Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-08-04_1_COW_Website Agenda Package.pdfPage 1 of 1 (Cover Pages) Committee of the Whole AGENDA Thursday, August 4, 2022 – 8:45 a.m. Livestreamed via YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_uKlob3qOA6eD62x1kK5Kw 151 King Street, Chester, NS 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (15 minutes) 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 July 21, 2022. 5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/APPOINTMENTS 6. MATTERS ARISING 6.1 Broadband Verbal Update – Strategic Initiatives Coordinator. 6.2 Request for Direction prepared July 7, 2022 – Corporate & Strategic Management – Governance & Electoral Boundary Review. 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Development Fees (Information to follow). 9. IN CAMERA 10. ADJOURNMENT Reminder: Public Hearing at 6:30 p.m. (Lakeside Zone Sherbrooke Lake) In Council Chambers 314 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER Minutes of COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Via YouTube Live from 151 King St, Chester, NS On Thursday, July 21, 2022 CALLED TO ORDER Warden Webber called the meeting to order at 8:50 a.m. Present: District 1 – Councillor Andre Veinotte District 2 – Deputy Warden Shatford District 3 – Councillor Derek Wells District 4 – Warden Webber District 5 – Councillor Abdella Assaff District 6 – Councillor Tina Connors District 7 – Councillor Sharon Church Staff: Dan McDougall, CAO Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk Emily Lennox, Executive Secretary Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations Chad Haughn, Director of Community Development & Recreation Christa Rafuse, Director of Solid Waste Fred Whynot, Director of Public Works Solicitor: Samuel Lamey, Municipal Solicitor APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ORDER OF BUSINESS Addition:  CAO - In Camera Item.  CAO - Council Meeting Calendar for August/September.  Councillor Wells – Outdoor Dining.  Councillor Church – Brunswick Street in Chester (near cemetery). 2022-312 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff the July 21, 2022, Agenda and Order of Business for the Committee of the Whole be approved as amended. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Committee of the Whole (continued) July 21, 2022 315 PUBLIC INPUT There was no public input. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 4.1 Committee of the Whole – June 2, 2022 – Warden Webber. 2022-313 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford the minutes of the June 2, 2022, meeting of Committee of the Whole be approved as circulated. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS There were no public presentations. MATTERS ARISING 6.1 Quarterly Report – Department of Infrastructure & Operations. Present was Matthew Blair, Director of Infrastructure & Operations, Christa Rafuse, Director of Solid Waste, and Fred Whynot, Director of Public Works. The presentation can be viewed on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_uKlob3qOA6eD62x1kK5Kw . The Director of Infrastructure & Operations reviewed the presentation outlined in the slides as follows: Information & Operations Objectives:  Project backlog, changing from reactive to proactive, processes, data driven recommendations, and clarity of roles and responsibilities.  The Organizational Chart.  Roles and Responsibilities of the Wastewater Engineer, CET, Director of Solid Waste, Director of Public Works, Administrative Coordinator, and himself.  Operations Categories: o Roads. o Wastewater. o Buildings and Structures. o Vehicles and Equipment. Committee of the Whole (continued) July 21, 2022 316 o Open Spaces. o Solid Waste. o Administration.  Solid Waste Statistics.  Solid Waste Wastewater: o Leachate Phase 2.  Solid Waste Buildings and Structures: o Cell 3B. o Public Drop-Off.  Solid Waste Vehicles and Equipment: o Compactor. o ½ ton Truck. o Green Carts.  Solid Waste Administration: o Curbside Garbage Review. o Landfill Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Policy. o Environmental Reports. o Landfill Strategy.  Solid Waste Maintenance: o Road. o Sampling. o Biofilter. o Cell coverage. o Corrals. o Vehicle and Equipment Policy. o CFC (now removed onsite by staff).  Public Works Statistics.  Public Works – Roads (ICIP): o Active Transportation. o Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons. o Paved Shoulders. o Speed Radar Signs.  Public Works – Roads: o J-Class Roads and criteria development. o Snow and Ice Control.  