HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015-10-22_COW_Public Agenda PackageMUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thursday, October 22,201S - 8:45 a.m.
AGENDA
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
2.1 Committee of the Whole - September 17,201S
3. MATTERS ARISING
3.1 Special Collection - Update
3.2 Marvins Island Causeway Replacement - Renewal of Borrowing Resolution 07/08-03 - $3,959
3.3 Municipality of the District of Chester Rural Property Sewage Survey Results.
4. CORRESPONDENCE:
4.1 Email from UNSM Dated October 1, 2015 including Resolutions Committee Report for upcoming
UNSM Conference.
4.2 Email from UNSM dated October 14, 2015 regarding questions for Ministers' Panel at the UNSM 2015
Conference.
4.3 Shared Strategy for Advancing the Purposes, Priorities and Impacts of Recreation in Nova Scotia
(Draft).
4.4 Report dated October 14, 2015 from Director of Engineering & Public Works regarding Cost Shared
Subdivision Streets 2016/17.
S. GRANT REQUESTS:
5.1 Helping Hands to Enrich Learning & Lifestyles Programming Society (HHELPS) - appointment with
Christina MacLean at 9:15 a.m. (information to follow)
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 Wind Turbine Performance Reports:
a. Wind Turbine Log Report
b. Wind Turbine Performance Report
6.2 Request for Direction dated October 13, 2015 from Development Officer regarding Existing Structures
Change of Use and Residential Conversions.
6.3 Request for Decision dated October 13, 2015 from Director of Finance regarding Gas Tax Reserve and
Financial Indicators.
6.4 Zoe Valley Library - Councillor Veinotte
7. ADJOURNMENT.
Page 1 of 2
APPOINTMENTS
9:1S a.m. Christina MacLean, Helping Hands to Enrich Learning & Lifestyles Programming Society (HHELLPS)
Grant Request
In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA if necessary
Page 2 of 2
0;/
Pam Myra
From: Tammy Harnish
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 10:46 AM
To: Pam Myra; Bruce Forest
Cc: Tammy Wilson
Subject: RE: RE:
Here are the dates that GE's has available, if Council chooses to go with three special collection dates in 2016:
• May9--27
« July 18 — 29
• Oct 17 — 28
Does this need to go into another report? We weren't sure if another report was necessary, Can you let us know?
T=
From: Pam Myra
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 8:40 AM
To: Bruce Forest <bforest@chester.ca>
Cc: Tammy Wilson <twilson@chester.ca>; Tammy Harnish <tharnish@chester.ca>
Subject: Re: RE:
Can you forward the info to Tammy and me today. I am going in tomorrow tomorrow morning to put the agenda
together.
On Oct 15, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Bruce Forest <bforest a rhester,ca> wrote:
CE'S has given me some dates that will work for them. I can meet with Counsel to finalize.
From: Pam Myra
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 12:49 PM
To: Bruce Forest <bforest aciester.ca>; Tammy Harnish <tarnish chester.ca>
Subject:
August 20th C.OW. Meeting minutes:
3.1 Request for Decision dated July 29, 2015 from Director of Solid Waste regarding
Special Collection.
The Director of Solid Waste reviewed the Request for Decision dated July 29, 2015
regarding changes to Special Collection. He indicated that based on complaints he would
like to recommend to move the spring special collection from April to the last two weeks of
June, and to keep the last two weeks of October for the fall collection.
Following discussion, it was agreed by the Committee to move the spring collection to the
first two weeks in June and keep the October collection for fall.
I
2015-358 MOVED by Councillor Armstrong, SECONDED by Councillor Church -
Cornelius that the Committee of the Whole recommend to Council to try the first two (2)
weeks in June as Spring Special Collection and keep the October Collection for
fall. (MOTION WITHDRAWN)
Deputy Warden Shatford asked how much notice would be needed to change to
three (3) collections - spring, summer and fall.
The Director of Solid Waste indicated that they would need a year's notice because
of the waste collection calendar.
Deputy Warden Shatford indicated that he has no problem with three (3)
collections and feels that it needs to be considered and that it would be best if Councillor
Veinotte be in attendance to discuss the matter.
There was discussion regarding possible dates for special collection.
Warden Webber indicated that if the Committee decides on three (3) dates for
special collection the previous motion would have to be withdrawn.
The MOVER Councillor Armstrong and SECONDER Councillor Church -Cornelius
agreed to withdraw the motion. (MOTION WITHDRAWN)
The Director of Solid Waste noted that he would go back and get optional dates.
�GLVVV
Pamela Myra, Municipal Clerk
Municipality of the District of Chester
151 King Street, PO Box 369
Chester, NS BOJ 1J0
pmyr q�cl eate ~. ca
(902) 275-3554 Ext. 1002
S,Z
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
RENEWAL OF BORROWING RESOLUTION
$3,959 File No. 07/08-03
Marvin's Island Causeway Replacement
WHEREAS the Municipality of the District of Chester is authorized by law to borrow by
the issue and sale of debentures of the Municipality a sum not exceeding Seven Thousand Six
Hundred Ninety -Five Dollars ($7,695) for the purpose of private roads, culverts, retaining walls,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters that are associated with private roads and are identified and
approved for expenditure by council;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to a resolution passed by the Municipal Council on the 13th
day of December, 2007, the Council postponed the issue of debentures and with the approval of
the Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal relations dated the 8th day of January, 2008,
borrowed from a chartered bank or trust company doing business in Nova Scotia a sum not
exceeding Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) for the purpose set out above for a period not
exceeding twelve months;
AND WHEREAS the latest extension of the resolution was approved by the Minister of
Municipal Affairs on the 7th of November, 2014;
AND WHEREAS the said Municipality has repaid a sum leaving a balance of Three
Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty -Nine Dollars ($3,959)to be borrowed for the purpose set out
above;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the period of borrowing be further
extended;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED
THAT subject to the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs the authorized period of
borrowing in the amount of Three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty -Nine Dollars ($3,959) be
extended for a further period not exceeding twelve months from the date of the approval of the
Minister of Municipal Affairs;
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a
resolution duly passed at a duly called meeting of the
Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester held on
the day of October 2015.
GIVEN under the hands of the Warden and Clerk and
October 2015.
Warden, Allen Webber
For DMA Use Only I I Clerk, Pamela Myra
3.3
411111 Illiu III �� ........ . .. .. ......
Pruil�lfjc Simic I )I ol I It o us, re 1 In? v4� 1 r"S' It, I,,, Ila
ecI ��� BI" 7 rt I llu r) s't r) didor i e �2() 16
Produced Por: The of"the Mstricl
Contents
Goals and Objectives of Report
1
Summary of Report
1
Statistical Significance of Report
2
Study Area: Chester Basin
_4
Profile Results
5
Results Summary
8
Results Discussion
9
Study Area: New Ross
11
Profile Results
12
Results Summary
15
Results Discussion
16
Disscussion of Survey and Findings
17
Appendix A: Statistical Definitions and Understanding
19
Appendix B: Chester Basin Survey Calculations _
20
Appendix C New Ross Survey Calculations
24
Goals and Objectives of Study
Goal of Study
To survey the communities of Chester Basin and New Ross in order to identify
whether property owners have a desire to connect to a municipal sewer system.
Objectives of Study
I. Design a universal survey that can be distributed to multiple communities
II. Identify and develop a survey area within the communities of Chester Basin and
New Ross
III. Survey the communities of Chester Basin and New Ross in order to conduct,
collect, and analyze property owners opinions and preferences on connecting to a
municipal sewer system
Summary of Report
In May of 2015, the Community Development Department was requested to design a
sewage survey that could be conducted in multiple communities. This survey would be
conducted in Chester Basin and New Ross to identify:
1. the type of property owner;
2. the type of sewage system currently located on their property; and
3. if the property owner had a desire to connect to a municipal sewage system
Taking a proactive approach and identifying if there was interest in these communities to
connect to a municipal sewage system would provide Council with vital information
when considering decisions to expand, repair, relocate or otherwise change existing
systems.
In the months June and July of 2015, a staff person from the Community Development
Department visited each community to conduct, collect, and analyze the communities'
opinions on connecting to a municipal sewage system. Each community was visited and
surveyed two times to ensure the greatest accumulation of data. This report explains the
statistical significance, findings, and recommendations of the surveys collected and
recorded for each community.
Statistical Significance of Report
To ensure that the sewage survey was accurate, the Community Development
Department needed to collect a sufficient number of surveys from property owners in
each community. Collecting an adequate amount of surveys would assist in accurately
representing each community or specific areas within each community.
In order to calculate the statistical significance or accuracy of the survey, there are 3 main
pieces of information that needed to be collected; these 3 pieces are the number of
surveys distributed (Survey Population), the number of surveys collected and completed
(Sample Size), and the amount of error existing in the survey (Confidence Interval).
Community
Surveys Distributed
Surveys
Collected Count
Surveys Collected
(o/o)
Table 1: Statistical Significance of Sewage Survey
Chester Basin achieved a slightly larger sample size than New Ross, as 41% of property
owners in Chester Basin completed the sewage survey. In New Ross, only 34% of
property owners completed the sewage survey (Table 1). The margin of error
(Confidence Interval) from the surveys collected and recorded ranges between 10-15%.
This means that there is error ranging from 10-15% for all the data collected. This is not
ideal, but it leaves the communities of Chester Basin and New Ross with a high
confidence level that the data is accurate. The confidence levels found below for both
communities portray how accurate and representative the data is for each community.
The accuracy of the survey in Chester Basin produced a confidence level of 86%. The
accuracy of the survey in New Ross produced a confidence level of 88%. Both
communities are found to be statistically precise and it can be taken in to confidence that
the collected responses from the property owners are fairly accurate and representative
of their communities.
Survey Area: Chester Basin:
The map found below illustrates the survey boundaries within the community of Chester
Basin. Surveying this area of the community should identify if a new municipal sewer
system could be a solution to offer less maintenance, raise housing prices, improve or
increase development, and produce further environmental protection for the community.
The major focus of this survey area was positioned around Highway 3 and Highway 12.
,-
10
" Highway�l2'"",
r
00��`��-- � �- •�� �� �'`.�
Corkurtn CMr ► Coillina ICNr��
• p 7 y BaickmanM C 0
d
■M Rd
C rott
r
Chester Bassin. Survey Study Area
Steady Area
BUHdings
Lot Boundaries
Water
Local Roads
9
w Jd 1 Mary,Lane
�Cii5rbins Come Dr
Eir
N
A
Scalae. 1: 10,500
Q 125 250 500
meter's
1. Chester Basin: Property Profile
The majority of the property owners who
completed and handed back the survey to
the Community Development Department
were home/business owners. These
property owners accounted for 85% of the
responses and were primarily using their
property for residential purposes.
Attaining both rental and property owner's
opinions are both valuable in
understanding what the community wants
and needs regarding sewage disposal.
Renters' opinions were recorded and
another survey was also left for the owner
of that property to complete.
2. Chester Basin: Sewage
System Quality and
Efficiency Profile
I. Identification of Current Sewage Systems:
The majority of property owners who completed the survey in Chester Basin did in fact
have a septic system designed by a qualified person. The average age of a septic system in
this community was found to be between 25-30 years old and included a concrete septic
tank.. Property owners also revealed that their concrete septic systems were
experiencing no problems and functioning to a high standard, as 78% of respondents had
no issues with their current systems. Only 5 out of the 46 property owners stated that
they were experiencing problems with their current septic systems. Most issues with
these problematic systems were from backups, odors, and other undisclosed issues.
- 83% of properties
were on a septic
- Avg. age of a septic
system = 27yrs old
- 78% of septic systems
are concrete
- 78% of
respondents
reported no
problems with their
septic systems
- 74% of respondents
perform maintenance
every 1-5 years
- 57% of respondents
pay more than $200
every 5years in upkeep
and repairs
11. Maintenance of Current Sewage Systems:
Property owners in Chester Basin were unified in how much maintenance and repair was
conducted on their septic systems. Roughly 75% of respondents stated that they would
perform maintenance every 1 -5 years. This is typically the suggested timeframe from
Nova Scotia Environment for up -keep of septic systems. With maintenance being done at
least once every 5 years, property owners (57%) found they were spending more than
$200 every 5 years for repairs and up -keep of their septic systems,
3. Chester Basin: Municipal Sewage Utility Cost and
Perception Profile
Prior to conducting the survey in Chester Basin,
an annual operation and maintenance fee of $530
was used to ask property owners if they would be
willing to pay this amount to be connected. This
monetary value was taken from the Sewer Bylaw
based on a single family dwelling.
Property owners in Chester Basin found that the
suggested annual sewage operation and
maintenance cost of $530 was relatively high, as 48% of respondents thought that the
annual cost of connection should be much lower. Although the majority of the property
owners thought that this cost was high, 33% of property owners believed this was a fair
price to pay each year.
Overall, property owners were undecided if they
would like to connect to a municipal sewer system,
57% of respondents were not in favour of
connecting to a municipal system, while 41% were
in favour to be connected. They were however,
very conclusive that as property owners they did
not want to pay for construction and the costs
associated with construction. Twenty percent of
property owners would pay to be connected, but
only if the cost was under $1000.
!
II��I (IIII (IIIIIIIIIII II ``` IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII` IIIIIIIIIII``
IIII \111 ���������� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ����� ��`\ �� `1` ������ lllllllllllllll IIIIIIIII (IIII ���� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII ��� ����������������� IIIII IIII ������������ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I � I
I
I �I 1�
h) IIIIIIIIIII � � '. IIIIIIIIIII II � � ''. IIIIIIIN IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU� 'IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU
� 1 (IIIIIIIII 1 �
I I 1
,
I 1 I
�1\11I 111111 I ', .III
��I�I IIIIIIIII +\\\\\\14` 11\\IIID .IIIIIIIIIII I ��I IIIIIIIIIIIII �1 IIII^II (IIIIIIIIIII ''.. '., � IIIIIIIIIIIII '... ��I��
IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII � �� ��� �� (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I �IIIIIIII I�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� II IIII IIIIIIIII ��I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIII IIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII �� IIII IIIIIIIII ��
Chester Basin Survey Results Summary:
Chester Basin. Survey Results
_
Summarry,
_
�1 III
111111 II III ��� (IIII III III (III 11111 I IIII
91111 I (II.11,1� � it Ilml�ll�,,, � � 1<<„"�� � �� � �,,� 1� I�,A I� II I`� u��11�, ���, � �� ��� � u• ������ �
111111II II (IIII 111
IV,,,I.I Ilnn�� I�I I �II;�''�I �m� �i � ���nnv l�
��`��;�
Property
Profile
Profile
Home/Business
Type of Resident
85%
Owner
Property Use
Housing
85%
Sewage System Quality and
Efficiency Profile
Septic Tank as Current
System
Yes
83%
Average Age of Septic
System
27 years
-
Type of Septic System
Concrete
78%
Problems with System
No
78%
Maintenance (T)
Between 1-5 Years
74%
Maintenance ($)
More than $200
57%
Sewage Utility Cost and Perception
Profile
Annual Utility Fee ($)
$530 too high
48%
Would you Connect to
Municipal Sewer
No
57%
Maximum amount to
No Response
61%
Connect
Construction fees ($)
No
57%
Type of Payments
Installments
46%
Main Reason for Switching
Less Maintenance
29%
Main Reason for Keeping
Cost too high
o
37/0
Current System
Page 8
4. Chester Basin Results Discussion
I II
CHESTER BASIN:
COLLECTED SEWER
SURVEY RESULTS ( 015)
N
k
Scale: t: 8,500
0 125 250 5DO
Motel's
Chester Basin: Collected Surveys Results
Mitudy Area
Local Roads
Existing' coni neomn;
EllNo to., Connection
Nes. to contiect:io n
V" mperty Lots
watea'
The map above illustrates areas where property owners were either in favour (green) or not in
favour (red) in connecting to a municipal sewer system. The overall consensus was not to
connect to a municipal sewer system in Chester Basin. However, there are pockets where
property owners are more inclined to connect to a municipal sewer system. For example, along
Highway 3 just South-West of Borgels Point Road, there is a pocket of properties that would be
willing to connect to a municipal sewer system. Expanding the current system in this area is
likely possible as stated in the recent Engineering report. However, providing service to these
suggested properties by gravity or a low pressure force main, both of which are conventional
methods, is deemed impracticable due to cost.
