HomeMy Public PortalAbout2018-07-26_Council_Agenda PackagePage 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s)
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
AGENDA
Thursday,July 26, 2018
Chester Municipal Council Chambers
151 King Street, Chester, NS
1.MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS.
3.PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (8:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.)
6.MATTERS ARISING:
6.1 Adoption –By-Law #148 –Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Law –
Second/Final Reading.
6.2 Information Report from Community Development Department dated July 11,
2018 regarding Community Name Highway Signage.
6.3 Request for Direction prepared by Community Development Department dated
July 13, 2018 regarding Provincial Consultations –Legislative Changes –Power to
Expend Money, Minimum Planning Standards, Coastal Protection.
6.4 Violation Letter -Land Use By-law prepared by Community Development
Department regarding Notice to Comply -Development Permit #CM-DP2017-
039, 107 Walker Road, Chester.
6.5 Letter of response from the Minister of Nova Scotia Communities, Culture and
Heritage dated July 12, 2018 regarding the Community Connector Proposal for
Lunenburg County (Origin –Council Motion 2018-237 -May 31, 2018).
7.CORRESPONDENCE.
8.NEW BUSINESS:
4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
4.1 Council – July 12, 2018
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
5.1 Recreation and Parks Committee - July 23, 2018 - Councillor Hector (motions only)
5.2 Any other Committees.
Page 2 of 2
8.1 Presentation by Harris Lake Property Owners Association -Gwen Bushey
(appointment at 9:30 a.m.).
8.2 Request for Decision prepared by Solid Waste Department regarding Waste
Collection Contract –Scope/Level of Services and Timeline.
8.3 Request for Decision prepared by Recreation and Parks Department regarding
Council District Grants applications as follows:
1)Deep Cove Fire Works & Weiner Roast –District 1
2)Hubbards Area Lions Club & Aspotogan Fitness Club –District 2
3)Chester Legion F.E. Butler Branch #44 –District 3
4)Western Shore & District Fire Dept.–District 5
8.4 Request for Decision prepared by Recreation and Parks Department dated July
20,2018 regarding Designated Community Fund Request –New Ross Legion
Branch #79.
8.5 Request for Decision prepared by Recreation and Parks Department dated
July 19,2018 regarding New Ross Community School Agreement.
8.6 Cost Share Agreement 2018-028 –Trunk 3 from Wake Up Hill Road to Trunk 12,
widening.
(appointment at 9:50 a.m.)
9.2 Section 22(2)(a) of the MGA –Land Negotiations –Simms Settlement
10.ADJOURNMENT.
APPOINTMENTS ARRAINGED
8:45 a.m.Public Input.
9:00 a.m.Adoption of By-Law #148 –Water Supply Upgrade Lending Program By-Law –
Second/Final Reading.
9:30 a.m.Gwen Bushey, Harris Lake Property Owners Association.
9:50 a.m.In Camera
8.7 Request for Decision prepared by Finance Department dated July 17, 2018
regarding Reduction of Taxes under Policy P-23.
9. IN CAMERA:
9.1 Section 22(2)( a) of the MGA – Land Negotiations – Marriotts Cove
MOTIONS FOR COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION FROM
MONDAY,JULY 23, 2018
RECREATION AND PARKS COMMITTEE
2018-305 YOUTH SPONSORSHIP –ISABELLA NOBLE
MOVED by Brad Armstrong, SECONDED by Susan Larder, that the Recreation Committee recommend to
Council that we give Isabella (Bella) Noble of Chester $350 for her participation on the Team NS Under
15 Volleyball in the Eastern Elite Volleyball Championships on July 26-28 in Halifax. MOTION CARRIED.
2018-306 YOUTH SPONSORSHIP –PATRICK RANDALL
MOVED by Brad Armstrong,SECONDED by Marshal Hector, that the Recreation Committee recommend
to Council that we give Patrick Randall of Chester 650.00 for his participation on the Nova Scotia Bantam
Young Guns Hockey Team playing in a tournament in Lewiston Maine on August 8 -13.MOTION
CARRIED.
INFORMATION REPORT
Prepared By:Sylvia Dixon Date July 11, 2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Tammy Wilson Date July 16, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
It does not appear that the community name signs for Robinsons Corner or Marriotts Cove along
Highway 3 have been moved recently.
