HomeMy Public PortalAbout2016-08-11_Council_Public Agenda Package
Page 1 of 2
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
AGENDA
Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 8:45 a.m.
Chester Municipal Council Chambers
151 King Street, Chester, NS
1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
2.1. Council – Thursday, July 28, 2016
2.2. Council – Thursday, August 4, 2016
2.3. Public Hearing – Thursday, August 4, 2016
3. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
3.1. Audit and Budget Committee Meeting (Minutes) – August 4, 2016 – Warden
Webber.
3.2. Any other Committee Reports.
4. MATTERS ARISING:
4.1. Amendments to Policy P-58 – Remuneration of Appointed Committee
Members – amendment to allow payment of Committee Members of
Municipal Representatives on the Joint Fire Advisory Committee.
5. CORRESPONDENCE:
5.1. Fax from Brady Hennigar dated August 3, 2016 regarding Forestry Conference
follow-up (appointment at 9:00 a.m.).
a) Background Material: Link to UNSM Forestry Workshop presentations
http://www.unsm.ca/unsm-forestry-workshop.html
5.2. Correspondence from Michael Wilcox, New Ross Credit Union dated July 19,
2016 regarding Taxes owed on Property Located at 167 Owls Head.
5.3. Email from PVSC regarding PVSC Bridgewater Office Lease Completion and
Lunenburg County Lifestyle Centre PVSC Schedule – for your information.
5.4. Letter from Our Health Centre - Partnership Request (Program Coordinator)/
Request for Decision Partnership Request.
Page 2 of 2
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1. Request for Decision – Award of T-2016-020 – Foxwood Drive Rehabilitation –
Phase 2.
6.2. Request for Decision – Award of T-2016-007 – Environmental Lab Services.
6.3. Request for Decision – Election Fees for 2016 Election.
6.4. Other New Business Added Items
7. IN CAMERA:
7.1 Contract Negotiations- Sherbrooke Lake, MGA 22(2) (e)
8. ADJOURNMENT.
APPOINTMENTS ARRANGED
9:00 a.m. Forestry Conference follow-up - Brady Hennigar, Mac Barkhouse, Ruby
Seffern, Debbie Reeves, Dale Corkum, Ivan Corkum.
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Chad Haughn Date August 4, 2016
Reviewed By: Date
Authorized By: Date
CURRENT SITUATION
Operational planning for the OHC is underway and Managing Director Alice Leverman has
requested that the Recreation and Parks Department partner with the OHC. Specifically she has
requested that we consider the new facility as a potential location for community programming
as well as to provide coordination for the community resource desk.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Recreation and Parks Department programming staff consider the OHC
as a possible location for future community recreation programs.
It is further recommended that the Recreation & Parks Department provide assistance with the
coordination of volunteers for the Resource Centre at the OHC. This coordination would use
existing Recreation & Parks staff (Community Coordinator) and would be a maximum of three
hours per week. This coordination would be established for a twelve month trial period and
would be reevaluated at the end of the twelve months.
BACKGROUND
Our Health Centre is preparing for the grand opening of their facility in October 2016. The Centre
will focus on primary care opportunities but will also be involved in promotion of the health &
wellbeing of people. With the multipurpose community program space at the facility, the OHC
is interested in partnering with the Recreation & Parks Department to have health and wellness
related programming take place at the facility. Currently the Recreation & Parks Department
schedules programs at various community facilities so this request aligns with our current
operations.
The OHC plans to have a community resource desk available onsite. The resource and
information referral desk will act as a health information hub. It will be a conduit for
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Chad Haughn,
Recreation & Parks Director
DATE: August 4, 2016
SUBJECT: Opportunity to Partner With the OHC
ORIGIN: OHC Request Letter
2 Request For Decision/Direction
information among and between citizens, doctors and nurse practitioners, the Nova Scotia
Health Authority, and program opportunities. The key mechanism for making the hub effective
will be the recruitment and training of core volunteers that can actively connect people with
the information and resources they need. It also has the potential to recruit participants to
municipal and community recreation programs.
DISCUSSION
The OHC is a collaborative health centre and as such, would like to align with others in the
community who are interested and work in the area of promoting health and wellness. The
Recreation & Parks Department is a logical partner, especially the work of our Active Living
Coordinator and the implementation of the Active Living Strategy.
