HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016-02-18_COW_Public Agenda PackageMUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 8:45 a.m.
AGENDA
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
2.1 Committee of the Whole - February 4, 2016.
3. MATTERS ARISING.
4. CORRESPONDENCE:
4.1 Correspondence from Royal Canadian Legion Branch 24 dated February 5, 2016 regarding the 2016
Remembrance Day Flyby and request for support and information.
S. NEW BUSINESS:
5.1 Letter from Wendy Sheppard, Lighthouse Foodbank Society regarding Lighthouse Food Bank
Tenancy/186 Central/Notice to Vacate (appointment at 9:00 a.m.)
5.2 Presentation by Gord Tate, Active Transportation Coordinator regarding update on Active
Transportation Policy Framework and request for letter of support (appointment at 9:20 a.m.)
5.3 Update from Marianne Gates, Senior Economic Development Officer - Branding Logo Options.
5.4 Request for Direction from Heather Archibald, Development Officer dated January 29, 2016 regarding
Highway 3 Site Plan area and Change of Use within an Existing Building.
5.5 Request for Decision from Archibald, Development Officer dated January 28, 2016 regarding Land Use
By-law Violation.
5.6 Request for Direction from CAO dated February 4, 2016 regarding Space Options.
5.7 Information - Wind Turbine Report - January 2016.
5.8 Request for Direction from Director of Engineering and Public Works dated January 26, 2016
regarding Chester Basin Wharf Update.
5.9 Sponsorship request - Atlantic Mayors Congress.
5.10 Request for Support - Ceremony in Recognition of Achievement for Team Fay- Warden Webber.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
APPOINTMENTS ARRANGED
9:00 a.m. Wendy Sheppard, Lighthouse Foodbank Society regarding Annex Building.
9:20 a.m. Gord Tate, Active Transportation Coordinator regarding update on Active Transportation
Policy Framework.
In Camera following regular session under Section 22 of the MGA if necessary
Page 1 of 1
LtEGION
Royal Canadian Legion,
Branch # 24
78 Churchill Street
Bridgewater, Nova Scotia
B4V 1R7
Friday, February 05, 2016
Your Worship Warden Allen Webber,
Re: Remembrance Day Flyby
4.1
Phone: 902-543-3203
E-mail: info@bridgewaterlegion.ca
Last year, with your support, we were successfully with an aircraft flyby over the Cenotaphs of eight
Lunenburg County Communities. Feedback from the communities who received the flybys were
extremely positive and has prompted us to try and conduct another flyby for this year's Remembrance Day
Ceremonies.
We are again planning to conduct flybys over the following communities: Bridgewater, Chester, Chester
Basin, Lunenburg, Mahone Bay, New Germany, New Ross, Chelsea and Western Shore. (These
communities were selected based on the most direct aircraft approaches.)
Comrade Darrly Cook, Zone 13 Commander of the Royal Canadian Legion (South Shore) is fully aware and
supportive of this project.
If you would like your community to again participate and experience this flyby and because time is of the
essence, I will need the following information from you on or before Friday March 11th, 2016:
Letter of support from the Mayor allowing a low level flyby as low as 500' over your community;
Name, e-mail address and telephone number of a contact person.
Please send the letter directly to me via email in Word or PDF format
Address the letter to:
Captain Blair Barthel
A3 Special Events
1 Canadian Air Division
Po Box 17000 Stn Forces
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3J 3Y5
Military flybys are usually confirmed one week prior to the event and are subject to availability of aircraft,
weather and other military commitments. The flight plans and the final list of towns that will participate are
at the discretion of the Special Events Coordinator.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 902-
786-0582 or e-mail welscot@eastlink.ca
Yours in Comradeship
Roger Purnell Sam Collicutt
Chairman November 11th Committee President
Bridgewater Branch # 24 Bridgewater Branch # 24
Royal Canadian Legion Royal Canadian Legion
G'01 1 Oz///6
IM
M
DEC 1
December 16"', 2015
Ms. Tammy S. Wilson
Chief Administrative Officer
Municipality of the District of Chester
1. 5 1, Ki jig Street
CHESTER, Nova Scofia
BOJ IJO
Dear Ms, Wilson:
0401flal to —
ReAmed by
Re: Lighthouse Food Bank Tenancy/ 186 Central Street/Notice to Vacate
Thank you for your letter of June 1, 2015, with respect to the Lighthouse Food Bank tenancy.
The letter was based on the premise that the Corn.inunity Development Department would be re-
locating to the Gold. River facility. We now understand that this re -location will not be occurring
and it is the desire of the Lighthouse Food Bank to remain in its present location at 186 Central
Street, Chester.
I understand that this issue will be considered by Council and we should. appreciate your advising
when this may happen as we would like to have representatives present and speak to the natter.
Yours very truly
Wendy Sheppard
PO Box 179, Chester NS BOJIJO (902) 276-6304 Proud Member of fel el 14
1,
nova scoffa
MUNICIPALITY OF THE 5.2
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 18, 2016
TO: Tammy Wilson, CAO
FROM: Gord Tate
DEPARTMENT: Recreation and Parks
SUBJECT: Council letter in support of the Province's pending Active
Transportation Policy Framework
BACKGROUND:
At the UNSM Board of Directors meeting on February 18, 2011, a motion was passed requesting UNSM write
the Premier asking the various departments mandated to support active transportation (AT) work together to
develop a provincial AT policy and plan, and provide resources for implementation. A few months after
receiving the letter signed by UNSM's President, the Minister of Health and Wellness announced that a
provincial interdepartmental committee would be struck to begin work on an AT policy framework.
After the Provincial Active Transportation Team was created, it began on developing a plan and policy to
support AT initiatives in Nova Scotia. In November and December of 2014, the Province offered 9
consultations sessions on the draft policy framework. Elected officials from across the province, municipal
staff (including MODC's) and members of UNSM's AT Committee attended the sessions to provide input.
Staff at the Department of Health and Wellness has indicated that once the policy framework gets ministerial
approval, the Province will release it and then begin work on an implementation strategy in collaboration with
municipalities and other important stakeholders.
At the December 4, 2015 UNSM Board meeting, the UNSM AT Committee requested that the Board write a
letter to the Province to acknowledge two items:
1. the work and extensive consultation process that has been done to develop the policy framework, and
2. that the UNSM is looking forward to collaborating with the Province in the future on creating
implementation strategies that will facilitate moving forward with the policy items outlined in the
framework that support municipalities with their AT initiatives.
Subsequently, the Board of the UNSM did forward a letter of support to the Province (attached). Additionally,
they encouraged all individual municipalities to forward their own letters of support to the Province (template
provided).
