doors placed on it to give the appearance of use, the
applicant has developed the interior program of the building such that the portions of the building that
face the street have active uses, and those that have passive uses (i.e. the loading bay) are recessed from
the street wall.
The design rationale is explained in detail in the Heritage Impact Assessment, but at its core takes its
vertical and horizontal rhythms directly from the existing building as an extension of neo-Palladian design
principles, which is one of the character -defining elements in the Statement of
Page 2 of 6
177
22 Sydney Street 20-5000 January 29, 2021
Significance. Horizontally, this sees both the Courthouse and the addition divided into three parts along
the same datums: the rusticated (textured) base; the piano nobile, which is typically taller than other
floors, and the cornice/roof, with articulation and/or materials changing at each point. On the existing
building, this is seen in the progression from the rusticated sandstone based, to the smooth sandstone
piano nobile, and finally to the standing seam metal roof. On the primary massing of the addition, the
same progression is seen in the use of a pre -cast concrete base, switching to insulated channel glass for
the piano nobile, with a different articulation of the insulated channel glass at the cornice. On the
secondary massing, the same material is used at all three levels but includes an opening into the loading
bay that occupies the full height and width of the base level, and at the cornice, a shortened version of
the same panels that are used on the piano nobile. The glass curtain wall divider ('The Break') runs from
ground level to the underside of the third -storey windows on the existing building, topped by a hipped
standing seam metal roof connecting the Courthouse to the addition.
Vertically, three measurements were taken off the existing building to create ratios for the addition: the
width of the Courthouse as viewed from the north (M1), the width of the windows (M2), and the width of
the offset of the recessed window arcades (M3). These measurements are reflected in the addition
either as direct translations or as functions. The width of the primary massing (inclusive of the curtain
wall connector) is equal to the width of the Courthouse (M1), with the width of the curtain wall itself being
double the width of the windows (2 x M2). The distance from the edge of the pre -cast concrete to the
edge of the arched entrance opening is equal to the arcade offset (M3), with the width of the arched
entrance opening equal to the total of the previous two measurements ((2 x M2) + M3). What results,
while not necessarily immediately apparent, is a rhythmed and logical approach to massing and fagade
articulation for the addition that is in keeping with the design principles applied to the original building.
The Third -Party Peer Review suggests broadly that the proposed design could be altered to better exist as
a direct extension of the Courthouse, viewed as one building, rather than having the appearance of being
"two compatible neighbours." The effectiveness of the glass curtain wall divider in separating the
two massings is also acknowledged, but the Peer Reviewer notes that the success of this is lost at the
upper levels with the carry-over of the standing seam metal roof, perhaps suggesting that the 'one
building' effect might be accomplished by having the curtain wall match the overall height. With the glass
connector shorter than the Courthouse and the addition, Staff perceives this as an interesting and
possibly deliberate visual effect, with the metal roof connecting 'The Break'to the existing building on the
right, and the extension of the glass carrying over into the entrance at the base on the left. This 'S'
effect results in attention being drawn down and over to the arched opening in the pre -cast concrete base
which, as mentioned previously, is intended to serve as the new main entrance into the venue. Where
the arched opening is simply that and lacks any extra detailing, this acts as a subtle but effective
method of signifying its purpose.
The arched opening is an item that receives specific attention and recommendations in terms of design
suggestions in the Peer Review. As mentioned in the Heritage Impact Assessment, the use of a Roman
arch (a perfect semi -circle) for the opening is an intentional reference to the Roman arch above the
Sydney Street entrance on the Courthouse (a character -defining element). It is rightly pointed out by
the Peer Reviewer that this relationship may not be readily understood by the general public as there are
very few viewpoints that would allow one to see both entrances and arches at the same time and to
remedy this, two different design adjustments were suggested to better connect the arches visually:
Page 3 of 6
178
22 Sydney Street 20-5000 January 29, 2021
Articulating the concrete around the arch in a representation of the voussoirs above the
window recesses; or,
• Using a three -centred arch instead of a Roman arch to better connect with the three -
centred arches that are used on the window recesses on the Courthouse.
Both of these design suggestions would create a stronger, if not more literal tie to
the existing building, however they focus on elements relating to the windows rather than
the entrance. Moreover, no other design elements from the Courthouse are directly represented in the
addition's design. The impact and the intent of having the King Street East entrance function as the main
entrance would likely be lessened through their incorporation.
Materiality
Both the materials and palette for the proposed addition are limited in their scope. This is in many ways
a direct reflection of the original building, which is, outside of the roof and trim, exclusively
sandstone. The use of pre -cast concrete for the base, tinted to match the sandstone, is a strong
complement to and interpretation of that material. While a stronger correlation to the existing building
could be made through the use of sandstone and/or the use of the same material through all three levels,
there are two points to consider. The first being that as a whole the addition uses contemporary materials,
clearly establishing itself as being separate from the historic fabric. The use of traditional materials in the
addition may not necessarily result in issues in determining what is historic and what is not given the
overall design, however, the intent of a contemporary addition may be diminished if it uses the same
material selection from the existing building.
In a similar vein and as the second point of consideration is the choice of insulated channel glass for the
majority of the facade treatment on the addition's primary massing. While this may at first glance appear
incongruous with the continuous sandstone massing of the Courthouse, its use bolsters the design in a
number of ways. In choosing a material that allows for diffused transfer of light both internally and
externally, the presence of the addition's rectangular massing is not as stark or imposing as it would
be if the material choice were opaque or reflective. It also mirrors the material transition
from the textured sandstone base of the Courthouse to the smoother finish on the piano nobile,
switching from concrete to lightly sandblasted glass. In using a Low-E glass, the tinting of the glass is able
to be controlled, providing a warmer appearance and light that better fits in the overall palette. Lastly,
the vertical lines of the channels themselves, while not a direct translation in terms of width, play off the
multi -paned windows on all three levels of the Courthouse.
Insulated metal panels are proposed for the secondary massing to the east and use a colour at the darker
end of the overall tonal palette for the project. The use of a flat -finish, architectural panel that is darker
than most other aspects of both the original building and the primary massing of the addition results in a
more subordinate element, and this is further supported by the fact that it is the most recessed element
along the street wall. Given the secondary massing's strictly utilitarian function, the material choice is
appropriate and practical.
Overall, the proposal uses a variety of materials that manage to complement those in the existing
building while remaining fully contemporary. While the textures, colours and opacity vary, there is an
interconnectedness and inter -play with the historic fabric that reflects a well -considered and intentional
Page 4 of 6
179
22 Sydney Street 20-5000 January 29, 2021
selection. The same design using different finishes, colours, or materials, traditional or modern, would
result in a different relationship with the existing building and would likely be one not as cleanly executed.
Impact on Adjacent Buildings, Streetscape and Heritage Conservation Areas
The primary impact of the proposed development is on the existing building itself. Three of the four
fagades of the exterior are untouched through the proposal, however the east (rear) fagade of the
building would require heavy alteration to accommodate the addition. This includes the removal of a
large, rectangular portion of the rubble wall, opening back into the roof, which would also see the removal
of the dormers added to the roof in the 1925 renovation. While this is a major intervention in terms of
scale, there are a few points to consider relative to the federal Statement of Significance and to the
history of the site itself. With regards to the Statement of Significance, which was drafted by the Historic
Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, none of the character -defining elements for the property
include items on the fagade in question. This is not to say that in their exclusion there exists a carte
blanche for alterations at the rear of the building, however it does provide a degree of flexibility.
The proposal describes an intent to only remove as much material as is required based on the
floorplans; this is reflected in the rubble wall continuing into the interior of the building beyond the
curtain wall, rather than extending the opening to the limits of the addition's exterior walls. An identified
challenge, however, is the existing condition of the rubble wall. Combinations of various mortars, some
appropriate and some not, along with the fact that the building has sat vacant and unmaintained for over
a decade have resulted in considerable degradation of the fabric, to the point that air and water
penetration occur with some frequency. Again, while it is the expressed intent of the proposal to only
remove material as required, it is acknowledged that the rubble wall as a whole may not be able to be
preserved, however this will only become known once the work begins.
The second point of consideration in altering the wall is the impact on its public visibility. By virtue of the
Courthouse's place on the lot and on the street, the rear rubble wall is prominent when approaching from
the east. In removing a section of it, but more significantly in placing a structure next to it, the public's
ability to engage with this piece of the historic fabric becomes extremely limited. However, the fact that
this wall is rubble, as opposed to sandstone, along with the history of the site and of the
streetscape, suggest that this impact should not be viewed as substantial. Starting in the 1840s, the
southern span of King Street East from Sydney Street to Carmarthen Street was fully occupied as a judicial
complex, with an almshouse, a workhouse, a jail and a police station existing at various points and in
various forms, in addition to the Courthouse until about the 1980s. The question of whether the rear
parking lot of the building should contain a structure, as well as the idea that the block face should be full
is not only true from a historical perspective but is also encouraged through both Heritage and Planning
principles, encouraging more complete streetscapes.
If the question of whether a structure should exist at the rear of the building is resolved, what then needs
to be considered is the impact of the design itself. In having the primary massing of the addition match
the zero setback of the Courthouse, it establishes a prominence and an intentionality to the streetscape
that reasserts its role in connecting Trinity Royal to the boulevard portion of King Street East. Were the
massing set back more deliberately from the property line, the connecting corridor between the two
Heritage Conservation Areas would appear incidental, reinforced through the significant setback of
the neighbouring parking garage. The more uniform street wall also provides a tidy juxtaposition
Page 5 of 6
180
22 Sydney Street 20-5000 January 29, 2021
relative to the natural setting of the Loyalist Burial Ground opposite, which also serves, as the Peer Review
identifies, to absorb the light that would be emitted through the channel glass in the evenings. In viewing
the Courthouse face -on from King Square, the only portion of the design that would be visible would
be the corner of the primary massing behind the hipped roof to the north.
The positive impacts of the proposed project can generally be viewed as outweighing the identified
negative impact of the direct intervention on the rear wall of the Courthouse. The reinstatement of a
street wall and the reinforced connection between the City's two largest Heritage Conservation Areas are
valuable contributions in and of themselves, and also serve to support the framing of King Square, a
key uptown anchor point. Additionally, by having such a contemporary addition situated at the
boundaries of these areas, there is less disruption to the heritage character of the areas than there would
be were the project located in a more central part of a Heritage Conservation Area.
From a pure conservation standpoint, an argument could be made that a use should be found for the
Courthouse that does not impact the exterior to such an extent. In a purpose-built institutional property,
however, adaptive reuse that does not impact either the interior, the exterior, or both is a
challenging ask. When this is coupled with a vacant building, the wait for a perfect project to arise can
ultimately be more damaging, as has unfortunately been seen before. While the proposal does require
the removal of historic material, deliberate effort has been made to preserve as much of the fabric,
interior and exterior, as possible.
Summary
In its most basic description, an addition to a heritage building to create a performance venue comes
across as a moderately challenging proposal. When it is also considered that the addition is located on a
corner lot, that the historic building's neo-classical composition is itself a character -defining element, that
theatre additions are generally utilitarian, and that it was always the intent for the design to be
contemporary, the proposal begins to sound like an impossible ask. What has been presented,
however, is an addition that demonstrates a deep understanding of the historic building and its core
architectural principles, a reinterpretation using contemporary design and contemporary materials that
does not overwhelm or diminish the value of the Courthouse's heritage but reflects and respects it. In
enabling through the By -Law the opportunity for Tier Three designs, it was anticipated and
acknowledged that these proposals would have higher expectations and higher standards in order to
ensure that the contributions they make to Saint John's Heritage Conservation Areas would be valuable
and would endure. The proposed addition to the Courthouse understands and meets the challenge, not
only setting a new standard for contemporary infill in a historic setting but raising the bar for architecture
in Saint John.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to Common Council a motion to approve the proposed Tier Three development as a site -
specific by-law amendment.
Page 6 of 6
181
so
`•,exp.
architects
RENOVATIONS & ADDITION TO THE
SAINT JOHN COUNTY COURT HOUSE
Heritage Impact Assessment
23 November 2020 - Phase 11 Heritage Development Application
182
Introduction & Project Overview
The purpose of this report is to provide the Heritage Development Board, authorities and other decision makers and
with the necessary information to recommend approval of the construction of a proposed 3-storey infill addition to
the historic Old Saint John County Court House building located at 22 Sydney Street. What follows this introduction
intends to provide context, evidence -based analysis, design commentary, and other key insights required to understand
the objectives, goals and ultimately, the design of the project as it relates to the heritage value of the Court House
building. In doing so, we aim to establish that the proposed infill development, however modern its architectural
expression, not only aesthetically enhances the heritage value of the Court House, but that the architectural expression
of the addition in fact derives deep rooted meaning from the heritage architecture as well.
Behind the project is the Saint John Theatre Company (SJTC); a grass roots community of individuals that believe
Saint John deserves great theatre. Since 1990, SJTC has dedicated itself to growing the theatre arts sector in Southern
New Brunswick, having expanded from producing a handful of theatre productions each year to a broad spectrum of
opportunities for artist and audience; including the annual Fundy Fringe Festival, and most recently founding of the
Atlantic Repertory Company (ARC). As part of their continued growth, the Old County Court House was acquired by SJTC
in 2019. The Court House building will be home to ARC, as well as accommodate the growing needs of SJTC, providing
them with flexible space to expand their programming. The centerpiece of the new arts facility is a +/- 200-person
performance space.
In order to accommodate the technical and ancillary spaces required to support the central performance space,
administrative spaces and other ARC related programming, a significant addition and interior renovations to the
existing Court House are proposed. The proposed addition also provides space for necessary life safety upgrades
required by the change -in -use of the existing Court House. For instance, new egress stairs and elevators to fulfill
barrier free accessibility across the whole of the facility are planned. Leveraging the addition design to satisfy such
requirements limits impact to the interiors of the Court House building; ensuring spaces such as the famed marble
lined lobby and spiral staircases remain largely un-impacted by the change -in -use.
Since taking ownership of the Old Saint John County Court House, SJTC and the consultant team of architects,
engineers, theatre and acoustic specialists have been diligently working away on the design for the facility. Early on,
the project was separated into two distinct phases of work - destructive investigation and site preparation (Phase
I), and new construction (Phase ll). Phase I work will be largely complete by December 2020. This phase of work was
part of a strategic plan to get to know the building intimately ahead of detailed design, thus mitigating potential
surprises during Phase ll. Conservation work to the existing Court House exterior including new windows, new roofing
and masonry restoration, etc. was also approved by the Heritage Development Board as part of the Phase I scope.
Conservation work is scheduled for completion by Spring 2021. New construction is projected to begin Spring 2021.
As previously noted, this project is also a change -in -use; transforming a 200-year-old structure purpose built as a
house of justice into a modern performing arts facility. As a major rehabilitation to a heritage structure located within
a heritage conservation area, the project - changes to the existing exterior and any proposed additions - are subject
to the Saint John Heritage Development By -Laws. The by-laws are supported by The Standards & Guidelines for the
Preservation of Historic Places in Canada (The Standards & Guidelines). Based on early discussions with Authorities
Having Jurisdiction (AHTs), this proposed infill has been categorized as Tier 3 infill, defined in the by-law as a project
that varies from any established pattern, traditional appearance or traditional material as it relates to: general design
and articulation, ground floor height and articulation, materials, and windows and doors. The design portion of the
report will address the proposed deviations from the minimum requirements of the by-laws.
