HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015-10-08_Council_Public Agenda Package Updated 2015-10-05Page 1 of 1
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 8:45 a.m.
AGENDA
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
2.1 Council – Thursday, September 24, 2015.
3. MATTERS ARISING
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
4.1 Any other Committee Reports.
5. CORRESPONDENCE:
5.1 Presentation by Larry Pringle regarding the current provisions of the Land Use By-law dealing with
the use of accessory structures. (appointment at 9:00 a.m.)
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 For information – Report from CAO dated September 25, 2015 regarding Low Value Procurement –
Purchase: Box and Lift Gate.
6.2 Report for information dated September 21, 2015 from CAO regarding WCB Rate Increase
Notification.
6.3 Report dated September 30, 2015 - Duke Street Sidewalk – Director of Engineering & Public Works.
6.4 Report dated September 11, 2015 - Sludge Removal and Disposal Services – Director of Engineering
& Public Works.
6.5 Request for Decision – October 1, 2015 – Recreation for LIFE (Active Living Strategy 2014-2017).
6.6 Western Shore Wharf conveyance (to be circulated).
7. ADJOURNMENT.
APPOINTMENT
9:00 a.m. Larry Pringle regarding the current provisions of the Land Use By-law dealing with
the use of accessory structures.
9:20 a.m. Syd Dumaresq regarding Mahone Island Conservation Association (MICA)
In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA if necessary
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
FOR INFORMATION
REPORT TO Warden Webber and Members of Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY Tammy S Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer
DATE September 25, 2015
SUBJECT Low Value Procurement – Purchase: Box and Lift Gate
ORIGIN 2015-16 Capital Budget
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT SITUATION
The 2015-16 Capital Budget includes $14,000 (net HST) for the purchase of a metal box and lift
gate for a One Ton Truck
Section 4.1 of the Procurement Policy (P-04) defines Low Value Procurement as contract for work
/goods with a contract value of less than $25,000 for goods (of which this purchase would be).
Contracts for Low Value Procurement is to be awarded by the Chief Administrative Officer, with a
report to Council advising of all awards with a value of over $10,000.
In accordance with the Procurement Policy, Quotations were sought a Tilt Box. Two quotes were
received and the lowest compliant quote was awarded the purchase.
This report is to serve as notice to Council of the purchase of a Tilt Box as Low Value Procurement,
with the purchase to the same from Drive Products in an amount of $12,251.32, inclusive of HST.
RECOMMENDATION: (Not Applicable- Information Only)
Report is submitted as per Section 4.1 of the Procurement Policy for all Low Value Procurement
contract awards in excess of $10,000.
This report is to serve as notice to Council of Low Value Procurement for a Metal Box and Lift Gate
with the purchase from Drive Products in an amount of $12, 251.32, inclusive of HST.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
N/A
2 Financial/Budgetary:
Project award is under budget. 2015-16 Budget amount was $14,000 (net HST);
3 Environmental: n/a
4 Strategic Plan:
1. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses
5 Work Program Implications
Within 2015/16 Work Program.
6 Consultation/Communications (External v Internal)
n/a
ATTACHMENTS:
None:
OPTIONS:
None
Prepared BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date September 25, 2015
Reviewed BY Date
Authorized BY Date
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REPORT FOR INFORMATION
REPORT TO: Warden Webber and Members of Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer
DATE September 21, 2015
SUBJECT WCB Rate Increase Notification
ORIGIN
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT SITUATION:
The Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC) has received notice from the Workers’ Compensation
Board of Nova Scotia of its 2016 Assessment Rate. The WCB Assessment Rate has increased to $2.66
per $100 of assessable payroll, from $2.49 per $100 of assessable payroll in 2015.
The Industry Rate is $1.99 per $100 of assessable payroll. MODC has an experience rating demerit of
$0.67 added to this for a total rate in 2016 of $2.66.
MODC has further received a warning notice of a possible surcharge in 2018. The minimum amount of
the surcharge would be 20 percent (%) of the industry rate (which would equate to an additional 0.39
cents based on the 2016 base rate.) This surcharge would be applied if the trend in claims costs
experiences are is not reversed.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council support staff’s efforts :
1) to place an increasing emphasis on Safety in the Workplace, including the full development and
implementation of a Safety Program, which includes essential components such as a System of
Safety Inspections and the development of Safe Work Practices and Procedures;
2) Increase managerial awareness of the Workers Compensation Boards Program and an
employer’s rights respecting claims;
3) Increase awareness of return to work and modified duties programs and their advantages and
disadvantages
BACKGROUND:
See the attached WCB Experience Rating Statement for 2016. There are two areas of relevance with
respects to the rate. One is the Industry Rate, which is $1.99 and the other is MODC’s experience rating.
MODC’s experience rating is generated based upon a 3 year costs for WCB.
