HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022-08-04_2_COW_Website Agenda Package_Updated August 3, 2022.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
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: Reviewed by:
Date: August 2, 2022 Authorized by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO
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 MUNICIPALITIES
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.
If there a significant number of residents raise concerns or interest in governance structure changes,
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.
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 4
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.
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. As of June 3,
2022, for 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 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%.
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 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
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)
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 1 consists of three minor variations for adjustments to District 2, and corresponding
adjustments to Districts 1 and 3, as follows.
OPTION 1A: District 2 Southern boundary line shifted North; District 3 boundary line shifted
Northeast
Scope: 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.
PROS: Impact on minimal number of Districts
CONS: Defers growing disparity of voter power among Districts to the next Review process in 2030
Polling
District
Number of
Electors per
District as of
June 2022
2022 Electors per
District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Option 1A
Electors per
District
Option 1A Electors
per District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Net Change in
Electors per
District – Option
1A vs. Current
1 1,419 8.32% 1,433 9.39% +14 electors
2 1,483 13.21% 1,434 9.47% -49 electors
3 1,206 -7.94% 1,241 -5.27% +35 electors
4 1,196 -8.70% 1,196 -8.70% No change
5 1,381 5.42% 1,381 5.42% No change
6 1,295 -1.15% 1,295 -1.15% No change
7 1,194 -8.85% 1,194 -8.85% No change
Total 9,174 9,174
Average 1,310 1,310
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 1B: District 2 Western boundary line shifted East; District 3 boundary line shifted Northeast
Scope: This option moves the western boundary line of District 2 east along Highway 3, following
natural features.
PROS: Impact on minimal number of Districts
CONS: Defers growing disparity of voter power among Districts to the next Review process in 2030
Polling
District
Number of
Electors per
District as of
June 2022
2022 Electors per
District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Option 1B
Electors per
District
Option 1B Electors
per District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Net Change in
Electors per
District – Option
1B vs. Current
1 1,419 8.32% 1,405 7.25% -14 electors
2 1,483 13.21% 1,420 8.40% -63 electors
3 1,206 -7.94% 1,283 -2.06% +77 electors
4 1,196 -8.70% 1,196 -8.70% No change
5 1,381 5.42% 1,381 5.42% No change
6 1,295 -1.15% 1,295 -1.15% No change
7 1,194 -8.85% 1,194 -8.85% No change
Total 9,174 9,174
Average 1,310 1,310
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 8
OPTION 1C: District 2 Southern boundary line shifted North and Western boundary line moved east;
District 3 boundary line shifted Northeast
Scope: This option moves the western AND southern boundary lines between District 2 and District 1
PROS: Impact on minimal number of Districts
CONS: Defers growing disparity of voter power among Districts to the next Review process in 2030
Polling
District
Number of
Electors per
District as of
June 2022
2022 Electors per
District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Option 1C
Electors per
District
Option 1C Electors
per District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Net Change in
Electors per
District – Option
1C vs. Current
1 1,419 8.32% 1,402 7.02% -17 electors
2 1,483 13.21% 1,423 8.63% -60 electors
3 1,206 -7.94% 1,283 -2.06% +77 electors
4 1,196 -8.70% 1,196 -8.70% No change
5 1,381 5.42% 1,381 5.42% No change
6 1,295 -1.15% 1,295 -1.15% No change
7 1,194 -8.85% 1,194 -8.85% No change
Total 9,174 9,174
Average 1,310 1,310
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 9
OPTION 2: Alignment of Community Boundaries and Polling Districts (for +/-10% parity)
Scope: 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.
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
Polling
District
Number of
Electors per
District as of
June 2022
2022 Electors per
District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Option 2
Electors per
District
Option 2 Electors
per District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Net Change in
Electors per
District – Option
2 vs. Current
1 1,419 8.32% 1,243 -5.11% -176 electors
2 1,483 13.21% 1,381 5.42% -102 electors
3 1,206 -7.94% 1,382 5.50% +176 electors
4 1,196 -8.70% 1,200 -8.40% +4 electors
5 1,381 5.42% 1,381 5.42% No change
6 1,295 -1.15% 1,295 -1.15% No change
7 1,194 -8.85% 1,292 -1.37% +98 electors
Total 9,174 9,174
Average 1,310 1,310
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 10
OPTION 3: Alignment of Community Boundaries and Polling Districts (for +/-5% parity)
Scope: 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.
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
Polling
District
Number of
Electors per
District as of
June 2022
2022 Electors per
District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Option 3
Electors per
District
Option 3 Electors
per District as %
Variation from the
District Average
Net Change in
Electors per
District – Option
3 vs. Current
1 1,419 8.32% 1,243 -5.11% -176 electors
2 1,483 13.21% 1,381 5.42% -102 electors
3 1,206 -7.94% 1,382 5.50% +176 electors
4 1,196 -8.70% 1,285 -1.91% +89 electors
5 1,381 5.42% 1,296 -1.07% -85 electors
6 1,295 -1.15% 1,295 -1.15% No change
7 1,194 -8.85% 1,292 -1.37% +98 electors
Total 9,174 9,174
Average 1,310 1,310
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 11
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 options put forward 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
with 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 | 12
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 | 13
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 are details about these requirements, the current
number of electors within each polling district, and three (TBC) options for revisions to the
current polling districts in the Municipality of Chester. Questions about the options for
revised polling district boundaries can be directed to the staff contact on the Voices &
Choices page 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 | 14
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 | 15
Next Steps
Following the conclusion of the community consultation actions, staff will draft Update #4 for Council
that will outline findings from the consultation and options for Council’s direction regarding any further
actions and content to be developed for the application and study to the NSUARB.
Following that direction, staff will share a final Update #5 and a draft of the application and study for
NSUARB with Council for any final comments before submission in December.
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.
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 16
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.