The Active Living Coordinator has been involved with the OHC program committee over the past
couple of years and it has become obvious that there are many benefits for a collaborative
partnership to exist between the OHC and the Recreation & Parks Department. Such a
collaboration between a municipality and a health setting represents an innovative approach to
health promotion.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
NA
Financial/Budgetary
NA
Environmental
NA
Strategic Plan
Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources
Work Program Implications
Direct program delivery at the OHC would be done within the existing quarterly program
planning. The OHC would be an additional program location consideration and therefore would
not require any additional resources or funding.
The coordination of the volunteer centre could be done using existing staff (Community
Coordinator). With some redistribution of work duties, time spent assisting with the community
resources could be accommodated without additional staff or funds. The work can be done
remotely at the existing Community Coordinator workspace.
3 Request For Decision/Direction
OPTIONS
1. Consider use of the OHC community program space and provide staff time to assist with
the coordination of the resource desk.
2. Consider use of the OHC community program space but do not provide coordination for
the resource desk.
3. Provide coordination for the OHC resource desk but do not consider use of the community
program space.
4. Deny the full request from the OHC.
ATTACHMENTS
Request from OHC Managing Director, Alice Leverman
Healthier People - Healthier Communities
ChadHauohn
Director, Recreation &Parks
Municipality 0fthe District ofChester
151 King St, Chester, N.G.
BOJ UO
July 18.2O10
A
On behalf ofOur Health Centre (OHC).|am writing to request the Recreation Department consider the
potential to provide program coordination support to OHC on a part time basis. Specifically,xveane
requesting staff support to assist OHC in the implementation and ongoing coordination of the
programming component of OHC- which also includes an information and referral service.
GunjTate has been capably chairing the Programming Committee ofOHC for the past few years and we
have appreciated the support of the Municipality and the Recreation Department in this regard. With
Gord's expertise and leadership abilities, much good work has been done to plan and prepare for the
implementation of a variety of OHC programming- both inside the new health centre and by way of
outreach to our communities. We are now ready to move to the next phase and put the planning into
action.
In addition tonew program development, we will need to ensure, asefirst step, that we do not duplicate
what is already in place, but rather build on existing resources. This will require coordination with services
and programs oYthe Recreation Department and other services and programs available throughout the
Municipality. Aayou know, program coordination requires aunique set ofskills and this iothe type of
staffing support vveare now requesting.
By working closely with Municipal Recreation staff over the years, the significant synergy between
recreation and health has become obvious. The Municipality, the Recreation Department and OHC have
developed a strong partnership and as a result, we have strengthened our ability to deliver on our shared
goal ofimproving the health ofcitizens within the Municipality. \8Aslook forward tothe continuance ofour
great partnership for the benefit ofall.
We recognize the many demands on your staff and that there are no new resources available within your
department We also recognize that preparing a response to our request will require you to look at the
possibility of realigning/reallocating your resources internally —which may have an impact on Gord's
current role with the OHC Program committee. |fthere is any additional information | can provide tohelp
in your deliberations, please do not hesitate tocontact me.
Thank you again for your continued support for OHC. VVe look forward boyour response.
Kindest Reg
Alice Leverman
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Christa Rafuse Date: August 3, 2016
Reviewed By: Matthew Davidson Date: August 4, 2016
Authorized By: Tammy Wilson Date: August 4, 2016
CURRENT SITUATION
On April 28th, 2016, Municipal Council approved the 2016-17 Capital and Operating Budget. The
Capital Budget included the rehabilitation of Foxwood Drive, Mill Cove. The budget for this
project was estimated at $303,000, net HST.
On July 7, 2016 Council approved staff’s recommendation to award T-2016-004 Foxwood Drive
Rehabilitation – Phase 1 to Dexter Construction Company Ltd for $137,080.00 including HST. In
addition, due to the remaining project funds and low bids (unit prices), staff was approved to
proceed with Tender Phase 2 as long as the entire project budget remains within the Capital
Project Budget of $303,000 Net HST
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Tender T-2016-020 Foxwood Drive Rehabilitation – Phase 2 be awarded
to Dexter Construction Company Ltd for $146,625 including HST.
The entire project remains within the Capital Project Budget of $303,000 Net HST, as directed
by Council.
BACKGROUND
Last fiscal year, the Engineering & Public Works Department, through the assistance of our
Engineering Consultant, SNC Lavalin Inc. (SLI), completed an assessment of all municipal roads.
Of the roads, Foxwood Drive scored the lowest overall score, which lead to the decision that the
best course of action would be to resurface the road, as well as replace the curb, gutter and storm
water system. SLI completed a tender package complete with estimate, in preparation for the
2016-17 Capital and Operating Budget.