MODC’s WCB claim costs over the last three years has resulted in a demerit of 33.66%, which equates
to $0.67 per $100 of assessable payroll.
DISCUSSION:
Measures to mitigate further WCB rate increases should be explored. The surcharge warning could
result in additional 20% rate increase in 2018 (at a minimum). Furthermore the existing rate is 33.66%
percent higher than the Industry Average. Part of the rate deviation can be attributed to the varying
workplaces within MODC that range from office settings to industry settings (Kaiser Meadows). The
industry classification for MODC is “Executive and Legislative Admin”. The probability of workplace
injury is no doubt greater in industrial / construction settings. The history of claims supports this as
well.
Safety Programs are designed to prevent work place injury and thus in addition to ensuring a safe work
environment for staff, would have a positive impact on MODC’s experience rating. MODC does have a
Safety Program in place, however there are components of the Safety Program that are yet to be
developed and fully implemented. More emphasis and resource support is required to see this program
fully developed and implemented. The following table summarizes the components of the Safety
Program and its status in terms of development and implementation:
Section of Program Status Comments
Intro/Definitions Complete
Health and Safety Policy /
Responsibilities
Complete
Health and Safety Committee Complete / Implemented The Safety Committee is
actively meeting on a monthly
basis
Hazard Assessment Analysis
and Control
Complete / Implemented Comprehensive Hazzard
Assessments are being
completed on Tasks and Job
Sites
Safe Work Practices Not Complete There are some SWP, however
version control and updating
are needed. Not all processes
have a SWP
General Rules and
Responsibilities
Needs Update These exist, but do need to be
updated
Personal Protective
Equipment
Not Complete PPE is used as per SWP’s that
are developed and OH&S
regulations
Preventative Maintenance Not Complete Preventative Maintenance is
done but not in a systematic
way
Training and
Communications
Not Complete Training is provided as may be
required by OH&S regulations
Incident Reporting Complete Incident Report Forms and
process have been developed
and implemented
Incident Investigations Complete All incidents are investigated
and recommendations on
corrective action provided
Inspections
In Process- To be implemented
in September 2015
System of Work Place
Inspections being developed
and will be implemented in
Sept.
Statistics and Records Not Complete Stat’s being kept; Records
Management System under
development
Emergency Preparedness Not Complete Existing program needs update.
Gold River to be developed
Environmental Not Complete Review of Operating Permit
Requirements. HHW completed
The Safety Committee and Management have been actively working at the development of this program.
In September a System of Inspection Process will be rolled out, which will require scheduled workplace
inspections.
It is recommended that in the coming year the development of the full Safety Program and
Implementation of the same be a Priority of Council’s. This will enable staff resources to be allocated as
required to accomplish the same. At present, Safety Coordination has been added to the Fire Services
Coordinators position, in an effort to ensure dedicated resources are available to support the full
development of the program. That being said, the role and responsibilities of a Manager and Employer
in a Safety Program are not able to be fully replaced by a Safety Coordinator and thus managers are and
will be required to provide the necessary time to assist in the development and implementation of the
program. This is key to building a successful safety culture.
Metrics to report on the success of a Safety Program include: number of incidences; number of
accidents; number of loss time incidences; Corrective Actions identified and completed; and WCB rates.
Resource support is and will be a challenge when it comes to Safety Program Development and
Implementation. A program that is developed and implemented internally will have the best chance of
success. To do so will require work program modifications to ensure appropriate time is dedicated to
this. This will compete for time with other projects. The other option is to bring in external resources
to assist in completing this work. With this option, buy in and acceptance of the program will be
important.
Other mitigative measures include improving awareness and understanding the WCB program and as
such what an employer’s role, responsibilities and rights are under the same. This includes return to
work and modified duty programs and the advantages and disadvantages of the same, which will vary
on a case by case basis.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
2 Financial/Budgetary:
The increase rate for 2016 results in an additional $4,405 in annual premium costs (based upon
2014 assessable payroll) from the 2015 rate; the increase from the industry rate is $17,362 per year.
3 Environmental:
4 Strategic Plan:
The Safety Program is not on the Strategic Priorities Chart. Council may wish to consider this during
their annual review of the Strategic Chart.
5 Work Program Implications
Appropriate time / support will need to be incorporated into work programs to enable the full
Safety Program implementation.
