HomeMy Public PortalAbout2018-10-04_COW_Public Agenda Package (Updated - Added 8.2 and 8.3)REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson Date September 26, 2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Date
CURRENT SITUATION
At the August 23, 2018 Committee of the Whole Meeting the Committee reviewed a Request for Decision,
Draft By-law and Policy respecting Provincial Street Upgrades (J Class and Village Roads). Options were
presented to Council with respects to receipt of request, consideration of the same and payment options
to MODC’s share of the upgrade. At this meeting, the Committee gave direction to staff enable the
drafting of the draft By-law and Policy regarding Provincial Street Upgrades.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee of the Whole recommend to Municipal Council that:
1)Council conduct First Reading of By-law No. 149, A By-law Respecting Provincial Street Upgrades,
and give notice of its consideration to give Second and Final approval.
2)Council give notice to itself that on the date Council considers Second and Final Reading, Council
will also consider approving Policy P-90, A Policy Respecting Provincial Street Upgrades.
BACKGROUND
MODC has entered into a Cost Share Agreement with the NSDOTIR. The Agreement provides for a cost
sharing arrangement between MODC and NSDOTIR for the paving of Village and Subdivision Streets .
Such request is due to be submitted by October 31 for consideration in the next fiscal year. There are
approximately 35.47 km of roads that fall under this Agreement.
If approved by NSDOTIR, MODC would be required to fund 50% of the paving costs. Presently, MODC
does not have a policy / procedure on how requests are to be submitted to Council for consideration
prior to forwarding to NSDOTIR, nor how such upgrades are to be funded (area rate, general rate, both
area rate and general rate, etc.). In August 2017 Council considered the matter and directed that staff not
proceed with a Policy/ By-law and rather that each request be considered on a case by case basis. (see
appendix A-August 17, 2017 Request for Direction)
This decision was reversed during budget deliberations in which Council was asked to consider upgrades
to several J Class Roads. Debate arose respecting how to fund the same and concern arose over using an
area rate if the residents did not have an opportunity to provide input/comment on the same.
REPORT TO:Committee of the Whole
SUBMITTED BY:Administration
DATE:October 4, 2018
SUBJECT:PROVINCIAL STREET UPGRADES (BY-LAW AND
POLICY)
ORIGIN:August 23, 2018 COW
2 Request For Decision/Direction
At the August 23, 2018 Council gave direction to staff respecting matters for consideration as outlined in
the attached report dated August 14, 2018.
DISCUSSION
The following are the significant matters that Council gave direction on at the August 23, 2018 COW
meeting:
1.Streets eligible for Street Improvement
a.NSDOTIR J Class / Village Roads and (NSDOTIR would fund 50%; residents remaining 50%
with a few exemptions [i.e. collector roads])
2.Requirements for Consideration of Street Improvement
a.Petition [ensures those paying charge support the upgrade]; or
b.Initiated by Council [may be needed in some cases where the road is a collector]
3.Initiating Petition Requirements (if option is chosen)
a.Petition initiated by a request from 25 percent (%) of the properties that would be
affected [ensures that there is more than one person seeking the petition before
municipal resources are expended.
4.Evaluation Criteria for Submission to NSDOTIR
a.66 2/3rds of owners in favor –Petition.
b.Road condition.
c.Usage.
d.Roads prioritized for funding in previous year.
e.Proximity to other high priority roads or planned work.
f.Operational, economic or other reasons.
5.Charge-Who Pays?
User “pay” model, whereby those who benefit from improvement pay for the service.
MODC share of 50% to be funded by:
a.Residents on road for local roads.
b.Collector Roads -portion by lots on road, portion by general rate
6.Charge as a lien
a.Charge becomes a lien and is collected in the same manner as taxes.
7.Payment of Charge
a.One-time payment;or
b.Over a period of up to 10 years (Interest Rate –Bank of NS Prime Interest Rate)
3 Request For Decision/Direction
8.Charge to consist of:
Cost of street improvement incurred by MODC (no administration fee)
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
There is no Policy or By-law in Place
Financial/Budgetary
With a payment option in place for property owners, MODC would cover initial costs and be paid back.
MODC may wish to consider identifying roads in the Village that would not b e considered Subdivision
Roads and determine level of reserve funding required for road improvements (to accommodate
collector/thoroughfare nature of road)
Environmental-N/A
Strategic Plan
This is a Strategic Priority of Council
Work Program Implications
Staff resources will be required for petition and charge
OPTIONS
By-Law / Policy
1.Council may wish to proceed with Policy and By -law.
2.Council may wish to address each request on a case by case basis. If this is the case, a deadline of
early spring may be required to enable debate and a decision on method to move forward in
advance of the October 31 deadline.
Subdivision Roads versus Collector /Through Roads
1.Council may wish to direct staff to acquire estimates of improvement costs for non -subdivision
roads, and level of reserve funding required
2.Council may wish to address only on a request basis and consider funding method at that time .
ATTACHMENTS
-Request for Decision –August 14, 2018
-Draft By-law (version 3)
-Draft Policy (Draft 3)
-List of J Class and Village Roads under Cost Shared Agreement
-August 23, 2018 Minutes (Excerpt re Item 6.1 –Policy Development / Review)
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
Public Notice of Intention to Approval By-law will be given, if First Reading is conducted.
Version 3, September 26, 2018
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
A By-law Respecting
Provincial Street Improvements
SHORT TITLE
1.1 This By-law shall be known as By-law No.149 and may be cited as the “Provincial Street
Improvement By-law”.
PURPOSE
2.1 Section 81 of the Municipal Government Act enables a Municipality to make bylaws
imposing, fixing and providing methods of enforcing payment for charges of local
improvements.The purpose of this By-law is to establish the manner in which the
Municipality shall impose, fix and enforce payment of charges for capital improvements
to provincially cost-shared streets.
DEFINITIONS
3.1 “ARTERIAL STREET”means a street used primarily for through traffic, where traffic
movement is the primary consideration and land access is secondary.
3.2 “CHARGE” means a charge imposed pursuant to Section 81 of the Municipal
Government Act in an amount to be determined pursuant to this By-law for the cost of a
local improvement.
3.3 “COLLECTOR STREET” means a street used primarily for collecting traffic from local
streets and channeling it to an arterial street, other collector or local street, where traffic
movement and land access are of equal importance.
3.4 “CORNER LOT” means a property situated at the intersection of, and abutting on, two or
more streets.
3.5 “COST” means the amount of money paid or payable in respect of the street
improvement.
3.6 “COUNCIL” means the Council for the Municipality of the District of Chester.
3.7 “DEFINED AREA” means the area as shown in the plan attached to Form A of the
petition.
3.8 “ENGINEER” means the Municipal employee designated as Municipal Engineer pursuant
to the provisions of the Municipal Government Act.
Version 3, September 26, 2018
3.9 “FRONTAGE” means the full length of the property that is abutting the street within the
defined area.
3.10 “LOCAL STREET”means a street used primarily for land access and has little or no
through traffic.
3.11 “MUNICIPALITY” means the Municipality of the District of Chester .
