Loading...
2022-07-11_Agenda Packet--Dossier de l'ordre du jour�B City of Saint John Common Council Meeting AGENDA Monday, July 11, 2022 6:00 pm 2nd Floor Common Council Chamber, City Hall An Electronic means of communication will be used at this meeting. The public may attend the meeting in person in the Council Chamber or view the meeting on the City's Website (wwwsaintjohn.ca) or on Rogers TV. Pages 1. Call to Order 1.1. Land Acknowledgement 1.2. National Anthem 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1. Minutes of June 27, 2022 5 - 14 2.2. Minutes of July 4, 2022 15 - 17 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 5. Consent Agenda 5.1. Easement for Pedestrian Access in Favour of 199-201 Union Street 18 - 22 (Recommendation in Report) 5.2. Lighting Renewal - Forest Hills Ball Park (651 Westmorland Road) 23 - 26 (Recommendation in Report) 5.3. Designation of By -Law Enforcement Officer - Erik Bass (Recommendation in 27 - 29 Report) 5.4. Terms of Reference and City of Saint John Representatives to the Creating 30 - 55 Affordable Neighborhoods Fund Oversight Committee (Recommendation in Report) 5.5. Arena Ice Rental Rates for 2022-2023 Season (Recommendation in Report) 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation 7.1. 2022 Memorial Cup Tournament 7.2. 230th Anniversary - Year of Black Loyalist Exodus 15 Ships to Sierra Leone #1792Project 7.3. National Drowning Prevention Week 8. Delegations / Presentations 9. Public Hearings - 6:30 p.m. 9.1. Proposed Amendment to the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law - 111-119 King Street East (1 st and 2nd Reading) 9.2. Proposed Amendment to the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law - Heritage Permit Renewals (1st and 2nd Reading) 10. Consideration of By-laws 10.1. Parking By -Law Amendment - QR Code Payment Method (3rd Reading) 10.2. Public Presentation - Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment - 1556 Manawagonish Road 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1. Proposal to Federal Boundary Commission for Two Federal Members of Parliament (Councillor Ogden) 11.2. American Iron and Metal (AIM) (Councillor Hickey) 12. Business Matters - Municipal Officers 12.1. City Manager Update on Select Catalytic Projects and Advocacy (Verbal) 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separated from Consent Agenda 56 - 74 75 - 75 76 - 76 77 - 77 78 - 204 205 - 214 215 - 215 216 - 223 224 - 225 226 - 226 K 15. General Correspondence 15.1. Sponsorship Request - Curling Team for 2023 Canada Games 227 - 227 (Recommendation: Refer to the Community Grants Evaluation Committee) 15.2. Saint John Community Arts Board - Request to Present (Recommendation: 228 - 229 Refer to the Clerk to schedule) 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1. Resourcing Community Support Services 18. Adjournment 230 - 230 K City of Saint John Common Council Meeting Monday, July 11, 2022 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: 5:30 p.m., 2nd Floor Boardroom, City Hall 1.1 Approval of Minutes 68(1) 1.2 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) 1.3 Financial Matter 68(1)(c) Ville de Saint John Seance du conseil communal Lundi 11 juillet 2022 18h 2e etage, Salle du Conseil communal, 1-16tel de Ville Un moyen de communication electronique sera utilise lors de cette reunion. Le public peut assister a la reunion en personne clans la salle du Conseil ou la regarder sur le site Web de la Ville (www.saintiohn.ca) ou sur Rogers TV 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 : 17 h 30 — Comite plenier a huis clos — Salle de conference, 2e etage 1.1 Approbation du proces-verbal 68(1) 1.2 Finances 68(1)(c) 1.3 Finances 68(1)(c) Seance ordinaire 1. Ouverture de la seance 1.1 Reconnaissance des terres 1.2 Hymne national 2. Approbation du proces-verbal 2.1 Proces-verbal du 27 juin 2022 2.2 Proces-verbal du 4 juillet 2022 K 3. Adoption de I'ordre du jour 4. Divulgations de conflits d'interets 5. Questions soumises a I'approbation du conseil 5.1. Servitude d'acces pour les pietons en faveur du 199-201 rue Union (Recommendation clans le rapport) 5.2 Renouvellement de 1'eclairage — Forest Hills Ball Park (651 Westmorland Road) (Recommendation clans le rapport) 5.3 Designation d'un agent pour I'application des reglements municipaux — Erik Bass (recommendation clans le rapport) 5.4 Mandat et representants de la ville de Saint John au Comite de surveillance du Fonds pour la creation de quartiers abordables (recommendation clans le rapport) 5.5 Tarifs de location de la glace de I'arena pour la saison 2022-2023 (recommendation clans le rapport) 6. Commentaires presentes par les membres 7. Proclamation 8. Delegations et presentations 9. Audiences publiques 9.1 Proposition de modification du Reglement sur les aires de conservation du patrimoine — 111-119, rue King Est (11e et 2e lecture) 9.2 Proposition de modification du Reglement sur les aires de conservation du patrimoine — Renouvellement des permis du patrimoine (11e et 2e lecture) 10. Etude des arretes municipaux 10.1 Modification du Reglement sur le stationnement — Methode de paiement par code QR (3e lecture) 10.2 Presentation publique — Modification proposee au plan municipal — 1556, chemin Manawagonish 11. Interventions des membres du conseil 11.1 Proposition de deux deputes federaux a la Commission de delimitation de la frontiere federale (conseiller Ogden) K3 11.2 American Iron and Metal (AIM) (conseiller Hickey) 12. Affaires municipales evoquees par les fonctionnaires municipaux 12.1 Mise a jour du directeur municipal sur certains projets catalyticlues et la defense des interets (verbal) 13. Rapports deposes par les comites 14. Etude des sujets ecartes des questions soumises a I'approbation du Bureau 15. Correspondance generale 15.1 Demande de financement — Equipe de curling pour les Jeux du Canada 2023 (Recommendation : Se referer au Comite devaluation des subventions communautaires) 15.2 Saint John Community Arts Board - Demande de presentation (Recommendation : Se referer au greffier pour le calendrier) 16.Ordre du jour supplementaire 17. Comite plenier 17.1 Ressourcement des services de soutien communautaire 18. Levee de la seance CI COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 The City of Saint job n MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN JUNE 27, 2022 AT 6:00 PM 2ND FLOOR COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL An Electronic means of communication will be used at this meeting. The public may attend the meeting in person in the Council Chamber or view the meeting on the City's Website (www.saintjohn.ca) or on Rogers TV. Present: Mayor Donna Noade Reardon Deputy Mayor John MacKenzie Councillor -at -Large Gary Sullivan Councillor -at -Large Brent Harris Councillor Ward 1 Joanna Killen Councillor Ward 1 Greg Norton Councillor Ward 2 Barry Ogden Councillor Ward 3 David Hickey Councillor Ward 3 Gerry Lowe Councillor Ward 4 Greg Stewart Councillor Ward 4 Paula Radwan Also Present: City Manager J. Collin General Counsel M. Tompkins Commissioner Human Resources S. Hossack Deputy Fire Chief R. Nichol Commissioner Utilities & Infrastructure Services B. McGovern Commissioner Growth & Community Services J. Hamilton Director Financial Services C. Lavigne Commissioner Public Works and Transportation Services M. Hugenholtz City Clerk J. Taylor Administrative Officer R. Evans Administrative Assistant K. Tibbits 61 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 1. Call to Order Councillor Killen read aloud the Land Acknowledgement and called for a moment of reflection. "The City of Saint John/Menaquesk is situated is the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet.The Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet along with their Indigenous Neighbours, the Mi'Kmaq/Mi'kmaw and Passamaquoddy/Peskotomuhkati signed Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s that protected their rights to lands and resources." 1.2 National Anthem The Saint John High School Choir performed O'Canada by video. 2. Approval of Minutes 2.1 Minutes of June 13, 2022 Moved by Councillor Norton, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the minutes of June 13, 2022 be approved. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Approval of Agenda RESOLVED that the agenda for June 27, 2022, be adopted with the addition of items 17.1 Memorandum of Understanding and Non -Disclosure Agreement with Malta Inc.; 17.2 Request for Quit Claim Deed — 411 City Line; 17.3 Funding Offer — Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency — Project No: 219688; 17.4 Nominating Committee — Recommended Appointments to ABCCs; and 17.5 Assignment of Lease re Sister's Italian Foods — City Market. MOTION CARRIED 4. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest Councillor Killen declared a conflict of interest on Item 17.5 Assignment of Lease re Sister's Italian Foods — City Market. 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-224: Assent to Money in Lieu for Public Purposes Subdivision — Lot 22-1 Mcllveen Drive, Common Council assent to money -in -lieu of Land for Public Purposes for the proposed City of Saint John Subdivision on Mcllveen Drive (Lot 22-1). 5.2 Refer to Item 12.2 2 C.1 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 5.3 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-218: Cancellation of a Public Hearing —Wild Fox Drive/Manawagonish Road Common Council cancel the public hearing for the Zoning By-law rezoning application submitted by Don - More Surveys & Engineering Ltd. for Wild Fox Drive and Manawagonish Road (PI Ds: part of 55191373, part of 55240139, part of 55191381) scheduled for Monday, July 11, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. at the Council Chamber, City Hall 2nd floor, 15 Market Square, Saint John, NB 5.4 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-219: Contribution Agreement for Funding under the ICF — Adapting and reimagining community spaces (CCRF), the City enter into a Contribution Agreement under the Innovative Communities Fund (ICF) — Adapting and Reimagining Community Spaces (CCRF) Program with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, in the form attached to M&C No. 2022-219; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute said Agreement and any documents ancillary thereto. 5.5 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-220: 2022- 080301 P — Janitorial Services, Common Council approve the following: 1) The proposal submitted by GDI Integrated Facilities Services, for the provision of janitorial services at a cost of $303,312.00 plus HST be accepted. 2) Four (4) additional one (1) year extensions, to be exercised upon mutual agreement between the City and GDI Integrated Facilities Services, be included; and 3) The Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract documents. 5.6 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-228: IBM Client Relationship Agreement and Technical Services, the City enter into a Client Relationship Agreement and Technical Services Attachment with IBM Canada Ltd. for programs and services required to support the City enterprise resource planning system, in the form attached to M&C No. 228; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute said Agreements and any documents ancillary thereto. 5.7 RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-222: Annual Laserfiche Software Assurance Plan Renewal, the City renew the annual Laserfiche Software Assurance Plan (LSAP) for software maintenance and support with RICOH Canada Inc. to maintain the City's on -premise installation of Laserfiche; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary documents to effect the purchase of the software. Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that the recommendation set out in each consent agenda item respectively be adopted with the exception of Item 5.2 which was moved to Item 12.2 and an updated report provided. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Members Comments 7. Proclamation r� COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 8. Delegations/Presentations 8.1 Sculpture Saint John 2022 Executive Director Diana Alexander provided an update on the 5t" International Sculpture Symposium being held from August 11, 2022, to September 10, 2022. 9. Public Hearings - 6:30pm 10. Consideration of By-laws 10.1 Zoning By -Law Amendment with Section 59 Conditions — 990 Fairville Boulevard (31d Reading) Commissioner Hamilton advised that all legislative requirements have been met. Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-135 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.02 hectares, located at 990 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as PID 00403378, from Regional Commercial (CR) to Regional Commercial Residential (CR-R), be read. MOTION CARRIED. The by-law entitled By -Law Number C.P. 111-135 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" was read in its entirety. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that Common Council rescind the Section 39 conditions imposed on the August 14, 1989, rezoning of the parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.02 hectares, located at 990 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as PID Number 00403378. MOTION CARRIED. Moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Stewart: 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 1.02 hectares, located at 990 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as PID Number 00403378: (a) The use of the site (PID Number 00403378) is restricted to a maximum of two buildings incorporating a maximum of 95 dwelling units and a minimum ground floor commercial space of approximately 488 square metres. This commercial space is to be located in the southern portion of the building closest to Fairville Boulevard as illustrated on the site plan submitted with the application. (b) The development must incorporate a sidewalk and appropriate pedestrian access between the adjacent sidewalk on Fairville Boulevard and the building entrances within the proposed development. This pedestrian access is to be detailed on the site plans E:3 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 submitted with the Building Permit application and is subject to the approval of the Development Officer. (c) 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 including front yard landscaping in conformance with the Zoning By -Law and side yard landscaping as illustrated on the site plan submitted with the application. (d) The above elevation and site plans be attached to the permit application for the development of the parcel of land; and (e) If any municipal infrastructure improvements are required to service this proposal, it will be the owner/developer's full responsibility and cost to complete. Prior to determining this, detailed engineering plans and a design brief must be submitted by the owner/developer's engineering consultant to the City for review and approval by the City. f) That the parcel of land be developed and maintained in accordance with an engineering storm water drainage plan and design report, prepared by a professional engineer on behalf of the proponent and subject to the approval of the Chief City Engineer, and that such approved plan and report be attached to any development and/or building permit for the proposed development. MOTION CARRIED. Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Ogden: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number C.P. 111-135 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John" amending Schedule "A", the Zoning Map of The City of Saint John, by rezoning a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1.02 hectares, located at 990 Fairville Boulevard, also identified as PID 00403378, from Regional Commercial (CR) to Regional Commercial Residential (CR-R), 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 C.P. 111-135 A Law to Amend the Zoning By -Law of The City of Saint John." 10.2 Parking By -Law Amendment — QR Code Payment Method (1 st and 2nd reading) Commissioner Hugenholtz introduced the use of a QR code as a parking payment option Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled "By -Law Number L.G. 8 A By -Law respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto" repealing and replacing subsection 9(2), be read a first time. MOTION CARRIED COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 Read a first time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number L.G. 8 A By -Law respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto." Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled "By -Law Number L.G. 8 A By -Law respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto" repealing and replacing subsection 9(2), be read a second time. MOTION CARRIED. Read a second time by title, the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number L.G. 8 A By -Law respecting the Regulation of Parking in the City of Saint John and amendments thereto." 10.3 Vehicle for Hire By -Law Amendments (3rd Reading) Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number M-12 A By -Law respecting the Regulation and Licensing of Owners and Operators of Vehicles for Hire in The City of Saint John" which will incorporate improvements to the by-law wording; streamline regulation; align the by-law with similar by-laws in other jurisdictions; operationalize changes approved by Council; and general administrative updates, be read in summary. MOTION CARRIED The by-law entitled "By -Law Number M-12 A By -Law respecting the Regulation and Licensing of Owners and Operators of Vehicles for Hire in the City of Saint John" was read in summary. Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that the by-law entitled, "By -Law Number M-12 A By -Law respecting the Regulation and Licensing of Owners and Operators of Vehicles for Hire in The City of Saint John" which will incorporate improvements to the by-law wording; streamline regulation; align the by-law with similar by-laws in other jurisdictions; operationalize changes approved by Council; and general administrative updates, 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 M-12 A By -Law respecting the Regulation and Licensing of Owners and Operators of Vehicles for Hire in the City of Saint John." 11. Submissions by Council Members 11.1 Gregory Zed Suicide Prevention Presentation Request (Councillor Radwan) Moved by Councillor Radwan, seconded by Councillor Stewart: RESOLVED that Common Council approve a presentation from Gregory Zed on suicide prevention at a subsequent meeting of Council and that the item be referred to the City Clerk to schedule. ito] COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 MOTION CARRIED. 11.2 Adoringly Shire Presentation (Councillor Sullivan) Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that Council refer to the City Clerk to schedule Adoringly Shire to make a presentation to Common Council. MOTION CARRIED. 12. Business Matters — Municipal Officers 12.1 Initiatives Plan 2022 — June Update Mr. Collin reviewed the submitted presentation entitled "Initiatives Plan 2022 Update." Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the submitted presentation entitled Initiatives Plan 2022 Update be received for information. MOTION CARRIED 12.2 Updated: Project Contributions from LPP Trust Fund E. Murphy provided an overview of the submitted report. Moved by Councillor Norton, seconded by Councillor Radwan: RESOLVED that as recommended in the submitted report M&C 2022-225: Updated: Project Contributions from LPP Trust Fund, Common Council authorize a total of $70,000 from the Land for Public Purpose Trust Fund be provided to assist with three separate community projects: $50,000 toward the construction of a Trojan House Community Centre conditional upon both a legal agreement assuring reasonable public access to the facility, and a reimbursement to the City of Saint John of the previously awarded 2022 Community Grant in the amount of $7,000; $10,000 toward the next phase of the Rockwood Park Enduro park, and $10,000 toward a west side community dog park. MOTION CARRIED 13. Committee Reports 14. Consideration of Issues Separate from Consent Agenda 15. General Correspondence 15.1 PRO Kids — Request to Present (Recommendation: Refer to the Clerk to schedule) Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the request to present from PRO Kids be referred to the City Clerk to schedule. 11 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 MOTION CARRIED. 15.2 Third Space — Ticket Purchase Request (Recommendation: Refer to the Clerk to purchase tickets for interested Council members) Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that the letter from Third Space — Ticket Purchase Request be referred to the Clerk to purchase tickets for interested Council members. MOTION CARRIED. 16. Supplemental Agenda 17. Committee of the Whole 17.1 Memorandum of Understanding and Non -Disclosure Agreement with Malta Inc. Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on June 27, 2022, Common Council approve the following: 1. The City enter into the Memorandum of Understanding generally in the form presented to Committee of the Whole at its meeting held June 27, 2022, with Malta Inc. for the purpose of evaluating the benefits that Malta's thermal products can provide to meet the needs of the City's District Energy System; 2. the City enter into the Confidentiality and Non -Disclosure Agreement presented to Committee of the Whole at its meeting held June 27, 2022, with Malta Inc., New Brunswick Power Corporation, and the Power Commission of the City of Saint John (Saint John Energy), for the purpose of bringing Saint John Energy into the previously executed Confidentiality and Non -Disclosure Agreement for the purpose of evaluating the possible development of a District Energy Project for renewable energy design, production, and operations general and distributed to customers located in Saint John; and 3. the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Memorandum of Understanding and Confidentiality and Non -Disclosure Agreement and any documents ancillary thereto. MOTION CARRIED. 17.2 Request for Quit Claim Deed — 411 City Line Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Killen: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on June 27, 2022, the City execute a Quit Claim Deed in favour of Paul Whitney Leblanc releasing any further right or title to the land identified as Part 1 on the Subdivision Plan filed on March 14, 1967 in the Registry Office of the City and County of Saint John as File 43, No. 108, and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Quit Claim Deed and any other document necessary to effect the transaction. MOTION CARRIED. 12 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 17.3 Fundina Offer — Atlantic Canada Opportunities Aaencv — Proiect No: 219688 Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Radwan: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on June 27, 2022, the City enter into the Contribution Agreement, as presented to Committee of the Whole at its meeting on June 27, 2022, with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, for the purpose of obtaining funding for Project No: 219688 and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the said Agreement. MOTION CARRIED 17.4 Nominatina Committee — Recommended ADDointments to ABCCs Moved by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie, seconded by Councillor Hickey: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on June 27, 2022 Council approve the following appointments to ABCCs: City Manager Performance Review Committee: to appoint Mayor Reardon, Councillor Stewart and Councillor Sullivan from June 27, 2022 to the end of their current terms of Council; City Manager Recruitment Committee: to appoint Mayor Reardon, Councillor Harris, Councillor Norton, and Councillor Radwan from June 27, 2022 until the process is completed; Code of Conduct Complaints Committee: to appoint Councillor Hickey, Councillor Norton, and Councillor Radwan from June 27, 2022, to the end of their current terms of Council; and to appoint Councillors Sullivan and Killen as alternates from June 27, 2022 to the end of their current terms of Council; Community Grants Evaluation: to reappoint Amit Tamrakar for a 3-year term from July 8, 2022 to July 8, 2025; Fort LaTour Authority: to reappoint Jane Fullerton for a 3-year term from August 22, 2022 to August 22, 2025; Harbour Station Commission: to appoint Robert Bonner for a 3-year term from July 26, 2022 to July 26, 2025; Nominating Committee: to appoint Mayor Reardon, Deputy Mayor MacKenzie from June 27, 2022 to the end of their current terms on Council, and to appoint Councillors Killen and Ogden from June 27, 2022 to June 27, 2023; PRO Kids: to appoint Allison Olsen and Tamara Steele for 3-year terms from June 27, 2022 to June 27, 2025 and August 22, 2022 to August 22, 2025, respectively; Saint John Communities Arts Board: to reappoint Suping Shi for a 3-year term from July 8, 2022 to July 8, 2025; 13 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL June 27, 2022 / le 27 juin 2022 Saint John Free Public Library: to reappoint Mohamed Bagha for a 3-year term from August 22, 2022 to August 22, 2025; Saint John Substandard Properties Appeal Committee: to reappoint Don Cullinan for a 3-year term from July 8, 2022 to July 8, 2025. MOTION CARRIED. (Having declared a conflict of interest, Councillor Killen withdrew from the meeting) 17.5 Assianment of Lease reaardina Sister's Italian Foods — City Market Moved by Councillor Ogden, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on June 27, 2022 Common Council waive the required notice period under clause 12.02 b) of the Lease and consent to the assignment of said Lease for Stall F and ancillary space at the City Market with Sisters Italian Foods Ltd. to 734947 Nb Ltd. dba Sisters; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the consent to assignment of Lease and the Landlord's Undertaking in the form attached to M&C No. 2022-189 and any documents ancillary thereto. MOTION CARRIED with Councillor Radwan voting nay stating for the record that she is in support of the businesses but feels the leases should be tightened up in the forthcoming City Market Strategic Plan. 18. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Sullivan: RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on June 27, 2022 be adjourned. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m 10 14 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL July 4, 2022 / le 4 juillet 2022 The City of Saint job n MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN J U LY 4, 2022 AT 7:30 PM 2ND FLOOR COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL An Electronic means of communication will be used at this meeting. The public may attend the meeting in person in the Council Chamber or view the meeting on the City's Website (www.saintjohn.ca) or on Rogers TV. Present: Mayor Donna Noade Reardon Deputy Mayor John MacKenzie Councillor -at -Large Gary Sullivan Councillor -at -Large Brent Harris Councillor Ward 1 Joanna Killen Councillor Ward 2 Barry Ogden Councillor Ward 3 David Hickey Councillor Ward 3 Gerry Lowe Councillor Ward 4 Greg Stewart Councillor Ward 4 Paula Radwan Absent: Councillor Ward 1 Greg Norton Also Present: City Manager J. Collin Director Legal Services J. Boucher Commissioner, Human Resources S. Hossack Manager Industrial Relations K. Hooper Fire Chief & Chief Emergency Management Services K. Clifford Deputy Fire Chief R. Nichol Chief of Staff & Chief Financial Officer K. Fudge Administrative Officer R. Evans Deputy Clerk P. Anglin 15 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL July 4, 2022 / le 4 juillet 2022 Call to Order 1.1 Land Acknowledgement Mayor Noade Reardon read aloud the Land Acknowledgement and called for a moment of reflection. "The City of Saint John/Menaquesk is situated is the traditional territory of the Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet.The Wolastoqiyik/Maliseet along with their Indigenous Neighbours, the Mi'Kmaq/Mi'kmaw and Passamaquoddy/Peskotomuhkati signed Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s that protected their rights to lands and resources." 1.2 National Anthem The Saint John Youth Orchestra performed O Canada by video. 2. Approval of Agenda Moved by Councillor Hickey, seconded by Deputy Mayor MacKenzie: RESOLVED that the agenda of July 4, 2022, be approved. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Disclosures of Conflict of Interest 4. Committee of the Whole 4.1 Tentative Collective Agreement with Saint John Firefighters' Association IAFF 771 Moved by Councillor Sullivan, seconded by Councillor Lowe: RESOLVED that as recommended by the Committee of the Whole, having met on July 4, 2022, Common Council approve the following: That the Common Council ratify the Tentative Agreement between The City of Saint John and the Saint John Fire Fighters' Association Local Union No. 771, which generally provides the content for the future Collective Agreement between the parties, on the terms and conditions as generally presented to Committee of the Whole on July 4, 2022; and 2. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Collective Agreement on the terms and conditions as generally presented to Committee of the Whole on July 4, 2022, and any documents ancillary thereto. MOTION CARRIED. 5. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Lowe, seconded by Councillor Harris: RESOLVED that the meeting of Common Council held on July 4, 2022, be adjourned. COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL July 4, 2022 / le 4 juillet 2022 MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. City Clerk 17 17 J err J. COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-232 Report Date July 05, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Service Area General Counsel Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Easement for Pedestrian Access in Favour of 199-201 Union Street AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Curtis Langille Melanie Tompkins I John Collin RECOMMENDATION 1. That the City grant a non-exclusive easement to 724745 NB Inc. for pedestrian access over a parcel of land owned by the City and identified as PID 55108989 (the "City Lands"), such easement to be approximately 58.9 square meters, as generally shown on the sketch titled "Proposed Easement for Pedestrian Access Portion of PID 55108989", dated July 5, 2022, attached to M&C 2022-232, in consideration of the sum of $1,000.00 plus HST (if applicable) and subject to the following conditions: a) That the Grantee, at its own cost, prepare any plan of survey required to depict the easement area and effect the conveyance; b) That the Grantee be responsible, at its own cost, for the maintenance of the easement area, including snow removal and any reinstatement and continued maintenance of the finished surface of the easement area; c) That the Grantee pay for all registration and filing fees required by Service New Brunswick, if applicable, for the plan of survey and Grant of Easement; and 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the documents necessary to effect the conveyance of the easement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 724745 NB Inc. recently purchased the property at 199-201 Union Street (identified as PID 55108997) with plans of renovating the building. The renovation plans will add 12 new apartments and a new commercial tenant. To accommodate the interior renovations, two new man -doors, located on the west and north side of the building are necessary for tenant egress. The City owns the adjoining lot, iF:3 -2- identified as PID 55108989. 724745 NB Inc. is requesting a pedestrian easement from the City to accommodate the egress for their future tenants. The purpose of this report is to seek Council's authorization to grant an easement on the terms and conditions contained in this recommendation. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A REPORT The City owns the property identified as PID 55108989 (the "City Lands") which maintains access to both Union and Peters Street. The parcel is actively used by the City for a commercial parking lot. The lot contains a concrete sidewalk that runs from Union Street abutting the westerly side of the building at 199-201 Union Street and continuestothe rearface of the building. In addition, there is municipal infrastructure running underneath this sidewalk that would impede any other potential use for this portion of the site. The owner of the property at 199-201 Union Street (PID 55108997) is seeking a non-exclusive pedestrian easement that effectively encompasses the existing sidewalk and wraps around the rear of the building where another access door is required. The impact of providing an easement at this location would be minimal as the majority of the intended easement area is already encumbered with municipal infrastructure. There would be no impact on the operation of the parking lot. The owner of the property intends to renovate the existing building to provide for 12 apartments, with 6 apartments on each of the 3rd and 41" floor, and a commercial tenant on the main level. The proposed easement will allow the proponent to meet requirements of the National Building Code for egress to and from the building to allow for the planned renovations to enable the upper floors to be renovated for apartments. The proponent will bear the responsibility for all costs associated with the granting of this easement; including the preparation of a plan of survey, SNB registration and filling fees, and any maintenance of the easement area, including snow removal. The proponent will also be responsible for a one-time $1,000.00 fee for consideration of this grant of easement. If approved, Building Inspection would be in a position to issue a building permit to allow the required renovations to move forward. The increase in density of residential units in the City's Uptown, increased tax base to the City and the enhanced utilization of the current, vacant upper floors of this building are a win/win situation for all involved. -3- STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT One of Council's priorities identifies GROW to partner with private sector to achieve growth initiatives that align with the principles of smart growth in PlanSJ. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The addition of 14 residential dwelling units in the City's Uptown area will increase the desired density of this neighbourhood, while enhancing the vitality of this area and utilizing existing City services. This easement will generate a one-time $1,000.00 in revenue to the City, while increasing the tax base to the City. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Growth and Community Services (Building Inspection and Planning) and the Saint John Parking Commission have provided input into the preparation of this report. The General Counsel's office is satisfied with the easement conditions and will draft the Grant of Easement which will reflect those conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map; and 2. Site plan. o f a_ E o _ 2 `E as2 =a a m a Eaaam a,LL + 17 a o - s w - aaa rs,„=^ Street %a�FM 7 �w,am ao� rocs z �a rsa„ rre uo�w�� a�M L\ a5 o"o 0 + sc9 assz 4UaN P119 Service New Brunswick Service Nouveau -Brunswick N A City Parking Lot Scale/Echelle 1.1075 Date: 2022/05/30 09:55:58 metres 25.0 50.0 75.0 metres While this map may not be free from error or omission, care has been taken to ensure the best possible quality. This map is a graphical representation of property boundaries which approximates the size, configuration and location of properties. It is not a survey and is not intended to be used for legal description or to calculate exact dimensions or area. Meme si cette carte n'est peut-etre pas libre de toute erreur ou omission, toutes les precautions ont ete prises pour en assurer la meilleure quality possible. Cette carte est une representation graphique approximative des terrains (limites�jjmensions, configuration et emplacement). Elle n'a aucun caractyre officiel et ne doit donc pas servir 6 la redaction de la description officielle d'un tefr3tn ni au calcul de ses dimensions exactes ou de sa superficie. D '� r r I l jl COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-231 Report Date July 05, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Service Area Utilities and Infrastructure Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Council SUBJECT: LIGHTING RENEWAL— FOREST HILLS BALLPARK (651 Westmorland Road) AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Samir Yammine J. Brent McGovern I John Collin RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the proposal submitted by Able Electric (2016) Ltd., for the Lighting Renewal at Forest Hills Ball Park in the amount of $597,000 plus HST be accepted. Additionally, it is recommended that the Mayor and City's 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 Lighting Renewal at Forest Hills Ball Park to Able Electric (2016) Ltd. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A REPORT The Forest Hills Ball Park Lighting LED Upgrades is considered a high priority project based on the following criteria: • Risk - The existing lighting system for the two ball fields is over 40 years old and is original to the park. The lighting system has exceeded its expected useful life and is due for renewal. Additionally, the existing wooden poles are deteriorating and do not have the structural integrity to withstand strong winds. Due to the age of the technology, the lighting system is inefficient, and many individual components have been discontinued. Therefore, the probability and consequence of failure are considered high based on the City's Risk Rating Framework. • Level of Service - The replacement of the existing lighting system will improve the quality of outdoor lighting to the public and players. W -2- • Greenhouse Gas Reductions - The proposed project will reduce GHG emissions by 10 teCO2. • Recapitalization Benefits and Asset Renewal - The proposed project will renew the existing ballfield lighting system and provide a capital saving of $249,034.96. • Reduce Operating Costs -The project will reduce the annual operating cost including maintenance by approximately $18,253. This product is a turnkey solution for the complete lighting renewal at the Forest Hills Ball Park. The scope of work consists of the following: • Provide a turn -key solution for the supply and installation of a new LED lighting system and controls system. The lighting system consists of the supply and installation of 10 (60-70 feet) metal poles, 58 luminaires and control system. • Upgrade the existing electrical service entrance. • Provide demolition services for removal of the existing luminaries, poles, and electrical entrance. • Proponent is responsible for the design, programming, commissioning, and all relevant structural engineering related to the design and installation of new luminaire poles. Additionally, the scope of the project includes all necessary engineering design, lighting controls, programming, factory commissioning and 25-year warranty including parts and labour of the lighting system at Forest Hills Ball Park. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The Forest Hills Ball Park Lighting LED Upgrade project is clearly aligned with the following City plans, policies, Council Priorities, programs, and practices: • City of Saint John Corporate GHG and Energy Action Plan to reduce GHG emissions by 30% by 2025 and achieve carbon neutral by 2040. • City of Saint John Asset Management Policy objectives to apply risk -based decision and life cycle costing principles to prioritize capital investment, identify alternative measures, facilitate the leveraging of infrastructure funding from external sources, and improve the reliability of customer service. • City of Saint John Capital Budget Policy. • City of Saint John Climate Change Action Plan. • Council Priorities: Growth "We value smart growth", Green "We value the environment" and Belong: "We value a welcoming community". ME -3- SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The total cost to complete the Lighting Renewal at Forest Hills Ball Park, if awarded to the highest rated and lowest cost proposal as recommended, will be $622,587.42 including HST Rebate. The costs for this project is funded under the Low Carbon Economy Fund (LECF) and the City's General 2022 Capital Program through the Forest Hills Ball Field Lighting Upgrade project and the Deep Municipal Building Energy Retrofit project. The overall project analysis is as follows: Capital Budget: $700,000 Project net cost: $651,096 Variance (Surplus): $48,904 The breakdown in funding for the construction of the Lighting Renewal at Forest Hills Ball Park is as follows. LCEF Funding: $249,034.97 Capital Budget Funding $373,552.45 The Engineer's estimate for this project is $600,000 plus HST. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Supply Chain Management facilitated the RFP process to solicit proposals for the lighting upgrades at Forest Hills Ball Park. As such a Request for Proposal (RFP) closed on Thursday, June 161h, 2022, with four proponents choosing to submit proposals as follows: ➢ Able Electric (2016) Ltd. Dartmouth, NS ➢ G. J. Cahill & Company (1979) Ltd. Saint John, NB ➢ Black & McDonald Ltd. Moncton, NB ➢ Roadway Systems Ltd. Moncton, NB A review committee, consisting of staff from Supply Chain Management and Facilities Management reviewed the submissions for completeness and compliance with the RFP requirements and selection criteria consisting of the following: 1. Quality and Completeness 2. Specifications and Quality Also, in accordance with the City's standard procedures, the committee members evaluated and ranked each proposal based on the proposals' technical merits. i►R -4- Following this, the financial proposals were opened and evaluated, and corresponding scores were added to the technical scores. Able Electric (2016) 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 supports the recommendations being put forth. ATTACHMENTS NA OUI COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-230 Report Date June 23, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Service Area Public Works and Transportation Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Designation of By -Law Enforcement Officer — Erik Bass AUTHORIZATION Primary Author(s) Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Jill Good Michael Hugenholtz/Marc Dionne John Collin RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Common Council adopt the attached resolution appointing Erik Bass as by-law enforcement officer for the Saint John Parking By- law and Saint John Traffic By-law. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to designate Erik Bass, Badge No. 9992 Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, as a by -Law enforcement officer, for the Saint John Parking By-law and Saint John Traffic By-law which are administered by the Parking department. In doing so, Mr. Bass will be authorized to: • Administer and enforce the Saint John Parking By -Law. • Administer and enforce the Saint John Traffic By -Law. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION Not applicable. REPORT It is necessary at this time to designate Erik Bass, a newly hired parking enforcement officer, as a by -Law enforcement officer, by adopting the attached resolution so that he may carry out his duties pertaining to enforcement of the Saint John Parking By-law and Saint John Traffic By-law. WA -2- PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with Council's "Growth" and "Belong" Priorities. SERVICE AND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES N/A INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The General Counsel's Office has reviewed the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS Resolution appointing Erik Bass as by-law enforcement officer. 4.11 COMMON COUNCIL / CONSEIL COMMUNAL July 11, 2022 / le 11 juillet 2022 RESOLVED, that as recommended by the City Manager, the following resolution be adopted: 1. 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 By-law Respecting the Regulation of Parking in The City of Saint John, By-law Number LG-8 (the "Saint John Parking By -Law"), A By-law Respecting the Traffic on Streets in The City of Saint John, By-law Number MV-10.1 (the "Saint John Traffic By -Law") and all 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 Erik Bass is hereby appointed as by-law enforcement officer with respect to the enforcement of the Saint John Parking By -Law and Saint John Traffic By -Law, effective immediately, and this appointment shall continue until they cease to be an employee of the Parking department of The City of Saint John or until it is rescinded by Common Council, whichever comes first; We%] COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-234 Report Date July 05, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Terms of Reference and City of Saint John Representatives to the Creating Affordable Neighborhoods Fund Oversight Committee AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Phil Ouellette Jacqueline Hamilton I John Collin RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends Common Council: 1. Adopt the Terms of Reference for the Creating Affordable Neighborhoods Fund Oversight Committee as generally in the form of Attachment 1 of M&C 2022-234. 2. Approve Melanie Tompkins and Phil Ouellette as the City of Saint John representatives to the Creating Affordable Neighborhoods Fund Oversight Committee, with the former acting as Vice Chair and the latter acting as the Chair. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Improving affordable housing outcomes in Saint John remains a key priority for the City's 2022 work plan, including the pursuit of an Affordable Housing Action Plan, which is expected to be completed in the coming months. The City has also recently ratified an agreement with Envision Saint John and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ("CMHC") to welcome the Creating Affordable Neighborhoods Fund ("CANF"). This Fund will support the land assembly and development of new affordable housing units through funding agreements with the Saint John Land Bank ("SJLB"). Before proceeding with the distribution of the CANF to the SJLB, partners from Envision Saint John, CMHC and the City of Saint John are seeking to adopt the terms of reference for the CANF Oversight Committee and nominate organizational representatives to the CANF Oversight Committee. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION On December 13t", 2021, Common Council adopted the following resolution: That the City enter into an Agreement with the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation and Envision Saint John: The Regional Growth 10191 -2- Agency for the purpose of directing the CMHC's share of the annual rent recoveries under the Market Square Agreement to benefit affordable housing initiatives in the form as presented to CoW at its meeting held December 13, 2021 and that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the said Agreement and any document ancillary thereto or necessary to effect the transaction. REPORT The Saint John community is very fortunate to house a variety of non-profit organizations, including Housing Alternatives, Saint John Non -Profit Housing, Saint John Community Loan Fund, among others, that have consistently delivered, often with the support of federal and provincial funding, on the development of affordable housing units for Saint John residents. Most the City's affordable housing units are the result of the efforts of these non-profit organizations. More recently, the Saint John community has welcomed the Saint John Land Bank ("SJLB"), which is a new and innovative non-profit undertaking to support the assembly of vacant lands for the benefit of affordable housing development. There are no other organizations similar to SJLB in Atlantic Canada, and the City is fortunate to have it active in our community. Context The City of Saint John, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ("CMHC") and Envision Saint John executed an agreement dated January 1St, 2022, to direct the CMHC share of the annual rent recoveries under the Market Square Agreement to support the Creating Affordable Neighborhoods Fund ("CANF" or "Fund"). The goal of the program is to strategically leverage affordable housing investments through the SJLB that revitalize targeted areas in the City of Saint John. The CANF was initiated through the vision of SJLB and economic development partners at Develop Saint John (now Envision Saint John). The vision was to have the funds that would have gone back to CMHC as part of the Market Square Agreement to remain in Saint John to benefit affordable housing. The SJLB was conceived in 2017, through the leadership and support from Housing Alternatives, with the goal of acquiring abandoned and underutilized properties and returning them to productive use, which includes facilitating the establishment of affordable housing when possible. The executed agreement between the City, CMHC and Envision Saint John requires the City, who collects the annual rent recoveries from Hardman Group (i.e. Market Square), to submit the CMHC share of the recoveries to Envision Saint John, who acts as the bank for CANF. The only recipient of CANF is the SJLB, which 31 -3- is expected to submit an annual report and funding proposal to the CANF Oversight Committee for approval and distribution of the CANF. CANF Oversight Committee Once the agreement was executed between the three parties, the City sought to finalize the governance and process for SJLB to access CANF. Over the past few months, the City, Envision Saint John, and CMHC, drafted CANF Oversight Committee terms of reference, which included some important characteristics, including: 1. Clarification that the Oversight Committee will not seek to duplicate the work of the SJLB Board of Directors. While the SJLB Board of Directors is expected to establish the vision for SJLB, oversee the development of the SJLB workplan and oversee the SJLB's operations, the CANF Oversight Committee's responsibilities are much more streamlined, in that the Committee is expected to evaluate SJLB proposals to CANF to ensure alignment with community plans and agreement that created the CANF dated January 15t, 2022. 2. The composition of the Oversight Committee was simplified to the three parties (City of Saint John, CMHC, Envision Saint John) of the January 2022 agreement, to differentiate from the SJLB Board of Directors. 3. In addition, the terms of reference also clarify the purpose of the Oversight Committee, composition, voting, roles, responsibilities, and reporting. 4. The terms of reference also outline the terms and conditions of funding (as seen in Schedule "A" of the terms of reference), which outlines the funding agreement template between the CANF Oversight Committee and the SJLB whenever funds are distributed. It should be noted that the development of these terms of reference were developed with the support and insight from the Project Manager of the SJLB. Ratification of Outline Governance of CANF Oversight Committee Since there is consensus between the CMHC, Envision Saint John and City of Saint John on the terms of reference, there is now a requirement for each of these organizations to ratify the CANF Oversight Committee terms of reference and organizational nominees to the CANF Oversight Committee. These approvals are expected to occur over the month of July 2022. Once these approvals are completed, the CANF Oversight Committee will be officially ratified and authorized to distribute CANF to the SJLB (as outlined in the terms of reference and the agreement dated January 15t, 2022). ic3A -4- Upon the direction of the City Manager, Melanie Tompkins and Phil Ouellette are best to represent the City of Saint John on the Creating Affordable Neighborhoods Fund Oversight Committee, with the former acting as Vice Chair and the latter acting as the Chair. Director Ouellette has been involved in the development of the CANF Oversight Committee since early 2022 and is well positioned to bring leadership to the Oversight Committee and ensure alignment with the City's Affordable Housing Action Plan. General Counsel Tompkins will also bring a direct link between the City's Executive Leadership Team and this Committee and support the Committee with her expertise in process and governance. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The City's partnership with the communityto support affordable housing supports two of the key categories of Council Priorities 2021-2026, including Grow and Belong. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The City of Saint John has already submitted $664,622.11 to Envision Saint John, which was the accumulated rent recoveries from the Market Square Agreement to CMHC previously that had been previously held by Develop Saint John. These funds are currently held by Envision Saint John and have not been distributed. In addition, as part of the CANF agreement, the City will distribute the annual CMHC rent recoveries to Envision Saint John, the total amount of these funds is dependent on the quantities of rents Market Square is able to generate. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Input was received from Growth and Community Services, the City Manager's Office, and the General Counsel's Office in the preparation of this report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Creating Affordable Neighborhoods Fund Oversight Committee Terms of Reference 2. CMHC, City of Saint John and Envision Saint John Agreement for Creating Affordable Neighborhood Funds CREATING AFFORDABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS FUND Program Oversight Committee Terms of Reference Updated: Friday, June 3rd, 2022 1. Background The Creating Affordable Neighbourhoods Fund ("CANF") is a unique partnership between Envision Saint John ("Envision"), Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ("CMHC") and the City of Saint John ("City"), funded through the annual revenue generated from CMHC's partnership in the Market Square Project. The goal of the program is to strategically leverage affordable housing investments through the Saint John Land Bank ("SJLB") that revitalize targeted areas in the City of Saint John. 2. Purpose of the Program Oversight Committee The purpose of the Program Oversight Committee is to: • Provide oversight for the distribution of funding from the CANF; • Approve long-term CANF work plans and annual budgets prepared by the SJLB; • Ensure alignment with community strategies (including, but not limited to the Affordable Housing Action Plan); • Ensure alignment with CMHC's National Housing Strategy and Mandate; and • Ensure that the outcomes of CANF support the goals and targets established for the program. The Committee also has the responsibility to uphold the terms of the executed CANF Agreement, dated January 1, 2021, between Envision, the City and CMHC that outlines the parameters of this funding arrangement. 3. Committee Composition and Voting The Program Oversight Committee will be comprised of four (4) voting members appointed as follows: a) One representative appointed by CMHC; b) On representative appointed by Envision Saint John; and c) Two representatives appointed by the City. The Committee's quorum is three representatives. All decisions of the Committee shall be made through a unanimous vote. Non members, including special guests, are permitted to participate in Committee meetings upon unanimous approval of all voting members. 4. Roles and Responsibilities of Committee and Committee Members Each member of the Program Oversight Committee is expected to attend regularly scheduled meetings, which will include, at a minimum: A meeting at the beginning of the calendar year (by February 15th) to approve an action plan and annual budget submitted by the SJLB for the year, and A meeting at the end of the calendar year (by December 15th) to receive a report from the SJLB on the execution of the annual work, expenditures, financial outcomes and evaluate broader program outcomes. Special meetings can be called by the Chairperson. Subject to section 1(e) of the CANF Agreement, Envision is responsible for holding all CANF funding within its budget and only distributes such funding upon approval of the Program Oversight Committee, in accordance with the CANF Agreement. For clarity, the Program Oversight Committee has authority to approve the flowing of funds from the CANF to SJLB in accordance with the CANF Agreement, without the need to first obtain approval from the parties to the CANF Agreement. The Program Oversight Committee may develop policies respecting the manner in which funds are approved and flow from and into the CANF. The approval of funding by the Program Oversight Committee shall be communicated to Envision via written correspondence from the Chairperson. Upon receipt of such written correspondence, Envision will transfer the funding to the SJLB. As per section 2 hereof, Members are expected to maintain policy oversight over the distribution of CANF funding. The operations and execution of annual work plans that will impact the CANF is the responsibility of the SJLB. 5. Committee Chairperson and Vice Chair The Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson shall be the two representatives appointed by the City. The role of the Chairperson is to guide the process and facilitate meetings. The Chairperson will keep the Program Oversight Committee focused on the agreed - upon tasks, suggest alternative methods and procedures, and encourage the participation of all Committee members. The Chairperson will prepare meeting agendas and coordinate the distribution of supporting materials. W When required, the Chairperson will also act as a spokesperson on behalf of the Committee. Should the Chairperson not be available to attend to the business of the Committee or to attend any meeting of the Committee, the Vice -Chairperson shall act as the Chairperson. 6. Terms and Conditions of Funding Following approval by the Program Oversight Committee of funding and before the funds are transferred to the SJLB, SJLB shall duly execute and deliver to the Committee the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", which confirms SJLB's agreement to the terms and conditions of the funding. 7. Reporting The Chairperson will be responsible for reporting at least once annually to the Saint John Common Council on the progress of CANF and the outcomes achieved by the SJLB. 8. Term of Committee The Program Oversight Committee will exist until funds generated from the annual revenue of CMHC's partnership in the Market Square Project, which are held by Envision (including the expectation of annual allocations from 2022-2027), are fully depleted, or until the CANF Agreement between the City, CMHC and Envision Saint John expires or is terminated, whichever comes sooner. 01.1 Schedule "A" Creating Affordable Neighbourhoods Fund ("CANF") Terms and Conditions of Funding WHEREAS on or about November 28, 1968, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ("CMHC"), the City of Saint John ("City") and the Province of New Brunswick entered into an agreement (the Urban Renewal Agreement) which provides in Section 7 that CMHC, the City and the Province would share all the rent recoveries generated by the Market Square Property in proportion to their respective contributions to the eventual capital cost of Market Square; and WHEREAS the rent sharing referred to in the immediately preceding recital commenced on May 31, 2013, and results in 50% of rent recoveries generated from Market Square being paid to CMHC, 30% being paid to the City and 20% being paid to the Province; and WHEREAS effective January 1, 2021, the City, CMHC and Envision Saint John entered into an agreement, the "CANF Agreement", to create and operate the Creating Affordable Neighbourhoods Fund ("CANF") to be funded with CMHC's share of the annual rent recoveries and overseen by the Program Oversight Committee defined in the CANF Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the payment of $ paid from the CANF pursuant to the CANF Agreement, for [state project] the funding recipient agrees to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Funding Recipient agrees to prepare and deliver annually budgets and work plans to the Program Oversight Committee for approval. 2. The Funding Recipient agrees to use the funding for the purpose of creating affordable housing in accordance with the CANF Agreement and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of CMHC and the City. 3. The Funding Recipient agrees that the Program Oversight Committee, the City and CMHC shall have the right to request documents and audit the recipient's operations to ensure that the funding is being used in accordance with the CANF Agreement. 4. If the funding is used for purposes other than that which is contemplated in the CANF Agreement without the consent of CMHC and the City, the Funding Recipient shall be liable to reimburse the Creating Affordable Neighbourhoods Fund the entirety of the funding amount paid to the Funding Recipient, and CMHC and the City shall have a right of action against the Funding Recipient to recover said amount. Kul IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Funding Recipient acknowledges and agrees to the within terms and conditions of funding and signifies its consent and agreement by executing these presents on the day of , 2022. FUNDING RECIPIENT: SAINT JOHN LAND BANK Per: Name: Title: Per: Name: Title: M-11 THIS AGREEMENT made as of the Is' day of January, 2021 (the "Effective Date"). BETWEEN: THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, a duly incorporated company under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick, having its head office at Market Square, Saint John, New Brunswick (the "City") OF THE FIRST PART -and- CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION a body corporate maintaining its registered office at 55 Union Street, Suite 710, Saint John, NB, E21- 5137 ("CMHC") OF THE SECOND PART -and- ENVISION SAINT JOHN: THE REGIONAL GROWTH AGENCY, a corporation incorporated pursuant to the Canada Not -for -Profit Corporations Act, S.C. 2009, c. 23 having its head office in the City of Saint John in the Province of New Brunswick ("Envision") OF THE THIRD PART WHEREAS the Market Square Corporation was incorporated pursuant to an Act to Incorporate the Market Square Corporation, SNB 1980, c. 58, and, pursuant to supplementary letters patent, amended its charter to change its name initially to Saint John Development Corporation and then later to Develop Saint John. Inc.IDevelopper Saint John Inc.; WHEREAS title to the development known as Market Square ("Market Square"), located upon land in the City of Saint John identified by PID No. 55011875, was held by the Saint John Development Corporation pursuant to an agreement dated the 14t" day of October, 1980 between CMHC, the City, and the Province of New Brunswick (the "Market Square Agreement"), and 061 WHEREAS on or about November 28, 1968, CMHC, the City, and the Province of New Brunswick (the "Province") entered into an agreement (the "Urban Renewal Agreement") which provides in its Section 7 that CMHC, the City, and the Province would share all rent recoveries generated by the Market Square property in proportion to their respective contributions to the eventual capital cost of Market Square; and WHEREAS the rent sharing referred to in the immediately preceding recital commenced on May 31, 2013, and results in 50% of rent recoveries generated from Market Square being paid to CMHC, 30% being paid to the City, and 20% being paid to the Province; and WHEREAS the Market Square Agreement provides in s. 7 that commencing on May 31, 2013 all rent generated from Market Square will be shared by CMHC, the City of Saint John, and the Province in proportion to their respective contributions to the capital cost of Market Square; and WHEREAS the rent sharing referred to in the immediately preceding recital results in 50% of rent recoveries generated from Market Square being paid to CMHC 30% being paid to the City, and 20% being paid to the Province; and WHEREAS Develop SJ submitted to CMHC a proposal to establish a program identified as the "Creating Affordable Neighbourhoods Fund"; and WHEREAS Develop SJ and CMHC entered into an agreement (the "MOU") dated December 31, 2020, agreeing in principle to Develop SJ'sproposal and committing to enter into a definitive agreement; and WHEREAS Develop SJ was wound up on December 31, 2020 and all agreements, including the MOU, assets, and liabilities were transferred to the City; and WHEREAS Envision was incorporated on October 28, 2020 as New Regional Economic Development Agency for Greater Saint John and renamed Envision Saint John: The Regional Growth Agency; and WHEREAS the MOU provided that CMHC is amenable to moving forward with another approved development agency; and WHEREAS Envision wishes to receive the benefits and undertake the commitments of the Program; and WHEREAS the City, CMHC, and Envision (individually each a "Party" and together, the "Parties") wish to enter into this agreement to reflect the definitive agreement contemplated in the MOU and the other terms negotiated between the Parties (the "Agreement"). NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that the parties hereto for and in consideration of these presents and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, agree each with the other as follows: 1. Program (a) The Parties agree to the creation and operation of the Creating Affordable Neighbourhoods Fund in accordance with Schedule "A" ("CANF" or the "Program"), to be funded with CMHC's share of the annual rent recoveries. (b) The Program shall be aligned with CMHC's National Housing Strategy and Mandate. (c) The term of this Program shall commence as of January 1, 2018, to the extent applicable, and end on December 31, 2024. (d) The Parties agree that the Agreement shall be automatically renewable for three (3) three (3) year terms, provided that the Agreement has not been terminated at the date of such renewal. For clarity, termination of or amendment to this Agreement shall only impact prospective terms of the Program and no funds advanced to Envision by the City prior to amendment or termination of this Agreement, as applicable, shall be refundable to CMHC, though CMHC may direct that Envision transfer these back to the City for the continued use of the Program. (e) The Program will be overseen by the Program Oversight Committee, as described in Schedule "B", and as may be further agreed between the Parties from time to time. The Parties agree that CMHC may request, acting reasonably, that operation of the Program be transferred to the City, in the event that Envision becomes unable or unwilling to operate the Program, or Envision breaches the terms of the Agreement, or Envision does not meet the material requirements of the Program, as identified by CMHC in writing to Envision, and still fails to meet the material requirements of the Program or to cure the breach of the terms of the Agreement, as applicable, within thirty (30) days or following such longer, reasonable cure period as may be determined solely by CMHC. 2. Term and Termination of Agreement (a) The term of the Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2021 and end on December 31, 2024, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to the terms hereof. (b) Any Party may terminate this Agreement immediately if a Party is in material breach, the non -breaching Party has provided the breaching Party with a written notice, with a copy to the other Party to this Agreement, and UI the breaching Party has failed to cure the breach within thirty (30) days of its receipt of notice. (c) Except in the event of City's gross negligence or willful misconduct, the City shall have no liability whatsoever to return funds advanced to Envision at the direction of CMHC, in accordance with the terms hereof. 3. Payment (a) Payments of rent recoveries to Envision to be used for the Program shall be as follows: (i) all rent recoveries relating to the years 2018-2021, being the amount of $610,977, minus $75,000 which has been incurred by the City towards the development and execution of the City's Affordable Housing Action Plan, shall be paid by CMHC to Envision on or about the date of execution of this Agreement by the last Party hereto; and (ii) all subsequent amounts shall be paid to Envision within sixty (60) days of receipt of those funds by the City from CMHC. (b) CMHC acknowledges and agrees that the City: (i) has received and holds the funds relating to the years 2018-2021; (ii) subject to that which is otherwise stipulated herein, shall receive the funds relating to future years of rent recoveries during the term of the Agreement; and CMHC directs the City to pay such funds to CMHC in accordance with Section 3(a) until such time as CMHC may terminate the direction upon notice to the City, with a copy to Envision. (c) CMHC acknowledges and agrees that it shall not terminate the direction referenced in Section 3(b) except in the event Envision becomes unable or unwilling to operate the Program, or Envision breaches the terms of the Agreement, or Envision does not meet the material requirements of the Program and fails to cure such failure, as set out in Section 2(a). (d) Subject to that which is otherwise stipulated herein, and except in the event of gross negligence or willful misconduct by the City, the City shall have no liability whatsoever and neither of CMHC nor Envision shall have any claim against the City for funds received, held, and transferred in accordance with the terms hereof. :1 4. Notices All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and sent by mail, postage prepaid, deemed received three (3) days after mailing or by e-mail, deemed received on date transmitted, to the address or e-mail address of the party set forth below: in the case of the City shall be given to the City at: The City of Saint John General Counsel Office City Hall 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2L 4L1 with a copy to: The City Clerk email: cityclerkCa saintjohn.ca and in the case of CMHC shall be given to CMHC at: Attention: Legal Department Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 700 Montreal Road Ottawa, ON K1A OP7 and in the case of Envision shall be given to Envision at: Envision Saint John: The Regional Growth Agency 1 Germain St., Suite 1600 Saint John, NB E2L 4V1 Attention: Chief Executive Officer Email: paulette.hicks@envisionsaintiohn.com Phone: 506-648-4648 5. Obligations of the Parties The Parties shall: (a) cooperate with each other and with the Program Oversight Committee; :1191 (b) meet periodically, at the request of one or more of the Parties, to discuss the Program, as applicable; and (c) provide and, as applicable, execute, subject to all necessary approvals, such documentation as may be required from time to time to give effect to the intentions of the Parties as set out in this Agreement. 6. Representations and Warranties of the City and Envision The City and Envision each respectively represent and warrant to CMHC, as of the date hereof and (subject to any amendments or exceptions from time to time approved in writing by CMHC in its sole and absolute discretion), that; (a) to the best of each party's knowledge, all information that has been or will be, directly or indirectly, made available to CMHC (or any of its agents, advisors or representatives) by itself or any of its agents, advisors, or representatives in connection with the payment by CMHC of rent recoveries, is or will be, when furnished correct in all material respects and will not, when furnished, contain any untrue statement of a material fact, or omit to state a material fact that would otherwise make the statements materially misleading in light of the circumstances under which such statements are made; (b) it is duly incorporated, amalgamated, continued, created or established, as the case may be, and validly existing under the laws of its jurisdiction of incorporation, amalgamation or continuance, creation or establishment, as the case may be, and is duly registered or qualified to carry on business in each Province in which it so does; (c) it has the power, authority and right: (i) to enter into and deliver, and to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under this Agreement all other instruments and agreements delivered by it in connection therewith, and (ii) to carry on its business as currently conducted and as currently proposed to be conducted by it and without limiting the foregoing, all necessary power and authority to develop and complete the Program and is duly licensed, registered and qualified to carry out such activities; (d) the execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement to which it is a party have been duly authorized, with all consents required having been obtained, by all necessary corporate and other actions and do not violate its respective constating documents, any applicable laws or any agreements to which it is subject or by which it is bound and its most recent financial statements fairly present its financial position; (e) there has occurred no Material Adverse Change in its business or financial condition; (f) it is not subject to any judgment, order, writ, enforcement charge, injunction, decree or award, or to any restriction, rule or regulation (other than customary or ordinary course restrictions, rules and regulations consistent or similar with those imposed on other Persons engaged in similar businesses) that has not been stayed or of which enforcement has not been suspended and that individually or in the aggregate constitutes, or is reasonably likely to cause, a Material Adverse Change; (g) to the best of each party's knowledge, there is no claim, action, prosecution or other proceeding of any kind pending or threatened against it or any of its assets or properties before any court or administrative agency which could reasonably be expected to have a Material Adverse Change upon its financial condition or operations or its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement and there are no circumstances of which it is aware which might give rise to any such proceeding which has not been fully disclosed to CMHC; (h) it has not committed any act of bankruptcy; and is not insolvent, or has not proposed or given notice of its intention to propose, a compromise or arrangement to its creditors generally; (i) it is not a non-resident for the purposes of Section 116 of the Income Tax Act (Canada). For the purposes of this Section 6 of the Agreement, the term "Material Adverse Change" means any event or occurrence which, when considered individually or together with other events or occurrences, has a material adverse effect on (a) the business, assets, liabilities, operations, results of operations, condition (financial or other) or prospects of either the City or Envision, as they relate to this Agreement, or (b) the ability of either the City or Envision to perform their obligations in all material respects. For greater certainty, Material Adverse Change does not include a change in general economic conditions unless same in turn causes any of the foregoing events. 7. Representations and Warranties of CMHC CMHC represents and warrants to the City and Envision, as of the date hereof and (subject to any amendments or exceptions from time to time approved in writing by the City and Envision, as applicable, each in its sole and absolute discretion), that: :1N (a) to the best of CMHC's knowledge, all information that has been or will be, directly or indirectly, made available to the City or Envision (or any of its agents, advisors or representatives) by itself or any of its agents, advisors, or representatives in connection with the payment by CMHC of rent recoveries, is or will be, when furnished correct in all material respects and will not, when furnished, contain any untrue statement of a material fact, or omit to state a material fact that would otherwise make the statements materially misleading in light of the circumstances under which such statements are made; (b) it is duly incorporated, amalgamated, continued, created or established, as the case may be, and validly existing under the laws of its jurisdiction of incorporation, amalgamation or continuance, creation or establishment, as the case may be, and is duly registered or qualified to carry on business in each Province in which it so does; (c) it has the power, authority and right: (i) to enter into and deliver, and to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under this Agreement all other instruments and agreements delivered by it in connection therewith, and (ii) to carry on its business as currently conducted and as currently proposed to be conducted by it and without limiting the foregoing, all necessary power and authority to develop and complete the Program and is duly licensed, registered and qualified to carry out such activities; (d) the execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement to which it is a party have been duly authorized, with all consents required having been obtained, by all necessary corporate and other actions and do not violate its respective constating documents, any applicable laws or any agreements to which it is subject or by which it is bound and its most recent financial statements fairly present its financial position. Indemnification (a) Both the City and Envision irrevocably and unconditionally agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Government of Canada, CMHC, and any of its officers, directors, employees, controlling persons, members and representatives, and any of its successors (each of the foregoing, an "Indemnified Person") from and against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities, fees, costs and expenses (including fees and disbursements of legal counsel, accounting advisors, receivers and other advisors, together with any interest that may accrue) in connection with: (i) enforcement of any provision, right or remedy of CMHC under the Agreement or at law or investigating or defending a Proceeding, as defined herein, whether individual, joint and several, or otherwise, to which any such Indemnified Person may become subject arising out of or in connection with any Program document, the payment by CMHC of rent recoveries or any actual or threatened claims, actions, suits, inquiries, litigation, investigation or proceeding (any such claims, actions, suits, inquiries, litigation, investigation or proceeding, a "Proceeding") relating to any of the foregoing, regardless of whether any such Indemnified Person is a party thereto, provided that none of the Parties, any other Indemnified Person, any of such Person's respective affiliates, or the respective directors, officers, employees, advisors, and agents of any of the foregoing, shall be liable for any indirect, special, punitive or consequential damages in connection with any Program document; and provided further that, that the foregoing shall not apply to indemnity obligations with respect to damages of such type suffered by a third parry and for which an indemnitee may be or become liable. This indemnity is independent of and in addition to any right CMHC may have to seek recovery of costs in any litigation that may result in respect of the Agreement. The indemnity obligations contained herein shall survive and remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms, notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement or the repayment by the City or Envision of the rent recoveries received. (b) The City or Envision,as the case may be, also agree to pay (or, at the discretion of such Indemnified Person, reimburse) each such Indemnified Person promptly upon demand for any reasonable fees of legal counsel, court costs, fees of expert witnesses, and other reasonable fees, costs or expenses incurred in connection with investigating or defending any of the foregoing or in connection with the enforcement of any provision of the Agreement, provided that the indemnity will not, as to any Indemnified Person, apply to losses, claims, damages, liabilities or related expenses to the extent that they are found in a court of competent jurisdiction to have resulted from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnified Person. (c) The indemnity obligations set out herein shall not exceed the amounts of the total funds provided to Envision and/or the City, as the case may be, for the purposes of the Program. 9. Confidentiality and Announcements (a) None of the terms or substance of the Agreement, and all discussions with CMHC in connection with the Agreement shall be disclosed, directly or :1VA indirectly, by either the City or Envision to any other person or entity (other than to their own professional advisors on a need -to -know basis), except with CMHC's prior written consent. Upon Envision receiving payment from CMHC of rent recoveries, CMHC, the Minister for CMHC, the Government of Canada shall have the right to publicize details of the Agreement and the Program. The City and Envision each confirm their respective consent to the disclosure of this information, subject to the right to review public statements in this regard prior to release. (b) The City and Envision have been advised that as a Crown Corporation, CMHC is subject to federal legislation, including the Access to Information Act (Canada) and the Privacy Act (Canada). In certain specific circumstances, information submitted by the City or Envision to CMHC may be required to be disclosed pursuant to federal legislation. In such cases, to the extent reasonably possible, CMHC will make efforts to advise the City or Envision, as the case may be, of the required disclosure prior to releasing the information. CMHC and Envision have been advised that as a municipal body, the City is subject to provincial legislation, including the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (New Brunswick). In certain specific circumstances, information submitted by CMHC or Envision to the City may be required to be disclosed pursuant to federal legislation. In such cases, to the extent reasonably possible, the City will make efforts to advise CMHC or Envision, as the case may be, of the required disclosure prior to releasing the information. (c) No announcement or public disclosure relating to the Agreement may be made prior to receiving written approval from CMHC., which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. (d) If either the City or Envision plans to publish any reports and/or materials relating to the Agreement, or aspects of the Agreement supported by the payment by CMHC of rent recoveries under this Agreement, then the City or Envision, as the case may be, shall (i) notify CMHC in writing of any such publication at least fifteen (15) business days prior to such publication and (ii) if so requested by CMHC in writing, acknowledge CMHC's financial support of the Program or aspects of the Program in such publication in the following manner: "This program received financing from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC); however, the views expressed are the personal views of the author and CMHC accepts no responsibility for them / Ce programme est finance en partie par la Societe canadienne d'hypotheques et de logement (SCHL), cependant, les opinions exprimees sont les opinions personnelles de i'auteur et la SCHL n'accepte aucune responsabilite pour ces opinions." !E:3 (e) If requested by CMHC, the City or Envision, as the case may be, shall publicly acknowledge the payment by CMHC of rent recoveries under this Agreement, in a manner and form acceptable to CMHC, acting reasonably. (f) If requested by CMHC, the City or Envision, as the case may be, agree to participate in surveys and other research approaches such as case studies conducted by CMHC or its agents, in respect of the Agreement or Program. 10. General (a) Relationship of the Parties. The Parties are at all times independent of each other and the employees of any Party hereto will not be deemed to be such other Parties' agents or employees. No Party is authorized to bind or commit the other Parties in any respect or to accept legal process on the other Parties' behalf. No Party will be liable to any agent, subcontractor, supplier, employee, or customer of the other Parties for any commission, compensation, remuneration, or similar benefit of any nature whatsoever. This Agreement is not intended to, and does not, create or impose any fiduciary relationship between the Parties. (b) Assignment, Subcontracting. No Party may sell, assign, or transfer this Agreement, without the other Parties' written consent, but no consent is required if the assignment: (a) results from the assignor's merger, consolidation, spin-off, split -off or acquisition, but the assignment must be limited to the assignor's survivor, subsidiary or successor; or (b) is to an affiliate or related party capable of performing the assignor's duties and obligations under this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement will inure to the benefit of and will be binding upon the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Envision shall be permitted to assign the Program to the Saint John Land Bank, upon reasonable notice to CMHC and the City, provided that no such assignment shall occur prior to the first anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement. (c) Governing Law. This Agreement will in all respects be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of New Brunswick, Canada, excluding any choice of law provisions and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. (d) Non Waiver. A Party's failure at any time to enforce any of the provisions of, or any right or remedy available to it under, this Agreement or at law or in equity, or to exercise any option provided, will not constitute a waiver of that provision, right, remedy or option or in any way affect the validity of this Agreement. A Party's waiver of any default by either Party will not be deemed a continuing waiver, but will apply solely to the instance to which that waiver is directed. !Loll (e) Severability; Interpretation. Every provision of this Agreement will be construed, to the extent possible, to be valid and enforceable. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or otherwise unenforceable, that provision will be deemed severed from this Agreement, and all other provisions will remain in full force and effect. (f) No Third Party Beneficiary Rights. This Agreement is not intended to be for the benefit of any person other than the Parties. No other person, including any candidates or prospective candidates, will be considered a third party beneficiary of or otherwise entitled to any rights or benefits arising in connection with this Agreement. (g) Force Majeure. No Party will be considered in default as a result of its delay or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement when the delay or failure arises out of causes beyond that Party's reasonable control. Causes may include acts of God or a public enemy, acts of the state or the government in its sovereign or contractual capacity, fires, floods, epidemics or pandemics, strikes, and unusually severe weather; in every case, delay or failure to perform must be beyond the reasonable control of and without the fault or negligence of the Party claiming a force majeure event to excuse its performance. (h) Entire Agreement; Conflicts. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior representations, adverstisements, statements, proposals, negotiations, discussions, understandings, or agreements regarding the same subject matter. The Parties will not be bound by any representation, promise, or condition not expressly set forth in this Agreement. No Party has been induced to enter into this Agreement by any representations or statements, oral or written, not expressly contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may only be modified by the written agreement of the Parties. (i) Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements. Each Party represents and warrants that it will comply with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements in connection with this Agreement. (j) Miscellaneous. No provision of this Agreement will be construed against or interpreted to the disadvantage of any Party because that Party has or is deemed to have drafted the provision. All section headings and captions are for the Parties' convenience only, are not part of the text, and will not be deemed in any way to limit or affect the meaning of this Agreement. When used in this Agreement, "including" means "including without limitation." The Parties may execute this Agreement in any number of counterpart copies, which may be delivered by PDF or other electronic 61191 means, each of which will be deemed an original, but which taken together constitute a single instrument. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, all remedies available to either Party for breach of this Agreement or at law or in equity are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or separately. Those sections of this Agreement that are intended by their nature to survive termination or expiration of this Agreement will survive. The Parties hereto have agreed that this Agreement and all attachments thereto, as applicable, will be drawn in English. Les parties aux prssentes ont accepts que cette convention ainsi que tous les documents qui s'y rattachent, le cas 6ch6ant, soient rediges en anglais. THE CITY OF SAINTOHN Per: AV" Mayor Common Cou.9cil Resolut. .D*rnk)64— j31 aoa1 Per: City er CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION Per: 'Q&" `r• Name: Pam Hine g Title: VP Housing o9�Ms��rne3byAntoine Pamerleau Per: Date: 2021 12 16 11:58:36 Name: Title: ENVISION SAINT JOHN: THE REGIONAL GROWTH AGENCY Per: �Ihuo Name: Paulette Hicks Title: CEO Per: .cue (Lv Name: Al Walker Title: Board Chair 51 SCHEDULE "A" PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The Program aims for CMHC to reinvest the rent recoveries from the Market Square complex into affordable housing initiatives in the City of Saint John. The Program will: • Support housing organizations in the creation of affordable housing by redeveloping vacant lots and buildings and the retention of struggling homeowners in neighbourhoods experiencing change; • Create a fund, entitled the Creating Affordable Neighbourhoods Fund ("CANF") to manage the monies directed by CMHC via the City to Envision; • Develop and implement initiatives that are not typically funded through existing Federal and Provincial housing programs; activities undertaken as part of the Program will include: Research, planning, and design; Land acquisition; Carrying costs; and Land sales; • Combine the efforts and strengths of two organizations, Envision and the Saint John Land Bank ("SJLB"), in a manner that best achieves the goals of urban development and affordable housing in Saint John; • Align to the objectives of the National Housing Strategy, as well as the City's Common Council Priorities, to create affordable housing options for families in need, renovate and modernize homes, promote social and economic inclusion and grow the economy; • Address and help overcome in a practical and effective manner the specific challenges faced by this community because of a struggling economy, population decline, and concentration of poverty; • Structure the governance as follows: Oversight by the Program Oversight Committee Integration into the existing governance framework of Envision and SJLB; f Administration and management of the CANF are the responsibility of Envision • Cover all eligible costs approved in accordance with applicable governance and oversight, including as follows: Research Planning & Design ■ Housing market consultant fees for affordable housing research; ■ Property appraisal consulting fees; and 61 ■ Architectural consulting fees for the development of a master plan and/or architectural vision for a target area. Land Acquisition ■ Purchase of land and buildings; ■ Demolition of vacant and dilapidated buildings; ■ Clean-up and landscaping of vacant lots; ■ Structural repairs and clean-up of salvageable vacant buildings; ■ Environmental assessments and building condition reports; ■ Legal fees related to the acquisition of property; and ■ Payment of property tax and utility payment arrears. Carrying Costs ■ Property taxes; ■ Property maintenance, including but not limited to such items as lawn care, snow removal, minor repairs to buildings; and ■ Insurance for property acquired and temporarily held by the SJLB through the CANF. Land Sales ■ Sale prices to be determined by SJLB, with property to be sold at or in some cases below market value; ■ Proceeds shall be recommitted to the Program; ■ Property purchased through the CANF only to be sold for housing development projects, unless otherwise approved in accordance with applicable governance; ■ Projects incorporating affordable or subsidized housing units can be discounted using the Federal Land Initiative Land Value Discount Calculator or other means approved in accordance with applicable governance; ■ Discounts to be available for land sales in "vulnerable neighbourhood" in significantly disinvested communities - as further developed in action plans and other applicable planning documentation and approved in accordance with applicable governance; and ■ Original balance of CMHC's investment to be maintained, as best possible by returning the proceeds of sales to the CANF. Repayment to Rehabitat Inc. Capital Loan ■ One-time eligible expense for the Program for a $50,000 Capital Loan made to the SJLB for the purpose of land assembly for the Victoria Commons Project. • Deliver an annual budget and work plan prepared by SJLB for approval by the Program Oversight Committee in accordance with applicable governance; and 6V • Establish operational and organizational responsibilities aligned to the existing operations of Envision and SJLB and in accordance with applicable governance and policies. 6'i! SCHEDULE "B" PROGRAM OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE The Program Oversight Committee (the "Committee") is intended to: • provide oversight to the Program and meets quarterly for this purpose; approve the development of detailed plans to guide the operations of the Program; and • ensure that the Program is accountable and achieving results. The Committee will be comprised of a CMHC representative, an Envision representative, a cross section of affordable housing and community -based organizations, and both municipal and provincial representatives and/or as otherwise agreed between the Parties. Terms of reference for the Committee will be developed and approved by both the Committee, the City, and CMHC. The proposed composition of the first Committee will be proposed by Envision and reviewed and approved by the City and CMHC. The actual individuals who will sit on the Committee will be selected by Envision, in consultation with the City and CMHC, unless otherwise agreed. D '� r r I l jl COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-238 Report Date July 06, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT. Arena Ice Rental Rates for 2022-2023 Season AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Jen Reed Jacqueline Hamilton I John Collin RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends Common Council: 1. Approve freezing of the 2022-2023 arena ice rental rates, as presented in Table 2 of M&C 2022-238. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Sport and Recreation programming is an important priority for the City of Saint John, which contributes to the City's quality -of -life offerings and broader value - proposition. Common Council approved Recreation Subsidization Policies (Attachment 'A') on December 16, 2019. An incremental approach for the implementation of those policies for arena ice rates was then outlined in M&C Report 2020-188 (Attachment'B') to Common Council on August 4, 2020. Full implementation of the policy was achieved for the 2021-2022 arena ice season. The City is required to set rates each year, and staff is recommending to freeze arena rates for the 2022-2023 season. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION December 16, 2019: RESOLVED that as recommended by the City Manager in the submitted report M&C 2019-332: Recreation Subsidization Policies - Sustainability Item, Common Council endorse the Recreation Subsidization Policies as described in M&C 2019-332. 67� -2- REPORT Background — An Incremental Approach to Recreation Subsidization Policy Common Council approved Recreation Subsidization Policies on December 16, 2019, which brought a new vision for cost recovery in the usage of City -owned recreational facilities. The policies highlight the goal of achieving a new balance between individual user fees and taxpayer investment in the delivery of recreational services, while also reflecting appropriate cost -recovery percentages for various user categories. For example, Play SJ recommends that youth recreational participation should be prioritized; therefore, the Policies indicate only 60% of costs should be recovered for that category of users. The longer -term objective is to offer reliable, consistent, and high -quality recreational facilities to citizens and user groups. The Policies were discussed at a consultation session City staff held on January 16, 2020, with sports facility user groups. Some groups expressed concerns that the resulting rental rates would be unaffordable to their organization and membership. City staff heard those concerns and recommended an incremental approach to implementation over a two-year timeframe. The incremental approach to implementation allowed more time for user groups to adjust to the rates associated with the new policies. A partial implementation of the Recreation Subsidization Policies was reflected in the approved ice rates for the 2020-2021 season and full implementation was achieved in the 2021- 2022 season. After full implementation, the cost recovery targets within the policy need to be maintained. Updating rates each season ensure that consistency in cost recovery as laid out in the Recreation Subsidization Policy is achieved. It should be noted that the City of Saint John continues to support the P.R.O. Kids program, which offers financial support to youth in need. This program aims to ensure all youth in Greater Saint John can participate in positive recreation opportunities, regardless of potential financial barriers. Cost -Recovery Calculation Methodology Hours of ice usage by each user category is a significant input used in the calculation of cost -recovery for the determination of arena ice rates. To provide the best estimate for hours of ice usage and avoid artificially low numbers related to anomalies related to pandemic shutdown periods, last 6'tl -3- seasons' (2021-2022) weekly hours booked were multiplied out by 24 weeks to calculate season totals. It should be noted that tournaments and birthday party bookings were also impacted the last two seasons due to the aforementioned anomalies; therefore, actuals from the 2018-2019 season were used for those inputs. Staff note that the last regular season of ice sport which had no play interruptions was 2018. Since then, the customer groups using the city operated arenas have changed. Leagues and teams have terminated. Staff feel that using the estimated booking stats from 2020-2021 would be most accurate. The overall annual operating costs associated with arena ice have remained stable from 2021 to 2022. Increases in cost -recovery percentages associated with the full implementation of the Recreation Subsidization Policies are largely mitigated by savings from initiatives related to continuous improvement and the City's overall Sustainability Plan. Examples of such initiatives include shift optimization, changes in arena operation hours and cost savings related to wages, as well as the rightsizing of recreation facilities recommended in PlaySJ. It should be noted that the City will still be investing over $1.3 million in operating costs for the three (3) City -operated arenas in 2022: 1. Stewart Hurley Arena 2. Peter Murray Arena 3. Charles Gorman Arena Approximately $700,000.00 is anticipated in revenues from arena ice rentals should the recommended rates be approved by Council. This will result in an anticipated municipal subsidization of approximately $514,000 for the three (3) City -operated arenas. In addition, the City provides the Lord Beaverbrook Rink with approximately $160,000 in annual subsidies. Investment into recreational facilities remains significantly higher than the projected revenues yielded from user fees. Recommended Arena Ice Rates Staff are recommending that the ice rates be frozen from the 2020-2021 season and carried forward to the 2022-2023 season. City staff recognize that the last two ice seasons have been challenging for user groups. During the pandemic leagues and teams have folded. Freezing the arena rates will potentially allow groups the chance to rebound and encourage leagues and teams to reestablish. By freezing the rates, it will give city staff the opportunity to evaluate the 611:3 -4- Recreation Subsidization policy as directed by Council. With the evaluation in 2023 making any changes to the rates may be premature depending on staff's findings after the review. With freezing of rates and using the 2021-2022 booking data staff estimate $54,202.23 in lost revenue by not following the recreation subsidization policy fully. The following table displays the proposed hourly arena ice rates for the ice 2022- 2023 season Table 2: Youth / Approved Ice Schools / Seniors Adults For -Profit Arena es Arena Rat Rates Tournaments (+ HST) (+ HST) (+ HST) (+ HST) Early Morning $115.00 $150.00 $150.00 $293.00 Pre -Prime $120.00 $183.00 $222.00 $293.00 Prime Time $178.00 $192.00 $266.00 $293.00 Post -Prime $122.00 $155.00 $224.00 $293.00 For reference purposes, the following table displays the full implementation of the Recreation Publication Policy for the ice 2022-2023 season (which are not being recommended): Table 3: Full Implementation Youth / Schools / Tournaments (+ HST) Seniors (+ HST) Adults (+ HST) For -Profit (+ HST) Early Morning $115.00 $150.00 $150.00 $319.60 Pre -Prime $120.00 $183.00 $222.00 $319.60 Prime Time $191.76 $223.72 $287.64 $319.60 Post -Prime $122.00 $155.00 $224.00 $319.60 Mitigating Financial Impacts to User Groups Examples of ways user groups can pursue cost -mitigation opportunities include: • Seeking sponsorship - Some user groups already offset a portion of their costs with sponsorship funding. Opportunities to increase sponsorship could and should be explored. 611%] -5- • Increasing registration fees — User groups may increase participation or require their participants to pay higher program registration fees to cover the increased facility rates. Ice Time Allocation and Management Policy Staff reviewed the Ice Time Allocation and Management Policy and are not recommending any changes or updates at this time. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This report aligns with the following Council priorities: Vibrant, Safe City; Valued Service Delivery; and Fiscally Responsible. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES Revenues associated with arena ice rentals are projected to be $700,000 for the 2023-2023 season. The operating budget for City -operated arenas in 2022 is $1,319,299 with the portion attributable specifically to the offering of arena ice being $1,214,679.46. The remainder of that operating budget is attributable to the offering of arena floor rentals. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The City of Saint John Public Works and Transportation Department has provided input for this report. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 'A' — Recreation Subsidization Policies Details Attachment'B' — M&C 2020-188: 2020-2021 Arena Ice Rental Rates, Flash Sales, and Allocation Policy Ais] ATTACHMENT `B' Recreation Subsidization Policies Details Attachment `A" As outlined in W&C 2019-332: Recreation Subsidization Policies - Sustainability Item', December 16, 2019: WHEREAS over -arching principles in development of policy is important, the following are recommended for Parks & Recreation service subsidization, • Subsidize all City taxpayers to a degree because each already pay taxes toward the use of Parks & Recreation facilities, • Ensure consistency in cost recovery between the various facilities, • Employ a commonly used practice of having differential cost recovery targets relative to adults, youth, and seniors, given relative community benefits received, and • Consider taxpayer affordability, particularly in relation to contributing to Sustainability for the years 2021 and 2022. WHEREAS costs to operate and maintain some Parks & Recreation facilities are significantly high and where significant negative impact on demand would result with application of the full cost recovery value; • A modified cost recovery value may be calculated and used in the place of the full cost recovery value; WHEREAS a modified cost recovery value is justified for ball fields and floor use of arenas; • The modified cost recovery value for ball fields and floor use of arenas shall be 50% of full cost recovery, WHEREAS City taxpayer investment in Parks & Recreation Services as described in AppendixA of this report represents approximately 10% of the residential tax base in the City of Saint John; • Generally, an Adult City of Saint John resident shall be subsidized by 10% and pay 90% of the full or modified operating cost when a user fee is applied to a Parks & Recreation Service, WHEREAS Seniors have contributed to the quality of life we now enjoy, may benefit from social interaction opportunities, and may face financial burdens, justifying their greater level of subsidization; AI ATTACHMENT `B' Recreation Subsidization Policies Details • Generally, a Senior (65 years or older) City of Saint John resident shall pay 70% of the full or modified operating cost when a user fee is applied to a Parks & Recreation Service, WHEREAS Youth are our future community leaders where access to recreation opportunities can assist in learning teamwork, confidence, and other important life skills, justifying their greater level of subsidization; • Generally, a Youth City of Saint John resident (18 years or younger) shall pay 60% of the full or modified operating cost when a user fee is applied to a Parks & Recreation Service, WHEREAS education improves employment opportunities, develops a skilled workforce contributing to the economy of the City of Saint John, and educational institutions add to the cultural fabric of our community; • Generally, teams of City of Saint John based schools in the Anglophone and Francophone School Districts, University of New Brunswick, and New Brunswick Community College, where generally more than 75% of participants of teams of said schools are Saint John residents, shall pay 60% of the full or modified operating cost when a user fee is applied to a Parks & Recreation Service, WHEREAS City of Saint John Parks & Recreation facilities can and do host tournaments that draw significant numbers of visitors to the City from significant distances who overnight in City hotels, motels, etc. and/or use City restaurants contributing to our economy; • Generally, tournaments held at City Parks & Recreation venues where more than 20% of the participants are from outside the Greater Saint John Region shall pay 60% of the full or modified operating cost when a user fee is applied to a Parks & Recreation Service, WHEREAS Non -Residents have the opportunity to receive subsidization from their fellow taxpayers toward Parks & Recreation Services they choose to enjoy within the Greater Saint John Region, including within the City of Saint John; • Generally, a Non -Resident shall pay 100% of the full or modified operating cost when a user fee is applied to a Parks & Recreation Service, WHEREAS for -profit businesses that may benefit financially by enjoying subsidized use of City Parks & Recreation facilities; I' ATTACHMENT `B' Recreation Subsidization Policies Details • Generally, for -profit businesses renting space at City Parks & Recreation facilities shall pay 100% of the full or modified operating cost when a user fee is applied to a Parks & Recreation Service, WHEREAS it is recognized third parties may and do operate City of Saint John owned Parks & Recreation facilities where user fees are charged; • Third party operators of City of Saint John owned Parks & Recreation facilities are requested to align with policies described in M&C 2019-332, WHEREAS subsidization of a wider range of Parks & Recreation related activities and infrastructure important to the community that do not necessarily align within defined scope of specific City service areas is justified and needs to be transparent and limited within defined resource levels; • The City's Community Grants Program and Land for Public Purposes Fund shall be the primary sources to provide financial and in -kind support for community recreation initiatives, events, and infrastructure improvements, WHEREAS to reallocate subsidization of some activities that have in the past been subsidized by City service areas that more appropriately align within scope of the Community Grants Program, where there is community benefit in continuing to support these activities; • A $40,000 increase to the Community Grants Program budget shall be considered for the 2020 General Fund Operating Budget by Common Council for the purposes described in M&C 2019-332. W COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2020-188 Report Date July 28, 2020 Meeting Date August 04, 2020 Service Area Transportation and Environment Services His Worship Mayor Don Darling and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: 2020-2021 Arena Ice Rental Rates, Flash Sales, and Allocation Policy OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Tim O'Reilly/Amy McLennan Michael Hugenholtz John Collin RECOMMENDATIONS Your City Manager recommends Common Council: 1. Approve the hourly ice rental rates at the three City -operated arenas starting in October 2020, as proposed in Table 4 of M&C 2020-188. 2. Endorse the implementation of 'Flash Ice Sales' after initial seasonal arena booking requests have been addressed, as outlined in M&C 2020- 188. Approve the updated City of Saint John Ice Time Allocation and Management Policy, as attached to M&C 2020-188. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City staff are recommending Common Council approve arena ice rental rates for the three City -operated arenas for the 2020-2021 arena ice season. As noted in the February 24, 2020 'Summer 2020 Sports Field, Arena Floor, and Tennis Rates' report to Council, an incremental approach is being implemented to achieve targets in line with the Recreation Subsidization Policies approved by Common Council in December 2019. It should also be noted that the additional revenues from these rate increases would contribute to addressing the City's overall deficit and are part of the approved Sustainability Plan. This report also proposes the implementation of 'Flash Ice Sales' after initial seasonal arena booking requests have been addressed in order to maximize A*I -2- overall revenue. In addition, City staff have proposed changes to the City of Saint John Ice Time Allocation and Management Policy; the revised Policy is attached to this report. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION On December 16, 2019, via M&C 2019-332, Common Council approved the following Recreation Subsidization Policies: • 50% Modified Cost Recovery Value for fields and arena floor • 90% Modified Cost Recovery from Adult Residents • 70% Modified Cost Recovery from Senior Residents • 60% Modified Cost Recovery from Youth Residents • 60% Modified Cost Recovery from School Teams from schools based in Saint John • 60% Modified Cost Recovery from Tournaments • 100% Modified Cost Recovery from Non -Residents • 100% Modified Cost Recovery from For -Profit Businesses REPORT Incremental Arena Ice Rental Rates As noted in the February 24, 2020 'Summer 2020 Sports Field, Arena Floor, and Tennis Rates' report to Council, an incremental approach is being implemented to achieve targets in line with Council's Recreation Subsidization Policies. These policies were among the content discussed at meetings City staff held with sports facility user groups on January 16, 2020, and July 22, 2020. Concerns were raised by some of these groups that facility rental fees would be unaffordable to their organization and membership. The goal is to work with user groups in an attempt to maintain their sustainability, while at the same time remaining in line with the policies and achieving the required contributions to the City's 2021 and 2022 projected deficits. Consistent with what was done for the summer sports, City staff are planning a incremental approach for achieving Recreation Subsidization targets relating to arena ice, with full implementation in 2022. This provides more time for user groups to adapt to associated rate increases. Table 1 shows the intended cost recovery targets for the next two ice seasons with full implementation of the policies in season 2: AW -3- TABLE 1: Estimated 2020-2021 Saint John Resident User Recovery Rate Estimated 2021-2022 Saint John Resident User Recovery Rate Youth 54% 60% Seniors 64% 70% Adults 81% 90% Table 2 below indicates the 2019-2020 rates, for reference purposes: Approved 2019-2020 Hourly Rate TABLE 2: (exclusive of HST) Early Morning $79.00 Pre -Prime $90.00 Prime Time Youth Recreational $115.00 Youth Tournament School Hockey Prime Time $186.00 Post -Prime $153.00 Table 3 displays the estimated average hourly arena rental rates at the various Recreation Subsidization cost recovery targets as presented in the 16 December 2019 Council report and presented to user groups in January 2020: Average Future Average Future Average Future Average Future Average hourly value Hourly Rate with Youth Hourly Rate Sen+ors Hourly Adult Hourly Rate 2019 Cost for 2019 Cost Modified 100% Cost with 60% Cost Rate with 70% Cost with 90% Cost Facility Recovery % Recovery % Recovery Value Recovery Value RecoveryValue Recovery Value Arena {Ice 411% $ 151.97 S 310.02 S 186.01 S 217.gl 5 279.02 Table 4 displays City staff's recommended rental rates for 2020-2021, based on the recommended iterative recovery goals: TABLE 4: 2020-2021 Proposed Rates (exclusive of HST) Youth / Schools / Tournaments Seniors Adults For -Profit Early Morning $115.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 Pre -Prime $120.00 $180.00 $222.00 $240.00 Prime Time $176.00 $190.00 $263.00 $289.00 Post -Prime $120.00 $153.00 $222.00 1 $240.00 Managing Costs and Revenues The overall operational costs for City -operated arenas have recently been reduced. This is reflected in the proposed ice rental rates, which translates into reduced costs for all end users and reduced taxpayer subsidization. Two years ago, the 100% cost recovery 'Prime Time' rate was calculated to be approximately $350/hour, compared to $325/hour now. These cost reductions C�� -4- were achieved through various continuous improvement initiatives (e.g., efficiencies in arena staff scheduling), by implementing recommendations suggested by user groups (e.g., stricter cancellation policy), and through the 'Arena Closure' Sustainability item that rightsized the overall supply of arenas. Participant and User Group Opportunities to Mitigate Impact of Rate Increases In addition to the City's efforts to mitigate impact on arena user rates, participants and user groups can take steps. PRO Kids and other organizations are available to families who face financial obstacles to allowing youth to participate in recreational opportunities. User groups are able to seek sponsorship or pursue other fundraising opportunities to mitigate against rising participant registration fees. User Group Feedback A consultation session with all sports user groups was held in January 2020 presenting the approved Recreation Subsidization policies and the predicted impact on user fees. Another consultation session was held with only arena ice user groups on July 22, 2020, to seek input in preparation for this report. Topics discussed included Recreation Subsidization, program options for subsidizing City residents, Ice Allocation Policy updates, proposed Flash Ice Sales, and COVID-19 implications. Key points from the overall discussion that pertain to this particular report were as follows: • Concerns were raised that Saint John could be priced out of the market with regard to hosting tournaments, which are also a major fundraiser for many groups; • Representative from Metro Gents stated that if proposed ice rental rates go through, they will see a reduction in participants and if they do not get at least six teams, they may no longer be able to continue; other groups expressed similar concerns around the potential for a decrease in participants as a result of rates, as well as potential impacts of COVID-19; • Potential of extending the cancellation deadline until two weeks into October was discussed, to allow more flexibility in light of COVID-19 and unpredictable levels of participation; and • Suggestion made to explore two booking timeframes within the winter ice season (pre -Christmas and post -Christmas). It should be noted that overall rates, including those for tournaments, are in alignment with Council -approved Policies. If ice times are not booked specifically for tournaments, it is likely they will be booked for other use, still resulting in the required revenue for the City. AYA -5- City staff contemplated the implementation of two booking timeframes; however, there is a need to determine demand as early on in the season as possible. This will allow the supply of taxpayer subsidized facilities (i.e., hours of operation/ice time) to be adjusted if necessary, in a fiscally responsible manner. User groups felt extending the cancellation deadline would provide them with much needed flexibility, particularly in light of the ongoing pandemic and unpredictable levels of participation in their programs. City staff agree and have proposed to extend the cancellation deadline by four (4) weeks as part of the Ice Allocation and Management Policy changes. Flash Ice Sales Given the City of Saint John's sustainability challenges, maximizing revenues from arena operations is important. It is also recognized that there is a need to balance a "business" approach with the social responsibility of providing affordable recreational opportunities for Saint John residents, with a particular focus on recreation for youth. For that reason, City staff are requesting the ability to offer flash sales of ice time, using an open and transparent process that allows equal opportunity for all. Ice times used for 'Flash Ice Sales' would be the ice times that are left over after the initial allocation of seasonal ice has been completed. These available ice times would be advertised without advance notice, periodically throughout the arena season at staff's discretion. Multiple hours or single -use hours would be advertised at reduced rates. Staff are requesting the flexibility to set sale rates in an effort to maximize ice utilization and revenue. In the event of competition for an ice time, staff would initiate a bidding process to generate the highest rate possible. It is contemplated weekly combined hour offerings would not exceed three weeks at a time in order to mitigate the risk of organizations waiting for the flash sales and then offering instructional, for -profit programs. In the event user groups approach the City for discounted ice time packages, the proposed packages would be offered publicly first to determine if there are any other parties interested in bidding as well. Once a group's proposal is accepted, that particular group would not be able to submit another proposal for the same weekly ice time (or for a similar request) for two weeks. Ice Time Allocation and Management Policy Changes City staff have proposed changes to the City of Saint John Ice Time Allocation and Management Policy. The revised Policy is attached to this report. The more significant proposed changes to the Policy are highlighted as follows: C:�:3 -6- • Youth General divided into 'Not -For -Prof it' and 'For -Prof it' For -Profit focuses on enhanced skills development, with program registration fees set to generate revenue and short-term participants who have historically been primarily non-residents. • Schools moved to the Youth General 'Not -for -Profit' category High school teams are developmental and competitive in nature, associated with the New Brunswick Interscholastic Athletic Association, and are made up primarily of Saint John residents. • Standard of Play adjustments Not including new and emerging groups, adjustments specify that no organization or team will exceed the allotted number of hours from the previous season unless the additional hours are properly justified. The goal is to minimize the risk of groups asking for multiple hours that will monopolize large quantities of ice which could be subsequently cancelled. This will provide City staff with more flexibility in the booking process in order to maximize overall ice utilization and, in turn, overall revenue. • User Cancellations adjustments Seasonal ice request cancellations made by the indicated deadline will not include requests to cancel every second week and sporadic ice times throughout the season. These cancellations generate large amounts of undesirable ice times that are difficult to rent for the season. In addition, the cancellation deadline for the winter ice season will be extended until the last Friday in October. Moving Towards City Taxpayers Subsidizing Only Saint John Resident Arena Users Common Council's approved Recreation Subsidization Policies indicate the need to subsidize only City residents at various levels (depending on whether the City resident participant were a youth, adult, or senior). As discussed previously with Common Council, a challenge remains that the City's financial relationship is with the user groups and not the participants. User groups often including a proportion of both City residents and non-residents with no existing direct financial relationship to subsidize only residents. Implementing a "Saint John only" solution to ensuring only Saint John resident ice sport participants are subsidized by City taxpayers with this challenge in mind can be accomplished with different options such as: • Recreation Cards - non-residents pay an additional fee to bring these participants to 100% cost recovery when subsidized rates to the entire user group is charged (attempted in the 2019-2020 ice season), or C:1%] -7- • Resident Rebate — 100% cost recovery rates are charged to user groups where rebates are issued indirectly back to City residents via the user groups to allow only these participants to be subsidized. The above two methods were discussed at both the January and July 2020 consultation sessions with user groups. It remained clear during these discussions, as has been the case previously, either method creates risks and burdens to both the City and the user groups. A regional collaborative approach, via a cost sharing agreement with our regional neighbours, is the alternative to a "Saint John only" solution that would meet the goal of the City (and our regional partners) of aligning our respective taxpayer subsidization with use of these arena facilities. This solution eliminates some of the risks and burdens to the municipalities and user groups as the new financial relationship shifts to the respective municipalities as opposed to the user groups or individual participants. Although attempts to achieve a regional agreement on recreation facilities have not created tangible results, the Greater Saint John Region has had recent success in achieving regional collaboration relative to an Economic Development framework. Between an opportunity to build on the regional collaborative success with the Economic Development file and the risks and burdens related to a "Saint John only" solution, City staff are recommending to delay implementation of any form of non-resident user fees for one season (the 2020-2021 ice season) only. The 2020-2021 rates being recommended in this report (table 4) are subsidized rates that would be enjoyed by all users, both residents and non-residents. The framework of Saint John's proposed collaborative regional cost sharing model is included in Appendix A of this report, complete with an illustrative example. This does not need to be the final solution as consultation with our regional partners remains important. However, the appended example demonstrates how the goal of aligning contributions by our respective communities can align with regional use of ice arenas. Should a regional approach to cost sharing prove impossible, either just for arenas or more holistically for all services offered by the City to the Region, then the staff will need to return to Council at a later date with recommendations on non-resident user fees for recreation. The elimination of City of Saint John taxpayer subsidies to non-residents remains the ultimate objective but more time is required to find the best possible solution. Delaying implementation of any option by one year will not put the City's overall sustainability plan at risk. An oversupply of arenas in Saint John has been one impediment to reaching a regional arena cost sharing agreement. Common Council's recent decision to close the Hilton Belyea Arena mitigates, in part, this concern. Me] -8- STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The revenue from 'Flash Ice Sales' and the implementation of arena ice rental rates in accordance with the Recreation Subsidization Policies support Council's Priority to be Fiscally Responsible and contributes to the overall Sustainability effort. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES An approximate $56,000 net increase in arena revenues over 2019-2020 budgeted revenues would be expected if Council supports the 2020-2021 rates recommended by staff in this report. This net increase both aligns with an incremental approach of achieveing Council's subsidization policy over two seasons and with Council's approved Sustainability Plan for the years 2021 and 2022. The following should be noted with regard to this projection: • The 2020-2021 season will see a decrease to three (3) arenas, down from four (4) arenas the previous season; • The estimated $44,000 in revenue loss assumed to result from the closure of the Hilton Belyea Arena has been incorporated into this projection (that closure also resulted in a reduction of $199,000 in costs from the operating budget, netting a savings of $155,000); • This projection assumes no change in demand, nor does it assume any impacts on revenue due to COVID-19, which may or may not become a factor; • Any additional revenue that could potentially be realized with the introduction of 'Flash Ice Sales' has not been included; the uptake on that proposed initiative will be revealed in year one. It is estimated a net reduction in revenues of approximately $80,000 will result as a result of not pursuing revenues from non-residents for the 2020-2021 ice season. This reduction is being reflected in the 2020 General Fund Revenue and Operating budget analysis. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS City staff from Parks and Recreation, Finance and Administrative Services, Materials Management, and the Sustainability Team provided input for this report. User Group Consultations 71 -9- City staff continue to maintain dialogue with sports user groups that rent City recreation facilities. Consultations were held most recently on January 16, 2020 (in person), and July 22, 2020 (virtually). The purpose for these sessions were to seek feedback with regard to the Council -approved Recreation Subsidization Policies, including their implementation, and to discuss other Sustainability Initiatives. Various input provided are distributed throughout this report. ATTACHMENTS • Appendix A— Details/Illustrative Example of a Regional Arena Cost Sharing Model • Saint John Ice Time Allocation and Management Policy 2020-2021 • City Staff Presentation -10- Appendix A Details/Illustrative Example of a Potential Regional Arena Cost Sharing Model The City of Saint John, Town of Grand Bay -Westfield, Town of Rothesay, and Town of Quispamsis, hereafter referred to as the municipalities, acknowledge the following 8 arenas are owned and subsidized by our respective municipalities, hereafter referred to as "Regional Arenas": o River Valley Community Centre (Grand -Bay Westfield) o Rothesay Arena (Rothesay) o Quispamsis Memorial Arena (Quispamsis) o QPlex (Quispamsis) o Stewart Hurley Arena (Saint John) o Charles Gorman Arena (Saint John) o Peter Murray Arena (Saint John) o Lord Beaverbrook Rink (Saint John) • The municipalities acknowledge users from our respective jurisdictions and the Local Service Districts (all of the Fundy Region) cross municipal boundaries to use these Regional Arenas • The municipalities agree that each of the Regional Arenas is assumed to have an annual operating deficit of $190,000 paid by our respective taxpayers. The total assumed operating deficit for all 8 arenas would therefore be $1,520,000. • All user groups that arrange more than 5 ice bookings in any Regional Arena over the course of a season (October -March) are considered "Applicable User Groups" • Each of our respective municipalities (or collaboratively between our respective staff) will collect updated user data that includes the number of hours of ice booked by each Applicable User Group and the number of participants within Applicable User Group that come from each municipality, and collective of users from the LSDs. Each municipality then calculates the "person -hours" that their Regional Arena(s) serve from each of these respective municipalities and LSDs (including from their own municipality) • The total and percentage of "person -hours" served from each municipality and the collective of the LSDs at all Regional Arenas is then calculated. The percentage of "person -hours" served multiplied by the total assumed operating deficit of $1,520,000 calculates the amount of deficit each jurisdiction should be contributing based on usage. • The amount of deficit each jurisdiction should be contributing based on usage subtracted from the deficit each is assumed to already pay using the $190,000 figure and number of arenas determines the amount that municipality or LSDs is owed (or owes) under a cost sharing agreement. • Once agreement by the municipalities is reached, the Provincial Department of Environment & Local Government would be approached to secure a solution to funding owed by the LSDs. • It is acknowledged the Four Seasons Arena in St. Martin's would need to be incorporated into this framework at the appropriate time • It is acknowledged this cost sharing model can and should be replicated for other regionally enjoyed recreation facilities. The following table shows how the above cost sharing framework would be operationalized into a cost sharing formula. The "person -hour" figures are simply for illustrative purposes only. In this illustrative example, use by participants in each of the 4 municipalities is slightly below the inventory of Regional Arena assets, with users from LSDs contributing to the remaining demand in each arena causing the LSDs contribution to be divided between each municipality. The actual "person -hours" calculated would determine the ultimate contribution by each municipality and LSD. rig] -11- Person-hoursserved from: Municipalities with arenas GrandBay- Westfield Rothesay Quispamsis Saint John LSOs TOTAL Grand Bay -Westfield 105W 1000 HOOD 11000 10DO 31500 Ruthesay 1000 10000 3000 11000 1500 26.500 Quispamsis 1000 1000 120W 12000 IODO 27OW Saint John 1000 1000 4000 200DO 1500 27500 TOTAL 13500 13000 27000 54000 50W 11Z500 TOTAL% usage 12% 12% 24% 49% 4% 4 of regional arenas Assumed deficit per arena $ Currenttotal assumed deficit $ Total deficit responsibility based on % usage $ Revenues owed under agreement (owe if negative) $ 1 1 2 4 0 19b,000 $ 190,OW $ 190,000 $ "0," $ 19%,OW 190,OW $ 190,OW $ 380,000 $ 760,000 $ - $1,520,000 192,40D.00 $ 175,644.44 $354,800.00 $729,600.00 $ 67,555.56 7,600.00 $ 14,355.56 $ 15,200.00 $ 30,400.00 $ (57,555.56( rAE11 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS: the 102nd Memorial Cup was hosted at TD Station the week of June 20-29, 2022, to determine CHL Supremacy among the participating teams, the Hamilton Bulldogs, the Shawinigan Cataractes, Edmonton Oil Kings, and our home team the Saint John Sea Dogs, WHEREAS: the event showcased not only a hockey tournament but an inclusive event that took over the City and featured: themed street closures; special information sessions on select social challenges, inclusion and diversity; a community ball hockey tournament; fireworks; P.R.O. Kids Watch Party for over 100 local youth; concert stages, and the creation of large- scale public art for the enjoyment of the community for years to come, WHEREAS: the event organizers, sponsors, Executive Members, and host committee relied on over 560 volunteers who gave freely of their time performing volunteer roles that were multi -faceted and fantastic, including the special role Chris Green played as the Memorial Cup's designated "cup keeper" and trophy ambassador travelling around the region for nearly a month - and -a half, WHEREAS: 8 matches were played with attendance of 41,084 reached with 5,136 per match, WHEREAS: Sea Dogs captured the Memorial Cup and in hosting the Memorial Cup in our City brought recognition and joy to the City - NO W THEREFORE: I, Mayor Donna Noade Reardon, of Saint John on behalf of the Common Council proclaim our gratitude and appreciation for the hard work of all individuals who contributed their time and talents during the 2022 Memorial Cup tournament and acknowledge the support of all the City staff and departments who assisted in facilitating the event. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. 75 r� 'The city of saint John PROCLAMATION WHEREAS. we proclaim the 230th anniversary year of the Black Loyalist Exodus on 15 ships to Sierra Leone recognizing that people of African descent have been a part of Canadian society since the early 1600s and that their enslavement occurred on this land for centuries. The Black Loyalists departure is linked to the failure of institutional, political and societal will to fulfill the promises that were made to the communities that left for Sierra Leone departing the harbour of Halifax in 1792. WHEREAS: the conditions and causes that led to the exodus of 1,196 self liberated Black Loyalist were conditions of abject institutionalized racism and that this departure took place at the height of the transatlantic chattel slave trade, one of the cruelest chapters in the history of humanity. WHEREAS. 91792Project is committed to promote histories such as the 15 Ships to Sierra Leone that often have been left in a vacuum of erasure throughout Canada. The resources provided for well known monumentation have historically been funded at the expense of those erasures. WHEREAS. the City of Saint John joins with municipalities across Canada to honour and recognize the significance and impact of the 230th Anniversary and shares this proclamation with the people of Nova Scotia on Emancipation Day, 2022. WHEREAS. the conditions and causes that led to the Exodus of 1,196 self liberated Black Loyalist were conditions of abject institutionalized racism and that this departure took place at the height of the transatlantic chattel slave trade, one of the cruelest chapters in the history of humanity. Recognition of the anniversary strengthens and acknowledges the important role that municipalities continue to play in addressing institutional racism. WHEREAS. the City of Saint John continues to recognize the ongoing significance of the UN Decade of African Descent and the importance of recognizing the history of Black Loyalists in Nova Scotia and throughout Canada. We recognize that rural or urban, from sea to sea we share a responsibility for reparation. NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Donna Noade Reardon, of Saint John do hereby proclaim 2022 as the 230' anniversary — Year of Black Loyalist Exodus: 15 Ships to Sierra Leone #1792Project. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. 76 r� 'The city of saint John PROCLAMATION WHEREAS: the mission of Lifesaving Society Canada is to prevent drowning throughout this great country, and even one drowning in New Brunswick is one too many; and WHEREAS: most drownings are preventable in a Water Smart community, and only through Water Smart education and a healthy respect for the potential danger that any body of water may present can we genuinely enjoy the beauty and recreation opportunities offered by these bodies of water; and WHEREAS: the Lifesaving Society urges Canadians and residents of Saint John to supervise children who are in and around the water, to refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages while participating in aquatic activities, and to always wear a lifejacket when boating; and WHEREAS: the United Nations General Assembly passed the UN Resolution on Drowning Prevention (A/75/L.76) and named July 25"' of each year as World Drowning Prevention Day; and WHEREAS: Lifesaving Society Canada has declared July 17d'-23'd, 2022 National Drowning Prevention Week to focus on the drowning problem and the hundreds of lives that could be saved this year. NOW THEREFORE: I, Mayor Donna Reardon, of Saint John do hereby proclaim the week of July 17 to July 23, 2002 as National Drowning Prevention Week in the City of Saint John and do commend its thoughtful recognition to all citizens of our city. In witness whereof I have set my hand and affixed the official seal of the Mayor of the City of Saint John. 77 COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-233 Report Date July 06, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Application to be removed from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Phil Ouellette Jacqueline Hamilton I John Collin RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends Common Council: 1. Approve the removal of properties situated at 111-119 King Street East from HC-1, the Saint John Conservation Areas By- law. 2. City of Saint John enter into a contractual agreement with J.D. Irving, Limited to secure the proposed public park at 111-119 King Street East as generally in the form of Attachment 4 of M&C 2022-233. 3. Authorize the City Clerk and Mayor Noade Reardon to execute the contractual agreement generally in the form of Attachment 4 of M&C 2022-233. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Saint John has received an application from J.D. Irving, Limited ("JDI") to remove the properties situated at 111-119 King Street East from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area to welcome a new playground on the site. JDI intends to build and maintain the park, at their expense, for a minimum of 20 years. As a first step, this application was reviewed by City staff and a recommendation was submitted and reviewed by the Heritage Development Board. While staff requested denial of JDI's proposal through the Heritage Development Board on the exclusive grounds of heritage considerations, staff acknowledge that Common Council is the entity which holds the broader authority to evaluate the various public benefits in this proposal. This report highlights the adjustments the applicant has made to their proposal since the Heritage Development Board meeting, which includes a mechanism to rE:3 -2- secure the proposed park, clarity on the duration the park will be maintained, an updated conceptual rendering, and greater heritage integration in the park design. Staff highlight a total of five criteria to arrive to the recommendation to approve JDI's application. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION n/a REPORT Background In March 2022, J.D. Irving Limited ("JDI" or "the applicant") submitted a request for the removal of the heritage designation on the title of the properties located at 111-119 King Street East ("King SE") in the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area (this report will refer to "King SE-HCA" and "HCA" on broader reference to the Heritage Conservation Area). The properties are known as PIDs 00016337, 00016345 and 00016352. This request, if approved, requires a site - specific by-law amendment, which requires a public hearing process through Common Council. JDI's application indicates that the proposed by-law amendment will facilitate the demolition of the existing building located at 111- 119 King SE and will allow for the redevelopment of site into a community play park. The applicant has chosen not to proceed through the by-law process for demolition, as they would like to maintain ownership over the property. Instead, the applicant is seeking the removal of the heritage designation as means to demolish the existing structure. At a special meeting on June 15, 2022, the request was presented to the Heritage Development Board ("HDB") for their consideration and to provide a recommendation on the request to Common Council. Staff prepared a report summarizing the application and assessed the request based on neighborhood context, architectural integrity, assessment of applicant's rationale for removal, precedent for removal, alignment with municipal plans and policies, and the public benefit of heritage conservation within the City. Based on the information presented and the criteria used by the HDB to assess the request, HDB approved the staff recommendation, which was: "That the Heritage Development Board not recommend the removal of a property situated at 111-119 King Street East from HC-1, the Saint John Conservation Areas By- law." r51%] -3- The June 101h staff report to HDB is attached to this report (see Attachment 5) to offer additional details on the scope and rationale of that recommendation. The June 101h report offers important insight on the merits of JDI's application within the confines of the heritage program, and it is important to note that the July 111h Council report does not attempt to revisit or rebut the analysis completed for the HDB. While this report arrives at a different conclusion, staff remains in agreement with the heritage analysis from the staff report from June 101h, 2022, with the acknowledgement that the mandates of the HDB and Council are different. Details of Proposed New Park The proposed park is to be located on the three lots identified as 111-119 King SE. The renderings outlining the park design, available in the attachments, remain conceptual, and will undergo more detailed design in the event Council approves the applicant's proposal. The proposed park will include a children's playpark, benches, interpretive boards, seating options, with views onto King Street East and the Loyalist Burial Grounds. The park is expected to integrate landscaping, including grass, trees and/or shrubs and some barrier -free parking spots for visitors of the park. The park is expected to be surrounded by a decorative metal fence and the eastern portion will feature a solid retaining wall to separate the property from the adjacent neighbor. In addition, a retaining wall is proposed along the flankage and rear property lines to provide structural support. Decision Before Council The decision before Council on the applicant's request to have their properties at 111-119 King SE removed from the King SE-HCA and replaced with a public park is a unique circumstance that requires some unpacking prior to sharing staff analysis. The HDB receives its authority through the provincial Heritage Conservation Act and the municipal Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law. The Act defines the duties and powers of a HDB, which includes in article 53(3)(d) the responsibility to "advise the council on municipal heritage resource management, heritage policies and any other heritage conservation matters." HDB holds a critical role in supporting municipal decision -making, including recommendation submitted to Common Council. In turn, HDB also supports the preservation and promotion of an important public benefit, which is the City's heritage program. For the purposes of this report, staff feel it is important to define public benefit within this context. A public benefit is an available and/or accessible benefit that impacts the public -at -large. This differs from a benefit that impacts one or a small group of residents. When thinking of public benefit from a municipal government perspective, the most tangible examples are those public benefits that a municipality already delivers to its residents, such as: events, arenas, parks, police E:ii] -4- force, transit, community centers, etc. Some of these public benefits are essential, while others contribute to a municipality's broader value proposition and the quality -of -life of its residents. HDB has received a small number of requests from landowners to be removed from a HCA over the past years, and HDB, supported by staff analysis and recommendations, review the merits of such requests through HDB's mandate. This mandate narrows HDB's analysis to the duties and powers outlined in the Act and By -Law, as HDB is not expected to render decisions that evaluate the weight of the public benefit of the heritage program versus other public benefits that fall outside of the mandate of HDB. All past requests received by the City by landowners to be removed from a HCA did not contemplate a new or separate tangible public benefit (as defined earlier in this report) as an outcome of the removal. HDB has received nine requests for removal since 2013, and the rationale for such requests included, among others: dissatisfaction with the Heritage Conservation Areas By-law and the heritage program, inability of the previous Heritage By-law to facilitate the proposed infill development, location within a non-contiguous HCA, collective lack of participation in the heritage program, loss of character -defining elements and factors external to the City (including insurance costs). Five of the requests were successful, including the dissolution of the King Street West HCA. As there were few factors outside of heritage in these past requests, there was no need to complete additional analysis prior to the HDB recommendation arriving to Council. The report to Council on 111-119 King SE is unique as HDB was not expected to evaluate the public benefit of the proposed new park. Staff chose to be transparent with the sequencing, and while the public benefit of the park was not a consideration in the decision rendered by HDB, the information was included in the staff report to HDB to clarify that additional considerations are at play in the decision -making process. The report to Council on 111-119 King SE acknowledges that staff recommended, and HDB adopted, denial of JDI's request during the June 101h HDB meeting on the exclusive grounds of the heritage program. This information is important context for the decision before Common Council, however, the decision before Common Council now requires a more fulsome evaluation of all public benefits. While there are many factors that Council should consider in rendering its decision on the request from the applicant, staff believe a central objective is to identify a balance E:1iI -5- between various public benefits, including the preservation of the City's heritage program and the new park proposed by the applicant. Finally, the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law, like all municipal by-laws, is Council's to adopt, adjust and/or reaffirm. As Council is aware from past decisions, by-laws are expected to be amended and adjusted over time and according to needs arising from the community. In this case, to help guide Council in the decision on 111-119 King SE: 1. HDB has adopted a recommendation supported by a staff analysis. 2. Staff has completed additional analysis and recommendations for Council (this report). 3. A public hearing will be facilitated on July 111h, 2022. Progress since Heritage Board Meeting In the spirit of transparency, staff acknowledged in the June 101h HDB report that with additional clarity, confirmation, and response from the applicant, the tangibility and weight placed on the proposed park could influence staff's comfort with the proposal: "While it would be premature to define the outcome of a staff recommendation [to Common Council on the request from JDI to have 111-119 King Street East removed from the Heritage Conservation Area] in the event the applicant was to (1) clarifythe duration of the park; (2) clarify the mechanism to secure the public benefit; and (3) integrate greater heritage facets to the park design, staff do believe that these improvements will yield a more favorable assessment of the proposed new public benefit as it relates to this application and will invite a reconsideration of the existing recommendation outlined in this report." Since the June 101h, 2022, HDB meeting, staff has connected on various occasions with the applicant, who has shown a determination to respond to the three conditions outlined in the previous HDB report. The applicant has submitted an update to the proposal it has previously submitted to HDB to reflect adjustments and improvements they have made to their initial application (see Attachment3), including: 1. The applicant has committed to entering into a contractual agreement with the City of Saint John to secure the public benefit of a park at the location of 111-119 King SE. The applicant and City staff have come to -6- general agreement on the contract which can be found in Attachment 4 of this report. 2. All costs associated with site preparation, purchasing and installation of equipment, monitoring and maintenance of the park will be the responsibility of the applicant for a minimum period of 20 years. 3. The park will include greater history and heritage integration, with the installation of interactive storyboards. 4. The applicant expects the park to be completed no later than September 1st, 2023. 5. The updated conceptual design of the park (see Attachment 3) includes the integration of gates on the eastern portion of the site, new barrier - free parking for park visitors and a gate separating the parking area from the garage located at to the north of the site. With these commitments, which will be secured through a legally binding contract between both parties, staff can now comfortably proceed with an evaluation of this request. Evaluating Request from the Applicant Staff has identified five criteria in the evaluation of the applicant's request. It is through the analysis of these criteria that staff can build a recommendation to support Council in its decision -making. A. Integrity of the Heritage Program A central consideration before Council is whether the decision to approve the application to remove 111-119 King SE from the King SE-HCA would damage the reputation and strength of the City's heritage program. While other criteria reviewed in this report will define the public benefit of the proposed park, this first criterion will seek to evaluate whether this new park could be at the expense of the public benefit of the heritage program. The June 10th HDB report did identify the risk of "demolition by neglect." The heritage program would be compromised if the City was not able to combat a broad trend of existing heritage landowners to neglect their properties to the extent that the existing heritage buildings would be deemed dangerous and require demolition. If the City's HCAs were depleted of heritage building stock, this would hinder the City's broader value proposition as it relates to its heritage character. E:ic3 -7- For a variety of reasons, staff do not feel there is significant risk to the heritage program if the City was to approve the applicant's request. Staff arrived at this conclusion due to the following two reasons: 1. The City has never received a request from a property owner to be removed from a HCA for the purposes of inviting a new publicly accessible park, built and maintained at the owner's expense. As mentioned previously, the rationale for most past requests to be removed from a HCA were related to issues with the Heritage By-law, non-contiguous heritage conservation areas and external factors outside the control of the City. From a financial sustainability and maximizing the impact of taxpayer revenues to the City of Saint John, the City should invite and investigate any opportunity to leverage third party funding to support new or enhanced public benefit to residents. The City has a long history of engaging on such financial opportunities, albeit outside of the heritage program, including Emera field, Irving Oil Field House, Irving Nature Park, the upgrades to the King Square bandstand, among many others. In the event Council adopts the staff recommendation from this report, while also acknowledging the considerations raised in the June 101h HDB report and the decision of the HDB, staff do not believe it will compromise the integrity of the City's heritage program. Such a decision will set a new precedent; however, one that is restricted to instances where an existing heritage property owner is seeking removal for the purposes of reimagining their property for the benefit of new public benefit, covered at their expense (up -front and maintenance). Staff do not believe there are many heritage homeowners seeking such a rationale for their removal from a HCA. For those heritage property owners who are seeking removal from a HCA without a commitment for a new public benefit, there is past precedent for such requests (as detailed previously in this report), with varying degrees of success. Staff do acknowledge that in the event there were many applications to be removed for a HCA for the purposes of installing and maintaining new public benefits for the community, mitigating efforts would be investigated to prevent the large-scale reduction in heritage properties within the HCAs. Staff intend to monitor this trend and take action if required. E:i! -8- 2. While acknowledging that existing heritage homeowners, especially from the King SE HCA, may look at the applicant's requests unfavorably due to a variety of reasons, staff do not believe the removal of this property from the King SE-HCA will significantly impact the broader interest in heritage homeownership and participation in the City's heritage program. The real estate market in Saint John has seen increases in unit sales and increases to sale prices. When comparing the median sale price of single detached homes between the first quarter of 2021 and the first quarter of 2022, the sale price increased from $219,450 to $275,000, an increase of 38.6%.1 Based on information available through Service New Brunswick, twenty- one properties2 within the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area have been sold since 2009. All these properties saw a sale price increase of $24,400 to $379'0003 from the previous known purchase price. All indications are that there is strong and growing market demand for properties found in the City's HCAs. Heritage properties for sale today are selling more quickly and at higher prices than ever before. The City's Heritage Grants, which offers small grants to heritage homeowners seeking to complete renovations on their properties has been fully committed each year over the past several years. On average, heritage homeowners are reinvesting into their properties, working through the heritage development approval process, and seeking funding through the heritage grants. B. Integrating of heritage and history into design of park The updated design for the new park at 111-119 King SE contemplates the installation of interactive panels commemorating the following: (1) The Great Fire of 1877 and (2) The former Presbyterian Church and one of the world's oldest YMCAs. In addition, the applicant has proposed that the other panels could explore other topics through community feedback, including Indigenous history and Black Loyalist and settlements in Willow Grove (see Attachment 3 for additional details). There is a public benefit to a new park, and staff believe there is added value in instituting heritage and historical recognition into the park to link the updated space to its previous inclusion in the King SE-HCA (in the event Council adopts the staff recommendation). To clarify, it is not staff's belief that the inclusion of the ' Saint John Real Estate Board Residential Activity. 2022. Saint John Residential Activity_I CREA Statistics Excluded from this statistic are apartment style condominium units. 3 SNB Property Assessment Online. July 7, 2022. SNB Property Assessment Online - 01635248 E-111 -9- proposed interactive panels replaces the heritage value of the existing home on the property. However, when evaluating the applicant's proposal and balancing the various public benefits at play, the decision to include heritage recognition within the park design is a valuable addition. C. Quality of Park Design As part of the staff analysis of the applicant's proposal, staff has reviewed the preliminary specification and quality of the proposed park. The City of Saint John follows approved Canadian Standards Association ("CSA") standards for playground inspection, and holds expertise in designing, procuring, installing, and maintaining playgrounds. With the information provided in the applicant's proposal, the play structure is similar in design as ones the City has designed in the past or will design in the future. It is the intention of the applicant to install a park consistent with the City's standards, including those of CSA. In the existing renderings of the proposed park, staff did receive some clarification from the applicant on two aspects of the design: 1. The applicant intends to install a soft surface underneath the playground equipment for the safety of those who use it. 2. The roadway access beside the park will be used for a small number of barrier -free parking spots for those visiting the park and to facilitate maintenance to the park. It is worth noting that JDI has a legacy of investing, developing, and maintaining park space in Saint John. Staff note that JDI's stewardship towards parks is illustrated through the company's commitment to structure and landscape design, maintenance and ensuring a quality experience for users. Parks owned and operated by JDI in Saint John include: Irving Nature Park, Irving Children's Forest, Wolastoq Park, Sheldon's Point and Loyalist Burial Grounds. In addition, JDI has also invested heavily in parks outside of those mentioned above, including the recent contribution to the phase one development of the Dominion Park Master Plan. This commitment is significant, and the Saint John community, the region and countless visitors enjoy and benefit from these parks throughout the year. D. Play SJ, Growth, and the Proposed New Park According to the City's Recreation Master Plan — Play SJ, "playgrounds are spaces designed for children's active play and are an important part of healthy schools and communities." One of the most discussed deliverables from Play SJ is the importance of right -sizing the City's recreational assets, as the City faces challenges with the quantity of assets and their quality. In this context, Play SJ's E:11.1 -10- right-sizing is referring to the City's owned and operated recreational facilities, including playgrounds, due to the "City's fiscal capacity to support proper design, maintenance, repair, improvements and replacement." Right -sizing does not only require the City to rely solely on decommissioning older parks, as Play SJ recommends it also enables the City to "explore alternatives to the direct municipal management of and responsibility for parks and recreational assets." The proposal to develop a public park at 111-119 King SE, built and maintained at the property owner's expense, falls in line with the intended vision of Play SJ, as it would offer new recreational assets to Saint John residents at no additional cost to the City. In addition, the location of 111-119 King SE is important when evaluating the merits of the proposed park. The proposed location of the park falls within Plan SJ's primary development and intensification areas, which suggests that the area is ripe for continued growth and densification. With this densification, the City will need to keep pace with its delivery of park, recreation and quality -of -life offerings to the residents and businesses who chose to locate in this area of the City. This aligns with Play SJ, which seeks to "locate facilities and parks to help build communities and implement the guiding principles of smart growth." The proposed playground would also complement the park and recreation assets within this dense area of the City. While King Square and the Loyalist Burial Grounds are in proximity of 111-119 King SE, they offer more passive park space, without playground equipment. This addition of a playground near the City's urban core, would be expected to benefit residents, businesses, arts and cultural programming, and the broader visitor experience. The applicant's commitment to maintain the park for twenty years is also an important consideration to evaluate. Through discussions with the applicant, there are too many risks and unknowns associated with maintaining the park in perpetuity. As highlighted in the Service and Financial Outcomes section of this report, staff outline the projected cost to install the park and the annual operating investment from the applicant to support its maintenance. Staff believe the total investment of the applicant towards the park is substantial. E. Outcome of Denial The building at 111-119 King SE is currently ranked at midway through the list of the over 100 properties in the City's Vacant Buildings Program. Based on the assessment undertaken by Dillon Consulting, forming part of the applicant's EMA -11- submission to HDB, depending on the maintenance and monitoring of the building by the owners, it would likely be at least five years before the building would become a focus of the program. As a municipality, we acknowledge that there are a variety of reasons that can influence a property owner's participation in the heritage program, which is why there is process for heritage property owners to seek removal from a HCA. The City is currently investigating the opportunity to expand its building enforcement programming, which may include developing a mechanism to require mandatory exterior upgrades to buildings if determined to be unsightly. This investigation remains at a very preliminary phase and invites a variety of challenges for the City as well as property owners, including the potential of lengthy and costly appeals and legal action on all parties. In the event the City was to proceed with such a program, it would be the first of its kind in New Brunswick. The investigation of the potential and viability of this program is expected to be completed by late 2022. Securing the Public Benefit As mentioned previously, the applicant has agreed to secure the public benefit through an agreement with the City outlining the commitment to a future park at 111-119 King SE. City staff and the applicant have come to an agreement on the language in the contract (see Attachment 4), subject to Council's approval. This draft agreement provides for the establishment and the maintenance of the park for a period of 20 years. The agreement requires that the applicant proceed to park construction with reasonable diligence and that it must be in accordance with the plan designs attached thereto. The agreement also clarifies that the applicant expects the park to be completed on or before September 1, 2023. Further, by virtue of the agreement, the applicant commits to consulting with the City and providing the City with the opportunity to consider remediation, in a situation where vandalism, drug use, crime, or any other similar activity, have become an undue burden on the maintenance of the park. Only after consultation would the applicant be able to reduce the 20-year obligation to maintain the park. The traditional legal remedies for breach of contract would be available to the City in the event the applicant does not comply with the obligations set out in the agreement. Summary and Recommendation While the City should strive to make investments and decisions to maximize the public benefit to its residents, oftentimes there is competition between various public benefits when making such decisions. In the case of the request to have E:1:3 -12- 111-119 King SE removed from the King SE-HCA, staff's evaluation concludes that the City is well -served to approve the applicant's request. As outlined in this report, an approval of the applicant's request would not create a dangerous precedent for property owners seeking to be removed from the HCA, as this new precedent is restricted to instances where an existing heritage property owner is seeking removal for the purposes of reimagining their property for the benefit of new public benefit, covered at their expense. In addition to the protection of the heritage program, staff's evaluation of the applicant's request through the lenses of park design, alignment with growth and recreation objectives and the City's ability to secure the proposed public benefit, all point to a favorable outcome for the City. In other words, a balance can be found in the public benefit of the heritage program and the public benefit of the proposed park with a decision to approve the applicant's request. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The City's heritage program, private sector partnership, and the introduction of new park space supports four of the key categories of Council Priorities 2021- 2026, including: • Green —The proposed future use of the properties invites additional green space for public use, including the creative re -use of an existing building monitored by the Vacant and Dangerous Buildings Program. • Grow —The inclusion of a new playground in close proximity to the urban core of the City will contribute to the City's value proposition for residents and visitors. • Belong —Through new or expanded parks and quality -of -life offerings, the City expands on opportunities for residents to build meaningful relationships with the landscape and residents in our beautiful community. • Perform — The City's ability to leverage third -party partnership to deliver new park space in Saint John illustrates the City's ability to deliver new public benefit to residents without the added costs on the City's budgets typically associated such an undertaking. SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES From an assessment of the design, equipment, demolition among other costs to install the proposed park, staff believe the total cost of the park would likely require an up -front investment of approximately $500,000 to $1 million. However, with the rising cost of materials, these projections could be much higher. This is in addition to the annual maintenance of the park, landscaping, liability insurance, equipment renewal, among other operational requirements, which will be the responsibility of the applicant for a minimum of 20 years. E-lue -13- The 2022 property assessment for 111-119 King SE, which contains an existing multiple unit building, was $259,100. This results in a total of $7,032.24 in annual revenue to the City of Saint John. In the event Council adopts the staff recommendation found in this report, the assessment for these properties will change, but the new privately owned park (accessible to the public) will be assessed for property taxation, which will also be expected to yield some property tax revenue for the City of Saint John. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS Input was received from City Staff in Growth and Community Services, Public Works and Transportation, General Counsel, and the City Manager's Office. ATTACHMENTS 1. By -Law Amendment Document 2. Staff Presentation: Council Recommendation on 111-119 King Street East Application 3. Updated conceptual design from J.D. Irving, Limited (including interpretive signage) 4. Draft Contract Agreement between J.D. Irving, Limited and the City of Saint John to secure the proposed public park at 111-119 King Street East 5. June 101h, 2022 Heritage Development Board Report and Attachments for 111-119 King Street East 0I91 BY-LAW NUMBER HC-1- A LAW TO AMEND THE SAINTJOHN HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREAS BY-LAW ARRETE No HC-1-_ ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE SUR LES SECTEURS DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in Common Lors d'une reunion du conseil communal, The City of Council convened, as follows: Saint John a decrete ce qui suit: The Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law, enacted on the twenty-third day of September, A.D. 2019, is amended by: 1 Amending paragraph 2(1)(f) by adding immediately preceding "as illustrated on Schedule 'F' which forms part of this By -Law, is hereby established as the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area.": "and excluding the properties at civic address 111-119 King Street East" 2 Amending Schedule "F", King Street East Heritage Conservation Area, by removing from the heritage conservation area a parcel of land having an area of approximately 1483 square metres, including buildings and structures thereon, located at 111-119 King Street East, also identified as being PID No. 00016337, 00016345 and 00016352 and by adding to the written description immediately following "properties facing King Street East" and immediately preceding "bounded on the south": "and excluding the properties at civic addresses 111- 119 King St East" 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: L'arrete sur les secteurs de conservation du patrimoine de Saint John, decrete le vingt-trois septembre 2019, est modifie par: 1 Modification de la paragraphe 2(1)(f) en ajoutant immediatement avant « tel qu'illustre a I'annexe F » qui fait partie du present reglement, est par Ies presentes etablie comme le secteur de conservation du patrimoine de la rue King Est. » mais a 1'exclusion des proprietes aux adresses voirie 111-119, rue King est » 2 Modification de I'annexe « F », secteur de conservation du patrimoine de la rue King Est, en retirant de la secteur de conservation du patrimoine une parcelle de terrain d'une superficie d'environ 1 483 metres carres, y compris Ies batiments et Ies structures qui s'y trouvent, situee au 111-119, rue King Est egalement identifiees comme etant Ies NID 00016337, 00016345 et 00016352 et en ajoutant a la description immediatement apres « Ies proprietes faisant face a la rue King Est » et immediatement avant « delimitees au sud » : «mais a 1'exclusion des proprietes aux adresses voirie 111-119, rue King est » EN FOI DE QUOI, La Ville de Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete le 2021, avec Ies signatures suivantes : Mayor/Maire City Clerk/G�fier municipal First Reading - Premiere lecture - Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture - Third Reading - Troisieme lecture - Oy roe �Courten Schedule "F" King Street East Heritage Conservation Area Includes the buildings, structures and lands on both side of King Street East bounded on the west by Sydney Street, bounded on the east of Courtney Bay, bounded on the north by the rear property line of all properties facing King Street East, and excluding the properties at civic addresses 111-119 King St East bounded on the south by the rear property line of all properties facing onto King Street East, and by all corner properties which are facing onto Sydney Street, Carmarthen Street, Wentworth Street, Pitt Street and Crown Street with a side fagade facing onto King Street East. 019] COU NO Annexe « F » - Secteur de conservation du patrimolne de la rue King Est Comprend les bdtiments, les constructions et les terrains donnant sur les deux cotes de la rue King Est, delimites a Pest par la baie Courtenay, a l'ouest, par la rue Sydney, au nord, par la limite arriere de tous les terrains donnant sur la rue King Est, mais a 1'exclusion du bien sis a 1'adresses de voirie 111-119, rue King est, au sud, par la limite arriere detous les terrains donnant sur la rue King Est et par tous les bdtiments dangle des rues Sydney, Carmarthen, Wentworth, Pitt et Crown dont la fagade laterale donne sur la rue King Est. OL! k 10 0 • 0 CL 0 L a a V Iq n, W `'MM L C/) O � O N — O LO n O (1) �cy) r*--- QL � � T- O O L- Q- � � O O �: T- O O O -0 O m --�, 7�i w I 11 0) .QL U a LL 0) N U) T U A, .C: N a) a) L- Q L- N 4-0 0) �U N LL -0--+ C: cu -6 -0 0-0 'cn a) cn cn cn O O U U cn O L C;) O _ a cu cu cnE L— cn L m -0 410 L cu CU O 'F U N m O C: Q cn a)U cn -r- O N cu c N � N Q � Q N U E �U N cr .E Z) cm -0--+ a) Ca) G L MO W a) E 0- 0 a) a) 0 O CD O L O L Q a) a) IZ- a) IZ- O N N U QL m O O 70 N E E 0 N C) cn Lr- a) a) U Q .C: O A, u .C: I O A, u 9 O � � � O bA cn Q O � 22 ca i I cr • �t (D • r ® f Ali • IVLU 11.