(Left) view of the Sydney Street facade
183
Contextual Analysis
(Urbanity and Heritage)
Urban Context
The Saint John County Court House is located at 22 Sydney Street in the heart of Uptown Saint
John. The building occupies approximately one half of its parcel of land with the eastern half of
the property most recently serving as parking. The building sits at the corner of Sydney and King
Street East and has zero -lot line setbacks at the North, South and Western property extents per the
Uptown Commercial zoning by-law. The Court House is situated in an intense pocket of heritage
properties that include Kings Square, the Loyalist Burial Grounds and the Firefighters Museum (also
known as Old Number 2 Engine House. The main entrance of the Court House opens onto Sydney
Street and overlooks historic Kings Square. A pedestrian crosswalk located at the building corner
connects the site to Charlotte and King Streets to the West side of the Square. To the left of the
Court House lies the historic Loyalist Burial Ground, and to its right, the Firefighters Museum. The
Burial ground is heavily treed and landscaped, views of which are enjoyable from the second and
third storey of the Court House.
The Old Engine House (Firefighters Museum) is a small two -storey building of neoclassical
inspiration; the pediment of which aligns (approximately) with the top of the Court House's second -
storey windows. Its facade is aligned with the face of the main Court House building and sitting
slightly proud of the single storey section that sits in between the Court House and Engine House.
The Engine House is built in a green sandstone, similar in colour and cut of the Court House facing
stone; Gwen Martin's For Love of Stone suggests that the courthouse stone was imported from
England, with the remainder being used for the Engine House. Directly next door to the Engine
House are a series of late 19th century -early 20th century, brick multi -unit residential buildings.
The buildings represent various architectural styles and vary in height -four storey's nearest to the
Court House lowering to three storey's at the end of the block. The four storey buildings are of a
similar total height as the Court House.
Around the corner on Kings Square South is the new Irving Oil Home Office, a contemporary office
tower faced in limestone with granite accents. Next door is the historic Imperial Theatre - clad
in alabaster -coloured terra cotta tiles decorated with floral motifs and featuring a prototypical,
lighted marquee - and lastly, the Admiral Beatty building. To the rear of the Court House is a
recently constructed parking garage. The parking garage has a high level of execution; finished in
prefabricated concrete and red brick panels with black metal accents. The parking garage sits at
a higher elevation than the Court House building; the elevations change being delineated by an
exposed bedrock cut face that is located on the Court House property. Beyond the parking structure
is the historic streetscope of King Street East, a largely intact Victorian residential neighbourhood
which also serves a gateway point of entry into the historic Uptown Core.
The site is also surrounded by a dense collection of cultural offerings and within walking distance
to many city attractions and public spaces including City Market among other previously noted
landmarks. With the revitalization and re -purposing of this site, the new home of SJTC will
contribute to a vibrant mixed -use neighborhood where people can live, work, play and learn. Such
a project will catalyze the city's smart growth goals and further promote a vibrant uptown and
economic prosperity. By giving the community a beautifully rejuvenated cultural facility centered
around king square, this project will continue the revitalization of the entertainment district in the
Uptown core.
(Right) neighbouring building and site context
185
Traffic
Corridor
Traffic
Corridor
Traffic
Corridor
4-
a
PL
N
L
ro
E
L
M
U
Traffic
Corridor
1. Saint John City Market
2. Irving Oil Headquarters
3. King's Square
4. Loyalist Burial Grounds
5. Imperial Theatre
6. Irving Oil Parking Garage
7. Firefighters Museum
O
Tin
Traffic
Corridor
King Square South
V)
Qj
L
1W
E
J
King Square North O
Traffic
Corridor
Traffic
Corridor
The Neighbourhood Context
186
Heritage Analysis
The Court House straddles the Trinity Royal Heritage Conservation Area and the King Street East Heritage
Conservation area. The building is also a National Historic Site of Canada; designated in 1974 in recognition of its
importance to the judicial history of New Brunswick and Canada, and its exemplary architectural value as an example
of Neo-Palladian design demonstrating emerging Neoclassical influences in Canada. While listed in The Canadian
Register of Historic Places, there is no Provincial or Federal heritage jurisdiction over the building as a privately owned
property.
In order to understand the proposed addition, one must first understand the architectural design of the Court House
proper -its physical history, character defining elements and its philosophical underpinnings. The building in its
current condition represents two distinct architectural eras and design visions; John Cunningham's 1829 Neo-
Palladian design, and Garnet Wilson's 1925 renovation and restoration. According to a historical building report
compiled by historian C.A. Hale, the Old Saint John County Court House can be described as:
'A solid rectangular three -storey edifice, measuring 50 feet by 100 feet, the Court House has a
gently sloping hipped roof. The projecting central section of the fagade, decorated with classical
motifs and capped by a pediment, is the main focal point of the building. The section features
raised plaques on the wall above each of the three central windows which are flanked by fluted
Doric pilasters. False balconies with bulbous balusters are set into the wall under each of the
central windows. The effect of these details is to create the illusion of additional space and depth
to the relatively flat, textured surface:'
The Court House was originally erected in the years 1826 -1829, designed by Scottish Canadian Architect John
Cunningham. Cunningham's design is known to be a modified version of architect Thomas Rust's who also applied
to be Architect for the project. The building was substantially renovated after a devastating fire in 1919 that saw the
interior of the building mostly wiped out save for the original spiral stone staircases. Architect Garnet Wilson led the
renovation process which was complete by July 1925.
At the time of the Court House's conception in the 1820's, Saint John was undergoing a major shift in its development,
and identity as a metropolitan City; the modernity and idealism imbued as one of Saint John's first grand public
buildings is reflected in its architecture style - Neo -Palladian ism. The term Neo-Palladian refers to a conservative
and rigid interpretation of the teachings of 16th century Venetian architect Andrea Palladio. The impact of Palladio's
teachings on architectural form were for reaching and the "Palladian style" of architectural expression became
extremely fashionable in Britain in the early 1600's. The style was revived in the early -to -mid 1700's (the start of
the Neo-Palladian era), subsequently inspiring the Neoclassical movement that came into fashion toward the end of
century. Neo -Palladian ism came into use in Canada at the turn of the 19th century and remained popular into the
1900's; heavily influencing architectural expression of all typologies in the Canadian Colony thanks to the British
preference for classical design references.
The Neo-Palladian style developed as a counter movement to the ornate and flamboyant Baroque and Rococo
architectural expression that preferred organic exuberance. Favoring lucid, stereometrically concise design, Neo-
Palladianism was inspired by the perceived rationalism and purity of form found in ancient Roman and Greek
Architecture as interpreted byAndrea Palladio in his 16th Century treatise, The Four Books on Architecture.
(Left) views of the Sydney Street facade
187
1,27
MM
.r
Continued,
These ideas were further reinforced by the re -discovery of Vitruvius's Ten Books of Architecture; a contemporary
account of the architectural meaning of Roman Architecture that asserted, among other things, good architecture
must demonstrate stability, utility and beauty, and which originally inspired Palladio's ideas. As such, Neo-Palladian
architectural expression - as demonstrated by the Court House building - is characterized by restrained, austere design
with classical references and clearly rooted in Georgian consciousness; that is seeking a return to a more rational and
less complicated style.
At the Court House, the Neo-Palladian design is exemplified by several trademark character
defining elements:
A taut, smoothed out fagade which reinforces the linear (flat) dimensional character of the
building faces, use of classical building elements (i.e.. columns, entablature and pediment)
and general use of classically rooted iconography, restrained use of ornament (simple, austere
design) and most importantly, use of a stereotypical Palladian rusticated base.
Classical
Ornamentation
i
Voussoirs
`Taut' Facade
Articulation
- --- - - - - --
_q - q P 0"Ni y"Wi
- Rusticated Base
tt =
A trademark of the Palladian design rationale, the rusticated base (or ground level) is typically defined as a rusticated
- or highly textured - masonry pedestal that is taller in proportion than upper storey's. At the Court House, the
rusticated base also features recessed window arcades with lozenge -shaped voussoirs (arch stones).
(Left) classical architectural details at the facades
(Above) Neo-Palladian characteristics in use at the Court House
i
PL IMPERIAI
NIT*-r III, k I
I.
L
&-4 rft A
IA
-PIT
4p
4JR
40"'
Jr
ikk ftqw
OR
, �
, -
r all
WE -or jrj'L�f�
Design Approach
(A Heritage -centric Philosophy)
190
Design Approach
"What matters is what the new and the old in their differing expressions say
together about their evolving subject matter, the way the new and the old are
brought to collaborate across their difference to make vivid what needs to be
realized today. The old is not old text for veneration but old architecture to be
honored in use, a good -faith working proposal about its times that we are lucky
enough still to have around to help us make sense of ours:'
- Paul Spencer Byard
When attempting to augment heritage buildings through architectural addition, there are three
typical conceptual avenues the design can follow:
_ The new addition extends the architectural meaning of the old building
_ The new addition derives its architectural meaning from the old building
- The new addition intentionally transforms the architectural meaning of the old building
Under the Saint John heritage bylaws for infill additions, these different strategies can be categorized
as Tier I, Tier 2 and Tier 3 respectively. As a major rehabilitation and change -in -use, the renovation
and addition to the Old Saint John County Court House will undoubtedly have a transformational
effect on the building - not only in the physical sense, but the perceived identity of the building as
well. For those who grew up knowing the building as the Court House, it will forever be a courthouse,
but for young citizens and the generations to come, their perception of the Court House will be
performing arts centre first.
From early in the design process, the design team committed to the idea that the conceptual strategy
for this project fall between deriving architectural meaning from the existing and intentionally
transforming the architectural meaning of the existing. Though, it should be pointed out the physical
outcome was always intended to be inherently modern and distinct from the architecture of the
Court House per the recommendations of The Standards and Guidelines, establishing on underlying
continuity of design rationale was considered paramount to the success of the design. The belief
being, that however modern the infill addition may appear, clear references to the Neo-Palladian
design and underlying rationale could also be clearly identified. In doing so, the architecture of the
infill addition recognizes the architectural value of the Court House, honoring its identity and place in
history by leveraging the very some design ideals. The result is a combined work of architecture that
has not only been successfully adapted to meet the needs of the end user (SJTC and ARC), but that
takes advantage of and adds to the existing architectural expression to form new meanings (both
architectural and cultural) for Saint John as well.
While outside of the Heritage Development Boards purview, the design team extended this
conceptual approach to the interior renovations portion of the project as well. The interior
atmosphere of the re -designed interior spaces will too derive architectural meaning from the old in
order to ensure the Court House doesn't lose its sense of purpose and meaning as a purpose-built
edifice dedicated to order and law.
(Right) re -interpreted neoclassicism precedents
�� �_ ■�� ram_
191
14
!Es
.VW
I I i L
7 _ -
T r.T!Pr f rf FTff F{'iftf.�T 4F.f,-�..,F'+r.fjLrfFrF-i'f'rRrr-�F rrrr
H
NR■
N a a
IKAI.III
Precedent Study
As part of the heritage related research conducted by the design team, a precedent
gathering exercise was completed. Looking across architectural history, a small
selection of precedent setting projects that demonstrate design excellence, were
executed in the 20th century using modernist expression, and illustrate successful
additions to existing heritage buildings were studied. Some rely heavily on the
heritage architecture for inspiration (demonstrating a profound understanding of
the old in the search for meaningful contemporary expression like this project),
others sought out minimalist intervention to the existing such that the heritage
architecture is not bogged down by the modern design. Common to all of the
precedents, though architectural expression of the new may at first glance appear
far apart in origin and/ or expression, when viewed together with the old what
emerges is an enriched set of architectural values and extended sense of purpose;
the most essential objective for the Court House project.
Precedent A
Canadian Museum of Nature (Entry Addition & Renovation), Ottawa, Ontario
Precedent B
Louis Kahn's Yale University Art Gallery Entrance (Entry Addition)
New Haven, Connecticut
Precedent C
Le Diamant Theatre (Infill Addition & Renovation), Montreal, Quebec
192
a
Application of the Design Approach
This project is first and foremost a rehabilitation of an existing building; defined in The Standards and Guidelines
as, "the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of a historic place or an
individual component, while protecting its heritage value." Through the tremendous efforts of SJTC, the Old Saint
John County Court House will be given a second life, securing its future for generations to come. Of the standards and
guidelines, Standards 10-12 are specific to rehabilitation and served as basis for the design approach for the proposed
addition. Most notably, Standard 11 which states:
"Conserve the heritage value and character defining elements when creating any new additions
to an historic place or any related new construction. Make the new work physically and visually
compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place:'
The design team is committed to use of The Standards and Guidelines across all facets of this project to ensure
the existing Court House building infrastructure is not only treated with sensitivity and respect, but so the work
undertaken during this project is designed and developed with a consistent methodology. Based on review and
interpretation of applicable The Standards and Guidelines, the following set of objectives were defined by the project
team early in the design process as means for the design approach and philosophical underpinnings of the project to
take root -
Leverage a limited/ well-defined set of ornament and materiality across the project to establish a
consistency of design expression that is cohesive to the existing Court House architecture.
Minimize impact to the existing, but maximize atmosphere, character and quality with the new
such that the existing infrastructure is not negatively impacted by the new.
Leverage proportions and datums established by the Neo-Palladian design to shape the
architecture of the addition with intention and sensitivity to the existing.
Develop a new lobby and reception area that leverages the existing, high quality materiality of the
Lobbies.
*(This would include restoration, preservation and repair of existing finishes and materials, and using
the historic materials in new, unexpected ways; building on architectural story between old and new.)
Where selective demolition is required, explore opportunities for decommissioned architectural
components to continue their purpose as contributing narrative pieces of the Court House's story
and history.
Establish a new cultural atmosphere that is both reflective of the Court House's newfound use as a
performing arts facility but demonstrates deference to the embodied history of the building using
materials, design references, and ideology as well.
Develop design details that honor the existing building and that clearly delineate new materials
from existing assemblies and infrastructure in clear, exacting ways legible to the public.
*(This includes creating architectural moments that celebrate the meeting of old and new space)
(Left) Wilson's Queen Anne cupola
193
The Design
The following portion of this report will introduce the architectural design of the proposed infill addition; building
off the design approach and historical analysis presented above. This section will also provide an objective description
of the design and underscore key ideas, features and underlying rationale and/ or requirements that informed the
proposed design. This portion of the report will also address necessary changes and removals from the existing
Court House required by the change -in -use.
194
Introduction to the Design
As part of our schematic design process, we undertook a broad -based precedent study of theatre
and performing arts centre architecture of the modern era. This research sought to bring insight
surrounding notions of signage, entry, scale, contrast and massing, as well as materiality to the project
so that the design team could understand these components independent of heritage implication
first. As the function of the performing arts facility has evolved in the last 50 years, taking on much
broader civic functions beyond solely performance space, their design and architectural expression
has also evolved greatly. Gone are the classically opulent theatres of the old world such as the Opera
Gamier or Royal Albert Hall. The performing arts facility of today is a multi functional venue, and
often the heart of the smaller communities of which they serve; hosting any number of events from
cultural festivals, private events and even social gatherings. As a result of this shift, the architectural
diversity of performing arts facility design has grown exponentially. As each project serves its
community differently, so too does the architecture.
Convention across the theatre as a building typology is a thing of the past. Instead, we found over-
arching themes or tools that are used to varying degrees, but then again in many, not at all. The
one commonality: the architecture of performing arts centre's of today each respond to a unique set
of constraints, contexts and programmatic needs. What fits in one scenario, may not in another. This
also true of architectural design in heritage contexts. The design of the new addition at the Court
House must satisfy the programmatic requirements of the client, fulfill the minimum standards of
the building code, navigate in -numerous constraints of the existing building, all the while creating
a thoughtfully sensitive infill addition to a beloved heritage building. It's a complex recipe that the
design team tested several iterations of along the way. The design team used precedent research as a
tool to understand different ideas every step of the design process - not only for ourselves - but as a
communication tool for the client as well. A tool that will also be utilized in this portion of the report
as well as a visual argument for the value of the proposed design.