3.12 “OWNER” includes part owner, joint owner, tenant-in common, or joint tenant of the
whole or party of any real property fronting on a street or situate in a Defined Area and
also includes any trustee, executor, guardian, agent or other person having the care or
control of such real property in the case of absence or disabi lity of the person have title
thereto provided that or the purpose of calculating the percentage of owners in Section
3(1) real property with more than one owner shall be counted as having one owner.
3.13 “PROPERTY” means a parcel or lot which is an area determined by Council to benefit
from a street improvement.
3.14 “STREET” means any street, roadway, highway or travelled way, or portion thereof,
situate in the Municipality owned by the Province of Nova Scotia.
3.15 “STREET IMPROVEMENT” means:
a)Street pavement asphalt, concrete or other surfacing including grading,
gravelling, culvert work, paving, repaving or double chip sealing,
b)Associated pre-engineering and/or design costs, on site engineering
subdivision and inspection and incidental costs from the edge of the
roadway to the limits of the right-of-way,
d)Any other work by the Province and/or Municipality added to the costs of
the street improvement
3.16 “THROUGH LOT” means a property bounded on two opposite sides by two or more
streets.
PETITION
4.1 Petitions shall be evaluated in accordance with Clause 5 and 6 of Policy ____,Provincial
Street Improvement Policy.Nothing in this By-law shall be construed as meaning that
Municipal Council is obliged to act upon any Petition for street improvement.
4.2 The Petition for a street improvement shall be in Form A or similar thereto and shall
clearly state the Defined Area for which the improvement is requested together with a
plan showing the streets outlined in red for the requested improvements and the length
Version 3, September 26, 2018
and width of the streets. The Provincial street improvement shall be on an uninterrupted
length of the street.
4.3 The Petition process shall be initiated in accordance with Policy P-90,Street
Improvement Policy.
4.4 In order to prepare submissions for funding to NSDOTIR and for municipal capital
project planning, requests for petitions for provincially cost-shared streets shall be
received by the Municipality on or before August 1st for work to occur in the following
fiscal year.
4.5 A petition shall be conducted no more than once every two (2) years in a Defined Area or
part thereof without Council approval.
The Processing of a Petition
4.6 Upon receipt of a request for the Municipality to initiate a petition, in which the request
satisfies clause 4.1 of Policy _____ Street Improvement Policy, the Municipality will
prepare a petition pursuant to this By-law for distribution to affected property owners.
4.7 The petition documents shall include: a description of the street improvement, the
method of charge, a map of the proposed charge area, the estimated total costs of the
improvement, the estimated costs for each property and the financing options.
4.8 The petition documents will also include a letter explaining the process and will give
each property owner an opportunity to vote YES or NO for the improvement.
4.9 The petition shall give owners at least 30 days to respond from the date of receipt which
is deemed to be 3 business days from the date of the letter accompanying the petition.
4.10 The petition package and documents with a stamped return envelope will be sent by
regular mail to the owners representing each property. In addition, the Municipality will
advertise the intention to petition in the local paper and on the municipal webpage.
4.11 If a response has not been received from an Individual Owner, in the 30 days, it will be
deemed that the Owner’s response is negative.
4.12 An Owner is entitled to one vote for each individual parcel s/he owns within the Defined
Area. In the case where an individual property has more than one Owner, all Owners
must agree on the single response. If all Owners are not in agreement, it will be deemed
that the Owner’s response is negative.
4.13 In the situation where the Municipality owns a parcel of land along the Street, as
described in the petition, the Municipality will not have a vote in the petition. The
Version 3, September 26, 2018
Municipality is not obligated to pay a chare levied on its property for such
improvements.
4.14 In the event of a dispute between a property owner and the Municipality as to any
measurement, the property owner shall retain, at her/his expense, as surveyor in good
standing of the Association of Nova Scotia Land Surveyors, who shall certify th e
measurements and submit them to the Municipality.
CHARGE IMPOSED
5.1 Where two-thirds (66 2/3%) of the owners of land in a Defined Area, petition in person
or by agent the Municipality for an improvement to a street, the Municipality may make
such improvement and shall be entitled to recover all of the cost of such improvement
by levying a charge upon the owners of real property fronting on the said street or
situate in the said Defined Area as herein provided by this By-law.
5.2 Where a street for which a request for petition has been received in which the street is
utilized by the general public due to the streets use as a collector or thoroughfare street
or due to the nature of land uses on the street, Council may vary the amount of the
charge levied pursuant to clause 5.1.Council will make this decision when the request for
a petition to be completed is received. The cost to property owners with the Defined
Area will be determined at that time and incorporated in the Petition.
5.3 An interim charge may be imposed when Council approves the project to proceed based
on the best estimate of the costs of the project at the time. The interim charge will be
adjusted at the time of completion of the project.
5.4 Amount of Charge
The total amount of the charge levied shall not exceed the costs of the street
improvements to the Municipality.
6.0 METHOD OF CHARGE
6.1 The Charge levied pursuant to Section 5 shall be determined by Council in accordance
with the provisions of this By-law and, if applicable,having consideration for a petition
received in accordance with or Schedule ‘A’. A Charge may be calculated based on:
6.1.1 A uniform amount for each property in existence or subsequently created by
subdivision;
6.1.2 The frontage of the property on any street;
6.1.3 The use of the property;
Version 3, September 26, 2018
6.1.4 The area of the property;
6.1.5 The assessed value of the property;
6.1.6 Any combination of two or more such methods of calculating the charge; or
6.1.7 Such other method as Council deems fit.
VARIATIONS IN CHARGES
7.1 The charge levied pursuant to this Bylaw may be fixed at different rates for different
classes of uses of properties and may be fixed at different rates for different areas or
zones.
FRONTAGE ADJUSTMENTS
8.1 For corner lots and through lots, where both streets adjacent to the property are subject
to a local improvement, the total frontage will be adjusted as follows:
8.1.1 For the longest frontage, the frontage will not be subject to any adjust ment and
will be charged 100 percent of the frontage;and
8.1.2 For the shortest frontage, the frontage will be reduced by 50 percent.
8.2 For corner lots and through lots, where one of the two streets are subject to a local
improvement and the other street has previously been the subject of a local
improvement, the property will only be charged for the portion of the frontage subject
to the local improvement and the frontage will be reduced by 50 percent.
8.3 For corner lots and through lots, where one of the two streets are subject to a local
improvement and the other streets has not been the subject of a local improvement, the
property will only be charged for the portion of the frontage subject to the local
improvement and there shall not be any adjustments to the total frontage.
8.4 Properties given an adjustment to the charge under this Section will be identified in the
petition documents.
LIEN ON PROPERTY
9.1 A charge imposed pursuant to this By-law constitutes a first lien on the subject real
property in the same manner and with the same effect as rates and taxes under the
Version 3, September 26, 2018
Municipal Government Act and is collectable in the same manner as rates and taxes
thereunder.
9.2 The liens provided for in this By-law shall become effective on the date on which the
interim charge is imposed or the Municipal Engineer files with the Treasurer a certificate
that the improvement has been completed and the total costs of the improvement.
9.3 The liens provided for in the Bylaw shall remain in effect until the charge plus any
accrued interest has been paid in full.