6 Consultation/Communications (External v Internal)
Internal Communications – Respecting awareness of safety program and organizational
expectations and support
ATTACHMENTS:
WCB – Experience Rating Statement for 2016
OPTIONS:
1. Adjust Work Program for upcoming year to include Safety Program Development and
Implementation as a priority, reducing priorities to make room in existing work program
utilizing existing resources
2. Adjust Work Program for upcoming year to include Safety Program Development and
Implementation as a priority, increasing resource support to accomplish the same through
contract support
Prepared BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date September 21, 2015
Reviewed BY Date
Authorized BY Date
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
R E P O R T
DATE: September 11, 2015
TO: Warden Webber and Municipal Councilors
FROM: Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng
DEPARTMENT: Engineering and Public Works
SUBJECT: Sludge Removal and Disposal Services
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND:
At July 24th, 2014 Committee of the Whole Meeting, the Director of Engineering and Public Works
presented a memorandum dated July 14, 2015 regarding Sludge Removal and Disposal Services; a key
process to the successful operation of the municipal wastewater systems. To summarize, the
memorandum explained the methods available for sludge removal and disposal, both in house and via
a local contractors, and the fact that the Public Works Department has grown less reliant on in-house
methods (i.e. the Dewatering Truck) due to a number of operational issues. Therefore, options on how
to proceed were provided to Municipal Council, with direction given to staff that they were to
determine a price per gallon the Municipality would pay for the services and provide the information
to the two (2) local haulers who are interested. If both haulers agree to provide service, then staff was
further directed to put an agreement in place. This service was to be supplied for a one year trial
period.
As instructed, in July 2014, staff set a price per gallon ($0.067/US gallon, the going rate at the time)
and contacted the local haulers that would have an interest in this one (1) year service contract,
ending August 31, 2015. One (1) response was received from R. Schnare’s & Sons Light Trucking, who
agreed to the set pricing. R. Schnare’s & Sons Light Trucking have completed the work satisfactorily
over the past year, with the value of the contract being estimated to be $ 34,350.00 net HST.
Additionally, it should also be acknowledged the use of the Dewatering Truck continues not to be a
viable option for similar reasons as in the past.
It should also be noted that the aforementioned memorandum was a follow up to a memorandum
dated February 5, 2013 regarding the operation of the Dewatering Truck, which resulted in motion
2013-086 – “to accept the recommendation to include an annual review of the costs associated with
the dewatering truck under the present conditions and continue to utilize local contractors on a
rotational basis.”
DISCUSSION:
With the one (1) year service contract now expired, staff are looking for direction on how to proceed
with procuring this routine service. Currently, the Municipality’s Procurement policy does not list this
service as a routine procurement activity in Appendix 3.
Staff are recommending, that in keeping with the Municipal Procurement Policy a Low value
procurement method (i.e. Request of Standing Offer) be selected based on the following criteria:
- The estimated annual value of the contract is less than $50,000, net HST, annually for the
foreseeable future;
- Anything greater than a one (1) year contract would necessitate the Municipality follow high
value procurement as defined in section 4.2 of its policy;
- This service can be locally procured satisfactorily, whereby the local contractors can meet our
service expectations and the requirements of a standard service contract (i.e. Insurance, WCB,
Safety and Industry Qualifications)
- Over the past one (1) year contract, there have been at two (2) other local contractors indicate
their interest in this service contract.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
Recommendation is in compliance with Municipal Policy, P-04, Procurement Policy .
2 Financial/Budgetary:
By regularly tendering this service, the Municipality is ensuring the services it requires are
obtained at the best value.
3 Environmental:
This service is integral to the successful operation of the Municipal wastewater systems, ensuring
that the Municipality is meeting its Federal and Provincial effluent requirements.
4 ICSP:
5 Other:
By tendering this service, the Municipality is ensuring the services it requires are being supplied
to industry best practices and standard service contract requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
OPTIONS:
1) Issue a Request for Standing Offer and award a one (1) year service contract, based on section
4.1 of the Municipality’s Procurement policy; with consideration given to section 7.0 – Fair
Treatment of Nova Scotia Suppliers.
2) Defer decision until further information
RECOMMENDATION:
Option 1
Signature
10/5/2015
1
April 29, 2015
Municipal Overview
for
County Councils
What are we talking about?
•Antenna Systems – PCS, cellular, amateur radio, fixed
broadband, and broadcast.
•Towers structures and buildings (rooftops).
•Siting and public consultation requirements as described in
Industry Canada’s Client Procedure Circular 2-0-03 (2014),
Radiocommunication and Broadcast Antenna Systems, Issue
5.
10/5/2015
2
Introduction
•CRINS-SINRC is a not-for-profit, member-owned, shared service
organization.
•Membership limited to Canadian municipalities and provincial
agencies / governments identified as Land Use Authorities (LUAs)
for the purposes of IC’s Client Procedure Circular (CPC) 2-0-03, Issue
5, or agencies which oversee provincial heads of power which are
required to support the Radiocommunications Act – i.e. public
health, occupational health and safety, environment, and the
practice of engineering.
•Conceived in January 2011, launched in January 2012.
•Current membership of 200+ municipal units and agencies,
including unincorporated areas, and provincial agencies.
