Approval of Agenda 03:52 Page 1 3

THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL August 18, 2020 9:00 am AGENDA Audio Recording Times Noted in Red (Minutes:Seconds)

1. Roll Call 00:00 2. Approval of Agenda 03:52 Page 1 3. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest Issues None 4. Approval of Minutes 06:17 a. June 23, 2020 Special Council Page 2 b. July 7, 2020 Council Page 5 c. July 21, 2020 Special Council Page 19 5. Business Arising from Minutes a. June 23, 2020 Special Council None Page 2 b. July 7, 2020 Council None Page 5 c. July 21, 2020 Special Council None Page 19 6. Planning & Inspection Services a. Campground Rezoning Application (Legal Opinion) 10:03 Page 25 7. Administration a. Proposed Amendments to Policy HR-06-016: Maternity and Parental Leave for Page 29 Non-Unionized Employees (Final Approval) 13:38 b. Proposed Amendments to Policy HR-06-017: Non-Unionized Employee Vacation Page 32 and Overtime (Final Approval) 17:18 c. Council and Committee of the Whole Meeting Structure 26:20 Page 38 d. Community Grant Allocations 80:11 Page 49 e. Update to Action Plan for Ending Racism and Discrimination 95:28 Page 53 8. Financial Services a. 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan 117:12 Page 56 b. Council Update Report - COVID-19 Response 157:07 Page 75 c. 2020/21 Area Rate Levies for Fire 243:55 Page 95 9. Engineering & Public Works, Lands and Parks Services a. Award of Contract 20-22: Greenwood Production Well Drilling 251:21 Page 99 10. Councillor Item a. Traffic Lights at South Berwick Intersection 261:53 Page 102 11. Other Business 280:46 12. Closed Session & Adjournment 293:39 a. Contract Negotiations

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 1

MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS SPECIAL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL June 23, 2020 DRAFT MINUTES

Meeting Date A Special Meeting of Municipal Council was held on Tuesday, June 23, and Time 2020 at 2:01 pm via video conference.

1. Roll Call All Councillors participated in the video call, with the exception of Deputy Mayor Lutz with notice. Councillor Raven joined at 2:14 pm after a delay due to technical difficulties.

Results for Roll Call For 8 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven - District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

Also in attendance were: . Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer . Rob Frost, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer . Greg Barr, Director, Finance & IT . Chloe Austin, Recording Secretary

Councillor Absence On motion of Councillor Spicer and Councillor Allen, that Deputy Mayor Lutz’s absence from the June 23, 2020 Special Council meeting be excused.

Motion Carried. Results For 8 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven - District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

2. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor Allen and Councillor Hirtle, that Municipal Council approve the June 23, 2020 agenda as circulated.

Motion Carried.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 2 Special Municipal Council 2 June 23, 2020

Results For 8 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven - District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

3. Disclosure of Conflict of No Conflict of Interest issues were declared. Interest Issues

4. Financial Assistance for In response to Councillor questions on disbursement, the Deputy CAO Tourism Marketing noted that typical Municipal practise will be followed (Contribution Agreement).

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Hirtle, that Municipal Council provide $100,000 of financial support to the Annapolis Valley Chamber of Commerce to be used for Tourism Marketing for the 2020 tourism season from the COVID-19 Reserve GL# 61-4-460-270.

Motion Carried. Results For 9 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For District 9 Peter Allen For

5. Adjournment On motion of Councillor Best and Councillor Spicer, there being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 2:43 pm.

Motion Carried. Results For 9 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For District 3 Brian Hirtle For

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 3 Special Municipal Council 3 June 23, 2020

District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

Approved by:

______Peter Muttart Chloe Austin Mayor Recording Secretary

Results Legend - Absent COI Conflict of interest For A vote in favour Against A vote in the negative or any Councillor who fails or refuses to vote and who is required to vote by the preceding subsection, shall be

deemed as voting in the negative.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 4

MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL July 7, 2020 Reconvened on July 9, 2020 DRAFT MINUTES

Meeting Date A meeting of Municipal Council was held on Tuesday, July 7, 2020 and Time following a Public Hearing at 6:00 pm and was reconvened on Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 6:00 pm via video conference.

1. Roll Call July 7, 2020 All Councillors participated in the video conference, with the exception of Deputy Mayor Lutz with notice (per Policy ADMIN-01-014: Parental Accommodations for Elected Officials).

Results for Roll Call For 9 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

Also in attendance were: . Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer . Rob Frost, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer . Marc Comeau, Municipal Solicitor . Trish Javorek, Director, Planning & Inspections . Tim Bouter, Manager of Engineering . Scott MacKay, Revenue Manager . Laura Mosher, Manager of Planning & Development until 6:50 pm . Vicki Brooke, Policy Analyst . Brittany Mastroianni, Diversity & Outreach Specialist until 7:00 pm . Katrina Roefs, Financial Analyst until 8:15 pm . Barb Illsley-Jess, Returning Officer until 7:41 pm . Janny Postema, Municipal Clerk/Recording Secretary

2. Approval of Agenda On motion of Councillor Hirtle and Councillor Spicer, that Municipal Council approve the July 7, 2020 agenda as circulated.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 5 Municipal Council 2 July 7, 2020

District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

3. Disclosure of Conflict of No Conflict of Interest issues were declared. Interest Issues

4. Approval of Minutes

4a. Minutes of June 2, June 11, On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Allen, that the and June 16, 2020 minutes of the Municipal Council meetings held on June 2, June 11, and June 16, 2020 be approved as circulated.

District 9 Peter Allen For

5. Business Arising from the Minutes

5a. Minutes of June 2, 2020 There was no business arising from the June 2, 2020 minutes.

5b. Minutes of June 11, 2020 There was no business arising from the June 11, 2020 minutes.

5c. Minutes of June 16, 2020 There was no business arising from the June 16, 2020 minutes.

6. Administration

6a. Proclamation Request: Pride Brittany Mastroianni, Diversity & Outreach Specialist, presented the Week Request for Decision as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a presentation.

On motion of Councillor Hodges and Councillor Best, that Municipal Council proclaim July 16-26, 2020 ‘Pride Week in the Municipality of the County of Kings’.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 6 Municipal Council 3 July 7, 2020

District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

6b. Amendments to Policy Mayor Muttart presented the Policy as attached to the July 7, 2020 ADMIN-01-000: Policy Council agenda. Development (Final Approval) On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Armstrong, that Municipal Council adopt the amendments to Policy ADMIN-01-000: Policy Development as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda package.

District 9 Peter Allen For

6c. By-law 108, Alternative Vicki Brooke, Policy Analyst, presented the Request for Decision as Voting (First Reading) attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a presentation.

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Hirtle, that Council give First Reading to By-law 108, being the Alternative Voting By-law of the Municipality of the County of Kings, as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda.

District 9 Peter Allen For

6d. Criteria for COVID-19 Rob Frost, Deputy CAO, presented the Request for Decision as attached Community Groups Grant to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a presentation.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 7 Municipal Council 4 July 7, 2020

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Hirtle, that Council approve the criteria for the COVID-19 Community Groups Grant as presented in the July 7, 2020 Request for Decision, and direct the Chief Administrative Officer to proceed with administering this grant.

Motion Tabled.

Tabling Motion: On motion of Councillor Armstrong and Councillor Spicer, that Council table approval of the criteria for the COVID-19 Community Groups Grant and send them back to staff for consideration of the comments made by Councillors at the July 7, 2020 Council meeting.

Tabling Motion Carried. Results For 8 Against 1 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor Against District 9 Peter Allen For

Council took a short break from 7:41 - 8:00 pm.

7. Financial Services

7a. Western Regional Housing Katrina Roefs, Financial Analyst, presented the Request for Decision as Authority - Expense attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a presentation. Approval On motion of Councillor Armstrong and Councillor Allen, that Council approve the additional expense of $35,823.09 above the budgeted amount for fiscal year 2019/2020 in relation to the Western Regional Housing Authority.

Motion Tabled.

Tabling Motion: On motion of Councillor Armstrong and Councillor Hodges, that Council table approval of the additional expense in relation to the Western Regional Housing Authority pending receipt of an explanation from the Authority or Housing Nova Scotia as to the source and reason for the increase.

Tabling Motion Carried. Results For 9 Against 0

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 8 Municipal Council 5 July 7, 2020

District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

7b. Amendments to By-law 93: Mayor Muttart presented the By-law as attached to the July 7, 2020 Private Road Maintenance Council agenda. Charge (Second Reading) On motion of Councillor Raven and Councillor Armstrong, that Council give Second Reading to amendments to By-law 93, being the Private Road Maintenance Charge By-law of the Municipality of the County of Kings, as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda.

District 9 Peter Allen For

7c. 2020/21 Area Rate Levies for Scott MacKay, Revenue Manager, presented the Request for Decision as Fire and Recreation attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a presentation.

On motion of Councillor Hirtle and Councillor Raven, that Municipal Council approve the levying, collection and remittance of the Area Rates as shown in Appendix A: Area Rates 2020-21, and approve the 4% administration fee charged against the area rates collected in Appendix B: Area Rates for Fire Commissions 2020-21 as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 9 Municipal Council 6 July 7, 2020

District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

7d. Approval of Region of Scott MacKay, Revenue Manager, presented the Request for Decision as Windsor and West Hants attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a presentation. Municipality’s Capital Budget for Hantsport Fire On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Allen, that Municipal Department Council approve the capital budget of the Hantsport Fire Department as submitted by the Region of Windsor and West Hants Municipality for the 2020/2021 fiscal year; and

That Municipal Council commit to Phase One of the Hantsport Fire Department building project only after all details, financial and otherwise, are presented and agreed to by the Municipality of the County of Kings and after a new Fire Services Agreement with the Region of Windsor and West Hants Municipality is executed.

District 9 Peter Allen For

8. Engineering & Public Works, Lands and Parks Services

8a. Repeal of By-law 103: Oak Mayor Muttart presented the By-law as attached to the July 7, 2020 Island Road Wastewater Council agenda. Management District (Second Reading) On motion of Councillor Spicer and Councillor Hirtle, that Municipal Council give Second Reading to repeal By-law 103, being the Oak Island Road Wastewater Management District By-law of the Municipality of the County of Kings.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 10 Municipal Council 7 July 7, 2020

District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

8b. Award of Contract: Winter Tim Bouter, Manager of Engineering, presented the Request for Decision Maintenance Services as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a presentation.

It was noted that Councillor Spicer left the video conference temporarily due to technical difficulties.

On motion of Councillor Hirtle and Councillor Armstrong, that Municipal Council award Zones 1-4 of Contract 20-14: Winter Maintenance Services to Rick Balsor Welding.

Motion Carried. Results For 8 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer - District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Armstrong, that Municipal Council award Zones 5-11 of Contract 20-14: Winter Maintenance Services to IJ Corkum’s Excavating Ltd.

District 9 Peter Allen For

8c. Contract Award: Engineering Tim Bouter, Manager of Engineering, presented the Request for Decision Services - New Production as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a Wells Greenwood Water presentation. Utility

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 11 Municipal Council 8 July 7, 2020

On motion of Councillor Hirtle and Councillor Allen, that Municipal Council award a contract for engineering services for the installation of two production wells and source water protection planning for the Greenwood Water Utility to CBCL Ltd. for the total amount of $61,315 (including non-recoverable HST), conditional upon final execution of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for PID 55118020.

District 9 Peter Allen For

8d. Contract Award: Regional Tim Bouter, Manager of Engineering, presented the Request for Decision Trunk Sewer Replacement as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and provided a Aberdeen Street (Kentville) presentation.

On motion of Councillor Best and Councillor Hirtle, that Municipal Council award the Regional Trunk Sewer Replacement portion of Town of Kentville Contract 2020-015: Aberdeen Storm & Sanitary Infrastructure Replacement to Atlantic Road Construction and Paving for the total price of $157,065.14 (including non-rebated HST).

District 9 Peter Allen For

9. Recommendations from Committee of the Whole July 16, 2020

9a. Council and Committee of Mayor Muttart presented the recommendation as attached to the July 7, the Whole Meetings in 2020 Council agenda. August It was noted that Councillor Spicer rejoined the video conference at 8:54 pm.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 12 Municipal Council 9 July 7, 2020

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Armstrong, that the August 4, 2020 date for the regular Council meeting be reserved to deal with July Committee of the Whole issues, with the intent to meet if there are urgent and pressing matters.

District 9 Peter Allen For

9b. Position Description for Vicki Brooke presented the Request for Decision as attached to the July Mayor 7, 2020 Council agenda.

On motion of Councillor Armstrong and Councillor Best, that Council adopt the position description for Mayor as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda.

District 9 Peter Allen For

9c. FIN-05-022 School Food Mayor Muttart presented the recommendation as attached to the July 7, Program Funding Policy 2020 Council agenda.

On motion of Councillor Raven and Councillor Spicer, that Council provide seven days’ notice per s. 48(1) Municipal Government Act to adopt Policy FIN-05-022 School Food Program Funding.

Motion Carried. Results For 9 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 13 Municipal Council 10 July 7, 2020

District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

9d. Kentville Volunteer Fire Mayor Muttart presented the recommendation as attached to the July 7, Department Revised 2020/21 2020 Council agenda. Municipal Contribution On motion of Councillor Hirtle and Councillor Winsor, that Council approve the additional contribution to the Kentville Fire Department of $1,400 for 2020/2021 based on the updated call volume information.

At 9:06 pm, Mayor Muttart declared a recess until July 9, 2020 at 6:00 pm.

Meeting Reconvened Council reconvened the July 7, 2020 meeting on Thursday, July 9, 2020 July 9, 2020 at 6:00 pm.

Roll Call July 9, 2020 All Councillors participated in the video call, with the exception of Deputy Mayor Lutz with notice (per Policy ADMIN-01-014: Parental Accommodations for Elected Officials).

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 14 Municipal Council 11 July 7, 2020

District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

10. Recommendation from Nominating Committee

10a. Appointments to New Minas Councillor Armstrong presented the recommendation as attached to the Secondary Planning Strategy July 7, 2020 Council agenda. Working Group On motion of Councillor Armstrong and Councillor Hodges, that Municipal Council appoint Michelle Coleman, Paul Gates and Temma Frecker to the New Minas Secondary Planning Strategy Working Group for a Term ending upon completion of a draft Secondary Planning Strategy.

District 9 Peter Allen For

11. Correspondence Mayor Muttart gave an overview of the correspondence as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda.

On motion of Councillor Allen and Councillor Spicer, that Municipal Council receive the Correspondence as attached to the July 7, 2020 agenda.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 15 Municipal Council 12 July 7, 2020

District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

11a. Annapolis Valley Regional For information. Library Reopening Plan

11b. Gerald Fulton re: Cost For information. Cutting due to Pandemic

11c. Mayor Muttart Response to In response to a request from Councillor Raven, CAO Conrod noted that Gerald Fulton Letter based on instruction provided by Council on June 2, 2020, staff was prepared to table a report on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on property tax revenues on or before August 15, 2020.

11d. Valley Waste Collection in For information. Cottage Areas

12. Committee of Council Reports

12a. Audit Committee Councillor Spicer presented the two reports as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda.

12b. Diversity Kings County Councillor Winsor presented the two reports as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda.

12c. Municipal Elections Advisory The Municipal Clerk presented the two reports as attached to the July 7, Committee 2020 Council agenda.

12d. Police Services Advisory Councillor Allen presented the report as attached to the July 7, 2020 Committee Council agenda.

12e. Regional Sewer Committee Councillor Winsor presented the two reports as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda.

12f. Port Williams Area Advisory Councillor Hodges reported that the Port Williams Area Advisory Committee and Source Water Committee and Port Williams Source Water Protection Committee had Protection Committee not met in quite some time.

12g. Other: See Attached Table On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Hirtle, that Municipal Council receive the Committee of Council reports as attached to the July 7, 2020 Council agenda and as provided verbally.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 16 Municipal Council 13 July 7, 2020

District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

13. Other Business: Scott Conrod, CAO, presented the Request for Decision as attached to J-Class Roads the July 7, 2020 agenda and provided a presentation.

On motion of Councillor Spicer and Councillor Allen, that Council receive the updated information provided by the Province of Nova Scotia related to cost-shared local roads as described in the related July 7, 2020 Request for Decision as information.

District 9 Peter Allen For

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Hirtle, in accordance with the related July 7, 2020 Request for Decision, that the Mayor and CAO inform and engage with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities in regards to the Municipality’s position on cost-shared local roads and offer assistance with a local road asset management program.

District 9 Peter Allen For

14. Closed Session On motion of Councillor Spicer and Councillor Allen, that Council adjourn to move into closed session in accordance with Section 22 (2) (e) Municipal Government Act: contract negotiations.

Motion Carried. Results

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 17 Municipal Council 14 July 7, 2020

For 9 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

Council moved into closed session at 7:12 pm and adjourned at 8:09 pm.

Approved by:

______Peter Muttart Janny Postema Mayor Municipal Clerk/Recording Secretary

deemed as voting in the negative.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 18

THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS SPECIAL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL July 21, 2020 DRAFT MINUTES

Meeting Date A Special Meeting of Municipal Council was held on Tuesday, July 21, and Time 2020 at 1:30 pm via video conference.

1. Roll Call All Councillors participated in the video conference, with the exception of Deputy Mayor Lutz with notice (per Policy ADMIN-01-014: Parental Accommodations for Elected Officials).

District 9 Peter Allen For

Also in attendance were: . Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer . Rob Frost, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer . Greg Barr, Director, Finance and IT . Terry Brown, Manager, Inspection & Enforcement . Cathy Buchanan, Manager of Human Resources . Laura Mosher, Manager, Planning and Development . Janny Postema, Municipal Clerk/Recording Secretary

2. Approval of Agenda Mayor Muttart noted that item 4a. would be deferred.

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Allen, that Municipal Council approve the July 21, 2020 agenda as amended.

District 9 Peter Allen For

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 19 Special Municipal Council 2 July 21, 2020

3. Disclosure of Conflict of Councillor Raven declared a conflict of interest relating to item 6b, 2020- Interest Issues 21 Kings Vision Grant, due to her position as Chair of the Grand View Manor Continuing Care Community.

4. Planning and Inspection Services

4a. Application to rezone a Deferred. portion of the property at 3300 Black Rock Road, and a portion of the property in Grafton, (PIDs 55067425 and 55067391) (File 19-16)

4b. Request to Waive Planning Laura Mosher, Manager, Planning and Development, presented the Application Fees Request for Decision as attached to the July 21, 2020 Special Council agenda.

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Armstrong, that Municipal Council defer Mr. Hiltz’s request to waive the planning application fee for an amendment to the text of the Land Use By-law to add Outdoor Commercial Display as a main use in the Rural Commercial (C4) Zone until a decision on the application has been made by Municipal Council.

District 9 Peter Allen For

5. Policy FIN-05-022: School Mayor Muttart presented the Policy as attached to the July 21, 2020 Food Program Funding Special Council agenda. (Final Approval) On motion of Councillor Hodges and Councillor Spicer, that Council adopt Policy FIN-05-022: School Food Program Funding as attached to the July 21, 2020 Special Council agenda.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 20 Special Municipal Council 3 July 21, 2020

District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

6. Recommendations from Committee of the Whole July 21, 2020

6a. Criteria for COVID-19 Rob Frost, Deputy CAO, presented the amended criteria per the Community Groups Grant discussion at the July 21, 2020 Committee of the Whole meeting.

On motion of Councillor Winsor and Councillor Allen, that Council approve the criteria for the COVID-19 Community Groups Grant as presented in the Request for Decision dated July 21, 2020, with the amendment that community halls will be eligible for operational support, and direct the Chief Administrative Officer to proceed with administering this grant.

District 9 Peter Allen For

6b. 2020-21 Kings Vision Grant Mayor Muttart presented the recommendations as attached to the July 21, 2020 Special Council agenda.

On motion of Councillor Armstrong and Councillor Allen, that Council approve the Kings Vision Grant allocations for the existing multi-year commitments as described in section 1.1 of Appendix A as attached to the July 21, 2020 Request for Decision.

Motion Carried. Results For 8 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven COI District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 21 Special Municipal Council 4 July 21, 2020

On motion of Councillor Hirtle and Councillor Armstrong, that Council approve the Kings Vision Grant allocations for the new multi-year commitments as described in section 1.2 of Appendix A as attached to the July 21, 2020 Request for Decision.

District 9 Peter Allen For

On motion of Councillor Spicer and Councillor Allen, that Council approve the Kings Vision Grant allocations for the new single year requests as described in section 2 of Appendix A as attached to the July 21, 2020 Request for Decision.

District 9 Peter Allen For

On motion of Councillor Hirtle and Councillor Allen, that Council consider, after the related staff report is presented on or before August 15, 2020, if funding is required from the COVID-19 Reserve (GL Account 61-4-460-383) in relation to the Vision Grant program after the related staff report is presented on or before August 15, 2020.

Motion Carried. Results For 9 Against 0 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven For

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 22 Special Municipal Council 5 July 21, 2020

District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

6c. Proposed Amendments to On motion of Councillor Allen and Councillor Armstrong, that Policy HR-06-016: Pregnancy Municipal Council provide seven days’ notice, per s. 48(1) Municipal and Parental Leave Government Act, to adopt amendments to Policy HR-06-016: Maternity and Parental Leave for Non-Unionized Employees as attached to the July 21, 2020 Request for Decision.

Motion Carried. Results For 8 Against 1 District Name Results Mayor Peter Muttart For District 1 Meg Hodges For District 2 Pauline Raven Against District 3 Brian Hirtle For District 4 Martha Armstrong For District 5 Paul Spicer For District 6 Bob Best For District 7 Emily Lutz - District 8 Jim Winsor For

District 9 Peter Allen For

6d. Proposed Amendments to On motion of Councillor Armstrong and Councillor Spicer, that Policy HR-06-017: Non- Municipal Council provide seven days’ notice, per s. 48(1) Municipal Unionized Employee Government Act, to adopt amendments to Policy HR-06-017: Non- Vacation Unionized Employee Vacation and Overtime as attached to the July 21, 2020 Request for Decision.

District 9 Peter Allen For

6e. Contract Award for On motion of Councillor Spicer and Councillor Winsor, that Telecommunications Municipal Council award the contract for telecommunications Enclosures enclosures for the Connected Kings project to Noramco for the total price of $125,394 (including non-recoverable HST).

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 23 Special Municipal Council 6 July 21, 2020

District 9 Peter Allen For

7. Closed Session On motion of Councillor Allen and Councillor Armstrong, that Council adjourn to move into closed session in accordance with Section 22 (2) (a) Municipal Government Act: acquisition, sale, lease and security of municipal property.

District 9 Peter Allen For

Council moved into closed session at 2:00 pm and adjourned at 2:58 pm.

Approved by:

______Peter Muttart Janny Postema Mayor Municipal Clerk/Recording Secretary

deemed as voting in the negative.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 24 50 CORNWALLIS STREET, KENTVILLE, NOVA SCOTIA, B4N 2E4 Phone: 902.678.6156 FAX: 902.678.6010 Property FAX: 902.678.6082 www.tmclaw.com [email protected]

MEMORANDUM

Date: July 27, 2020 To: Municipality of the County of Kings Attention: Scott Conrod, CAO Cc: Laura Mosher From: Jon Cuming Re: Campground Rezoning Application File/Matter #: 9020001

I have been asked to provide a legal opinion with respect to the following question: Should the merits of a planning application commenced under the previous MPS and LUB now be considered pursuant to the newly adopted MPS and LUB? In James Dick Construction Ltd. v. Caledon (Town), (2003), 47 O.M.B.R. 87, the Ontario Municipal Board asserted that a new planning strategy may be considered and applied so long as the admission of those policies would not unjustly prejudice an applicant. This principle is referred to as the "Clergy Principle" from the case in which it originated. In determining when to apply the principle, it is necessary to assess if the prejudice to the applicant is balanced by the value of applying the policies contained in the new official plan.

A relevant excerpt from the decision as found at paragraphs 33 to 41. It reads:

33 Requiring that the Rockfort proposal be subjected to the new requirements in the Official Plan policies means that the applicants will have to conduct new studies and comply with much more stringent requirements than previously existed. At the very least they seek relief from the imposition of three new requirements: a new prioritization scheme; a new hierarchy of transportation policies; and several new study requirements. All are contained in the new policy document.

