The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About2015-01-22_COW_Public Agenda Package MUNICIPALITYOFTHEDISTRICTOFCHESTER COMMITTEEOFTHEWHOLE Thursday,January 22,2015–8:45a.m. AGENDA 1.MEETINGCALLEDTOORDER. 2.MINUTESOFPREVIOUSMEETING: 2.1CommitteeoftheWhole–December 18,2014 3.MATTERSARISING: 3.1 Report from CAO dated December 15, 2014 regarding Annex Building Options. 3.2 Update from Director of Public Works dated January 6, 2015 regarding Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant and supporting attachments as follows: a)Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant - Proposed Development Options dated November 19, 2014. b)Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review - Cost Analysis dated September 26, 2014. c)Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review dated August 20, 2013. 4. CAO REPORT 4.1 Monthly CAO Report/Update dated January 15, 2015. 5.CORRESPONDENCE: 5.1 Memo from CAO dated January 13, 2015 regarding Gas Tax Funding Formula – UNSM Town Caucus Review. 5.2 Correspondence from Region 6 Solid Waste Management dated December 8, 2014 regarding Budget Approval 2015/16. 5.3 Correspondence from Municipality of the District of West Hants dated December 14, 2014 regarding Housekeeping Amendments – West Hants Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law. 5.4 Letter of thanks from Lunenburg County Christmas Tree Producers’ Association dated December 6, 2014 regarding Council Grant. 5.5 Grant Request from West Nova Fuels Curl For A Cause dated January 6, 2015 regarding 2015 Sponsorship Request for Annual charitable event on February 27, 28 & March 1, 2015 to help purchase specialized medical equipment in several departments at Fishermen’s. 6.NEWBUSINESS. 7.ADJOURNMENT. InCamerafollowingregularsessionunderSection22oftheMGAifrequired MUNICIPALITY OF THE 4.1 DISTRICT OF CHESTER CAO UPDATE REPORT TO Warden Allen Webber and Municipal Council Members SUBMITTED BY Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer DATE January 15, 2015 SUBJECT Monthly CAO Report/Update The following reports on the activities of the Municipality of District of Chester Administration and Departments for the month of December 2014. The Report provides updates categorized per Council's Goals noted in the Strategic Plan GOAL 1 Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility Financial Transparency 1.Financial Quarterly Operating Budget Report and Accountability 2. Financial Quarterly Capital Budget Report 3, Provide information to the Public on the use 3. Municipal Insight- Tender Awards; of public funds Wind Turbine Revenue performance; Article on FCI's; Municipal Webpage- Budget Reports posted Financial Management 4. Review of Financial Condition Index Report to COW on MODC's FCI's for (FCI's)on an Annual Basis three fiscal years and comment submitted to Municipal Affairs for website Budget Process- Areas for Improvement; Review has commenced; Staff have Revenue sources; Training drafted capital ; Tentative Committee meeting Jan 28, 2015 Operating- Strategic Priorities Workshop with Directors 1 completed; Council on Jan 15, 2015 Assessment role uploaded for 2015-16 Goal 2 Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services ITEM_ ACTION -,,STATUS. STATUS!_ Internal and External Track Complaints; Undertake Corrective Complaints responded to and reported in Communications and Action; and Communicate compliant and Municipal Insight (Sewer Rate, Fiscal Service Adjustments corrective Action Review • Still trackin to be 10% over bud et Organics Processing- Solution Intranet / Wiki - Develop to facilitate staff Council / COW actions are now being collaboration and contribution tracked using Mango Aps. A Follow up be completed by Jan 16, 2015. Action Report will be presented with • Staff are updating Organic Processing each Council and COW Agenda. GOAL 3 Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses ITEM .. ACTION . '_ i STATUS!_ Kaizer Meadows Cell 3 • Due to weather completion estimated to be Jan 31, 2015 (extended beyond Dec 19th) • Still trackin to be 10% over bud et Organics Processing- Solution • Anaerobic Digestion Report has been reviewed; final edits by consultant to be completed by Jan 16, 2015. • Staff are updating Organic Processing Options to enable comprehensive report to Council on options • Vermi composter- Second Phase of testing underway Septage Ponds- Dewatering • Tender awarded Jan 8, 2015 Asbestos Site Operation Manual • Completed Central Sewage Chester (Village) • Report on priorities for system Treatment Systems- underway. To be presented to Council Jan 29,2015 Western Shore • Infrastructure Funding Application (Small Communities Fund) completed and submitted by deadline • Force main break Dec 26, 2014; repaired Dec 20, 2014 Chester Basin • Report on Chester Basin Capacity options and decommissioning study completed. To be presented at Jan 22, 2015 COW. Waste Water Treatment- General • Completed federal reporting requirement on WWTP performance Western Shore /Gold Renovations for use in Municipal • Flooding Occurred - early Nov 2014. River School Operations Furnace repaired. Water conditioner and hot water tanks to be replaced Working with insurer to determine coverage • Foundation drain work complete • Concrete structural repairs substantially complete • Retendered roof work; closed Dec 19, 2014. Results were over budget and Council opted to not award, rather to retender in the spring • SNC finalizing interior renovations and draft specification's • Staff commencing asbestos abatement in early 2015 Wharf Maintenance for Optimal Use Chester Basin Wharf • Draft Wharf Assessment Report received and funds in 2015/16 capital Aspatogan Wharf • Work substantially complete Develop a Healthy Implement Trails Maintenance Plan • Application prepared to NS Off Community Highway Vehicle Infrastructure Fund for trail improvements in 2015 • Several washouts encountered due to rain events (Chester Connection / Aspatogan Trail). Major repairs have been completed and minor repairs are scheduled for January 2015 • Destination Trail- "Rum Runner Trail" project work continues. Data has been provided to consultants for signage and website development Anvil Park Completion • Drainage issues are resulting in flooding of park and associated damage. Staff are assessing options to minimize future floods (in discussions with NSTIR) Implement AT Playbook • Blue Route- Staff attended a Blue Route consultation session. Aspatogan Peninsula is a pilot location for the Blue Route. Full Review of all Review MPS / LUB and Subdivision By-law • MPS and LUB Review process has Planning and (ReVision) commenced; Development By- Fox Lake Water Quality • Background Materials prepared laws, Policies and Monitoring Committee • MPAC held meetings on December 8 specifications Wind Turbine at Kaizer and December 15, 2014 Meadows • Phase 1 Engagement Plan developed. • Public Engagement commences Jan 17th. • Next MPAC - Feb 2, 2015 Information Services E Post (electronic delivery of tax bills) • Continuing to work on E Post project; Report to Council on cost / benefit analysis is pending • PVSC sending Assessment Notices via E- Canada Post. IT Service Support • 38 Service request logged and transitioned to MODC staff Exploration of Wind Energy • Met Tower installed in December 2014 completed GOAL 4 Strengthen and Support Environmental, Cultural and Social Resources ACTIbN _ STATUS Environmental Sensitive / Assist in the establishment of the • Committee established Water Resource Areas Fox Lake Water Quality • RFQ issued for a monitoring and Monitoring Committee baseline program Renewable Energy Projects Wind Turbine at Kaizer • First Year of Operation. Meadows • Report to Council in December, 2014 re: actual versus projected revenue • Meeting with NSPI re: downtime occurred Dec 2, 2014 • Dialer for Wind Turbine being installed. This will notify us immediately of power outages • Contract with Minas Energy for wind turning monitoring has ended. This has transitioned to MODC staff Exploration of Wind Energy • Met Tower installed in December 2014 Projects- Card Lake Area (motion 2014-354) • Partner opportunities being explored In -camera discussion Anaerobic Digester for Organics • Draft report received (see Goal 3) Processing • Comfit Application in process • Letter of Support from MODC sent in December Exploration of alternate Landfill • Meeting with various parties to refine Material Processes details Community Based Planning ReVision (Plan Review) • MPAC has commenced the Plan Review Process Process. • December Meetings: Dec 8 and December 15, 2014 • Phase One Public Engagement Strategy Developed and presented to CPAC and Goal 5 Continually reinforce the positive image of the Municipality through leadership in public engagement and communications ITEM ACTIO _ Council External Communications Website Redesign • Public Sessions commence Jan 17 for Ph. One. Public Meeting being held in each Council District and targeted sectors being held as well Programs and Services that PRO Kids • Organized a fundraising in partnership support youth and families with Subway (Dec 19th) and raised $1000 for Pro Kids Recreation Grants • Report to Council for use of remaining • Top Website Pages-; Recreation & Parks; grant funds (Dec 11, 2014); Second Call for Grant Applications underway Programming • In partnership with Lunenburg County Year Municipal Plan. Newsletter Seniors Advisory Committee, organized and held Seniors Christmas Party on Collection Calendar December 3, 2014 with 125 individuals Press Releases/ Media attending. • Produced 2015 Edition of Explore Life; a new centre fold theme this year - "Know your Neighbor" which highlights people and groups in MODC doing great things. • Winter Roller Derby added to program line up this year LQ Partnership • Produced a series of Senior Videos highlighting senior volunteers Goal 5 Continually reinforce the positive image of the Municipality through leadership in public engagement and communications ITEM ACTIO _ 3T External Communications Website Redesign • Continuing to update content • Integrating ArcGIS online mapping • Presentation to Council - Dec 18, 2014 • Targeted Go -Live - Jan 19, 2015 Maximize the use of Social Media • Twitter followers- 589 • Facebook likes - 360 • December website users - 1,824 • Top Website Pages-; Recreation & Parks; Employment; General Dept. Info; General contact information; and 25 Year Municipal Plan. Newsletter • Municipal Insights published second week in January 2015 Collection Calendar • Completed and distributed Press Releases/ Media • Commencement of Plan Review Process 0 CTV Morning Live -One Session Internal Communications Management Review Committee • Held December 4th, 2014 Economic Development Meetings • Directors meetings December 12, 18, Partner 2015 • Monthly department meetings held • Start-up Funding Request submitted to ERDT Intranet • Mango Aps Training • Incorporation obtained Sharing of Knowledge in Information Management • MODC organizing server / software partnership with three municipal units, Events Lunenburg County /Communications AMA and UNSM for internal membership recruitment and the research of communication tools and information potential bid opportunities. Proposal being management (Mango Apps). MODC costs submitted for 2017 event. will decrease significantly by sharing • Announcement re: Music Week still pending license and server. Customer Service One Counter Customer Service Approach • Management Review has started to define process for moving forward with Industrial / Business Park Study • Project Meeting held with consultant in One Counter Customer Report. Expected December, 2014 and work plan refined Service Level is the first item to identify • Ph. 1- Market analysis will be completed by the and have Council approval / direction end of January. Consultants are presently on. Goal 6 Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity ACTION Economic Development REN- Startup • MODC is the Host Unit for REN Start-up Partner • Liaison/Oversight Committee Meeting- Dec 1, 2014 • Start-up Funding Request submitted to ERDT • Incorporation obtained • Board Recruitment underway Events Lunenburg County • Staff are assisting in website development, membership recruitment and the research of potential bid opportunities. Proposal being submitted for 2017 event. • Announcement re: Music Week still pending Chester Merchants Association • Staff facilitated a Strategic Planning Session Investment Ready Industrial / Business Park Study • Project Meeting held with consultant in December, 2014 and work plan refined • Ph. 1- Market analysis will be completed by the end of January. Consultants are presently conducting interviews with business community Village "'T" Water Project- • With the assistance of Councillor Armstrong Determine level of interest staff have completed assessment of demand. Report to Council in January 2015 Focus on Growing Agriculture- • Presently planning Spring 2015 event in Economic Sectors partnership with MODL and RQM Other Project Updates Provincial - Municipal Fiscal Review • Meeting with Village Commission Reps- December 5, • Created a partnership with Dept, of Agriculture 2014 to develop a Spring Agriculture Day and submitted to UNSM Summer Agriculture Expo • Corrective action has been completed on all 2013 Incident • Climate Data Study continues • Total Incident Reports 2013- 25; 2014 YTD- 16 Business Retention and Expansion (BRE) • Met with 4local business per month Become a Tourism Destination Tourism • Marketing Plan being developed with Chamber and industry for 2015 season • Training by staff in WHIMIS, Fall Protection, PPE, • VIC Plan being developed with Chamber CPR First Aid Fire Services • Attended South Shore Tourism Marketing • Report to FAC on EAP for Fire Fighters meeting- Proposed South Shore Tourism for • Reviewing Fire Fighters Insurance Proposal 2015 to be presented to COW late Jan / early submitted to DMA for approval, Assisting Commission Feb 2015 with organizational structure and training Events Lunenburg • Staff are assisting in website development, membership recruitment and the research of Committee mandate, etc. potential bid opportunities. Proposal being • Recruitment for Assistant Engineer Position - closed. submitted for 2017 event • Admin Position - Community Development has been • Music Week announcement expected fall of filled by Sandra Challis Conummity Development 2015 Other Project Updates Provincial - Municipal Fiscal Review • Meeting with Village Commission Reps- December 5, 2014 • Municipal Response to Fiscal Review finalized and submitted to UNSM Safety • Corrective action has been completed on all 2013 Incident Reports and 2014 Reports (YTD) • Total Incident Reports 2013- 25; 2014 YTD- 16 • Joint Occupational Health and Safety Committee continues to meet regularly • Standing Agenda Item on Management Meetings • Training by staff in WHIMIS, Fall Protection, PPE, CPR First Aid Fire Services • 2014 Year End Report filed with Fire Marshalls Office • Report to FAC on EAP for Fire Fighters • Reviewing Fire Fighters Insurance Proposal • Assisted Western Shore Commission with By-laws and submitted to DMA for approval, Assisting Commission with organizational structure and training • Special FAC meeting scheduled for Jan 28, 2015 to review Committee mandate, etc. Human Resources • Recruitment for Assistant Engineer Position - closed. Interviews being arranged • Admin Position - Community Development has been filled by Sandra Challis Conummity Development • Development Agreement Application received for Sherwood Golf Course Residential Development. Staff have commenced review • Coastal Planning Meeting with MODL to review initiatives underway there. Strategic Plan Review • Annual Review in Progress; Directors Review Workshop - Dec 18, 2014; Council Review Workshop- ]an 15, 2015 0 SNC + LAVALIN November 19, 2014 Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King Street P.O. Box 369 Chester, Nova Scotia BOJ 110 Attention: Matthew Davidson, P.Eng. Director of Public Works Dear Mr. Davidson, Telephone; 902-492-4544 Fax: 902-492-4540 RE: Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant— Proposed Development Options The Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) has requested that SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI) conduct an assessment of Chester Basin sanitary sewage serviced area. More specifically, the intent of the assessment was to determine the ability of each of the five serviced properties to support individual on-site sewage disposal systems. The existing Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant (CBSTP) is capped in terms of its ability to accept additional sewage flows, therefore any change in the use of the five properties that results in additional sewage would require some other form of treatment and disposal. The owner of two of the five serviced properties is proposing renovations to the properties which would result in an increase in the total volume of sewage generated. SLI is to review the impact of the proposed increases and the possibility for on-site sewage treatment on the individual properties. Recommendations are sought as to if and how the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing treatment and disposal system. Background Information Review SLI reviewed its previous letters submitted to MODC in addition to other existing background information: • Drawing set titled "Chester Basin Sanitary Sewer System As-Builts" dated January 1996 detailing the CBSTP components. • Memorandum titled "Chester Basin Sewer Capacity Estimation" prepared by Lyle Russell, P.Eng dated February 6, 2013. • Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review prepared by SLI dated August 20, 2013. • Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review — Cost Analysis prepared by SLI dated September 26, 2013. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group �ryP"`a SNC-LAVALIN INC. 11J001 Suite 200 Park Lane Terraces 5657 Spring Garden Road Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada 13313114 Telephone; 902-492-4544 Fax: 902-492-4540 RE: Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant— Proposed Development Options The Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) has requested that SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI) conduct an assessment of Chester Basin sanitary sewage serviced area. More specifically, the intent of the assessment was to determine the ability of each of the five serviced properties to support individual on-site sewage disposal systems. The existing Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant (CBSTP) is capped in terms of its ability to accept additional sewage flows, therefore any change in the use of the five properties that results in additional sewage would require some other form of treatment and disposal. The owner of two of the five serviced properties is proposing renovations to the properties which would result in an increase in the total volume of sewage generated. SLI is to review the impact of the proposed increases and the possibility for on-site sewage treatment on the individual properties. Recommendations are sought as to if and how the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing treatment and disposal system. Background Information Review SLI reviewed its previous letters submitted to MODC in addition to other existing background information: • Drawing set titled "Chester Basin Sanitary Sewer System As-Builts" dated January 1996 detailing the CBSTP components. • Memorandum titled "Chester Basin Sewer Capacity Estimation" prepared by Lyle Russell, P.Eng dated February 6, 2013. • Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review prepared by SLI dated August 20, 2013. • Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review — Cost Analysis prepared by SLI dated September 26, 2013. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Nov 19, 2014 Page 4 Property has an area of approximately 140 mZ most of which is occupied by the building. Property has approximately 10 m of water frontage on Chester Basin. An on-site water supply well not identified. There is insufficient area to consider an on-site sewage disposal system. Civic # 5316 — Former Ultramar gas station now car repair shop Property has an area of approximately 700 mZ. An on-site drilled well was identified on the north side of the building on a 2009 survey plan. There is insufficient area to consider an on- site sewage disposal system. Civic # 5319 — Current Pharmacy, Possible future apartments Property has an area of approximately 410 mZ. Most of the property is occupied by the building. The property has approximately 30 m of water frontage on Chester Basin. An on-site drilled well was identified on the north side of the building, adjacent to the public road. There is insufficient area to consider an on-site sewage disposal system. Civic # 5325 — Former grocery store possible future apartments and restaurant Property has an area of approximately 870 mZ. Property has approximately 60 m of water frontage on Chester Basin. The building occupies a large portion of the property however there is some available land at the south end of the property. There is believed to be an on-site water supply well however it was not identified during the site visit. It may be possible for the property to support on-site treatment with surface discharge to Chester Basin however this will depend on a number of factors, most importantly being whether a significant variance of the required separation distance between the system and a watercourse could be obtained and whether surface discharge to Chester Basin would be permitted. The location of the on-site well must also be identified before this option can be given further consideration. In addition, it would have to be determined whether servicing of this property would be the developer's responsibility or whether this would be part of the municipal sewer servicing. The estimate wastewater flow for the proposed re -development of this property is 6,355 L/day. The type of treatment technology that may be able to be supported on the property is a textile filter such as an Advantex treatment unit. The AX100 model can treat an average daily flow rate of 9,300 L/day with 9.3 mZ pod. A primary tank (septic tank), grease tank (for proposed restaurant) and recirculating tank will also be required. Summary & Recommendations The Chester Basin STP services five existing properties. Two of these properties are being proposed for redevelopment which will increase the sewage flows from these properties. The design capacity of the STP is 8,180 L/day. The NSE Approval for the system indicates that the use of the serviced properties may not change such that wastewater flows would be increased. None of the five serviced properties are suitable for conventional on-site sewage disposal. The former grocery store property may be considered for on-site sewage treatment and surface disposal but will require consultation with NSE to determine whether the necessary, significant A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group M Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Nov 19, 2014 Page 5 variances will be permitted, For all intents and purposes, the capacity of the existing STP is maximized by the existing developments. Depending on the how the sewage is allocated for each property, the Pharmacy building has a flow allotment which would currently be unmet by the existing use as a pharmacy. However, it is possible that the apartments at the former B&B site may be exceeding their flow allotment. The proposed development of the former grocery will result in flows that greatly exceed the allotted capacity and the flows cannot be directed to the existing STP. The three options presented in the previous SLI letters, and summarized below, remain valid. • Option 1— Status Quo • Option 2 — New CBSTP, Same Location • Option 3 — New CBSTP, Alternate Location A conclusion will need to be reached regarding the level of service MODC is capable/willing to provide to area stakeholders. As mentioned, there are currently five properties serviced by the CBSTP, each with allotted discharge limits. SLI is of the opinion that the current CBSTP is capable of continuing to service these five properties, provided that discharge limits are unaltered. Since some of the properties have either changed use or propose to change use, MODC will have to decide how the wastewater flow volumes are allocated among the serviced properties and whether the flow allotment at the time of the design is the fixed amount granted to that property. In addition, MODC will have to determine whether they wish to construct a new system to handle future development scenarios or whether development in that area is a capped at the current amount. Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any comments or concerns related to the contents of this letter. Yours truly, SNC-LAVALIN INC. Hilda Dunnewold, P.Eng. Environmental Engineer Cc Mr. Jeff Theriault, P. Eng. Mr. Jason Angel, P.Eng. Ms. Laura Bond, EiT 509985 -0036 -LET -000-0003 A Member of the 5NC-LAVALIN Group DE t September 26, 2013 Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King Street P.O. Box 369 Chester, Nova Scotia BOJ 1J0 Attention: Matthew Davidson, P.Eng. Director of Public Works Dear Mr. Davidson, 3-Z ��"]']7 SNC-LAVALIN INC. Air suite 200 Park Lane Terraces 5657 Spring Garden Road Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada 33J3R4 Telephone: 902-492-4544 Fax: 902-492-4540 RE: Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review — Cost Analysis The Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) has requested that SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI) conduct a review of the current Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant (CBSTP) operating parameters and comment on its ability to handle existing loading as well as its capacity to treat additional loading attributed to proposed development. Three options were proposed to the MODC in a memorandum titled "Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review" dated August 30, 2013. Further to this review, the MODC has requested that SLI prepare a cost analysis for each of the options that were proposed. OPTION 1 - Status Quo As discussed in the previous memorandum, SLI is of the opinion that the existing CBSTP is capable of continuing to service the five current properties, maintaining current discharge limits. This option would create no additional costs for the Municipality, however, this option does not allow for development of connected properties or the servicing of additional properties. With this option, work may be required to the collection system to limit I&I and help ensure design and operating capacities are not exceeded. Existing operating and maintenance costs for the system are a good indication of what MODC can expect in the coming years. The remaining service life of the existing CBSTP is not known. OPTION 2 — New CBSTP — Same Location This option proposed the construction of a new treatment system at the same location as the current CBSTP. Based on the current and projected flows, a modular Recirculating Sand Filter system (RSF) was identified as an appropriate replacement for the existing CBSTP underdrain sand filter system. A cost estimate was prepared for option 2 includes the construction of an RSF system to service the current properties serviced by CBSTP as well as an allotment for additional connections. In the preparation of this cost estimate, it was assumed that A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Sep.26,2013 Page 2 approximately 10 to 12 residential properties would be connected to the treatment system in addition to the existing properties, which would require doubling the capacity of the existing CBSTP. An RSF system sized at 6000 USGPD (5000 IGPD) would have the capacity to handle the current flows as well as the immediate or future connection of approximately 10-12 homes. This system has an overall footprint of 50'x 24' which is smaller than the current system. Space is not available for final treatment via a dispersal bed at the current location of the CBSTP; therefore discharge would need to be made to Chester Basin, as with the existing system. Various disinfection technologies are available, with UV being common in RSF systems. NSE may allow for the existing discharge pipe to be reused, provided that the discharge point meets current guidelines. The cost estimate in the Table 1 is a breakdown an RSF system with the capacity of 6000 USGPD including UV disinfection treatment. In this case, discharge would be made to Chester Basin. It is assumed that the existing pump station could be reused and modified accordingly for additional flows at a lower cost than full replacement. Table 1: Option 2 - New System, Same Location, Capacitv Approx. Doubled Item No. Description Estimated Price I Recirculating Sand Filter (RSF) System (6000 USGPD $305,000 2 Gravity Collection System -500m of 200mm PVC $112,500 3 Modifications to Existing Pump Station $15,000 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $432,500 Given that both the existing CBSTP and new RSF systems are modular systems, with the ability to isolate flows to individual filters, if this option is preferred it may be possible to construct an RSF system on the current CBSTP site without major interruption to treatment. A detailed topographic survey of the existing site may be required to determine the feasibility of this option. Also, additional investigation would be required to assess the viability of reusing the existing pump station. OPTION 3 - New CBSTP - Alternate Location An alternative to the previous options is to construct a new treatment system at an alternate location. During preliminary discussions, MODC staff indicated that there is currently only one other MODC owned property in the area which is largely vacant, which is the Legacy Park property at the corner of Croft Rd and Highway 12, adjacent to the Royal Canadian Legion. In more recent discussions with MODC, a new location was proposed and is outlined in Figure 1. This is a municipal lot approximately 3/4 of an acre in area. There is no direct road frontage on this lot but a potential access road could be constructed from the Municipal Park or via an old roadbed indicated by the red arrow. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Sep. 26, 2013 Page 3 Figure 1: Municipally Owned Parcel - PID 60099207 This lot has sufficient area for the 6000 USGPD RSF system described in option 2 with additional acreage to spare. Therefore, the addition of an on-site dispersal bed would be possible at this location, provided that the topography is adequate. Option 3A includes the construction of the RSF system described in option 2 with the addition of a dispersal bed on-site while Option 3B includes discharge to Chester Basin instead of a dispersal bed. A cost estimate of option 3A can be seen in Table 2 and includes the installation of a 6000 USGPD RSF system with UV disinfection as well as a dispersal bed at the property depicted in Figure 1. In addition to the RSF treatment system, this estimate also includes the requirement of a new pump station and approximately 530 m of forcemain, modifications to existing infrastructure and earthworks to be completed on-site at the new location. Table 2: Option 3A — New Svstem, Alternate Location, On-site Dispersal Item No. Description Estimated Price Recirculating Sand Filter (RSF) System with Dispersal Bed 6000 USGPD $355,000 New Pump Station $100,000 New Forcemain -530 m, assumed 4" dia. $86,125 Gravity Collection System -500m of 200mm PVC $112,500 Clearing and Grubbing of New Location $6,400 Construction of Access Road $32,000 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $692,025 A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Sep. 26, 2013 Page 4 A cost estimate of option 3B can be seen in Table 3 and includes the installation of a 6000 USGPD RSF system with UV disinfection at the location in Figure 1. In addition to the RSF treatment system, this estimate also includes the requirement of a new pump station and approximately 530 m of forcemain, new discharge piping to Chester Basin, modifications to existing infrastructure and earthworks to be completed on-site at the new location. Table 3: Option 3113 — New Svstem, Alternate Location, Ocean Discharge Item No. Description Estimated Price Recirculating Sand Filter RSF System $305,000 New Pump Station $100,000 New Forcemain —530 m, assumed 4" dia. $86,125 New Gravity Discharge Pipe to Ocean ( —560 m) Installed in common trench with Forcemain $50,000 Gravity Collection System --500m of 200mm PVC $112,500 Clearing and Grubbing of New Location $1100 Construction of Access Road $32,000 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $686,725 As part of both option 3A and 3B, the existing CBSTP could either be decommissioned, or maintained to service a reduced number of properties if so desired. Decommissioning the current plant could likely be undertaken by the Municipality at minimal cost. Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any comments or concerns related to the contents of this letter. Should the undersigned not be available, please refer all comments or concerns to Tim Veinot. Yours truly, SNC-LAVALIN INC. Jeffrey Theriault, P.Eng. Civil Engineer JT/Ib Cc Mr. Lyle Russell, P.Eng. Mr. Jason Angel, P.Eng. Mr. Tim Veinot, P.Eng. 509985 -0036 -LET -000-0002 Attachment: List of assumptions. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group List of assumptions: 1) Design loading to existing CBSTP = 10,615 L/day (updated Sep 8, 2009 by KVM Consultants) 2) Allowance to be made for additional property connections = 10 to 12 residential properties = 10,000 to 12,000 L/day 3) Existing CBSTP site is adequate for construction of a new RSF system. Confirmation required, possibly via topographic survey. 4) Existing CBSTP discharge piping meets current NSE guidelines and that NSE will allow for ocean discharge for a new system. To be confirmed. 5) Existing Chester Basin Pump Station can be re -used for a new system built on the same site with minor modification. To be confirmed. 6) 7) Gravity collection piping to be 200mm PVC DR35. 8) New forcemain to be 4" PVC DR18. 9) PID 60099207 is suitable for construction of a new treatment system. 10) Costing Estimates based on; a. RSF System (without dispersal bed) $60/imp. gallon/day b. Dispersal Bed $1/imp. gallon/day c. UV Disinfection System $5000 I 200mm PVC DR35 — Trench $225/m e. Modification to Existing Pump Station $15,000 (allowance) f. 100mm PVC DR18 Forcemain - Trench $162.50/m g. 150mm PVC DR35 Gravity Discharge Pipe $90/m (Assumes installed in common trench with forcemaln) h. New Pump Station $100,000 (allowance) i. Clearing and Grubbing $9.50/m2 j. Construction of Access Road (-200m x 4m) $40/m2 (Assumes minimal clearing and grubbing required for road) A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group August 30, 2013 Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King Street P.O. Box 369 Chester, Nova Scotia BOJ 130 Attention: Matthew Davidson, P.Eng. Director of Public Works Dear Mr. Davidson, RE: Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review The Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) has requested that SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI) conduct a review of the current Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant (CBSTP) operating parameters and comment on its ability to handle existing loading as well as its capacity to treat additional loading attributed to proposed development. Recommendations are sought as to how additional capacity may be added to the system, whether by modifications to the existing CBSTP, or by system upgrade/replacement. SLI has been provided a copy of a memorandum titled "Chester Basin Sewer Capacity Estimation" prepared by Lyle Russell, P.Eng dated February 6, 2013. SLI also has been provided a drawing set titled "Chester Basin Sanitary Sewer System As-Builts" dated January 1996 detailing the CBSTP components. Background Information Review The key findings outlined in the "Chester Basin Sewer Capacity Estimation" memorandum are summarized as follows; Design Flows 1995 Design Flow for CBSTP = 1550 imperial gallons per day (IGPD) • 2009 Updated Design Flow for CBSTP = 2300 IGPD 5[7 comment: While the updated 2009 flows are viewed as being excessive for current conditions, they have been quantified to be 'maximum expected flows"for which they appear reasonable. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group m SNC-LAVALIN INC. �� X001 Suite 200 Park Lane Terraces 5657 Spring Garden Road Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada 133J3114 Telephone: 902-492-4544 Fax: 902-492-4540 RE: Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review The Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) has requested that SNC-Lavalin Inc. (SLI) conduct a review of the current Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant (CBSTP) operating parameters and comment on its ability to handle existing loading as well as its capacity to treat additional loading attributed to proposed development. Recommendations are sought as to how additional capacity may be added to the system, whether by modifications to the existing CBSTP, or by system upgrade/replacement. SLI has been provided a copy of a memorandum titled "Chester Basin Sewer Capacity Estimation" prepared by Lyle Russell, P.Eng dated February 6, 2013. SLI also has been provided a drawing set titled "Chester Basin Sanitary Sewer System As-Builts" dated January 1996 detailing the CBSTP components. Background Information Review The key findings outlined in the "Chester Basin Sewer Capacity Estimation" memorandum are summarized as follows; Design Flows 1995 Design Flow for CBSTP = 1550 imperial gallons per day (IGPD) • 2009 Updated Design Flow for CBSTP = 2300 IGPD 5[7 comment: While the updated 2009 flows are viewed as being excessive for current conditions, they have been quantified to be 'maximum expected flows"for which they appear reasonable. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Aug 30, 2013 Page 2 Actual Flows (Estimated) • -1500 IGPD (Average Daily - Yearly) • -1550 IGPD (Average Daily - Summer Months) • -1400 IGPD (Average Daily - Winter Months) SLI comment., While the flows derived from theoretical pump rates appears reasonable, the forcemain diameter is identified in the as -built drawing sets as 1.5" on sheet 4 of 5 and as 2"on sheet 1 of 5. Should the actual forcemain be 2' this would have a significant impact on the calculated flows. Furthermore, when dealing with pressure pipes of small diameters, small discrepancies can result in significant differences in calculated flows. For instance, a number of suppliers list the inner diameter (I.D.) of 1.5" series 160 poly pipe as 1.61': Using this diameter results in a theoretical pump rate of -44 IGPM as opposed to 39 IGPM when using a 1.5"LD. This would alter the flows as follows; • -1660 IGPD (Average Daily - Yearly) • -1750 IGPD (Average Daily - Summer Months) • -1600 IGPD (Average Daily - Winter Months) Treatment System • Nova Scotia Environment (NSE) Stated Capacity = 1800 IGPD • Design Capacity = 2200 IGPD (Total, assuming rest period >- duty period) o Summer Filter Capacity = 1600 IGPD (May - Sept) o Winter Filter Capacity = 600 IGPD (Oct - Apr) Effluent Monitoring • Effluent monitoring has shown conformance with NSE discharge requirements in all but a couple samples over the past two years. General Observations Contained in Memorandum • Winter filter capacity is exceeded approx. 70% of the time. • NSE Approval states that there shall be no additional properties connected to the system, nor shall there expansion to the five serviced properties. • Existing CBSTP is located in an area identified as a concern for flooding in the Municipal Climate Action Plan. Recommendations Contained in Memorandum • Install a flow meter. • Perform an inflow and infiltration (I&I) investigation. • Review location of existing system. • Complete an engineering evaluation of the existing treatment system. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Aug 30, 2013 Page 3 SLI Review Comments SLI supports all recommendations made within the "Chester Basin Sewer Capacity Estimation" memorandum prepared by Mr. Lyle Russell, P.Eng. 1) Installation of a flow meter is the only means by which to accurately determine the actual flows being treated by the CBSTP. This will allow MODC to determine if the NSE stated capacities and design capacities are being respected or exceed, and will also aid in the quantification of I&I entering the system. While this is deemed beneficial for the operation of the existing CBSTP, it will not allow for the connection of additional properties or for increasing flow allowances from individual properties without contravening the NSE Approval currently held for the system, regardless of results. Flow meter data would be primarily beneficial in optimizing the performance of the existing CBSTP by quantifying and helping identify sources of I&I, and would also be used in the design of a replacement system. Should flows be shown to be consistently below stated capacity, it may be possible to approach NSE and seek an amendment to the existing Approval. It may be possible to alter stated allowances for individual properties by showing that measures are in place to ensure the capacity of the system is not exceeded, such as only using low flow fixtures. This may not be well received, since homeowners and tenants historically have a tendency to replace easily swapped fixtures (showerheads, sink outlets, etc...) with higher flow models, negating the intent. 2) An I&I investigation would give an indication of the condition of the gravity collection system, and identify opportunities for eliminating non -sewage flows from the CBSTP. Again, it will not allow for the connection of additional properties or for increasing flow allowances from individual properties without contravening the NSE Approval currently held for the system, regardless of results. An I&I investigation would be primarily beneficial in optimizing the performance of the existing CBSTP and help minimize treatment capacity exceedances. Ideally, most (if not all) non -sewage flows would be eliminated prior to the construction of a replacement system. 3) SLI agrees that as it is currently constructed, the existing location of the CBSTP may not be optimal in relation to seawater intrusion and system flooding. As mentioned, the existing CBSTP is located in an area identified as a concern for flooding in the Municipal Climate Action Plan. While there are no reported accounts of seawater intrusion, several near misses have occurred where seawater was observed within inches of the top of the lift station. As per the as -built drawings, the top of the lift station is at an elevation of 6.0', while the finished grade on the sand filters is recorded as being 4.5' higher at 10.5'. Based in the sand filter details shown on sheet 3 of 5, the bottom of the sand filter is at an elevation of approximately 6.31 . 4) SLI agrees that an evaluation of the existing system may be beneficial in identifying whether the CBSTP is operating as intended, or whether there are obvious signs that the system is approaching the end if its service life. A number of simple tasks may be undertaken to establish the general health of the system, which include; A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group im Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Aug 30, 2013 Page 4 a. Inspect the sand filter area for signs of wet spots, surface sewage or odours. Any of these are likely signs of system deficiencies. b. An in-depth analytical investigation of the CBSTP is not necessarily a simple task. Sampling at various points of the system is believed to be of little use due to the retention times in each system component. It is impossible to relate the quality of sewage entering the septic tanks to that exiting the tanks or the sand filter beds due to the amount of mixing involved and fluctuations in inflow characteristics. In general, if discharge criteria are consistently being met, the system is achieving the desired results. That being said, a sample collected from the underdrain header pipe prior to entering the chlorine contact chamber may give an indication of the effluent quality before it is subjected to chlorination, but depending on when the sample is taken, may not necessarily be indicative of typical effluent. While it is true that it is not uncommon for on-site sewage disposal systems and sand filter beds to malfunction following 20-30 years of service life, other systems of the same design have experienced reliable service well beyond this timeframe. As mentioned, as long as discharge criteria are consistently being met, and regular schedule maintenance is being performed in accordance with accepted industry standards, there is no clear indication that the CBSTP is not capable of continuing to operate as intended for numerous years. Work may be required to the collection system to limit I&I and help ensure design and operating capacities are not exceeded. A conclusion will need to be reached regarding the level of service MODC is capable/willing to provide to area stakeholders. As mentioned, there are currently five properties serviced by the CBSTP, each with allotted discharge limits. SLI is of the opinion that the current CBSTP is capable of continuing to service these five properties, provided that discharge limits are unaltered. As mentioned, work may be required to the collection system to limit I&I and help ensure design and operating capacities are not exceeded. Alternatively, an increased treatment capacity would allow for development of the serviced properties beyond their current uses, potentially bringing new businesses and residents to the area. This can only be achieved via construction of new treatment infrastructure. Various options are available, and summarized as follows; OPTION 1 - STATUS QUO As mentioned, SLI is of the opinion that the existing CBSTP is capable of continuing to service the five current properties, maintaining current discharge limits. As mentioned, work may be required to the collection system to limit I&I and help ensure design and operating capacities are not exceeded. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Aug 30, 2013 Page 5 Option 1 - Pros • Lowest cost option Option 1— Cons • Does not allow for development of connected properties • Does not allow servicing of additional properties • Does not address flooding concern OPTION 2 — NEW CBSTP — SAME LOCATION It may be possible to construct a new treatment system at the same location as the current CBSTP. Based on current and projected flows, a traditional on-site system would not be possible due to the space limitations (to treat current flows of 1500 IGPD, it is estimated that a C3 system would require a bed -115m long, while a sloping sand filter would require a bed —50m long). For this reason, an alternative treatment technology would be required, with the most common being a Recirculating Sand Filter (RSF) System. For comparison, the existing CBSTP underdrain sand filter system (both filters) has an overall footprint of 33' x 63' and a design treatment capacity of 2200 IGPD. A similarly sized RSF system with a footprint of 32' x 50' would have a capacity of 6660 IGPD. Space is not available for final treatment via a dispersal bed; therefore discharge would need to be made to Chester Basin, as with the existing system. Various disinfection technologies are available, with UV being common in such systems. NSE may allow for the existing discharge pipe to be reused, provided that the discharge point meets current guidelines. Given that both the existing CBSTP and new RSF systems are modular systems, with the ability to isolate flows to individual filters, it may be possible to construct an RSF system on the current CBSTP site without major interruption to treatment. Alternatively, sewage could be pumped from the septic tanks and hauled offsite during construction. The design of a new system on the existing site would take flooding concerns into account and set design elevations accordingly. Option 2 - Pros • Allows for development of connected properties • Allows for servicing of additional properties • Address flooding concern • All new infrastructure kept in one location A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group Option 2 — Cons • Construction may be challenging due to space constraints • Alternative treatment systems typically cost more than traditional systems • Ultimate treatment capacity limited by available space Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Aug 30, 2013 Page 6 OPTION 3 — NEW CBSTP — ALTERNATE LOCATION Should it be deemed undesirable to maintain the existing CBSTP or construct a new treatment system at the current location, the alternative is to construct a new treatment system at an alternate location. During preliminary discussions, MODC staff indicated that there is currently only one other MODC owned property in the area which is largely vacant, which is the Legacy Park property at the corner of Croft Rd and Highway 12, adjacent to the Royal Canadian Legion. While the location of this property would be favourable due to its relatively close proximity to the existing CBSTP, current plans for the park as well as public opinion may be an obstacle. Should construction of a new CBSTP at an alternate location emerge as the preferred option, an ultimate treatment capacity will need to be determined, from which a treatment system footprint requirement can be determined. Armed with this space requirement, vacant land fitting the need can be sought, whether it be at the Legacy Park site or elsewhere. Should sufficient land area be available, with proper topography, it may be possible to construct a traditional on-site septic disposal system similar to the one recently constructed in New Ross. Otherwise, an alternative treatment system would be required. A new pumping station (up upgrades to existing) with forcemain would likely be required to deliver sewage from the collection system to the new treatment system. As part of this option, the existing CBSTP could either be decommissioned, or maintained to service a reduced number of properties if so desired. Option 3 - Pros • Allows for development of connected properties • Allows for servicing of additional properties • Address flooding concern • New construction in undeveloped area would be less challenging • May be able to construct traditional treatment system if space available • Potential for significant treatment capacity if desired Option 3 — Cons • New forcemain (likely in roadway) would be required (= increased cost) • New or upgraded pumping station would likely be required (= increased cost) • Alternative treatment system (if required) typically cost more than traditional systems SLI is prepared to proceed with further analysis, both of the existing CBSTP, as well as new treatment options. This analysis would be heavily dependent on desired treatment capacity of the system. This may require discussions be held with area property owners including those currently serviced by the CBSTP as well as others in the area who may wish to connect to a new system. Once a treatment capacity is established, cost estimates can be prepared for various scenarios which would assist the MODC in selecting a desired option. A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group M Mr. Mathew Davidson, P.Eng. Aug 30, 2013 Page 7 Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any comments or concerns related to the contents of this letter. Should the undersigned not be available, please refer all comments or concerns to Tim Veinot. Yours truly, SNC-LAVALIN INC. Jeffrey Theriault, P.Eng. Civil Engineer Cc Mr. Lyle Russell, P.Eng. Mr. Jason Angel, P.Eng. Mr. Tim Veinot, P.Eng, 509985 -0036 -LET -000-0001 A Member of the SNC-LAVALIN Group 52.5.5 Hwy # 10 PO Box 14.8 New Germany, NS BOR 11:0 December 6, 2014 Municipality of the District of Chester 151 King St. PO Box 369 Chester, NS BOJ 1J0 Dear Warden and Councillors, Phone 902-644-2605 Fax 902-644-2715 inloC�?christmastrecproduccrs.com avwuv.chrisUnaslrccproduccrs.com On behalf of the Lunenburg County Christmas Tree Producers' Association, I would like to sincerely thank you for your support of our 'Real, Fresh, Local' campaign to promote the use of real trees to Nova Scotian families in 2014. Your contribution of $1,000 has enabled us to work with the Christmas Tree Council of Nova Scotia, the Northeastern Christmas Tree Association and the Cobequid Christmas Tree Producers' Association to make an effective promotions campaign across the province. As a result of your support, we have been able to build upon the campaign launched by CTCNS in 2013. Specifically, we have been able to place advertisements with 27 different newspapers across the province — including the Lunenburg County Progress Bulletin and the nearby Kentville Kings County Advertiser/Register, Annapolis County Spectator and Liverpool Queens County Advance — and will be airing a commercial on CTV for two weeks later this fall. Other endeavours include a province -wide colouring contest for students, participation in Christmas parades and an active social media presence, to name but a few. Many growers reported increased numbers at their local choose and cut and retail operations in 2013 as a result of the promotions campaign. We are confident that this will continue to increase going forward and will help to strengthen our communities in rural Nova Scotia. Sincerely, Michael Keddy \� President MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DECISION/REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO Warden Allen Webber and Members of the Committee of the Whole SUBMITTED BY Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer DATE December 15, 2014 SUBJECT Annex Building Options ORIGIN November 13, 2014 Council CURRENT SITUATION: Municipal Council has approved the use of the Gold River/ Western Shore School for Municipal Operations and has approved an associated project budget (renovations). Community Development, which is presently located in the Annex Building, will be one of the departments relocated to the Western Shore Property, resulting in vacated space in the Annex Building. At the November 13, 2014 Council meeting Council directed that staff bring back options for the reuse of the Annex Building. The motion passed is as follows: That Municipal Council, at this time, not pursue the sale of the Annex Building and direct staff to examine options for alternate use for the building to maximize its use and offset the operating costs and bring the report to Council outlining the some. RECOMMENDATION: That Municipal Council direct staff to issue an Expressions of Interest for the lease of annex building. The Expression of Interest shall • solicit interest in leasing all or portions or the annex building • solicit the interest of both non-profit and for profit organizations and individuals • require that those submitting proposals familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Land Use By-law as it pertains to the use of this building; and further That prior to staff issuing the Expression of Interest, Municipal Council give direction as to whether a portion of the building is to be excluded from the Expression of Interest, so as to be able to indicate the space available for lease in the Annex Building BACKGROUND: A 2010 Facility Study completed for MODC identified that MODC lacked sufficient space for the delivery of existing and future services. Approximately 2600 square feet was identified as required to meet existing and future needs. Between 2010 and 2013 various options were considered by Council to meet this need. In 2013 the Gold River / Western Shore School closed and the vacated building was turned over to MODC, MODC, this same year agreed to renovate this structure for municipal use. Staff were directed to prepare a Request for Proposals for the sale of the Annex Building At the November 13, 2014 Council Meeting, Municipal Council confirmed their decision to continue with the renovation of the former Gold River /Western Shore School for repurposing for MODC use for the delivery of Community Development and Recreation Services. The result of this would be the Annex Building would be vacated by Community Development. At this same meeting, Council opted to not pursue the sale of the Annex Building and directed staff to explore what options would be available for the reuse of the Annex Building under Municipal Ownership. Attached as Appendix A is a report on the Development Considerations contained within Village of Chester Land Use By-law and the Municipal Subdivision By-law Both the Annex building and the Main Office are located on a property that is comprised of 4lots as shown on Map 1. The Main building is located at 151 King Street, and primarily occupies the properties identified as PID 60391315, 60089562, and 60391323, with a small portion located on PID 60089570. The Annex Building, located at 186 Central Street, is located entirely on PID 60089570. Each of the four lots is approximately 19,000 sq. ft. The 2010 Facility Study indicated the main floor is 2125 sq. ft, while the lower level is 2435 sq. ft. The well for the main office building is located directly in front of the Annex. DISCUSSION: 1.0 Matters to Consider in the Reuse of the Annex Building. 