The Active Living Coordinator is requesting that the Municipality of Chester's Council join the UNSM and other
municipalities to craft a letter of support for the AT Policy Framework.
DISCUSSION:
The draft AT Policy Framework indicates the Province is committed to developing a strategic and collaborative
approach to advance AT in Nova Scotia. Collaboration is a cornerstone to the draft Framework and many of
the goals in it build on commitments in other provincial strategies, like Thrive! — A Plan for a Healthier Nova
Scotia and the Sustainable Transportation Strategy. The draft Framework's overall intent is to outline how the
Province can best support AT in Nova Scotia and is meant to provide a blueprint for action.
The draft AT Policy Framework acknowledges that:
Municipalities and community groups have been instrumental in moving AT forward in Nova Scotia.
In order to advance change to support an AT culture, the Province needs to work to address gaps in
tools supports, knowledge and capacity in Nova Scotia.
Communities are diverse and have varying levels of opportunities for advancing AT.
Public transit and AT are linked.
Planning supports AT but the availability of planning tools and varying approaches can present
significant challenges to some municipalities.
The implementation strategy that will follow must address the varying needs and circumstances of our
communities.
The following principles are set out in the draft Framework to guide the Province's decisions about AT:
a. It must embrace a multi-user concept for inclusivity.
b. It must be comprehensive and integrate policy, infrastructure, research and actions.
c. It must be connected and multi -modal — to connect people to local services and communities, and
integrate other modes of transportation.
d. It must be safe, comfortable and enjoyable.
e. It must be affordable and accessible.
f. It must be equitable to increase access to AT opportunities and benefits.
The five areas of focus in the draft Framework include:
1) Community planning to facilitate built environments that support and enable AT
Some suggested actions include making information, training and funding available for AT;
collaborating with municipalities to improve connectivity of AT routes to services and other
transportation modes; encouraging the integration of AT plans with existing planning
strategies
2) Building and upgrading routes to encourage interconnected networks for AT routes
Some suggested actions include building and upgrading roads and pathways to ensure they
consider all users and prioritize continuity of AT infrastructure; providing municipalities with
guidance in AT best practices for street design; providing multi-year funding for projects
3) Public buildings and facilities to encourage, enable and integrate options for AT
Some suggested actions include siting public buildings (government offices, schools,
hospitals, recreation facilities, etc.) in proximity to other services and amenities; providing
support and incentives to municipalities that site their facilities close to existing services and
amenities
4) Education and awareness
Some suggested actions include building decision makers' awareness on the importance of
AT; leading marketing initiatives to shift behaviours to more active modes; making information
about AT options very accessible
5) Data and measurement
One suggested action focuses on developing a clearinghouse to support the sharing of AT
data
The draft AT Policy Framework states that the Provincial Active Transportation Team is committed to forming
working groups to coordinate the implementation of actions in the five focus areas.
Recognizing the need to work collaboratively to implement the AT Policy Framework, the Province outlined
the following principles for how it will work across government and with other partners to advance the AT
policy directions:
1) Accountability
2) Collaboration
3) Pro -active decision-making
4) Creativity and innovation
5) Capacity building
6) Communication
UNSM and municipalities are recognized as partners that have important roles to play in supporting the
implementation of the AT Policy Framework.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
The pending draft AT Policy Framework compliments MODC's own Active Transportation Policy (P-73,
adopted April 26, 2013)
2 Financial/Budgetary:
Unknown at this time. It is expected that as implementation strategies are developed, provincial funding
support will accompany them.
3 Environmental:
No negative impacts anticipated. Implications are anticipated to be positive.
4 ICSP; Council's Strategic Plan:
This potentially supports building healthy communities.
S Other:
ATTACHMENTS:
Copy of the letter from the UNSM Board, and sample template provided by UNSM
OPTIONS:
a. Reject the request.
b. Support the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council write a letter to the Province (cc'ing all departments with a mandate to support AT) expressing
our support for their leadership in developing the AT Policy Framework. The letter should also indicate that
we look forward to collaborating with them on developing the implementation strategy to advance AT and
make our municipalities more liveable, age -friendly, vibrant, sustainable and prosperous.
Signature
till
II
WINCidim
mi
ul
o
C:
3
LE
C
co
4-
1 01
1
C
U)
01
IV)
U)
uuuuuuuuu
CL
Loi
C) "-
40
ig
ppppppROW
m
im
ul
Cd
U)
o
0
Cd , 0
a) >_'
0
Q
V)
Z
75
F'
VA
a)
0
0
Q)
Cn
V)
0
C)
G
a)
4-
1
0
CL
0
CDN
0
0
Lf
C:
l
Cd
w
2
C1*'
0
It
a) =
0
a)
l
0
60
4'-
C
EmUllE
IN
4
u
OL3: OF
H9ccm
m
U')
C)
U')
C)
U')
C)
U')
C
t«
m
CO
r'
d
6
P;Aiwli- toRo0
I
0
0
LJ
r-
75
0
F-.,
t
0
E
E
0
4-
E
o0
0
I
E - 5
0
V)
Lu
00
2) r-
Lr) O
Nr-
I
4-
10
Lf)
qj
10
10
C
C;
0
CL
Ni
E
E
c
0
11C
UUJ
cu >
Ln0r4
N10C;
Ln
Ln
ajIIcry)
ODcLu
to
r-
10
CEc
Lnlr--.
14
tw
1 (
10
0
0NiH
06r-
i
In10
E
cE
4-,
Lu
CLaiC)
aj
4-
5ECu
LUu- C)
Q
11"
m
1:
t
lf, 0090MCL
r7' chCL0
Co
0a)
co
0
CO
0
ice'
D..