•y 70P ��a. w�EE my '"9 c'SWca 8,y rt'I F u_�..A mi non �w w cmaa e o z za W oW 1 = Lli W J � t w H W W u W 1 LL o Icn L � z c 0 tu D`cu = .40 Oa ^� a cy V p O am 0 am s 1-0 L. 0 0 v MWI •f4 � CS QY � LL �M E a�� .� i Lo 5, • • .-W t Q) 4� 0 a) 73 ccl E E LU W Lu C7 (!7 2 H r.. TT Tr L LLB lom cl 2 Q ED L -0 W } u -C +J F4a � Z ��--y4 �y �`--y4 oy ��{�y } �F- ( cm 4-.. [—] ICI Z U) S7 M Q) {� _ o_ 0 tllW V wF� V�-fzJ i 7 Lu n L �� V 1 r (s3 ) c j, LL 4 JCL LLJ z L O 07 o' _ c Lu , <Z U. cn rr E E —0 -Nc C p 4� aCL w 1 d) m CD G J- Q Ct] Q m � c1i < 4 O C CDu p [ O zi S3 C 07 � in co CD O L� — Llw CU — W Z tn } W e t C: cn O L .E a) O N � L O O Ocn � CD� O O U O N U') U 6c.� C: I m � -Se L- N c � Q O O � .O M M C O L � 4-0 � � N O Q O U O n w (� Q a) o a) U O a) a-c/) a 0 C: � c) U � QL O M Q� N N +c: N � U L Q Q O M `~ Q O IM-r C: C: .O m C/) U C 'U N cu a)U - CU CD CU O Q � I co 2m ��� o0 4-0 m N 'a cu a) c: E Q C: O O �� N > L U Q � N O O.� . a) � �cn � � C� L ��j �� o Z o aN U O L � N = C 0 N N c � }' Q co > CD O �O � O O.�N �N UQ N �a)U o.C� cao�'o -0EcO �w O CUN � N� L- .c a) a)U � L o L � a) °� a) m co O —0 2 v F -0 Fu � a) o ) _ ca E o�� a)E wo�Q o � �� O}, C J N a) 4-0 N m U .0 0 W O � � a) L �-0 � � Q O .� — Q () � U . a) Q� .0� cr) x N�� a) all 9= _ t[ #r w yk it v'f V) m U (B .L QJ � V) } b ^V, c V) Q) O O tao L Q O t Q) a--+ QJ t O +, O O O U } QJ m U Q) O 4-1 l7Z C6 (n m h�h^^ ,, tao .7) ) Ln � M M U 4 -' L QJ O 4 } M Ln m m r-I ° L o-0 Qm -C � CY) 4-1 O O V O � O L.- 0 a Ln ca L Lna� _ m m Q ° w 4-j 4-j 4-j Q) M L Q N O �_ O C V) U V) �2 (1) � 4 c O o O O U_ V) t V t L Q) p Q t L t �U 3 u33 3:2'^m ENn »?E �;�•^q �� �c 3cEq�aW a �2 of=�..E �u_�..Ad=3� sddQAaaoe z O Ln LLI W W W J H H u z W LL ra O L 4-J 0 N Y O rm i U QJ U QJ Q) 'nL, W N�p v V \W V Q) U _0 ro _� QJ I COE CO U 4A z L aJ � O ++ U p Q1 bD 0 .� O Q) L U 0 (7 +-j L (6 O N 'L m U p '> L 0 i V)O -0 0 E QJ Z3 }' O Q Q1N E +, � Z3 O N � c. z N �3E � Q Q U f0 Q N L Rlrr^ ,r j _ avmsv=d�o� - g � c E a c_ a e y c ;Qiivcv�t„9-0�tgE g- as � ca O L 4-J 0 N � Y O .� U 2E U / W L 0 Q O X or_ 41 Q) Q) U _0 CL6 U aO+ z� W Z cn " U Z CSC a z o " � Ii �1 W Q >` Q 1I/ Z Q O W N CO N N W N 0� zo 0 4 _ LL u= CO CO N U t 0 S? 4� y 0 0 N z CL-0 * o U I COE V N _O Q X _0 V) =3 +) O N V O CL U O � — cn 0 � CL � A� V — _0 N O Ln Q O O Q � C6 — ate--+ cn V .DL O a-J O O � O U_ 0 0 a`n THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made in duplicate as of the day of July 2022. BY AND BETWEEN: J.D. IRVING, LIMITED, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of New Brunswick, hereinafter called the "OWNER" OF THE FIRST PART —and— THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, 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 Owner is the owner of the lands known as 111-119 King Street East (PIDs 00016337, 00016345 and 0016352) in Saint John, New Brunswick (the "Lands"); WHEREAS Owner requested that the Lands be removed from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area (the "Lands Removal") so that the building on the Lands may be replaced with a publicly accessible children's playground and historical park, to be constructed by the Owner at its own expense (the "Park Development"); and WHEREAS the City has, at a meeting of its Common Council held Idatel, approved the Lands Removal, including upon the terms and conditions set out below. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY AGREED AND WITNESSED that the parties, for and in consideration of the City granting approval to the Owner for the Lands Removal, as well as other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, agree as follows: 1. The Owner will proceed with reasonable diligence to apply for a permit to demolish the building on the Lands and to proceed with the Park Development, which the owner expects to be completed on or before September 1, 2023. The Owner shall complete the Park Development Ii§F:3 -2- generally in accordance with the renderings attached as Schedule A, or as otherwise may be agreed to between the City and the Owner. 2. The Owner agrees to maintain the Park Development, at its own expense, for a period of not less than 20 years (the "Maintenance Period"). 3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, and subject to the following sentence, the Maintenance Period may be reduced if the Park Development is no longer providing a public benefit to the community or has become an undue burden due to vandalism, drug use, crime, or any other similar activity; or as may otherwise be agreed to between the City and the Owner. Provided the Owner has acted reasonably and consults with the City and gives the City the opportunity to provide any input on possible remediation, the Owner shall have the authority to reduce the Maintenance Period in their sole discretion. 4. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their successors and assigns respectively. 5. This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes and replaces all previous discussions, negotiations and agreements. [Signature page follows.] Iifi�7 -3- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed by the properly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED) in the presence of: ) J.D. IRVING, LIMITED Per: Per: and THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN Mayor Common Clerk Common Council Resolution: , 2022 `Wel REQUEST FOR REMOVAL I JDI LIMITED OF DESIGNATION 111-119 KING STREET EAST 22-0159 (PID 00016337, 0016345 & 0016352) Date 2022-06-10 To: Heritage Development Board From: Growth and Community Services Prepared by: Melissa Wakefield/Morgan Lanigan Approved by: Jennifer Kirchner SUBJECT Application to remove the property at 111-119 King Street East from designation under HC-1 Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is an application for a site -specific amendment to remove designation under the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law. The subject property features a Colonial Revival style building which was constructed on a corner lot circa 1941. The age of the building separates it from the predominately Victoria era construction of the surrounding buildings. The applicant has suggested an alternative use for the site which would involve the development of a park for public use. DISCUSSION This is an application to remove a property situated at 111-119 King Street East from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area by way of a site -specific amendment to the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law. OVERVIEW The applicant, J.D. Irving Limited (JDI), submitted a request for the removal of the heritage designation on title of the properties located at 111-119 King Street East in the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area in March 2022. The application indicates that the proposed By-law amendment will facilitate the demolition of the existing building located at 111 King Street East and will allow for the redevelopment of site into a community play park. The applicant's request is unique in this case as most prior requests for the removal of properties from the Heritage Conservation Areas By-law have either been undertaken with the intention to maintain the existing structure or to facilitate the redevelopment of the site with a new building. In this situation, the applicant is proposing on replacing the existing residential building with a publicly accessible community park. Because the applicant wishes to retain the properties, they have chosen not to proceed through the bylaw -recommended process for demolition and instead are seeking the removal of the heritage fr P.O. Box 1971 C.P. 1971 Saint John, NB Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4L1 Canada E2L 4L1 SAINT JOHN Page 1 of 17 www."John.ca 1 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 designation. This invites an important policy consideration in terms of which scenario provides the stronger public benefit: is it by retaining the heritage architecture or is it through the creation of a privately maintained but publicly accessible park space? Applications for the removal of designation are weighed on their own merit. Previous applications for de - designation do not generally provide reliable precedents as the circumstances of each building in each Heritage Conservation Area are unique. Staff's analysis for both the designation of new buildings and the maintenance of existing designations rests on an analysis of the public benefits achieved by the regulation of development and the provision of subsidies, with a view to retain significant architectural integrity. The following analysis will delve into the details of this key question to make recommendations to both the Heritage Development Board and Common Council to assist them in exercising their due diligence and statutory powers. It should be acknowledged that rendering a decision on this matter require various lenses, some of which fall within the authority of the Heritage Development Board while others fall with Common Council. The Heritage Development Board's mandate is to consider requests based on a heritage lens, including alignment with the Heritage Conservation Areas By-law. Common Council are also expected to render decisions through a heritage lens but are also expected to render decisions based on a more holistic consideration of an application, including the consideration of the public benefit. KING STREET EAST HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREA AND THE BROADER NEIGHBOURHOOD The properties are located within the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area which was created in 2007 by Common Council. This conservation area was created to recognize the importance of the area and to highlight the role it plays in illustrating the architectural history of Saint John. The Great Fire of 1877 fortunately only razed three blocks of King Street East on the south side from the Courthouse to Pitt Street. Because King Street East is one of the widest streets in the Central Peninsula it became a barrier to the destruction and prevented further destruction. Other factors that may have limited the fire include the nearby location of the Fire House, Hook & Ladder Company, and the focus on saving the Courthouse and St. John Presbyterian Church. Subsequently, several of the buildings on the street pre -date 1877. The buildings on King Street East are primarily from the Victorian Era and the large majority fit into one of three styles: Italianate, Second Empire, and Queen Anne. The general alignment of the building faces on the street are a great attribute to the harmony of the streetscape, despite differences in design, materials, and style. Much of the construction on King Street East was the result of being a relatively affluent area of the city and the home to former mayors and top business owners such as the McAvity family. Aside from one general store, Irving Oil's new parking garage, Loyalist Burial Grounds, the old Saint John Courthouse, the street consists solely of residential buildings. Of the three properties under consideration by this process, one historic building remains on the site, the Paikowsky Residence. Buildings previously located on the remaining parcels of land have been previously demolished, creating the existing gap in an otherwise continuous heritage streetscape. ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY AND HERITAGE VALUE The Paikowsky Residence was constructed in 1941, much later than most examples within the Heritage Conservation Area. Despite this, the building presents a distinct and historic style, known as Colonial Page 2 of 17 122 2 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 Revival. This style of building was popular between the years of 1880 and 1960 and it is believed that nearly 40% of new homes built during this period were of the Colonial Revival style. Generally, the Colonial Revival style took certain design elements - front fagade symmetry, front entrance fanlights and sidelights, pedimented doorways, porches and dormers - and applied them to larger scale buildings. These colonial era details could be combined in a great variety of ways, creating many subtypes within this style. In the 1940s and 1950s a more simplified version of the Colonial Revival style became popular for homes, usually featuring a two -storey building, a side -gabled or hipped roof, classically inspired door surrounds and windows, shutters and dormers.' According to the Historic Places Registry, the character -defining elements of this Colonial Revival building include: • The historic corner upon which it stands • Its hipped roof • Symmetrical fagade • Window placement and proportions • Multi -paned double -hung windows • Wood shutters • A transom window above the door • Fan -shaped pediment over the entrance • Dentils in the pediment All the character -defining elements of its fagade are still intact. Consequently, given the limited domestic residential construction during the early years of the Second World War, the Paikowsky Residence represents a rare, intact, and quintessential example of this unique simplified Colonial Revival style in Saint John. The residence was built on the site of the former St. John Presbyterian Church which had been built in the early 1840s and was later the site of the world's first YMCA in the same building. Of the few photographs of the church on record, one can easily see the similarities with the Paikowsky residence in its overall massing and symmetry. This is important to note not only to demonstrate the similarities in the buildings but to illustrate the size and scale of the urban design that has been present on this site for nearly 200 years. In the second photograph showing the intact and original surroundings of the church (top centre), its importance in framing the corner and edges of the Loyalist Burial Grounds are clearly visible, as is its full occupancy of the site. These are important aspects of good urban design and will be touched upon later in the report. 1 http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/colonial-revival.html Page 3 of 17 123 3 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 From the by-law, Heritage Value means the aesthetic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past, present, or future generations. The heritage value of a historic place is embodied in its character -defining materials, forms, design, location, spatial configurations, uses and cultural associations or meanings. Individual structures on a street each contribute to the heritage value of the conservation area. The buildings within these areas form the cohesive historic streetscape. The building at 111-113 King Street East has its own history and is part of the King Street East story. This 1940s structure has a different heritage value to its Victorian neighbors on the street. In 2016, the applicant had applied to demolish the Paikowsky Residence through the process outlined in the Heritage Conservation Areas Bylaw. This request was based on an argument that the structure did not contribute to the heritage value of the conservation area. This request was refused by the Heritage Development Board (HDB), who felt that the building was compatible and contributes to the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area. This building's history, which includes the location, the context of WWII when it was constructed, and its architectural style, is part of the narrative and the evolution of the streetscape. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada is the primary source for the Standards for Restoration included in the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law. The National Standards have established a comprehensive approach to the interpretation and understanding of a historic place: "The broad range of buildings that are considered historic varies from modest to monumental, ancient to recent, and private to public. Buildings in a heritage district may not be formally recognized individually, but may be recognized as contributing to the larger historic place. There is no typical historic building. Each is valued for its own reasons and faces its own challenges." The setting of a historic place can be as important as the structure itself. In this case, the building has co- existed within the historic streetscape for almost 75 years, which is the same length of time that the Page 4 of 17 124 4 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 former Church was active on the same site (1843-1917). This building sits at the north-west corner of the residential boulevard, the bookend to the historic King Street East. The building has not lost any character -defining elements. There is potential for this building to be restored like we have seen with other rehabilitated heritage properties in this city. Urban corner lots that are built to the street help define the streetscape and pedestrian corridors by creating a strong street - wall. A building on a corner, in contrast to an open space, is important for the fabric of urban areas, especially historic streets since urban density is one of its defining characteristics. APPLICANT SUBMISSION As noted in the application, a publicly accessible park is proposed to replace the existing residential building. As noted by the applicant, "...recent work [to construct a parking garage serving our head office and incorporate part of Elliott Row into it] has certainly improved the streetscape of the area and we would like to ensure the surrounding area, including the nearby section of King Street East, is aligned with this development." As a result of desired retainment of property, the applicant has chosen not to proceed through the bylaw process for demolition and instead are seeking the removal of the heritage designation as means to demolish the existing structure. In support of their request, an application dated March 17th, 2022, was received by staff outlining the rationale for their request for removal of the property from the King Street East Conservation Area. The submission, which is included as an attachment, includes a summary of the request from the applicant (Christopher MacDonald on behalf of J.D. Irving Limited), a building condition overview and history, historical/contextual analysis of the Paikowsky Residence relative to it's value to the King Street East streetscape provided by Nadeau Soucy Ellis Architects and Architects 4 (A4), documentation of the proposed park design, and a planning and policy analysis of the proposed design by Dillon Consulting. Per the submission, the basis for their request for removal of the property from the Conservation Area is founded upon three primary arguments. The first of which being: the condition of the property is beyond feasible repair. As illustrated through the applicant supplied images of the building's interior, considerable moisture damage and mould is present. This issue affects much of the interior finishes and renders the building inhabitable. The property has been vacant since 2016, having been decommissioned from use on the basis it was no longer safe for human occupation. It is understood, per a building condition assessment completed by Dillon Consulting, that in addition to mould present, other hazardous materials such as PCB's have also been found within the building. The second argument for removal is based upon the building having no contributing value to the King Street East historical streetscape. Per consultant analysis included in the applicant's submission, due to the year of construction relative to the remainder of the block, its differing architectural style and deterioration of the adjacent street wall along the north side of King Street East, the Paikowsky Residency is not compatible with the remainder of the streetscape and therefore of no heritage value. As indicated in the application overview above, the applicant intends to rehabilitate the site for the purpose of creating a children's playground and historical park. The conceptual design presented in the Page 5 of 17 125 5 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 applicant's submission indicates the park will feature a playground structure surrounded by public benching and landscaped predominately via hardscaping. The Park is to be enclosed via fencing with the eastern edge of the park site providing additional access to the applicant owned parking garage structure that sits directly north of the site. As a result of significant grade changes along the Carmarthen Street edge of the property, a retaining structure is also proposed. Considering the condition of the property and lack of heritage value (as presented in the submission), the applicant argues rehabilitation of the site as a park is a benefit to the neighbourhood. Consultant analysis of the proposed park project provided in Appendix 4 of the submission posits "demolition and removal is a benefit to public safety and provides an opportunity to add a publicly accessible amenity in an area underserved by recreational infrastructure." STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE RATIONALE PROVIDED IN THE APPLICANT SUBMISSION There are no disagreements that the applicants' efforts to redevelop and maintain their adjacent properties have changed the area for the better. Considering the property's adjacency to these sites, retainment of the property by the applicant is a logical desire. The arguments put forward by the applicant, and supporting analysis provided by their consultants do however require further detailed review and discussion. Looking at the first primary argument in support of de -designation noted above — "the condition of the property is beyond feasible repair" — the property faces significant challenges because of its present condition. As noted, though the property is not presently listed on the City of Saint John's dangerous buildings inventory, it is also not suitable for inhabitation and significant renovations would be required to return the building to a habitable state. The structural integrity of the building is unclear. As wood construction, the structure is better suited to withstand the effects of moisture damage over time, however the extent of moisture damage could not be fully appreciated without destructive investigation and/or moisture analysis of its structural members. Structural integrity aside, and not withstanding cost implications associated with this work, remediation of mould, moisture damaged finishes and other hazardous materials present, is not out of the realm of possibility. Wood construction is well recognized for its plasticity — that is, it is easily modified, mended and augmented compared to other structural systems. With respect to public safety concerns created as a result of the hipped roof noted by the report provided by Architect 4, it is important to note there are no known documented incidents of ice and snow causing safety concerns over the building's 75-year life span. While public safety is of the utmost importance, the conditions are easily rectified by various means, such as ice melt cables, ice break spikes, snow fences and seasonal signage. Considering the applicant's second argument for removal — "the building having no contributing value to the King Street East historical streetscape" — requires deeper analysis of its architectural style and examination of its contextual relevance to the neighbourhood. The applicant submission asserts - "... the Brown House does not add value to the King Street East streetscape (separated by two vacant lots) and does not fit the some architectural period or style of the dominant streetscape and therefore is of little heritage significance ... [T]he hip roof [and height] of the 'Brown' house is out of context with the period architecture of the predominant Page 6 of 17 126 6 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 streetscape.... [T]he 'Brown' house ... does not fit the some architectural period of style of the dominant streetscape, and the site has a more significant 'history' with conveying and presenting to the public [via a heritage park]." Dominance of one or two architectural styles in a streetscape does not invalidate the heritage value of other styles that may differ, and which highlight the evolution of a streetscape. Likewise, the heritage value of a property is not measured by the standards of another building style rather it should be measured against the standards of its own style and merits. This building style is the simplified Colonial Revival, which would, by its very nature, preclude much of the decoration and ornamentation that might be assessed as lacking. The presence of vacant lots on a streetscape does not invalidate another building's heritage significance but it does change the surrounding context. This can sometimes be of benefit if the vacant lots serve to highlight a significant historic building, or the vacant lots exist as a representation of loss through a tragic event. In this instance, the presence of vacant lots does impact the block face and impacts the cohesive nature of the area. While it does not invalidate the streetscape or the heritage value of the area, it does impact the form and function of the area. The Heritage By-law has an established framework for addressing these gaps through the creation of infill development which are informed by the adjacent buildings. These projects can reconstruct and re-establish the missing built form. The Paikowsky Residence itself aside, broader contextual review of the historical King Street East streetscape and neighbourhood by the applicants' consultants rightly suggests there are two streetscapes (park and urban) that work together to define the block. Per the consultants' example - "... King Street East has two (2) streetscapes: an urban streetscape and a park streetscape. ... Central Park in New York City is a perfect example ... The park on one side, and the buildings on the other.... [t]he proposed playground and historical park ... provides an excellent transition from urban streetscape to park streetscape...' The success of Central Park in New York City, however, is precisely because of the black and white interpretation of the urban fabric: one side is exclusively park, the other exclusively urban. Therefore, no transition exists in the Central Park example, rather the contrast is stark: a park framed by buildings on all sides. Following this line of reasoning, introduction of a park on the subject parcels would require design considerations to continue to provide adequate framing to the Loyalist Burial Grounds. Design of the proposed park indicate a design connection with their office tower and adjacent parking garage. However, the perceived beauty in the existing streetscape is the variety of the individual buildings, their textures and details. That being said, architectural juxtaposition is well regarded as an appropriate tool to create distinction between old and new. The heritage bylaws for heritage infill development supports this strategy when appropriate as it serves to enhance the aesthetic value of heritage buildings. It is important to note the same heritage bylaws for infill development requires design review of proposed materiality and massing, form, etc. with the intent to ensure design excellence within the heritage fabric of the City. If the request were to be approved, it is recommended that the design for the park incorporate elements and design choices that will better connect the space to the existing streetscape. Page 7 of 17 127 7 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 STAFF ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC PLACES IN CANADA The Canadian Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places (the Standards) opens with the following statement: "The broad range of buildings... are considered historic varies from modest to monumental, ancient to recent, and private to public. Buildings in a heritage district... may not be formally recognized individually, but may be recognized as contributing to the larger historic place. There is no typical historic building. Each is valued for its own reasons..." This generally aligns with the approach that the City of Saint John has taken with respect to preserving its built heritage; creating a series of heritage conservation areas to recognize the larger historic aspects of neighbourhoods. Within those contiguous areas are a variety of buildings: those of stunning historical significance, others of minimal significance, buildings from various eras and styles, and buildings of no significance whatsoever or stripped of their character defining elements. It also covers vacant lands and establishes a set of standards of criteria for infill development and redevelopment of historic buildings. The Canadian Register of Historic places defines a heritage district as "a place comprising a group of buildings, structures, landscapes... and their spatial relationships where built forms are often the major defining features and where the collective identity has heritage value for a community." As noted by the Standards and Guidelines, the "setting" or context contributes to the significance of a cultural landscape as it helps explain its origins, subsequent development and evolution over time. The setting includes visible boundaries (natural and/or manmade) that surround the site and beyond and includes more modern interventions on the setting as well. The ideal benefit of conversation areas as a means of heritage conservation is, according to the Standards and Guidelines, occurs at the macro scale. The applicant and their consultants have, for the most part, focused on the merits of the Paikowsky Residency alone. The conservation of historic places is a public benefit and the City has recognized the value this benefit provides to its residents and its contribution to our understanding of the City's history. Though built for and by the residents of the City themselves, the historic charm of the City is invariably a key component for the attraction of visitors and new residents. Consequently, the Standards do not contemplate the demolition of historic structures that have been deemed to have historical significance by a municipality. Naturally, land use can evolve over time. The Standards and Guidelines acknowledge this fact stating "...when a required change in land use demands changes to the physical form of the landscape, it is important to carefully assess the viability of the proposed changes to avoid consecutive land use changes that might gradually erode the heritage value of the historic place." The "historic corner upon which it stands" is identified in the Historic Places Register as one of the site's character -defining elements. For over 200 years, these parcels have been occupied by buildings occupying the full site. The proposed change of use of this site to a park is a substantial change to the cultural Page 8 of 17 128 8 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 landscape and must, as recommended by the Standards, be closely assessed to avoid the gradual erosion of the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area. Further still, should the decision be made to allow the proposed park to be developed, the Standards include a robust section on heritage landscapes. Though focused on maintaining existing landscapes, the ideals and spirit of these guidelines warrant consideration in the park's design. SAINT JOHN HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREAS BY-LAW Section 9 of the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas Bylaw (the Bylaw) permits the demolition of buildings in designated heritage conservation areas in accordance with several requirements. As noted above, in 2016 the applicant had attempted to demolish the building through the process outlined in a previous version of the City's Heritage By-law. Remaining consistent across revisions, however, is the requirement to list the building for sale for a period of 12 months at a reasonable price and to accept reasonable offers within 10% of that price. Only if no sale has occurred under these terms may the HDB issue a demolition permit. The applicant has indicated their desire to retain the properties due to their connection to the neighbouring headquarters. As such, the prescribed process would not support their desire to retain the properties. It is important to note that the construction of a park is permitted by right according to the City's Zoning Bylaw and, likewise, that the Heritage Bylaw would support and could facilitate the construction of a park. The only element standing in the way of the applicant moving forward with the development of a park is the demolition of the Paikowsky Residence. PROGRAM PARTICIPATION A review of property records indicate that the applicant has been the owner of 111 King Street East since at least 1996, 115 King Street East since 2003, and 119 King Street East since 2016. The applicant has not demonstrated an attempt to conserve the buildings or to participate in the City's Heritage Conservation Program. Few records indicate participation relating to maintenance and conservation under the purview of the Heritage Development Board or application for any grants designed to aid historic building owners of the unique challenges of maintaining these buildings. The removal of the former King Street West Heritage Conservation Area was undertaken due to similar lack of participation. PRECEDENTS FOR REMOVAL Since the introduction of heritage conservation to Saint John in the 1980's, there have been few successfully de -designated heritage properties. These successful removals are largely located on Bentley Street and King Street West. Although each removal was based on its own merits, these exceptions were typically granted on the basis that the given property was not part of a contiguous heritage conservation area. To provide some context, when the Douglas Avenue Heritage Conservation Area was undergoing formation, building owners at the time were individually given the option to opt in or out of heritage protections. This created an incomplete heritage streetscape and an inconsistent approach to building maintenance. While these conditions contributed to the successful removal of properties in this neighbourhood, each request was examined in detail by staff and deliberated upon by the Heritage Development Board solely on their own merits and against the applicable heritage by-law of the time. Page 9 of 17 129 9 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 Successfully de -designated properties along the Douglas Avenue Conservation Area include 249 Douglas Avenue and 12-14 Bentley Street. In the case of 249 Douglas Avenue, the applicant applied for demolition of the existing house to make way for a contemporary single-family home to be designed to suit the constraints of the heritage bylaws and its infill standards of the time in 2016. As noted by the staff report at the time — "The building at 249 Douglas Avenue is among many simple working class homes on the street.... The age and massing of this building classifies it as Vernacular style.... It is a middle building of the block cluster and is not considered a landmark." With respect to this this application it is worth noting the applicant's initial request did not include a request for removal from the Douglas Avenue Conservation Area. This request came only after the proposed infill design was denied by the HDB. Following this decision, the applicant put the property up for sale, followed by an application for removal from the Douglas Avenue Conservation Area. Per the applicants' request, they no longer intended to build on the property themselves, and attempts to sell the designated property were unsuccessful. As a spot designated property within a cluster of vernacular construction lacking architectural merit, maintaining a heritage designation was deemed to be a barrier to its sale and ultimately the request for removal was successful. In the case of the former King Street West Heritage Conservation Area, the heritage protections of the entire conservation area were eventually removed in recognition of the poor state of the character - definition elements of most buildings and collective lack of participation in the Heritage Program. Removal of a few key properties, namely St. George's Anglican Church, from the conversation area had lasting impact on the integrity of the heritage area. In addition to the precedents mentioned above, in 2017 there was a successful request to remove three PIDs (which housed surface parking) from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area. The application was made to facilitate the redevelopment of the lots, along with 3 adjacent lots located outside the Conservation Area, into a parkade for Irving Oil Ltd. The rationale for the positive recommendation by both staff and the HDB of the request included: • The lack of sufficient built context to make reference to in the design of the parkade. Page 10 of 17 130 10 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 The shortfalls of the Heritage Bylaw (predecessor to the current bylaw) which lacked the flexibility to support the proposed development. The inability of the Board, due to legislative standards, to vary from the established design standards. When considering this application against previously successful requests for removal it is important re- iterate the architectural value of the Paikowsky Residence as an example of the Colonial Revival Style both to the neighbourhood and when viewed as a stand-alone property. The building is also noted for having its character -defining elements intact. Two other requests for removal from the Heritage Conservation Areas within the Central Peninsula in recent months were denied by both the Heritage Development Board and Council including the requests 191 Princess Street in 2021 and 66 Sydney Street in 2022. PRECENDENTS FOR REHABILITATION It is worth noting there is precedent of buildings that have been successfully rehabilitated. This indicated that there was a successful business case for these projects. Inside the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area and diagonally opposite the Paikowsky Residence, 180-182 King Street East saw the demolition and reconstruction of parts of the deteriorated rear ells to restore the multi -unit residential building. All its Victorian era details remain intact, and it is a strong contributor to the cultural landscape and street face of King Street East. IMPACT OF A SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION ON THE HERITAGE PROGRAM In addition to past precedents, it is important to examine what the removal of heritage designation resulting in the demolition of the Paikowsky Residence would set in terms of new precedents. First, this particular block of King Street East already contains a gap -tooth appearance with several vacant mid -block parcels and is impacted by a non-contiguous streetscape. Despite this, they all retain their heritage designation and should infill developments ever be proposed for those sites, the heritage designation ensures a specific design standard is maintained. Without this protection, it cannot be determined if an infill development would be compatible with the surrounding built form. Second, and of the greatest concern would be establishing a precedent supporting the concept of demolition by neglect by supporting the removal of properties from heritage conservation areas due to Page 11 of 17 131 11 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 limited maintenance and upkeep. The City has placed considerable effort to work with property owners to rehabilitate vacant and dangerous buildings and to recognize and celebration the diverse heritage properties throughout the City. By approving this request, it could enable other property owners to follow suite in order to achieve the demolition of a building, which does not contemplate a new public benefit as proposed with this applicant. It is worth noting, however, the uniqueness of the applicant's ask in this case. The City has never received an application from a heritage property owner looking to remove its designation for the purposes of developing and maintaining a new and accessible public benefit fully financed by the applicant. The majority of applications received by the City for a property to be removed from a heritage conservation area are associated with the cost of building maintenance, concerns with issues outside City control (e.g. insurance costs), and limitations of the heritage bylaw. Staff does not anticipate that many applications in the future will originate from heritage property owners looking to transform their property to a publicly accessible park at their own cost. In essence, this request is unique as they are asking to replace one public benefit — conservation of our built heritage — for another public benefit — a public park. Common Council and the HDB are left to debate which benefit is in the City's best interest. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Part of this exercise requires the consideration of a number of other items outside of strictly heritage components. While the Heritage Development Board focuses on the alignment of the request to the Heritage Conservation Areas By-law and the Standards and Guidelines, Common Council has the responsibility to assess all applications through a broader lens including alignment with other City Policies and a broader assessment of the public benefit of the existing building and of the proposed park space. PLANS.I As noted by PlanSJ (the City's Municipal Plan), there are an estimated 6,000 heritage buildings within the City, 770 of which are currently designated and protected in Heritage Conservation Areas. The policies defined by Section 11.9 Built Heritage are clear in their intent to support, promote, protect and enhance our built heritage through vehicles such as the Heritage Bylaw. These policies are the framework through which Council is empowered to uphold broader goals and objectives of both PlanSJ and the Central Peninsula Secondary Plan. The policies relating to built heritage has several review metrics also defined by PlanSJ under Section 11.10. Most notable of those as they relate to this application: the number and value of properties in Heritage Conservation Areas and the number of Certificates of Appropriateness issued relative to the number of buildings designated. In short, the number of properly maintained, designated properties within our conservation areas are how we should measure the success of PlanSJ, and our heritage development program. Considering the application through the lens alone, the removal of 111-119 King Street East from the Conservation Area would not align with the goals of the Plan. CENTRAL PENINSULA SECONDARY PLAN The Central Peninsula Secondary Plan (CPSP) acts as a strategic guiding document for decisions related to development in the Central Peninsula. As the name suggests, the Secondary Plan is incorporated into PlanSJ and implemented in the same manner; through the application of policy and regulations found in the City's Zoning By -Law, Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law, and Subdivision By -Law. To that end, under the Secondary Plan, the built heritage of the central peninsula, is identified as a key asset. Page 12 of 17 132 12 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 Moreover, the value of built heritage is engrained in the vision for the Central Peninsula defined by the Plan. "...[8]oasting world class Heritage buildings, the community appreciates the past while forging an inspired path into the future with exemplary new architecture..." As such, the role of heritage to the big picture growth and objectives for each of the Peninsula's unique neighbourhoods is made clear throughout the plan. Per Part 3 Building and Design, the Secondary Plan states — "The Uptown and South End Neighbourhoods are strongly defined by their Heritage assets that provide a distinct sense of place. Direction is provided for infill development within the Heritage Conservation Areas to ensure it is responsive to the vision of the Secondary Plan while respecting heritage values...." The Building and Design chapter of the Secondary Plan is intended to guide the shape, pattern, height, and configuration of a given development within the Central Peninsula in conjunction with other applicable plans and bylaws such as the Heritage Bylaw. The objectives of Sections 3.4 Streetwall, 3.7 Heritage Infill and 3.8 Urban Design and Public Realm Design Guidelines are of particular importance to this application and speak directly in support of the concerns highlighted elsewhere in this report. The value of corners and continuous street walls in urban design cannot be understated. They help to define pedestrian routes, frame key civic elements, such as parks and monuments, and create key intersections for people to collide and interact, fostering great liveable neighbourhoods. PlanSJ and the CPSP speak at length about these elements. Per Section 3.4, the Secondary Plan notes "The street wall is an important feature of dense urban environments. It is created through the orientation and placement of front building facades on or close to the street boundary, thereby defining the character of the public realm and creating enclosure for pedestrians." With this in mind, it is important to assess whether the replacement of the existing building with a public park can continue to reinforce the principles mentioned above and the needed boundary separating the Loyalist Burial Ground and the broader neighbourhood. Depending on the final design of the park, there is potential for the site to continue to provide this separation. This would not, however, be through the traditional mechanism of a building but would need to be created through thoughtful landscaping and design. This could be undertaken through the use of fencing, landscaping and other mechanisms. Section 3.7 Heritage Infill of the Central Peninsula Secondary Plan and Items BD-14 to BD-16 of PlanSJ support well considered and thoughtfully designed development that enhance the heritage character of our neighbourhoods. This is further supported under Section 3.8, per BD-17 making new development subject to the Central Peninsula Urban Design and Public Realm Guidelines which promotes design excellence in our built environment. Should the request for removal from the King Street East Conservation Area be successful, the proposed park design warrants review against the Design and Public Realm Guidelines and other design objectives and criteria mandated by PlanSJ and the Secondary Plan to find optimal alignment between the objectives of both the applicant and the City. Page 13 of 17 133 13 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 PLAYSJ The City's recreation master plan identifies parks and open spaces to be valuable in offering quality of life to its residents. Of its primary goals, having park space within 0.8km of a residence is considered a key quality of life indicator and a key component of a highly walkable neighbourhood. A cursory overview of the area within 0.8km of the subject parcels shows that it is well served by parks and includes, to name but a few: • Loyalist Burial Grounds • King's Square • Chown Field • The Boys and Girls Club Play Park • The Garden Street Old General Hospital Dome Park • Harbour Passage • Queen's Square • Rainbow Park There is no shortage of park amenities within a short distance of the subject parcels, however, it can be acknowledged that there is no children playpark in the immediate vicinity of the commercial core of Saint John. It should also be noted that the prioritization of new and old park and recreation assets tend to be heavily influenced by the availability of municipal resources to support such spaces, which in this case, the applicant retains all construction, maintenance, and liability costs and rids the City of these responsibilities. Depending on the design and functionality of the park, it could provide an experience that is unique and different from the above -mentioned spaces. This is particularly notable given that King's Square and the Loyalist Burial Ground provide more passive uses, as opposed to a park with traditional playground equipment. PUBLIC SAFETY Though the building has not yet been declared structurally unsound by the City, a vacant and poorly maintained building in itself poses a public safety risk. Examples could include arson in the extreme or a falling shutter striking a pedestrian. It should be noted that these public safety examples are also possible in occupied buildings, but the chances are exponentially smaller when the buildings are occupied. Should the HDB and Common Council elect to deny the applicant's request to remove the heritage designation and demolition of the Paikowsky House, the future safety of the building must be considered. The applicant has stated in their application that if their application is denied, they will permit the building to decay until it either falls down or is torn down by the City under the Vacant and Dangerous Buildings Program. While the applicant has indicated an interest in rehabilitating the site, it is envisioned through the removal of the building and the reuse of the site. Should the building be demolished at a later date by the City, the applicant has stated that "the site will remain vacant and undeveloped." This scenario would result in the site remaining vacant for an undetermined period of time and would not include the creation of a public park which would serve as a public benefit. Page 14 of 17 134 14 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 PUBLIC BENEFIT Though the request of the applicant is specifically to remove the heritage designation of the subject parcels, the ultimate question, as mentioned above, is determining which public benefit is in the best interest of the City: retention of the Paikowsky House and adjacent parcels within the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area or through the creation of a publicly accessible park which would provide quality of life enhancement for King Street East and area residents? Is the proposed park a public benefit? Described above, the King Street East neighbourhood is well served by parks, trails, and greenspaces. Within an easily walkable distance, there are no less than 8 park amenities to choose from, including 2 children's playgrounds. Undoubtedly the park would be a feature that would be used by residents and visitors, despite the area not being considered underserved. Immediately adjacent to the site are King's Square and the Loyalist Burial Grounds which abound with monuments and history of the City. Though presently closed, the New Brunswick Museum is also within walking distance of the site. The heritage component of the proposed park is less defined; without more detail it is difficult to judge its unique value. If the park were to be developed, it would be critical for the design to be updated to reflect the heritage of the area including the use of more appropriate building materials, colour selection, traditional plantings and connection to a broader component of the area or City's history. A more sensitive and thoughtful design could create a space that is reflective and embrace's the City's history and story. Is a proposed park the highest and best use for the subject site? The properties in question are zoned Urban Centre Residential and would permit a variety of residential uses. From a land use planning standpoint, the continued use of the site for multi -unit residential development (whether including the existing residential structure or through a new infill development) would be the most compatible with the surrounding area and would align with many of the considerations of the Municipal Plan and the Central Peninsula Secondary Plan. Multi -unit residential development would be one of the best uses of the site and would draw additional residents into the Uptown Core. However, it should be noted that the consideration of recreational or cultural uses cannot be adequately discussed through this lens. The considerations to develop spaces such as parks more align with less quantifiable concepts such as quality of life and cannot be fairly assessed in comparison to other types of land uses. Is removal of the heritage designations in the public benefit? As outlined earlier in the report, a park can be built on parcels located in heritage conservation areas without the removal of the designation. In fact, retention of the designation may serve to influence and improve the overall design of the park to be contextual and compatible to its surroundings. Although, it should be noted that this scenario would require the applicant to undertake the process outlined in the Heritage By-law in order to receive permission for the demolition of the structure. The present design of the park, as outlined in the applicant's submission, does not appear to be rooted in its heritage context nor does it integrate strong historic linkages to the site. The applicant has indicated their willingness to work with City Staff to design a more suitable site that better aligns with the fabric of the heritage area. It is recommended that if the request is successful, that the applicant work with City Staff to finalize a park design that is reflective of neighbourhood context and the heritage value of the Page 15 of 17 135 15 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 area. This may include the use of heritage appropriate materials, colour selection, the use of historic or local plantings, and other methods to incorporate a heritage narrative into the space. ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM APPLICANT As part of the application process, staff posed a series of questions to the applicant with the intent to gain additional insight on the proposal as it relates to analysis required in preparation of this report. Based on feedback provided by applicant at the time of the writing of this report - • The applicant does not intend to rezone the site to a compatible park zone to reflect the proposed use of the site as a park and restrict as -of -right development opportunities in the future, • it remains unclear the willingness on the part of the applicant to agree to conditions for the development of the site as a park, and • they have not confirmed any intent to maintain the park for a prescribed period of time. Consequently, it is unclear what guarantees for the community exist. At this time, it is uncertain whether the applicant will follow through with detailed design and construction of the proposed park after the Paikowsky Residence is demolished should their request for removal be successful. Based on public benefit as the rationale for removal from the conservation area, the public benefit can only be examined relative to the proposed design included in the applicant submission. If there is no park, then there would be no public benefit. Moreover, removal of the heritage designation from the subject sites would render future opportunities for the HDB to scrutinize proposed development obsolete. Maintaining designation of these properties facilitates a unique public design review process involving a heritage lens. This process intends to support design excellence and provide assurances to the community. By maintaining designations, any proposed development would be subject to the infill standards laid out by the Heritage Bylaw and subject to further review by the HDB in addition to any other required planning approvals. While engagement on proposed development via public hearings can be a challenging prospect to an applicant, a public park for the recreational use of the King Street East neighbourhood is an arguably an appropriate project to carry through such a process. Of potentially greatest concern to staff, is the lack of clarity surrounding the future of the proposed park. The applicant was unable to confirm a minimum period of time for which they would maintain the properties as a public park space. It should be noted that the applicant currently maintains publicly accessible recreational uses on their private lands, such as the Irving Nature Park, which have provided public benefit to the community. Upon review of the request by the City's General Counsel, it is recommended that if the request were to be approved, that the applicant enter into a Section 131 Agreement with the City to formalize the development and maintenance of the proposed public park. This would include the formalization of a park design that is sensitive to the surrounding design and guidelines established in the City's planning documents. SUMMARY This application for the removal of 111-119 King Street East from the King Street East Heritage Conversation raises interesting questions about the inherent heritage value of a property and broader considerations around public benefits. As staff analysis reveals, the perceived heritage value of the properties is both measured in the architectural value of the structure and the broader contribution to Page 16 of 17 136 16 111-119 King Street East 22-0159 June 10, 2022 the King Street East corridor. Despite the evolution of the site overtime, it's relationship to the King Street East corridor and continues to contribute to the Heritage Conservation Area. Based on the assessment of the request and its alignment with the Heritage By-law, staff are recommending a refusal of the request. If consideration is being made to approve the request, further due diligence will be required on the merit and value of the public benefit being proposed through the creation of the park. This will include: • Undertaking an agreement to secure the proposed future state of the public benefit including the duration in which the park will be provided to the public. • Mechanism for staff review and approval of the park design to ensure alignment with the policies of the Central Peninsula Secondary Plan and broader integration with the heritage landscape. Staff will work with the applicant to build greater clarity on those items prior to the request being considered by Common Council. While it would be premature to define the outcome of a staff recommendation in the event the applicant was to (1) clarify the duration of the park; (2) clarify the mechanism to secure the public benefit; and (3) integrate greater heritage facets to the park design, staff do believe that these improvements will yield a more favorable assessment of the proposed new public benefit as it relates to this application and will invite a reconsideration of the existing recommendation outlined in this report. RECOMMENDATION That the Heritage Development Board not recommend the removal a property situated at 111-119 King Street East from HC-1, the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law. ATTACHMENTS A: Statement of Significance B: Current Photographs C: Applicant Submission D: Questions and Answers from the Applicant E: Letter to the Heritage Development Board — Shane Goguen Page 17 of 17 137 17 Municipal Registration Form for Local Historic Places Mandatory Documentation Property Identification Number (PID) CN(Municipal) 1633 PID 00016337 Name of historic place PAIKOWSKY RESIDENCE Location of supporting documentation Planning and Development Department - City of Saint John Statute Local Register Formal recognition type Formal recognition date Date of authorization Registered Owner JD IRVING LTD. Owner Notification Sent EYES FINO Owner Response Type LJConsent Objection EINot Applicable Location of historic place (see Location Documentation at the bottom of form) Street Address 111-113 King Street East Latitude 45-16-27.30N Longitude 66-03-19.20W Datum North American DATUM 1927 Coordinate Determination Digital Maps 138 18 Description of boundaries Located within the City of Saint John on the northeast corner of King Street East and Carmarthen Street. Area of Historic Place (square metres) 390 Number and type of contributing resources (4 entries maximum) Number 1 Type Buildin Number T e Number T e Number Type Historic place functional use Review Excel spreadsheet for extensive list of Functional categories and types. 2 entries maximum for original use and 2 entries maximum for current use Functional Category Residence Functional Type Dwelling Use Type Primary Historical Functional Category Residence Functional Type Multiple Dwelling Use Type Primary Current Functional Category Functional Type Use Type Functional Category Functional Type Use Type Photograph(s)IImage(s) (5 entries maximum) Caption 111-113 King Street East - Contextual Description This photograph shows the building's position on the corner of King Street East and Carmarthen and shows the hip roof, 2004 Copyrights Ci of Saint Sohn T e Exterior Photo Caption 111-113 King Street East - Entrance Description This photograph shows the entrance and the fanned portico with dentils above the transom window, 2004 Co hts I City of Saint John —2- 139 19 Type Exterior Photo Caption I I 1-113 King Street East - Historic Description This historic photo shows the church and the arsona a as it once stood on this site, 2004 Copyrights City of Saint John Type Exterior Photo Statement of Significance (Mandatory Documentation) Description of The Paikowsky Residence is a two storey wooden apartment building with historic place basement built during WWII on King Street in the City of Saint John. Heritage value of The heritage value of the Paikowsky Residence is recognized as a part of historic place the King Street East Streetscape (formerly Great George Street). This streetscape has many architecturally significant homes and the architecture displayed in this home, although built in a more modern time than most of the buildings along the street, has helped maintain the value of the streetscape. The heritage value of the property that this home was built upon is also worthy of mention in terms of the history of this streetscape. St. John Presbyterian Church was built on this site in the early 1840's and stood here along with the adjacent parsonage for a century. In 1920 the YWCA used the church building as a recreation centre. Therefore this site is a piece of the rich history of the YWCA in Saint John. The first YWCA in Canada was formed in Saint John by Agnes Blizzard in 1873. In 1936 the YWCA obtained the church building and sold it in 1941. The old church was torn down and changed the 100 year contextual view of this comer lot and in 1941 this present structure was built. A significant event that has characterized the City of Saint John was the Great Fire of 1877 and it has been stated that no building in the city received more attention on that day than St. John Presbyterian church, situated at the southwest corner of a densely populated section of the city, there was a great danger that should it become ignited the flames would sweep down with fast fury over Union, Patrick, Erin, and Brussels Streets as far as Haymarket Square. A very slight change of wind might have produced this added calamity. The whole opposite side of King Street was consumed and from Saint John church to the water's edge was swept of all buildings, but the church, was saved and with it the homes of thousands. The Paikowsky family owned this home from 1942 until 1965. Jacob Paikowsky lived on one side and Morton Paikowsky lived on the other. 591: 140 20 Jacob was President and Morton was Vice -President of Duval Ltd., a toy store on Waterloo Street in Saint John. Character- The character defining elements that define this building are as follows: defining -The historic corner upon which it stands elements -Hipped roof -Window placement and proportions -Vertical slide windows -Transom window above the door -Fan shaped portico over the entranceway -Dentils in portico Optional Documentation Other name(s) (3 maximum) Other Name Site of old St. John Presbyterian Church and old YWCA Recreation Centre Type Historic Other Name T e Other Name —4- 141 21 Address Cross-reference to historical/archaeological collection Ownership of historic place (category) Dates (YYYY format) (5 entries maximum) 111-113 King Street East Private Start Date 1941 End Date 1941 Date Type Construction Start Date 1840's End Date 1940 Date Type Significant Date Start Date End Date Date T Start Date End Date Date Type Start Date End Date Date Te —5-- `N Q)p Associated Associated Item Saint John Fire event/person/organization/ Type Event architect/builder Associated Item Presbyterian Church (10 entries maximum) 'r.-o I Associated Item I YWCA I I Associated Item I Paikowskv Familv I Person I Associated Item I I Associated Item I Associated Item I I I Associated Item I I I Associated Item I I I Associated Item I I Themes (10 entries maximum) Theme category Developing Economies Theme a Architecture and Desi i Theme category Building Social and Co Theme a Religious Institutions Theme category Building Social and Co Theme a Social Movements Theme category Theme type Theme category Theme type Theme category Theme ty2e Theme category Theme type Theme category Ma Life ity Life 143 23 Web -site link (3 entries maximum) Theme type Theme category Theme type _...-------- Theme category Theme e Web -site link Link type Web -site link Link e Web -site link — _.._ ... .... .. Link type Location Documentation Economic Region New Brunswick District Saint John County Sub -district Community Saint John Locality Uptown Street and Street Number (desirable) 111-113 King Street East Postal Address Saint John, New Brunswick, EM 1G2 Cadastral Reference/Land Unit Cartographic Identifier(s) UTM northing UTM eastin UTM Datum UTM Coordination Determination UTM zone Geocode Borden # —7- 144 24 111-113 King Street East - PAIKOWSKY - photos 145 25 1i a d CN m LL N N U, 4T N W C N O N U O 4- 0 N 0-5 N co W � N CL N (� 'L^ 0) VJ O N O 0) a� IRVING March 17, 2022 Mr. Ben Peterson Heritage Officer Growth and Community Services City of Saint John PO Box 1571 Saint John, NB E2E 41-1 Dear Mr. Peterson: J. D. Irving, Limited 300 Union Street Saint John, NB E2L 4Z2 Re: Request to Remove Properties from Heritage Conservation Area J.D. Irving, Limited is requesting the removal of three properties from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area. The three properties include 111 King Street East (PID 00016337) as well as two adjoining properties (PID 0016345 and 0016352). The properties are located on the north side of King Street East and are commonly referred to as the "Brown House Properties". The Brown House Properties are important to J.D. Irving, Limited and not a candidate for sale given their adjacency to our Corporate Headquarters. In 2017 we constructed a parking garage serving our head office and we also incorporated a section of Elliot Row into the development. This recent work has certainly improved the streetscape of the area and we would like to ensure the surrounding area, including the nearby section of King Street East, is aligned with this development. The reason to request removal of the Brown House Properties from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Zone is because the building located at 111 King Street East has been vacant for several years (since 2016) and it is severely deteriorated and in a dilapidated condition. The building is beyond feasible repair. Please see Appendix 1 attached to this letter, which sets out the recent history of the building together with a summary of the engineering findings by Dillion Consulting. Further, the Brown House does not add value to the King Street East streetscape (separated by two vacant lots) and does not fit the same architectural period or style of the dominant streetscape and therefore is of little heritage significance. Please see Appendix 2 to this letter which is a supporting opinion of architect Denis Nadeau (Nadeau Savoy Ellis) and which includes a 2016 opinion from architect, Jeff Van Dommelin. We are interested in rehabilitating the site and are proposing a children's playground and historical park. This concept is illustrated in Appendix 3. This proposal is in keeping with the recent work done on Elliot Row as well as the adjacent Loyalist 147 27 Burial Ground landscape, and we believe it would be a significant benefit to the neighbourhood. Lastly, attached as Appendix 4, is an Urban Planning Assessment prepared by Ms. Jennifer Brown (Dillon Consulting). Ms. Brown reviewed our request to remove the three properties from the Heritage Conservation Zone together with our proposal to construct a children's playground and historical park on the affected properties, and has provided an urban planning analysis. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. attachments Yours truly, Christopher MacDonald Vice President, Government Relations 148 2 28 rn N O m W N N O N U L— ca 0 O LO m co ■ V� O o fl0 00 V m i V� � >( O � O c0 Ln� bA Vi MO � taco �u >(L) tLoO DL � J � � a� CoN tn o o 0 O u o ._ C � Q O� C C� O u i � 4� b�0 � +� �.0 ■V � _ ■ pp Z O u .3 +-+ O N C: M = 0 �3 cn O cn 0= � Wa- , i O� U T3 CL O LL N r >- ■u�= .0 TTT� m CID 2 4-J M c bo Ll3 � � V) W •� >,c 20 u m :t== N Vu(A VO �� �>� a)O a)E r-l•— p t! = C= = a) -nu +-0 F— -o Lo N m M 4; � V � o n Ln V > ° Ln ., Ov 0 Ov O .� 00 N O l—I Ln O O.N ca bA O O= N w V = o� ._ .� o � -�0-0 'U vi _0 c Q. O� aA N ca � • _ O U L •� E O Q b�A _ (nn , C � _0 p cn O E .Lu V -0 N LO =0 m m 3 4-J c 0 LL I. - --I. I L. i 0 W � 4-J i X L V) co W W 4-J U) oz ..L m LO m e LO LO i 0 000mmot* nN W N s � LL r- m ti LO ell a a W V) ico bloa a� 0 a •— aA +J ca - .= O x -0a a) _ w :3 +�J to = M a) to a)0 a-1 4-1 N 4 0 ._ �� o O cn E 3 to E •� � 4-+ c cn N •� O-a V)N N 4— ou •U>-0 (1) V)c CIO co_ 0 0 3 E �' 0 0 •• •Q -0 a) O °�' CU cc N bA N N •N O c6 c6 o � ,C N .� N O U - '0 Ln Co 'ice.., ••_ O N E •— O . -p > O • — � c6 N V) +1 . — C: N '� •� � � -0 � 5 � U • N >� ca 0O mcu .. O ca N E Ncu i �` u, �, -� C O O V)._ • • � N � iN O can .� N •dA a s • s • • N M rn m LO Appendix 2 160 40 nse Nadeau Soucy Ellis March 15, 2022 Douglas S. Dean, MBA, P. Eng. Director of Project Engineering J. D. Irving, Limited 300 Union Street Saint John, NB E2L 4M3 Denis Nadeau B.ARCH, AANB, OAQ MIRAC, PA LEED T. (506) 735-8821 F. (506) 739-7169 Carole Nadeau B.ARCH, AANB, MIRAC T. (506) 383-8821 F. (866) 816-8825 Object: Design and construction of a Playground and Historical Park on King Street East Mr. Dean; We have reviewed the documentation regarding the proposed construction of a playground and historical park at the corner of King Street East and Carmarthen Street. There is a lot of pertinent information that is gathered in the 2016 submission and we feel the architect's analysis is relevant to today's times. (see attached architect's analysis for more information) We would add that King Street East has two (2) streetscapes: an urban streetscape and a park streetscape. Streetscape is not just defined by buildings. It is also defined by the landscape and by the trees, especially in a Downtown. Central Park in New York City is a perfect example of the two streetscapes. The park on one side, and the buildings on the other. We would argue that the proposed playground and historical park emphasizes the park streetscape on Carmarthen Street and provides an excellent transition from urban streetscape to park streetscape on King Street East. King's Square and Loyalist Burial Ground are "heritage" streetscape. And providing a playground and historical park on King Street East provides the missing link for these parks. Regards, enis Nadeau, Architect B.ARCH, AANB, NSAA, OAQ, LEED AP www.n2sexa 11, rue Costigan Street 257 rue Champlain Street Edmundston, NB E3V 1 W7 Dieppe, NB E1 A 1 P2 161 I!io Appendix C — Architect Opinion architects four limited 18 Botsford Street, Suite 100, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada E 1 C 4V 7 tel 506 857 8601 fax. 506,856 9729 www architects4.ca King Street East Heritage Conservation Area — Re: 'Brown House' The predominate building form along King Street East is two and three storey mansard, gable end or flat roof construction pre -dating the current 'Brown' house on the north- east corner of King Street East and Carmarthen intersection. The hip roof of the 'Brown' house is out of context with the period architecture of the predominate streetscape. There is a mix of both wood clapboard siding and brick fagade materials. The height of this building is inconsistent with the dominant streetscape. Brown House Current Aerial North View Streetscape More Significant Period Architecture of King Street East July 2016 Page 25 162 42 Current Aerial South View Streetscape 'Brown' House vacant lot start of more significant period architecture of J King Street East. ' Brown House no significant contribution to Heritage Conservation Area Current Street View Looking East on King Street East With the removal of the second and third buildings on the north side of King Street East (West End in from Carmarthen), now vacant lots, there no longer exists a continuous streetscape. The stand-alone hip roof 'Brown' house no longer offers any strength to the Heritage Streetscape. Furthermore, the existing building on the south side of King Street E. at Carmarthen intersection certainly does not fit the character of the Heritage July 2016 Page 26 163 43 Conservation Area. I would venture to assess the more significant buildings remaining of period architecture during the settlement of King Street E. commences slightly east of the Carmarthen intersection, with a wonderful collection of Heritage properties (some defaced with vinyl siding), however a consistent streetscape with consistent building heights and roof forms. The proposed heritage monument green space recognizing the more significant history of this site pre -dating the `brown' house offers an opportunity to enhance the historic significance of the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area by integrating interpretative panels with text and visuals documenting the history of this area with images of the past glory for all to learn, see and experience. This would function as a commencing point of King Street E. Conservation Area while recognizing the community presence of the previous Church structure. As an Architect, I value the repurposing or restoration of heritage properties where practical and if the building would contribute to the Heritage Conservation streetscape, however the `Brown' house no longer reinforces the streetscape (in this case separated by two vacant lots), does not fit the same architectural period or style of the dominant streetscape, and the site has a more significant 'history' worth conveying and presenting to the public. July 2016 Page 27 164 44 Context Analysis Excerpt from 'Municipal Registration Form for Local Historic Places' (pg. 3) for subject property Statement of Significance (Mandatory Documentation) Description of The Paikowsky Residence is a two storey wooden apartment building with historic place I basement built during WWII on King Street in the City of Saint John. Heritage value of ' The heritage value of the Paikowsky Residence is recognized as a pait of historic place the King StreetEast Streetscape (fomierly Great George Street). This streetscape has many architecturally significant homes and the architecture displayed in this home, although built in a more modern time than most of the buildings along the street, has helped maintain the value of the strectscapc. The heritage value of the property that this home was built upon is also worthy of mention in terms of the history of this streetwape. St. John Presbyterian Church was built on this site in the early 1840's and stood here along with the adjacent parsonage for a century. In 1920 the YWCA used the church building as a recreation centre. Therefore this site is a piece of the rich history of the YWCA in Saint John. The first "'CA in Canada was 1'ornied in Saint John by Agnes lilizzird in 1873. In 19316 the YWCA obtained the church building and sold it in 1941. The old church was torn down and changed the 100 year contextual view of this comer lot and in 1941 this present structure was built. A sigtuticant event that has characterized the City of Saint John was the Great Fire of 1877 and it has been stated that no building in the city received more attention on that day than St. John Presbyterian church, situated at the southwest corner of a densely populated section of the city, there was a great danger that should it become ignited the flames would sweep down with fast fury over Union, Patrick, Erin, and Brussels Streets as far as Haymarket Square. A very slight change of wind might have produced this added calamity. The whole opposite side of King Street was consumed and from Saint John church to the water's edge was swept of all buildings, but the church, was saved and with it the homes of thousands. The Paikowsky family owned this home from 1942 until 1965. Jacob Pa'tkowsky lived on one side and Morton Paikowsky lived on the other. July 2016 Page 28 165 45 Comments: July 2016 The streetscape is no longer continuous with three vacant lots to the east, Carmarthen Street and the Loyalist Burial Ground park to the west of the Paikowsky house. This house now sits completely 'isolated' no longer contributing to the streetscape. This 'Statement of Significance' acknowledges this house is built in a 'more modern time', therefore not consistent with the period architecture of the predominant streetscape or historical value. This 'Statement of Significance' goes on to point out the 'property' has more significant historical value than the current house. The proposed Memorial Heritage Park would permit recognition of this aspect. This 'Statement of Significance' goes on at length to record the more significant history of the proceeding church structure on this site and what the church represented on this site, and its surrounding. The current house was merely the resulting infill at a much later date, again with emphasis on the property itself. Page 29 166 46 Character Defining Elements Analysis Excerpt from 'Municipal Registration Form for Local Historic Places' (pg. 4) for subject property Character- The character defining elements that define this building are as follows: defining The historic corner upon which it stands elements -Hipped roof -Window placement and proportions -Vertical slide windows l-Transom window above the door -Fan shaped portico over the entranceway Dentils in portico —4— Comments: 1) Historic Corner upon which it stands: This is referring to the Property, not the house. This can be better represented by the proposed Heritage Memorial Park project on this site. Interpretation Panels and Monument with plaque can document and display the 'more significant' aspects and history of this property for the community and visitors. 2) Hip Roof: The 'Hip Roof roof form was not used during the period of the King Street East construction which predates the construction date of the Paikowsky house. Mansard Roofs, Gable Roof, and Flat Roofs dominate the King Street East collection of period architecture, with no other building constructed with a hip roof. The Hip Roof is also concern for ice and snow hazards directly onto sidewalk on two facades. _°� Hip Roof Mansard Roof Gable Roof Flat Roof July 2016 continued ..... Page 30 167 47 3) Window Placement and Proportion: The Window Placement and Proportions are indicative of a more'modem' era of architectural construction. The windows of the Paikowsky house have been placed functional for its intended use. There are no 'bays', or vertical trim elements unifying the ground and second floor windows. There is much less window'trim' around windows and use of false shutters is not consistent with the dominant King Street East streetscape, all emphasizing this house is not of the same historic period of construction. Regular Functional Placement of Windows 4) Vertical Slide Windows: Vertical trim elements Much taller window proportions. Vertical Slide Windows is consistent with the dominant period architecture, however the proportions are not consistent. The windows are more 'squat', representing a lower 'floor to floor' height represented in a more modem era. The majority historical significant buildings have much larger (taller) windows or larger feature bay windows. The existing house windows have been covered with aluminum storm windows reducing the appearance historic windows. 5) Transom Window Above Door: The second entrance facing Carmarthen Street does not address the street level, with a full height stair on facade. This architectural element and placement of entry door to street is not consistent with the dominant historical King Street East period architecture. The garage doors are also a much more modem element on street facing facades. 