9.4 In the event of default, the lien will be collected in the same way as overdue taxes in
accordance with the Municipality’s Policy P-001-Tax Sale Policy and Municipal
Government Act.
9.4 Where a property subject to a lien is subdivided, the unpaid amount of the charge plus
interest shall be apportioned among the new lots according to the assessed value that
the new lots have in relation to the total assessed value of the entire property before
subdivision.
NOTICE OF LIEN
10.1 The Treasurer of the Municipality shall notify the owner of each prope rty upon the filing
of the certificate referred to subsection 9.2 and shall notice shall state:
a)The basis of the special tax; and
b)The tax payable by the owner in respect of the special tax .
REPAYMENT OF THE CHARGE
11.1 At the option of the owner(s) of a property which is subject to a charge, the charge may
be paid in either of the following ways:
11.1.1 By payment, in full, at the time of invoicing by the Municipality; or
11.1.2 By annual installments, over a period not to exceed ten years, on which interest
shall be payable. In the event of default of payment of an installment, the whole
balance shall become due and payable without demand or notice.
11.2 The property owner(s) shall have one month from the date of their initial notice of
amounts owning,to notify the Treasurer, in writing, which financing option has been
selected. If there is no written notification, the property owner(s) shall be deemed to
have selected the annual payment option.
11.3 Interest shall accrue on charges outstanding from the date of billing forward at a rate
equal to Scotia Banks prime interest rate at the effective date of notice of amounts
owing per clause 11.2.
Version 3, September 26, 2018
AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAW
12.1 Amendments to this By-law shall not affect any project, fee, debt or charge incurred prior
to the date of enactment on or any procedure for enforcing the same completed or
pending at the time of enactment, nor shall it repeal, defeat, disturb, invalidate or
prejudicially affect any matter or thing whatsoever completed, existing, or pending at the
time of enactment.
Version 3, September 26, 2018
FORM A
PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
To the Council of the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg
The Undersigned, being two-thirds of the owners:
(i)Owning two-thirds of the real property situate in the Defined Area in the Municipality
of the District of Chester hereinafter described.
do petition the Municipal Council to make improvements to the Street(s) ore particularly
described:
(i)As the street(s) or portion thereof known as _______________________________________
(ii)In the area situated at _____________________________________________________________
as shown on the attached plan.
Also, each of the owners, whose signatures appears below, respectively propose that the
Municipal Council accept this as a petition in compliance with the Street Improvement By-law.
Each of the owners, whose signatures appear below, agrees that they be levied for a portion of
the charge in respect of the street improvement on the basis of _____________________________
Names and Signatures of Property Owners
Name Signature Civic Number AAN
September 26, 2018, Draft 3
MUNICIPALITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
Street Improvement Policy
Policy P-90
Amended –Effective Date:
September 26, 2018, Draft 3
MUNCIPAITY OF THE DISTRICT OF CHESTER
POLICY P-90
PROVINCIAL STREET IMPROVEMENT POLICY
Purpose
1.The purpose of this policy is to guide decisions related to capital improvements to
provincially cost-shared (ie. J Class and other service exchange)streets.
2.This policy does not apply to private roads or provincial streets that are not cost-shared with
the Municipality.
3.Annually, Council will consider investing in street improvements to improve service to
residents and access provincial cost-sharing funding.
Eligible Improvements
Only the following work will be considered eligible for Council prioritization or resident initiated
improvement:
1.1 Street pavement asphalt, concrete or other surfacing including grading, gravelling,
culvert work,paving, repaving, or double chip sealing.
1.2 Associated pre-engineering and/or design costs, on site engineering subdivision and
inspection and incidental costs from the edge of the roadway to the limits of the right -
of-way.
1.3 Any other work by the Province added to the cost of the road improvement.
Definitions
“Arterial Street”means a street used primarily for through traffic, where traffic movement is
the primary consideration and land access is secondary.
“Collector Street”means a street used primarily for collecting traffic from local streets and
channeling it to an arterial street, other collector or local street, where traffic movement and
land access are of equal importance.
September 26, 2018, Draft 3
“Defined Area”means the area as shown in the plan attached to Form A of the Petition.
“Local Street”means a street used primarily for land access and has little or no through traffic.
“Owner”includes part owner, joint owner, tenant-in-common, or joint tenant of the whole or
party of any real property fronting on a street or situate in a Defined Area a nd also includes any
trustee, executor, guardian, agent or other person having the care or control of such real
property in the case of absence or disability of the person having title thereto .
“Property”means a parcel or lot which is an area determined by Council to benefit from a
street improvement.
“Street”means any street, roadway, highway or travelled way, or portion thereof, situate i n the
Municipality owned by the Province of Nova Scotia.
General Provisions
3.1 Subject to either the terms of the Agreement or funding program, the Municipality may
submit to NSDOTIR (Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure
Renewal) a list of streets to be considered for improvement.
3.2 Council shall prioritize the streets eligible for improvements by strategic priorities, as
determined by Council from time to time, and criteria as established in clause 5 of this
Policy.
3.3 Council may proceed with a local improvement at its own discretion or in response to a
petition submitted pursuant to the Street Improvement By-law.
Initiating a Petition
4.1 The petition process may be initiated by:
4.1.1 A request from the owners of at least 25 percent of the properties that would be
subject to the petition within the Defined Area; or
4.1.2 A motion from Council directing Municipal staff to initiate the petition process .
4.2 Municipal Council is not obliged to act on any petition for a street improvement.
4.3 In order to prepare submissions for funding to NSDOTIR and for municipal capital
project planning, requests for petitions for provincially cost-shared streets shall be
September 26, 2018, Draft 3
received by the Municipality by the date indicated in the Provincial Street Improvement
By-law (By-law 149)of each current year.
Evaluation Criteria
Priorities for improvement will be set annually by Council based on the following criteria:
5.1 Street condition based upon the condition rating provided by NSDOTIR for provincial
roads.
5.2 Usage.
5.3 Streets prioritized for funding in the previous fiscal year where the improvement was not
completed.
5.4 Proximity to other planned street work by other public entities, to minimize disruption
and achieve cost savings.
5.5 Proximity to other high priority streets, to minimize disruption and achieve costs savings.
5.6 Circumstances where it would be to the Municipalities benefit for operational, economic
development or other reasons.
5.7 Streets in which a petition has been received requesting the upgrade.
Requirement for funding
A street improvement project identified by a successful petition may only proceed if:
6.1 The Province agrees to provide the remaining 50% of the cost of the improvement for a
provincially cost-shared street.
6.2 For street improvements identified by successful petition, property owners shall
contribute 50% of the total actual costs to complete the requested improvement .
6.3 Notwithstanding 6.1.2, and pursuant to the Provincial Street Improvement By-law (By-law
No. 149), where a street is a collector street, Council may vary the amount the property
owner shall contribute.