Survey Area: New Ross
New Ross: Survey Study ,Area
Study Auea
Building Footprint
Vvater
Lot So.ridariss
LooaN Roads
Scute: 1: 15.500
0 125 250 500
eters
This map shows
the survey area
for the
community of
New Ross. The
survey area
boundaries
extends along
Highway 12,
Forties Road, and
Lake Lawson
Road. The major
focus of this
survey area is
along Forties
Road and
Highway 12,
North of the cross
roads. Identifying
this area as the
main focus would
allow the
Municipality to
gauge if a new
sewer system
should be created
within the
community.
n 0 IL Mr. 2 IM M
n
The majority of property
owners who completed and
handed back the survey to the
Community Development
Department were
home/business owners who
were primarily using their
property for housing. Out of
the 31 completed surveys,
there were 23 homeowners, 5
business owners, and 4
people who chose not to
disclose this information.
2. New Ross: Sewage System Quality and Efficiency
Profile
I. Identification of Current Sewage Systems:
The completed surveys in New Ross revealed that 81% of property owners did have
septic system designed by a qualified person. The average age of a septic system within
New Ross was 32 years old and 77% of these systems were believed to be concrete
systems. The majority (74%) of property owners of New Ross identified that their
current septic systems had not been experiencing any problems. Only 16% revealed that
they were receiving problems with their current system, most of the issues were
primarily occurring from back-ups and odors. This profile matched up very similar to
Chester Basin's Quality and Efficiency profile.
II. Maintenance of Current Sewage Systems:
Roughly 55% of property owners performed some type of maintenance every 1-5 years,
which is the recommended time span for up -keep on a sewage system by Nova Scotia
Environment. Just under 25% had performed some maintenance within 5-10 years and
the rest of the respondents were not performing maintenance or they were unsure of
when they last performed repairs on their systems.
Most Property owners
found that the average
cost for maintenance
every 5 years was over
$200. Most residents
were not concerned
with rising
maintenance prices
but it was noted that
repairs and
maintenance was
getting more
expensive.
3. New Ross: Municipal Sewage Utility Cost and
Perception Profile
Property owners believed that the annual
sewage operation and maintenance cost of
$530 was on the high side, with 48% of
property owners stating that this annual
cost was too high. However, 32% of
property owners thought that this was fair,
as the annual cost of $530 would work out
between to $1 - $1.50 per day. This price
had some effect on most property owner's
decisions to state whether they were in
favour to connect to a municipal sewer system. Another factor that was evident was if
their sewage system was functioning properly.
It was found that 52% of the property owners did not want to connect to municipal
sewer. The majority of respondents did not want municipal sewer, but 35% believed that
attaching to municipal sewer would be beneficial to their property, the community, and
the surrounding environment.
Whether wanting to connect to the municipal
sewage system or not, property owners were
very hesitant to state an amount they would
be willing to pay to be connected to a
municipal sewer system. The majority of
property owners that completed this survey
would not want to take on construction costs
to be connected to municipal sewer. Most
property owners found no interest, did not
respond, or were undecided with
determining how much they would be willing
to pay for construction costs associated with
a municipal sewer system.
New Ross Survey Results Summary:
Type of Resident Home/Business Owner 87%
Property Use Housing 74%
Septic Tank as Current
$530 too high
48%
System
Yes
81%
Average Age of Septic
No
52%
System
32 years
-
Type of Septic System
Concrete
77%
Problems with System
No
74%
Maintenance (T)
Between 1-5 Years
55%
Maintenance ($)
More than $200
52%
Annual Utility Fee ($)
$530 too high
48%
Would you Connect to
Municipal Sewer
No
52%
Maximum amount to
No Response
84%
Connect
Construction fees ($)
No
52%
Type of Payments
No Response
61%
Main Reason for Switching
Less Maintenance
31%
Main Reason for Keeping o
Current System Cost too high 35/
4. New Ross Results Discussion
P
Scala: 1: 60,000
Scale: '1:15,00,0
p 125 250 500
Meter's
New Ross: Collected Survey Results
Study kea
Existing connecton
Yes Connection
No connec"2 m
vvaater
fa lLot Bound,ar es
Local Roads
The map above outlines where property owners have either been in favour (green) or not in
favour (red) to connect to a municipal sewer system. There is a small pocket of property
owners located west of the cross-roads on Forties Road that would be willing to connect to a
municipal sewer system. Unfortunately the current system it is at capacity and cannot be
expanded in its current configuration. With the number of properties willing to be connected,
it would not be possible or cost-effective to place a new system in the community.
Discussion of Survev and Findines
After surveying the communities of Chester Basin and New Ross, the collected data reveals
that both communities do no not want to connect to a municipal sewage system. Although
there are small pockets of properties that are more inclined to connect, most property owners
are pleased with their on-site septic systems.
The average age of a septic system on the properties surveyed, is a slightly concerning. A
typical septic system is designed to last for 25 years, there for most have reached the end of
their designed lives, and may require replacement in the near future. It may be beneficial to
ask residents to connect to a municipal sewage system again within the next 10 years, as septic
systems will be older and will be more likely to fail. This topic can be examined as part of the
Plan Review process.
For small communities, such as Chester Basin and New Ross, the need for a creative, cost-
effective, and reliable sewage disposal solution is of high importance. An alternative method
that may be able to provide this support is a wastewater management district. Wastewater
management districts (WMD) are normally small areas established by a municipality, where
control and maintenance of sewage problems are severe. In a WMD, a municipality has the
power to oversee all wastewater disposal systems, both public and private. This means that in
a WMD, a municipality has the power and responsibility to enter private properties for
purposes of inspecting, repairing, upgrading or replacing wastewater systems.
The cost to connect, operate, and maintain a central sewage system in rural areas, such as
Chester Basin and New Ross, is a major issue according to the property owners surveyed.
Unlike a conventional piped central sewer system approach, a WMD contains a variety of
wastewater disposal systems that coexist together. This leaves residents in rural areas with
options for tackling wastewater disposal. Possibly by forming a wastewater management
district will better allow communities to tackle sewage disposal on their own terms in the
most cost-effective and productive way possible. The four main wastewater solutions possible
within a WMD are:
1. maintain existing properly functioning on-site sewage disposal systems;
2. upgrade / replace existing malfunctioning on-site sewage disposal systems;
3. establish cluster sewage disposal system(s); and/or
4,„ establish conventional piped sewer collection and treatment system.
Providing residents with the options stated above, may offer a cost-effective, more reliable and
maintained method of disposing sewage. For example, establishing a clustering system may be
more beneficial for an area where properties are in close proximity to one another, as this
system focuses on sharing common treatment and disposal systems. This could possibly cut
down construction costs for residents in these communities. Other communities might be
inclined to keep their on-site septic systems but would prefer to set up a WMD so that all the
systems are kept up to a maintenance standard.
In conclusion, the majority of property owners agree that the development and need of a new
sewage system in both Chester Basin and New Ross is not warranted. Further investigation
into developing an alternative method of sewage disposal, such as a wastewater management
district is suggested. Giving smaller rural communities a variety of options to work with, may
prove to be a cost-effective and more reliable method in managing sewage disposal.
Appendix A: Statistical Definitions and Understanding
Statistical Definitions:
Confidence Interval (margin of errors This is how sure you want to be that the responses
that you receive will accurately represent the views of your population.
Confidence Level (accuracy): A confidence level refers to how accurately your sample
represents your population. So, a 95% confidence level means that you would get the
same results 95% of the time even if you chose different samples from your population.
Population Size: Your population is the entire set of people you want to study with your
survey.
Response Rate: This is the percentage of people which complete the survey. A good
recommendation is to achieve a response rate estimate of 10-15%, as this is a
conservative percentage.
Sample Size: Your sample size is the number of completed responses you need to get
back. Note that this is different from the number of people you need to invite to complete
your survey as not everyone that you send your survey to will necessarily complete it.
! II��I (IIII (IIIIIIIIIII II ``` IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII` IIIIIIIIIII``
IIII \111 ���������� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ����� ��`\ �� `1` ������ lllllllllllllll IIIIIIIII (IIII ���� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII ��� ����������������� IIIII IIII ������������ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1 I
1�
h) IIIIIIIIIII � � '. IIIIIIIIIII II � � ''. IIIIIIIN IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU� 'IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU
� 1 (IIIIIIIII 1 �
I I 1
,
I 1 I
1\111 (IIII I ', .III
����� IIIIIIIII +\\\\\\14` I1\\IIID .IIIIIIIIIII I ��I IIIIIIIIIIIII �1 IIII^II (IIIIIIIIIII ''.. '., � IIIIIIIIIIIII '... �����
IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII � �� ��� �� (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I ��������� ��� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� II IIII IIIIIIIII ��I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIII IIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII �� IIII IIIIIIIII ��
Appendix B: Chester Basin Survey Calculations
Chester Basin: Property Profile (*All percentages rounded up)
Count
Type of Resident
PercentageProperty
39
85%
Seasonal Owner
1
2%
Renter
2
4%
No Reply
4
9%
Grand Total
46
100%
Usage
Chester Basin: Sewage System
Quality and Efficiency Profile
(*All percentages rounded up)
D. you have a Septic System
Yes 38 83%
Not Sure
4
9%
No Reply
4
9%
lion iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Average Age . 27
Type of Septic System
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ii ��l' � �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Concrete
36
78%
Metal
2
4%
No Reply
8
17%
Page 20
Count
Home/ Business Owner
39
85%
Seasonal Owner
1
2%
Renter
2
4%
No Reply
4
9%
Grand Total
46
100%
Count
Percentage
Housing
39
85%
Business
3
7%
No Reply
4
8%
Grand Total
46
100%
! II��I (IIII (IIIIIIIIIII II ``` IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII` IIIIIIIIIII``
IIII \111 ���������� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ����� ��`\ �� `1` ������ lllllllllllllll IIIIIIIII (IIII ���� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII ��� ����������������� IIIII IIII ������������ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
l � l I
1 1�
h) IIIIIIIIIII � � '. IIIIIIIIIII II � � ''. IIIIIIIN IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU 'IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU
� 1 (IIIIIIIII 1 �
,
I 1 I
����� IIIIIIIII +\\\\\\14` IIIIIIIU .IIIIIIIIIII I ��I IIIIIIIIIIIII �r IIII^II (IIIIIIIIIII ''.. '., � IIIIIIIIIIIII '... �����
IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII � �� ��� �� (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I �llllllll l�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� II IIII IIIIIIIII ��l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIII IIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII �� IIII IIIIIIIII ��
Reasons for toa Municipal
»h,titititill�titititititi}}1�11,�lllllllllllllllllllllllll i�innn�i�pnittiviiipmmi�linrd�l�iDrr�}}}}!i!i!i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}!i!i!i}}}!i!i!i
hll>hll>hll>111llhllllwi+Ilwllll�il711u��1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiG�il�qusG�lklwol�lill�llwll,,lull,l ��I�II Il 11 11 11 11 li IIII
Less Maintenance
22 29%
Increased House Values
21 27%
Environmental Protection
20 26%
Community Growth
14 18%
lill
Reasons
for Keeping Current Sewage System
NEEMEMENEEMENEEM
Current System is Good
22
3S%
Cost too High
23
37%
Issue Not Important
3
5%
No Desire to Switch
15
23%
Page 23
! II��I (IIII (IIIIIIIIIII II ``` IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII` IIIIIIIIIII``
IIII \111 ���������� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ����� ��`\ �� `1` ������ lllllllllllllll IIIIIIIII (IIII ���� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII ��� ����������������� IIIII IIII ������������ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1 I
1�
h) IIIIIIIIIII � � '. IIIIIIIIIII II � � ''. IIIIIIIN IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU� 'IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU
� 1 (IIIIIIIII 1 �
I I 1
,
I 1 I
1\111 IIIIII I ', .III
����� IIIIIIIII +\\\\\\14` 11\\IIID .IIIIIIIIIII `I ��I IIIIIIIIIIIII �1 IIII^II (IIIIIIIIIII ''.. '., � IIIIIIIIIIIII '... �����
IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII � �� ��� �� (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I ��������� ��� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� II IIII IIIIIIIII ��I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIII IIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII �� IIII IIIIIIIII ��
Appendix C: New Ross Survey Calculations
New Ross: Property Profile (*All percentages rounded up)
Type of Resident
Covent
Home/Business Owner 27
Housing
23
74%
Percentage
87%
Renter 1
3%
No Response 3
10%
Grand Total 31
100'%
Property Usage
Count
Percentage.