RECOMMENDATION
N/A
BACKGROUND
Councillor Church indicated that she has received complaints about highway signage being moved for the
Marriotts Cove and Robinsons Corner community name signs.The residents would like the signs re-
instated where they have been for the past 50 years.The CAO indicated that staff would request the
information from NSDOTIR as to why the signs were moved.
DISCUSSION
Site visits were completed. It does not appear that these community name signs have been moved
recently. They are currently located at the Nova Scotia Civic Address File community boundaries for
Marriotts Cove and Robinsons Corner along Highway 3. Additionally,based on Google Street View
imagery the signs have not been moved in recent years.The Nova Scotia Department of Transportation
and Infrastructure Renewal has been contacted regarding these community signs for any information
pertaining to the location or recent change of location for these signs. This concern is being reviewed by
the TIR Area Supervisor and currently no additional information has been received from TIR. For your
reference the TIR ticket number associated with this issue is S322642.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
N/A
Financial/Budgetary
N/A
REPORT TO:Tara Maguire,Director of Community
Development; Tammy Wilson, CAO;
Councillor Church and Members of
Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Sylvia Dixon,Development and Planning
Technician
DATE:July 11, 2018
SUBJECT:Community Name Highway Signage
ORIGIN:Council, May 31, 2018
2 Information Report
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
N/A
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
-Maps with the Nova Scotia Civic Address File Boundaries
-Site Visit Photos for Marriotts Cove and Robinsons Corner Community Name SignsPlacement Along Highway 3
-Google Street View Imagery of the Marriotts Cove and Robinsons Corner Community NameSign Placement Along Highway 3
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)
3 Information Report
Map of Chester and Robinsons Corner Community Boundary Along Hwy 3
4 Information Report
Map of the Chester Basin and Marriotts Cove Community Boundary Along Hwy 3
5 Information Report
Map of the Marriotts Cove and Robinsons Corner Community Boundary Along Hwy 3
6 Information Report
Site Visit Photo of the Robinsons Corner sign at the Chester and Robinsons Corner Community Boundary
Along Highway 3
Site Visit Photo (July 10, 2018)
7 Information Report
Site Visit Photos of the Community Name Signs at the Chester Basin and Marriotts Cove Community
Boundary Along Highway 3
Site Visit Photo (July 10, 2018)
8 Information Report
Site Visit Photo (July 10, 2018)
9 Information Report
Site Visit Photos of the Community Name Signs at the Marriotts Cove and Robinsons Corner Community
Boundary Along Highway 3
Site Visit Photo (June 19, 2018)
10 Information Report
Site Visit Photo (June 19, 2018)
11 Information Report
Google Street Imagery of Chester and Robinsons Corner Community Boundary Along Highway 3
Google Street View Imagery (2012)
Google Street View Imagery (2012)
12 Information Report
Google Street View Imagery (2014)
Google Street View Imagery (2014)
13 Information Report
Google Street View Imagery (2016)
Google Street View Imagery (2016)
14 Information Report
Google Street Imagery of the Chester Basin and Marriotts Cove Community Boundary Along H ighway 3
Google Street View Imagery (2014)
Google Street View Imagery (2016)
15 Information Report
Google Street View Imagery (2016)
16 Information Report
Google Street Imagery of the Marriotts Cove and Robinsons Corner Community Boundary Along H wy 3
Google Street View Imagery (2009)
Google Street View Imagery (2009)
17 Information Report
Google Street View Imagery (2012)
Google Street View Imagery (2014)
18 Information Report
Google Street View Imagery (2014)
Google Street View Imagery (2016)
19 Information Report
Google Street View Imagery (2016)
Google Street View Imagery (2016)
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Tara Maguire Date 7/13/18
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Tammy Wilson Date July 16, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
The Province of Nova Scotia is presently undertaking consultations with Municipalities and stakeholder
groups on three proposed legislative changes. They are considering changes to the limits on the authority
to expend money outlined in the MGA, the introduction of minimum planning standards and new coastal
protection legislation.