Understanding what it means to be a performing arts facility or theatre in a heritage context was
explored next; also, via precedent study. As a public building in an urban centre, transparency and
creating a sense of invitation from the street - identified in the theatre typology study - was a critical
design requirement of the project that had to be thoughtfully approached with respect to heritage
context. Similarly, considering the overlooking views of Loyalist Burial Ground, opportunities for
prospect up the King Street East streetscope - among other programmatic reasons - solid walls and
enclosed interior spaces would have a limiting and arguably negative impact on the project. While
a more transparent, glassy fagade at first thought would seem formally at odds with the existing
architecture of the Court House, the design team posited the following -
Can a glass addition to a 19th century Neo-Palladian building successfully uphold
the underlying ideologies of Cunningham's original design for the Court House
and other Architect defined design objectives using such fundamentally different
construction? And! Can it do so, with the deference deserved by the existing Court
House, in a manner that will be embraced by the community?
(Right) modern infill theatre precedents
195
Continued,
This thesis fueled a lateral shift in the design direction of the project, with the design team moving
on to better understand the use of glass in historical contexts. This exploration would confirm that
glass has long been used in historical contexts to create juxtaposition with heritage architecture.
While this direction would be a first for Saint John, there is no shortage of precedent the world over.
As the precedent imagery on this page illustrates, the contrast created between old and new elevates
heritage building fabric; highlighting architectural character and creating breathing room for the
ornamentality of the adjacent historic building.
(Right) glass infill precedents in heritage contexts
r
tk lot in
}
A .
196
{
Isometric Facade Concept Diagram
The Classical Shadow Box
The design of the infill addition to the Old Saint John County Court House proposes the use of glass to create contrast
with its heritage context in order to successfully fulfill the needs of the program. At its core, the underlying design
concept was inspired by theatrical lighting effects of scrim material and the opportunity to create a dynamic facade
unlike anything Saint John has ever seen.
As previously noted, introduction of new, essential public areas like lobbies and box office demanded greater use of
glass on the facades of the infill addition than its Neo-Palladian neighbour at the upper stories. While the building
will most heavily be used by the public at night, as home to ARC and the administrative offices of SJTC, the new Court
House facility will be a workplace to many and as such, the need for daylighting was also a key consideration for this
shift. In the historical context of the Court House, while the want for a more solid form that would act as a brace for
the existing building would be the more expected route, the design team was committed to developing a design that
carefully balanced solid to void, without sacrificing light, still with the restrained elegance the Court House's Neo-
Palladian architecture demands. In response to these divergent design requirements, the team looked to translucent
glazing systems that would offer delicate, ethereal lighting to the upper lobbies, while not creating a fishbowl at night.
(Addition) (Historic)
The resultant concept is a playful, expressive facade, that will light up like a marquee. Here, patrons are cast
members in a life-size theatre stage that is the facade, creating a giant shadow box theatre at the street. By choosing
translucent glass, the fishbowl effect at night is avoided, keeping a solid backdrop to the space that will keep patrons
engulfed in the theatre experience.
The translucent glazing is juxtaposed with transparent window openings punched into the translucent walls at key
moments across the primary public facing facades. These windows either help distinguish the addition from the Court
House or create important moments of pause and perspective. This strategy creates a more diverse architectural
experience at the building interior and celebrates the contrast between solid and void by only providing views
outward at strategic moments.
197
f1w
Im
i iiii
iiiiM1
OMEN
MEMO
i Ilioniiii
0 JOE
1
MINN
0 on
soon
I NONE
some
NINE
NINE
0 1
Architectural Massing & Expression
The proposed addition to the Court House is located at the rear of the existing building; infilling the
parking lot thus creating the required space to fulfill the programmatic needs of the new performing
arts facility. The existing parking lot was for use by courthouse staff and sat underutilized since the
building was decommissioned. The project seeks to redevelop a highly valuable infill property that
will contribute to vitality of the Uptown. The primary public facade is approximately equal in width to
the existing Court House, with its massing informed by a series of proportions extrapolated from the
Court House's Neo-Palladian design.
M3 M3
Analysis of the Court House facades found several key proportional ratios that were used to determine
the rhythm of solid to void - that is wall to window - among other relationships. Using the width of
solid wall between windows at the existing Court House as the jumping off point, a regular rhythm of
vertical bays was used to establish the width of the new massing. In extending these ratios across the
primary public facade, the proposed addition creates harmony of scale and proportion consistent with
the existing Court House. This strategy also establishes a clearly defined break between the existing
Court House and the addition. This gesture gives the heritage architecture "room to breathe" as well
as to give relief to the cornice and roof hip at the roof line.
(Above) heritage proportions in use at the proposed facade
Understanding the Massing
The 'Break'
PRIMARY
MASSING
200
Continued,
Stepped back from the primary public facade is a secondary massing which houses the loading dock and outdoor
refuse areas for the facility. This massing is stepped back to create space for a 5-ton truck for the SJTC to move set
pieces and other large theatre equipment to and from the building. At the rear of the addition - that is - the facade
backing onto the No. 2 Engine House, space is left so as not to crowd the neighbouring building, as well as to provide
path of egress from a secondary fire exit stairwell.
While continuing use of the Sydney Street entry was heavily debated in the early days of the design process, doing
so would not facilitate barrier free accessibility. This would require a secondary, barrier free entrance which was
deemed undemocratic by the client and design team. As result, the main entrance of the facility is proposed on the
King Street East at the primary public facade. A new lobby space off the street facilitates barrier free entry into the
building and carves out space to navigate the significant change in elevation between the street level and existing
main floor level of the Court House. The new entry is stepped back from the street, creating a covered arcade. The
new King Street East entry also embraces a key architectural reference from Wilson's Queen Anne renovation- use of
a recessed round -top arch as on icon for entry. At the proposed infill fagade, the arch is grand and oversized to bring
focus to the entry; creating hierarchy over the Sydney Street arch, while introducing some drama and playfulness to
the fagade design as well. The entry arch frames the new entry doors and aligns, approximately, with the top of the
window arcades of the existing Court House. Where the entry is recessed, the arch meets the ground as a column
on its right-hand side. In doing so, the entry is kept more open and visible from the Sydney and King Street East
intersection and helps to reinforce the deliberate break between old and new.
CHANGE IN
ARTICULATION
PEDIMENT
/ CORNICE
Piano Nobile
- - - - L - - -
TEXTURAL
BASE
(Above) heritage datums in use
201
Continued,
At its tallest, the addition aligns with the roof peak of the existing Court House. This datum was
chosen for a series of reasons as a result of existing constraints and programmatic needs which were
carefully weighed against aesthetic implications. Floor levels at the third storey vary - a result of
Wilson's 1925 renovation - which led to the series of dormer windows at the East (rear) facade of
the Court House. In order accommodate ceiling levels in the addition, as well as space for required
structural framing, the roof level of the addition would need to align (approximately) with the roof
peak of the dormers at minimum. The implication for the King Street East facade being that the
addition lacked visual hierarchy with the existing Court House. Continued development of the design
would also reveal space to run mechanical systems across to the new building was needed to help
minimize impact to the interior of the existing. This functional need helped inform the design team's
decision to increase the height of the addition - simultaneously creating much needed mechanical
service space and giving the facade hierarchy of scale as well. As a result, the addition massing has
a clear visual prominence, but one that is still clearly informed by the existing by ensuring the final
height obeys the overall height datum of the Court House. The secondary massing maintains a lower
height to help further enhance the relationship of the primary massing to the existing. Similarly,
the "break" between old and new maintains a lower roof height. Both the exterior expression of
the massing - that is, articulation and material selection help to achieve an even greater sense of
balance across the old and new facades. Additionally, introduction other horizontal datums across the
new facade help further ground the design of the infill addition to its context.
The facade design of the proposed infill addition considers a minimalist interpretation of several
elemental characteristics of Neoclassical architecture found at the existing Court House building.
Most notable, and the most easily interpreted being the rusticated base. At the primary public facade,
the rusticated base is maintained to create textural juxtaposition to the glass at the upper levels
and establish strong visual continuity between the two volumes - old and new. The rusticated base
grounds the addition as well, highlighting the new public entry, while also fulfilling the programmatic
need to provide exterior wall space for signage. The rusticated base of the addition is proposed to be
constructed with architectural pre -cast concrete panels. While precise design of the paneling (location
of joints, etc) and its texture has yet to be determined, in order to ensure cohesion with the masonry
of the Court House, architectural concrete will be tinted such that a consistent sandstone colour
is achieved. The rusticated base at the infill addition aligns to that of the Court House, continuing
the Neo-Palladian proportions across the new design. Additional horizontal datum lines across the
primary facade of the addition align to other historical datums helping to breakdown the scale of
the wall into the elemental components of a traditional Neo-Palladian facade; pedestal (base), piano
nobile, and capital (cornice).
The roof line of the Court House is used as a horizontal datum to establish the `cornice" line of the
primary addition facade. This reinterpreted notion of cornice is achieved by changing the glazing
break proportions to a finer grain to imbue a sense of ornamentality consistent with the cornice and
entablature of the Court House. Under the proposed design, the cornice scale is determined by the
height of the third storey; once again introducing some drama and playfulness to the scheme. At the
middle of the facade - or the piano nobile - another horizontal datum is used to draw the line of the
top of the second storey windows across the new facade.
Archway
as Icon for Entry
Re -Interpreted Architectural Elements
■
202
Continued,
At the second and third storey's, the infill addition is proposed to be constructed of Channel Insulated
Glazing. As the name suggests, it is an insulative glazing product quite literally composed of glass
channels. The channels come in a variety of colours and textures with varying degrees of translucency.
At the proposed addition, a low iron glass has been selected to eliminate any blue-green cast that
would clash visually with the Court House. The design team also continues to evaluate possible glass
colours that would offer better tonal cohesion with the Court House during the day - this would
include bronze tinted glass, etc. At night this wall system will glow, activating the street and bring
focus to the entrance of the new facility. During the day, it will read mostly as a solid wall. Similar to
the use of existing proportions to determine the massing of the proposed addition, the rhythm of the
translucent channel insulated glazing facades was carefully designed to honour existing historical
datums and proportions established by the Court House building to create familiarity of scale. The
Channel Insulated Glass is held by a delicate metal frame which is available in wide range of finishes
and colours. The frame colour is intended to be colour matched to the pre -cast architectural panels
to reinforce the thoughtfully minimal character the facade design seeks. The Channel Insulated glass
is also proposed to turn the corner at the eastern side of the primary massing in order to enclose the
new, grand public stair to the interior. In doing so, the grand stair will be bathed in light, drawings
patrons up through the building to the performance level spaces. It is here also that punched
windows into the channel insulated glass are proposed. These playful punched openings will offer
views up the King Street East corridor and create moments for pause for the public as they venture up
through the building levels.
Like the punched openings within the channel insulated glass system, crisp, minimal curtain wall
glass is proposed between the existing building and the primary volume of the addition. This window
wall system not only provides views outward across to the Loyalist Burial Ground but works to create
visual hierarchy; thus, highlighting the historical divided light window typology and language as well.
At the secondary massing on the eastern side of the addition, insulated metal panels are proposed
as the exterior cladding material. These panels are intended to provide a matte finish and be
visually subordinate to the primary massing expression. It is proposed the colour of the panels will
be tonally consistent with the architectural pre -cast concrete, again to build on the thoughtfully
minimal character the facade design seeks. The rhythm and proportion of the panels will follow a
similar hierarchy as the channel glass fagade to help minimize the overall scale of the building face
and leverage existing proportions from the Court House to establish panel sizing as indicated by the
elevations presented in this report.
(Right) channel insulated glass wall at the grand staircase
203
1
Channel Insulated Glass
The translucent glass curtain wall will be achieved using
Channel Insulated Glass. This system is quite literally
comprised of interlocking glass channels that are filled
with a high density insulative gel panel, thus giving it its
name. The glass channels are get into a steel frame with
backup structure that will be visible at the interior of
the building - not unlike other curtain wall or shop front
glazing systems.
This glass system offers high thermal performance,
with many options available both for the glass itself
and the frame. Colour, texture of the glass, colour of the
steel frame are all under our design control, which will
enable us to achieve a highly custom result that will
compliment the existing Court House to the highest
degrees possible.
It is also possible to inset punched window openings
into this system - as proposed for the eastern facade
along the grand staircase.
7
7- 7
- -,- T
�a�rr
204
Pre -Cast Concrete Panels
In an effort to leverage local materials and trades, as
well as to be economically strategic so that investment
in the project can be strategically put toward elements
that will have the most impact, we propose to use pre-
cast concrete at the base of the facade.
Pre -cast concrete is abundant in Saint John' and best
seen in 1970's constructions such as Brunswick Square
Tower and City Hall. It is a wonderful architectural
product that is highly customizable. Texture, tints, and
panel joints will all be carefully considered so that the
new, concrete rusticated based of the entry addition is
elevated beyond expectation.
We also believe this flexible product will help us
achieve the entry arch with precision and with
minimalist details that will honor the Neo-Palladian
architecture of the Court House and compliment the
insulated channel glass wall as well.
F
PA
••.�..1. Ri RR�i R1T
205
No
Insulated Metal Panel
The secondary volume of the addition which houses the
backstage areas of the theatre function we propose to
shroud in Insulated Metal Panels (IMP's).
This extremely cost effect product is also has high
insulative value. Its come in endless colours, panels styles,
textures and finishes that mean our design team has
of lot options at their fingertips to thoughtfully design
the secondary "background" facades of the addition. The
design control these options provide will also help us to
elevate the products application at the Court House to a
higher architectural standard as well. This product can
commonly be seen around Saint John.
The design team is proposing to apply a tonal approach
to colour and leveraging datum levels across the different
facades to determine panel transition locations, etc.
IMP's are available in a wide variety of textures, at
the Court House addition, a flat, architectural panel is
proposed.
206
Heritage Impact Analysis
(Proposed Changes)
207
i
Proposed Alterations
In order to fulfill the programmatic needs of the project as well as facilitate construction of the
addition, a series of removals to the existing Court House are required. The most significant of the
necessary changes is removal of a portion of the rear rubble wall. This is equally the most critically
needed change to the existing building, as removal of the wall is required to open the second storey
floor area to create the +/- 200 seat performance space. Without removal of the rubble wall, the
change -in -use simply cannot occur.
In order to better understand construction and composition of the rubble wall, an inspection was
completed in early 2020 as part of EXP's preliminary review of existing conditions. The general
condition of the east facing rubble stone wall is fair to poor, with significant deterioration observed
by EXP staff. Evidence of long-time water infiltration at the interior of the rubble wall was also
observed in several areas of the Court House. The most significant damage to interior finishes being
in the existing court room space on the second storey. This damage corresponds to notable areas of
deterioration at the exterior. Severe erosion of the exterior mortar joints, stone masonry units not fully
embedded in sound mortar, face of stone masonry units missing and bulging of the stone masonry
were all observed by the design team. Deterioration to the rubble wall observed is believed to be a
result of two factors- miscellaneous masonry makeup of the wall, and introduction of non -original
mortar at some point in the building's history. The rubble wall is composed of both local bedrock
(excavated from the site) as well as freestone rubble and a granite -like stone as well. The use of
different geologic materials which have varying porosity means the masonry takes on moisture at
different rates which can lead to moisture build up deep within the wall. Similarly, replacement of
original lime mortar with an incompatible Portland cement base type mix has sped up deterioration
of the rubble wall as a result of moisture build up. Upon selective demolition at the building interior,
it was discovered the mortar is so badly deteriorated in some areas that daylight can be seen through
gaps in the mortar - a testament to the challenge the condition the wall presents to the project.
