HomeMy Public PortalAbout2018-08-23_COW_Public Agenda Package (Updated - August 22, 2018 (item 8.6)Page 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s)
Committee of the W hole
AGENDA
Thursday,August 23, 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.–9:00 A.M.)
4.MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
4.1.Committee of the Whole –August 2, 2018
5.MATTERS ARISING:
5.1 Tip Fees Waiver Request –Kingdom Hall (Follow-up from August 2, 2018 -COW
Meeting).
6.POLICY DEVELOPMENT/REVIEW:
6.1 Request for Decision prepared by Administration dated August 14, 2018
regarding Street Improvement By-law/Policy (see also 7.2)
7.CORRESPONDENCE:
7.1 Presentation from Doug Sharpham, Chester Municipal Chamber of Commerce
regarding Raising Sales –South Shore Business Summit 2018 (appointment at
9:00 a.m.)
7.2 Letter from Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure
Renewal dated August 3, 2018 regarding Cost Share Agreement 2018-006.
8.NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 Request for Decision prepared by Community Development Department dated
August 14, 2018 regarding Sponsorship Request –Baptist Church.
8.2 Request for Direction prepared by Solid Waste Department dated August 12,
2018 regarding Eosense Report –Methane Gas.
8.3 Request for Decision prepared by Community Development Department dated
August 16, 2018 regarding Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production.
Page 2 of 2
8.4 Request for Decision prepared by Recreation and Parks Department dated
August 15,2018 regarding Major Project Grant Criteria Review.
8.5 Request for Decision prepared by Finance Department dated August 17, 2018
regarding request for Tax Reduction under Policy P-23 –Destruction of Property.
9.IN CAMERA:
9.1 Section 22(2)(e) of the MGA –Contract Negotiations –Broadband.
10.ADJOURNMENT.
APPOINTMENT
9:00 a.m.Doug Sharpham, Chester Municipal Chamber of Commerce regarding
Raising Sales –South Shore Business Summit 2018.
9.2 Section 22(2)(e) of the MGA – Contract Negotiations – Wet Anaerobic Digestion
August 8, 2018
Re. Follow up (Tip Fee Waiver Request (8.4))
A request for decision was presented to COW on August 2, 2018 for a tip fee exemption. Staff was
directed to obtain additional information from the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah Witnesses,Simms
Settlement regarding the demolition of the entire building as there had been a new roof installed two
years ago (at which time a tip fee exemption was approved).
On August 8, 2018, I spoke to Gary Armstrong a member of the group requesting an exemption. He
informed me the reason to the demolition was mould related and ongoing issues with leaking etc. He
has applied and received his demolition permits and expects to begin on August 28, 2018. The roof was
repaired to try and solve building issues until such time a decision was made to either repair or rebuild
the older structure.
I hope this information provided will assist Council on their decision.
Regards,
Christa Rafuse, P.Eng.
Director of Solid Waste
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson Date August 17, 2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Date
CURRENT SITUATION
During recent Budget Deliberation (April 2018) Council directed staff to prepare a Street Improvement
Policy / By-law which addresses how Council will accept and fund upgrades to J Class Roads which are
50% costs shared with the Province.
Recently Council authorized the execution of a Cost Sharing Agreement with Nova Scotia Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (NSDOTIR). To be considered by NSDOTIR for cost sharing
requirements must be submitted by October 31, 2018. If a Municipality is using a petition process, the
petition must be completed in advance of the October 31, 2018 submission.
This report presents the options to Council with respects to the receipt of request, consideration of the
same and payment options for MODC’s share of the upgrade.
RECOMMENDATION
1.That Council request a cost estimate from NSDOTIR with respects to roads they wish to have
considered for road upgrades under the Cost Sharing Agreement. This will aid any petition
required to be completed by residents prior to October 31 (provides an ide a of costs to the
resident).
2.That Council provide direction on items raised in the Discussion Section to enable completion of a
Street Improvement Policy and By-law.
3.That Council provide direction on how they wish to address funding on non -subdivision roads
under the costs shared agreement (Village Roads), in respects to future planning for the same.
BACKGROUND
MODC has entered into a Cost Share Agreement with the NSDOTIR. The Agreement provides for a cost
sharing arrangement between MODC and NSDOTIR for the paving of Village and Subdivision Streets.
Such request is due to be submitted by October 31 for consideration in the next fiscal year. There are
approximately 35.47 km of roads that fall under this Agreement.
If approved by NSDOTIR, MODC would be required to fund 50% of the paving costs.Presently, MODC
does not have a policy / procedure on how requests are to be submitted to Council for consideration
prior to forwarding to NSDOTIR, nor how such upgrades are to be funded (area rate, general rate, both
REPORT TO:Committee of the Whole
SUBMITTED BY:Administration
DATE:August 14, 2018
SUBJECT:Street Improvement By-law / Policy
ORIGIN:Council –Budget Deliberations/ Strategic
Priorities Chart
2 Request For Decision/Direction
area rate and general rate, etc.). In August 2017 Council considered the matter and directed that staff not
proceed with a Policy/ By-law and rather that each request be considered on a case by case basis.(see
appendix A-August 17, 2017 Request for Direction)
This decision was reversed during budget deliberations in which Council was asked to consider upgrad es
to several J Class Roads.Debate arose respecting how to fund the same and concern arose over using an
area rate if the residents did not have an opportunity to provide input/comment on the same.
DISCUSSION
Attached is a draft Policy and By-law. The Policy establishes the procedure / criteria under which request
will be considered. The By-law is required to implement the requirement for a petition and to levy a
charge for street improvements (MGA, Section 81)
The following are the significant matters requiring direction in order finalize the Policy and By -law.
1.Streets eligible for Street Improvement
a.Proposal in By-law /Policy
i.NSDOTIR J Class / Village Roads and (NSDOTIR would fund 50%; residents
remaining 50%, with a few exemptions [i.e. collector roads])
ii.Municipal Roads (MODC would fund 50%; residents remaining 50 %)
b.Alternative-Municipal Roads can be excluded or included with residents paying 100%.
The disadvantage of this is that the residents on municip al roads pay more for upgrades.
The advantage is that is user pay, in which those benefiting from the upgrade pay.
2.Requirements for Consideration of Street Improvement
a.Proposal in By-law / Policy
i.Petition [ ensures those paying charge support the upgrade]; or
ii.Initiated by Council [ may be needed in some cases where the road is a collector]
b.Alternative-Council may not require petition, rather consider on a case by case basis .
The advantage-flexibility; The disadvantage-no clear understanding b y council,staff and
public as to what level of support is required, if any, before a levy is imposed.