CRINS-SINRC Mandate
•Serve as expert staff for municipal members to evaluate
proposed radiocommunications sites and support planning
staff.
•Educate the public on issues pertaining to antenna system and
tower siting in our member jurisdictions.
•Manage the public consultation process on behalf of our
municipal members.
•Present results of public consultations / municipal input to
proponents and Industry Canada.
•Provide oversight of ongoing obligations of proponents on
behalf of members when required.
10/5/2015
3
Law and Regulations
•Radiocommunications are developed under the authority of the Minister
of Industry vested in the Radiocommunications Act.
–Mandate: “... ensuring the orderly establishment or modification of radio stations and the orderly
development and efficient operation of radiocommunication in Canada, [...]” – Section 5 (1).
•Authority includes:
–establish technical requirements and technical standards in relation to radio apparatus,
interference-causing equipment, and radio-sensitive equipment, or any class thereof;
–plan the allocation and use of the spectrum;
–approve each site on which radio apparatus, including antenna systems, may be located, and
approve the erection of all masts, towers and other antenna-supporting structures;
–test radio apparatus for compliance with technical standards established under this Act;
–require holders of, and applicants for, radio authorizations to disclose to the Minister such
information as the Minister considers appropriate respecting the present and proposed use of the
radio apparatus in question and the cost of installing or maintaining it, including subsequent
material changes in such information on an ongoing basis;
Heads of Power
•Radiocommunications Act –
Industry Canada
•Safety Code 6 – Health Canada
•Provincial Heads of Power
•Practice of Professional Engineering
•Building Code adoption
•Occupational Health and Safety
•Public Health
•Environment
•First Nations (Land Claims)
•Devolved Provincial Authority
•Land Use Authority (Planning &
Development)
•Conservation and Heritage Authorities
10/5/2015
4
Challenges – Proponent Perspective
•Location of towers driven by an engineering problem (i.e.
Laws of Physics), not policy.
•Smartphoneshave driven data usage through the roof for
wireless carriers.
•Towers are being built to keep up with the demand for texts,
e-mail, pictures, instant messaging, etc.
•3G (HSPA) to 4G (LTE) means smaller towers but more of
them.
•Urban areas have rooftops, but suburban and rural don’t.
Municipal Input – ASDF
•The Antenna Siting Design
Framework (ASDF)
–The Concept of “Landscape
Context”
–The Concept of “Visual Sensitivity”
–Design Compatibility
–The Concept of “Degree of Visual
Change”
10/5/2015
5
ADSF – Degree of Visual Change
Degree of Visual Change
Design Compatibility/ Site
Visibility 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 20 to 24
76 -100% Low Low Low Medium Medium
51 -75% Low Low Medium Medium High
26 -50% Low Low Medium High High
0 -25% Low Medium High High High
Visibility 15
Compatibility
(%)84.38
CRINS-SINRC Service Goals
•Bringing together all the stakeholders
(proponents, public, LUA).
•Educating the Public on Antenna Siting Issues
•Transparent Disclosure on Proposed Sites
•Engaging in a Constructive Discourse with the
Public
•Audit Trail and Statistical Modelling.
10/5/2015
6
CRINS-SINRC Website
http://www.crins-sinrc.ca/
Using CRINS-SINRC
•How does an LUA become involved?
–No fees (free) to LUAs who participate
•What do you (LUA) do?
–Pass a Motion to participate in CRINS and authorize
CRINS and its staff to act on behalf of the municipality.
–Adopt the CRINS-SINRC consultation protocol as the
protocol in force for all applications.
–Set the application fee.
–Send us a copy of the prescribed Joining Letter from
your CAO/Mayor/Warden indicating the decision
along with a copy of your approved Motion and the
Minutes.
FROM: Todd White, Executive Director
TO: Prospective Participating Land Use Authorities
REVISION: 1.2 (Q2 ‘2012)
RE: Questions Regarding CRINS-SINRC
Thank you for your interest in requesting more information about CRINS-SINRC and your willingness to
share this information with your other colleagues who are looking at this issue.
Below please find information which I hope you will find helpful in understanding CRINS-SINRC and its
role within the Antenna Siting and Consultation process:
CRINS-SINRC Background
In early 2011, a dialogue was begun amongst municipalities who were facing an increasing number of
applications for new tower sites to be located within areas close to residential housing and in areas with
otherwise strong land use bylaws in place.
The efforts of proponents to place towers in these areas, and their success in obtaining the support of
Industry Canada to allow towers to be placed in areas contrary to municipal land use bylaws has caused
substantial discontent amongst municipal staff and Councils.
This is not to say that municipal staff and Councils are “anti-telecom”, far from it – there is a strong
recognition of the important economic and productivity benefits to a robust and competitive wireless
industry. However, the wireless industry is viewed as having been granted privileges, due to their federal
licensing, that allows them to circumvent the land use regulations which most other industries must
follow, and upsetting the balanced planning approach of Land Use Authorities (LUAs).