The rubble wall was constructed of refuse material, likely in part a cost saving measure for the project
in the 1820's. The wall is of a lower construction quality than the Court House's other freestone clad
facades, and while the rhythm of solid to void maintains the some Neo-Palladian ideals, changes
its composition in the 1920's had an arguably negative impact on the architectural character of the
facade as a whole. Recognizing the rubble wall is an interesting feature of the Court House, though
arguably not a character defining element, the design team does propose to keep as much of the
rubble wall as possible where it provides value to the project. Therefore, it is proposed that only the
section of rubble wall required to create the performance space be removed.
(Top Left) spalling at sandstone jamb stones
(Top Right) incompatible mortar and masonry deterioration
(Bottom Left) heavy mortar deterioration
(Bottom Right) masonry deterioration at chimney ornament
�4
a
�x S
EI:
Understanding the Proposed Removals
The extent of the proposed rubble wall removal is approximately half of the total wall area as indicated
by the accompanying illustration (below right). Additionally, localized removals will be required to
facilitate structural connections to the existing steel structure; the extents of which have not yet been
completely determined. In order to ensure a thermal break is achieved between exterior and interior
section of rubble wall, the design team expects to need to introduce a continuous vertical break in the
rubble wall that will also facilitate installation of the glazed curtain wall. The most important section
to be kept is located at the North-East corner where the proposed addition meets the old. It is proposed
that the rubble wall slip past the new glazed curtain wall to become on architectural feature of the
interior lobby space.
In doing so, the design team hopes to shine a light on the history of the building; telling the story of
its transformation from courthouse to performing arts centre through physical means. Depending on
several mitigating factors including but not limited to cost, structural stability of the rubble wall, extent
of temporary supports, underlying condition etc. it is still possible the entire rubble wall may be a loss.
To reiterate however, the design team is fully committed to keeping the rubble wall in place to the fullest
extent feasible for the project and intends to work closely with Heritage officials as the project evolves.
(Right) diagram of proposed changes to east facade
Proposed Extent of Removals to
Facilitate New Construction
Proposed Infills & Reconfigurations to
Existing Building Fabric
Approximate Location of Infill Addition
209
Continued,
In addition to partial removal of the rubble wall, changes to the roof line at the rear of the Court House are also
required to facilitate new construction and the change -in -use. The east facing dormers are proposed to be removed
in order to increase head height in a secondary rehearsal space on the third floor and create new points of access
between the old and new floor areas. These removals will also facilitate structural connection into the existing steel
structure. The dormers are not original to the 1829 construction and were added as part of Garnet Wilson's 1925
renovations to the building. Changes to the courtroom space led to a new floor level elevation on the third floor.
In order to bring light into the space, the dormers were added. Other changes to the original Neo-Palladian design
clearly now constitute as character defining elements in their own right; namely the round top arch entry, window
patterning and cupola. However, where the dormers are arguably a functional design response rather than strictly an
aesthetic choice located on a rear facade, it is the opinion of the design team the dormers are not character defining
elements. As such, their removal holds no negative impact to the overall architectural value of the Court House.
(Above) extent of proposed changes to existing building fabric
(Left) existing dormers and chimney in context
I r i Outline of Proposed
` _ InfillAdd ition
Extent of Proposed
Demolition
Proposed Masonry
Infill
ROOF PEAK
CORNICE
T/O WINDOW
Piano Nobile
Rusticated Base
210
a
IN
211
Urban Impact
Naturally, the proposed infill addition will have broader impact to its urban context as a result of
the intensification the site will undergo. As on underutilized site that does not presently contribute
positively to the quality and vibrancy of the neighbourhood, the site is a prime candidate for
redevelopment. Along with construction of the Irving Oil parking garage structure next door, the
proposed infill addition to the Court House will effectively rebuild a street wall that has been missing
for decades. The jail complex that was formerly behind the Court House is understood to have occupied
the length of the block (between Carmarthen and Sydney Streets). Since its demolition, the block has
sat empty, creating a jarring disconnect between Kings Square and the dense residential corridor found
at the eastern end of King Street East. With construction of the proposed infill addition, not only is the
block face (street wall) almost fully occupied again, but it provides creates a more gentle transition
from Trinity Royal into King Street East proper as well. It goes without saying, this kind of urban
intensification aligns with the goals and objectives of the Central Peninsula Neighbourhood Plan too.
As previously noted, change -in -use of the Court House will contribute to a rebuilding of an
entertainment district at the heart of the Uptown. Broadly, this will enhance the vibrancy of the block
and establish a new precedent for design excellence in the heritage conservation area as well. In the
day to day however, changes to the neighbourhood most likely to be noted by adjacent businesses and
residents may include increased traffic - both vehicular and pedestrian - as a result from increased
activity on the block in the evenings, and associated increases in light and noise pollution. Increased
vehicular and pedestrian activity will be largely limited to performance nights or weekends, and
likely to only cause traffic increases before and after shows as patrons move to and from the facility.
Increased activity at the site will have benefits for the immediate neighbourhood as well; the very some
light pollution noted above will also help to activate the block at night and provide heightened sense
of security to the walking paths of Kings Square and the Loyalist Burial Grounds.
Beyond broader urban impacts the project may create, construction disruption should also be noted.
Naturally, road and sidewalk closures be required to facilitate staging, hoarding and lay down space
for the project, but neighbours can also expect to experience increased noise pollution as a result
of construction (equipment noise, etc) and other possible effects such as isolated instances of mild
building vibration. The Firefighters Museum is expected to bear the brunt of possible construction
impacts, and as such precautionary measures have been established. Where rock excavation will be
required for foundation walls, EXP will install seismic monitors inside the Firefighter's Museum to
log vibrations throughout construction of the proposed infill addition. Additionally, regular visual
assessment of the Firefighters Museum will be undertaken to review and document any changes to the
condition of the building over the course of construction.
While most anticipated impacts to the neighbourhood will be temporary or limited in duration, the
project will change the Firefighters Museum's relationship to King Street East. As the northern facade of
the Firefighters Museum abuts the property line, the proposed design maintains a deliberate distance
from the Museum building in deference to several existing doors and windows. While no legal right of
way exists across the Court House property, these doors from the Museum are believed to contribute
to egress from the building and as such, in the name neighbourli-ness, the proposed infill addition
maintains clear space for path of travel around the proposed addition (refer also to the site plan
located in the appendix).
(Right) view corridors to the proposed infill addition
RA ME ME ME ME ME
King Square South
King Square North
overlooking project site from the
OView
intersection of Charlotte Street and
Court House &
King Street North (south-east looking).
■ Project Site
overlooking project site from the
OView
in of Charlotte Street and
Extent of Proposed
King Street (eastward looking).
Addition
overlooking project site from the
OView
intersection of Sydney Street and King
i Street Wall
Square North (south looking).
C
212
Conclusion
The proposed renovation and addition to the Old Saint John County Court House marks significant
turning point in the building's history. For the first time in 100 years, the building will be
transformed, a fact not lost on the design team. However, its change -in -use also ensures its
preservation for decades to come; its encore performance. When buildings such as the Court House
outlive their original purpose, they stand underused and empty. History is not kind to such buildings;
as we know all too well the turn of phrase "use it or lose it" is very real. The Saint John Theatre
Company's investment and commitment to such an important piece of the City's architectural history
is a tremendous cultural gift to the community.
The design team hopes after review of this report two things are clear -
The design team conducted thorough research in order to understand the heritage
context, theatre typology and material selections as part of an evidence -based
design process, the outcome of which was informed by a series of resultant design
investigations summarized in this report.
The contemporary intervention proposed for the Old Saint John County Court
House is thoughtfully considered based on the research and investigation
conducted by the design team and exudes a similar quality of design excellence
embodied by the Neo-Palladian Court House.
Regardless of the perceived "modern-ness" of the proposed design, the concept is rooted in the
neoclassical ideologies of restraint and order. The result is a bold and dramatic design, and yet
harmoniously balanced with the existing Court House building thanks to careful use of proportion
and scale, and re -interpreted Neoclassical building elements. While the Court House must undergo
changes to facilitate the change -in -use, its character defining elements - both Neo-Palladian and
Queen Anne in origin - will remain untouched. The massing and articulation of the proposed
addition, its strategic use of solid and void, among other design moves all help establish connectivity
with the building's surrounding heritage; firmly grounding the new facility to its place and history.
This beautifully rejuvenated and modernized cultural facility will not only enhance quality of life
Uptown but enrich the neighborhood by giving new life to this old building.
(Right) west looking view of site from King Street East
213
Appendices
(Supporting Documentation)
214
Zoning Overview
Civic Address -
22 Sydney Street
Permitted Uses -
Entertainment Facility
(Uptown Commercial Zone - CU)
Setbacks -
Maximum Front Yard 3m
Minimum Rear Yard Om
Minimum Side Yard Om
Minimum Flankage Yard Om
Maximum Building Height 60m
Minimum Building Height 2 Storeys
North
(Site Plan) 22 Sydney Street
215
05
I I
I
to
z SECONDARY
MASSING
7_
Z
m
As
I v
I
Parking Rock Egress) Loading
Garage Face Path Dock
North (King Street East) Building Elevation
min
I I
PRIMARY THE
MASSING BREAK
I I
01
U ROOF PEAK
--
�♦♦♦♦ttt�
CORNICE LINE
THIRD FLOOR B
NONE 0
THIRD FLOOR A
■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■
■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■
■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■
SECOND•••
Ii� � ■ i �_� � ail �_� �_�_�
AVERAGE GRADE
Main
Entrance
[61]
Zinc Look Standing Seam
Fo4
Architectural Pre -Cast
Metal Roofing
Concrete Panel
02
Structural Silicon Glass
Insulated Metal Panel
Curtain Wall
FO 51
-Type A(Wide)
Channel Insulated Glass
Insulated Metal Panel
OZ
.J
Curtain Wall
06
-Type B (Narrow)
216
Residential Firefighters Egress
Block Museum Path
[61]
Zinc Look Standing Seam
Fo4
Architectural Pre -Cast
Metal Roofing
Concrete Panel
[02]
Structural Silicon Glass
Insulated Metal Panel
Curtain Wall
FO 51
-Type A(Wide)
East (Rear) Building Elevation o3
Channel Insulated Glass
Curtain Wall
[06]
Insulated Metal Panel
-Type B (Narrow)
217
PROPERTY LINE
Legend
01
Vestibule
02
Lower Lobby
03
Box Office / Will Call
04
Box Office Administration
05
Gender Neutral Washroom
06
Catering Kitchen
07
Reception Space
08
Board Room
09
SJTCAdministrotive Offices
10
Storage
11
Loading Bay/Storage
12
Loading Dock
13
Staff Washroom
North
Proposed Rubble Wall
/ Window Removals
14
Janitor
15
Performance Space
16
Lobby Space
17
Backstage
18
Dressing Room
19
Barrier Free Dressing Room
20
AV & Technical Storage
21
Rehearsal Room
22
Universal Washroom
23
Tension Wire Grid
24
Laundry Room
25
Electrical/Mechanical
(Building Plan) Basement Level
218
PROPERTY LINE
SECONDARY
MASSING
12
04
0 13
0
d
PRIMARY 03
MASSIN i I I 06
JV I I I I L
01 02
I
I
THE FL
—BREAK
0
0
0
07
10
ra
w
a)
as
c
Y
T7)�,
11
14
Legend
01
Vestibule
02
Lower Lobby
03
Box Office / Will Call
04
Box Office Administration
05
Gender Neutral Washroom
06
Catering Kitchen
07
Reception Space
08
Board Room
09
SJTCAdministrotive Offices
10
Storage
11
Loading Bay/Storage
12
Loading Dock
13
Staff Washroom
North
Proposed Rubble Wall
/ Window Removals
14
Janitor
15
Performance Space
16
Lobby Space
17
Backstage
18
Dressing Room
19
Barrier Free Dressing Room
20
AV & Technical Storage
21
Rehearsal Room
22
Universal Washroom
23
Tension Wire Grid
24
Laundry Room
25
Electrical/Mechanical
(Building Plan) Main Level
219
PROPERTY LINE
SECONDARY
MASSING
PRI MAR`
MASSING
THE
BREAK
Legend
01
Vestibule
02
Lower Lobby
03
Box Office / Will Call
04
Box Office Administration
05
Gender Neutral Washroom
06
Catering Kitchen
07
Reception Space
08
Board Room
09
SJTCAdministrotive Offices
10
Storage
11
Loading Bay/Storage
12
Loading Dock
13
Staff Washroom
North
Proposed Rubble Wall
/ Window Removals
14
Janitor
15
Performance Space
16
Lobby Space
17
Backstage
18
Dressing Room
19
Barrier Free Dressing Room
20
AV & Technical Storage
21
Rehearsal Room
22
Universal Washroom
23
Tension Wire Grid
24
Laundry Room
25
Electrical/Mechanical
(Building Plan) Second Level
LLV
PROPERTY LINE
SECONDARY
MASSING
PRIMARY
MASSIW
THE
BREAK
MA
I
15
Legend
01
Vestibule
02
Lower Lobby
03
Box Office / Will Call
04
Box Office Administration
05
Gender Neutral Washroom
06
Catering Kitchen
07
Reception Space
08
Board Room
09
SJTCAdministrotive Offices
10
Storage
11
Loading Bay/Storage
12
Loading Dock
13
Staff Washroom
North
Proposed Rubble Wall
/ Window Removals
14
Janitor
15
Performance Space
16
Lobby Space
17
Backstage
18
Dressing Room
19
Barrier Free Dressing Room
20
AV & Technical Storage
21
Rehearsal Room
22
Universal Washroom
23
Tension Wire Grid
24
Laundry Room
25
Electrical/Mechanical
(Building Plan) Mezzanine Level
221
PROPERTY LINE
SECONDARY
MASSING
PRIMARY
MASSING
W
THE
BREAK
r�
w
MA
I
21
10
22 1 1 22
WE
15
18
Legend
01
Vestibule
02
Lower Lobby
03
Box Office / Will Call
04
Box Office Administration
05
Gender Neutral Washroom
06
Catering Kitchen
07
Reception Space
08
Board Room
09
SJTCAdministrotive Offices
10
Storage
11
Loading Bay/Storage
12
Loading Dock
13
Staff Washroom
North
Proposed Rubble Wall
/ Window Removals
14
Janitor
15
Performance Space
16
Lobby Space
17
Backstage
18
Dressing Room
19
Barrier Free Dressing Room
20
AV & Technical Storage
21
Rehearsal Room
22
Universal Washroom
23
Tension Wire Grid
24
Laundry Room
25
Electrical/Mechanical
(Building Plan) Third Level
222
PROPERTY LINE
SECONDARY
MASSING
PRIMARY
MASSING
C
THE
BREAK
Legend
01
Vestibule
02
Lower Lobby
03
Box Office / Will Call
04
Box Office Administration
05
Gender Neutral Washroom
06
Catering Kitchen
07
Reception Space
08
Board Room
09
SJTCAdministrotive Offices
10
Storage
11
Loading Bay/Storage
12
Loading Dock
13
Staff Washroom
North
Proposed Rubble Wall
/ Window Removals
14
Janitor
15
Performance Space
16
Lobby Space
17
Backstage
18
Dressing Room
19
Barrier Free Dressing Room
20
AV & Technical Storage
21
Rehearsal Room
22
Universal Washroom
23
Tension Wire Grid
24
Laundry Room
25
Electrical/Mechanical
(Building Plan) Mechanical Service Level
EXP Quality System Checks
Project No.: SNB-00255284-AO
Type of Document: Report
Prepared By: Melissa Wakefield
Reviewed By: Morgan Lanigan
224
SableARC
sustainable architecture + design
City of Saint John Tier 3 Infill Development Peer Review
22 Sydney Street
Proposed Renovations and Additions to the Saint John County Court House
PROJECT: 20098 City of Saint John Design Review — 22 Sydney Street
CLIENT: City of Saint John Development Board and Common Council
REPORT DATE: 26 January 2021
REPORT AUTHOR: Greg Munn BEDS, M. ARCH, AAPEI, MRAIC, AIA
GENERAL OVERVIEW / SUMMARY
49 Water Street
Charlottetown, PE
C1A 1A3
902.816.0216
SableARC Studios has been engaged by the City of Saint John to undertake a Design Review of a proposed addition to
the designated National Historic Site Saint John County Courthouse located at 22 Sydney Street, Saint John, New
Brunswick. Our assessment references the City of Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Laws and Associated
Amendments, and the Heritage Impact Assessment which includes the site plan, floor plans and elevations of the
proposed addition prepared by the architect of record for the project. In addition, the Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada was reviewed for guidance and confirmation of the appropriate architectural
approach for the project in review.