ROAD NAME AREA ROAD NUMBER CLASS SURFACE TYPE ROAD LENGTH
A. VAUGHN Western Shore 734 J CS 0.21
A. VAUGHN Western Shore 734 J SS 0.26
ADAMS Western Shore 987 J CS 0.15
BEECH STREET East Chester 1103 J CS 0.11
BIRCH STREET East Chester 984 J CS 0.18
BOEHNER Western Shore 930 I GR 0.40
BRUNSWICK STREET Chester 1082 J CS 0.17
CEDAR STREET East Chester 1100 J CS 0.11
CENTRAL STREET Chester 1077 J PA 0.48
CENTRAL STREET Chester 1077 J CS 0.55
CHANDLER ROAD Chester 1076 J CS 0.48
CHARLES HILTZ Western Shore 900 J GR 0.21
CHESTER COMMONS Chester 1086 J SS 0.92
CHESTER COMMONS Chester 1086 J SS 0.11
CHESTER DOWNS Chester 998 J SS 1.02
CHESTER SHORE East Chester 1089 J SS 1.28
DUKE STREET Chester 1078 J PA 1.03
DUKE STREET Chester 1078 J GR 0.15
EAST WIND DRIVE Robinsons Corner 1132 J GR 0.45
FOREST DRIVE Simms Settlement 1134 J GR 0.84
FRANK SWINIMER Western Shore 730 J PA 0.35
FRANK SWINIMER Western Shore 730 J GR 0.25
FREDA'S HILL Chester 1092 J SS 0.18
GEORGE DOREY Western Shore 732 J GR 0.22
GOLF COURSE Chester 1084 J CS 0.47
GRANITE STREET Chester 1093 J CS 0.17
GRANITE STREET Chester 1093 J GR 0.06
HADDEN HILL Chester 668 G PA 1.40
HUBBARDS ESTATES Hubbards 1149 J GR 0.50
KING STREET Chester 1080 J CS 0.17
KING STREET Chester 1080 J PA 1.08
LAWRENCE HATT Western Shore 733 J PA 0.61
LAWRENCE HATT Western Shore 733 J GR 0.03
MAIN STREET Chester 1079 J CS 0.54
MAIN STREET Chester 1079 J GR 0.05
MAPLE STREET East Chester 1101 J CS 0.24
MAPLEWOOD DRIVE Chester 1091 J CS 0.22
MYRA Western Shore 985 J CS 0.17
NAUSS POINT Chester 1068 J CS 0.64
NORTH STREET Western Shore 999 J PA 1.20
OLD TRUNK 3 Chester 1081 J PA 2.15
PENINSULA Chester 1069 J CS 0.58
PIG LOOP Chester 1094 J PA 1.37
PINE STREET East Chester 1102 J CS 0.25
PLEASANT STREET Chester 1075 J CS 0.20
PLEASANT STREET Chester 1075 J PA 0.15
PRINCE STREET Chester 1066 J CS 0.71
QUEEN STREET Chester 1070 J PA 0.78
QUEEN STREET Chester 1070 J CS 0.30
REGENT STREET Chester 1065 J CS 0.24
REGENT STREET Chester 1065 J PA 0.10
REGENT STREET Chester 1065 J CS 0.40
REGENT STREET Chester 1065 J GR 0.12
SMITH Robinsons Corner Z GR 0.15
SOUTH STREET Chester 1087 J PA 0.44
STANFORD LAKE Robinsons Corner 668 G GR 1.60
STATION Western Shore 724 J PA 0.36
STATION Western Shore 724 J CS 0.39
STEVENS East Chester 1067 J SS 0.40
SWINIMER Western Shore 728 J GR 0.33
TARGET HILL Chester 755 J SS 0.34
TREMONT STREET Chester 1071 J CS 0.06
TREMONT STREET Chester 1071 J PA 0.14
TREMONT STREET Chester 1071 J CS 0.60
TREMONT STREET Chester 1071 J GR 0.09
UNION STREET Chester 1072 J CS 0.06
UNION STREET Chester 1072 J PA 0.19
UNION STREET Chester 1072 J CS 0.60
VALERIE AVENUE Chester Basin 1140 J GR 0.15
VALLEY Chester 1085 J PA 0.53
VICTORIA STREET Chester 1083 J PA 1.16
WALKER ROAD Chester 1074 J SS 1.05
WATER LANE Chester 1078 J PA 0.12
WATER STREET Chester 1088 J PA 0.57
WESTWIND DRIVE Robinsons Corner 1133 J GR 0.20
YOUNG Western Shore 729 J GR 0.40
ZINCK Robinsons Corner 905 J SS 0.14
ZINCK East Chester 1090 J GR 0.39
35.47
ROAD DISCRIPTION
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE EASTERLY TO END OF CHIP SEAL
END OF CHIP SEAL SECTION IN WESTERN SHORE EASTERLY TO END OF SAND SEAL
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END OF SERVICE AT C.N.R. BOUNDARY
MAPLE STREET IN EAST CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO PINE STREET
OLD TRUNK 3 IN EAST CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO JCT. OF MAPLE AND BEECH STREET
TRUNK 3 NEAR VAUGHN RIVER IN WESTERN SHORE NORTHERLY TO END OF SERVICE
REGENT STREET IN CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO END AT BACK HARBOUR
MAPLE STREET IN EAST CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO PINE STREET
VALLEY ROAD IN CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO REGENT STREET
REGENT STREET IN CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO SOUTH STREET
PIG LOOP ROAD IN CHESTER COMMONS SOUTHERLY TO END OF SERVICE
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE EASTERLY TO END OF LISTED ROAD (SEE PLAN)
OLD TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER COMMONS EASTERLY AROUND TO OLD TRUNK 3
CHESTER COMMONS ROAD IN CHESTER COMMONS EASTERLY TO END OF SAND SEAL
OLD TRUNK 3 IN EAST CHESTER NORTHWESTERLY AROUND LOOP
PIG LOOP ROAD IN CHESTER COMMONS EASTERLY TO TRUNK 3 IN EAST CHESTER
WATER STREET IN CHESTER NORTHERLY TO TRUNK 3 BY SAVE EASY
TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER BY SAVE EASY SOUTHERLY TO DUKE STREET BY FORMER RCMP STATION
HADDEN HILL ROAD IN ROBINSONS CORNER SOUTHWESTERLY AROUND LOOP TO WEST WIND
TRUNK 3 IN SIMMS SETTLEMENT SOUTHEASTERLY TO END AT CUL-DE-SAC
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END OF PAVEMENT AT NORTH STREET
END OF PAVEMENT AT NORTH STREET IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END AT TO TURNING CIRCLE
PENINSULA ROAD IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO END AT PRIVATE DRIVEWAY ON THE PENINSULA
TRUNK 3 AT WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END AT TURNING CIRCLE
PIG LOOP ROAD IN CHESTER COMMONS SOUTHERLY TO END OF CHIP SEAL
REGENT STREET IN CHESTER NORTHERLY TO TREMONT STREET
TREMONT STREET IN CHESTER NORTHERLY TO END OF SERVICE
TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER NORTHERLY OVER HADDEN HILL TO TRUNK 3 IN PRBONSONS CORNER
ROUTE 329 IN HUBBARDS WESTERLY TO END AT TURNING CIRCLE
TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER NORTHERLY TO FORMER C.N.R. OVERPASS
TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO SOUTH STREET
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END OF PAVEMENT AT TURNING AREA
END OF PAVEMENT IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END OF SERVICE AT TURNING CIRCLE
VICTORIA ROAD IN CHESTER EASTERLY TO DUKE STREET
VICTORIA ROAD IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO END AT SHORE
BIRCH STREET IN EAST CHESTER TO CEDAR STREET
TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER COMMONS NORTHERLY TO CHESTER COMMONS ROAD
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END AT C.N.R. BOUNDARY
PIG LOOP ROAD IN CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO END OF SAND SEAL ON EAST SIDE OF CHESTER HARBOUR
LAWRENCE HATT ROAD IN WESTERN SHORE NORTHERLY TO FRANK SWINIMER ROAD
TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER NORTHEASTERLY TO TRUNK 3 IN EAST CHESTER
SOUTH STREET IN CHESTER ACROSS CAUSEWAY SOUTHERLY END OF CHIP SEAL
DUKE STREET IN CHESTER EASTERLY TO TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER COMMONS
BEECH STREET IN EAST CHESTER TO CEDAR STREET AND BRANCH TO END
PRINCE STREET IN CHESTER EASTERLY TO KING STREET
KING STREET IN CHESTER EASTERLY TO DUKE STREET