Councillor Assaff, the CAO and the Director of Community Development attended a half day consultation
session on June 10 regarding the proposed changes. The province has asked for feedback as soon as
possible, but would like to have the feedback no later t han the end of July.Although a clear timeline was
not provided it is likely that the consultations are happening now as there is a fall sitting of the legislature.
RECOMMENDATION
For discussion
BACKGROUND
Power to Expend
The MGA restricts a municipal council’s power to expend money by listing in detail the items they are
permitted to spend on (s. 65). The list states those items which the municipality may spend money on ,
municipalities are prohibited from spending money on items which are not included.The province feels
that the list is inflexible and does not address changing needs or new technologies. When there is a need
or desire for municipalities to spend money in a way that is not permitted in the MGA, a lengthy process
is required to amend the MGA to allow the expenditure.In recent years, the MGA has been amended to
allow municipalities to spend money on loans to homeowners for Energy Efficiency upgrades, and more
recently for water conservation measures. Currently the inability to spend money on broadband
technologies (rural internet upgrades) has triggered this most recent review.
The province is proposing a more flexible approach be used, as has been done in at least four other
provinces. The proposal would remove the list of permitted uses,replacing it with a smaller list of
prohibited uses. This would allow Municipalities to spend money on any items provided: a) they are not in
the list of prohibited uses; and b) that the items are included in the Municipality’s budget or there is
formal council support for the expenditure (i.e. a motion of council). No proposed changes to the existing
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department
DATE:July 26, 2018
SUBJECT:Provincial Consultations –Legislative
Changes –Power to Expend Money,
Minimum Planning Standards, Coastal
Protection
ORIGIN:Motion Number or Other Origin
2 Request For Decision /Direction
limit on authority and accountability mechanisms are proposed. These limits include no direct funding to
private business, requirements for expense policies , financial reporting, balanced budgets, financial audits,
and limits on borrowing.
Minimum Planning Standards
Currently, land-use planning is not mandatory across the province.Most municipalities have at least some
form of land-use planning, ranging from comprehensive plans to limited scope plans that may only deal
with one issue (i.e. wind farms or mink farms). Those Municipalities that do plan must address the
Provincial Statements of Interest which include the following topics:
Preserving high quality farmland (Agriculture)
Preventing development on known floodplains (Floodplains)
Protecting municipal drinking water supply area (Drinking Water)
Providing for affordable housing (Housing)
Making the best use of existing infrastructure (Infrastructure –Water and Wastewater)
The consultation on minimum planning standards was lacking details on what was being considered. The
Department of Municipal Affairs did say that they are considering minimum standards that would make
some level of comprehensive land-use planning mandatory across the province so that all land would be
in a planned area. There was some indication that they are considering making it mandatory to adhere to
the Statements of Provincial Interest (SPI). These statements currently providing guidance as opposed to
being prescriptive. There was also discussion about possible areas which are not currently covered by SPIs
and if there are areas that should be included as potential SPIs such as environmental protection, sea level
rise, transportation, healthy communities, age friendly communities, or environmental hazards (i.e. karst
topography, steep slopes etc.).
The consultation focused around the benefits and concerns of mandatory planning, the possible content
of policies, and the need for municipal cooperation when creating or amending planning documents.
There was no indication of DMAs position nor was there an indication of what they would be bringing
forward as proposed changes.
Coastal Protection
In their last election platform, the government of Nova Scotia committed to creating legislation to provide
legal protection of the coast. All three levels of government own and regulate activity in coastal
areas. The Federal government is responsible for the Oceans Act, Fisheries Act, and t he Canadian
Environmental Protection Act. The Provincial government is responsible for the Environment Act, the
Crown Lands Act, the Beaches Act, the Fisheries and Coastal Resources Act, and the Marine Renewable
Energy Act. Municipalities have jurisdiction through land use planning, including the implementation of
Land Use By-laws.
The Province is proposing new coastal protection legislation to address development, construction and
related activity which occurs too close to coastal shore lines which can cause problems. It increasingly
puts people and property at risk from sea level rise, storm surge, coastal flooding and erosion; and it
3 Request For Decision /Direction
causes damage to sensitive coastal ecosystems (for example, salt marshes and dune systems) that provide
habitat and valuable ecological functions.