The public backlash in these cases usually falls not only on the proponents, but now more and more the
pressure is being exerted on municipal politicians and staff to advocate on the residents behalf to demand
that land use bylaws be respected.
As a result, a number of Land Use Authorities (LUAs) felt that there needed to be a better way to address
these applications while satisfying certain goals / addressing specific concerns:
1) Accurate Information – LUAs are demanding full disclosure of radiocommunications site
developments, which has not been occurring due to some sites being deemed “exempt” from
public consultation under Industry Canada (IC) rules. While these exempt facilities do not
require public consultation, municipalities feel justified in requesting that they be notified that
these sites are being developed as these are assets which require municipal services (fire,
policing, etc.) and are part of the municipal tax base. To date, most proponents only disclose
non-exempt facilities, based on their claim that an exempt facility is exempt from all forms of
consultation or discussion with the municipality. This lack of disclosure means tax assessments
are not accurately reflecting new sites on rooftops and other locations. Municipalities have
turned to Industry Canada’s databases to overcome this lack of disclosure only to find that
inaccuracies and incomplete data in both the IC GeoSpectrum and TAFL databases make it
appear that carriers are not providing timely/full information to IC thereby furthering the
perception that Industry Canada is not providing adequate oversight to carrier activities. This
causes additional concerns that co-location opportunities on existing towers are not being fully
explored, and that carriers are keeping both IC and Land Use Authorities (LUAs) in the dark
about sites – especially exempt facilities. (Implication: financial / operational)
2) Transparency – municipalities are facing increased public pressure to represent the public’s
interests in these applications. Even though Industry Canada (IC) is the final authority,
municipalities want to assure the public that they are conducting the same calibre of review and
consultation with their constituents as they do with any other planning and development
application. In cases where a municipality does not concur with an application, and the
proponent proceeds to“impasse” arbitration through IC, municipal staff and Council want the
accountability of that decision to be apparent to the public. There is a political cost to these
decisions being overruled, and Councils are making it very clear that they are not prepared to
bear that cost on behalf of the proponent nor Industry Canada. (Implication: political).
3) Education – whether a LUA has its own antenna siting protocol, or proponents follow the
Industry Canada (IC) Default Protocol, municipal staff are finding they are using upwards of 20
hours per application addressing questions from the public concerning jurisdiction and planning
issues – this carries a financial cost to the LUA in terms of their planning staff time. In an attempt
to offset a portion of this cost, there has been a desire to develop a unified website repository for
information on tower issues – currently one must visit multiple websites or agencies to obtain all
the needed information (IC, Health Canada, Transport Canada, NAV Canada, etc.) – as a result
most members of the public find it easier to call their local planners who are the first point of
contact for planning and development in their jurisdictions. So that the effort of responding to the
public can be offloaded from planning staff, a website to provide information on the antenna
siting process as well as a toll-free contact center to handle public inquiries independent of
planning staff was desired. (Implication: financial)
4) Accountability – municipalities want to ensure that proponents are following through with the
commitments they make to the public as well as to Council and staff. If a proponent commits to
certain architectural treatments for antennas in the form of shrouding, design of shelters, or
vegetation, etc. then Council wishes to ensure that proponents don’t simply make the
commitment, then lose sight of those commitments once they have Municipal Concurrence and
not follow through. (Implication: political / logistical)
5) Service Levels – because of the 120 day timeline placed by Industry Canada on consultations,
some municipalities, especially those with multiple applications feel that they don’t have control
over their own workflow, therefore they seek a way to offload the processing of these applications
from a process perspective, while still retaining control over the quality of the land use input /
due diligence. This is an acknowledgement of the need for carriers to activate their sites as soon
as possible for competitive and business reasons, and a desire by planning staff to address these
applications in as efficient a manner as possible with dedicated resources. (Implication:
logistical)
The dialogue with those initial municipalities resulted in the formation of the CRINS-SINRC organization
with a view to offload the management of the application process, while providing a shared services
bureau for participating members in which there would be expertise on the issues surrounding these
applications.
Much like proponents have “municipal / regulatory specialists” who manage applications on behalf of the
proponents, CRINS-SINRC can be viewed as the shared “regulatory specialists” who are working on
behalf of participating LUAs to ensure that proper notification and public consultation occurs and land
use concerns are properly communicated to stakeholders.
Who “owns” CRINS-SINRC?
The staff of CRINS-SINRC are all from complimentary backgrounds in telecommunications, law,
municipal government (planning), and real estate. This cross-section of talent reflects the disciplines
utilized in antenna siting.
The original funding for CRINS-SINRC has been provided by the CRINS-SINRC staff themselves -
reflecting on the need to help municipalities address the increased complexities of antenna siting
applications. Many hundreds of hours of volunteer time have been contributed to this endeavor.
