HomeMy Public PortalAbout2019-09-19_COW_Public Agenda Package (addition - 8.3 and 8.4)Page 1 of 1 of Agenda Cover Page(s)
Committee of the W hole
AGENDA
Thursday,September 19, 2019
Chester Municipal Council Chambers
151 King Street, Chester, NS
1.MEETING CALLED TO ORDER.
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA/ORDER OF BUSINESS.
3.PUBLIC INPUT SESSION (8:45 A.M.–9:00 A.M.)
4.MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING:
4.1.Committee of the Whole –August 1, 2019
5.MATTERS ARISING.
6.POLICY DEVELOPMENT/REVIEW.
7.CORRESPONDENCE:
8.NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 CAO/Clerk Department -2019-20 Quarterly Report Update (April to
June 2019).(TBC)
8.2 Memo from CAO dated September 13, 2019 regarding Nova Scotia Federation of
9.IN CAMERA.
10.ADJOURNMENT.
Municipalities (NSFM) Interim Resolutions Report.
8.3 Hurricane Dorian – Follow up report
REQUEST FOR D IRECTION
Prepared By:Dan McDougall, CAO Date September 13, 2019
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Date
CURRENT SITUATION
The NSFM holding three NSFM Resolutions meetings to prepare for the fall conference in November in
Halifax. NSFM President Waye Mason will be there, along with NSFM CEO Juanita Spencer,Policy Advisor
Will Brooke and Communications Advisor Amy Pugsley Fraser.
The dates and locations are:
1.Sept. 23 –Port Hawkesbury: Civic Centre, 606 Reeves Street, 1 -3 p.m. in Bearhead Room.
2.Sept. 27 –Coldbrook: Kings County Municipal Building, 181 Coldbrook Village Park Drive, 10 a.m.-
12 noon in the Orchards/Vineyards Room.
3.Sept. 30 –Truro: Holiday Inn Truro, 437 Prince Street, 3 -5 p.m. in the Birch/Aspen Room.
In addition, written feedback is welcome and is due by Oct ober 4, 2019.
RECOMMENDATION
For discussion and direction with respect to the provision of any verbal or written feedback to the NSFM.
BACKGROUND
The Interim Resolutions Report is attached for information.The report reviews the process and content
for approval of five (5)priority resolutions as well as Statements of Concern & Issues to be monitored.
Priority Resolutions
The NSFM is recommending that the five priorities identified and endorsed last year remain the same five
priorities for 2019. They five resolutions are:
1.Capped Assessment (CAP):Request the Province work with municipalities and stakeholders to
phase out the CAP program and provide better alternatives to protect homeowners from
significant increases in residential property assessments.
2.Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR):Request the Province develop legislation and
regulations, in support of a full EPR model for Printed Paper and Packaging (PPP) as proposed by
REPORT TO:Committee of the Whole
SUBMITTED BY:Dan McDougall, CAO
DATE:September 19,2019
SUBJECT:NSFM Interim Resolutions Report -2019
ORIGIN:NSFM memo to municipalities
2 Request for Direction
NSFM in consultation with municipalities and other stakeholders and a transition program to
assist those municipalities who are left with redundant facilities.
3.Roads:Continue to work with the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal (TIR);
and, the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing (DMAH)to address road issues but ask the
Province to increase its funding of roads.
4.Municipal Funding:The specific requests are to freeze mandatory municipal contributions to
education at 2017 amounts; increase the municipal equalization program by $20 million over
three years starting in 2019; establish a 50/50 cost share program for municipal projects r equired
pursuant to the Nova Scotia Accessibility Act; and, establish a cannabis revenue sharing
arrangement with municipalities.
5.Municipal Modernization:Ask the Province to continue to work with municipalities to develop
and support municipalities willing to work together.
Municipalities are asked to review the Interim Resolution Report and provide feedback, either written or
through attendance at one of the three meetings planned for discussion.The NSFM has asked Council
to consider for each resolution:
Is this of major importance to municipalities?
Is the issue correctly identified?
Is there information missing in the discussion?
Is there something inaccurate or wrong in the analysis?
Do the proposed actions make sense?
Feedback received from municipalities will be summarized and presented to the NSFM Executive, and the
NSFM Executive will incorporate this input as appropriate. A Final Resolutions Report will then be sent to
members in advance of the Fall Conference. If there are more than five r esolutions proposed, the
membership will be asked to vote on their top resolutions during the caucus meetings being held
Wednesday, November 6th, from 2:00 –4:30 p.m. Caucuses will also be asked to prioritize the statements
of concern. Municipalities will be provided with a formal update on all five resolutions and asked to consider
the prioritized statements of concern on Thursday, November 7th, at 9:30 a.m.
Statements of Concern & Issues to be monitored
Five statements of concern, and eight issues to monitor have also been identified and Council can provide
feedback on these items.
New issues can also be identified by Council. New issues must be first researched and then vetted through
and supported by a caucus or region.
DISCUSSION
Review and discussion at the COW meeting.
CAP: For 19/20 budget discussions staff calculated the tax rate reduction that would occur if the CAP was
eliminated and tax revenue generated remained the same (see below).
2 Request for Direction
IMPLICATIONS
Policy
Subject to future provincial action.
Financial/Budgetary
Subject to future provincial action.
Environmental
Subject to future provincial action.
Strategic Plan1.Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;2.Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;3.Ensure sufficient infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
OPTIONS
ATTACHMENTS
Interim resolutions report attached.
2 Request for Direction
COMMUNICATIONS (INTE RNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
INTERIM RESOLUTIONS REPORT
September 9, 2019
Feedback Welcome
Deadline for written feedback: October 4, 2019
Meetings to discuss Resolutions:
September 23, 2019, 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m., Port Hawkesbury Civic Centre
September 27, 2019, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Kings County Offices, Coldbrook
September 30, 2019, 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m., Holiday Inn, Truro
Page 2
Table of Contents
TITLE PAGE #
Introduction 3
Summary Table of Resolution Responses 6
Proposed Resolutions for 2019
1. CAP 7
2. Extended Producer Responsibility 10
3. Roads 15
4. Municipal Funding 18
5. Municipal Modernization 21
Statements of Concern for Prioritization
6. Cannabis 23
7. Municipal Responsibilities 29
8. Policing 32
9. Surplus Schools 35
10. Sustainability and Infrastructure Funding 38
Issues to be Monitored
11. Climate Change 41
12. Accessibility 42
13. Doctor Recruitment 43
14. Internet and Connectivity 44
15. Housing 45
16. Code of Conduct 46
17. Immigration 47
18. Libraries 47
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
NSFM’s resolution policy ensures resolutions concern issues that make a difference to
most Nova Scotian municipalities. Only those resolutions of the highest priority to NSFM
members are adopted, providing a very clear signal of their importance.
NSFM’s resolution process has been the subject of gradual change over the last decade.
Dozens of resolutions used to be forwarded to the Province after our fall conferences, but
this approach yielded little in the way of results. In more recent years, NSFM members
decided to take a more focused approach, reducing the number of resolutions to around
five. This year we are looking to keep the number at five—but also to keep the same five
resolutions as last year.
After resolutions are set at the NSFM fall conference, staff begin working on carrying out
the steps needed to achieve the stated goals of the resolutions. Staff also begin collecting
input on issues that could potentially become new resolutions. These topics primarily
come forward through regional meetings, but they can also be raised in caucus meetings
or by written notice from groups of municipalities.
The NSFM resolutions policy states that new issues brought forward at caucus or regional
meetings should be well-researched. It also states that the caucus or region should
determine if the issue should be forwarded to the NSFM executive for consideration as a
resolution. It is these well-researched, clearly defined issues that will be considered by the
NSFM executive to determine their levels of significance. No new submissions were
brought forward this year meeting these criteria.1
During April of 2019, NSFM staff held five regional meetings in Yarmouth, Cape Breton,
New Glasgow, the Valley, and HRM. And during these meetings, NSFM members from all
five regions told us that we should keep the same five resolutions from last year. This
topic was debated at length with nearly 100 NSFM members (80 of whom left evaluation
forms) at our regional meetings, and their support was nearly unanimous.
Our new CEO, Juanita Spencer, has also discussed this approach in her meetings with
individual member units. She has now visited approximately two-thirds of municipal
councils across Nova Scotia, and support for keeping the same five resolutions has been
overwhelming. There was also considerable support for this approach expressed by
1 The resolutions in this report are good examples of what the resolutions policy requests from those bringing
forward potential resolutions. Each example here states the issue clearly, provides background information,
offers analysis of the gravity of the issue, and proposes a specific call to action.
Page 4
members at our Spring Conference in Truro, and through the 92 responses received in our
2019 Member Survey.
Three resolution meetings are being scheduled across Nova Scotia over the next month.
They are intended to get further feedback from the membership on the resolutions
process. Written feedback can be sent to info@nsfm.ca until October 4, 2019.
Key questions for you to consider for each resolution:
• Is this of major importance to municipalities?
• Is the issue correctly identified?
• Is there information missing in the discussion?
• Is there something inaccurate or wrong in the analysis?
• Do the proposed actions make sense?
Feedback from the three sessions and any written comments will be presented to the
NSFM Executive, who will make recommendations for resolutions to be brought to the
membership at the annual conference. Should more than five resolutions to the Province
be proposed, there will be a process for the membership to select their top resolutions at
the caucus meetings during the AGM in Nove mber.
The logistics of keeping the same five resolutions has been debated in considerable detail
at most of the regional and member meetings this year. Although the idea of maintaining
focus was strongly supported, our members also told us that it i s always important for
NSFM to have a prioritized queue of additional resolutions ready to go, in case one or
more of our current resolutions is settled to our satisfaction. In response to this concern,
it is the hope of the NSFM Board to engage members in a process at the upcoming fall
conference to prioritize the statements of concern identified last year.
Although our members were clear in expressing the need to stay focused in working on
top issues, they also wanted to build in the ability to respond to slow-moving resolutions.
In response the NSFM Board is having staff research a ‘sunset provision’ or ‘sunset clause’
that would allow them to move on from priorities between AGMs in order to better align
our work with changing political realities, thereby maximizing staff time and resources.
A summary table of recommended resolution responses follows. Five resolutions are
proposed, with all five being follow-up resolutions from 2018, and three of those being
follow-up resolutions from the 2017 list. Work is also being undertaken the areas of
climate change and accessibility, and it is recommended this work continue – should
progress not be achieved, new resolutions or strategies could be developed over the
coming year.
Page 5
Next Steps:
• Members are asked to review the Interim Resolution Report and provide
feedback, either written or through attendance at one of the three meetings
planned for discussion. These meetings are as follows:
o September 23, 2019, 1:00 – 3:00 p.m., Bearhead Room, Civic Centre, Port
Hawkesbury
o September 27, 2019, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Orchards/Vineyards Room,
Kings County Municipal Building, Coldbrook
o September 30, 2019, 3:00 – 5:00 p.m., Birch/Aspen Room, Holiday Inn,
Truro
• Feedback will be summarized and presented to the NSFM Executive, and the
NSFM Executive will incorporate this input as appropriate.
• A Final Resolutions Report will then be sent to members in advance of the Fall
Conference.
• If there are more than five resolutions proposed, the membership will be asked to
vote on their top resolutions during the caucus meetings being held Wednesday,
November 6th, from 2:00 – 4:30 p.m. Caucuses will also be asked to prioritize the
statements of concern.
• The membership will be provided with a formal update on all five resolutions and
asked to consider the prioritized statements of concern on Thursday, November
7th, at 9:30 a.m.
Page 6
Ongoing Resolutions from 2018 2018 Statements of
Concern
Issues to Monitor
CAP: request Province work with
municipalities and stakeholders to phase
out the CAP program and provide better
alternatives to protect homeowners
from significant increases in residential
property assessments.
Sustainability and
Infrastructure funding
support: request
provincial and
municipalities to cost
share a resource
Climate Change: Climate change
is an emerging issue and is
expected to be a focus area
soon.
EPR: request the Province develop
legislation and regulations, in support of
a full EPR for PPP model as proposed by
NSFM in consultation with municipalities
and other stakeholders and a transition
program to assist those municipalities
who are left with redundant facilities.
Municipal
Responsibilities: ask the
province to work with
NSFM to address
concerns around the
sustainability of relying
on property taxes to pay
for services
Accessibility: Accessibility is an
emerging issue. Although the
2030 deadline may seem some
distance off, there are serious
cost implications.
Roads: continue to work with TIR and
DMAH to address road issues but ask
the Province to increase its funding of
roads.
Policing: request
arbitration legislation to
reflect ability of the
average homeowner to
pay
Doctor Recruitment: 2017
resolution in progress. NSFM
participates in Committee work
with NSHA, DHW, DNS, CPSNS,
and Dalhousie Medical School.
Municipal Funding: following on 2017
and 2018, specific requests re:
mandatory education, operating grant,
funding for accessibility.
Surplus Schools: request
confirmation of right of
first refusal, provincial
funding for
environmental clean-up,
and funding to assist in
demolition
Internet and Connectivity:
2017 resolution in progress.