PLEASANT STREET IN CHESTER NORTHERLY TO END AT MAIN STREET
SOUTH STREET IN CHESTER NORTHERLY TO END OF PAVEMENT AT VALLEY ROAD
VALLEY ROAD IN CHESTER NORTHERLY TO TRUNK 3
WATER STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO KING STREET
KING STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO CENTRAL STREET
CENTRAL STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO END OF CHIP SEAL AT BRUNSWICK STREET
BRUNSWICK STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO END OF SERVICE
TRUNK 3 PARALLEL TO C.N.R. TO END OF SERVICE
VICTORIA ROAD IN CHESTER EASTERLY TO QUEEN STREET INCLUDING CIRCLE NEAR CAUSEWAY
TRUNK 3 IN ROBINSONS CORNER EASTERLY AROUND STANFORD LAKE TO OLD TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE BY FIRE HALL WESTERLY TO NORTH STREET
NORTH STREET IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END OF LISTING
TRUNK 3 IN EAST CHESTER NORTHERLY TO END OF SAND SEAL
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO END AT C.N.R. BOUNDARY
OLD TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER COMMONS NORTHWESTERLY PAST CEMETERY TO END OF SAND SEAL
DUKE STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO VALLEY ROAD
VALLEY ROAD IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO KING STREET
KING STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO END OF CHIP SEAL IN CHESTER
END OF CHIP SEAL IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO END OF SERVICE AT OLD MARINA
WATER STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO DUKE STREET
DUKE STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO KING STREET
KING STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO END OF CHIP SEAL BY CEMETERY
LACEY MINES ROAD IN CHESTER BASIN SOUTHEASTERLY TO END AT CUL-DE-SAC
TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER SOUTHEASTERLY TO DUKE STREET
TRUNK 3 IN CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO SOUTH STREET
VICTORIA STREET IN CHESTER WESTERLY TO END OF SAND SEAL
WATER AND DUKE STREET INTERSECTION IN CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO QUEENS STREET
DUKE STREET IN CHESTER SOUTHERLY TO DUKE STREET
EASTWIND DRIVE IN ROBINSONS CORNER SOUTHWESTERLY TO EASTWIND DRIVE
TRUNK 3 IN WESTERN SHORE WESTERLY TO C.N.R. BOUNDARY THEN TO STATION STREET
TRUNK 3 IN ROBINSONS CORNER EASTERLY TO END OF ROAD
CHESTER SHORE ROAD IN CHESTER COMMONS SOUTHERLY TO END OF SERVICE
TOTAL LENGTH
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Prepared By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson Date August 17, 2018
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Date
CURRENT SITUATION
During recent Budget Deliberation (April 2018) Council directed staff to prepare a Street Improvement
Policy / By-law which addresses how Council will accept and fund upgrades to J Class Roads which are
50% costs shared with the Province.
Recently Council authorized the execution of a Cost Sharing Agreement with Nova Scotia Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (NSDOTIR). To be considered by NSDOTIR for cost sharing
requirements must be submitted by October 31, 2018. If a Municipality is using a petition process, the
petition must be completed in advance of the October 31, 2018 submission.
This report presents the options to Council with respects to the receipt of request, consideration of the
same and payment options for MODC’s share of the upgrade.
RECOMMENDATION
1.That Council request a cost estimate from NSDOTIR with respects to roads they wish to have
considered for road upgrades under the Cost Sharing Agreement. This will aid any petition
required to be completed by residents prior to October 31 (provides an ide a of costs to the
resident).
2.That Council provide direction on items raised in the Discussion Section to enable completion of a
Street Improvement Policy and By-law.
3.That Council provide direction on how they wish to address funding on non -subdivision roads
under the costs shared agreement (Village Roads), in respects to future planning for the same.
BACKGROUND
MODC has entered into a Cost Share Agreement with the NSDOTIR. The Agreement provides for a cost
sharing arrangement between MODC and NSDOTIR for the paving of Village and Subdivision Streets.
Such request is due to be submitted by October 31 for consideration in the next fiscal year. There are
approximately 35.47 km of roads that fall under this Agreement.
If approved by NSDOTIR, MODC would be required to fund 50% of the paving costs.Presently, MODC
does not have a policy / procedure on how requests are to be submitted to Council for consideration
prior to forwarding to NSDOTIR, nor how such upgrades are to be funded (area rate, general rate, both
REPORT TO:Committee of the Whole
SUBMITTED BY:Administration
DATE:August 14, 2018
SUBJECT:Street Improvement By-law / Policy
ORIGIN:Council –Budget Deliberations/ Strategic
Priorities Chart
2 Request For Decision/Direction
area rate and general rate, etc.). In August 2017 Council considered the matter and directed that staff not
proceed with a Policy/ By-law and rather that each request be considered on a case by case basis.(see
appendix A-August 17, 2017 Request for Direction)
This decision was reversed during budget deliberations in which Council was asked to consider upgrad es
to several J Class Roads.Debate arose respecting how to fund the same and concern arose over using an
area rate if the residents did not have an opportunity to provide input/comment on the same.
DISCUSSION
Attached is a draft Policy and By-law. The Policy establishes the procedure / criteria under which request
will be considered. The By-law is required to implement the requirement for a petition and to levy a
charge for street improvements (MGA, Section 81)
The following are the significant matters requiring direction in order finalize the Policy and By -law.
1.Streets eligible for Street Improvement
a.Proposal in By-law /Policy
i.NSDOTIR J Class / Village Roads and (NSDOTIR would fund 50%; residents
remaining 50%, with a few exemptions [i.e. collector roads])
ii.Municipal Roads (MODC would fund 50%; residents remaining 50 %)
b.Alternative-Municipal Roads can be excluded or included with residents paying 100%.
The disadvantage of this is that the residents on municip al roads pay more for upgrades.
The advantage is that is user pay, in which those benefiting from the upgrade pay.
2.Requirements for Consideration of Street Improvement
a.Proposal in By-law / Policy
i.Petition [ ensures those paying charge support the upgrade]; or
ii.Initiated by Council [ may be needed in some cases where the road is a collector]
b.Alternative-Council may not require petition, rather consider on a case by case basis .