Documents provided to Sable ARC Studio for our use in the review process include the following:
• Heritage Impact Assessment
• Applicant's Submission Drawings (included in Heritage Impact Assessment)
• Urban Context Document
• By -Law Number HC-1, Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law
• By -Law Number HC-1, A Law to Amend the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law
• City of Saint John Heritage Conservation Service Tier 3 Infill Development Per Review Template
The decommissioned Saint John County Court House, a designated National Historic Site, will be rehabilitated as the
headquarters of the Saint John Theatre Company. The Sydney Street (west) fa4ade of the original Court House is
located within the Trinity Royal Heritage Conservation Area. The scope of the project includes elements of restoration
on the exterior primarily on the street sides, namely Sydney Street and King Street East, an addition on the east side of
the building and rehabilitation of the interior of the Court House building.
The City of Saint John Heritage Bylaws have designated three strategies for additions and infill buildings within its
heritage districts.
Tier 1: The new addition extends the architectural meaning of the old building.
Tier 2: The new addition derives its architectural meaning from the old building.
Tier 3: The new addition intentionally transforms the architectural meaning of the old building.
The Tier 3 design guidelines have been determined to be the appropriate strategy for the infill/ addition design.
PAGE 1 of 4 225 SableARC Studios Sustainable Architecture + Design
26 January 2021
22 Sydney Street Architectural and Urban Design Review
The addition is to contain the following but not limited to the main entry, lobby, elevator, and grand stair, plus
support spaces as well as approximately half of the Performance Space to be located on the second floor, that will
straddle the line between original and new structure.
1. Contextual Setting Review
The context of this site relates to the original early 19t" Century Neo Palladian Saint John County Courthouse, the
location and prominence of this building at its intersection, its place within the Historic District, and the city of Saint
John itself. This can be broken down into building type, building style, and building location.
a. TYPE
The Saint John County Courthouse was built as a centre of justice among the early government, judicial and
religious edifices in a burgeoning City. This building was designed to project strength, stability, and
reassurance in the early days of Saint John. It is a prominent formal institutional building. Therefore,
modifications must acknowledge its place and prominence within the Cityscape. Even though the use is
changing, its presence should not be diminished but honoured and reinforced. The proposed addition is a
strong independent statement of civic architecture, that is meant to stand out rather than blend in. This
follows the precedent set by the Courthouse and is an appropriate expression, to be individual but to also
follow the lead of the original in scale, rhythm, massing, and height.
b. STYLE
The architectural language is derived from the principles of Neo Palladianism, a restrained and traditionally
ordered Classic Revival style that had a sense of elegance and simplicity through symmetry and geometry: a
building that was fashionable and sophisticated for its time. The stone of the primary facades were to stand
apart from the commercial and residential buildings of the city. The proposed addition will carry the
tradition of presenting a fresh expression of it time.
c. LOCATION
The location within the City of Saint John speaks to its prominence as a civic institution, overlooking the
confluence of the square and cemetery in the heart of the old uptown. and has been recognized by being
within the historic district of Trinity Royal. The proposed addition will face the cemetery and complete the
composition of the diagonal view of the block from the corner of Sydney and King Street East. The addition
will complete the composition by strengthening the central placement of the Courthouse as there will now
be a structure to the east of it.
These points clearly determine that the original building was prominent from its time of construction throughout its
tenure as a courthouse and has now become an icon of the historic fabric of a historic city.
The building is worth preserving and maintaining as a historical record but must also remain active and continue to
contribute to the life of the City. The proposed addition, following the Tier 3 guidelines, must set out to respect,
enhance, contrast, and strengthen the architecture and presence of the original building. Any addition must not
detract or overshadow from the original building but should present a face that is a strong statement of its time while
complimenting and engaging in an intelligent dialogue with the original.
The blocks to the north and west are occupied by the Loyalist Burial Ground and King's Square, respectively. Being
urban gathering places within the centre of the city, buildings facing these public green spaces are presenting a face
that is more far reaching than its own mediate streetscape. Other buildings along the east side of Sydney Street within
the block present a rich and varied collection of institutional, multi residential and commercial properties, most
notably the Old No. 2 Engine House, also a designated National Historic Place, that abuts the Courthouse to the south,
and four red brick faced mid to late 19t" Century row buildings south of that, that vary from three to four floors with
flat roofs, at a generally consistent height matching the, cornice/ roof line of the Courthouse building. These buildings
PAGE 2 of 4 226 SableARC Studios Architecture + Sustainable Design
26 January 2021
22 Sydney Street Architectural and Urban Design Review
along with the Courthouse constitutes the immediate architectural context for the addition and are the primary
examples that the addition is judged against.
The site for the addition will be to the east or rear of the original Courthouse building, facing the south side of King
Street East. The lot is currently a parking lot for the Courthouse building, with an exposed rock beyond that. The north
side of this block has been vacant for a long time until recently when a parking garage has been constructed filing out
the streetscape from the project property to Carmarthen Street that creates the east border of the block.
The proposed addition in size and scale will be an appropriate counterpoint to the Courthouse. It will be visually
separated by the glazed connector that is set back form the face of the Courthouse and addition, to reinforce their
individuality. The height of the addition is within appropriate range of the Courthouse and other buildings along
Sydney Street.
2. Potential Impacts on Adjacent Property/ Properties Review
The fact that a building will infill an opening in the streetscape is a positive result. The height and the massing will be
consistent with the existing surrounding buildings.
3. Potential Impacts on the Streetscape Review
The addition will contain the new public main entrance to the facility. Therefore, this will activate King Street East,
probably most often in evenings during theatre performances. The building will at night glow, lighting up the street.
But its location across the street from the heavily treed cemetery and square will mitigate any light pollution that may
otherwise be obtrusive within a residential neighbourhood, for example.
4. Potential Impacts on the Heritage Conservation Area Review
The Tier 3 approach is the most appropriate in this case. If the addition were to in any way copy details and materials
or window types for example, of a civic institutional building, the effect would be a new building that would dilute the
importance and fabric of the original and blur the lines between recreation and originality. The proposed design
challenges and contrasts with the original, which in turn not only expresses its own time in its materials and execution,
but frames, emphasizes and compliments the exceptional architecture of the Courthouse building.
The addition is not visible from the primary fagade but will glow from behind that will literally highlight the original
building from the square.
5. Identified Negative Impacts and Mitigation Review
The removal of a large portion of the rear wall of the Courthouse is not as detrimental as changing or removing
portions of the primary facades on the north and west, but the remaining sections of the rough -cut stone wall provides
an opportunity to experience the original fabric of the building from inside the addition. The dormers are from the
1920s renovations and are of less significance than the original windows and openings, but still tell a chapter of the
story of the building. I would suggest testing the design against saving as much of the rear was as possible. With space
constraints and robust program on a small site, the challenges are understandable, but the clear link and spacer effect
that is so successfully executed by "The Break:" is lost at the attic and roof levels of the existing building.
6. Character of the Heritage Conservation Area: Does the Proposed Development Interpret/ Challenge/ Reassert?
The character of the Heritage Conservation area depicts primarily 19" century building stock, mostly residential but
with some neighbourhood churches and commercial properties to the north end. Materiality is primarily brick and
stone with double hung windows of multiple muntin configurations. The Courthouse is one of the few public buildings
within the district and older than most.
As a public building, the treatment of the Courthouse suggests that its individuality should be maintained. An addition
should compliment and reinforce rather than copy or blur the lines between historic and new. The design of the
proposed addition is successful and appropriate in that it clearly derives its form, mass, scale, and rhythms from the
PAGE 3 of 4 227 SableARC Studios Architecture + Sustainable Design
26 January 2021
22 Sydney Street Architectural and Urban Design Review
original building while completely contrasting it in materials and treatments. It is a reinterpretation of the original that
reinforces the architecture.
7. Will the Design Endure?
The design is modest and restrained, as is the original building. The materiality is clearly of our time and appropriate
for the use as a theatre as it plays with drama and movement through the translucent glass panels. The metal panels
and concrete are modern and common materials that will imbue the building with a 21s Century identity. The
principles of contemporary architecture share basic principles with the Neo Palladian Classicism of the Courthouse,
with an emphasis on human scale, order, simplicity, and planar surfaces. The design also is based on the tenets of the
Modern and International Style architecture that has been popular for almost a century. The base of textured concrete
is an interpretation of the rusticated base of the Courthouse. The new building carries that theme. The relationship
between the two buildings is one of respect and sensitivity.
Materiality. Different is the same. The materials serve their purpose, picked specifically for the use on the theatre, as
theatre. Purposefully contrast without copying any materials of the original building, or those of the other historic and
period buildings in the vicinity.
Of the three design approaches, Tier 3 is the most challenging. It requires that the building to be added to is of strong
character and an understanding of the architectural language of that building. The Courthouse is an extraordinary
example of fine architecture and the addition lives up to the challenge.
8. Suggestions
Overall, the design execution laid out in the Heritage Impact Assessment is comprehensive and appropriate. The
elements of the design are well thought out and connected to the architectural elements of the Courthouse. The result
is what could be called an academic or intellectual exercise in design abstraction. There is a parallel connection to the
Courthouse, which works as a separate neighbouring building of a different use or occupant. My only criticism is that
There could be a way to tie the buildings together as one building rather than two compatible neighbours.
The singular Roman Archway as Icon for entry is a completely appropriate instrument to denote the entry of the new
build, as the main entry of the original building is the only Roman arch on that building. However, seen as a part of the
composition of the north fagade of the building, old and new together, the arch seems out of place and unrelated to
the composition. It more successfully projects a New Formalism language like the arches of the centre pavilion of the
Lincoln Centre in New York for instance, than the arch of the Sydney Street side of the Courthouse. But there are
potentially two ways to more closely connect the arch to that of the Sydney Street side.
1. The plane of the concrete around the arch could be articulated with a pattern of "mortar joints" to express
voussoirs around the arch. I understand it was noted that texture or a finish for the concrete was to come in
further design development and this is an item to consider.
2. Another approach to connect the facades of the two buildings is to make the Roman arch of the new entry into
a three -centered arch, to match the geometry of the arches over the windows of the bas of the original
building. This approach deviates from the (Roman) Arch as Entry but would be an immediate connection to the
original building that will be easily recognized.
9. Summary
Notwithstanding these suggestions to consider, the design of the proposed addition is a 21" Century interpretation of
the principles of the original architecture. By being individual, it is perpetuating the original intent of a landmark
building of its time and place that is modest, but monumental with a strong street presence. This reviewer is pleased
with the brave direction that will invigorate the rich architectural palette of uptown old Saint John.
PAGE 4 of 4 228 SableARC Studios Architecture + Sustainable Design
"Schedule L— HPrltage InfiII Oesign Standards
0.0 All Tiers
0.1 General Comments
0.1. t Elements which are stepped back from the primary massing or street wall
may incorporate contemporary architectural elements and materials and
shall be exempt from sections addressing design and articulation,
windows, and materiality,
0.1.2 For developments located within the Douglas Avenue Heritage
Conservation Area, 'block Fate" may be i:1tL-rpreted as adjacent buiidpngs
within 90 metres of the development site and on the same side of the
street.
0.2 Height
0_2.1 Development heigfit is determined through the Zoning fay -Law.
0.3 Setbacks.
0_3.1 Developments shall maintain the prevailing pattern of front and side yard
setbacks of tdie black face an which they are situated_
3.0 Tier Three
3.1 General Provisions
3_1_1 Applications assigned a designation of Tier 3 shall require the submission
of a Heritage Impact Assessment in addition to the standard application
requirements, and shall be subject to a Thlyd-Party Peer Review.
3A.2 The following standards may +nary from any established pattern, traditional
appearance, -or traditional material;
a) General Design & ArtjcuIation
b) Ground Floor Height & Articulation
c) Materials
d) Windows
ej Roofs
3-2 Resldentlal Entries & Parches
3.2.1 When included, car garages shall be provided to tha rear of the
developrnent or as detached garages set back from the main build+ng a
structure. WhLbre garages cannot be accornmodated In such a manner, a
garage may be incorporated into the front or side facade, and shall be in
line with or recessed behind the front entrance as a subordinate feature."
229
r/j,
;vim
22 SYDNEY STREET
NMI TIERTHREE
HERITAGE
CONSERVATION
AREAS BY-LAW
AMENDMENT
- jigkpk
oil
r;
Building was gutted by fire in 1919 and was renova
with exterior alterations by Garnet Wilson in 192-
Recognised by the Historic Sites and Monuments I
of Canada as a National Historic Site in 1974.
n Designed by John Cunningham in the neo-Palladian style
in 1826, construction finished in 1829.
Finished in sandstone on the south, west and north
facades, with a rubble wall on the east facade.
