Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2017-11-21_COW_Public_Agenda PackagePage 1 of 1 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Tuesday,November 21,2017 Change of Location to: Forest Heights Community School 847 Highway 12, Chester Basin, NS 1.MEETING CALLED TO ORDER. 2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS. 7.NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 Request for Decision prepared by Engineering and Public Works Department dated February 7, 2017 regarding Sidewalk/Driveway Entrance Painting. 7.2 Request for Decision prepared by Community Development Department dated November 10,2017 regarding Citizen Engagement Strategy –Municipal Plan Review. 7.3 Request for Direction prepared by Community Development Department dated November 7,2017 regarding Municipal Role in Affordable Housing. 7.4 Request for Direction prepared by Administration Department dated November 15, 2017 regarding PACE By-law Report. 7.5 Request for Direction prepared by Community Development Department dated November 6,2017 regarding Fire Advisory Committee. 8.IN CAMERA. 9.ADJOURNMENT. 6.CORRESPONDENCE. 4.MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 4.1. Committee of the Whole – November 2, 2017 7.6 Request for Decision prepared by Economic Development Officer dated November 16, 2017 regarding Next Steps for Sector Strategey Development. 3.PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (9:10 A.M. – 9:25 A.M.) 5. MATTERS ARISING: 5.1 Presentation by FHCS Student Government and discussion regarding student food and toy drive event. WELCOME CHESTER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL! FHCS STUDENT COUNCIL OUR COUNCIL •Our student council consists of, executive members, grade representatives and regular council members, this brings us to total of approximately 25 students involved in our council. OUR FOCUS •School Spirit •Community involvement •School involvement OUR SYSTEM •Weekly Meetings •Attendance •Executive Decisions REQUEST FOR DECISION/DIRECTION Prepared By:Christa Rafuse, P.Eng Date February 7, 2017 Reviewed By:Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng Date February 7, 2017 Authorized By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date February 9, 2017 CURRENT SITUATION At the July 14, 2016, Council meeting a discussion was held concerning a sidewalk on Duke Street in Chester. Councilor Church-Cornelius received a complaint about the sidewalk on Duke Street indicating that someone had a mishap and broke their ankle. She is asking if there can be reflective tape or paint on the sidewalk. It was indicated that Public Works would be requested to review the matter. RECOMMENDATION We are looking for Council to provide direction on how to proceed with sidewalk grade change markings for the Municipality. BACKGROUND At the July 14, 2016 Council meeting it was indicated that Public Works staff would review the use of reflective tape or paint on the sidewalk entrances to prevent trip hazards. Councillor Church-Cornelius provided a photo of what is done in some areas to alert public of the change in height at sidewalk/driveway entrances. A photo of typical painted triangle markings. REPORT TO:Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Engineering & Public Works Department DATE:February 7, 2017 SUBJECT:Sidewalk/Driveway Entrance Painting ORIGIN:Council Discussion July 14, 2016 2 Request For Decision DISCUSSION It is standard to have a change in grade at driveway or walkway entrances along sidewalks. This particular incident was caused by just that a change in grade. Council has therefore requested staff to review the general topic of change in grades. Staff posted on a list serve with little to no response and confirmed that typically other Municipalities are not marking the grade changes.Marking the grade changes doesn’t appear to be the norm but may work for smaller communities.The one location that is close by and presently does use the triangular painted markings to identify grade changes is Mahone Bay. They paint all entrances with triangles as shown in the photograph above,via a request for quote annually. They alternate each year doing half of the painting to minimize the operation and maintenance costs. In order to determine the potential cost to complete across the Municipality of the District of Chester staff have counted the entrances with grade changes along our sidewalks.We estimate that the approximate cost per triangle is $10 each and will require two (2) at each grade entrance. In addition, costs related to traffic control would be applied in those areas as needed. Sidewalk Location No. Entrances to be Painted Total Markings Required Cost at $10 ea (per Painted Triangle Marking)*excl tax Chester 85 170 1700 Chester Basin 17 34 340 New Ross 10 20 200 Hubbards 14 28 280 Western Shore 31 62 620 TOTAL 157 314 3140 Note: Entrances include both driveways and pedestrian. *traffic control is an extra cost IMPLICATIONS Policy Procurement would follow P-04, Procurement Policy as recently amended for Engineering Services. It is expected that this project would be classified as Low-Value Procurement Financial/Budgetary This project was not included in the 2017-18 Operating and Maintenance Budget to date. 3 Request For Decision Environmental N/A Strategic Plan 2. Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services; 3. Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses; 6. Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity. Work Program Implications The current operations and maintenance program did not account for painting sidewalk grade change warning markers. OPTIONS 1.Direct staff on how Council wishes to proceed with this matter; 2.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as identified by Council ATTACHMENTS N/A REQUEST FOR DECISION Prepared By:Bill DeGrace Date November 9, 2017 Reviewed By:Tara Maguire Date November 9, 2017 Authorized By:Tammy Wilson Date November 10,2017 CURRENT SITUATION Staff is completing final drafts of the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law, to be submitted for legal review.Staff is seeking direction with regard to a public engagement plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that staff be directed to proceed with a detailed public engagement plan on the basis of the scope of work presented. BACKGROUND To date, the Plan Review process has involved two rounds of public engagement. Both employed the services of a facilitator, as follows: Winter 2015:Vision and goal-setting –Through public meetings involving presentations and break-out-sessions, participants shared ideas about the long-term future of the Municipality, raised issues, and expressed concerns.Additionally, there were “focus group” sessions on the natural and built environments, the economy, culture and recreation, housing, transportation, and wellness.These were designed to attract stakeholder groups.There was also an online survey. Fall 2015 –summer 2016: Establishing planning areas –Through public meetings involving presentations and break-out sessions, participants were invited to review and comment on staff’s proposed “planning areas” (Rural, Settlement, Gateway, Hamlet, Village). This round was supplemented by “pop-up” displays at various locations, a second survey, and an option where community groups could host their own self-directed meeting. There were special meetings in Chester Village and Hubbards. DISCUSSION REPORT TO:Warden Webber, Chair and Members of the Committee of the Whole SUBMITTED BY:Bill DeGrace, Senior Planner DATE:November 10, 2017 SUBJECT:New planning documents: Proposed public engagement plan ORIGIN:Discussions with CPAC, 2 Oct 2017 2 request for decision 1.Need Just as public engagement was a necessary ingredient at the earlier plan formulation stages, it is essential at this stage,where final drafts of planning documents are about to be considered by Council.While there may be varying degrees of agreement on the content of the document, there should be no surprises when Council holds its formal public hearing on the documents. Council should have a good understanding of the areas of concern and where there is disagreement (and agreement) with the proposed changes. 2.Purpose The purpose of public engagement at earlier stages was to engage the public to develop a vision and then to receive feedback from the public to ensure that any concerns and goals were understood. There was also, to some extent,collaboration on policy development. The purpose of public engagement at this stage is to consult with the public on the draft documents. Our goal is to obtain feedback on the actual policies and by-law provisions that have been prepared.The mark of success is that (a)attendance is strong and (b)the public feels it has had sufficient opportunity to provide feedback. 3.Principles Materials used in the final round are easy to understand; All voices, not just those who are dominant, are accommodated; The public is assured that input will considered by Council…that no decision has already been made; Trust is fostered through one-on-one engagement; The community venues are accessible, welcoming and relaxed. 4.People: who to engage Public engagement in the final round involves reaching all residents, businesses and property owners, and all demographics.Information about the engagement process, including advertising,should be designed to invite participation in ways that appeal to all sectors, taking into account traditional and electronic media.Participation by those who may not typically get involved –especially youth, should be encouraged. 5.Concept The proposed engagement plan is a combination of one-on-one conversations with community members and online conversations using text and possibly video formats. The “open house”in face-to-face meetings enables people to drop in at a time convenient to them to obtain information, ask questions, and provide feedback. In addition, community meetings are proposed for two key sectors: the business/industry/development sector, and youth. Open Houses would run afternoons and evenings, while “sector”sessions would run daytime or evening. An open forum, including the posting of questions, would run concurrently on the web. The opportunity remains to provide further feedback until the end of the consultation period. Given the need to schedule staff resources, open-house and meeting venues would occur on a once-or twice-per-week frequency, barring cancellations due to weather. 