34 In this respect, Mr. Fairbrother notes that in Dumart, the Board asserted that where the new policies involved a "significant new imposition" it would not be fair to apply the new policies to an existing application. This is an extension of what could be called the "Kalmoni" principle which says that an applicant cannot be put to a standard imposed after the date of the application which would have the effect of defeating the application. This principle protects proponents from policy changes that are meant simply to frustrate an application retroactively.[emphasis added]

35 James Dick says that the application of the new policies in OPA 161 would impose significant new requirements and would require compliance with a much more stringent set of planning standards than existed at the time of the application.

36 They admit that they will have to comply with the principles of good planning, but should not have to meet standards imposed by OPA 161 which were formulated after the application was made. This would open the door to abuse. Any planning agency could simply Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 25 TMC LAW July 27, 2020 MEMORANDUM Page 2 delay the approval of a matter and in the intervening period pass constricting policies simply to frustrate an application that is not to their liking. This would sanction a form of retroactivity that the Board has recognized would be inappropriate and counter to the public interest in a planning process that is fair to applicants and predictable.

37 The Town says it has not passed the new policies to frustrate applications but to bring into force a better policy environment for aggregate. None of the new policies would have the effect of merely frustrating the plans of the applicant. The evidence of this is the lengthy processes of policy-making and full consultation — including with industry representatives - that were undertaken.

38 They admit that the applicant will be required to re-submit studies and will likely be required to complete new studies to comply with the OPA 161 policies. However, they explain that if the applicant is put to the test of complying with the principles of good planning and environmental management, they will nevertheless be required to comply for all intents and purposes with the more stringent studies required by current practice. It will not be sufficient, in order to achieve an acceptable standard of planning and environmental management, to comply simply with the study requirement provided in the Town's 1981 Official Plan. Many of the studies will have to be updated, and in some cases they already have been updated. Because the new policies of OPA 161 represent the current state of planning, the Town says there can therefore be no prejudice in requiring compliance with its policies and requirements for study.

39 Having considered the lengthy submissions of counsel for the parties to this motion, the Board concludes that what we commonly refer to as the "Clergy principle" as modified by Dumart, remains a useful doctrine and practice. It should continue to serve as a firm guide when faced with the question of which policies should be used to evaluate an application in those infrequent cases where the policy environment pertaining to the application has changed before the application could be finally decided. It is a practice that promotes fairness, consistency and predictability — all of which are of value to the planning process and to all participants in that process. [emphasis added]

40 In short people should continue to expect that the policies that are in place when they apply will be made to apply to them. In the vast majority of cases, this should continue to be the practice of the Board as it has been in the past.

41 However, it must also be acknowledged that the Clergy principle is not a law or an inviolate rule. It is a practice meant to promote fairness in the planning process. Even so, there are occasions where fairness conflicts with other values that may be of equal, or in some cases, much greater importance to the planning process, and while abandoning a fair practice may result in some prejudice to one party, this must be weighed in the balance against the other values that are at stake.

Pursuant to the provisions of the LUB and MPS in force and effect at the time of the Application, Council had authority to rezone A1 lands to P2. The current plan and LUB do not permit the same. As such, if the application is considered through the lens of the new documents, it will be defeated.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 26 TMC LAW July 27, 2020 MEMORANDUM Page 3 The question is thus whether it is fair to the Applicant, having regard to the potential value of undertaking the same, to assess the planning application through the lens of the now current MPS and LUB.

While it is true that the MOK did not pass new planning policies simply to frustrate the rezoning application that fact would provide little comfort to the Applicant who applied for the rezoning, in good faith, at a time when it was permitted. On its face, it seems manifestly unfair to apply the new MPS and LUB to his application. That said, I suspect the opponents to the application will point to the preservation of farmland as being of such vital importance to the planning process that it outweighs concerns relating to the fairness of the application process.

In a further Ontario Municipal Board decision cited as Daniels L.R. Corp. v. Newmarket (Town) 2006 CarswellOnt 7799, the Board rejected any suggestion that newly adopted Policies which would have the affect of defeating a planning application should be applied retroactively. The Board stated as follows at paragraph 22:

22 The facts in this case are clear and unmistakeable. The Town took a position that attempts to retroactively apply policies in its new amended Official Plan that was changed only because of the submissions of Mr. Allen and the residents. To its credit the planning staff advised Council not to attempt to retroactively affect the application. Clearly the proposed standards would violate the "Kalmoni" principle (Kalmoni Establishments Inc. v. Milton (Town), [1995] O.M.B.D. No. 1247 (O.M.B.) in that it would attempt to apply policies that would defeat the application. The Board will not use its discretion to not apply the Clergy principle because it would not be right and it would not be fair. Applicants must have clear rules to follow and so do councils to reject "Clergy" and "Kalmoni" is to invite chaos where there are no rules and "the principle of shoot first and ask questions later" would be applied to development applications

While the Ontario Municipal decisions are not binding on Nova Scotia courts there is certainly logic to both the “Clergy” and “Kalmoni” principles. In an effort to address any confusion with respect to what policies should be applied to planning decisions, the Province of Ontario amended its Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, such that s.s. 3(5) now reads:

3. (5) A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Municipal Board, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter,

(a) shall be consistent with the policy statements under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision [emphasis added];

This amendment was discussed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) cited as Avery v. Pointes Protection Assn. 2016 CarswellOnt 18671 wherein the court stated as follows at paragraphs 43 to 47:

43 Unlike the situation at the time that Kalmoni and Clergy were decided, the question of which PPS to apply is now explicitly set out in both the Act and the 2014 PPS itself. Section 3(5) of the Act states:

(a) shall be consistent with the policy statements under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision; and

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 27 TMC LAW July 27, 2020 MEMORANDUM Page 4 (b) shall conform with the provincial plans that are in effect on that date, or shall not conflict with them, as the case may be. [Emphasis added.]

44 Section 4.1 of the 2014 PPS itself states:

4.1 This Provincial Policy Statement applies to all decisions in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter made on or after April 30, 2014. [Emphasis added.]

45 There is no doubt that the legislature is entitled to enact such retroactive legislation, especially where it is legislation designed to protect the public interest: S. (R.) v. H. (R.) (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 451 (Ont. S.C.J.), at paras. 7 and 12.

46 The Board referred to and relied on these provisions in both the Act and the PPS in making its decision. There is no ambiguity in either provision. Each clearly requires the Board to apply the PPS in effect at the time of the hearing before it.

47 These provisions superseded the authority referred to in Kalmoni and Clergy. The Board was correct, in my view, in rejecting the developers' argument that those authorities applied in light of the provisions set out above.

Nova Scotia has not adopted legislation intended to supersede the Kalmoni and Clergy principles. So, while they are not binding upon the Nova Scotia courts, they are still persuasive authorities whose applications have not been limited by provincial legislation.

Conclusion

As the principles identified above have not been interpreted or adopted by Nova Scotia courts, it is difficult to predict the outcome of a challenge to a decision to apply the old policies to the rezoning application. That said, I would be surprised if a court were to reject the Kalmoni principle, in this context, as it would seem entirely unjust to permit an application to be defeated by the imposition of new policies that did not exist at the time of the original application. At the very least, one would have expected that the Applicant to have been given express notice of that possibility and an opportunity to expedite the application if it was contemplated that the new policies might be applied. To me, procedural fairness demands that the old principles will apply.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 28 POLICY HR-06-016

Municipality of the County of Kings

Maternity & Parental Leave for Non-Unionized Employees Policy

Policy Category Human Resources Most Recent Amendment August 18, 2020 TBD First Council Approval January 2, 2018 Future Review Date January 2024

1. Purpose The Municipality of the County of Kings (“the Municipality”) believes in supporting all non-unionized employees (employees) who take leave to care for new born or adopted children, or for pregnancy loss. This Policy establishes the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that Non-Unionized employees have when taking maternity or parental leave.

The Municipality will grant Maternity and Parental Leave in accordance with the Nova Scotia Labour Standards Code or Federal Employment Standards, whichever is more beneficial to the Employee. Should any discrepancies between this Policy and Provincial and Federal legislation occur, legislation will supersede this Policy.

2. Scope This Policy applies to all non-unionized employees.

Unionized employees are subject to the Collective Agreement. Members of Council are subject to Policy ADMIN-01-014: Parental Accommodations for Elected Officials.

3. Definitions 3.1 Non-Unionized Employee: any employee who is not covered under the Collective Agreement between Municipality of the County of Kings and CUPE Local 2618.

3.2 Permanent Employee (full-time or part-time): any employee who has successfully completed the required probationary period.

4. Policy Statements 4.1 Maternity and Parental leave shall be granted in accordance with the Labour Standards Code or Federal Employment Insurance (EI) Standards, whichever is more beneficial to the employee.

4.2 Employees shall notify their immediate supervisor no later than the commencement of the fifth month of pregnancy as to when the anticipated leave of absence will commence.

4.3 In the case of a pregnancy loss after 19 weeks’ gestation, employees shall be eligible for leaves and Supplemental Unemployment Benefits as established in this Policy.

Supplemental Unemployment Benefits 4.4 As a means of supporting employees who take maternity and/or parental leave, the Municipality will provide Supplemental Unemployment Benefits to employees.

4.5 If a permanent full-time or part-time employee is on maternity or parental leave and is in receipt of benefits under the terms of the Employment Insurance Act, the Municipality shall provide the employee a Supplemental Unemployment Benefit for a maximum period of 26 weeks.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 29 POLICY HR-06-016

Municipality of the County of Kings

Maternity & Parental Leave for Non-Unionized Employees Policy

Employees who have not successfully completed their probationary period are not eligible for this benefit.

4.6 The Municipality shall supplement Employment Insurance payments according to the following schedule:

4.6.1 The first week shall be paid at the rate of 90 per cent of the employee’s salary.

4.6.2 The remaining 25 weeks shall be shared by Employment Insurance and the Municipality to total 90 percent of the employee’s salary.

4.7 If an employee resigns or has their employment terminated by the Municipality less than six months after returning from Maternity and/or Parental leave, the employee shall repay to the Municipality the total amount of the supplementary benefit paid to the employee by the Municipality during the 26 week period as provided for in Section 4.6.

Benefits 4.8 Employees may opt to maintain benefits while on leave.

If an employee chooses to maintain their group insurance benefits while on leave, the Municipality shall pay all contributions required to continue the employee benefit plan while the employee is on Maternity and Parental leave. The only exception to this shall be Long-Term Disability (LTD) benefits.

The Municipality will collect the employee’s share of health and dental contributions upon the employee’s return to work through payroll deductions in an amount not to exceed double the amount of the employee’s regular benefit plan contributions per pay.

4.9 Employees may opt to continue pension contributions while on leave.

4.9.1 If the employee chooses to contribute to the pension plan while on Maternity and/or Parental leave, they will continue making regular contributions, which will be matched by the Municipality during their 26 weeks of Supplementary Unemployment Benefits.

4.9.2 Pension benefit contributions will be based on the employee’s average weekly wages for the four weeks prior to the leave.

4.9.3 If an employee chooses to continue to make pension contributions beyond the Supplemental Unemployment Benefits period, the employee is responsible for making arrangements to this effect with Human Resources and Payroll.

4.10 Continuing LTD contributions on pregnancy/parental leave is mandatory.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 30 POLICY HR-06-016

Municipality of the County of Kings

Maternity & Parental Leave for Non-Unionized Employees Policy

It shall be the employee’s responsibility to remit LTD premiums to the Municipality during the period of the Maternity and/or Parental leave, and the employee shall make arrangements to this effect with Human Resources and Payroll.

4.11 All employees shall continue to accrue vacation benefits while on maternity and/or parental leave. While vacation allocations for any given year will be adjusted to reflect the time the employee is off on leave, increases to vacation entitlements shall continue to accrue.

5. Responsibilities 5.1 Council will: 5.1.1 ensure the Municipality has a current and comprehensive policy to address maternity and parental leave for non-unionized employees; and 5.1.2 review and amend this Policy as needed.

5.2 The Chief Administrative Officer will: 5.2.1 administer and implement this Policy; and 5.2.2 identify necessary revisions to this Policy.

6. Amendments Date Amendments August 18, 2020 TBD Policy renamed, aligned with benefits available to unionized staff, SUB benefits extended from 17 to 26 weeks, addition of coverage for pregnancy loss after 19 weeks’ gestation.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 31 POLICY HR-06-017

Municipality of the County of Kings Non-Unionized Employee Vacation and Overtime Policy

Policy Category Human Resources Most Recent Amendment August 18, 2020 TBD First Council Approval July 26, 2018 Future Review Date July 2024

1. Purpose The Employee Vacation and Overtime Policy will outline the following benefits for all non-unionized employees of the Municipality of the County of Kings (the “Municipality”): • Vacation; • Holidays; and • Overtime and time in lieu.

The Municipality recognizes the need for rest and relaxation on the part of its employees and encourages employees to use allotted vacation time, and be entitled to eligible holidays each year each year. Annual vacation and holidays provide employees with a break from the workplace and an opportunity to rejuvenate, such that they are able to return to work refreshed and more productive.

It is the Municipality’s policy to provide fair amounts of annual vacation time and to ensure employees have the ability to take vacation in the year that it is earned. This Policy provides a consistent approach to managing vacation.

The Municipality also recognizes that employees work outside of regular hours and the need to appropriately manage those additional hours worked. This Policy establishes guidelines to ensure that overtime hours for non-unionized employees are administered consistently, and recorded accurately.

2. Scope This Policy applies to all non-unionized employees. The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) is excluded from this Policy.

The Collective Agreement shall determine vacation, holidays, overtime, and time in lieu for unionized employees.

3. Definitions 3.1 Management: those employees who are excluded from the Collective Agreement between the Municipality of the County of Kings and CUPE Local 2618 and are in management roles; this includes the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Directors, and Managers.

3.2 Non-Unionized-Non-Management: those employees who are excluded from the Collective Agreement between the Municipality of the County of Kings and CUPE Local 2618 and are not in management roles.

3.3 Term Employees: an employee who has been hired for a defined period of time up to one year but is not filling another Employee’s position; term employees are not covered by the Collective Agreement.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 32 POLICY HR-06-017

Municipality of the County of Kings Non-Unionized Employee Vacation and Overtime Policy

4. Policy Statements

All Non-Unionized Employees 4.1 Vacation Year & Allotments 4.1.1 The vacation year shall be January 1 - December 31, inclusive.

4.1.2 All employees shall be entitled to receive annual vacation leave with pay as follows:

From commencement of employment to start date of Three weeks prorated to hire date the next vacation year

1st full vacation year through 4th full vacation year Three weeks

Three weeks and two days 5th full vacation year through 8th full vacation year (17 days total)

9th full vacation year through 14th full vacation year Four weeks

Four weeks and two days 15th full vacation year through 18th full vacation year (22 days total)

19th full vacation year through 24th full vacation year Five weeks

25th full vacation year and thereafter Six weeks

4.1.3 Term, Part-Time, Temporary, and Seasonal Employees shall be entitled to vacation leave with pay as set out above, on a pro-rata basis based on the actual time worked.

4.1.4 First full vacation year means hired on or before January 15.

4.1.5 Probationary Employees may not take any vacation beyond what they accumulate until successful completion of the probation period.

4.2 Vacation Requests 4.2.1 Employees shall submit their vacation leave preference to their immediate supervisor. It is the joint responsibility of an employee and the employee’s immediate supervisor to ensure that vacation leave is scheduled and taken at a mutually agreeable time.

4.3 Change in Employment Status 4.3.1 An Employee whose employment is terminated at any time in the year, prior to using vacation earned, shall be entitled to payment of wages in lieu of such vacation, prior to termination.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 33 POLICY HR-06-017

Municipality of the County of Kings Non-Unionized Employee Vacation and Overtime Policy

4.3.2 An Employee whose employment terminates for any cause shall compensate the Municipality for vacation leave taken, but to which the Employee at that time has not earned. Where possible, this shall be deducted from any final payment to which the Employee is entitled at the time of termination.

4.4 Vacation Carry Over 4.4.1 All Non-Unionized Employees may carry over up to a maximum of five working days annual vacation. For exceptional circumstances, as determined by the Director or in the case of Directors, the CAO, the Director or CAO may authorize an Employee to carry over additional vacation days. The vacation carried over shall be taken in the following vacation year at the rate of pay prevailing when the vacation is taken.

4.5 Interruptions and Cancellations to Vacation Time 4.5.1 If a paid holiday falls or is observed during an Employee’s vacation period, the Employee shall be allowed an additional vacation day at a time mutually agreed upon between the Employee and their immediate supervisor.

4.5.2 Where an Employee qualifies for court leave or jury duty during vacation, per Policy HR- 06-010 Court Leave, the time shall not be deducted from vacation allotments. Vacation shall be taken at a mutually agreed upon later date.

4.5.3 Upon giving the Employer at least one week’s notice, an Employee shall be permitted to cancel a period of vacation. This vacation will be rescheduled to a later time and will be subject to operational requirements and already scheduled vacations of other Employees.

4.6 Additional Vacation in Employment Offer 4.6.1 The CAO may take into account a candidate’s past relevant work experience and award up to an additional two weeks of vacation beyond the standard three weeks for a new employment contract.

As an illustrative example, if a Director is hired with 20 years of municipal experience in a Director’s role, the CAO may accept these years of service towards the vacation schedule listed in Section 4.1 of this Policy.

4.7 Holidays 4.7.1 All non-unionized employees shall be entitled to the following holidays: 4.7.1.1 New Year's Day 4.7.1.2 Nova Scotia Heritage Day 4.7.1.3 Good Friday 4.7.1.4 Easter Monday 4.7.1.5 Victoria Day 4.7.1.6 Canada Day 4.7.1.7 First Monday in August

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 34 POLICY HR-06-017

Municipality of the County of Kings Non-Unionized Employee Vacation and Overtime Policy

4.7.1.8 Labour Day 4.7.1.9 Thanksgiving Day 4.7.1.10 Remembrance Day 4.7.1.11 Christmas Eve Day (half-day) 4.7.1.12 Christmas Day 4.7.1.13 Boxing Day 4.7.1.14 New Year’s Eve Day (half-day) 4.7.1.15 Floating Holidays (three per calendar year)

4.7.2 Floating Holidays are to be scheduled by mutual agreement between the Employee and their immediate supervisor, and may be taken in hourly increments. Floating Holidays will be approved on a first come, first served basis based on operational requirements.

4.7.3 Part-Time Employees shall receive payment for holidays on a pro-rata basis, to be based on average weekly hours worked in the four (4) week period immediately preceding the week in which the holiday occurs. Floating Holidays will also be allocated on a pro-rata basis.

4.7.4 When any of the holidays listed in Section 4.7.1 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the Municipality shall declare another day to be observed as the holiday and shall give at least two weeks’ notice of the date to be observed where this occurs.

4.7.5 Employees shall be paid for the above holidays provided they have: 4.7.5.1 worked the regularly scheduled shift of work immediately preceding and immediately following the holiday. An approved sick day or a vacation day is to be considered as a day worked; and 4.7.5.2 received, or are entitled to receive, pay for at least fifteen days during the thirty calendar days immediately preceding the holiday.

4.7.6 Employees who do not work on a holiday will receive pay equivalent to the amount they would have received for normal hours of work.

4.7.7 Employees who are required to work and who do work on a holiday shall be paid the amount they would otherwise have received for that holiday or schedule a substitute day off with pay with approval of the Employee's immediate supervisor.

In addition to the above, the Employee will receive one and one-half times their regular rate of wages for the time actually worked on the holiday.

Non-Unionized-Non-Management - Overtime and Time in Lieu 4.8 The Municipality intends that work shall be completed, in so far as possible, within regular work hours to reduce to a minimum the necessity for overtime work.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 35 POLICY HR-06-017

Municipality of the County of Kings Non-Unionized Employee Vacation and Overtime Policy

4.9 Non-Unionized-Non-Management employees shall be eligible for overtime in one of two ways:

4.9.1 time off in lieu to be scheduled at a time mutually agreed between the Employee and the Employee’s immediate supervisor, at a rate of one and one-half hours for each overtime hour worked except that if the overtime hours are worked on a Sunday or paid holiday the Employee shall be compensated at a rate of two hours off for each overtime hour worked. Any time off in lieu not taken within two months of when the overtime was worked shall be paid out to the Employee.

4.9.2 by overtime pay, calculated at the same rate as established in 5.2.1.

4.10 All overtime must be preapproved by the Employee’s immediate supervisor and cannot be claimed for a period of any less than 30 minutes in a workday.

4.11 Employees may be required to attend meetings outside of their regularly scheduled work hours. All time required at a meeting shall be paid at the applicable overtime rate. Employees who are required to be at a meeting for less than one hour shall be paid in 30-minute increments.

Where a meeting or special event occurs more than one hour before or one hour after an Employee’s regularly scheduled work hours, the Employee’s:

4.11.1 actual travel time to the meeting shall be considered attendance at the meeting, to a maximum of thirty minutes per meeting or special event per day; or 4.11.2 meals shall be provided in accordance with the Municipality’s Business Expense Policy as approved by Council and amended from time-to-time. An Employee may not claim travel expenses for a meeting or special event that is held at the Municipality’s office.

4.12 Overtime and Time Off in Lieu must be recorded in the Municipality’s accounting and payroll records.

4.13 Should employment end and there remains unused banked time, the Employee shall be entitled to payment of wages in lieu of such overtime in the amount accrued.

Overtime and Time in Lieu for Management 4.14 The Municipality intends that work shall be completed, insofar as possible, within regular work hours to reduce to a minimum the necessity for overtime work.

4.15 Management will receive time off in lieu on a straight time basis for time worked outside normal working hours in the course of their duties.

4.16 Overtime cannot be claimed for a period of any less than 30 minutes in a workday.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 36 POLICY HR-06-017

Municipality of the County of Kings Non-Unionized Employee Vacation and Overtime Policy

4.17 Management will not be permitted to earn more than 70 hours of overtime in any calendar year. Up to 35 hours may be carried over from year-to-year, however overtime accrual banks must not exceed 70 hours.

4.18 Overtime must be approved by the Employee’s immediate supervisor.

4.19 Overtime and Time Off in Lieu must be recorded in the Municipality’s accounting and payroll records. Time Off in Lieu will be taken at a time that is mutually agreeable to the member of the management team and their immediate supervisor. Compensation for overtime in the form of pay shall only be approved under exceptional circumstances.

This approval must be granted in writing by the CAO.

4.20 Should employment end and there remains unused banked time, the Employee shall be entitled to payment of wages in lieu of such overtime in the amount accrued.

5. Responsibilities 5.1 Council will: 5.1.1 ensure the Municipality has a current and comprehensive Policy to address vacation, holidays, overtime, and time in lieu for non-unionized employees; and 5.1.2 review and amend this Policy as needed.

5.2 The Chief Administrative Officer will: 5.2.1 administer and implement this Policy; and 5.2.2 identify necessary revisions to this Policy.

6. Amendments Date Amendments August 18, 2020 TBD Policy renamed, aligned with benefits available to unionized staff, added holidays, overtime and time in lieu, distinguished between management and other non-union staff, approval required to receive overtime in the form of additional pay, eliminated requirement to use vacation time before lieu time.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 37 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

TO Council

PREPARED BY Janny Postema, Municipal Clerk

MEETING DATE August 18, 2020

SUBJECT Council and Committee of the Whole Meeting Structure

ORIGIN  October 16, 2018 Committee of the Whole Request for Decision  January 22, 2019 Committee of the Whole Request for Decision (Supplementary Report)  February 5, 2019 Council Request for Decision (Supplementary Report II)

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. That effective September 2020, Council revoke the additional Committee of the Whole meeting on the second Thursday of the month at 6:00 pm.

2. That effective September 2020, Council replace the Committee of the Whole meeting held on the third Tuesday of the month at 9:00 am with a second monthly meeting of Council.

3. That effective September 2020, Council set aside the Wednesday following the Council meeting on the third Tuesday of the month at 1:00 pm as an ‘overflow’ day in case of long meetings.

4. That effective September 2020, Council resolve to hold meetings of the Committee of the Whole on an as-needed basis, but no more than quarterly, on the Thursday following the first Tuesday of the month at 9:00 am to address items that require substantial discussion.

5. That Council give First Reading to amendments to By-law 52, being the Committee of the Whole By- law of the Municipality of the County of Kings, as attached to the related August 18, 2020 Request for Decision.

6. That Council provide seven days’ notice, per s. 48 (1) Municipal Government Act, to repeal Policy ADMIN-01-008: Time of Council as attached to the related August 18, 2020 Request for Decision.