0
0_
M
MUNN:
4—
J
U0
Ut
a) c
rZ
ul
a
MONO
i>
5
a)
co
V)
0,
z
a)
cz
z
E
a)
a)
E
cz
E
ctCZ
E
U
00
M
UJ
C)
co
re
rel
0
0:
0
0
0
cz,
msCL
CL
0)
c
C:
0
00
co
D
M
s
01
C;)
Ull
CL
1E
1)
0
U-
S -
Z4
4-
4
E
JCCS
01
4—
L)
0
10,
Fn
C:
ez,
a)
C)
C)
C:
E
o
0
C: 01
o
cz
cz
0,
C:
L -
6m
U
0
L-,
L-
0
a)
z
0
U
CE
U
u
u
Y
III
lU
N
W, W,
0C8
c
cza) (
n
e
ill
W
YCWWW
a)
3:
1A
CTS
ol
Co
CDL
0
E
4—
j —
0
0
a)
co
E
0
1--
i
C:
0
M
ilCd
0
l
V),
C
U
IAIAAAAA0
W -;=
V)
q-
cd
a)
0
a)
C:
E
4
Cd
M
R
G
0L
E
E
a)
0
u
cz,
a) +
C
C:
L— -
a,
E
0Cd
1
y
a
rrrW
r
4
el
December 14, 2015
The Honorable Leo Glavine
The Union Minister, Department of Health and Wellness
and Department of Seniors
of Nova Scotia P.O. Box 488
Municipalities Halifax, Nova Scotia
B3J 2R8
Dear Minister Glavine;
PRESIDENT:
Councillor Claire Detheridge
Cape Breton Regional Municipality On behalf of the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities (UNSM), I would like to
commend you and the other departments represented on the Provincial Active
VICE-PRESIDENT: Transportation Team for your work to date on the Active Transportation Policy
Councillor Laurie Morley Framework. As an organization that represents all 51 municipalities in Nova
Town of Windsor
Scotia, we see the Framework as an important tool for further advancing active
IMMEDIATE PAST-PRESIDENT: transportation in Nova Scotia and we would like to express our interest in being a
Warden Keith Hunter key partner in development of its future implementation strategies.
County of Cumberland
REGIONAL CAUCUS CHAIR: As you are aware, many of our municipalities have made impressive strides on
Councillor Bill Karsten building active transportation options as a means to becoming more vibrant and
Halifax Regional Municipality sustainable places to live. Strong provincial leadership for active transportation
will provide policy and program cohesion required to encourage and support
RURAL CAUCUS CHAIR: municipalities in their work to build sustainable and active options for
Mayor Don Downe
District of Lunenburg
transportation.
TOWN CAUCUS CHAIR Many health, environmental and economic benefits have been created through the
Mayor Pan Mood AT work in our communities. Particularly, we believe active transportation plays a
Town of Yarmouth critical role in improving the health of our communities and, in effect, significantly
reducing provincial health care costs. By building communities and setting policies
that make active transportation safe and convenient, Nova Scotians will find it
much easier to build physical activity into their daily lives and, as a result, improve
their overall health. Therefore, any investment in active transportation programs
and infrastructure will not only create healthier communities and people, but lower
costs and create more economic opportunities.
Through the work of our individual municipalities and UNSM's Active
Transportation Committee, we believe that active transportation is increasingly
being recognized for its positive impacts. Over the years, municipalities have
expressed the need for support from various provincial departments to develop a
collaborative and comprehensive approach to active transportation. We see the
Suite 1106,1809 Barrington street creation of the Frameworkk as the Province's commitment to developing a strategic
Halifax, NS
B313K8 approach for advancing active transportation in Nova Scotia.
Tel: (902) 423-8331
Fax: (902) 425-5592
E-mail: info@unsm.ca
Web Site: www.unsm.ca
2
The Honourable Leo Glavine
December 14, 2015
Page 2
We appreciate your continued championing of active transportation and
understand it is one of many priorities. We do look forward to
collaborating with you on the development of implementation strategies
that will help move the Active Transportation Policy Framework forward
in a manner that benefits all.
Sincerely,
Councillor Claire Detheridge
President, UNSM
cc: Honourable Karen Lynn Casey, Minister, Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development
Honourable Zach Churchill, Minister, Department of Municipal Affairs
Honourable Randy Dclorcy, Minister, Department of Environment
Honourable Mark Furcy, Minister, Department of Business
Honourable Lloyd Hines, Minister, Department of Natural Resources
Honourable Geoff MacLellan, Minister, Department of Transportation & infrastructure
Renewal
Honourable Michel P. Samson, Minister, Department of Energy
SAMPLE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROVINCIAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION POLICY FRAMEWORK
your organization's letterhead]
date]
The Honorable Leo Glavine
Minister, Department of Health and Wellness and Department of Seniors
P.O. Box 488
Halifax, Nova Scotia
B3J 2R8
Re: Letter of Support for the Provincial Active Transportation Policy Framework
Dear Minister Glavine;
The letter could:
Indicate your support the Province's direction in developing the draft Active Transportation Policy
Framework
Acknowledge that the Framework is an important tool for advancing active transportation in Nova
Scotia and supporting the important active transportation work being done in municipalities across
the province
Note that active transportation creates many health, environmental and economic benefits for our
communities
Indicate the importance of a coordinated and strategic approach to advancing active transportation
in our municipalities, as laid out in the Framework
Note that strong provincial leadership is required to advance active transportation in Nova Scotia
Indicate the importance of continued collaboration with municipalities for the advancement of active
transportation
Indicate the importance of the draft Framework receiving ministerial approval so work can begin on
implementation
Express your municipality's interest in being a key partner in the development of the Framework's
implementation strategies]
authorized signature]
name, title]
Cc:
The Honourable Karen Lynn Casey, Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development
The Honourable Zach Churchill, Minister of Municipal Affairs
The Honourable Randy Delorey, Minister of Environment
The Honourable Mark Furey, Minister of Business
The Honourable Lloyd Hines, Minister of Natural Resources
The Honourable Geoff MacLellan, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal
The Honourable Michel P. Samson, Minister of Energy
r
El
0
W
G
L
Z
Q
D
F..
i
LU
W
TV7
V07Vik
5-
W
mO0) UO
a -
JfaU) RfaO0) mE
faQVVi
Ot!
1O1
F
O4—
c0V) V) V) 00) 0ruLLw
N
6
a -
J
d
cIc
a -
J
CL
U0OL- o1) 0caU) U
C-
E
SE
CD
NO
N0
U
Q
C
E
0
O
OO
c
U
fa
c
4-
J
o
L
0fa
fa
V)
U
Ui
fa
3E
N
fa
QO
U
0
O
oOru
O
ULU
U
O
LL
N
l
d
6I., C)
a--
CLO
UfaOza U
O
L
U
4-
m
O
Q
C:
O
O
C- O
N
f6
UO
4-'
U
OU
a -
JV)
4--' >
O
uj
D
O
o
C—
Ln
a --
P
UO
U)
a caC
V)
co
CD
0) Uo
U.
j0O
Cca
I
M0z
cOV) V) V) O0) OruC: LLM,
c0V^^ VIII^ VI00) 0ruLL0
w
a -
J
U) 04-
O
O
O
L
L1i4-
J
Q)
a -
J
E
c
w
O
O
N
U
E
p
aO-+ Ln
U0
aU-+
N
a -
J
N
Q
O
U0
a -
J
O
N
U
o
CD
a)
0V
O
w
EO
EO
O
L
U
U
U
fa
L
fa
N
0)
C
0)
N
fa
O
0
cn
O
0Oj
uOi
vOi
v
to
ca
i
O
aj
Q
N
Q
U
O>
U
U
V
N
cl
Z
V
F—
C.
c0V^^ VI
II^
VI00) 0ruLL0
N
6
N
O
acC)
a -
J
a--
to
O
U
L
O
Ln
4-
J '
U >>
O
O
U-)
0O
m
U
L-
W
o :
m
ca
4-
J
CL
U
C: -
0
a -
J
4-
1 •
4-
J
tn4—
JN
O
N
O
N
J _
I_-
O
O
1 >
1
O
O
O
O
z
1 — ..