Commitments include $1.7B in
federal and $193M in provincial
funding.
Municipal Modernization: ask the
Province to continue to work with
municipalities to develop and support
municipalities willing to work together.
Cannabis: ask the
province for funding to
share revenue from
cannabis, and to classify
land used to grow
cannabis outdoors as
commercial
Housing: 2017 statement of
concern in progress. NSFM
participates in committee work
with DMAH, CMHC, and Seniors
Nova Scotia.
Code of Conduct: currently with
key stakeholders.
Immigration: work with the
Province to better understand
the issue.
Libraries: monitoring.
Page 7
Proposed Resolutions for 2019
1. Capped Assessment Program (CAP) – 2017 and 2018 Resolution
Issue Identification:
The CAP was introduced by the Province to make property taxes predictable by avoiding
sudden increases, and to help those in need be able to stay in their homes. While well
intentioned, the CAP system entrenches inequality in the tax system each year, with more
than 50 per cent of taxpayers paying more than their fair share of the property tax
burden. Not only is it unfair, but the program lacks transparency, leaving many citizens,
and some MLAs, to believe that the CAP is saving them money. The CAP is fundamentally
unfair and should have ended long ago.
Background:
2019 officially marks 15 calendar years of NSFM opposition to the CAP. NSFM—or UNSM,
as we were then known—advocated against the CAP before it existed, between
introduction as proposed legislation in October 2003 and assent in May 2004. UNSM met
with MLAs from every party to speak against Bill 40, but our advocacy efforts were unable
to prevent the Bill from becoming law.
Action on the CAP was a priority resolution for NSFM in 2013, 2017 and 2018. It also
remained a focus for staff even when not a priority resolution. Numerous committees
have tried to find ways to deal with the CAP, and research efforts and communications
strategies to do away with the CAP have been undertaken every year since the inception
of the CAP in 2005. These efforts included a comprehensive academic study in 2014
recommending the removal of the CAP system in Nova Scotia, authored by municipal
finance experts Dr. Enid Slack and Dr. Harry Kitchen (available through NSFM).
The wording of the 2018 resolution on the CAP was a change in approach for NSFM. In
past years, NSFM would present the Province with a single, detailed proposal on the CAP.
Always, one or more of these details became grounds for the Province to reject the
proposal as unworkable. Having only submitted one option per proposal, our resolutions
left little room for NSFM and the Province to work towards a satisfactory solution.
The thought in 2018 was that NSFM could take a different approach by presenting the
Province with a selection of options that NSFM is open to exploring and the n to ask for
the Province to work with municipalities and other stakeholders to find a suitable
solution. The idea was that the solution need not match any one of the proposals put
Page 8
forward, which were to be regarded as starting points, but simply that a solution be found
that is acceptable to Nova Scotians. It was hoped that this approach will recognize the
depth and breadth of prior efforts to work against the CAP, as well as the political realities
of managing tax policy change.
Since the last Fall Conference in November 2018 NSFM has led a steering committee with
AMA and PVSC representation to strategically work towards a solution to the CAP issue.
Stakeholders include Property Valuation Services Corporation (PVSC), Nova Scotia
Association of Realtors (NSAR), Canadian Home Builders’ Association – Nova Scotia (CHBA-
NS), Real Estate Lawyers Association – Nova Scotia (RELANS), Canadian Mortgage Brokers
Association – Atlantic (CMBA Atlantic), and Nova Scotia Real Estate Appraisers Association
(NSREAA). The steering committee has met with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and his
staff on several occasions and have met with many key stakeholders. We have held
meetings with policy staffers at the Liberal, PC and NDP caucus offices, and have given
presentations to all three party caucuses and had one-on-one meetings with several
MLAs.
The broadness of the 2018 resolution request and the wide engagement of stakeholders
has been effective. We have had productive interactions with the Province a nd feel
encouraged that we are getting closer to resolving this use. The work of the committee is
currently focused on phasing out the CAP in favour of the following tools:
• a spike protection mechanism to protect from sudden increases; and
• low-income protections (now in 47 of 50 municipalities); and
• a slow phaseout, providing a transition over several years; and
• revenue-neutrality in implementation, so tax rates go down at the same speed
as the CAP comes off.
Impact on Municipalities:
While the CAP is a provincial program, municipalities are being asked by more and more
residents why they pay more property taxes than their neighbour. New home buyers,
whether first time buyers or seniors looking to downsize, are faced with higher property
taxes than neighbouring homes, even though services are the same.
NSFM has known since 2007 that the CAP had shifted the tax burden from homeowners
with capped properties to those with uncapped properties. And by late 2010, NSFM was
able to demonstrate that by setting the CAP rate at CPI, the program had resulted in
inequitable tax burden shifts from higher to lower-assessed homes.
Page 9
Tax rates in many municipalities are higher than they would be if there were no CAP yet,
setting tax rates must be done knowing additional hardship may be imposed on those not
benefitting from the CAP, as pointed out in the Grant-Thornton viability study for CBRM.
Proposed Action:
NSFM and Nova Scotia’s municipalities remain committed to keeping property taxes
predictable and not forcing anyone out of their homes as a result of rising taxes. It is
recommended that NSFM continue working with the Province to phase out the CAP in
favour of the following tools:
• a spike protection mechanism to protect from sudden increases; and
• low-income protections (now in 47 of 50 municipalities); and
• a slow phaseout, providing a transition over several years; and
• revenue-neutrality in implementation, so tax rates go down at the same speed
as the CAP comes off.
• 2018 CAP Resolution
WHEREAS the CAP program distorts the property tax system; and
WHEREAS it is not clear the homeowners most in need of property tax relief are
the ones benefitting from the CAP program; and
WHEREAS municipalities are willing to offer pilot programs that will continu e to
meet the original objectives of the CAP program though a different approach; and
WHEREAS pilot programs can be evaluated to determine intended and unintended
impacts of changes; and
WHEREAS a study on N.S. Municipal Property Taxation, by academic experts Harry
Kitchen and Enid Slack recommended a phase-out of the CAP program; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Province work with municipalities and other
stakeholders to phase out the CAP program and provide better alternatives to
protect low-income homeowners and those experiencing significant increases in
residential property assessments; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Province enable pilot projects to be undertaken
as soon as possible.
Page 10
2. Extended Producer Responsibility for Printed Paper and Packaging
(EPR for PPP) – 2018 Resolution
Issue Identification:
Nova Scotian municipalities spend more than $25 million a year to collect and process
blue bag materials, printed paper and packaging (PPP). Coordinated PPP recycling
programs exist in many other provinces, but not in Nova Scotia. In other provinces, these
programs are funded by the companies that produce PPP, who incorporate the costs of
the recycling programs into their national product pricing. This approach is known as
extended producer responsibility (EPR).
Because producers build these costs into their national product pricing, Nova Scotia
consumers are already paying for the costs of the PPP programs operating in other
provinces. But Nova Scotian consumers and municipalities don’t receive any benefit for
these costs because Nova Scotia has no PPP program. Implementing an EPR program to
recycle PPP materials here in Nova Scotia will help to harmonize costs with other
provincial EPR programs, and additionally generate a financial benefit of up to $16 million
per year.
Background:
EPR is a regulatory tool designed to drive industry to be financially and environmentally
responsible for the end-of-life management of the materials they put into the
marketplace. A full EPR model (also known as FPR, for Full Producer Responsibility) for
Nova Scotians will build on the progress that has been made in recycling in Nova Scotia
over the past 20 years and will harmonize with existing EPR programs across Canada. An
EPR for PPP program for Nova Scotia will save Nova Scotian municipalities millions.
Nova Scotia does have a few stewardship programs in place for products such as paint,
tires and some electronics. There is also a diversion credit system for beverage container
deposits which provides a stream of funding for municipalities which should be
maintained. In these specific cases, these programs are paid for by the consumer at the
point of sale through the collection of environmental handling fees. The dairy industry
also operates an EPR-style program for the recycling of some (though not all) of their
Page 11
containers.
However, the bulk of Nova Scotian recycling programs and services are funded through a
combination of municipal taxes and/or the payment of tipping fees. In large part, these
are collected through residential, commercial, and industrial property taxes . In the current
system, municipalities typically have very little control over the costs associated with
processing and marketing recyclable materials. In recent years, exposure to fluctuations in
market conditions for plastic bags and plastic film has caused a noticeable strain on the
Nova Scotian recycling system and Nova Scotian municipalities.
EPR was a priority resolution in 2018, and NSFM has been busy at work pursuing this
issue. The Province asked NSFM to consult Nova Scotian businesses on the EPR proposal
supported by the 2018 resolution developed in collaboration with the Solid Waste Chairs.
NSFM and municipal solid waste staff throughout Nova Scotia received responses for a
month and a half, with the submission deadline set at March 15th, 2019.
The results of the consultation were collated and added to the EPR proposal produced by
the Solid Waste Management Regional Chairs Committee Priorities Working Group. The
Priorities Working Group met several times between March and May to develop drafts of
the proposal, with the final product being presented to the Regional Chairs on May 16th,
2019, where it was approved for submission to Nova Scotia Environment.
The 88-page proposal was delivered to Minister Wilson on June 5 th, 2019. The proposal
was also sent to all NSFM members, and a CBC story by Michael Gorman covered the
release. A spokesperson for the Minister of Environment has stated that the Minister will
hold off on making any statements about the EPR proposal until an efficiency study on
solid waste management in Nova Scotia is complete and submitted.
Nova Scotian municipalities have been participating in this efficiency study for over a year.
The study includes analysis of what the financial and process-based benefits of EPR might
look like in Nova Scotia, and it offers numerous well-reasoned recommendations for
improving the efficiency of Nova Scotia’s solid waste management system. We expect this
report to go public on September 23rd, 2019.
Impact on Municipalities
Not only are plastics causing irreparable damage to our environment, they are also
burdening the budgets of every municipality that is stuck trying to deal with them. With
Page 12
dwindling markets for plastic film, some of Nova Scotia’s municipalities are forced to
stockpile plastics in warehouses and rented semi-truck trailers. It’s costing municipalities
millions each year; money that could be better spent on paving roads and building/fixing
much needed infrastructure.
Solid waste management services continue to be one of the most expensive line items for
any Nova Scotian municipality. The total cost of these services for Nova Scotian
municipalities in 2017, even after considering revenues from tipping fees and the sale of
recyclables, exceeded $91 million. At a cost of approximately $94 per capita, Nova
Scotian residents are roughly on par with citizens in other provinces for solid waste
management costs. However, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and
Quebec have a form of fiscal relief we do not have: EPR.
There are several grants and programs that assist with the costs of solid waste
management in Nova Scotia. In total, this assistance has averaged approximately $8
million over the past decade. However, in 2017, due to fluctuations in the market price of
recyclables and increased return rates, this amount dropped to just over $6 million. And
over this same period, expenses facing municipalities have continued to climb at a pace
nearly tripling the overall cost of living, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI).2
Proposed Action:
NSFM has had a busy year pursuing the EPR resolution. Although 80% of Canadians
already live in provinces with EPR, this year we saw the Prime Minister of Canada’s office
(PMO) express support to bring the rest of Canada’s provinces online with EPR. The
Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) also met in Halifax this year, and
they announced that EPR is their number one priority action, with the CCME aiming to
facilitate consistent EPR programs for plastics across Canada by December 2020. With the
EPR proposal in Minister Wilson’s hands and the efficiency study nearly complete, NSFM
2 These data are collected from the 2005 and 2015 Annual Reports of Municipal Statistics
published by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations (2005) and the Nova Scotia
Department of Municipal Affairs (2015).
2005 2015 % Change
Garbage and Collection Costs (all NS)70,115,488$ 109,403,443$ 56.03%
CPI - Canada, All-items (2002 = 100)107 126.6 18.32%
CPI - Nova Scotia, All-items (2002 = 100)108.2 129.3 19.50%
Page 13
recommends that staff continue to work on last year’s resolution supporting a full EPR
program in Nova Scotia as detailed below.
• The EPR program should use existing infrastructure and human resources
• Municipalities would have right of first refusal for collection and education
• The program would maintain or improve upon the current level of curbside
service
• The program would apply to residential PPP materials
• Time must be allowed for planning and transition
• A transition program would be provided by the Province for municipalities with
redundant facilities
• Most small businesses would be exempt, including those:
o With revenue under $2 million
o Supplying less than 1 ton of PPP to Nova Scotia residents annually
o With a single storefront in NS and who are not supplied by (or operated
as part of) a franchise
o Producing newspapers (except flyers) and registered charities
• The program would be harmonized with other Canadian EPR programs
• Monitoring and compliance must be in place to ensure a level playing field for
businesses
• Moving to an industry-led model may have implications for municipalities who
have invested in infrastructure to deal with waste from printed paper and
packaging. Assistance in transitioning to the industry-led model should be made
available.
2018 EPR for PPP Resolution
WHEREAS municipalities have been abiding by the Solid Waste-Resource
Management Regulations since 1995; and
WHEREAS these regulations hold municipalities solely accountable for proper
separation of blue bag materials; and
WHEREAS municipalities must manage the risk of rising costs and fluctuating
commodity markets for blue bag materials; and
WHEREAS municipalities’ residential recycling programs cost over $25 million per
year and are paid for primarily by municipal taxpayers; and
Page 14
WHEREAS 80% of Canadian consumers live in areas where producers fund PPP
programs by incorporating program costs into their national product pricing; and
WHEREAS Nova Scotia consumers are already paying the national product prices
that support PPP programs in other provinces, but receive none of the benefits
because Nova Scotia has no EPR program; and
WHEREAS NSFM has developed a proposed model for EPR for PPP in cooperation
with municipalities and businesses; and
WHEREAS EPR for PPP would significantly decrease both costs and risks associated
with municipal curbside recycling programs;
THEREFORE be it resolved that NSFM request the Province develop legislation and
regulations in support of a full EPR for PPP model as proposed by NSFM in
consultation with municipalities and businesses; and
THEREFORE be it resolved the province provide transition program to assist those
municipalities who are left with redundant facilities.
Page 15
3. Roads – 2017 and 2018 Resolution
Issue Identification:
The health of Nova Scotia’s road network is vital, as it supports the safety, economic
development, and continued viability of our communities. Given this importance, the
topic of roads is of concern to many of our municipalities. Rural municipalities have
repeatedly taken issue with funding for their J-class roads. Meanwhile, towns (and
municipalities containing former towns) have repeatedly taken issue with the lack of
funding for arterial and collector roads (trunks and routes) within their boundaries. Towns
cite this lack of funding as the most significant fiscal inequality between towns and rural
municipalities.
Background:
The Province of Nova Scotia and municipalities are both responsible for roads in N.S. As
part of 1994’s Service Exchange Agreement, the Province agreed to assume responsibility
for local roads in rural municipalities. However, as part of the agreement, certain rural
municipalities agreed to pay a per-kilometre annual charge for a pre-determined number
of J-class type roads. The annual per-km charge was initially set at $3,500 to balance out
the deficit in the overall service exchange agreement. This per-kilometre charge was then
to increase annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the previous year.
Since that time, numerous arrangements have been made between the Province and
municipalities to address specific road situations. Some of these arrangements concern J-
class roads, some pertain to responsibilities for arterial and collector roads within urban
areas, drainage plans, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. There is a lack of clarity regarding
these responsibilities, as well as numerous challenges in maintaining roads and road-
related infrastructure. And indeed, the difference in these levels of responsibilities is one
of the most significant points of fiscal inequality between towns and rural municipal ities.
Joint work on this topic was undertaken several years ago under the Municipal-Provincial
Fiscal Review process. While recommendations were made, there was no overall
agreement made to implement those recommendations. Road-related issues vary across
towns, rural municipalities and regional municipalities. Broadly speaking, funding was
identified as an issue in relation to need and public expectations. The current
arrangements are not satisfactory to towns and there is a need to better understand the
issues, the challenges and the opportunities. The Province and municipalities recognize
Page 16
the importance of our transportation network; working together to find solutions is key.
The Partnership Framework committed the Province to work with municipalities to
identify options for an appropriate road network throughout Nova Scotia. At the NSFM
Fall Conference in 2018 it was moved that NSFM work with the Province to develop a new
funding agreement for roads by June 2019. To this end, a joint committee was struck, and
began work last winter. Participants include the Department of Transportation and
Infrastructure (TIR), the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing (DMAH), the
Association of Municipal Administrators Nova Scotia (AMANS), and the Nova Scotia
Federation of Municipalities (NSFM).
This committee work has commenced begin with a review of the current service exchange
agreement as well as the agreements between individual municipalities and TIR. It is
expected that the key outcome of reviewing these agreements will be a proposal for a
new agreement. This new proposed agreement will clarify the ambiguities identified in
the old service exchange agreement during the 2017 resolution process and should lay
out a plan for addressing road issues.
It is intended that the work of the committee will result in a long-term program that will
address municipal issues around roads and transportation. It will a ssess the issues to
determine which should be addressed in the short term and long term, and identify
necessary actions and resources required to address the issues. It will develop
recommendations based on research and consultation with municipalities. It is intended
this committee will be an ongoing forum to discuss t he many issues related to roads and
transportation.
At the NSFM Fall Conference in 2018 it was moved that a new funding agreement for
roads be in place by June 2019. Committee work is ongoing, and discussions about
possible funding increases are taking place. The committee is working toward developing
a proposed new funding agreement with respect to both J-class roads and urban arterials
and collectors. It is expected that recommendations will be prepared based on research
and consultation with TIR, NSFM, and AMANS, and that a final report will be produced in
or around June 2020. At that time the report and recommendations would be presented
to the Deputy Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Transportation &
Infrastructure Renewal, as well as to NSFM and AMANS.
Impact on Municipalities
Rural municipalities hear numerous complaints about provincial roads in their
communities. The interpretation of policies and funding seems inconsistent throughout
the province, and it appears to many that cost sharing is a requirement if a road is to be
Page 17
fixed. Even those who are willing to cost share are frustrated as the amount of provincial
funding available is insufficient to meet the demand.
Roads are a significant cost for towns, and the issue of funding for provincial arterial roads
and collectors is a long-standing one and represents one of the biggest differences
between rural and town municipalities. While Towns receive $50,000 under the
equalization program in recognition of the provincial roads within their boundaries, this
figure has not increased for some time. The province has also been known to lift the
snowplow blade up as the snowplow travels through the town.
Proposed Action:
The joint committee involving NSFM, AMANS, DMAH and TIR has made great progress.
With work toward a new funding agreement well underway, NSFM recommends that staff
and members continue to work on last year’s resolution on roads as detailed below.
2018 Road Funding Resolution:
WHEREAS Towns are responsible for the cost of maintenance and capital
improvements with respect to all roads within their municipal boundaries,
including roads of joint benefit to the Province and towns, such as arterial and
collector roads, for which the Province does not share costs; and
WHEREAS Rural municipalities make financial contributions to the Province for the
maintenance of J-Class roads, and there is insufficient provincial funding to
maintain these roads; and
WHEREAS a strong road network is essential to the Province and its residents for
economic, social, educational, and health reasons, and increased investment in
roads is required;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Province provide equitable funding to Towns and
Municipalities containing former towns for shared arterial and collector roads in
the 2019 Budget or before; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED the Province increase its transportation budget for J-
Class roads in the 2019 Budget or before; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED the Joint Provincial-Municipal Committee on Roads
develop a proposed new funding agreement and plan by the end of June 2019.
Page 18
4. Municipal Funding – 2017 and 2018 Resolution
Issue Identification:
The provincial assistance to municipalities to offset operating costs has been frozen
for several years now, while operating costs continue to increase at rates higher than
the Consumer Price Index. The analysis to date suggests those municipalities who
need financial assistance the most to provide basic services at reasonable costs are
not necessarily the ones receiving assistance. The formulas need to be reviewed and
changed to assist those with low tax bases and high taxpayer burdens. The total
amount provided is also insufficient.
Background:
The 2017 and 2018 resolutions noted that the formula and funding under the former
provincial equalization program had been frozen while a new formula was to be
developed. The Partnership Framework signed in 2018 includes a commitment to work
collaboratively to address the municipal equalization and provincial grant program. NSFM
continues to take every opportunity to raise this issue with the Minister, and Department
of Municipal Affairs and Housing (DMAH) is undertaking its own work to explore the issue.
Since the 2018 resolution, NSFM and the Government of Nova Scotia worked together to
rename the provincial equalization program. It is now officially called the Municipal
Financial Capacity Grant (MFCG). This renaming is a sign that the government has heard
our members’ concerns, and that they are willing to work with us to resolve our issues.
Despite the change of name, government funding to the program has not increased.
NSFM has been vocal in pointing out that renaming the program is not enough, and that
municipalities will face significant challenges if no new monies are allocated to the
operating grant program. We have heard that the funding formula is being reviewed, but
without any new monies added, any changes to the formula would simply move funds
from one municipality to another. Immediate financial relief is needed.
Impact on Municipalities:
Municipalities continue to face increasing cost pressures, many of which are
downloaded to them from the Province. Resolutions dealing with cannabis and
surplus schools have a significant financial element. In the absence of a new
operating grant program, and in the absence of new municipal revenues, the funding
resolution for 2018 should be brought forward to 2019, with the aim of bringing financial
Page 19
relief to municipalities. Three areas were identified: mandatory education, the level
of funding in the equalization program; and the need to help municipalities comply
with provincial accessibility legislation.
The MFCG is an operating grant and is intended to help municipalities provide services at
a more reasonable tax burden. Most of the funding for the program comes from the NSPI
payment in lieu of taxes, not the Province. The portion coming from NSPI increases each
year. It is not clear if provincial funding is being maintained. Ideally, this amount it should
be raised to the level where all taxpayers are paying a reasonable amount for basic
municipal services. At the very least, the amount in the program from the Province should
be increasing by the consumer price index. In the interim NSFM has asked for a $20
million increase to the program over three years, at $6.6 million per year.
The issue of mandatory payments for education, corrections, and housing must be
addressed. In 2017 over $240 million was collected from municipalities through
property tax, about 20 per cent of the property taxes collected. The amount increases
each year as assessments rise, and there is some evidence to show the share of
education costs paid for by property taxes has been increasing over time. For many
municipalities, these mandatory payments are one of the top three budget expenses.
Education is a provincial responsibility and municipalities have no say in how these
payments are spent. While the Province has not changed the formula for determining
mandatory education payments, payments have continued to rise as assessments
rise. Furthermore, when taxpayers default on their property taxes, the municipality
remains responsible for their share of the mandatory education payments, which
means other property taxpayers must pick up the difference - this should be
absorbed by the Province. The resolution requests mandatory education payments be
frozen at 2017 levels for each municipality, and where taxpayers default on their
property taxes, the portion related to mandatory edu cation should be deducted from
the amount assigned to the municipality.
Provincial legislation on accessibility requires municipalities to establish advisory
committees and develop plans to ensure their communities are accessible by 2030.
The legislation covers the built environment and includes information as well as other
areas that may impact municipalities. The new federal infrastructure program does
not appear to include renovation projects for existing facilities to become accessible,
unless they are part of a bigger project. Provincial funding to date has been quite
limited. Costs will not only be incurred with respect to built assets, but could also
involve website changes and changes at public meetings to ensure the information
can be shared with all persons with disabilities. Municipalities want to comply with
Page 20
the legislation, however costs will become an issue. Financial assistance from the
province to support their legislation is needed.
The legalization of cannabis involves the delegation of a considerable number of
responsibilities to municipal governments in Nova Scotia. However, many municipal
governments in Nova Scotia already struggle to make ends meet. The Province should not
expect municipalities to be able to assume these ad ditional responsibilities without better
financial and material resources.
Proposed Action:
Municipalities require new funds. NSFM recommends that staff and members continue to
work on last year’s resolution supporting municipal funding as detailed below.
2018 Municipal Funding Resolution
WHEREAS operational costs continue to rise due to factors beyond municipal
control, and provincial financial support has not kept pace; and
WHEREAS one in five property tax dollars collected by municipalities are
transferred to the Province;
WHEREAS the legalization of cannabis is creating a new revenue source for both
the federal and provincial governments, yet municipalities are incurring a
significant portion of the associated costs
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Province freeze mandatory education
payments for each municipality at 2017 levels; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Province increase its annual funding for the
municipal equalization program by $20 million over three years, beginning in 2019;
and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Province of Nova Scotia cost share 50/50 in all
municipal projects required to comply with the Accessibility Act, if those projects
do not receive other funding, beginning in 2019; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Province provide municipalities with a
substantial share of all the related tax revenues being generated through the sale
of cannabis.
Page 21
5. MUNICIPAL MODERNIZATION – 2018 Resolution
Issue Identification:
As community needs evolve, and technology advances, the opportunities for
municipalities to collaborate and work together could lead to enhancements in the quality
of life of their citizens. Efficiencies may be found and the ability to do more could be
increased. Yet the Municipal Government Act supports competition between and
amongst municipalities. New tools are needed for those municipalities who want to be
more innovative in growing and supporting their communities.
Background:
The Partnership Framework identified the development of a municipal modernization
strategy to support municipal cooperation and regional governance. Conceptually, this
included changes to the MGA/Halifax Charter; regional planning and minimum planning
standards; municipal equalization and provincial grants; and the creation of economic
development tools. While this was not a specific resolution in 2017, the Towns Task Force
and the Fiscal Review both called for assistance in supporting greater collaboration.
The Province has recently passed legislation requiring minimum planning standards and
this is a positive first step in encouraging municipalities to plan together. As well, the
Province passed legislation supporting the consolidation of Windsor and West Hants, and
they allocated $578,000 to modernization efforts in the 2019 Budget. This reflects a
willingness to support the expressed desires of specific municipalities.
