Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2018-09-13_Council_Agenda_Package (Updated - 8.10 Added)Page 1 of 2 of Agenda Cover Page(s) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AGENDA Thursday,September 13, 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.) 4.MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 4.1 Council –August 30,2018 5.COMMITTEE REPORTS: 5.1 Audit Committee –August 17, 2018 –Warden Webber (approval of motion only) a)DRAFT Consolidated Financial Statements of the year ended March 31, 2018. b)DRAFT Management Representation Letter. 5.2 Any other Committees. 6.MATTERS ARISING: 6.1 Policy P-89 -System of Municipal Fire Inspections (Notice given at Council Meeting -August 30, 2018) 7.CORRESPONDENCE: 7.1 Letter from Ray Cambria, Chester dated August 28, 2018 regarding Chester Public Water Supply. 8.NEW BUSINESS: 8.1 Request for Decision prepared by Recreation and Parks Department dated August 15, 2018 regarding Major Project Grant Criteria Review. 8.2 Grant Request –Recreation Nova Scotia (RNS)regarding hosting the 21st Annual Conference from October 25th-26th at the Oak Island Resort and Conference Centre. Page 2 of 2 8.3 Request for Decision prepared by Community Development Department dated August 28, 2018 regarding Appointment of Acting Development Officer. 8.4 Request for Decision prepared by Community Development Department dated August 27, 2018 regarding New Road Name Assignment. 8.5 Request for Decision prepared by Community Development Department dated August 28, 2018 regarding New Road Name Assignment. 8.6 Request for Decision prepared by Finance Department dated August 17, 2018 regarding Amendments to Policy P-25 Tax Exemption. 8.7 Request for Decision prepared by Administration dated September 6, 2018 regarding Asset Management System. 8.8 Proclamation -Fire Prevention Week 2018 –Designate the week of October 7-13, 2018 as Fire Prevention Week. 8.9 Rezone Request from Tristan Mills on behalf of Gail Mills dated September 6, 2018 regarding 219 Victoria. a)Letter from Gail Mills dated August 29, 2018 regarding giving out permission to Tristan Mills to investigate rezoning of the property on 219 Victoria Road on her behalf. 9.IN CAMERA. 10.ADJOURNMENT. MOTION REQUIRING APPROVAL OF COUNCIL FROM AUDIT COMMITTEE FRIDAY,AUGUST 17, 2018 2018-362 APPROVAL OF THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2018 MOVED by Bruce Phinney, SECONDED by Councillor Assaff that the Audit Committee recommend to Council the approval of the Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended March 31, 2018. CARRIED. August 28, 2018 Warden Webber Councillors Hector, Shatford, Barkhouse, Assaff, Connors, Church; Municipality of the District of Chester; Dear Warden and Councillors; The August/September issue of the Municipal Insight has a section titled " Strategic Priorities Refresh " In this section, is the Top 8, one of which is the proposed central water supply for the village of Chester. The item contains , in part, the words " Next is a plebiscite ". I assume this is suggesting that council wants to hold a plebiscite to gauge public opinion on this issue. I question why council feels this is necessary. This is a basic infrastructure project, for the common good of the residents. I have lived in Chester for most of my life, and in that time councils and other levels of government have spent tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure projects by way of annual capital budgets. Not once was I asked, by way of a plebiscite, if I approved of the budget or the project. I wasn't asked if I agreed that taxpayer money should be used to build the wind turbine at Kaiser Meadow, or given to the Our Health Centre, or the privately owned golf course in Hubbards, or used to upgrade various sewer systems in the municipality, and of course, provincially, highway improvements, including twinning the 103. After over 40 years, the list would be endless. Infrastructure projects designed to benefit the social, economic and environmental fabric of our society should just be done. In this situation, there is also an important health and safety component to the water supply, for our residents and school children. A plebiscite always pits neighbour against neighbour. This is devisive, and is one reason the Municipality of Cumberland did not have a plebiscite before installing a public water supply in Pugwash. Council should be aware of the other plebiscite in Chester's past, and recognize that to this day neighbours will not speak to each other depending which side of that issue they supported. I would not want to see a repeat of that situation. There will always be a certain negative reaction to expensive public projects. But if this was accepted as a basis for a go/ no-go decision, we would not have any roads, schools, hospitals, sewer and public water supplies, senior residences, etc etc. The various reports done on village wells clearly demonstrate that something must be done. Tinkering with individual wells by the landowner is just