Business 5
16%
No Response 3
10%
Grand Total 31
100'%
New Ross: Sewage System Quality and
Efficiency Profile
(*All percentages rounded up)
D. you have a Septic System
Yes
2S
81%
No
2
6%
No Response
4
13%
Average Age • 32
Page 24
Housing
23
74%
! II��I (IIII (IIIIIIIIIII II ``` IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII` IIIIIIIIIII``
IIII \111 ���������� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ����� ��`\ �� `1` ������ lllllllllllllll IIIIIIIII (IIII ���� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII ��� ����������������� IIIII IIII ������������ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1
I
1�
h) IIIIIIIIIII � � '. IIIIIIIIIII II � � ''. IIIIIIIN IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU� 'IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU
� 1 (IIIIIIIII 1
I I
1
I 1 1
1
1 4
1 1 1
Il r III l�
I
����� IIIIIIIII �� lllllllu .IIIIIIIIIII ��illlll IIIIIIIIIIIII Illlllu� IIII (IIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIII �����
Type of Septic
Concrete 24 77%
Metal 1 3%
Unknown 6 19%Maintenance of SystemCost of Maintaining System Every 5 Years
Problems with Current Sewer System
Not Sure 4 13%
No Response 6 19%
Page 2 r:b
Yes 5 16%
No
More than $200
16
52%
Less than $200
Never
7Between
23
74%
No Response
3
10%
More than $200
16
52%
Less than $200
Never
7Between
3
10%
1- 5 years
17
55%
Between 5 - 10 Years
7
23%
No Response
4
13%
More than $200
16
52%
Less than $200
5
16%
! II��I (IIII (IIIIIIIIIII II ``` IIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII` IIIIIIIIIII``
IIII \111 ���������� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ����� ��`\ �� `1` ������ lllllllllllllll IIIIIIIII (IIII ���� IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII ��� ����������������� IIIII IIII ������������ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1 I
1�
h) IIIIIIIIIII � � '. IIIIIIIIIII II � � ''. IIIIIIIN IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU� 'IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIU
� 1 (IIIIIIIII 1 �
I I 1
,
I 1 I
1\111 IIIIII I ', .III
����� IIIIIIIII +\\\\\\14` 11\\IIID .IIIIIIIIIII `I ��I IIIIIIIIIIIII �1 IIII^II (IIIIIIIIIII ''.. '., � IIIIIIIIIIIII '... �����
IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII � �� ��� �� (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I ��������� ��� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �� II IIII IIIIIIIII ��I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (IIII IIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII �� IIII IIIIIIIII ��
New Ross: Sewage System
Quality and Efficiency Profile
(*All percentages rounded up)
Opinion on Annual Sewage Operation
To High
15
48%
Fair
10
32%
No Response
6
19%
MunicipalConnection to
Not Sure
2
6%
Yes
11
35%
No
16
52%
No Response
2
6%
Maximum Amount Willing to Pay to . .
Under$1000 4 13%
Under$3000 1 3%
No Response 26 84%
Taking on Construction Costs
Undecided
4
13%
Yes
3
10%
No
16
52%
Depends on Amount
1
3%
No Response
7
23%
Page 26
Type of
Preferred
Payment
Less Maintenance
17
14
Cost too High
31%
Increased House Values
Issue Not Important
12
Depends on Amount
27%
2
6%
Upfront/One-time Cost
3
10%
Installments
11
7
23%
No Response
19
61%
Reasons for
Switching to a Municipal Sewage
System
Less Maintenance
17
14
Cost too High
31%
Increased House Values
Issue Not Important
12
14%
27%
Environmental Protection
18%
8
18%
Community Growth
11
24%
Reasons for Keeping Current Sewage System
Current System is Good
17
33%
Cost too High
18
35%
Issue Not Important
7
14%
No Desire to Switch
9
18%
Cindy Hannaford (F/
From: Tammy Wilson
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 9:12 PM
To: Pam Myra; Cindy Hannaford
Cc: Allen Webber; Tara Maguire
Subject: FW: UNSM 2015 CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS (UPDATED LINK) --Action Required: For
Information Purposes
Attachments: RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE REPORT (FINAL) --CONFERENCE 2015.pdf; Shared Strategy
for Advancing Rec in NS Draft 7 - 2015-07-15.pdf
Please place on the next COW Agenda.
Thanks
Tammy S Wilson, MURP, MCIP I Chief Administrative Officer I Municipalilty of the District of Chester
Ph: 902-275-3554 1 www.chester.ca
From: UNSM Info [mailto:Info @unsm.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 12:17 PM
To: Tracy Verbeke <TVerbel<e@unsm.ca>
Subject: UNSM 2015 CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS (UPDATED LINK) --Action Required: For Information Purposes
TO: Mayors/Wardens, Councillors, All Units
CC: Chief Administrative Officers/Clerk-Treasurers
Here is a new link to view the Resolutions Committee Report. The Report is also available on the "Resolutions"
Portion of our Website.
Apologies for the duplicate e-mail.
PLEASE NOTE: If you do not want to receive communications from UNSM, please e-mail Tracy
Verbeke at tverbeke&unsm.ca, and you will be removed from the mailing list.
From: UNSM Info
Sent: October -01-15 11:01 AM
To: Tracy Verbeke
Subject: UNSM 2015 CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS --Action Required: For Information Purposes
TO: Mayors, Wardens and Councillors, All Units
CC: Chief Administrative Officers/Clerk-Treasurers, All Units
RE: UNSM 2015 CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
The Resolutions for debate at the 2015 November UNSM Annual Conference are attached. They are also posted on
the UNSM Website, under "Resolutions" Menu [deleted-- link not working]. These 12 Resolutions will be
presented for debate during the morning of November 5`h. Please review the Resolutions and Committee
Recommendations. The Resolutions will be printed in the Conference Program.
Also attached is the corresponding report linked to Resolution 1C - "Endorsement of "Recreation in Nova Scotia:
A shared Strategy for Advancing the Purposes, Priorities and Impacts".
There have been discussions on how to improve the effectiveness of the Resolutions process. We anticipate new
changes for next year. In the interim, we will be following the existing system.
Please direct any questions to UNSM Policy Analyst Lyle Goldberg by phone (423.8673) or via email
(1goldbergCa unsm.ca)..
Regards,
Betty MacDonald
Executive Director
Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
ph: 902-423-3423
fx: 902-425-5592
email: bmacdonaldaunsm.ca
Liji" ff",
3
Phone: (902) 423-8331
Fax: (902) 425-5592
www.unsm.ca
PLEASE NOTE: If you do not want to receive communications from UNSM, please e-mail Tracy
Verbeke at tverbekegunsm.ca, and you will be removed from the mailing list.
Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
Report of the Resolutions Committee
to the 2015 Annual Conference
Westin Nova Scotian Hotel
Halifax, NS
November 3 — 6, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Committee Members i
Procedures for Resolutions ii
EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD
DEVELOPMENT
IA Mandatory Civics High School Course 1
ENVIRONMENT
2A Straight Pipe Septic System 2
FEDERATION OF CANADIAN
MUNICIPALITIES
3A Derelict Vessels 3
4A Roadway Funding 4
HEALTH AND WELLNESS
5A National Pharmacare Strategy 5
OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
6A Youth Firefighter Training Program 7
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
7A Amendment to the M unlclpal Government Act, re Site Plan Approval with
Respect to Architectural Requirements 8
PREMIER'S OFFICE
8A Provision of Internet to Rural Areas of Nova Scotia 10
9A Establishment of "New England Day" in Nova Scotia on the First Saturday
of August Each Year 13
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
RENEWAL
IOA Toll Roads 14
"B" RESOLUTIONS
113 Funding to Assist in Redevelopment or Demolition of Surplus School
Buildings 15
"C" RESOLUTIONS
IC Endorsement of "Recreation in Nova Scotia: A shared Strategy for
Advancing the Purposes, Priorities and Impacts" 16
MEMBERS OF THE RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE 2015
Ms. Erin Beaudin, AMANS Immediate Past -President
Warden Aldric d'Entremont, District of Argyle
Councillor Claire Detheridge, Cape Breton Regional Municipality
Councillor Bill Karsten, Halifax Regional Municipality
Councillor Clarence Prince, Cape Breton Regional Municipality
Councillor Raymond Tynes, Town of Truro
-i-
UNSM RESOLUTIONS POLICY
1. This Policy is entitled the "UNSM Resolutions Policy".
2. Resolutions Committee
a) Not less than ninety-two (92) days before the Annual Conference the Board of Directors
shall appoint a Resolutions Committee comprised of the following six (6) members:
• UNSM Vice President (who shall serve as Chair)
• 1 from the Towns Caucus
• 1 from the Rural Caucus
• 1 from Halifax
• 1 from Cape Breton Regional Municipality
• 1 from AMANS who currently sits on the UNSM Board.
b) The Resolutions Committee shall meet prior to the commencement of the Annual
Conference.
3. Resolution Deadlines
a) Any resolution considered by the Resolutions Committee shall be forwarded to the
UNSM office by a member unit, caucus, or region within eighty (80) days of the Annual
Conference.
b) Resolutions received within the 80 daytime period shall be forwarded to the member
units at least thirty-five (35) days before the Annual Conference.
c) The UNSM Board of Directors, UNSM Executive Committee or the Resolutions
Committee may, on its own motion, present any matter to the Annual Conference
without notice.
4. Properly Submitted Resolutions
a) Resolutions properly received by the Resolutions Committee must include the
endorsement of the municipal clerk, caucus chair, or UNSM Executive Director indicating
the resolution was considered and passed by the council, caucus, Board of Directors or
Executive Committee of the UNSM. Resolutions are also deemed properly received if
passed by motion at a UNSM regional meeting. Regions in this context are those
specifically defined by the UNSM in Appendix A.
b) No resolution shall be brought before the Annual Conference except as set out in this
policy unless supported by a two-thirds (2/3) affirmative vote of voting delegates
present at the meeting.
5. Resolutions Committee Report
a) The Resolutions Committee shall meet and consider all properly submitted resolutions.
b) The Resolutions Committee shall produce a report on resolutions to be distributed to all
mayors, wardens, councillors, CAD's and Clerks of all member units at least thirty-five
(35) days before the date scheduled for the Annual Conference.
c) The Resolutions Committee shall, within thirty (30) days of its meeting, provide to the
clerk of any unit which has submitted a resolution which the Resolutions Committee has
not recommended, appropriately detailed reasons for the decision. The member unit
shall be notified within a reasonable time of the time and place of the Resolutions
Committee's pre -conference meeting.
d) The Resolutions Committee shall set forth, in its report, its recommendation on each
resolution and the reasons for that recommendation.
e) The Resolutions Committee may include in its recommendation any arguments made in
favour or against the resolution.
f) The Resolutions Committee may make editorial changes to the resolution as submitted,
which do not change the intent of the resolution, to make the resolution comply with
the basic requirements for resolutions set out in Section 6 of this policy. These editorial
changes do not need to be noted in the report of the Resolutions Committee.
g) If the changes made to the resolution as submitted change the intent of the resolution,
the member unit will be contacted by UNSM staff to determine if they agree with the
changes. If in agreement, only the revised resolution will be go forward. If there is
disagreement, the original resolution as drafted will be printed along with a revised
resolution, which shall be submitted as having come forth from the Resolutions
Committee by its own motion.
h) A member unit which has been notified that the Resolutions Committee will not be
recommending a resolution which it has submitted may make written and oral
presentations to the pre -conference meeting of the Resolutions Committee. The
Resolutions Committee may affirm, or change its recommendation.
i) The Resolutions Committee report shall consist of three parts asfollows:
• "A" Resolutions - those resolutions which deal with provincial issues of interestto
towns and/or regional municipalities and/or rural municipalities
"B" Resolutions - those resolutions which deal with subject matter which was
addressed by resolutions within the previous three (3) annual conferences.
• "C" Resolutions - those resolutions which deal with matters relating to the UNSM and
its organization, structure or operation.
6. Resolution Criteria
Resolutions submitted for consideration must meet the following criteria:
a) Resolutions should address a topic of general concern to municipalities on a provincial
level and not deal with local concerns.
b) Resolutions must deal with matters that fall within municipal jurisdiction. The exception
would be areas of provincial or federal jurisdiction where if the resolution was acted
upon, would have a positive economic, social or environmental impact on
municipalities.
c) The Resolutions Committee has the authority to reject any resolutions which do not
reflect the criteria as outlined in Sections 6 (a) or (b).
d) Recital clauses should be clear and concise and include the problem to be remedied and
the existing law or policy to which it is directed.
e) Recital clauses should be kept to a minimum. More lengthy explanations, if required,
should be included in an accompanying note. These notes should be provided to the
Resolutions Committee for its consideration.
f) The operative clauses should clearly outline specific actions to be taken. The action
required by the resolution must be an action which is to be undertaken by the UNSM.
The resolution should not refer to an action to be taken by an individual municipal unit
nor should it be a statement dealing with the policy of another order of government. A
request for a change in federal government policy should be expressed as the UNSM
recommending an action to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. A request for
change in provincial government policy should be expressed in terms of how the UNSM
is to advocate for that change.
-iv-
7. Late and Emergency Resolutions
a) Unless deemed an emergency resolution as outlined in Section 7(b), resolutions
submitted after the 80 day deadline are considered late and will not be accepted by the
Resolutions Committee.
b) Emergency resolutions are defined as any resolution that clearly speaks to an
emergency of immediate nature which occurred between the time of the original
resolution deadline and the commencement of the resolutions session. The Resolutions
Committee will be given discretion to determine if the resolution as submitted will go
forward to the voting delegates for consideration. If the Committee agrees that the
resolution should go forward, the Committee shall ask the voting delegates, by motion,
to vote on whether the emergency resolution should be debated on the floor. To debate
an emergency resolution will require support from at least two-thirds of the voting
delegates present.
c) Emergency Resolutions may be submitted by a member unit, caucus, region, Board of
Directors, Executive Committee or Resolutions Committee.
d) The resolution should be provided prior to the commencement of the resolutions
session although the Chair of the resolutions session may waive this requirement.
8. Debate on Resolutions
a) Each "A" Resolution in the report of the Resolutions Committee shall be debated
individually. The vote shall be on the merits of the resolution itself and not on the
recommendation of the Resolutions Committee.
b) "B" Resolutions approved by the Resolutions Committee shall be debated and voted on
as a block. "B" Resolutions not supported by the Resolutions Committee would be voted
on individually.
c) "B" resolutions supported by the Resolutions Committee cannot be debated individually
unless a motion is passed by a majority of the voting delegates present at the session,
that the particular resolution be debated on its own merits separate from the other
supported "B" resolutions.
d) "C" Resolutions shall be debated individually. The vote shall be on the merits ofthe
resolution itself and not on the report of the Resolutions Committee.
9. Voting on Resolutions
Resolutions can only be debated if there is a quorum of voting members present defined as 25
voting delegates with at least one member from each caucus.