INTENT For Council to consider revising the schedule of Council and Committee of the Whole (COTW) meetings with a goal of facilitating more efficient decision making, addressing meeting length, and allowing sufficient preparation time by:

1. revoking the monthly additional COTW meeting; 2. holding a second monthly Council meeting in lieu of COTW; 3. setting aside the Wednesday following the third Tuesday in case of long meetings; and 4. holding COTW meetings on an as-needed basis, but no more than quarterly, on the Thursday following the first Tuesday.

For Council to enable the proposed changes by amending By-law 52, the Committee of the Whole By- law, and repealing ADMIN-01-008: Time of Council.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 38 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

DISCUSSION 1. Length of Meetings To address the issue of the excessive length of some Council/COTW meetings, Council passed the following motions on February 5, 2019:

That Council approve the addition of a second monthly meeting of Committee of the Whole. That Municipal Council approve the second Thursday of the month at 6:00pm as the standing date for the additional monthly meeting of the Committee of the Whole effective April 2019.

Since April 2019, an additional COTW meeting was held on the second Thursday of the month four times only. In most cases, the reason for cancelling was that staff had insufficient time between Council and COTW meetings to prepare for the meetings. It should be noted that the agenda package for the additional COTW is to be posted two days following Council. Given that the same staff members are involved in writing and reviewing reports, compiling agenda packages and preparing presentations, this has proven to result in those staff members being in almost continuous ‘meeting preparation mode’. The Council and additional COTW meetings fall in the same week during some months, resulting in even less preparation time.

Conclusion and Recommendation: Convening an additional COTW meeting on the second Thursday of the month has not been successful and should be reconsidered. Staff therefore recommend revoking the additional Committee of the Whole meeting on the second Thursday of the month.

The excessive length of some meetings still needs to be addressed, however. To that end, staff propose setting aside the Wednesday following the meeting on the third Tuesday of the month as an ‘overflow’ day in case of long meetings. The time of reconvening the previous day’s meeting is proposed to be 1:00 pm, given that the Valley Waste Board and Greenwood Village Commission meet on the third Wednesday at 9:00 am.

2. Efficient Decision Making When Council meets as COTW, only recommendations, rather than final decisions, can be made. Convening only one Council meeting per month can result in delays in decision making. In some cases, items are first discussed at COTW, then Council, and in some cases a third time at a subsequent Council meeting. In the case of policies, e.g., the Municipal Government Act s. 48 (1) requires that “Before a policy is passed, amended or repealed the council shall give at least seven days notice to all council members” [emphasis added]. COTW cannot provide that notice to Council, resulting in at least three meetings being required to adopt policies.

Conclusion and Recommendation: One Council meeting per month leads to delays in decision making. Staff therefore recommend replacing the monthly COTW meeting on the third Tuesday of the month with a second monthly Council meeting.

3. Meeting Environment Council requires opportunities to meet in an environment that allows Members to engage in discussion on ideas and proposals and a more open exchange of views, without the urgency of a final vote. The October 16, 2018 RFD outlines that the Council workshop sessions held at some point were discontinued due to concerns around efficiency and transparency.

As workshops are no longer an option, staff recommend that COTW meetings be held on an as-needed basis, but no more than quarterly. The proposed day is the Thursday following the first Tuesday of the month at 9:00 am. Content of agendas for these COTW meetings would be Strategic Plan updates, policy, and information sessions.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 39 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

COTW meetings also serve to provide Council the time for ‘second sober thought’ before making final decisions at a subsequent Council meeting. This will still be possible in case of two monthly Council meetings, as Council may defer decisions to the next meeting of Council.

Conclusion and Recommendation: COTW meetings should not be eliminated entirely. Staff recommend that they be scheduled on an as-needed basis, no more than quarterly, on the Thursday following the first Tuesday of the month at 9:00 am to address items that require substantial discussion.

4. By-law 52: Committee of the Whole Section 2 of By-law 52, the Committee of the Whole By-law, states that COTW is to meet at least once a month. The amendments required to implement the proposed meeting schedule changes are outlined in Appendix B.

5. ADMIN-01-008: Time of Council Policy ADMIN-01-008, the Time of Council Policy, is outdated, contradicts By-law 64: Meetings and Procedure, and can be regarded as redundant given that By-law 64 covers the items addressed by the Policy. Staff therefore recommend that Council repeal the Policy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS  There are no financial implications, as the number of meetings per month or per year will not increase (and may in fact decrease).

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Check Strategic Priority Description Applicable Recommendations are aimed at improving efficiencies and  Good Governance effectiveness. Environmental Stewardship

Economic Development

Strong Communities

Financial Sustainability

Supports a Strategic Project

Supports a Core Program Enhancement

ALTERNATIVES  Not revoke the additional COTW meeting on the second Thursday of the month at 6:00 pm.  Not replace the COTW meeting on the third Tuesday of the month with a second Council meeting.  Not set aside an ‘overflow’ day and have occasional long meetings.  Not have COTW meetings on an as-needed basis.

IMPLEMENTATION  Staff recommend implementing the revised meeting schedule effectively immediately, allowing the sitting Council the opportunity to test the new schedule prior to the start of the new Council.  Second Reading of amendments to By-law 52, the Committee of the Whole By-law.  Repeal of Policy ADMIN-01-008: Time of Council.  Post new schedule to Municipal website and social media.  Mark revised meeting dates in Councillors’ Outlook calendar.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT  No specific community engagement initiatives were undertaken as part of this recommendation.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 40 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

APPENDICES  Appendix A: Calendar example of current and proposed schedule  Appendix B: Proposed amendments to By-law 52, the Committee of the Whole By-law  Appendix C: ADMIN-01-008: Time of Council Policy

APPROVALS Rob Frost, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer August 7, 2020

Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer August 10, 2020

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 41 Appendix A

MEETING SCHEDULE - CURRENT OCTOBER 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 27 28 29 30 1 2 3

Post Agenda Post Agenda Package Package

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Council COTW

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Post Agenda Package

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

COTW

25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Post Agenda Package

Template © calendarlabs.com Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 42 MEETING SCHEDULE - CURRENT NOVEMBER 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Council Post Agenda Package

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Post Agenda COTW Package

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

COTW

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Post Agenda Package

29 30 1 2 3 4 5

Council

Template © calendarlabs.com Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 43 MEETING SCHEDULE - PROPOSED OCTOBER 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 27 28 29 30 1 2 3

Post Agenda Package

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Council

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Post Agenda Package

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Council Overflow Day (if required)

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Post Agenda Post Agenda Package (max. Package quarterly)

Template © calendarlabs.com Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 44 MEETING SCHEDULE - CURRENT NOVEMBER 2020 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COTW Council (as needed, max. quarterly)

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Post Agenda Package

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Council Overflow Day (if required)

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Post Agenda Package

29 30 1 2 3 4 5

Council

Template © calendarlabs.com Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 45 Appendix B

MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS

For By-Law information contact the Municipal Clerk Tel: (902) 678-6141 Fax: (902) 678-9279 E-mail: [email protected]

BY-LAW # 52

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

1. This By-Law shall be known as and may be cited as the "Committee of the Whole By-Law".

2. Council hereby establishes a Committee of the Whole, consisting of the Mayor and all of the councillors, to meet at least once a month. The meetings shall convene at times established by a resolution of Council.

3. Council or Committee of the Whole may cancel or re-schedule a meeting of the Committee of the Whole, providing the public is given at least four days’ notice.

4. The Committee of the Whole will be responsible for all matters which would be of concern to the Municipal Council.

5. Meetings of the Committee of the Whole shall be open to the public, unless the Committee moves into an In-Camera session which complies with the Municipal Government Act (MGA) (Section 22(2)). The public, with permission from the majority of Council, may address the Committee, with a time limit of ten minutes. This excludes comments on matters where there are existing meeting procedures with First or Second Readings, or other matters that have a public process in place.

6. Staff reports shall be presented to the Committee of the Whole or to Council.

7. Committee of the Whole will meet for the purposes of discussion and possible recommendation to Council. No formal decisions will be made when the councillors are meeting as Committee of the Whole.

8. Committee of the Whole may, in its discretion, decide not to refer a staff recommendation to Council if the Committee feels that recommendation would not be appropriate at that time.

9. (a) The Mayor shall act as chairperson and presiding officer at the meetings of the Committee of the Whole.

(b) In the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor shall so serve.

(c) In the absence of both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the Committee of the Whole may appoint a chairperson from the members present.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 46 MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS BY-LAW # 52 cont’d

10. The Clerk shall keep full time minutes of all of the discussions and recommendations of the Committee of the Whole.

History of this By-Law

Enacted December 5, 1978

Amended January 6, 1998 August 2, 2005 December 4, 2012 August 2, 2016 (effective November 1, 2016)

2 Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 47 Policy ADMIN-01-008 Appendix C

MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS

Time of Council Policy

Creation Date: Policy Category: Administration Approval Date: April 5th, 2005 Next Review Date: October 2011 Revision Date: Replaces:

Purpose: To establish the time at which the regular monthly Council meetings are held and procedures for that meeting.

Policy: The regular monthly meetings of Municipal Council will commence at 7:00 pm and end at 10:00 pm. There will be a break of fifteen (15) minutes at approximately 8:30 pm. Councillors will be permitted to speak on any motion twice during consideration of that matter. The first time a maximum of ten (10) minutes will be allowed with five (5) minutes permitted for the second time a Councillor speaks on the topic. The mover of the motion will be permitted to speak a third time to summarize or clarify the motion.

MASTER

Page 1 of 1

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 48 Municipality of the County of Kings Briefing

TO Council

PREPARED BY Amie Johnstone, Financial Services Administrative Assistant

MEETING DATE August 18, 2020

SUBJECT Community Grant Allocations: Community Recreation Programming Assistance, Community Hall Assistance Program, Park, Playground, and Trail Maintenance and Development Grant

ORIGIN

• Operating budget approved April 09, 2020 • Supplementary Budget approved May 21, 2020 • FIN-05-018 Community Grants Policy • Grant deadlines: o Community Recreation Programming Assistance – February 1 extended to February 14, 2020 o Community Hall Assistance Program – April 1 extended to June 1, 2020 o Park, Playground, and Trail Maintenance and Development – April 1 extended to June 1, 2020

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the Community Grants Allocation Briefing report for information.

INTENT

Receive for information.

DISCUSSION

This briefing provides the allocation information as approved by the CAO under the following grant programs:

Grant Program Program Description This fund assists with recreation programming in partnership with other Community Recreation funding; applications will be considered for youth programming (age 21 and Programming under). Programming costs, part-time staffing or program equipment are Assistance permitted expenses. Funds may also be directed at new or established programming, leadership, leisure activities, or group education. To assist with capital repairs and renovations of halls, the Community Hall Assistance program contributes to the ongoing preservation of halls across Community Hall the Municipality. Priority for funding is given to those projects that are Assistance directly related or attached to the hall structure and address structural safety and integrity. This fund supports the creation and maintenance of active living Park, Playground, and infrastructure. These grants support communities through well-maintained Trail Maintenance and public parks, playgrounds, trails, and assets to improve opportunities and Development promote active living. Funding is to support all capital aspects of development and maintenance, excluding the purchase of land for future development.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 49 Municipality of the County of Kings Briefing

All applicants were contacted to confirm project/program viability due to COVID-19 and revised applications were submitted as necessary with several organizations deciding to withdraw applications this year. Staff reviewed, scored and ranked the most up-to-date applications submitted to the Community Recreation Programming Assistance Grant, Community Hall Assistance Program Grant and Park, Playground, and Trail Maintenance and Development Grant for eligibility and prepared draft grant allocations for all requests based on the evaluation criteria in the Policy. Per s.5.7 of the Policy, The Chief Administrative Officer has authority to approve; on August 11, 2020 the CAO reviewed and approved the draft as submitted.

The following Community Recreation Programming Assistance grant funding was awarded:

Maximum Eligible Organization Description of Request Request Awarded Village of Kingston Summer Day Camp, March Break Camp & Recreation Outdoor Beach Volleyball $13,000 $11,700 Village of New Minas 2020 Summer Day Camp $8,250 $8,250 Kingsway Assembly Kids Recreation Program (Sept-May) $5,550 $5,051 Summer Activity Camp, Annapolis Valley Table Tennis Club, Youth Multisport, Canning & District FUNDamentals/Open Gym, Tumblebugs, Home Recreation Commission Alone-Safe Choices, Outdoor Activity Camp, Community Youth Outreach & March Break Camp 2021 $14,025 $12,500 Free Spirit Therapeutic Riding Association (FSTRA) Riding program $12,500 $12,500 Total $50,000 Budget $50,000 Remaining $0

The following Community Hall Assistance Program grant funding was awarded:

Maximum Eligible Organization Description of Request Request Awarded Woodville Community Centre Chimney repair & Shingling a section $5,000 $5,000 Windermere Community Hall Ramp and landings $1,872 $1,872

Water fountain and bottle refill station Village of Port Williams installation $2,100 $2,100 Black Rock Community Emergency replacement of water pump Association $1,616 $1,616 South Berwick Community Club upstairs updating renovations $1,213 $1,213 Meadowview Community Storage garage construction $5,000 $5,000 Coldbrook Community Heritage Hall Maintenance Association $2,150 $2,150

Total $18,950 Budget $50,000 Remaining $31,050

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 50 Municipality of the County of Kings Briefing

The following Park, Playground, and Trail Maintenance and Development grant funding was awarded:

Trails PP PP Development & Total eligible Development Maintenance Maintenance Organization Project description request amount Award Award Award Canaan Heights Annual park maintenance Neighbourhood Association $990 $0 $990 $0 Meadowview Community Covered picnic table Association structures development $7,500 $6,750 $0 $0 Rail Trail maintenance and Kings County Trails Society capital upgrades (Berwick to Kingston) $40,906 $0 $0 $36,815 The Scott's Bay Community Annual maintenance Hall Association $2,206 $0 $2,206 $0 Village of Canning Park and trail maintenance $7,176 $0 $4,500 $2,676 Park maintenance and Village of Kingston capital enhancement $19,277 $12,560 $4,500 $0 White Rock Community Trail maintenance Association $1,000 $0 $0 $900 Halls Harbour Community Trail maintenance development association $8,500 $0 $0 $7,038 Annapolis Valley Trails Trail maintenance & capital Coalition enhancement $20,000 $0 $0 $16,558 Cornwallis River Pathways Trail maintenance Society $1,788 $0 $0 $1,609 Park maintenance: Lovett Park, Coldbrook Community Brandon's Place, Bessview Association Playground & Pioneer Cemetery and Hayes Subdivision $6,750 $6,750 $0 $0 Park maintenance and Waterville Recreation Club capital enhancement $3,880 $2,188 $1,692 $0 Somerset and District Playground and Recreation Grounds maintenance Commission $3,043 $0 $2,738 $0 Burlington Community Park Community park Society maintenance $2,000 $0 $2,000 $0 Community park and trail Centreville & District Park & maintenance & capital Recreation Association enhancement $18,433 $3,344 $4,499 $8,500 Fox Hill Community Park maintenance & capital Association (FHCA) purchases $3,739 $0 $2,636 $0 Village of Aylesford Park & trail maintenance $3,550 $0 $2,550 $1,000 Total $150,738 $31,592 $28,311 $75,097 BUDGET $135,000 $135,000 Remaining $15,738 $0

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 51 Municipality of the County of Kings Briefing

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

• Community Recreation Programming Assistance Program: $50,000 from GL 01-2-271-210 (Budget = $50,000) • Community Hall Assistance Program: $18,949.66 from GL 01-2-219-530 (Budget = $50,000 *Leaving $31,050.34 remaining for emergency funding) • Park, Playground, and Trail Maintenance and Development Grant: $135,000 total from GL’s 01-2-271-822, 01-2-271-800 & 01-2-271-911 (Aggregate Budget = $135,000)

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Check Strategic Priority Description Applicable Good Governance

Environmental Stewardship

Economic Development Assists non-profit organizations in their community  Strong Communities development efforts Financial Sustainability

Supports a Core Program Enhancement

Not Applicable

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

• Community engagement was included as part of the policy development process. • Policy FIN-05-018 was posted on the municipal website. • Community Grant information sessions were held on January 20 & 21, 2020 • Per s.65 (au) Municipal Government Act, a list of grant recipients will be published.

ALTERNATIVES

• No alternative are recommended.

IMPLEMENTATION

• Staff responsible for advising applicants of allocations and any conditions on funding and forward cheques to successful applicants. • A list of all successful applicants will be published.

APPROVALS

Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer August 11, 2020

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 52 Municipality of the County of Kings Briefing

TO Council

PREPARED BY Brittany Mastroianni, Diversity & Outreach Specialist

MEETING DATE August 18, 2020

SUBJECT RFP MCK20-18, Update to Action Plan for Ending Racism and Discrimination

ORIGIN • 2012 Action Plan for the Elimination of Racism & Discrimination • October 7, 2019 Diversity Kings County Meeting • April 9, 2020 Council Meeting • May 21, 2020 Special Council

INTENT

For Council to be updated on the results of the tender process specific to RFP MCK20-18 Update to Action Plan for Ending Racism and Discrimination for information purposes.

DISCUSSION

In fall 2019 Diversity Kings County began reviewing the current Action Plan. At the same time, staff identified a need for an update to document which, when adopted by Council in 2012, was referred to as a living document.

Through the budget process, Council affirmed a desire to see the Municipality undertake this work and allocated a budget of $25,000.

The Request for Proposals was issued June 18, 2020 and closed July 16, 2020. Seven (7) proposals were received. The public procurement process was followed: proposals were reviewed and scored by a team of three staff and a decision was made to award the contract to the proponent with the best combined technical and financial score. This contract has been awarded under the spending authority of the Chief Administrative Officer.

The successful proponent was Lightship Strategies who joined with two diverse-owned firms to produce technical proposal while also meeting financial restraints. Strengths identified by the scoring team included the lived experiences of the persons involved and their collaborative approach to the project with each team member serving as subject matter experts in specific areas the Municipality identified as desired outcomes.

Lightship Strategies also has experience working in the municipal context which, in the opinion of the scoring committee, is an asset.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS  $25,000 as allocated in 2020/21 Budget.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Check Strategic Priority Description Applicable Good Governance

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 53 Municipality of the County of Kings Briefing

Environmental Stewardship

Economic Development

Strong Communities

Financial Sustainability

Supports a Core Program Enhancement

X Not Applicable

ALTERNATIVES  No other alternatives are recommended.

IMPLEMENTATION  August 12, 2020: Introductory meeting with Diversity Kings County  Week of August 17, 2020: Kick off meeting with staff and Consultant to establish project timelines.  March 21, 2021 Launch of Updated Action Plan

ENGAGEMENT  Extensive public and stakeholder engagement shall take place throughout the life of the project.

APPENDICIES  Appendix A: Corporate Profiles

APPROVALS

Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer August 8, 2020

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 54 Municipality of the County of Kings Briefing

Appendix A: Corporate Profiles

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 55 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

TO Special Council

PREPARED BY Kevin Wheaton, Financial Analyst, BBA

MEETING DATE August 18, 2020

SUBJECT 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan and Gas Tax Allocation to Villages

ORIGIN

 Council Minutes March 3, 2009 & corresponding Agenda Package  Council Minutes January 8, 2013 – COTW Agenda December 18, 2012  Municipal Funding Agreement for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Funds between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Nova Scotia and the Municipality dated December 23, 2014  Capital Budget 2020-21

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Municipal Council approve the 2020-21 Gas Tax allocations and Gas Tax use for Village projects, as included in Appendix A attached to the August 18, 2020 Request for Decision report

2. That Municipal Council approve the 2020-21 Five-Year Capital Investment Plan, as included in Appendix B attached to the August 18, 2020 Request for Decision report

INTENT

 To provide Council with information about the allocation of the current year Gas Tax funds between the Municipality and the four (4) Villages that own Sewer or Water infrastructure and the three (3) Villages that do not own Sewer or Water infrastructure, in accordance with Council’s previously approved method.

 To provide Council with the five-year Capital Investment Plans for the Municipality and the seven (7) Villages required to be filed with the Province as a condition of the Gas Tax Funding Agreement.

DISCUSSION

The current Gas Tax Agreement between the Province and the Municipality is in effect until March 31, 2024. The Agreement requires the Municipality to submit an annual, five-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) by September 1 of each year. The report must follow the prescribed format, and provide details of the capital budgets for the coming year, for both the Municipality and the seven Villages, together with the combined capital plans for the subsequent four years. The CIP also provides the Province with information about how the Municipality and Villages plan to pay for the projects. Projects that intend to use Gas Tax for some or all of the costs must be eligible, and expenses that are incurred must further be eligible under the terms of the Agreement.

Each Village provides a Capital Investment Plan to staff, listing their capital projects and funding sources for the five-year period. Each Village Clerk affirms that the details are consistent with the budgets and

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 56 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision plans approved by their respective Commissions. The details are incorporated into the Municipality’s Capital Investment Plan, together with details from the Municipality’s Capital Budget and Five-Year Plan, previously approved by Council. Council does not approve the Village Capital Budgets or Capital Plans, but instead, approves the use of Gas Tax for Village Projects.

The Villages are responsible for the management and funding of the projects under their control. Finance staff review the Gas Tax project descriptions to ensure they appear to be Eligible Projects under the terms of the Municipality’s Gas Tax Agreement with the Province. Staff ensure that the proposed Gas Tax funding is consistent with Council’s previously approved method. Staff review claims submitted by the Villages for reimbursement from the Gas Tax fund, to ensure they appear to be for Eligible Project Expenses. Gas Tax expenses by the Villages are included in the Municipality’s Annual Expenditure Report to the Province at the end of each fiscal year.

Other Requirements of the Gas Tax Agreement:

The Gas Tax Agreement requires the Municipality to follow a Communications Protocol, when doing project announcements, and to display approved signage at project locations for projects using more than $100,000 of Gas Tax.

The Province has entered into an Agreement with the Nova Scotia Federation of Municipalities (NSFM) to manage the Communications Protocol process. Accordingly, the Municipality is required to submit a Gas Tax Pre-Construction Report each spring, together with periodic reporting of signage posted at project locations, and project updates. The 2020-21 Pre-Construction Report has been submitted to NSFM as required.

At the end of each fiscal year, the Municipality is required to complete and file the Annual Expenditure Report (AER) with the Province summarizing, for each Gas Tax Project, the amount of expenditure incurred by either the Municipality or the Villages, and the amount of Gas Tax used, together with a description of the project outcomes and benefit received. The AER report for the 2019-20 year has been filed.

In March 2009, Council approved the model for allocating Federal Gas Tax dollars to the Villages and to individual projects. The 2009 model permits Eligible Projects (as defined in the Gas Tax Agreement) to use Gas Tax to fund up to two-thirds (2/3’s) of Eligible Project Costs. In September 2012, Council approved a change to the model to permit eligible sewer and water projects to use Gas Tax to fund up to 100% of Eligible Project Costs.

The Municipality shares Gas Tax with four Villages that own sewer and/or water Infrastructure, based on the proportionate value of that infrastructure, specifically Canning, Kingston, New Minas and Port Williams. The Province has paid the Municipality a transfer of $2,135,274 in June of this year. Normally, the total transfer for the year is paid in two instalments, one in December and one in March. This year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the total amount for the year was paid with one payment in June. Using the approved model, the Gas Tax funds transfer will be allocated as follows:

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 57 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

2020/21 TOTAL INFRASTUCTURE Annual Gas Tax VILLAGE VALUE % Allocation Canning $ 7,868,743 5.077%$ 108,408 Kingston $ 13,004,513 8.391%$ 179,171 New Minas $ 26,278,629 16.956%$ 362,057 Port Williams $ 12,469,146 8.045%$ 171,783 Municipality of the County of Kings $ 95,364,308 61.531%$ 1,313,855 Total $ 154,985,339 100.00%$ 2,135,274

Three Villages within the Municipality do not own sewer/water infrastructure, specifically Aylesford, Cornwallis Square and Greenwood. Accordingly, these Villages do not receive an automatic allocation of Gas Tax funds. The Municipality owns and maintains the sewer and water infrastructure in these Villages, using funds from Municipal sewer (or Greenwood water) customers, together with a portion of the funds from the Municipality’s share of Gas Tax. These three Villages annually request Gas Tax funds from the Municipality’s share, to assist with other capital projects.