4 -
JW
O •
V
L-
WtoO
J
E =
3:
N
UU
N
U
CDUO
a--'
CU
0
cu
tom
t'
a
to
O
uj
0).— — _ :
3
i
O =
4-
J
n
4J
E
Q
U0
O •
U
U
E
O
o
CL
U
a .
O
o
O
ca -
0
u,
E
O -
0
ca
U
a
ca
oo
E
oU
u-
u ,
7
4- 0
LILItroLIU
uuuuuuuuuuu
uuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum
aEllotr"'
ell0
AS
m
FSK
m
4p
f7
rid
RI/ ;
d
4
uiQIV)
ridRI/ ;
f//%%
Jfl
J-
1
Y
v
U
Or.
v
c
o
L
Yom-+
V
O
4j) dcu
i2-
0 >
co
O
NO
CO
M
Y
CO
Ou
N
T
O,
V
N
L..
ryL..
A°°
111
LT
d
O
0
u
O
z
N
O
fl-
O
6
u)
d
O
Vi
Q
n
0I _
o
a
Id
t17
O
N .
O
Q
CL ,
w
ryry
ccs
u
O
m
j
w
ON =
q ' ,
V1
Y
i
U1
ryp
pp
tl...
W.
p
N ' '.
Qi '
Ul
NO
N
E
E
@
w '
n
n
o
co
O
Q1
OO
O
N
V
o
o
O
v
E
Q
C)-
O-
co '
r—
Z '
TS
O '
O
0 >
m
QwY
cco
cUC
cow
7
@
V
d
Li •
i
x-
a.
n
o
o
O
c6
N
co -
O
Z
c
Ln
Ncu = =
Y
co
NQ
G
G
G ..
O
d
cr
O
J
N
O
Ry
N
c6
u
a
fl
S2
L]
YUt
a
N
O
v
V
u0
N
Y
O
cC5
cu
bD
O
O •>
Q
Y
O
O
CD =•
O
O
fl.
i
Y
TT
Ln
T}
N >
a-
V
kn
u..
O
U
V7OIn
a
o
c ° co
G
Z.
E
c'
y
Ln
cu
w
a0..
Y '""'
R
bD '
N
O
bn
co
W
U7
i
CCS
OJ
m
m
Y
c
o
a
zO
n
cn
N
O
X
Ln
c04
f6 '
OO
S1
Z
N
v
N '
u
N
O
N
O
Y
O
d >
O-
Z .
C1 ,„
E
f
6 -
O
fl-
aj ..'
lu
Y
Oy
cc
O
O
G
N
O
G
N
N •
O
v
O
T
u.
l
Id
co
coO
j
J
N
i6
O
Q
a-+
Q
cts
J-
1
v
U
Or.
v
c
o
L
Yom-+
V
D
O
NO
T
O,
V
N
L..
ryL..
A°°
O
Z
u
O
U1
vi
n'
vi
NO
N
E
E
ATS
V
o
o
O
E
Q
O
N
v
v
V
d
Li •
i
C0El
L-
O
r
10
If
a
IT
g)jr
i
AIMNL
Ad
olCL
NM
J)
A6
Amk
e
ri
Am
a
ui
AM
7,
c
LU
wwwrwtiw.
c
YGi.
t
e,
0 `
Illi
r
F'
VI
1
i
1
SNA
MW
IIIl
w
v
r.
Va
w
LAIy
iy
rh, '
MW
4W
fwu
n
U2,
i
N
Lu
N
bA
N
P.
NCr-
C
p
U
Y
1
f
O
H
m
p
p
0,
V)
v
m
w
mS3
G
a >
m
O
CL
T7
J
ro
1A
v
O '
O
O
yZ
x °
s
o
c
m
3
i.
O
N
or
d
o
i
s
i
Z
tl1
p
O
O
CL
p
o
O
CT*
w
m
U=
Un
o
v
ro
c
CO
C
O
O
ro
Y (($
Y
E
N
U;
v
3
07
10
O
N
m
w
mS3
G
a >
m
O
CL
T7
J
O '
O
O
S
V7
Ul
T
N
O
i.
O
N
or
d
o
s
i
Z
tl1
p
O
O
CL
p
o
O
CT*
w
m
U=
Un
o
O
G
Y
coo
D
o
E
o
is
c
CO
O
O
Y (($
m
a)
v
Un
o
ccs
o
c
o
YO
ou;
ou
m
d
Z
coo
0:
3-
0
o
m
ci
o
O
a
X
CO
n
a
s
o
o
a
p
o
n
v
u
m
m
w
n
CO
o'
bn
a) Q
u
o
Ln
J
i
n
o °'
ns. _
s
@
m
cu
w
co
w'
a
m
Y
N
S
u
u
n
bbn
m
Q
bA
pp -
z-,
m
o=
u
Q
O
Ul
CU
C
n
m
a)
cu
m
a)
m
C",
umn
cu
o
o
a °
U
p
r
o
c
m
on
c
o
o=>
c
Y
N
w
w>
m
u
n
O
N
C
O
mv
O
Ul
U
p
m
u
a
c
o
o
o
O
InO
O
y
U')
N
m
v
o
E>
E
v,
u
o
ro '
n
o
O
O >
m
O
O
u
N
E
Cl.
N +''
Y
m
N
U
u
7
@
w
co
Ln
O
m-
0
InG
O •
S
vs
coco
o. .
Q
b
N
E
3
O
p
E
T3
u
lid
coo
m
N
N
C
tSQ
vs
u
E
E =
E
x
u
o
N
o
T _
T3
E
a
In
aa,
aoi
o
m
m
si
z
0
o'
co
co
0::
3
m
Em
z
u,
o
s
am
o
E_
o
c
m
E
E
o
a
E
C0El
LMM
771
an
00
n
D
63
7
7
y
F
jy
G
II:
r
F
G
a
D
r,
o
w
n
x
ry
0
y
a
v
i
r
MY
iii
vCDh
I//%%
11,
ii
G
f
ro
C 0V,
VT
ji
E
EE
w
V)
6
V)
D
2!
