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