231
QS D4
03 Qz of
to I
SECONDARY
MASSING
THE
BREAK
ryr'
I
ROOF PEAK
CORNICE LINE
��pu Il IEIlll
THIRD FLOOR 6
I
TNIRO tLOOR A
.I
I
SECOND FLOOR
I
I
---_—�--�- I__ -- -
I 4
,I
- --
-
—MAIN FLOOR
1
_
AVERAGE GRA17E
Parking Rork Egress loading
Main
1
Garage FBce Path a[k
4 X_
Entrance
Zinc Lookffrwj n Seam
g
41
A
4 4
Architectural Precast
Metal Roofing
Concrete Panel
FF1 ] Structural Silicon Glass
/�
v5
Rd
Insulated Metal Panel
Curtain Wall
-Type A(Wide)
C ha nnet Irrvlated Glass
03
06
Insulated Metal panel
Curtain Wall
-Type 5 (NO—)
232
1
233
Tier One
Tier Two
Tier Three
}
AN
w
T .kir rye
Heritage Impact Statement
Heritage Impact Assessment
Peer keie
Heritage Development Board
Heritage Development Board
Common Council
Applicant s
submission
Peer Review
Heritage I m pac
P Assessment
taff Report
Heritage Developm
Board for
Recommendation
Heritage Impa
Assessment
Peer RevievInStaff Repo
Heritage Development
Board's Recommendation
Written
ubmissions
Spoken
Comment
DESIGN °S
SECONDARY
MASSING
Im
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I I I
I I I I I
Parking Rork Egress) Loading
Garage Fare Path Oaek
�K
041 031�1 rol
� I
THE
BREAK �
I
— • — _ _ , . — ROOF PEAK
111
1111111111111
will 111111111111111"prs�'¢R
• '
FLOORTHIRD
SEMNO FLOOR
Main
Entrance
_ AVERAGE GRAAE
Zinc Look Standi ng Seam
A
4 �
ArchilectumI Precast
41
Metal Roofing
Concrete Panel
F1
Structural Silicon Glass
/�
Rd
Insulated Metal Panel
Curtain Wall
v5
-Type A(Wide)
031
Channel Irrsulaled Glass
Insulated Meml panel
Curtain Wall
06
-Type 5 (No—)
237
DESIGN
_REAR PROPERTY LINE
ROCK FACE PATH OF EGRESS FROM REAR
I
1
I
r 1
11 1
I
1
Proposed
I
Addition
11 1 Y
I
I
Sydney Street
Cl
North
238
F
N EO-PALLAD IAN ARCHITECTURE
rusticated base
M
239
CHANGE IN
DESIGN ARTICULATION
PEDIMENT
/CORN ICE
Piano Nobile
TEXTURAL
BASE
240
DESIGN
JOE
III ::::
on: ommm
moon moon
' M1' ' ' M1 '
M3 M3
241
MATERIALS
I �
`, CCONDARY
MASSING
Air
(Egress Loading
Path Dock
THE
BREAK
r - T— -
Main
Entrance
242
MATERIALS
CCONDARY
MASSING
I I
00
p -
Ii v,
Egress Loading
Path Dock
m
m
THE
BREAK
I I
Main
Entrance
�I Iiiii I ■■■ I■■■■
I moon mono ■o■■
■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■
mono
mmmm mmmm
■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■
■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■
243
IMPACTS
j
I
---------- -- •—�
I I
I r
i - 4
Eg
r 7
1 r I Outline of Proposed
InfillAddition
Extent of Proposed
Demolition
Proposed Masonry
Infill
ROOF PEAK
I
I
CORNICE
- —Piano Nobile T/O WINDOW
Rusticated Base
245
IMPACTS
_s.
t
I
246
.:��
r _r'4 �� �•� f
', i +1 { �
'�+�.
n � '�'_ -�.� �
�� � _
';
t, �,�,:, - 'yam � a
y� .� 's �r -' �
r [`�• - _
IMPACTS
i i
i 3
7 Kllg Sq—SOOi h
I
King Sq— North
n FInF-
YiewIEr56c[ion cCwnoOf C harprk� sm from ale
WSrP Rflie[ arid
Kmg sa North (surtn-mxlooNryl
■ COurt House &
projw Site
011ewo
wl-n ing prole¢ Nte tram Ilse
u;rsecunn gf[nanotre same enn
-
Exkent of Pmyosea
King Rim (e rdloWmg%
, _ _ -, A.wilion
vView
wedm king p.j tsw r—[M
Inoergeeaon of Sydney$ae.0 wW King
Square Nmh fwq f.
•` 5treee wall
.�.
m m =
!- — 7
iOutline
of Proposed
r_
InfiLLAddition
Extent of Proposed
Demolition
Proposed Masonry
Infill
ni�iw J�� ROOF
CORNICE
T/OWINDOW
HER,Hill! ••
iLe
i
Piano
L
�11mill
11 im
1���1 111 Rusticated Base
RECOMMENDATION
That Common Council move
to adopt the proposed site -
specific amendment to HC- I
Saint John Heritage
Conservation Areas By -Law for
aTierThree major addition at
22 Sydney Street, PID
55224539
a
From:
Common Clerk
To:
Evans, Richard
Subject:
FW: SJTC Courthouse Project
Date:
March 4, 2021 12:01:48 PM
From: Cynthia Doyle <cynthia.d.doyle@gmail.com>
Sent: March 2, 2021 8:41 PM
To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintjohn.ca>
Subject: SJTC Courthouse Project
[ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an
external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please
forward the email to snamsamplegsaintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk
at 649-6047. * *
Hello Mr Taylor,
We are writing to express support for the SJTC's proposal for the Courthouse project currently
undergoing the heritage approval process. Please see below for our endorsement of the project.
We became involved with the project in the early stages because it supports two areas of focus for our
Foundation, Arts & Culture and preserving a heritage property.This project is uniquely suited to address
these areas and enhance life in Uptown Saint John. Our long-standing relationship with the SJTC brought
the project to our attention and we have kept a keen eye on its development. We are excited to see the
project move forward.
We believe the SJTC has added tremendously to arts and culture in Saint John. They have enhanced the
theatre -going experience in the city, including through their partnership with the Imperial Theatre. Their
strong leadership and management team have grown the organization to become a staple of the cultural
life of our city. The SJTC supports local talent and fosters the artistic community in Saint John.
The finshed facility will be unique in the Atlantic Provinces, a credit to our city. The building itself will be a
stunning blend of function and form, preserving the existing heritage building and adding beautiful modern
elements. The capacity of the theatre is perfectly suited to an intimate theatre experience; the facilities will
provide needed space for other artistic endeavors; and the building will serve as meeting spaces for the
community. This is why it is such an extraordinary project: it will serve a multitude of needs with an eye to
culture and community.
Cynthia and Michael Doyle, Directors
The Sir James Dunn Foundation
250
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
MC 2021 - 065
Report Date
March 03, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Public Works and
Transportation Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Weight Restriction By -Law Amendment on Wentworth Street
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Tim O'Reilly
Michael Hugenholtz
I John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Your City Manager recommends Common Council authorize 1st and 2nd Readings
to an amendment to the City's Weight Restriction By -Law as attached to M&C
2021-065.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City's Weight Restriction By -Law allows the City to mitigate the impact that
heavy vehicles impose on City streets. One mechanism in this by-law that achieves
this goal is a reduction in the axle loading of trucks on streets during the spring
when roads are particularly susceptible to damage. Occasionally trucking
companies request deviation from the by-law in relation to these spring weight
restrictions.
A deviation from this by-law is required to transport a truck -mounted crane to the
Wentworth development at the corner of Wentworth Street and Leinster Street
to allow the construction of that building to continue on schedule.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
N/A
REPORT
The City's Weight Restriction By -Law mitigates the impact of heavy vehicles on
City streets and infrastructure below the street. One such mechanism in this by-
law is that the maximum per -axle mass of various truck configurations permitted
in the Provincial Motor Vehicle Act is reduced to 80% of typical limits during a
Spring Weight Restrictions period on most City streets.
251
sa
The structural integrity of the soil below the asphalt that supports it is weakened
during the spring as water gets trapped in it by ice as the ice continues to melt
from the surface down. The asphalt and underground infrastructure are
therefore more susceptible to damage by heavy vehicles with the soil structure's
weakened state. Reduced permitted axle weights mitigate this situation. The
City uses the Spring Weight Restrictions period that is determined by the
Province of New Brunswick each year, the dates of which can fluctuate year to
year based on when the weather begins to get warmer causing the thawing ice
in the soil below the asphalt.
The by-law exempts some City streets from this reduced axle mass limit during
the Spring Weight Restriction period. Streets exempt include some arterial and
collector streets and/or those that provide access to major industrial sites.
Spring Weight Restrictions for 2021 are currently in effect. They started March 1
and are expected to continue until May 16, subject to weather conditions.
A phase of construction of the Wentworth at the corner of Wentworth and
Leinster Streets requires a particular vehicle -mounted crane owned by Irving
Equipment Ltd. to be transported to and from the site to lift and install heavy
concrete panels on the building. This work by this crane is required during the
Spring Weight Restrictions period to prevent delaying the overall construction
schedule for the building. The axle loadings of the crane are above the 80%
limits. The route this crane must travel to get from its origin to the Wentworth
and back again must travel on various Provincial Highways as well as City streets
that are exempt from the 80% limits. However, the 80% limits must be
respected on the final leg of the crane's journey, on Wentworth Street from
Broad Street to Leinster Street, to be compliant with the City's current by-law.
Wentworth Street would need to be temporarily exempt from the by-law to
permit the crane to travel on it during Spring Weight Restriction period. The
attached by-law amendment would facilitate this.
Given that the intention of the City's Weight Restriction By -Law is to mitigate
damage to City streets and underground infrastructure, staff would facilitate
additional measures to manage such risk in this case if Common Council is
supportive of the recommended by-law change:
• The exemption would be in place for a specific period of time,
• A Saint John Police escort would accompany the transport operation,
A pre and post infrastructure condition assessment would be required
by a third party Professional Engineer to identify if any damage is
attributable to Irving Equipment Ltd.'s transport operation, and
An agreement would be in place to ensure Irving Equipment Ltd.'s
obligations are confirmed and so that they would be responsible for
damage attributable to the transport operation.
252
am
City staff intend to return to Common Council at its March 22, 2021 Council
meeting to seek approval to execute the agreement referenced above with 3rd
Reading of the by-law amendment with endorsement of 1st and 2nd Readings of
the by-law on the current agenda.
Staff note however there remains a risk that damage to roadway and particularly
underground infrastructure attributable to the operation may not be identifiable
between the pre and post condition assessments.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
This report is ultimately about balancing two Common Council priorities with the
tools currently available at our disposal. It seeks to align with Common Council's
commitment to its Growth priority by supporting taxbase growth development.
It also demonstrates efforts to fulfill Common Council's Fiscal Responsibility
priority by mitigating risk of and responsibility for excessive damage to street
and below ground infrastructure by transport of this heavy vehicle and crane
during the Spring Weight Restrictions period.
I<9-1.1rif 114EUT14.11►%�1►�[�/_►��I�jC��1u1 7
In the absence of a Permitting process to more effectively balance the needs of
the trucking industry with the impact that heavy vehicles cause to City streets,
including during Spring Weight Restrictions, a more resource -intensive and
lengthy process, such as described in this report must continue in cases such as
this. As part of the current process, City staff from both the Public Works &
Transportation Department and the Office of General Counsel are engaged in
these case -by -case analysis, forming of an agreement, and administering the by-
law amendment process over two Council meetings. From the trucking
company's perspective, legal efforts to review and sign these agreements and
extended timelines to serve their customer's needs as a result of requiring these
matters to be considered over two Council meetings are negative impacts.
Ultimately, often the customer of the trucking company receiving the goods or
service experience impacts as a result of delays. A permitting process would
reduce resource requirements and timelines while ensuring measures remain in
place to ultimately remaining aligned, or even improve alignment, with Council's
Growth and Fiscal Responsibility priorities.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
The City Solicitor's Office has assisted with the preparation of the attached Weight
Restriction By -Law Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
Amendment to City of Saint John Weight Restrictions By -Law
253
A LAW TO AMEND A BY-LAW
RESPECTING WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
WITHIN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
ENACTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY
OF SECTION 262(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLE ACT
ARRETE No MV-17
ARRETE CONCERNANT LES
LIMITATIONS DE POIDS DANS
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
EDICTE EN VERTU DU
PARAGRAPHE 262(1) DE LA LOI SUR
LES VEHICULES A MOTEUR
Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une r6union du conseil communal,
The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a d6cr&6 ce qui suit :
A By -Law of The City of Saint John
entitled "a By -Law Respecting Weight Restrictions
Within The City of Saint John Enacted Under The
Authority of Section 262(1) of The Motor Vehicle
Act" enacted on the 5' day of April, A.D. 2004, is
hereby amended as follows:
Par les pr6sentes, Farret6 de The City of
Saint John intitul6 « Arret6 concernant les
limitations de poids dans the city of Saint John
6dict6 en vertu du paragraphe 262(1) de la loi sur
les vMicules a moteur », 6dict6 le 5 avril 2004, est
modifi6 comme suit:
1 Schedule A is amended by adding the 1 L'annexe A est modifi6e par Fadjonction des
following words under the following headings: mots suivants sous les titres suivants :
Connection Routes
Wentworth Street between Broad Street and
Leinster Street only between March 23,
2021 and March 28, 2021 inclusive
IN WITNESS WHEREOF The City of Saint John
has caused the Corporate Common Seal of the said
City to be affixed to this by-law the day
, A.D. 2021 and signed by:
Routes de raccordement
rue Wentworth entre rue Broad et rue
Leinster entre le 23 mars 2021 et le 28
mars 2021 inclusivement
EN FOI DE QUOI The City of Saint John a fait
apposer son sceau communal sur le pr6sent arret6
le 2021, avec les signatures
suivantes :
Mayor/Maire
City Clerk / Greffi&re de la municipalit&
First Reading - Premiere lecture -
Second Reading - Deuxi&me lecture -
Third Reading - Troisi&me lecture -
254
COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-072
Report Date
February 25, 2021
Meeting Date
March 8, 2021
Service Area
Public Works and
Transportation Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Plastic Bag By -Law
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author(s) Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager
Michael Hugenholtz John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Your City Manager recommends Common Council authorize 1st and 2nd
Readings to a By-law respecting the Reduction of Single -Use Plastic Bags in The
City of Saint John as attached to M&C 2021-072.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION November 9th, 2020
RESOLVED that the City of Saint John develop a plastic bag ban bylaw and an
implementation strategy with a deadline of June 2021.
REPORT
At the request of the Fundy Regional Services Commission, Council has directed
that a ban on single -use plastic checkout bags be developed for consideration.
The attached By -Law has been prepared by the City Solicitor's office, and largely
follows the similar approach as adopted in other jurisdictions including Moncton,
Halifax and Quispamsis.
The Fundy Region Services Commission estimates that 35 million single use
plastic bags are used in the Fundy Region every year. As the market for recycled
plastic bags has evaporated, these bags are now ending up in the landfill. This
ban will significantly reduce this waste.
Upon third reading this by-law will come into effect on July 1, 2021. Staff have
been working with the Communications team to get the message out to the
255
sa
public, and in particular retailers and other local businesses impacted by this
change.
The attached bylaw is self-explanatory and practical. It offers exemptions for
certain types of plastic bags under specified conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
A By-law respecting the Reduction of Single -Use Plastic Bags in The City of Saint
John
256
THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN
NEW BRUNSWICK
A By-law respecting the
Reduction of Single -Use
Plastic Bags in The City of
Saint John
By-law Number LG - 12
An uncertified copy of this by-law
is available online
Arrete concernant la
reduction des sacs en
plastique a usage unique
dans The City of Saint John
Arrete numero LG - 12
Une copie non certifiee de Farr&&
est disponible en ligne
257
-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE DES MATIERES
Section
Description
Page
Article
Designation
Page
Recitals
3
Pr6ambule
3
1
Title
4
1
Titre
4
2
Definitions
4
2
Definitions
4
3
Interpretation
5
3
Interpretation
5
4
Checkout Bag Prohibition
6
4
Interdiction relative aux sacs a
6
emplettes
5
Exemptions
6
5
Exceptions
6
6
Inspections
8
6
Inspections
8
7
Enforcement
8
7
Application
8
8
Offences
8
8
Infractions
8
9
Administrative Penalties
9
9
P6nalit6s administratives
9
10
Commencement
9
10
Entr&e en vigueur
9
258
-3-
RECITALS
AND WHEREAS, The City of Saint John deems
it advisable to pass this by-law because it will
establish standards to regulate and control the use
of plastic bags in The City of Saint John;
AND WHEREAS, paragraph 10(1)(b) of the
Local Governance Act, S.N.B.2017, c.18,
authorizes a local government to make by-laws
respecting people, activities and things in, on or
near a public place or place that is open to the
public;
AND WHEREAS, paragraph 10(1)(c) of the
Local Governance Act, S.N.B.2017, c.18,
authorizes a local government to make by-laws
respecting nuisances, including noise, pollution
and waste in or on public or private property;
AND WHEREAS, section 147 of the Local
Governance Act, states that a local government
may, by by-law, provide that a person who
violates or fails to comply with any provision of a
by-law commits an offence;
AND WHEREAS, subsection 156(1) of the Local
Governance Act, states that a local government
may require administrative penalties to be paid in
respect of a contravention of a provision of a by-
law of the local government;
AND WHEREAS, notice of this by-law, and of
the Common Council meeting at which this By-
law was discussed, was provided in accordance
with the provisions of the Local Governance Act.