3.Initiating Petition Requirements (if option is chosen)
a.Proposal in Policy-
i.Petition initiated by a request from 25 percent (%)of the properties that would
be affected [ensures that there is more than one person seeking the petition
before municipal resources are expended;or
ii.No petition, rather just motion of Council [allows Council to act where deemed
appropriate]
b.Alternative-petition request only;or motion only
3 Request For Decision/Direction
4.Evaluation Criteria for Submission to NSDOTIR
a.Proposal in Policy
i.66 2/3rds of owners in favor -Petition
ii.Road condition
iii.Usage
iv.Roads prioritized for funding in previous year
v.Proximity to other high priority roads or planned work
vi.Operational, economic or other reasons
b.Alternative-one or more the of above; may want to alter amount on petition (ie. 50%;
75%)
5.Charge-Who Pays?
a.Proposal in By-law. The By-law is drafted with a “user pay” model, whereby those who
benefit from improvement pay for the service. The By-law does recognize that not all J
class roads are subdivision roads and thus the owners fronting onto a street may not
represent all the users.
i.MODC share of 50% to be funded
b>Residents on Road for local roads
c>Collector Roads-portion by lots on road,portion by general rate
b.Alternative
i.Lots on road only
ii.General Rate only
iii.Case by Case Basis (would have to be determined pre-petition)
6.Method of Charge
a.Proposal in By-law
i.Uniform charge per property
ii.Frontage of the property on any street
iii.Use of the property (i.e.residential, commercial)
iv.Area of the property
v.Any combination of the above
vi.Such method as council deems appropriate
b.Alternative
i.One or more of the options (best practice research notes that most use fro ntage
for street improvements)
7.Charge as a lien
a.Proposal in By-law
i.Charge becomes a lien and is collected in the same manner as taxes
4 Request For Decision/Direction
b.Alternative
i.Charge does not become a lien
8.Payment of Charge
a.Proposal in By-law
i.One-time payment, or
ii.Over a period of up to 10 years
b>Interest Rate –Bank of NS Prime Interest Rate
b.Alternative
i.One-time,or
ii.Over a period longer than 10 years
b>Interest Rate-Rate applied to unpaid taxes 12%, or
c>Another interest rate
9.What is the eligible Charge?
a.Proposal in By-law
i.Cost of Street Improvement
ii.10% Administration Fee [ to cover costs related to petition; staff resources etc.]
iii.Any other costs incurred by NSDOTIR or MODC related to the improvement
b.Alternative
i.Cost of Street Improvement
ii.Any other costs incurred by NSDOTIR and MODC related to the improvement
iii.No Administration fee
IMPLICATIONS
Please provide general overview of implications in this cell.
Policy
There is no policy in place.
Financial/Budgetary
If payment option is allowed over a specified number of years, MODC would cover initial costs and be
paid back.
If MODC uses general tax rate, thence general tax rate pays. MODC may wish to consider identifying
roads in the Village that would not be considered Subdivision Roads and determine level of reserve
funding required for improvements. Once this is known, a plan can be established for funding the reserve.
Environmental
n/a.
Strategic Plan
Street Improvement Policy –This is listed as a Priority on Council’s Strategic Priorities Chart
5 Request For Decision/Direction
Work Program Implications
Staff resources will be required for petition and charge
OPTIONS .
By-Law / Policy
1.Council may wish to proceed with Policy and By -law.
2.Council may wish to address each request on a case by case basis. If this is the case, a deadline of
early spring may be required to enable debate and a decision on method to move forward in
advance of the October 31 deadline.
Subdivision Roads versus Collector /Through Roads
1.Council may wish to direct staff to acquire estimates of improvement costs for non-subdivision
roads, and level of reserve funding required
2.Council may wish to address only on a request basis and consider funding method at that time.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A -August 17, 2017 Request for Decision (Background)
Appendix B-Cost Sharing Agreement
Appendix C-DRAFT Street Improvement Policy
Appendix D-DRAFT Street Improvement By-law
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)-
TBD
August 17, 2018 Draft 1
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Street Improvement Policy
Policy P-
Amended –Effective Date:
August 17, 2018 Draft 1
MUNCIPAITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
POLICY P-
STREET IMPROVEMENT POLICY
Purpose
1.The purpose of this policy is to guide decisions related to capital improvements to municipal
public and provincially cost-shared (ie. J Class and other service exchange) roads.
2.This policy does not apply to private roads or provincial roads that are not cost-shared with
the Municipality.
3.Annually, Council will consider investing in road improvements to improve service to
residents and access provincial cost-sharing funding.
1.0 Eligible Improvements
Only the following work will be considered eligible for Council prioritization or resident initiated
improvement:
1.1 road pavement asphalt surfacing including grading, gravelling, culvert work,paving,
repaving, or double chip sealing
1.2 associated pre-engineering and/or design costs, on site engineering subdivision and
inspection and incidental costs from the edge of the roadway to the limits of the right -
of-way
1.3 any other work by the Province added to the cost of the road improvement.
2.0 Definitions
“Defined Area”means the area as shown in the plan attached to Form A of the Petition
“Owner”includes part owner, joint owner, tenant-in-common, or joint tenant of the whole or
party of any real property fronting on a street or situate in a Defined Area and also includ es any
trustee, executor, guardian, agent or other person having the care or control of such real
property in the case of absence or disability of the person having title thereto
August 17, 2018 Draft 1
“Property”means a parcel or lot which is an area determined by Council to be nefit from a
street improvement
“Street”means any street, roadway, highway or travelled way, or portion thereof, situate in the
Municipality owned by the Municipality or the Province of Nova Scotia
3.0 General Provisions
3.1 Subject to either the terms of the Agreement or funding program, the Municipality may
submit to NSDOTIR (Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure
Renewal) a list of roads to be considered for improvement
3.2 Council shall prioritize the roads eligible for improvements by strategic priorities, as
determined by Council from time to time, and criteria as established in clause 5 of this
Policy
3.3 Council may proceed with a local improvement at its own discretion or in response to a
petition submitted pursuant to the Street Improvement By-law.
4.0 Initiating a Petition
4.1 The petition process may be initiated by:
4.1.1 a request from the owners of at least 25 percent of the properties that would be
subject to the petition within the Defined Area; or
4.1.2 a motion from Council directing Municipal staff to initiate the petition process
4.2 Municipal Council is not obliged to accept any petition for a street improvement.
4.3 In order to prepare submissions for funding to NSDOTIR and for municipal capital
project planning, requests for petitions for municipal or provincially cost -shared roads
shall be received by the Municipality by the dated indicated in the Municipal Street
Improvement By-law of each current year.