The proposed approach has three main components:
1.Define a coastal protection zone (probably based on some combination of vertical and horizontal
setback)
2.Regulate specific activities and practices within the coastal protection zone
exemptions for some uses such as aquaculture, approvals under crown lands or beaches
act, projects approved under marine renewable energy act
prohibiting construction of a new residence or shoreline hardening,
destruction of coastal areas resulting from pollution, physical alteration, disruptive
activity)
limitation on additions to existing structures above a specified threshold
3.Create provisions for administration, monitoring and compliance
The approach discussed included three possible variations for administration:
1.The Province working directly with the land owner/users
2.Regulating through Municipalities
3.Province and Municipalities regulating land owners/users
There was no clear direction on enforcement and program support.
DISCUSSION
Power to Expend
The Department of Municipal Affairs was looking for specific input from Municipalities:
Would additional flexibility in municipality’s power to expend be valuable for responding to the
present and future needs of your municipalities?
What opportunities would this additional flexibility provide?
What are the risks of taking this enabling approach?
Any cautions or suggestions DMA should consider?
Would additional flexibility in municipality’s power to expend be valuable for responding to the present
and future needs of your municipalities?
It would enable Municipalities to respond to public demand, need that may exceed present
authorities to expend funds
What opportunities would this additional flexibility provide?
Ability to be more creative in the projects we undertake,
More responsive to quality of life issues
What are the risks of taking this enabling approach?
Flexibility may help municipalities, however, there may be some concern that it can also create an
expectation that municipalities become more involved in funding projects or taking on
responsibilities in areas which are not traditionally their jurisdiction. This might include areas such
as communications, health care etc.
4 Request For Decision /Direction
When making changes such as those that are proposed, this should be done in conjunction with a
review of the general authorities of a municipality under the Part _____. Staff has discussed the fact
that the current list specifically allows municipalities to loan money to homeowners for energy
upgrades and water conservation. The amendment was necessary for two reasons, to grant
authority to spend the two areas but also to allow us to loan money to individual homeowners. IF
the proposed changes do not also examine our authorizes and make them broader (i.e. by
allowing us to loan money to homeowners or to enter in to public private partnerships),
eliminating the list of permitted areas in which to spend money may have unintended
consequences. In this example, if this list removed and we are able to spend money on energy
upgrades, the limits on our authority may prohibit us from granting a loan to a home owner for
this purpose. Similarly, while the intention is to allow us to spend money on broadband (which we
would be able under the proposed changes) we still may not be able to do this by giving the
money to a private company as there is still a gray area. The section needs to be reviewed in its
entirety as has been done in other jurisdictions.
Any cautions or suggestions DMA should consider?
While other jurisdictions may have removed their list and taken a similar approach to powers to
expend, they in all likely hood did this in conjunction with a review of the entire section, including our
ability to generate revenues, our authorities to enter into creative solutions such as private public
partnerships. The limits on authority (i.e. having to own, lease, or have a service contract or to grant to
a non-profit) are probably more limiting to our ability to be creative and flexible than the list o f items
we can spend money on.
Opening up the list may actually create expectations from the public and other levels of government
that we should be spending money on areas which may not be municipal priorities.
Minimum Planning Standards
Minimum planning standards across the province can level the playing field between municipal units.
However, if the province is interested in areas of provincial interest, their interest should be the same in
Digby as it is in Cape Breton and therefore they should provi de leadership on the standards and
regulations. For example, if they do not want there to be development in a floodplain, the current
statements of Provincial Interest do not prevent this. While it is necessary to have some local input or
flexibility,the province needs a set of minimum standards they feel protect all residents of the Province.
This is the approach used with the Provincial Subdivision regulations.
It is difficult for the municipality to provide feedback to the Province on minimum standar ds, when they
have not provided a better indication of their intended direction. MODC already has comprehensive
planning in the Municipality. Depending on their approach, MODC may already have the standards in
place, or they may be covered by our draft planning documents.