NOW THEREFORE, the Common Council of
The City of Saint John, enacts as follows:
PREAMBULE
ATTENDU QUE, The City of Saint John juge
opportun de prendre le pr6sent arr6t6 destine a
r6glementer et contr6ler l'utilisation des sacs en
plastique dans The City Saint John; et
ATTENDU QUE,1'alin6a 10(1)b) de la Loi sur la
gouvernance locale, L.N.-B. 2017, ch. 18, autorise
un gouvernement local a prendre des arr6t6s
concernant les activit6s qui prennent place dans
des lieux publics ou des lieux ouverts au public,
ou pres de tels lieux, de meme que les personnel
et les objets qui s'y trouvent; et
ATTENDU QUE,1'alin6a 10(1)c) de la Loi sur la
gouvernance locale, L.N.-B. 2017, ch. 18, autorise
un gouvernement local a prendre des arret6s
concernant les nuisances, dont le bruit, la pollution
et les d6chets dans ou sur des biens publics ou
priv6s ; et
ATTENDU QUE, Particle 147 de la Loi sur la
gouvernance locale, pr&voit que, par voie d'arr&&,
un gouvernement local peut pr6voir que commet
une infraction quiconque contrevient ou omet de
se conformer a quelque disposition que ce soit
d'un arret6; et
ATTENDU QUE, le paragraphe 156(1) de la Loi
sur la gouvernance locale, pr6voit qu'un
gouvernement local peut exiger le paiement de
p6nalit6s administratives relativement a toute
contravention a une disposition d'un arr&6 du
gouvernement local; et
ATTENDU QUE, avis du pr6sent arr6t6 et de la
r6union du conseil communal a laquelle it a &6
d6battu a &6 donn6 conform6ment a la Loi sur la
gouvernance locale.
A CES CAUSES, le conseil communal de The
City of Saint John 6dicte :
259
Title
Titre
1 This By-law may be cited as the Plastic 1 Titre usuel: Arrete sur la reduction des sacs
Bag Reduction By-law (hereinafter the `By-law"). en plastique (ci-apres « 1'arrete »).
Definitions
2 The following definitions apply in this By-law:
"business" means any corporation, individual,
partnership or co-operative association engaged in
a retail operation and, for the purposes of
section 4, includes a person employed by, or
acting on behalf of, a business; (entreprise)
"by-law enforcement officer" means a by-law
enforcement officer appointed pursuant to
section 72 of the Local Governance Act, and
designated by resolution by Common Council;
(agent charge de l'execution des arretes)
"checkout bag" means:
(a) any bag intended to be used by a
customer for the purpose of transporting
items purchased or received by the
customer from the business providing the
bag, or
(b) a bag used to package take-out
food or food to be delivered,
and includes a paper bag or plastic bag, but does
not include a reusable bag; (sac a emplettes)
Definitions
2 Les definitions qui suivent s'appliquent au
present arrete :
entreprise » toute societe, personne ou
association cooperative ou tout partenariat
s'adonnant a des operations de vente au detail;
sont notamment visees, pour 1'application de
Particle 4, le personnes employees par une
entreprise ou agissant pour son compte; (business)
«agent charge de 11execution des arretes »
designe un agent charge de 1'execution des arretes
nomme conformement a Particle 72 de la Loi sur
la gouvernance locale, et designe par resolution
par le conseil communal; (by-law enforcement
officer)
sac a emplettes » s'entend notamment d'un sac
en papier ou d'un sac en plastique, a 1'exclusion
d'un sac reutilisable, qui est destine a Tune ou
1'autre des fins suivantes:
a) l'utilisation par un client pour
transporter les objets qu'il a achetes ou
regus de 1'entreprise qui lui fournit le sac;
b) 1'emballage de mets a emporter ou
A livrer; (checkout bag)
"City" means The City of Saint John; « municipalite » designe The City of Saint John;
(municipalite) (City)
"Common Council" means the elected municipal « conseil communal » designe les membres elus
council of the City; (conseil communal) du conseil municipal de la municipalite; (Common
260
-5-
Council)
"paper bag" means a bag made out of paper that « sac en papier » Sac fait de papier qui est
is recyclable; (sac en papier) recyclable; (paper bag)
"person" includes a business as defined in this « personne » comprend une entreprise telle que
By-law; (personne) define dans le present arrete; (person)
"plastic bag" means any bag made with plastic,
including biodegradable plastic or compostable
plastic, but does not include a reusable bag; (sac
en plastique)
"police officer" means a police officer in the Saint
John Police Force; (agent de police)
"reusable bag" means a bag with handles that is
(a) designed and manufactured to be
capable of at least 100 uses, and
(b) primarily made of cloth or other
durable material suitable for reuse; (sac
reutilisable)
"small paper bag" means any bag made out of
paper that is less than 15 centimetres by 20
centimetres when flat. (petit sac en papier)
Interpretation
3 Rules for interpretation of the language
used in this By-law are contained in the lettered
paragraphs as follows:
(a) The captions, article and section
names and numbers appearing in this By-
law are for convenience of reference only
and have no effect on its interpretation.
(b) This By-law is to be read with all
changes of gender or number required by
the context.
sac en plastique » Tout sac fait de plastique, y
compris de plastique biodegradable ou
compostable, mais ne s'entend pas des sacs
reutilisables; (plastic bag)
agent de police » designe une agent de police du
Service de police de Saint John; (police officer)
sac reutilisable » S'entend d'un sac muni de
poignees qui est, a la fois:
a) conqu et fabrique pour pouvoir etre
utilise au moins 100 fois;
b) principalement fait de tissu ou d'un
autre materiau durable que convient a la
reutilisation; (reusable bag)
petit sac en papier » Tout sac fait de papier qui
mesure moins de 15 centimetres sur 20
centimetres lorsqu'il est a plat. (small paper bag)
Interpretation
3 Les regles d'interpretation suivantes
s'appliquent au present arrete :
a) Les titres, intertitres et numbros des
dispositions ne servent qu'a faciliter la
consultation de Farrete et ne doivent pas
servir a son interpretation.
b) Le genre ou le nombre
grammaticaux doivent We adaptes au
contexte.
261
M
(c) Each reference to legislation in this
By-law is printed in Italic font. The
reference is intended to include all
applicable amendments to the legislation,
including successor legislation. Where this
By-law references other by-laws of the
City, the term is intended to include all
applicable amendments to those by-laws,
including successor by-laws.
(d) The requirements of this By-law
are in addition to any requirements
contained in any other applicable by-laws
of the City or applicable provincial or
federal statutes or regulations.
(e) If any section, subsection, part or
parts or provision of this By-law, is for any
reason declared by a court or tribunal of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the
ruling shall not affect the validity of the
By-law as a whole, nor any other part of it.
(f) The Schedules attached to this By-
law are included in and shall be considered
part of this By-law.
Checkout bag prohibition
c) Les renvois legislatifs paraissent en
italique. Le renvoi a une loi vise egalement
les modifications qui s'y appliquent, y
compris toute legislation de remplacement.
Les renvois a d'autres arretes de la
municipalite visent egalement les
modifications qui s'y appliquent, y compris
tout arrete de remplacement.
d) Les obligations qu'il cree s'ajoutent
a celles decoulant d'autres arretes
applicables de la municipalite ou des lois
ou reglements federaux ou provinciaux
applicables.
e) Si une disposition quelconque est
declaree invalide par un tribunal competent
pour quelque motif que ce soit, la decision
n'entache en rien la validite de 1'arrete dans
son ensemble ni de toute autre disposition.
f) Les annexes jointes au present
arrete sont incluses et doivent etre
considerees comme faisant partie du
present arrete.
Interdiction relative aux sacs a emplettes
4(1) Except as provided in this By-law, no 4(1) Sauf disposition contraire du present arrete,
business shall provide a checkout bag to a it est interdit a une entreprise de fournir un sac a
customer that is a plastic bag. emplettes a un client qui est un sac en plastique.
4(2) No business shall deny or discourage the
use by a customer of the customer's own reusable
bag for the purpose of transporting items
purchased or received by the customer.
Exemptions
5(1) Section 4 does not apply to bags used to:
4(2) Pest interdit a une entreprise de refuser ou
de decourager 1'utilisation, par un client, de son
propre sac reutilisable afin de transporter des
objets qu'il a achetes ou regus.
Exceptions
5(1) L'article 4 ne s'applique aux sacs destines
aux usages suivants:
262
-7-
(a) package loose bulk items such as
fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains or candy;
(b) package loose small hardware
items such as nails and bolts;
(c) contain or wrap frozen foods, meat,
poultry or fish, whether pre -packaged or
not;
(d) wrap flowers or potted plants;
(e) protect prepared foods or bakery
goods that are not pre -packaged.
(f) contain prescription drugs received
from a pharmacy;
(g) transport live fish;
(h) protect linens, bedding or other
similar large items that cannot easily fit in
a reusable bag;
(i) protect newspapers or other printed
material intended to be left at the
customer's residence or place of business;
0) protect clothes after professional
laundering or dry cleaning;
(k) protect tires that cannot easily fit in
a reusable bag.
a) emballer des aliments en vrac
comme des fruits, des legumes, des noix,
des grains ou des bonbons,
b) emballer des petits articles de
quincaillerie en vrac comme des clous et
des boulons,
c) contenir ou envelopper des aliments
congeles, de la viande, de la volaille ou du
poisson, qu'ils soient preemballes ou non,
d) envelopper des fleurs ou des plantes
en pots,
e) proteger des plats prepares ou des
produits de boulangerie-patisserie qui ne
sont pas pr6emball6s,
f) contenir des medicaments sur
ordonnance requs d'une pharmacie,
g) transporter des poissons vivants,
h) proteger des linges de maison, de la
literie ou d'autres articles semblables de
taille importante qui ne peuvent &re
facilement contenus dans un sac
reutilisable,
i) proteger des journaux on d'autres
documents imprim6s destin6s a We laisses
a la residence on au lieu d'affaires du
client,
j) proteger des vetements apr&s qu'ils
ont ete professionnellement blanchis on
nettoy6s a sec,
k) proteger des pneus qui ne peuvent
pas etre facilement contenus dans un sac
reutilisable.
263
5(2) Section 4 does not limit or restrict the sale
of bags, including plastic bags, intended for use at
the customer's home or business, that are sold in
packages of multiple bags.
Inspections
6 A by-law enforcement officer appointed
under this By-law may carry out any inspection
that is necessary for the administration or
enforcement of this By-law.
Enforcement
7 A police officer or by-law enforcement
officer may, for the purposes of the administration
and enforcement of this By-law, exercise such
powers and perform such duties as may be set out
in this By-law or the Local Governance Act.
Offences
8(1) A person who violates any of the
provisions of this By-law is guilty of an offence
and liable upon summary conviction to a fine of
not less than three hundred dollars ($300.00) and
not more than two thousand one hundred dollars
($2,100.00).
8(2) If the offence committed under this By-law
continues for more than one (1) day:
(a) the minimum fine that may be
imposed is the minimum fine established in
this By-law multiplied by the number of
days during which the offence continues;
and
(b) the maximum fine that may be
imposed is the maximum fine established
in this By-law multiplied by the number of
days during which the offence continues.
5(2) L'article 4 a'a pas pour effet de limiter ou
de restreindre la vente de sacs, y compris les sacs
en plastique, qui sont destines a titre utilises a la
residence ou au lieu d'affaires du client et qui sont
vendus en paquets contenant plusieurs sacs.
Inspections
6 Un agent charge de 1'execution des arretes
nomme en vertu du present arr6te peut effectuer
toute inspection necessaire a 1'application ou a
1'execution forcee du present arrete.
Application
7 Un agent de police ou un agent charge de
1'execution des arrWs peut, pour les fins de
Vadministration et de Ppplication du present
arrete, exercer les pouvoirs et remplir les fonctions
prevues dans le present arrete ou la Loi sur la
gouvernance locale.
Infractions
8(1) Toute personae qui contrevient a une
disposition du present arrete est coupable d'une
infraction et est passible sur condamnation
sommaire d'une amende d'au moins trois cents
dollars (300 $) et d'au plus deux mille cent dollars
(2 100 $).
8(2) Si une infraction au present arrete se
poursuit pendant plus d'un four:
a) 1'amende minimale qui peut etre
infligee est 1'amende minimale prevue par
le present arrW multipliee par le nombre
de jours pendant lesquels 1'infraction se
poursuit;
b) 1'amende maximale qui peut etre
infligee est 1'amende maximale prevue par
le present arrete multipliee par le nombre
de jours pendant lesquels 1'infraction se
264
Administrative Penalties
9(1) The City may require an administrative
penalty to be paid with respect to a violation of a
provision of this By-law as set out in
subsection 9(2).
9(2) A person who violates any provision of this
By-law may pay to the City within 30
calendar days from the date of such
violation an administrative penalty of one
hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00), and
upon such payment, the person who
committed the violation is not liable to be
prosecuted therefor.
Commencement
poursuit.
Penalites administratives
9(1) La municipalite pent exiger qu'une penalite
administrative soit payee relativement a une
infraction a une disposition de cet arrete, comme
prevu au paragraphe 9(2).
9(2) Toute personne qui contrevient a une
disposition du present arrete peut payer a la
municipalite dans un delai de 30 jours
civils a compter de la date de ladite
infraction, une penalite administrative de
cent cinquante dollars (150 $), et une fois
Famende payee, la personne n'est plus
susceptible de poursuites judiciaires.
Entree en vigueur
10 This By-law comes into force upon the 1st 10 Le present arrete entre en vigueur le
day of July, 2021. let juillet 2021.
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. 2021 and signed by:
EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait
apposer son sceau municipal sur le present arrete
le 2021, avec les signatures
suivantes :
Mayor/Maire
City Clerk/Greffier communal
First Reading - Premiere lecture -
Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture -
Third Reading - Troisieme lecture -
265
Q��Umu oa\�
COMMON COUNCIL REPORT
M&C No.
2021-057
Report Date
February 26, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Growth and Community
Services
His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council
SUBJECT: Community Grants 2021
OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION
This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council.
AUTHORIZATION
Primary Author
Commissioner/Dept. Head
City Manager
Amy McLennan /
Lori Lambert
Jacqueline Hamilton
John Collin
RECOMMENDATION
Your City Manager recommends Common Council:
Approve the recommendations of the Community Grants Committee for the
granting of funding to the successful applicants for the 2021 Community Grants
Program, as indicated in M&C Report 2021-057.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Community Grants Program was adopted by Common Council in 2014 for
the purpose of providing financial support for the operational needs of
community organizations, projects, and/or special events. A Community Grants
Evaluation Committee was created and is now comprised of two community
members, two members of Common Council, and two City of Saint John staff.
The evaluation process considers community needs, the social impact of the
organization's service, project, or event, its history in serving the community, its
alignment with Council Priorities, and its organizational strengths and financial
responsibility.
There is a funding envelope of $184,000 designated for the 2021 Community
Grants Program, which is included in the approved 2021 General Fund Operating
Budget. The Community Grants Evaluation Committee's primary task is to
review, evaluate, and identify funding allocations according to adopted program
guidelines and report back to Common Council with recommendations.
266
While the task of selecting the successful recipients of the grant is always a
challenging exercise, the Committee is very excited with the extensive and
valuable programming and supports what the grant will unlock in the Saint John
community over 2021.
REPORT
The 2021 Community Grants Evaluation Committee evaluated 37 grant
applications for organizational support, community projects, and special events,
totaling over $423,000 in requests.
The City of Saint John's Community Grants Program aims to provide not a
handout but a 'hand up' to the many organizations who give back to the
community a hundredfold. Saint John is fortunate to benefit from a vibrant and
progressive community sector, which provides valuable programming and
supports to residents. The City's commitment to Community Grants is indicative
of the vital role community groups play in Saint John and broader value
proposition we collectively offer to those who live in our City.
Upon the approval of Common Council, funds granted to the recommended
applicants will translate into outstanding benefits for the Saint John community.