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
Polling District Maps – Options 1A, 1B, 1C, 2 and 3
Cross Island
Big Ta ncookIsland
EasternPoints
Nort hw estCove
Frax vil l e
Chest erIslands
Lake Ram sa y
Canaan
Aspot ogan
Ma rt insPoint
Chest er G ra nt
Baysw at er
Mi l l Cove
East Ri verPoint
Lit tl eTancookIsland
EastIronboun dIsland
Chest er Bas in
Blan dfor d
Deep Cove
Alde rsvi l le
Chest er
Clea rland
Harr is ton
Heckm ansIsland
Fran eyCorner
SecondPeninsula
East Che ste r
Indi an Poi nt
Newburn e
Stone hurs tNorth
West er nShore
Go ld Ri ver
Park dale
New Ros s
Fox Poi nt
Seff ernv il l e
Wi ndsor Ro ad
East Ri ver
Sim m sSettlement
Fran eyCorner
Stone hurs tSouth
HermansIsland
Ma ders Co ve
The Lodge
Bir chyHead
Beech Hi ll
Ma rt ins River
Fort ie s
Wal den
Ma ple wood
Hubbar ds
Go ld Ri ver 21
Beech Hi ll
NewRoss 20
New Rus sel l
Levi ll e
Pennal 19
Mi l l Road
Sherw o od
Robin sonsCornerMarriottsCoveMartinsRiver
Oa kland
Rev.:Da te :De scrip tion :
0 Op tion 1A
MU NICIPALITY O F THEDISTRICT O F CHE STER
Cou ncil R ed istr ictingOption 1A
®
Leg end
Counci l Di st rict s - O pt ion 1ACouncil Di st rict Bondari esCommunity Boun dariesEffected Areas - O pt ion 1AWaterRoads
5 0 52.5
Kilo met re s
Sou rces:Digi tal Base Map Data fr om Serv ice Nova S co ti a andMunicipal Relations
Pr epar ed b y th e Mun icip ality o f the D is tr ict of Ch ester
Co ord inate System/Da tu m: UTM NAD 8 3 CSRSZONE 20 N
Map Di sclaimer :Info rmatio n s ho wn on th ese d raw in gs is co mpi led f ro mnumerous s ou rces a nd may n ot b e co mplete o raccurate. Th e Mu nicipa lity of the Di str ict o f Ches ter isnot r esp onsi bl e f or a ny er ror s, omis s ion s o r d efi ci enciesin th ese d rawi ng s.
Actual Map Size: w 1 1" x h 17 "
22/0 8/02
Dig ita l Folde r s a n d File Na me : N /A
Fr om Da te : 2 2/08 /02To Da t e: YY /MM/DDDate P rin te d: 22 /0 8/02
St at us: Co nce pt ua lProject I D: N/AClassification #: N/A
Repre sentatio n o f M OD C w ithi n Nova S coti aScale: 1:10,000,000
5,00 0 0 5,00 02,50 0
Met re s
Sca le : 1:16 0,00 0
Chester Islands
Chester
East Che ste r
Robin sonsCorner
Nort hw estCove
The Lodge
Bir chy Head
Ins et 1
Ins et 2
Ins et 2Inset 1
£¤329
£¤329
£¤329
£¤3
£¤3
£¤3£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤12
£¤12
£¤12
Th is opt ion l ook s at a 100% fi x by m ovi ng the sout hern li ne bet ween d ist ric t 2 nort h onl y along H ighw ay 329 and fol low i ng th e c omm un it y bound ary betw een Bi rchy Head and The Lodge. Th e d escri pti on of t hat chang e is as foll ow s: From th e u nset p oi nt locat ed in t he furt hestsouthwestern most poin t of t he current counc il d ist ri cts , then ce in an e asterly d irect i on fol low in g t he com m uni t y bou ndary bet w een Bi rc hy H ead and The Lodge unt i l reac hin g the ocea n shorel i ne (In set 2). Thenc e, easterly u nt il i nt ersect i ng th e m un ic ipa l boundary locat ed at an un set poi nt i n t he oc ean. Thi s north erl y shift of t he li ne reduc es Di st ric t 2 by 49 voters, l eavi ng a t otal of 143 4 v ot ers (dow n from th e c urren t 148 3). Th is reduct i on b ri ng s Di st ric t 2 w it hi n 9.47 % pari t y but inc rea ses Dist ri ct 1 from 141 9 to 1 468 w hic h is out of parit y. To bri ng Dis tri ct 1 i nt o pari t y, the boun dary betw een Di st ri ct 1 and 3 w il l be m oved nort heast to capt ure 3 5 v ot ers wh ich bri ng Di stri ct 1 i nt o p arit y at 1433 voters (9 .39 % from pari ty ). Di st ri ct 3 gain s 35 vot ers ret ai ni ng pari ty from 1 206 to 1241 vot ers (-5 .27% from pari ty ). The new bounda ry l i ne sta rt s at the con fluen ce (A con fluen ce occurs w hen t wo or more flow in g bod ies of wat er join t oget her t o form a sin gle cha nnel ) of out flow rivers of Li ly Pond an d Spect ac le Lake, h eadi ng east to an unset poin t, then ce sout heast t o t he i nterse ct ion of Look -O ff Dr and O ld Truc k 3, t hen ce south east t o t he in tersec ti on of Hi ghway 3, S tevens Rd an d N auss Dr, from w hi ch cont inu in g t he sam e beari ng unt i l rea chi ng an uns et point in t he ocean (Inset 1).
Op ti on 1A
£¤329
£¤329
£¤3
£¤3
O l d T r u n k 3
Chester Shore Rd
Birch St
£¤3
Cross Island
Big Ta ncookIsland
EasternPoints
Nort hw estCove
Frax vil l e
Chest erIslands
Lake Ram sa y
Canaan
Aspot ogan
Ma rt insPoint
Chest er G ra nt
Baysw at er
Mi l l Cove
East Ri verPoint
Lit tl eTancookIsland
EastIronboun dIsland
Chest er Bas in
Blan dfor d
Deep Cove
Alde rsvi l le
Chest er
Clea rland
Harr is ton
Heckm ansIsland
Fran eyCorner
SecondPeninsula
East Che ste r
Indi an Poi nt
Newburn e
Stone hurs tNorth
West er nShore
Go ld Ri ver
Park dale
New Ros s
Fox Poi nt
Seff ernv il l e
Wi ndsor Ro ad
East Ri ver
Sim m sSettlement
Fran eyCorner
Stone hurs tSouth
HermansIsland
Ma ders Co ve
The Lodge
Bir chyHead
Beech Hi ll
Ma rt ins River
Fort ie s
Wal den
Ma ple wood
Hubbar ds
Go ld Ri ver 21
Beech Hi ll
NewRoss 20
New Rus sel l
Levi ll e
Pennal 19
Mi l l Road
Sherw o od
Robin sonsCornerMarriottsCoveMartinsRiver
Oa kland
Rev.:Da te :De scrip tion :
0 Op tion 1B
MU NICIPALITY O F THEDISTRICT O F CHE STER
Cou ncil R ed istr ictingOption 1B
®
Leg end
Counci l Di st rict s - O pt ion 1BCouncil Di st rict Bondari esCommunity Boun dariesEffected Areas - O pt ion 1BWaterRoads
5 0 52.5
Kilo met re s
Sou rces:Digi tal Base Map Data fr om Serv ice Nova S co ti a andMunicipal Relations
Pr epar ed b y th e Mun icip ality o f the D is tr ict of Ch ester
Co ord inate System/Da tu m: UTM NAD 8 3 CSRSZONE 20 N
Map Di sclaimer :Info rmatio n s ho wn on th ese d raw in gs is co mpi led f ro mnumerous s ou rces a nd may n ot b e co mplete o raccurate. Th e Mu nicipa lity of the Di str ict o f Ches ter isnot r esp onsi bl e f or a ny er ror s, omis s ion s o r d efi ci enciesin th ese d rawi ng s.