E
E
13
0
EE
C:
cr
cu
0)
o
7E; -
a
O
0
C:
CU -
3Emoo-
c=(
Um
O
t-
0
w
ur-
cr
C:
f
al
0
0
0'
aj
5
E
a°
o
oLn
A
t
CL
E
o
p
RSto
qj
m
Ln
E
4•
lu
a,
mcn
c:
CL
mo
N
on
aj
E
w
aJ
Op
N
C
Q
Li
O
Zw
Now
O
Ln
n
o0
gaj
LIP
o (
A
a
u) a
c>
W
Zo, .
2!
v
Lo
CL
7S '
In
0
m
E >
c
0
o
E;
cu
t--
E
cu
Ln
0
a)
Ll
7V;
B
cu
Ln
0
2 -
o
m
m
E
CL
rq
0
01
n
o
rv
CL >
Ln
oV
ow
c:
ro
C 0V,
VT
ji
E
EE
7
0CD0
Im
Q
C
V
0
W. 0
ur
i
y ,
4t'
u,."
61
NP
MY
iii
i/ii/
i
i
G
5
FW
IW
E —
Ul)
M
u—
a)
a)
2
ul
u
E
u
E
ro
d
E
CL
z
Ln
ID
C:
V)
U,
W = -
s
CLUl)
C: EmOU,
Ln
11
V)
o -"
c
0 —
0
E
cu
0
c
LO
Ln
C)
M
Z
M
0 -
Z;
3
C:
i=
0
0
E
a)
E
v;
E
CL
V)
UM,
u
M
E
0 — —
0E
u
o
c:
CL
u
E
B
n
ra
CL
m
3a
2
C,
Ln
I-
U
E
coo
o
c:
73
a',
E
Q)
C:
W
E
bn
m
LI)
a'<
m -
E
z
cn
0
Ln
Ln
E -
E
E
3 >
m
C)
bl,
L -
2
C)
ou) (
n
U.)
nL
M
u
C,
0Vc
Eom'— E
8
i5C.) -
0
w
m
7s
u
O
Oy
uo)-
72 -
7
ro —
CCL
t:~
U
u
E
0
E>
O
t
0
E
0
E
LnU-)
ru
Iu,
o-
0
co
E
4 L
m
Ln
0N
V)
U
z
ro
QJ
u)
E
m
0
E
ra
0
CL
In
z
V)
E
Ld
Ln
oE
CL
u
E
m
E
c -
S
Ln :
6
U
N
E
E
m
E
a)
ML,
Ln
0 >
ro
8
u
Cro
V)
C,
11
7s:
0-
L61HC4L61ZV
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
S.4
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
REPORT TO Council/CAO
SUBMITTED BY Heather Archibald, Development Officer
DATE 2016-01-29
SUBJECT Highway 3 Site Plan area and Change of Use within an Existing
Building
ORIGIN Village Planning Area Land Use By-law and the Village Secondary
Planning Strategy
CURRENT SITUATION:
Within the Highway 3 Site Plan Area, the current wording of the Chester Village and Area Land Use By-
law requires an applicant to go through the site plan process for:
new construction;
a change of use within an existing building;
an addition of any size to an existing building;
the construction of an accessory structure
Single unit dwellings and two -unit dwellings are exempt from the Highway 3 Site Plan criteria (per the
MGA requirements) but all other uses, structures and developments are subject to the requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
For discussion
BACKGROUND:
The Highway 3 site plan area has an extensive list of requirements developers must meet before they
are able to receive approval for a development. These requirements include keeping the parking away
from the front of the building, landscaping, and a stormwater management plan amongst other criteria.
The requirements are mainly directed to new construction; however the current wording within the
Chester Village Planning Area Land Use By-law also requires these same criteria to apply to any change
of use of an existing building, any addition to an existing building and to any newly constructed or
placed accessory building.
For example, if someone wanted to use an existing building that was a restaurant and change the use to
a retail store they would be required to go through the entire site plan process including creating a
stormwater management plan, potential changes to the parking layout of the lot and adding additional
landscaping even if they were not intending to do any expansion or exterior renovations to the building.
If an existing business wanted to construct a small accessory structure on their property they would
also need to go through the same full site plan process; or if an existing business wanted to add an
addition to their building they would also be required to go through the same site plan process and be
subject to the same criteria as if they were building completely new.
While there may be times that certain sizes of additions or accessory structures may warrant a desire
to see some site changes, currently even the smallest addition or accessory structure or the simplest
change of use requires the entire process to be completed before approval can be granted.
Existing businesses may face difficulty with being able to meet all of the criteria for the Highway 3 Site
Plan area due to placement of their existing structures and lot layouts having grown from a more
organic process. Additionally, if an existing business closes, the structure may risk being vacant due to
required changes under the Highway 3 Site Plan area if a new business is not of a similar use.
Staff believes that this was not Council's original intent and are requesting direction from Council.
OPTIONS:
1. Direct staff to prepare a staff report to amend the Village Planning Area documents to lessen the
controls within the Highway 3 Site Plan area for non-residential change of uses, additions and
accessory structures and refer the matter to the Village Area Advisory Committee and to the
Citizens Planning Advisory Committee.
2. Leave the Highway 3 Site Plan criteria "as is."
3. Refer the matter to Plan Review for consideration
Prepared BY Heather Archibald Date 2016-01-29
Reviewed BY Tara Maguire Date 2016-02-04
Authorized BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date 2016-02-05
REPORT TO
SUBMITTED BY
DATE
SUBJECT
ORIGIN
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Council/CAO
Heather Archibald, Development Officer
2016-01-28
Shipping Containers used as Storage
Village Planning Area Land Use By-law
5.5
CURRENT SITUATION:
The current Chester Village Planning Area land Use by-law prohibits shipping containers to be used
for the storage or shelter of goods of any description under section 4,4A. The Municipality has an
active land use violation case for a shipping container that is currently being use for commercial
storage. A letter has been issued to the owner to have the shipping container removed. The deadline
for the removal of the shipping container has passed. Staff is requesting Council to make a decision
regarding the violation and whether to proceed with a 30 -day order.
RECOMMENDATION:
For discussion
BACKGROUND:
Land use by-law complaint was received mid-December 2015 about a shipping container being used
for storage on a property within the Highway 3 Site Plan area, located in the Highway Commercial
zone. A site visit confirmed the existence of a shipping container. A letter was mailed to the property
owner on December 16, 2015 advising that the shipping container was not permitted and would need
to be removed by January 21, 2016.