There is some concern about the piece of the consultation around municipal cooperation. Currently
municipalities notify their neighboring municipalities when adopting or amending planning documents
but this is done at the point of notification of public hearing. This may be too late in the process to have
5 Request For Decision /Direction
truce consultation and ability to impact the outcome. Consideration might be given to requiring
notification at the public participation stage and perhaps increasing the public participa tion requirements
(so that are not just mandatory for policy amendments). This would allow an adjacent municipality more
notice and they can choose when to become involved. There is a concern that the province may be
considering more than notification and may be proposing mandating consultation, however consultation
cannot be forced. MODC attempted several times to engage with other levels of government but if a
project is not their priority, it could potentially infringe on our autonomy and hamper our abil ity to
proceed in a timely manner.
Coastal Protection
MODC is currently going through a plan review process in which we discussed the possibility of coastal
protections. This is a topic which can be politically sensitive, especially at the local level.As was stated in
relation to areas of Provincial Interest, this approach seems to be one in which the province has indicated
their desire to protect the coast and have taken a leadership role in adopting an Act to ensure this
happened across the Province.Once we see the legislation, we may wish to provide additional comments,
however, fundamentally, the Province taking the lead in protecting the coastal areas seems to be
favorable to making the municipalities do this on their own.
The proposed changes and the impact on the MODC will become clearer once the Act and any
accompanying regulations are developed. It appears as though the province is hoping for the legislation
to be passed this fall but that the accompanying regulations (which is where the rules would become clear
and the authorities and responsibilities defined) would be take time to develop. The Act would not be in
force until the regulations were developed to enact it. The in tention is that the municipalities would be
consulted during the development of the regulations.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
N/A
Financial/Budgetary
To be determined once more details on the proposed changes are provided. It is likely that the Minimum
Planning Standards and the Coastal protection will have implications for staff time but it is not clear that
the requirements would generate the need for additional resources.
Environmental
This could provide additional protections to environmental resources in MODC including saltwater
marshes, environmentally sensitive areas etc.
Strategic Plan
Work Program Implications
OPTIONS
For discussion.
6 Request For Decision /Direction
ATTACHMENTS
1.Power to Expend Presentation
2.Minimum Standards Presentation
3.Coastal Protection Presentation
Power to Expend Participant Feedback
Question Responses
Would additional
flexibility in
municipality’s power to
expend be valuable for
responding to the
present and future
needs of your
municipalities?
What opportunities
would this additional
flexibility provide?
What are the risks of
taking this enabling
approach?
Are there any cautions
or suggestions you think
DMA should consider?
Other comments
Optional Information:
Participant Name: _____________________________
Contact Information ___________________________
Additional comments or questions can be sent to –Grant.maceachern@novascotia.ca
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Chad Haughn Date July 19, 2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Tammy Wilson, CAO Date July 19, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
Four District Council Grants were submitted by community organizations for Council’s
consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council review the attached District Council Grant applications and
approve as appropriate.
DISCUSSION
The District Grant applications received include:
1.Deep Cove Fire Works & Weiner Roast, District 1 $500
2.Hubbards Area Lions Club, District 2 $1,000
3.Chester Legion FE Butler Branch 44, District 3 $500
4.Western Shore & District Fire Dept, District 5 $833
TOTAL $2,833
Note:Two District Grants totaling $1,666 have been allocated for District 5. No other District
Gants have been approved to date.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Financial/Budgetary
The total budget for District Council Grants is $17,500 or $2,500 per district.
Environmental
Strategic Plan
Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources
ATTACHEMENTS
1.Copies of all four District Council Grant applications.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Chad Haughn,Recreation & Parks Dept.
DATE:July 19, 2018
SUBJECT:Approval of District Council Grants
ORIGIN:Grants Program
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Chad Haughn Date July 20, 2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Tammy Wilson, CAO Date July 20, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
The Royal Canadian Legion Branch 79 New Ross has requested a Designated Community Fund
Grant in the amount of $750.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council provide a Designated Community Fund Grant to the New Ros s
Legion in the amount of $750.
BACKGROUND
The Municipality of Chester has a Designated Community Fund Policy (P -77) which provides an
opportunity for individuals to donate funds to the Municipality with direction that it be
deposited into a Designated Community Fund Account for a specific group. The donor receives
a charitable donation receipt for their contribution.After a period of time, the community
organization requests a Designated Community Fund Grant from the Municipality equivalent to
the funds collected.