5.0 Evaluation Criteria
August 17, 2018 Draft 1
Priorities for improvement will be set annually by Council based on the following criteria:
5.1 Road condition based upon the condition rating provided by NSDOTIR for provincial
roads and the condition rating provided by the Municipal Engineer for Municipal Roads
5.2 Usage
5.3 Roads prioritized for funding in the previous fiscal year where the improvement was not
completed
5.4 Proximity to other planned road work by other public entities, to minimize disruption
and achieve cost savings; and
5.5 proximity to other high priority roads,to minimize disruption and achieve costs savings;
5.6 Circumstances where it would be to the Municipalities benefit for operational, economic
development or other reasons; and
5.7 Roads in which a petition has been received requesting the upgrade
6.0 Requirement for funding
6.1 A road improvement project identified by a successful petition may only proceed if:
6.1.1 The Province agrees to provide the remaining 50% of the cost of the
improvement for a provincially cost-shared road, or
6.1.2 Council agrees to provide for the remaining 50% of the costs of the improvement
for a municipally owned road.
6.2 For road improvements identified by successful petition, residents shall contribute 50%
of the total actual costs to complete the requested improvemen t, plus a 10%
administration fee.
Version 2.1 August 15, 2018
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
A By-law Respecting
Street Improvements
1.SHORT TITLE
1.1 This By-law shall be known as By-law No. ____ and may be cited as the “Street
Improvement By-law”.
2.PURPOSE
2.1 Section 81 of the Municipal Government Act enables a Municipality to make bylaws
imposing, fixing and providing methods of enforcing payment for charges of local
improvements.The purpose of this By-law is to establish the manner in which the
Municipality shall impose, fix and enforce payment of charges for capital improvements
to municipal public and provincially cost-shared streets.
3.DEFINITIONS
3.1 “Charge” means a charge imposed pursuant to Section 81 of the Municipal Government
Act in an amount to be determined pursuant to this By-law for the cost of a local
improvement.
3.2 “Corner lot” means a property situated at the intersection of, and abutting on, two or
more streets.
3.3 “Cost” means the amount of money paid or payable in respect of the street improvement
3.4 “Council” means the Council for the Municipality of the District of Chester.
3.5 “Defined Area” means the area as shown in the plan attached to Form A of the petition
3.6 “Engineer” means the Municipal employee designated as Municipal Engineer pursuant to
the provisions of the Municipal Government Act.
3.7 “Frontage” means the full length of the property that is abutting the street within the
defined area.
3.8 “Municipality” means the Municipality of the District of Chester
3.9 “Owner” includes part owner, joint owner, tenant-in common, or joint tenant of the
whole or party of any real property fronting on a street or situate in a Defined Area and
also includes any trustee, executor, guardian, agent or other person having the care or
Version 2.1 August 15, 2018
control of such real property in the case of absence or disability of the person have title
thereto provided that or the purpose of calculating the percentage of owners in Section
3(1) real property with more than one owner shall be counted as having one owner.
3.10 “Property” means a parcel or lot which is an area determined by Council to benefit from
a street improvement
3.11 “Street” means any street, roadway, highway or travelled way, or portion thereof, situate
in the Municipality owned by the Municipality or the Province of Nova Scotia.
3.12 “Street Improvement” means:
a)road pavement asphalt surfacing including grading, gravelling, culvert
work, paving, repaving or double chip sealing,
b)associated pre-engineering and/or design costs, on site engineering
subdivision and inspection and incidental costs from the edge of the
roadway to the limits of the right-of-way,
d)any other work by the Province and/or Municipality added to the costs of
the road improvement
3.13 “through lot” means a property bounded on two opposite sides by two or more streets.
4.0 PETITION
4.1 Petitions shall be evaluated in accordance with Clause 5 and 6 of Policy ____, Street
Improvement Policy.Municipal Council is not obliged to accept any petition for street
improvement
4.2 The Petition for a street improvement shall be in Form A or similar thereto and shall
clearly state the Defined Area for which the improvement is requested together with a
plan showing the streets outlined in red for the requested improvements and the length
and width of the streets. The street improvement shall be on an uninterrupte d length of
the street.
4.3 The Petition process shall be initiated in accordance with Policy _____ Street Improvement
Policy.
4.4 In order to prepare submissions for funding to NSDOTIR and for municipal capital
project planning, requests for petitions for municipal or provincially cost-shared streets
shall be received by the Municipality on or before August 1st for work to occur in the
following fiscal year.
4.5 A petition shall be conducted no more than once every two (2) years in a Defined Area or
part thereof without Council approval.
Version 2.1 August 15, 2018
4.6 The Processing of a Petition
4.6.1 Upon receipt of a request for the Municipality to initiate a petition, in which the request
satisfies clause 4.1 of Policy _____ Street Improvement Policy, the Municipality will
prepare a petition pursuant to this By-law for distribution to affected property owners.
4.6.2 The petition documents shall include: a description of the street improvement, the
method of charge, a map of the proposed charge area, the estimated total costs of the
improvement, the estimated costs for each property and the financing options.
4.6.3.The petition documents will also include a letter explaining the process and will give
each property owner an opportunity to vote YES or NO for the improveme nt.
4.6.4 The petition shall give owners at least 30 days to respond.
4.65 The petition package and documents with a stamped return envelope will be sent by
regular mail to the owners representing each property. In addition, the Municipality will
advertise the intention to petition in the local paper and on the municipal webpage.
4.6.6 If a response has not been received from an Individual Owner, in the 30 days, it will be
deemed that the Owner’s response is negative.
4.6.7 An Owner is entitled to one vote for each individual parcel s/he owns within the Defined
Area. In the case where an individual property has more than one Owner, all Owners
must agree on the single response. If all Owners are not in agreement, it will be deemed
that the Owner’s response is negative.
4.6.8 In the situation where the Municipality owns a parcel of land along the Street, as
described in the petition, the Municipality will not have a vote in the petition. The
Municipality is not obligated to pay a chare levied on its property for such
improvements.
4.6.9 In the event of a dispute between a property owner and the Municipality as to any
measurement, the property owner shall retain, at her/his expense, as surveyor in good
standing of the Association of Nova Scotia Land Surveyors, who shall certify the
measurements and submit them to the Municipality.
5.0 CHARGE IMPOSED
5.1 Where two-thirds (66 2/3%) of the owners of land in a Defined Area, petition in person
or by agent the Municipality for an improvement to a street, the Municipality may make
such improvement and shall be entitled to recover all of the cost of such improvement
Version 2.1 August 15, 2018
by levying a charge upon the owners of real property fronting on the said street or
situate in the said Defined Area as herein provided by this By-law.