3 request for decision An approximate timeline is as follows: December 2017 & January 2018: Complete final draft Municipal Planning Strategy/Land Use By-law Finalize legal review Prepare Open House/meeting materials:planning documents,display panels, online mapping, land use and zoning take-aways, information flyers, comment sheets, identification badges Upload online materials Schedule meeting venues Prepare newsletter and local press release Option: prepare unaddressed admail Submit advertising copy –print/electronic February 2018 Complete Open House/meeting materials (as above) Schedule staff time Issue newsletter and local press release Option: send unaddressed admail March-April 2018 Hold Open Houses and targeted meetings Commence public report on findings May 2018 Complete public report on findings 6.Risks During the process of engagement, it is expected that individuals, groups, neighbourhood associations or other organizations may request additional local meetings.Staff should be prepared to accommodate special requests where reasonable and appropriate. This, in addition to inclement weather, will affect the timeline. Some individuals or groups may have an issue with the “Open House” format or may complain about the suitability of a given venue. 7.Structure The proposed engagement plan involves the following components: a)Community Open Houses, one per district to accommodate geographical communities, for drop-in visits and discussion with staff. b)Targeted meetings with key sectors,one meeting each for (a) Business, land development and industry, including forestry, farming and fishing, and (b) Youth c)Resources required for (a) and (b): 4 request for decision o display copies of draft documents o visuals explaining the planning process and key elements of the plan o online information on land use and zoning o places in each venue to make written comments and discuss issues in detail o at least three staff on hand at all times including a greeter o Council and CPAC representation desirable o option: refreshments d)Social media campaign, enabling online feedback throughout the designated period IMPLICATIONS Policy Council is acting on [existing]Municipal Planning Strategy Policy 4.0.6:“This Municipal Planning Strategy and any subsequent amendments shall be reviewed as required by the Municipal Government Act, when requested by the Minister of Services Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations, or when deemed advisable by Municipal Council, but in any case not later than ten (10) years from the date of its coming into force and effect.” Financial/Budgetary This can be accommodated as budgeted in fiscal year 2017-18: 3rd round of Engagement $9,615 Special Newsletter $1,500 Community Open Houses (7 sessions x $825/Per session)$5,775 Contingency (display materials, supplies etc)$2,000 Targeted Engagement $540 Breakdown for each Session Venue Rental 7 x $150 =$1,050 Refreshments 7 x $125 =$875 Advertising $2,800 Copying 7 x $150 =$1,050 Environmental N/A Strategic Plan Goal #5:“The Municipality will continually reinforce the positive image of the Municipality through leadership in public engagement and communications.” 5 request for decision Work Program/Resource Implications One staff member dedicated full-time with support from Community Development, Communications and IT; At least four CDD staff members providing support at all meetings (note: at the Kings County open houses, all planning staff were providing technical expertise, rec staff, and senior administration were also on hand to assist with greeting, providing general guidance, material distribution etc.; Presence of CPAC members and Councillors highly recommended. OPTIONS 1.Direct staff to proceed with a detailed public engagement plan as proposed, or as amended in accordance with timing and resources. 2.Direct staff to proceed with a public engagement plan based on an alternate approach or approaches. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION Prepared By:Peter Nightingale Date November 7, 2017 Reviewed By:Tara Maguire Date November 8, 2017 Authorized By:Tammy Wilson, CAO Date November 14, 2017 CURRENT SITUATION An Affordable Housing Needs Assessment for the Municipality of the District of Chester was conducted in 2016 by the South Shore Housing Action Coalition.The report showed that 16% of all households in the Municipality are in need of more affordable housing.1 Council adopted the Age Friendly Housing Plan in 2016, which recommended creating an Age Friendly Action Team to address the shortage of housing and care for seniors, and recommended designating the Community Development Department as manager of the Team to provide support.2 Housing Nova Scotia is the provincial government corporation responsible for providing housing assistance.They provide a range of programs that offer funding to homeowners, tenants, landlords, non- profit housing providers, and property developers. In addition to providing financial grants and loans, they also own and operate public housing projects across the province. The Municipality’s recently updated Tax Exemption Policy (Policy P-25) allows the Municipality to grant an exemption of property taxes to low income households, and By-law No. 74 allows the Municipality to grant an exemption of property taxes to non-profit and charitable organizations.Both of these programs support affordable housing in the Municipality. RECOMMENDATION For discussion and direction. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Affordable housing, and what it means, must be considered in the context of the community that is being served. Affordable housing in an urban area will look much different than affordable housing in a rural area.Furthermore, the affordability of housing is just one of the three factors that must be considered in determining whether a household has acceptable housing. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) uses three factors in assessing housing: 1 TEAL Architects+Planners Inc., 2016.Housing Needs Assessment, 71 2 TEAL Architects+Planners Inc., 2016.Age Friendly Housing Plan for the Municipality of the District of Chester REPORT TO:Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department DATE:November 7, 2017 SUBJECT:Municipal Role in Affordable Housing ORIGIN: 2 Request for Direction Affordability:Housing must cost less than 30% of the household’s pre-tax income. Adequacy:Housing must not require any major structural, plumbing, or electrical repairs. Suitability:Housing has enough bedrooms for the size and makeup of residents of households according to National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements.Two same-sex children under the age of 18 can share a bedroom, and two opposite-sex children under the age of 5 can share a bedroom.3 According to CMHC guidelines, a household is in Core Housing Need if its housing does not meet one or more of the adequacy, suitability or affordability standards.In other words, even if a household is not spending more than 30% of its income on housing, it may still be in core housing need if it does not meet the other two standards and cannot achieve them without spending more than 30% of its income on housing. There are many different types of housing on the Affordable Housing continuum, ranging from non- market emergency shelters and subsidised housing to market-value units of a size and density designed to make them naturally affordable. A diverse community will need housing at all levels of this continuum, and there are varying approaches that can be taken to achieve the construction of housing types that are lacking in the Municipality. Non-Market Temporary Housing Non-Market Permanent Housing Market Housing Emergency Shelters Transitional Housing Supportive Housing Subsidized Housing Market Rental Housing Market HomeownershipHousing The approaches available to the Municipality to address the shortage of affordable housing vary from more passive actions, like studying and enabling through policy, to more aggressive actions, like providing financial incentives to developers, or directly constructing housing units.This report will discuss the different levels of involvement that the Municipality can adopt in addressing the affordable housing issue in the Municipality, and some of the tools that can be used at each level. Research Policy Regulatory Financial Contributions Advocacy & Partnerships Direct Provision Passive Involvement Active Involvement Research: Establishing the need for affordable housing in the Municipality is the first step toward understanding and addressing the problem.The South Shore Housing Action Coalition recently completed its Housing Needs Assessment for Lunenburg and Queens Counties, which includes data specific to the Municipality of Chester (Attachment 1). 3 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2014.Housing Affordability and Need, 17 3 Request for Direction South Shore Housing Action Coalition also released an Affordable Housing policy toolkit in 2015 which included a review of options available for encouraging affordable housing,and whether they have been adopted by any south shore municipalities. Council adopted an Age Friendly Housing Plan in 2016 that suggests a course of action for developing seniors housing and presents some opportunity projects that can be undertaken. Staff feel that the studies and plans that have been done to date adequately demonstrate the needs of residents of the Municipality, and that further studies are not required at this time. The existing plans and research have identified courses of actions that can be taken by the Municipality to begin to address the affordable housing problems facing our communities. Policy: Ensuring the Municipality’s policies encourage and enable the creation and preservation of affordable housing is an important step in increasing the number of affordable housing units in the Municipality. Supportive policy enables the creation of affordable housing by private developers or non-profit groups, but does not require the Municipality to actively work towards increasing affordable housing. The Statement of Provincial Interest on Housing requires the Municipality to consider adopting policies that enable higher densities, smaller lot sizes, and reduced yard requirements to allow a range of housing types to be built –but does not require Council to adopt any of these policies. Additional policies that can be considered include allowing secondary suites in all zones, relaxing parking requirements, and allowing increased density in areas with municipal services. Most areas of the Municipality are currently zoned General Basic, which allows very high density,and generally has no restrictions that would create barriers to the creation of affordable housing. The proposed Land Use By-law being drafted under the reVISION municipal plan review project includes rezoning some areas of the Municipality from General Basic to more