Actual Map Size: w 1 1" x h 17 "
22/0 8/02
Dig ita l Folde r s a n d File Na me : N /A
Fr om Da te : 2 2/08 /02To Da t e: YY /MM/DDDate P rin te d: 22 /0 8/02
St at us: Co nce pt ua lProject I D: N/AClassification #: N/A
Repre sentatio n o f M OD C w ithi n Nova S coti aScale: 1:10,000,000
5,00 0 0 5,00 02,50 0
Met re s
Sca le : 1:16 0,00 0
Chester Islands
Chester
East Che ste r
Robin sonsCorner
Mi l l Cove
East Ri ver Sim m sSettlement
Ins et 1
Ins et 2
Ins et 2Inset 1
£¤329
£¤329
£¤329
£¤3
£¤3
£¤3£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤12
£¤12
£¤12
Th is opt ion l ook s at a 100% fi x by m ovi ng the w est ern li ne bet ween d ist ric t 2 east on ly al on g Hi ghway 3 and fol low in g nat ural fe atu res. Th e d escri pti on of t hat chang e i s as fol low s: From the out flow of Ti mb er Lak e to O ffi cers Ca mp Lak e, t henc e sout heas t to th e out fl ow of Noonan Lak e (In set 2), th ence Sout h to an unset poin t that is part of t he ori gi nal c ounci l Di st ri ct li nes. Th is easterly s hift of t he li ne reduc es Di st ric t 2 by 63 votes, leavi ng a tot al of 1420 vote rs (down from 1 483). Th is redu ct ion bri ngs Di stri ct 2 w i th in 8.40% parit y but inc rea ses Dist ri ct 1 from 141 9 to 1 482 w hic h is out of parit y. To bri ng Dis tri ct 1 i nt o pari t y, Th e b ou ndary betw een Di st ri ct 1 and 3 w il l be m oved nort heast to capt ure 7 8 v ot ers wh ich bri ngs Di st ri ct 1 int o p arit y at 1405 voters (7 .25 % from pari ty ). Di st ri ct 3 gain s 78 vot ers ret ai ni ng pari ty from 1 206 to 1283 vot ers (-2 .06% from pari ty ). Thi s li ne is de ri ved usi ng th e ou tfl ow from Spe cta cle Lak e a s t he st arti ng poi nt , then ce sout heast t o t he i nterse ct ion of O l d Truck 3 and Bi rc h S t, then ce sout heast t o t he i nters ect ion of Hi ghw ay 3 a nd Chest er Shore Rd, then ce sou the ast t o an un set poi nt i n t he oc ean w here t he ori gi nal c ou nci l di st ri ct boundary i s loca ted (I nset 1).
Op ti on 1B
£¤3
£¤103£¤3
£¤3
O l d T r u n k 3
Chester Shore Rd
Birch St
£¤3
Noon an Lake out flow
£¤3
£¤103
Cross Island
Big Ta ncookIsland
EasternPoints
Nort hw estCove
Frax vil l e
Chest erIslands
Lake Ram sa y
Canaan
Aspot ogan
Ma rt insPoint
Chest er G ra nt
Baysw at er
Mi l l Cove
East Ri verPoint
Lit tl eTancookIsland
EastIronboun dIsland
Chest er Bas in
Blan dfor d
Deep Cove
Alde rsvi l le
Chest er
Clea rland
Harr is ton
Heckm ansIsland
Fran eyCorner
SecondPeninsula
East Che ste r
Indi an Poi nt
Newburn e
Stone hurs tNorth
West er nShore
Go ld Ri ver
Park dale
New Ros s
Fox Poi nt
Seff ernv il l e
Wi ndsor Ro ad
East Ri ver
Sim m sSettlement
Fran eyCorner
Stone hurs tSouth
HermansIsland
Ma ders Co ve
The Lodge
Bir chyHead
Beech Hi ll
Ma rt ins River
Fort ie s
Wal den
Ma ple wood
Hubbar ds
Go ld Ri ver 21
Beech Hi ll
NewRoss 20
New Rus sel l
Levi ll e
Pennal 19
Mi l l Road
Sherw o od
Robin sonsCornerMarriottsCoveMartinsRiver
Oa kland
Rev.:Da te :De scrip tion :
0 Op tion 1C
MU NICIPALITY O F THEDISTRICT O F CHE STER
Cou ncil R ed istr ictingOption 1C
®
Leg end
Counci l Di st rict s - O pt ion 1CCouncil Di st rict Bondari esCommunity Boun dariesEffected Areas - O pt ion 1CWaterRoads
5 0 52.5
Kilo met re s
Sou rces:Digi tal Base Map Data fr om Serv ice Nova S co ti a andMunicipal Relations
Pr epar ed b y th e Mun icip ality o f the D is tr ict of Ch ester
Co ord inate System/Da tu m: UTM NAD 8 3 CSRSZONE 20 N
Map Di sclaimer :Info rmatio n s ho wn on th ese d raw in gs is co mpi led f ro mnumerous s ou rces a nd may n ot b e co mplete o raccurate. Th e Mu nicipa lity of the Di str ict o f Ches ter isnot r esp onsi bl e f or a ny er ror s, omis s ion s o r d efi ci enciesin th ese d rawi ng s.