Early January the owner contacted the Community Development Department to arrange a meeting
with the Development Officer and the Senior Planner to discuss options. At this meeting it was noted
that the shipping container was placed there late fall and is being used for storage of commercial
wares. Discussion was held regarding possible options, which under the current land use by-law is
limited to either removing the container or applying for an amendment to the planning documents to
permit shipping containers. The property owner is keen to have shipping containers permitted for
non-residential uses with appropriate screening and setbacks within the Highway 3 site plan area.
I advised that a letter to Council requesting consideration to amendment the planning documents
would need to be submitted no later than January 21, 2016, the cutoff date to have the shipping
container removed.
The property owner has submitted his request for Council to consider amendments to the planning
documents to permit shipping containers for non-residential uses within the Village Planning Area.
The property owner also has a transport trailer attached to his main building and has been there for a
considerable time. Prior to amendments in 2012 transport trailers were permitted to be used as
storage.
OPTIONS.
1. Direct staff to issue an Order to the property owner to remove the shipping container
2. Direct staff to prepare a staff report to amend the Village Planning Area documents to permit
shipping containers and transport trailers within the Highway 3 Site Plan area for non-
residential uses and refer the matter to the Village Area Advisory Committee and to the Citizens
Planning Advisory Committee; and defer a decision respecting the issuance of an Order until such
time as a decision is made with respects to amending the Village Planning Area documents.
3. Direct staff to prepare a staff report to amend the Village Planning Area documents to only
permit shipping containers within the Highway 3 Site Plan area for non-residential uses and
refer the matter to the Village Area Advisory Committee and to the Citizens Planning Advisory
Committee; and, defer a decision respecting the issuance of an Order until such time as a decision
is made with respects to amending the Village Planning Area documents.
4. Refer the matter to Plan Review for consideration; and not issue an Order to the property owner
to remove the shipping container
Prepared BY Heather Archibald Date 2016-02-05
Reviewed BY Date
Authorized BY Date
REPORT TO
SUBMITTED BY
DATE
SUBJECT
ORIGIN
CURRENT SITUATION:
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Warden Webber and Members of the Committee of the Whole
Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, Chief Administrative Officer
February 4, 2016
Space Options
Council - October 2015
5.6
At the October 29, 2015 Council meeting, Council directed that staff not proceed with the renovations
with Gold River School due to projected increases in the project budget. Council thence directed staff to
bring back a report outlining the options to address the space requirements for MODC operations.
This report provides Council with options for consideration, and direction is requested as to which
options Council wishes to have explored further.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council authorize the expenditure to have a Truss Assessment of the Annex Building to enable
plans to be prepared for the renovation of both the lower floor and upper floor, with the same to be
phased in over a period of two fiscal years.
That Council direct staff to take the steps necessary to list the Gold River Western Shore former school
for sale.
BACKGROUND:
In 2010, MODC contracted Anne Sinclair Architect to complete a facilities study. This study identified
present and future space requirements (20 years). The study identified the physical space area
requirements as well as identified that MODC will need to evolve in how it thinks about space to meet
the needs of an evolving workforce created by the millennials , which will soon dominate the workforce
as boomers retire. Millennials gravitate towards open, collaborative work environments with
personalized work stations. They are not distracted by noise and work best in an open environment.
The Study utilized provincial space standards, applied this to the existing and future position count of
MODC and identified that MODC does not requires any additional square footage, rather space needs
to be redesigned to enable the efficiencies that can be realized in the existing square footage (this
included utilization of space occupied by the food bank). In a redesign, it was suggested that provincial
standards for office space requirements be utilized, and, rather than drywall and stud office partitions
it was recommended that prefabricated, moveable wall systems whose components combine with the
workstation and storage units be used. This would enable change in design and layout which can easily
accommodate the municipality as it changes.
The Study identified that there are deficiencies in the existing office space that should be addressed
during any redesign. These include:
Lack of Storage for files/materials
Lack of accessibility; Access between floors (barrier free); Lack of barrier free washrooms on
Council Chamber level, level of controls, door hardware and doorway clearances;
Admin; Tax Counter- needs redesign to offer some privacy to tax customers; move congestion
from work side of reception desk; better security
Annex Building- No waiting area for public; front counter needs redesign to properly provide
customer service; lack of ability to meet with client (no space);
lack of acoustic privacy in both buildings
Staff Areas- three (3) staff rooms, none of them adequate... should consider one that is adequate
and remove the rest.
Inadequate public wayfinding;
Upper Entrance- Security Concerns; no public reception; no wayfinding
Meeting Space- inadequate for needs; could be addressed with better office space (table;
chairs)
Food Bank - should be separated from municipal operations.
Three Schemes were provided:
1) 2600 sq. ft. addition / reconfiguration of existing space ($889.840 [2010]: $1.3 M [2016]11:
to provide for efficient use of existing space,
to provide for a New Main Entrance with elevator to ensure interior accessibility of all levels,
Continue to house the Food Bank,
Add office space to connect the Annex Building to the Main Building.
2) Link Annex and Main Building and reconfigure existing space ($802K [2010]; $1.17 M [201611
Elevator on lower level of Main building;
3) Addition to Main Building to replace Annex Building ($783K [2010] : $1.15 M [2016]
Places all services in one building
Elevator to ensure interior accessibility of all levels
Reorganization of space and reception on both levels
Lower level of annex used for storage and food bank; Upper level for rental or future office
needs
In 2011, MODC approved funds for an addition to the Main Building, being option 3. In 2011 MODC
thence rescinded the motion for the addition and associated funding.
In 2013, MODC Council received the Gold River Western Shore School once deemed surplus to the
Department of Education's needs. Plans were developed to utilize this facility for MODC administrative
purposes. Budgets were originally estimated at $416,000 and had since escalated to $1.2M. At the
November 2015 Council meeting, Council directed staff to discontinue with the Gold River Western
Shore Facility Renovation and directed staff to bring back options to address the space needs of MODC
operations.
The Gold River Western Shore facility is presently vacant and is being kept idle (construction heaters).
Presently, MODC is utilizing the space for the storage of recreation equipment, files and miscellaneous
items.
1 2016 value assumes a 8% escalation per year; Costs are construction only and do not include possible staff relocation; furnishings,
hst. Costs are estimates only and are based upon consultants experience, qualifications and best judgement
DISCUSSION:
As noted the study identified that the existing floor area would be sufficient if redesigned. However,
deficiencies in building design and layout prompted the need for additional space to ensure operations
were physically connected, address accessibility issues as well as ensure efficient use of space.