- v-
10. Date of Approval
Approved on November 6, 2014
I
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD
DEVELOPMENT
Resolution 1A
MANDATORY CIVICS HIGH SCHOOL COURSE
=> County of Pictou
WHEREAS Nova Scotia is the cradle of Responsible Government in Canada and
for the generations following Joseph Howe's remarkable advancement of
parliamentary democracy, Nova Scotians maintained high voter turnout at
municipal, provincial and federal elections; and
WHEREAS following the Second World War, Nova Scotians and Canadians
demonstrated their democratic rights with high voter turnout, culminating with
the 1988 Federal Election, where voter turnout reached a modern day high of
75.3 percent nationally; and
WHEREAS voter turnout in Nova Scotia has dropped steadily since the mid
1980's and voter turnout in the most recent federal election dropped to just 61.3
percent in Nova Scotia; and
WHEREAS the decline in voter turnout will likely continue, as the number of
voters aged 18-34 are not exercising their right to vote. Voter turnout among
first time and young voters reached a low of 38.8 percent according to a report
on the 2011 Federal Election. This means six out of ten young Nova Scotians
don't vote; and
WHEREAS our education system in Nova Scotia remains our best opportunity to
teach the next generation of voting age adults the value of civic engagement and
becoming involved in their communities; and
WHEREAS the focus of our educational efforts should be to prepare and engage
all of our students to become active and responsible citizens; and
WHEREAS the OneNS Report highlighted the necessity for a more engaged,
robust debate on the future of our province eliciting the support and ideas of
Nova Scotians of all ages;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the UNSM work with the Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development to create a Civics Engagement
Committee on developing and implementing a mandatory Civics Course for high
school students.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
0)
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
Resolution 2A
STRAIGHT PIPE SEPTIC SYSTEM
=> District of Lunenburg
WHEREAS a straight pipe septic system is defined as a pipe that carries raw
sewage from a building and empties into a watercourse, ditch, or hole resulting
in untreated sewage entering the environment; and
WHEREAS straight pipes were historically used by cities, towns, villages, and
municipalities as an acceptable practice; and
WHEREAS all levels of government have worked together to fund sewage
treatment plants to help eliminate a high percentage of raw sewage being
dumped into Nova Scotia's natural environment; and
WHEREAS there are still straight pipes found throughout Nova Scotia; and
WHEREAS untreated sewage entering the environment creates health risks to
the general public; and
WHEREAS stopping pollution from straight pipes and non-functioning septic
systems is a provincial responsibility;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM urge the Province of Nova
Scotia create a law that when a dwelling is sold or a deed transferred that
straight pipe systems and visually non-functioning septic systems be corrected
within two years of the date of sale; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM urge the Province of Nova Scotia to
work with all levels of government to create a loan assistance program to lessen
the burden on homeowners for septic repairs and/or upgrades.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee does not support this
resolution.
EXPLANATION: While the Committee agrees that a provincial loan assistance
program be created to address straight pipe systems, the Committee does not feel
the burden should be placed squarely on those that purchase the property.
Current or new property owners should be able to correct the issue over a five-
year period assuming a provincial program was in place.
2015 Resolutions
3
FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
Resolution 3A
DERELICT VESSELS
=> Town of Shelburne
WHEREAS it is clear that derelict vessels present a real danger to small ports
and rural communities throughout Nova Scotia and across Canada; and
WHEREAS legislation is needed to prevent the victimization of our communities
by derelicts like these;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM recommend that the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities petition the Government of Canada to pass
legislation giving federal authorities a clear mandate to take action on derelict
vessels and prosecute the owners who abandon them; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM further request that the
Government of Nova Scotia petition the Government of Canada to pass
legislation giving federal authorities a clear mandate to take action on derelict
vessels and prosecute the owners who abandon them.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
M
FEDERATION OF CANADIAN MUNICIPALITIES
Resolution 4A
ROADWAY FUNDING
=> Town of Shelburne
WHEREAS small communities throughout Nova Scotia and across Canada are
faced with a growing infrastructure deficit beyond their means to address; and
WHEREAS roadways constitute a significant part of our aging infrastructure;
and
WHEREAS the Government of Nova Scotia and Government of Canada no longer
provide dedicated funding to small communities for roadway rehabilitation;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM request that the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities petition the Government of Canada to provide
dedicated funding to small communities for roadway rehabilitation; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM petition the Government of Nova
Scotia to provide dedicated funding to small communities for roadway
rehabilitation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
9
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS
Resolution 5A
NATIONAL PHARMACARE STRATEGY
=> County of Inverness
=> County of Victoria
WHEREAS Inverness and Victoria Counties have recognized and demonstrated
over the past years, its commitment to the importance of healthy citizens as the
foundation of a healthy, engaged and economically vibrant community; and
WHEREAS over 3 million Canadians, including many in our local communities,
don't take medication prescribed by their doctors because they can't afford
them; and
WHEREAS Canada is currently the ONLY country with a national Medicare
program that does not have a national pharmacare program; and
WHEREAS the risk of having no insurance for medication is high among lower
income Canadians which includes the service industry, precarious working and
seasonal workers, like many in Inverness and Victoria County; and
WHEREAS studies show that adding a national pharmacare program to our
national health care system would lower costs to businesses by over $8 billion
per year, providing Canadian companies competitive advantages in international
trade; and
WHEREAS recent research confirms that these gains can be achieved with little
or no increase in public investment; and
WHEREAS municipal government expenses for employee benefits would be
significantly reduced by a national pharmacare program; and
WHEREAS a national prescription drug formulary would support better quality
prescribing, including reducing dangerous and inappropriate prescribing to
Canadian seniors; and
WHEREAS a National Pharmacare plan is sound policy, both economically and
socially;
2015 Resolutions
I
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM urge the Province of Nova
Scotia to work with other Provinces and the Federal Government to develop and
implement a national Pharmacare program; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM also urge the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities to adopt a similar resolution respecting the Federal
Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
OFFICE OF THE FIRE MARSHAL
Resolution 6A
YOUTH FIREFIGHTER TRAINING PROGRAM
=> District of Lunenburg
WHEREAS volunteer firefighters are important emergency responders for many
Nova Scotia communities; and
WHEREAS municipalities and the provincial government both fill roles in
supporting this essential community service; and
WHEREAS many fire departments are struggling to find youth volunteers to
replace older retirees; and
WHEREAS a practical introduction to the fire service led by local firefighters,
and based on NFPA guidelines, could be initiated in high schools;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM urge the Provincial Office of the
Fire Marshal to establish a high school Youth Firefighter Training Program
similar to the existing program in Newfoundland; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM urge the Provincial Office of the
Fire Marshal to work with volunteer fire departments across the province on a
broader strategy to encourage more people to participate in the volunteer fire
service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
N
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Resolution 7A
AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT - SITE PLAN
APPROVAL WITH RESPECT TO ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS
=> District of Lunenburg
=> Town of Antigonish
WHEREAS Municipalities desire to protect and enhance community identity
through architectural controls; and
WHEREAS Municipalities should be able to avail themselves of appropriate land
use controls to manage the various land uses and design so as to meet and
complement the goals of the municipality; and
WHEREAS Site Plan Approval represents an important tool to assist
municipalities in achieving land -use planning goals and would serve to
streamline and add some flexibility to otherwise complex planning processes;
and
WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act does not enable the use of the Site
Plan Approval for architectural controls resulting in the use of zone standards to
control architectural controls, where zone standards offer little flexibility and are
narrowly prescriptive; and
WHEREAS the Halifax Charter, in recognition of the need for innovation and
flexibility in architectural design, enables Halifax to regulate architectural
controls through a Site Plan Approval;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM call upon the Province to
amend the Municipal Government Act to grant Municipalities the enabling
authority to regulate architecture through the use of the site plan approval
process.
Background:
Under Section 8 of the Municipal Government Act, municipalities are granted
tools with which to regulate land use. Regulatory tools include prescriptive
requirements, site plan approval and development agreements. Of these tools,
site plan approval provides a solid middle ground in terms of complexity, cost,
public consultation and timelines of application. Understandably, municipalities
wish to achieve municipal objectives in the least burdensome manner. This can
only be achieved where they may choose from a robust arsenal of planning tools.
2015 Resolutions
L
The ability to regulate architecture through the site plan approval tool is
available to Halifax through their Charter. The remaining municipalities -which
represent over one-half of the province's population -are not currently permitted
the use of this regulatory option notwithstanding the importance of design in
maintaining and enhancing community identity and vibrancy.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommends this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
10
PREMIER'S OFFICE
Resolution 8A
PROVISION OF INTERNET TO RURAL AREAS OF NOVA SCOTIA
➢ Region of Queens
➢ District of Lunenburg
➢ District of Chester
WHEREAS Nova Scotia needs to attract and retain entrepreneurs and residents,
and become more productive, innovative and competitive (as referenced in the
"One Nova Scotia" Report of February 2014) especially in its rural areas; and
WHEREAS participation in the global digital economy requires access to robust
and reliable Internet services; and
WHEREAS the existing service enabled under the Broadband for Rural Nova
Scotia (BRNS) initiative does not fulfill the obligation of coverage to all areas of
south-western Nova Scotia, nor does it provide adequate data transfer speed or
volume for many business and residential purposes, especially with the
imposition of a data cap; and
WHEREAS the existing provider has indicated it will cap rural broadband
Internet packages at 15 GB a month to its customers in Annapolis, Digby,
Yarmouth, Queens, Lunenburg, Shelburne and Kings counties; and
WHEREAS this cap will require customers to pay an additional $2 fee for each
GB up to a maximum of $20 more per month; and
WHEREAS the urban customer cap for the existing provider is unlimited or
capped at 250 GB of usage for higher speeds and other parts of Rural Nova
Scotia; and
WHEREAS in cases where broadband is provided by an alternate company,
broadband is not capped; and
WHEREAS this usage cap creates a significant disparity in critical infrastructure
between urban and rural communities; and
2015 Resolutions
11
WHEREAS the existing provider for south-western Nova Scotia declined to apply
for funding support to upgrade the service under the Connecting Canadians
program;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM urge the Nova Scotia
Government to reaffirm its commitment to rural communities, engage with all
stakeholders, develop alternative solutions, and ensure the provision of an
Internet service which provides a reliable high speed connection to all rurally -
based businesses and households; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM recommend setting the acceptable
target speed above the current 5 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 1
Mbps upload, in accordance with the Canadian Radio -television and
Telecommunications Commission's (CRTC) "Review of basic telecommunications
services" (2015).
Background:
The provision of robust and reliable Internet access is vital to enable citizens to
engage in today's digital economy and provide access to services, such as health
care, education, government, public safety, and banking services. Further, in
rural areas of Nova Scotia, including parts of the south-western shore and
Annapolis valley, the ability to attract and retain residents and entrepreneurial
activity is severely hampered by inadequate Internet provision.
In 2007, contracts were awarded under the Broadband for Rural Nova Scotia
(BRNS) initiative with the aim of connecting 100 per cent of Nova Scotia
households to `high-speed Internet' by the end of 2009. The contract was
awarded to Seaside Wireless Communications Inc. in the north-eastern counties
and Cape Breton, and to Eastlink in south-western Nova Scotia (Queens,
Lunenburg, Hants, Kings, Annapolis, Digby, Yarmouth, and Shelburne
counties) .
Since that time, use of the Internet has changed considerably. For many people,
their Internet access is completely integrated into their work and recreational
lives; services such as Netflix are replacing television and Skype is replacing the
telephone. The total amount of data transferred per month, per user, is much
higher in 2015 than it was in 2007. Business expectations on data transfer
move upwards along with the technology improvements, and those expectations
are often based on the technology available in urban centres.
Right from the beginning, users in south-western Nova Scotia who were
connected to the Eastlink Rural Connect service expressed disappointment, both
2015 Resolutions
12
with the difficulty with getting connected, and subsequently with the quality of
the service. Problems with speed, and consistent connection were common, and
have got worse over the intervening years as more people were connected to the
system. Rural businesses in Queens County are badly affected, as they are
competing with residential users for availability - Eastlink does not offer a
business service for rural customers.
Investment of up to $305M is being made by 2017 under the federal `Connecting
Canadians' program. Invitation to tender was made to telecom providers and the
successful bidders were announced recently. Eastlink declined to apply for
funding to support to upgrade of their rural service in south-west Nova Scotia
under this program. Seaside Communications Inc. received $6M to make
improvements to around 14,000 households in north-eastern Nova Scotia and
Cape Breton.
Furthermore, the Council of the Region of Queens Municipality has great
concerns in regards to Eastlink's recent announcement that they would be
implementing a `cap' on data usage. From August 1, 2015, up to 15 gigabyte
(GB) per month is included with the existing contract.
Thereafter, users are charged $2 per GB, up to $20 per month. For usage over
the new limit Eastlink has said that users will not be `cut off', and that the cap
system will be reviewed in November 2015. The problem for rural business with
this logic is that there is no other alternative available, and no commercial
contract option either. Queens County has home-based businesses which
require a much greater data use than 15GB per month. A video editing business
could use that much in a couple of days.
Council is encouraged by the Premier and Minister of Business's recent focus on
this issue in meeting with various Internet providers, municipalities and
stakeholders in an effort to develop alternative solutions. This resolution seeks
to encourage these efforts and assure the Province of the municipal commitment
to work together with the various partners to find an acceptable solution for the
affected areas.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
13
PREMIER'S OFFICE
Resolution 9A
ESTABLISHMENT OF "NEW ENGLAND DAY" IN NOVA SCOTIA ON THE
FIRST SATURDAY OF AUGUST EACH YEAR
=> County of Antigonish
WHEREAS New England is home to more than 15 million people; and
WHEREAS their geography puts New Englanders just a few hours' drive away
from Nova Scotia; and
WHEREAS Nova Scotia hosts many New England tourists every year, while some
New Englanders maintain summer residents in the Province; and
WHEREAS Nova Scotia and New England have shared profound economic,
historic and cultural ties; and
WHEREAS one in four Massachusetts residents claims ancestral ties with
Canada; and
WHEREAS the Province of Nova Scotia donates a giant Christmas tree to the
City of Boston, in thanks for their assistance after the 1917 Halifax Explosion;
and
WHEREAS in the spirit of friendship with our New England neighbors, family
and friends, Nova Scotians are encouraged to celebrate these strong economic,
historic and cultural ties;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM encourage the Government of
Nova Scotia to recognize "New England Day" in Nova Scotia on the first Saturday
of August each year.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
14
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
RENEWAL
Resolution 10A
TOLL ROADS
=> County of Pictou
WHEREAS the Province of Nova Scotia is responsible to maintain the 100 series
highway network that provides economic, environmental, health and
transportation benefits to our communities; and
WHEREAS the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal's Five
year Highway Improvement Plan does not sufficiently address improvements in a
timely manner to the series of single lane highways; and
WHEREAS the number of accidents and fatalities continue to occur at an
alarming rate; placing stress on Emergency First Responders and resources;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM request that the Province of
Nova Scotia adopt a highway strategy that includes fast tracking construction of
twinned 100 series highways across the province, wherever the need exists, to
be financed by a toll highway system that is fair and equitable to all users and
taxpayers in the province with the ultimate goal to save lives and ensure a safer
and more efficient highway transportation system for all Nova Scotians and
tourists.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
15
"B" RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 1B
FUNDING TO ASSIST IN REDEVELOPMENT OR DEMOLITION OF SURPLUS
SCHOOL BUILDINGS
=> Town of Annapolis Royal
=> Town of Yarmouth
WHEREAS under legislation, school boards have control and management of school
buildings until they are declared surplus to the board's needs, and once a school
board no longer needs a school building to deliver the educational program, one of
two scenarios occurs:
1. Generally, schools built before 1982 revert to the municipality in which they
are situated, and which holds the title to the land and building.