The advantage-flexibility; The disadvantage-no clear understanding b y council,staff and
public as to what level of support is required, if any, before a levy is imposed.
3.Initiating Petition Requirements (if option is chosen)
a.Proposal in Policy-
i.Petition initiated by a request from 25 percent (%)of the properties that would
be affected [ensures that there is more than one person seeking the petition
before municipal resources are expended;or
ii.No petition, rather just motion of Council [allows Council to act where deemed
appropriate]
b.Alternative-petition request only;or motion only
3 Request For Decision/Direction
4.Evaluation Criteria for Submission to NSDOTIR
a.Proposal in Policy
i.66 2/3rds of owners in favor -Petition
ii.Road condition
iii.Usage
iv.Roads prioritized for funding in previous year
v.Proximity to other high priority roads or planned work
vi.Operational, economic or other reasons
b.Alternative-one or more the of above; may want to alter amount on petition (ie. 50%;
75%)
5.Charge-Who Pays?
a.Proposal in By-law. The By-law is drafted with a “user pay” model, whereby those who
benefit from improvement pay for the service. The By-law does recognize that not all J
class roads are subdivision roads and thus the owners fronting onto a street may not
represent all the users.
i.MODC share of 50% to be funded
b>Residents on Road for local roads
c>Collector Roads-portion by lots on road,portion by general rate
b.Alternative
i.Lots on road only
ii.General Rate only
iii.Case by Case Basis (would have to be determined pre-petition)
6.Method of Charge
a.Proposal in By-law
i.Uniform charge per property
ii.Frontage of the property on any street
iii.Use of the property (i.e.residential, commercial)
iv.Area of the property
v.Any combination of the above
vi.Such method as council deems appropriate
b.Alternative
i.One or more of the options (best practice research notes that most use fro ntage
for street improvements)
7.Charge as a lien
a.Proposal in By-law
i.Charge becomes a lien and is collected in the same manner as taxes
4 Request For Decision/Direction
b.Alternative
i.Charge does not become a lien
8.Payment of Charge
a.Proposal in By-law
i.One-time payment, or
ii.Over a period of up to 10 years
b>Interest Rate –Bank of NS Prime Interest Rate
b.Alternative
i.One-time,or
ii.Over a period longer than 10 years
b>Interest Rate-Rate applied to unpaid taxes 12%, or
c>Another interest rate
9.What is the eligible Charge?
a.Proposal in By-law
i.Cost of Street Improvement
ii.10% Administration Fee [ to cover costs related to petition; staff resources etc.]
iii.Any other costs incurred by NSDOTIR or MODC related to the improvement
b.Alternative
i.Cost of Street Improvement
ii.Any other costs incurred by NSDOTIR and MODC related to the improvement
iii.No Administration fee
IMPLICATIONS
Please provide general overview of implications in this cell.
Policy
There is no policy in place.
Financial/Budgetary
If payment option is allowed over a specified number of years, MODC would cover initial costs and be
paid back.
If MODC uses general tax rate, thence general tax rate pays. MODC may wish to consider identifying
roads in the Village that would not be considered Subdivision Roads and determine level of reserve
funding required for improvements. Once this is known, a plan can be established for funding the reserve.
Environmental
n/a.
Strategic Plan
Street Improvement Policy –This is listed as a Priority on Council’s Strategic Priorities Chart
5 Request For Decision/Direction
Work Program Implications
Staff resources will be required for petition and charge
OPTIONS .
By-Law / Policy
1.Council may wish to proceed with Policy and By -law.
2.Council may wish to address each request on a case by case basis. If this is the case, a deadline of
early spring may be required to enable debate and a decision on method to move forward in
advance of the October 31 deadline.
Subdivision Roads versus Collector /Through Roads
1.Council may wish to direct staff to acquire estimates of improvement costs for non-subdivision
roads, and level of reserve funding required
2.Council may wish to address only on a request basis and consider funding method at that time.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A -August 17, 2017 Request for Decision (Background)
Appendix B-Cost Sharing Agreement
Appendix C-DRAFT Street Improvement Policy
Appendix D-DRAFT Street Improvement By-law
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)-
TBD
REQUEST FOR D IRECTION
Prepared By:Jason Genée, Planner Date September 20, 2018
Reviewed By:Tara Maguire, Director Date September 26, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy (Crowder) Wilson, CAO Date September 28, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
MODC has been pursuing a uniform advertising signage by-law to provide a welcoming gateway into the
community and to effectively advertise local businesses within the municipality.At the Council meeting of
October 26, 2017, planning staff was directed to provide options for a uniform signage policy and ways in
which to recover costs of administering such a policy.After developing a preliminary by-law for a uniform
signage program, Staff is seeking direction from Council as to how to proceed with the Advertising Signage
on Public Highways By-law since receiving new information from NSTIR regarding the status of controlled
access roadways in the municipality.
RECOMMENDATION
For discussion and direction.
BACKGROUND
Provincial regulations are in place concerning advertising signage on or near public highways. To construct
advertising signage along a public highway, a permit is required from Transportation and Infrastructure
Renewal (NSTIR).However, amendments to the Public Highways Act in 2011 has enabled municipalities to
enact by-laws regulating most aspects of advertising signage on non -100-series provincially owned
highways. This allows a municipality to have greater control over signage that is erected and allows the
municipality to remove signage that is not in compliance with the by-law.Despite these amendments,
municipalities are limited in their ability to prohibit and regulate signage in controlled access areas.
The Municipality has been pursuing a uniform highway signage by-law so as to control highways signage,
especially at the exits from Highway 103.Staff was previously directed by Council to draft a uniform signage
program and by-law for Mill Lake Road (Exits 6),Highway 14 (Exit 8), and Highway 12 (Exit 9)to remove the
illegal signs that currently exist and to replace them with uniform signs administered through a licensing
program.Exit 7 was excluded from the proposed program as it is controlled access.However, since that
time, NSTIR have informed Staff that Mill Lake Road (Exit 6)is also considered controlled access, contrary
to what Staff was previously told (see attached correspondence).While this prohibits the Municipality from
erecting uniform signage where Mill Lake Road and Exit 7 meet Trunk 3,the Municipality may still remove
signs along Trunk 3 through a by-law. For uniform signage to be erected at these intersections, the signs
would need to be at least 60 metres from either side of the intersections.Highway 14 (Exit 8) and Highway
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Community Development Department
DATE:October 4, 2018
SUBJECT:Uniform Highway Signage By-law and
Program
ORIGIN:October 26, 2017 Council Meeting
2 Request For D /Direction
12 (Exit 9) are not controlled access highways, so advertising signage is permitted along these roads and
where they meet Highway 3, though signage without a license from NSTIR is still illegal.
DISCUSSION
Since being updated on the status of Mill Lake Road at Exit 6, Staff has been in contact with NSTIR to explore
the Municipality’s options with respect to dealing with advertising signage. The three options are to:
1.Maintain the status quo (do nothing)
2.Draft a by-law for the removal of advertising signage
3.Draft a by-law for the removal of advertising signage and the erection of uniform signage
Maintain Status Quo
Maintaining the status quo limits the ability of the Municipality to control and regulate advertising signage.