DISCUSSION
The New Ross Legion has followed the policy by establishing a Designated Community Fund
Account and formally requesting the grant payment. The Department of Finance has confirmed
that $750 has been collected to date on behalf of the New Ross Legion.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Designated Community Fund Policy (P-77).
Financial/Budgetary
$750 grant,equivalent to the amount of funds collected.
Environmental
Strategic Plan
Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Chad Haughn,Recreation & Parks
Department
DATE:July 20, 2018
SUBJECT:Designated Community Fund Request
ORIGIN:Designated Community Fund Account
2 Request For Decision /Direction
Work Program Implications
NA
ATTACHEMENTS1.Copy of the letter from the New Ross Legion requesti ng a Designated Community Fund
Grant.
July 20, 2018
Municipality of the District of Chester
151 King St PO Box 369
Chester, Nova Scotia B0J 1J0
Dear Council;
The New Ross Legion Branch 79 would like to ask for $750.00 from our MODC Designated Community
Fund for yet another improvement for our Legion.
As you may be aware, we poured an assessable patio and access ramps to our Cenotaph and our main
and front entrances last fall.
We installed Stained Glass Barriers around the Front Patio along with placement of 4 picnic tables
and 10 cement planters, and had an Opening Party to celebrate it on July 14th. A great success and thank
you for your support.
We have now ordered and are installing a new door upstairs complete with panic hardware and can use
this money to that end.
We would appreciate your consideration of this request at your next council meeting.
Respectfully,
Roland Walker
Treasurer RCL Br 79.
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Chad Haughn Date July 19,2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Tammy Wilson, CAO Date July 19, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
On August 31, 2017, Council directed staff to expand our partnership with the former South
Shore Regional School Board (SSRSB), now the South Shore Regional Centre For Education
(SSRCE)and create an agreement for the community use of the New Ross School. Recreation
Department staff have been working on this project and a final dra ft of the agreement is ready
for Council to review.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the Joint Use Agreement with the South Shore
Regional Centre for Education so that the New Ross School will become a community school.
BACKGROUND
On November 24, 2016 the New Ross Community Partnership Committee requested that the
Municipality partner with the SSRSB to turn the New Ross School into a community school.
Early in 2017, the project was included as part of Councils strategic priorities e xercise. In July
2017, confirmation was received from the Superintendent that the SSRSB was willing to explore
a partnership agreement for the New Ross School.
In August 2017, Council was presented with some background information and options for
operating the New Ross School as a community school. Council agreed to proceed and since
that time, Recreation Department staff have worked with SSRCE staff and drafted an
agreement based on the Forest Heights Community School model.
The draft agreement has been reviewed by MODC solicitor, SSRCE solicitor and has been signed
by the SSRCE Regional Executive Director.
DISCUSSION
A steering committee was formed in May 2017 with members of MODC staff, SSREC staff, New
Ross School staff, Municipal Council representation and a community member. The committee
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Chad Haughn,Recreation & Parks
Department
DATE:July 19, 2018
SUBJECT:New Ross Community School Agreement
ORIGIN:Strategic Priority Project
2 Request For Decision /Direction
has been working on the operational logistics for the community use of the school and have
provided input into rental rates, a rental agreement and facility rules.
The SSRCE is in the process of renovating a portion of the school to accommodate the new
preprimary program and as part of those renovations have created designated office space for
the Community Development Coordinator.
The planned timeline for community use to begin is September 2018. The school is holding a
Family Fun Day on Saturday, September 8th and the steering committee suggested that this
event draws large crowds of New Ross families and would be a great opportunity to celebrate
the start of community use of the school.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
NA
Financial/Budgetary
Community use of the New Ross school was included in the 2018-19 budget. For the initial year
of operation $5,000 was designated to cover expenses such as door monitor staff, weekend
custodian costs and program delivery costs.
Environmental
NA
Strategic Plan
Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources
Work Program Implications
The Recreation & Parks Director, Community School Coordinator and Community Development
Coordinator have all been involved in the initial p lanning and development work. As agreed at
the August 31st Council meeting, the Community Development Coordinator will be responsible
for the ongoing management of the community use once it begins in September and will
complete this work within existing part time hours.
ATTACHEMENTS1.Copy of the draft New Ross school Joint Use Agreement