putting a band-aid on a broken leg. The clock is ticking with climate change and we don't have much time. Why do I see expensive water delivery trucks going all summer in Chester, if there was a simple solution available to the landowner? The need for a central water supply in Chester is obvious. Rather than moving forward into the 21st Century, council appears to be hoping to avoid dealing with this, yet again, by pitting the residents against each other in a plebiscite. Council should not promote what will most likely be a fractious debate involving a plebiscite distract us from the urgent need for this project. I urge council to just get on with this, and spend your time and energy figuring out how to make it happen, rather than looking for more reasons to avoid having to deal with it entirely. Yours Truly, Ray Cambria Chester, NS 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 DECISION Prepared By:Tara Maguire, Director Date August 28, 2018 Reviewed By:Date Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson Date August 28, 2018 CURRENT SITUATION Currently I am appointed as an Acting DO. Previously both Bill DeGrace and I were both acting DOs. This ensured that we had backup if one of us was unavailable. Garth Sturtevant, our Planner, has experience working the front counter and has reviewed develo pment permits and provided back up to our DO and can provide this service in the role of Acting DO. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council appoint Garth Sturtevant as Acting Development Officer. BACKGROUND Section 243 of the MGA requires that Council appoint a Development Officer (DO). Each year this appointment is made in November, along with the Acting Development Officer(s) who are able to issue permits and approve subdivisions in the absence of the DO. IMPLICATIONS Policy N/A Financial/Budgetary N/A Environmental N/A Strategic Plan Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services; Work Program Implications N/A OPTIONS1.Appoint Garth Sturtevant as Acting Development Officer2.Do not appoint Garth Sturtevant as Acting Development Officer ATTACHMENTS none REPORT TO:Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department DATE:August 28, 2018 SUBJECT:Appointment of Acting Development Officer ORIGIN:Staff Initiated REQUEST FOR DECISION Prepared By:Sylvia Dixon Date 2018-08-27 Reviewed By:Tara Maguire Date 2018-08-27 Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder)Wilson Date 2018-08-27 CURRENT SITUATION A new private road naming request servicing three or more properties of a shared driveway/right-of way, serviced by Walker Cut,Chester has been received.Two of three (66.6%)land owners have proposed the road name “Fern Hill”. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Municipal Council approve the road name “Fern Hill”. BACKGROU ND When there are three or more addressable properties using an unnamed shared right -of-way/driveway, the Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide states that this point of access must be named. According to P - 44, the road name is suggested following a majority agreement from the land owners that access their properties by the shared right-of-way. In this instance,three residential homes use this private access. Two of the residents have signed a petition for naming this access to “Fern Hill”. The third resident would like this access to remain unnamed. DISCUSSION There are no similar road names within Chester Municipality or Lunenburg County.The only other similar names in Nova Scotia are Fern Hill Drive in Colchester County and Fern Hill Road in Halifax County.This is a unique road name within the municipality. Comments received for “Fern Hill”: -District 3 Councillor –Councillor Danielle Barkhouse:no objection with the proposed name -Municipal Engineer –Matthew Davidson:agree with proposed name -Chester Area Fire Department –Everett Hiltz:agree with proposed name IMPLICATIONS Policy Policy P-44 –New Road Names and Road Name Changes Financial/Budgetary A new road sign (with accessory materials) will be purchased and posted by the Engineering &Public Works Department. REPORT TO:Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department DATE:August 27, 2018 SUBJECT:New Road Name Assignment ORIGIN: 2 Request For Decision /Direction Environmental N/A Strategic Plan N/A Work Program Implications N/A OPTIONS 1.Municipal Council can approve the road name “Fern Hill”. 2.Municipal council can decide not to approve the name and direct staff to assign a different na me of Council’s choosing. ATTACHMENTS 1.Signed Petition 2.Location Map COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL) N/A 3 Request For Decision /Direction 5 Request For Decision /Direction REQUEST FOR DECISION Prepared By:Sylvia Dixon Date 2018-08-28 Reviewed By:Tara Maguire Date Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder)Wilson Date 2018-08-28 CURRENT SITUATION A new private road naming request servicing three or more properties of a shared driveway/right-of way, serviced by Fraxville Road, Fraxville has been received.Two of the four (50 %)land owners have proposed the road name “Lake Breeze Lane”.The other two of the four (50 %) land owners have proposed the road name “Ox Yoke Lane”. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Municipal Council approve either the road name “Ox Yoke Lane”or the name “Lake Breeze Lane”. BACKGROUND When there are three or more addressable properties using an unnamed shared right -of-way/driveway, the Nova Scotia Civic Address Users Guide states that this point of access must be named. According to P - 44, the road name is suggested following a majority agreement from the land owners that access their properties by the shared right-of-way.In this case, the property owners are divided between two road names.Two of the four property owners have suggested a name of “Lake Breeze Lane”.The other two property owners would prefer the name “Ox Yoke Lane”. DISCUSSION There are no similar road names within Chester Municipality.There is no other Lake Breeze Lane or Ox Yoke lane listed in the Nova Scotia Civic Address File. These are unique road names within the municipality and Nova Scotia. Comments received for “Lake Breeze Lane”and “Ox Yoke Lane”: -District 6 Councillor –Councillor Tina Connors:agree with proposed names -Municipal Engineer –Matthew Davidson:agree with proposed names -New Ross Fire Department –Lyle Russell:no objection with proposed names REPORT TO:Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department DATE:August 28, 2018 SUBJECT:New Road Name Assignment ORIGIN: 2 Request For Decision /Direction IMPLICATIONS Policy Policy P-44 –New Road Names and Road Name Changes Financial/Budgetary A new road sign (with accessory materials) will be purchased and posted by the Engineering &Public Works Department. Environmental N/A Strategic Plan N/A Work Program Implications N/A OPTIONS 1.Municipal Council can approve the road name “Lake Breeze Lane” or “Ox Yoke Lane”. 2.Municipal Council can decide not to approve the above names and direct staff to assign a different name of Council’s choosing. ATTACHMENTS 1.Signed Petition 2.Location Map COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL) N/A 3 Request For Decision /Direction 4 Request For Decision /Direction 5 Request For Decision /Direction REQUEST FOR DECISION Prepared By:Malcolm Pitman, CPA, CA, Director of Finance Date August 17, 2018 Reviewed By:Date Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson Date August 23, 2018 CURRENT SITUATION MODC’s Tax Exemption policy provides low income tax exemptions as allowed under section 69 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA). The exemption is provided for income levels of less than $21,000 to a maximum of $500 or the amount of their general tax rate tax,whichever is less. These levels are reviewed annually.There are several issues with the current policy that need to be addresses. They are as follows: First,annual review of the income brackets; Second,annual review of the tax exemption maximum amounts; Third, the Waste Collection & Disposal area rate is not included as part of the tax eligible for the exemption.; Fourth,there is large step down in the tax exemption amount granted when $1 in additional income moves a person’s income from one bracket to another; Fifth,the policy does not provide any guidance in the methodology to be used for adjusting brackets or adjusting tax exemption amounts; Sixth, there is no definition of “those who hold an interest in the property and contribute to the household expenses”; Seventh,there is no inclusion of the income of all other members of the same family residi ng in the same household, but this is allowed in MGA s. 69(1). RECOMMENDATION That Municipal Council give notice that at the September 13, 2018 Municipal Council meeting, Municipal Council intends to approve the following changes to the Tax exemption policy: Amend section 1.1 as follows: 1.1 INCOME means a person’s total income (total income before deductions) from all sources for the calendar year preceding the fiscal year of the Municipality of the District of Chester. Excluding any allowances paid pursuant to the War Veterans Allowance Act (Canada) or Pension paid pursuant to the Pension Act (Canada) and includes: i)The income of all assessed owners,their spouse(s), including common law spouses residing at who occupy the property as their principal residence;and REPORT TO:Municipal Council SUBMITTED BY:Finance Department DATE:August 30 , 2018 SUBJECT:Amendments to Policy P-25 Tax Exemption ORIGIN:Annual review of low income exemption amounts 2 Request For Decision ii)The income from members of the same family residing in the same household, who contribute to the household expenses; and iii)Those who hold an interest in the property and contribute to the household expenses. Amend section 1.2 as follows: 1.2 Owner and those who hold and interest in the property includes: i)The person assessed for the property; ii)A person who holds title including a part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, or