6) Fan Shaped Portico Over the Entryway: This architectural element could be considered applicable, however very minor compared to the overall building form. 7) Dentils in Portico: Perhaps more significant is the lack of'dentils' or 'corbels' at the cornice, much less craftsmanship or detailing compared to the earlier architecture representing the predominant King Street East historical streetscape. ^�= A arc ! YA Simplified Cornice Enriched Cornice details of earlier architectural detailing. (no dentils or corbels) , 1 The last three items could be donated as directed by the Heritage Development Board. July 2016 Page 31 168 48 m m rn p .on a E k r- 4 Fl I -kt L� r+f Appendix 4 177 57 March 16, 2022 Sent via Email J.D. Irving, Limited 300 Union Street Saint John, NB E21- 4M3 Attention: Chris MacDonald Vice President, Government Relations King Street East Redevelopment Project — Urban Planning Assessment Further to your request, Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) completed an Urban Planning Assessment on the redevelopment project proposed for 111, 115, and 119 King Street East ("Subject Site"). The following document provides an overview of the policy and regulations associated with the Subject Site as well as an urban planning analysis in the context of an application by J.D. Irving, Limited ("JDI") to the City of Saint John's Heritage Development Board for the removal of the Subject Site from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area. Proposal Overview It is our understanding that the owners of the Subject Site wish to demolish the existing structure, remediate the site as needed, and construct a publicly accessible park at the site. The park would include playground equipment, public seating, and storyboards about the history of Saint John. The Subject Site is within the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area. It is the preference of the property owner that the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area be amended to remove the Subject Site from the boundary of the area. Site and Neighbourhood Context The Subject Site is located on the corner of Carmarthen Street and King Street East. It consists of a two storey residential building of wood frame construction which has been vacant since 2016. The building has two distinct facades; the facade fronting onto King Street East being the primary facade, with the secondary facade fronting onto Carmarthen Street. The building is in a state of disrepair and is dilapidated with �1j�1t1111N DI LLON CONSULAING 274 Sydney Street Suite 200 Saint John New Brunswick Canada E2L OA8 Telephone 506.633.5000 Fax 506.633.5110 178 58 J.D. Irving, Limited Page 2 March 16, 2022 several windows and doors covered in plywood barriers and occasional instances of graffiti. The existing building is part of the City's Vacant and Dangerous Building Program. This program monitors buildings for potential risks to public safety. As the potential risks to public safety increase, the program initiates a process that may lead to demolition. It is understood that the Subject Site is not considered a high risk property meaning it is not currently being considered for immediate demolition. The surrounding area is mixed use in character with a combination of historic residential developments, an office building and parking garage, a fire station, and the Loyalist Burial Ground, a historic landmark that is also used as a pedestrian link to the City's Uptown. The residential development pattern along King Street East is generally compact, with buildings located close to the street line with minimal setbacks. King Street East presents a generally intact streetwall from its intersection with Crown Street to the Subject Site. There are three vacant lots between the structure on the Subject Site and the last occupied building at 123 King Street East (two of these vacant lots are owned by JDI). Existing Conditions In January of 2021, Dillon prepared a conditions assessment of the Subject Site. The assessment included a visual structural and mould assessment and an assessment for hazardous building materials. According to this assessment, the structural integrity of the building is compromised by defects including cracks in the exterior foundation walls, interior walls, and ceilings, moisture damage, roof leakage, signs of rot in the structural timbres, damage to the floors, walls, and ceilings, deteriorated roof rafters and decking, and a deteriorated exterior weather envelope. The structure of the building, specifically the rear section of the building that fronts onto Carmarthen Street, was deemed to be a hazard to public safety. The mould assessment identified impacted building materials including the interior plaster walls and ceilings, and some wooden framing, trim work, and cabinetry displaying impacts. It was estimated that over 50 percent of the plaster walls, ceilings, and other building surfaces may be impacted by mould growth with the likelihood of mould also being present on insulating materials and within wall and ceiling cavities. Persons accessing the building are recommended to enter only with the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) including Tyvek © suits, HEPA-filtered 179 59 J.D. Irving, limited Page 3 March 16, 2022 respirators, eye protection, boots, and gloves. The assessment determined the water damage and subsequent mould -impacted building materials resulted in the structure being a hazard to public safety. The hazardous building material assessment identified the possibility of asbestos containing materials (ACMs), lead containing paint, PCB containing fluorescent lamp ballasts, mercury containing equipment, ozone depleting substances (ODS) and radioactive materials were observed throughout the building. The materials present a health risk to persons accessing the building and contribute to the building being a hazard to public safety. Appropriate PPE must be worn when assessing the building to avoid impacts of exposure to hazardous building materials. The conditions assessment determined that due to the extent of the deterioration to the back section of the building, and the front section requiring a complete gutting down to the timber structure, the building is beyond feasible repair. Policy Context Plan SJ The Subject Site is within the Uptown Primary Centre Land Use Designation in Plan SJ. A land use designation sets the intended direction for an area over the lifespan of the municipal plan. The Uptown Primary Centre is the City's employment, entertainment, and cultural hub and is intended to be a dense mixed -use area with a focus on people -oriented uses. Parks, playgrounds, open spaces, and other public recreation amenities are considered under the Community Facilities section of Plan SJ. The intention of this section is to provide policy direction that supports right -sized amenities to support the sustainable development of complete communities. In the context of parks, the City's intention is to provide equitable access to park spaces, and increase the quality, quantity, and access to green spaces in the Uptown and Intensification Areas. The policy framework is specific in setting up a range of amenities, including a description of park classifications based on intended service boundaries or catchment areas. Neighbourhood Parks are described as those that serve residents within a catchment area radius of 0.8 kilometres. These are intended to take the form of playgrounds, tot lots, parkettes, and play areas distributed throughout the urban and suburban areas of the City. 180 60 J.D. Irving, Limited Page 4 March 16, 2022 Section 10.2.1 of Plan SJ includes a set of policies that support the proposed use of the Subject Site as a Neighbourhood Park. Policy # Policy Ensure that each of the Intensification Areas fully serve L Proposal meets CF-8 their respective communities with high quality policy intention. Neighbourhood Park spaces. Ensure Neighbourhood Parks have adequate pedestrian) CF-9 Proposal meets and bike connectivity to and from the local community. policy intention. CF-10 Encourage the development and/or improvement of Proposal meets Neighbourhood Parks and public green spaces in the policy intention. Uptown, with special attention granted to areas on the Uptown Waterfront. CF-11 Cultivate community partnerships to provide Proposal meets maintenance and monitoring of Neighbourhood Park policy intention. rlaanlinacc. Plan SJ sets out a series of policies respecting urban design principles that are applied to new development and significant redevelopment in the Uptown Primary Centre. Policy UD-11(c) sets the tone for heritage streetscapes to be reinforced with compatibly scaled and designed development. Central Peninsula Secondary Plan The guiding principles of the Central Peninsula Secondary Plan include direction to create a high quality, pedestrian friendly, and distinctive public realm. The public realm includes those spaces and places shared by the community including streets, sidewalks, plazas, parks, waterfronts, trails, and open spaces. The policy direction for the South End found in section 2.2 encourages the establishment of pocket parks as a way to positively contribute to the public realm in a manageable scale. The Secondary Plan also sets the policy framework for the Heritage Infill that is progressive while respectful of the past. Zoning The Subject Site is within the Urban Centre Residential Zone of the City's Zoning By- law. This zone is intended to facilitate dense development patterns common of an urban area. The City generally applies the Urban Centre Residential Zone in the 181 61 J.D. Irving, Limited Page 5 March 16, 2022 Central Peninsula and the North End where a compact, urban development form has been established and is most desirable to continue. Section 9.19(b)(iv) of the City's Zoning By-law permits a playground to occur in any zone except the Heavy Industrial zone. Heritage The Subject Site is within the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area as defined in the City's Heritage Conservation Areas By-law. In addition to the provisions of the Vacant and Dangerous Building Program, there are three pathways to achieving the required demolition of the existing structure at the Subject Site; the Heritage Development Board determining a building or structure has no public benefit; the site has been listed for sale and no reasonable offer has been made, signed, or executed; and an amendment to the Heritage Conservation Area to remove the property. A property owner may apply to have the property removed from the Heritage Conservation Area. This requires an amendment to the City's Heritage Conservations Areas By-law. An amendment is guided by the Province's Heritage Conservation Act which requires a heritage board to provide a recommendation on changes to a municipal by-law, a council to hold a public hearing of objections, and public notice of the proposed amendment be provided. The by-law is amended through the council procedure described by Section 15 of the Local Governance Act. Analysis The overall intention of the application to the City is to demolish the existing structure at 111-113 King Street East. The building is in severe disrepair with the conditions assessment indicating it is not feasible to repair the existing structure to a level of safety aligned with human habitation. The required interventions include a full replacement of the building envelop materials, all interior walls and floors as well as replacement of a significant portion of the timer structure. The severity of the intervention is arguably unviable and does not guarantee that demolition will be avoided. The building is expected to continue to deteriorate at an accelerating rate. The structure will continue to be compromised as the building is left vacant and not weather tight. 111%11111111 182 62 J.D. Irving, Limited Page 6 March 16, 2022 As the building is part of the City's Vacant and Dangerous Building Program, it will continue to be monitored for risks to public safety. As the building is currently unsafe to enter without full PPE, it becomes more onerous to monitor the level of deterioration of the structural integrity. Accelerated deterioration is expected to cause the building to become a higher priority as time goes on. It is reasonable to conservatively assume the City's own program, should it continue to exist in the same capacity, will target the building for demolition within the next 5 years. Should the property be demolished through the Vacant and Dangerous Building Program, the site will remain vacant and undeveloped until the property owner intervenes. The demolition of the building at the Subject Site is an eventuality and the process by which the building is demolished is, ultimately, inconsequential. The process by which it is requested to be removed is a determinant of the property owner's preference for a faster, more reliable process. Removing the Subject Site from the King Street East Heritage Area is a straightforward amendment to a City By-law. The demolition parameters provided for in the Heritage Conversation Areas By-law are discretionary and require, in this case, the Heritage Development Board to determine if the existing structure is structurally unsound enough tojustify forgoing intervention. Removing the property from the Heritage Conservation Area removes the burden of discretionary decisions regarding the integrity of the existing building. The Subject Site is on a well -travelled portion of King Street East, adjacent to the JDI Corporate Head Office and associated parking garage, and across the street from the Loyalist Burial Ground. The Loyalist Burial Ground is well -used by JDI employees and residents of the surrounding residential neighbourhood. The proposed playground and park space create a family -centred space in an area that is underserved by child - friendly infrastructure. The City's Municipal Plan encourages Neighbourhood Parks and collaboration with private entities to support the maintenance of playground infrastructure. The proposed playground and park space would continue to be privately owned and maintained by the property owner. It is understood that the proposed future use of the Subject Site as a playground and park is not the preferred use for the site according to the City's Municipal and Secondary Plans. It is important to note, however, that what is being proposed is in keeping with the City's Plans and Zoning By-law. The highest and best use would likely target the site for redevelopment into a high density residential development, however, it is not required that a property owner fulfill the highest and best use for their property. They are required to operate within the parameters of the Y�'Y11111t�tN�tq 183 63 J.D. Irving, Limited Page 7 March 16, 2022 municipality's development framework. If the Subject Site were a vacant lot, the proposed park would be permitted, in essence, as -of -right. The general area is changing. The pending closure of Prince Charles School, and presumably their playground, as well as increased residential intensity being experienced on the Central Peninsula, contributes to the need for more publicly accessibly infrastructure. The proposed use of the Subject Site as a playground and park is in keeping with the spirit of the City's land use policy and regulations and represents the fulfillment of a need without public capital contributions. Conclusion The application to remove the Subject Site from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area to facilitate the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site as a park and playground is a reasonable and supportable request. The existing building is dilapidated and beyond feasible intervention or salvage. Its demolition and removal is a benefit to public safety and provides an opportunity to add a publicly accessible amenity in an area underserved by recreational infrastructure. Closure We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed project at the King Street East site. Should you have questions about the information and analysis provided, please reach out to the undersigned. Sincerely, DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED ennifer Brown v C:il J.D. Irving, Limited Page 8 March 16, 2022 Commercial Confidentiality Statement This document contains trade secrets or scientific, technical, commercial, financial and labour or employee relations information which is considered to be confidential to Dillon Consulting Limited ("Dillon"). Dillon does not consent to the disclosure of this information to any third party or person not in your employ. Additionally, you should not disclose such confidential information to anyone in your organization except on a "need -to -know" basis and after such individual has agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the information and with the understanding that you remain responsible for the maintenance of such confidentiality by people within your organization. If the head or any other party within any government institution intends to disclose this information, or any part thereof, then Dillon requires that it first be notified of that intention. Such notice should be addressed to: Dillon Consulting Limited, 235 Yorkland Boulevard, Suite 800, Toronto, Ontario M2J 4Y8, Attention: President. '�S�SSilt511 185 65 Response to City of Saint John re: Proposed Historical Park and Children's Playground May 24, 2022 1. Can you describe the nature, purpose, and intended use of the driveway and gates shown in the provided illustrations that connects to the adjacent parking garage? The gate will normally be closed to prevent vehicles from entering the park area. The gate will be open for snow removal activities related to the parking garage servicing our head office. 2. The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places lists demolition as the option of last resort. Please tell us what efforts you've put into preserving the building. The building has been vacant since 2016. As noted below, the building is structurally unsound and repairing it is not feasible. As a result, there are no efforts being made to preserve the building, apart from ensuring it remains secured as set out in the City's dangerous and vacant notice letter dated May 29, 2018. 3. Dillon Consulting's report indicates that the building is structurally unsound, a hazard to public safety, and too costly to repair. Can you confirm if a structural engineer or architect participated in the process of developing these statements and recommendations? A structural assessment was completed by Bill Mayberry, P.Eng. and Johnny Ibeawuchi, P.Eng. of Dillon Consulting. Both these individuals are structural engineers. Their comments and recommendations are included in the January 21, 2021 Dillon Consulting Assessment. 4. Whereas this park is to be provided for the public's benefit as outlined in your application, are you prepared to: a. Enter into an agreement with the City to secure this use in perpetuity or for a fixed period of time in the community's benefit? As the City is aware, this property is zoned Residential. If the owner of the property ever proposed for it to be used for a different purpose, other than a Residential use, it would require a Rezoning and potential Municipal Plan amendment. This municipal process ultimately puts the City in charge of what the property may be used for. The owner is prepared to commit that the park will be constructed generally in accordance with the design set out in the Application. The park will be available for the community's benefit for as long as it remains a park. Since it is difficult to predict 186 66 the future, it would not be prudent to commit to maintaining this property as a park in perpetuity. As the City is also aware, there are a number of public benefit initiatives in the Saint John area that are sponsored by the company. These include the Irving Nature Park, Children's Forest, highway beautification areas, etc. b. Maintain, secure, and insure the park against liability, damage, and wear and tear? The owner will maintain the park at its expense. The owner maintains commercial general liability insurance covering its own operations. Park signage will provide notice that use of the park by the public will be at its own risk (similar to other publicly available spaces). 5. Were public consultation sessions held to review the proposal? If so, can a copy of the feedback received be sent for the City's review? A four -page mailout was developed with details of our children's playground and historical park proposal which included a web page (www.odirving.com/kingstreeteastproposal) where residents could get more information. It was mailed to 75 property owners on April 28 and delivered by hand to all residents of King Street East on May 2nd. The web page was also set up to provide more detail on our proposal, photos of the existing property and contact info for questions. To date, we have had one submission which we received by email on May 9t" and we have responded to this submission. 6. Would you consider the design of the park as `final' or is there an opportunity to have the design vetted by City staff? We would certainly consider changes suggested by City staff. a. Would you consider inviting greater "heritage" recognition or integration into the design and functionality of the proposed park? Yes, we are prepared to consider additional "heritage/historical" input into the design of the park. 7. Please outline what your proposed next steps would be with the building should the application be denied. Unfortunately, the property will remain in its deteriorating state until the City provides approval to demolish pursuant to the Local Governance Act. 187 67 May 27, 2022 Attention: Heritage Development Board RE: 111-113 King Street East I am a property owner at 168 King Street East, within the King Street East Preservation Area. In early May, 2022, I, and other property owners on my street, received correspondence from the owner of 111-113 King Street East, J.D. Irving, Limited (the "Owner"). The correspondence was a proposal, outlining the Owner's preferred plans for the property at 111-113 King Street East, and the two adjacent properties, currently vacant, which the Owner also owns (collectively, the "Property"). A summary of the Owner's preferred plans was to remove the Property from the King Street East Preservation Area, and then to build a park with a children's playground. I write this letter in response to this proposal, to advise the Heritage Development Board, and Saint John Common Council, of my position, as a neighboring property owner, on the Owner's proposal. In short, I strongly disagree with the Owner's proposal. For starters, the remedy being requested by the Owner, to remove the Property from the preservation area, is unwarranted. To the extent that the Owner is unwilling to repair, and maintain, the building at 111 King Street East in accordance to the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law (the "By -Law"), and instead chooses to tear the building down, the process for doing so is outlined in the By-law, and has been provided to the Owner on the previous occasions the Owner has sought to demolish the building. There is no need to remove the Property from the King Street East Preservation Area. The circumstances upon which the City would consider removing a property from a preservation area should be very limited. The King Street East Preservation Area is a cohesive set of streetscapes, with all properties included within the preservation area. To remove property on a one -of basis undermines the integrity of the entire preservation area, and results in adjacent property owners questioning what value heritage preservation provides. The Property in question makes up nearly a third of a block on the north side of King Street East, and its removal from the King Street East Preservation Area undermines the protection afforded to all properties on that block. For this reason alone, the Owner's proposal should be rejected. Beyond that, the Owner's seems to preface its proposal, and ultimate request for demolition of the building at 111 King Street East, on the deterioration of the building. However, the Owner has been the owner of that property for approximately three decades at this point, and the building was a viable, multi -unit residential building for much of that time. Only the Owner is responsible for the deterioration of the building. To reward such disdain for the Bylaw, not to mention other City property maintenance and health and safety by-laws, sets a dangerous precedent for other property owners to follow. The Owner should derive no benefit from the disrespect it obviously holds for the adjacent property owners, who regularly invest to maintain their properties, despite not having the means the Owner has to do so. For these additional reasons, the Owner's proposal should be rejected. As a final point, in the event the Owner's request to remove the Property from the King Street Preservation Area is permitted, I wish to advise that I will, subsequently, submit a request to remove my own property from the preservation area as well. I believe in the principle of heritage preservation, and the value that results, to all property owners, when preservation is respected. However, I truly believe the removal of a third of the street scape on the opposing side of my block undermines the value and integrity of any protection that the preservation area could, and should, provide all property owners, and, at that point, I see no reason to continue participation in a program that is not valued, nor protected, by civic leaders. Best regards, Shane Goguen 188 68 -----Original Message ----- From: Jeff Roach <Jeff,roach:sociallopical.com> Sent: June 28, 2022 11:14 AM To: Common Clerk <commonclerkC)sair tjohn.ca> Subject: Re: Proposed Amendment to Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law [ 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 spamsample1,�saintkohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** To: Jennifer Kirchner, Manager, Community Planning Thank you for your letter alerting residents like us affected by changes to the Conservation Bylaw. Please register this email as an opinion strongly OPPOSED to the removal of 2 properties at 111-119 King Street East. This Bylaw exists to protect our built heritage and removing properties from it such as this request is an admission of failure to protect these buildings and the historic character of the neighbourhood. I expect Council to uphold the bylaw and use any tools available in the law to protect the buildings as they are, to ensure a continued heritage character and a similar residential purpose for this land to protect the character of the King Street East neighbourhood if the buildings are unsound, and to ensure the property owner complies with the law. With respect for our future, Jeff Roach Jeff Roach https://can0l.safelinks.p.rotection.outlook.comf?url=http/3A%2F%2Fjeffroach.ca%2F&amp,data=05%7 C0I 7Ckelly.tibbits%4osaintiohn.ca%7Cffada47205654le7b4b508da5910f206%7Caea3b2lfbb9b4220a ad8be4853beaa4l%7C0%7C0%7C637920226553390452%7CU nknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIioiMC4 wL AwMDAiLCJ lioiV2luMzliLCJBTil6lklhaWwiLCJXVC16Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=MV wMThw6uCG12V%2BElYM8uvSK4110VQocnreSdA7kMTc%3D&amp reserved=0 Sociallogical.com : We mentor leaders, train staff, create online platforms and strategies to grow your business, and measure growth in the social space. #AShareThing fIE:1:7 June 29, 2022 Mayor and Members of Common Council, City of Saint John, Box 1971, Saint John, NS E21.41.1 Re:111-119 King Street Seat, PID 00016337, 0016345, 0016352 As the owners of 200 Princess Street we are writing at this time with regards to the upcoming vote to remove the above properties from the King Street East Heritage Conservation Area. We are in favour of this proposal and strongly urge Mayor and Council to allow this amendment to proceed. In our opinion, the properties noted add little to no value to the historical or heritage fabric of our community and the proposal by the current owner to build a fully maintained children's park is in the best interests of the neighbourhood as well as the city. As owners of a designated heritage property we understand the value that protection and proper stewardship brings but this must be carefully balanced with the reality of the situation. Saint John has a fantastic stock of both pre and post fire buildings that are In varied states of restoration and condition and we believe that any current or future bylaws must be enforced to protect these properties while allowing for development necessary to a modern and growing city. The properties in question consist of 2 empty lots and a semi -modern dilapidated structure —the structure was built In the 1940's and is nothing more than a "square box" that should not be protected just by virtue of the fact that it sits on a heritage street. We have lost far too many properties that had real historical value and the focus of Council and The Heritage Committee should be on these types of properties that are currently at risk. Uptown Saint John has experienced a renaissance in recent years and we want this prosperity to continue. Encouraging families to move back will require allowing development of potentially some non-traditional things such as the proposed new school and in this specific case, a park In the heart of Uptown that is dedicated and focussed on children. The current owners have a proven track record of "doing things well" and we have no reason to believe that this proposal by JDI would be any different. In closing, we again strongly support this amendment and ask that Mayor and Council vote for development and prosperity for our neighbourhood. Yours truly Q?4V { Jeff McCanna David Curren `RX From: City of Saint John, New Brunswick <webform-noreplyCepsaintiohn.ca_> Sent: July 1, 2022 10:33 AM To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Webform submission from: Submission to Council Form [ 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 s amsam le saint'ohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Submitted on Fri, 07/01/2022 -10:33 Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: About Person/Group Submitting First name steve Last name kerzner Mailing Address 112 Victoria Rd saint John. E2M6V9 Telephone 15066083310 Email stevekerzner@hotmail.com If you do not wish to have your personal information (address, phone number, email) become part of the public record, please check this box. No About your Submission Topic of submission 111 King Street E. Purpose for submission (what is the ask of council): I request that council rejects the application to demolish this heritage building Executive summary Council members. I am a proud citizen of Saint John, and just 1 or many individuals who appreciate the heritage of our city. I have volunteered with a construction project with Habitat for Humanity in Saint John, and spent much time and effort along side 50+ other volunteers in the 96 Victoria Street salvage and renovation project. I find it shocking that at a time where our city is fighting Fredericton for a fair share of its tax money, that we would also turn our backs on a heritage building that CAN BE REPAIRED, a building that many organizations would want to work out of, a building that would supply tax revenue for the city, and instead consider turning it into a park at a time when the city itself has said we have TO MANY PARKS. Parks do not generate revenue. The cost the city. There have been other buildings in the city that have been deemed " beyond reasonable repair" that have been repaired and are in use today. The first one that comes to my mind was the building that was turned into an uptown parking garage that is in use today. The city HAS volunteers, Non profit groups HAVE volunteers that can make this building work. A building, whether for residential , or office space generates money for our cash strapped city. A park, does NOT. In conclusion, I would like to say that there is a time and place for some buildings to be torn down. This is not that time. All other options should be considered before the last resort of demolishing a heritage building is taken. Thank you for your consideration. Steve Kerzner A proud saint John citizen. `LOy, To: The Mayor and Council, City of Saint John I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed amendment that would remove 111-119King St East from the King St East Heritage Preservation Area. As the facts associated to this property have been reasonably well reported in the media and well known to you, I will limit my comments to an opinion from a resident who has renovated and lived in a Heritage protected building for 36 years. In 2003 J. D. Irving Limited purchased a building it did not want because it was on a piece of property that it did want. The company would have known at the time of purchase that the building had been recognized as a valuable asset to the city and protected by the city's Heritage By -Laws. Maintenance was deliberately neglected until a consultant assessed that "It was beyond feasible repair". (I would simply observe that what is considered feasible depends on the values of the entity making the assessment .) JDI was unable to get a permit for demolition because it was in a Heritage protected area so is now asking to have the law amended to remove it from that protection. I would conclude from this that JDI was never interested in the building that was on 111 King Street East and was not interested in being a landlord for residential tenants. There was never an intention to preserve the structure or to provide quality residential housing. The property has greater value to the owner without the structure on it. To approve this amendment would be to sacrifice the fundamental values related to heritage preservation espoused by city councils in the past to the interest of one corporate citizen. In a democratic society every citizen should expect that the laws that govern our behaviours should be enforced equally within the population. When I consider the rigour with which Heritage Officers enforced the by-laws when I was restoring my property, it seems unjust for the city to give permission for the destruction of a heritage building by simply changing the protected area boundaries. I wonder, if the city approves this application, how can it deny any other application made to modify the Heritage by-laws? Wayne Dryer 176 Sydney St Saint John `RX Mayor and Members of Common Council, City of Saint John, P.O. Box 1971, Saint John, NB, E2L 4L1 Re: 111 King Street East Proposal Citizen Feedback July 7. 2022 When we were younger and kids tried to dominate the school yard and install gangs and tolls going to the teachers and the principle was the method of resolving the situation without long term consequences, so that both parties can co -exist. Within the world of adults we elect those teachers and principle to serve similar roles as Mayor and Common Council, they have tools and resources at their disposal which can assist them in these tasks. Logic of Property Custodianship Rights of Land Established under the federal government Responsibilities passed to provincial Responsibilities passed to region or city level. Owner can do as define within the responsibilities, as released by those levels of government. Owners pay rent for the land via property tax, and complying with the law of the land. Within in Saint John there are a few by-laws of important, the Heritage by- law which forbids unapproved demolishing of buildings and requires that the owners maintain the properties within the requirements of the by-law is one such issue. It lacks teeth to be applied to the public, and therefore it still remains the responsibly of Common Council to pick up where it leaves off. The applicant desires to keep control of the property and refuses to do their civic duties as temporary custodian of the property. That duty as follows, To maintain the property such that the heritage value of the exterior is preserved for cultural tourism, as a critical mass of connected properties enhances the value of the collective package. So they are disrespecting and unfairly influencing the market value of property through their conduct and they stand to have sufficient capital available to gain by market manipulation and have expressed publicly that they desire to control the buffer zone around each of their buildings. i ez"I They do have other concerns than normal citizens so it's understandable, however there is a standard of care that they agreed to or it was forced upon them depending on the property that requires maintenance and forbids demolish. Now since this owner group has expressed an operating plan of demolishing by dereliction of civic duty to their fellow citizens, or lack of maintenance and usage leading to structural instability by years of purposeful neglect. Figure ' Carmarthen Street View From an existing heritage point of view it's a cornerstone property and as a result its photogenic location, as it's the first real property down the street that has a good basic heritage appeal. Roughly 3600 sgft footprint, 2 %2 levels 1,800,000 to 2,700,000 repair budget, to create ($1.20 per sgft/month)= 108,000$ income stream with a cap rate between 0.04 and 0.06 with appreciation of property to hedge against rising inflation isn't a horrible investment. Figure 2 Plan View of Location `l1106>+9 Figure 3 King Street East Frontage Please note... White building... is no longer there. Was demolish to reduce the cost of construction of the parking garage, the cost savings from the better access could be used towards improving this location and replacing the vacant lots with additional uptown housing. If the lots are merged a single 16 to 24 unit building could be build there and could enjoy some of the feature which the street is famous for. Property $ Saks 5 Menu * Property information PAN 01635230 Location tit KING ST EAST Taxing Authority 550 - THE CrTY OF SAiNT)OHN Description 4 UNIT APT & LOT Assessment Year 2022 Assessment 259.100 Tax Levy 7,03124 Assessments Year 2022 Assessment Tax Levy 259,100 7.032.24 2021 225,300 6.705.61 2020 225,300 6.705.61 2019 220,900 6,574.65 2018 220.900 6.574.65 $ Sales Sale Date Amount No rewrds to Sate amount reflects the sate price documented at the time of registration - including real estate soles, private sates, mortgage sales, famity transfers government acquisition or disposal, and others. Sale transactions in the amount of S 1 are not included or displayed Figure 4 Property Tax Location lilt~Z-1 Please also note that they have never appealed the taxes on the property. Therefore they must assume that there is 259,100$ worth of value, however since they wish to demolish it and not be mindful of their fellow citizen and their abilities to earn a fair living off of a common economic resource this citizen suggestion that city council take the following measures; 1. Establishing a task group to inquire as to the sum total of legal infraction and ethical violations of which the staff representing the applicant are in need of further education and reflection upon. The professional associated with this affair have all failed in their duties to both their clients and to the general public. a. All parties should have their actions and decisions reviewed by their professional ethical boards to provide further guidance on their moral responsibilities to the common collective which places trust in the professional boards to assist with the maintenance of a fair and just social fabric. Therefore Common Council should therefore instruct the city to issue those complaints to the respective provincial professional which are involved. These professionals are a safeguard to avoid miscommunication, misunderstanding and mistakes that creating unnecessary work for others, which can lead to increase costs that effect the whole system. Part of the Responsibilities of the province and which is done through self -regulation of the professions through the Acts of the province. 2. The land can be seized modified and repaired, and the bill can be presented to this corporate citizen as damages by negation. a. Expropriation of private lands can be done when it's for public good. i. Public good is about increasing the tax draw that a property generates. ii. Resident lodging to provide them a base to help the local economy iii. Businesses as a base to conduct business iv. Cultural and Tourism as a means of attracting travelers for the appeal b. Public good is maintaining the agreed collective community conditions. Ground for expropriation is a failure to conduct business in this manner. If as a homeowner these issues were present the means of solving them may be out of reach, but this is as a corporate business with sufficient means and capital to fulfill their obligations and responsibly as custodian of the land, failure is to for cause, and should not be rewarded but discouraged. The business public record on their intention with the property do not comply with the requirements of laws of the land. "We haven't touch the building since 2016, 1 wrote it off', Said by their official representative in 2022. c. The expropriation of their land in question, and an audit of all there holding within the city in general to determine if there are better economic usages `LOtl for that land, that others 3rd party developers can make use of, given the hostile nature of the existing ownership to the concept of fair play and equality and avoiding the suppressive behaviors of a monopoly. It is not good change to have a law that only applies to normal citizens, it is really scary change if the laws that apply to normal are not binding on all, and this breaches fundamental human rights and risks rebellion. Please note I'm okay removing the law all together, it should just increase the cost of construction and increase the risk of the tourist market value being lost, however there are ways to mitigate that. Just choose a pathway and please choose wisely, fear not the big guy for you are bigger. Andrew Johnson 54 Pitt Street Saint John New Brunswick E2 L 2V8 `RU] From: ieff.palmer@tutanota.com <leff.palmer@tutanota.com> Sent: July 7, 2022 3:02 PM To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintiohn.ca> Subject: 111 King Street East application comments [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintiohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Mayor Reardon and Common Council -- JDI, via its multi -billionaire CEO Jim Irving, is acting like spoiled, rotten child. Call their bluff. Publicly and forcefully. Remind them who holds the power around here -- YOU. US. They've put a false decision in front of you: either this sad, derelict, worthless building sits there forever until it falls down, or a useless, unnecessary park. They've put the gun to your head and made their own bullets too, so to speak. There's only one entity responsible for this situation: JDI. Not the City, not heritage, not regulations, not individual staff members. Just JDI. But they're gaslighting us into thinking it's our fault. They could have prevented the building from getting to this condition but it was in THEIR best interest to create this false conflict. Then, when the Heritage Board wouldn't give them their way, they doubled down and used the media outlets they own to further gaslight us. They tried to fire up residents with their easy -to -rally -behind but void -of -facts "anti -business" rhetoric (never mind that the City just approved their intermodal hub expansion and is working with them on district energy so THEY can profit off their waste energy). Then, most sickeningly, they issued thinly -veiled threats to move their businesses and investment to Moncton. The ultimate burn. Oh and all those other things they partner with us in the community? You can forget about that too. They're done being a good corporate citizen all because of this *one* building that's in terrible shape -- a situation for which THEY are solely responsible for. fiBl%7 The City of Saint John is in an abusive relationship with JDI. You need to stand up for yourself. The toxic positivity that this Council continually espouses only allows them and others to further abuse us and we're expected to take it with a smile. See, they've got us so beat down that they think we can't survive without them. They think you won't use the power and authority that you wield. You're too weak in their mind. They've got you eating out of the palm of their hand. Or they'll crush you at will. Call their bluff. Publicly and forcefully. If you don't like the taste of BS in you mouth, for the love of God, stop eating it! Councillor Harris mentioned the powers that Council has to REPAIR the building and send JDI the bill. If housing, and poverty reduction, and growth, and tax revenue, and PlanSJ, and the Neighbourhood Plan, and PlaySJ are all as important as you say they are when you knock on my door asking for my vote, then you should damn -well vote to turn this down. All for a park that no one needs. All for a park that goes against every plan and goal the City and its residents have set as the community standard. All for a park that even JDI WON'T EVEN GUARANTEE. You're smarter than them. They've used every textbook power play to get their way. They're not going to move their mills or their gypsum plants to Moncton. If they don't invest in their mills and plant they will only damage their own business. And if they don't try to buy us off with public "gifts" and spin doctoring, we'll see their true colours -- a greedy, ruthless corporation run by an out -of -touch billionaire. Surely you can see this, right? Read between the lines; they have ulterior motives. They want their way with zero restrictions so they can do as THEY want, not as WE want. Not only do they want to win this fight, they want to humiliate you too. That humiliation will only serve them again and again in the future for bigger power plays. Demand an equitable relationship. Demand a relationship that is beneficial to both parties. They've made you believe that a useless park is a "WIN." But it's not. It's a massive loss. A loss of revenue. A loss of growth. A loss of heritage. A loss of the urban fabric. W9191 A loss of housing. A loss of control. A loss of autonomy. This is not a decision on the the fate of one building or one park. It's much bigger than that. This is a referendum on who holds the power in this community. Don't delude yourself otherwise. I voted for YOU, not JDI, to run my City. Call their bluff. Publicly and forcefully. Take back control. Deny this application. Impassioned, Jeff Palmer, CADSI/AICDS f► el From: Nick Cameron <nick@culturehub.ca> Sent: July 7, 2022 10:18 AM To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintlohn.ca>; Reardon, Donna <donna.reardon@saintlohn.ca>; MacKenzie, John <lohn.mackenzie@saintlohn.ca>; Ogden, Barry <barry.ogden@saintlohn.ca>; Killen, Joanna <loanna.killen@saintlohn.ca>; Norton, Greg <greg.norton@saintlohn.ca>; Hickey, David <david.hickey@saintiohn.ca>; Lowe, Gerry <gerry.lowe@saintiohn.ca>; Radwan, Paula <paula.radwan@saintiohn.ca>; Stewart, Greg <greg.stewart@saintiohn.ca>; Harris, Brent <brent.harris@saintiohn.ca>; Sullivan, Gary <gary.sullivan@saintiohn.ca> Subject: 111-119 King Street East [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintiohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Dear Council Our community's priorities include housing and heritage preservation. They don't include building a park directly adjacent to an existing park. I oppose the application to remove 111-119 King Street East from the heritage conservation area by-law. The applicant has presented a narrow choice between a park or dereliction. Given those options, of course anyone would choose park, and I'm certain some residents have voiced that preference. However, this is a false choice. There are other options which are supported by today's bylaws. The site is highly suitable for multiunit residential, which is in demand. The community's desires and goals for this area were made clear through a comprehensive municipal plan, recreation plan and recent neighbourhood plan. By-laws can and should change when necessary, but is a redundant park necessary? The application submitted to the Heritage Board made an argument that the heritage streetscape has a hole immediately adjacent on the eastern side. However, making the hole larger does not resolve this — it makes it worst. In fact, it builds on a 2011 decision to stop up and close a portion of Elliot Row that removed a dozen residential lots from the neighbourhood. It had a substantial negative impact on the potential for greater housing in the neighbourhood. Council should not continue the elimination of this potential through 111-119 King Street East, especially with the current urgent need for housing of all types, especially heritage. Choosing to raise a family in the central peninsula often gets a skeptical response from friends and family. I've always defended this neighbourhood as an excellent place for kids. It does lack one thing: other kids. We have excellent park facilities at Chown Field, Prince Charles School, the Boys and Girls Club, and Rainbow Park. When I ask other families why they don't move here, it's not because the area needs one more slide. It's because they can't find a home. Saint John is open for business, but residents have to live here too. It can be tough to balance the two, but it is achievable with open discussion and careful consideration. We should be grateful for all philanthropic contributions JDI provides to make Saint John even better. However, that is not how a council makes decisions. Council is elected to represent its residents and their best interests for the long term. Changes to by-laws have long term effects. The applicant has provided a well prepared application but the questions remains: is a redundant park a greater benefit than heritage preservation and WIN housing? No. Council should not feel any remorse with a denial. JDI already owns a majority of the entire block, most of which is surfacing parking, which is highly adaptable and easy to repurpose for any long term plans the company may have for their headquarters (see aerial photo). I'm certain they have the skills and vision to do something fantastic with that vast amount of space. Although generous, a small park simply is not a reason to punch a larger hole into the city's heritage streetscape and limited housing stock. Vote for heritage and housing, not a slide. Sincerely, Nick Cameron 12 Harding Street Saint John, NB E21- 1T6 W9191 � ■ , 10 + se - 1. ,wo i to » A�a �aIL COMMON COUNCIL REPORT M&C No. 2022-237 Report Date July 5, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Service Area Growth and Community Services Her Worship Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law — Heritage Permit Renewals OPEN OR CLOSED SESSION This matter is to be discussed in open session of Common Council. AUTHORIZATION Primary Author Commissioner/Dept. Head City Manager Jennifer Kirchner Jacqueline Hamilton John Collin RECOMMENDATION Your City Manager recommends that Common Council amend Section 6(8) of HC-1, the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law, to allow Heritage Permits to be renewed more than once. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In June 2022, staff proceeded with the preparation of a proposed amendment to the Heritage Conservation Areas By-law to provide enhanced customer service to heritage property owners who are undertaking maintenance and conservation work on their designated properties. The proposed amendment will provide a mechanism for Heritage Permits to receive additional renewals beyond the currently established three-year maximum. PREVIOUS RESOLUTION N/A REPORT In May 2022, a concern was brought to Council's attention during the public hearing for a request to remove a property from the Heritage Conservation Areas By-law. The applicant of said request had expressed concerns related to the impact that current and future construction challenges will have on his construction timelines and the reality that his Heritage Permit will expire before the project can be completed. Staff acknowledged these concerns and are proposing this amendment to help support heritage property owners as they undertake ongoing maintenance K9191 and conservation projects on existing heritage structures, and to support the development of innovative infill projects within our Heritage Conservation Areas. Recently, supply chain challenges due to the pandemic have made it increasingly difficult to secure specialized building materials in a timely manner. Both manufacturing and shipping have been greatly affected by lockdown mandates which have halted production and have created challenges to meeting traditional construction timelines. This has affected the ability of property owners and tradespersons to secure the specialized building products, such as custom-made wood windows, necessary to undertake a variety of maintenance and conservation projects. With increasing turnaround times between the ordering of these specialized or custom products and the final delivery of these materials, it can prevent a project from starting the same year the initial permit applications were made. In addition to the supply chain challenges, developers have also been expressing their difficulties in securing skilled tradespersons to start and complete work in a timely manner. Heritage conservation and maintenance work often requires property owners to secure specialized tradespersons who have experience with heritage buildings or work with traditional heritage building materials. These individuals are often in high demand and represent a smaller portion of all tradespersons who work within the construction industry. Delays in access to materials and labour challenges have created a domino effect which has drastically impacted typical construction timeframes. The issues outlined above become particularly problematic when dealing with larger scale projects that involve the orchestration of different tradespersons and that would, even under normal circumstances, take significant time to complete. The allowance for additional permit renewals will benefit those projects by providing a streamlined and efficient process for ensuring Heritage Permits remain active during the duration of the construction period. It is believed that the benefits from allowing for more flexible permit renewals will extend beyond the current pandemic related challenges. For instance, Heritage Permits can be secured by different organizations — including governmental and non- profit organizations, which generally require funding, sponsorship and/or other financial assistance to complete construction projects. In order for these organizations to analyse the feasibility of their project and to complete funding applications, they will often need to secure certain planning approvals (including Heritage Permits) significantly in advance of their potential construction start date. This is often required as part of the process to secure necessary funds through governmental grant programs. MIN A great example of a large-scale (Tier Three) project that would directly benefit from this proposed amendment is the Saint John Theater Company. The applicant acquired a Heritage Permit in early 2021 for the renovation and addition to the former Courthouse on Sydney Street. The organization is currently securing the necessary funding needed to facilitate their project and is finalizing other necessary approvals. Given that the Heritage Permit can only remain valid until early 2024 (within the existing by-law), there is a realistic possibility that the Heritage Permit could expire before the project is complete. The proposed amendment will create a streamlined process that will allow their project to move forward in an efficient manner. The proposed amendment would be to remove the limiting factor from the sentence in subsection 6(8). The current wording is as follows: 6(8) A Heritage Permit may be renewed no more than once. The proposed wording is outlined below: 6(8) A Heritage Permit may be renewed more than once. The Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law offers the guidelines and procedures necessary when dealing with heritage buildings in Saint John. Through undertaking strategic amendments to the By-law, it can help ensure the By-law is able to adapt to the evolving needs of heritage property owners. This will enable heritage property owners to continue to be the stewards of our built heritage and will help ensure a streamlined and customer friendly approach to Heritage Permitting. Applicants and owners of heritage properties need to be assured that their Permits can remain valid for the length of their project to facilitate adequate interventions and to maintain the owners' interest in repairing, restoring and rehabilitating heritage buildings. The Heritage Officer, in their role of processing Heritage Permit applications, would continue the responsibility for reviewing and issuing Heritage Permit renewals on an as needed basis. Any requested renewals that are being considered for denial or include significant changes from the existing issued Heritage Permit, would be brought before the Heritage Development Board for consideration. SUMMARY Staff believe that the proposed amendment will help ensure that heritage property owners are supported when undertaking maintenance and conservation work and that they have the flexibility to plan further in advance for the projects they wish to complete. For developers looking to undertake infill projects on heritage properties, the ability to seek additional Heritage Permit renewals will provide them with the time needed to secure the resources to see their project through to completion. WIN STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The proposed amendment aligns with Council's priority "Belong", "Perform" and "Grow". SERVICEAND FINANCIAL OUTCOMES The proposed amendment will provide a streamlined and customer -friendly approach to Heritage Permit renewals, which will enhance the customer experience with the core service deliveries of the One Stop Development Shop and the Heritage Conservation Services Area. INPUT FROM OTHER SERVICE AREAS AND STAKEHOLDERS The Heritage Development Board recommended for Common Council to amend Section 6(8) of HC-1, the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law, to allow Heritage Permits to be renewed more than once. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Report to the Heritage Development Board —June 10, 2022 2. Proposed Amendment— Draft 1801.13 BY-LAW NUMBER HC-1- A LAW TO AMEND THE SAINTJOHN HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREAS BY-LAW ARRETE No HC-1-_ ARRETE MODIFIANT UARRETE SUR LES SECTEURS DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE SAINT JOHN Be it enacted by The City of Saint John in Common Lors d'une reunion du conseil communal, The City of Council convened, as follows: Saint John a decrete ce qui suit: The Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law, enacted on the twenty-third day of September, A.D. 2019, is amended by: 1 Amending paragraph 6(8) by removing existing wording and replacing it with "A Heritage Permit may be renewed more than once". 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: L'arrete sur les secteurs de conservation du patrimoine de Saint John, decrete le vingt-trois (23) septembre 2019, est modifie par: 1 Modification du paragraphe 6(8) par la suppression d'un mot et s'remplacer avec « un permis de patrimoine peut etre renouvele plus qu'une seule fois. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau communal sur le present arrete le 2021, avec les signatures suivantes: Mayor/Maire City Clerk/Greffier municipal First Reading - Premiere lecture - Second Reading - Deuxieme lecture - Third Reading - Troisieme lecture - 1801%1 PA to] AMENDMENT TO THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION AREAS BY-LAW — HERITAGE PERMIT RENEWALS Date 2022-06-10 To: Heritage Development Board From: Growth and Community Services Prepared by: Rodrigo Mendes Campos Approved by: I Jennifer Kirchner SUBJECT City Staff are proposing an amendment to HC-1 Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law in order to provide a mechanism to allow Heritage Permits to receive additional renewals (extensions) beyond the 3-year maximum currently established. Common Council is being requested to set a public hearing date of July 11, 2022, to consider the proposed amendment. DISCUSSION In May 2022, a concern was brought to Council's attention during a public hearing to request the removal of a property from the HCA. The applicant of said request had expressed his concerns related to the impact that current/future construction challenges will affect his construction timelines and the reality that his Heritage Permit will expire before project completion. Staff acknowledges these concerns and are proposing an amendment to help support heritage property owners as they undertake ongoing maintenance and conservation projects on existing heritage structures, and to support the development of innovative infill projects with our Heritage Conservation Areas. Recently, supply chain challenges due to the pandemic have made it increasingly difficult to secure specialized building materials in a timely manner. Both manufacturing and shipping have been greatly affected by lockdown mandates which have halted production and have created challenges to traditional construction timelines. This has affected many specialized items such as custom wood windows, roofing materials, and essential components that protect heritage buildings against weather related damage. In addition to the supply chain discrepancies, developers have also been expressing their difficulties in securing skilled tradespersons to start and complete work in a timely manner. Delays in access to materials and labour have created a domino effect which has drastically impacted typical construction timeframes. 4—)— SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 C.P. 1971 Saint John, NB Saint John, N.-B. Canada E21-4L1 I Canada E2L 4L1 www.pip john.ca Page 1 of 3 Heritage Conservation Areas By-law Amendment June 10, 2022 Those scenarios become particularly problematic when dealing with larger scale projects that involve the orchestration of different tradespersons, and would, even in normal circumstances, take a significant time period to complete. The allowance for additional permit renewals will benefit those projects by providing a streamlined process for ensuring Heritage Permits remain active during the duration of the construction period. It is believed that the benefits from allowing for more flexible permit renewals will extend beyond the current pandemic related challenges. Heritage Permits can be secured by different organizations — including governmental and non-profit organizations, which generally require funding, sponsorship and/or aid to complete construction projects. In order to analyse the feasibility of the project, these organisations will often need to secure certain planning approvals (including Heritage Permits) significantly in advance of their potential construction start date. This is often required as part of the process to secure necessary funds through governmental grant programs. A great example of a project that would directly benefit from this amendment is the Saint John Theater Company. They acquired a Heritage Permit in early 2021 for the renovation and addition to the former Courthouse on Sydney Street. The organization is currently fundraising and securing the necessary funding needed to facilitate their project. Given that their Heritage Permit can only remain valid until early 2024 (within the existing by-law), there is a realistic probability that their Heritage Permit will expire before they complete their project. The proposed amendment will create a streamlined process that will allow their project to move forward in an efficient manner. The proposed amendment would be to remove the limiting factor from the sentence in subsection 6(8). The current wording is as follows: 6(8) A Heritage Permit may be renewed no more than once. The proposed wording is outlined below: 6(8) A Heritage Permit may be renewed more than once. The Heritage Conservation Areas By -Law offers the guidelines and procedures necessary when dealing with heritage buildings in Saint John. Through undertaking strategic amendments to the By-law, it can help ensure the By-law is able to adapt to the evolving needs of heritage property owners. This will enable heritage property owners to continue to be the stewards of our built heritage and will help ensure a streamlined and customer friendly approach to Heritage Permitting. Applicants and owners of heritage properties need to be reassured that their Permits can remain valid for the length of their project, as a way to facilitate adequate interventions and to maintain the owners' interest in repairing, restoring and rehabilitating heritage buildings. The Heritage Officer, in their role of processing Heritage Permit applications, would continue their responsibility for reviewing and issuing Heritage Permit renewals on an as needed basis. Any requested Page 2 of 3 212 Heritage Conservation Areas By-law Amendment June 10, 2022 renewals that are being considered for denial, would be brought before the Heritage Development Board for consideration. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that Common Council approve a motion to amend Section 6(8) of HC-1, the Saint John Heritage Conservation Areas By-law, to allow Heritage Permits to be renewed more than once. Page 3 of 3 213 From: JIM BEZANSON <limbez@rogers.com> Sent: July 8, 2022 10:05 AM To: Common Clerk <commonclerk@saintiohn.ca> Subject: Heritage Amendment - Remove No [ External Email Alert] **Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintiohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047.** Mayor and Councillors: Removing the word No from 6(8)Heritage ByLaw is a short term solution. I support this amendment. The intent of the One Stop Development process was to reduce red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy. All departments would get together to facilitate development. One (Stop) permit would be issued. The current pre -application meeting is the first step in implementation. Unfortunately, that's where the process stops. All staff do an excellent job at identifying the challenges. In any project there are competing goals from various by-laws. All are important and seen as sacred. Rather than continue to facilitate development, staff rest in their departmental silo. Before any Building Permit is issued it is circulated to all departments for signatures. This is the only One Stop required. Please request your City Manager to continue implementation of the additional necessary steps in the One Stop Development Process. Thanks Jim Bezanson 116 Wentworth Street PAE111 A BY-LAW TO AMEND A BY-LAW RESPECTING THE REGULATION OF PARKING IN THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, BY-LAW NUMBER LG-8, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ARRETE MODIFIANT L'ARRETE RELATIF A LA REGLEMENTATION DU STATIONNEMENT DANS THE CITY OF SAINT JOHN, ARRETE NUMERO LG-8, ET MODIFICATIONS AFFERENTES Be it enacted by the Common Council of Lors d'une reunion du conseil municipal, The City of Saint John as follows: The City of Saint John a decrete cc qui suit : A By-law of The City of Saint John entitled "A By-law respecting the Regulation of Parking in The City of Saint John, By-law Number LG-8" and amendments thereto, enacted on the 27ffi day of January, A.D. 2020, is hereby amended as follows: Par les presentee, Farrete de The City of Saint John intitule « Arrete relatif a la reglementation du stationnement dans The City of Saint John, Arrete numero LG-8 » et modifications afferentes, decrete le 27' jour d'janvier 2020, est modifie comme suit: 1. Subsection 9(2) is repealed and replaced 1. Le paragraphe 9(2) est abroge et remplace with the following: par cc qui suit: "9(2) The payment of the fee that is required for the use of a parking space may, subject to the instructions stated on a parking machine or sign, be made by using: (a) Canadian nickels, dimes, quarters, loonies or toonies; (b) parking tokens or pre -payment cards issued by the Parking Commission; (c) credit cards issued by American Express, Master Card or Visa; or (d) the HotSpot QR code. 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., 2022 signed by: 9(2) Sous reserve des instructions retrouvees sur la machine pour payer le stationnement on enseigne, le paiement des frais prescrits pour 1'utilisation d'un emplacement de stationnement pent titre fait an moyen de : a) pieces de cinq cents, de dix cents, de vingt-cinq cents, d'un dollar on de deux dollars canadiens; b) jetons de stationnement on de cartes prepayees delivrees par la Commission sur le stationnement; c) cartes de credit delivrees par American Express, Master Card on Visa; on d) le code QR HotSpot. EN FOI DE QUOI, The City of Saint John a fait apposer son sceau municipal sur le present airete le 2022, avec les signatures suivantes : Mayor / maire City Clerk / greffier de la municipalite First Reading - June 27, 2022 Premiere lecture Second Reading - June 27, 2022 Deuxieme lecture Third Reading - Troisieme lecture - le 27 juin 2022 - le 27 juin 2022 215 Proposed Municipal Plan Amendment Re: 1556 Manawagonish Road Public Notice is hereby given that the Common Council of The City of Saint John intends to consider an amendment to the Municipal Development Plan that would: Redesignate on Schedule A of the Municipal Development Plan, land having an approximate area of 7.4 hectares, located at 1556 Manawagonish Road, also identified as PIDs 00401539, 55095061, 55095079, and a portion of PIDs 00402735 and 55141063 from Stable Area to Park and Natural Area, and; 2. Redesignate on Schedule B of the Municipal Development Plan, land having an approximate area of 7.3 hectares, located at 1556 Manawagonish Road, also identified as PIDs 00401539, and 55095061, and 55095079 from Stable Residential, to Park and Natural Area, as illustrated below. A public presentation of the proposed amendment will take place at a regular meeting of Common Council, to be held in the Council Chamber at City Hall on Monday, July 11, 2022. Reason for Change: To permit an expansion to an existing cemetery. Written objections to the proposed amendment may be made to the Council, in care of the undersigned, by August 10, 2022. Ph1.1 Enquiries may be made at the office of the Common Clerk or Growth & Community Services, City Hall, 15 Market Square, Saint John, N.B. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, inclusive, holidays excepted. Jonathan Taylor, Common Clerk (506) 658-2862 Projet de Modification du Plan Municipal Objet : 1556, rue Manawagonish Par les presentes, un avis public est donne par lequel le conseil communal de ville de Saint John a ('intention d'etudier la modification du plan d'amenagement municipal comme suit: A I'annexe A du plan d'amenagement municipal, modifier le zonage d'un terrain d'une superficie de 7,4 hectares, situee au 1556, rue Manawagonish, egalement identifie comme Ies NIDs 00401539, 55095061, 55095079, et comme une partie du NIDs 00402735 and 55141063 qui passera de secteur stable a parc ou aire Naturelle, et; 2. A I'annexe B du plan d'amenagement municipal, modifier le zonage d'un terrain d'une superficie de 7,3 hectares, situe au 1556, rue Manawagonish, egalement identifie comme Ies NIDs 00401539, 55095061, et 55095079 qui passera de secteur residentiel stable de parc ou aire naturelle, comme illustre ci- dessous. Une presentation publique de la modification proposee aura lieu lors d'une reunion ordinaire du Conseil communal, qui aura lieu dans la salle du Conseil a I'hotel de ville, le lundi 11 juillet 2022. Raison de la Modification : Permettre I'agrand issement d'un cimetiere existant. PAIN Les objections ecrites a la modification proposee peuvent titre presentees au Conseil, aux soins du soussigne, d'ici le 10 aout 2022. Les demandes de renseignements peuvent titre presentees au bureau du greffier communal ou aux Services de croissance et de developpement communautaire, Hotel de ville, 15, Market Square, Saint John (N.-B.), entre 8 h 30 et 16 h 30, du lundi au vendredi, inclusivement, jours feries exclus. Jonathan Taylor, Greffier communal (506) 658-2862 PAF-11 Bovelopment Shopti� I f '+,��"��:`' _, f 1! I I. , I. E'RA. ] Rl I l ItE SAINT JOHN OneStop@saintjohn.ca Phone:658-2911 Fax:632-6199 General Application Form GROWTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF SAINT JOHN LOCATION CIVICADDRESS: 556 Manawagonish Road PID#: 401539, 55095079 and 66095061 LU HERITAGE AREA: Y / N INTENSIFICATION AREA: Y / N FLOOD RISK AREA: Y / N APPROVED GRADING PLAN: Y / N LL APPLICATION #: DATE RECEIVED: t^ RECEIVED BY: APPU CANT EMAIL PHONE Donna Gray donna@cedarhillcemetery.ca 672-4309 z 0 a MAILING ADDRESS POSTAL CODE 1650 Manawagonish Road, Saint John, NB E2M 3Y3 CONTRACTOR EMAIL PHONE O Z MAILING ADDRESS POSTAL CODE Z Q V OWNER EMAIL PHONE Cedar Hill -Greenwood Cemtery Company donna@cedarhillcemetery.ca 672-4309 a MAILING ADDRESS POSTAL CODE 1650 Manawagonish Road, Saint John, NB E2M 3Y3 PRESENT USE: Vacant land, former gravel Flit PROPOSED USE: Cemtery expansion BUILDING PLANNING INFRASTRUCTURE HERITAGE Q�INTERIORRENOVATION �NEWCONSTRUCTION []VARIANCE [:]STREET EXCAVATION ❑ HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT < EXTERIOR RENOVATION [:]ACCESSORYBLDG []PLANNING LETTER ODRIVEWAY CULVERT HERITAGE SIGN MAOpITION POOL PIPAC APPLICATION DRAINAGE �HERITAGE INFILL Q DECK DEMOLITION COUNCIL APP WATER & SEWERAGE HERITAGE DEMO Y z❑� CHANGE OF USE ❑ SIGNSUBDIVISION OTHER OTHER U 0MINIMUMSTANDARDSOOTHER OTHER It is the intent of Cedar 14111-Greenwood Cemetery Company to expand Cedar Hill Extension Cemetery,1650 Manawagonis OY Rd. using the land on PID 55141063 only. Columbariums and Traditional burial lots will be added. 3 PID 55095061 and 401539 will remain as Is for an extended period of time. This property allows access to the property i� owned by CH OW Cemetery Company at the Pipeline Road, which was not accessible prior. o MI consent to the City of Saint John sending to me commercial electronic messages, from time to time, regarding City initiatives and incentives. General Collection Statement This information is being collected -n order for the City of Saint John to deliver an existing program / service; the collection is i mited to that which is necessary to de iver the program / service. Unless required to do so by ^aw, the City of Saint John w I not share your personal Information with any third party without your express consent. The legal authority for collecting this information is to be found In the Munrc palities Act and the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. For further information or questions regarding the collection of personal information, please contact the Access & Privacy Officer: City Hall Building ,. 15 Market Square Saint R John, NO E2L l E8 r s„ CommonCICA@Sa! ntjoha.ca (NJ6) 658-2862 n, nq r sir w`. I, the undersigned, hereby appty for the permits) or approval(s), indicated above for the work described on plans, submissions and forms herewith submitted. This application includes all relevant documentation necessary for the applied for pennit(s) or approvol(s). I agree to compty with the plans, specifications and further agree to ::amply with ail relevant City Jay -laws and conditions imposed. Donna Gray Applica t fpme Applicant Signature June 15, 2022 Date 08'voi oint Shopw Council Application GROWTH & COMMUNITY SERVICES CITY OF SAINT JOHN CIVIC ADDRESS 1556 Manawagonish Road IAPPLICATION # FEE PAID Y I N TYPE OF APPLICATION ❑Land for Public Purposes Release Application Fee: $350 Section 59 Amendment Application Fee: $2,650 ❑ Non -Conforming Use Application Fee: $250 ❑ Zoning By-law Amendment Application Fee: $2,650 ❑ Satisfactory Servicing Application Fee: $350 Zoning By-law Amendment with Municipal Plan Amendment Application Fee: $3,700 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION Where applicable, indicate the changes to existing Section 59 conditions, zoning, or Municipal Plan designation being requested. Attach site plans, building elevations, floor plans, and other documentation to fully describe the application. The submission of a preliminary proposal and a Pre-Appllcation Meeting is encouraged prior to seeking approval. Please contact the One Stop Development Shop at (606) 658-2911 or OneStop@saintjohn.ca for further information. Cedar Hill -Greenwood Cemetery intends to expand Cedar Hill Extension Cemete , 1650 Manawagonish Rd. to accomodate Columbariums as well as Traditional Burial Lots on PID PID 55095061 and 401539 will remain as is for an extended period of time. This property allows accessible prior. ENCUMBRANCES Describe any easements, restrictive covenants, and other encumbrances af%cting the land. I NB Power has an easement on PID 55095061 i AUTHORIZATION As of the date of this application, I, the undersigned, am the registered owner of the land described in this application or the authorized agent thereof, and I have examined the contents of this application and hereby certify that the information submitted with the application is correct insofar as I have knowledge of these facts, and I hereby authorize the applicant to represent this matter and to provide any additional information that will be necessary for this application. F� ex Registered Owner or Autt'd6ze"90 ­ Additional Registered Owner June 15, 2022 Date Date The information contained in this application and any documentation, including plans, drawings, reports, and studies, provided in support of this application will become part of the public record. Council Application Form 2021 06 01 RX91 ef LP1 N X C $ W ta. E u t o QW) 4« Ln � N o GI V V OG 3 .y O fl L LI C ` tr Ln fl Y ° •y C G. a) O C O c do X "' — r�-I m .--I w E "0 L C7 r1 — _ � U A No N a00i � O Gi u 221 Cedar HiCC-Greenwood Cemetery Company June 15, 2022 City of Saint John 15 Market Square Saint John, NB E2L 1E8 Re: Rezoning: PID # 401539, 55095079 and 55095061 Description of proposal 1650 Manawagonish Rd. Saint John, N.B. E2M 3Y3 Tel: 506.672.4309 info@ceda rhil Icemetery.ca Cedar Hill Extension Cemetery, 1650 Manawagonish Road is a well•establ!shed landmark in West Saint John. The first burial was around 1922. This Cemetery is the resting place for approximately 2,000 Veterans in our Field of Honour in addition to the thousands buried in Family Plots. There is a very limited number of burial spaces available in this Cemetery, we have basically sold out. The approximately % of an acre of land at the top right corner of Cedar Hill Extension Cemetery is the focus of our expansion. This is a wonderful opportunity to install Columbarlums for Cremation Burials as well as have some space available for Traditional Burials. The attached drawing shows the area where we will install Columbariums as well as the Traditional Burial Lots. We have factored in a roadway and turning circle to manage traffic. The back and right end will have a safety fence installed as well as a decorative burier. A berm will be added to segregate the work area and garage from the new burial space. At this time this is the only space that we will be developing. There are no future plans for the roadway, or the space previously used as a gravel pit. The only advantage to owning this property is to have access to the land owned by Cedar Hill -Greenwood Cemetery adjoining the Pipeline Road. L," A _X4t4 _ Donna M. Gray Executive Director cn.e tery.ca �ww wAg E N C3 M O M N � o 0 LO 0 0 C3 0 CD o U CV E E E ppU U LO CD M p a ,2 co 0) CD 40 yN G p 2 a 0 @ E Z n. CL N N C � 03 C !" co E N C O CA Co co 0 CD P0�j Received Date July 06, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Open or Closed Open Session Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council Subject: Proposal to Federal Boundary Commission for Two Federal Members of Parliament Background: Every ten years there is a review of present federal riding boundaries, there is currently a review going on in 2022. Our region has the capacity with similar interests to have two MPs. A community of interest exists in terms of geography, history, employment, school, sports districts, business, culture, family relationships and the sharing of government services. One Federal Constituency/riding could be 1)Kennebecasis - adding Rothesayto Sussex, to St. Martins, Bellelisle, Kingston up to Gagetown ( adding Quispamsis back into our region) . Riverview should be with Moncton and Dieppe with Shediac . Charlotte County could be with Carleton County as they are both rural with small towns ,along the US border and their economies are based on food production (the old Fish and Chip riding). The other Federal riding/ Constituency for our region/ metro area would be 2) Saint John- Grand Bay Westfield ( running to Lepreau and keeping Saint John West in with Saint John). In the BNA/ Consitituon Act of 1982 New Brunswick is guaranteed 10 seats but we can grow. Our NB population has shifted to more urban and southern. Communities of interest, geography, language and I believe the needs of a community are the characteristics that are taken into account . Saint John has huge poverty issues which need addressing at all levels of government . We have some of the highest indicators of poverty in Canada - lack of post secondary education , our food banks are seeing a large increase in demand, lower wages and benefits , big housing issues etc more so then other Atlantic Canadian Cities . New Brunswick's population is divided between rural and urban with urban growing . 70% of NBs population is Anglophone and 30% Francophone and that is changing as immigrants/ refugees are speaking English and moving to metro areas. Traditionally the 3 northern ridings have been anchored by three smaller cities: Miramichi, Bathurst and Ed munston. The Metro areas of Moncton, Saint John and Fredericton are connected to a large enough metro population for each to have two Federal MPs ( much the same way as Windsor, St. John's and St. Catherine's are). NB has a 800,000 plus population , the highest in our history and is growing. The riding/ consituency size would range from 70- 90 thousand with an average of 80,000. When deciding on boundaries many characteristics are weighed. Our region for example when it comes to geographic similarities would be the Saint John- Kennebecasis Rivers and the Bay of Fundy . SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 4L1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4LI POzI Partners- Envision and the Chamber of Commerce and our regional municipalities should be contacted and one presentation made to the Federal Boundary Commission . Motion: For the City of Saint John to approach our regional partners to create a proposal to be presented to the Federal Boundary Commission so that our region would have two Federal Members of Parliament . This would give our region/ metro area more power and influence in Ottawa. Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) Barry Ogden Ward 2 Councillor City of Saint John SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L411 I vwwvsaintjohn.ca I C.P 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L4L1 OR Received Date July 06, 2022 Meeting Date July 11, 2022 Open or Closed Open Session Mayor Donna Noade Reardon and Members of Common Council Subject: American Iron and Metal (AIM) Background: American Iron and Metal (AIM), located at Port of Saint John, has long created operational conflict. Following consistent public outcry and two deaths within 7 months at the facility, the Saint John location remains one of the most unregulated and unsafe workplaces of the 98 various AIM sites worldwide. It is time for AIM to step up and stop its Saint John operations and for the Province of New Brunswick to suspend its operating license until a new operating agreement is in place to protect the community and prioritize the safety of Saint John workers. Motion: RESOLVED that Common Council write a letter to the Premier, the responsible Minister, and all relevant provincial officials calling on their action specific to AIM's operations in order to protect workers and our community; including swift response to Worksafe NB's investigations and full implementation of their recommendations. Respectfully Submitted, (Received via email) David Hickey Ward 3 Councillor City of Saint John SAINT JOHN P.O. Box 1971 Saint John, NB Canada E2L 41_1 I www.saintjohn.ca I C.P 1971 Saint John, N.-B. Canada E2L 4LI WOU Team Sahil Dalrymple 54 Chatham Ave Oromocto, NB E2V 2S3 June 21, 2022 To Whom it May Concern, The purpose of this letter is to seek your support of Team Dalrymple. We are a competitive junior curling team focusing our efforts on representing New Brunswick at the Canada Games 2023. We are looking for some sponsors to help with the cost of tournament registrations and are hoping that you are interested in being a team sponsor. We have 2 sponsorship options. A: Team sponsorship of $500- would include having your logo on Front or Back team jackets which will be worn at all competitions. Your company would also receive recognition on our team Facebook site and any other media that we produce. B: Team sponsorship of $300- would include having your logo on a sleeve of the jacket and recognition on our team Facebook site and any other media that we produce. If you have any questions, please contact undersigned. Thank you for your time and we hope that we establish a partnership with you for the 2022-2023 season. Sincerely, Brian Dalrymple Coach Team Dalrymple 506-470-8701 POOM From: City of Saint John, New Brunswick To: Common Clerk Subject: Webform submission from: Request to present to council form Date: June 28, 2022 3:26:05 PM [ External Email Alert] "Please note that this message is from an external sender. If it appears to be sent from a Saint John employee, please forward the email to spamsample@saintjohn.ca or contact IT Service Desk at 649-6047. * * Submitted on Tue, 06/28/2022 - 15:25 Submitted by: Anonymous Submitted values are: About Person/Group Presenting First Name: Laura Last Name: Oland Name of Organization/Group (where applicable): Saint John Community Arts Board Address: c/o PO Box 1971 Saint John, New Brunswick. E2L 4L1 Canada Day Time Phone Number: c/o 506-639-3830 (Kate Wilcott) Email kate.wilcott�.sainljohn.ca If you do NOT wish to have your personal information (address, phone number, email) become part of the public record, please check this box. Yes About your Request PIM] Topic of Presentation: Annual presentation by Arts Board Purpose for Presentation (what is the ask of Council): As a board of council, the Arts Board is required to present to council with updates and reports on the board's activities. Due to COVID, the board has not presented in the past 2 years. Background Information: Kate Wilcott will introduce the Board, and the 1st Vice Chair, Laura Oland, will present. We will have a slide deck as part of the presentation. PaRl f M&C No. 2022-208 Report Date June 22, 2022 Meeting Date June 27, 2022 Service Area Growth and Community Development Services SUBJECT: Resourcing Community Support Services EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT FOR OPEN SESSION OF COUNCIL Council's priorities, the corporate workplan and the emerging directions in the City's 10-year strategic plan place additional emphasis on high valued recreation and community services as well as the aspiration to see the City play a stronger role in championing the social agenda through the development of a municipal social charter in close collaboration with community stakeholders. To achieve these objectives, the corporation must augment its resource capabilities. The City manager is recommending an increase to the establishment to resource a new "Community support services" portfolio within Growth and Community services. This will introduce a new Senior Manager of Community Support Services position to champion efforts to build a strong, resilient, and inclusive community. Reporting directly to the Commissioner of Growth and Community services, this high -profile position will play an important leadership role in coordinating the corporate and community response to emerging social issues impacting the most vulnerable and marginalized members of the Saint John community. Services related to recreation, arts, culture, and community development will also be re- organized under this high -profile leadership position to capitalize on the synergies between these portfolios. COUNCIL RESOLUTION The City manager recommends that Common Council: 1. Approve the addition of a Senior Manager, Community Support Services to the City's establishment to resource the Community Services portfolio. 2. Further that the recommendation be forwarded to the July 11, 2022 open session of Council to facilitate roll -out of communications of the proposed organizational changes. f0�10'.07