This work needs to continue. Municipalities need more help to explore new ways of
working together. Many have identified opportunities and a willingness to work
together, but need assistance in facilitating discussions, analyzing options, and
developing necessary documents to establish new mechanisms. Staff time is often
limited, requiring new positions or backfilling for existing staff. A flexible funding
program that would provide targeted assistance, suited to each circumstance, to those
willing to develop new approaches would be of great assistance. Where efforts are
being made to collaborate, support should also include evaluation of the efforts made
and identification of lessons learned, to be shared with others in the future.
Impact on Municipalities
Many municipalities are struggling financially to meet the needs of their communities.
Staff time is typically fully allocated to maintaining services. Freeing up resources to
Page 22
explore new innovative ways of working with neighbouring municipalities is a
challenge and is often impossible.
Proposed Action
NSFM recommends that staff and members continue to work on last year’s resolution
supporting municipal modernization as a priority resolution , as detailed below.
2018 Municipal Modernization Resolution
WHEREAS municipalities recognize opportunities to accomplish more together and
WHEREAS municipalities are often limited in resources to appropriately pursue
these opportunities; and
WHEREAS there may be numerous barriers that hinder collaboration; and
WHEREAS all municipalities will benefit from lessons learned in collaborative
efforts; and
THEREFORE be it resolved that the Province provide human, material, and
financial resources in the 2019 budget or before, to those municipalities willing to
collaborate, based on the specific needs of those requesting assistance.
Page 23
Statements of Concern for Prioritization - 2019
6. CANNABIS FUNDING
Issue Identification:
The federal government mandated the legalization of cannabis, effective October 2018,
and the Province determined a regime for the legalization of cannabis in Nova Scotia. But
municipalities have been left to implement the legislation and respond to community
concerns without any additional funding.
Background Information:
The Province of Nova Scotia has established a regime where cannabis is sold through the
NSLC, although this may change over time and as edibles become legal. Municipalities
have been left to deal with illegal cannabis retail operations. Consumption of cannabis is
restricted in a few areas, and Municipalities have been provided with the ability to limit
smoking in their communities. Police enforcement will receive some financial support for
training and equipment.
The NSFM Municipal Working group has identified multiple municipal services that could
be impacted by the legalization of cannabis. This will be largely driven by decisions
councils make around further restrictions to the consumption and locations of cannabis -
related facilities. Meeting expectations around enforcement is of concern – councils may
pass bylaws in response to community concerns, but enforcement is both difficult and
costly.
Staff from the FCM have held discussions with the federal government on municipal
concerns regarding the legalization of cannabis. The FCM has communicated that the
federal government clearly recognizes the impacts of marijuana legalization on
municipalities, and that the federal government expects provinces to share in the new
revenues generated.
Meanwhile, the Province is incurring its own costs related to marijuana legalization, and
has indicated they believe, at least in the short run, that new revenues will not exceed
costs. There seems to be a perception that current municipal resources being used to
deal with illegal cannabis will be freed up and reallocated to address cannabis -related
activity. In recent years, some police forces have not been as aggressive in pursuing illegal
Page 24
cannabis activity, but their time is simply being devoted to other, more pressing police
matters – there is no free time.
The Province has indicated it is willing to continue discussions with municipalities on the
implications of cannabis legalization and is asking for concrete numbers around the
impacts. Concrete numbers are not presently available, yet municipalities are now
incurring costs in relation to policing, reviews of bylaws, changes to bylaws, hiring of
enforcement officers, and so forth. Unlike provinces, municipalities are not permitted to
incur deficits, so these costs will need to be recovered either through cuts in other areas
or increases in property taxes.
All of this is being done in the context of other increasing demands on municipalities such
as responding to provincial regulations around accessibility, as well as expectations that
municipalities will support investments in high speed internet, doctor recruitment, surplus
schools – cumulatively the impact is significant.
Impact on Municipalities
The NFSM Municipal Cannabis working group has identified the following areas for
potential impact:
• Administration:
o Time spent by senior municipal departmental staff, city senior leadership
teams, and staff in corporate support departments such as Finance, Legal
and Communications to implement, administer, coordinate and support
all cannabis legalization work. This could include FTE hours for both start-
up and ongoing administration in positions such as policy coordination,
project management, business licensing administration, legal,
communications and IT. These positions could be spread across several
existing departments or centralized in a new department/secretariat
specifically for cannabis legalization. It may also be necessary to track
programs and bylaws that are amended because of cannabis legalization.
Specific tasks may include, without limitation: prosecution lawyers
reviewing the enforceability of by-laws, a legal team providing ongoing
support for enforcement of by-laws, intergovernmental staff to engage
with other orders of government on this complex, multi-layered file, and
development of a communications plan to help citizens understand by-
law changes.
o There are also material costs such as public consultations, advertising
public notices and communications products for specific local rules.
Page 25
• Enforcement: This includes personnel and capital costs required to monitor and
enforce the additional activities associated with cannabis legalization as
predicated on municipal by-laws and services. This includes the costs associated
with additional staffing requirements for bylaw management and enforcement
in the following areas:
o Property use inspection – to investigate cannabis business license
complaints
o Zoning enforcement – to ensure cannabis retail and other cannabis
related establishments are in adherence with local zoning by-laws; and
the need to deal with illegal operations.
o Property standards enforcement – to address issues/complaints related
to potential degradation/danger to property such as smoke dispersion in
multi-residential units or issues related to home cultivation.
o Training – time and capital is required to develop and undertake learning
exercises related to the roles and responsibilities of municipal staff
tasked with administering and enforcing municipal aspects of the
cannabis framework such as business licensing.
o There will also be costs for Community Standards, Public Spaces and
Smoke-Free or Second-Hand Smoke Bylaw enforcement, and a predicted
increase in service demand with new by-laws such as smoke-free by-laws
and municipal rules for vaping lounges, restaurants and cafés (where
applicable) and public consumption.
o Other Enforcement – service changes such as increased transit authority
time spent addressing consumption and odour issues on public transit;
costs associated with training transit workers about the rules around
cannabis consumption (i.e. length of time before transit worker must
abstain from consuming cannabis before arriving for work).
• Planning/Zoning:
o Personnel and capital cost to conduct by-law reviews and updates, as
well as the ongoing management of zoning bylaws. In addition to both in-
house and consultant contracting, this also includes the cost to undertake
required public consultation processes and public education related to
adding new criteria to zoning by-laws, business licensing and building
code permits and inspections.
• Fire Services: Cost increases directly or indirectly incurred by the municipal
department responsible for fire safety, prevention and submission. This includes
the following positions and activities:
Page 26
o Process Changes - amendments to the fire inspection component of
business licensing approval process, protocol for one-time and ongoing
inspections
o Training – for fire department staff regarding revisions to the Fire Code,
and on emerging hazardous home cultivation processes such as for the
extraction of cannabis oils and the use of flammable hydrocarbons
o Public education – Education campaigns informing the public about the
dangers related to oil extraction processes and flammable hydrocarbons;
development and printing of fire safety messaging;
o Fire investigation costs – costs primarily due to overtime pay for fire
safety officers investigating code and safety issues (e.g. hazards in retail
establishments); and to a small extent for manufacturing/processing
establishments / responding to fires associated with legal/illegal home
cultivation.
o There are also public education, communications and citizen services
costs to properly engage with the public and provide preventative public
education campaigns.
o HAZMAT Response - for both licenced and illegal producers
• Human Resources:
o Internal and external staff time committed to ensuring municipal drug
policies are up-to-date/adequately address non-medical cannabis and
that municipal employees are well informed of the new policies. This
could include substance use policy, substance use guidelines, workplace
smoking policies and hosting social event guidelines. There may be
additional FTE time spent engaging and negotiating with municipal staff
unions over the drug policy changes.
o Staff resources and capital costs may also be incurred to ensure there is
capacity in place for testing municipal employees if necessary, new staff
training to address safety related to cannabis in the workplace and
additional adjustments to safety integrate HR policies related to cannabis
edibles when they are regulated federally.
• Possible non-policing costs that have been identified by municipal partners
include:
o Provincial Offenses Act (POA) Court Costs - Moving cannabis regulation
and enforcement from criminal courts to POA courts will add a
considerable workload to municipally funded courts, and this needs to be
further explored for its relevance to Nova Scotia.
o Environmental Health and Safety - Amendments to workplace safety
related policies, air quality testing and complaints related to production
Page 27
and consumption of cannabis (indoor and outdoor), f ood inspection
concerns when edibles get introduced.
o Social Housing – In some jurisdictions where municipalities have
responsibilities over social housing there will be costs associated with
writing provisions in tenancy agreements which prohibit smoking
cannabis in social housing units; additional FTEs to enforce the new
provisions; and an O&M budget to address violations
o Public Health – In some jurisdictions, municipalities address varying areas
of public health not covered by provincial or territorial bu dgets.
Anticipated municipal costs related to public health include public
education initiatives (consumption, health, harm reduction, prevention,
rules for restaurants and festival organizers)
o Additional social workers
o Municipal signage and advertisements
o Developing and undertaking health outcome assessments
o Data collection
o 311 Services – Increased staff time, particularly during implementation,
to handle citizen inquires regarding cannabis legalization. This could also
include time and resources to train 311 staff on the new changes and
which municipal departments address the principle areas of concern.
o Waste Management - The development of municipal policies and
procedures that address the proper disposal of refuse from cannabis
cultivation, concerns around humidity in composting.
o Emergency Services - Increase in calls related to overconsumption of
Cannabis. This may be particularly prevalent when cannabis edibles are
made legal.
• Policing costs
o SFST Training for drug impaired driving
o Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Training
o Facilities to store cannabis seizures
o General training on Bill C-45/46
o Roadside screening equipment and supplies
o Costs to close illegal dispensaries/growth operations
o Youth education and prevention in schools, community engagement
o Increase in forensic laboratory capacity: blood draws, testing equipment,
forensic analysis
o Additional officers/work: drug seizures, RIDE spot checks, drug related
criminal investigation, drug complaints, cannabis specific violations,
Page 28
motor vehicle collisions, cannabis related demands for services, DRE
testing, SFST training.
These cost areas have been identified to assist municipalities in understanding the
possible implications of the legalization of cannabis.
The federal government has provided a new revenue stream to provinces to assist in their
initiatives related to the legalization of cannabis, without requiring them to justify or
document their costs.
With a new revenue stream from an area involving both the province and municipalities,
it is only fair that municipalities receive a share. The federal government decreased their
share of these revenues specifically recognizing the need for provinces to share this
revenue with municipalities. Municipalities already deliver a large component of citizen
services with a disproportionately small share of the tax pie.
Proposed Action:
The legalization of cannabis involves the delegation of a considerable number of
responsibilities to municipal governments in Nova Scotia. However, m any municipal
governments in Nova Scotia already struggle to make ends meet. The Province should not
expect municipalities to be able to assume these additional responsibilities without better
financial and material resources. Municipalities need a new revenue source.
Cannabis Resolution
WHEREAS the Government of Canada decided to legalize cannabis; and
WHEREAS the Government of Nova Scotia decided how cannabis would be dealt
with within the province; and
WHEREAS the legalization of cannabis is creating a new revenue source for both
the federal government and the province, and there are no new revenues accruing
to municipalities
THEREFORE be it resolved that NSFM request the Province to provide a share of
the revenues being generated through the sale of cannabis to municipalities.
Page 29
7. MUNICIPAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Issue Identification:
Municipalities have been granted few revenue sources, and property taxes remain the
primary source to pay for municipal services. As municipal responsibilities have grown,
revenue sources have not. If municipalities are to continue to meet the needs and
expectations of their citizens, the property tax burden will become unbearable for many.
Background Information:
At Confederation the provinces were given the responsibility for municipalities, and
property tax was established as the primary source of taxation. Since that time, the
responsibilities of municipalities have grown, some through downloading, others through
a willingness to better serve their citizens. The ability of property taxes to continue to
remain the primary source of revenue for municipalities needs to be examined.
Already many Nova Scotians are paying more than 5% of their household incomes on
property taxes. Municipalities are being challenged to replace aging infrastructure, build
new infrastructure, respond to increasing regulations, and accept new responsibilities for
traditional provincial services such as doctor recruitment. Revenue potential is decreasing
as the population ages and declines, and as global forces change the economy. Demand
for commercial property could well decline as retail space gives way to online shopping
and as artificial intelligence impacts the need for workers in offices. The exact impact of
these changes on property tax is not known, but chances are it will reduce property tax
revenues while demands for services continue to rise.
Municipalities need to begin work now with the Province to develop a long -term path to
sustainable communities. This means revisiting the relative roles and responsibilities
between the Province and municipalities and revisiting the revenue sources available to
municipalities. The problem is not going to solve itself, and municipalities should not
expect the problem to be solved in the short run.
Impact on Municipalities:
The ability of municipalities to address the infrastructure needs in their communities
varies, most often on town vs. rural lines. Towns provide more services (typically) than
rural municipalities, although there are often pockets within rural municipalities where
services are like those of towns (indeed some encompass former towns). Development
Page 30
patterns are changing the responsibilities of rural municipalities, and this has a distinct
and measurable impact on towns. The lines between urban and rural, or towns and rural
municipalities, is blurring. Boundaries established 150 years ago, when services were
delivered based on how far one could travel in a day by horse and buggy, may no longer
be serving us well.
The need for new infrastructure and for replacement of existing infrastructure is
understood, but the size of the infrastructure gap in Nova Scotia is not. Applications
under new funding programs from the federal and provincial government generally
suggest the demand could be ten times the available funding, recognizing that
applications typically only represent the top priorities. Although the strain of funding
infrastructure is shared by all three levels of government, municipal governments across
Canada spend, on average, a little under 50 per cent of each infrastructure dollar in the
nation. Furthermore, it is municipalities that are most typically the last recourse for
funding: if sewer pipes are failing, and people are leaving communities that lack
community and recreation opportunities, it is the municipality that is expected to solve
the problem—and no one wants to pay more taxes.
An analysis of the municipal financial condition indices provided by the Department of
Municipal Affairs indicates the financial tax burden is higher in towns, and that the ability
to put funds away in capital reserves is a struggle. While work is being d one with the
Province on several of the larger issues (roads, housing, physician recruitment) and a
review of the Province’s operation grant is being undertaken, there needs to be work
done on understanding the future of property taxes and the extent to wh ich this form of
taxation can reasonably be expected to cover local services.
The Service Exchange Agreement has not been reviewed in the 30-plus years since it was
introduced. In the meantime, municipal costs in policing, fire services, solid waste, w ater
and wastewater have been increasing faster than the consumer price index, with
municipalities having little control over those costs. Shared infrastructure is an
opportunity to reduce the cost burden, and while there are many examples where
municipalities are working together, more of these instances need to be encouraged
and/or facilitated. This can be supported though incentives and expertise to facilitate
intermunicipal agreements.
While it is understood the Province also levies high income taxes, and has high demands
on its services, it should be equally understood that local services are just as important. If
local services can’t be paid for through property tax, everyone loses, the Province
included. It is time now to look at what the infrast ructure gap means, what
responsibilities municipalities have, and how we can continue to provide the local services
Page 31
communities expect.
Proposed Action:
The problem of what should, and what should not, properly be understood as a municipal
responsibility is large and complex and will take time to understand. Before a review of
municipal responsibilities is undertaken, the ability of property taxes to pay for the status
quo into the future needs to be understood. Once the capacity of property taxes is better
defined, the gap can be identified. To begin the work, a resolution is proposed to request
funding to commission research on the future trend for property taxes, and what can be
expected to the average homeowner’s tax bill in future years given th e current set of
municipal responsibilities.
Municipal Responsibilities Resolution
WHEREAS municipalities are expected to provide a package of services to
residents; and
WHEREAS the cost of these services has often grown at a rate outpacing increases
to the cost of living, as measured by the consumer price index; and
WHEREAS municipalities rely primarily on property tax to fund the provision of
these services; and
WHEREAS continually rising service costs result in an increasing tax burden on
homeowners; and
WHEREAS a large percentage of property taxes collected at the local government
level are transferred to the Province;
THEREFORE be it resolved that NSFM request funding from the provincial
government to commission research on future trends for property taxes, the
impact of these trends for average Nova Scotian homeowners, and to explore
possible alternative revenue sources for municipalities.
Page 32
8. POLICING COSTS
Issue Identification:
The rising cost of policing is one of the greatest concerns faced by Nova Scotian
municipalities. In 2005, Nova Scotian municipalities spent $1.31 billion on policing. By
2015, this total had increased to $2.16 billion. This equates to a 64.8 per cent increase,
which exceeds the 19.5 per cent increase in the overall cost of living during the same
period measured by the consumer price index (CPI), as well as the 18 per cent growth in
GDP in Nova Scotia over the same years.3
Background Information:
Nova Scotian municipalities provide policing services under three models: municipal police
forces; RCMP service through a direct contract; or RCMP through the provincial RCMP
contract. NSFM currently shares municipal concerns about policing services with the Nova
Scotia Department of Justice (NS DOJ) through two committees. One is a committee that
discusses municipal experiences under the RCMP contract. The other is advisory
committee to the department on general policing matters.
Impact on Municipalities
Policing is an essential service necessary in providing safety and security to citizens. The
rising cost of policing services, however, constitutes a tremendous pressure on municipal
elected officials, who often feel powerless to counteract these cost increases. This is
because wages make up the bulk of policing costs, and wages are typically set by
arbitrators. When arbitrators decide on wages, they usually duplicate police wage deals
from other communities, with little or no consideration for the fiscal situation of the
3 These data are collected from Statistics Canada and the 2005 and 2015 Annual Report s of
Municipal Statistics published by Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations (2005) and
the Nova Scotia Department of Municipal Affairs (2015).
2005 2015 % Change
Policing Costs - Towns 24,384,285$ 37,460,629$ 53.63%
Policing Costs - Rurals 25,505,833$ 40,491,931$ 58.76%
Policing Costs - Regionals 81,727,890$ 138,932,779$ 69.99%
Policing Costs - Total 131,618,008$ 216,932,779$ 64.82%
CPI - Canada, All-items (2002 = 100)107 126.6 18.32%
CPI - Nova Scotia, All-items (2002 = 100)108.2 129.3 19.50%
Page 33
community in question. As a result, many municipalities see continually rising policing
costs as proof that the arbitration process is broken.
Proposed Action:
Not only does the arbitration process need to work, but it also needs to be seen to work.
Change must be collaborative, and workers and employers must both work towards their
goals in good faith. Arbitration should respect the interests of both employers and
employees; help to provide value to citizens receiving police services; and be seen to do
both these things. To these ends a few possible solutions might be explored:
• Arbitrators should be required to consider a community’s ability to pay as well as
agreements negotiated with other local municipal employee unions when ruling
on raises for police workers, as well as all other unionized workers in the broader
public sector, including fire, public works, and other unions. Furthermore, the
specific ability to pay to be considered must be that of the tax burden for
residential ratepayers, and not the theoretic ability of a municipality to
continuously increase residential tax rates.
• Municipalities and the Province could consider a centralized arbitration service
that is openly made available to employers but voluntary in terms of
participation. When individual units negotiate separately with individual police
unions, leapfrogging occurs, with one employer being picked off for a concession
or increase that will then be replicated. At arbitration, these become the
comparators and the spiral continues.
• Police services could be carefully examined to identify opportunities for
alternative resources, including civilians, technology and outsourcing. The focus
should be on program outcomes and budgets, and not on arbitrary limits on the
size of the police force. There should be no ideological or other bias towards or
away from civilian delivery of services. We need the flexibility to use civilians for
some duties that don’t require a uniformed and armed officer.
• Advocacy work could be done at the provincial and federal levels for sharing
those costs that are related directly to responsibilities downloaded by them,
such as cannabis, mental health, policing of international waters and national
security.
At this time, a resolution around arbitration is suggested. Asking arbitrators to consider a
community’s capacity to pay is a specific and attainable request that will help to mitigate
Page 34
the sharp increases in policing costs experienced by Nova Scotian Municipaliti es. This
solution is also likely to go a long way towards restoring municipal faith in the arbitration
process
Adding an ability-to-pay consideration to arbitration is not likely to be a long-term
solution for policing costs. Such temporary wage controls will be effective in meeting
short-term fiscal targets, but longer-term action will require co-operative approaches that
can drive institutional and system-level change. To this end NSFM continues to work
collaboratively with the NS DOJ and the Nova Scotia Association of Police Governance
boards to identify opportunities for service delivery opportunities and cost c ontainment
on the Joint Police Services and Community Safety Advisory Committee. Further solutions
may emerge from this committee work, and at that time, additional resolutions would be
appropriate.
POLICING RESOLUTION
WHEREAS policing is an essential service; and
WHEREAS municipal governments pay the bulk of policing costs in Nova Scotia;
and
WHEREAS the cost of policing services continues to rise at a rate exceeding CPI
and GDP growth; and
WHEREAS these changes have constituted a great increase in the tax burden of
residential property owners; and
THEREFORE be it resolved that NSFM advocate for the inclusion of ability-to-pay
considerations in arbitrations for all employees in municipal services, including,
without limitation, police services, fire services, and public works, and that the
ability-to-pay be based on a consideration of the average homeowner’s tax
burden; and
THEREFORE be it resolved that the Department of Justice ensure the joint
provincial-municipal advisory committees currently established lead to positive
initiatives and changes that will make our police forces more effective and
sustainable.
Page 35
9. SURPLUS SCHOOLS
Issue Identification:
The cost of demolishing schools declared surplus has become a significant burden for
several municipalities. In a few cases, the burden is simply unmanageable.
Background Information:
Prior to 1982, municipalities were responsible for school board operations and were
therefore responsible for the construction and maintenance of schools. When the
responsibility for school boards was transferred to the Province, legislation granted schoo l
boards control of the school assets. Schools built after 1982 are provincial assets.
There exist some 400 schools throughout Nova Scotia, and about half are owned by
municipalities. The Province’s position has been that when these schools are declared
surplus, they revert to the municipality. In the former school boards in Halifax, South
Shore and Tri-County, more than half of the schools are municipal. In Annapolis Valley
and Chignecto-Central, less than a third are municipally owned. The implications of
surplus schools are not equal throughout Nova Scotia.
Section 93 (1) of the Education Act states that where land and buildings (previously
owned by a municipality and that have been vested in a school board) are declared
surplus, the municipality shall have the option of having the surplus land and buildings re-
conveyed to it.
In several cases, municipalities have willingly agreed to resume responsibility and have
been able to transform the schools for other purposes. In other cases, the locatio n of the
school, the state of disrepair, and the financial circumstances of the municipality hinders
the opportunity to make use of these facilities and the only course of action is to demolish
the school. Vacant schools are a liability to municipalities and there are concerns about
public safety should they remain vacant.
The Department of Education has expressed a view that where municipalities have owned
surplus school properties before it vested them in the school board, the municipality must
re-acquire (and, in turn, assume responsibility for) the property following the school’s
closure. By contrast, NSFM and our members think that a municipality should simply hold
an option in this regard, which it is free to exercise or not, and that a municipality cannot
be required to assume responsibility for a surplus school property. NSFM has obtained a
legal opinion on this matter that supports our interpretation instead of the position
Page 36
advanced by the Department of Education.
NSFM holds that the Province needs to abide by the Education Act and offer
municipalities the right to refuse to assume a surplus school, with enough time provided
to allow municipalities to conduct a thorough analysis of the options. For those
municipalities that are not interested in taking ownership of the surplus school, the
province should be responsible for demolishing it and for ensuring the site is
environmentally safe.
Municipalities did not have control over these sites, so they should not be responsible for
the environmental remediation of these sites. As well, given the municipalities did not
have control over the maintenance of the school, the Province should provide
compensation to the municipality to make the school usable for other purposes.
Impact on Municipalities
For those who face a school closure, the cost implications can be significant. Many of
these schools have not been maintained to a level that renders them usable for other
purposes, and may have mold, mercury switches, or other hazardous features. Building
codes were not always followed, and schools being handed over often lack any plans or
drawings, or any information about services or utilities. Some locations have
environmental issues due to buses being parked, serviced, and maintained on the lands,
and some contain asbestos products and lead paint.
Examples of recent estimates to demolish a surplus school are as follows:
• CBRM: 7 surplus schools since 2015, with costs to demolish ranging from
$40,000 – $250,000 and a total cost for the 7 schools of $1.3 million.
• Town of Pictou: estimated cost $500,000 for one school.
• Annapolis County - $700,000 -$1 million estimate for one school
• District of Lunenburg – current cost to date for three schools is $497,775.88 and
counting, with $2.5 to $3.0 million in additional expenses expected for two large
schools yet to be demolished.
• Mulgrave $350,000 – $500,000 for one school.
• Municipality of Pictou – over $500,000 for one school.
In some cases, the value of the land is such that it can be sold to other interests, and
revenues may offset the cost of demolition. In other cases, the municipality can find
funding and/or partners who are willing to share in the investment required to repurpose
the property. Since these lands and facilities were built with taxpayers’ monies, the
Page 37
municipality should be able to decide the best future for these lands.
In those cases where the municipality refuses the offer for the surplus school, the facility
should be demolished by the Province and the land returned to the municipality. The
decision to not maintain or close the school was not the decision of the municipality.
It should also be noted property taxpayers contribute over $250 million annually to the
Province for education. This amount is collected by municipal governments and
transferred to the Province. It is estimated these payments represent close to 20% of the
Province’s education costs. It is unfair to ask property owners for more.
Proposed Action:
At this time, a resolution requesting that the Province recognize the municipal right to
exercise an option is suggested, with an additional request being suggested that
compensation from the Province be provided to municipalities for environmental
remediation of surplus school sites.
Surplus School Resolution
WHEREAS the Education Act says municipalities have the option to assume a
surplus school, and municipalities are being told they have no choice but to
assume responsibility for it; and
WHEREAS municipalities have had no control over the school lands and buildings
and may be faced with significant costs to address environmental concerns and to
demolish the buildings; and
WHEREAS many of the schools have not been maintained nor do they meet
building codes,
WHEREAS NSFM has obtained a legal opinion stating that municipalities should
have the choice – but not the obligation – to acquire surplus schools,
THEREFORE be it resolved that the Department of Education provide all
municipalities the option to not to have schools conveyed to the municipality; and
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the Province pay for any environmental clean-up
and to cost share in any renovations required to make school buildings usable for
other purposes.