For the 2020-21 fiscal year, the three Villages have proposed the following projects:

The Village of Aylesford is planning to:

 Continue the construction of approximately 600m of new sidewalk on New Road, from Park Street southward to Highway 1. This is a carryover project from last year. The total project is budgeted at $400,000 with $7,078 spent in 2019-20 and $392,922 carrying forward to the current year. The Village requested two-thirds Gas Tax funding in the amount of $266,666 to help pay for the cost. The request was approved last year and $266,666 of Gas Tax funds were allocated to the Village for this project. Gas Tax funds in the amount of $4,719 were used by the Village during 2019-20 and the remaining balance of $261,947 has been carried forward and is included in the Municipality’s opening 2020-21 Gas Tax Account balance of $2,727,139 (see Appendix A) for use during 2020-21. The sidewalk construction on New Road will complete a safe walking loop within the Village that includes Victoria Road, Park Street, New Road and Hwy 1.  Construct approximately 450m of new sidewalk on Victoria Road, from Highway 1 southward to the Klahanie Kamping campground. The total project is budgeted at $295,000. The Village is requesting two-thirds Gas Tax funding in the amount of $196,666 to help pay for the cost. The new sidewalk construction would create a safe walkway for youth attending swim lessons and recreational swimming at the campground, as well as provide a safe walkway for campground visitors to be able to walk to and patronize local businesses located in the core of the Village.  Construct approximately 350m of new sidewalk on Pine Avenue, from 1292 Pine Avenue southward to Park Street. The total project is budgeted at $70,000. The Village is requesting two- thirds Gas Tax funding in the amount of $46,666 to help pay for the cost. The new sidewalk construction would create a safe walkway for residents/families in a residential area to connect with the main walking loop in the Village.

The Village Commissioners feel that the new sidewalk construction will improve pedestrian safety and encourage active living for residents, small business customers and visitors to the community.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 58 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

The Village of Aylesford has proposed three sidewalk projects for the 2020-21 year. The New Rd project is the largest of the three and is a carryover project from 2019-20. It includes $261,947 of Gas Tax funding that was approved for the Village last year. The other two projects include Gas Tax funding in the amount of $243,332 combined. In addition to the three sidewalk projects for the current year, the Village has proposed a sidewalk project for the 2021-22 year and another for the 2022-23 year, with a combined Gas Tax funding amount of $300,000. The total Gas Tax funding requested, for the five-year period (2020-25), is $805,279 of which $261,947 was approved last year for the New Rd sidewalk. The total Gas Tax funding request is large and, from a financial perspective, is out of alignment with the comparative amounts paid/budgeted over a ten-year period to the other two Villages that do not have sewer/water infrastructure (see Appendix C attached to the August 18, 2020 Request for Decision report). Also, any Gas Tax funds allocated to the three Villages without infrastructure reduces the amount of Gas Tax funds available to the Municipality for eligible projects. For these two reasons, and because of work anticipated to be completed in this area of Aylesford related to J-Class roads, it is recommended that the three Gas Tax funding projects requested by the Village be approved for 2020/2021 and the two remaining sidewalk projects proposed for future years, Maple Avenue (2021-22) and School Street (2022-23), be included at this time but examined closer in future CIPs for suitability and priority in the allocation of Gas Tax funds.

The Village of Cornwallis Square is planning to:

 Construct a rest area on the Harvest Moon Trail, which runs behind the Waterville Fire Hall, north of the parking lot. The project includes site preparation, picnic table kiosk, bicycle rack, recycling station & garbage cans. This is a carryover project from last year with the total budget of $7,405 carrying forward to 2020-21, as the project was not started in 2019-20. The Village requested two-thirds Gas Tax funding in the amount of $4,937 to help pay for the cost. The request was approved last year and $4,937 of Gas Tax funds were allocated to the Village for this project. As these Gas Tax funds ($4,937) were not used by the Village during 2019-20, they have been carried forward and are included in the Municipality’s opening 2020-21 Gas Tax Account balance of $2,727,139 (see Appendix A) for use during 2020-21.  Install an additional six (6) bus shelters in fiscal 2021-22. Four of the shelters are to be located by Central Kings Rural High School (two on each side of Hwy 1) and an additional two shelters are to be located near Camro Place apartments (one on each side of Hwy 1). This is a carryover project from last year with the total budget of $72,000 carrying forward, as the project was not started in 2019-20. The Village requested two-thirds Gas Tax funding to help pay for the cost. The request was approved last year and $48,000 of Gas Tax funds were allocated to the Village for this project. As the Gas Tax funds ($48,000) were not used by the Village during 2019-20, they have been carried forward and are included in the Municipality’s opening 2020-21 Gas Tax Account balance of $2,727,139 (see Appendix A) for use during 2021-22.

The Village of Greenwood is planning to:

 Engage an engineering firm to design 270m of new sidewalk on Rocknotch Road and 165m of new sidewalk on Central Avenue. This is a carryover project from last year. The total project is budgeted at $30,000 with $18,603 spent in 2019-20 and $11,397 carrying forward to the current year. The Village requested two-thirds Gas Tax funding in the amount of $20,000 to help pay for the cost. The request was approved last year and $20,000 of Gas Tax funds were allocated to the Village for this project. Gas Tax funds in the amount of $12,402 were used by the Village during 2019-20 and the remaining balance of $7,598 has been carried forward and is included in the Municipality’s opening 2020-21 Gas Tax Account balance of $2,727,139 (see Appendix A) for use during 2020-21. The first sidewalk, on Central Avenue near KFC, would complete a walking loop for residents. The second sidewalk, on Rocknotch Road, would allow residents in the seniors complex and residents in Rydel Court (55 plus) to safely walk to the Greenwood Mall and to connect with the rest of the Village.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 59 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

 Construct approximately 270m of new sidewalk on Rocknotch Road, as described above. The total project is budgeted at $195,000. The Village is requesting two-thirds Gas Tax funding in the amount of $130,000 to help pay for the cost.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 During the 2020-21 Capital Budget process, Council approved capital projects, for the current fiscal year, with a total value of $17,815,558 and the use of $2,215,000 of Gas Tax funding to help pay for the cost. The 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan is consistent with the approved Capital Budget and would direct spending, accordingly.

 If Council approved all of the Village requests, Gas Tax funds would be spent on eligible Gas Tax expenditures as follows (see also Appendix A):

2020/21 Total Capital Village / Municipality Spending Gas Tax Funding Other Funding Municipality of the County of Kings $ 17,815,558 $ 2,215,000 $ 15,600,558 Aylesford $ 757,922 $ 505,279 $ 252,643 Cornwallis Square $ 280,405 $ 4,937 $ 275,468 Greenwood $ 330,097 $ 137,598 $ 192,499 Subtotal $ 19,183,982 $ 2,862,814 $ 16,321,168

Canning $ - $ - $ - Kingston $ 600,000 $ - $ 600,000 New Minas $ 477,250 $ 340,000 $ 137,250 Port Williams $ 504,000 $ 469,000 $ 35,000 Subtotal $ 1,581,250 $ 809,000 $ 772,250

Total $ 20,765,232 $ 3,671,814 $ 17,093,418

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT

Check Strategic Priority If Checked, Provide Brief Explanation Applicable Good Governance Environmental Stewardship Economic Development Strong Communities Long-term capital planning in order to ensure efficient use Financial Sustainability  of funding resources. Supports a Strategic Project Supports a Core Program

Enhancement Not Applicable - explain why

project should still be considered

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 60 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

ALTERNATIVES

 Council could decide to not approve Gas Tax funding for some or all of the projects in the three Villages that otherwise receive no allocation.

IMPLEMENTATION

 The Capital Investment Plan will be filed with the Province.  Villages will submit Gas Tax claim documentation for reimbursement throughout the year, in support of their projects.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

 The Village Clerk from each requesting Village has affirmed that the Capital Budget submitted is consistent with the budget approved by the Village Commission, during a duly called public meeting of the electors of each Village.  Council has previously approved the Municipality’s Capital Budget during the annual budget process, which meetings were open to the public.  Council has previously approved the methodology for allocation of Gas Tax Funds.

APPENDICES

 Appendix A: Gas Tax Balances & Reconciliation 2020-21  Appendix B: Capital Investment Plan 2020-21 to 2024-25  Appendix C: Gas Tax Funding Analysis 2015-16 to 2024-25

APPROVALS

Greg Barr, Director of Finance & IT Services Date: August 11, 2020

Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer Date: August 12, 2020

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 61 MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS APPENDIX A GAS TAX PROJECTS 2019-20 (First Amendment)

Gas Tax on Open Total Gas Current Year Gas Projects from Total 2020-21 Tax Unit Project Tax Last Year Gas Tax Approved

Municipality of the County of Kings Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year 2,727,139 Annual Allocation 2020-21 1,313,855 Gas Tax Available 4,040,994 Pedestrian Infrastructure 240,000 - 240,000 (240,000) Lift Station Replacements 500,000 - 500,000 (500,000) Sewer Treatment Plant Infrastructure Renewal 500,000 - 500,000 (500,000) Sewer Collection System Line Replacements 25,000 - 25,000 (25,000) Sewer Upgrades (Liftstations AT-5 & WE-6) - 250,000 250,000 (250,000) Infrastructure Upgrades - Mee Rd (Sewer Line, Sidewalk & Storm Drainage) - 700,000 700,000 (700,000) Total Gas Tax Projects 1,265,000 950,000 2,215,000 (2,215,000) Village of Aylesford Sidewalk - New Road (Civic #1171 to Civic #2829) - 261,947 261,947 Sidewalk - Victoria Rd (Post Office to Klahanie Campground) 196,666 - 196,666 Sidewalk - Pine Street (1292 to ) 46,666 - 46,666 Total Gas Tax Projects 243,332 261,947 505,279 (505,279) Village of Greenwood Sidewalk Design - Central Avenue & Rocknotch Road - 7,598 7,598 Sidewalk Construction - Rocknotch Rd 130,000 - 130,000 Total Gas Tax Projects 130,000 7,598 137,598 (137,598) Village of Cornwallis Square Rest Area - Harvest Moon Trail - 4,937 4,937 Total Gas Tax Projects - 4,937 4,937 (4,937)

Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year Municipality of the County of Kings 1,178,180

Village of Canning Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year 669,075 Annual Allocation 2020-21 108,408 Gas Tax Available 777,483 No 2020-21 Gas Tax Projects - - - No 2020-21 Gas Tax Projects - - - Total Gas Tax Projects - - - - Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year Village of Canning 777,483

Village of Kingston Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year 559,911 Annual Allocation 2020-21 179,171 Gas Tax Available 739,082 No 2020-21 Gas Tax Projects - - - No 2020-21 Gas Tax Projects - - - Total Gas Tax Projects - - - - Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year Village of Kingston 739,082

Village of Port Williams Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year 534,169 Annual Allocation 2020-21 171,783 Gas Tax Available 705,952 Sewer Lagoon Rehabilitation (Phase 2) 300,000 - 300,000 Well Replacement (Well #1) 99,000 - 99,000 Stationary Generator - Community Centre 70,000 - 70,000 Total Gas Tax Projects 469,000 - 469,000 (469,000) Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year Village of Port Williams 236,952

Village of New Minas Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year 1,402,714 Annual Allocation 2020-21 362,057 Gas Tax Available 1,764,771 Village Sidewalk Program 50,000 100,000 150,000 Household Meter Reader Boxes - 65,000 - 65,000 Sidewalk - Lockhart Drive 33,333 - 33,333 Water Meter Purchases 8,000 7,000 15,000 Water Fountains 6,667 - 6,667 Harvest Moon Trail Connector - Lockhart Ryan Park 6,667 - 6,667 Tennis Court Reburbishment 20,000 - 20,000 Dog Park 10,667 - 10,667 Fitness Centre Expansion 30,000 - 30,000 Wireless Thermostat & Sensors 1,333 - 1,333 Road Entry/Exit Widening & Lighting - LMCC 1,333 - 1,333 Total Gas Tax Projects 233,000 7,000 340,000 (340,000) Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year Village of New Minas 1,424,771

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 62 Page 1 MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS APPENDIX A GAS TAX PROJECTS 2019-20

Gas Tax Account Reconciliation Municipality (including Villages That Do Not Own Water or Sewer Infrastructure) Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year (April 1, 2020) 2,727,139 Annual Allocation 2020-21 1,313,855 Gas Tax Available 4,040,994

Anticipated Gas Tax Projects 2020-21, Municipality (2,215,000) Subtotal 1,825,994

Anticipated Gas Tax Projects 2020-21, Villages That Do Not Own Water or Sewer Infrastructure (647,814)

Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year (March 31, 2021) Municipality 1,178,180

Villages That Do Own Water or Sewer Infrastructure Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year (April 1, 2020) Village of Canning 669,075 Village of Kingston 559,911 Village of New Minas 1,402,714 Village of Port Williams 534,169 Subtotal 3,165,869 3,165,869 Annual Allocation 2020-21 821,419 Gas Tax Available 3,987,288

Anticipated Gas Tax Projects 2020-21, Villages That Do Own Water or Sewer Infrastructure (809,000)

Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year (March 31, 2020) Village of Canning 486,262 Village of Kingston 739,082 Village of New Minas 1,424,772 Village of Port Williams 136,952 Subtotal 2,787,068

Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year (March 31, 2021) Villages That Do Own Infrastructure 3,178,288

Gas Tax General Ledger Reconciliation Municipality (including Villages That Do Not Own Water or Sewer Infrastructure) Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year (April 1, 2020) GL #21-4-445-200 2,404,657 Annual Allocation 2020-21 1,313,855 Gas Tax Available 3,718,512

Anticipated Gas Tax Projects 2020-21, Municipality (2,215,000)

Anticipated Gas Tax Projects 2020-21, Villages That Do Not Own Water or Sewer Infrastructure (647,814) Anticipated Gas Tax Projects 2020-21, Carryforward Projects (transferred to Village account in 2019-20) 322,482 Subtotal (325,332)

Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year (March 31, 2021) Municipality (GL #21-4-445-200) 1,178,180

Villages That Do Own Water or Sewer Infrastructure Gas Tax Account Balance, Beginning of Year (April 1, 2020) GL #21-4-428-200 3,488,351 Annual Allocation 2020-21 821,419 Gas Tax Available 4,309,770

Anticipated Gas Tax Projects 2020-21, Villages That Do Own Water or Sewer Infrastructure (809,000) Anticipated Gas Tax Projects 2020-21, Carryforward Projects (transferred to Village account in 2019-20) (322,482) Subtotal (1,131,482)

Gas Tax Account Projected Balance, End of Year (March 31, 2021) Villages with Infrastructure (GL #21-4-428-200) 3,178,288

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 63 Page 2 of 2 Appendix B The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) For Fiscal Years 2020-21 to 2024-25

MoK Network Upgrades 21-3-361-102 08-1101 - 47,100 47,100 47,100 - 08-1101 1,408 - 64,764 19,290 28,816 114,278 40,100 30,500 36,000 44,000 311,978 MoK Hardware Evergreening 21-3-361-101 08-1102 - 62,700 62,700 62,700 - 08-1102 92,129 - 46,559 53,260 53,531 245,479 85,000 79,000 54,000 54,000 580,179 MoK Records Management 21-3-361-128 16-1102 20,000 - 20,000 5,000 15,000 - 16-1102 ------20,000 MoK Accounting & Asset Management Software 21-3-361-129 16-1103 136,000 114,000 250,000 250,000 - 16-1103 - - 50,000 - - - 300,000 MoK Fibre/Wireless Hybrid Connectivity 21-3-361-132 17-1103 100,000 - 100,000 100,000 - 17-1103 5,395 5,395 - - - - 105,395 MoK Tablet Computers 21-3-361-101 20-1101 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 20-1101 - - - - - 25,000 MoK New Municipal Complex 21-3-375-124 16-1301 45,000 - 45,000 45,000 - 16-1301 674,430 776,226 532,398 5,531,393 7,514,447 - - - - 7,559,447 MoK EPW Building 21-3-375-126 19-1302 1,742,380 1,412,620 3,155,000 335,230 2,819,770 - 11% 19-1302 ------3,155,000 MoK Pedestrian Infrastucture 21-3-372-101 08-1714 - 600,000 600,000 360,000 240,000 - 40% 08-1714 514,243 82,665 69,822 349,797 27,089 483,564 1,527,180 600,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 4,227,180 MoK Municipal Road Remediation 21-3-372-115 13-1702 - - - - 13-1702 149,874 93,211 125,038 368,123 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 668,123 MoK Building & Development Services Vehicles 21-3-365-101 13-1501 - 30,000 30,000 30,000 - 13-1501 22,649 52,053 74,702 - - 30,000 - 134,702 MoK Park Facility Upgrades 21-3-371-115 15-1601 - - - - 15-1601 18,496 46,096 52,261 9,302 126,155 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 226,155 MoK Park Vehicle Replacement 21-3-371-117 19-1601 - - - - 19-1601 - - 30,000 - - - 30,000 MoK Lift Station Replacements 21-3-382-101 08-3408 - 650,000 650,000 150,000 500,000 - 77% 08-3408 230,436 260,824 67,383 642,798 344,366 229,632 1,775,439 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 4,025,439 MoK Sewer Treatment Plant Infrastructure Renewal 21-3-382-102 08-3409 - 1,250,000 1,250,000 500,000 750,000 - 40% 08-3409 480,992 44,902 41,714 357,631 350,932 1,276,171 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 3,326,171 MoK Sewer Collection Line Replacement 21-3-382-103 08-3410 - 75,000 75,000 50,000 25,000 - 33% 08-3410 410,433 637,323 487,199 279,731 157,057 1,971,743 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 6,246,743 MoK EPW Equipment & Occupational Health/Safety 21-3-382-109 10-3409 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 10-3409 18,841 15,731 14,192 20,980 17,823 87,567 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 212,567 MoK EPW Service Vehicle Replacements 21-3-382-901 11-3401 - 70,000 70,000 70,000 - 11-3401 85,974 58,293 29,570 74,707 84,286 332,830 70,000 35,000 50,000 35,000 592,830 MoK Sewer Upgrades 21-3-382-111 19-3401 550,000 - 550,000 300,000 250,000 - 45% 19-3401 - - 600,000 - - - 1,150,000 MoK Community Infrastructure Upgrades - Mee Rd 21-3-369-128 19-3402 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 400,000 700,000 - 64% 19-3402 ------1,100,000 MoK SCADA System Review 21-3-382-112 19-3403 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 - 19-3403 ------50,000 MoK Water Distribution System Improvements 22-3-351-432 10-2403 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 10-2403 43,451 80,501 30,341 8,134 137,088 299,515 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 999,515 MoK Water System Equipment 22-3-351-435 11-2407 - 55,000 55,000 55,000 - 11-2407 49,626 5,053 19,394 12,987 - 87,060 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 242,060 MoK Production Well 22-3-351-200 11-2408 - 400,000 400,000 400,000 - 11-2408 54,831 12,494 67,325 1,500,000 - - - 1,967,325 MoK Water System Assessment 22-3-351-444 19-2401 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 19-2401 ------50,000 MoK Regional Sewerlines 23-3-354-125 14-4401 147,005 52,995 200,000 200,000 - 14-4401 679,048 - 679,048 750,000 - - - 1,629,048 MoK Regional STP Aeration 23-3-354-130 17-4401 956,655 - 956,655 206,655 750,000 - 17-4401 115,721 25,639 141,360 50,000 1,000,000 - - 2,148,015 MoK Regional STP Drum Screens 23-3-354-131 20-4401 - - - - 20-4401 - - - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 MoK Green Initiatives 21-3-382-209 13-3402 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 13-3402 - - 75,000 250,000 - - 375,000 MoK Broadband - CTI 21-3-369-116 18-3401 3,315,250 2,143,069 5,458,319 19,767 4,012,483 1,426,069 - 18-3401 6,484 6,484 - - - - 5,464,803 MoK Solar - Meadowview 21-3-369-117 18-3402 33,000 137,200 170,200 37,100 33,000 100,100 - 59% 18-3402 ------170,200 MoK Wind 21-3-369-118 18-3403 43,350 125,000 168,350 25,000 143,350 - 18-3403 ------168,350 MoK Light Manufacturing Park Development Study 21-3-369-119 18-3404 - 15,000 15,000 5,000 10,000 - 18-3404 - - 50,000 50,000 - - 115,000 MoK J-Class Road Assessment 21-3-369-121 18-3406 - - - - 18-3406 17,979 17,979 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 77,979 MoK Water - Village of Kingston 21-3-369-123 18-3407 97,505 - 97,505 58,283 39,222 18-3407 - - 100,000 - - - 197,505 MoK Secondary Planning Strategy Development - New Minas 21-3-369-126 18-3410 123,300 2,800 126,100 2,800 123,300 - 18-3410 ------126,100 MoK Traffic & Pedestrian Study - Coldbrook Village Park 21-3-369-130 19-3405 - - - - 19-3405 - - 50,000 - - - 50,000 MoK Solar Consulting - Municipal Buildings 21-3-369-132 19-3407 7,829 - 7,829 7,829 - 19-3407 ------7,829 MoK Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) xx-x-xxx-xxx 19-3408 - - - - 19-3408 ------MoK Fleet Optimization Study 21-3-369-133 19-3409 51,000 51,000 21,000 30,000 - 59% 19-3409 ------51,000 MoK Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment 21-3-369-134 19-3410 120,000 - 120,000 50,000 70,000 - 42% 19-3410 ------120,000 MoK Program) 21-3-369-132 20-3401 - 270,000 270,000 270,000 - 20-3401 ------MoK Metering) 21-3-369-132 20-3402 - - - - 20-3402 ------MoK Harvest Moon Trailhead 21-3-371-114 20-3404 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 - 20-3404 ------MoK Greenwood Sewer Extensions 21-3-382-103 20-3405 - 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 20-3405 ------MoK Active Transportation 01-2-212-122 20-3406 - 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 20-3406 ------MoK J-Class 2020-21 One-Time Repave Program 21-3-369-129 20-3407 - 1,344,800 1,344,800 672,400 672,400 - 20-3407 ------0 - - - - 47 Total Capital Budget - Municipality of Kings 8,738,274 9,077,284 17,815,558 709,900 1,218,929 2,606,455 672,400 - - - 4,012,483 - 2,215,000 - 515,330 - 5,815,839 49,222 15% 1,208,631 2,859,677 1,846,572 2,466,077 7,116,138 1,221,185 16,718,280 6,095,100 3,939,500 2,645,000 3,528,000 49,006,638

NM Village Sidewalk Program CF 2019-20 NM-01 200,000 25,000 225,000 150,000 6,042 68,958 67% NM-01 95,976 257,770 30,453 - - - 384,199 - - - - 609,199 NM Household Meter Reader Boxes CF 2019-20 NM-16 - 65,000 65,000 65,000 - 100% NM-16 - - 58,397 38,411 58,076 60,450 215,334 - - - - 280,334 NM Sidewalk - Lockhart Drive CF 2019-20 NM-36 30,000 20,000 50,000 33,333 1,343 15,324 67% NM-36 ------50,000 NM Water Meter Purchases CF 2019-20 NM-41 7,000 8,000 15,000 15,000 - 100% NM-41 - - - - - 7,708 7,708 - - - - 22,708 NM Water Fountains NM-44 - 10,000 10,000 6,667 3,333 67% NM-44 ------10,000 NM Harvest Moon Trail Connector - Lockhart Ryan Park NM-45 - 10,000 10,000 6,667 3,333 67% NM-45 ------10,000 NM Tennis Court Reburbishment NM-46 - 30,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 67% NM-46 ------30,000 NM Dog Park NM-47 - 16,000 16,000 10,667 5,333 67% NM-47 ------16,000 NM Fitness Centre Expansion NM-48 - 45,000 45,000 30,000 15,000 67% NM-48 ------45,000 NM Wireless Thermostat & Sensors NM-49 - 2,000 2,000 1,333 667 67% NM-49 ------2,000 NM Road Entry/Exit Widening & Lighting - LMCC NM-50 - 2,000 2,000 1,333 667 67% NM-50 ------2,000 NM Electrical Upgrade - Forsythe Building NM-51 - 5,500 5,500 5,500 NM-51 ------5,500 NM Plate Tamper NM-52 - 1,250 1,250 1,250 NM-52 ------1,250 NM Scanner/Copier Unit NM-53 - 500 500 500 NM-53 ------500 NM - - 0 ------14 TOTAL - Village of New Minas 477,250 ------340,000 - - 7,385 - 129,865 71% 95,976 257,770 88,850 38,411 58,076 68,158 607,241 - - - - 1,084,491