Currently, none of the staff are taking salaries during the building phase of the organization.
As municipalities become CRINS-SINRC members, the ongoing funding of CRINS-SINRC will be the
result of the application fees charged by each LUA. A portion of those application fees will go to CRINS-
SINRC while the balance will be used by the LUA to cost recover their own staff time.
CRINS-SINRC is pursuing not-for-profit status with Canada Revenue Agency, and the original
investment of the staff will be written off as a tax deduction at that time.
CRINS-SINRC has no financial or legal connection to industry players including Bell, Telus, Rogers,
Wind, Public Mobile, EastLink, or any other carrier or industry group.
Likewise, CRINS-SINRC does not receive any financial support, nor does it have any legal connection to
Industry Canada. CRINS-SINRC however is open to, and may pursue, government funding to help offset
operating costs as appropriate.
CRINS-SINRC staff report to an Advisory Board consisting of representatives from the participating
municipalities. Advisory Board members are elected to the Board by the member municipalities bi-
annually in September. Currently, we are adding representatives to the Board based on interest, and
prominence within their jurisdiction.
Member municipalities each carry one vote/one share which they exercise during shareholder meetings to
establish Advisory Board members and to vote on governance issues.
What does CRINS-SINRC actually do?
CRINS-SINRC is a shared resource for our municipal members to manage the processing of applications
for radiocommunications facilities and to ensure that public consultation is conducted according to the
LUA’s consultation protocol.
We receive applications for new radiocommunications sites on behalf of our members from proponents,
ensure the completeness of the information, and then begin a 5 step process:
1· Preconsultation with Land Use Authority
Although radiocommunications sites fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction, the Land Use Authority is
recognized as the first point of contact by the public regarding all development and land use within their
jurisdictional boundaries. As a result, Industry Canada recognizes that Land Use Authorities have
valuable insight regarding land use in the local area surrounding a proposed radiocommunications site.
Once a proponent submits an application for review, the Land Use Authority will examine the information
provided to determine if they require an in-person meeting with the proponent to discuss the proposed site
and to obtain further clarification on the proposal. The LUA may also provide further information
regarding other radiocommunications applications in the area, or non-radiocommunications development
proposals which may affect the proposed site.
It is at this point a Land Use Authority may determine that the proposed site is located in a zoning area
where a radiocommunications site is already an accepted use (i.e. an industrial zone), or that an
exemption under Section 6 of Industry Canada’s CPC 2-0-03 (2008) from consultation should be granted.
If so, a Notice of Facility Exemption will be issued to the Proponent indicating that further consultation is
not required.
2· Notification of Local Residents of the Proposed Radiocommunications Site
Once an application has been submitted, and the LUA determines that the site is not exempted from
public consultation, the public consultation process begins.
CRINS-SINRC provides road signs for the proponent to install at the proposed site to notify residents of
the application. These signs give contact information to reach the CRINS-SINRC website and the
CRINS-SINRC 1-855 contact centre number so that the public can obtain more information on the
application.
Additionally, in cooperation with the Land Use Authority, CRINS-SINRC produces a notification package
for each proposed site and sends these packages via courier or registered mail to all registered landowners
within the designated notification area. Signatures are required upon receipt of these packages as part of
the audit trail for document delivery.
Finally those residents who have registered on CRINS-SINRC will receive an e-mail notification of new
applications or updated information for existing applications in which they have indicated an interest.
3· Evaluation of the Proposed Radiocommunications site by the LUA.
The Land Use Authority reviews each application in the context of its existing zoning and strategic land
use plan. In some cases a proposed site is considered an acceptable use within the area while in others the
proposed site might be considered a drastic departure from existing uses.
While municipal zoning and land use strategies are not binding on radiocommunications sites, due to their
federal jurisdiction, it is important that LUAs communicate this information to the proponent and Industry
Canada so these considerations can be reviewed and so that the final design is sensitive to the strategic
land use plan of the area.
Some of the key elements that are considered by the Land Use Authority in evaluating a proposed
radiocommunications site include: environmental concerns and effects on land features such as waterways
and sensitive ecological areas, historical buildings and properties, archeological and culturally sensitive
areas (including First Nations lands), and architecturally significant streetscapes.
The Land Use Authority provides input into the CRINS-SINRC online system so that it may be viewed by
the proponent and the public as part of the public discourse.
4·Solicitation of Public Input on the Proposed Radiocommunications Site.
Concurrently through the use of road signs, adjacent landowner notification packages, social media
communications, and the CRINS-SINRC website, CRINS-SINRC actively solicits comments from the
general public regarding proposed radiocommunications sites.