controlled zones, but is still very permissive on the issue of residential uses. The proposed Land Use By-law would not introduce any new barriers to the creation of affordable housing. The Chester Village Area Land Use By-law has more restrictive zoning that places limits on density and building height. These regulations may create barriers to building affordable housing in the Village. Changing these regulations to be more permissive of higher density and height, to reduce parking requirements, and to allow smaller setbacks would reduce the barriers to building affordable housing. However, we have also heard through the reVISION process that residents have concerns about increased density changing the character of the Village, and about the lack of a central water supply to support new housing. Finding the right balance between allowing increased density while respecting the other wishes of the community is a decision best made with public consultation. As the review of the Village Secondary Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law are upcoming, staff recommend considering these changes through Plan Review, where they can be adequately addressed in the context of the Village, and in consultation with the public. Regulatory: Some municipalities use regulatory approaches to require private developers to construct affordable housing. One such tool available to Nova Scotia municipalities for achieving this through the Land Use By- law is density bonusing, which allows developers to build a larger structure in exchange for building 4 Request for Direction affordable units. Town of Bridgewater is the only south shore municipality currently using this tool, allowing a 20% increase in density where at least half of the additional units are managed or owned by a third-party housing provider for affordable housing purposes. Inclusionary zoning goes a step further, by requiring a certain percentage of new units in a multi unit building to be affordable units. Inclusionary Zoning is not currently enabled by the Municipal Government Act. Halifax is the only Nova Scotia municipality currently considering this tool. These tools, which put the requirement of building affordable units on developers, are most effective when used in areas with very high development pressure, often in situations where existing affordable units are being removed from the market.For these approaches to be successful, the developer has to be able to make enough profit off of the market-value units to justify the cost of creating the affordable units. Given the rural low-density nature of the Municipality, these tools may not be effective, and could even act as a disincentive to developers building at higher densities in the built-up areas of the Municipality. These are also methods that can be discussed as part of Plan Review as work progresses on the Village documents. Financial Contributions: Another method of building on the methods discussed above would be forCouncil to contribute financially to the construction or maintenance of affordable housing units.The Municipality already has two programs relating to property tax exemptions that apply to affordable home ownership and rental. Policy P-25 offers property tax grants for low-income homeowners, and By-law No. 74 provides property tax exemptions for non-profit and charitable organizations, which would allow non-profit housing providers to be exempt from their property taxes. Many municipalities contribute to affordable housing projects by paying for the construction of municipal services,waiving fees for building and development permits, or donating or leasing land to non-profit housing providers.Building and development fees in this municipality are already among the lowest in the area. The cost of building and maintaining municipal roads, and extending central sewer, where it exists, are costs the Municipality could consider paying.This approach was taken by the Town of Middleton, where a new seniors housing project was funded by Housing Nova Scotia and CMHC, with the Town paying for the construction of a new municipal road and sewer and water infrastructure. Although the Municipality does not own a great deal of vacant land in the built-up areas of the Municipality, the Municipality has the ability to appoint an agent to bid on properties that come up for tax sale (MGA 143).This could allow the creation of a land bank, with properties being used for the construction of affordable housing.Housing Nova Scotia built two duplexes in Chester several years ago, and indicated that the land was very expensive.Typically they are looking for land that is close to the built- up areas,within walking distance of schools, shopping and other community services.An approach such as a land bank would mitigate one of the largest costs associated with housing construction, and allow affordable housing units to be constructed in the built-up areas of the Municipality where services, transportation, and employment opportunities are highest. Advocacy & Community Partnerships: There are several programs through Housing Nova Scotia and CMHC that provide grants for the construction and upgrading of affordable housing units that are available to homeowners, landlords, 5 Request for Direction developers, and non-profit housing providers. While these are provincial and federal organizations that provide the funding for these projects, generally new housing developments that take advantage of these programs must be initiated at the local level. Case studies examined by staff from across Nova Scotia suggest that navigating the application and approval process for these programs is a significant barrier for non-profit and community groups that are trying to build affordable housing. The Municipality could provide support to these groups by helping to develop plans, apply for funding, and navigate the provincial and federal approval processes. The 2016 Age Friendly Housing Plan recommended the Municipality create an Age Friendly Action Team consisting of representatives from existing organizations that provide seniors’ housing in the Municipality, and that the Community Development Department should provide management support to the Action Team.Council did direct staff to develop a report to examine the impact of this on the Community Development Department, however in November 2016 this was subsequently put on hold until after the Plan Review.This could be changed to a Housing Action Team that would work towards the creation of affordable housing as well as age-friendly housing.Many of the support functions that the Municipality can offer would be relevant to both age-friendly housing development and affordable housing development. In the absence of such groups, Council could directly approach Housing Nova Scotia about constructing affordable housing in the Municipality.The Town of Windsor took this approach by identifying a vacant piece of provincial land, and pitching the idea of a new seniors housing complex to Housing Nova Scotia. The College Park project, which will provide small homes, duplexes, and four-plexes, became one of the showcase developments in the 2013 Housing Strategy for Nova Scotia, but has been progressing slowly. The Planner in Windsor indicates that the project is still on-going, but construction has not yet started. The other showcase project in the Strategy, Bloomfield in Halifax, has been cancelled. In addition to building affordable housing, Housing Nova Scotia also provides funding for private and non- profit developers of affordable housing. The Town of Mahone Bay has recently seen several new housing developments, initiated by private developers, that had affordable housing units funded by Housing Nova Scotia. It would appear that projects that have a local proponent have much more success and proceed much quicker than projects run solely by Housing Nova Scotia.Whether the local proponent is a non- profit group or a developer, the Municipality could participate in meetings between proponents and Housing Nova Scotia to help identify the approval process and ensure timely approval of projects. Direct Provision: The most direct level of involvement in Affordable Housing would see the Municipality act as the developer of affordable housing, or provide funding to a non-profit housing provider to build affordable housing.In larger cities and towns across Canada, municipal governments do get involved at this level. In Nova Scotia, the provision of housing is a provincial responsibility,and this level of involvement could be viewed as voluntary downloading.Staff have found no examples of Nova Scotia municipalities that have taken on this role. IMPLICATIONS Policy Unknown 6 Request for Direction Financial/Budgetary Unknown Environmental N/A Strategic Plan (Goal) Goal #4: “The Municipality will strengthen and support environmental, cultural,and social resources.” It will do this in part by “supporting the provision of affordable housing.” Action: -“Serve as a catalyst/supporter for community-led initiatives that facilitates this goal” -“Maintain and promote an inventory of federal and provincial programs that are available” -“Engage with local developers and the construction industry on affordable housing tools and incentives” Success Measure: “Improve the availability of affordable housing.” Work Program Implications Unknown.As noted, a realignment or refocus of the Community Development Department for Age Friendly Housing was postponed until after the plan review. As with Age Friendly, affordable housing would require staff resources which may impact the work plan. OPTIONS 1.Continue to focus on research and policy work to understand the affordable housing problem in the Municipality and enable the creation of affordable housing through the land use by-laws (status quo) 2.Commit to partnering with community groups and developers to actively work towards the creation of affordable housing and investigate financial or land contributions that can be made to groups working towards building affordable housing. 