Public Works – Wastewater (ICIP): o Lift Stations and Force mains. o Chester Wastewater Treatment Plant. Committee of the Whole (continued) July 21, 2022 317  Public Works – Wastewater: o Otter Point Wastewater Treatment Plant. o Western Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade. o Western Shore Gravity System. o Chester Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant. o Mill Cove Biofilter. o Mill Cove Fire Protection. o Manhole Repairs. o Manhole Infiltration Reduction. o Lift Station Panel Upgrades and Generators. o Wastewater Pumps. o Wastewater Study.  Public Works – Buildings and Structures (ICIP): o Gold River Bridge. o Station Bridge. o Wild Rose Accessible Washrooms. o Administration Building Heat pumps. o Harbour Floats. o Trail Bridge Repairs. o Admin/Annex Accessibility Audit.  Public Works – Vehicles and Equipment: o ¾ Ton Truck. o Zero Turn Mower.  Public Works – Open Space: o Henneberry Lake. o Trail Maintenance. o Beach Wall Repair. o Haughn Property.  Public Works – Administration: o J-Class Roads (new matrix). o Wastewater Flow – staff have found some better efficiencies which mitigates human data input error. o Trail Surface Assessment Criteria. o Traffic Impact Study. o Community Wells. o Wastewater Treatment Plant Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) Manuals. o Wastewater Capital Charge. o Service Exchange. Committee of the Whole (continued) July 21, 2022 318  Public Works Staffing: o Wastewater Engineer – L. Besanger. o Public Works Labourer – P. Fisher. o Administrative Coordinator – T. Clarke.  Public Works – Other: o Business Development.  Infrastructure & Operations – Administration: o Asset Management Strategy – also includes land. o Infrastructure & Operations Strategy. o Staffing Review – an internal review of staff qualifications, training, and succession planning. o Tender Assessment Criteria Review – is there a way to streamline? Tenders are normally straight forward, but proposals are more subjective. Consider Council discussing up front what may be more important in the criteria at that time for that project. o By-Law Reviews. o Landscape Specifications.  Active Projects. Comments: Councillor Connors:  Asked what shade structures were and the Director of I&O replied that they are gazebos and bandstands.  Asked about parking lots and squares and the Director of I&O replied it is there as a placemark – we have one parade square at this time.  Asked about the floats and he noted that it would include high level enhanced use and access.  Commented that pole mounted radar signs have been identified and staff have sent out a request for locations of the mobile radar sign. Councillor Church:  She has an issue with a curbside garbage collection location. It has been hard to find a solution. Deputy Warden Shatford:  Is in favour of water access, however, if we don’t own it but repair and maintain it, are we liable for any damages? It was noted that the Municipality could be sued as well.  Asked what the annual trail maintenance costs are and the Director indicated that he would forward that information. Councillor Wells: Committee of the Whole (continued) July 21, 2022 319  Asked about Active Transportation and potential encroachment on private lots.  The Director of Public Works indicated that sometimes the standards put the properties below the road, however, if they do encroach, they make sure the owner understands the impact. With current sidewalk standards, sometimes the fill underneath a new sidewalk can encroach on to a property if it is below the current road level. Potential encroachments have been identified and Staff have reached out to those property owners to discuss same. Councillor Wells:  Asked about Wild Rose Park and the new washrooms being installed. Until then, there is a port-a-potty on site, however the port-a-potties are only maintained once a week. He felt maintenance should be schedule at least two times per week.  Asked about “currently with procurement” comment and the Director indicated that some of the procurements are in transition between the new digital platform and old process. Councillor Connors:  Commented that COVID had an impact with more people getting outside to do what they could safely. She recognizes that and is thankful for the port-a-potties which she feels are being used three times over what they were before COVID.  Warden Webber commented that we may need an overall policy. Deputy Warden Shatford:  Asked about new projects that may arise, and the Director of I&O indicated it would be done if we had the capacity but may have to ask Council to prioritize some of the projects moving forward. Councillor Wells:  Asked about the floats and who supervises their use. It was noted that the number of the By-Law Enforcement Officer is posted, and they are unable to stay for more than 24 hours. He indicated it is a great service as long as it isn’t abused, and it was noted that it is largely self-managed, and staff will get calls if there is a complaint. CORRESPONDENCE There were no items of Correspondence. NEW BUSINESS 9.1 Council Schedule – August and September. Committee of the Whole (continued) July 21, 2022 320 2022-314 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council an amended schedule of Council and Committee of the Whole meetings for August and September, 2022: DATE MEETING CHANGE August 11, 2022 Council Cancelled August 18, 2022 Committee of the Whole Cancelled August 25, 2022 Council Cancelled September 15, 2022 No meeting Scheduled Hold a Committee of the Whole Meeting September 22, 2022 Committee of the Whole Move to September 15, 2022. No meeting on September 22nd. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Warden Webber noted that if something urgent comes up we can schedule a meeting. 9.2 Outdoor Dining – Councillor Wells. Councillor Wells noted that he received a letter from the Fo’c’sle Tavern and wanted to know why he is unable to have outdoor dining. The Deputy CAO indicated the approval issues are with the NS Department of Public Works and thought it had something to do with setbacks from the corners of the intersection and lessens the number of seats they would be able to put out. Councillor Wells asked who enforced it and it was noted that the NS Department of Public Works would approve and enforce outdoor dining. Councillor Wells asked for a copy of the letter to be circulated to Council so that it can be reviewed. The Deputy CAO indicated that she would get a copy of the letter and send it out. 9.3 Condition of Brunswick Street, Chester – Councillor Church. Councillor Church indicated that she has had people comment to her on the terrible condition of Brunswick Street, Chester. They feel the condition of the road is due to construction on the corner where there previously was a beautiful older home which has been replaced with a newer and more modern home. Committee of the Whole (continued) July 21, 2022 321 Warden Webber commented that it is difficult to enforce anything as the streets belong the province, but we can write them and add it to the next Quarterly Meeting of Council and the NS Department of Public Works. Councillor Connors mentioned that a couple of years ago that was brought forward to a quarterly meeting, and it was agreed at that time that the construction traffic was causing the damage. The CAO indicated that the Local Supervisor has taken another position. He also noted that it is important for our department coordinator, the CET, attend the meetings as well. We will add this to the upcoming agenda and have a discussion. He is unsure if there is any baseline information on the road, but we can ask them what the practice is. It was noted that the Deputy Minister should also be invited, and the CAO would schedule a meeting as quickly as we can to outline the new issues. IN CAMERA 9.1 In Camera – Section 22(2)(a) of the MGA – Acquisition, sale, lease, or security of municipal property. 2022-315 MOVED by Councillor Church, SECONDED by Deputy Warden Shatford that the meeting convene In Camera as per Section 22(2)(a) of the MGA – Acquisition, sale, lease, or security of municipal property. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. Following a brief meeting held “In Camera” the meeting reconvened with all members present. ADJOURNMENT 2022-316 MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church, the meeting adjourn. ALL IN FAVOUR. MOTION CARRIED. (10:26 a.m.) ___________________________ ___________________________ Allen Webber Pamela Myra Warden Municipal Clerk REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole MEETING DATE: August 4, 2022 DEPARTMENT: Corporate & Strategic Management SUBJECT: Governance & Electoral Boundary Review ORIGIN: MGA Section 369; 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Date: July 27, 2022 Prepared by: Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator Nick Zinck, GIS Specialist Date: August 2, 2022 Reviewed by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Date: Authorized by: RECOMMENDED ACTION That the Committee of the Whole: 1. Review and endorse options for polling district boundary revisions to be shared for public consultation via several community engagement activities; and 2. Review and endorse the outlined approach for community engagement for the 2022 Municipal Governance & Electoral Boundary Review CURRENT SITUATION The Municipal Government Act requires all municipal governments throughout Nova Scotia to conduct a Municipal Governance & Electoral Boundary Review every eight years. This Review must result in a completed application and a study submitted to the Nova Scotia Utilities & Review Board (NSUARB). The Review is a study of the Council’s governance structure (whether warden or mayoral system), the number and boundaries of polling districts (including their fairness and reasonableness), and the number of councillors representing those polling districts. As part of the process of