Page 38
10. SUSTAINABILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING SUPPORT
Issue Identification
Numerous funding resources exist for municipalities to make their operations more
efficient, strengthen their infrastructure planning initiatives and increase their resiliency
to our changing climate. However, despite the availability of programs, a significant
number of Nova Scotia’s municipalities lack the capacity and/or time to access them.
As a provincial association, NSFM is well positioned to support municipalities in accessing
available funding to foster the adoption of innovative and strategic approaches to
managing their operations and infrastructure. NSFM could play a key role in identifying
appropriate projects and sources of funding, and opportunities to partner with other
municipalities on initiatives that are mutually beneficial.
Background Information
Over the next 10 years, Nova Scotia will receive $828 million in federal infrastructure
funding through the Investing in Canada Plan. This program will offer funding for green
infrastructure, public transit infrastructure and community, culture and recreation
infrastructure. To access the funding, municipalities will have the added requirement of
applying a “climate lens” to applications for major infrastructure projects, where they will
need to undertake an assessment of how projects will reduce carbon pollution and better
withstand the impacts of climate change.
In addition to the Investing in Canada Plan opportunities, the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities (FCM) has funding to support sustainability, infrastructure and climate
change initiatives. Its main funding program is the Green Municipal Fund, which supports
projects that improve air, water, soil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Although these programs are available to communities across the country, Nova Scotia’s
municipalities are often under represented as funding recipie nts. To position our
municipalities to take advantage of these opportunities, NSFM could support
municipalities (which may otherwise not have to the in-house capacity) in securing
funding for sustainable infrastructure planning, green innovation and clima te change
initiatives.
NSFM could create an in-house position, which would be funded from the Province and
NSFM membership dues. NSFM would focus on helping municipalities identify and access
funding to support initiatives designed to mitigate current an d future climate risks as well
as those that lead to the adoption of new and sustainable approaches to infrastructure
planning.
Page 39
Through the development of resources, training opportunities and knowledge sharing
events, NSFM could help streamline the application process for municipalities and
position them to be successful applicants. Recognizing that local leaders know what is
best for their communities, NSFM could work with municipalities to identify innovative
solutions to make their communities more sustainable that also fit within the program
requirements. To make the most of available resources, NSFM would also look for
opportunities for municipalities to partner in circumstances where they would b enefit
from regional or collaborative applications. This would not only ensure that funding
programs are as impactful as possible, but also make limited resources go farther.
Impact on Municipalities
NSFM could play a facilitating role in helping municipalities secure funding that they
otherwise would not have the capacity to access. This support would help municipalities
make the most of programs that mitigate current and future climate risks and enhance
infrastructure planning and service delivery.
Proposed Action
To provide this support to municipalities, the suggested approach is to secure $125,000 to
cover the cost of creating a Sustainability & Infrastructure Funding Support position within
NSFM (funding for the position would cover salary, benefits, resource development,
coordination of events, travel, etc.). Because this position would provide value to both
municipalities and the Province, in terms of meeting shared goals relating to
environmental and infrastructure sustainability, NSFM would seek half of the funding
from the Province of Nova Scotia and the remaining half through membership dues. It
should be noted that there has been some support for this plan expressed in the
legislature.
The main services that could be provided through this position include:
• Coordinating knowledge sharing and educational opportunities about existing
funding programs and resources
• Assisting municipalities in preparing to apply for eligible funding programs
• Supporting municipalities in seeking innovative project ideas and applications to
facilitate strategic infrastructure and sustainability planning
• Facilitating networking opportunities to share best practices and successes
among municipalities
• Facilitating collaboration among municipalities where it creates economies of
scale and shared benefits to develop regional/collaborative applications
Page 40
• Liaising with Infrastructure Canada, the Province of Nova Scotia, FCM and other
organizations to remain current on existing resources and opportunities
Upon securing support for this work, NSFM would seek input from municipalities and the
Province of Nova Scotia to identify and agree upon the key services that would be most
beneficial to access funding resources. NSFM would seek to establish this position as an
ongoing initiative; however, the work could be reviewed in 3 years to ensure it continues
to provide maximum value to both municipalities and the Province.
Sustainability & Infrastructure Funding Support Resolution
WHEREAS the Province of Nova Scotia and NSFM recognize common goals relating
to municipal sustainability to make municipal operations more efficient and
increase climate resilience; and
WHEREAS the Province of Nova Scotia and NSFM are supportive of wise
investments in infrastructure to support sustainable service delivery at the right
level and cost to tax payers; and
WHEREAS the Province of Nova Scotia and NSFM recognize the importance of
regional cooperation since the impacts of climate change do not recognize
boundaries and enhanced collaboration will support municipalities in making their
communities healthier, safer and more prosperous; and
WHEREAS municipalities have direct or indirect influence of close to 50 percent of
the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and are responsible for more than half of
Canada’s public infrastructure; and
WHEREAS NSFM recognizes that some municipalities lack the resources to access
existing funding opportunities that would allow them to develop innovative and
strategic initiatives to make their operations and infrastructure more sustainable;
and
WHEREAS NSFM is uniquely positioned to support municipalities in making the
most of existing funding opportunities and resources;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NSFM write the Province requesting $62,300
to cost share the funding for a Sustainability & Infrastructure Funding Support
position within NSFM; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NSFM increase its membership dues to cover
the remaining $62,500 to support a Sustainability & Infrastructure Funding
Support position.
Page 41
Issues to be Monitored
11. CLIMATE CHANGE
Current Progress:
Over the last year, our municipalities have expressed increasing concerns about climate
change and their need for support in preparing for its impacts, both through mitigation
and adaptation efforts. Given recent studies and media attention to the climate change
issues, many of our members are struggling with how best to address this complex issue.
Although all municipalities completed Municipal Climate Change Action Plans in 2013, our
members feel they lack capacity and resources to use them in a meani ngful way to
address this complex issue. We would also note that since the plans were completed,
municipalities have had two elections resulting in significant change in their councils so
that many of our elected officials are unaware of the plans and the processes used in
developing them. For these reasons, the plans remain underutilized.
In addition to all this, there are many processes in place or soon to be in place that would
benefit and/or require municipalities to apply a climate change lens. These include the
requirement for municipalities to undertake an assessment of how projects will reduce
carbon pollution and better withstand the impacts of climate change under the Investing
in Canada Infrastructure Program, the development of provincial minimum planning
standards, and the proposed legislation for coastal projection to help ensure that new
construction happens in locations that are less likely to be impacted by rising sea levels,
storm surges and coastal erosion.
Municipalities are struggling on a number of levels:
• understanding the needs and opportunities to address climate change impacts;
• capacity to integrate climate considerations into asset management planning;
• capacity to apply for funding;
• expertise to oversee implementation of plans and processes; and
• lack of experience and capacity to develop joint initiatives with neighbouring
municipalities.
In our experience, it is important to bring our members together to help them understand
the issues and opportunities around sustainable infrastructure planning, green innovation
and energy reduction initiatives; to share information on successful initiatives; to develop
Page 42
toolkits and resources; to provide information and assistance to access funding programs;
and to facilitate regional approaches. NSFM is positioned and has in -house expertise to
provide this type of support. However, with our staff time n ow allocated to other
initiatives and priorities, we do not have the capacity to address these needs.
As an organization, we feel that providing municipalities with the ability to tackle climate
change will not only help them save operating costs and make their infrastructure more
resilient but will have many cascading benefits. Through their efforts, municipalities will
make their communities more prosperous, livable, healthier and safer. As well, because
climate change impacts do not recognize boundaries, developing adaptation and
mitigation initiatives will encourage and enhance regional cooperation.
Consideration for 2019 Resolutions:
We believe the Province and NSFM have common goals relating to sustainability to help
municipalities make their operations more efficient and increase climate resilience, and
we both see the importance and value of investing wisely in infrastructure to support
sustainable service delivery at the right level and cost to tax payers.
NSFM recommends continuing to monitor the situation for any opportunities to discuss
how we might enhance the work we do on the administration of the GTF fund to not only
create reporting efficiencies, but allow us to meet common goals relating to climate
change and long-term infrastructure planning, and municipal ability to access funding.
We believe this discussion and our continued collaboration will not only help us meet
shared goals but will enhance the effectiveness of our ability to support municipalities.
12. ACCESSIBILITY
Current Progress:
Accessibility is one of the most significant issues facing municipalities. In the 2019 budget
the Province allotted $1M for accessibility related issues, and in our press release that
followed, we noted that municipalities are looking for a substantially g reater amount of
financial assistance to help us become compliant with the Provincial accessibility
legislation. Municipalities are being asked to ensure their communities are accessible by
2030. The legislation covers the built environment and includes information as well as
other areas that may impact municipalities.
Page 43
Federal infrastructure program funding does not appear to include renovation projects for
existing facilities to become accessible, unless they are part of a bigger project. Provincial
funding to date has been quite limited. Costs will not only be incurred with respect to
built assets but they could also involve website changes and changes at public meetings to
ensure the information can be shared with all persons with disabilities. Municipalities
want to comply with the legislation, but costs will become an issue.
Consideration for 2019 Resolutions:
Financial assistance from the Province to support their legislation is needed, but it is
unclear how much assistance will be required until more details emerge. Beyond including
a request in our funding resolution, NSFM recommends continuing to monitor the
situation until enough information for a specific call to action becomes available.
13. DOCTOR RECRUITMENT – 2017 RESOLUTION
Current Progress:
NSFM has continued to be involved in the NSHA Physician Recruitment and Retention
Advisory Committee. As a part of this committee work, NSFM has participated in a
process-mapping subcommittee with representatives from NSHA, the Department of
Health and Wellness, Doctors Nova Scotia, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and
Dalhousie Medical School. This work has identified three opportunities for municipal
involvement in the recruitment and retention process.
The first area of involvement is site visits. Between April and December of 2018 NSHA
recruiters took potential doctors on 108 site visits. NSHA recruiters tell us that these visits
benefit greatly from the presence of charismatic municipal elected officials, but that, for
many of the site visits, no municipal representation was present. NSHA would like to
partner with NSFM to make sure that recruiters can partner with elected officials in
making site visits more successful.
The second area of involvement is to provide information after new physicians settle in a
community. The NSHA has told us that municipalities can provide important support to
newly settled doctors by identifying a help line to call when things go wrong. This is
especially true of physicians who are relocating to Nova Scotia from other provinces or
countries, who may have no experience with frozen pipes, applying for business licenses,
or where to access recreation services. In many cases CSRs may already be trained to
Page 44
answer these questions.
The third area of involvement is marketing and advertising. Each of the parties at the
Recruitment and Retention Advisory Committee have encouraged municipalities to do
more to market themselves to potential doctors. The Queen’s Health Foundation in
Liverpool is a good example of successful marketing in this vein .
Physician recruitment became a priority resolution in 2017. Although it was not, strictly
speaking, within the municipal mandate, the issue was and remains a critical concern for
many Nova Scotians. Since the time of the 2017 resolution the Province has undertaken
multiple steps to support greater success in recruitment. Some of these steps include an
extra $200,000 in funding for physician recruitment in the 2019 budget, and an annual
increase of approximately $4.8 million by the 2023-24 academic year to ensure that 16
additional seats are provided for Nova Scotians at the Dalhousie Medical School.
Consideration for 2019 Resolutions:
Despite the efforts described above, the problem is not yet solved, and while it is possible
that a more specific request could be put forward, staff are not clear on what that request
should be. At this point it is recommended that NSFM continue to work with the Nova
Scotia Health Authority and monitor the progress on the issue.
14. INTERNET AND CONNECTIVITY
Current Progress:
The Partnership Framework commits the Province to working with municipalities to
having all communities able to access high-speed internet connections to support
economic development, education and health outcomes. The Province has announced
$193 million in funding for internet expansion and has assigned provincial responsibility to
Develop Nova Scotia. The roll out of this provincial approach is underway, and the federal
government has committed $1.7 billion to internet funding in the 2019 budget.
Despite these generous commitments, best estimates suggest that providing adequate
levels of broadband and cell phone service to Nova Scotia’s communities will cost far
more than the funding provided, and we know that municipal governments won’t be able
to make up the difference. Yet without improvements to broadband and cellular
connectivity it will be difficult for our communities to attract and retain residents and
Page 45
businesses.
Money has not started to flow yet from either the fund administered by Devel op Nova
Scotia or the federal government. To help municipalities better prepare to leverage any
available funds to the greatest advantage, NSFM offered a workshop on internet and
connectivity to members on October 11th, 2018, in Truro. Many organizations attended
the workshop, including Develop Nova Scotia, who presented information on their
anticipated program roll-out. There were also several presentations from
telecommunications companies and municipalities.