Actual Map Size: w 1 1" x h 17 "
22/0 8/02
Dig ita l Folde r s a n d File Na me : N /A
Fr om Da te : 2 2/08 /02To Da t e: YY /MM/DDDate P rin te d: 22 /0 8/02
St at us: Co nce pt ua lProject I D: N/AClassification #: N/A
Repre sentatio n o f M OD C w ithi n Nova S coti aScale: 1:10,000,000
5,00 0 0 5,00 02,50 0
Met re s
Sca le : 1:16 0,00 0
Chest erIslands
Chester
EastChester
Robin sonsCorner
East Ri ver Sim m sSettlement
Nort hw estCove
The Lodge
Bir chyHead
Ins et 1
Ins et 2
Ins et 3
Ins et 3Inset 2Inset 1
£¤329
£¤329
£¤329
£¤3
£¤3
£¤3£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤12
£¤12
£¤12
Th is opt ion l ook s at a varia ble fi x by m ovi ng th e west ern and sout hern li ne s be tw een di st ri ct 2 and dist ri ct 1. Th e d escri pti on of t hat chang e i s as fol l ow s: From t he ou tfl ow of Ti m ber Lake to O ffic ers Cam p La ke, t henc e s ou the ast t o t he int ersec ti on of Hi ghway 3 and Si m m s Ave (I nset 2), t henc e S outh t o the i nfl ow /m out h of Bl andford Cra nberry Lake, then ce easterly t o t he i nte rs ect ion of Hi ghway 329 an d Th e Lodge Road (I nset 3), t henc e cont in uin g in t he sam e be aring u nti l i nt ersect in g the m uni ci pal bou ndary. These eas terly an d nort herly s hift s of t he li ne red uce Di stri ct 2 by 60 vot es (25 w est t o eas t and 35 south t o nort h), l eavi ng a tot al of 1 423 voters (dow n from 1483). This reduc ti on brin gs Dist ri ct 2 wi t hin 8 .63% pari ty bu t i ncreases Di stri ct 1 f rom 1 419 to1479 w hi ch i s out of pa ri t y. To brin g Di st ric t 1 in to parit y, t he boundary bet w een Di stri ct 1 an d 3 w i ll be moved nort heast t o c apt ure 78 vot ers w hi ch bri ngs Dist ric t 1 in to pari ty at 1402 vot ers (7.02 %). Di stri ct 3 gain s 7 8 v ot ers ret ai ni ng pari ty from 1 206 to 1283 vot ers (-2.06 % from pari ty ). Thi s li ne i s d erived usi ng the out flow from S pect ac le Lake as t he start i ng poin t , then ce sout heast t o t he i nterse ct ion of O l d Truck 3 and Bi rc h S t, then ce sout heast t o t he i nters ect ion of Hi ghway 3 and C heste r Shore Rd, t henc e sout hea st to a n unset point in t he ocean w here the ori gin al counci l di st ric t bound ary is l oc ated (Inse t 1).
Op ti on 1C
£¤329
£¤329
The Lodge RdS
i
m
m
s
A
v
e
£¤3
£¤3
£¤103
£¤103£¤3
£¤3
O l d T r u n k 3
Chester Shore Rd
Birch St
Cross Island
Big Ta ncookIsland
EasternPoints
Nort hw estCove
Frax vil l e
Chest erIslands
Lake Ram sa y
Canaan
Aspot ogan
Ma rt insPoint
Chest er G ra nt
Baysw at er
Mi l l Cove
East Ri verPoint
Lit tl eTancookIsland
EastIronboun dIsland
Chest er Bas in
Blan dfor d
Deep Cove
Alde rsvi l le
Chest er
Clea rland
Harr is ton
Heckm ansIsland
Fran eyCorner
SecondPeninsula
East Che ste r
Indi an Poi nt
Newburn e
Stone hurs tNorth
West er nShore
Go ld Ri ver
Park dale
New Ros s
Fox Poi nt
Seff ernv il l e
Wi ndsor Ro ad
East Ri ver
Sim m sSettlement
Fran eyCorner
Stone hurs tSouth
HermansIsland
Ma ders Co ve
The Lodge
Bir chyHead
Beech Hi ll
Ma rt ins River
Fort ie s
Wal den
Ma ple wood
Hubbar ds
Go ld Ri ver 21
Beech Hi ll
NewRoss 20
New Rus sel l
Levi ll e
Pennal 19
Mi l l Road
Sherw o od
Robin sonsCornerMarriottsCoveMartinsRiver
Oa kland
Rev.:Da te :De scrip tion :
0 Op tion 2
MU NICIPALITY O F THEDISTRICT O F CHE STER
Cou ncil R ed istr ictingOption 2
®
Leg end
Counci l Di st rict s - O pt ion 2Council Di st rict Bondari esCommunity Boun dariesEffected Areas - O pt ion 2WaterRoads
5 0 52.5
Kilo met re s
Sou rces:Digi tal Base Map Data fr om Serv ice Nova S co ti a andMunicipal Relations
Pr epar ed b y th e Mun icip ality o f the D is tr ict of Ch ester
Co ord inate System/Da tu m: UTM NAD 8 3 CSRSZONE 20 N
Map Di sclaimer :Info rmatio n s ho wn on th ese d raw in gs is co mpi led f ro mnumerous s ou rces a nd may n ot b e co mplete o raccurate. Th e Mu nicipa lity of the Di str ict o f Ches ter isnot r esp onsi bl e f or a ny er ror s, omis s ion s o r d efi ci enciesin th ese d rawi ng s.