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Public Works
DATE: August 11, 2016
SUBJECT: Results of Tender and Award
Recommendation
ORIGIN: T-2016-020 – Foxwood Drive
Rehabilitation – Phase 2
2 Request For Decision/Direction
DISCUSSION
Following the Municipality’s Procurement Policy, P-04, Phase 1 of the project was tendered
during the month of June, closing on June 24th, 2016. Three (3) tender submission were received
and reviewed for their conformity to the specification, completeness and mathematical accuracy.
The lowest bidder, Dexter Construction Company Limited, has demonstrated experience in the
area of work specified in the Tender, and with whom the Municipality has worked with on past
projects (i.e. Duke Street Sidewalk – Phase 1).
Following the low bids received for Phase 1 and remaining project funds Phase 2 of the project
was tendered during the month of July, closing on July 27th, 2016. Four (4) tender submissions
were received and reviewed for their conformity to the specification, completeness and
mathematical accuracy. The lowest bidder was again Dexter Construction Company Limited.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Tender T-2016-020 followed Policy P-04 - Procurement Policy.
Financial/Budgetary
When referring to the attached detailed Tender recommendation, the budget for this
project is $303,000, Net HST. The Engineering fees for the inspection and project
management were quoted approximately at $8,730, Net HST by Hiltz & Seamone. Given
the amount of remaining budgeted funds, approximated at $170,000, staff recommended
the completion of Phase 2 of this project.
Project Budget (Phase 1 & 2) - Foxwood Drive Rehabilitation
Project Budget (net HST) 303,000.00
Phase 1 (net HST) 124,309.14 Dexter
Phase 2 (net HST) 132,964.89 Dexter
Eng. & Inspection (net HST) Phase 1 8,728.75
Eng. & Inspection (net HST) Phase 2 8,728.75 * approx.
Contingency (approx.10%) 28,268.37
Environmental
Not applicable
Strategic Plan
1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
3 Request For Decision/Direction
3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses;
Work Program Implications
Not applicable.
OPTIONS
1. Award work, as recommended
2. Not award work, and wait until next fiscal year to retender
3. Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as
identified by Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Tender T-2016-020 Detail Tender Recommendation Foxwood Drive Rehabilitation – Phase 2
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Christa Rafuse Date: August 4, 2016
Reviewed By: Matthew Davidson Date: August 5, 2016
Authorized By: Tammy Wilson Date: August 5, 2016
CURRENT SITUATION
On April 28th, 2016, Municipal Council approved the 2016-17 Capital and Operating Budget.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Municipality award the three (3) year service contract to AGAT
Laboratories, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, for Environmental Lab Services.
BACKGROUND
The current Municipal service contract for these services expired on March 31, 2016. As a result
a Request for Proposals was issued for one (1) Environmental Lab Service provider for a three
(3) year period to provide services in support of the Municipality of the District of Chester’s
ongoing environmental monitoring requirements.
DISCUSSION
A RFP was issued on May 24, 2016 Environmental Lab Services T-2016-007 closing on June 17,
2016 with four (4) submissions received from AGAT Laboratories, In Common Laboratories,
Maxxam Analytics, and the NS Health Authority.
The compliant quotes were evaluated and ranked according to the following criteria:
Evaluation Criteria Points
AGAT In-Common Maxxam NS Health
Authority
Price 75 75 68.47 60.04 0
Technical Ability 20 16 8 16 13
Quality of Proposal 5 5 3 5 3
100 96 79.47 81.04 16
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Engineering & Public Works
DATE: August 11, 2016
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Award of
Environmental Lab Services
T-2016-007
ORIGIN:
2 Request For Decision/Direction
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
This Request for Proposal followed Policy P-04 Purchasing Policy.
Financial/Budgetary
The estimated value of the three (3) year contract is approximately $117,000 plus HST. Summary
of submitted unit prices attached for convenience as an appendix.
Environmental
The environmental lab services are required for permit requirements at the wastewater
treatment plants and landfill.
Strategic Plan
Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;
Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
Work Program Implications
Not applicable.
OPTIONS
1. To proceed
2. Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as
identified by Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Summary of submitted unit prices attached for convenience as an appendix.
MUNICIPALITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF CHESTER
REQUEST FOR DECISION (OR DIRECTION)
REPORT TO Council
SUBMITTED BY Returning Officer/Assistant Returning Officer
DATE August 3, 2016
SUBJECT Election Fees
ORIGIN 2016 Election Requirements
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CURRENT SITUATION:
The 2016 Municipal Election will be held on October 15, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
Election Fees as outlined for the 2016 Municipal/School Board Election be increased by the amount of
CPI over the past four years and rounded up to the nearest dollar.
BACKGROUND:
In 2012 Election Fees were increased by the amount of CPI of the previous four years.
DISCUSSION:
In a review of the fees from other units and the Province, the recommended fees are similar to other
units.
The fee for the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer have not been recommended – Council
will determine those fees for 2016.
There may be additional fees associated with insurance requirements for two polling station locations
which were also accommodated in the 2012 election.
IMPLICATIONS:
1 Policy:
2 Financial/Budgetary:
Election Budget
3 Environmental:
N/A
4 Strategic Plan:
1. Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;
2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
5 Work Program Implications
Included in the work plan of staff for 2016
ATTACHMENTS:
Copy of Election Fees recommended for 2016.
OPTIONS:
Does Council wish to initiate public consultation? Yes or No
Prepared BY Pamela Myra Date August 3, 2016
Reviewed BY Date
Authorized BY Tammy Wilson Date August 3, 2016
20
1
6
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
-
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
O
F
F
E
E
S
-
D
R
A
F
T
1
20
1
3
C
P
I
20
1
4
C
P
I
20
1
5
C
P
I
20
1
6
C
P
I
Fe
e
s
2%
1.
2
1.
7
0.
4
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
E
D
MODL
B
r
i
d
g
e
w
a
t
e
r
E
a
s
t
H
a
n
t
s
Q
u
e
e
n
s
H
R
M
P
r
o
v
RE
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
O
F
F
I
C
E
R
Fo
r
a
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
n
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
$30.70/hr
a.
I
f
n
o
p
o
l
l
i
s
h
e
l
d
,
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
o
l
l
i
n
g
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
$1
0
3
.
2
6
$1
0
5
.
3
3
$1
0
6
.
5
9
$1
0
8
.
4
0
$1
0
8
.
8
3
b.
I
f
a
p
o
l
l
i
s
h
e
l
d
w
i
t
h
o
n
e
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
p
o
l
l
i
n
g
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
$1
9
5
.
0
4
$1
9
8
.
9
4
$2
0
1
.
3
3
$2
0
4
.
7
5
$2
0
5
.
5
7
c.
E
a
c
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
o
l
l
$6
8
.
8
4
$7
0
.
2
2
$7
1
.
0
6
$7
2
.
2
7
$7
2
.
5
6
AS
S
I
S
T
A
N
T
R
E
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
O
F
F
I
C
E
R
Fo
r
a
s
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
R
e
t
u
r
n
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
i
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
n
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
o
f
$30.70/hr
a.
I
f
n
o
p
o
l
l
i
s
h
e
l
d
,
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
o
l
l
i
n
g
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
$5
1
.
6
3
$5
2
.
6
6
$5
3
.
2
9
$5
4
.
2
0
$5
4
.
4
2
b.
I
f
a
p
o
l
l
i
s
h
e
l
d
w
i
t
h
o
n
e
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
p
o
l
l
i
n
g
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
$9
7
.
5
2
$9
9
.
4
7
$1
0
0
.
6
6
$1
0
2
.
3
8
$1
0
2
.
7
8
c.
E
a
c
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
o
l
l
$3
4
.
4
2
$3
5
.
1
1
$3
5
.
5
3
$3
6
.
1
3
$3
6
.
2
8
DE
P
U
T
Y
R
E
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
O
F
F
I
C
E
R
15.70/hr =$235.50
a.
F
o
r
a
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
$8
1
.
9
5
$8
3
.
5
9
$8
4
.
5
9
$8
6
.
0
3
$8
6
.
3
7
90
.
0
0
$
40.00
$
90.00 $
b.
I
f
a
p
o
l
l
i
s
h
e
l
d
w
i
t
h
o
n
e
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
p
o
l
l
i
n
g
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
$1
5
4
.
8
8
$1
5
7
.
9
8
$1
5
9
.
8
7
$1
6
2
.
5
9
$1
6
3
.
2
4
17
5
.
0
0
$
175.00
$
200.00 $ 175.00 $ 175.00 $ 230.00 $
c.
E
a
c
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
o
l
l
$2
2
.
9
5
$2
3
.
4
1
$2
3
.
6
9
$2
4
.