The CRINS-SINRC website provides a central repository for public comments on proposed
radiocommunications facilities, as well as a host of informative material to educate the public on the
factors and considerations involved in the development of these sites, thereby allowing the public to
assess the impact of proposed facilities in their area.
All comments received by CRINS-SINRC, are made available to the public via the website, this includes
written correspondence received by CRINS-SINRC which is scanned into digital form and added to the
online system for review.
Participating Land Use Authorities may provide computer access to CRINS-SINRC at strategic locations
to facilitate information gathering and sharing with the public.
5· Submission of the Final Report and publication to the public.
Upon completion of the public notification period the Land Use Authority, along with CRINS-SINRC
staff, assess whether public concerns have been properly addressed by the Proponent. If so, the Proponent
will be granted a Notice of Completion indicating the satisfactory end of the public consultation process.
While a Notice of Completion recognizes the completion of the appropriate notification process, it does
not indicate support for the proposed site by the Land Use Authority nor the local residents. CRINS-
SINRC will provide a separate report outlining any concerns or conditions by the Land Use Authority or
remaining concerns from the general public to be addressed by the Proponent. Industry Canada promotes
continuing dialogue between Proponents and LUAs to resolve any outstanding issues.
Industry Canada has access to all information in the CRINS-SINRC system to help assess compliance
with CPC 2-0-03 and to execute its responsibilities to arbitrate outstanding disputes. Any final decisions
by Industry Canada will be included in the CRINS-SINRC online system.
Policy with respect to Health and Safety (Health Canada Safety Code 6)
CRINS-SINRC is aware of the ongoing debate regarding the veracity of the safety afforded by the limits
set out in Health Canada’s “Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the
Frequency Range of 3 kHz to 300 GHz - Safety Code 6(2009)” - or more commonly referred to as “SC6”.
CRINS-SINRC actively monitors and discusses research into the effects of electromagnetic energy
emissions (EME) on health and has monitored the implementation of differing standards in various
countries.
Fundamentally, Canada and the US have established their national guidelines based on the premise of
establishing a limit which is less than the EME level in which acute effects are demonstrated from
thermal heating; while the European Union (EU) and other countries have followed the “As Low As
Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) precautionary principle.
While both sides to the debate - regarding whether Canada should continue to follow the current
guidelines or adopt an ALARA approach - recognize the need for further studies on the effects of EME,
the current Canadian guidelines favor an approach of not imposing stricter limits until such time as a
definitive link can be made between EME and various symptoms and illnesses.
However, the growing public view is that, like tobacco and asbestos, it is only a matter of time before the
full effects of EME are realized on public health and therefore for the safety of the public, the ALARA
approach should be adopted until such time as further evidence (which could take years of study) is
compiled.
CRINS-SINRC does not advocate on behalf of either side of this debate, but provides the latest
information available to all interested stakeholders in an attempt to ensure that both viewpoints are
represented.
It must be noted that our members are bound to address health and safety concerns within the parameters
set out by Industry Canada and Health Canada – municipalities as Land Use Authorities (LUAs) can only
require that proponents of radiocommunications facilities comply with SC6 and do not have the
legislative authority to establish their own independent limits. Our members however actively
communicate the public’s concerns to both provincial and federal levels of government and request that
changes be considered.
We are aware of advocacy groups currently engaging with provincial and federal government officials to
promote the adoption of the ALARA approach in Canada and we are following those group’s activities
with interest.
Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Management at CRINS-SINRC
With few exceptions, all information entered into the CRINS e-Consultation system is public information
once an application is deemed by the LUA as complete and released for public consultation to begin.
Our goal is to provide transparent disclosure of all proposed sites, and to ensure that the public can
receive timely responses to concerns.
Currently, the only exception is that land owner contact information is not disclosed to the public to
prevent harassment of landowners.
Outside of the e-Consultation system, all information provided to CRINS-SINRC is considered
confidential. Copies of RDPs, commercial terms, or any other information pertaining to competitive
aspects of a proponent’s business which a proponent might share with either the LUA or CRINS-SINRC
staff are deemed confidential. This is to ensure that CRINS-SINRC can contribute to the dialogue
regarding sites with proponents as advisors to our LUA members.
Concurrence / Non-Concurrence Recommendations
CRINS-SINRC does not make recommendations on applications on behalf of the LUA. The land use
input provided by the LUA is self-contained, and while CRINS-SINRC staff will provide advice if
requested on an approach to addressing specific concerns, the recommendation will be a result of LUA
staff and Council input (as appropriate).
It should be noted that CRINS-SINRC staff actively promote dialogue between proponents and the LUA
to achieve resolution of outstanding issues. During our conversations with Industry Canada they have
clearly indicated their preference to avoid impasse situations and we are supportive of this approach.