confirming or changing the existing governance structure and electoral boundaries in the formal study, NSUARB also underscores the importance of community consultation for public input on aspects of the Review. The Municipality of Chester last conducted a Review in 2014. The 2022 study must be completed and submitted to the NSUARB by December 31, 2022. Although the Municipality’s population has remained relatively unchanged since the 2014 Review, the number of electors has increased significantly and thus requires an application to the NSUARB for changes to electoral boundaries. The purpose of this Request for Direction is to outline several possible options for changes to electoral district boundaries AND to outline a community engagement plan to complete the governance and electoral boundary review process. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2 BACKGROUND Population & Electors The population of the Municipality of Chester is 10,693 (2021 Census figures) with 9,174 registered voters (June 3, 2022 figures provided by Elections Nova Scotia), all of which access municipal government representation though seven polling districts and seven corresponding councillors. Recommended Review Process The NSUARB recommends a two-step process for the Review: Step 1: Determine the size of council (i.e. the number of councillors), which includes consideration of the desired style and governance structure of Council (whether the mayoral or warden system), and a determination of an effective and efficient number of councillors. Step 2: Review the distribution of polling districts and their boundaries. Several factors must be addressed when determining boundaries of polling districts, including the number of electors, relative parity of voting power, population density, community of interest, and geographic size. Of note, the target variance for relative parity of voting power among polling districts must be +/- 10% from the average number of electors per polling district. NSUARB identifies the importance of public consultation, ideally in tandem with the two-step process above. However, the Board also allows for some flexibility in approach. Municipality of Chester’s Review Process to Date On February 10, 2022, Council discussed possible changes to the Municipality’s governance structure. After some discussion, Council reaffirmed a commitment to the current Warden system and provided direction to staff on proceeding with the electoral boundaries review: MOTION 2022-051 – MOVED by Deputy Warden Shatford, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council approve the governance structure as it is now, i.e. the Warden system, and direct staff to carry out the boundary review in house. On May 26, 2022, Council reviewed the existing status the Municipality’s polling districts in terms of the number of electors in relation to the average number of electors per district. This “first pass” discussion used February 3, 2022 numbers from Elections Nova Scotia. After discussion, Council provided the following direction: MOTION 2022-229 – MOVED by Councillor Wells, SECONDED by Councillor Church that Council, as part of the Boundary Review Process (Section 369 of the Municipal Government Act) confirm the number of Council Districts remain at seven (7) and direct staff to provide options for possible boundary changes to remain in line with the +/- 10% parity. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3 Context for Council’s Discussion to Date Council’s preference for maintaining the current size and structure of Council is based on the understanding that the current size and structure effectively and efficiently represents and serves residents. To provide some context, Table 1: Comparable Rural Municipalities below lists comparable municipal units (rural municipalities with similar populations) and their size of Council. Although by no means a detailed analysis, Barrington, Digby, Queens, and Yarmouth all have comparable population per councillor averages, whereas Argyle and MODL appear to be at either end of a broad range of averages. TABLE 1: COMPARABLE RURAL MUNICIPLAITIES Municipality Number of Councillors* Population per Councillor** Municipality of the District of Argyle 9 / 7,870 874 Municipality of the District of Barrington 5 / 6,523 1,305 Municipality of the District of Chester 7 / 10,693 1,528 Municipality of the District of Digby 5 / 7,242 1,448 Municipality of the District Lunenburg 10 (+ Mayor) / 25,545 2,554 Region of Queens Municipality 7 (+ Mayor) / 10,422 1,489 Municipality of the District of Yarmouth 7 / 10,067 1,438 * Including Warden, unless otherwise noted ** Population used as a point of comparison rather than number of electors as population figures are more readily accessible. 