PW Replace Water Line - Belcher Street CF 2019-20 PW-05 - - - - PW-05 ------160,000 160,000 PW Replace Sewer Line - Belcher Street CF 2019-20 PW-06 - - - - PW-06 ------160,000 160,000 PW Sidewalk Extension - Belcher St CF 2019-20 PW-11 - - - - - PW-11 ------300,000 - - - 300,000 PW Sewer Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) CF 2019-20 PW-12 - - - - - PW-12 ------PW Water Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) CF 2019-20 PW-13 - - - - - PW-13 ------PW Sewer Lagoon Rehabilitation (Phase 2) CF 2019-20 PW-15 - 300,000 300,000 300,000 - 100% PW-15 ------300,000 PW Sidewalk Extension - Hwy #358 CF 2019-20 PW-16 - - - - - PW-16 ------300,000 - 300,000 PW Well Replacement (Well #1) PW-17 - 99,000 99,000 99,000 - 100% PW-17 ------99,000 PW Stationary Generator - Community Centre PW-18 - 105,000 105,000 70,000 35,000 67% PW-18 ------105,000 PW Splashpad - Port Williams Park PW-19 - - - - - PW-19 ------125,000 125,000 - - 0 - - 10 TOTAL - Village of Port Williams 504,000 ------469,000 - - - - 35,000 93% ------300,000 125,000 300,000 320,000 1,549,000

Kingston Sidewalk Construction - Balser Drive (entire length) CF 2019-20 K-07 - - - - K-07 - - - 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000 Kingston Sewer Line Replacement - Main St (CIBC to Magee Rd) CF 2019-20 K-17 - 60,000 60,000 60,000 K-17 ------60,000 Kingston Lift Station Panel Replacement (KN #5 & KN #12) CF 2019-20 K-32 - 40,000 40,000 40,000 K-32 ------40,000 Kingston Lift Station Renewal (KN #3) CF 2019-20 K-33 - - - - K-33 - - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 Kingston Sewer Line - Greenwood Rd CF 2019-20 K-34 - - - - K-34 - - - - 100,000 - - 100,000 Kingston Trail Paving - Main St (738 to 1216) CF 2019-20 K-44 - - - - K-44 - - - - - 200,000 - 200,000 Kingston Truck Replacement (Unit #11) CF 2019-20 K-45 - - - - K-45 - - - - 20,000 - - 20,000 Kingston Tow-behind Boom Lift CF 2019-20 K-46 - 40,000 40,000 40,000 K-46 ------40,000 Kingston MT-6 Replacement CF 2019-20 K-47 - - - - K-47 - - - 100,000 - - - 100,000 Kingston Top Dressing - Ravenwood Lower Field CF 2019-20 K-48 - - - - K-48 - - - 20,000 - - - 20,000 Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 64 Appendix B The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) For Fiscal Years 2020-21 to 2024-25

2019/20 & Prior Costs = $ spent in previous years for this project group (generally beginning in 2014/15 with the new Gas Tax Agreement) Current Year Gross Cost = new $ to be "spent" this fiscal year from either prior year(s) or current year budget (cash basis) Future year costs = budgets per 5-year plan CY Gross TOTAL FEDERAL - Cumulative Forecasted Cost (CF CY Gross CURRENT PROVINCE - GMF, ACOA, Current Gross Cost Project Costs Project Costs from PY Cost (from YEAR GROSS OPERATING OPERATING CAPITAL PROVINCE - PROVINCE - PROVINCE - Modernizati PROVINCE - PROVINCE - FEDERAL - FEDERAL - ICIP, CTI, NRC, Sidewalk OTHER Year 2014/15 (& Gross Cost Gross Cost Gross Cost Gross Cost Gross Cost to to ENTITY PROJECT NAME GL # Project # budget) CY budget) COST REVENUE RESERVES RESERVES NSTIR ICIP PCAP on CTI Grant BCF GAS TAX BCF CWWF Fund DEBT REVENUE Federal % Project # prior) 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Mar.31/20 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Mar.31/25 Kingston Playground Renewal - Ravenwood CF 2019-20 K-49 - - - - K-49 - - - - - 40,000 - 40,000 Kingston SCADA System K-50 - 130,000 130,000 130,000 K-50 ------130,000 Kingston Crosswalk Lights - Main St (intersection with Maple St) K-51 - 15,000 15,000 15,000 K-51 ------15,000 Kingston Sidewalk Design - Balser Drive K-52 - 10,000 10,000 269 9,731 K-52 ------10,000 Kingston Curbing - Maple St (Pine Ridge Ave to Balser Drive) K-53 - - - - K-53 - - - - - 60,000 - 60,000 Kingston Sidewalk - Main St (Kingswood Lane to Greenwood Rd) K-54 - - - - K-54 ------1,000,000 1,000,000 Kingston Public Works Garage K-55 - 300,000 300,000 300,000 K-55 ------300,000 Kingston Exterior Renovations - Village Office K-56 - 5,000 5,000 5,000 K-56 ------5,000 Kingston Signage - Highway 101 K-57 - - - - K-57 - - - - - 25,000 - 25,000 Kingston Splash Pad K-58 - - - - K-58 - - - - 100,000 - - 100,000 Kingston Playground Renewal - Steer BBQ Grounds K-59 - - - - K-59 - - - - - 40,000 - 40,000 - - - - 0 ------21 TOTAL - Village of Kingston 600,000 ------269 - 599,731 ------1,220,000 220,000 365,000 1,000,000 3,405,000

Canning Sidewalk - Chapel St (Main St to Summer St) CF 2019-20 C-03 - - - - C-03 5,855 - 5,855 698,338 - - - 704,193 Canning Water Line - Chapel St (Main St to North Ave) CF 2019-20 C-07 - - - - C-07 5,854 - 5,854 738,774 - - - 744,628 Canning Sidewalk - Summer St (J Jordan Rd to Chapel St) CF 2019-20 C-05 - - - - C-05 ------474,501 474,501 Canning Water Line Replacement - J Jordan Rd (Hwy 221 to Bains Rd)CF 2019-20 C-09 - - - - C-09 - - - - - 508,394 - 508,394 4 TOTAL - Village of Canning ------11,709 - 11,709 1,437,112 - 508,394 474,501 2,431,716

Aylesford Sidewalk - New Rd (1171 to 2829) CF 2019-20 A-05 392,922 - 392,922 261,947 10,551 120,424 67% A-05 - 7,078 7,078 - - - - 400,000 Aylesford Sidewalk - Victoria Rd (Post Office to Klahanie Campground)CF 2019-20 A-06 - 295,000 295,000 196,666 7,921 90,413 67% A-06 ------295,000 Aylesford Sidewalk - Pine Street (1292 to ) A-07 - 70,000 70,000 46,666 1,880 21,454 67% A-07 ------70,000 Aylesford Sidewalk - Maple Ave (1144 to ) A-08 - - - - A-08 - - - 150,000 - - - 150,000 Aylesford Sidewalk - School Street (1172 to ) A-09 - - - - A-09 - - - 300,000 - - 300,000 5 TOTAL - Village of Aylesford 757,922 ------505,279 - - 20,352 - 232,291 67% - - - - - 7,078 7,078 150,000 300,000 - - 1,215,000

Cornwallis Bus Shelters (6) CF 2019-20 CS-09 - - - - CS-09 - - - 72,000 - - - 72,000 Cornwallis Rest Area - Harvest Moon Trail CF 2019-20 CS-10 7,405 - 7,405 4,937 2,468 67% CS-10 ------7,405 Cornwallis Water Holding Tank (sheltered) CF 2019-20 CS-13 - 225,000 225,000 225,000 CS-13 ------225,000 Cornwallis Ladder Fire Truck CS-14 - - - - CS-14 - - - - 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 Cornwallis Breathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-15 - 48,000 48,000 48,000 CS-15 ------48,000 Cornwallis Breathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-16 - - - - CS-16 - - - 48,000 - - - 48,000 Cornwallis Bunker Gear Lockers CS-17 - - - - CS-17 - - - 25,000 - - - 25,000 - - - - 0 ------7 TOTAL - Village of Cornwallis Square 280,405 ------4,937 - - - - 275,468 2% ------145,000 1,500,000 - - 1,925,405

Greenwood Sidewalk Design - Central Ave & Rocknotch Rd CF 2019-20 GW-04 11,397 - 11,397 7,598 306 3,493 67% GW-04 - 18,603 18,603 - - - - 30,000 Greenwood Sidewalk - Central Ave CF 2019-20 GW-07 - - - - GW-07 - - - 120,000 - - - 120,000 Greenwood Sidewalk - Rocknotch Rd CF 2019-20 GW-08 - 195,000 195,000 130,000 5,236 59,764 67% GW-08 ------195,000 Greenwood New Roof - Civic Building CF 2019-20 GW-09 - 30,000 30,000 30,000 GW-09 ------30,000 Greenwood Tractor Purchase CF 2019-20 GW-10 - - - - GW-10 - - - 80,000 - - - 80,000 Greenwood Furnace Oil Tank Replacement - Civic Building GW-11 - 18,000 18,000 18,000 GW-11 ------18,000 Greenwood Diesel Oil Tank Replacement - Public Works Shop GW-12 - 2,700 2,700 2,700 GW-12 ------2,700 Greenwood Building Design & Site Preparation - Civic Building & Public Works Shop GW-13 - - - - GW-13 - - - 30,000 - - - 30,000 Greenwood Civic Building & Public Works Shop GW-14 - - - - GW-14 - - - 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 775,000 Greenwood Playground Equipment Replacement - Planesview GW-15 - - - - GW-15 - - - 30,000 - - - 30,000 Greenwood Sewer Infrastructure Extensions (Pre-design Study & Design) - Rocknotch Road/HwyGW-16 201 - 73,000 73,000 18,250 36,500 18,250 GW-16 ------73,000 - - - - 0 ------11 TOTAL - Village of Greenwood 330,097 18,250 - - - - 36,500 - - - 137,598 - - 5,542 - 132,207 42% - - - - - 18,603 18,603 435,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,383,700

Grand Total - All Projects 20,765,232 728,150 1,218,929 2,606,455 672,400 - 36,500 - 4,012,483 - 3,671,814 - 515,330 33,548 5,815,839 1,453,784 20% 1,304,607 3,117,447 1,935,422 2,504,488 7,185,923 1,315,024 17,362,911 9,782,212 6,284,500 4,018,394 5,522,501 62,000,950

119 Total Project Count

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 65 Appendix B

The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) Future Years Funding Fiscal Year 2021/22

Future Year Costs = budgets per 5-year plan 2021/22 Operating Sidewalk Village/ ENTITY PROJECT NAME Project # 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Gas Tax Grants Revenue Reserves Fund Debt Residents

MoK Network Upgrades 08-1101 40,100 30,500 36,000 44,000 40,100 - MoK Hardware Evergreening 08-1102 85,000 79,000 54,000 54,000 85,000 - MoK Records Management 16-1102 - - - - - MoK Accounting & Asset Management Software 16-1103 50,000 - - - 50,000 - MoK Fibre/Wireless Hybrid Connectivity 17-1103 - - - - - MoK Tablet Computers 20-1101 - - - - - MoK New Municipal Complex 16-1301 - - - - - MoK EPW Building 19-1302 - - - - - MoK Pedestrian Infrastucture 08-1714 600,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 240,000 - 360,000 - MoK Municipal Road Remediation 13-1702 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 - MoK Building & Development Services Vehicles 13-1501 - - 30,000 - - MoK Park Facility Upgrades 15-1601 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK Park Vehicle Replacement 19-1601 30,000 - - - 30,000 - MoK Lift Station Replacements 08-3408 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 - - MoK Sewer Treatment Plant Infrastructure Renewal 08-3409 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - MoK Sewer Collection Line Replacement 08-3410 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 550,000 - 500,000 - MoK EPW Equipment & Occupational Health/Safety 10-3409 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK EPW Service Vehicle Replacements 11-3401 70,000 35,000 50,000 35,000 70,000 - MoK Sewer Upgrades 19-3401 600,000 - - - 444,000 - 156,000 - MoK Community Infrastructure Upgrades - Mee Rd 19-3402 - - - - - MoK SCADA System Review 19-3403 - - - - - MoK Water Distribution System Improvements 10-2403 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 - MoK Water System Equipment 11-2407 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK Production Well 11-2408 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - MoK Water System Assessment 19-2401 - - - - - MoK Regional Sewerlines 14-4401 750,000 - - - 300,000 450,000 - MoK Regional STP Aeration 17-4401 50,000 1,000,000 - - 50,000 - MoK Regional STP Drum Screens 20-4401 - - - 1,000,000 - MoK Green Initiatives 13-3402 75,000 250,000 - - 75,000 - MoK Broadband - CTI 18-3401 - - - - - MoK Solar - Meadowview 18-3402 - - - - - MoK Wind 18-3403 - - - - - MoK Light Manufacturing Park Development Study 18-3404 50,000 50,000 - - 50,000 - MoK J-Class Road Assessment 18-3406 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 - MoK Water - Village of Kingston 18-3407 100,000 - - - 50,000 50,000 MoK Secondary Planning Strategy Development - New Minas 18-3410 - - - - - MoK Traffic & Pedestrian Study - Coldbrook Village Park 19-3405 50,000 - - - 50,000 - MoK Solar Consulting - Municipal Buildings 19-3407 - - - - - MoK Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) 19-3408 - - - - - MoK Fleet Optimization Study 19-3409 - - - - - MoK Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment 19-3410 - - - - - MoK Solar Construction - Municipal Buildings (NS SECB Program)20-3401 - - - - - MoK Solar Construction Extension - Municipal Buildings (Net Metering)20-3402 - - - - - MoK Harvest Moon Trailhead 20-3404 - - - - - MoK Greenwood Sewer Extensions 20-3405 - - - - - MoK Active Transportation 20-3406 - - - - - MoK J-Class 2020-21 One-Time Repave Program 20-3407 ------TOTAL Capital Budget - Municipality of Kings 6,095,100 3,939,500 2,645,000 3,528,000 1,834,000 - 1,845,000 1,916,100 - 450,000 50,000

NM Village Sidewalk Program NM-01 - - - - - NM Household Meter Reader Boxes NM-16 - - - - - NM Sidewalk - Lockhart Drive NM-36 - - - - - NM Water Meter Purchases NM-41 - - - - - NM Water Fountains NM-44 - - - - - NM Harvest Moon Trail Connector - Lockhart Ryan Park NM-45 - - - - - NM Tennis Court Reburbishment NM-46 - - - - - NM Dog Park NM-47 - - - - - NM Fitness Centre Expansion NM-48 - - - - - NM Wireless Thermostat & Sensors NM-49 - - - - - NM Road Entry/Exit Widening & Lighting - LMCC NM-50 - - - - - NM Electrical Upgrade - Forsythe Building NM-51 - - - - - NM Plate Tamper NM-52 - - - - - NM Scanner/Copier Unit NM-53 ------TOTAL - Village of New Minas ------

PW Replace Water Line - Belcher Street PW-05 - - - 160,000 - PW Replace Sewer Line - Belcher Street PW-06 - - - 160,000 - PW Sidewalk Extension - Belcher St PW-11 300,000 - - - 200,000 10,089 89,911 PW Sewer Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) PW-12 - - - - - PW Water Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) PW-13 - - - - - PW Sewer Lagoon Rehabilitation (Phase 2) PW-15 - - - - - PW Sidewalk Extension - Hwy #358 PW-16 - - 300,000 - - PW Well Replacement (Well #1) PW-17 - - - - - PW Stationary Generator - Community Centre PW-18 - - - - - PW Splashpad - Port Williams Park PW-19 - 125,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Port Williams 300,000 125,000 300,000 320,000 200,000 - - - 10,089 - 89,911

Kingston Sidewalk Construction - Balser Drive (entire length) K-07 1,000,000 - - - 667,000 33,630 299,370 Kingston Sewer Line Replacement - Main St (CIBC to Magee Rd) K-17 - - - - - Kingston Lift Station Panel Replacement (KN #5 & KN #12) K-32 - - - - - Kingston Lift Station Renewal (KN #3) K-33 100,000 - - - 100,000 Kingston Sewer Line - Greenwood Rd K-34 - 100,000 - - - Kingston Trail Paving - Main St (738 to 1216) K-44 - - 200,000 - -

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 66 Appendix B

The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) Future Years Funding Fiscal Year 2021/22

Future Year Costs = budgets per 5-year plan 2021/22 Operating Sidewalk Village/ ENTITY PROJECT NAME Project # 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Gas Tax Grants Revenue Reserves Fund Debt Residents

Kingston Truck Replacement (Unit #11) K-45 - 20,000 - - - Kingston Tow-behind Boom Lift K-46 - - - - - Kingston MT-6 Replacement K-47 100,000 - - - 100,000 Kingston Top Dressing - Ravenwood Lower Field K-48 20,000 - - - 20,000 Kingston Playground Renewal - Ravenwood K-49 - - 40,000 - - Kingston SCADA System K-50 - - - - - Kingston Crosswalk Lights - Main St (intersection with Maple St) K-51 - - - - - Kingston Sidewalk Design - Balser Drive K-52 - - - - - Kingston Curbing - Maple St (Pine Ridge Ave to Balser Drive) K-53 - - 60,000 - - Kingston Sidewalk - Main St (Kingswood Lane to Greenwood Rd) K-54 - - - 1,000,000 - Kingston Public Works Garage K-55 - - - - - Kingston Exterior Renovations - Village Office K-56 - - - - - Kingston Signage - Highway 101 K-57 - - 25,000 - - Kingston Splash Pad K-58 - 100,000 - - - Kingston Playground Renewal - Steer BBQ Grounds K-59 - - 40,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Kingston 1,220,000 220,000 365,000 1,000,000 667,000 - - - 33,630 - 519,370

Canning Sidewalk - Chapel St (Main St to Summer St) C-03 698,338 - - - 141,067 509,891 18,752 28,628 Canning Water Line - Chapel St (Main St to North Ave) C-07 738,774 - - - 150,155 539,544 49,075 Canning Sidewalk - Summer St (J Jordan Rd to Chapel St) C-05 - - - 474,501 - Canning Water Line Replacement - J Jordan Rd (Hwy 221 to Bains Rd) C-09 - - 508,394 - - TOTAL - Village of Canning 1,437,112 - 508,394 474,501 291,222 1,049,435 - - 18,752 - 77,703

Aylesford Sidewalk - New Rd (1171 to 2829) A-05 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Victoria Rd (Post Office to Klahanie Campground) A-06 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Pine Street (1292 to ) A-07 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Maple Ave (1144 to ) A-08 150,000 - - - 100,000 5,045 44,955 Aylesford Sidewalk - School Street (1172 to ) A-09 - 300,000 - - - TOTAL - Village of Aylesford 150,000 300,000 - - 100,000 - - - 5,045 - 44,955

Cornwallis SquareBus Shelters (6) CS-09 72,000 - - - 48,000 24,000 Cornwallis SquareRest Area - Harvest Moon Trail CS-10 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareWater Holding Tank (sheltered) CS-13 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareLadder Fire Truck CS-14 - 1,500,000 - - - Cornwallis SquareBreathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-15 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareBreathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-16 48,000 - - - 48,000 Cornwallis SquareBunker Gear Lockers CS-17 25,000 - - - 25,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Cornwallis Square 145,000 1,500,000 - - 48,000 - - - - - 97,000

Greenwood Sidewalk Design - Central Ave & Rocknotch Rd GW-04 - - - - - Greenwood Sidewalk - Central Ave GW-07 120,000 - - - 80,000 4,036 35,964 Greenwood Sidewalk - Rocknotch Rd GW-08 - - - - - Greenwood New Roof - Civic Building GW-09 - - - - - Greenwood Tractor Purchase GW-10 80,000 - - - 80,000 Greenwood Furnace Oil Tank Replacement - Civic Building GW-11 - - - - - Greenwood Diesel Oil Tank Replacement - Public Works Shop GW-12 - - - - - Greenwood Building Design & Site Preparation - Civic Building & Public WorksGW-13 Shop 30,000 - - - 30,000 Greenwood Civic Building & Public Works Shop GW-14 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 175,000 Greenwood Playground Equipment Replacement - Planesview GW-15 30,000 - - - 30,000 Greenwood Sewer Infrastructure Extensions (Pre-design Study & Design)GW-16 - Rocknotch Road/Hwy - 201 ------TOTAL - Village of Greenwood 435,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 80,000 - - - 4,036 - 350,964

Grand Total - All Projects 9,782,212 6,284,500 4,018,394 5,522,501 3,220,222 1,049,435 1,845,000 1,916,100 71,552 450,000 1,229,903

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 67 Appendix B

The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) Future Years Funding Fiscal Year 2022/23

Future Year Costs = budgets per 5-year plan 2022/23 Operating Sidewalk Village/ ENTITY PROJECT NAME Project # 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Gas Tax Grants Revenue Reserves Fund Debt Residents

MoK Network Upgrades 08-1101 40,100 30,500 36,000 44,000 30,500 - MoK Hardware Evergreening 08-1102 85,000 79,000 54,000 54,000 79,000 - MoK Records Management 16-1102 - - - - - MoK Accounting & Asset Management Software 16-1103 50,000 - - - - MoK Fibre/Wireless Hybrid Connectivity 17-1103 - - - - - MoK Tablet Computers 20-1101 - - - - - MoK New Municipal Complex 16-1301 - - - - - MoK EPW Building 19-1302 - - - - - MoK Pedestrian Infrastucture 08-1714 600,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 200,000 - 300,000 - MoK Municipal Road Remediation 13-1702 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 - MoK Building & Development Services Vehicles 13-1501 - - 30,000 - - MoK Park Facility Upgrades 15-1601 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK Park Vehicle Replacement 19-1601 30,000 - - - - MoK Lift Station Replacements 08-3408 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 - - MoK Sewer Treatment Plant Infrastructure Renewal 08-3409 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - MoK Sewer Collection Line Replacement 08-3410 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 550,000 - 500,000 - MoK EPW Equipment & Occupational Health/Safety 10-3409 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK EPW Service Vehicle Replacements 11-3401 70,000 35,000 50,000 35,000 35,000 - MoK Sewer Upgrades 19-3401 600,000 - - - - MoK Community Infrastructure Upgrades - Mee Rd 19-3402 - - - - - MoK SCADA System Review 19-3403 - - - - - MoK Water Distribution System Improvements 10-2403 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - MoK Water System Equipment 11-2407 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK Production Well 11-2408 1,500,000 - - - - MoK Water System Assessment 19-2401 - - - - - MoK Regional Sewerlines 14-4401 750,000 - - - - MoK Regional STP Aeration 17-4401 50,000 1,000,000 - - 500,000 500,000 - MoK Regional STP Drum Screens 20-4401 - - - 1,000,000 - MoK Green Initiatives 13-3402 75,000 250,000 - - 250,000 - MoK Broadband - CTI 18-3401 - - - - - MoK Solar - Meadowview 18-3402 - - - - - MoK Wind 18-3403 - - - - - MoK Light Manufacturing Park Development Study 18-3404 50,000 50,000 - - 50,000 - MoK J-Class Road Assessment 18-3406 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 - MoK Water - Village of Kingston 18-3407 100,000 - - - - MoK Secondary Planning Strategy Development - New Minas 18-3410 - - - - - MoK Traffic & Pedestrian Study - Coldbrook Village Park 19-3405 50,000 - - - - MoK Solar Consulting - Municipal Buildings 19-3407 - - - - - MoK Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) 19-3408 - - - - - MoK Fleet Optimization Study 19-3409 - - - - - MoK Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment 19-3410 - - - - - MoK Solar Construction - Municipal Buildings (NS SECB Program)20-3401 - - - - - MoK Solar Construction Extension - Municipal Buildings (Net Metering)20-3402 - - - - - MoK Harvest Moon Trailhead 20-3404 - - - - - MoK Greenwood Sewer Extensions 20-3405 - - - - - MoK Active Transportation 20-3406 - - - - - MoK J-Class 2020-21 One-Time Repave Program 20-3407 ------TOTAL Capital Budget - Municipality of Kings 6,095,100 3,939,500 2,645,000 3,528,000 1,350,000 - 245,000 1,844,500 - 500,000 -

PW Replace Water Line - Belcher Street PW-05 - - - 160,000 - - PW Replace Sewer Line - Belcher Street PW-06 - - - 160,000 - - PW Sidewalk Extension - Belcher St PW-11 300,000 - - - - PW Sewer Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) PW-12 - - - - - PW Water Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) PW-13 - - - - - PW Sewer Lagoon Rehabilitation (Phase 2) PW-15 - - - - - PW Sidewalk Extension - Hwy #358 PW-16 - - 300,000 - - PW Well Replacement (Well #1) PW-17 - - - - - PW Stationary Generator - Community Centre PW-18 - - - - - PW Splashpad - Port Williams Park PW-19 - 125,000 - - 83,333 41,667 ------TOTAL - Village of Port Williams 300,000 125,000 300,000 320,000 83,333 - - - - - 41,667

Kingston Sidewalk Construction - Balser Drive (entire length) K-07 1,000,000 - - - - Kingston Sewer Line Replacement - Main St (CIBC to Magee Rd) K-17 - - - - - Kingston Lift Station Panel Replacement (KN #5 & KN #12) K-32 - - - - - Kingston Lift Station Renewal (KN #3) K-33 100,000 - - - - Kingston Sewer Line - Greenwood Rd K-34 - 100,000 - - 100,000 Kingston Trail Paving - Main St (738 to 1216) K-44 - - 200,000 - -

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 68 Appendix B

The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) Future Years Funding Fiscal Year 2022/23

Future Year Costs = budgets per 5-year plan 2022/23 Operating Sidewalk Village/ ENTITY PROJECT NAME Project # 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Gas Tax Grants Revenue Reserves Fund Debt Residents

Kingston Truck Replacement (Unit #11) K-45 - 20,000 - - 20,000 Kingston Tow-behind Boom Lift K-46 - - - - - Kingston MT-6 Replacement K-47 100,000 - - - - Kingston Top Dressing - Ravenwood Lower Field K-48 20,000 - - - - Kingston Playground Renewal - Ravenwood K-49 - - 40,000 - - Kingston SCADA System K-50 - - - - - Kingston Crosswalk Lights - Main St (intersection with Maple St) K-51 - - - - - Kingston Sidewalk Design - Balser Drive K-52 - - - - - Kingston Curbing - Maple St (Pine Ridge Ave to Balser Drive) K-53 - - 60,000 - - Kingston Sidewalk - Main St (Kingswood Lane to Greenwood Rd) K-54 - - - 1,000,000 - Kingston Public Works Garage K-55 - - - - - Kingston Exterior Renovations - Village Office K-56 - - - - - Kingston Signage - Highway 101 K-57 - - 25,000 - - Kingston Splash Pad K-58 - 100,000 - - 100,000 Kingston Playground Renewal - Steer BBQ Grounds K-59 - - 40,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Kingston 1,220,000 220,000 365,000 1,000,000 ------220,000

Canning Sidewalk - Chapel St (Main St to Summer St) C-03 698,338 - - - - Canning Water Line - Chapel St (Main St to North Ave) C-07 738,774 - - - - Canning Sidewalk - Summer St (J Jordan Rd to Chapel St) C-05 - - - 474,501 - Canning Water Line Replacement - J Jordan Rd (Hwy 221 to Bains Rd) C-09 - - 508,394 - - TOTAL - Village of Canning 1,437,112 - 508,394 474,501 ------Aylesford Sidewalk - New Rd (1171 to 2829) A-05 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Victoria Rd (Post Office to Klahanie Campground) A-06 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Pine Street (1292 to ) A-07 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Maple Ave (1144 to ) A-08 150,000 - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - School Street (1172 to ) A-09 - 300,000 - - 200,000 45,000 55,000 TOTAL - Village of Aylesford 150,000 300,000 - - 200,000 - - - 45,000 - 55,000

Cornwallis SquareBus Shelters (6) CS-09 72,000 - - - - Cornwallis SquareRest Area - Harvest Moon Trail CS-10 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareWater Holding Tank (sheltered) CS-13 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareLadder Fire Truck CS-14 - 1,500,000 - - 1,500,000 Cornwallis SquareBreathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-15 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareBreathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-16 48,000 - - - - Cornwallis SquareBunker Gear Lockers CS-17 25,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Cornwallis Square 145,000 1,500,000 ------1,500,000

Greenwood Sidewalk Design - Central Ave & Rocknotch Rd GW-04 - - - - - Greenwood Sidewalk - Central Ave GW-07 120,000 - - - - Greenwood Sidewalk - Rocknotch Rd GW-08 - - - - - Greenwood New Roof - Civic Building GW-09 - - - - - Greenwood Tractor Purchase GW-10 80,000 - - - - Greenwood Furnace Oil Tank Replacement - Civic Building GW-11 - - - - - Greenwood Diesel Oil Tank Replacement - Public Works Shop GW-12 - - - - - Greenwood Building Design & Site Preparation - Civic Building & Public WorksGW-13 Shop 30,000 - - - - Greenwood Civic Building & Public Works Shop GW-14 175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Greenwood Playground Equipment Replacement - Planesview GW-15 30,000 - - - - Greenwood Sewer Infrastructure Extensions (Pre-design Study & Design)GW-16 - Rocknotch Road/Hwy - 201 ------TOTAL - Village of Greenwood 435,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 ------200,000

Grand Total - All Projects 9,782,212 6,284,500 4,018,394 5,522,501 1,633,333 - 245,000 1,844,500 45,000 500,000 2,016,667

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 69 Appendix B

The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) Future Years Funding Fiscal Year 2023/24

Future Year Costs = budgets per 5-year plan 2023/24 Operating Sidewalk Village/ ENTITY PROJECT NAME Project # 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Gas Tax Grants Revenue Reserves Fund Debt Residents

MoK Network Upgrades 08-1101 40,100 30,500 36,000 44,000 36,000 - MoK Hardware Evergreening 08-1102 85,000 79,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 - MoK Records Management 16-1102 - - - - - MoK Accounting & Asset Management Software 16-1103 50,000 - - - - MoK Fibre/Wireless Hybrid Connectivity 17-1103 - - - - - MoK Tablet Computers 20-1101 - - - - - MoK New Municipal Complex 16-1301 - - - - - MoK EPW Building 19-1302 - - - - - MoK Pedestrian Infrastucture 08-1714 600,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 200,000 - 300,000 - MoK Municipal Road Remediation 13-1702 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 - MoK Building & Development Services Vehicles 13-1501 - - 30,000 - 30,000 - MoK Park Facility Upgrades 15-1601 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK Park Vehicle Replacement 19-1601 30,000 - - - - MoK Lift Station Replacements 08-3408 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 - - MoK Sewer Treatment Plant Infrastructure Renewal 08-3409 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - MoK Sewer Collection Line Replacement 08-3410 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 550,000 - 500,000 - MoK EPW Equipment & Occupational Health/Safety 10-3409 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK EPW Service Vehicle Replacements 11-3401 70,000 35,000 50,000 35,000 50,000 - MoK Sewer Upgrades 19-3401 600,000 - - - - MoK Community Infrastructure Upgrades - Mee Rd 19-3402 - - - - - MoK SCADA System Review 19-3403 - - - - - MoK Water Distribution System Improvements 10-2403 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - MoK Water System Equipment 11-2407 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK Production Well 11-2408 1,500,000 - - - - MoK Water System Assessment 19-2401 - - - - - MoK Regional Sewerlines 14-4401 750,000 - - - - MoK Regional STP Aeration 17-4401 50,000 1,000,000 - - - MoK Regional STP Drum Screens 20-4401 - - - 1,000,000 - MoK Green Initiatives 13-3402 75,000 250,000 - - - MoK Broadband - CTI 18-3401 - - - - - MoK Solar - Meadowview 18-3402 - - - - - MoK Wind 18-3403 - - - - - MoK Light Manufacturing Park Development Study 18-3404 50,000 50,000 - - - MoK J-Class Road Assessment 18-3406 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 - MoK Water - Village of Kingston 18-3407 100,000 - - - - MoK Secondary Planning Strategy Development - New Minas 18-3410 - - - - - MoK Traffic & Pedestrian Study - Coldbrook Village Park 19-3405 50,000 - - - - MoK Solar Consulting - Municipal Buildings 19-3407 - - - - - MoK Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) 19-3408 - - - - - MoK Fleet Optimization Study 19-3409 - - - - - MoK Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment 19-3410 - - - - - MoK Solar Construction - Municipal Buildings (NS SECB Program) 20-3401 - - - - - MoK Solar Construction Extension - Municipal Buildings (Net Metering)20-3402 - - - - - MoK Harvest Moon Trailhead 20-3404 - - - - - MoK Greenwood Sewer Extensions 20-3405 - - - - - MoK Active Transportation 20-3406 - - - - - MoK J-Class 2020-21 One-Time Repave Program 20-3407 ------TOTAL Capital Budget - Municipality of Kings 6,095,100 3,939,500 2,645,000 3,528,000 1,350,000 - 175,000 1,120,000 - - -

PW Replace Water Line - Belcher Street PW-05 - - - 160,000 - PW Replace Sewer Line - Belcher Street PW-06 - - - 160,000 - PW Sidewalk Extension - Belcher St PW-11 300,000 - - - - PW Sewer Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) PW-12 - - - - - PW Water Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) PW-13 - - - - - PW Sewer Lagoon Rehabilitation (Phase 2) PW-15 - - - - - PW Sidewalk Extension - Hwy #358 PW-16 - - 300,000 - 200,000 45,000 55,000 PW Well Replacement (Well #1) PW-17 - - - - - PW Stationary Generator - Community Centre PW-18 - - - - - PW Splashpad - Port Williams Park PW-19 - 125,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Port Williams 300,000 125,000 300,000 320,000 200,000 - - - 45,000 - 55,000

Kingston Sidewalk Construction - Balser Drive (entire length) K-07 1,000,000 - - - - Kingston Sewer Line Replacement - Main St (CIBC to Magee Rd) K-17 - - - - - Kingston Lift Station Panel Replacement (KN #5 & KN #12) K-32 - - - - - Kingston Lift Station Renewal (KN #3) K-33 100,000 - - - - Kingston Sewer Line - Greenwood Rd K-34 - 100,000 - - - Kingston Trail Paving - Main St (738 to 1216) K-44 - - 200,000 - 200,000 Kingston Truck Replacement (Unit #11) K-45 - 20,000 - - -

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 70 Appendix B

The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) Future Years Funding Fiscal Year 2023/24

Future Year Costs = budgets per 5-year plan 2023/24 Operating Sidewalk Village/ ENTITY PROJECT NAME Project # 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Gas Tax Grants Revenue Reserves Fund Debt Residents

Kingston Tow-behind Boom Lift K-46 - - - - - Kingston MT-6 Replacement K-47 100,000 - - - - Kingston Top Dressing - Ravenwood Lower Field K-48 20,000 - - - - Kingston Playground Renewal - Ravenwood K-49 - - 40,000 - 40,000 Kingston SCADA System K-50 - - - - - Kingston Crosswalk Lights - Main St (intersection with Maple St) K-51 - - - - - Kingston Sidewalk Design - Balser Drive K-52 - - - - - Kingston Curbing - Maple St (Pine Ridge Ave to Balser Drive) K-53 - - 60,000 - 60,000 Kingston Sidewalk - Main St (Kingswood Lane to Greenwood Rd) K-54 - - - 1,000,000 - Kingston Public Works Garage K-55 - - - - - Kingston Exterior Renovations - Village Office K-56 - - - - - Kingston Signage - Highway 101 K-57 - - 25,000 - 25,000 Kingston Splash Pad K-58 - 100,000 - - - Kingston Playground Renewal - Steer BBQ Grounds K-59 - - 40,000 - 40,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Kingston 1,220,000 220,000 365,000 1,000,000 ------365,000

Aylesford Sidewalk - New Rd (1171 to 2829) A-05 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Victoria Rd (Post Office to Klahanie Campground) A-06 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Pine Street (1292 to ) A-07 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Maple Ave (1144 to ) A-08 150,000 - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - School Street (1172 to ) A-09 - 300,000 - - - TOTAL - Village of Aylesford 150,000 300,000 ------

Cornwallis SquareBus Shelters (6) CS-09 72,000 - - - - Cornwallis SquareRest Area - Harvest Moon Trail CS-10 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareWater Holding Tank (sheltered) CS-13 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareLadder Fire Truck CS-14 - 1,500,000 - - - Cornwallis SquareBreathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-15 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareBreathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-16 48,000 - - - - Cornwallis SquareBunker Gear Lockers CS-17 25,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Cornwallis Square 145,000 1,500,000 ------

Grand Total - All Projects 9,782,212 6,284,500 4,018,394 5,522,501 1,577,118 372,806 175,000 1,120,000 45,000 - 728,470

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 71 Appendix B

The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) Future Years Funding Fiscal Year 2024/25

Future Year Costs = budgets per 5-year plan 2024/25 Operating Sidewalk Village/ ENTITY PROJECT NAME Project # 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Gas Tax Grants Revenue Reserves Fund Debt Residents

MoK Network Upgrades 08-1101 40,100 30,500 36,000 44,000 44,000 - MoK Hardware Evergreening 08-1102 85,000 79,000 54,000 54,000 54,000 - MoK Records Management 16-1102 - - - - - MoK Accounting & Asset Management Software 16-1103 50,000 - - - - MoK Fibre/Wireless Hybrid Connectivity 17-1103 - - - - - MoK Tablet Computers 20-1101 - - - - - MoK New Municipal Complex 16-1301 - - - - - MoK EPW Building 19-1302 - - - - - MoK Pedestrian Infrastucture 08-1714 600,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 200,000 - 300,000 - MoK Municipal Road Remediation 13-1702 100,000 100,000 100,000 - - MoK Building & Development Services Vehicles 13-1501 - - 30,000 - - MoK Park Facility Upgrades 15-1601 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK Park Vehicle Replacement 19-1601 30,000 - - - - MoK Lift Station Replacements 08-3408 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 - - MoK Sewer Treatment Plant Infrastructure Renewal 08-3409 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - MoK Sewer Collection Line Replacement 08-3410 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 550,000 - 500,000 - MoK EPW Equipment & Occupational Health/Safety 10-3409 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK EPW Service Vehicle Replacements 11-3401 70,000 35,000 50,000 35,000 35,000 - MoK Sewer Upgrades 19-3401 600,000 - - - - MoK Community Infrastructure Upgrades - Mee Rd 19-3402 - - - - - MoK SCADA System Review 19-3403 - - - - - MoK Water Distribution System Improvements 10-2403 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - MoK Water System Equipment 11-2407 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - MoK Production Well 11-2408 1,500,000 - - - - MoK Water System Assessment 19-2401 - - - - - MoK Regional Sewerlines 14-4401 750,000 - - - - MoK Regional STP Aeration 17-4401 50,000 1,000,000 - - - MoK Regional STP Drum Screens 20-4401 - - - 1,000,000 400,000 600,000 - MoK Green Initiatives 13-3402 75,000 250,000 - - - MoK Broadband - CTI 18-3401 - - - - - MoK Solar - Meadowview 18-3402 - - - - - MoK Wind 18-3403 - - - - - MoK Light Manufacturing Park Development Study 18-3404 50,000 50,000 - - - MoK J-Class Road Assessment 18-3406 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 - MoK Water - Village of Kingston 18-3407 100,000 - - - - MoK Secondary Planning Strategy Development - New Minas 18-3410 - - - - - MoK Traffic & Pedestrian Study - Coldbrook Village Park 19-3405 50,000 - - - - MoK Solar Consulting - Municipal Buildings 19-3407 - - - - - MoK Property Assessed Clean Energy Program (PACE) 19-3408 - - - - - MoK Fleet Optimization Study 19-3409 - - - - - MoK Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment 19-3410 - - - - - MoK Solar Construction - Municipal Buildings (NS SECB Program) 20-3401 - - - - - MoK Solar Construction Extension - Municipal Buildings (Net Metering)20-3402 - - - - - MoK Harvest Moon Trailhead 20-3404 - - - - - MoK Greenwood Sewer Extensions 20-3405 - - - - - MoK Active Transportation 20-3406 - - - - - MoK J-Class 2020-21 One-Time Repave Program 20-3407 ------TOTAL Capital Budget - Municipality of Kings 6,095,100 3,939,500 2,645,000 3,528,000 1,350,000 - 195,000 1,383,000 - 600,000 -

PW Replace Water Line - Belcher Street PW-05 - - - 160,000 160,000 - PW Replace Sewer Line - Belcher Street PW-06 - - - 160,000 160,000 - PW Sidewalk Extension - Belcher St PW-11 300,000 - - - - PW Sewer Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) PW-12 ------PW Water Line - Starrs Point Rd (Collins Rd to Industrial Pk) PW-13 ------PW Sewer Lagoon Rehabilitation (Phase 2) PW-15 - - - - - PW Sidewalk Extension - Hwy #358 PW-16 - - 300,000 - - PW Well Replacement (Well #1) PW-17 - - - - - PW Stationary Generator - Community Centre PW-18 - - - - - PW Splashpad - Port Williams Park PW-19 - 125,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Port Williams 300,000 125,000 300,000 320,000 320,000 ------

Kingston Sidewalk Construction - Balser Drive (entire length) K-07 1,000,000 - - - - Kingston Sewer Line Replacement - Main St (CIBC to Magee Rd) K-17 - - - - - Kingston Lift Station Panel Replacement (KN #5 & KN #12) K-32 - - - - - Kingston Lift Station Renewal (KN #3) K-33 100,000 - - - - Kingston Sewer Line - Greenwood Rd K-34 - 100,000 - - - Kingston Trail Paving - Main St (738 to 1216) K-44 - - 200,000 - - Kingston Truck Replacement (Unit #11) K-45 - 20,000 - - -

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 72 Appendix B

The Municipality of the County of Kings 2020-21 Capital Investment Plan (including Villages) Future Years Funding Fiscal Year 2024/25

Future Year Costs = budgets per 5-year plan 2024/25 Operating Sidewalk Village/ ENTITY PROJECT NAME Project # 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Gas Tax Grants Revenue Reserves Fund Debt Residents

Kingston Tow-behind Boom Lift K-46 - - - - - Kingston MT-6 Replacement K-47 100,000 - - - - Kingston Top Dressing - Ravenwood Lower Field K-48 20,000 - - - - Kingston Playground Renewal - Ravenwood K-49 - - 40,000 - - Kingston SCADA System K-50 - - - - - Kingston Crosswalk Lights - Main St (intersection with Maple St) K-51 - - - - - Kingston Sidewalk Design - Balser Drive K-52 - - - - - Kingston Curbing - Maple St (Pine Ridge Ave to Balser Drive) K-53 - - 60,000 - - Kingston Sidewalk - Main St (Kingswood Lane to Greenwood Rd) K-54 - - - 1,000,000 667,000 36,826 296,174 Kingston Public Works Garage K-55 - - - - - Kingston Exterior Renovations - Village Office K-56 - - - - - Kingston Signage - Highway 101 K-57 - - 25,000 - - Kingston Splash Pad K-58 - 100,000 - - - Kingston Playground Renewal - Steer BBQ Grounds K-59 - - 40,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Kingston 1,220,000 220,000 365,000 1,000,000 667,000 - - - 36,826 - 296,174

Aylesford Sidewalk - New Rd (1171 to 2829) A-05 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Victoria Rd (Post Office to Klahanie Campground) A-06 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Pine Street (1292 to ) A-07 - - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Maple Ave (1144 to ) A-08 150,000 - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - School Street (1172 to ) A-09 - 300,000 - - - TOTAL - Village of Aylesford 150,000 300,000 ------

Cornwallis SquareBus Shelters (6) CS-09 72,000 - - - - Cornwallis SquareRest Area - Harvest Moon Trail CS-10 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareWater Holding Tank (sheltered) CS-13 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareLadder Fire Truck CS-14 - 1,500,000 - - - Cornwallis SquareBreathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-15 - - - - - Cornwallis SquareBreathing Apparatus Fire Gear CS-16 48,000 - - - - Cornwallis SquareBunker Gear Lockers CS-17 25,000 ------TOTAL - Village of Cornwallis Square 145,000 1,500,000 ------

Grand Total - All Projects 9,782,212 6,284,500 4,018,394 5,522,501 2,653,334 - 195,000 1,383,000 54,300 600,000 636,867

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 73 Municipality of the County of Kings Appendix C Gas Tax Funding Analysis 2015-25 (Villages without Infrastructure)

Average Total Average Total Paid & Average Paid Gas Tax Funding - Paid Gas Tax Funding - Budgeted per 2020/21 CIP Total Paid Paid Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted & Budgeted Village Project Name Project # 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2015-20 2020-25 2015-25

Aylesford No Gas Tax funded projects - - - - Aylesford Sidewalk - Victoria Rd A-01 101,572 Aylesford Sidewalk Upgrades - Hwy 1 A-02, A-03, A-04 122,467 Aylesford Sidewalk - New Rd A-05 4,719 261,947 Aylesford Sidewalk - Victoria Rd A-06 196,666 Aylesford Sidewalk - Pine Street A-07 46,666 Aylesford Sidewalk - Maple Ave A-08 100,000 Aylesford Sidewalk - School Street A-09 200,000 Aylesford No Gas Tax funded projects - - - Total - Aylesford - - - 101,572 127,186 505,279 100,000 200,000 - - 228,758 45,752 805,279 161,056 1,034,037 103,404

Cornwallis Square Sidewalk - Hwy 1 & Cambridge Rd CS- 120,807 Cornwallis Square No Gas Tax funded projects - - - - Cornwallis Square Bus Shelters (4) CS-08 26,000 Cornwallis Square Rest Area - Harvest Moon Trail CS-10 4,937 Cornwallis Square Bus Shelters (6) CS-09 48,000 Cornwallis Square No Gas Tax funded projects - - - - Total - Cornwallis Square 120,807 - - - 26,000 4,937 48,000 - - - 146,807 29,361 52,937 10,587 199,744 19,974

Greenwood LED Lights GW- 15,692 Greenwood Sidewalk - Tremont Mountain Rd GW-01 14,353 1,001 312,982 7,874 Greenwood Sidewalk Design - Central Ave & Rocknotch Rd GW-04 12,402 7,598 Greenwood Sidewalk - Rocknotch Rd GW-08 130,000 Greenwood Sidewalk - Central Ave GW-07 80,000 Greenwood No Gas Tax funded projects - - - - Total - Greenwood 15,692 14,353 1,001 312,982 20,276 137,598 80,000 - - - 364,304 72,861 217,598 43,520 581,902 58,190

Total - Villages without Infrastructure 136,499 14,353 1,001 414,554 173,462 647,814 228,000 200,000 - - 739,869 147,974 1,075,814 215,163 1,815,683 181,568

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 74 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

TO Council

PREPARED BY Mike Livingstone, Manager of Financial Reporting

MEETING DATE August 18, 2020

SUBJECT Council Update Report – COVID-19 Response

ORIGIN  March 23, 2020 Special Council - Approval of due date extension on the interim tax bill and interest charge deferral  April 8, 2020 Special CotW - Discussion on Budget in relation to COVID-19 Supports  April 9, 2020 Special Council - Motion to Develop Supplemental COVID-19 Budget and Programs  April 21, 2020 CotW - Verbal Report on COVID-19 Reserve Fund  May 1, 2020 Budget and Finance Committee - Presentation on Supplemental COVID-19 Budget and Programs  May 5, 2020 Council - Accept Briefing on COVID-19 Reserve and Program Response & Future Meeting Date  May 20, 2020 Special Council - Presentation on Supplemental COVID-19 Budget and Programs  May 21, 2020 Special Council - Motion to create COVID-19 Reserve, and Motion to transfer $1,845,079  June 2, 2020 Council - Tabled Motion to release Community Based Relief Programming, Motion to apply to Provincial loan program, and authorized one-time increase in Councillor Grants to Organizations  June 11, 2020 Special Council - Briefing to council on Community Based Programs  June 16, 2020 Special Council - Motion to increase Councillor Grants to Organizations and funded from the COVID-19 Reserve  June 23, 2020 Special Council - Motion to provide funding for Tourism Marketing  July 21, 2020 CotW - RFD to CotW to consider Vision Grant funding from the COVID-19 Reserve following staff report on or before August 15

RECOMMENDATION That Municipal Council approve a due date of October 31, 2020 for the 2020/21 final property tax bills being issued in September 2020.

That Municipal Council approve that the interest charges for fiscal 2020/21 tax accounts not be levied for the month of September and the month of October, provided that full payment is made on or before October 31, 2020.

That Municipal Council direct the CAO to report to Council on or before November 15, 2020 with a payment update related to the final fiscal 2020/21 tax bill.