Consideration for 2019 Resolutions:
At this point it is recommended that NSFM continue to monitor the situation.
15. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Current Progress:
NSFM issued a statement of municipal concern on affordable housing in 2017. The
statement included two separate plans of action: one federal, and one provincial. The
NSFM statement of concern was timely. On the federal front, many long-established
federal housing programs were set to expire. The FCM had also been busy undertaking a
significant amount of advocacy work to ensure that these programs, or some equivalent,
would be renewed.
Shortly after the NSFM statement of concern was issued, the Government of Canada
introduced a 10-year, $40-billion National Housing Strategy (NHS). While this figure may
appear generous, the new federal strategy does not specifically address the concerns of
NSFM requesting that federal housing programs allow joint applications from
municipalities with the Province of Nova Scotia, or that they provide an alternative way of
ensuring Nova Scotians receive a fair share of the federal funding for housing.
NSFM is currently in the process of addressing the provincial element of the 2017
statement of concern. In 2017, NSFM recommended that a joint provincial/municipal
working group be established to review the current housing strategy, to clarify the role
and tools available to municipalities to address housing issues including a review of the
legislative changes proposed, to develop guides for municipalities on the tools available to
them to address these issues, and to review the current Statement of Provin cial Interest
Page 46
with respect to housing.
In response to this recommendation, the Province has established a joint committee to
address these issues. NSFM and AMANS staff and members are participating in this
committee along with staff from CMHC, DMAH, and the NS Department of Seniors. It is
intended that the work of this committee will be submitted to the Ministers Roundtable
under the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the NSFM Partnership
Framework.
Consideration for 2019 Resolutions:
At this point NSFM recommends continued participation in the joint provincial/municipal
housing committee.
16. CODE OF CONDUCT
Current Progress:
2017 amendments to the Municipal Government Act now require councils to adopt a code
of conduct to guide behaviour. A model template for a Code of Conduct was prepared by
UNSM over a decade ago and earlier this year was updated to reflect the 2017 MGA
amendments. The revised draft of the updated Code of Conduct template is currently
under review by key stakeholders.
Questions have been raised about the value of a code if there are no consequences for
those who act inappropriately. The issue was identified in consultations around the
review of the Municipal Government Act and at NSFM meetings, including ones around
the need for transparency with expenses and hospitality for elected officials. Changes to
the Municipal Government Act would be required to increase options for sanctions.
Processes to deal with complaints vary across municipalities and are often in response to
a complaint - not described in policy.
Proposed Action:
NSFM recommends continuing to monitor the situation for responses from key
stakeholders, and for any further conduct-related input from members.
Page 47
17. IMMIGRATION
Current Progress:
Improving immigration could help to solve Nova Scotia’s demographic woes and bolster
local economies. Forecasts show the numbers of senior citizens will continue to increase
in Nova Scotia, while many young Nova Scotians continue to move away to pursue
economic opportunities. Accordingly, the dependency ratio—the number of children and
seniors per 100 persons in the workforce—is going up, leaving a higher burden on working
taxpayers.
Statistics show negative population growth for most NS municipalities over the past 20
years, and projections for the future show the same. Immigration can be an ‘interrupter,’
and help restore balance to the dependency ratio. Nova Scotia attracts few international
immigrants compared to the rest of Canada and has a lower immigrant retention rate
than many other provinces. International immigrants coming to Nova Scotia primarily
settle in urban centres such as Halifax, and rural Nova Scotian communities are left
especially disadvantaged by these changes.
Proposed action:
No resolution is recommended at this time. It is recommended that NSFM continue to
investigate the issue of immigrant attraction and retention, especially as these subjects
pertain to rural municipalities and towns. Consultations will be made with Immigration
Nova Scotia, the Immigrant Settlement Association of Nova Scotia (ISANS), the Regional
Enterprise Networks and municipalities throughout the province. It is hoped that themes
will emerge from these meetings, that partnerships will be built, leading to a concrete
action plan for the attraction, settlement, integration, and retention of immigrants.
18. LIBRARIES
Current Progress:
Libraries are an essential part of the community and contribute to social and economic
growth. Funding for libraries comes from municipal taxes, library boards and pr ovincial
grants. Provincial funding for libraries has been frozen for years yet demands for library
services are increasing. More funding is necessary.
During last fall’s resolutions meetings, we explained that The Library Boards Association of
Page 48
Nova Scotia (LBANS) had been meeting over the summer of 2018 with the Province to
address the funding issue, and that they had been developing solutions for the Province to
consider. At that time, we recommendeded that this work continue and that NSFM
monitor the situation.
In late January and early February of 2019 NSFM began to hear concerns about a new
library funding model being proposed by the Department of Communities, Culture, and
Heritage. Some municipal units reported that they would be required to increase library
funding by as much as 41%. At that time the NSFM Board requested that a letter be sent
to the Minister of CCH to express procedural concern regarding the funding review , and
later met with the Deputy Minister to discuss these concerns, and to ask that NSFM and
AMANS be directly involved in any discussions about library funding going forward.
Proposed action:
No resolution is recommended at this time. It is recommended that NSFM continue to
monitor the issue of library funding.
NSFM Board of Directors: Roles
and Responsibilities
1. Introduction
The following document was prepared to assist NSFM members who may be interested
in joining the Board of Directors.
It includes information on:
• Who we are and what we do
• The various board positions
• Term Limits
• Benefits
• Time Commitments
• Expenses and Remuneration
• Roles of the board, individual board members, president, vice -president,
past-president and caucus chairs
• Recommended skills and competencies for board members.
2. Who We Are and What We Do
Founded in 1906, the Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities (NSFM) is a not-for-profit
organization mandated to represent the interests of municipal governments across Nova
Scotia. Total membership is 379 elected officials representing all 50 municipalities.
To accomplish this mandate, the NSFM gathers information from all municipalities,
lobbies the provincial government on issues which impact all or a number of
municipalities, and works to promote and strengthen best practices in local government.
Municipal interests are typically developed through three caucuses (regional, rural and
town) and five regions. For more information on NSFM, visit www.nsfm.ca.
3. Board of Director Positions
Board Position Length of Term Renewable
President One-Year No
Vice President One-Year No
Immediate Past President One-Year No
Regional Caucus Chair One-Year Yes - Eligible to be re-elected
for a further one-year term
Rural Caucus Chair One-Year Yes - Eligible to be re-elected
for a further one-year term
Towns Caucus Chair One-Year Yes - Eligible to be re-elected
for a further one-year term
Regional Caucus
Representative (2 positions)
Two-Years Yes - Eligible to be re-elected
for a further two-year term
Rural Caucus Representative (2
positions)
Two-Years Yes - Eligible to be re-elected
for a further two-year term
Towns Caucus Representative
(2 positions)
Two-Years Yes - Eligible to be re-elected
for a further two-year term
AMANS Representative Two-Year No
4. Term Limits
• No Board Member shall serve more than seven (7) consecutive years.
• A Board Member that serves seven (7) consecutive years on the board
must wait one year before reapplying to the board.
• Exceptions to these seven-year terms include if a new member does not
come forward to replace a Board member who has reached the term
limits or a board member becomes Vice President in their sixth or seventh
consecutive year on the board
5. Benefits of Being a NSFM Board Member:
• Influence provincial legislation, regulation and policy that benefits
municipalities
• Interact with provincial ministers, deputy ministers and other key
municipal stakeholders
• Participate in the creation of important training and development
programs for municipal elected officials
• Develop new skills while further enhancing existing skills and using those
skills to help others
• Meet new people and expand personal and professional networks.
6. Time Commitments of Board Members:
• Typically 10 -11 board meeting per year (none in July). Meetings normally
held on Fridays in Halifax from 8:30am-2:00pm. The exception would be
meetings held prior to Fall Conference and Spring Workshop, and the
August meeting which is held in the area of the current President.
• Attendance at Annual Fall Conference (3 days) and Spring Workshop (2
days).
• Participation in Advocacy Days, which may be a week of meetings and/or
MLA Breakfast usually held in Halifax during the Spring sitting of the
legislature.
• Regional and Caucus meetings (at least four in total per year)
• Executive members (President, Vice President, Past President and three
Caucus Chairs) meet at least twice per year with provincial ministers at
Round Table meetings
• Other face-to-face and teleconference meetings as required.
7. Board Expenses and Remuneration:
All travel expenses are paid by NSFM when conducting NSFM business with the
exception of the Annual Fall Conference and Spring Workshop.
The President receives an honorarium of $6,000 per year in recognition of the significant
time commitment required to fulfill the responsibilities of the position. Board members
do not receive any remuneration.
8. Role of the Board of Directors:
• Ensure the goals and mandate of the organization are followed and
supported
• Understand what members expect of the organization
• Set the policies and strategic directions of the organization to accomplish
members' expectations, including recommendation of resolutions to bring
forward to the membership
• Represent municipal interests in discussions with federal and provincial
governments, sometimes in a confidential manner
• Approve business plans and budgets, recommend membership dues
formula
• Oversee risk and the organization's approach to risk management
• Authorize the budget and major financial decisions relating to the Board's
policy and direction guidelines
• Perform legal requirements of the Board including fiduciary
responsibilities
• Review and bring forward issues of major strategic importance to the
organization
• Ensure competent leadership through managing the Executive Director's
performance and compensation and planning for succession
• Respond to the recommendations and proposals put forward by those
who report to the Board
• Evaluate the Board's own performance
• Be positive advocates for the organization and speak with a unified voice
once decisions have been made.
9. Role of Individual Board Members:
• Represent municipal interests in general, to the betterment of all
municipalities, based on discussions with NSFM members
• Be prepared for board meetings and participate in active and thoughtful
discussion
• Respect confidentiality as required
• Participate in Board and membership meetings, events, teleconferences
• Provide feedback on proposed policies, positions, and questions.
10. Role of Caucus Chairs:
• Work in partnership with the NSFM Board to ensure caucus issues and
concerns are communicated to the Province.
• Participate in Minister Roundtable meetings
• Foster communication among the caucuses to enhance the delivery of
municipal services
• Work with NSFM staff to coordinate caucus meetings including agenda
preparation
• Chair all caucus meetings
• Serve as member of the Spring Workshop Planning Committee
• Serve as a member of NSFM Executive
• Serve as a member of the Resolutions Committee.
11. Role of the President:
• Chair all meetings of the Board of Directors, Executive Committee, and
special meetings
• Vote at any such meeting
• Serve as an ex officio member of all NSFM committees
• Function as the intermediary or "bridge" between the Board, Executive
Director and Executive Committee
• Build the relationship with the provincial and federal governments
• Participate in Minister Roundtable meetings
• Serve as an FCM Board member and work with the presidents of other
municipal associations (FCM has 3 Board meetings requiring 3-4 days
each, as well as the annual conference)
• Participate in FCM committees, including the Atlantic caucus
• Participate in the Atlantic Mayors Congress, typically two meetings per
year
• Spokesperson for the Board, communicates Board positions to media,
third parties
• Develop the Board so that individual directors actively participate, feel
engaged, and special projects or suggestions proposed by a director are
considered
• Train and mentor leaders in the organization; identify members as future
directors, committee chairs, and other key volunteer roles
• Where committees established by the Board exist, ensure the committee
understands their accountability to the Board and reports on a periodic
basis
• Mediate any conflicts among directors, or between a director and
Executive Director.
• Ensure the Executive Director follows through on policy matters as
established by the Board
• Serve as a member of the Resolutions Committee
• Other duties as required.
12. Role of Vice President:
• Exercise the authority of the President in the absence or incapacity of the
President
• Serve as a member of the Table Officers and Executive Committee
• Participate in Minister Roundtable meetings
• Serve as a member of the Resolutions Committee
• Serve as Chair of the Fall Conference Planning Committee
• Perform other duties as required.
13. Role of Past President:
• Serve as a member of the Table Officers and Executive Committee
• Participate in the Minister Roundtable meetings
• Serve as Chair of Nominations Committee
• Serve as a member of the Resolutions Committee.
• Serve on Board of Association of Municipal Administrators for a one-year
term
• Other duties as required.
14. Recommended Board Skills and Competencies:
Strategic Thinking and Planning - Shows an appreciation for the organization's strategic
directions and priorities and is able to evaluate and provide insight into strategic
direction.
Environmental Scanning - Ability to explore and assess trends and issues impacting the
future of municipalities.
Financial Management - Demonstrates sufficient knowledge of financial matters to
assess financial statements and the organization's performance.
Ethics - Demonstrates a high standard of personal values, conduct, and ethics.
Communication - Understands the importance of solidarity in Board decisions even
though a Director may not agree with the decision taken , respects the confidentiality of
the organization's business information and the deliberations of the Board , acts as an
advocate for the organization and the profession.
Risk Management - Demonstrates an ability to identify the costs, benefits, and risks of
Board decisions; able to assess the organization's capacity to implement its strategy.
Teamwork - Works effectively with other Board members, staff and other stakeholders.
Overall Board Performance - Shows diligent preparation for meetings and actively
participates.