joint tenant of the property;and iii)A person with a life interest in the property;and iv)A person with a matrimonial interest. Not included are those with a leasehold interest and those with an interest under an agreement of purchase and sale. 1.4 SAME FAMILY in section 1.1(ii) is defined as including, but not limited to, children and step -children connected to at least one of the legally married or common -law couples included in section 1.1(i). Amend section 2.0 i), ii) and iii) as follows: 2.0 The Municipality shall grant an exemption as follows: i) For owners with an income level of $12,000 $12,649 or less,the tax exemption shall be a maximum the lessor of $500 $601 or the tax (on the general tax rate and the waste collection and disposal area rate only); ii) For owners with an income level of $12,001 to $15,000 $12,650 to $15,859 the tax exemption shall be a maximum the lessor of $300 $601 less the bracket’s change in the exemption amount ($241) prorated for the income above $12,649 divided by the bracket’s income size*or the tax (on the general tax rate and the waste collection and disposal area rate only); * i.e.$601-(((income-12,649) / (15,859-12,649)) x (601-$360)) iii) For owners with an income level of $15,001 to $21,000 $15,860 to $21,231 the tax exemption shall be a maximum the lessor of $200 $360 less the bracket’s change in the exemption amount ($120) prorated for the income above $15,859 divided by the bracket’s income size*or the tax (on the general tax rate and the waste collection and disposal area rate only); *i.e. $360-(((income-15,859) / (21,231-15,859)) x ($360-$240)) Amend section 3.0 i) a), b) and c) as follows: i)Make an affidavit: a)Regarding his/her income from all sources in the calendar year preceding the Municipal taxation year for which the exemption is sought. Satisfactory verification of income must be presented to substantiate the exemption. Exemption form attached as Schedule "A”. 3 Request For Decision b)Verify that any person who either holds an interest in the property or are family members residing in the same household, whose income is not included in household income pursuant to clause 1.1 (ii), does not contribute to paying household expenses. c) Provide satisfactory verification of inco me to substantiate the exemption.Satisfactory evidence includes a CRA notice assessment, GST/HST credit notice, and copy of tax return prepared by a third party tax preparer. Add section 7.0 on methodology to use, as follows: 7.0 Annually tax exemption income levels and the exemption amounts will be adjusted as follows: (i)Annual adjustments in the income levels below which an exemption for taxation is granted,will be adjusted by either the annual increase in the CPI for Nova Scotia or to the extent that Council considers appropriate. (ii)Annual adjustments in the scale of exemptions amounts granted will be adjusted by either the annual increase in the average residential tax bill for the general tax rate and waste collection and disposal area rate or to the extent that Council considers appropriate. BACKGROUND In 2017-18 tax exemptions were grants in the amount of $33,978 versus a budget of $40,000. The budget amount of $40,000 is unchanged for 2018 -19. Tax exemptions for the last three years were as follows: 2017-18 $33,978 2016-17 $30,457 2015-16 $37,807 The top income bracket was increased from $19,000 to $21,000 for the 2017 -18 year. Annually, Council reviews the threshold and exemption amounts included in the policy. Section 69 of the MGA states that Council may, by policy, grant an exemption from taxation, in the amount or to the extent set out in the policy, for a person whose income is below the amount set out in the policy and may prescribe a scale of exemptions related to income. These amounts have been as follows for the last five years: Year Income brackets Maximum exemption by bracket #1 #2 #3 2017-18 #1 ≤ $12,000; #2 $12,001-$15,000; #3 $15,001-$21,000 $500 $300 $200 2016-17 #1 ≤ $12,000; #2 $12,001-$15,000; #3 $15,001-$19,000 $500 $300 $200 2015-16 #1 ≤ $12,000; #2 $12,001-$15,000; #3 $15,001-$19,000 $500 $300 $200 2014-15 #1 ≤ $12,000; #2 $12,001-$15,000; #3 $15,001-$19,000 $500 $300 $200 2013-14 #1 ≤ $12,000; #2 $12,001-$15,000; #3 $15,001-$19,000 $500 $300 $200 4 Request For Decision DISCUSSION First,there has been no annual adjustment of the income brackets to reflect changes in inflation (CPI).This creates “bracket creep”where inflation pushes an increase in income into lower exemption brackets, resulting in an increase in taxes.The annual CPI increases for Nova Scotia since 2013 have been; 2013 -1.2%, 2014 – 1.7%, 2015 –0.4%, 2016 –1.2%, 2017 –1.1%. Applying these percentages to the brackets in 2013-14 (except for the top bracket that changed last year, only apply 2017) the revised brackets would be: #1 -$12,649 #2 -$15,859 #3 -$21,231 Other than noting which income bracket a person fits,in we do not keep track of their income amount s, therefore the impact of the above change cannot be calculated. Second,there