To highlight just a few, the City of Saint John will support:
• Programs and events that foster an environment of diversity, equality,
and inclusiveness.
• Advocacy and services for citizens and children living in poverty, including
food security, shelter, counselling, and skill development.
• Social and emotional literacy for families.
• Centres that offer a safe and affordable place to gather in communities.
• Recreation and wellness opportunities for seniors.
• Art, music, and entertainment to nurture performers and artists, as well
as citizens.
• Celebrations that recognize cultural diversity.
• Resources and support for newcomers.
• Educational opportunities for youth.
The Committee is pleased to recommend grant funding for the following
applicants for 2021:
Human Development Council
$15,000.00
PRUDE
$15,000.00
267
Sistema
$15,000.00
Bee Me Kidz
$10,000.00
Outflow Ministries
$10,000.00
Saint John Newcomers Centre
$10,000.00
Shining Horizons
$10,000.00
Sophia Recovery Centre
$10,000.00
Seniors Resource Centre
$9,625.00
Loch Lomond Villa
$7,500.00
Denis Morris Community Centre
$6,000.00
KBM Community Centre
$6,000.00
Lorneville Community Centre
$6,000.00
Martinon Community Centre
$6,000.00
Milford Memorial Community Centre
$6,000.00
Brilliant Labs
$5,000.00
Greater SJ Community Garden
$5,000.00
Saint John Tool Library
$5,000.00
Fundy Seniors
$4,875.00
Balysto Steelband
$4,000.00
Third Shift
$4,000.00
Junior Achievement
$3,000.00
Carleton Community Garden
$2,500.00
We Believe
$2,500.00
Chroma
$2,000.00
Indo-Canadian Society
$2,000.00
NB Festival of Music
$2,000.00
TOTAL
$184,000.00
The following applicants are not being recommended to receive funding from
the 2021 Community Grants Program:
• Ampersand Collaborations
4
• Carleton Curling Club
• First Steps Housing
• Fusion
• Port City Ministries
• Saint John Soccer
• Saint John Tennis
• Saint John Trojans
• Saint John Yoga Coop
• Thistle St. Andrews
As mentioned earlier on in this report, there are various criteria upon which all
applications are scored. This evaluation, along with a review of the application's
eligibility for the program, form the basis for the Evaluation Committee's funding
recommendations. It must also be recognized that there is a finite envelope of
funding available. As a result, applications may have significant merit and
potential benefits to the community; however, they may not be approved based
on the evaluation outcomes of all applications submitted in any given year.
It should be noted that recipients of funding as part of the 2020 Community
Grants Program were asked to report upon their activities to City staff and return
any funds that were not able to be used for the purposes outlined in their
application, particularly as a result of unforeseen restrictions related to COVID-
19. A total of $12,150 was returned to the City of Saint John.
In terms of 2021 COVID-19 precautions, grant recipients will be expected to
uphold the evolving nature of our public health mandatory orders and adapt
necessary programming. In the event their programming cannot be adapted
because of public health requirements, recipients will be asked to return funds
back to the City.
Any successful applicants in 2021 will be required to sign a memorandum of
understanding prior to receiving their funding, which will require a commitment
to submit an end -of -year report and return any unused funding.
PREVIOUS RESOLUTION
March 9, 2020 — RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the
submitted report entitled M&C 2020-073: 2020 Community Grant
Recommendations, Common Council approve Community Grants funding to the
applicants and amounts as indicated in M&C 2020-73 as submitted by the
Community Grants Committee:
r.•
5
• Gentle Path Counselling Services $5,000.00
• Sophia Recovery Centre $10,000.00
• Bee Me Kidz $10,000.00
• Saint John Tool Library $5,000.00
• Cherry Brook Zoo $15,000.00
• Denis Morris Community Centre $6,000.00
• Fog Lit Festival $1,500.00
• Fundy Gymnastics $2,000.00
• Fundy Fringe Festival $5,000.00
• Human Development Council $15,000.00
• Outflow Ministry $7,500.00
• KBM Outing Association $6,000.00
• Fundy Region Special Olympics $2,000.00
• Latimore Lake Community Centre $6,000.00
• Lorneville Community Centre $6,000.00
• ARCf de Saint Jean $2,000.00
• Martinon Community Centre $6,000.00
• Milford Community Centre $6,000.00
• NB Competitive Festival of Music $2,000.00
• NBYO — Sistema $8,171.00
• Saint John and Fundy Seniors Inclusive $5,550.00
• PRUDE Inc $15,000.00
• Read SJ $5,000.00
• Tee Off for Mental Health $2,000.00
• Seniors Resource Centre $6,000.00
• Shining Horizons Therapeutic Riding Assoc $10,000.00
• SJ Multicultural NRC $10,000.00
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The Community Grants Program aligns with Common Council's Priorities to
support opportunities for growth and prosperity, and to foster a vibrant city
through investment in arts, culture, and recreation experiences that create a
sense of community pride. Supporting a community -based model for the
delivery of recreation opportunities is also a key principle of Play SJ.
SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES
The 2021 General Fund Operating Budget included a total envelope of $184,000
for the Community Grants Program. Should the recommendations outlined in
270
this report be approved by Common Council, the total envelope would be
disbursed.
INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS
• The Community Grants Evaluation Committee provided the
recommendations for the funding allocations indicated in this report.
• The Community Grants Program is administered by the City of Saint John
Growth and Community Services.
• This report has been reviewed by the City's Finance Department.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Appendix— Summary Table of Applications Received for 2021 Community
Grants Program
2. Power Point Presentation
271
IAJ»LlI07E1
SUMMARY TABLE OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FOR
2021 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM
Organization
Amount
Requested
Recommended
Grant Funding
Ampersand Collaborations
$3,600.00
$0.00
Balysto Steelband
$5,600.00
$4,000.00
Bee Me Kidz
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
Brilliant Labs
$25,000.00
$5,000.00
Carleton Community Garden
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
Carleton Curling Club
$7,500.00
$0.00
Chroma
$20,000.00
$2,000.00
Denis Morris Community Centre
$10,000.00
$6,000.00
First Steps Housing
$20,000.00
$0.00
Fundy Seniors
$4,875.00
$4,875.00
Fusion
$6,000.00
$0.00
Greater SJ Community Garden
$8,994.00
$5,000.00
Human Development Council
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
Indo-Canadian Society
$2,500.00
$2,000.00
Junior Achievement
$5,000.00
$3,000.00
KBM Community Centre
$10,000.00
$6,000.00
Loch Lomond Villa
$19,540.00
$7,500.00
Lorneville Community Centre
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
Martinon Community Centre
$7,500.00
$6,000.00
272
Milford Memorial Community Centre
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
NB Festival of Music
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
Outflow Ministries
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Port City Ministries
$20,000.00
$0.00
PRUDE
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
Saint John Newcomers Centre
$19,350.00
$10,000.00
Saint John Soccer
$20,000.00
$0.00
Saint John Tennis
$500.00
$0.00
Saint John Tool Library
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
Saint John Trojans
$20,000.00
$0.00
Saint John Yoga Coop
$20,000.00
$0.00
Seniors Resource Centre
$10,000.00
$9,625.00
Shining Horizons
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
Sistema
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
Sophia Recovery Centre
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
Third Shift
$6,000.00
$4,000.00
Thistle St. Andrews
$5,000.00
$0.00
We Believe
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
TOTAL
$423,959.00
$184,000.00
273
n
I A
wArff ;A-
1 ILA
-ti_ _t►i �RI Y
Community Grants Program 2021
March 8, 2021 1n__a
SAINT JOHN
274
• Adopted by Common Council in 2014.
• Funding supports local non-profit groups that promote
healthy, active, and inclusive communities through the
delivery of social, cultural, and recreational activities.
• Categories:
1. Organizational Support
2. Community Projects
3. Special Events
• Grants can range from $100 - $20,000.
275 P_
SAINT fOHN
• Must take place within Saint John city limits and during the
2021 calendar year.
• Must not apply for more than one category.
• Must not submit more than one application, or various
funding scenarios, for one category.
• Must not receive City of Saint John funding from any other
source (e.g., service agreement, subsidy, grant).
• Must not be affiliated with any political party or religious
denomination.
• Travel, conferences, training, and professional development
expenses are not eligible for funding.
276 P--
SAINT fOHN
Grant Applications Received: 37
Total of Funding Requests Received: $423,959
Community Grants 2021 Funding Envelope: $184,000*
Grant Applications Recommended for Approval: 27
*Full funding envelope recommended for disbursement.
277 P--
SAINT fOHN
Community Grants Evaluation Committee comprised of:
• Two community members;
• Two members of Common Council; and
• Two City of Saint John staff.
Evaluated on:
• Financial Responsibility
• Organizational Strengths
• Community and Social Impact
• Alignment with Council and City Priorities
278
SAINT [OHN
Funding recommendations would translate into outstanding
benefits for the community. To highlight just a few, the City of
Saint John would be supporting:
• Programs and events that foster an environment of
diversity, equality, and inclusiveness
• Advocacy and services
for citizens and children
living in poverty,
including food security,
shelter, counselling,
and skill development
279
SAINT [OHN
• Social and emotional literacy for families
• Centres that offer a safe and affordable place to gather
in communities
• Recreation and wellness opportunities for seniors
• Art, music, and entertainment
to nurture performers and
artists, as well as citizens
caree'�
t
WE
SAINT [OHN
Benefits for Community (continued...)
0
T—h—LA4 a., G-inp-s Wwld
Philip the
a Lu eS
.N
Ir
y
" k
• Recipients of funding in 2020 were asked to report upon
their activities to City staff and return any funds that were
not able to be used for the purposes outlined in their
application.
• A total of $12,150 was returned to the City of Saint John.
• Any successful applicants in 2021 will be required to sign a
memorandum of understanding prior to receiving their
funding, which will require a commitment to submit an end -
of -year report and return any unused funding.
282 P_
SAINT fOHN
Approve the recommendations of the Community Grants
Committee for the granting of funding to the successful
applicants for the 2021 Community Grants Program, as
indicated in M&C Report 2021-057.
283 P--
SAINT fOHN
DocuSign Envelope ID: OC70BB8D-E560-4AAE-9287-6BCC6E18F45E
February 16, 2021
Mayor Darling and
Members of Common Council
PO Box 1971
15 Market Square
Saint John, N.B. E21- 41-1
Subject: Board of Trustee Appointments
We recently received notification regarding appointments to the Board of Trustees and were advised
that John de Gruyter has been reappointed and Ian Polley, who's term as a trustee expired on February
2, 2021, has been appointed as an alternate Trustee. This leaves one City appointed Trustee position
vacant.
Article 2.2 (L) of the declaration of trust states: Upon expiration of the term of any Trustee, a
successor, who may be the same or another person, shall be appointed in the manner set forth in this
Section 2.2. If no other successor to a Trustee has been appointed as described in this Section 2.2 prior
to the end of the Trustee's term, then such Trustee shall be deemed to have been appointed for a
further term.
The intent of this article is so the City and Unions reserve the right to select new Trustees upon the
expiry of a Trustees' term. This is an important right given that the principle of Trustee independence
would preclude the City or Unions from replacing a Trustee in the middle of his or her term. In this
regard, Section 2.2(I) could be seen by a mechanism to ensure the Board of Trustees continues to be
comprised of 8 Trustees (4 Union appointed, 4 City appointed) in the face of inaction by a Sponsor. This
helps to ensure that the Board of Trustees cannot be prevented from conducting business by virtue of
the failure (or unwillingness) of a Sponsor to appoint a replacement Trustee.
We understand that there may be contributing factors outside of the City's control that have resulted in
the delayed reappointment of a new Trustee. The next Pension Board meeting is on February 24t". If an
appointment has not been made by that time the Board will be going forwards on that basis that Ian
Polley is authorized by the Agreement and Declaration of Trust (as the City's designated Alternate
Trustee) to serve as a Trustee at this meeting.
If no appointment is made before April 1, 2021, the Board of Trustees will consider Ian Polley to have
been deemed to be appointed for a new term as Trustee.
Sincere regards,
DocuSigned by0:
LUrr
ASmB4:49E_.
Fred Slipp
Chair, Board of Pension Trustees
Board of Trustees City of Saint John
Shared Risk Pension Plan
P.O. Box 1971, 15 Market Square
Saint John, N.B. E21- 41-1
506-658-2862
284
VIA EMAIL
CANADIAN UASBOCIATION
TRANSPLANT 1 -CANADIENNE
Mayor of Saint John & Common Council ASSOCIATION DES-GREFFtS
Saint John City Hall
15 Market Square
Saint John, NB
E21- 4L1
February 25, 2021
Dear Mayor Darling & Common Council Members,
RE: Green Shirt Day 2021- Raising awareness and saving lives!
Every year the Canadian Transplant Association celebrates Green Shirt Day to raise awareness
for organ and tissue donation in Canada. Green Shirt Day serves to inspire Canadians not only to
register to be an organ and tissue donor, but also to discuss those wishes with their loved ones.
The CTA has long partnered with organizations like Canadian Blood Services and the Kidney
Foundation in these efforts, but following the tragic Humboldt Broncos bus crash in 2018, the
CTA has also teamed up with the Boulet family in their efforts to raise awareness after their son,
Logan Boulet, became an organ donor.
This year we want to challenge local organizations to participate in Green Shirt Day
on April 7, 2021 - help us in our efforts to raise awareness and save lives!
To do this we ask for your commitment to the following:
1. Promote Green Shirt Day in your workplace by encouraging employees to wear green.
2. Wear green on April 7, 20211
3. Share Photos of your work crew - with your green shirts on - to our local Facebook group
"Canadian Transplant Association New Brunswick Chapter" with the hashtags:
#GreenShirtDay #CTA #SaveALife #OrganDonation #TissueDonation
Can we count on you to help us raise awareness about organ and tissue donation by making this
year's Green Shirt Day bigger than ever before? If so, please let us know in advance so we can
watch for your organization's posts to our group and celebrate your participation.
Yours truly,
Nichole Elizabeth
Provincial Director
Canadian Transplant Association - New Brunswick
(902) 817-6617
ctanewbrunswick@txworks.ca
285
M&C No.
2021-068
Report Date
March 03, 2021
Meeting Date
March 08, 2021
Service Area
Utilities and
Infrastructure Services
SUBJECT. Termination of Contract 2020-04: Sanitary Sewer Structural Lining
Phase IV — Various Locations between The City of Saint John and
Clean Water Works Inc.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN
SESSION OF COUNCIL
The approved 2020 Water & Sewerage Utility Fund Capital Program included
funding for the cured -in -place structural lining of sanitary sewers in various
locations around Saint John. On April 20, 2020, Council awarded the Contract to
Clean Water Works Inc. in the amount of $185,186.80 (including HST).
The work included in this Contract is an integral part of a multi -phase plan to
rehabilitate sanitary sewers that have reached the end of their useful life. There
are three additional phases of work that require completion of a portion of
Contract 2020-04 prior to them proceeding.
The Contractor, an Ontario based company, has attempted to work with the New
Brunswick regulating agencies (i.e., WorkSafe NB) to provide the required
operational plans to permit working in the Province. Staff have extended the
Contract completion and have had many productive discussions with the
Contractor in trying to have the Contract work completed. Time is of the essence
and the required work can no longer wait. Several options were reviewed with
the Contractor in order to move this work forward. Being fiscally prudent it is in
the public's best interest to Terminate the Contract for a lump sum price of
$14,592.50 (incl. HST). The contract will be retendered as soon as possible with
COVID-19 applicable requirements.
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
RESOLVED that Contract 2020-04: Sanitary Sewer Structural Lining Phase IV —
Various Locations between The City of Saint John and Clean Water Works Inc. be
terminated at a cost of $14,592.50 including HST; and further that the Mayor and
City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents.