HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015-05-14_Council Public Agenda Packager"
Pam Myra
,201y-/a1?/7yj/, /fir
From: Finance Minister <FinanceMinister@novascotia.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 2:07 PM
To: Finance Minister
Subject: NS Film Tax Credit
Thank you for expressing your views on the Film Industry Tax Credit and recent changes to it. Our goal was to reform the
credit in a way that balances sustaining a strong film industry with the need to act in a financially responsible manner.
The context is important: The film tax credit was introduced in 1994 with a base rate of 30 per cent, and over the
years rose to 50 per cent of eligible salaries with no production cap. When bonuses are included, the current credit
covers up to 65 per cent of eligible labour.
In our current financial situation, and given the pressing needs of many Nova Scotians, we had to make changes.
After productive discussions with Screen Nova Scotia and others, we found common ground that respects our province's
difficult financial reality and the needs of the industry. I am encouraged by the good will and hard work that led to the
changes.
Government will create a Nova Scotia Film and Television Production Incentive Fund to replace the Film Industry Tax
Credit. The fund is forecast to be valued at $10 million in 2016-17. This funding will only be used to support our film and
television industry. Animation will -move -into the Digital Media Tax Credit, -where it is a better fit.
The film industry asked that the fund be competitive with other Canadian jurisdictions. This model does that. The fund is
a flexible incentive against all eligible production expenses incurred in Nova Scotia, and is based on a successful model in
Alberta. Experience from Alberta shows that the fund will still allow the industry to leverage_ the incentive for production_
fin ting. Fund -based transactions are able to be done more quickly than tax system based credits, which will save the
industry financing and carrying charges.
For taxpayers, there is greater transparency. Approved projects will be posted online on the government's accountability
website. This brings the industry in line with other sectors which receive government support. Film and TV productions
will be eligible for 25 per cent of production costs spent in our province.
The new fund is based on all spending in Nova Scotia. This change will enable Nova Scotians and their government
to better measure the direct economic impact of the support.
I want to be clear: we still have budgeted $24 million for 2015-2016 for the Film Industry Tax Credit. This will apply to
projects that have started principal photography by July 1, 2015. After this date, film and TV productions will apply to
the new fund. We will work with industry to monitor uptake and the effectiveness of the new program.
Both the sound- and music -recording sectors and the publishing industry will benefit from a new Creative Economy
Fund. In the coming weeks, representatives of those sectors will help government establish the guidelines on how the
$2 -million fund will be accessed. This is double the amount of funding they received last year.
These initiatives will support our creative sector and be achievable within the budget envelope I announced on April 9.
Thank you again for writing me on these important issues. I appreciate your support for the film, television and
animation industries, and I want to assure you that I also recognize the importance to all of the creative sectors of
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 8:45 a.m.
AGENDA
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
2.1 Council – Thursday, April 30, 2015
3. MATTERS ARISING:
3.1 Introduction of Municipal Staff – Sandra Challis and Christa Rafuse (appointment at 9:00 a.m.)
3.2 Temporary Borrowing Resolution – Various Purposes – Director of Finance
3.3 Request for Direction from CAO dated May 5, 2015 regarding Procurement Policy – Local
Preference.
a)Comparison of local preference in 2015-16 capital budget.
3.4 Supplementary Report from Senior Planner dated May 7, 2015 regarding Proposed Development
Agreement - Sherwood Golf Village.
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
4.1 P66 Review Committee – April 7, 2015 – Tammy Wilson, CAO
4.2 Village Area Advisory Committee – April 22, 2015
4.3 Any other Committee Reports.
5. CORRESPONDENCE:
5.1 Presentation/Grant Request from Patty McNeil and Marsha Yeaton regarding Forties Community
Centre (appointment at 9:15 a.m.)
5.2 Email response from Minister of Finance dated May 1, 2015 regarding NS Film Tax Credit.
5.3 Announcement – Closure of Land Registration Offices.
5.4 Grant Application from Aspotogan Heritage Trust for Blandford Community Greenhouse.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
7. ADJOURNMENT.
APPOINTMENTS ARRANGED
9:00 a.m. Introduction of Municipal staff – Sandra Challis and Krista Rafuse.
9:15 a.m. Presentation by Patty McNeil and Marsha Yeaton regarding Forties Community Centre.
In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA
Page 1 of 1
having an active film industry here in Nova Scotia. It is important both as a business and as a part of the cultural
economy.
For more information:
--contact Nova Scotia Business Inc. at FiImandCreative (ED nsbi.ca and/or visit its website at nova scotiabusiness.com
--visit the website of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board at novascotia.ca/finance.
Yours truly,
Diana Whalen
Minister of Finance and Treasury Board
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
REPORT TO: Warden Webber and Municipal Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Tammy S Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: May 5, 2015
SUBJECT: PROCUREMENT POLICY- LOCAL PREFERENCE
ORIGIN: December 2015 COW; March 5, 2015 COW
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT SITUATION:
The Municipal of the District of Chester (MODC) Procurement Policy (Policy P-04) was amended in September
2014 to include a local preference clause (Section 7.0). Section 7.0 stipulates that for all Low Value
Procurement, preference will be given by applying a 20% bonus to bidders located within the Municipality.
Low Value is defined as:
Goods- up to and including $25,000
Services – up to and including $50,000
Facilities- up to and including $50,000
Construction- up to and including $100,000
At the March 5, 2015 Committee of the Whole Meeting staff was asked to provide an estimate of potential costs
to MODC to have a local preference policy, and to provide this analysis on two options:
1) Status Quo – 20 percent local preference for all Low Value Procurement; and
2) Low Value Procurement as follows:
$0-25,000 = 10%
$26,000- 50,000= 7 %
$51,000 – 100,000= 5%
RECOMMENDATION
Appendix A
Attached as , are amendments to the Purchasing Policy required to amend Section 7.0 of the
Procurement Policy to remove the 20% Local Preference and to replace this with Local Preference for Low
Value Procurement as follows:
$0-25,000 = 10%
$26,000 – 50,000= 7%
$51,000- 100,000=5%
Required Motion
:
That Municipal Council give notice in accordance with Section 48 of the Municipal Government Act, that
Council intends to amend the Purchasing Policy, in Section 7.0 to revise the Local Preference provisions
as outlined in Appendix A, and further that this will be considered at the May 28, 2015 Council Meeting
BACKGROUND:
MODC Council amended Policy P-04, Procurement Policy in September of 2014 to add a new Section 7.0 which
states:
“The preference is to give preference to local (our Municipality) unless otherwise directed by Council for Low
Value Procurement. Preference will be given by applying a 20% bonus to bidders located within the Municipality.
This preference will be clearly communicated as part of each procurement procedure.”
At the March 5, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting, the Committee received a report that outlined the
Policy Implications, Legal Requirements, and Best Practices. A copy of this report is attached as Appendix B .
At the March 5, 2015 Committee of the Whole meeting the Committee reviewed the aforementioned report
and directed that staff prepare a supplemental report identifying the potential costs to MODC with a local
preference policy. Staff were directed to provide this analysis with respects to two options:
1.Status Quo – 20% Preference on all Low Value Procurement
2.Scaled Local Preference Approach
a.$0-25,000 = 10%
b.$26,000 – 50,000= 7%
c.$51,000- 100,000=5%
DISCUSSION
Attached as Appendix C, is an analysis of the potential costs implications for purchases that would be
completed under MODC’s capital program. This does not include purchases from the Operating Budget. The
Capital Budget was chosen as it was felt there would be greater accuracy in the analysis of procurement. The
Operating Budget contains a significant amount of funds related to day to day operating expenditures that
would not be Low Value Procurement such as salaries, fuel, electricity etc. The assumptions required would
have comprised the accuracy of the analysis.
As is evident in Appendix C, there is the potential for a local preference policy to add to the cost of
procurement. This of course, needs to be weighed against the advantages of such policies. In addition, local
bids are not always higher in costs than non-local bids.
Appendix B notes the Best Practices for local procurement policies as well as the advantages and
disadvantages of such a policy.
Of the eleven municipal units reviewed, only two had local procurement policies. The preference ranged
from 2% to 5% and local was defined as the entire county (ie. Lunenburg County; Cumberland County).
The advantages and disadvantages were noted as follows:
Advantages:
Public Statement regarding support for local business
Financial support for local business that a municipality procures services with and the indirect benefit
to other business (job creation, etc.)
Disadvantages
Some research suggest that the financial benefit to local business is not as effective as other avenues
such as modifications to tax rates and infrastructure investment, as the benefit of such a policy is not
to all businesses, as municipal government only procures certain services /goods.
If other municipal units adopted similar policies there may be a negative impact to a business
community as they would not be able to easily compete for business in other communities.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
Changes to the Local Preference clause would require that an amendment to MODC’s Procurement
Policy (P-04) occur. Draft amendments have been prepared. In accordance with Section 48 of the
Municipal Government Act, Council is required to give itself seven (7) days notice of any intention to
amend Policy.
2 Financial/Budgetary:
Local Preference has the potential to increase the costs of goods and services.
3 Environmental: n/a
4 Strategic Plan:
Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity;
5 Work Program Implications: n/a
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A- Draft Policy Revisions
Appendix B- Report to Committee – February 26, 2015
Appendix C- Analysis of Costs
, OPTIONS:
1.Amend the Procurement Policy as per Appendix A
2.Amend the Procurement Policy with a different local preference scheme
3.Not amend the Procurement Policy
4.Defer a decision pending further information that the Committee may desire
Prepared BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date May 5, 2015
Reviewed BY Date
Authorized BY
Appendix A
Municipality of the District of Chester
Procurement Policy P-04
Draft Amendments
-
1. Delete Section 7, as follows:
“7.0 Fair Treatment for Nova Scotia Suppliers
The preference is to give preference to local (our Municipality) unless otherwise directed by council for Low
Value Procurement. Preference will be given by applying a 20% bonus to a bid price, for bidders located within
the Municipality. This preference will be clearly communicated as part of each procurement procedure. For
greater clarity, for bids that are evaluated on more than price, the 20% bonus shall apply only to the price. “
2. Substitute a new Section 7 as follows:
“7.0 Fair Treatment for Nova Scotia Suppliers
The preference is to give preference to local (our Municipality) unless otherwise directed by Council for Low
Value Procurement. Preference will be given to bids from suppliers located within the Municipality by applying
a bonus to bid prices as follows:
Bid ValueBonus Amount
$0-$25,000 10% bonus
$26,000 to $50,000 7% bonus
$51,000 to $100,000 5% bonus
This preference will be clearly communicated as part of each procurement procedure. For greater clarity, for
bids that are evaluated on more than price, the bonus shall apply only to the price.”
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
APPENDIX B
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DECISION
REPORT TO Warden Allen Webber and Members of the Committee of the
Whole
SUBMITTED BY Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer
M February 26, 2015
SUBJECT PROCUREMENT POLICY – LOCAL PREFERENCE
ORIGIN December , 2015 COW
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT SITUATION:
The Municipal of the District of Chester (MODC) Procurement Policy (Policy P-04) was amended in
September 2014 to include a local preference clause (Section 7.0). Section 7.0 stipulates that for all Low
Value Procurement, preference will be given by applying a 20% bonus to bidders located within the
Municipality.
Low Value is defined as:
Goods- up to and including $25,000
Services – up to and including $50,000
Facilities- up to and including $50,000
Construction- up to and including $100,000
Council has asked that this provision be reviewed and a report brought back that identifies best practice
and options for consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for discussion purposes. Best Practice Review has concluded that the provision of 20%
and its limit to MODC is a higher standard than that of other municipal units.
BACKGROUND:
MODC Council amended Policy P-04, Procurement Policy in September of 2014 to add a new Section
7.0 which states:
“The preference is to give preference to local (our Municipality) unless otherwise directed by Council for
Low Value Procurement. Preference will be given by applying a 20% bonus to bidders located within the
Municipality. This preference will be clearly communicated as part of each procurement procedure.”
DISCUSSION
Implications of Policy
The effect of 20 % local preference clause in MODC Procurement Policy for low value procurement is s
is:
1.Bids based upon price: local bid can be up to 20% higher non-local bid; (Goods = $4,166; Services and
Facilities = $8,333; Construction = $16,666)
2. Proposals in which a scoring system is used (normally 100 pts in total) the local bid has a 20 point
advantage
The financial impact in terms of costs to MODC to procure goods and services is not known. There is
potential for an increase in costs in goods and services procured, however, the impact thus far has not
been measured, as the policy has not been in effect for a long time. In addition, local procurement does
not always mean a higher costs, as many business quote competitive pricing.
There is potential for impact on the value for money aspect of goods / services procured by a Proposal
Call, in which a proposal is being evaluated against scoring criteria. As per the policy the local bid would
have a 20 point advantage.
Legal Requirements
Limitations on Local Preference Policies for government procurement (Federal and Provincial) are
imposed by the Agreement on International Trade. The Province of Nova Scotia is part of this Agreement
and hence Municipalities are required to follow the same. Chapter 5 of this Agreement specifies that
procurement over a certain value cannot include discriminatory provisions that reflect location (ie.
local preference)
The restrictions are in place on procurement as follows:
$25,000 or greater for goods,
$100,000 or greater for services
$100,000 or greater for construction.
The Atlantic Trade Agreement, further restricts this by prohibiting a local preference clause on the
following purchases:
$25,000 or greater for goods
$50,000 or greater for services
$100,000 or greater for construction.
MODC’s Procurement Policy complies with the Atlantic Trade Agreement, and thus MODC Local
Preference Policy is not in conflict with the applicable Trade Agreements.
Best Practice Research
The Best Practice Research completed entailed soliciting Municipal Units across Nova Scotia to see
which units have a Local Preference Policy. The responses received are noted below. Some additional
Website research was completed as well to review Procurement Policies.
Municipality Local Preference % ; Definition of Local
District of Chester Yes 20% under $25k; $50K an d$100K; within
MODC
District of Lunenburg No
Town of Bridgewater Yes 5%; (under $25,000); Lunenburg County
Town of Lunenburg No
Town of Mahone Bay No
Region of Queens No
Halifax Regional Municipality No
Kings County No
East Hants Yes Under $25K purchase within Nova Scotia
Wolfville Town No
Colchester Co. Yes 2% up to a maximum deviation of $2,000; All
of Colchester Co (including Towns)
Literature research conducted on local preference policies for procurement identify that there are both
advantages and disadvantages to such clauses.
Advantages:
Public Statement regarding support for local business
Financial support for local business that a municipality procures services with and the indirect
benefit to other business (job creation, etc.)
Disadvantages
Some research suggest that the financial benefit to local business is not as effective as other
avenues such as modifications to tax rates and infrastructure investment, as the benefit of such
a policy is not to all businesses, as municipal government only procures certain services /goods.
If other municipal units adopted similar policies there may be a negative impact to a business
community as they would not be able to easily compete for business in other communities.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
Changes to the Local Preference clause would require that an amendment to MODC’s Procurement
Policy (P-04).
2 Financial/Budgetary:
Potential exist for increased costs of goods and services to MODC. Test period has not been long
enough to quantify the potential.
3 Environmental:
N/A.
4 Strategic Plan:
Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity
5 Work Program Implications
TBD
ATTACHMENTS:
None
OPTIONS:
1.Amend Procurement Policy to lower the local procurement preference to a lower amount and
make it applicable to price
2.Amend Procurement Policy to lower local procurement preference to another amount , leaving
the method for application the same (price and evaluation score in RFP’s)
3.Amend the Procurement Policy to remove the local preference provision
4.Take no action and thus leave Procurement Policy as written.
Prepared BY Tammy Wilson Date February 26, 2015
Reviewed BY Date
Authorized BY Date
Closure of Land Registration Offices
The 2015 provincial budget announced a staged shift from 18 county -based land
registry offices to five regional offices. The first wave of closures will begin by June
2015. All closures will be completed by the end of 2016, except for the Pictou land
registry office which is scheduled to close on or before January 31, 2019.