has been no annual adjustment of the exemption amounts to reflect changes in the average tax bill. This creates property tax creep where there is an increase in the gap between the average tax bill and the exemption amount. The increases in MODC’s average tax bill *have been; 2014-15 -5.95%, 2015-16 – 2.43%, 2016-17 –1.1%, 2017-18 –5.34%, 2018-19 –3.94%.Applying these percentages to the exemption amounts since 2013-14 the revised exemption amounts would be: Including Waste Rate Excluding waste rate #1 -$601 $591 #2 -$360 $354 #3 -$240 $236 *The average tax bill being the average residential property assessments times the residential tax rate (general + waste). Based upon last year’s exemptions the above change (including waste rate) would have increased exemptions by $5,989. Third, the Waste Collection & Disposal area rate is not included as part of the tax to be eligible for the exemption.However, this rate applies to all residential property assessments and is in effect a “general” tax rate but separated for purposes of matching waste collection and disposal costs with the revenue. Suggest that this be included as part of the tax eligible for exemption . Based upon last year’s exemptions the above change to include the waste rate would have increased exemptions by $488. Fourth, there is large step down in the tax exemption amount by just adding $1 in income when moving from one bracket to another. The introduction o f gradual reductions in the tax exemption amount,as income moves from one bracket,would be a fairer approach. For example, if the exemption drop from at the income level $12,001 was gradual by prorating the $200 exemption drop ($500 to $300)against the bracket’s income size of $3,000, then an income of $12,100 would have a tax exemption of $300 plus $200 x (3000 -100)/3000 = $300 + $200 x 2900/3000 =$493.33. This way an income increase of $100 over the income bracket limit only results in a $6.67 drop in the exemption versus a $200 drop. Other than noting which income bracket a person fits, in we do not keep track of their income amounts, therefore the impact of the above change cannot be calculated. Fifth, the policy does not provide any methodology for adjusting brackets or tax exemption amounts. If Council agrees with the methodology for adjusting income levels using CPI (“first’ item above)and tax exemption levels using average tax bills (“second” item above),then include this calculation method in the 5 Request For Decision policy as the preferred method. Would still have to go back to Council each year for changes as the MGA S.69(2)(a) states “the amounts set out in the policy” Sixth, there is no definition of “those who hold an interest in the property” who contr ibute to the household expenses. This is defined in section 1.2 that describes what the owner includes, but this should be clarified that the definition includes “those who hold an interest in the property”. Seventh, there is no inclusion of the income of all o ther members of the same family residing in the same household, but this is allowed in MGA s. 69(1).Expand section 1.1, that includes a spouse’s income, to include all members of the same family residing at the residence. Legal review of the draft policy provided the following suggestions: Definition of who has an interest in the property might be useful as the expression is so broad (see sec. 1.2). Policy could use some fine tuning so that family members residing there, regardless of any interest, would have their income considered (added sec. 1.1 ii)). Note that the definition of interest does not include matrimonial interest (added sec. 1.2 iv)). Clause 2 does not specify who grants the exemption on behalf of the Municipality (see sec. 2.0). Satisfactory verification of income does not state what that might be (added what is satisfactory in sec. 3.0 i) c)). Policy does not ask why when a person with an interest does not contribute (to household expense). This was not added into the policy as it was felt that the signing of the affidavit was sufficient. IMPLICATIONS Policy –n/a Financial/Budgetary MODC tax exemption expense would rise by approximately $6,477. If last year’s actual of $33,978 continued into 2018-19 the expense would be $40,455 compared to the budget of $40,000. An unknown impact is the effect of raising the income brackets. Environmental –n/a Strategic Plan –n/a Work Program Implications Finance will have to calculate the amount of exemption based on each applicant’s i ncome level. OPTIONS Each of the discussion points above can be either accepted, rejected or modified. ATTACHMENTS Draft policy P-25 COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL) Internal –n/a External- Municipality of the District of Chester Tax Exemption Policy Policy P-25 Amended -Effective Date:June 22, 2017 Tax Exemption Policy (continued) First Notice –Committee of the Whole –June 15, 2017 (2017-309)Second Notice –Council –June 22, 2017 (2017-309/333)Effective –June 22, 2017 Page 2 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER POLICY P-25 TAX EXEMPTION POLICY WHEREAS Section 69 of the Municipal Government Act permits a Municipality to grant a taxexemption for low income earners;THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council of the Municipality of the District of Chester adopts thefollowing policy respecting property tax exemptions.1.0 In this Policy,1.1 INCOME means a person’s total income (total income before deductions) from all sourcesforthe calendar year preceding the fiscal year of the Municipality of the District of Chester,excluding any allowances paid pursuant to the War Veterans Allowance Act (Canada) orPension paid pursuant to the Pension Act (Canada) and includes:i)The income of all assessed owners, their spouse(s), including common law spousesresiding at who occupy the property as their principal residence;andii)The income from members of the same family residing in the same household, whocontribute to the household expenses; andiii)Those who hold an interest in the property and contribute to the householdexpenses.1.2 Owner and those who an interest in the property includes:i)The person assessed for the property;ii)A person who holds title including a part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, orjoint tenant of the property; andiii)A person with a life interest in the property; andiv)A person with a matrimonial interest.Not included are those with a leasehold interest and those with an interest under anagreement of purchase and sale.1.3 Principal Residence is the ordinary place of residence for greater part of the year of anowner as well as an owner in a hospital or nursing care facility, unless that person has notslept at the property for a period of two (2) years or more, or unless the property has beenrented to paying tenants, in either of which events, the property shall be deemed to ceasebeing the owner’s ordinary place of residence.1.4 SAME FAMILY in section 1.1(ii)is defined as including, but not limited to,children and step-children connected to at least one of the legally married or common-law couples included insection1.1(i). Tax Exemption Policy (continued) First Notice –Committee of the Whole –June 15, 2017 (2017-309)Second Notice –Council –June 22, 2017 (2017-309/333)Effective –June 22, 2017 Page 3 2.0 The Director of Finance of the Municipality shall grant an exemption as follows:i)For owners with an Income Level of $12,000 $12,649 or less the tax exemption shallbea maximum the lessor of $500.00 $601.00 or the tax (on the general tax rate andthe waste collection and disposal area rate only);ii)For owners with an Income Level of $12,001 $12,650 to $ 15,000 $15,859 the taxexemptionshallbea maximum the lessor of $300. 00 $601.00 less the bracket’schange in the exemption amount ($241)prorated for the income above $12,649divided by the bracket’s income size* or the tax (on the general tax rate and thewaste collection and disposal area rate only).*i.e. $601-(((income-12,649) / (15,859-12,649)) x (601-$360))iii)For owners with an Income Level of $15,001 $15,860 to $21,000 $21,231the taxexemptionshallbea maximum the lessor of $200. 00 $360.00 less the bracket’schange in the exemption amount ($120) prorated for the income above $15,859divided by the bracket’s income size^or the tax (on the general tax rate and thewaste collection and disposal area rate only).^ i.e.$360-(((income-15,859) /(21,231-15,859)) x (360-$240))3.0 A person or persons applying for an exemption must:i)Make an affidavit:a)Regarding his/her income from all sources in the calendar year precedingthe Municipal taxation year for which the exemption is sought.Satisfactoryverification of income must be presented to substantiate the exemption.Exemption form attached as Schedule "A”.b)Verify that any person who either holds an interest in the property or arefamily members residing in the same household, whose income is notincluded in household income pursuant to clause 1.1 (ii ),does not contributeto paying household expenses.c)Provide satisfactory verification of income to substantiate the exemption.Satisfactory evidence includes a CRA notice assessment,GST/HST creditnotice, and copy of tax return prepared by a third party tax preparer.iii)Apply for the exemption each year prior to March 31st of the Municipal taxationyear; Tax Exemption Policy (continued) First Notice –Committee of the Whole –June 15, 2017 (2017-309)Second Notice –Council –June 22, 2017 (2017-309/333)Effective –June 22, 2017 Page 4 4.0 The exemption shall only apply to a property where at least one of the assessed ownersoccupies it as his/her principal residence;5.0 Prior to an exemption being granted, all outstanding debts to the Municipality, which arenot a lien on the property, shall be paid in full. This would include any fees such as building permitfees, landfill tipping fees, recreation fees, etc.6.0 A refusal to grant an exemption pursuant to this Policy may be appealed to Council.7.0 Annually tax exemption income levels and the exemption amounts will be adjusted asfollows:(i)Annual adjustments in the income levels, below which an exemption for taxation isgranted, will be adjusted by either the annual increase in CPI for Nova Scotia or tothe extent that council considers appropriate.