1.1 Land Use By-law Considerations Zoning The present zoning of Institutional (1) limits the options for reuse to : • Community uses such as health care offices, public buildings, educational institutions, community centres, museums, parks and emergency response services. • Multi -Unit dwellings by site plan (up to 12 units). Based upon the proposed lot size, a maximum of two units would be possible.; and • Office and business uses; provided the maximum floor area devoted to the office or business occupied no more than a 1000 sq. ft., and parking requirements are satisfied. Any other uses would require amendments to Land Use By-law and possibly the Municipal Planning Strategy, Parking The Parking with the Annex Building is presently shared with the Municipal Administration Building (access and stalls) Parking requirements of the Land Use By-law would also have to be met. The requirements will vary by use .Consideration would also have to be given to what the required parking is for the Admin Building. 1.2 Services The Annex Building and the Municipal Administration Building share the same well, water conditioning/treatment system and sewer connection. Electrical / Communications are fed to the annex building from the main building. Hazardous Materials, such as Asbestos would have to be identified 1.3 Subdivision Considerations MODC may wish to consolidate all four lots, to eliminate encroachments and thence subdivide off a lot with the Annex Building. Consideration would be required to be given to servicing the separate lot (sewer, water, electrical, road access, setbacks, etc.) 1.4 Change of Use Considerations The Annex Building is currently classified as a Group D, Business and Personal Services major occupancy, which is essentially office use. A change in occupancy from office use to another occupancy such as residential, retail, workshop, etc., would require an application for a Building Permit and Building Code Compliance. Any change in use that does not trigger a change in occupancy classification may still require a Building Permit, depending on the extent of the renovations. 1.5 Operating Costs The following chart provides a summary of the operating costs to maintain the Annex Building in an occupied state: Base Expenditure (Dec 2014) .eating ,v Power $3,500 Insurance — Property Coverage: Property Tax $2,648 General Maintenance (fire alarm, security, pest A control, water treatment minor repairs)„ .� Subtotal $21,34 NST on base lease Total 4�a ss Service Expenditures (Dec 2014) Janitorial (staff & supplies) '_`-_ Snow removal & yard maintenance $1,400 Subtotal - 17 HST on Service $2,760 Total Square Footage: Main Floor 2,125 Lower Level 2,435 Total 4,560 Lease Cost per Sq, foot to cover expenses 1.6 Lease options There are two common types of commercial leases: Gross and Net. Gross Lease would set a lease rate that covered all costs (including all operating) , and a Net Lease — a lease that set a base rate and in addition to this rate the tenant covers operating costs . Factoring in the above noted costs, a Gross Rate would be either $10.02 /square foot, or $5.38 / square foot (plus amounts for capital reserve). A Net Rate would be a rate determined to be sufficient to cover costs not considered to be operating costs (i.e. capital repairs, profit, etc.)., the tenant would cover costs associated with all other operating expenses. 1.7 Requirements for Lease by a Municipality Regardless of the cost noted above, the market dictates what a lease rate can be. In addition, the Municipal Government Act places restrictions on the lease / sale of municipal lands. Section 50 (5) and 51 of the MGA states as follows: 50(5)A municipality may, (a) acquire property, including property outside the municipality, that the municipality requires for its purposes or for the use of the public; (b) sell property at market value when the property is no longer required for the purposes of the municipality; (c) lease property owned by the municipality at market value (d) sell deeds for cemetery lots and certificates of perpetual care. 199s, c. 18, s. 50. Sale or lease of municipal property 51 (1)6 municipality may sell or lease property at a price less than market value to a nonprofit organization that the council considers to be carrying on an activity that is beneficial to the municipality. (2) A resolution to sell or lease property referred to in subsection (1) at less than market value shall be passed by at least a two thirds majority of the council present and voting. (3) Where the council proposes to sell property referred to in sub- section (1) valued at more than ten thousand dollars at less than market value, the council shall first hold a public hearing respecting the sale. Thus a Municipality is required to lease at market value, unless the lease is to a non profit organization. To determine market value MODC may wish to have an appraisal conducted or solicit the local market to determine/ establish rates (Expression of Interest) A review of lease offerings in Chester suggest that the average lease rate is $1.48 per sq. foot, with some utilities included. All Costs Base Costs Only (excludes Janitorial /snow removal and yard maintenance) Total Building $10.02 $5.38 Main Floor $4.67 $2.51 1.6 Lease options There are two common types of commercial leases: Gross and Net. Gross Lease would set a lease rate that covered all costs (including all operating) , and a Net Lease — a lease that set a base rate and in addition to this rate the tenant covers operating costs . Factoring in the above noted costs, a Gross Rate would be either $10.02 /square foot, or $5.38 / square foot (plus amounts for capital reserve). A Net Rate would be a rate determined to be sufficient to cover costs not considered to be operating costs (i.e. capital repairs, profit, etc.)., the tenant would cover costs associated with all other operating expenses. 1.7 Requirements for Lease by a Municipality Regardless of the cost noted above, the market dictates what a lease rate can be. In addition, the Municipal Government Act places restrictions on the lease / sale of municipal lands. Section 50 (5) and 51 of the MGA states as follows: 50(5)A municipality may, (a) acquire property, including property outside the municipality, that the municipality requires for its purposes or for the use of the public; (b) sell property at market value when the property is no longer required for the purposes of the municipality; (c) lease property owned by the municipality at market value (d) sell deeds for cemetery lots and certificates of perpetual care. 199s, c. 18, s. 50. Sale or lease of municipal property 51 (1)6 municipality may sell or lease property at a price less than market value to a nonprofit organization that the council considers to be carrying on an activity that is beneficial to the municipality. (2) A resolution to sell or lease property referred to in subsection (1) at less than market value shall be passed by at least a two thirds majority of the council present and voting. (3) Where the council proposes to sell property referred to in sub- section (1) valued at more than ten thousand dollars at less than market value, the council shall first hold a public hearing respecting the sale. Thus a Municipality is required to lease at market value, unless the lease is to a non profit organization. To determine market value MODC may wish to have an appraisal conducted or solicit the local market to determine/ establish rates (Expression of Interest) A review of lease offerings in Chester suggest that the average lease rate is $1.48 per sq. foot, with some utilities included. 2.0 Options for Reuse 2.1 Retain Structure for Municipal Use. The structure could be retained for municipal use. Public Works has identified a need for workshop space, which could be accommodated through partial use of the bottom floor. The top floor could be used for programming space, file storage, meeting room space, councillor's offices etc. This option would not meet the criteria of having a use to offset operating costs. 2.2. Use of Structure for Non -Profit / Community Use The costs to maintain the structure at its present operating level is noted above. MODC may wish to solicit non-profit groups to determine interest in leasing some or all of the premises. This would be done through an Expression of Interest call. It is uncertain whether such use would fully pay for operating costs, or whether some level of subsidy would be required. 2.3 Use of Structure by For Profit Entity(s) MODC may wish to solicit the business community to determine interest in leasing some or all of premises. This would be done through an Expression of Interest. 2.4. A combination of anvone of 2 1 2.2 and 2.3 The possibility does exist that there may be the ability to have multiple uses of the building and thus multiple tenants. It should be noted that Building Code requirements would have to be considered in exploring this, and in all options. Expression of Interest MODC may not wish to limit options and thus do a general Expression of Interest call to determine possibilities for leasing the Annex Building. This would enable all possibilities to be considered and thence a preferred option further explored. An Expression of Interest would also enable MODC to determine options for re -use. To complete an Expression of Interest Call, direction is required on whether the entire structure is to be included as available space, or if there is a portion to be retained by MODC . IMPLICATIONS 1 Policy: Municipal Planning Strategy Policy re: Permitted Uses (as noted above) 2 Financial/Budgetary: Council has directed that options be explored for reuse of the Annex Building, under Municipal ownership, which covers operating expenses. Any option chosen that does not cover full operating expenses will have a budgetary impact equivalent to the amount not covered 3 Environmental: None. 4 Strategic Plan: 1. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses; 2. Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources S Work Program Implications To be determined ATTACHMENTS: Development Considerations- Appendix A OPTIONS: Options for Lease of the Annex Building are noted as: 1. Expression of Interest: a. Non- Profit Organizations b. For Profit Organizations / Individuals c. Both (a) and (b) ; and / or 2. Retain some or all for Municipal Use In addition to considering the lease of some or all of the Annex Building, Council may wish to : a) Explore selling Annex Building. This could be done through an RFP or a listing with a Real - Estate Broker b) Demolish the Annex Building, thus eliminating operating costs. Space can be used forgreen area, parking, egress/ingress Prepared BY Tammy Wilson Date January 9, 2015 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Date Appendix A Annex Building Development Considerations 2015-01-16 EXISTING BUILDING - 151 King St. - Main Building Zone: Institutional S.8.2.1 Size: 6602 sq.ft. (6994 sq.ft. total — washrooms 139 sq.ft. (18 +18 + 34 + 25 + 44), utility rooms 253 sq.ft. (104+149)) [613.3459 sq. metres] Use: Community Centre/ Public Building • Side note: LUB defined Public Building S.16.67, includes Mom of Chester bldgs • Public Building not an allowed used in all zones (S. 4.5.7) • Public Buildings not an allowed use in the Institutional PARKING Parking Required: Office/ Other Commercial I space/ 28 sq. in. (300 sq. feet) of floor area (excludes washrooms, furnace or utility rooms) TOTAL REQ: 6602/300 = 22.00 = 22 parking spaces There are currently enough parking spaces on the proposed lot to meet the requirement. (There appear to be 26 parking spaces in the parking lots along King St. and an additional 8 on the back lot under the tree) Parking Layout (greater than 4 spaces) 1. the parking lot shall be treated or surfaced to prevent the raising of dust; 2. any illumination shall be directed away from streets, adjacent lots, and buildings; 3. the parking lot shall be within a distance of 90 metres (300 ft.) of the building which it serves; 4. each parking space and the direction of travel in each aisle shall be clearly marked and maintained where a permanent hard surface is provided; 5. the limits of the parking lot, and highway access shall be defined by a permanent curb, fence or other suitable obstruction to provide a neat appearance; 6. no highway access shall be within 15 metres (50 ft.) of the limits of the right-of-way of the nearest highway intersection; 7. the width of any access to a parking lot and of any aisle in a parking area, shall be a minimum width of 3 metres (10 ft.) if for one-way traffic, and a minimum width of 6 metres (20 ft.) if for two-way traffic. 8. the development permit application shall be accompanied by a storm drainage plan showing that storm water drainage will not adversely affect adjoining and downstream properties. Points 1 - 3 & 5 are conforming Point 4 is partially (Ingress and Egress are not marked at the entrance) Point 6 is non -conforming, the entrance along King St is less than 50 ft. from the intersection w/ Tremont St. Suggest considering widening the entrance w/ approval from TIR Point 7 is non -conforming, the two-way entrance we currently have will become one-way. The existing entrance is not wide enough to meet the minimmn 6 metre width. The parking lots appear to be approximately 60 ft. in width, which does conform, however the little drive path between the two parking lots is not 20 feet in width, with two-way traffic this is does not conform. Points 6 & 7 should be addressed as the ingress/egress is changing from two exits to one exit. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 1. shall not be built closer than 1.2 metres (4 feet) to any rear or side lot line except that: a, accessory buildings with no windows or perforations on the side of the building which faces the said lot line, may be located a minimum of 0.6 metres (2 feet) from the said lot line. 2, shall not be located or built within 1.5 metres (5 feet) of the main building 3. accessory structures in the Inner Architectural Control Areas are subject to the requirements of Section 4.6 PARKING Excluding the parking in the back lot under the tree there are 7 spaces in the rear parking lot and 4 along Central St currently for this building for a total of 11 parking spaces. The front parking spaces on quick measurement appear to be too short to meet current parking space size requirements (911 x 18ft). Any new use would need to adjust these to be deep enough. There is potential space for more parking spaces subject to TIR approval if exiting directly on to Central St. Using existing building (4560 sq.ft) the following parking requirements would exist: USE PARKING SPACES -NEEDED TOTAL PARKING NEEDED 1 dwelling 1 1 2 dwellings 2 2 Senior Citizen Idousing/Nursing I space per 3 units 6 spaces (@ 18 units) Home Churches, Funeral Horses, Halls, I space/ 5 seats OR 1 space/300 16 Private Clubs, other places of sgft floor area for public use assembly Offices I space/ 300 s ft floor area 16 SUBDIVISION • Road Access — TIR approval (both lots) • Sewer — PW approval (both lots) • Minimum Lot Area w/ central sewer: 744 sq.m. (8000 sq ft) • Minimum Lot Frontage: 6 in (20 ft.) • Building Inspector review • SB Bylaw S.14.1 allows for subdivision of land to correct an encroachment, to the extent necessary and practical to remove the encroachment. (if needed can subdivide with reduced setbacks, area or frontage) FIRE LANE ACCESS Needs consideration SETBACK MINIMUMS Front Yard: 5 m (16.5 ft.) Rear Yard: 3.5 m (12 ft.) Side Yard: 3.5 m (12 ft.) AND 1.5 m (5 ft.) Min Distance between main buildings on adjacent lots: 3 m (10 ft.) MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DIRECTION eow I�ZZ OS REPORT TO Warden Allen Webber and Members of the Committee of the Whole SUBMITTED BY Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer DATE January 13, 2015 SUBJECT Gas Tax Funding Formula- UNSM Town Caucus Review ORIGIN November 13, 2014 Council CURRENT SITUATION: In December 2014 UNSM informed its members of a request for comments regarding a Request for Proposals for a Gas Tax Funding Formula Review. UNSM advised that this review is being fully funded and led by the Town's Caucus. Originally Municipal units were given to January 16, 2015 to provide comment. This deadline has been removed and rather the Review will proceed with or without comment and municipal units will be given an opportunity to comment on the results of the review. The Towns Caucus is specifically asking the following there questions to Municipalities: 1. Does your council think the existing formula is fair and equitable? If so, why? 2. If your council is not satisfied with the existing formula, how should it be changed? 3. Does your council feel the existing formula should be changed to include a portion of assets? Why or why not? RECOMMENDATION: That Council direct staff to submit to UNSM comments on the proposal call based upon the issues raised in Staff's Report and as discussed at Committee; and Further, that the Warden contact the Chair of the Rural Caucus requesting that the Rural Caucus meet to discuss a coordinated response to this project. BACKGROUND: The Gas Tax Funding Formula reflects share of Standard Municipal Expenditures (E), Population (P) and Dwelling Units (D). (R) is the total gas tax amount Nova Scotia receives G= (0.5 E.Ens + 0.25 P/Pns + 0.25 Dns)R The Town Caucus has identified that formula lacks an asset management criteria. UNSM had been asked previously to review the formula and had rejected any proposed change. The Town Caucus has identified the need to proceed with this review on its own and will present the findings to UNSM. The Scope of Work for the Proposal Call (attached) illustrates that the review is to look at options to focus a portion of the formula on assets. DISCUSSION: On January 7, 2015, staff met with counterparts in the region of Queens and District of Lunenburg to discuss this matter and the impact to Rural Municipalities from such a formula change. The following are some comments that have been generated from this meeting and are offered for consideration by Council: • While the project gives the impression of soliciting input from UNSM membership, the desired outcome for the Town Caucus appears to be a foregone conclusion. The Proposal Call focusses on a change in formula to place an emphasis on asset values. This raises concerns about the objectivity of the findings. • The consultant's report should: o Look at all reasonable formula options, and provide rationale for the measures within the formula options; o Have a balanced approach between rural and town infrastructure needs/infrastructure costs and identify measures that accurately reflect not only existing infrastructure needs, but future infrastructure needs and demands; o Include information on the rationale for including the current measures when the original formula was created o Be transparent and include an analysis from all of the different options analyzed by the consultant and not be limited to a preferred approach. • The definition of existing assets used in any formula will be important; the use of replacement value, gross cost, net book value or total accumulated depreciation would all have different impacts on the formula. • The approach taken by the Towns Caucus causes concern: o An initiative with such wide financial implications for all municipal units is best led by UNSM. The organization is most effective when capable of speaking with a single voice for all municipalities; o If the desired outcome is meeting an urgent need for increased capital funding, then a more appropriate course of action may be for our caucus's and unioun to focus its efforts on other orders of government who impose regulatory costs on municipalities and control large portions of municipal funding. • Responding to the three questions posed by the Towns Caucus, at this point, is premature. It is difficult for Council to form an educated opinion on the merits of including some measure of assets in the gas tax formula without: o More information about how assets will be defined and included in the formula o The reasoning for its inclusion; and o The reasoning for the need to change the existing formula IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: N/A 2 Financial/Budgetary: Preliminary numbers suggest that a change in the gas tax formula to incorporate assets will have a negative impact on rural municipalities to the benefit of Towns. Such a formula change could impact MODC's gas tax revenue levels in a negative manner and thus funding for various capital projects 3 Environmental: N/A 4 Strategic Plan: N/A 5 Work Program Implications N/A ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A- Correspondence from UNSM Regarding Gas Tax Funding Formula Project and Terms of Reference. OPTIONS: Council may: 1. Submitted comments to UNSM on the Proposed Terms of Reference; or 2. Not Submit comments to UNSM on the Proposed Terms of Reference; and 3. Request the Rural Caucus to meet to discuss the option of a coordinated response to this Review; or 4. Not request the Rural Caucus to meet Prepared BY Tammy Wilson Date January 13, 2015 Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Date Tammy Wilson i liar � i�irr� it From: Tracy Verbeke <TVerbel<e@unsm.ca> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:11 AM To: Tracy Verbeke Subject: GAS TAX FUNDING FORMULA REVIEW - TOWNS CAUCUS --Action Required: Comments To Be Submitted by January 16, 2015 Attachments: Gas Tax Funding Formula ToR,pdf; RFP -Gas Tax Study,pdf TO: Mayors, Wardens, Councillors and CAO's, All Units FR: Mayor Carl Chisholm, Towns Caucus Chair RE: GAS TAX FUNDING FORMULA PROJECT At the November 5 Towns Caucus meeting, the Towns Caucus approved a Terms of Reference to conduct a review of the gas tax funding formula. The current formula, which has not changed since its inception in 2005, is based on a combination of population, assessment and dwelling units, The towns caucus would like to ensure the existing formula is the most fair and equitable. To this end, the research will explore different scenarios where a portion of the formula is based on assets. As a follow-up to the terms of reference, the towns caucus will be issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) this week to hire a consultant to carry out the necessary research and prepare a report. The project is solely a Towns Caucus initiative fully funded by the Towns Caucus. The final report, including all recommendations, will be shared with the entire membership and presented to the UNSM Board, Any recommendation to amend the existing gas tax funding formula would require approval of the UNSM Board along with all three caucuses. In addition to the mentioned project, we would also like to receive input from councils of rural and regional municipalities on the existing formula. Specifically we would like to know: • Does your council think the existing Formula is fair and equitable? If so, why? • If your council is not satisfied with the existing formula, how should it be changed? o Does your council feel the existing formula should be changed to include a portion of assets? Why or why not? Please email your comments to Lyle Goldberg, UNSM Policy Analyst at 1eoldberf;g(`7unsm.ca by Friday, ' 'J'ah"tMey 16; 2015. Attached are the terms of reference and RFP for your information. Phone: (902) 423-8331 Fax: (902) 425-5592 www, unarn.cg PLEASE NOTE; If you do not want to receive communications from UNSM, please e-mail Tracy Verbelie at tyerbeheod unsm.ca, and you will be removed from the mailing list. UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14.12.1 GASTAXSTUDY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP: 14-12-1 GAS TAX STUDY unset UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS c/o Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities Suite 1109, 1809 Barrington Street Halifax, NS B3J 31<8 Page I 1 Closing: January 9, 2015 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14-12-1 GAS TAX STUDY UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL TERMS and CONDITIONS 1.1 Proposal Submissions 1.2 Irrevocable Offer 1.3 Proposal Costs 1.4 Contact 1.5 Closing/Opening 1.6 Selection Process 1.7 Rejection of Proposals and Termination of the RFP 1.8 Confidentially 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Project Context 3.0 OBJECTIVE/SCOPE OF WORK 4.0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED 5.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 6.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA 7.0 BUDGET 8.0 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Page 12 Closing: January 9, 2015 UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS 1.0 1.1 1.2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14-12-1 GAS TAX STUDY GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Proposal Submissions Page 13 Closing: January 9, 2015 Any change notices, appendices and addenda issued for this Request for Proposal shall be considered part of this proposal document. The proposal is to be submitted in a sealed envelope clearly marked with the proposal name and proposal document number to: Lyle Goldberg, Policy Analyst, Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities on or before Friday, January 9, 2015, 4:30 p.m. local time. One original and one pdf copy of your proposal must be received prior to closing date and time. Your proposal must be written in ink or type written. Erasure, overwriting or strike -outs must be initialed by the person signing on behalf of the proponent. Fax proposals are not acceptable. Any proposals received after the closing date and time shall be returned unopened. Proponents may not make modifications to their proposals after the closing date and time. All proposals shall become the property of the UNSM Towns Caucus. It is the responsibility of each proponent to submit all required documents as outlined in this Request for Proposal. Irrevocable Offer The proponent hereby acknowledges that offers contained within your response to this Request for Proposal shall remain open for acceptance for a period of not less than ninety (90) days from the closing date of this Request for Proposal as specified in Section 1.6. 1.3 Proposal Costs The UNSM Towns Caucus is not liable for any costs incurred by proponents in preparing responses to this Request for Proposal or for any work performed prior to official appointment by the Caucus. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14-12.1 GAS TAX STUDY UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS 1.4 Contact Page 14 Closing: January 9, 2015 It shall be the proponent's responsibility to clarify any points in question with the UNSM Towns Caucus prior to submitting the proposal. Responses to inquiries will be forwarded to all proponents. Inquiries should be directed to: Name: Lyle Goldberg Title: Policy Analyst Telephone: 902-423-8673 Email address: Igoldberg@unsm.ca If a proponent discovers any inconsistency, discrepancy, ambiguity, error, or omission in this Request for Proposal, notification should be given to the above contact immediately in writing. Any revision to this Request for Proposal will be issued as an addendum to all proponents. 1.5 Closing/Opening Proposals are to be mailed to or dropped off at the following location prior to the closing date and time. Name: Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities Address: Suite 1106, 1809 Barrington Street, Halifax, NS B3J 3K8 Attention: Lyle Goldberg, Policy Analyst One original and one pdf of your proposal must be received no later than 4:30 p.m. local time on Friday, January 9, 2015. Proposals must be signed by an official authorized to bind the proponent and will provide the name(s), title(s), address and telephone number of the individual(s) to be contacted during the evaluation process. Proposals received later than the specified closing date and time will be returned unopened to the proponent. As this is a proposal document for which a number of criteria will be evaluated, only the names of the proponents who have submitted a proposal will be identified at the opening and the price submitted will not be disclosed. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14.12-1 GAS TAH STUDY UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS 1.6 Selection Process Page 15 Closing; January 9, 2015 The UNSM Towns Caucus will not necessarily accept the lowest price or any proposal. Any implication that the lowest price or any proposal will be accepted is hereby expressly negated. Selection The proponent will be selected based upon evaluation criteria developed by the UNSM Towns Caucus which in its sole discretion will determine the manner In which each response to this Request for Proposal meets the evaluation criteria. Evaluation Criteria Each response to this Request for Proposal will be evaluated by the Towns Caucus Selection Committee to determine the degree to which it responds to the requirements as set out. Because this is a Request for Proposal, other factors in addition to price will be considered when submissions are evaluated. 