The following land registry offices are planned for closure on or before these dates:
Arichat, Windsor, Liverpool, Shelburne
June 30, 2015
Truro
November 30, 2015
Digby
February 28, 2016
Baddeck, Port Hood, Gu sborou h
May 31, 2016
Kentville
August 31, 2016
Anti onish, Yarmouth
November 30, 2016
Pictou
January 31, 2019
There has been a significant shift in how Nova Scotians conduct their land registry
transactions over the past several years. Only about 5% of land registry transactions
were being completed in-person at land registry offices and title searches are conducted
online; these closures are a response to this new reality and were planned as part of an
ongoing review of programs and services across government to identify ways to help
the Government meet its financial targets.
It is intended that the remaining locations or "Centres of Excellence" will offer an even
registration offices. By concentrating team members in five locations, there will be a
higher level of mentorship and training available for staff as well as the ability to develop
specialized expertise in certain offices. Each centre would be better trained and
supported than is possible now with several offices having only one or two staff
The five regional locations will be located as indicated below and will be responsible for
the registration districts listed:
Dartmouth
Halifax
Bridgewater
Lunenbur , Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth
Lawrencetown
Annapolis, Digby, Kings, Hants
Amherst
Cumberland, Colchester, Pictou, Anti onish
Sydney
Cape Breton, Inverness, Victoria, Richmond, Gu sborou h
There should be no significant impact to land registry clients. Most land registry services
can now be completed online - about 70% of land registry filings are conducted online
and this number is expected to continue to increase. About 25% are transactions
completed by mail or courier. Only about 5% of land registry transactions are completed
in-person. There will be drop-off or other processes to facilitate the filing of urgent
paper -filed documents from locations where there is no nearby office.
As always, lawyers should contact an open Land Registration Office with routine
questions on matters such as rejections or the status of a document or application that
has exceeded the agreed upon turnaround time, if staff are not able to answer a
question it will be escalated as necessary. Lawyers with legal questions concerning
policy or the interpretation or application of the Act or Regulations or requesting
directions, permissions or exemptions should not seek or receive legal advice from land
registry office staff but should contact the Registrar General's Office via email
(RG LandTitles@novascotia.ca).
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER '
TEMPORARY BORROWING RESOLUTION
$2,999,800 File No. 15/16-1
Various Purposes
WHEREAS Section 66 of the Municipal Government Act provides that the Municipality of the
District of Chester, subject to the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, may borrow to expend
funds for a capital purpose authorized by statute;
AND WHEREAS clause 65 of the Municipal Government Act authorizes the Municipality of the
District of Chester to expend funds for the capital purposes of:
wastewater facilities and stormwater systems;
solid waste management facilities;
lands and buildings for a municipal purpose; namely municipal building renovations;
AND WHEREAS the specific amounts and descriptions of the projects are contained in Schedule
"A" (attached);
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED
THAT under the authority of Section 66 of the Municipal Government Act, the Municipality
borrow a sum or sums not exceeding Two Million Nine Hundred Ninety -Nine Thousand Eight Hundred
Dollars ($2,999,800) in total for the purpose set out above, subject to the approval of the Minister of
Municipal Affairs;
THAT the sum be borrowed by the issue and sale of debentures of the Municipality to such an
amount as the Council deems necessary;
THAT the issue of debentures be postponed pursuant to Section 92 of the Municipal Government
Act and that the Municipality borrow from time to time a sum or sums not exceeding Two Million Nine
Hundred Ninety -Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($2,999,800) in total from any chartered bank or
trust company doing business in Nova Scotia;
THAT the sum be borrowed for a period not exceeding Twelve (12) months from the date
approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs of this resolution.
THAT the interest payable on the borrowing be paid at a rate to be agreed upon; and
THAT the amount borrowed be repaid from the proceeds of the debentures when sold.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a
resolution duly passed at a meeting of the Council of the
Municipality of the District of Chester held on the day
Of 2015.
GIVEN under the hands of the Warden and the Clerk and under
the seal of the Municipality this day of
2015.
Warden
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
TEMPORARY BORROWING RESOLUTION
SCHEDULE"A"
$2,999,800
Landfill Cell Construction / Equipment $ 531,800
Municipal Building Renovations 702,000
Western Shore Sewer 1,766.000
$2,999,800
File No. 15/16-1
Various Purposes