0
9
$2
4
.
1
9
25
.
0
0
$
25.00
$
75.00 $
d.
F
o
r
s
t
a
n
d
b
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
s
a
s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
,
a
d
a
i
l
y
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
o
f
$3
2
.
7
8
$3
3
.
4
4
$3
3
.
8
4
$3
4
.
4
1
$3
4
.
5
5
35
.
0
0
$
PO
L
L
C
L
E
R
K
15.70/hr =$ 235.50
a.
F
o
r
a
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
/
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
i
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
$8
1
.
9
5
$8
3
.
5
9
$8
4
.
5
9
$8
6
.
0
3
$8
6
.
3
7
90
.
0
0
$
40.00
$
90.00 $
b.
I
f
a
p
o
l
l
i
s
h
e
l
d
w
i
t
h
o
n
e
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
p
o
l
l
i
n
g
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
$1
3
1
.
9
4
$1
3
4
.
5
8
$1
3
6
.
1
9
$1
3
8
.
5
1
$1
3
9
.
0
6
14
5
.
0
0
$
155.00
$
170.00 $ 145.00 $ 125.00 $ 215.00 $
c.
E
a
c
h
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
o
l
l
$1
1
.
4
7
$1
1
.
7
0
$1
1
.
8
4
$1
2
.
0
4
$1
2
.
0
9
15
.
0
0
$
12.00
$
45.00 $
d.
F
o
r
s
t
a
n
d
b
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
s
a
s
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
,
a
d
a
i
l
y
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
o
f
$3
2
.
7
8
$3
3
.
4
4
$3
3
.
8
4
$3
4
.
4
1
$3
4
.
5
5
35
.
0
0
$
RE
C
O
U
N
T
S
O
R
C
O
N
T
R
O
V
E
R
E
D
E
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Fo
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
c
e
b
y
t
h
e
R
e
t
u
r
n
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
a
t
r
e
c
o
u
n
t
o
r
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
f
a
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
o
v
e
r
t
e
d
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
d
a
i
l
y
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
:
$1
6
3
.
9
0
$1
6
7
.
1
8
$1
6
9
.
1
8
$1
7
2
.
0
6
$1
7
2
.
7
5
17
3
.
0
0
$
PO
L
L
I
N
G
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
S
Fo
r
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
r
p
a
r
t
o
f
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
f
u
e
l
,
$1
3
6
.
5
8
$1
3
9
.
3
1
$1
4
0
.
9
8
$1
4
3
.
3
8
$1
4
3
.
9
5
15
0
.
0
0
$
190.00
$
100.00 $ 180.65 $ 178.51 $
l
i
g
h
t
,
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
o
p
e
n
i
n
g
/
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
,
a
n
d
f
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
Plus $35
P
l
u
s
$
5
1
.
6
1
plus $51 for additional
a
s
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
r
y
p
o
l
l
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
p
e
r
p
o
l
l
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
for additional
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
polls
u
p
t
o
a
n
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
polls
p
o
l
l
s
RE
V
I
S
I
N
G
O
F
F
I
C
E
R
$22.70 /hr
Fo
r
a
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
$1
3
1
.
1
2
$1
3
3
.
7
4
$1
3
5
.
3
5
$1
3
7
.
6
5
$1
3
8
.
2
0
N/
A
n
a
m
e
s
a
d
a
i
l
y
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
c
e
o
f
CO
N
S
T
A
B
L
E
S
Fo
r
a
l
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
a
t
o
r
d
i
n
a
r
y
/
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
p
o
l
l
s
a
n
h
o
u
r
l
y
w
a
g
e
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
m
i
n
i
m
u
n
w
a
g
e
Comparison of other Units
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By: Bill DeGrace Date 8 August 2016
Reviewed By: Tara Maguire Date 8 August 2016
Authorized By: Date
CURRENT SITUATION
The second round of public consultation for the “ReVision” Plan Review was completed in
November 2015. Staff has recently received a request from a neighbourhood group in District 2
for a facilitated meeting on the Review.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a facilitated public meeting in September to bring area residents up to date with the
concepts presented in the first two rounds of the Plan Review process.
BACKGROUND
Public engagement on Plan Review, facilitated by Third Sector Enhancement Limited,
commenced in the winter of 2015 and continued through the summer and fall of that year, with
the intent of producing final documents for review by the spring of 2017. The following
diagram describes the process:
Between Round 2 and Round 3 is a facilitated workshop series pertaining to the Village of
Chester (August 15 and 18, 2016).