2021 Census figures used. NSUARB encourages the solicitation of public input as a “key component of the decision-making process leading to an application by a municipality.” Based on the feedback received during the 2014 Municipal Governance & Electoral Boundary Review, and following Council’s lengthy discussion in February 2022, Council agreed, by Motion, that the current governance structure continued to provide effective and efficient governance. However, as outlined in the community consultation plan below, one option proposed by staff is to include questions about governance style in the resident survey. This way, if there are any concerns raised, Council could revisit its debate and ensure any community input is heard and discussed before providing a final recommendation for the application and study to the NSUARB. DISCUSSION Existing Electoral Districts & Number of Electors Although the population of the Municipality of Chester has remained relatively unchanged (10,741 in 2006, 10,599 in 2011, 10,310 in 2016, and 10,693 in 2021), there has been significant change in the number of electors. This would suggest that although there is not significant growth in population, a greater percentage of the existing population has aged into voting age. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4 Below in Table 2: Review of Number of Electors is a comparison of the number of electors per polling district as submitted for the 2012 Municipal Governance & Electoral Boundary Review with the number of electors as of June 3, 2022, provided by Elections Nova Scotia. TABLE 2: REVIEW OF NUMBER OF ELECTORS Polling District Number of Electors per District in 2012 Number of Electors per District as of June 2022 Change in Electors between 2022 & 2012 % Change 2022 Electors per District as Variation from the District Average 2022 Electors per District as % Variation from the District Average 1 1,142 1,419 277 24.25% 109 8.32% 2 1,164 1,483 319 27.40% 173 13.21% 3 1,065 1,206 141 13.23% -104 -7.94% 4 1,092 1,196 104 9.52% -114 -8.70% 5 1,194 1,381 187 15.66% 71 5.41% 6 1,156 1,295 139 12.02% -15 -1.15% 7 1,011 1,194 183 18.10% -116 -8.85% Total 7,824 9,174 1,350 17.25% Average 1,118 1,310 192 17.17% As noted, NSUARB has established that the target variance for relative parity of voting power among polling districts must be +/- 10% from the average number of electors per polling district. For the number of electors (as of June 3, 2022) in the Municipality of Chester, relative parity of voting power of +/- 10% equates to a +/- 131 electors, or the range of 1,179 to 1,441 per district from the 1,310 average number of electors per polling district. The obvious and necessary adjustment needed is to District 2 with a 13.21% variation above the District Average. As a result, the Option 1 proposal for polling district boundary revisions includes three similar minor approaches for adjusting the District 2 boundary, along with corresponding boundary adjustments to Districts 1 and 3, thereby ensuring relative parity of voting power of +/-10% for all affected districts. However, keeping in mind parity of voting power as an underlying principle, it is important to note the number of electors in Districts 1, 3, 4, and 7 are all close to the +/- 10% threshold. As a result, Options 2 & 3 outlined propose a community boundary approach to adjusting polling district boundaries. In addition to adjustments that better respect community boundaries, this approach provides improved parity of voting power among all polling districts within +/- 10% and, as an option for further step towards greater parity, within +/-5%. Boundary Revisions Options NSUARB provides broad guidelines for adjusting polling district boundaries to achieve voter parity outcomes. In its assessment of any proposed boundary changes submitted for Municipal Governance & Electoral Boundary Review, NSUARB “must consider several factors in determining the number and R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 5 boundaries of polling districts, including the number of electors, relative parity of voting power, population density, community of interest and geographic size”. (Municipal Boundaries User Guide) What follows is an overview of three proposed options for changes to polling district boundaries, calculated, defined, and mapped based on the number of electors as of June 3, 2022. These options are based on clear, consistent, and logical principles that will be included and developed further as a rationale for the final recommendation submitted to the NSUARB. During the presentation of this report to Council, digital maps will be available for review. General Rules Guiding Polling District Boundaries Adjustments: 1. Follow community boundaries 2. Follow major rivers and streams 3. Follow lines connecting between two known points, such as intersecting points of a road crossing with streams/rivers, or where a road intersects another road, or river stream inlets and outlets of major water bodies. 