5.2 Where a street for which a request for petition has been received in which the road is
utilized by the general public due to due to the roads use as a collector or thoroughfare
street or due to the nature of land uses on the street, Council may opt to cover all or a
portion of the costs for the street improvement through means other than charges on
properties that front on the street. Council will make this decision when the petition
request is received. The cost to property owners with the Defined Area will be
determined at that time and reflected on the Petition.
5.2 An interim charge may be imposed when Council approves the project to proceed based
on the best estimate of the costs of the project at the time. The interim charge will be
adjusted at the time of completion of the project.
5.3 Amount of Charge
The total amount of the charge levied shall not exceed the costs of the street
improvements to the Municipality and an administration charge of ten percent.
6.0 METHOD OF CHARGE
6.1 The Charge levied pursuant to Section 5 shall be determined in accordance with the
provisions of this By-law and, if applicable, of the approved petition or Schedule ‘A’ and
may be calculated based on:
6.1.1 a uniform amount for each property in existence or subsequently created by
subdivision;
6.1.2 the frontage of the property on any street;
6.1.3 the use of the property;
6.1.4 the area of the property;
6.1.5 the assessed value of the property
6.1.6 any combination of two or more such methods of calculating the charge; or
6.1.7 such other method as Council deems fit.
Version 2.1 August 15, 2018
7.0 VARIATIONS IN CHARGES
7.1 The charge levied pursuant to this Bylaw may be fixed at different rates for different
classes of uses of properties and may be fixed at different rates for different areas or
zones as outlined in the approved petition.
8.0 FRONTAGE ADJUSTMENTS
8.1 For corner lots and through lots, where both streets adjacent to the property are subject
to a local improvement, the total frontage will be adjusted as follows:
8.1.1 For the longest frontage, the frontage will not be subject to any adjustment and
will be charged 100 percent of the frontage;
8.1.2 For the shortest frontage, the frontage will be reduced by 50 percent.
8.2 For corner lots and through lots, where one of the two streets are subject to a local
improvement and the other street has previously been the subject of a local
improvement, the property will only be charged for the portion of the frontage subject
to the local improvement and the frontage will be reduced by 50 percent.
8.3 For corner lots and through lots, where one of the two streets are subject to a local
improvement and the other streets has not been the subject of a local improvement, the
property will only be charged for the portion of the frontage subject to the local
improvement and there shall not be any adjustments to the total frontage.
8.4 Properties given an adjustment to the charge under this Section will be identified in the
petition documents.
9.0 LIEN ON PROPERTY
9.1 A charge imposed pursuant to this By-law constitutes a first lien on the subject real
property in the same manner and with the same effect as rates and taxes under the
Municipal Government Act and is collectable in the same manner as rates and taxes
thereunder.
9.2 The liens provided for in this By-law shall become effective on the date on which the
interim charge is imposed or the Municipal Engineer files with the Treasurer a certificate
that the improvement has been completed and the total costs of the improvement.
Version 2.1 August 15, 2018
9.3 The liens provided for in the Bylaw shall remain in effect until the charge plus any
accrued interest has been paid in full.
9.4 Where a property subject to a lien is subdivided, the unpaid amount of the charge plus
interest shall be apportioned among the new lots according to the assessed value that
the new lots have in relation to the total assessed value of the entire property before
subdivision.
10.NOTICE OF LIEN
The Treasurer of the Municipality shall notify the owner of each property upon the filing
of the certificate referred to subsection 9.2 and shall notice shall state:
a)the basis of the special tax
b)The tax payable by the owner in respect of the special tax
11.0 REPAYMENT OF THE CHARGE
11.1 At the option of the owner(s) of a property which is subject to a charge, the charge may
be paid in either of the following ways:
11.1.1 by payment, in full, at the time of invoicing by the Municipality; or
11.1.2 by annual installments, over a period not to exceed ten years, on which interest
shall be payable. In the event of default of payment of an installment, the whole
balance shall become due and payable without demand or notice.
11.2 The property owner(s) shall have one month from the date of their initial notice of
amounts owning, to notify the Treasurer, in writing, which financing option has been
selected. If there is no written notification, the property owner(s) shall be deemed to
have selected the annual payment option.
11.3 Interest shall accrue on charges outstanding from the date of billing forward at a rate
equal to Scotia Banks prime interest rate at the effective date of notice of amounts
owing per clause 11.2
12.0 AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAW
12.1 The amendments to this By-law shall not affect any project, fee, debt or charge incurred
prior to the date of enactment on or any procedure for enforcing the same completed or
pending at the time of enactment, nor shall it repeal, defeat, disturb, invalidate or
prejudicially affect any matter or thing whatsoever completed, existing, or pending a t the
time of enactment.
Version 2.1 August 15, 2018
FORM A
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
To the Council of the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg
The Undersigned, being two-thirds of the owners:
(i)Owning two-thirds of the real property situate in the Defined Area in the Municipality
of the District of Chester hereinafter described.
do petition the Municipal Council to make improvements to the Street(s) ore particularly
described:
(i)As the street(s) or portion thereof known as _______________________________________
(ii)In the area situated at _____________________________________________________________
as shown on the attached plan.
Also, each of the owners, whose signatures appears below, respectively propose that the
Municipal Council accept this as a petition in compliance with the Street Improvement By-law.
Each of the owners, whose signatures appear below, agrees that they be levied for a portion of
the charge in respect of the street improvement on the basis of _____________________________
Names and Signatures of Property Owners
Name Signature Civic Number AAN
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Tara Maguire, Director Date August 14, 2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson Date August 17, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
The Municipality has received a request for sponsorship from Chester United Baptist Church,
Aenon Baptist Church, and CBM for their annual Giving Golf Tournament (see Attachment 1). After review,
staff are uncertain that the criteria allows for this type of sponsorship.
DISCUSSION
For the 2018-19 fiscal year, Council has an Economic Development Sponsorship fund to sponsor events or
initiatives within the municipality that are designed to help achieve Council priorities and generate local
economic development benefit in one or more of the following areas:
Supporting business growth and employment.
Increasing visitor attraction.
Promoting the municipality to residents and visitors.
Sponsor opportunities are evaluated by the following criteria:
•Relevance to the community.
•The Municipal logo must be displayed on some marketing of the event.
•The audience should be significant in size or targeted.
It appears that for this application, the main fundraising efforts go towards funding the Canadian Baptist
Ministries with an unspecified portion of the funds going towards a local charity; the Finney Fund which
helps residents of the Municipality with medical assistance.
According to our Sponsorship Policy (see Attachment 2)the following organizations are eligible to receive
sponsorships:
a.Charitable organizations (e. g.foundations and charities);
b.Global community service organizations (e. g. VON, United Way);
c.Membership based not-for-profit organizations that have a junior program (e. g. sport
clubs, associations). Programs or capital projects that benefit an organiza tion' s junior
program may be supported through the grant program; (amended Sept. 23, 2014)
d.Community based organizations (e. g. community halls, sport groups, recreation
e.groups, social groups).
f.Organizations advertising the opportunities of the municipa lity for business,
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Community Development
DATE:August 14, 2018
SUBJECT:Baptist Church Request for Sponsorship
ORIGIN:Sponsorship Policy
2 Request For Decision /Direction
industrial and tourism purposes and encouraging tourist traffic,
g.Organizations involved in the promotion and attraction of institutions, industries and
businesses, the stabilization and expansion of employment opportunities and the
economic development of the municipality;
Faith-based organizations are not explicitly included as eligible within the policy but could fall within one
of the above categories.Past practice would indicate that we would provide grants to faith -based
organizations when there is a clear community benefit, or the organization is hosting a community wide
event (i.e. a community fun day, musical friends etc.). In terms of golf tournaments, we have sponsored
Shoreham golf tournament (all the funding stayed in the co mmunity and it was seen as an
economic/tourism draw) as well as Clark Lodge golf tournament (again, this resulted in the funding
staying in MODC –OHC, bursaries for local high school students and sea cadets).
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
The sponsorship policy is used to evaluate requests for sponsorship, however, it is unclear if the policy
supports funding a faith-based organization in which an undetermined portion would remain in the
community and the remainder would fund a national entity.
Financial/Budgetary
This request could be accommodated within the approved budget of $5,000 for municipal sponsorships
Budget 2018-19 $5,000.00
Balance May 11, 2018 $5,000.00
Recent Sponsorships
Hubbards Barn Association 2018 Food Truck Rally $500.00
Swing for Shoreham Golf Tournament $700.00
Recreation NS Conference (being hosted at Oak Island)-pending $1,500.00
South Shore Business Summit -pending $1,500.00
Previously Approved
N/A
Balance $800.00
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
N/A
Work Program Implications
N/A
3 Request For Decision /Direction
OPTIONS
1.Grant sponsorship request and deem that faith -based organizations are considered an eligible
organization.
2.Deny sponsorship request based as faith-based organizations are not eligible for sponsorship
opportunities
3.Deny sponsorship request as it does not meet the priorities for economic development and
tourism.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Sponsorship Request Letter
Attachment 2: Sponsorship Policy
REQUEST FOR D IRECTION
Prepared By:Christa Rafuse, P.Eng.Date August 12,2018
Reviewed By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson, CAO Date August 16,2018
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson, CAO Date August 16,2018
CURRENT SITUATION
The methane gas investigation at Kaizer Meadow landfill was temporarily placed on hold while
investigating the Anaerobic Digestion (AD)project.The Municipality of the District of Chester (MODC)
has since cancelled the AD project and is following up on the methane gas feasibility review completed by
Dillon Consulting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommend that Council provide direction on next steps.Its staff’s opinion upon review
of the Dillon Report and the impending transition to Sustane that no further investigation be taken.
However, it would be logical to purchase the appropriate gas monitors for Kaizer Meadow to complete
spot checks around the structures as part of OH&S (should this show any issues consideration to Dillons
venting for structures may be considered).
BACKGROUND
Eosense completed testing and work at the Kaizer Meadow landfill to determine if there was a potential
for methane gas followed by determination of any potential risks or marketability. They reviewed the
results of their pilot study and put together a report and presentation for Council.
The Eosense Report was received on November 21, 2017 and presented to COW on February 15, 2018.
Following the presentation staff were instructed to forward the information to the engineering firms and
request a review and recommendation of next steps. They could propose what would be entailed in
representing the Municipality forward.
In addition,the CAO asked if there were any concerns regarding Occupational Health and Safety. The
Director of Solid Waste at the time, Bruce Forest that there was one location with a higher level of
methane; however, because it’s been identified,and the methane dissipates quickly there are no risks.
The engineering firms were provided with the Eosense report and only one of the two firms chose to
respond to the project. Dillon Consulting was consulted and have reviewed the information to provide
feedback on the work completed to date.
REPORT TO:CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY:Christa Rafuse, P.Eng
DATE:August 23, 2018
SUBJECT:Eosense Report –Methane Gas
ORIGIN:Council Requested Further Information
2 Information Report
In summary, the Eosense report had multiple purposes. One was to collect data from the installed passive
vents to determine what landfill gas (LFG)the vents may be collecting and to also collect data outside the
vents radius of influence to determine what, if any, LFG is being produced and not being capt ured in the
passive gas vents.
Note:Landfill gas consists of a mixture of different gases, typically by volume its 45 to 60 % methane and
40 to 60% carbon dioxide. With traces of other gases.Concerns with methane gas in landfills are, potential
explosive hazards, reduction or replacement of natural atmosphere in enclosed structures, and potential
for health effects due to the presence of trace compounds.
DISCUSSION
Dillon Consulting reviewed and prepared a letter report related to the feasibility of ins talling gas (LFG)
collection and a potential flare system on June 17, 2018 (finalized, June 25, 2018).
According to Dillon’s review (letter report attached) the data presented does not provide sufficient
information to determine the radius of influence of the vents installed in the landfill.
Based on Dillon’s review the recorded values of the percentage of volume of methane at the vents vary
greatly from 0 to 55.6 and flow only identified at two of the four vents ranging from 29.8 to 51.9 scfm
(standard cubic feet per min)with oxygen levels from 2.8 to 18.4% by volume. LFG flaring system requires
a constant generation of landfill gas, methane values in the 45-55% by volume and oxygen values 5% by
volume.
There is insufficient information presented, due t o the spacing and depth of the monitoring locations, to
determine if a landfill gas collection and flaring system or a system that would use the LFG as a fuel
source has potential or worth exploring.If the Municipality wished to determine the potential (volume
and % methane) LFG in the existing cells, Dillon proposes 1 or 2 pilot wells approximately three metres
from the base of the cells leachate collection system and shallow and deep monitoring pro bes at varying
spaces.1.It would be recommended by Dillon to further test. However, with the transition to Sustanehandling future waste this may not justify further testing or a permanent LFG collectionsystem.2.Dillon has recommended that if not already present, passive or active LFG interceptionpiping and venting be placed at landfill structures.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
P-20 Fee Policy
3 Information Report
Financial/Budgetary
Unknown
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan1.Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;2.Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;3.Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
OPTIONS1.Municipal council can provide direction and/or request further information.2.Accept Staff’s recommendation.3.Status Quo.
ATTACHMENTS
Letter Report from Dillon Consulting
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
REQUEST FOR D IRECTION
Prepared By:Jason Genee, Planner Date August 16, 2018
Reviewed By:Tara Maguire, Director Date August 16, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson Date August 17, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
The Canadian government announced the recreational use of cannabis would become legalized on October
17, 2018 under the Cannabis Act.Although the federal government will regulate the production of cannabis,
municipalities are able to influence the location and density of production facilities through their land use
by-laws. Staff is currently looking for clarification as to whether Council would like to pursue amendments
to the Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use By-law to regulate the commercial cultivation and
processing of cannabis and cannabis related products.
RECOMMENDATION
For discussion and direction.
BACKGROUND
Federal, provincial, and municipal governments will play different roles with respect to the regulation and
management of cannabis cultivation, processing,and its retail sale.The federal government will control the
production of cannabis and cannabis related products through a licensing program.Until October 17, 2018
however, cannabis can only be legally produced and accessed for medicinal purposes, regulated under the
Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR).
The Federal government has established regulations and license classes for cannabis cultivation and
processing within the Act.The regulations also stipulate that while cannabis can be cultivated, propagated,
and harvested outdoors, all other activities related to the processing of cannabis must take place indoors.
However, no activities are permitted to take place within a dwelling -house.As of the writing of this report,
Health Canada has not released the implementation guidelines, policies, and application form for the
licenses discussed below.1
There are two primary license classes (broken down into subclasses)that pertain to the production of
cannabis. They are:
A license for cultivation (nursery, micro, and standard);and
A license for processing (micro, and standard).
1 https://www.airdberlis.com/insights/publications/publication/cannabis-regulations-published-licensing-
basics
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department
DATE:August 163, 2018
SUBJECT:Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and
Production
ORIGIN:June 14, 2018 Council Meeting
2 Request For D /Direction
The Cannabis Act contains regulations to control odours from escaping cultivation and production facilitates
stating “the building or part of the building where cannabis is produced, packaged, labelled and stored
must be equipped with a system that filters air to prevent the escape of odours.”(S. 85)However, the control
of odours escaping from outdoor cannabis cultivation has been cited as a potential source of nuisance.
License holders will also be subject to strict physical and personnel security requirements that vary
depending on facility use and capacity.For example, standard cultivation facilities are required to meet
higher standards than micro-cultivation facilities.Facilities must be designed to prevent unauthorized
access to sites while some sites will be required to have visual recording and intrusion detection devices.
Additionally, facilities closer to Halifax (within 50 km) may be subject to higher security standards than those
outside of a 50 km radius.
Finally,new Industrial Hemp Regulations will become part of the Cannabis Act.Industrial hemp is cannabis
that contains 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or less in the flowering heads and leaves.Fibre from hemp
stalks can be used to make paper, textiles and rope while the grain can be used in food products, cosmetics,
and fuel.2 Holders of the Industrial Hemp license will be subject to product testing in addition to being
restricted to growing certain types of hemp.
DISCUSSION
While the current Draft Land Use By-law does not explicitly address the cultivation or processing of cannabis,
these uses would likely be considered Industrial (Light and/or Heavy).Due to the small-scale nature of
micro-cultivation and micro-processing, under the current Draft Land Use By-law,any cultivation and
processing activities could conceivably take place in the GB, SR-1, SR-2, MU,GW, HM, BP, KI, and KM Zones.
Council has several options to consider for the potential regulation of cannabis facilities.
Current and proposed cannabis production facilities in Nova Scotia range in size from 20,000 ft2 (~1850 m2)
to 70,000 ft2 (~6500 m2). However, as small-scale facilities under the new regulations may only require 200
m2 (or less) and no maximum facility size indicated, there is a large possible range in production facility
sizes for cannabis. While three of the proposed zones in the Draft Land Use By -law have maximum Gross
2 https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-concerns/controlled-substances-precursor-
chemicals/industrial-hemp/about-hemp-canada-hemp-industry/frequently-asked-questions.html
Table 1.
Permitted activities for cultivation and processing licenses under the Cannabis Act
Cultivation Processing
Standard Micro Nursery Standard Micro
Cultivate
dried and
fresh
cannabis,
plants, and
seeds.
Same as
standard
cultivation but
cultivation
activities are
limited to 200
m2.
Same as standard cultivation
but prohibited to produce
fresh or dried cannabis. Limited
to 50 m2 of budding or
flowering cannabis plants for
seed production.
Produce
cannabis, other
than by
obtaining it by
propagating,
cultivating, or
harvesting.
Same as standard processing
but cannot process through
synthesis. Limited to
producing the equivalent of
600 kg of dried cannabis in a
calendar year.
3 Request For D /Direction
Floor Areas (GFAs) for Light Industrial uses, six of the proposed zones have no limit other than the
procedural requirement. Due to the variability in possible cultivation and pro cessing facility sizes, Council
may implement a procedural requirement for cannabis facilities once a certain GFA has been reached. For
example, any cannabis facility over 2000 m2 could require Site Plan Approval or a Development Agreement.
Alternatively,Council may decide cannabis facilities over a certain size are not permitted in the municipality.
This approach would require the Municipality to define what a cannabis facility entails and how it fits into
the permitted uses of the Land Use By-law.
Table 2.
Light Industrial Gross Floor Area (GFA) allowance and procedural requirement by zone
Zone Size Allowance for Light Industrial Process
GB GFA of 1000 m2 to 2800 m2 SP
GFA of 2800 m2 and above (this needs to be included in
LUB)
DA
SR-1 GFA up to 70 m2 DP
GFA over 70 m2 DA
SR-2 GFA under 100 m2 DP
GFA of 100 m2 to 500 m2 SP
MU GFA under 2000 m2 SP
GFA over 2000 m2 DA
GW GFA under 1000 m2 DP
GFA of 1000 m2 to 2000 m2 SP
HM GFA under 100 m2 DP
GFA of 100 m2 to 500 m2 SP
BP Any GFA DP
KI Any GFA DP
KM GFA under 2000 m2 DP
KM GFA over 2000 m2 DA
DP=Development Permit only; SP=Site Plan; DA=Development Agreement
Regulations could explicitly define cannabis uses, permitting or prohibiting the use in certain zones.Calgary,
Alberta has taken this approach by defining a cannabis facility as a “business where the primary use includes
the growing, processing,producing, testing, destroying, storing, or distribution of cannabis.”3 These
facilities have been limited to the General Industrial Zone.Calgary has also implemented a setback where a
cannabis facility cannot be located within 75 metres of a residential district.In MODC cannabis production
facilities could be defined and categorized as a permitted use only where Light Industrial is also permitted.
If the Municipality so chooses,additional regulations can be developed regarding where and how cannabis
production facilities are located (separation distances, setbacks,GFA limits,density,etc.).
Alternatively, cannabis cultivation and processing regulations could be imple mented to exclude commercial
cannabis activities all together, except at specific locations or under the authority of a special permit.The
Municipality could prohibit cannabis production all together except in one area (or Zone [i.e. Kaizer Meadow
3 http://www.calgary.ca/PDA/pd/Pages/Business-licenses/Cannabis-Facility.aspx
4 Request For D /Direction
Industrial Zone or Business Park Zone]) with the approval process having to go through a development
agreement. This would not only allow the Municipality to dictate where cannabis facilities can be located,
but also impose site-specific measures that a developer would need to adhere to.
Finally, the Municipality could opt against any regulations controlling the production of cannabis. This
approach stipulates that cannabis production facilities are permitted within the existing zones.Mentioned
above, cannabis cultivation and processing closely resemble industrial (Light and Heavy)uses.Staff may
require input from the solicitor to determine if outdoor commercial cultivation would fit into industri al uses
or if it could take place unregulated.As will be discussed below, several municipalities with licensed cannabis
producers have taken this approach to cannabis cultivation and production.
Although the implementation of regulations could reduce the locations where cannabis production facilities
could be located,it could provide certainty to potential producers as to where they can locate and any other
regulations they might have to adhere to.4 Thus,if the Municipality wishes to promote or have cannabis
production facilities located in the area, it could be advantageous to create clear regulations as to where
they can be located.In any case, all production and cultivation facilities will be subject to strict site, facility,
and security requirements outlined by the federal government.
Jurisdictional Review
Staff have identified several Nova Scotia municipalities which have licensed (and potentially licensed)
cannabis production facilities. This review focuses on rural municipalities in Nova Scotia. It should be noted
these facilities were licensed (or applied for licenses) under the ACMPR Regulations which does not allow
for commercial outdoor cultivation.
Windsor, Nova Scotia
Creso Pharma, an Australian company built a 20,000 ft2 facility in Windsor’s Business Park to produce
cannabis for medical and recreational uses. Zoned as an Industrial area, Creso gained their permit by-right.
Additionally, the Municipality felt the federal regulations were strict enough so additional measures were
not required from the producer.
Truro, Nova Scotia
Truro Herbal Company (THC) will produce, package, and conduct research on cannabis and cannabis related
products in their 20,000 ft2 facility in Truro’s industrial park (485 Industrial Avenue). The parcel is zoned M1
–Industrial. The town of Truro considered the use as manufacturing/processing meaning THC gained its
permit by-right. The Town also felt the federal regulations controlling odour, security, and other
requirements were strict enough.
Kentville, Nova Scotia
4 https://www.airdberlis.com/insights/publications/publication/municipal -land-use-planning-regulations-
and-cannabis-production-facilities
5 Request For D /Direction
Robinson’s Cannabis located itself in Kentville’s Business Park (61 Rockway Drive), intending to produce and
package cannabis in their 27,700 ft2 facility. The parcel is zoned M1 –Industrial. The producer gained a
permit by-right as the industrial use fit the zoning regulations. During the licensing application with Health
Canada, the applicant was required to ensure that their facility was 500 meters from any residential property.
As a result, the Municipality did not feel any additional requirements were warranted.
Brooklyn, Nova Scotia
Aqualitas purchased land owned by the Province of Nova Scotia that was the former home to the Bowater
Paper Mill and expanded the 40,000 ft2 facility to 70,000 ft2.Aqualitis gained its permit as-of-right as the
use (industrial/agricultural) adheres to the zoning regulation (M -2, Heavy Industrial). The County, Queens,
is looking to strengthen its by-laws with respect to the production and sale of cannabis.
Wentworth Valley, Nova Scotia
Breathing Green Solution’s 35,000 ft2 production facility is located in Wentworth Valley in a converted
military building. At the time, the area was zoned as General which allowed for both industrial and
agricultural uses –granting the company a permit by-right. The County’s new Land Use By-law considers
minimum distances for industrial/agricultural uses from residential areas but does not deal with cannabis
specifically.Planners felt the product (cannabis) has more to do with agriculture and less to do with the
specific plant.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Developing regulations for cannabis production facilities could require policy development for the
Municipal Planning Strategy.
Financial/Budgetary
n/a
Environmental
n/a
Strategic Plan
Council Goal #6: “The Municipality will promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity.”
Work Program Implications
Council should consider reviewing any by -laws and regulations that directly or indirectly deal with cannabis
cultivation, processing, and sale within one year of October 17, 2018.
OPTIONS
1.Make no regulatory change
2.Amend existing regulations to make it clear that activities related to the commercial production or
processing of cannabis are included in permitted or permissible use categories.
3.Amend existing permitted or permissible use categories to exclude commercial cannabis
production or processing activities, except at specific locations or under the authority of a special
permit.
4.Limit production to the scale that is appropriate to supply cannabis for medical uses.
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Chad Haughn Date August 15, 2018
Reviewed By:Tammy (Crowder)Wilson,CAO Date August 16, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder)Wilson,CAO Date August 16, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
During the review of 2018-19 Major Project applications, Council determined that the criteria for
the grant needed to be updated so that project applications were consistent with the intended
goal of that fund. It was requested that the Director of Recreation & Parks supply Council with
some optional criteria.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council review the Major Project Grant criteria options and update the
guidelines and application so that groups submit projects that are in line with Council
expectations for this grant. Any changes to the criteria should be confirmed as soon as possible
so that groups can be notified for 2019-20 submissions.
DISCUSSION
One of the reasons for creating the Major Project Grant was to take pressure off the regular
Council Grants and to allow Council to budget for any large grant requests. These projects are
normally funded through wind revenue and are based on the Wind Energy Revenue Policy (P -
79), specifically, “One third will be designated for community -based projects / infrastructure”.
Potential criteria options are listed below and could be considered for the Major Project Grant
program. All the options are samples of criteria that are common with various other federal,
provincial and municipal grants programs.
1.Minimum Funding Level
Currently there is a requirement for applications to be a minimum of $10,000 or more.
Corresponding with this criteria is the Council Grant requirement that only projects up to a
maximum of $10,000 will be considered. These criteria automatically place applications in
one category or the other simply based on the total funding amount being requested. If this
is not the desired outcome, these thresholds need to change.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Chad Haughn,Recreation & Parks Dept.