To remove signage,the Municipality would be required to contact NSTIR who would remove a ll signage in
a particular area, a scenario Council previously rejected. Also in this scenario, the Municipality would not be
able to regulate the erection of signage.
Signage Removal By-Law
The Municipality can,through a by-law, remove and prohibit signage in certain areas. This approach would
be similar to East Hant’s Advertising Signage By-law which does not allow for signage along its highways.
This by-law would be useful in cleaning up areas which have been deemed the most unsightly –particularly
Exits 6 and 7.Existing businesses could relocate their signs while businesses that are no longer in operation
would have their signs removed and discarded. Staff would be required to monitor the by-law area,
removing any signage that is placed there and potentially issuing a fine.Signage outside of the by-law area
would still require a permit from NSTIR.While this scenario does not include a uniform signage option for
businesses, NSTIR has indicated that such a program could be developed and replace a signage removal
by-law.If this is the current option that Council would like to pursue, consideration and direction must be
provided for:
The enforceable by-law area
What Department and level of Staff resources will be required to enforce such a by -law
Where and for how long signs will be stored when signs are removed
Signage Removal and Uniform Signage By-Law
The Municipality does not have the jurisdictional authority to erect signage where Mill Lake Road and Exit
7 meet Highway 3,even through a uniform signage by -law as they are controlled access.However, uniform
signage can still be mandated and pursued directly surrounding these intersections and in other p arts of
the municipality. Such a by-law could also include provisions to restrict and remove signage that is not in
compliance with the uniform signage program. A uniform signage program would need to be administered
through a licensing program, ensuring that only operating businesses are being advertised. The by -law and
program would also include:
The licensing and annual maintenance fee for uniform signage. These fees would help cover any
costs to regulate and administer the program.
The enforceable by-law area. Direction is needed from Council for the specific area.
3 Request For D /Direction
How many signs a business can purchase and the maximum distance between a business and a
sign.
Whether businesses outside the municipality can advertise on uniform signage structures.
If Council continues to pursue a uniform signage by-law, several considerations will need to be made before
implementation:
Whether engagement with the business community is to be conducted . This could also be used to
incent buy-in from the business community.
Whether individual businesses or categories are to be advertised (i.e. ‘Kiwi Café ’ or ‘Cafes ’).
If a committee is to be formed to be involved with the design and implementation of the program
(regulating an appeals process).
How many and where uniform signage structures will be located . This will be directly related to the
by-law area.
Resources available to construct and erect uniform signage. This may require contracting the work
depending on Public Work’s capacity to conduct this work.
Recourses available to administer and enforce uniform signage program compliance. Staff
resources will be required to ensure compliance –reporting illegal signage, administering licenses,
etc.
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
N/A
Financial/Budgetary
The cost to implement and administer a uniform signage program is unknown; however, it would require
a staff person to review license applications in addition to the construction and maintenance of uniform
advertising structures and individual signs. Presumably some of these costs would be covered by license
and annual fees charged to license holders.
Additional costs would be incurred to enforce the program, including the removal of any signs that do not
have permits/licenses. This cost would fluctuate depending on the direction from Council regarding
enforcement (i.e. complaint basis or going out and proactively removing signs). There is also a cost
associated with the removal of illegal signs, contacting business owners who have signs in place to inform
them of the need to obtain a license, and store of signs that have been removed.
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
Promote conditions conducive to fostering economic prosperity.
Work Program Implications
It has not been identified which Departments(s) would administer and enforce this by -law and program,
nor what resources would be required to enforce.In Kings County, the Development Officer is responsible
for administering the by-law but enforcement responsibility, especially the removal of signs, is not clear
and continues to be a challenge. Depending on which option Council choose, there will be impl ications
4 Request For D /Direction
for the work program, with CDD and Public Work being the two departments that will most likely be
impacted.
OPTIONS
1.Maintain status quo (do nothing)
2.Develop Advertising Signage on Public Highways By-law which includes uniform signage
regulations
3.Develop Advertising Signage on Public Highways By-law only for the removal of advertising
signage
ATTACHMENTS
See communications below.
COMMUNICATIONS
Glen Strang of NSTIR’s conversation with Peter Nightingale (former Planner with MODC)
Glen Strang of NSTIR’s conversation with Jason Genée
5 Request For D /Direction
6 Request For D /Direction
NorthGravel Parking/Bus ParkingExisting MarshGravel Road - Two WayGateWoodstock RoadTrailTrailCreated WetlandRealigned Access RoadVehicle Turn-AroundRealigned Access RoadBouldersTrailBeaver Dam PondNew CulvertStreamStream CrossingTransplanted VegetationCulvertsTrail SignageBouldersPark Map/SignBouldersInterpretive SignParking - 6 Vehicle SpacesBouldersSignageGateGravel Park Road (Two Way) - Slope Less Than 12% TrailParking - 6 Vehicle Spaces Floating Swimming RaftSwim AccessShedTrail Park Loop R
oa
d -
O
ne
Way
Floating Walkway to IslandParking - Designated Accessible Vehcile Spaces (2)DrivewayGate Boat Launch/Floating DockBuffer VegetationRealigned Access RoadWashroom Pavilion- Composting Toilet- Outdoor Shower IslandBuffer VegetationTrailer Parking - 5 Spaces Greywater BioswalePicnic Area/Natural Play FeaturesDug Well BouldersBarrierBoulders Park Loop Road - One WayVehicle Turn-AroundRealigned Access RoadBouldersTrailParking - 6 Vehicle SpacesBouldersSignageSherbrooke LakeMP.01 Sherbrooke Lake Park Master Plan
REQUEST FOR DECISION /DIRECTION
Prepared By:Matthew S. Davidson, P.Eng Date:September 27, 2018
Reviewed By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date September 28, 2018
Authorized By:Tammy S. Wilson, CAO Date September 28, 2018
CURRENT SITUATION
On May 10th,2018,Municipal Council approved the 2018-19 Capital and Operating Budget. The
Capital Budget included the design of improvements and expansion of the Chester Basin
Wastewater System.The budget for this project was estimated at $30,000 Net HST.
RECOMMEN DATION
It is recommended that staff proceed with the issuance and award of the RFP, utilizing the current
list of pre-qualified Engineering Consultants and report back to Council.
BACKGROUND
Currently, the Chester Basin Wastewater Treatment Plant is over 20 years old and at capacity. As
a result, staff has had to deny connections over the years which is impacting development in the
area. A Wastewater Management Workshop was held on December 7 th, 2017, with direction to
staff to expand the serviceable area by increasing the plant’s capacity. A developer has recently
approached the Municipality to discuss a proposed development and to determine if there is an
ability to work together on addressing expanded wastewater services.
DISCUSSION
The RFP includes the review of a few servicing options, as depicted in the attached map,with the
goal of maximizing the serviceable area based on utilizing the existing treatment plant, its land
and outfall to its fullest extent. This may employ a combination of conventi onal sewer, alternative
sewer (STEP) systems and onsite disposal.
The servicing options includes the option of servicing a new proposed development, or a portion
of it, which was not discussed at the Wastewater Management Strategy. Staff believe it is
important to consider this new development in the servicing option review since MODC may
benefit directly from this.