3.Investigate possibilities for the direct provision of affordable housing ATTACHMENTS 1.District of Chester Housing Affordability Profile (South Shore Housing Action Coalition) ATTACHMENT 1: CHESTER MUNICIPALITY HOUSING DATA REQUEST FOR DIRECTION Prepared By:Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator Date November 14,2017 Reviewed By:Date Authorized By:Tammy Wilson, MURP,MCIP, CAO Date November 14, 2017 CURRENT SITUATION At its December 8, 2016 meeting, Council learned about the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program as adopted by the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg.Council expressed interest in the development of a PACE Program and associated By-Law as a MODC Strategic Priority,as well as in investigating how a PACE Program might support the development of water conservation and supply upgrades for homeowners’ wells. RECOMMENDATION That Municipal Council directs staff to develop a PACE Program By-Law and/or a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Law as outlined in Options below. That Municipal Council also directs staff as to what energy and/or water supply upgrades should be included in the respective By-Laws and programs from the lists of upgrades outlined in Discussion below. BACKGROUND An amendment to the Municipal Government Act (MGA) permits municipalities to provide homeowners with low interest loans to help with the upfront cost of energy efficiency upgrades for qualifying properties.Many homeowners would like to improve the energy efficiency of their homes or install clean energy options for environmental and economic reasons.A Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program enables municipalities to support residents in improving energy conservation and reducing energy consumption, and to invest in the development of housing stock in the district. Municipalities throughout Nova Scotia and Canada have adopted a PACE program. Of note is the Clean Energy Financing Program,a PACE Program that is a partnership between the Clean Foundation and five municipalities:The Town of Bridgewater, the Municipality of District of Lunenburg,the Municipality of District of Shelburne,the Municipality of District of Digby, and, most recently, the Municipality of the District of Barrington. REPORT TO:Committee of the Whole SUBMITTED BY:CAO/Administration DATE:November 21, 2017 SUBJECT:PACE / Water Supply Upgrade Programs ORIGIN:January 2017 Strategic Priorities Workshop 2 Request For D The Clean Foundation reviews,approves, and administers all applications on behalf of municipalities. Each municipality is responsible for setting the budget and maximum amounts for low interest loans made available to their residents each fiscal year. Once upgrades are completed,homeowners repay their respective municipalities over time,usually over a ten (10)year period, on their property tax bills. Council’s original discussion around support for water conservation/security measures was in terms of using the PACE Program for this purpose.Amendments to the Municipal Government Act introduced in November 2016 now permit municipalities to finance homeowners’ water conservation upgrades through a service provision similar to the PACE Program model.As a result, several municipalities have created and adopted By-Laws governing the formation of a PACE Program and a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program as separate and distinct services. A water supply upgrade in this context includes improving a well or cistern or other water conservation project designed to help homeowners improve water security. Municipalities such as the District of Argyle, the District of Barrington, and the District of Yarmouth have adopted (or are in the process of adopting) a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Law. As with the PACE Program, the MGA permits municipalities to provide homeowners with low interest loans to help with the upfront cost of water supply upgrades for qualifying properties. The key difference is that the municipalities directly administer a Water Supply Upgrade Program, with process tasks conducted by a municipality’s administration, usually the CAO Office and Finance Department. The MGA includes a provision for a PACE Program and a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program: Power to expend money 65 The council may expend money required by the municipality for (aca) providing for, financing and installing energy-efficiency equipment on private property including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, solar panels; (acb)providing for, financing and installing equipment, including containers, on private property for the purposes of the supply, use, storage or conservation of water; The MGA also includes a provision for related By-Law formation: By-law regarding equipment charges 81A (1)The council may make by-laws imposing, fixing and providing methods of enforcing payment of charges for the financing and installation of any of the following on private property with the consent of the property owner: (a) equipment installed pursuant to an expenditure under clause 65(aca); (b) equipment installed pursuant to an expenditure under clause 65(acb). 3 Request For D DISCUSSION Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program The Clean Energy Financing Program is an established PACE Program that serves municipalities in our region.The contract between municipalities and the Clean Foundation is structured to allow additional municipalities to sign on as partners without having to retender or to develop their own program. Homeowners must register to participate in the Clean Energy Financing Program. After verification that their property qualifies,homeowners enter into an agreement with the municipality to complete eligible clean energy upgrades. The municipality adds a Local Improvement Charge on the property equal to the cost of the upgrades, plus lender rate, and program fees. The intent of the Clean Energy Financing Program is for program participants to achieve a 1:1 debt-to- savings ratio, which is the cost of clean energy upgrades, program fees, and cost of borrowing to be less than or equal to the estimated energy savings over the financing period. Eligible properties must: be a detached, semi-detached, or row house; have consent from all owners to participate in the program; be in good standing with respect to municipal taxes, rates, or charges;and be in a participating municipality. Homeowners apply for Clean Energy Financing based on the clean energy upgrade recommendations from a Home Energy Assessment (HEA)performed by an Energy Advisor certified by Natural Resources Canada.The HEA program is an initiative of Efficiency Nova Scotia.Clean Foundation is a provider of this energy service for the entire province.Homeowners can book a certified HEA through Clean Foundation, and that HEA fee will be added to the homeowners overall Clean Energy Financing charge.(Homeowners may also book an HEA through another Nova Scotian Service Organization,but in that case the HEA fee is not covered by the Clean Energy Financing program.) Eligible clean energy upgrades may include the following. (This is the composite list included in the Clean Energy Financing Program, but MODC can provide specific direction within that program as two of the participating municipalities already do.) Insulation for ceilings, floors, main walls, kneewalls, foundation walls, foundation headers, foundation slabs, and crawlspaces Draft proofing including caulking, weather stripping, and duct sealing Exterior doors Exterior windows Domestic Hot Water Tanks 4 Request For D Drain Water Heat Recovery Systems Heat Pumps Wood & Pellet Heating Systems Exhaust Ventilation Balanced Heat Recovery Ventilation Electric Vehicle Charging Stations* Electric Thermal Storage (ETS) Systems* Solar Hot Water Systems* Solar Hot Air Systems* Solar Photovoltaic Systems* Swimming Pool Heating & Circulation Systems* Well Pump** * These upgrades require supplementary assessment, in addition to a Home Energy Assessment, to determine if they meet the required 1:1 debt-to-savings ratio. ** Available only in the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg The Clean Energy Financing Program offers upgrade financing for a period of up to ten (10)years. This rate is fixed.However, if a homeowner defaults on repayment, the interest rate will increase to the municipality’s tax arrears rate. Current financing rates for current participating Municipalities: Municipality PACE interest rate Default interest rate Town of Bridgewater 4%12% District of Lunenburg 4%10% District of Shelburne 4%14% District of Digby 4%12% District of Barrington 4%18% The maximum loan amount to homeowners is established by the municipality.To fund this program municipalities have borrowed from the Municipal Finance Corporation (as has been done by the Town of Bridgewater and the District of Shelburne) or have used reserves (as MODL has done).Municipalities currently participating in the program provide the following maximum financing amounts: Municipality Maximum Financing Amount Town of Bridgewater*$15,000-$20,000 District of Lunenburg $10,000 District of Shelburne $15,000 District of Digby $15,000 District of Barrington $10,000 5 Request For D * The Town of Bridgewater’s Maximum Eligible Amount is $15,000 for homes with full assessed property values of less than or equal to $150,000.For homes with full assessed property values of more than $150,000, the Maximum Eligible Amount is lesser of $20,000 or 10% of the full assessed property. To join the Clean Energy Financing Program, MODC will need to undertake alternative procurement under MODC’s Procurement Policy. Alternative procurement is appropriate in this case as Clean Foundation has already developed the program,form, and processes, is already providing this service to other municipal units on the South Shore, and the existing Clean Energy Financing Agreement can be modified to include MODC.A competitive procurement process was utilized by the District of Lunenburg and the Town of Bridgewater in the selection of Clean Foundation. Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program The Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program would function similarly to a PACE program, with the significant difference being that all the administration and promotion is done by the municipality directly, as noted above. The Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program makes provision for an owner of a qualifying property located within a participating municipality to apply to the municipality for financing of a Water Supply Upgrade to their property. Should MODC develop a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Law, it is recommended that a qualifying property must meet the following eligibility criteria: the owner of the qualifying property is not in default of any municipal taxes, rates or charges and has not been so for up to the past three years; water supply upgrades must comply with applicable provincial and/or federal regulations; engages contractors that have a valid Department of Environment license for the construction of a new well; and the homeowner has experienced water quality and/ or quality issues necessitating the well supply upgrade. Eligible water supply upgrades may include the following. (This is the composite list included in the Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Laws of Districts of Argyle and Barrington. The District of Yarmouth’s program focuses on new or upgraded dug or drilled wells only.) Construction of a new dug or drilled well Upgrade an existing well and installation of related equipment Installation of cisterns Installation of water-from-fog systems Installation of greywater collection systems Installation of other containers to improve the supply, use, and conservation of water 6 Request For D Homeowners must register to participate in the Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program. After verification that their property qualifies, homeowners enter into an agreement with the municipality to complete eligible water supply upgrades.The municipality adds a Local Improvement Charge on the property equal to the cost of the upgrades, plus lender rate, and program fees. Current financing rates for current participating Municipalities: Municipality Interest rate Default interest rate District of Argyle 3%16% District of Barrington 3%u/a District of Yarmouth u/a 18% Municipalities currently participating in the program provide the following maximum financing amounts: Municipality Maximum Financing Amount District of Argyle $15,000 District of Barrington u/a District of Yarmouth $10,000 NOTE:The Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program adopted by the Districts of Argyle, Barrington, and Yarmouth state that in the event the property is transferred to a new owner the entire amount becomes immediately payable to the municipality and the loan shall be repaid in full by the original owner. This is a marked difference from the PACE Program which allows for the lien to be transferred to the new property owner, making it an investment in the property rather than the accumulation of personal debt for the property owner. The rationale for this difference between the two programs is that there is no guarantee on the value of investment in respect to water supply upgrades. While energy efficiency improvements made through a PACE program provide clear value (new, draft-free, heat-reflecting windows, for instance, achieve their purpose directly), a new drilled well, for example,may not lead to a better quality or more secure water supply as there are numerous external and indirect factors that determine the success of such a strategy. In that context, the risk for a new homeowner to assume the cost for a water supply upgrade cannot be justified, and so the liability of such an upgrade should be accountable in terms of costs to the current homeowner. As there is no administrative intermediary for the Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program, the property owner has a number of responsibilities, including: obtaining quotes from contractors for the proposed water supply upgrades and submitting these quotes to the Municipality; applying for appropriate permit(s) to complete the water supply upgrades; advising the Municipality if there are any hazardous substances at or on the property, or other issues that might impact the installation of the water supply upgrade; 7 Request For D forwarding the contractor invoices for the completed water supply upgrades immediately upon their receipt;and informing his or her property insurance provider that the water supply upgrade is being installed and purchasing appropriate insurance coverage in this regard, if applicable. Timeline Considerations for Both Programs The PACE Program timeline is largely contingent on when the PACE By-Law is approved and adopted by Council. Once the By-Law is in place,having MODC up and running as a partner in the Clean Energy Financing Program should take only a couple of weeks during which the Clean Energy Financing Program Agreement between Clean Foundation and MODC would need to be edited and signed,registration and the customer agreement forms would need to be prepared, and Clean Energy Financing materials, including the website, would need to be updated with the MODC name and logo. Factoring in the seven to eight weeks for Council to Adopt a By-Law, as well as on average five months for the Clean Foundation to complete a file (from homeowner registration to the completion of all upgrades), if all invoices associated with an upgrade need to be in by the fiscal year-end, MODC may well be looking at a program launch on April 1 for the 2018-19 fiscal year. An application to the Nova Scotia Department of Energy’s PACE Program Support Grant, which is designed to assist municipalities with costs associated with launching and promoting a PACE Program, would need to be submitted before March 31 should Council decide to develop a PACE Program. Nova Scotia Energy has indicated that funds are still available and that application turnaround time is short. The Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program faces similar constraints in terms of lead time for By-Law development and accounting for associated costs before the fiscal year end. In addition, MODC administration will need to develop a Registration Form,a lending agreement, other process management tools, and a communications/promotions plan. (Staff may well be able to begin with targeted promotion to homeowners who registered for water coupons, and thus submitted data about their dry wells, during the summer of 2016.) Benefits Investment in a PACE Program and/or a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program offers economic and environmental objectives for the Municipality and Residents. Residents: Initiatives that help make investments in energy efficiency and water security both accessible and affordable. Energy efficiency initiatives (only)that enable investment in a capital asset rather than the accumulation of personal debt. 8 Request For D Municipality: Encouraging investment in energy efficiency upgrades and strategies in homes, helping to achieve a reduction in energy consumption and thus greenhouse emissions.As noted in MODC’s Municipal Climate Change Action Plan, such initiatives could assist with Climate Change Mitigation”, which requires “…the interventions needed in policy and procedure to reduce the use of greenhouse gas resources and emissions. Mitigation is successful when these interventions, whether technological or economic, result in the reduction of greenhouse gas resources and emissions …” Investment in water security, especially given the growing impact of climate change on accessibility to reliable sources of water in dug wells. Investment in the quality of the housing stock in the municipality. Stimulating economic development by providing a mechanism to finance projects that may not otherwise occur without either financing program. IMPLICATIONS Policy The development of a PACE Program By-Law, a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Law. Contract with Clean Foundation would be alternative procurement under Policy P-04:Procurement Policy Financial/Budgetary Once Council determines which Option to pursue, staff will prepare draft By-Law(s) and a proposed budget, including options for setting maximum financing amounts and interest rates for the program(s). Of note for budgetary and financial information: PACE Program Administration The Clean Foundation charges a one-time “onboarding”fee of $13,300 for the Clean Energy Financing Program for a range of program start-up, administration,and promotional costs.Most of this fee would be off-set by the Nova Scotia Department of Energy’s PACE Program Support Grant, which is designed to assist municipalities with costs associated with launching and promoting a PACE Program.MODC does not have the resources to do the program administration in-house. Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program Administration There is no designated grant support for start-up and promotional costs for a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program, and start-up. Administration, and promotional costs will be incurred by MODC directly. Staff have contacted Nova Scotia Environment to research possible start-up grant support. Budget Allocation for Lending The 2017-18 Capital Budget includes a $200,000 budget allocation for a financing program, whether for a PACE Program or Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program or both.At this time, these funds will be allocated from reserves, but this would be assessed annually. 9 Request For D Environmental The implementation of a PACE Program By-Law and/or a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Law would support strategies outlined in the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan and the Municipal Climate Change Action Plan. Strategic Plan Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services; Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses; Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources; Continually reinforce the positive image of the Municipality through leadership in public engagement and communication;and Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity. Work Program Administrative work for staff is not unreasonable, and could be broken down as: By-Law Development / Adoption: The usual process of developing By-Laws for either or both programs, with the difference that several municipalities have shared their By-Laws as templates for MODC to adapt and adopt as appropriate. Program Development: Although the bulk of administrative set-up, promotion, and coordination of a PACE Program would be done through the Clean Energy Financing program, should Council choose that route, there will still be several hours of time coordinating set-up with Clean Foundation, reviewing agreements,and other details before sign-off. The work involved in setting up a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program would be much more significant, and will include developing agreement documents (and legal review of same), development of communications and promotional strategies, and so on.As a result, in addition to work done by the CAO Office and Finance Department, the Information Services Department will have program development tasks in needing to provide communications services. Program Administration: For the PACE Program,the CAO Office and the Finance Department can expect to spend about one (1) hour in total per application/file. For the Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program, the CAO Office and the Finance Department can expect to spend about five (5) hours in total per application/file. 10 Request For D OPTIONS 1.Direct staff to prepare a PACE Program By-Law and any associated policies, and to confirm with Clean Foundation the requirements for MODC to sign on to the Clean Energy Financing Program. 