NSFM ELECTIONS POLICY
1. This Policy is entitled the "NSFM Elections Policy".
2. Nominations Committee
a) The President shall appoint a Nominations Committee comprised of the Past-
President, as Chair, and three (3) members, one (1) each from a regional
municipality, a rural municipality, and a town.
b) The Nominations Committee report shall be circulated to all mayors, wardens,
councillors and CAO's within thirty (30) days of the Annual Conference.
c) The Executive Director or staff designate shall serve as Secretary to the
Committee on Nominations.
d) Before a person serves as a member of the Nominations Committee, that
person shall deliver to the Executive Director a written statement that the
person will not accept a nomination as an officer for the year in which the
person serves as a member of the Committee on Nominations.
e) The Nominations Committee shall include a timely request to member units
to provide suggested nominations.
f) In a municipal election year, the NSFM Executive shall act as the Nominations
Committee with the Past President serving as Chair. The Executive shall
determine the date when the Nominations Committee Report is circulated to
the membership. In a municipal election year, nominations can be submitted
following the election based on a date selected by the Executive.
3. Election of Officers
a) The President and Vice-President will be elected at large at the NSFM Annual
Conference for a one-year term or until their successors are elected.
b) Election of Officers shall rotate on an annual election cycle. During each cycle,
the positions of President, Vice President and Past President will each be filled
by members representing towns, rural municipalities and regional
municipalities.
c) In 2014-15, the President shall be from a rural municipality, the Vice President
from a regional municipality and the Past President from a Town. In 2015 -16,
the President shall be from a regional municipality, the Vice President from a
town and the Past President from a rural municipality. In 2016-17, the
President shall be from a town, the Vice President from a rural municipality
and the Past President from a regional municipality. This cycle will continue in
the previously described order.
d) A person shall be eligible to serve as President, Vice President and Past
President only while that person is a serving elected member of a council of a
member unit.
e) The Chair of the Nominations Committee shall act as Chair at all sessions of
the Annual Conference at which an election of officers takes place .
f) If for any reason the Chair is unable to so act, the Committee shall name one
(1) of its members to act as Chair.
g) The Chair shall present the report of the Committee to the Annual Conference
and move its adoption.
i. After the report of the committee has been duly presented, the Chair
shall advise the annual conference whether one or more nominations
have been submitted in writing prior to commencement to the meeting
to elect the officers.
ii. If the Chair advises that no written nominations were received prior to
the commencement of the meeting to elect officers at the annual
conference, the Chair shall declare the nominees of the committee duly
elected to the positions identified in the committee’s report.
iii. If one or more nominations were submitted in writing prior to the
commencement of the meeting to elect officers at the annual
conference, the Chair shall call for nominations from the floor for those
persons who have been nominated in writing prior to the
commencement of the meeting to elect officers.
iv. The Chair shall only call for nominations from the floor for positions in
respect of which written nominations were received prior to the
commencement of the meeting to elect officers.
v. If a written nomination was received for one position and not the other,
the Chair shall declare the nominee of the committee duly elected to the
nominated position in respect of which no written nomination was
received.
vi. If a written nomination was received for any position the Chair shall call
the nomination from the floor for the positions in respect to which
nominations were received in the following order: President and Vice-
President.
vii. The Chair shall then conduct a vote for each position before proceeding
to the election of the next position.
h) Subject to subsections 3 (i), (j), (k), and (l), any voting delegate may make a
nomination for the position of an officer.
i) Any such nomination shall only be received by the Chair if notice of such
nomination in writing has been given to the Chair at least fifteen days prior
to when the report of the Committee is to be presented to the
membership.
j) Such notice of nomination shall be signed by the voting delegate proposing
to present the nomination and by a voting delegate seconding such
nomination.
k) Such nomination shall be accompanied by the consent in writing of the
nominee indicating his intention to run and serve if elected and a statement
confirming the member unit that the candidate represents.
l) Such nomination shall only be in order if the membe r represents a member
unit of the classification of units, which according to the rotation as set out in
Section 3(c), is to hold that officer’s position.
m) The Chair shall permit the mover and seconder of any nomination so
received to move and second the nomination from the floor, and when so
moved an election shall be held for the appropriate position or positions as
officer.
n) When a vote is taken for the position of an officer, the person receiving the
most votes given shall be declared elected.
o) When a vote is required to elect an officer the vote shall be by secret ballot,
and the Chair shall appoint an appropriate number of scrutineers to count
the votes. The Executive Director or designate shall prepare and distribute
appropriate ballots as required.
p) If an election is held for the position of officer, the candidates for each
position shall each be entitled to address the delegates for not more than
three (3) minutes.
q) The Chair shall announce the result of any vote, but shall not announce the
number of votes cast for any candidate.
r) After the vote has been announced, the ballots shall be destroyed.
4. Election of Caucus Members
a) Each caucus shall, at the Annual Conference, first elect a Chair then two (2)
representatives to the Board of Directors. The term of office is one (1) year
and the Chair may be elected for one (1) further consecutive term. The term
of office for a representative to the Board of Directors is two (2) years, and
the representative may be elected for one (1) further consecutive term.
b) Nominations duly moved and seconded shall be accepted from the floor of a
caucus meeting. It is noted that prior notice of a nomination is not required
at the caucus level.
c) Any voting delegate may make a nomination. Such voting delegate must be a
representative of the same caucus for which nominations are being called.
d) The person nominated must advise the Chair, either in person at the
meeting, or in writing, of the intention to accept the nomination and to serve
if elected.
e) Nominated candidates must be serving elected members of a council of a
member unit from the relevant caucus.
f) The Chair shall appoint sufficient scrutineers to supervise the election.
g) The Chair shall advise the meeting of the names of the scrutineers and in the
event of any objection to any of the scrutineers, the appointment of the
scrutineer against whom an objection has been made shall be by a vote of
the meeting, by show of hands.
h) The scrutineers shall be responsible for distributing ballots to the voting
delegates, collecting ballots, ascertaining if any ballots are invalid, and
reporting to the Chair the total number of ballots cast, the number of spoiled
ballots, and the number of ballots cast for each candidate for election.
i) In the event of an election, the voting shall take place by secret ballot.
j) Voting delegates will be asked to clearly mark the ballot with the name
sufficient to identify the person for whom they have cast their vote.
k) The candidate or candidates receiving the most votes will be declared
elected.
l) The scrutineers shall sign a document attesting that they have counted the
ballots, have observed the procedures and have found all to be in order.
m) The Chair of the meeting shall be the current Chair of the Caucus.
n) The Chair is entitled to a vote.
o) If there is no caucus Chair, the meeting shall be chaired by one of the caucus
representatives, as approved by majority vote.
p) If the Chair is nominated for re-election to a second term, he or she shall
relinquish the Chair for that portion of the meeting dealing with the election.
q) If the Acting Chair as nominated by the caucus is not confirmed by a majority
vote of the meeting, another Acting Chair shall be nominated and approval of
the meeting sought until a Chair which is acceptable to the meeting is
chosen.
r) The Chair, or Acting Chair, as the case may be, shall have the authority to
interpret and make procedural rulings with respect to and in accordance with
these procedural guidelines.
s) When the results of the voting are received, the Chair shall announce the
name of the successful candidate, but shall not announce the number of
votes cast for any candidate.
t) The Chair shall report to the NSFM office the names of the newly elected
caucus Chair and caucus representatives to the Board of Directors.
5. Date of Approval
• Approved on November 6, 2014
• Revised September 23, 2016
• Revised June 16, 2017
INFORMATION REPORT
Prepared By:Dan McDougall Date September 18, 2019
Reviewed By:Date
Authorized By:Date
CURRENT SITUATION
T he REMO and participating municipalities are conducting post response follow up to identify
what worked well leading up to the storm, during the storm, and during the post storm
recovery period. Feedback from staff and elected officials is being solicited for consideration
and review by REMO and the individual municipalities.
RECOMMENDATION
For information and discussion.Feedback from Council is welcome and can be provided during
discussions and/or provided to the Warden, Deputy Warden, or CAO.
BACKGROUND
The REMO operated a virtual EOC leading up to, during, and after the storm. Municipal staff involved in
the operations have been asked to provide information on lessons learned, and feedback on steps that
might be taken to improve operations for future events requiring REMO action (draft notes attached).
The Regional Coordinator has circulated a survey to the five municipalities for completion by team members
were involved and would like to contribute to the post response follow up (survey attached).
A de-briefing meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 24, 2019 with the Regional Coordinator,
CAOs, AECs.
DISCUSSION
In addition to lessons learned it would be helpful to receive feedback on what worked well.
IMP LICATIONS
Policy
TBD
Financial/Budgetary
REPORT TO:CAO and Council
SUBMITTED BY:CAO
DATE:September 19, 2019
SUBJECT:Hurricane Dorian Post Response Follow
up
2 Information Report
TBD
Environmental
N/A
Strategic Plan
1.Maintain a high level of fiscal responsibility;
2.Continually improve public satisfaction with municipal services;
3.Ensure enough infrastructure is available to best serve our residents and businesses.
Work Program Implications
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
See attached draft notes from staff post event briefing; and, sample of survey circulated by REMO.
COMMUNICATIONS (INTERNAL/EXTERNAL)
N/A
INFORMATION SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT (April –June 2019)
Municipality of Chester-Quarterly Report
SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES (2019/20 Work Program)
Initiative Status Target Delivery
Date
Building Shared
Services
Budget Approved, Software Implementation /support ongoing Quarter 4, 2019
IT Risk Mitigation Information Access and Protection Policy to Council Quarter 3, 2019
Orthophotography Orthophoto has been received. Staff can now utilize the layer.Complete
Voicesandchoices.ca Added Uniform Signage and Open Spaces projects.Complete
Laserfiche Training
Centre
Creating training plans for staff.Quarter 3, 2019
OTHER ACTIVITIES
Activity Status
Server Vault Preparation for 2020
Network Rack Install
Server Rack Install
Consolidation of network/routing equipment.
Completed.
Server Upgrades and Maintenance 1.Virtual Infrastructure patched to latest version
2.Computer Infrastructure assessment with departments
VoicesandChoices.ca Will attend a workshop to ensure we are using all of the tools
available. Developing protocol and supporting documents for
project admin (not completed).
Security Awareness Training
Diamond Integration with Laserfiche Continued PM support for Diamond Laserfiche Integration
expecting Quarter 4 completion of integration
IT Protocols The following security protocols will be developed once the
Information Access and Protection Policy is approved :
1.Clean Desk Protocol
2.Data Backup Protocol
3.Data Breach Response Protocol
4.Disaster Recovery Plan Protocol
5.Email Protocol
6.Endpoint Encryption Protocol
7.Information Security Classification Protocol
8.Internet Acceptable Use Protocol
9.Password Construction Protocol
10.Password Protection Protocol
11.Privacy Protocol
12.Remote Access Storage Protocol
13.Vital Records Protection Protocol
Communications Support Provided communications support for Best Of Business Awards
(social media award graphics and posts, website, newsletter), Dry
Well Reporting (website, form, posts), Water Distribution Program
(media release, coupons, posts, website, some coordination),
Hurricane Dorian (pre-and post-storm), Communications Strategy
INFORMATION SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT (April –June 2019)
Municipality of Chester-Quarterly Report
(tested, presented to SMT, ready for launch), Raising Sales (posts
and postcard edit), and various Council support pieces, alerts,
media inquiries, website posts, promo, staff inquiries, and soci al
media posts. Also, researched and ordered promotional material,
took three weeks of vacation, applied for and received Canadian
Wildlife Federation designation for mun grounds, created and
delivered TD FEF Grant, and attended meetings for the AMANS
Communications Committee, Regional Communications group,
municipal event insurance information session, Climate Change
2050 communications workshop, and doctor recruitment with
OHC and mun staff.
Mapping Updates 1.Mapping alternate paths to incorporate ArcGIS S erver and
Portal setup(s) and design(s) based on ISO standards and
Asset Management Practices.
2.Documentation on new GIS protocols regarding current
data infrastructure updates and improvements.
3.Street light ownership determination and mapping
project.
4.Re-work disaster mapping for future efficiency and
quicker deployment. Primarily targeting dry well and
water issues projects right now (on-going).
5.Daily activities and database maintenance continue as
usual.
Professional Development
Process Improvements Investigating options for an electronic expense form for
council
Municipal Publications Prepared one edition of the municipal newsletter:
September/October
Regional Communications Regional communications group will meet mid -September with
the REMO rep. AMANS Communications Working Group
established and met once.
METRICS
Assets Collected Geo-Rectified N/A
Service Desk Tickets 150 Requests
Website views (July-Sept. 13 –incomplete
quarter)
40,741 pageviews (-9,074)
Top 5 pages: tancook ferry, events,
emergency measures, contacts, waste-
recycling
Twitter impressions (incomplete qtr)16,674 (-7,752)
Facebook total engagement (incomplete)12,202
Instagram (incomplete quarter)399 followers (+22)
Firewall Packets Blocked 1.7 Million dropped
INFORMATION SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT (April –June 2019)
Municipality of Chester-Quarterly Report
Email Spam Blocked 4,000 average blocked a week, 57%