(ii)Annual adjustments in the scale of exemption amounts granted will be adjusted byeither the annual increase in the average residential tax bill for the general tax rateand waste collection and disposal area rate or to the extent that council considersappropriate. Tax Exemption Policy (continued) First Notice –Committee of the Whole –June 15, 2017 (2017-309)Second Notice –Council –June 22, 2017 (2017-309/333)Effective –June 22, 2017 Page 5 MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER –PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT YEAR DISTRICT ACCOUNT EXEMPTION AMOUNT NUMBER 2017/182018/19 I/We, ____________________ & ____________________,property owners of ____________________ in the County ofLunenburg, Province of Nova Scotia, and is our principal residence,make oath and say as follows:1.That the total income before deductions of all assessed owners, their spouses (including Common LawSpouses)who occupy the property as their principal residence,family members residing in the samehousehold,who contribute to household expenses and those who hold an interest in the property andcontribute to household expenses,was as follows during the calendar year 20172014.Any Allowancepaid pursuant to the War Veterans Allowance Act (Canada) or pension paid pursuant to the Pension Act(Canada) is not to be included in a person’s total income for this purpose. ___ Combined Income was $12,649.00 or less;OR___ Combined Income was between $12,650 and $15,859;OR___ Combined Income was between $15,860 and $21,231 AND2.___ Verification Provided of combined income of $_____________________ .Check one of the following:_____ Notice of Assessment, _____ GST/HST credit notice ______ , Copy of tax return ______ . NOTE:THIS IS A LEGAL SWORN AFFIDAVIT AND THE APPLICANTS SIGNATURE(S) ENDORSED BELOW ARE VERIFICATION THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS TRUE IN ALL RESPECTS.THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPTION GRANTED WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER THE FINAL TAX BILL ISPRODUCED AND WILL BE LIMITED TO THE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL TAX AND WASTE COLLECTION ANDDISPOSAL AREA RATE PORTION OF THE OVERALL TAX BILL (I.E. DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER AREARATES).Sworn to at ______________ in the County of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia on the ____ day of ________, 20___ ____________________________________________________________________________ Staff Signature __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ A Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Signature of Applicant(s) Nova Scotia or a Municipal CouncillorAnnotation for Official Policy Book Tax Exemption Policy (continued) First Notice –Committee of the Whole –June 15, 2017 (2017-309)Second Notice –Council –June 22, 2017 (2017-309/333)Effective –June 22, 2017 Page 6 Reason for AmendmentNotice of Intention to AmendDate of Second NoticeEffective Date I certify that this Policy was amended by Council as indicated above. _________________________________________________________________Pamela M. Myra, Municipal Clerk Date REQUEST FOR D ECISION Prepared By:Jonathan Meakin, Strategic Initiatives Coordinator Date September 6, 2018 Reviewed By:Date Authorized By:Tammy Wilson, MURP, MCIP, CAO Date September 6,2018 CURRENT SITUATION Among the eligibility requirements for the Federal Gas Tax Fund, municipalities must develop and adopt a comprehensive Asset Management System, which includes an associated policy, strategy, and planning framework.The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)Municipal Asset Management Program (MAMP)provides funding for projects that will help municipalities enhance their asset management practices. Earlier this year, MAMP operated with an open deadline and a commitment to accept applications until June 2020. Due to MAMP proving to be more popular than anticipated, FCM is now encouraging earlier submission and, in fact, has introduced a firm deadline of October 23, 2018. Council approved a Motion earlier this year directing staff to apply to MAMP for a grant of $50,000 as an 80%off-set for a planned 2018-19 budget line item of $62,500 for asset management work.MODC is now working towards applying to MAMP as soon as possible, ideally on September 14, 2018.If the application is successful,resulting MAMP funds will help MODC build capacity through establishing an Asset Management System that will be integral to MODC’s ongoing capital and operational planning. A complete MAMP application requires a Resolution from Council supporting the proposed asset management project activity submitted to MAMP.This Request for Decision provides a draft Resolution for Council’s review. RECOMMENDATION That Council review and make a Motion adopting the following Resolution: Be it