2. Schools built after 1982 are constructed and owned by the province and the
province regains control of the property when the school closes. In such
instances Municipalities in which the surplus schools are situated, have an
opportunity to have the properties turned over to them by the province; and
WHEREAS with declining enrolments in most rural Nova Scotian communities,
municipal governments are being approached or are required to, accept the
turnover of schools that have become surplus and thereby assume responsibility for
ownership, maintenance, operation and repurposing/redevelopment or demolition
and potentially, environmental remediation; and
WHEREAS there is more and more pressure being placed on municipal
governments to fund an increasing number of different services, projects and
activities for the betterment of their respective communities; and
WHEREAS municipal governments are seeing, especially in rural Nova Scotia,
declining opportunities for revenue generation apart from increasing property taxes;
and
WHEREAS it should not be the intent of any level of government to place any
financial burden onto another level of government;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM engage in discussions with the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Transportation and
Infrastructure Renewal and the Department of Municipal Affairs, to set in place a
process wherein when a surplus educational structure and related property has
been or will be turned over to a municipal unit that there will be sufficient funding
to assist in the potential future re -development or demolition of said building and
related property, including but not limited to environmental remediation costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution.
2015 Resolutions
16
"C" RESOLUTIONS
Resolution 1C
ENDORSEMENT OF "RECREATION IN NOVA SCOTIA: A SHARED
STRATEGY FOR ADVANCING THE PURPOSES, PRIORITIES AND IMPACTS"
=> Town of Truro
WHEREAS recreation has an almost unlimited potential to develop life skills, to
enhance communities and to promote and maintain healthy, independent
lifestyles which contribute significantly to the quality of life in Nova Scotia; and
WHEREAS recreation programs help reduce crime and other anti -social
behaviours; and
WHEREAS recreation programs help increase tourism and retain residents in
Nova Scotian communities; and
WHEREAS community recreation facilities continue to be a hub for healthy,
active living; and
WHEREAS Nova Scotia municipalities are the mass providers of recreation
which requires strategic support in the form of policies; and
WHEREAS recreation has not been able to realize its full potential due to the
lack of a provincial recreation policy or strategy; and
WHEREAS in the absence of a policy, recreation has been susceptible to a great
deal of political influence resulting in the needs of special interest groups being
served rather than the population as a whole; and
WHEREAS recreation stakeholders and provincial staff require a framework to
better enhance recreation opportunities in Nova Scotia; and
WHEREAS in February 2015, along with the other provinces and territories, the
government of Nova Scotia endorsed the 'Framework for Recreation in Canada
2015: Pathways to Wellbeing' which articulates the roles and responsibilities of
all three levels of government with regards to the provision of recreation services;
and
WHEREAS the Province recently released THRIVE!, a Childhood Obesity
Prevention Strategy, which focuses on physical inactivity of which recreation is a
major component; and
2015 Resolutions
17
WHEREAS the development of the Shared Strategy was a collaborative one with
several different organizations represented on the guiding task team; and
WHEREAS the Shared Strategy addresses the goals of active living, inclusion
and access, connecting people and nature, supportive environments and
recreation capacity;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the UNSM endorse 'Recreation in Nova
Scotia: A Shared Strategy for Advancing the Purposes, Priorities and Impacts '
with the purpose of clearly defining collaborative goals of the municipal
recreation sector and stakeholders.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee supports this resolution based
on referenced report attached to the resolution.
2015 Resolutions
Pam Myra
From: UNSM Info <Info@unsm.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 12:29 PM
To: Tracy Verbeke
Subject: QUESTIONS FOR MINISTERS' PANEL AT UNSM 2015 CONFERENCE --Action Required --
Submit Questions by October 23, 2014
TO: Mayors/Wardens, Councillors, and CAD's, All Units
RE: QUESTIONS FOR MINISTERS' PANEL AT UNSM 2015 CONFERENCE
The UNSM would like your input in identifying important questions to ask Provincial Ministers during the
Ministers' Panel at the Fall Conference on November 5".
You will still be able to ask questions from the floor, but prepared questions will give the Ministers ample tune to
research an answer to your important issues.
Please respond to this request by Friday, October 23. You can reply through email (infoCu),unsm.ca) or by
fax (902) 425-5592.
Phone: (902) 423-8331
Fax: (902) 425-5592
www. unsm. ca
PLEASE NOTE: If you do not want to receive communications from UNSM, please e-mail Tracy
Verbeke at tverbekekunsm.ca, and you will be removed from the mailing list.
4.3
Shared Strategy for Advancing the
Purposes, Priorities and Impacts of
Recreation in Nova Scotia
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillillillillI
uuuuuuuuullllll
V X20 15
°Ilf°'a 1b ...11 .f C o e
Section 1 — Introduction
Section 2 — Key Elements of the Framework for Recreation in Canada ................................................. 2
Section 3 — Nova Scotia Priorities...........................................................................................................4
Section 4 — Summary of the Nova Scotia Strategy for Advancing Recreation......................................10
Section5 — Moving Forward.................................................................................................................11
Section 6 — Appendices
Appendix I — Summary of Steps Taken to Develop the Nova Scotia Shared Strategy................12
Appendix II — Documents Reviewed in the Development of the Strategy...................................13
Section 1 ......,,,,,, Introduction
The recreation sector in this province has a rich and successful history of engaging Nova Scotians in high
quality and innovative recreational experiences. These experiences, be they physical, social, intellectual,
creative or spiritual, contribute to individual wellbeing, vibrant, prosperous and healthy communities, and
a closer relationship with the natural world. Individuals and organizations that make up the recreation
sector have worked collaboratively across sectors establishing deep roots in communities, establishing a
unique set of competencies and developing considerable physical infrastructure.
We are facing significant social and environmental challenges and recreation has proven to play an
important role in addressing them. For example, engagement in recreation is helping to reduce obesity,
diabetes, anti -social behaviour, social isolation and negative impacts on the environment. As the
consequences and costs associated with these challenges increase, so does the value of recreation as a
way of mitigating them.
There is also evidence that recreation positively impacts tourism, helps to attract business, enriches
neighbourhoods, and encourages environmental protection.
The field has reached a critical point in its evolution. To continue to advance, recreation can and should
make a more significant and far reaching contribution to the quality of life.
The dialogue about a progressive future for recreation began with the National Recreation Summit, held
in Lake Louise in the fall of 2011. Arising from the Summit was a commitment to develop a national
framework for recreation that would include a bolder vision for the sector. Significant efforts to consolidate
research, consult with thought leaders and key stakeholders and build consensus resulted in the
landmark document A Framework for Recreation in Canada 2015 — Pathways to Wellbeing. The
framework was endorsed by Provincial and Territorial Ministers responsible for Sport, Physical Activity
and Recreation and supported by the Government of Canada in February 2015.
In keeping with this national movement, Recreation Nova Scotia and the Active Living Branch of the Nova
Scotia Department of Health and Wellness partnered to develop a bold strategy for the advancement of
recreation across Nova Scotia. Similar efforts are underway in other jurisdictions across the country.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the ideas being developed nationally and in Nova Scotia were very similar. Both
were being informed by the same research, best practices and national discussions. The extent of the
alignment became clear during a series of consultations with recreation professionals and volunteers held
in May 2014 to discuss and provide comment on a draft of the national framework. The feedback on the
national framework was overwhelmingly positive and consistent. The document was seen to be highly
relevant for Nova Scotia. It effectively articulated the challenges and opportunities facing recreation. It
also provided a bold and progressive vision for the future along with a compelling set of goals and
priorities. Through the consultations it became clear that there would be many advantages for the
recreation sector in Nova Scotia to embrace the core elements of the national framework (definitions,
emerging challenges and opportunities for recreation, vision, values and the five strategic goals). It was
also clear that it was necessary to develop a provincial strategy that defined how we could contribute
meaningfully to the national agenda while pursuing the priorities and directions most relevant here.
Therefore, the recreation sector in Nova Scotia has adopted A Framework for Recreation in
Canada 2015 — Pathways to Wellbeing as our guiding framework and will focus this strategy on
the directions and priorities most relevant to our provincial context.
It is helpful to review the full national framework document. If it is not attached to this document, it can be
found here on the Leisure Information Network website.
The purpose of the Shared Strategy for Advancing the Purposes, Priorities and Impacts of Recreation in
Nova Scotia is to clarify a shared vision and set of priorities that reflects the aspirations and the broader
potential of the recreation sector in the province. It is also intended to strengthen alignment of plans and
policies and facilitate even richer opportunities for collaboration and resource sharing. It is meant to foster
innovation, and the development of complementary initiatives. It is also intended to provide a blueprint for
how governments, NGO's, community organizations and others might contribute to the recreation
system. At the core of this strategy is a way to advance the impacts of recreation in Nova Scotia.
Over the course of a year and through a series of consultations and meetings, the recreation sector in
Nova Scotia has reached consensus on the way forward. This document is the result of a truly
collaborative process, extensive engagement, thoughtful and strategic discussions, and a commitment to
focus on a narrow set of priorities where the greatest impact can be achieved.
Section ......,,,,,, IKey Elements ofthe Firairneworl0oir I e ireati n in Canada
A New Definition of Recreation
In 1974, delegates at the First National Conference of Provincial Recreation Ministers endorsed the
following statement: "Recreation is a fundamental human need for citizens of all ages and interests and
for both sexes and is essential to the psychological, social and physical wellbeing of man." Since then
recreation's role in fostering wellbeing has grown to become even more important.
Recreation has previously been defined and measured on the basis of providing quality opportunities. But
providing opportunities is, to borrow the economists' phrase, necessary but no longer sufficient. We must
set our sights higher and assess recreation's contribution on the basis of outcomes.
As a result of this shift to a greater emphasis on outcomes, the national framework has defined recreation
as:
The experience that results from freely -chosen participation in physical, social, intellectual,
creative and spiritual pursuits that enhance individual and community wellbeing.
While the national framework and this Shared Strategy have fully embraced this broad definition of
recreation, they have also adopted a strong, but not exclusive, focus on physical dimension of recreation
because of the important health benefits associated with physical activity.
The Emerging Agenda for Recreation in Canada
A Framework for Recreation in Canada 2015 — Pathways to Wellbeing is the result of a collaborative
effort of the provincial and territorial governments (except Quebec), the Canadian Parks and Recreation
Association and the Provincial/Territorial Parks and Recreation Associations.
This important framework was developed through a series of national summits and consultations with
thought leaders and practitioners from across the sector.
A bold vision for recreation is outlined in the national framework:
A Canada in which everyone is engaged in meaningful, accessible recreation experiences that foster:
• Individual wellbeing: Individuals with optimal mental and physical wellbeing, who are engaged
and contributing members of their families and communities
• Community wellbeing: Communities that are healthy, inclusive, welcoming, resilient and
sustainable
• The wellbeing of places and spaces: Natural and built environments that are appreciated,
nurtured and sustained.
These aspects are very much inter -related as expressed in the following diagram.
Five goals that will help achieve the vision are included in the framework:
1. To foster active, healthy living through recreation.
2. To increase inclusion and access to recreation for populations that face constraints to
participation.
3. To help people connect to nature through recreation.
4. To ensure the provision of supportive physical and social environments that encourage
participation in recreation and build strong, caring communities.
5. To ensure the continued growth and sustainability of the recreation field.
The recreation sector in Nova Scotia fully embraces the national framework as our guiding framework.
We believe it effectively articulates the challenges and opportunities facing recreation, provides a bold
and progressive vision for the future, expresses the values and operating principles we're committed to
and outlines a compelling set of goals.
Needless to say, the recreation sector in Nova Scotia requires a set of priorities for action that are
specific to this province. The following section details the provincial priorities associated with each of the
goals.
Section 3 ......,,,,,. INova Scotia Priorities
National Framework Goal 1: Active living. Foster active living through physical recreation.
Nova Scotia Priority 1.1 Nova Scotians have the recreation competencies and physical literacy to
be active for life
Active living through recreation is essential to healthy human development and vibrant communities.
Developing recreation competencies and physical literacy provide the foundation for participation and
play in a wide variety of recreational pursuits during all the stages of a rich and fulfilling life.
Recreation competencies refer to the knowledge, understanding, skills, confidence and motivation to
value and engage in recreation throughout the life span.
Areas of Focus:
a) build common understanding of the role of recreation in promoting the physical literacy needed
to be active for life
b) promote the education and development of professionals and volunteers within the recreation
and other sectors to increase recreation competency and physical literacy with an emphasis on
L pre-schoolers,
ii. children in elementary school, and
iii. older adults
c) educate and collaborate with our colleagues in other sectors, including public health and social
services to promote active living as a key component of individual and community wellbeing
d) work with communities and partners to advance recreation competencies and physical literacy
Nova Scotia Priority 1.2 Children and their families are physically active every day, playing in a
variety of settings with an emphasis on engaging in the outdoors
Shifts in the way children are spending their time has been shown to have negative impacts on their
health and wellbeing. Children's lives are more planned, media -focused and sedentary. They are less
engaged in unstructured play—particularly play outdoors. The value that families place on recreation
and their engagement in it has significant influence on the incorporation of recreation—and its
benefits—in children's lives.
Areas of Focus:
a) support the interest and capabilities of early childhood education professionals and teachers to
promote and lead quality physical activities and outdoor play
b) provide easily accessible and navigable resources that
i. promote the value/benefits of family recreation,
ii. outline safety considerations and management strategies, and
iii. help families engage in physical activity and play
c) support the provision of experiences for families that introduce them to recreation
d) promote the availability of a variety of outdoor play options in neighbourhoods
e) support recreation leaders to reduce sedentary behaviours through increased awareness and
proven approaches
Nova Scotia Priority 1.3 Older adults are regularly engaged in recreation
The average age of the population is increasing. Participation in physically active recreation during the
"pre" and "early" senior years (age 45-65) increases the likelihood this population group will continue
being physically active as they age. Engaging older adults in active and passive forms of recreation can
also promote mental health and address issues such as social isolation.
Areas of Focus
a) promote and facilitate the participation of adults 45-65 years of age and older in any form of
recreation that may prepare them to be more physically active as they age
b) support those involved in the provision of services to older adults to promote, provide and lead
active and passive forms of recreation
c) provide easily -accessible, user-friendly resources that enable individuals to connect with others
who share their recreation interests, find appropriate programs or plan self-directed activities
National Framework Goal 2: Inclusion and access. Increase inclusion and access to recreation for
populations that face constraints to participation.
Nova Scotia Priority 2.1 Constraints to participation in recreation experiences for all children and
youth are eliminated
Access to public education and health care are considered basic rights of all children. Recreation is
essential to the healthy development of children so the right to constraint -free access to recreational
activities should also be considered essential. Financial, transportation, cultural, physical, and
psychological are some, but not all of the constraints and barriers that need to be addressed.
Areas of Focus:
a) collaborate with colleagues in other sectors to develop and implement strategies and policies,
which ensure that all children fully participate in recreation opportunities without financial,
geographic or cultural barriers
b) prepare and support recreation practitioners to engage marginalized children and youth
c) support the provision of sustainable and quality recreation infrastructure and opportunities in
communities
d) facilitate access to recreation equipment
Nova Scotia Priority 2.2: Participation in recreation by Nova Scotians facing disparities is
significantly expanded.