DATE:August 15, 2018
SUBJECT:Major Project Grant Criteria Review
ORIGIN:Municipal Grant Program
2 Request For Decision /Direction
2.Eligible Projects
A)Facility Capital Projects:
New building construction
Expansion of existing facilities i.e. adding a new piece to a facility
Renovations or upgrades of existing facilities
i.e.roof replacement,new bathrooms, upgraded heating system
B)Capital Item Project:
Permanent, non-consumable items
i.e.playground equipment,commercial kitchen equipment,AV technology
C)Major Programs:
Substantial community wide programs or initiatives.
i.e.Municipal wide transportation subsidy program, marketing program to attract
new immigrants,health initiative delivered to every community in the
Municipality, social program to help isolated seniors
3.Ineligible Projects
To provide clarity on eligible projects, it is sometimes useful to include samples of projects
that are not eligible, those that Council determines they will not fund through this grant.
i.e.Annual operating and maintenance costs such as minor repairs, electricity bills,
insurance costs, facility cleaning, etc…
4.Time Restrictions
Currently, groups are eligible to apply for a Major Project Grant once per fis cal year.When a
group receives significant funding, there is an option to extend that restriction for a greater
period of time.
i.e.Limit of one Major Project Grant, per group, every two years.
Note –Currently groups are not eligible for other municipal grants in the same fiscal year that
a Major Project Grant is received,except for the new District Grants.
5.Multiple Projects Within One Application
Since groups are aware that they are only eligible for one grant per fiscal year , they may want
to submit one application with more than one project. Council could insist that only one
project is permitted per application.
i.e. Replacement of a roof and Canada Day celebrations.
3 Request For Decision /Direction
6.Maximum Funding Level
Currently there is no maximum level funding. A maximum funding limit could be
implemented.
i.e.The maximum funding available through the Major Project is $100,000.
7.Fund Only a Portion of the Project budget
Currently, Council appreciates when groups do not request 100% funding for a project,
however, there is no criteria that requires this to happen. If Council would like to make
it mandatory for groups to include other sources of funding as a portion of their projects,
criteria could be added.
i.e.Council will fund up to a maximum of 75% of total project budget.
Currently, the evaluation of an application includes a general requirement for groups to
demonstrate fundraising efforts or show the financial need for grant funding.
8.Eligible Expenses
It is common to have a requirement that only expenses incurred after an application is
submitted are eligible to be included in the project.
9.Recognition
Council could require that the applicant be willing to recognize the Municipality for their
financial contribution toward the project.
i.e.The Municipality must be included as a funding partner in things such as
participation in a grand opening ceremonies,signage or advertising.
10.Payment
Currently 100% of grant funds are given out at the time of approval. One option to help
ensure a project is completed, that the budget did not change significantly,and a final
report is received is to release a portion of funds at the start of the project and hold back
a portion until the project is complete.
i.e.75%of approved funds are distributed upfront and the remaining 25%is given
upon completion of project and submission of a final report.
11.Multiyear Commitments
Council has approved multiyear grant commitments in the past. There could be a
statement in the grant overview that indicates that Council is willing to consider multiyear
commitments. To accompany this option, Council may want to consider a requirement
4 Request For Decision /Direction
for an interim report from the applicant between years to ensure that the project budget
is on target, objectives are being met and that the subsequent years funding is still
required.
Evaluation of Applications
The current guidelines for the Major Project Grant list five different evaluation criteria. Council
should be using these as part of the review of application s and there could be additional
evaluation criteria to help with decision making.For example,Council could indicate in the
guidelines that they prefer to support projects that are innovative, creative, provide positive
social and/or economic impact.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Implementation of the one third spending of the wind revenue on community projects -Wind
Energy Revenue Policy (P-79).
Financial/Budgetary
NA
Environmental
Strategic Plan
Strengthen and support environmental, cultural, and social resources
Work Program Implications
The addition of some criteria could increase the administrative work to process grant
applications, however, this work will be done within existing staff time.
ATTACHEMENTS
1.Current Major Project Grant Overview and Criteria
2.Major Project Application Form
REQUEST FOR DECISIO N
Prepared By:Malcolm Pitman, CPA, CA, Director
of Finance
Date August 17, 2018
Reviewed By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson, CAO Date August 17, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson, CAO Date August 17, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
A property owner has submitted a request in writing for a reduction in taxes as their prop erty was destroyed
by fire. The property is 125 Victoria Street, Chester, AAN 01115251. Section 69A of the Municipal Government
Act provides that Council may, by policy, provide for a reduction in taxes payable, to the extent that council
considers appropriate, and reimburse any overpayment because of the reduction. Under policy P-23, upon
request from the Treasurer, the Director of Assessment shall value the property to provide the current
assessment value to be used to calculate the amount of taxes to write off.
RECOMMENDATION
That, Council approve a reduction in 2018-19 taxes payable for assessment account number 01115251 in the
amount of $3,079.22.This tax reduction amount is based upon the pro-rating the taxes using the revised
assessment value from the date of destruction to the end of the tax year.This tax reduction will be written off
to allowance for uncollectible taxes 01-00-000-451100.
BACKGROUND
As required by policy,a written request was received from the property owner Christine Sutton (attached).
Under policy P-23, upon receipt of the written request, The Director of Finance/Treasurer request s Property
Valuation Services Corporation (PVSC)to conduct an inspection of the property and provide a revised opinion
as to its value.A letter was received from PVSC with a revised opinion of 2017 value of $459,560 (attached)
versus the assessed value of $1,024,300 (CAP $840,400).
DISCUSSION
Based upon the revised opinion of value,there is a reduction in assessment value of $380,840. This reduction
times the rates to be charged of $0.9772/$100 is $3,721.57.The rates to be charged of $0.9772 includes the
general tax rate of .0705, Village Commission tax rate of 0.1517,and the solid waste area rate of 0.1215.
Since the fire occurred on June 3, 2018,63 days into the year,it would be fair to base the tax reduction upon
pro-rating the taxes from the date of destruction to the end of the tax year.This would be $3,721.57 X 302 /
365 =$3,079.22.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Finance Department
DATE:August 30,2018
SUBJECT:Reduction of Taxes under policy P-23
ORIGIN:
2 Request For Decisio
Other options for the tax reduction approved could be for:
1.A tax reduction for the full year which would be $3,721.57 or
2.Some other amount that Council considers appropriate.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy –n/a.
Financial/Budgetary –Reduction of the allowance may increase uncollectible taxes expense for the year
Environmental –n/a
Strategic Plan –n/a
Work Program Implications -n/a
OPTIONS
1.Approve the recommended tax reduction of $3,079.22
2.Approve a tax reduction of $3,721.57 for the full year based upon the revised value.
3.Approve the reduction to the extent that Council considers appropriate
REFERENCES
Municipal Government Act section 69A
Policy P-23
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)
Internal –n/a
External-the property owner