4. Try not to divide homes on the same road by drawing a line down the centre 5. Try to keep all homes on the same street in the same district (not applicable to major roadways, such as highways) OPTION 1 consists of three minor variations for adjustments to District 2, and corresponding adjustments to Districts 1 and 3. OPTION 1A: District 2 Southern boundary line shifted North; District 3 boundary line shifted Northeast This option moves the southern boundary line of District 2 north along Highway 329 and follows the community boundary between Birchy Head and The Lodge. Resulting District Parity of Voting Power District Average: 1310 District 1: 1433 (9.39%) - net change: +14 electors District 2: 1434 (9.47%) - net change: -49 electors District 3: 1241 (-5.27%) - net change: +35 electors District 4: 1196 (-8.70%) - no change in number of electors District 5: 1381 (5.41%) - no change in number of electors District 6: 1295 (-1.15%) - no change in number of electors District 7: 1194 (-8.85%) - no change in number of electors PROS: Impact on minimal number of Districts CONS: Defers growing disparity of voter power among Districts to the next Review process in 2030 R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 6 OPTION 1B: District 2 Western boundary line shifted East; District 3 boundary line shifted Northeast This option moves the western boundary line of District 2 east along Highway 3, following natural features. Resulting District Parity of Voting Power District Average: 1310 District 1: 1405 (7.25%) - net change: -14 electors District 2: 1420 (8.40%) - net change: -63 electors District 3: 1283 (-2.06%) - net change: +77 electors District 4: 1196 (-8.70%) - no change in number of electors District 5: 1381 (5.41%) - no change in number of electors District 6: 1295 (-1.15%) - no change in number of electors District 7: 1194 (-8.85%) - no change in number of electors PROS: Impact on minimal number of Districts CONS: Defers growing disparity of voter power among Districts to the next Review process in 2030 OPTION 1C: District 2 Southern boundary line shifted North and Western boundary line moved east; District 3 boundary line shifted Northeast This option moves the western AND southern boundary lines between District 2 and District 1 Resulting District Parity of Voting Power District Average: 1310 District 1: 1402 (7.02%) - net change: -17 electors District 2: 1423 (8.63%) - net change: -60 electors District 3: 1283 (-2.06%) - net change: +77 electors District 4: 1196 (-8.70%) - no change in number of electors District 5: 1381 (5.42%) - no change in number of electors District 6: 1295 (-1.15%) - no change in number of electors District 7: 1194 (-8.85%) - no change in number of electors PROS: Impact on minimal number of Districts CONS: Defers growing disparity of voter power among Districts to the next Review process in 2030 R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 7 OPTION 2: Alignment of Community Boundaries and Polling Districts (for +/-10% parity) This option looks at the use of known on-the-ground community boundaries to create a clearer rationale for polling districts that still achieves voting power parity of +/-10%. There are multiple changes to the current District 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 boundaries to follow community boundaries, so the overall change in electors is noted below. Resulting District Parity of Voting Power District Average: 1310 District 1: 1243 (-5.11%) - net change: -176 electors District 2: 1381 (-5.42%) - net change: -102 electors District 3: 1382 (5.51%) - net change: +176 electors District 4: 1200 (-8.40%) - net change: +4 electors District 5: 1381 (-5.41%) - no change in number of electors District 6: 1295 (-1.15%) - no change in number of electors District 7: 1292 (-1.37%) - net change: +98 voters PROS: Improved parity of voting power for more Districts; alignment with community boundaries; longer-term fix CONS: More community engagement and communications required due to impact on more communities OPTION 3: Alignment of Community Boundaries and Polling Districts (for +/-5% parity) This option looks at the use of known on-the-ground community boundaries to create a clearer rationale for polling districts and best possible fit that achieves voting power parity of +/-5%. There are multiple changes to the current District 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 boundaries to follow community boundaries, so the overall change in electors is noted below. Resulting District Parity of Voting Power District Average: 1310 District 1: 1243 (-5.11%) - net change: -176 electors District 2: 1381 (-5.42%) - net change: -102 electors District 3: 1382 (5.51%) - net change: +176 electors District 4: 1285 (-1.91%) - net