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.