Diverse populations include individuals with visible differences such as sex, gender, age, and ability. Other
differences may be invisible, such as sexual orientation, education, religious beliefs, socioeconomic status
and mental health concerns that affect wellbeing.
For recreation to play a meaningful role in community wellbeing, the sector must become more focused on
serving those segments of the population that are most in need, strengthening inclusion, celebrating
diversity, and striving to incorporate the needs and viewpoints of diverse communities into all aspects of
recreation services and programs.
Areas of Focus:
a) collaboratively develop and implement recreation policies and opportunities which are explicitly
inclusive, respectful and relevant for diverse population groups
b) strengthen inclusion competencies and practices within the recreation sector, including
increasing the diversity of recreation professionals and volunteers
c) develop and implement strategies and policies that support full participation of persons with
disabilities in recreation experiences
Nova Scotia Priority 2.3 Equitable participation by all women and girls
Research clearly shows that rates of participation of females in many aspects of recreation are lower than
those of males. Opportunities that are tailored for women and girls are essential to improve the situation.
Areas of Focus:
a) develop and implement participation opportunities designed and led by women and girls
b) increase the number of females in leadership roles
c) build organizational capacity to increase opportunities for women and girls
National Framework Goal 3: Connecting people and nature. Help people connect to nature through
recreation.
Nova Scotia Priority 3.1 The number of Nova Scotians recreating outdoors is significantly
increased
People have an inherent need to connect with the natural world. It is associated with improved mental, and
physical health, as well as improved ability to think, learn and remember. It is also known to enhance
creativity and positive social behaviours. As a result, community designs are increasingly incorporating
opportunities for exposure to natural environments.
Areas of Focus:
a) create public awareness and education programs to increase awareness of nature's
importance for healthy human development and families and vibrant communities
b) promote and support a provincial information portal that provides guidance regarding where
and how to pursue recreation outdoors.
c) strengthen outdoor leadership to provide safe and appealing outdoor experiences
d) provide a broad range of programs that develop skills and confidence to pursue recreation in
natural settings
e) improve access to our natural spaces through the acquisition of natural areas, policy
development, and other means
f) improve access to outdoor recreation equipment
g) monitor and address liability/insurance constraints
Nova Scotia Priority 3.2 Recreation policies and practices minimize negative impacts on the
natural environment
Because nature -based recreation can have a negative impact on the natural environment, the recreation
sector has a role to play in promoting and taking action to ensure stewardship of natural spaces.
Areas of Focus:
a) incorporate program elements that encourage responsible use and protection of natural
settings
b) ensure that recreation policies and practices leave as small an environmental footprint as
possible
National Framework Goal 4: Supportive environments. Ensure the provision of supportive physical
and social environments that encourage participation in recreation and
help to build strong, caring communities.
Nova Scotia Priority 4.1 Built and natural environments inspire and support recreation in
communities
Supportive physical environments help people adopt healthy, active lifestyles by making "the healthy
choices the easy choices." Environments for recreation encompass many settings, including sports fields,
recreational waters, trails, parks, and community centres.
Areas of Focus:
a) provide standardized assessment tools and indices that enable communities to assess the extent
to which their public places and spaces support the contribution recreation makes to community
wellbeing
b) promote the incorporation and preservation of quality built environments, green space, natural
settings, trails, recreational waters into community priorities, plans and policies
c) encourage and support communities to plan, develop and maintain active transportation routes
that safely and easily connect people to the places they want to go
Nova Scotia Priority 4.2 Social environments encourage participation in recreation and build
strong, caring communities
Supportive social environments, where we take care of each other, our communities and our natural
environment, are at the core of what it means to be a healthy and vibrant community. For many people, social
engagement is at the core of what makes recreation enjoyable.
Areas of Focus:
a) develop a shared understanding of community wellbeing and how recreation contributes to
enjoyment, quality of life and the public good
b) strengthen partnerships and collaborative processes with schools, distinct cultural
communities, social service groups, the arts community, law enforcement, transportation and
urban planners, community organizations and the private sector to create social environments
that encourage participation in recreation
National Framework Goal 5: Recreation capacity. Ensure the continued growth and sustainability
of the recreation field.
Nova Scotia Priority 5.1 Professionals and volunteers excel as leaders in the sector
The recreation sector is constantly evolving. Ongoing development of new competencies and leadership
capabilities is critical to the growth and sustainability of the field.
Areas of Focus:
a) define the core competencies and best practices associated with excellent recreation practitioners
b) encourage and support post -secondary institutions to develop curricula that remain relevant to the
evolving needs of the sector
c) provide and promote high quality, relevant and accessible opportunities for all professionals and
volunteers to acquire and continuously expand their competencies
d) update and revitalize strategies to strengthen volunteer recruitment and development
Nova Scotia Priority 5.2 Recreation is contributing in substantive ways to the public good and is
therefore recognized as essential for healthy, vibrant communities
"Public goods" refer to laws, policies or actions that benefit all Nova Scotians. While recreation has always
contributed to the public good, programming and resources have been focused on, and therefore primarily
benefit, the segment of the population that has chosen to participate. Recreation is being called upon to extend
its power and potential to benefit all Nova Scotians.
Areas of Focus:
a) expand awareness of the contributions recreation is making to address pressing societal and
environmental issues and promote the power and potential of recreation to play a lead role in the
pursuit of public good
b) proactively position recreation as a recognizable element of all health, social, environmental
and economic strategies and initiatives:
Nova Scotia Priority 5.3 Strengthened alignment of priorities, collaborations and sharing of
resources within recreation and across other public, not-for-profit and
private sectors
The recreation sector in Nova Scotia has always practiced and benefited from extensive collaboration and
partnership. Taking recreation to the next level will require an even greater alignment of priorities, collective
efforts, sharing of resources and deeper partnerships within the sector as well as with other sectors whose
objectives intersect with our own.
Areas of Focus
a) increase the alignment of priorities, sharing of resources and partnerships within the recreation
sector and amongst other sectors
b) strengthen alignment of recreation strategies, policies and practices with other public, not-for-
profit and private sector organizations
Nova Scotia Priority 5.4 Improved access to quality information that supports evidence -based
planning and decision making
It is essential that recreation professionals have access to current, relevant data that informs their work but it is
hard to sift through the volume of information available.
Areas of Focus
a) promote and facilitate use of existing repositories of information and resources
b) collect, interpret, and make locally -relevant information available to practitioners in an efficient and
user-friendly way
c) invest in strategic research that will inform strategic development of the field
Section ......,,,,,. ummary of the INova Scotia Strategy -for Advaincling Recreation
Situation Analysis
Issues where recreation is able to make a unique and important contribution
1. demographic changes
4. increasing inequities
2. urbanization and threats to the natural
5. social challenges
environment
6. infrastructure deficit
3. challenges to health
Vision
Everyone engaged in recreation experiences that foster:
• individual wellbeing
• community wellbeing
the wellbeina of places and spaces in built and natural environments.
Values & Operating Principles
1. inclusion and equity
5. outcome -driven
2. public good
6. quality and relevance
3. sustainability
7. evidence -based
4. lifelong participation
8. partnership & collaboration
1: Active living
Foster active living through
physical recreation
NS Priorities
1.1 Nova Scotians have
the recreation
competencies and physical
literacy to be active for life
1.2 Children and their
families are physically
active every day, playing in
a variety of settings with an
emphasis on engaging in
the outdoors
1.3 Older adults are
regularly engaged in
recreation
Goal 2: Inclusion
and access
Increase inclusion and
access to recreation for
populations that face
constraints to participation
NS Priorities
2.1 Constraints to
participation in recreation
experiences for all children
and youth are eliminated
2.2 Participation in
recreation by Nova
Scotians from diverse
populations, communities,
and cultures is free of
constraints and
significantly expanded
2.3 Equitable participation
by all women and girls
Goal 3:
Connecting
people & nature
• Help people connect to
nature through recreation
NS Priorities
3.1 The number of Nova
Scotians recreating
outdoors is significantly
increased
3.2 Recreation policies
and practices minimize
negative impacts on the
natural environment
Goal 4:
Supportive
environments.
Ensure the provision of
supportive physical and
social environments that
encourage participation in
recreation and help to build
strong, caring
communities.
NS Priorities
4.1 Built and natural
environments inspire and
support recreation in
communities
4.2 Social environments
encourage participation in
recreation and build strong,
caring communities
Goal 5:
Recreation
capacity
Ensure the continued
growth and sustainability of
the recreation field
NS Priorities
5.1 Professionals and
volunteers excel as leaders
in the sector
5.2 Recreation is
contributing in substantive
ways to the public good
and therefore recognized
as essential for healthy,
vibrant communities
5.3 Strengthened
alignment of priorities,
collaborations and sharing
of resources within
recreation and across other
sectors
5.4 Improved access to
quality information that
supports evidence -based
planning and decision
making
It
Section 5 ......,,,,,. IMoving Forward
Successful implementation of this strategy will depend on:
• the plans and activities of Nova Scotia's recreation organizations being strongly aligned with this
strategy,
• the development of tools and resources to achieve the strategy's goals,
• other sectors adopting or aligning goals and objectives from this strategy
• Nova Scotia contributing to and benefitting from work being done to advance A Framework for
Recreation in Canada 2015 — Pathways to Wellbeing.
Successful implementation of the strategy will be supported by:
1. Alignment of roles within Recreation Nova Scotia and the Active Living Branch of Health and
Wellness
2. Initiation of action to build momentum and demonstrate commitment:
a) organizations ready to align themselves with the Strategy will be encouraged and
supported to proceed and communicate results
b) the two lead partners, Recreation Nova Scotia and the Active Living Branch of Health and
Wellness, will develop and communicate specific plans and commitments by Fall of 2015.
3. Establishment of a team to provide leadership and coordination of support for the implementation
of the strategy, including:
a) facilitating collaboration: help to share ideas, encourage and assist in joint/coordinated
projects, share resources, increase capacity for thinking and working more strategically
and collaboratively
b) developing resources — champions, information, profiles of success stories, materials to
help with presentation lcommunication of the strategy and soliciting support of decision
makers, tools to assist with incorporation of elements from the strategy into local recreation
plans and activities
c) convening a "summit" in conjunction with the RNS annual conference beginning in the Fall
of 2016. The purpose is to profile progress, build capacity, work on specific topics and
prepare next steps - other gatherings could be organized as required
c) forming and supporting provincial working groups to advance specific elements of the
strategy
d) monitoring and communicating progress.
Section 6 ......,,,,,, ppen ii es
. beim iix II ,,,,,,,,,,, S imam irk of Steps °Yi" Ikeim Devello�p tll�e Il�ov S otiie Shared tir :te
1. Original commitment to develop a provincial recreation strategy made in June 2005 by then Minister
Rodney MacDonald to Recreation Nova Scotia (RNS) Board of Directors. An Interdepartmental
Committee formed initially. After a series of delays successive governments have re -confirmed a
commitment to the development of a provincial recreation policy
2. First National Recreation Summit (2011) — commitment to a national framework for recreation
3. Task Team formed to develop a provincial framework as a partnership between RNS and Active
Living Branch H&W (2013)
4. Review of documents and consultation with "thought leaders" to gather relevant background and
insights (Fall 2013)
Consideration of a number of related policies and strategies
- Thrive! (2011)
- Active Canada 20/20 (2012)
- Canadian Sport Policy (2012)
- Connecting Canadians to Nature (2014)
6. Task Team develops first draft of Shared Strategy (Winter 2014)
7. Consultations with professionals and volunteers across province to solicit feedback on the
Framework for Recreation in Canada (Spring 2014)
8. Held 10 regional consultations (142 attending sessions; 83 completing on-line survey; 70% represent
municipal recreation staff, elected officials, community volunteers; range of sectors represented).
Also consulted UNSM Board. (Spring 2014)
9. Decision to integrate the National and Provincial Frameworks into a single document for Nova Scotia
(Summer 2014)
10. Workshop with experts to further develop Provincial Priorities (Fall 2014)
11. Presentation of a completed Draft Shared Strategy to Interdepartmental Committee in Government,
recreation professionals and volunteers at the RNS Conference and UNSM Board (Fall 2014)
12. Second National Recreation Summit (November 2014)
13. Finalize Shared Strategy for Recreation in Nova Scotia (Spring 2015)
14. Framework for Recreation in Canada presented for endorsement by Ministers in February 2015
15. Seek formal endorsement for Provincial Framework from Interdepartmental Committee and the
Minister of Health and Wellness, the RNS Board and the UNSM Board (early spring 2015)
i
eir�dii IIII ����������� I�uimeimt Ieviiewed iiia tl�e Il�evell� imeim� �f tl�e �kira�ke
1. A Framework for Recreation in Canada 2015 — Pathways to Wellbeing — Canadian Parks and
Recreation Association, 2015
2. 1987 National Recreation Statement
3. National Recreation Summit — Synopsis — December 2011
4. Towards a National Recreation Agenda — One Year Later— slide deck
5. Towards a National Recreation Agenda - Discussion document March 28, 2013
6. Towards a National Agenda for Recreation — The NS Response — author Brenda Robertson — May
2013
7. National Recreation Agenda Provincial/Territorial consultations summary report — CPRA May 2013
8. Report on the National Recreation Roundtable in Fredericton, NB- prepared by Don Lenihan, June
2013
9. Canadian Sport Policy 2012
10. Stonehame Summit — Highland Region -notes and proceedings -February 2012
11. Key Questions that Rose from the Recreation Rising Summit — slide deck presentation by Brenda
Robertson — January 31, 2013
12. Link to Recreation Rising notes and proceedings
13. Examining Municipal Recreation study - November 2012
14. The Core and The Edges of Recreation — A Call to Action — February 2011
15. The Power and the Potential — April 2008
16. Saskatchewan Recreation Sector Policy Final Report — November 2012
17. Provincial Recreation Policy — Overview Updated by M. Chauvin, H. Praught, R. Gilbert - September
18, 2013
18. Recreation Nova Scotia Strategic Framework
19. Active Living Branch of the NS Department of Health and Wellness Strategic Plan
20. Active Canada 20/20 — May 2012
21. Connecting Canadians with Nature — 2014
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
DEPARTMENT:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND:
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
AM Wei IM I
October 14, 2015
Warden Webber and Municipal Councilors
Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng
Engineering and Public Works
Cost Shared Subdivision Streets Fiscal 2016-2017
4.4
There is a three (3) year cost share agreement, expiring after the 2017-2018 fiscal year, between Nova
Scotia Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (NSTIR) and the Municipality to upgrade
provincially owned and maintained streets. It is the Province's responsibility, under this agreement, to
design, tender and manage the construction of paving work. It is the Municipality's responsibility to
identify the roads to be paved. The program is cost -shared between the Province and the Municipality,
each paying 50% of the total construction costs.
There are some important considerations to note from the agreement, that are paraphrased as
follows:
1.1.d) "Paving" work required to upgrade street to meet paving standard specifications. Also meaning
paving, repaving or double chip sealing of Village or Subdivision Streets. The work DOES NOT include
studies, construction or reconstruction of other infrastructure (i.e. sidewalks, water, sewer, lighting)
1.1 e) "Village and Subdivision Street" means the village and subdivision streets constructed prior to
April 1, 1995 under the care and control of the Province.