Actual Map Size: w 1 1" x h 17 "
22/0 8/02
Dig ita l Folde r s a n d File Na me : N /A
Fr om Da te : 2 2/08 /02To Da t e: YY /MM/DDDate P rin te d: 22 /0 8/02
St at us: Co nce pt ua lProject I D: N/AClassification #: N/A
Repre sentatio n o f M OD C w ithi n Nova S coti aScale: 1:10,000,000
5,00 0 0 5,00 02,50 0
Met re s
Sca le : 1:16 0,00 0
East Ri ver
Sim m sSettlement
Ins et 1
Ins et 1
£¤329
£¤329
£¤329
£¤3
£¤3
£¤3£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤12
£¤12
£¤12
£¤3
£¤103£¤3
£¤103
Cross Island
Big Ta ncookIsland
EasternPoints
Nort hw estCove
Frax vil l e
Chest erIslands
Lake Ram sa y
Canaan
Aspot ogan
Ma rt insPoint
Chest er G ra nt
Baysw at er
Mi l l Cove
East Ri verPoint
Lit tl eTancookIsland
EastIronboun dIsland
Chest er Bas in
Blan dfor d
Deep Cove
Alde rsvi l le
Chest er
Clea rland
Harr is ton
Heckm ansIsland
Fran eyCorner
SecondPeninsula
East Che ste r
Indi an Poi nt
Newburn e
Stone hurs tNorth
West er nShore
Go ld Ri ver
Park dale
New Ros s
Fox Poi nt
Seff ernv il l e
Wi ndsor Ro ad
East Ri ver
Sim m sSettlement
Fran eyCorner
Stone hurs tSouth
HermansIsland
Ma ders Co ve
The Lodge
Bir chyHead
Beech Hi ll
Ma rt ins River
Fort ie s
Wal den
Ma ple wood
Hubbar ds
Go ld Ri ver 21
Beech Hi ll
NewRoss 20
New Rus sel l
Levi ll e
Pennal 19
Mi l l Road
Sherw o od
Robin sonsCornerMarriottsCoveMartinsRiver
Oa kland
Rev.:Da te :De scrip tion :
0 Op tion 3
MU NICIPALITY O F THEDISTRICT O F CHE STER
Cou ncil R ed istr ictingOption 3
®
Leg end
Counci l Di st rict s - O pt ion 3Council Di st rict Bondari esCommunity Boun dariesEffected Areas - O pt ion 3WaterRoads
5 0 52.5
Kilo met re s
Sou rces:Digi tal Base Map Data fr om Serv ice Nova S co ti a andMunicipal Relations
Pr epar ed b y th e Mun icip ality o f the D is tr ict of Ch ester
Co ord inate System/Da tu m: UTM NAD 8 3 CSRSZONE 20 N
Map Di sclaimer :Info rmatio n s ho wn on th ese d raw in gs is co mpi led f ro mnumerous s ou rces a nd may n ot b e co mplete o raccurate. Th e Mu nicipa lity of the Di str ict o f Ches ter isnot r esp onsi bl e f or a ny er ror s, omis s ion s o r d efi ci enciesin th ese d rawi ng s.
Actual Map Size: w 1 1" x h 17 "
22/0 8/02
Dig ita l Folde r s a n d File Na me : N /A
Fr om Da te : 2 2/08 /02To Da t e: YY /MM/DDDate P rin te d: 22 /0 8/02
St at us: Co nce pt ua lProject I D: N/AClassification #: N/A
Repre sentatio n o f M OD C w ithi n Nova S coti aScale: 1:10,000,000
5,00 0 0 5,00 02,50 0
Met re s
Sca le : 1:16 0,00 0
Chest er G ra nt
Chest er Bas in
West ernShore
Go ld River
Go ldRiver 21
BeechHill
East Ri ver
Sim m sSettlement
Ins et 1
Ins et 2
Ins et 2Inset 1
£¤329
£¤329
£¤329
£¤3
£¤3
£¤3£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤103
£¤12
£¤12
£¤12
£¤3
£¤103
£¤103 £¤3
£¤103
£¤3
£¤103
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
REPORT TO: Committee of the Whole
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2022
DEPARTMENT: Corporate and Strategic Management
SUBJECT: Capital Cost Recovery/Infrastructure
Development Charges
ORIGIN: Wastewater Strategy
Date: July 27, 2022 Prepared by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO
Date: Reviewed by: Fred Whynot, Director of Public Works
Date: August 2, 2022 Authorized by: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO
CURRENT SITUATION
As part of the wastewater services study implementation, Council has provided direction to staff to review
options for an infrastructure charge to recover capital costs for new developments.
BACKGROUND
Growth and development of a community creates a demand for new infrastructure. This can be traditional core
infrastructure such as water, wastewater, stormwater, streets, and sidewalks. However, it can also include
demand for libraries, active transportation, traffic signals, transit etc. A key principal that is employed by
municipalities throughout Canada is that the cost of development should not place a financial burden on existing
taxpayers. This is where infrastructure charges are used to offset the cost of development and growth-related
costs.
Municipalities use two main methods to recover capital costs. They can impose infrastructure charges that apply
to all new lots created in the subdivision process. Each lot is assessed a fee that is levied at the time of
subdivision and recovered from the developer. Alternatively, a broader approach can be applied to recover
capital costs for a wider variety of capital charges, and this can be done on an area basis or to all properties
through the introduction of a bylaw for development charges.
DISCUSSION
Recovering Capital Costs
Some of the key considerations that Council may consider when adopting charges include:
• Will the charges apply to existing development or just new development
• Is the amount of the charge significant enough to drive pace, location, or mix of development;
• Will the charges materially affect household budgets;
• Can the charge disrupt the market in the short term;
• Strategies to soften impacts and allow for the market to adjust, such as phased implementation, planning
process improvements, and being flexible with the timing of collection.
Jurisdictional Scan
East Hants
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 2
The Municipality of East Hants has an Infrastructure Charges Bylaw. They apply charges for both water and
wastewater (Each is a separate charge). The charges are based on the intensity of the use on the lot and are
applied at the time a building permit is issued.
HRM
Development charges for water and wastewater are collected by Halifax Water, an arm's length utility with their
own Act and Regulations. Halifax Water collects development charges for water, wastewater, and storm water
assets at a community level in a specified charge area, for the growth-related share of infrastructure needed to
support growth in that charge area.
Town of Bridgewater
The Town of Bridgewater uses Wastewater Betterment Charges to offset the cost to the Town of reducing
combined and sanitary sewer overflows that are attributable to new development.
The chart on the next page summarizes the charges in each of the three municipalities.
HRM, East Hants and the Town of Bridgewater all use a stand-alone bylaw for their charges. Charges do not just
apply to new lots but to any new development that occurs. In each case, fees are assessed at the development
and/or building permit stage and lots with multiple units are charged a fee per unit. By applying the charges in
this way, existing undeveloped lots are subject to the fees. It also ensures that the per unit or multiple charges
are assessed on bareland condominium developments. These are typically residential developments in which
the lot is not subdivided under the subdivision by-law but individual owners own either individual condo lots or
the buildings on the lots. If the subdivision bylaw is used to assess the fees only to new lots, a bareland
condominium would only be assessed if the large condominium lot was subdivided off an existing lot.
Areas for Discussion
When to Apply Charges
Staff are recommending that charges be applied:
a) Where new residential dwelling units or new commercial floor area is approved by development permit
issuance; or if no development permit at the building permit issuance.
b) Where services are requested for an un-serviced lot.
Calculation of Charges
Staff are recommending that Council establish:
a) A per dwelling unit basis for residential developments; and
b) Floor area for commercial developments, and such shall be limited to 900 square metres for the purposes
of calculating the charge provided the developer can show that the space in question will not be releasing
excessive wastewater to the sanitary sewer to the satisfaction of the Municipal Engineer
c) For Industrial, Institutional and High Intensity Use, and in such cases shall be charged a fee as determined
by the Municipal Engineer on an individual basis
Other options would include a flat fee regardless of the nature of the development/type of use, a fee applied
per lot rather than per unit.
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 3
Setting a Rate:
The current ICIP application allows for an upgrade to the Chester WWTP (increasing the capacity to allow for 500
more equivalent dwelling units), two system expansions (Chester Mills and Seneca Road) and the upgrade of
three existing lift stations, for to allow for current users and future users. The total estimated cost taxes in is
$16,943,101.35. If we are successful in getting the full amount of the ICIP funding for the complete project then
the cost to MOC will be 26.67% of the total cost, or $4,518,725.12 ($16,943,101.35 * 0.2667 = $4,518,725.12).
Considering the total cost for the upgrades required for Chester Hills, even though some upgrades are for
current users, then the cost per unit to completely fund the projects would be $33,886.21 per new unit
($16,943,101.35 / 500 =$33,886.21). If we get all the funding we apply for, MOC’s cost per unit is $9,037.45
($4,518,725.12 / 500 = $9,037.45).
It is possible that MOC may receive only a portion of the funding for the ICIP but not the entire 73.33% that was
applied for. Should this happen, Council will need to determine what options to pursue. These may also consider
not expanding in some areas, phasing the project or taking the regular lift station upgrades partially out of the
calculation. Once a decision on the funding is known, staff will provide a report to council on options and
implications. All of these options should be considered when determining a rate.
Staff are recommending a rate structure that is a hybrid of Bridgewater and East Hants. As additional dwelling
units are added, density increases and costs for servicing the units is reduced. The proposed fee structure
reflects the lower cost of servicing the higher density developments.
Single Unit & Two Unit Residential - $2,000 per unit
Multi-unit Residential - $1,000 per unit
Commercial - $20/sq. m.
Industrial/Institutional/ High Intensity - To Be Determined by Municipal Engineer
Exemptions
Staff recommend the following be exempt from the Wastewater Infrastructure Charges:
Un-serviced lots or where services are not connected to the Municipality’s sanitary sewer system until
such a time that the lot is connected to the Municipality of Chester’s sanitary sewer system.
Building and Development Permits received and deemed complete prior to the enactment of this bylaw.
Under exceptional circumstances the Municipal Engineer may approve an exemption to the By-law (Ex.
Rebuilding Residence following Fire at location, Land lease community structure building replacement
on the same lot)
OPTIONS
1. Direct staff to prepare a by-law based on staff’s recommendations
2. Provide direction to staff to prepare a bylaw with changes as identified to staff recommendations
3. Do not implement a development charges bylaw
4. Request more information from staff.
R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 4
Residential Uses Commercial Uses Industrial Uses Other
East Hants Single Unit Residential
$3,000 Per lot for water and
$3,000 per lot for sewer
Two-unit dwelling lots $3,000
for additional unit unless
accessory dwelling, then $750
per bedroom at time of
building permit for second unit
Multi-unit dwellings
$950 per unit per bedroom for
apartment buildings
$750 per unit per bedroom for
townhouses
Commercial Lodging
$450 per sleeping room
Food and Beverage Services
Coffee Service - $4.50 per sq.ft.
of floor area;
Takeout Service – $2.25 per
sq.ft. of floor area;
Liquor Service - $2.25 per sq.ft.
of floor area;
Full Service - $0.45 per sq.ft. of
floor area.
Office Retail, Wholesale
$0.45 per sq.ft. of floor area.
Industrial Manufacturing
$0.09 per sq.ft. of floor area.
Industrial Warehousing
$0.045 per sq.ft. of floor area.
Institutional (Managed Care)
$675 per sleeping room
Institutional (School)
$31.5 per person
Water Intensive - as
determined by the
Municipal Engineer
Laundromats 75% reduction of
intensive rate,
Town of
Bridgewater
Residential
$1,500.00/unit
Commercial
$20/sq. m.
Industrial/Institutional/ High
Intensity
To Be Determined by Town
Engineer
HRM (Halifax
Water)
Single-unit dwelling &
townhouses
$5,710.01 per unit
Multi-unit dwellings
$3,835.08 per unit
Industrial, commercial &
institutional buildings
$28.18 per square metre
Also collect a Regional
Development Charge in
respect of the growth related
share of Regional wastewater
assets (trunk sewers and
treatment plants), from all new
connections regardless of
location.
R e q u e s t f o r D e c i s i o n P a g e | 5
Legislative Authority
Infrastructure Charges
274 Infrastructure charges
(1) A municipal planning strategy may authorize the inclusion of provisions for infrastructure charges in a
subdivision by-law.
(2) Infrastructure charges for
(a) new or expanded water systems;
(b) new or expanded wastewater facilities;
(c) new or expanded stormwater systems;
(d) new or expanded streets;
(da) new or expanded solid-waste management facilities;
(e) new traffic signs and signals and new or expanded transit facilities, may be imposed in a subdivision by-
law to recover all, or part, of the capital costs incurred, or anticipated to be incurred, by a municipality
by reason of the subdivision and future development of land and infrastructure charges for land,
planning, studies, engineering, surveying and legal costs incurred with respect to any of them.
(3) The subdivision by-law shall set out the infrastructure charge areas in which infrastructure charges are
to be levied, the purposes for which infrastructure charges are to be levied and the amount of, or
method of calculating, each infrastructure charge.
(4) Infrastructure charges may be set at different levels related to the proposed land use, zoning, lot size
and number of lots in a subdivision and the anticipated servicing requirements for the infrastructure
charge area.
(5) Infrastructure charges may not be imposed if an infrastructure charge has been paid with respect to the
area of land, unless further subdivision of the land will impose additional costs on the municipality.
(6) An infrastructure charge may only be used for the purpose for which it is collected.
(7) Final approval of a subdivision shall not be granted unless the infrastructure charges are paid, or the
applicant has entered into an agreement with the municipality securing the payment of the
infrastructure charges.
(8) Infrastructure charges are a first lien on the land being subdivided and may be collected in the same
manner as taxes. APRIL 1, 2022 1998, c. 18 municipal government 169
(9) A by-law in effect on the date this Act comes into force that provides for a trunk sewer tax imposed on
each lot in a new or existing subdivision is deemed to be a by-law made pursuant to this Section.
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 6
(10) Notwithstanding the Public Utilities Act and for greater certainty, any by-law made pursuant to this
Section and any charge set, levied or imposed pursuant to this Section do not require the approval of
the board. 1998, c. 18, s. 274; 2001, c. 35, s. 15; 2003, c. 9, s. 73; 2006, c. 40, s. 12.