Connecting operations ensured efficiencies in mechanical systems, space use and equipment use. In
addition, it facilitates the environment for collaboration.
The Strategic Management Team has reviewed its space needs with a 10 year horizon (the 2010 study
used a 20 year horizon). It has been determined that there is a need for 3 office spaces, meeting room
and space for file storage. Using the Province of Nova Scotia's Accommodation and Furniture standards,
this equates to approximately 800 square feet. This does not address accessibility issues, nor the
inefficient layout of existing office space.
Options to address Space Needs:
1. Addition to Main Administration Building, as per 2010 Study (approx. 2600 square feet) - $1.15
to 1.3 M
The 2010 report recommended a 2600 square foot addition which enabled a centralized entry point,
elevator, and reorganization of space. There was an option to join the existing buildings or just do a
separate addition to the Main Building.
Next steps : 1) 2016/17 - Complete preliminary design; obtain Class C Estimate; confirmation to
proceed; final design -Tender Drawings) ; 2) 2017/18 — Construct.
2. Smaller Addition to Main Administration Building (800 — 1000 square feet; Minor Renovations
to Upper Floor of Annex Building to accommodate a more efficient layout and welcoming reception
area..
Estimate of Costs based upon 2015 Construction Cost Guide (Altus Group) for a 1000 square feet
addition: $315,000. This assumes one level and does not address accessibility issues / layout of
existing floor space. This is a rough estimate and is subject to design and subsequent cost estimates.
This estimate is sourced from Altus Group Construction Cost Guide 2015, it includes furnishing costs
but does not include soft costs (engineering, architectural, site service costs, etc.)
Next Steps: 1) 2016 /17 - Complete preliminary design; obtain Class C Estimate (+ or — 20%) ;
Confirmation to Proceed; complete Final Design (Tendered Drawings) ;
2) 2017/18- Construct
3. Renovation of Annex Building in Two Phases:
Phase 1- Renovation of Lower Floor. There is approximately 842 square feet of space on the
lower level that could be renovated to provide for office (open concept) and file storage
space.
Phase 2- Renovation of Upper Level- Reorganization of Space using open concept with
movable partitions; addition of meeting room and renovation of front counter space).
Preliminary discussions have occurred with MODC's Building Inspector. Modifications to lower
entrance to provide for barrier free access (chair lift); HVAC will be required.
Phase 1- Estimated at $80,000 (includes furnishings- movable partitions; file cabinets for proper file
storage)
Next Steps: 1) 2015/16 - Truss Assessment (estimated at $5,900); 2) 2016/17- Finish Asbestos
abatement in lower level (estimated at $4,000); Complete required plans for permit and construct.
4. Lease Space.
MODC can lease, satisfy its space needs by leasing off-site space. This would not address the
inefficient layout of existing space. Preliminary investigations suggest that leasing space would be
approximately $6 per square foot (gross lease). Renting 500 square feet of space (excludes file
storage) would equate to $3,000 per month, or $36,000 per annum. Any fit up, office equipment and
furnishing costs would be in addition to this. File Storage would be an additional $10,000 per annum
for a total of $46,000 per annum.
Next Steps- 1) 2015/16 Prepare a Request for Proposals to lease office space (approximately 500
square feet); Secure off-site file storage space (assuming Gold River Western Shore Facility is no
longer owned by MODC) in accordance with Procurement Policy.; 2) 2016/17 - relocate service to
leased space.
If the lease option is chosen, it is recommended that MODC renovate the front counter in the Annex
Building to improve layout for customer service and enable support staff backup by facilitating two
work stations at the counter. This will improve the experience for the client as both building and
development permit/subdivision will be offered at the same counter.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy: Procurement Policy: Annex Building Renovation would be Low Value Procurement; Lease
would require a Request for Proposals; Addition would require a RFP/Tender
2 Financial/Budgetary:
Option 1- 2600 sq. addition / elevator/ space reorganization
2016/17 - Design (preliminary design, class c estimate, final design) $ 65,000
2017/18- Construction only $1.3 M (rough estimate)
Option 2- 1000 sq. ft. addition (one level; no elevator; no space reorganization)
2016/17- Design (preliminary design, class c estimate, final design) $25,000
2017/18 - Construction / furnishings $315,000 (rough estimate)
Option 3- Annex Building Renovation (Lower Floor)
2015/16 - $5,900 (There are sufficient funds in the 2015/16 to complete the truss assessment of
the annex building)
2016/17- Construction $74,000
Option 4- Lease (Operating Expenses)
2015/16 - No costs- Proposal Call
2016/17 - $46,000 per annum (office and file storage) - lease costs; IT costs TBD; utility/equipment
lease costs $3000 - estimate).
3 Environmental:
4 Strategic Plan:
1. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
2. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses
5 Work Program Implications
Implication to Capital Program if addition or renovation.
6 Consultation/Communications (External v Internal)
External Communications
Communications with Food Bank on decision is important.
Council consider utilizing the newsletter and social media to communicate decision to residents.
Internal Communications
Any change in office configuration, be it an addition, renovation of existing floor space or a
relocation can have consequences for staff and communication of the same is critical. Staff
Communication pieces will be developed to ensure staff are informed of any decisions respecting
addressing our space issue.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A- Option Analysis
OPTIONS:
Options are provided in the Discussion portion of this report. Appendix A provides a pros/cons analysis
for the options.
Prepared BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date February 5, 2016
Reviewed BY Date
Authorized BY Date
Analysis of Options
Options Advantages Disadvantages Rough Costs
Addition to Main Removes need to move Maintains costs of operating 1.17 M — 1.3
Building — move operations off site and the Annex Building (food bank;
operations to one operational inefficiencies storage; upper floor vacant)
building that result; Facilitates Highest cost option
collaboration;
Efficient use of HVAC;
Heating system
Addresses accessibility
issues
One public
entry/reception, lessening
confusion (of bldgs. Not
being joined)
More efficient use of
office infrastructure (fax,
photocopier; washrooms;
staff room)
inefficient layout of
space in main building
addressed
Long tern solution
Smaller Addition (800 Removes the need to File Storage not addressed 315,000
square feet) move operations off site unless addition larger; or annex
and the operational bldg. renovated on lower level
inefficiencies that result Accessibility issues in main
from the same. building not addressed (unless
enables use of existing budgeted for);
office infrastructure Inefficient layout of existing
washrooms, staff room, space not addressed (unless
office equipment) budgeted for)
facilitates collaboration Short to Mid Term Solution
efficient use of HVAC;
Heating systems
Option to continue to
have Food Bank in lower
level of Annex
Renovate Annex Utilizes existing facility; May lose gym for staff (would 5,900 - truss
Building to Utilize Removes the need to have to look at alternative) assessment
Space move operations off site Food Bank would have to 74,000
and the operational vacate renovation and
inefficiencies that result Short to Mid-term solution furnishings)
from the same.