7.1 The Municipality shall pay fifty percent (50 %) of the total amount of the statement of account for
Paving, which may include cost overruns and one hundred percent (100%) of the amount for
additional work or cost overruns.
DISCUSSION:
As per section 3.1 of the signed three (3) year cost share agreement with the Province, the
Municipality is required to provide to the Province a notice on or before October 31, stating if it
intends to participate in the program for the upcoming fiscal year, and if so, which streets it wishes to
be considered.
At this time, staff is not aware of any requests to pave provincially owned and maintained streets in
the Municipality of the District of Chester.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
There is a lack of Municipal policy (i.e. a procedure for the identification of streets and their
prioritization) that governs this request by NSTIR.
2 Financial/Budgetary:
There is a lack of Municipal policy that governs the Municipality's funding requirements (i.e. 50%
cost sharing and 100% of additional work), with the options of funding being from the General
area rate or an Improvement charge (i.e. a special tax, which can either be area rate or uniform
charge)
3 Environmental:
4 ICSP:
5 Other:
The Municipality of the District of Chester has taken advantage of this program in the past, an
example would be East Wind Drive (2005-2006).
ATTACHMENTS:
- Three Year Cost Share Agreement for Subdivision Streets, dated September 18th, 2014
- Cost Shared Subdivision Streets Fiscal 2016-2017 Lists, dated October 8th, 2015
OPTIONS:
Staff are seeking direction from Municipal Council on the following:
1) Submission of a list of streets by October 31, 2015 for the 2016-2017 Fiscal year;
2) Development of a policy and procedure to help guide both Council and staff through the
process of accessing this Provincial program for its residents;
3) Promotion of this program to public through such means as the Municipal Newsletter and
Website;
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
Signature
Department of Transportation
& Infrastructure Renewal
Capital Programs
September 18, 2014
Ms. Erin Beaudin
Chief Administrative Officer
Municipality of the District of Chester
P.O. Box 369
Chester, NS BOJ 1JO
Dear Ms. Beaudin:
Johnston Building, 4`h Floor Bus: 902-424-2303
1672 Granville Street Fax: 902-424-0571
PO Box 186 E-mail: mckeecl@gov.ns,ca
Halifax, Nova Scotia
63J 2N2
Copy to
Cato
Recsived SEP ^"
2 3 �.0 A
Original to — — . _ r • f
RTOewrd by Ntiy
t
RE: THREE YEAR COST SHARE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS
The current three year agreement for the paving of subdivision streets expires March 31, 2015. Attached
are two copies of the new three year agreement to be entered into with the Minister of Transportation and
Infrastructure Renewal in order to continue this program.
The document will cover the terms of the agreement but will not list any specific subdivision roads that
are to be paved. For each of the three years covered by the agreement, the Municipality will be asked to
submit a prioritized list of roads for the next fiscal year. The Minister will return a letter advising of the
approved roads for that fiscal year. Once the Municipality agrees to the approved list, it will become part
of the agreement.
Please complete and affix Municipal Seal on the Resolution of Council authorizing the Warden and a
designate to sign the agreements, then have the Warden and the designate sign both copies of the
agreement, have witnessed, and affix the Municipal Seal. Please return all documents to me on or before
October 31, 2014.
The Department requests that the Municipality return the attached agreement, whether or not you
currently intend to submit subdivision roads for the program. Signing the outline agreement in no way
commits the Municipality to the cost-sharing of the paving of any subdivision roads, unless an approved
list is accepted in any fiscal year of ttie agreement. However, not Fiaving a signed agreement onF Te wiff
prevent the Municipality from requesting any subdivision paving under this program for the next three
fiscal years,
Yours truly,
&9�_
Carol McKee
Capital Program Administration Officer
3ALITY OF THE DISTI ESTER
151 King Street, PO Box 369, Chester, NS BOJ 1JO
Telephone: 902-275-3554 Facsimile: 902-275-4771
Carol McKee
Capital Program Administration Officer
NS Department of Transportation &
Infrastructure Renewal
Johnston Building, 4th Floor
1672 Granville Street
PO Box 186
HALIFAX NS B3J 2N2
Dear Ms. McKee:
email: pnWragchester.ca
October 20, 2014
RE: 2014-463/478
RE: THREE YEAR COST SHARE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS
Enclosed please find two copies of the Cost Share Agreement signed and sealed by the
Warden and Clerk as requested.
Enclosures (2)
Yours truly,
Pamela Myra �.
Municipal Clerk
Office of the CAO and Municipal Clerk
The following Resolution was passed at a meeting of the Council of the Municipality of the
District of Chester on the / day of Dc-}r,kef— A.D., 2014.
Moved by: D-enu4-L! k)111I/ df, 4, 7hCf---fz)/ CI
Seconded by: uLane; I16� fifn� r
`That the Warden and (4-1 e; be authorized to sign Cost
Share Agreement No. 2015-005"
Motion Carried
I certify that the above Resolution was passed at the duly called meeting of the Municipality of
the District of Chester Council on A.D., 2014.
e
Signature
ame (Print)
r� ( � 1 �=r kms_
In
Title
Transportation and
Infrastructure Renewal.
Province of Nova Scotia
COST SHARE AGREEMENT NO. 2015-006
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2014
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia,
represented in this behalf by the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure
Renewal for the Province of Nova Scotia (hereinafter called the "Province"),
OF THE ONE PART
N=
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER, a body corporate under the
laws of the Province of Nova Scotia (hereinafter called the "Municipality").
OF THE OTHER PART
WHEREAS the Province is of the opinion that certain Village and Subdivision Streets, under
the jurisdiction of the Province, and located within the Municipality, are necessary and in the
public interest;
AND WHEREAS by Memorandum to the Cabinet Number MH1104 dated May 12, 1988 the
Executive Council approved a cost sharing paving program on these Village and Subdivision
w
AND WHEREAS the April 1996 Provincial -Municipal Service Exchange Agreement specified
cost-sharing on Village and Subdivision Streets is set at a uniform 50-50% basis.
NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in of the covenants, promises and
agreements herein contained to be by them observed, performed and paid, the parties
mutually agree as follows: P.
` f _
1. INTERPRETATION
1.1 In this Agreement, unless something in the subjectmatteror context is inconsistent
therewith, the following terms shall' haVe`Fthe meanings'set forth below:
(a) "Agreement" means this Agreement.
(b) "Business Days" means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a statutory
holiday in the Province of Nova Scotia.
(c) "Fiscal Year" means the 12 month period beginning on April 1 and ending on
March 31;
(d) "Paving" means the 'Work '
ork of grading, gravelling, culvert work and required
upgrading of Village and Subdivision Street to meet paving standard specifications.
"Paving" also means the paving, repaving, or double chip sealing of the Village and
Subdivision Streets. "Paving" shall also include pre -engineering, and/or design
costs, on site engineering supervision and inspection and incidental costs from the
edge of the roadway to the limit of the right of way. The work DOES NOT
INCLUDE feasibility studies, the construction, reconstruction, relocation, repairs or
adjustments of sidewalks, water lines, fire hydrants, sanitary sewers, sanitary sewer
Manholes,. utility'poles, street lighting or similar work;
(e):."Village and Subdivision Street" means the village and subdivision streets
constructed prior to April. 1, 1995 under the administration and control of the
Province.
1:2 In this Agreement, unless something in the subject matter or context is inconsistent
therewith, words importing the singular number shall include the plural and vice versa; words
importing a gender shall include the masculine, feminine and neutral genders; and -words
importing persons shall include individuals, partnerships, companies, associations, trusts,
government agencies and any other form of organization or entity whatsoever.
1.3 This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
Province of Nova Scotia.
1.4 This Agreement, constitute the entire Agreement among the parties hereto with regard
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings,
representations or warranties, negotiations and discussions, whether oral or written, among
the parties hereto with respect thereto, entered into prior to the date hereof, which are hereby
terminated.
1.5 No amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed by all of
the parties hereto.
1.6 No waiver by any party hereto of any breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement
shall take effect or be binding upon such party unless in writing and signed by such party.
Unless otherwise provided therein, such waiver shall not limit or affect the rights of such party
with respect to any other breach.
1.7 Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
2.1 This agreement shall be effective for each of the following Fiscal Years:
(a) 2015-16
(b) 2016-17
(c) 2017-18
3. DESIGNATION AND ACCEPTANCE OF STREETS
3.1 On or before October 31 prior to the start of each Fiscal Year to which this Agreement
applies, the Municipality shall provide to the Province a notice stating if it intends to participate
in the Paving program for the Fiscal Year in question, and if so, which streets it wishes to be
considered for Paving.
3.2 If the Province receives a notice under section 3.1 that the Municipality wishes to
participate in the Paving program for a Fiscal Year, the Province shall review the request and
notify the Municipality of the streets the Province accepts for Paving and the anticipated cost
of such Paving ("Cost Estimate").
3.3 Within 20 Business Days after the delivery of the Cost Estimate to the Municipality, the
Municipality shall notify the Province whether or not it accepts the list of approved streets and
the related Cost Estimate,
3.4 If the Municipality does not provide a notice to the Province under sections 3,1 or 3.3
6 by the SpeGifi�8d time, i-t-s�halli_ be_dee irief�'-t�3-'be notificationC Iat , e Ivluf4eip- iity`doe riot"'�]vl'S�I
to participate in the Paving program for the Fiscal Year in question.
3.5 The parties acknowledge that the extent to which the Province can accept streets for ,
the program in any Fiscal Year is contingent upon the amount of funding the Paving program
receives for the Fiscal Year and the number of municipalities that wish to participate in the
Paving program.
4. ADDITIONAL WORK
4.1 If an approved street for the Paving Program requires that the Province make
adjustments to manholes, catch basins or water valves, the Province shall make adjustments
as part of the Municipalities request for Paving ("Additional Work"). The Municipality will be
invoiced at the standard unit price for the required Additional Work.
5. MUNICIPALITY'S OBLIGATIONS
5.1 The Municipality shall be responsible for acquiring, at its sole expense, all additional
land required for Paving and Additional Work, including any necessary licenses or leases.
5.2 The Municipality agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Province and its officers,
employees and agents from all liabilities, fines, suits, claims, demands and actions, of any
kind and nature for which the Province or its officers, employees or agents shall or may
become liable or suffer by reason of any breach, violation or non-performance by the
Municipality of any covenant, term or provision hereof or by reason of any death or injury of
any person or any damage or destruction of any property resulting from any act, neglect or
default on the part of the Municipality or any of its servants, employees, agents, invitees or
licensees whatsoever.
6. PROVINCE'S OBLIGATIONS
6.1 Where the Municipality has accepted the list of approved street and the related Cost
Estimate under section 3.3, the Province shall be responsible for tendering the Paving and
Additional Work and for all construction oversight and management of the Paving and
Additional Work.
6.2 The Province shall notify the Municipality in writing of any cost overruns in excess of
ten (10%) percent of the Cost Estimate (the "Cost Overrun") within 1.0 Business Days of
becoming aware of such Cost Overruns.
6.3 The Province shall provide the Municipalitywith statements of account for Paving and
Additional Work upon completion of the contract (the "Statement of Accounts").
51
7. CONTRIBUTION AND PAYMENT
7.1 The Municipality shall pay to the Province, within 60 days of submission of accounts by
the Province to the Municipality:
(a) fifty percent (50%) of the total amount of the statement of account for Paving; and
(b) one hundred percent (100%) of the amount of the statement of account for
Additional Work.
S. NOTICES
8.1 All notice, demand or other communication to be given in connection with this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, registered mail or by
electronic means of communication addressed to the recipient as follows:
(a) to the Municipality at
Ms. Erin Beaudin
Chief Administrative Officer
Municipality of the District of Chester
P.O. Box 369
Chester, NS BOJ 1 JO
Tel (902) 275-3554
Fax (902) 275-4771
(b) to the Province at
Carol McKee
Capital Program Administration Officer
Johnston Building, 1672 Granville St.
P.O. Box 186
Halifax, NS B3J 21\12
Tel (902) 423-2303
Fax (902) 424-0571
5
(c) or, to such other address, individual or electronic communication number as may be
designated by notice given by either party to the other in accordance herewith. Any
demand, notice or other communication given by personal delivery shall be
conclusively deemed. to be given on the day of actual delivery; thereof and,:. if given by
registered maiil'; on the fifth .bus'iness day -following othe deposit thereof in the mail and if
given by electronic communication, on the.day oft ransmittal thereof if given during
normal business hours of the recipient and on the business day during which. such
normal business hours next occur if not given during such hours on any day. If the party
giving any demand, notice or other communication knows or ought reasonable to know
of any difficulties with the postal system which might affect the delivery of mail, any
such demand, notice or communication shall not be mailed but shall be given by
personal delivery or by electronic communication.
0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Province has hereunto subscribed its hand and affixed its seal
and the Municipality has set and affixed its corporate seal authenticated by the signatures of
the Mayor and the witness hereunto duly authorized.
SIGNED, SEALED and DELIVERED in
The presence of:
Witi�Tess
Witness /
Her Majesty the Queen, in Right of the
Province of Nova Scotia as represented
by the Minister of Transpor ation and
Infrastructureiewal
Geoff Mac II fi, Minf:5fer of Tran
and Infra ruoture Renewal
Municipality of the District of Chester
Warden Allen Webber
Witness Resolution &f Cou til Designate
111
I
w
Johnston Building, 4th Floor Bus: 902 424 2303
1672 Granville Street Fax: 902-424-0570
l'ilOVAr'N .A, I 1A
PO Box 186 E-mail: carol. m ckee@novascotia.ca
Halifax, Nova Scotia
B3J 2N2
October 8, 2015
Warden Allen Webber
Municipality of the District of Chester
P.O. Box 369
Chester, NS BOJ 1JO
Dear Warden Webber:
RE: COST SHARED SUBDIVISION STREETS FISCAL 2016-17 LISTS
The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (TIR) expects to fund, subject to
budget approval, the Subdivision Streets Program (eligible unpaved & paved streets) during the
2016-17 construction season.
Cost sharing, regardless of type of treatment (paving, repaving or double chip), will be fifty per
cent for eligible streets (50150). The submitted streets will be reviewed to verify eligibility and
to determine if the condition of the proposed streets meets the minimum criteria for requested
treatment type (i.e. paving, repaving or double chipping).
If your Municipality wishes to participate in this program for fiscal year 2016-2017, you are
requested to submit a prioritized list of streets for consideration. If an indication of priority is
not shown, it will be assumed that the priority will be the order of the list as submitted.
The Municipality must provide the street name, description (from... to...), length and treatment
type requested (paving, repaving, or double chip) for each street submitted.
Please consider your municipality's fiscal funding limitations when preparing your list and limit
the list to only the projects the municipality intends to fund in fiscal 2016-17.