change: +89 electors District 5: 1292 (-1.37%) - net change: -85 electors District 6: 1295 (-1.15%) - no change in number of electors District 7: 1292 (-1.37%) - net change: +98 voters PROS: Improved parity of voting power for more Districts; alignment with community boundaries; long term fix CONS: More community engagement and communications required due to impact on more communities R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 8 Community Consultation Plan The NSUARB provides the following direction regarding community consultation: “Public consultation is an inherent component of the study to be conducted by council. The form and extent of public consultation is within council’s discretion, depending on the circumstances existing in each case. However, the consultation should be of a type and degree which allows members of the public an opportunity to express their views on the size of their council [and] upon the location of boundaries for … municipal polling districts. Allowing the public the opportunity to provide its valuable input is a key component of the decision making process leading to an application by a municipality or town.” (Municipal Boundaries User Guide) The community consultation plan will consist of several components, notably a Voices & Choices project page and a Residents Survey both online and in print. In addition, depending on the recommended changes and the public input received through the community consultation actions, Council may choose to add in-person public meetings for further consultation.  Voices & Choices Project Page The Voices & Choices project page will be a landing point for all information related to the Municipal Governance & Electoral Boundary Review content, including: the online survey, district boundary maps, active questions & answers engagement, timeline of key project milestones, and staff contact for direct questions.  Residents Survey A Residents Survey will be an important component to fulfil the NSUARB’s community consultation requirements. The Residents Survey will be provided both online on the Voices & Choices project page and as a print insert for the municipal newsletter. The purpose of survey questions of this scope is to gather representative data that will help demonstrate that the Municipality undertook due diligence in community consultation and engagement. This data will help validate the recommendations put forward the application and study to NSUARB. The questions below are in draft form and final wording will be determined following review by the Communications Officer & Outreach Coordinator. NOTES on Residents Survey questions: o Questions 1, 2, 3: assess the survey’s demographic representativeness o Questions 4 & 5: assess the level of civic engagement & understanding o Questions 6 & 7: address specific NSUARB requirements regarding consultation over size and structure of Council o Question 6: Table 1: Comparable Rural Municipalities could be included as context o Question 8: directs residents to review the proposed polling district map options R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 9 Proposed Residents Survey Questions: 1. In what community do you currently reside in the Municipality of Chester? 2. How long have you lived in the Municipality of Chester? o Less than 1 year o 1–5 years o 6-10 years o 11–20 years o 21–50 years o More than 50 years 3. To which age group do you belong? o 18-19 years o 20-24 years o 25-34 years o 35-44 years o 45-54 years o 55-64 years o 65-74 years o 75-84 years o 85 years + 4. Please indicate if you voted in any of the past three Council elections in the Municipality (check as many as apply): o 2012 o 2016 o 2020 o Did not vote in any of these elections 5. Please rate the importance you place on the following roles that a councillor may serve. (Rating options: Not Important / Somewhat Important / Very Important / Essential / Don’t Know o Represent residents’ interests o Improve existing services and facilities o Plan for future services and facilities o Develop and implement a vision for the future o Lower taxes/expenditures o Work with other Councillors o Other [field to add additional role] R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 10 6. The Municipality of Chester Council has seven Councillors, including the Warden. The last Census in 2021 counted 10,693 residents in the Municipality, which is an average of 1,528 residents per Councillor. Please select one of the following options that expresses your opinion of the impact on municipal services and councillor working relationships: o A larger Council would be more effective o A larger Council would be less effective o A smaller Council would be more effective o A smaller Council would be less effective o The current size of Council is effective 7. As with most rural municipalities