275 Infrastructure charges agreement
(1) An applicant and a municipality may enter into an infrastructure charges agreement that may
(a) provide for the payment of infrastructure charges in installments;
(b) permit the applicant to provide certain services or extended services in lieu of the payment of all, or
part, of the charge;
(c) provide for security to ensure that the infrastructure charges are paid when due;
(d) provide for any other matter necessary or desirable to effect the agreement.
(2) A subdivision by-law may prescribe the circumstances in which an infrastructure charges agreement
may be entered into and the general terms that such an agreement shall contain. 1998, c. 18, s. 75.
276 Effect of infrastructure charges agreement
An infrastructure charges agreement
(a) is binding on the land that is subdivided;
(b) shall be registered in the registry or, in the case of land registered pursuant to the Land Registration
Act, shall be recorded in the land registration office in the register of each parcel created or altered by
the subdivision, and shall be indexed as a conveyance to and from the owner of the land that is
subdivided; and
(c) is binding on each individual lot in a subdivision, to the extent specified in the agreement. 1998, c. 18, s.
276; 2001, c. 6, s. 119.
Development Charges
81 By-law regarding payment of charges
(1) The council may make by-laws imposing, fixing and providing methods of enforcing payment of charges
for
(a) wastewater facilities or stormwater systems, the use of wastewater facilities or stormwater systems and
connecting to wastewater facilities or stormwater systems;
(b) expenditures incurred for the wastewater management system in a wastewater management district;
(ba) solid-waste management facilities;
(bb) transit facilities;
(c) the municipal portion of the capital cost of installing a water system;
(d) laying out, opening, constructing, repairing, improving and maintaining streets, curbs, sidewalks, gutters,
bridges, culverts and retaining walls, whether the cost is incurred by the municipality directly or by, or
pursuant to, an agreement with Her Majesty in right of the Province, the Minister of Public Works or any
person;
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 7
(da) laying out, opening, constructing, repairing, improving and maintaining private roads, curbs, sidewalks,
gutters, bridges, culverts and retaining walls that are associated with private roads, where the cost is
incurred by the municipality, or
(i) under an agreement between the municipality and a person;
e) the municipal portion of the cost of a major tree removal program or the cost of removing trees from a
private property;
(f) the municipal portion of the capital cost of placing the wiring and other parts of an electrical distribution
system underground;
(g) depositing in a special purpose tax account to provide for future expenditures for wastewater facilities,
stormwater systems, water systems, transit facilities or other anticipated capital requirements.
(2) The council may, by by-law
a) define classes of buildings to be erected or enlarged according to the varying loads that, in the opinion
of council, the buildings impose or may impose on the sewer system or wastewater facility and levy a
one-time redevelopment charge to pay for additional or trunk sanitary or storm sewer capacity or
additional wastewater facility capacity required to accommodate the effluent from the buildings;
b) impose a one-time oversized sewer charge on each property determined by the council to benefit from
a sewer in the future to recover the cost of making the sewer an oversized sewer and provide that the
oversized sewer charge is not payable until the property is serviced by a sanitary sewer or a storm
sewer;
c) levy a one-time storm drainage charge on the owner of each lot of land in a drainage management area
for which an application is made for a development permit to allow, on the lot, a development of a class
designated by the council in the by-law.
(3) A by-law passed pursuant to this Section may provide
a) that the charges fixed by, or determined pursuant to, the by-law may be chargeable in proportion to
frontage, in proportion to area, in proportion to the assessment of the respective properties fronting on
the street or according to another plan or method set out in the by-law;
b) that the charges may be made and collected only where:
(i) the persons owning more than fifty per cent of the frontage of the real property fronting on the
street or the portion of a street on which the work is performed, or
(ii) the persons as determined by the method set out in the by-law, have filed with the clerk a
petition requesting that the work be performed;
c) that the charges may be different for different classes of development and may be different in different
areas of the municipality;
d) when the charges are payable;
e) for the total or partial exemption of persons and land from the charge and for adjustments to be made
with respect to lots of land or developments where the proposals or applications change in order to
reflect the changing nature of lots or developments;
f) that the charges are first liens on the real property and may be collected in the same manner as other
taxes;
g) that the charges be collectable in the same manner as taxes and, at the option of the treasurer, be
collectable at the same time, and by the same proceedings, as taxes;
h) a means of determining when the lien becomes effective or when the charges become due and payable;
R e q u e s t f o r D i r e c t i o n P a g e | 8
i) that the amount payable may, at the option of the owner of the property, be paid in the number of
annual installments set out in the by-law and, upon default of payment of any installment, the balance
becomes due and payable; and
j) that interest is payable annually on the entire amount outstanding and unpaid, whether or not the
owner has elected to pay by installments, at a rate and beginning on a date fixed by the by-law.
(4) For greater certainty, no property is exempt from a charge levied pursuant to this Section except
property of Her Majesty in right of the Province.
(5) A municipality may install the wastewater facilities, stormwater system, water system and system for
the supply or distribution of gas, steam or other source of energy of the municipality outside its
boundaries and may enter into contracts to provide the services.
(6) A municipality may charge for services provided outside the municipality in the same manner in which
the service is charged for within the municipality, provided that rates that are subject to the approval of
the Board are approved by the board.
(7) Notwithstanding the Public Utilities Act and for greater certainty, any by-law made pursuant to this
Section and any charge imposed or fixed pursuant to this Section do not require approval by the Board.
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Prepared By: Bruce Blackwood Date August 4, 2022
Reviewed By: Tara Maguire Date August 4, 2022
Authorized By: Tara Maguire, Deputy CAO Date August 4, 2022
CURRENT SITUATION
Following a few inquiries on the status of our water distribution program, the MOC has started its dry
well reporting and monitoring program as of August 4, 2022.
The EMO Precipitation Forecast of July 25, 2022 indicates that precipitation in Nova Scotia during the
month of July has been near normal in western parts of the province while it has been drier than normal
in the east. Net summer precipitation in the east since June 1st remains above normal while net summer
precipitation in western Nova Scotia remains near to slightly below normal.
Over the last 90 days, most of Nova Scotia’s precipitation is near normal with a very small precipitation
deficit in the west.
Forecast models out to September 5th, 2022 indicates above normal precipitation across most of
mainland Nova Scotia especially in the south western parts of the Province. There is indication of drier
conditions in the east.
.