2.Direct staff to prepare a PACE Program By-law and any associated policies, and solicit firms by Proposal Call to administer the PACE Program for MODC. 3.Direct staff to prepare a Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Law and any associated policies. 4.Direct staff to undertake Options 1 and 3. 5.Direct staff to undertake Options 2 and 3. 6.Direct staff to take no action on either program. ATTACHMMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) Process for By-Law review, discussion, and adoption. Promotion of programs through external and internal communications channels. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION Prepared By:Bruce Blackwood Date November 6, 2017 Reviewed By:Tara Maguire Date November 6, 2017 Authorized By:Tara Maguire Date November 14, 2017 CURRENT SITUATION Upon receipt of concerns about the effectiveness of the Fire Advisory Committee (FAC) Council established (2015) an ad hoc committee to review the P66 FAC Terms of Reference (TOR).The FAC continued to meet while this committee drafted a revision to the TOR in June of 2015.In July of 2015 several FAC member Commissions withdrew from the FAC.In August 2015 Council temporarily discontinued the P66 Review Committee and the FAC, deferring a final decision on the need and structure of the FAC or some other methods of obtaining Council advisory on fire service matters. In the interim period, a separate fire services working committee (Lunenburg East Fire and Emergency Services) was formed by several (not all) of the Fire Commission/Departments to work primarily on operational issues e.g.mutual aid practices, training etc. Although municipal staff attends these meetings, this committee is not connected to nor has a direct advisory role to Council. Following the publication of the UNSM fire services study in August of 2017, Council hosted a meeting on September 28, 2017 with all Commissions and Departments to obtain feedback on the recommendations made in the UNSM report. At this meeting, it was raised (as a parking lot item)that Council could re-consider the role and structure of a Fire Advisory Committee or develop other processes to obtain advice on fire service issues from the municipal fire service. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council: 1.Re-establish a Fire Service Advisory Committee to work on specific regional issues e.g.recruitment and retention, community risk assessments, funding, service standards as requested by Council. The FAC would be mandated to advise Council on their specific requests.The structure would include suitable representation from both Commissions and Fire Departments.The advisory committee must have access to appropriate fire service expertise (governance and operational) REPORT TO:Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Community Development DATE:November 6, 2017 SUBJECT:Fire Advisory Committee ORIGIN:COW August 24, 2017 2 Request For Direction to assist in the formation of their recommendations.The TOR of the committee would indicate that although consensus on the advisory was desirable, Council would take advice from independent positions as voiced. There would be no need for Council to be members of this committee but would be available for consultation upon request. Consultation with the public would be completed as may be required.MODC staff would continue to provide administrative support to the Committee. BACKGROUND The Fire Advisory Committee (FAC) was established (1996)as a Committee of Council of the Municipality of Chester, to review and recommend upon issues pertaining to the development and maintenance of cost effective fire and emergency response services meeting the needs of the citizens of the Municipality. Support and advisory staff from the Municipality were made available to the Committee as required. The FAC was key in implementing a review of the fire services in 2008 which resulted in several recommendations on the way forward for improvement in the fire services and the development of strategic plans. The FAC has made other recommendations for improvement in the MGA registration process, 911 implementation and Emergency Health Services (EHS) programs. It has made important recommendations to Council on the development and implementation of firefighter safety procedures, risk management programs, training and standardization of operating guidelines and best practices across the district. Despite its accomplishments,progress has been slower than expected due to some ongoing structural and functional issues faced by the Committee. The FAC has undergone several organization reviews to establish an optimal structure. 2009 New Terms of Reference were issued in 2009. The general duties and responsibilities of the FAC were outlined as summarized below: To report to and make recommendations to Municipal Council on a regular basis on fire service issues including, local, provincial or federal legislation, public fire safety and prevention, joint and standard inter- departmental programs, municipal wide emergency services standards, fire services associations, inter- department documents such as mutual aid agreements,by-laws,standard operating guidelines and funding issues and opportunities to support the fire and emergency response services. Under these Terms of Reference (2009) the FAC had a total of 30 Members consisting of two members from each of the seven Fire Departments, Commissions and Council. The Committee met monthly. 2011 An internal operational review of the FAC revealed several structural and functional difficulties: 3 Request For Direction 1.Committee membership was large at 30 members and inconsistent attendance led to poor continuity and delays on issues discussed. 2.The roles and responsibilities as defined in the TOR were broad covering both governance (Commission) and operational (Fire Department) issues. 3.There was a lack of understanding on the financial and governance roles/responsibilities of the Commissions and the operational role/responsibilities of the Fire Departments. 4.Internal consensus between the Commissions and the Departments was difficult to achieve, causing repeated delays in policy/program recommendations and implementation. 5.There was reluctance to bring specific commission/departmental issues to the attention of the Committee, leaving Municipal staff to maintain agendas and workplans. 6.Local community pride and loyalty within the fire services contributed in an underlying resistance to change on strategic regional fire service issues. The objective of the 2011 reorganization was to delineate the overall responsibilities of the Commissions for governance as the authority having jurisdiction for fire services, while providing a suitable separate operational forum for the Chief Officers to bring forward issues to this advisory group and on to Council. Upon request of Council the TOR were revised in January 2011 and provided for the following major changes: 1.The FAC membership was reduced and limited to Commissioners (those holding legislated governance responsibility within the fire services).Membership was set at 9 to include the Chairs of each of the 6 Fire Commissions and the Chester Village Commission, and two Councilors so appointed. 2.The role of the FAC was focused on advising Council on governance issues, strategic direction and fire services policy consistent with regulatory requirements and current best practices. 3.A new group, the Chief Officers Review (COR)was formed and met separately to review key operational issues and assist in the development of fire service standards, programs,and operating guidelines.Although the COR was not directly connected to Council it was mandated to advise the FAC on issues impacting operations. 4.The Fire Services Coordinator (and staff)was assigned to continue to provide support to the Chief Officers, FAC and Council. 5.The FAC was set to meet every other month with the COR meetings held in the alternate months. It was expected that with a more streamlined and focused approach amongst the governing bodies that more substantial progress could be achieved.Council sent out letters outlining the reasons for the changes to each Commission Chair and Fire Department Chief in February 2011. 2015 (January) The FAC continued to struggle under the revised terms of reference and fulfill its mandate of providing Council with recommendations on fire services policy.Early in 2015, a second operational review of the 4 Request For Direction FAC revealed that the changes made in 2011 had not resolved all the performance issues. Council held a special meeting (January 28, 2015)of the FAC with the Commissions to review and revisit the mandate of the FAC,identify the performance issues and make recommendations or improvement. Comments were received from all Commissions and showed that although there was value to the FAC the TOR needed revision.There remained a need for clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the Municipality,Commissions and Departments. The FAC motioned that Council should appoint an ad hoc Committee to review and revise Policy P66 Terms of Reference for the Fire Advisory Committee. 2015 (February) On February 26, 2015,Council appointed an ad-hoc committee to review Policy P 66 with membership from the Commissions and Department Chiefs.The FAC continued to meet under the existing terms of reference dated September 2011 pending the completion of this ad-hoc committee’s mandate and the acceptance of recommendations by Council 2015 (April) Terms of Reference for the ad hoc P66 Committee were issued and the initial meeting was held on April 7, 2015.Highlights of the initial discussions included: 1.A need to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Municipality, Commissions and Departments in addressing governance and operation of the fire services.There are 7 statutory bodies (Commissions) and 7 Fire Departments ( bodies corporate)all operating in different manners and under different legislation.Each have different methods of administering the fire services and face different issues and pressures. 2.A need to resolve internal communications between the Commissions and their Departments and the advisory process between the Chiefs (operating through the Chief Officers Review) and the Commissions sitting on the FAC. 3.A recognition of a large range in the degree, ability and methods of governance offered by the Commissions contributing to the current difficulties at both the advisory and operational level of the fire services. 