REPORT TO:Municipal Council
SUBMITTED BY:Engineering and Public Works Dept.
DATE:October 4, 2018
SUBJECT:Chester Basin Wastewater System
ORIGIN:Capital Budget FY 18-19
2 Request For Decision/DIRECTION
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
N/A
Financial/Budgetary
There is currently a budget of $30,000 net HST to complete the work as listed in the draft RFP,
up to the completion of a final design, tender and Class A cost estimate. Furthermore, The
Municipality has been successful in its PCAP application, receiving 5 0 % cost sharing for this
project.
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses;
Work Program Implications
This project has been incorporated into Engineering & Public Works Department’s work
program for FY 18-19.
OPTIONS
1)To issue RFP, as drafted
2)To issue RFP, as amended
3)Defer any decision on the matter and direct staff to bring back further information
as identified by Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Project 15 –Chester Basin Wastewater System Improvements
2018-09-27_Chester Basin -Current Wastewater Service Area
2018-09-27_Chester Basin Proposed Wastewater Service Area(s)
Project 15 –Chester Basin Wastewater System Improvements
Introduction:
The purpose of the Request for Proposals (RFP) is to complete a final design, complete with tender
specifications and drawings, as well as a class A construction estimate for the Chester Basin Wastewater
System Improvements.
Available Information:
1995-04-04_Chester Basin Wastewater Management Report_Vaughn Engineering
1995-08-18_NSDE -Schedule A -Chester Basin -Permit # 95-67
1995-12-05_Chester Basin WWTP Operations Manual
1996-01-22_Chester Basin San Sewer System_Asbuilts
2013-02-06_Staff Memo_Chester Basin Sewer Capacity Estimation
2013-08-30_Chester Basin STP Options Reveiw_SNC Lavalin Inc
2013-09-26_Chester Basin STP Options Review Cost Analysis_SNC Lavalin Inc
2013-10-29_Staff Memo to Council_ CB STP Options Review
2016-03-31_NSE Approval to Operate Sewage Treatment Plant Chester Basin WWTP
2017-05-16_CBSTP _NSE Annual Report_Final
2017-06-15_CBSTP _NSE Annual Report_Final
2018-07-23_Chester Basin System Assessment Report_CBCL
2018-09-27_Chester Basin -Current Wastewater Service Area
2018-09-27_Chester Basin Proposed Wastewater Service Area(s)
Project Timeline:
RFP Issuance –October 5, 2018
RFP Submission –October 26, 2016 at 3pm
RFP Award –November 2,2018
Project Kick Off Meeting –November 5, 2018 (Week of)
Service Options Analysis (Concept Design with costing) Report –December 7, 2018
Preferred Servicing Option Selected –December 20, 2018
Draft (Final) Design drawings,specifications, and cost estimate (Class B)–February 8, 2019
Final design drawings, specifications, cost estimate (Class A)–March 15, 2019
NSE application submission –March 22, 2019
Construction Tender Period –April 8 to 26, 2019
Award Recommendation from Consultant –May 8, 2019
Council Award –May 16, 2019
Construction started –June 3, 2019
Construction Substantially completed by August 30, 2019
Project Substantially closed out by November 29, 2019
Service Description:
Information Review, request for follow up information;
Kick-off meeting with MODC staff;
Meeting (~ 2 hours)with potential developer of land along Hwy 12, adjacent to Petro-Canada
Service Station to get updated information on development. Currently, the plan is to connect the
service station to the central sewer, as well as subdivide a larger parcel into two (2) lots with the
parcel fronting Hwy 12 containing three (3)–2-unit commercial bldgs. containing a mix of
retail/fast food businesses. The back parcel would less than a dozen semi-detached senior
dwellings;
Review of proposed servicing options, as depicted, with the goal of maximizing the serviceable
area based on utilizing the existing treatment plant, its land and outfall to its fullest extent. This
may employ a combination of conventional sewer, alternative sewer (STEP ) systems and onsite
disposal;
Service Option Analysis report complete with costing (Class D), to assist Council in selecting a
service option;
Design and Tender Specifications for a single selected option, and shall be based on Standard
Municipal Specifications;
Pre-construction geotechnical investigation;
Items to be included/factored into the design and tender –climate change adaptation and
repair/improvements to the existing pump station (i.e. flow meter, SCADA, safety, back-up power)
Response to Tender queries and issuance of Addenda
Tender submissions review and recommendation
Project kick off meeting with contractor, as well as bi -weekly meetings complete with meeting
minutes
Shop drawing reviews
Design intent queries
Site instruction
Design changes, if required
Prepare background information for applications and liaison with regulatory bodies (i.e. NSE)
Contract administration
Quality assurance program: Preconstruction –review of tender drawings and comment, attend
kick off meeting, inspection and record of preconstruction site(s).Construction –part &full time
over sight, including testing of materials and products delivered by contractor for compliance to
specifications; Post construction –completion of a summarizing report, documenting all aspects
of work completed and inspected, with test results.
Three (3) months of inspection -6 weeks of part-time, M-F,5-hour days and 6 weeks of full-time,
M-F, 10-hour days
Review as-built files submitted
Preparation of Operation Manual
Project close out with submission of all project documents to MODC
Miscellaneous (i.e. mileage, meals,etc.)
MODC may require an insurance premium increase beyond the basic insurance required for the
REI pre-qualification
Proponents are asked to submit a detailed cost estimate (i.e. quantity of hours, unit rates, key personnel
etc.) for each phase of this project (i.e. design, tender, construction and project close out), accompanied
by a list of key personnel roles and responsibilities, any project assumptions and or limitations. Proponents
are to provide a written summary explaining their cost estimate. The summary must also demonstrate
their ability and resources to complete this project as per the detailed schedule.
RFP submission evaluation criteria:
60%-Cost (Lump sum, based on detailed cost estimate)
40% Experience -Provide five (5) similar wastewater projects that work was completed from
design through to project close out; and provide the project team, the team should have been
involved in the projects listed
The award of work is subject to budget approval.
(On official letterhead)
October 11, 2018.
Paul Wills, Chief Executive Officer/Treasurer,
Nova Scotia Municipal Finance Corporation,
Suite 1501, Maritime Centre
1505 Barrington Street,
P.O. Box 850, Station “M”,
Halifax, N.S.B3J 2V2
Re: 2018 Fall Debenture Funding
Please accept this letter as a firm commitment by the Council of the Municipality of the district
of Chester to participate in the NSMFC Fall 2018 Debenture Issue.
We request long-term funding for the following completed municipal capital project(s) for the
following amount(s) and term(s):
Purpose:Loan
Amount
Loan
Term
Loan
Amort *
TBR #
Wastewater facility
improvements –Mill Cove
$200,000.00 10 Years 10 Years 2017-3
Wastewater facility
improvements –Western Shore
$140,000.00 10 Years 10 Years 2017-4
Total Debenture Requirement $340,000.00
Also, please find enclosed the “Resolution for Pre -Approval of Debenture Issuance Subject to
Interest Rate”which has been duly passed by Council.
Respectfully yours,
Tammy (Crowder) Wilson, MURP, MCIP
Chief Administrative Officer
*Loan Amortization is “not the useful life” of the asset.