resolved that Council directs staff to apply for a grant opportunity from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Municipal Asset Management Program for Municipality of the District of Chester Asset Management System Development. Be it therefore resolved that the Municipality of the District of Chester commits to conducting the f ollowing activities in its REPORT TO:Council SUBMITTED BY:Administration DATE:September 13, 2018 SUBJECT:Asset Management System ORIGIN:Strategic Priorities / Motion 2018-090 2 Request for Decision proposed project submitted to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Municipal Asset Management Program to advance our asset management program: Draft and Adopt an Asset Management Policy Develop an Asset Management Strategy Data Collection Software Implementation Be it further resolved that the Municipality of the District of Chester commit $12,500 from its budget toward the costs of this initiative. BACKGROUND The Gas Tax Agreement signed in 2014 places a greater emphasis on long-term capital planning and asset management.The Administrative Agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia defines Asset Management as “documents that support integrated, lifecycle approaches to effective stewardship of infrastructure assets to maximize benefits and manage risks.” For its part,the Province is playing a key role in developing a province-wide asset management system for municipal infrastructure. At a minimum this system will include an inventory of assets and a condition assessment. Municipalities are required to participate in this program through the development and implementation of an Asset Management System. Following the first Nova Scotia Asset Management Pilot Project,the Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities (NSFM)announced on August 28, 2018 that linear data collection tools and resources developed from the first Pilot Project are now available for municipalities to use.These tools and resources are designed to support municipalities with asset management by providing guidance for collecting asset data in a standardized manner. The ultimate goal is to help build capacity within municipalities so that they may make informed, evidence-based decisions to ensure sustainability in service delivery,manage risk, and meet fiduciary &stewardship responsibilities.As has been noted in previous reports to Council, municipalities are stewards of about 60% of public infrastructure.1 Asset Management is,in short,the management of the condition and capacity of physical in frastructure associated with the provision of public services that are essential to our community’s quality of life. An Asset Management System will help MODC focus on a level of service it wishes to deliver through carefully managed infrastructure that, in turn, will help inform long term capital and operating plans. 1 Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Building Sustainable and Resilient Communities with Asset Management: Green Municipal Fund. (www. Fcm.ca) p.1 3 Request for Decision DISCUSSION Further discussion of options and scope for an Asset Management System for MODC will be presented for Council’s review as Administration moves further along in leading this process. IMPLICATIONS Policy An Asset Management Policy will be developed as part of the 2018-19 planned asset management work. Financial/Budgetary It is anticipated that $62,500 will be required to support the development of organizational capacity for an Asset Management System. FCM will fund up to 80% resulting in a net cost of $12,500 for MODC.This budgetary allocation has been approved as part of the 2018 -19 budget. Strategic Plan An Asset Management System will enable Council to invest strategically in the infrastructure required to support its Strategic Goals and Service Levels. Work Program Implications A core Asset Management Team has been created, consisting of Administration,Engineering and Public Works, Recreation, Solid Waste, Information Services,and Finance.It is important to note that an effective Asset Management System is a coordinated and cross -departmental governance and operational function.The Asset Management project lead is the Chief Administrative Officer. Asset Management will be integral to each department’s work program, not as a ‘silo’ function but as a coordinated strategy for MODC as a whole. E xternal resources will be required to build our capacity to ensure our application of an ongoing Asset Management System. OPTIONS Council may: 1.Approve the Resolution for the FCM MAMP grant application to ensure the application submitted is eligible for consideration. 2.Not approve the Resolution for the FCM MAMP grant application thereby rendering MODC’s application to the same ineligible. 4 Request for Decision ATTACHMENTS NONE COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL) A common requirement of an Asset Management System is a community engagement component, for which Council may choose to direct the use of V oices & Choices.