4.A need to clarify the mandate,authority and process of the FAC as an advisory to Council. From initial discussions held by the P66 Ad Hoc Committee,these more fundamental issues concerning the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders needed to be resolved before the mandate and structure of the FAC could be effectively reviewed. It was recommended Council host a facilitated workshop for the P66 Review Committee, the Fire Advisory Committee, Fire Commissioners, and Chief Fire Department Officers.The Municipal solicitor and representatives of the offices of the Fire Marshal and Municipal Affairs would be present as resources. 5 Request For Direction The workshop was intended to review and clarify the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder to the fire services within the Municipality 2015 (May) P 66 Review Fire Service Workshop At the request of the P66 Review Committee the fires service workshop was held on May 20, 2015. Highlights of these discussions included: 1.Chris McNeil of Municipal Affairs covered roles and responsibilities under nine (9) areas, namely, structure, election, legislative authority, power, service provision, policies/bylaws, taxation, borrowing and audit under the various governing bodies of Council, Village Commissions, Fire Commissions and Fire Departments. 2.Sam Lamey (Municipal Solicitor)reviewed the role of the Commissions and Departments and how each were outlined in the MGA and other statutes such as the Rural Fire District Act and covered in the Municipal Registration Policy P 33. 3.It was pointed out that there is large range in the degree, ability and methods of governance offered by the Commissions and that in some cases the communication between the Commissions and the Departments is not optimal.In most cases there is no formal “contract “or memo of understanding between the Commissions and the Departments. 4.Concern was raised over the lack of direct contact between the Chief Officers (COR) and the Commissions (FAC) and subsequently Council.It was expressed that both groups need to be at the advisory table and that the TOR of the FAC should revert to the joint Committee membership as established in 2009. The P66 Review Committee reviewed (May 28, 2017)the results of the special FAC meeting and continued to work on the revision to the Terms of Reference for the FAC.Discussions focused on development of a revised mission statement,structure, and membership. It was decided to put forward in the revised terms that: 1.the mission statement would remain the same as the current and the FAC would remain as an advisory body 2.membership would consist of the Commission Chairs as voting members and the Chiefs as non- voting members.The Committee would not include members of the public. Council members could sit in but were not voting members. Staff was directed to draft the revised terms for further review by the Committee.The final review of the Terms of Reference was completed at the P66 Review meeting of July 28, 2015. 2015 (July-August)Letters from Commissions withdrawing from FAC The Commissions from District 4 (Chester Basin) and District 5 (Westerns Shore)submitted letters on July 23, 2015 advising of their withdrawal from participation in the existing FAC which had continued to meet 6 Request For Direction during the period of the ad hoc committee review.Subsequently (August 11,2015)the same letter was received from the Commission in District 6 (New Ross) and soon thereafter from District 5 (Martins River) These commissions cited that they felt they could be more productive working away from the FAC table. The VOC,District 1 (Blandford) and District 2 (Hubbards) Commission did not express similar intent. 2015 (July 28,2015) P 66 Review Committee The P66 review committee was advised of the withdrawal of the Commissions from the FAC. It was the consensus of the Committee that there was merit in continuing with the FAC under a revised mandate and structure. It was decided that the Committee would defer to Council the current revision of P66 and the future of the FAC. 2015 (August) Discontinuation of the P66 Review and FAC meetings The withdrawal of this membership left a considerable void in representation at the Fire Advisory Committee table.Council reviewed the status of the work to date of the P66 Review and the withdrawal of several of the Commissions from the FAC.On August 2015,Council decided to defer deciding on the future of the Fire Advisory Committee to provide time to consider and reflect on possible ways forward. During this period,the Fire Advisory Committee would be temporarily discontinued and the P66 Review committee was put on hold. Correspondence on these decisions was forwarded to all Commissions and Departments and the P66 Review Committee members on August 31,2015. 2016 In May 2016 Council was advised of the creation of the Lunenburg East Fire and Emergency Services Committee (LEFES). This newly formed committee issued its terms of reference to include both Commissions and Fire Departments with a mission of “through the sharing of knowledge, skills and ideas, it is our mission to enhance the operational and governing bodies of the local fire service agencies resulting in a stronger partnership, yet maintaining the individuality and integrity of each fire service organization.” As this committee was meeting separately and attended by the Fire Service Coordinator, The Chief Officers Review (COR), previously hosted by MODC was duplicative and consequently discontinued. DISCUSSION The Fire Services in the Municipality of Chester is comprised of dedicated volunteers who provide an invaluable service to our communities. Council has always recognized the importance of providing its support to the Fire Services. The FAC served as an advisory body to Council on matters affecting the Fire 7 Request For Direction Services that are regional in scope with the intent of assisting Council on the development and implementation of effective fire service programs and policy. As identified in several studies, most recently the UNSM Municipal Fire Services Report (April 2017) the fire services in Nova Scotia face very significant issues related to funding, organizational structure and service standards and lack a long-term plan to ensure viability of the volunteer services.Council will need to work jointly with the Fire Services and Province to develop and implement solutions over the next few years. Council requires feedback from the fire services as it works through the development of fire services programs and policy.The FAC has historically served as this advisory to Council on fire service matters. There are other ways Council can obtain the information e.g.surveys, focus groups, work-shops etc. although these would be more informal and potentially more difficult to ascertain regional consensus. Despite its accomplishments, the FAC has struggled to maintain its effectiveness as an advisory body to Council and has undergone several organization reviews to establish an optimal structure.Council has continued to actively work directly with the Commissions and Departments to resolve these difficulties and develop and optimize the Committee function. The FAC although mandated to advise on strategic regional policy the FAC has been unable to reach consensus on key fire service issues.Following many discussions with the fire services concerning the role and function on the FAC several factors contributing to performance difficulties have been identified and include: 1.Within MODC the governance and operation of the fire services is overly complicated in that there are 7 Commission corporate bodies all operating in different manners and under different legislation and different methods of administration. This structure is further complicated by the important needs of 7 volunteer Fire Department (separate body corporates) executives (Chief and Chief Officers) who are responsible for the actual delivery of fires services within the municipality. There has been some streamlining of this structure as Blandford has combined the Commission and the Department into one organization. Hubbards has indicated that they are moving in the same direction. 2.There is a range in the degree, ability, methods of governance and participation offered by the Commissions are contributing to the current difficulties at both the advisory and operational level of the fire services.Although the public can currently address their Commission there is limited participation by the public at these meetings.Any issues brought directly to Council need to go back to the Commission as the authority having jurisdiction. 3.Within the Commissions and Department there is a wide range of knowledge on fire service matters.Legislation is silent on the actual qualifications of a Fire Commissioner. Qualifications of Chief Officers, although defined, varies across the Municipality. In cases, there is a mixture of Fire Department members and public rate payers on the Commission leading to a degree of conflict. 8 Request For Direction 4.There is a need to improve internal communications and,in some cases,eliminate the mistrust between Commissions and their Departments.Commissions and Departments face different local issues and pressures, making it difficult to reach consensus on regional fire service matters. 5.As funding is not based on a needs and risk assessment of each district nor the ability of mutual aid agreements to fill coverage gaps, there are disagreements between Commissions and Departments on operational funding issues.There is a need to identify and quantify the emergency services protection needs of each community, enabling decisions based on objective information. 