in Nova Scotia, the Municipality of Chester is led by a Warden who is elected by councillors from among the council body after each election. A Mayor, however, is elected directly by all constituents within the municipality. The Mayor and Warden have the same responsibilities (such as to provide leadership, to represent the Municipality, and to chair Council meetings), but the shift to a Mayor system would result in the addition of an elected representative, the Mayor plus seven councillors. Please indicate if you would prefer the Municipality of Chester’s Council to be led by a Warden or a Mayor. NOTE: if a rural municipality chooses to change from a Warden to a Mayor, Nova Scotia legislation does not allow the decision to be reversed. o Mayor o Warden o Don’t know / no preference 8. A requirement of the Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review is that polling districts must be reviewed to ensure a relative parity of voting power among polling districts of +/- 10% from the average number of electors per polling district. Available on this Voices & Choices project page and as will be made available during dedicated public meetings are details about these requirements, the current number of electors within each polling district, and three options for revisions to the current polling districts in the Municipality of Chester. Questions about the three options for revised polling district boundaries can be directed to the staff contact on the Voices & Choices page, raised during the public meetings, or submitted to Council. After reviewing the maps, description, and context for the three boundary options, please express your preference. o Option 1 – [add brief descriptor] o Option 2 – [add brief descriptor] o Option 3 – [add brief descriptor] o Don’t know / no preference R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 11 Timeline for Community Consultation Plan August (weeks) September (weeks) October (weeks) November (weeks) December (weeks) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Council review of District Boundary options, community consultation plan V&C project page creation & launch Final design of print & online Residents Survey Residents Survey participation window Promotion of community consultation opportunities Draft findings & recommendations for Council meeting & Public Input Session Draft & prepare NSUARB application and formal study for Council review Submission of application and study to NSUARB R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 12 OPTIONS For polling district boundary options, the Committee of the Whole may: 1. Direct staff to endorse all three options (including one of the Option 1 variations)* for polling district boundary revisions to be shared for community consultation; or 2. Direct staff to make further adjustments to any or all of the three options for polling district boundary revisions to be shared for community consultation. *The Committee of the Whole may also endorse all three Option 1 variations and offer a total of five options. For the community consultation plan, the Committee of the Whole may: 1. Direct staff to proceed with the outlined approach for community engagement for the 2022 Municipal Governance & Electoral Boundary Review 2. Direct staff to proceed with an amended approach, following discussion, for community engagement for the 2022 Municipal Governance & Electoral Boundary Review IMPLICATIONS By-Law/Policy None Financial/budgetary None Environmental Not applicable Strategic Priorities The Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review will assist the Municipality in advancing the following Priority Outcomes of the 2021-24 Strategic Priorities Framework: Priority Outcomes: Governance & Engagement 1. Ensure municipal service delivery is efficient and effective, communicated and accessible. 2. Ensure municipal bylaw and policy frameworks reflect current and changing needs. Priority Outcomes: Healthy & Vibrant Communities 2. Develop an accessibility, diversity, and equity lens for municipal plans and services, and support partners in advancing accessible and inclusive communities. Work Program Implications The Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review will be developed and completed by the Strategic Initiatives Coordinator and the Deputy CAO, with input and support from the Municipal Clerk, the GIS Specialist, and Communications Officer & Outreach Coordinator. R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 13 Has Legal review been completed? ___ Yes _ _ No X N/A COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) A required community consultation plan will require extensive communications and community engagement in order to complete the Municipal Governance and Electoral Boundary Review. ATTACHMENTS Copies of the Polling District Maps options.