Page 1 of 2
This is a reminder that as per section 3.1 of the signed three year cost share agreement with the
Province, the list is due October 31, 2015, however, submissions will be accepted for this fiscal
year up until November 30, 2015..
Please submit this information to my attention as soon as possible to ensure your list will be
considered for the upcoming fiscal year. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Carol McKee
Capital Program Administration Officer
cc Pat Gray, Construction Manager - Western District
Tammy Wilson, CAO — Municipality of Chester
Page 2 of 2
0
v
a
�
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
i',�,P
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
P��qd
.r
III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
'�P
74P�
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
�aq
�a
O
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
q�
a1
02
1,ago2OO
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
..aq�a�
Qa
I?p s
VIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
7P/
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
C
N
n
o
O
m
0
0
d
0
0
a N
s
+-
�
O
n
M
N
<0
0
0
0
0
d
d
N
n
o
a
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
�
O
n
M
N
<0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
W
N
O
O
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
E
00
O
m
m
tD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
n
c
tD
tD
M
N
0
`w
t/}
t/}
t/}
V}
V}
N
/n
v
00000
O
d
O
O
O
O
0
z
Ili
0
CO
00
T
N
00
to
M
0
O
M
Oko
Vf
_
Ln
N
C
O
N
N
QI
E O L
O
O
m
Ln
m
N
0
O
n
tD
lO
M
N
Ln
N
....
O
41
n
n
01
W
7
7
0
0
0
n
N
3
c
0]
M
Ln
n
O
D
T
W
H
0
m
N
n
lD
w
lD
M
O
00
W
M
lD
c l
VI
LO
N
W
y
N
h
07
W
D
Ln
Ln
Ln
tD
00
tD
00
n
00
tO
O
tO
w
n
O
N
n
tD
Ln
N
M
4f).
!a
a
v
v
a`
OO
T
co
W
M
LO
Ln
N
M
Ln
Ln
N
c
N
n
n
O
m
n
O
Ln
N
1:31
N
�
N
0
Ln
Ln
ZT
N
N
O
-
LO
N
N
N
Q 0
+ O
d
o0
I
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
O
n
M
N
<0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.
Ln
.!
lD
O
lD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LO
E
00
M
O
00
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
c
O
T
W
LO
O
`w
ci
ci
ci
N
a
v
d
z
n
lO
m
Ol
n
0
O
M
01
Vf
W
N
C
O
I-
01
N
O
m
Ln
m
n
n
tD
lO
M
N
Ln
N
n
c -I
to
tD
W
7
7
0
0
0
n
n
3
c
T
Ln
T
M
Ln
W
c -I
Ol
00
O
m
N
n
lD
w
lD
M
O
00
W
M
lD
c l
VI
M
Ln
W
y
O
tD
00
Ln
:1,
-zt
T
M
M
qt
Ln
Ln
Ln
tD
00
tD
00
n
00
tO
O
tO
w
n
O
N
����������4�
4f).
N
a
v
v
a`
OO
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
T
Ln
N
rl
0
co
0)
1-1
co
tD
M
0
Ln
co
LD
O
LO
-
LO
N
N
OI
+ O
O
Ln
Ln
O
O
VI
Ln
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ln
n
n
O
O
N
N
Ln
Ln
O
O
O
Ln
Ln
n
M
n
Il
c-I
M
N
LD
00
O0
N
N
cN
0
Vl
N
co
N
c -I
Ln
Ln
N
Ln
N
aO+ u
U
LD
-zi
:I,
-zl
M
O
M
N
M
N
-zi
O
Ln
N
Ln
T
Ln
N
Ln
LD
-z:r
co
Ln
O
Ln
3 L
d o 3
Ln
d d Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
O
O
N
�
N
c -I
M
N
Ln
coW
al
coW
tD
N
c -I
M
Ln
M
a7
LO
Ln
N
�
N
lD
O
O
00
00
tD
Ln
Ln
n
m
m
O
m
0
O
o
c c
�
�
O
O R
3 d
o0a c c
c v
a Q C7
E
W
a
�
i
L
o
G@
O
En
a
u
O
W
c
u
++a
3
3
o
Z
0
9
LL
Cm
C
H
n a
Ln 00
W N ci
M n V
Ln n
N N
0 A. -C6
O O O
LD Ln LO cm
14 N VI
VA0
I e 4 cn
01 N
N
W
7
W
a
C
W
3
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
REPORT TO Tammy Wilson, CAO
SUBMITTED BY Heather Archibald, Development Officer
DATE 2015-10-13
SUBJECT Existing Structures Change of Use & Residential Conversions
ORIGIN Municipal and Chester Village Area Land Use by-laws
C�, z
CURRENT SITUATION:
Both the Municipal Land Use and Chester Village Area Land Use by-laws contain sections regarding
existing structures with wording that permits any existing structure to be used for any permitted use
in the zone which the building is located in regardless of any setback requirement. The current wording
extends this change of use to any accessory structure that also meetings the existing structure status
regardless of whether the change of use will cause the creation of a non -conforming building with a
yard setback encroachment when there was not one prior to the change. With the current wording exist
boathouses, garages, barns, etc. could be permitted to change to residential dwellings.
Additionally the Chester Village Area Land Use by-law includes provisions for residential conversions
which is worded in such a matter that would permit any structure that qualifies for the existing
structure status (January 28, 2004) to change into a residential dwelling (building). Again. Any type of
building including boathouses, garages, barns, etc. On lots that are large enough to prove they could be
subdivided this would allow accessory structures to become full residential dwellings in addition to any
existing residential dwellings already present on the lot. Depending on the zone a structure is located
in this could potentially permit 4 to 8 dwelling units on a lot that originally had a single unit dwelling
with a detached accessory garage within the Chester Village Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
For discussion
BACKGROUND:
In dealing with a land use by-law infraction it has come to light that the wording in both land use by-
laws for the municipality are worded in such a manner that would allow any existing structure,
including accessory structures, to change its use with no regard for changing setback requirements.
Access .o-ry-.str-uctur-es-typ.i_ca1-1y: h- a-ve a-lessor�ide--and-r-ea-r- setbael-than-a-•mai-n--u- e-bu-ilding i-n=most of
the zones, particularly within the Chester Village Area,
Chester Village Area Land Use by-law, Section 4.5.10 states:
Existing Structures
Where a structure which is not a sign has been erected on or before the effective date of this by-
law, or subsequently in accordance with a development permit, with less than the minimum front
yard, flanhage yard, side yard, rear yard or any other open space required by this by-law, or on a
lot having less than the minimum area or frontage, the, structure,moybe, used qsperm1tLqdi1.7h
zone in which. the structure issituated; and, provided that the application for a development
permit is supported by a location certificate or survey plan showing the location of the structure
in relation to the boundaries of the property, the structure may be:
i) enlarged, reconstructed, repaired, renovated, or replaced by a new structure, provided
that the structure shall not thereby be permitted to extend or increase any existing
encroachment into the minimum front, flankage, side or rearyard required in that zone
except by the operation of Subsection 4.5.14.
ii) relocated, provided no encroachment into the minimum front, flankage side, or rearyard
required in thatzone shall be permitted except by the operation of Subsection 4.5.14.
This section makes no reference to limitations if the change in use increases a yard setback
encroachment due to a different setback requirement for the new use. Previously this section has
always been interrupted as referring to main buildings on lots which may not meet the current yard
setback but would still be permitted to either continue the existing use or change to another main use,
for example a Doctor's Office changing to a Retail Store. It was not interrupted to mean that an accessory
structure which met the definition of "existing structure" would be permitted to change to a main use
when the new main use would either cause a yard setback encroachment where there was none or
increase an existing encroachment due to different requirements. This interruption was successfully
challenged.
Section 4.4.8 of the Municipal Land Use by-law has similar wording:
Structures Already Constructed
Where a structure has been erected on or before the effective date of this By-law, or subsequently
in accordance with the requirements of this By-law with less than the minimum front yard,
flankage yard, side yard, rearyard or any other open space required by this By-law, or on a lot
having less than the minimum area or frontage, the structure may be;
ii) enlarged, reconstructed, repaired, renovated, or replaced by a new structure, provided
that the structure shall not thereby be permitted to extend or increase any existing encroachment
into any minimum front, flankage, side or rearyard required in that zone except by the operation
of Subsection 4.4.1;
iii) relocated, provided no encroachment into any minimum front, flankage side, or rear
yard required in that zone shall be permitted except by the operation of Subsection 4.4.1.
Within the -Chester Vill-age-Ar-ea--L-nd--Use=by--law-has-an---additional-section tha-tfurtkrer--permits-more
dwelling units on a lot than what was likely intended within several zones, particularly when used in
conjunction with the above existing structures sections and applied to both accessory buildings and
main use buildings.
Section 4.4.14 of the Chester Village Area Land Use by-law:
Residential Conversions
Where permitted in this by-law, conversion.otexisting buildingsell' s containing one or
more dwelling units shall be subject to the following requirements:
i) each dwelling unit shall be self-contained and shall have separate cooking. and sanitary
facilities,
ii) one off-street parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit.
iii) where such conversion involves an addition to an existing structure within the Highway 3
Site Plan Area (shown on SPS Map 7), the provisions of Section 4.10 apply.
Staff believes the purpose of the residential conversion section was to permit apartments above
commercial businesses or to allow main non-residential buildings to change to residential dwellings.
However the wording of the above does not limit residential conversions to such.
With the two sections of the by-law are used together a person who had a single unit dwelling with a
detached garage in the Central Village Residential or Single Unit Residential zones could potentially
change the single unit dwelling to a two unit dwelling and the garage into a second two unit dwelling,
thus allowing four residential unit where there used to be only one. Within the Low Density Residential
zone of the Chester Village Area Land Use zoning the same scenario could potentially result in eight (8)
residential units where there was only one originally. The only land use limiting factor is lot size, to
create a second main building on a lot the owner would need to prove the lot can be successfully
subdivided.
A great many of the lots within the Village could potentially meet the criteria.
Even without taking the accessory structure into consideration a single unit dwelling could change to a
four unit dwelling within the low density residential zone without requiring the lot to be able to be
subdivided.
As these clauses apply to any existing structure, they also apply to any boathouse that meets the existing
structure status. Thereby allowing those boathouses to be changed into residential dwellings as of right.
The existing structure status is currently defined as prior to the effective date of the land use by-law.
Within the Chester Village Area Land Use by-law the effective date is January 28, 2004; for the Municipal
Land Use by-law the effective date is July 17, 1997. So any building legally constructed prior to these
date qualifies for the status.
DISCUSSION:
Is there concern over a potentially significant increased density? Is there concern over residential units
being permitted closer to a property line that would be standard when a building was previously a
lower impact accessory structure? Is there a concern over boathouse potentially being converted to
dwellings?
OPTIONS:
1) Direct staff to review the matter as part of the plan review
2) Direct staff to amend both land use by-laws prior to the plan review
Prepared BY Heather Archibald Date October 14, 2015
Reviewed BY Date
Authorized BY Date
MUNICIPALITY OF THE C�D
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DECISION (OR DIRECTION)
REPORT TO Council
SUBMITTED BY Steve Graham
DATE October 13t'', 2015
SUBJECT Gas Tax Reserve and Financial Indicators
ORIGIN
CURRENT SITUATION:
Our Gas Tax Reserve is currently allocated under our Operating Reserve portfolio. The
Province, through the Financial Reporting and Accounting Manual (FRAM), has deemed
the Gas Tax Reserve should be under the Capital Reserve portfolio.
RECOMMENDATION
Move our Gas Tax Reserve from our Operating Reserve portfolio to our Capital
Reserve portfolio.
BACKGROUND:
The Gas Tax program was implemented in 2006 and, at that time, the FRAM manual did
not specify which portfolio the reserve should be placed. There were potential Gas Tax
projects, such as our ICSP plan, that we considered a non -capitalized expenditure and
therefore decided to administer the Gas Tax Reserve under the Operating Reserve
portfolio. In June 2013, the FRAM manual was updated and the section pertaining to the
Capital Reserve added a clause to include the Gas Tax Reserve under the Capital Reserve
portfolio. I was not aware of that change until recently by the provincial finance
department.
DISCUSSION:
There are no concerns about the administration and allocation of the funds, however a
couple of our financial indicators would be affected by moving the Gas Tax Reserve to
the correct portfolio.
IMPLICATIONS:
I reviewed the last two fiscal years numbers and indicators to determine the effect on the
outcome:
Financial Indicators (as per Grant Thornton 2014/15 Financial Statement Presentation)
Operating Reserve Ratio — Threshold 5% or more
Five year Contributions to Capital Reserves Ratio — Threshold 10% or more
2014-15 2013-14
Total contributions to Capital Reserves $168,200 $168,200
Total Annual Depreciation on Capital Assets $6,202,069 $5,789,111
Financial Indicator 2.71% 2.91%
Revised Contributions to Capital Reserves $1,757,517
Revised Financial Indicator 28.0%
$1,274,597
22.0%
The above Capital Reserve ratios do not include our Landfill Closure Reserve as the
Province has deemed this reserve should not be included in the financial indicators
calculation as it is an investment to close the landfill and not for capital purchases.
1 Policy: N/A
2 Financial/Budgetary:
The above analysis shows that, while our Operating Reserve indicator is less with the
change but still well over the threshold, our Capital reserve indicator is much higher
than the threshold and a vast improvement from previous reports.
3 Environmental: N/A
4 Strategic Plan:
Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility
5 Work Program Implications N/A
Consultation/Communications (External v Internal) N/A
ATTACHMENTS: None
OPTIONS: None
Prepared BY
2014-15
2013-14
Reserve Fund Balance
$3,885,919
$3,300,540
Total Operating Expenditures
$12,613,999
$11,031,699
Financial Indicator
30.8%
29.9%
Revised Reserve Fund Balance
$2,990,609
$2,912,123
Revised Financial Indicator
23.7%
26.4%
Five year Contributions to Capital Reserves Ratio — Threshold 10% or more
2014-15 2013-14
Total contributions to Capital Reserves $168,200 $168,200
Total Annual Depreciation on Capital Assets $6,202,069 $5,789,111
Financial Indicator 2.71% 2.91%
Revised Contributions to Capital Reserves $1,757,517
Revised Financial Indicator 28.0%
$1,274,597
22.0%
The above Capital Reserve ratios do not include our Landfill Closure Reserve as the
Province has deemed this reserve should not be included in the financial indicators
calculation as it is an investment to close the landfill and not for capital purchases.
1 Policy: N/A
2 Financial/Budgetary:
The above analysis shows that, while our Operating Reserve indicator is less with the
change but still well over the threshold, our Capital reserve indicator is much higher
than the threshold and a vast improvement from previous reports.
3 Environmental: N/A
4 Strategic Plan:
Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility
5 Work Program Implications N/A
Consultation/Communications (External v Internal) N/A
ATTACHMENTS: None
OPTIONS: None
Prepared BY
Date
Reviewed BY
Date
Authorized BY
Date