Round 1
Winter 2015
Visioning Workshops, to
identify issues, priorities
and overall vision for
community;
Targeted sessions on
specific topics
Online survey
Round 2
Summer/Fall 2015
"Pop-ups" at key
locations (facilitated by
staff)
Online survey
"Meeting in a Box "
Community Open Houses
and Workshops to
receive feedback from
community on goals,
objectives and planning
approaches
Round 3
Spring 2017
Presentation of draft
planning documents
REPORT TO: Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY: Community Development
DATE: August 8, 2016
SUBJECT: Plan Review – extra public engagement
session, District 2
ORIGIN: Request from area residents for
facilitated meeting
2 Request For Decision/Direction
The program was designed to be multi-faceted in order for the general public to have a variety
of ways to participate. In addition, several dates, times and venues were advertised to facilitate
opportunities for public engagement. Advice on the management of the public engagement
program is given by the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee, the body appointed to steer the
project. With the exception of Districts 5 and 7, facilitated meetings were well attended in
both Rounds 1 and 2.
DISCUSSION
In February 2016, a resident of Mill Cove Shore Road enquired about the Plan Review on behalf
of his neighbours. Staff explained that the first two rounds had concluded, but that it was not
too late for a neighbourhood group to conduct their own “Meeting in a Box”, which is a self-
directed exercise for small groups, and provide feedback. No action was taken at that time.
However, on July 19th, staff received a request from the same resident for a facilitated meeting
for a small group of his neighbours. As staff, we explained that we are neither in a position, nor
have the resources, to facilitate small gatherings. We suggested that one approach would be to
engage the local CPAC representatives (there are two as the MAAC chair who is on the CPAC is
a local resident) to provide and update on the process and to explain the current planning
approach being considered for that community. Later, it came to our attention that the
neighbourhood group has grown substantially to a size that would not be reasonably
manageable for volunteers to facilitate.
The plan review process originally envisioned two rounds of public engagement. We added a
third round (which has since become “Round 2”). Since then we extended the timeframe for
finishing the review. It is now anticipated that the third and final round of engagement will
occur in each district in spring 2017. During this year’s budget process, we did anticipate having
to do a separate round of engagement for Chester Village knowing that there were more
detailed regulations and design issues that still required additional public input. Those sessions
will be occurring August 15 and August 18. Doing another round of engagement sessions in
every district is not something that we think is necessary at this point. However, there is some
justification for an additional facilitated meeting in District 2:
1. While the November 2015 meeting at the Hubbards Fire Hall was successful and we had
some general consensus on the approaches, goals and objectives proposed by the CPAC,
the initial meeting at Aspotogan Consolidated Elementary School, in January 2015, was
less so. In that meeting, several residents expressed strong and valid opinions,
which are part of the public record, but some residents who attended may not have had
equal opportunity to participate.
2. The proximity of District 2 to the HRM has a bearing on the growth and development in
this area. It is reasonable for area residents to be mindful of this fact and to request an
additional meeting. In particular, residents in the Hubbards and Aspotogan area might
3 Request For Decision/Direction
now be more aware of the potential for development as the twinning of Highway 103
has become a more prominent issue in the news.
At issue, therefore, is that resources (time/financial) are not in place for additional facilitated
meetings unless so directed by Council.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Results of an additional meeting are not expected to affect the overall planning concept and
direction being considered within the Plan Review Process, but they could impact specific
planning direction in District 2.
Financial/Budgetary
The cost of an additional meeting (room booking, facilitators, hospitality, advertising) would be
charged to the plan review budget. It is anticipated that this would not cost any more than
$3000. Much of this might be able to be accommodated in the current budget but was not an
anticipated cost.
Proposed Budget:
• Advertising (Progress Bulletin, flyers, mail-out to District 2) $1000
• Facilitator: $1500
• Rental Fees/Hospitality: $500
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
Continually reinforce the positive image of the Municipality through leadership in public
engagement and communication
Work Program Implications
Staff resources would be required to organize, prepare materials for, and participate in an
additional public meeting.
OPTIONS
1. Conduct a facilitated public meeting in September to bring area residents up to date
with the concepts presented in the first two rounds of the Plan Review process.
2. Decline the request for an additional meeting at this time.
3. Request further information.
ATTACHMENTS
4 Request For Decision/Direction
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
• Newspaper advertising
• Web site
• Poster/flyer
• Unaddressed ad mail flyer to District 2 residents