6.Service standards should be determined and linked to community risk assessments with a focus on cross training for safe and effective mutual aid support. Departments recognize the need for fire service standards however are resistance to increasing the level of these standards e.g. NFPA as such place an increasing burden on the volunteers and raise operational costs in both equipment and training. The Commissions/Departments expressed a need for municipal leadership in removing silos and promoting cooperation and mutual aid amongst the different organizations. There is some interest in standardizing fire services organizational structure across the Municipality however any such structure must meet the needs of the local communities. The MGA grants Council the authority to issue fire services policy which would be administered through the P33 registration process.It is critical that Council continue to receive the input of the fire services in the development of such policy and long-term plan to ensure the viability of the volunteer fire service. IMPLICATIONS Policy Financial/Budgetary There are no immediate budgetary implications for MODC as funding comes from the fire tax revenue as levied by the Commissions. Environmental N/A Strategic Plan Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility; Work Program Implications Staff work carried out in accordance with current fire services work plan. 9 Request For Direction OPTIONS 1.Choose to restructure and repurpose the fire advisory to provide input on specific fire service issues as directed by Council.2.Choose to not implement a revised Fire Advisory Committee, remain with status quo and request input from fire service through hosted consultations on specific issues. ATTACHMENTS None COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL) Report to Council REQUEST FOR DIRECTION Prepared By:Erin Lowe Date November 14, 2017 Reviewed By:Tammy Wilson and Tara Maguire Date November 16, 2017 Authorized By:Tammy Wilson and Tara Maguire Date November 16, 2017 CURRENT SITUATION Council has identified the development of a sector strategy as a priority for the municipality in order to assist in the promotion of select sectors in order to grow, strengthen and expand the MODC’s business community. The SSREN provided funding for a consultant to do a workshop with staff to determine next steps. The workshop was held on September 13th, 2017 and a report delivered by the consultant (Attachment 1)which lays out a three-phased recommended approach. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION Taking into consideration the attached consultant report as well as past reports and documentation,staff recommend contracting a consultant to assist with the scope of phase one and have prepared the attached proposed scope of work (Attachment 2).A different name was chosen for this phase versus what M5 Marketing’s report suggests due to the fact that Cape Breton –Mulgrave are currently using this term in their marketing materials for their economic development plan:www.prosperityframework.com.A further search could not come up with any other municipal units utilizing this terminology. The consultant will work closely with the Economic Development Officer and provide third party validation in regards to the chosen priority sectors.The internal team will also consist of the:Chief Administrative Officer, Director of Community Development,Director of Solid Waste, and Communications Manager. Staff have explored potential external funding options for this project and have determined that there are none available for this phase of the project. Depending on the outcome of recommended priority sectors,there is potential for funding of future phases. REPORT TO:Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Erin Lowe, Economic Development Officer DATE:November 14, 2017 SUBJECT:Next Steps for Sector Strategy Development 2 request for It is important to note that this scope of work and estimated costs are for Phase 1 only. The estimated costs for Phase 2 are an additional $15,000. It is difficult to determine the estimated cost for Phase 3 because it is subject to the outcome of Phase 2 recommendations. Phases Description Estimated Costs Sector Opportunity Assessment Prioritize and create sustainable sector strategies and investment targets for growth within each of the key sectors. $15,000 Investment Attraction Strategy Creation of sector-specific marketing plans to provide direction for the Municipality to effectively implement the recommendations of the Sector Opportunity Assessment. $15,000 Execution Building out the creative, digital, video, media required in the execution of the strategy. Undetermined. Subject to outcome of Phase 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the municipality reallocate $15,000 of the $25,000 budget currently allotted to ‘Promotions’ in the economic development budget for 2017-2018 and issue a Request for Proposals for Phase 1 of this project. IMPLICATIONS Policy N/A Financial/Budgetary Reallocation of $15,000 from the ‘Promotions’ budget. Environmental N/A Strategic Plan (Goal) Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity 3 request for Work Program Implications N/A OPTIONS 1.Approve budget re-allocation and proceed with Phase 1 of the Sector Strategy and issue a Request for Proposals for the scope of work included in Attachment 2. 2.Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information as identified by council. ATTACHMENTS 1.Municipality of Chester, Economic Development Go To Market Plan, M5 Marketing, October 13, 2017 2.Proposed Scope of Work, Sector Strategy, Phase 1: Sector Opportunity Assessment Sector Strategy Phase 1:Sector Opportunity Assessment Proposed Scope of Work OBJECTIVE: The Municipality of Chester requires a consultant to support the development of sector strategies and action plans for the Municipality’s key industry sectors. Based on clear economic evidence and building on the data already attained from existing reports and strategic plans,stakeholder consultations and other pertinent documents,the study will ensure that the Municipality focuses its efforts on the sectors that have the best opportunity for attraction and provide the greatest impact on the community. The overall objective of this project is to prioritize and create sustainable sector strategies and action plans for growth within each of the key sectors to support long term, diversified growth in the Municipality of Chester.This project has been broken into three phases: Phase 1:Sector Opportunity Assessment –to prioritize and create sustainable sector strategies and investment targets for growth within each of the key sectors. •Phase 2:Investment Attraction Strategy –the creation of sector-specific marketing plans to provide direction for the Municipality to effectively implement the recommendations of the Sector Opportunity Assessment. •Phase 3: Execution –building out the creative, digital, video, media required in the execution of the strategy. SCOPE OF WORK: To be completed in close collaboration with the MODC Economic Development Officer, this RFP is for Phase 1: Sector Opportunity Assessment only,which includes, but is not limited to, the following scope of work: Desktop review of reports completed to date. Update to current economic activity and trends within the Municipality of the District of Chester. Workforce analysis. Analysis and confirmation of key sectors and investment attraction targets relative to community and land assets,reports completed to date, and the Municipality’s brand positioning. Industry specific research and personal interviews with local companies in each of the targeted areas to determine MODC’s key advantages by industry. SWOT analysis of each sector. Optional items to be priced in proposal: Assessment of current provincial and federal investment attraction initiatives in order to understand linkage and create alignment. Benchmarking and best practices assessment. Sectors include: Traditional Industries: •Fisheries •Manufacturing •Forestry •Value-Added Processing Emerging Sectors/Sub-Sectors: •Arts, Culture and Heritage •Niche agriculture (grapes/vineyard, fruits, berries, vegetables, Christmas trees, maple syrup, etc.) •Film and Multi-Media •Technology (Clean Tech,Ocean Tech,Information and Communications Technology) •Professional Services •Aquaculture (offshore and onshore) •Tourism Services •Wineries/Micro-Breweries •Adventure Tourism and Outdoor Recreation •Renewable Energy (tidal, solar, wind, geothermal) DELIVERABLES: The consultant shall create a report identifying the proposed targeted sectors and supporting the recommendations with the research and analysis performed. The Project Deliverables defined below are the minimum requirements for the execution of this study. Should the proponent feel that it is desirable to produce additional deliverables, then these should be described explicitly in the proposal. Deliverables will be a report to the Municipality of Chester including: •SWOT analysis for each sector already operating with the Municipality of Chester. •Identify opportunities for alignment with federal (i.e.ACOA) and provincial (i.e.NSBI, provincial departments, etc.) strategies including the identification of key existing and emerging geographic target markets. •Suggested prioritization of target sectors and target markets.Include profiles of each sector that identifies at a minimum: o Why is the sector important? (i.e.number of businesses operating within each sector,# of people employed, contribution to taxes,export numbers,etc.) o MODC’s proposed role in supporting the growth of the sector o Opportunities for growth in the sector o Challenges the sector faces o Key companies operating in the sector in the MODC. •Identify if there are any sectors that are not currently operating in the MODC but would be a good fit and highlight why. •Defined opportunities to leverage support from international trade offices (i.e. Invest Canada –Community Initiatives (ICCI) program, trade missions, marketing, etc.). •Identify value proposition of the municipality for attracting investment in recommended priority sectors. •Labour Market Profile. Updated statistical overview of the community. SCHEDULE: Meetings and regular progress reports should be incorporated into an overall work plan which is to be prepared by respondents as part of the proposal submission. The project must be completed within 3 months of kick-off. EVALUATION CRITERIA: Understanding, Methodology and Approach:50 points Qualifications and Experience:20 points Price:25 points Quality of Proposal:5 points RESOURCES INTERNAL: SWOT Analysis completed with MODC Staff,M5 Marketing,October, 2017 Latest version of the MODC business directory, last full update occurred in August, 2016 The Municipality of the District of Chester Brand Strategy and Design Guidelines, Sperry Design Inc., 2016 MODC Community Profile, McSweeney & Associates, 2016 The Lunenburg-Queens-Shelburne Workforce Advantage, January, 2014 The Economic Landscape of the Municipality of the District of Chester, Dalhousie School of Planning, Winter 2015 Chester Business Park Feasibility Study, CBCL Jozsa Management & Economics, 2015 Top Line Feasibility Analysis Report, CBCL Jozsa Management & Economics, 2015 MODC Economic Development Strategy, McSweeney & Associates, August 2013 Highway #3 Streetscapes Plan,Ekistics Planning & Design,2011 Sector Profiles, WhyHere Website Municipal Planning Strategy/Municipal Development Plan Integrated Community Sustainability Plan, 2009 Integrated Community Sustainability Implementation Plan, 2010 EXTERNAL: The Report of the Nova Scotia Commission on Building Our New Economy, Ray Ivany, February 2014 Province of Nova Scotia Sector Strategies and departmental business plans Statistics Canada ACOA Sector profiles and strategies for Nova Scotia. Atlantic Provinces Economic Council NSBI business plan