INTENT To highlight key components of prior reporting to Municipal Council related to COVID-19 relieve measures, update Council on current status and outcomes related to the interim tax bill, and to provide a supported staff recommendation on go forward relief measures, that specifically address Council’s June 2, 2020 directive.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 75 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

DISCUSSION Due to the nature and length of the discussion associated with this RFD it has been provided within the attached report, Appendix A: Discussion – Council Update Report – COVID-19 Response.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS  Detailed discussion of financial implications is provided in the attached report, Appendix A: Discussion – Council Update Report – COVID-19 Response.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Check Strategic Priority Description Applicable Good Governance

Environmental Stewardship

Economic Development

Strong Communities

Financial Sustainability

Supports a Core Program Enhancement

 Not Applicable To respond to previous direction of Council

ALTERNATIVES  Council may decide to maintain or further extend the final fiscal 2020/21 tax payment due date.  Council may provide further direction to staff regarding COVID-19 relief measures.

IMPLEMENTATION  If approved, staff will implement the changes as recommended.  The changes will be publicized to citizens through the tax newsletter and bills, social media, the Municipality of the County of Kings’ website, and any other mediums deemed appropriate.

ENGAGEMENT  Staff, through the Annapolis Valley Chamber of Commerce, have surveyed local businesses to determine the level of interest in a direct ratepayer loan program.

APPENDICES  Appendix A: Discussion – Council Update Report – COVID-19 Response  Appendix B: Tax Collection Data & Visualization

APPROVALS Greg Barr, Director, Finance & IT August 13, 2020

Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer August 14, 2020

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 76 Appendix A

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 2 Council Update Report – COVID-19 Response ...... 3 1.0 Critical Background on Municipal Finance ...... 3 1.1 Balanced Budget ...... 3 1.2 Expenditure Groupings & Allocations to the COVID-19 Reserve ...... 3 1.3 Cash Flow ...... 4 1.4 Taxation Revenue ...... 5 1.5 PVSC Assessment Trends ...... 5 1.6 Tax Collection & Bad Debt ...... 6 2.0 Human Resource Management through the COVID-19 Pandemic...... 6 2.1 Human Resource Considerations within the Municipality of the County of Kings ...... 6 2.2 Human Resource Considerations of Other Local Municipal Units ...... 7 3.0 Update on Current Position ...... 8 3.1 Outcomes Following the July 31, 2020 Interim Tax Bill Due Date ...... 8 3.2 Initial Cash Flow Projection & Bank Balance ...... 9 3.3 Relief Measures Undertaken to Date...... 9 4.0 Accounting and Reporting for the COVID-19 Response Reserve ...... 10 4.1 The Overall Essence of the Reserve ...... 10 4.2 Supplemental Budget ...... 10 4.3 Utilizing & Tracking the COVID-19 Reserve ...... 10 4.4 Cash Flow and the COVID-19 Reserve...... 10 4.5 Financial Reporting ...... 11 5.0 Considerations Going Forward ...... 12 5.1 Provincial Loan Program ...... 12 5.2 Ratepayer Loan Program ...... 12 5.3 Consultation through the Annapolis Valley Chamber of Commerce ...... 13 5.4 Loan Administration ...... 14 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 14 6.1 Provincial Loan Application ...... 14 6.2 Rate Payer Loan Program ...... 14 6.3 Further COVID-19 Responses ...... 14 6.4 Final Tax Bill ...... 15

1 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 77 Executive Summary From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, Municipal Council (Council) has received reports and recommendations from staff on numerous occasions proposing a broad range of responses to the pandemic.

Staff commitments to Council include addressing potential participation in a Provincial loan program for internal cash flow and possible requirements related to a ratepayer relief or loan program. This report contains a review of implemented relief measures and an analysis of the results of operations to the end of July.

As part of developing the Municipality of the County of Kings’ (Municipality) responses, enabled by the expenditure line item reallocations undertaken through the supplementary budget, the Municipality faced some difficult decisions including those related to human resources and municipal reserves that would influence future financial capacity. The strong working relationship with CUPE Local 2618 was a significant asset in the Municipality’s effort to create budget savings while limiting reductions in full time equivalent positions and avoiding diminished capacity and inefficient operations. Historically strong reserve funds provided the confidence necessary to reallocate funds for more immediate needs.

Going forward, safeguarding the cash flows of the Municipality will be vital for the continued provision of essential services, the importance of which has been underscored by the continued Declared State of Emergency (DSE).

While the Municipality has experienced substantially better than expected collection rates on the interim tax bill, there is still reason to project that future results may not be as favourable, especially when considering some of the trends identified by the Property Valuation Services Corporation (PVSC). An additional risk to the Municipality relates the ability of ratepayers to make future tax payments.

Risks have been identified related to a ratepayer loan program, the most significant of which is tied to the Municipality’s ability to collect on delinquent accounts through the tax sale process. Implementing a ratepayer loan program has the potential to provide short term cash flow relief to both ratepayers and the Municipality, however this could be at the risk of cash flows in the future.

Given the better than anticipated collections related to the interim tax bills, the Municipality:  could grant an additional one month extension on the final fiscal 2020/21 tax bill; and  does not require a provincial loan for internal cash flow.

2 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 78 Council Update Report – COVID-19 Response The following report represents a culmination of previous reporting to Municipal Council (Council) related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also provides an update on how the Municipality has fared to date and supports the staff recommendations including those related to loan programs, further relief measures, and the COVID-19 Response Reserve. 1.0 Critical Background on Municipal Finance On April 8, 2020 Committee of the Whole was presented with a briefing in closed session on Municipal Budget Considerations in light of COVID-19. The briefing contains information that directly relates to the analysis contained within this report. The following builds on the full briefing provided to Council in April 2020. 1.1 Balanced Budget Provincial legislation requires municipalities to prepare a balanced annual operating budget, meaning planned municipal expenditures must be equally offset by revenues, achieving neither a surplus nor deficit.

Municipal revenues determine the approximate scale of services that can be provided within the Municipality of the County of Kings (Municipality). Generally speaking if there is a desire to provide additional services, or otherwise increase expenditures, the budget will need to be balanced through either an increase in revenues or a decrease in other expenditures.

Increasing expenditures while maintaining all other services may necessitate an increase in tax rates. There is an inherent logic behind balancing the budget in this way as ratepayers would be paying to receive a new or better service.

When considering such things as potential relief measures related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the logic behind balancing expenditures with revenues begins to break down and accordingly the Municipality is required to look to reductions in other expenditures to maintain a balanced budget. 1.2 Expenditure Groupings & Allocations to the COVID-19 Reserve In the early stages of the Municipality’s supplementary budget process, an analysis of budgeted line item expenditures was undertaken to determine which accounts contained items that could potentially be redirected toward relief measures. The initial report was broken down consistent with the following:

Initial 2020/21 Budget Revenues Property Tax $ 38,327,764 Property Tax in Lieu 3,094,595 Interest Revenue 527,910 Covid 19 Interest Impact (147,010) Departmental Revenue 5,621,962 Transfers from Reserves 1,695,190 Total Revenue $ 49,120,411 (Continued on next page)

3 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 79 Initial 2020/21 Budget Expense Mandatory Contributions $ 22,541,780 Inter Municipal Service Agreements (IMSA) 5,405,734 Transfer to Reserves / Debt Service 2,971,246 Legislative 832,300 Essential Services 6,359,264 Required Support Staff 4,820,696 Redeployed for COVID-19 Recovery 1,255,051 Non Discretionary Programs by Policy or Motion 1,096,750 Discretionary / Special Programs 3,837,590 Total Expenses $ 49,120,411

There was substantial additional analysis and consideration that went into establishing the final recommendation for the allocation of line items into the COVID-19 Response Reserve. The final reserve estimate of $1,845,079 came from a variety of expenditure groupings in the above table, with the most significant contributions coming from a reduction in reserve transfers, delayed hiring, and a wage freeze for all employees and Council.

Essential service delivery including staff and the related support staff make up a significant share of the Municipality’s costs. Despite the fact that Discretionary / Special Programs from the table above makes up a substantial $3.8 million of the budget, it was in large part not allocated to the COVID-19 Response Reserve. Much of the amount is made up of grants supporting local organizations as well as major projects. Grants in their own right will provide relief during the pandemic while the major projects will have positive economic impacts by creating work throughout and/or following the Declared State of Emergency (DSE).

See the April 8, 2020 report for additional detail on each of the expenditure line items listed in the table above. 1.3 Cash Flow While the Municipality is required to budget and plan its operations for the period, these activities fall secondary to ensuring sufficient cash flow is available to cover operating costs as they come due while operating through unique circumstances such as the DSE. Under the DSE the Municipality is obligated to maintain certain essential services, and so safeguarding cash flows is vital.

The Municipality can control cash flows related to expenditures to some degree either through budget reductions, like those undertaken in the May 21, 2020 supplementary budget, or by deferring payments where possible, such as the deferral of debenture repayments granted by the Municipal Finance Corporation (MFC). The former represents lasting cash flow relief while the latter represents temporary relief due to the fact that payments will need to be made at a later date.

Collection of tax revenue has a substantial impact on the cash flows of the Municipality, and although there are mechanisms like tax sales to help ensure collection, the timing and certainty of cash flow is less within the Municipality’s control.

Cash inflows through tax payments over the first several months of the pandemic were stronger than anticipated and are discussed in greater detail in a later section of this report. The interim tax due date was extended by two months to July 31, 2020, and while payment delays were observed, they were not

4 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 80 as significant as originally anticipated. Payment delinquency rates (ie. the amount of payments outstanding as at the billing due date) were also not as significant as originally anticipated.

Despite the better than expected outcome of the interim tax billing, staff are less optimistic about the final tax bill, and particularly future tax bills (further detailed in section 1.4 of this report). A reasonable assumption could be drawn that ratepayers did not have significant difficulty making payments on interim tax bills due to already having the funds available, Federal and Provincial assistance programs, or because the full impact of the pandemic had not yet set in for certain types of businesses. These factors may not hold true for future billings and may negatively impact the Municipality’s cash flow. 1.4 Taxation Revenue Property tax is the most significant revenue source for the Municipality. To better understand the concerns related to future tax bills it is important to understand the nature of tax revenue and the how it is calculated.

Tax Rate x Assessed Property Value = Tax Revenue

The annual tax rate is the Municipality’s mechanism to influence tax revenues through either increasing or decreasing the rate to achieve a proportional change in the resulting tax revenue.

The value of properties, as assessed by the Property Valuation Services Corporation (PVSC), is outside the direct control of the Municipality and is the component of the calculation that generates concern for future tax bills and the resulting cash inflows to the Municipality.

Municipalities typically rely on what is commonly referred to as the Annual Lift to address inflationary increases to operating expenditures. Annual Lift refers to the general increase in property values within the Municipality from new developments, renovations, property sales, and where the Capped Assessment Program (CAP) applies, increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The Annual Lift allows Municipalities to maintain the prior year tax rates while achieving additional revenue through current assessment increases.

Given the economic decline associated with the COVID-19 pandemic there is concern that the activities that historically drive increases in property values will slow, income driven property assessments will decline, and increases to properties under CAP will be restricted by a weak CPI, i.e. the historic Annual Lift will not be realized. 1.5 PVSC Assessment Trends In conversations with PVSC, Municipal staff have been able to shed some light on anticipated future assessment trends.

Residential real estate assessments are not showing a decline in valuation at this point, but rather a small increase. Sales data feeding into the 2021 assessment roll will be based upon pre-COVID-19 sales, which were healthy. This is simply a function of timing as the cut-off for sales data is late February for the following year which essentially creates a one-year lag of any potential assessment impacts. Additionally, the assessment appeals deadline was prior to the pandemic, so no appeal requests were received by PVSC as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. Appraisals that are currently taking place are not seeing a decline in value, so at this point it is believed that the short-term effect of COVID-19 will not be significant as it relates overall residential assessment values.

For every 1% decline in residential assessment value, the Municipality loses $272,000 in tax revenue

5 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 81 Commercial real estate may see some assessment decline, particularly with income properties. New valuation modeling from an income approach may result in declines if vacancy rates start to climb in the Municipality. As a comparison, HRM is at risk of significant shortfalls in commercial valuation as vacancies are already starting to increase. So far businesses within the Municipality seem to be better weathering the current situation, at least from a business closure stand point.

For every 1% decline in commercial assessment value, the Municipality loses $87,000 in tax revenue

Municipal staff will continue to communicate with PVSC to stay up-to-date on trends in assessment valuation. 1.6 Tax Collection & Bad Debt Further compounding the concerns discussed in the Tax Revenue section is the prospect of collecting tax payments from ratepayers who may be experiencing financial hardship. The effects of the Annual Lift, as described above, will not have an impact on the final tax bill for fiscal 2020/21 due to the fact that property assessment values have already been set for the year, however the overall economic decline may have impacted ratepayers ability to pay.

Collection results from the interim tax bill were stronger than anticipated. Although many ratepayers took advantage of the extended due date, the Municipality did not observe a significant increase in payment delinquency when compared to historical collections and the standard due date.

As eluded to earlier in this report, the Municipality is able to collect on delinquent taxes through the tax sale process if the property is able to attract a buyer. In the event that a property has accumulated a substantial balance, is unable to be sold at tax sale, and all other avenues for collection have been exhausted, subject to s. 38 Municipal Government Act, the balance is written off as a bad debt expense.

The results of collection on the final tax bill of fiscal 2020/21 may indicate a need to estimate and budget for bad debt expense for future years, effectively reducing the Municipality’s budgeted revenues and will require an offsetting reduction in expenditures.

2.0 Human Resource Management through the COVID-19 Pandemic Information regarding staffing levels along with the broader financial impacts of COVID-19 are of interest to every Municipality. The following describes the impact of the pandemic on staffing at the Municipality of the County of Kings. 2.1 Human Resource Considerations within the Municipality of the County of Kings The Municipality has typically functioned as a core services municipality with the primary focus of providing legislated or regulated services such as water, sewer, inspections, roads, and sidewalks, amount other services, while supporting other municipal units, municipal corporations, or community groups in their provision of additional services.

Functioning in such a manner has allowed the Municipality the ability to effectively and efficiently manage finances, staffing levels, and service delivery. This type of operation also means that the vast majority of regular full time positions (approximately 75%) are directly related to, or support, functions that operate under a designated essential, legislated, or regulated service.

6 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 82 The fact that the Municipality has a fairly defined scope of service in relation to other municipalities has meant that during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were no functions that were not continued while the building was closed and substantially all staff worked remotely. All staff were able to continue to perform the vast majority of their duties, with only minor variations in how services were/are being delivered. A notable exception was the delivery of inspection services which were augmented through technology.

The Municipality has a unionized workforce and a very good working relationship with CUPE Local 2618. As part of the Collective Agreement (CA), as with most unionized environments, seniority plays a role in assignment of positions. Had the Municipality looked to layoff positions that are not part of a regulated or legislated function, the staff in those positions could have been seconded to a different position due to seniority rights under the CA. Had this occurred, the Municipality may have had to operate with staff performing functions where they may be inexperienced. Operating with a diminished capacity due to staff working outside their area of expertise during a global pandemic would not have been the best service to residents and businesses of Kings County.

The Municipality has seventy five full time employees as well as three permanent seasonal positions in Public Works for maintenance at Aylesford Lake and other property maintenance during the summer, and eleven summer student positions of Survey Tech, IT, GIS, Planning, EPW, Recreation, Day Camp (3), and Kayak (2). This summer the original plan, as budgeted, was to have eighty nine employees working.

The staffing response in relation to COVID-19 has included not hiring three full time positions, the delayed start of all three permanent seasonal positions, and summer students. These actions equate to six full time equivalent positions (FTEs), or 7.5% of the typical workforce not being filled for the 2020/21 fiscal year. 2.2 Human Resource Considerations of Other Local Municipal Units Other municipalities have followed similar actions. The three local towns all had similar responses:

 The Town of Kentville laid off three part time casual positions (very few hours), and have hired summer staff, with the exception of pool staff. No change to full time employees.  The Town of Wolfville initially laid off three staff, two of whom are back to work, with the third returning in the fall. Delayed recalling / hiring for six positions, but are now all in place. One new budgeted position was deferred and a hiring was delayed.  The Town of Berwick reduced the number of summer students being hired from twelve to three, and have laid off 1.5 FTEs.

Municipalities of similar size to the Municipality of the County of Kings have had varied responses:

 The Municipality of the County of Colchester was forced to close their Material Recovery Facility until precautions were put in place, resulting in thirty-eight positions being laid off for three months. All have since been recalled and there is currently no difference in typical staffing levels.  The Municipality of the County of Cumberland laid off twenty-one of their ninety-nine total positions including part time and seasonal staff. Sixteen (16) have since returned, 4 positions remain on lay off and 1 position is being recruited.  The Municipality of the District of Lunenburg delayed the start date for seasonal staff by two weeks. No staff were laid off, three new full time positions were created and hired since April, and another new position will be hired in the fall. 7 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 83 The publically announced layoffs in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) included somewhere between 1,400 and 1,500 part time and casual employees. HRM’s CAO described the majority of the layoffs as being in the Parks and Recreation Department, none of which were full time, permanent employees. HRM is the main operator and service provider for recreation services, so all part time staff that provide swimming lessons, lifeguards, fitness classes, personal training, summer staff, etc. were included in the figure above, as all facilities were forced to close. Many of these positions have since returned as facilities and programs are allowed to operate with modifications. HRM is also different in their regulated delivery of water and wastewater services are undertaken by Halifax Water, which is a separate entity that employs an additional 400 staff over and above the ~5,000 HRM employees.

3.0 Update on Current Position 3.1 Outcomes Following the July 31, 2020 Interim Tax Bill Due Date A decision was made by Council on March 23, 2020 to delay the interim property tax bill due date from May 31, 2020 to July 31, 2020, and to suspend interest charges against all delinquent accounts until the end of July. The two-month extension and interest relief would allow those facing financial challenges some extra time to pay their property tax bills. The results of the interim tax bill and due date extension have now been evaluated.

As indicated previously, payment delinquency rates were not as significant as originally anticipated. Normal payment levels were experienced, although stretched over the three-month billing period rather than a single month.

In typical years, delinquency rates following the standard May 31st due date are about 9.8%. As of August 1, 2020 the delinquency rate is 10.3% and can be broken down into the following property classifications, with only small variations:

Delinquency Rates by Property Class

Residential 10.1% Commercial 11.1% Resource property 11.3%

The scaled value (monetary impact) related to the above delinquency rates are shown in Appendix B.

Breaking down the residential payment data to provide more detailed insight, it is apparent that the properties that showed the greatest level of delinquency were at the high end of the value range.

Commercial accounts were a concern early on, but late July brought a significant increase in payments, a pattern most likely the result of individual business decisions to pay at or near the due date.

Over the course of the last several months, the Municipality has been monitoring payment patterns by assessed value range and industry sector classification. See Appendix B for detail on payments received by value range as well as detail on payments received by industry sector.

With the exception of the $4 - $10 million range, all ranges have experienced payments of at least 85%. In the $4 - $10 million range, the delinquency is represented by only two accounts. Staff is following up on these accounts and will attempt to efficiently resolve the outstanding balances.

8 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 84 With respect to industry sector payment patterns, using the sector information available to the Municipality, several significant business groupings have been isolated from the total 1,074 commercial property tax accounts. The most significant industry sector shortfalls were in the craft beverage, personal services, and food service sectors. Overall collections were almost 89% of the total commercial tax billing. 3.2 Initial Cash Flow Projection & Bank Balance The Municipality has been able to maintain a healthy bank balance through the first third of fiscal 2020/21. Cash flow projections prepared in the early stages of the pandemic covered the first four months of 2020/21 operations which represents the vast majority of the period of modified operations and most notably, covers the full period in which the interim tax bills were issued and payment came due.

Original projections predicted a full depletion of the general operating bank account during the month of June, however the actual June month end balance was approximately $10.3 million, with the variance from expectations arising from significantly stronger than expected collections on the interim tax bill, delays in certain payments, and an unexpected upfront Gas Tax payment from the Province.

The initial cash flow included a total inflow from bank interest, associated with the general operating and general reserve bank accounts, over the four month period of $34,240, while actual interest collected on these accounts is approximately $60,000, demonstrating that average bank balance throughout the four month period was substantially larger than anticipated. 3.3 Relief Measures Undertaken to Date From the $1,845,079 allocation to the COVID-19 Response Reserve $596,376 has been utilized in relief efforts or to reinstate municipal services. A further $150,000 for specific relief measures has been put on hold for a future decision, leaving a balance of $1,098,703. Reserve utilization along with references to the date of Council’s decision is detailed in the following table:

Item Amount Date of Motion

COVID-19 Reserve Allocation $ 1,845,079 21-May-20

Reserve Utilization ● Business Retention Officer of the Valley Regional Enterprise Network (100,000) 11-Jun-20 ● Support for Community Groups (150,000) 11-Jun-20 ● Council Grants to Organizations (67,667) 11-Jun-20 ● Council Grants to Organizations (8,900) 16-Jun-20 ● Tourism Marketing through the Annapolis Valley Chamber of Commerce (100,000) 23-Jun-20 ● Hybrid Municipal Election (54,307) 02-Jun-20 ● Reinstatement of Aylesford Lake Beach Operations (115,502) 11-Jun-20 (596,376) Hold Items ● Food Support (100,000) 11-Jun-20 ● Support for Arts & Culture (50,000) 11-Jun-20 (150,000)

COVID-19 Reserve Balance $ 1,098,703

9 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 85 4.0 Accounting and Reporting for the COVID-19 Response Reserve The following is a step by step explanation of the establishment of the COVID-19 Reserve, how it is utilized and tracked, the relationship between the reserve and Municipal cash flow, and how it will be reported in the Municipality’s financial statements. 4.1 The Overall Essence of the Reserve The supplementary budget established the COVID-19 Reserve through a reduction in other previously budgeted expenditures. Allocating these budget amounts into a reserve allowed Council the flexibility to approve one supplementary budget and respond to developments in the pandemic as they occurred, rather than approving a new supplementary budget for every proposed relief measure. 4.2 Supplemental Budget On May 21 Council approved a supplemental budget with the primary purpose of establishing a separate general ledger account (G/L) to be used in the relief efforts related to COVID-19.

It is important to understand that at this point no actual cash has been set aside and the establishment of a reserve fund being established at year-end.

In developing the supplemental budget staff identified expenditures that would no longer be necessary due to the impacts of COVID-19, were discretionary in nature, or could be deferred to a future period without impacting mandatory programs or essential services. A selection of these expenditures were removed from the operating budget and an equal amount was budgeted as the transfer to the COVID-19 G/L. 4.3 Utilizing & Tracking the COVID-19 Reserve Relief measures utilize the COVID-19 Reserve rather than impacting the Municipalities spending authority across the various categories of expenditure and as established through the approved budget.

As relief initiatives are identified, they can be considered and debated by Council, and if approved are funded from the COVID-19 Reserve.

The utilization at this point remains a budget/accounting exercise. Throughout fiscal 2020/21 any draws from the reserve will be tracked by the finance department to arrive at a net reserve figure at the end of the period. At year end the remaining balance of the reserve will be equal to the original transfer to establish the reserve less any relief programs funded from the reserve. 4.4 Cash Flow and the COVID-19 Reserve As discussed in the sections above, the initial allocation to the COVID-19 Reserve and any utilization of the reserve does not involve the physical transfer of cash and is simply a budgeting exercise.

The COVID-19 Reserve will remain an unfunded reserve until the end of fiscal 2020/21 in order to avoid undue stress on the Municipality’s cash flow throughout the year.

While the reserve will allow for the delivery of relief programs in various forms, an important additional function of the COVID-19 budget is to protect the cash flow of the Municipality and to ensure the continued delivery of essential services.

In the event that the cash flows are insufficient to cover operations, an allocation from the reserve back into the Municipality’s general operating fund will allow services to continue uninterrupted. This type of

10 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 86 occurrence would limit the need to access credit facilities, reduce the service capacity, or increase debt service costs.

Contingent on the available of sufficient cash, at the end of fiscal 2020/21 a transfer to fully fund the COVID-19 Reserve will be made in an amount equal to the original allocation as approved in the May 21, 2020 supplemental budget, less previously approved relief measures and any operating cash flow relief approved by Council. 4.5 Financial Reporting Internal It is staff’s intention to present COVID-19 relief measures separately from other municipal operations in internal financial reporting to allow core municipal operations to be evaluated against the budget and COVID-19 measures to be evaluated against the applicable resolutions of Council.

External The Municipality’s general purpose financial statements, one of the primary forms of external financial reporting, will not distinguish between core municipal operations and the relief measures implemented throughout the period. Costs of relief programs will be grouped together with related financial statement line items. As an example any additional COVID-19 relief grants will be grouped with the grant programs otherwise included in the Municipality’s budget.

Due to the fact that the supplementary budget reallocated line items to a reserve transfer rather than to new line items for specific relief programs, any relief spending will contribute towards a budget deficit for fiscal 2020/21. This is due to the fact that transfers between funds are offset and eliminated during the compilation of the Municipality’s Consolidated Financial Statements.

Another key form of external financial reporting impacted by the COVID-19 Reserve is the Municipality’s Financial Information Return (FIR) to the Province. Despite the fact that this reporting is made on a non- consolidated basis, the FIR considers transfers between funds as being outside of the calculation of annual surplus, and will once again cause relief spending to contribute towards an operating deficit.

Financial Condition Indicators The FIR is what drives the calculation of the Municipality’s Financial Condition Indicators (FCI) which includes an indicator for budget accuracy. The indicator threshold is based on a variance no greater than 5% of budgeted expenditures. Based on the supplementary budget for fiscal 2020/21 a net budget variance of approximately $1,623,000 would be required to exceed the FCI threshold. As discussed previously in this report, just under $600,000 has been utilized from the COVID-19 Response Reserve, with another $150,000 held for future consideration, combined these amounts represent a budget variance of approximately 2.3% unless offset against an opposing budget surplus.

Another budget related FCI for consideration is the Municipality’s five year history of operating deficits. This indicator can go from green, indicating low risk to red, indicating high risk with a single large operating deficit. The Municipality has not reported a deficit in the last five years, however absent other influences, it is possible that effects of and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic could result in a deficit if not carefully managed or offset by a budget surplus in other areas.

Other FCIs are driven by a number of factors, some of which are outside the direct control of the Municipality. Factors that can be controlled and demand consideration within the context of COVID-19 decision making include: Municipal revenues generated through taxes as well as other sources,

11 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 87 budgeted expenditures, actual expenditures, the level of operating debt, the amount of total debt and accordingly the total principal and interest payments, and the balances of the operating and capital reserves.

For the sake of context and understanding some FCIs are influenced by factors outside of the direct control of the Municipality including: Uninform assessment, the level of uncollected taxes, impact of the operations of Intermunicipal Service Corporations, and the median household income, to name only a few.

The decision to participate in a Provincial operating loan program, is discussed in sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this report, clearly would have a direct impact on the level of operating debt and the related FCI calculation. Participation in an operating loan program alone is very unlikely to negatively impact the Municipalities FCIs, however it is notable that the Municipality has operated without the need to draw on such a loan.

The final FCI factors that will be discussed in this report relate to the operating and capital reserve balances. More in-depth detail on all of the Municipality’s FCIs can be found here (2019 Municipal Report). The operating and capital reserve balances have already been impacted by decisions related to COVID-19. Part of the approved supplementary budget and related reallocation of budget line items to the COVID-19 Response Reserve was 85% of the budgeted capital reserve contribution, excluding sewer capital reserves. The Municipality is well onside of both the operating and combined reserve FCIs, however continued redirection and utilization of reserves towards relief efforts will eventually limit the funds available to implement the Municipality’s larger scale capital plans.

5.0 Considerations Going Forward 5.1 Provincial Loan Program Included in the May 21, 2020 report to Council was a discussion on a $380 million loan program announced by the province on April 28, 2020, through MFC, to help municipalities with financial losses due to COVID-19, and referred to as a “Municipal Operating Loan Program”. The loans can be for a period of 3 years and at a rate of 1.1%, 5 years at 1.4%, or 7 years at 1.7%. Full details on the Municipal Operating Loan Program are available within the May 21st report. 5.2 Ratepayer Loan Program In general, the program described above has been designed to support municipalities in providing residential and commercial property owners, who have been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to pay their taxes through a one-time property tax instalment payment program. Accordingly the Provincial loan would be repaid by payments made by the taxpayers who apply and receive an individual loan under a Council approved Policy.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, several municipalities have implemented such a policy with consistently low rates of uptake. The following are a few examples:

 Cape Breton Regional Municipality has had about 24 applications in total  Municipality of East Hants has had 20 residential & 1 commercial application  Municipality of Shelburne has had 2 residential applications  Town of Pictou has had 1 residential & 4 commercial applications  Town of Oxford has had 1 residential & 1 commercial application 12 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 88  Town of Lunenburg has had 1 residential application  Town of Bridgewater has had 1 commercial application  Town of Mahone Bay has had 1 application in total  Town of Stewiacke has had no applications

As discussed in the May 21st report, and highlighted here once again are some key risk factors identified related to the Municipal Operating Loan Program and extension of loans to ratepayers. These risks were discussed with the Municipal Solicitor and the May 21st report includes reference to his opinion.

Developing a more targeted and meaningful program rather than an across the board token response brings up potential violation of s.57(2) of the Municipal Government Act (MGA) as it relates to establishing eligibility criterial tried to assessment value and potential interpretation of the Municipality providing a “concession or other form of direct financial assistance to a business or industry”.

There is the potential for loss of lien rights in the event that ratepayer loans are viewed as a separate loan while the tax account is effectively settled. The Municipality’s ability to recover delinquent tax accounts through tax sale could be at risk.

Once again in an attempt to create a meaningful program, any loans extended to ratepayers would have to be at a sufficiently low interest rate. Offering loans at a rate likely to be lower than most other debts creates the risk that borrowers will place lower priority on repayment of their loan with the Municipality.

A loan program such as this is likely to attract ratepayers experiencing the greatest financial hardship and possibly those who see it as an opportunity to access a form of low rate financing but may encounter financial hardship at a later time. Generally it attracts higher risk borrowers.

The risks described above, on an individual basis, are not necessarily unmanageable, however when considered together they represent substantial risk to the Municipality. The loan program could attract a wide range of ratepayers, most notably those already in financial hardship, offer preferred rates, and potentially put the Municipality into the position of lowest priority and least secured lender.

If the ability to recover accounts through tax sale is challenged along with the elevated likelihood of delinquency, participation in a tax deferral loan program sacrifices the Municipality’s long-term financial sustainability for short-term cash flow. 5.3 Consultation through the Annapolis Valley Chamber of Commerce The Municipality reached out to the Annapolis Valley Chamber of Commerce (AVCC) in attempt to better understand the needs of commercial ratepayers and gauge potential need for an installment payment program to assist commercial property owners that have been negatively impacted by COVID- 19.

Initially AVCC was approached to set up a focus group, however their recommendation was an AVCC member survey distributed on behalf of the Municipality. This would provide focused data and contact information to speak with AVCC members most concerned about economic conditions brought on by COVID-19 and provide an opportunity for valuable dialogue with those in greatest need of attention.

The Municipality formulated a series of survey questions and provided them to the AVCC with the expectation of a quick turnaround. Unfortunately, there was a delay of over two weeks before the survey was issued and it was not in the form outlined by the Municipality. At the time of preparation of

13 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 89 this report the survey results are not available and there is concern that modifications to the survey will result in collection of information with less significance to the Municipality than hoped.

Municipal staff plan to review the current survey results when they become available. The survey or focus group approach with AVCC will also be revisited in relation to the final 2020/21 tax billing. 5.4 Loan Administration In the event that a loan program is implemented, staff propose administering loans in a manner similar to water loans which are administered separately from tax accounts. Within the Municipality’s accounting system these loans would appear as an account receivable within the customer profile page, providing the ability to dictate an interest rate, separate from the tax delinquency rate. Regular Assessment Account Number (AAN) accounts can be flagged to prevent interest charges from being levied while a loan is in place. Loan recipients would be required to keep their taxes and loans up to date, otherwise the loan would be added to the tax account and interest charged at the standard rate.

All loans will be set up for three year term, consistent with the terms of the Municipal Operating Loan Program, with a fixed interest rate and payment. Staff estimate each loan will take two people approximately fifteen minutes to set up. If uptake is consistent with the experience of other municipal units, loan administration could be handled within current staff capacity. Greater detail on loan administration from both a human resources and IT perspective was provided in the May 21st report to Council in closed session.

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1 Provincial Loan Application At this time, there is no indication of a need to participate in the Municipal Operating Loan Program. The Municipality is in a far better financial position than originally forecasted, operating reserves remain fully intact, the bank balance is healthy, and just over one million dollars remains available within the COVID-19 Response Reserve. Accordingly, staff are not recommending application to the loan program. 6.2 Rate Payer Loan Program Given the low rate of uptake in ratepayer loan programs in other municipalities across the province, delinquency rates consistent with previous years, and the fact that there have been no requests made to the Municipality for ratepayer relief, staff are not recommending development of a formal ratepayer relief or loan program at this time. Further review will be undertaken once the due date for the final tax bill for fiscal 2020/21 has passed.

The Municipality, in the normal course of business, will enter into modified payment arrangements with ratepayers, who for one reason or another, are not in a position to make full payment on their tax accounts. By working with these individuals, and/or businesses, the Municipality is able develop payment plans that meet the needs of both parties. It is staff’s intention to continue this practice and address payment arrangements on a case-by-case basis. 6.3 Further COVID-19 Responses The Municipality has provided community and ratepayer relief through the programs detailed in the reserve utilization table and through the extension of the payment due date of the interim tax bill. Due to uncertainties associated with future developments in the COVID-19 pandemic, delinquency rates on the final 2020/21 tax bill, and the impact the pandemic could have on future revenues, staff view 14 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 90 maintenance of the remaining balance of the COVID-19 Response Reserve to be the most prudent course of action, at least until these uncertainties resolve or there is a significant call to action linked to the provision of essential services within the Municipality. 6.4 Final Tax Bill Despite the fact that staff are not recommending development of a formal ratepayer loan program and view maintenance of the balance of the COVID-19 Response Reserve as the preferred path forward, there are relief opportunities available relating to the final 2020/21 tax bill. A due date extension similar to the interim tax bill would once again allow those facing financial challenges some extra time to pay their bills. The due date extension would once again be paired with an interest charge deferral up to the revised due date, however unlike the interest deferral applied to the interim tax bill this deferral will be limited to the outstanding balance of the fiscal 2020/21 tax bill amount only.

Staff’s recommendation on the final tax bill is as follows:

That Municipal Council approve a due date of October 31, 2020 for the 2020/21 final property tax bills being issued in September 2020.

For greater clarity on the recommended interest deferral, ratepayers that fail to make payment on or before October 31, 2020, will be charged interest on November 1, 2020 for the month of October and thereafter.

As the fall tax season proceeds and payment patterns materialise and become readily available for analysis, staff will report back to Council regarding payment findings. With a revised due date of October 31, 2020, staff would return to Council with findings on or before November 15, 2020, and accordingly provide the following recommendation:

That Municipal Council direct the CAO to report to Council on or before November 15, 2020 with a payment update related to the final fiscal 2020/21 tax bill.

15 | P a g e

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 91 Appendix B: Tax Collection Data & Visualization

Residential Assessed Value Range Interim Bill Collected Collection Rate Accounts Paid Accounts Collection Rate 1 - 125,000 $ 3,161,407 $ 2,736,018 86.5% 11,347 9,452 83.3% 125,000 - 200,000 4,791,688 4,419,448 92.2% 7,116 6,615 93.0% 200,000 - 300,000 3,298,314 3,060,984 92.8% 3,224 3,009 93.3% 300,000 - 500,000 1,605,312 1,424,389 88.7% 1,054 975 92.5% 500,000 + 740,747 583,285 78.7% 178 154 86.5% $ 13,597,469 $ 12,224,124 89.9% 22,919 20,205 88.2%

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 92 Appendix B: Tax Collection Data & Visualization

Commercial Assessed Value Range Interim Bill Collected Collection Rate Accounts Paid Accounts Collection Rate 1 - 250,000 $ 740,693 $ 628,282 84.8% 819 683 83.4% 250,000 - 500,000 494,467 424,351 85.8% 122 105 86.1% 500,000 - 750,000 366,026 338,065 92.4% 51 47 92.2% 750,000 - 1,000,000 245,618 226,661 92.3% 25 23 92.0% 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 524,011 472,250 90.1% 33 29 87.9% 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 410,673 382,895 93.2% 11 10 90.9% 4,000,000 - 10,000,000 905,812 711,835 78.6% 12 10 83.3% 10,000,000 + 661,151 661,151 100.0% 1 1 100.0% $ 4,348,451 $ 3,845,491 88.4% 1,074 908 84.5%

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 93 Appendix B: Tax Collection Data & Visualization

Commercial by Sector Industry Sector Interim Bill Collected Collection Rate Accounts Paid Accounts Collection Rate Sales $ 1,650,461 $ 1,325,855 80.3% 194 180 92.8% Manufacturing 914,176 887,735 97.1% 57 56 98.2% Other 570,781 555,901 97.4% 291 271 93.1% Service 534,929 501,691 93.8% 209 160 76.6% Food Service 196,350 153,900 78.4% 42 31 73.8% Residential Rental 118,699 94,799 79.9% 175 119 68.0% Accommodations 99,697 99,698 100.0% 14 13 92.9% Recreation 94,196 94,196 100.0% 19 19 100.0% Craft Beverage 76,044 41,002 53.9% 12 7 58.3% Transport 50,522 48,422 95.8% 45 38 84.4% Health 36,142 37,408 103.5% 9 9 100.0% Personal Services 6,454 4,882 75.6% 7 5 71.4% $ 4,348,451 $ 3,845,490 88.4% 1,074 908 84.5% Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 94

Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

TO Council

PREPARED BY Scott MacKay, Revenue Manager

MEETING DATE August 18, 2020

SUBJECT 2020/21 Area Rate Levies for Fire

ORIGIN

• Fire and Recreation Area Rates Policy FIN -05-007 • Nova Scotia Utility & Review Board (UARB) orders related to Annual Fire Protection Rates (hydrant charges) to be paid to water utilities • Municipal Government Act (MGA), Section 75 • Council Meeting of July 7, 2020

RECOMMENDATION

That Municipal Council approve the levying, collection and remittance of the Fire Area Rate for the Hants Border area at a rate of $0.026 per $100 assessment, as per Appendix A: Area Rates 2020-21 of the August 18, 2020 Request for Decision.

That Municipal Council approve the 4% administration fee charged against the area rates for the fire commissions of Canning, Aylesford and Greenwich, as per Appendix B: Area Rates for Fire Commissions 2020/21 of the August 18, 2020 Request for Decision.

INTENT

To provide Council with the relevant information necessary to make an informed decision in relation to the proposed area rates for 2020/21.

DISCUSSION

Each year Council is asked to approve the levy of area rates for fire departments, fire protection rates (hydrant rates) for water utilities, and uniform charges for recreation, in accordance with Policy Fin-05- 007, or UARB orders related to Annual Fire Protection Rates. Area rates do not continue automatically from year to year. Fire Departments, and incorporated Recreation Organizations who provide services to the Municipality’s residents must submit an application each year. Fire Protection rates (hydrant rates) are set by the UARB.

At the time of Council’s meeting on July 7, 2020, the above noted fire commissions had not set their rates for the coming year, and Municipal staff were not yet in a position to conduct an area rate meeting for residents of the Hants Border area. All of this has now been completed. Rates for the above are noted in Appendix A and B in red.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

• The Municipality charges an administration fee of 4% to offset the cost of billing, collection and forwarding the area rate funds to Fire Departments and Commissions and Recreation groups.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 95

Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

• Other than the administration fee, there is no net financial impact on the Municipality’s operating budget.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

• A Hants Border area rate meeting was held virtually on August 11, 2020 and a vote was held with all present to gauge support for the proposed rate. The result of the vote was 8 in favor and 1 opposed to accept the rate as presented of $0.026 per $100 assessment. An additional 5 ratepayers, unable to take part in the call, contacted the office prior to the meeting to express their support for the approval of the proposed area rate. • The fire commissions of Canning, Aylesford and Greenwich have now also provided the Municipality with their rates for the coming year, as noted in Appendix B.

ALTERNATIVES

• No alternatives are recommended.

IMPLEMENTATION

• Approved area rates will be levied on the September Tax Bills and the funds collected will be forwarded to the appropriate parties. • The 2020/21 Area Rate will be posted on the municipal website.

APPENDICES

• Appendix A: Area Rates 2020/21 • Appendix B: Area Rates for Fire Commissions 2020/21 • Appendix C: Fire Area Rate Calculation for Hants Border

APPROVALS

Greg Barr, Director of Finance and IT August 12, 2020

Scott Conrod, CAO August 12, 2020

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 96

Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

Appendix “A” – Area Rates 2020-21

Recreation Rates Approve the levying, collection and remittance of a uniform charge for the year ending March 31, 2021 on each dwelling unit assessed on the Assessment Roll in the said area.

Proposed 2020-21 Area 2019-20 rate/dwelling rate/dwelling Canning Recreation 28.00 28.00 Greenwich Recreation 25.00 25.00 Fox Hill Recreation 60.00 60.00 Coldbrook Recreation 20.00 20.00 Canaan Heights Recreation 75.00 75.00 Cornwallis Square 0.01 per $100 assessment See note below Centreville Recreation 25.00 26.00

Fire Area Rates Approve the levying, collection and remittance of an area rate for the year ending March 31, 2021 on each $100 of the assessed value of commercial, resource, residential property assessed on the Assessment Roll in the said area. 2019-20 rate/$100 Proposed 2020-21 rate/$100 Area assessment assessment Aylesford fire - Outside 0.05 0.05 Kentville Fire 0.0319 0.0375 New Minas Fire 0.0425 0.0425 Wolfville Fire 0.0560 0.0636 Greenwich Fire - Outside 0.07 0.07 Halls Harbour 0.05 0.05 Hantsport Fire 0.02271 .026 Waterville Fire - Outside 0.065 0.065

Fire Protection Rates (Hydrant) Area Rate Approve the levying, collection and remittance of an area rate for the year ending March 31, 2021 on each $100 of the assessed value on all assessable property within or a portion of which is within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant that is property of a Water Utility. 2019-20 rate/$100 Proposed 2020-21 rate/$100 Area assessment assessment Greenwood Hydrant 0.140 0.140 North Kentville Hydrant 0.070 0.080 Hants Border Hydrant 0.090 0.090 Greenwich Hydrant 0.070 0.080 Canning Hydrant 0.100 0.100

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 97

Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

Appendix “B” – Area Rates for Fire Commissions 2020-21

Approve the 4% administration fee charged against the area rates collected for the following Fire Commissions. 2019-20 rate/$100 Proposed 2020-21 rate/$100 Area assessment assessment Aylesford (Inside) .05 .05 Berwick .08 .08 Canning .09 .09 Greenwich (Inside) .06 .07 Kingston .06 .06

Appendix “C” – Fire Area Rate Calculation for Hants Border

Area Assessment: $99,743,502 Approved Capital Budget (Hantsport Fire Dept) $82,586 Average Calls to the Municipality of the County of Kings (MoK) * 30% MoK Portion of Budget $24,776 Administration / Tax $1,140 Total MoK obligation $25,915

Area rate per $100 assessment $0.0260

* Average calls to MoK by Hantsport Fire Department 2017 2018 2019 TOTALS 3 yr avg Total Calls 177 175 221 573 MoK 52 58 62 172 30% West Hants 125 117 159 401 70%

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 98 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

TO Municipal Council

PREPARED BY Tim Bouter, Manager of Engineering Services

MEETING DATE August 18, 2020

SUBJECT Award of Contract 20-22: Greenwood Production Well Drilling

ORIGIN

 Approved FY 2020-21 Capital Budget — Council approved $400,000 budget for Greenwood Production Well project, including installation of two new production wells.  June 2, 2020 Special Council — Terms approved for the purchase and sale of a property in South Greenwood for development of two new productions wells.  July 7, 2020 Municipal Council — Contract awarded for engineering services for development of two production wells awarded by Council.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Municipal Council approve reallocating $24,500 from GL #22-3-351-432 to GL #22-3-351- 200. 2. That Municipal Council award Contract 20-22: Greenwood Production Well Drilling to DJ’s Well Drilling Ltd. for the total expense of $151,422.90 (including non-rebated HST).

INTENT

For Council to award a contract for the drilling and installation of two new production wells for the Greenwood Water Utility.

DISCUSSION

On August 4, 2020, one submission was received in response to a request for qualifications for the drilling of two production wells for the Greenwood Water Utility. This is the next phase in the ongoing project to develop the recently purchased PID 55118020 into a new independent well field for the Utility.

Figure 1 – Subject Site

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 99 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

Selection of the successful bidder was based on the following point system:

Category Points

1. Experience of contractor 40 2. Experience of drilling operator 20 3. Proposed unit costs 40

Municipal Staff and CBCL Ltd. (well design consultant) reviewed the one submission received and evaluated it according to the categories set forth in the RFP.

Tenderer’s Price (including non- Financial Score Total Evaluation Tenderer Location rebated HST) (40pts) Score (100pts)

DJ’s Well Drilling Ltd. Kingston, NS $151,422.90 40 97

Staff and CBCL Ltd. recommend awarding this contract to DJ’s Well Drilling, who also installed the test wells at this location during the exploratory phase of this current program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 This work will be funded from the following account in the approved 2020/21 Capital Budget:

Account Name GL# Budget Amount Committed to Date

Production Well 22-3-351-200 $400,000 $264,671.93

 The existing account has $135,328.07 remaining, which is $16,094.83 less than the contract price of $151,422.90.  This project will require an adjustment of budget amounts within the Greenwood Water Utility Capital Program. Engineering recommends re-allocating $24,500 from Water Distribution System Improvements (GL #21-3-382-103) to allow this project to proceed, and to allow for some contingency in case unit measures exceed the estimate quantities. The Water Distribution System Improvements account has $50,000.00. The design work under this account has already been procured and came in under budget at a total amount of $25,185.00 (including non-rebated HST). The reallocation is not expected to adversely impact any projects planned for the 2020/21 fiscal year.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Check Strategic Priority If Checked, Provide Brief Explanation Applicable Good Governance Environmental Stewardship Existing well field volumes limit future development of growth  Economic Development center

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 100 Municipality of the County of Kings Request for Decision

Project will ensure sustainable water source for Village of  Strong Communities Greenwood Financial Sustainability Supports a Strategic Project Supports a Core Program

Enhancement Not applicable

ALTERNATIVES

 No alternatives are recommended.

IMPLEMENTATION

 Issue purchase order to contractor.  Manager of Engineering Services will be responsible for contract administration/management.

ENGAGEMENT

 This project was publically tendered through the Municipality and Nova Scotia Procurement websites.

APPENDICES

 None

APPROVALS

Scott Quinn, Director of EPW, Land & Parks August 7, 2020

Scott Conrod, Chief Administrative Officer August 10, 2020

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 101 THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY OF KINGS Councillor Request for Inclusion of Item on Council Agenda

Date requested: August, 2020

Note: Except for extraordinary circumstances, requests must be submitted by 4:00 pm on the Friday before posting of the Council agenda package.

Councillor Name: Deputy Mayor Emily Lutz

Date of Request: August 11, 2020

Title of Item: South Berwick Corner Safety Concerns

Amount of Time Requested: 10 minutes

Brief description of item/background for this request:

The South Berwick Corner is the intersection between Commercial Street (Berwick), Highway #1, and Windermere Road. There have been calls by the community to have traffic lights installed at the intersection for over a decade, perhaps much longer. The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal have responded, and several changes have been made over the years, including some cosmetic signage changes as recently as 2019. However, serious accidents still occur at this intersection on a very regular basis, and the community is still asking for the intersection to be made safer through the installation of traffic lights. While I am aware that these are not roads owned or maintained by Kings County, I would ask that Council support the community in their long-standing ask for a safer intersection by requesting the Mayor to write a letter to the Minister of DTIR and MLA Glavine regarding this issue, and also by CC’ing the Town of Berwick who may also share these concerns.

(Petition; News Article; News Article )

Expected Outcome:

In Camera Discussion [ ]

For information/discussion purposes only [ ]

Recommend an action to the CAO [ ]

Promote clarification/renewal or production of a policy or procedure [ ]

Recommend a motion for approval by Council [x]

Suggested Motion for Council:

That Municipal Council direct the Mayor to write a letter to the Minister of the Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and the MLA for Kings West in support of the community’s request for a safer intersection in South Berwick and cc the Town of Berwick.

Special Council 2020/08/18 Page 102