Some of the renovation
work able to be done by
Public Works staff
Operational costs would
be small as lower floor is
already occupied and thus
heated.
Lease off Site Space no capital requirements; Moving part of operation off 46,000 per
no maintenance costs site creates inefficiencies; annum
associated with space Estimated lease costs for office
occupies space in the and file storage is $46,000 per
community annum.
can be short term or long More expensive to lease than to
term solution renovate over the long run
costs are predictable; Increase in annual operating
option to continue with budget (lease, IT, utility)
Food Bank in Annex Duplication of office
equipment; - Loss of synergies
from co -locating and associated
costs (i.e. back up support for
admin; on-site IT support;
janitorial, et)
p
I
OmO
aCd00d
REPORT TO:
SUBMITTED BY
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CURRENT SITUATION:
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Warden Webber and Members of Council
Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng./Christa Rafuse, P.Eng.
January 26, 2016
Chester Basin Wharf Update
Based on condition assessments performed on the Chester Basin wharf by SNC Lavalin Inc. completed in the
Fall of 2014 and a follow-up in 2015 (a more intrusive investigation following the removal of deck boards) we
have proceeded with partial repairs to the wharf. In addition, staff has restricted vehicles from driving on the
wharf utilizing concrete jersey barriers for safety purposes as a number of horizontal timbers and decking
requires replacement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the remaining amount in the 2015/16 capital budget for the Chester Basin Wharf be
carried over and that additional budget requested in the amount of $ 48,100 for the 2016/17 year be approved
to enable the continuation of the necessary repairs to the east and south sides of the wharf, to replace partial
decking and replace/install new wheel guards to enable the public to safely continue to use the community
wharf.
2015/16 - motion to place in reserve $17,007 remaining from the Chester Basin Wharf Project
2016/17- to include $48,100, plus $17,007, for a total of $65,125
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
SNC Lavalin Inc. determined that the conditions of the support structure were deteriorated and would require
full replacement of the structure. This would far exceed any budget made available. The next option to pro-
long the life of the existing structure safely was to restrict loads on the wharf, followed with repairs of
horizontal timbers, vertical fenders, new wheel guards and decking. The cleats will be replaced to the new
timber wheel guards to safely secure a vessel. To cut costs are aim would be to replace 30% of the decking,
removing only those timbers that are in the worst condition and replacing others previously removed during
intrusive investigation and covered temporarily.
Additional wheel guards are to be installed at +/- 2 m the wharf sides (north, south and east) to reduce vehicle
access and any vehicle loads thus pro -longing the current life span and for commercial use in the area.
The wheel load is not to exceed 800 kg, the approximate registered weight of a pickup truck and material
storage anywhere on the wharf is not to exceed 500 kg/m3.
With completing this work an additional 3 -5 years of life should be expected with annual maintenance and
inspection. Annual inspections will are required to monitor the overall capacity.
A! F 17VV
r 4 "iki d q'1
3b6'-ut3 d4 Y i
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
Policy P-04- Procurement Policy will be complied within procuring services/ goods/construction
2 Financial/Budgetary:
Chester Basin Wharf - Budget Table*
Budget for 2015/16 55,000 Total budgeted
Total spent to date - Jan 2016 36,431.35 Materials, Labor and Equipment -
North Side
Budget Remaining for 2015/16 17,007
7 F, E E, IN, I "'E
Estimated Budget for
2016/17
65,125 Decking, East and South Side
Materials, Labor and Equipment)
Estimated Budget minus
carry-over
48,100
sue ru.a'%r ^,
us 254 cur BM, u,,. zw
w'rYrY a p% N"ID Cw Y EP
WHE
HIE Y l
PURI R1' 1 ;
7 -NEER tiryp.d R 4N
IM
wa[p LA.I
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
Policy P-04- Procurement Policy will be complied within procuring services/ goods/construction
2 Financial/Budgetary:
Chester Basin Wharf - Budget Table*
Budget for 2015/16 55,000 Total budgeted
Total spent to date - Jan 2016 36,431.35 Materials, Labor and Equipment -
North Side
Budget Remaining for 2015/16 17,007 Requesting to carry-over to
2016/17
Estimated Budget for
2016/17
65,125 Decking, East and South Side
Materials, Labor and Equipment)
Estimated Budget minus
carry-over
48,100
All figures are net HST
3 Environmental:
4 Strategic Plan:
Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
S Work Program Implications:
Prepared BY Christa Rafuse, P.Eng. Date January 26, 2016
Reviewed BY Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng Date February 3, 2016
Authorized BY Tammy Wilson, CAO Date February 3, 2016
Cindy Hannaford
From: Tammy Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 9:01 PM
To: Pam Myra; Cindy Hannaford
Cc: Allen Webber
Subject: FW: Atlantic Mayors Congress
Please place on the next COW Agenda (Feb 18)
Thanks
Tammy S Wilson, MURP, MCIP I Chief Administrative Officer ( Municipality of the District of Chester
Ph: 902-275-3554 1 www.chester.ca
From: Ken Smith [mailto:ksmith@bridgewater.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 8:47 AM
To: Tammy Wilson <twilson@chester.ca>
Cc: Sandra Porter -Lowe <slowe@bridgewater.ca>; Kevin Malloy <I<Malloy@modl.ca>; 'Chasidy Veinotte
cveinotte@modl.ca)' <cveinotte@mod l.ca>; David Walker <dwall<er@bridgewater.ca>; Don Downe
ddowne@modl.ca>
Subject: Atlantic Mayors Congress
Tammy
This e-mail is to follow up on our telephone discussion yesterday. As discussed, our committee, including the 2 Mayors,
asked me to follow up on the discussion held at the Mayors, Wardens, Deputies and CAO's meeting last week with
respect to sponsorships for the Congress. The committee did examine the opportunity to make the INN at Oak Island
a part of the sightseeing tour on Thursday afternoon. However, the logistics of fitting in the Oak Island portion of a
proposed tour was difficult. In light of this, we are requesting your support for one or more of the refreshment breaks.
Each refreshment break is a $500 sponsorship. There are 3 available in total throughout the 3 days.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Ken