REPORT TO: Council
SUBMITTED BY: Bruce Blackwood, Corporate and
Strategic Services
DATE: August 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Dry Wells: Response Planning 2022
ORIGIN: Corporate and Strategic Services
Real-Time Shallow Aquifer
Monitoring Network
Precipitation Anomaly Outlook (inches) to
September 5, 2022
2 Request For Direction
The water distribution network of suppliers of bottled water (4-liter jug) in Chester, Chester Basin,
Hubbards and New Ross is being reviewed and can be activated quickly. The vendors are not reporting
any problem in general supply.
EMO has been advised of our monitoring program and is being kept current of reports submitted. To
date there is no indication that the Province is yet considering a supply of bottled drinking water to
Municipalities upon request to the Minister.
EMO will be requested to contact the Department of Lands and Forest to verify if the showers and
potable water supply would be available on Graves Island if required.
RECOMMENDATION
In past years 30 dry wells reported was considered a reasonable trigger point for implementation of the
program.
If triggered,
1. Implement the coupon system using our established retail distribution network.
2. Council can consider a request for additional water supply from the Province if available. Due
high storage fees and additional staff time it is recommended that MODC not take on the
distribution activities. Rather, based on an agreeable service arrangement with the retail network,
this water supply could be distributed through the major retail outlets i.e. Chester Independent
and Chester Foodland. The smaller outlets that do not have storage space would continue to
distribute their regular inventories.
3. Provide water and shower facilities using Graves Island Provincial Park. (if required and permitted)
BACKGROUND
During the severe water shortage of 2016, we had reports of over 235 dry wells in the Municipality
and administered a major water distribution program at a cost of over $10 K.
In 2017 there were only 2 reported and we did not run the program.
In 2018 we activated the coupon system in September as we had reports of 30 dry wells. Cost
was approximately $1.5 K.
In 2019 we had reports of over 50 dry wells and activated the program in early September. Costs
were approximately $7 K.
In 2020 we had reports of over 276 dry wells and activated the program in early September. Costs
were approximately $ 23 K when the program ended in early November.
In 2021 we had reports of only 13 dry wells and did not activate the distribution program.
3 Request For Direction
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
N/A
Financial/Budgetary
Funding of the water distribution program has not been budgeted.
Environmental
N/A.
Strategic Plan
Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;
Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
Work Program Implications
Requires ongoing resources from staff to implement water coupon system.
OPTIONS
1. Continue preplanning and monitoring activities.
2. Evaluate the monitoring data and trigger the program at dry well inventory levels above 30 or
earlier if required.
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
Internal to staff on program implementation. External to public and distribution network.
F
F j
/A/C; 1«!ls
Municipality of the Dist
r
i
c
t
o
f
L
u
n
e
n
b
u
r
g
10 Atlee Champ
l
a
i
n
D
r
i
v
e
C
o
o
k
v
i
l
t
e
N
o
v
a
S
c
o
t
i
a
C
a
n
a
d
a
B
4
V
9
E
4
Office of the Mayor
Phone:902.543
.
8
1
8
1
F
a
x
:
9
0
2
.
5
4
3
.
7
1
2
3
m
a
v
o
r
@
m
o
d
(
,
c
a
W
e
b
S
i
t
e
:
w
w
w
.
m
o
d
l
.
c
a
May 4,2022
JUSTMIN@novascotia.ca
Honourable Minister Brad
J
o
h
n
s
1690 Hollis Street
PO Box 7
Halifax NS B3J 2L6
Dear Minister Johns:
RE: Enforcement of
t
h
e
O
f
f
-
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
A
c
t
During the me
e
t
i
n
g
h
e
l
d
o
n
A
p
r
i
l
2
7
,
2
0
2
2
,
o
f
t
h
e
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
o
f
L
u
n
e
n
b
u
r
g
'
s
Police Adviso
r
y
B
o
a
r
d
,
t
h
e
r
e
w
a
s
a
l
e
n
g
t
h
y
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
a
r
o
u
n
d
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
O
f
f
-
Highway Vehicles Act.
The discussio
n
w
a
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
o
f
f
-
r
o
a
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
b
e
i
n
g
introduced to
t
h
e
t
r
a
i
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
i
n
o
u
r
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
l
a
c
k
o
f
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Officers availa
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
W
e
a
r
e
s
e
e
i
n
g
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
and complain
t
s
f
r
o
m
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
i
l
l
u
s
e
b
y
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
o
f
f
-
r
o
a
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
A concern wa
s
a
l
s
o
r
a
i
s
e
d
a
s
t
o
h
o
w
m
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
,
m
a
n
y
w
h
o
a
r
e
n
e
w
t
o
t
h
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
have not take
n
a
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
'
s
a
f
e
t
y
c
o
u
r
s
e
,
a
s
t
h
e
s
e
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
s
h
a
v
e
u
n
i
q
u
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
characteristics
a
n
d
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
y
e
q
u
i
p
p
e
d
w
i
t
h
m
o
r
e
p
o
w
e
r
f
u
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
.
When the Pro
v
i
n
c
e
'
s
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
d
i
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
e
r
e
s
e
e
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
less incident
s
o
n
t
h
e
t
r
a
i
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
'
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
.
T
h
e
R
C
M
P
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
policing agen
c
i
e
s
h
a
v
e
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
p
o
l
i
c
e
t
r
a
i
l
s
d
u
e
t
o
o
t
h
e
r
d
u
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
c
a
l
l
s
f
o
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
mainly due to
a
n
i
n
f
l
u
x
o
f
n
e
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
e
o
p
l
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
a
b
o
u
t
m
o
r
e
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
l
i
f
t
i
n
g
C
o
v
i
d
restrictions.
...II
12
KWas
|@»an«^
Page 2 of 2
The Board is requesting increased support for Off- Highway Enforcement Officers to make the
trails and users safer and compliant under the Off-Road Vehicles Act. Such enforcement
activities and registration would play a large role in funding an increased number of enforcement
officers regarding this important safety feature for off-road users.
Thank you for your time and we look forward to your response.^
Sincerely,
^-/
Dean Schmeisser, Chair
Police Advisory Board
DS/jgp
ec: The Honourable Tim Houston, M.L.A., Premier of Nova Scotia
The Honourable Tory Rushton, M.L.A., Minister of Natural Resources & Renewables
The Honourable Timothy Halman, M.L.A., Minister of Environment & Climate Change
The Honourable Becky Druhan, M.L.A., Minister of Education & Early Childhood Dev.
The Honourable Susan Corkum-Greek, M.L.A., Minister of Economic Development
13
t