1.7 Rejection of Proposals and Termination of the RFP The UNSM Towns Caucus reserves the right to reject any and/or all proposals received, The Caucus is not under any obligation to award a contract, and reserves the right to terminate the Request for Proposal at any time for any reason, and to withdraw from discussions with all or any of the proponents who have responded. The receipt and opening of a proposal does not constitute acceptance of any proposal. 1.8 Confidentiality The UNSM Towns Caucus and the proponent agree that the content of each response to this Request for Proposal will be held in the strictest confidence, and details of any response will not be discussed with any other party. By submitting a response to this Request for Proposal, each proponent agrees not to disclose the proposal at any time. Only information subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act may be disclosed. The Caucus agrees to notify the proponent should a request for information be received. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14-12-1 GAS TAX STUDY UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Purpose Page 16 Closing: January 9, 2015 The UNSM Towns Caucus wants to ensure that the Gas Tax Funding formula developed in 2005 is still relevant in serving the interests of towns and municipalities in a fair and equitable manner. 2.2 Project Context The formula in Nova Scotia reflects share of standard municipal expenditures (E), population (P) and dwelling units (D). (R) is the total gas tax amount Nova Scotia receives G= (0.5 E/Ens + 0.25 P/Pns + 0.25 D/Dns) R It was recognized that the formula is lacking in asset management criteria. The purpose seems to have changed from the old agreement to the new. The old agreement focused on sustainability, while the new one provides funds for new capital projects impacting economic development. However, it seems clear that the formula is lacking in asset management criteria. 3.0 OBJECTIVE/SCOPE OF WORK The objective of this proposal is to address the question, "Is the Gas Tax Funding formula fair and equitable?" 4.0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED The consultant shall perform the necessary steps to collect the following data and recommendations: • Total gas tax funds received by the Province of Nova Scotia • Spreadsheet showing exactly how much each municipality is receiving in gas tax funds • The tangible capital assets for each municipality, on both an historic cost and net book value basis • Scan of other provinces to ascertain how gas tax funds are distributed in their jurisdictions REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14.12-1 GAS TAX STUDY UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS Page 17 Closing: January 9, 2015 • Amortization costs, by municipal unit, for TCA (Tangible Capital Assets) funded in current taxation • Amounts transferred to capital reserve and / or invested in capital -from - revenue by municipal units • A survey of municipalities as to what they think the purpose of the gas tax fund should be • A recommendation on how fairness would be judged based on the results of the survey, and to use this criteria in assessing the various formula alternatives In order to make comparisons, formulae based on assets may have to be incorporated 1. based on 50% assets; 25% municipal expenditures; 25% population 2. based on 25% assets; 50% municipal expenditures; 25% population 3. based on 25% assets; 25% municipal expenditures; 25% population; 25% # dwelling units 4. based on 25% assets; 25% municipal expenditures; 50% dwelling units 5. Other formulae as appropriate, such as but not limited to: Could be based on a fixed amount or minimum amount for communities based on range of population and assets i.e., 0 to 1500; 1501 — 3,000; 3,001 to 6,000; 6,001 to 9,000; 9,001 to 12,000; 12,001 to 15,000; etc • Some amount set aside for UNSM determined strategic projects • A percentage allocated for application based requests. Following submission of the draft report, the consultant shall conduct a sixty to ninety minute presentation of the draft report to the Towns Caucus Executive. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14-12.1 GAS TAX STUDY UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS Page 18 Closing: January 9, 2015 5.0 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS The Consultant shall confirm a clear understanding of the work to be undertaken as described in Objective/Scope of Work and Professional Services Required. The proposal must demonstrate the Consultant has recent and significant experience with this type of work. Proposals will state experience from similar projects and must specifically address all requirements of the work and any matters related to its successful Implementation. Proposal shall include the following: • Description demonstrating an understanding of the project objectives and client expectations • Description of the methodology and procedures to be followed in carrying out this assignment • Recent relevant experience • List of three references including those for identical or similar requirements of this project • Proposed schedule • Timelines 6.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA An evaluation committee will be established to evaluate proposals. All proposals will first be evaluated on their compliance of response to all sections of this Request for Proposals. Compliant proposals will be further evaluated based on the following criteria: CRITERIA WEIGHT Proposal Content 40% Experience 25% Time to Complete 25% Project Cost 10% ** Any proposal(s) received over the budget amount will automatically receive 0 for Cost of Project score. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RFP -14.12-1 GAS TAX STUDY UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS Page 19 Closing: January 9, 2015 Proposals will be scored by the following equation for Cost of Project: 1. Lowest bid will receive highest score of 10% 2. Next lowest bid will be divided into the lowest bid x 10 = % 3. Next lowest bid will be divided into the lowest bid x 10 = % and soon 7.0 BUDGET The budget amount for this project is between $5000 and $10,000. 8.0 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, the Consultant will carry professional liability insurance covering the services described in the Proposal and the insurance policy is to provide coverage for an amount not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. RFP -14-12-1 GAS TAX STUDY UNSM TOWNS CAUCUS ^GO'• G $G1J TOTAL PRICE Page 110 Closing; January 9, 2015 (EXCLUDING TAX) DATED THIS DAY OF 2014 of Firm (Seal) Telephone Name and Title (printed) Name and Title (printed) Signature "Proposals submitted by or on behalf of any Corporation must be signed in the name of such Corporation by a duly authorized officer or agent, who shall also subscribe his own name and office. Affix seal. MUNICIPALITY OF THE 3' L DISTRICT OF CHESTER REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REPORT TO: Warden Webber and Municipal Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng, Director of Engineering and Public Works DATE: January 6, 2015 SUBJECT: Options Review Update ORIGIN: Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant CURRENT SITUATION: The Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant (CBSTP) is limited in terms of its ability to accept additional sewage flows. To clarify further, the operational permit, issued by Nova Scotia Environment (NSE), specifically states the number of connections permitted and the amount of flow generated from each, thus restricting change of use and or development. The owner of two (2) of the five (5) serviced properties is proposing renovations to the properties which would result in an increase in the total volume of sewage generated. Staff was requested to comment on the impact of the increase, and provide options, if any, on how the development can be accommodated within the existing system. BACKGROUND: In February 2013, Council requested staff comment on the remaining capacity of the CBSTP, Staff based their review on previous capacity studies completed by KVM Consultants Ltd, the original design, and a drawdown test. The review revealed that the CBSTP was at design capacity during the summer months, and the flow was more than double the design capacity during the winter months. During the summer of 2013, SNC Lavalin Inc (SNC) was requested to comment on staffs review and CBSTP's ability to handle the existing loading as well as its capacity to treat loading attributed to a proposed development. The results of their review were reported to Council in memorandum dated October 28, 2013. SNC supported staff recommendations and concluded that the CBSTP is capable of only continuing to service these five (5) properties, each with its allotted flow as permitted. Additionally, depending on the level of service required by the Municipality, SNC provided three (3) options, each with their own advantages, disadvantages and costs, which are summarized below, Option Description Est. Cost (Concept Level)* Option 1 Status Quo (capacity — 7,060E da $20,000 Option 2 New CBSTP, same location — 22,700 L—/day)— $432,500 Option * 3 New CBSTP, alternate location — 22,700 L da $692,025 Costs are conceptual construction costs only, are subject to change based on detailed design and allowance for design, contingency, HST, decommissioning system (if required), and consultation with Nova Scotia Environment. With regards to the Status Quo option, SNC supported staff recommendations of installing a flow meter, I&I investigation, perform repairs to the system as a result of investigation, and complete a system evaluation to determine the systems service life. However, it was stated that an in-depth investigation may be of little use, since the system is not showing any signs of deficiencies, and is meeting its discharge criteria. Therefore, although it is not uncommon for sand filter beds to malfunction following 20-30 years, other systems that have been properly maintained have experienced reliable service well beyond this timeframe. Currently there is no clear indication that the CBSTP is not capable of continuing to operate as intended for numerous years. With that being said, it should be noted that existing location of the CBSTP may not be optimal in relation to seawater intrusion and system flooding. It has been identified as an area of concern in the MCCAP, and there have been several flooding near misses reported by staff. Therefore, the systems replacement and or relocation should be planned for in the long term (- 10 years). The report was received by Council, and the selection of an option would be discussed as part of the 2014-2015 Municipal Budget. During the budget process, staff included a modest budget for the investigation of a fourth option, System Decommissioning and servicing properties on-site. During this investigation, the Municipality was once again approached by the owner of two (2) of the five (5) serviced properties, proposing renovations to the properties, Staff was requested to comment on the impact of the increase, and provide options, if any, on how the development can be accommodated within the existing system. DISCUSSION: A report was received by SNC on November 19th, 2014. The report reviewed the wastewaters flows based on the proposed renovations and the current use of each property. Their comments are summarized below. Property Civic Description Updated Flow Est. Comments Civic # 5306 Formerly Sword & 3,000 L/day (design This property is potentially Anchor B&B, now was 1,400 L/day) generating more sewage Bayview Apartments (3 - than was originally 3 bedroom apts.) estimated from this apparent change of use. Civic # 5315 Seaside Shanty 2,866 L/day (design The original estimated flow Restaurant (62 seats, 4 was 3,785 L/day) appears to be adequate for employees) the nature of the use of the property and the current flow may actually be slightly less than design Civic # 5316 Former Ultramar gas 340 L/day (design The original estimated flow station now car repair was 340 L/day) appears to be adequate for shop (2 employees, the nature of the current use public washroom Civic # 5319 Current Pharmacy, 1,750 L/day (design The proposed use exceeds possible future was 1,305 L/day) the allotted capacity. A apartments (2 one smaller development (i.e. bedroom apts, and 1 two remove bedroom apts) one of the one bedroom units) would fit within the allotted ca acit Civic # 5325 Former grocery store, 6,355 L/day (design The estimated wastewater possible future was 227/day) flow greatly exceeds the apartments and original allotted capacity. restaurant (2 two bedroom apts, 1 three bedroom apt, 85 seat cafe, 4 employees) The existing CBSTP has a designed capacity of 7,060L/day, and a NSE rated capacity of 8,180 L/day. This maximum design capacitywas updated in 2009 by KVM to be 10,000 L/day. It is important to note, that the maximum design capacity is split between two (2) separate filter units, summer and winter units with updated design capacities of 7270 L/day, and 2730 L/day, respectively. When comparingthe estimated flows to the updated maximum seasonal design capacities, the total flow including that ofthe proposed development greatly exceeds the rated capacities, as seen tabulated below. Flow Summer Winter 2009 Design Flow 7,270 L/day 2,730 L da Estimated Flow 14,311 L/day 11,445 L da Possible Option 4 When reviewing the serviced properties for the potential of on-site sewage disposal, it was determined that the only property with the possibility to support an onsite system would be the former grocery store property. If successful, this would free up 227 L/day of the permitted capacity. However, this will depend on a number of factors, most importantly being whether a significant variance of the required separation distance between the system and a watercourse could be obtained and whether surface discharge to Chester Basin would be permitted. The location of the on-site well must also be identified before this option can be given further consideration. In addition, it would have to be determined whether servicing of this property would be the developer's responsibility or whether this would be part of the municipal sewer servicing. To conclude, the capacity of the existing CBSTP is maximized by the existing developments. The proposed development of the former grocery would result in flows that greatly exceed the allotted capacity and the flows cannot be directed to the existing CBSTP. The three options presented previously remain valid. A decision will need to be reached regarding the level of service Municipality is willing to provide to area stakeholders. IMPLICATIONS: 1 Policy: 2 Financial/Budgetary: Any action taken must be budgeted accordingly in the five (5) year Capital Improvement Plan. 3 Environmental: 4 Strategic Plan: 1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility; 2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services; 3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses; 5 Work Program Implications ATTACHMENTS: Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant - Proposed Development Options, dated November 19, 2014 Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review - Cost Analysis, dated September 26, 2013 Chester Basin Sewage Treatment Plant Options Review, dated August 30, 2013 OPTIONS: 1. Status Quo, 2. New CBSTP, at same location, 3. New CBSTP, at alternate location, 4. Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as identified by Council. Prepared BY Date Reviewed BY Date Authorized BY Date Municipality of the District of West Hants z 76 Morison Drive, Windsor -West Hants Industrial Park P.O. Box 3000, Windsor, Nova Scotia BON 2T0 L9 SGO Tel: (902) 798-8391 Fax: (902) 798-8553 December 12, 2014 Ms. Pamela M. Myra Municipal Clerk Municipality of the District of Chester P.O. Box 369 Chester. NS BOJ 1J0 Dear Ms. Myra: U!t('i3it do C.i(✓W 0 % Re: Housekeeping Amendments —West Hants Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law Pursuant to Section 206(5) of the Municipal Government Act, enclosed please find Notice of Intent with respect to the above mentioned MPS and LUB amendments. As you may note, these amendments have proceeded to public hearing and second reading on December 9, 2014. We apologize for the oversight in sending you notice prior to this date. There are two staff reports outlining the proposed amendments available on our website, dated February 12, 2013 and September 18, 2014. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Planning Staff at (902) 798-6900. Sincerely yours, R. N. Brown Municipal Clerk Encl. N 3Sy�2w MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST HANTS pq NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -sco MUNICIPAL PLANNING STRATEGY LAND USE BYLAW AMENDMENTS TAKE NOTICE that Council of the Municipality of the District of West Hants intends to consider, and If deemed appropriate, approve amendments to the West Hants Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law. THE PURPOSE of the amendments is to correct minor text errors and clarify the intent of the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Land Use By-law as well as supplementary schedules and maps. THE PUBLIC HEARING Is to be held by the Municipality of the District of West Hants Council on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., at the Municipal Council Chambers, 76 Morison Drive, Windsor -West Hants Industrial Park,Windsor, N.S. SECOND READING of the amendments will take place following the Public Hearing. Anyone wishing to Inspect or obtain the staff reports may do so at the West Hants Planning Department, 76 Morison Drive, Windsor, N.S. between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m, every day except Saturdays, Sundays and Statutory Holidays or at www.westhants.cafplanning.html. Tel: 902-798-6900. DATED at Windsor, in the County of Hants, November 20, 2014 Rhonda Brown Tammy Wilson MunicipaCity of the District of Chester 151 King St PO Box 369 Chester, NS BOJ 1JO S� December 8, 2014 RE: Budget Approval 2015-16 Dear Ms. Wilson, On Friday, November 28, 2014, The Region 6 Inter -Municipal Committee met regard- ing the budget for the upcoming fiscal April 1, 2015 — March 31, 2016. By virtue of an electronic vote (to be ratified at the next Region 6 meeting) the follow- ing motion was passed on December 8, 2014: MOTION: Moved by Mayor Paul Beazley, seconded by Councillor Susan MacLeod to recommend approval of the 2015-16 Region 6 Education Budget and the 2015-16 Region 6 Operations Education Budget to individual Councils as circulated. M/C Persuant to FINANCES of the Region 6 Inter -Municipal Agreement; items 34 — 39 "34. The proposed Committee budget shall be submitted to the Councils of each of the Parties prior to 4:30 p.m. on December 31" of each year. 35. The Councils of each of the Parties shall approve said budget, or refuse to do so, by 4:30 p.m. on March 14`x' of the year to which said budget applies. 36. Should the Council of any of the Parties fail to approve or refuse to approve the pro- posed Committee budget by the stated deadline then the said budget is deemed to have been approved by that Council. 37. The proposed Committee budget shall be binding on all of the Parties if approved by the Councils of 75% or more of the Parties, so long as the Parties whose Councils have approved represent a minimum of 50% of the total population represented by the Parties to this agreement — said figures to be taken from the most recent available Census of Canada statistics. 38. In the event that motions of refusal to approve result in a proposed Committee budget not receiving approval of the necessary majority of Councils, the Committee shall re- vise the proposed budget taking into account any comments that may have been pro- vided and submit a revised budget to the Councils of the 'Parties. 39. Should the Council of any of the Parties fail to approve or refuse to approve a revised proposed Committee budget within 45 days after receipt of same then the said budget Region 6 Budget 2015-16 is deemed to have been approved by that Council." Respecting the enclosed budget, please review with your council and respond to Region 6 before 4:30 pm, March 14, 2015 on your approval or refusal. Should you have any questions on either document please feel free to contact myself at 902-624-1339 or Chair, Richard Dauphinee 902-798-8391. If you require my attendance at the council meeting when the budget is up for discussion, feel free to contact me by phone or email. Regards, Valda Walsh BSc TME EP Regional Co-ordinator encl. V 0 N Cd N N E O z U 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N cu @ a) O O tl O U 't O N O O @ a) L) N 0 C)_ (L) O a) O C O 7 a) a Y O m742 @> � a) 2 C O O �—ff It C N N T N OX N a) Q 0 Z LU Q. 0 c N n1 @ O.a C a) -OO O (6 v— N y" LLI N N C > = C U a) � O N c U@ � L y ��, U> m O - Z, 'O L LO c:0 C p (n O N E -O C N O O > T °@ U m m O O _ E m O L E: o m m N O M U Q m a) — E U O 0) a) N D) co o U W _ V L U N W O r > a o e '^ o o U N 3 °' CO CO ° N In o (d co m o Y N o mo c p N O a� m s o f@ o m V3 fn r W( a)C > T C U C N E @ L a> a N a) a) m N Q OU E o0 m .�-. W H0 a) L C) OU m OL 0 U Y a) V 0 N Cd N N E O z U 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C U O O O O 't O N O O � N N n1 m � � O m � O O O ti O CO O M O O O O O O O O N D) co W _ V U N W O r '^ r 1 - (D CO CO CO N In (d co 12 613 � V ❑ ffl V3 r m N O O r V O 0) (D O O OJ N r O O O O N O co O O OJ M Cl d' N �- (D lD r to I� c Cl) co r O (D G a) t to L V) Ui co O y m O LL T s I� O O ti M 0 0 0 O M 'O p y.� O 0) O) N Lo M O V I- N W In � M CD C m 4 M 20 .-- O) �- L6 � ui CSD (o CO N N - O yidt to N _V 0jn. 'a N U O a a)E w o �` U 7 y "� v o a) a U a) 07 inn O «a m _ a C T> m a) GN o E K U -o �U U OL W m M a s (0 O N C jN U ¢ O O (D 0 > U m E V N RS LLID C O O W 0' d W (n W:E E > V 0 N Cd N N E O z co Z 0 W a W 0 Z y T N mEsr ca � U LL R y y LO/ S 7 0 to CO N O O N r - G7 7 C 00 o N ■ ■ v � 0 W V N o 0000000000 co N �co 0 0 0 0 co 0 N � 0 0 0 0 O O p W N .� O O T (u L U 0 C N w G N d N V m o 0 o O O 0' d' OOOOO O OOO M O OO O N E U@@ O tT 0 .i- E N @ N N y U O)m C CN N CO > C tl/'5 C C G m L N r LO O LO O 6 U Q M LO > o:2 N a a `� O fl - m O@ L NO C6r N N O O G d' @ r U N C a (U U(D N N L O � @ N V E 0 D O C . ..N. dO Ef} L L� N E m w oL o U �- :- o 0 O c N a C M U R1 U N 0. N 0 �' :� LCL 0 0 0000000000 co 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 M V 0 0 0 0 O O N O O f- h LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 o O r d' OOOOO (O OOO M O 0) O O LO N O L O LO O 00 O Lf) Ln LO (O N N r LO O LO O M LO (o () 0) Ln r N Ld C6r N N O ci d' (Op r N W coW P P Ef} v) co N r O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r d' 0) N UO { 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 00 CO N (h N Lf o LO W^ cr 03 M M LO .- .-- Ln N 0 dm' O r .N - h ffl I` Z � to r co 0 0 0 0 o co 0 0 0 r LO LO LO O d' o Lo 0 co O V' N O N �N- Ln O LO o L0 M L Ln co CD Ln N LO M W NN LO O N c P co ER N W r U w Z o a) ~ c m m U C N C @ c c d O O N 0 .c U- i aE m >, N N a '5 (j '0 c c o > C o - 0. 0 W K0 E U a) N C 'c K a > c0i .c v m [2 TO W O O O [- U 0- U (L O a) Ln P a O ft U N ,C �4 cn b u 4J m �j C U O O C �ri C � C O rl N O O rl U) 4J o is N N V >1 4 O N tT N 1 Y O O W i N -ri U C +J W a C!0 44 U Sa � TS U W >1 O 0 m -1 C d O 0 j o 00 O 01 H U ZS �4 a d O U IC Q 3 L C O .5 N l6 N v O N co N 0 s0 E m 0 z West Nova Fuels lq Y CURL FOR A CAUSE 'i] iiiUSr' = Reoeised JAN 0 0 2015 Odglaal to 1 RevlewW by CURL FOR A CAUSE Sponsorship Opportunities 2015 �a /J-� Curl For A Cause is an annual charitable event which has raised over $340,000 for necessary equipment for Fishermen's Memorial Hospital in the last 14 years. This year's event is scheduled for February 27, 28 & March tat the Lunenburg Curling Club. Proceeds will purchase specialized medical equipment in several departments at Fishermen's. ,201311-1 00 Skip Sponsor $750.00 Donation • Exclusive Sponsorship of Activity (eg. Chowder Supper, "Meet & Gree1:") • Full page ad in Event Program • Sponsor receives acknowledgement on prominent signage over curling ice • Sponsor receives acknowledgement in newspaper as Skip Level Sponsor • Invitation for two to attend Friday night "Meet and Greet" Mate Sponsor $500.00 Donation • Half page ad in Event Program • Sponsor receives acknowledgement on prominent signage over curling ice • Invitation for two to attend Friday night "Meet and Greet" Second or Sheet Sponsor $250.00 Donation • Quarter page ad in Event Program • Sponsor receives acknowledgement on prominent signage over curling ice • Invitation to attend Friday night "Meet and Greet" Lead Sponsor $125.00 Donation • Listing in Event Program • Sponsor receives acknowledgement on prominent signage over curling ice • Invitation to attend Friday night "Meet and Greet" Rock Sponsor $ 75.00 Donation • Sponsor receives acknowledgement on signage in the clubhouse • Listing in Event Program Broom Sponsor $50.00 Donation • Sponsor receives acknowledgement on signage in the clubhouse • Listing in Event Program Make all cheques payable to Health Services Foundation of the South Shore— indicate "Curl for a Cause" in the memo section of your cheque P.O Box 492 Bridgewater NS, B4V 2X6, 902-634-7374, astevens@ssdha.nshealth.ca Health Services Foundation rT11930MrSrraxu Together a healthy future is in our hands P.O. Box 492, Bridgewater, N.S. B4V 2X6 • 14 High Street, Lunenburg, N.S. BOJ 2CO 902-634-7374 • www.healthservicesfoundation.ca • 902-543-8065 Yes I want to support CURL FOR A CAUSE 15th Anniversary February 27, 28 & March 1, 2015 This form must accompany your donation. * * In order to correctly reflect your name and your donation over the bonspiel weekend you must fill in this form completely ** Skip @ $750 $ Mate @ $500 $ Second@ $250 $ Lead @ $125 $ Rock @ $ 75 $ Broom @ $ 50 $ Other Donation $ New: 50/50 Draw - $5 per Chance # chances - x $5 = $ Draw for 50/50 on March 1, 2015 closing ceremonies/Lottery License #AGD-107646-14 (50/50 is not a receiptable donation) Total $ Payment Method Cheque (Payable to the Health Services Foundation of the South Shore) VISA MASTERCARD AMEX CASH Card #: Signature: Contact Information (you must fill this in)** Full Name Complete Mailing Address Phone Email ** Name to be placed on Signage I would like to contribute prizes Expiry: / Security Code: ** ** ** ** All donations must be received by February 19, 2015 to have your name placed in the progrvn. Beyond that date we can only offer recognition within the club on signage. aWest Nova Fuebw January 6, 2015 Municipality of the District of Chester Attn: Pamela Myra P. O. Box 369 Chester, NS BOJ IJO Dear Ms. Myra, Curl for a Cause is an annual event that raises money for equipment for Fishermen's Memorial Hospital in Lunenburg. Since its inception over 14 years ago, Curl for a Cause has raised over $340,000 for necessary equipment that saves lives, provides advanced diagnosis and treatment, and elevates the quality of life for family and friends in our community. Our letter is an invitation to support Curl for a Cause. This year's event is scheduled for February 27, 28 & March 1 at the Lunenburg Curling Club. This year proceeds will purchase many specialized pieces of equipment for Fishermen's Memorial Hospital including a blood collection chair, a bariatric wheelchair, a crash cart for ER, two stretchers, a NuStep and an industrial grade stove. Through your assistance we will be supporting many different locations within the hospital from kitchen services to the Emergency Room. Our records indicate that in the past you have supported the hospital. I encourage you to review the attached sheet for the levels of sponsorship and help us to the best of your ability. You'll see that gifts at various levels are recognized with signage in the club and in the program. Limenburg County residents have always shown overwhelming support for both Fishermen's Memorial Hospital and South Shore Regional Hospital. We ask for your support. Should you be writing a cheque please make it out to the Health Services Foundation of the. South Shore, the fundraising organization for both hospitals. Please fill in the attached form and send in the enclosed envelope or you can contact the Foundation at 543-8065 or 634-7374. We invite you to join us on February 27, 28 and March 1st. Best Regards, // 0 1. " tIC-4'. Anne Cosgrove Chair, Curl for Cause 2015 Health Services Foundation Together a healthy future is in our hands P.O. Box 492, Bridgewater, N.S. B4V 2X6. 14 High Street, Lunenburg, N.S. BOJ 2C0 902-634-7374 • www.healthservicesfoundation.ca • 902-543-8065