Our policy is to recommend to participating LUAs that they always offer options to proponents to achieve
concurrence, be it architectural treatments, structure type, etc. and that most issues can be resolved with
flexibility on the part of both parties. While such changes may have some cost implications to proponents,
they generally are less than the delay in obtaining concurrence for the proposed site, and develop
goodwill towards future applications.
Pursuit of Impasse under CRINS-SINRC
The decision to pursue an impasse with Industry Canada is at the discretion of the proponent. Once a
proponent notifies CRINS-SINRC of its intention to pursue an impasse in response to a LUA’s Notice of
Non-concurrence, CRINS-SINRC then notifies the LUA (if they have not been notified), the e-
Consultation system is updated to reflect that an IC decision has been requested (so that public is aware
that a further disposition regarding the file is possible), and notifications sent out to interested parties
(adjacent landowners, etc.). Industry Canada has full access to information on applications held within
the e-Consultation system including all correspondence received and CRINS-SINRC will provide support
to Industry Canada to obtain all required information and input from the LUA to facilitate its decision
making process.
When IC has rendered its decision, the e-Consultation system shall be updated including a copy of the
decision for public review, as well as interested parties will be notified.
Cost and Fees Structure
Application Fee structure is determined by the LUA on a cost recovery basis. CRINS-SINRC collects the
fee established by the LUA through the online e-Consultation system (credit card, or for higher volume a
Preauthorized Debit or pre-paid account).
Some LUAs choose to go with a fixed application fee (i.e. $2500.00), while others wish to recover costs
on a case by case basis (staff time, postage/courier costs for notification packages, newspaper notice fees,
road signs, meeting spaces, etc.) CRINS-SINRC is able to accommodate both models of fee collection.
CRINS-SINRC is funded from a portion of these application fees as part of its cost recovery and
offloading of staff time which is pre-established with each participating LUA. The ranges of fees charged
by the LUAs currently extend from $1600.00 -$5000.00 per application depending on the LUA.
Urban municipalities tend to place a higher value on these applications comparing them to development
applications for commercial premises, and as such fees reflect this thinking.
Public Meetings
Public Meetings may be convened either by the LUA or by CRINS-SINRC at the direction of the LUA in
accordance with the protocol being used.
During any public meetings proponents will be expected to present their proposal to the public and field
questions. The LUA and/or CRINS-SINRC will limit their comments to explaining their role in the
process, and to explain jurisdictional issues as appropriate.
CRINS-SINRC convened meetings are video-taped to provide an official record of the meeting and made
available to interested parties. A transcript of relevant questions and responses will be made available on
the CRINS-SINRC e-Consultation system as part of the application information, and those parties which
register an interest will be e-mailed a copy of the document.
Interpretation of By-Laws
Interpretation of bylaws, where appropriate, is conducted by LUA planning staff, not by CRINS-SINRC.
Recognizing that municipal bylaws, zoning, and other Municipal Governance Act / Planning Act clauses
are not binding on radiocommunications facilities, CRINS-SINRC provides research and advises
participating LUAs on equivalent federal regulations which may be applicable to a specific situation (i.e.
National Building Code versus provincial building code, Canadian Environmental Assessment Act versus
provincial environmental regulations, etc.).
Participating in CRINS-SINRC
We are actively engaging with municipalities across the country as part of our national road show with
the intention to build momentum around issues pertaining to antenna siting in Canada. Our goal is to be
able to provide a unified voice for municipalities so that this provides consistency across our members in
terms of process and ensures the same level of dialogue is available to all citizens – irrespective of which
jurisdiction they live in.
The process to have a municipality join CRIN-SINRC is fairly simply. A process involving a presentation
to a Standing Committee (usually a Planning and/or Development Committee) resulting in a
recommendation to participate forwarded to Council, followed by a Council resolution to that effect is
required. Our experience is that this can take upwards of 2-3 months to achieve.
All Land Use Authorities (municipalities) can participate in CRINS-SINRC at no cost to them. This
service is free for the asking, but in return we require that municipalities:
1. Adopt CRINS-SINRC as the designated representative for the submission of proposed
radiocommunications sites for consultation and review within their jurisdiction in accordance
with Industry Canada’s CPC 2-0-03 (2008).
2. Actively participate in providing input to applications received within their jurisdiction.
3. Provide assistance to CRINS to ensure landowners affected by proposed radiocommunications
sites receive notification of applications.
The rationale for this is that to maintain the infrastructure to accommodate the public inquiries, we
recover our costs from the application fees which the proponents pay as a onetime fee. As a result, we
need to have some certainty that the municipality will have all their applications going through the site to
make it possible to address the ongoing maintenance of the public within their jurisdiction.
Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact myself (todd.white@crins-sinrc.ca) ,
or Karen Steffen (karen.steffen@crins-sinrc.ca). Also, we invite you to visit our website at
http://www.crins-sinrc.ca/ .
Regards,
Todd White
Executive Director